Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on16/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished. Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 24, 33(5), 36, 39 — Child-sensitive judicial processes — Mandatory safeguards for child victims — Courts must ensure child-friendly procedures, minimum intrusion, and psychological safety, avoiding re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation in all proceedings concerning children, especially those involving allegations of sexual abuse.
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
Service
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.
RTI
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [
Accident
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [
Evidence Act

Evidence — Video Conference Deposition — Procedure for Confronting Witness — The Supreme Court clarified and directed that in cases where a witness’s statement is recorded via video conferencing and a previous written statement is to be used for confrontation, a copy of the statement must be transmitted electronically to the witness, and the procedure under Sections 147 and 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (or corresponding sections of the Evidence Act) must be followed to ensure fairness and integrity of the trial. Such directions are issued to avoid procedural irregularities and uphold the principles of fair trial, effective cross-examination, and proper appreciation of evidence.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1322 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 [BNSS Section 528] — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process — Factual matrix for all offences arose from a single transaction — Compromise accepted as genuine for some offences should equally dilute the foundation of other charges based on the same allegations — Continued prosecution for dacoity after settlement for other offences held unjustified and quashed.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1323 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASHANT PRAKASH RATNAPARKI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Environment

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 38-V(4)(ii) and proviso to Section 33(a) — Tiger Safaris — prohibition in core or critical tiger habitat areas — permitted only on non-forest land or degraded forest land within the buffer, ensuring it is not part of a tiger corridor — establishment must be in conjunction with a fully operational rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1325 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE : CORBETT ( Before : B.R.Gavai, CJI, Augustine George Masih and A.S.Chandurkar, JJ. ) I.A. No. 20650 of 2023…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Execution of Arbitral Award — Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) — Maintainability — Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 — Order 21 Rule 22 — Execution proceedings against legal representatives — The Act is a self-contained code restricting judicial interference — An order passed by a Single Judge in the course of executing an arbitral award is traceable to the Act, not the CPC; therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is not maintainable — Where execution is sought against entities/persons arrayed as executors/legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor for limited execution purposes and cannot be treated as third parties to the arbitral award for the purpose of challenging maintainability of the appeal under the Act.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1334 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. Vs. CHETAN SURENDRA DALAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

SARFAESI

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) — Priority of Debts — Section 26E — When two enactments contain non-obstante clauses, the provision incorporated later in time prevails; however, if one enactment creates a statutory ‘first charge’, that charge prevails over the general ‘priority’ conferred by the later non-obstante clause — SARFAESI Act, Section 26E, conferring priority to secured creditors’ debts registered with the Central Registry, does not override the statutory ‘first charge’ created for Provident Fund dues under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1335 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : B. R. Gavai, CJI. and K.…

Acquittal Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Arms Act, 1959 — Section 13(2A) — Prosecution of public servant (IAS officer/District Magistrate) for alleged irregularities in issuing arms licenses and criminal conspiracy (Sections 109, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 30 Arms Act) — Delay in investigation and sanction — Quashing justified where sanction is non-speaking and investigation is inordinately and unjustifiably delayed.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1339 SUPREME COURT OF NDIA DIVISION BENCH ROBERT LALCHUNGNUNGA CHONGTHU @ R L CHONGTHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

Rent

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act, 1965) — Sections 12 and 18 — Eviction for non-payment of rent — Procedure under Section 12 in Appeal against Section 12(3) eviction order — Whether the entire summary procedure under Section 12 must be repeated before the Rent Control Appellate Authority when challenging an eviction order passed under Section 12(3) — Held: A fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Act is not mandatory when challenging an eviction order under Section 12(3) before the Appellate Authority — Rent Control Appellate Authority is not the Court of first instance and only tests the exercise of jurisdiction and power by the Rent Control Court; it is not required to re-determine the issue of default or outstanding amount of rent — Insisting on repeating the entire Section 12 procedure would be superfluous, unnecessary, contrary to the statute’s spirit, and lead to an absurd/unjust result, akin to turning the summary procedure on its head.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1340 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.U. SIDHIQUE AND OTHERS Vs. ZAKARIYA ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.13901-13902 of 2025 (Arising…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6), Section 11(12)(a), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(2) — Applicability of Part I, including Section 11, to International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) — Dispute arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) where Respondent No. 1 is foreign company (incorporated in Benin) — BSA stipulates arbitration “will take place in Benin” and is governed by laws of Benin — Held: Dispute is an ICA under Section 2(1)(f) — Under Section 2(2), Part I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India — Designation of Benin as the place of arbitration, coupled with choice of Benin law as governing/curial law, unequivocally establishes Benin as the juridical seat — Indian Courts lack jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration — Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator in India is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI STEEL TRADE Vs. FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 read with Section 34 — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings — Statutory prohibition against re-appreciation of evidence — Challenges to arbitral award upholding 24% interest rate based on loan agreement terms dismissed by Single Judge and Division Bench; Supreme Court upholds affirmation — Re-appreciation of evidence on genuineness of loan agreements or terms, including interest rate, is prohibited under Section 34(2A) proviso, particularly when Arbitrator’s findings are concurrently upheld.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1327 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI LAKSHMI HOTEL PVT. LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

Environment

Environmental Law — Environmental Clearance (EC) — Ex Post Facto Clearance — Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 — While EC should ordinarily be prior, the EP Act does not entirely prohibit ex post facto EC — Grant of ex post facto clearance is permissible in exceptional circumstances, in strict compliance with rules, upon imposition of heavy penalties, where denial of approval would result in adverse consequences outweighing regularisation, and where project complies with or can be made to comply with environmental norms — Adopting a ‘balanced approach’ is necessary to protect economy and livelihood.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1326 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS OF INDIA (CREDAI) Vs. VANASHAKTI AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan and…

You missed

Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw