Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Recording of confession — Duty of Magistrate — Magistrate must inform the accused of their right to legal assistance before recording confession — Failure to do so can render the confession suspect — In this case, Magistrate failed to inform the accused of their right to a lawyer, contributing to the unreliability of the confession. Land Acquisition — Setting aside of award — Grounds for — Excessive compensation, unjust enrichment, collusion with officials — Impact on entire acquisition — Held, setting aside an award for excessive compensation due to unjust enrichment and collusion does not automatically invalidate the entire acquisition award concerning all landowners. Wakf Act, 1995 — Jurisdiction of Tribunal — Sections 6, 7, 83, 85 — Declaration of a property as waqf or not — Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to properties specified in the “list of Auqaf” (published under Section 5(2) or registered under Section 37) — Civil suits for injunction simpliciter regarding properties not in the list are not maintainable before the Tribunal.
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Labour Cases
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Recording of confession — Duty of Magistrate — Magistrate must inform the accused of their right to legal assistance before recording confession — Failure to do so can render the confession suspect — In this case, Magistrate failed to inform the accused of their right to a lawyer, contributing to the unreliability of the confession.
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Recording of confession — Duty of Magistrate — Magistrate must inform the accused of their right to legal assistance before recording confession — Failure to do so can render the confession suspect — In this case, Magistrate failed to inform the accused of their right to a lawyer, contributing to the unreliability of the confession.
Land Acquisition — Setting aside of award — Grounds for — Excessive compensation, unjust enrichment, collusion with officials — Impact on entire acquisition — Held, setting aside an award for excessive compensation due to unjust enrichment and collusion does not automatically invalidate the entire acquisition award concerning all landowners.
Land Acquisition
Land Acquisition — Setting aside of award — Grounds for — Excessive compensation, unjust enrichment, collusion with officials — Impact on entire acquisition — Held, setting aside an award for excessive compensation due to unjust enrichment and collusion does not automatically invalidate the entire acquisition award concerning all landowners.
Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section – 4(1), 23(1) – Stamp Act – Section – 48 – Enhancement of the compensation – The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 22nd August, 1989 made in R.F.A. No52/89 and batch uniformly enhanced the market value to Rs. 12,000/- per bigha – Court has considered the entire gamut of the operation of the relevant provisions of Stamps Act and held that the fixation by the Government of the amount under Stamp Act for fiscal purpose bears no relevance to determine the market value

May 7, 2017 sclaw

(1995) 4 SCALE 726 : (1995) 5 SCC 310 : (1995) 2 SCR 572 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PAINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)…

Service Matters
Service

Appellant, a professor in Physics was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University – Immediately another order passed rescinding earlier order as he had been facing a criminal case – This order had been passed immediately and much before the date on which appointment could become effective – There was no necessity to give him an opportunity

May 6, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 1999 SC 849 : (1998) 8 JT 344 : (1998) 6 SCALE 378 : (1999) 1 SCC 422 : (1999) SCC(L&S) 229 : (1998) 3 SCR 165 Supp…

Corporate

A lawyer, no doubt has a duty towards his client to do his best in his interest but within the parameters of law – He at the same time is equally responsible to assist the court fairly on the exact and latest position of law to his knowledge – His right to debate in the court is no licence to sidetrack the issue and mislead or pressurise the court to act in a particular manner – If he does so, it amounts of his misconduct attracting the wrath of disciplinary provisions of the Advocates Act.

May 6, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 2001 SC 457 : (2000) 3 JT 505 Supp : (2000) 8 SCALE 76 : (2001) 2 SCC 221 : (2000) 5 SCR 345 Supp : (2001) 1…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 364-A – Abduction – Conveyance of demand of ransom – Abduction of victim, a college student – Accused persons told him that they will ask his father to pay a huge amount for his release – Victim managed to escape and informed villagers – Accused arrested on the spot – Demand of ransom has already been made by conveying it to victim

May 6, 2017 sclaw

  (2004) CriLJ 4645 : (2004) 8 JT 72 : (2004) 7 SCALE 671 : (2004) 8 SCC 95 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MALLESHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA…

Acquittal Cr P C

There are no cogent materials upon which the subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority that the detenu was likely to be released on bail was arrived at; and there was a delay of 6 days in forwarding representation to the Central government – All the procedural requirements of Article 22 are mandatory in character and even if one of the procedural requirements is not complied with, the order of detention would be rendered illegal

May 6, 2017 sclaw

  (2010) 10 JT 456(1) : (2010) 10 SCALE 248 : (2010) 9 SCC 618 : (2010) 10 UJ 5119 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SMT. PEBAM NINGOL MIKOI DEVI —…

Bail Granted

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bail – Cancellation – Accused cannot be granted bail only on the ground that he was in custody for seven months – Individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law.

May 6, 2017 sclaw

(2012) CriLJ 4670 : (2012) 4 JCC 2909 : (2012) 9 JT 155 : (2013) 1 RCR(Criminal) 277 : (2012) 9 SCALE 165 : (2012) 9 SCC 446 SUPREME COURT…

You missed

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Recording of confession — Duty of Magistrate — Magistrate must inform the accused of their right to legal assistance before recording confession — Failure to do so can render the confession suspect — In this case, Magistrate failed to inform the accused of their right to a lawyer, contributing to the unreliability of the confession.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition — Setting aside of award — Grounds for — Excessive compensation, unjust enrichment, collusion with officials — Impact on entire acquisition — Held, setting aside an award for excessive compensation due to unjust enrichment and collusion does not automatically invalidate the entire acquisition award concerning all landowners.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw