Supreme Court of India Judgements

46970 Judgements hosted as on 09/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8) Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Property Tax Revision — Akola Municipal Corporation — Challenge to legality of property tax revision (2017-18 to 2021-22) via Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Financial Autonomy of Municipal Bodies — Property tax is main source of income for Municipal Corporations to perform vital statutory obligations (urban planning, public health, infrastructure upkeep) — Financial stability and independence are integral to functional efficacy of municipal bodies — Revision of tax structure is necessary to match rising costs and sustain functions — Municipal bodies must have independent revenue sources to avoid dependency on State grants — Failure to revise tax structure for long periods (here, 2001-2017) constitutes gross laxity. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 27)
SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)
SC/ST
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)
Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45)
I P C
Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45)
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)
SC/ST
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.300—Double Jeopardy—The whole basis of Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. is that the person who was tried by a competent court, once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried for the same offence—Where accused has not been tried nor was there a full fledged trial, then principles of’double jeopardy’ would not apply to the accused though earlier discharged.

Dec 30, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3263 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1786 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Criminal Appeal No. 1322…

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.42–Secret Infor­ mation-Law summed up-An empowered officer under Section 42(1) is obli­ gated to reduce to writing the information received by him, only when an of­ fence punishable under the Act has been committed in any building, convey­ ance or an enclosed place, or when a document or an article is concealed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Compliance with Section 42, in­ cluding recording of information received by the empowered officer, is not mandatory

Dec 28, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3246 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1783 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice DipakMisra Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud Hon’ble Mrs.…

Constitution

Writ Jurisdiction—Restoration of Possession—High Court not justified in issuing a writ of mandamus granting relief of restoration of the possession of flat and writ petition ought to be dismissed in limine as not maintainable Writ Jurisdiction—Scope of—High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available

Dec 28, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3242 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1937 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law—Penalty—Judicial Review—The imposition of a penalty in disciplinary proceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer—Unless the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges which are proved, the element of discretion which is attributed to the employer cannot be interfered with.

Dec 28, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3239 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1936 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah Civil Appeal…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1963, S.63—Will-Suspicious Circumstance—Beneficiary of Will deposed that in lieu of services rendered by him testator had executed the Will in his favour-But as per evidence on record beneficiary was in Army service from year 1960-1979, where as the Will was executed in the year 1970—Apart from beneficiary no other family members gave statement in support of services rendered by them—Will though was registered but discarded — Will—Proof of Execution—For proving the Will not only statutory requirements are to be satisfied but the Will should be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances

Dec 28, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3233 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1935 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal No.…

Preventive Detention

Criminal Law–Detention–Writ petition before High Court to quash the order of detention–Orders were restrained to be enforced–Became infructuous by lapse of time–Writ was allowed with the observation that the respondents will be at liberty to pass any fresh order if so required to take appropriate action thereafter in accordance with law–Order of High Court set aside–The proper order required to be passed was to call upon the respondent first to surrender pursuant to detention order

Dec 27, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 49 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. of 2008 (Arising…

I P C

Criminal Law–Five persons convicted and sentenced by Session Court–Four accused preferred Criminal appeals–High Court allowed the appeal of one but in respect of others confirmed the order of conviction and sentence–Appeal before Supreme Court–Contention that when the High Court acquitted one of the accused not believing the prosecution story and granted benefit of doubt to him, such benefit ought to have been to the appellant also when a part of the prosecution story was not believable and was not behaved by the High Court, on the same set of facts and circumstances, it ought not to have convicted the appellant–Contention repelled

Dec 27, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 42 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2007…

You missed

SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw