1) Mens Rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in victim's mind: Supreme Court upholds quashing of FIR in ex-MP suicide case
The Court dismissed an Appeal challenging an Order quashing an FIR alleging suicidal death of Former Member of Parliament (MP) Mohan Delkar.
The Court held that however harsh or severe the harassment was, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death. The Appeal before the Court was filed against an Order allowing separate applications to quash the FIR registered against the accused persons who were named in the suicide note.
Cause Title- Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 990)
Date of Judgment- August 18, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
2) 'Highly qualified' wife claims to be unemployed but she can earn & sustain herself: Supreme Court grants Rs 50 lakh alimony as one-time settlement
While upholding a decree of divorce, the Court enhanced the permanent alimony to Rs 50 lakh as a one-time settlement to be paid by the man. The Court also held that although the wife claims to be unemployed, she is highly qualified and can earn and sustain herself.
The Appeal before the Court arose from a common Order passed by the Karnataka High Court upholding the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and confirming the amount of Rs 15 lakh awarded as permanent alimony.
Cause Title- A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 994)
Date of Judgment- August 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Preliminary inquiry report must be provided to delinquent employee if it is sought to be relied upon in inquiry report
The Court held that if a preliminary inquiry report is sought to be relied upon in the inquiry report, then such preliminary inquiry report must be provided to the delinquent employee.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the High Court, which allowed the Writ Appeal of Bank of Baroda.
Cause Title- K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 997)
Date of Judgment- August 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
4) State must organize its perennial workers on sanctioned footing: Supreme Court grants relief to U.P. Higher Education Services Commission employees
While directing regularization of some of the daily wage workers who were engaged by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, the Court observed that State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements. The Court also held that the State must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing.
The Appeal before the Court arose from an Order against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Special Appeal preferred by the Appellants against the dismissal of their Writ Petition was rejected on the premise that the Appellants were engaged on daily-wage basis and there were no rules in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (second Respondent) for regularization.
Cause Title- Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 998)
Date of Judgment- August 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) Section 411 IPC attracts only when the property in question is a stolen property
The Court observed that in order to uphold conviction under Section 411 IPC, it is sine qua non that the property in the possession of accused is a stolen property.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment passed by the Telangana High Court whereby the Criminal Appeal preferred by the Appellant and Moulana (one of the accused persons) was partly allowed and the sentence of imprisonment from three years, as awarded by the Trial Court under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was reduced to one year.
Cause Title- Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 999)
Date of Judgment- August 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Essence of deemed export benefits lay in supply of goods to power projects, not in power procurement arrangements
The Court held that the essence of deemed export benefits lay in the supply of goods to power projects, not in power procurement arrangements.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Common Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) owing to rejection of the claim(s) for relief under Article 13 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed with the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), and primarily the challenge to the post-bid withdrawal of fiscal incentives which were allegedly available earlier under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and their classification as a “Change in Law” event under the PPA.
Cause Title- Nabha Power Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1002)
Date of Judgment- August 19, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
7) Element of mens rea for civil contempt can’t be inferred merely from factum of delay to comply with court order
The Court asked a Bank to pay Rs 3 lakh to the widow or the legal representatives of the deceased employee whose retirement dues remained undisbursed for over a decade. The Court also held that the element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay.
The Contempt Petitions before the Court were preferred alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by the Court while dismissing the Civil Appeals whereby the Respondent Bank was directed to release the outstanding dues payable to the Petitioner within a period of three months as ordered by the High Court.
Cause Title- A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) Through Lrs v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1003)
Date of Judgment- August 19, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
8) Supreme Court asks law commission to determine whether statutory remedy of appeal should be provided against orders passed u/s.16 Telegraph Act
The Court asked Law Commission of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice to determine whether a statutory remedy of Appeal should be provided against Judgments or Orders passed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
The Court was hearing a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the landowners, challenging a common Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which a bunch of 9 matters were decided.
Cause Title- Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod and Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1004)
Date of Judgment- August 19, 2025
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal
9) No duty cast on landowner to get declaration made by competent authority u/s.143 of UPZALR Act registered
While directing expeditious disposal of an Appeal in a 50-year-old civil case, the Court held that it is the duty of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division to forward a copy of the declaration made under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act) to the Sub Registrar.
The Court made it clear that no duty is cast on the landowner to get the same registered. The appellant landlord had filed the Appeal before the Court impugning the Judgment of the High Court in the Second Appeal.
Cause Title- Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through Lr(s) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1005)
Date of Judgment- August 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
10) Where multiple appointments are challenged on general grounds, authorities & courts must undertake detailed analysis
The Court held that where multiple appointments are challenged on general grounds, authorities and Courts must undertake a detailed fact-specific analysis before concluding that all such appointments are void.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals arising from the common Order of the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench, which set aside the appointments to Class III posts, reversing the relief granted by the Single Judge.
Cause Title- Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Others v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1000)
Date of Judgment- August 19, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
11) Organisation not banned under UAPA: Supreme Court upholds grant of bail to alleged workers of Al-Hind
The Court upheld the grant of bail in favour of an accused person after noting that the allegations found in the chargesheet related to his connections with an organisation, which admittedly is not a banned organisation under the schedule to UAPA.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Order of the Karnataka High Court granting liberty of bail to one of the accused persons allegedly associated with Al-Hind while rejecting the prayer for bail of the other accused. One appeal was filed by the Union of India, while the other accused Mohd. Zaid preferred the appeal against the rejection of his Appeal seeking bail.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Saleem Khan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1008)
Date of Judgment- August 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
12) Sections 195 & 340 CrPC do not control or circumscribe power of police to investigate
The Court held that Sections 195(1)(b)(i)(ii)(iii) and 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) respectively do not control or circumscribe the power of the police to investigate, under the CrPC.
The Court held thus in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, by which the Order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) was affirmed.
Cause Title- Devendra Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1009)
Date of Judgment- August 20, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
13) Disciplinary authority not required to record reason in detail if inquiry officer’s report is accepted
While restoring the punishment of removal from service imposed upon a Bank employee accused of bribery, the Court affirmed that the disciplinary authority is not required to record the reason in detail if the report of the inquiry officer is accepted.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing an intra-Court Appeal filed by the Bank. The Respondent had approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition challenging an Order by which his punishment was reduced from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits.
Cause Title- State Bank of India v. Ramadhar Sao (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1010)
Date of Judgment- August 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
14) Such extreme act runs completely contrary to natural instinct of mother: Supreme Court acquits woman convicted for infant’s murder
The Court acquitted a woman who was convicted for her infant son’s murder after finding that the alleged extra-judicial confessions suffered from infirmities and the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain pointing towards her guilt.
The Court also held that the extreme act in question ran completely contrary to the natural instinct of a mother. The Criminal Appeal was filed before the Court, challenging the Judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murdering her infant son was confirmed. She was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Neelam Kumari v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1013)
Date of Judgment- August 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih
15) Owner has a preferential right over other stakeholders to develop slum rehabilitation area
The Court held that the owner has a preferential right over other stakeholders to develop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area).
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals pertaining to the validity of the acquisition of a land under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Cause Title- Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. The State of Maharashtra and others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1015)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
16) Holistic interpretation of Slums Act in Tarabai case is squarely applicable on post 2018 amendment actions
The Court held that the holistic interpretation of the Slums Act made in its recent Judgment in the case of Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. The State of Maharashtra and others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1015) is squarely applicable on post-2018 Amendment actions/events, barring the now legislatively stipulated timeline within which a redevelopment scheme has to be submitted by an interested landowner.
The Court was deciding Civil Appeals concerning the validity of the acquisition of a portion of land under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slums Act).
