Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: January 15 – January 17, 2025
1) Can't deny promotion on account of lower placement in merit list: SC grants notional promotion to 3 officers to the post of District Judge in Jharkhand
The Court granted notional promotion to 3 Officers to the post of District Judge in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service and ruled that once the appellants successfully qualified the suitability test, they could not have been deprived of their legitimate right of promotion only on account of lower placement in the merit list.
The Appeal before the Court arose out of a Jharkhand High Court Judgment refusing to entertain the relief for quashing of notification dated May 30, 2019 whereby the private respondents were appointed to the post of District Judge in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service on promotion in the State of Jharkhand.
Cause Title- Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 72)
Date of Judgment- January 15, 2025
Coram- Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
2) Object of Order II Rule 2 CPC is to prevent multiplicity of suits: Supreme Court discusses general principles
The Court discussed some general principles underlying Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
The Court was deciding Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Madras High Court by which it allowed the Second Appeal and restored the Plaint.
Cause Title- Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73)
Date of Judgment- January 15, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
3) Ensure construction & availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD, & transgenders in all Courts & Tribunals across country: SC to HCs & State Govts & UTs
The Court ordered all the High Courts and the State Governments as well as the Union Territories to ensure the construction and availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD, and transgender persons in all Court premises and Tribunals across the Country.
The Court was addressing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to ensure that basic toilet facilities were made available in “all Courts/ Tribunals in the Country for men, women and handicapped persons including transgenders.” It issued directions for such facilities emphasising that “the absence of adequate washroom facilities undermines equality and poses a barrier to the fair administration of justice.”
Cause Title- Rajeeb Kalita v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 75)
Date of Judgment- January 15, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
4) S. 306 IPC casually resorted to by police; must not be deployed against persons to assuage immediate feelings of deceased’s family
The Court observed that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to Abetment of Suicide is being casually and too readily resorted to by the police.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench by which the accused’s prayer seeking discharge was declined.
Cause Title- Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 76)
Date of Judgment- January 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
5) Can’t declare HC Judgment as illegal under Article 32 of Constitution; if Petitioners haven't been heard, they can either file Recall Application before HC or SLP
The Court clarified that under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Judgment of the High Court cannot be declared as illegal.
The Petitioner, through the Petition under Article 32 had sought for a declaration of the Judgment of the Bombay High Court as illegal for having been passed without hearing the necessary parties.
Cause Title- Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 77)
Date of Judgment- January 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Transfer of convict prisoner from one prison to another an administrative decision; Can’t be interfered by Court unless arbitrary & contrary to law
The Court held that the transfer of convict prisoner from one prison to another is purely an administrative decision and the same cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is arbitrary and contrary to law.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the State against the final Order of the Jharkhand High Court by which it quashed the Order/Memo issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, making intra-State transfer of gangster Vikash Tiwary from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to Central Jail, Dumka, within the State.
Cause Title- The State of Jharkhand & Others v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 79)
Date of Judgment- January 17, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
7) Prison administration must be reformed for creating better environment & prison culture to ensure prisoners enjoy their Right to Dignified Life
The Court emphasised that the prison administration must be reformed for creating a better environment and prison culture to ensure that the prisoners enjoy their Right to Dignified Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal involving transfer of gangster Vikash Tiwary from one jail to another. It said that the discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life, with due regard to the maintenance of the rights of prisoners.
Cause Title- The State of Jharkhand & Others v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 79)
Date of Judgment- January 17, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
8) HC can’t grant ad interim relief without formulating substantial question of law involved in Second Appeal
The Court held that the High Court cannot grant ad interim relief without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal.
The Court was considering a Civil Appeal challenging an interim Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in a Second Appeal.
Cause Title- U. Sudheera v. C. Yashoda (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 80)
Date of Judgment- January 17, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
9) Once HC in Second Appeal renders its Judgment, it is Decree of Second Appellate Court which becomes executable
The Court clarified that once the High Court as an Appellate Court in the Second Appeal renders its Judgment, it is a decree of the Second Appellate Court which becomes executable.
The Appeal before the Court arose from a Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting four Revision Applications filed by the original Defendants and affirming the Order passed by the Executing Court permitting the original Plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration and rejecting the Application filed by the Defendants (judgment debtors) under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of the contract.
Cause Title- Balbir Singh & Anr Etc. v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His Lrs & Ors. Etc (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 81)
Date of Judgment- January 17, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
