Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Recording of confession — Duty of Magistrate — Magistrate must inform the accused of their right to legal assistance before recording confession — Failure to do so can render the confession suspect — In this case, Magistrate failed to inform the accused of their right to a lawyer, contributing to the unreliability of the confession.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.
Bail Granted
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.
Labour Cases
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Labour Cases
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
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…

Labour Cases

Backwages–Backwages are ordinarily to be granted, keeping in view the principles of grant of damages in mind–It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Transfer of Employee–Ordinarily an employee who has been transferred should, subject to just exceptions, join at his transferred place–Ordinarily in an industrial undertaking indiscipline should not be encouraged.

Dec 26, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 27 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7011 of 2008…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw