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))
Service Matters
Service

Process of selection – The appellants have challenged before the court the alleged arbitrary decision of the Government in conducting a special recruitment test against the Rules and Guidelines issued for the recruitment of Computer Instructors and also by altering the minimum qualifying marks from 50% to 35% so as to absorb a larger number of candidates of its choice

May 12, 2017 sclaw

(2009) 9 JT 70 : (2009) 9 SCALE 319 : (2009) 14 SCC 517 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA T. NADU COMPUTER SC B.ED. G.T. WELF. SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. HIGHER…

Accident

The negligence of the first respondent and the liability of the second respondent as the insurer are beyond dispute at the present juncture. The only arena is to figure out what should be the correct compensation awardable to the claimants – The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award but the High Court chose to curb it to 3% per annum.

May 12, 2017 sclaw

(1999) ACJ 1299 : (1998) 9 JT 191 : (1998) 8 SCC 421 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DR K.R. TANDON (MRS) — Appellant Vs. OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER — Respondent…

Accident

Award of compensation – Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Karnataka State-Road Transport Corporation challenging the validity of the award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore City in a motor accident case which has been affirmed by the High Court – The respondent filed a cross-objection and sought enhancement of the amount of compensation including the rate of interest.

May 12, 2017 sclaw

  (1999) ACJ 1278 : (1998) 9 JT 198 : (1998) 8 SCC 424 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. R. SETHURAM AND ANOTHER…

Service Matters
Service

Employer has sacrosanct duty to act in terms of sacred objectives of social and economic justice – Respondents have not been absorbed by JHALCO despite JHALCO having absorbed more than 300 employees of BHALCO – Both States directed to make payments within stipulated time – Both States shall compute salary component after granting benefit of pay revision which has been extended to other employees

May 11, 2017 sclaw

  (2014) 3 AD 279 : (2013) 15 JT 218 : (2013) 14 SCALE 133 : (2014) 2 SCC 114 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 321 : (2014) 1 SCJ 420…

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