Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)
2025 INSC 1378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAL KUMAR PATEL @ RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)
2025 INSC 1371 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDAN PASI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF THE BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))
2025 INSC 1372 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JYOTI BUILDERS Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)
2025 INSC 1373 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS @ BUMBA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL ( Before : Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan, JJ. )…
Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) (prior to amendment by Act 18 of 2017) — Manufacture — Exemption Notification No.5/98-CE, Entry No.106 — Eligibility for exemption — Manufacture includes series of processes; entire chain of activities must be considered — Where multiple units undertake distinct processes which are ‘integrally connected’ and form a ‘continuous chain’ to convert raw material (grey fabrics) into final excisable product (cotton fabrics), the entire activity constitutes ‘manufacture’ — Distinct ownership or separate bills between the units is irrelevant if the processes are interconnected and essential for producing the final product — Use of power in any intermediate, integrally connected process denies the exemption under Entry 106 (cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam). (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
2025 INSC 1374 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT Vs. NARSIBHAI KARAMSIBHAI GAJERA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — Section 3(1)(d) — Right to property given at marriage — Divorced Muslim Woman — The Act allows a divorced woman to claim all properties given to her before, at the time of, or after marriage by her relatives, friends, the husband, or his relatives/friends — The objective of the Act is to secure the financial protection and dignity of a Muslim woman post-divorce. (Paras 3, 7, 9)
2025 INSC 1375 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROUSANARA BEGUM Vs. S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Life and Healthy Environment — Environmental Degradation: Pollution of Jojari, Bandi, and Luni Rivers in Rajasthan due to untreated industrial effluents and municipal sewage threatens the lives of 2 million people and the ecosystem — This constitutes a gross dereliction of constitutional duty and a direct constitutional injury — The right to a healthy environment, including pollution-free water and air, is an indispensable facet of the right to life under Article 21, reinforced by Articles 48A and 51A(g) — Judicial intervention is warranted when environmental degradation strikes at the foundation of these guarantees. (Paras 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 28)
2025 INSC 1341 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE: 2 MILLION LIVES AT RISK, CONTAMINATION IN JOJARI RIVER, RAJASTHAN ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…
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. (Paras 2, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30)
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. )…
Government Contracts and Tenders — Letter of Intent (LoI) — Legal Nature — An LoI is ordinarily a precursor to a contract, indicating intent to enter into a future agreement, but does not itself create a concluded contract or vested, enforceable rights unless the necessary preconditions are satisfied — A bidder’s commercial expectation that a contract will follow an LoI is not a juridical entitlement — If the LoI explicitly stipulates conditions precedent (like compatibility testing, live demonstration, and cost disclosure) before execution of an agreement/final award letter, the LoI remains provisional and conditional until such prerequisites are met. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
2025 INSC 1355 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S OASYS CYBERNATICS PVT. LTD. ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI., Ujjal Bhuyan and…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 7 — Application by Financial Creditor — Rejection for technical defects — Affidavit Verification — Whether an application under Section 7 of the IBC, verified later than the date of the supporting affidavit, is liable to be rejected at the threshold — Mere filing of a ‘defective’ affidavit (e.g., dated before application verification) does not render the Section 7 application non est and liable to be rejected; such a defect is curable and not fundamental. (Paras 1, 17)
2025 INSC 1349 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIVEIN AQUA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…