Cause Title- Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v. Bishop John Rodrigues and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1016)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
17) Identify defects in form 25 affidavit: Supreme Court remands BJP MLA Tankadhar Tripathy election dispute case to Orissa High Court
The Court asked the Orissa High Court to identify and assess the defects in the Form 25 affidavit in a petition filed against BJP MLA Tankadhar Tripathy’s election, alleging corrupt practices. The Court also reiterated that the requirement of filing an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act is not of a mandatory character, and ‘substantial compliance’ therewith would suffice.
The Court was considering a matter revolving around the degree of ‘substantial compliance’ with the prescribed Form 25 affidavit, as encapsulated in the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
Cause Title- Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1017)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
18) Treat Andhra Pradesh Forest Service as state forest service; consider forest range officers eligible for appointment by promotion for IFoS
The Court directed that when the exercise for filling up vacancies in the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) is initiated afresh, the Chief Secretary and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and (Head of Forest Force) should consider the Forest Range Officers (FROs) eligible for appointment by promotion treating the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service as ‘State Forest Service’ as defined in Rule 2(g) of the Recruitment Rules.
The Appeal filed before the Court challenged the Judgment reversing the Order allowing the Appellant’s original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and passing certain positive directions.
Cause Title- P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1019)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
19) Supreme Court to expand scope of stray dogs matter beyond New Delhi & NCR region
The Court while partially modifying its previous Order regarding capturing and shifting of stray dogs from Delhi streets, has proposed to expand the scope of this matter beyond the confines of New Delhi and the NCR region.
A Bench of two Judges had on July 28, 2025, taken suo motu cognizance of a news report published in the Times of India, Delhi Edition, titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”.
Cause Title- In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1018)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
20) Prolongation of criminal case for unreasonable period amounts to mental incarceration: Supreme Court reduces woman officer’s sentence in corruption case
The Court reduced the sentence imposed upon a 75-year-old woman, who was posted as an Inspector of the Central Excise, to the period already undergone by her in a corruption case. The Court observed that the prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering and the same amounts to mental incarceration.
The Criminal Appeal before the Court was filed against the Order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court confirming the Judgment of the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) convicting the Appellant for the offences under Section 7, Section 13(2) read section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Cause Title- K. Pounammal v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1014)
Date of Judgment- August 21, 2025
Coram- Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
21) Supreme Court clarifies power of criminal court to alter or review its final order or judgment u/s. 362 CrPC
While explaining the scope of the Criminal Court’s power to alter or review its own judgment under section 362 of the CrPC, the Court held that the said power cannot be invoked as a means to circumvent the finality of the judicial process or mistakes and/or errors in the decision which are attributable to a conscious omission by the parties.
The Criminal Appeal before the Court challenged the Judgment passed by the Delhi High Court whereby it recalled its earlier Judgment which had disposed of a Criminal Miscellaneous case filed under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) against the Appellants for prosecution of offences of perjury and directed that the said application be listed for hearing.
Cause Title- Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1020)
Date of Judgment- August 20, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
22) Similarly situated landowners shouldn’t face discrimination for grant of compensation: Supreme Court sets aside order reducing compensation multiplier
While granting relief to aggrieved landowners, the Court set aside an Order of the Bombay High Court reducing the compensation multiplier. The Court held that in the matter of the grant of compensation, landowners who are similarly situated should not face any kind of discrimination.
The Appeal before the Court was filed at the instance of the landowners against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court disposing of a First Appeal presented by Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation.
Cause Title- Saraswatabai Motiram Tayade v. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1022)
Date of Judgment- August 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
23) “Interim order” in Section 25(1) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 shall now be read as “any order”
The Court held that the word “interim order” in Section 25(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, shall now be read as “any order” for the period from March 15, 2003 to July 20, 2020 with reference to all pending proceedings at any stage for execution of any order passed under the 1986 Act.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals filed by a society, assailing the Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). It also held that neither an Appeal nor a Revision against an Order passed by the State Commission in an Appeal filed against the Order of the District Forum in execution proceedings shall be maintainable before the National Commission.
Cause Title- Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1023)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
24) Expression “right to prefer an appeal” u/s 372 CrPC also includes “right to prosecute an appeal”
The Court held that under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the expression “the right to prefer an appeal” also includes the “right to prosecute an appeal”.
The Court held thus in Criminal Appeals preferred against the common Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which allowed Appeals of the accused persons.
Cause Title- Khem Singh (D) Through LRs v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1024)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
25) District Survey Report without a proper replenishment study is untenable
The Court held that a District Survey Report (DSR) without a proper replenishment study is untenable.
The Court was deciding Civil Appeals filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (formerly State of J&K), challenging the Order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
Cause Title- Union Territory of J& K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr. v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1025)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
26) Reciting ‘Gurubramha Gururvishnu' not enough: Supreme Court emphasizes need for fair remuneration & dignified treatment for teachers
The Court directed the State of Gujarat to pay contractual Assistant Professors the minimum pay scale admissible to regularly appointed Assistant Professors. The Court observed that failing to provide dignified treatment and respectable emoluments to educators diminishes the value a country places on knowledge and undermines the motivation of those shaping its intellectual capital.
The Court was hearing a batch of Civil Appeals filed by contractual Assistant Professors working in government engineering and polytechnic colleges in Gujarat. The question put before the Bench was whether these contractual appointees, performing duties identical to those of regular and ad hoc Assistant Professors, were entitled to parity in pay.
Cause Title- Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1026)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
27) Pleadings must be examined before considering whether party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of CPC
The Court held that before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, the Appellate Court must examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record.
The Appellants, unsuccessful plaintiffs, had approached the Court challenging the reversal of the decree for specific performance of an agreement.
Cause Title- Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by Lrs. v. Abdul Shukoor (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1027)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
28) Grant of motor accident compensation for loss of future income is distinct from compensation granted for permanent disability
While granting enhanced motor accident compensation, the Court held that the grant of compensation for loss of future income is a distinct head from the one under which compensation is granted for permanent disability.
The Appellant claimant approached the Court challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court as a result of which the amount of compensation that was awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to be reduced.
Cause Title- Kavin v. P. Sreemani Devi & Ors. (Neutral Citaiton: 2025 INSC 1028)
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
29) Courts cannot second guess the manner in which authority would address legitimate expectation issue: Supreme Court in Telangana TS-Transco recruitment case
The Court held that a Court exercising judicial review cannot reassess the sufficiency of relief granted by an authority when legitimate expectations have been considered in the decision-making process.
The Court was hearing Appeals filed by the Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited (TS Transco) regarding recruitment to Sub-Engineer (Electrical) posts.
Cause Title- The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. v. Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1029).
Date of Judgment- August 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
30) Courts not obliged to refer to experts to find material alteration in documents if it is visible on mere perusal
The Court held that Courts are not bound to seek expert opinion under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when a document shows clear and visible signs of interpolation.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance, where the Appellant sought enforcement of a sale agreement relating to two properties. While the Trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the Appellant, the High Court reversed the decision on the ground that the agreement suffered from material alterations and was therefore unenforceable.
Cause Title- Syed Basheer Ahmed v. M/s. Tinni Laboratories Private Limited & Anr (Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1030)
Date of Judgment- August 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
31) Genuine exporters must not be driven to needless litigation on account of inadvertent procedural lapses
The Court directed the Central Government to ensure that genuine exporters are not driven to needless litigation on account of inadvertent procedural lapses which have been rectified in accordance with law.
The Court was considering an Appeal against a Judgment of the High Court by which the Writ Petition instituted by the Appellant was dismissed.
Cause Title- M/s Shah Nanji Nagsi Exporters Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1032)
Date of Judgment- August 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria