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. [
Tenders

Tender Conditions — Interpretation — Ambiguity — The terms of a tender must be clear and unambiguous — If a tendering authority intends for a specific document to be issued by a particular authority, it must be clearly stated in the tender conditions — Failure to do so may lead to rejection of the bid being deemed arbitrary and dehors the tender terms.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1276 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2 JUDGES BENCH KIMBERLEY CLUB PVT. LTD. Vs. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.…

Constitution

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Environmental Protection — Monitoring Committee — Powers and Scope — A PIL was filed concerning environmental issues in Delhi, leading to the appointment of a Monitoring Committee. The Supreme Court clarified that the committee was appointed to prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes and not to interfere with residential premises used as such. Their power was limited to making suggestions to a Special Task Force regarding encroachments on public land, not to summarily seal premises.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1274 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2 JUDGES BENCH M.C. MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : B. R. Gavai, CJI. and K. Vinod Chandran, J.…

Service Matters
Service

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — Section 23 — Minimum qualifications for teachers — Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) — Amendment extending deadline for unqualified teachers to acquire minimum qualifications — Termination of teachers appointed before amendment for not possessing TET at the time of appointment — Held: Termination erroneous as teachers acquired TET within extended deadline.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1273 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2 JUDGES BENCH UMA KANT AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and K. Vinod Chandran,…

Advocates Act Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Constitution

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — Section 179 — Summoning of Advocate by Investigating Agency — Advocate representing accused cannot be summoned directly to elicit case details as it violates advocate-client privilege and constitutional rights of the accused, unless specific exceptions under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) apply.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1275 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 3 JUDGES BENCH IN RE: SUMMONING ADVOCATES WHO GIVE LEGAL OPINION OR REPRESENT PARTIES DURING INVESTIGATION OF CASES AND RELATED ISSUES. ( Before…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Setting aside of arbitral award — Delay in pronouncement — While undue and unexplained delay in pronouncing an arbitral award is not a ground, in itself, to set it aside, it can lead to the award being vitiated if the delay adversely affects the final decision and reflects on the findings, making it conflict with public policy or be patently illegal.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1277 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2 JUDGES BENCH M/S. LANCOR HOLDINGS LIMITED Vs. PREM KUMAR MENON AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…

Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Sections 54, 55 — Agreement to Sell vs. Sale Deed — An agreement to sell by itself does not create any interest or charge on the property. Ownership passes only upon execution of a conveyance (sale deed). An agreement to sell, even with possession, is not a conveyance and does not confer title or transfer interest, except for the limited right under Section 53-A for protection against the transferor.

Oct 26, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1245 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ZOHARBEE AND ANOTHER Vs. IMAM KHAN (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Bail Granted Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Suspension of Sentence — Bail Pending Appeal — Appellant incarcerated for over seven and a half years, appeal pending before High Court for years — Sufficient grounds exist for suspension of sentence and release on bail during appeal pendency — Order of High Court declining to suspend sentence set aside

Oct 26, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNCHUN KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2025 [Arising out…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 298, 299, 296, 115(2), 351(2) & Chhattisgarh Religion Act, 1968 — Section 4 — Bail in anticipation of arrest — Appellant joined investigation as directed by the court — High Court rejected bail application — Supreme Court considered materials on record and found appeal deserving acceptance — Appellant admitted to bail in anticipation of arrest.

Oct 26, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.4561/2025 [Arising out of…

Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 394, 395, and 397 — Robbery and Attempt to Commit Robbery — Conviction and Sentencing — Appeal for suspension of sentence and bail — Appellants convicted by Trial Court for offences under Sections 394, 395, and 397 IPC. High Court confirmed conviction under Section 397 IPC and modified sentence to 8 years rigorous imprisonment, while holding no separate conviction for Sections 394 and 395 IPC.

Oct 26, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUKESH KUMAR MEHTA @ MITHILESH KUMAR MEHTA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Constitution

Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and Rules, 2020 — Implementation — Lethargy, apathy, inaction on part of Union and States — Non-state establishments also in cold freeze of compliance — Serious concern — Community faces discrimination, marginalization, scarcity of healthcare, economic opportunities, non-inclusive education policies — Despite recognition of rights in statutes, reality is empty formality — Union and States need to do more to translate rights into reality.

Oct 26, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1248 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JANE KAUSHIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Civil)…

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