Supreme Court of India Judgements

46950 Judgements hosted as on 04/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Substantive Equality and Inclusion — Scope and Spirit — The measure of a just society demands the removal of barriers for all citizens to realize their potential, transforming formal equality into substantive inclusion — Constitutional vision requires every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, to participate with dignity — Rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, not acts of benevolence. (Paras 1, 12, 13) 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) 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) 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)) 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)
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Substantive Equality and Inclusion — Scope and Spirit — The measure of a just society demands the removal of barriers for all citizens to realize their potential, transforming formal equality into substantive inclusion — Constitutional vision requires every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, to participate with dignity — Rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, not acts of benevolence. (Paras 1, 12, 13)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

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)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Substantive Equality and Inclusion — Scope and Spirit — The measure of a just society demands the removal of barriers for all citizens to realize their potential, transforming formal equality into substantive inclusion — Constitutional vision requires every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, to participate with dignity — Rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, not acts of benevolence. (Paras 1, 12, 13)
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Substantive Equality and Inclusion — Scope and Spirit — The measure of a just society demands the removal of barriers for all citizens to realize their potential, transforming formal equality into substantive inclusion — Constitutional vision requires every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, to participate with dignity — Rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, not acts of benevolence. (Paras 1, 12, 13)
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)
Cr P C
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)
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)
Cr P C
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)
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))
Property Matters
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))
Constitution

There is some cogent material on the basis of which satisfaction can be arrived at about the participation in the agitation, the Government may relax the other requirements. However, it would be for the State Government to exercise such a discretion, in a given case, if it is otherwise fully satisfied that the material produced demonstrate that the applicant is a freedom fighter – Court set aside the orders of the High Court – Appeal allowed. Counsel for Appearing Parties

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (2013) 4 LLN 34 : (2013) 11 SCALE 535 : (2013) 14 SCC 225 : (2013) 4 SCT 708 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS —…

Cr P C

It is necessary for the Appellate Court which is confronted with the absence of the convict as well as his Counsel, to immediately proceed against the persons who stood surety at the time when the convict was granted bail, as this may lead to his discovery and production in Court – So far as the present Appeal is concerned, since a request for remand had been made which Court stoutly reject, and since the convict was not represented through Counsel before the High Court, Court think it proper to permit the Appellant an opportunity to argue the Appeal on its merits.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (2013) 10 AD 565 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 880 : (2013) 12 SCALE 492 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURYA BAKSH SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR…

Customs & Excise

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the plastic piece parts continued to remain under Entry 15A(2) until the enactment of the Bill on 19th April, 1982, whereupon they became classifiable under Entry 68 – The Act does not take account of Exemption Notifications for they apply only when goods are exigible to duty but, thereby, the payment of duty or a part thereof is exempted – Appeal dismissed.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (1997) 57 ECC 245 : (1996) 87 ELT 577 : (1997) 10 JT 368 : (1996) 7 SCALE 719 : (1997) 2 SCC 220 : (1996) 7 SCR 664…

Customs & Excise

Relief was granted to the petitioners on the basis of the judgment reported as State of U.P. v. Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. – There is no advertence to Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co.’s case – That case, as said before stands pro tanto overruled.It could not have been the basis to grant relief to the respondents by the High Court – Appeal allowed.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (1999) 8 SCC 137 : (2000) 117 STC 420 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL), SALES TAX AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KHERIA BROTHERS AND ANOTHER — Respondent…

Acquittal

it is well-settled that there must be a chain of circumstances and this solitary circumstance cannot be said to form a chain so as to fasten guilt upon the accused and on the basis of the same, irresistible conclusion, which is incompatible with the innocence of the accused cannot be drawn – Appeal allowed.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (2004) 11 SCC 391 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C.T. PONNAPPA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : H. K. Sema, J; B. N.…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Substantive Equality and Inclusion — Scope and Spirit — The measure of a just society demands the removal of barriers for all citizens to realize their potential, transforming formal equality into substantive inclusion — Constitutional vision requires every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, to participate with dignity — Rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, not acts of benevolence. (Paras 1, 12, 13)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

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)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

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)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters

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))

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw