Supreme Court of India Judgements

47285Judgements hosted as on 19/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Top Tags

Latest Post

Fixation of cut-off marks not provided under the 2014 Recruitment Rules, resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled despite eligible candidates, held arbitrary and unsustainable. – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 — Rules 9(B), 16(3)(a)(iii) and 17(3) — Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate reduced from essential to preferential qualification — Challenge thereto — Appellants having participated in selection process without objection, held estopped from challenging validity of 2014 Rules or advertisements issued thereunder — Doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 — Section 11, 13, 14, 29, 34 & 36 — Adjudicatory jurisdiction — Distinction between regulatory/enforcement functions of TRAI and adjudicatory jurisdiction of TDSAT — Held, TRAI’s power under Ss. 11(1)(b) and 13 to issue directions for compliance with regulations is regulatory/administrative, not adjudicatory — Direction issued to MSO to restore signals pursuant to IC Regulations, and consequent show cause notice under S. 34 for non-compliance, do not amount to adjudication of dispute between MSO and LCOs — Adjudication of disputes between service providers is exclusive domain of TDSAT under S. 14 — TRAI’s role upon non-compliance confined to that of complainant under S. 34; it cannot itself determine guilt or levy fine under S. 29, which is exclusive province of competent criminal court — TDSAT erred in framing the issue as one of TRAI’s jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between MSO and LCOs, when TRAI had not purported to adjudicate any such dispute Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside. Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — ‘No-fault’ liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an “untoward incident” — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature.
Service

Fixation of cut-off marks not provided under the 2014 Recruitment Rules, resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled despite eligible candidates, held arbitrary and unsustainable. – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 — Rules 9(B), 16(3)(a)(iii) and 17(3) — Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate reduced from essential to preferential qualification — Challenge thereto — Appellants having participated in selection process without objection, held estopped from challenging validity of 2014 Rules or advertisements issued thereunder — Doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied.

Jul 25, 2026 sclaw
Corporate

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 — Section 11, 13, 14, 29, 34 & 36 — Adjudicatory jurisdiction — Distinction between regulatory/enforcement functions of TRAI and adjudicatory jurisdiction of TDSAT — Held, TRAI’s power under Ss. 11(1)(b) and 13 to issue directions for compliance with regulations is regulatory/administrative, not adjudicatory — Direction issued to MSO to restore signals pursuant to IC Regulations, and consequent show cause notice under S. 34 for non-compliance, do not amount to adjudication of dispute between MSO and LCOs — Adjudication of disputes between service providers is exclusive domain of TDSAT under S. 14 — TRAI’s role upon non-compliance confined to that of complainant under S. 34; it cannot itself determine guilt or levy fine under S. 29, which is exclusive province of competent criminal court — TDSAT erred in framing the issue as one of TRAI’s jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between MSO and LCOs, when TRAI had not purported to adjudicate any such dispute

Jul 25, 2026 sclaw
Fixation of cut-off marks not provided under the 2014 Recruitment Rules, resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled despite eligible candidates, held arbitrary and unsustainable. – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 — Rules 9(B), 16(3)(a)(iii) and 17(3) — Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate reduced from essential to preferential qualification — Challenge thereto — Appellants having participated in selection process without objection, held estopped from challenging validity of 2014 Rules or advertisements issued thereunder — Doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied.
Service
Fixation of cut-off marks not provided under the 2014 Recruitment Rules, resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled despite eligible candidates, held arbitrary and unsustainable. – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 — Rules 9(B), 16(3)(a)(iii) and 17(3) — Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate reduced from essential to preferential qualification — Challenge thereto — Appellants having participated in selection process without objection, held estopped from challenging validity of 2014 Rules or advertisements issued thereunder — Doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 — Section 11, 13, 14, 29, 34 & 36 — Adjudicatory jurisdiction — Distinction between regulatory/enforcement functions of TRAI and adjudicatory jurisdiction of TDSAT — Held, TRAI’s power under Ss. 11(1)(b) and 13 to issue directions for compliance with regulations is regulatory/administrative, not adjudicatory — Direction issued to MSO to restore signals pursuant to IC Regulations, and consequent show cause notice under S. 34 for non-compliance, do not amount to adjudication of dispute between MSO and LCOs — Adjudication of disputes between service providers is exclusive domain of TDSAT under S. 14 — TRAI’s role upon non-compliance confined to that of complainant under S. 34; it cannot itself determine guilt or levy fine under S. 29, which is exclusive province of competent criminal court — TDSAT erred in framing the issue as one of TRAI’s jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between MSO and LCOs, when TRAI had not purported to adjudicate any such dispute
Corporate
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 — Section 11, 13, 14, 29, 34 & 36 — Adjudicatory jurisdiction — Distinction between regulatory/enforcement functions of TRAI and adjudicatory jurisdiction of TDSAT — Held, TRAI’s power under Ss. 11(1)(b) and 13 to issue directions for compliance with regulations is regulatory/administrative, not adjudicatory — Direction issued to MSO to restore signals pursuant to IC Regulations, and consequent show cause notice under S. 34 for non-compliance, do not amount to adjudication of dispute between MSO and LCOs — Adjudication of disputes between service providers is exclusive domain of TDSAT under S. 14 — TRAI’s role upon non-compliance confined to that of complainant under S. 34; it cannot itself determine guilt or levy fine under S. 29, which is exclusive province of competent criminal court — TDSAT erred in framing the issue as one of TRAI’s jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between MSO and LCOs, when TRAI had not purported to adjudicate any such dispute
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.
I P C
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.
Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Sections 138, 143A and 148 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 357(2) and 389 – Dishonour of cheque – Suspension of Sentence – Direction to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation – Appeal against same – Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to amendment Act No. 20/2018 i.e., prior to 01.09.2018.

May 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S.S.DESWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant  Vs.  VIRENDER GANDHI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

You missed

Service

Fixation of cut-off marks not provided under the 2014 Recruitment Rules, resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled despite eligible candidates, held arbitrary and unsustainable. – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 — Rules 9(B), 16(3)(a)(iii) and 17(3) — Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate reduced from essential to preferential qualification — Challenge thereto — Appellants having participated in selection process without objection, held estopped from challenging validity of 2014 Rules or advertisements issued thereunder — Doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied.

Jul 25, 2026 sclaw
Corporate

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 — Section 11, 13, 14, 29, 34 & 36 — Adjudicatory jurisdiction — Distinction between regulatory/enforcement functions of TRAI and adjudicatory jurisdiction of TDSAT — Held, TRAI’s power under Ss. 11(1)(b) and 13 to issue directions for compliance with regulations is regulatory/administrative, not adjudicatory — Direction issued to MSO to restore signals pursuant to IC Regulations, and consequent show cause notice under S. 34 for non-compliance, do not amount to adjudication of dispute between MSO and LCOs — Adjudication of disputes between service providers is exclusive domain of TDSAT under S. 14 — TRAI’s role upon non-compliance confined to that of complainant under S. 34; it cannot itself determine guilt or levy fine under S. 29, which is exclusive province of competent criminal court — TDSAT erred in framing the issue as one of TRAI’s jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between MSO and LCOs, when TRAI had not purported to adjudicate any such dispute

Jul 25, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw