Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: April 28 – May 2, 2025
1) Honour killing is ugly reality of deeply entrenched caste structure; must get strong measure of punishment
The Court in a murder case, emphasized that the honour-killing must get a strong measure of punishment.
A batch of Criminal Appeals were preferred by the accused persons before the Court, challenging the Judgment of the Madras High Court.
Cause Title- K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 576)
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
2) Arbitral award cannot be set aside by taking a different view on interpretation of contractual clauses
The Court upheld the restoration of an arbitral award while remarking that there was no justification by the High Court for setting aside the award simply by taking a different view from the Arbitral Tribunal’s view.
The Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which had restored an arbitral award by allowing an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The Single Bench had earlier set aside the Award under Section 34 of the Act in a dispute arising from a contract between Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited (Appellant) and Software Technology Parks of India (Respondent).
Cause Title- Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. Software Technology Parks Of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 574)
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
3) Accused claimed to be under influence of certain invisible force: Supreme Court reduces sentence of woman accused of killing daughters
The Court converted the sentence of a woman to Part II of Section 304 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860) from that under Section 302 IPC, who was accused of killing her two minor daughters.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused mother against the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which upheld her conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC.
Cause Title- Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 577)
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
4) Mere endorsement by superintendent on returns cannot make an assessment provisional: Supreme Court sets aside CESTAT’s Order
The Court observed that mere endorsement by the Superintendent on the returns cannot make an assessment provisional.
The Court observed thus in three Civil Appeals filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench at Mumbai.
Cause Title- M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 578)
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
5) Mere institution of civil proceedings for breach of contract not a ground for quashing FIR or holding that dispute is merely civil
The Court held that the mere institution of civil proceedings for a breach of contract is not a ground for quashing an FIR or holding that a dispute is merely a civil dispute.
The Court set aside a decision of the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court, which quashed an FIR registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC against a mother and her son (Respondents). The Court revived the FIR while clarifying that mere delay on the part of a complainant in lodging an FIR, cannot by itself be a ground to quash it.
Cause Title- Punit Beriwala v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 582)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
6) Alleged incorrect information supplied by candidate doesn’t affect his eligibility to appear in exam: Supreme Court upholds teacher’s appointment
The Court allowed an Appeal against the High Court Order, which had declared the appointment of a teacher as ‘illegal,’ while remarking that the alleged incorrect information supplied by a candidate doesn’t affect his eligibility to appear in an examination.
The Court set aside the impugned Order of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, which had dismissed an Appeal against the Order terminating the Appellant’s services. The issue pertained to the appointment to the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher, wherein the Appellant was declared successful based on his merit.
Cause Title- Shyam Nandan Mehta v. Santosh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 586)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
7) Utmost sincerity & love showered by either parent, by itself, not a ground to decide custody; paramount consideration should be welfare of child
The Court reaffirmed that utmost sincerity, love and affection showered by either of the parents, by itself, cannot be a ground to decide the custody of a child.
The Court was considering a matter pertaining to the custody of the children.
Cause Title- Arathy Ramachandran v. Bijay Raj Menon (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 587)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
8) Supreme Court applies principle of incremental enhancement in case of self-employed individuals in unorganized sector, awards enhanced motor accident compensation
While reiterating that the Constitution Bench has recognised the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even self-employed individuals in the unorganised sector, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the claimants in a case of motor accident and awarded enhanced compensation.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants.
Cause Title- Amarveer Kaur and Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 589)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
9) Can’t assume unemployed husband wasn't partially dependent on deceased wife’s income: Supreme Court enhances motor accident compensation
While granting compensation for spousal loss of consortium to a husband who lost his wife in a motor accident, the Court observed that since there was no employment specified for the husband, it could not be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on the income of the deceased wife.
The Court was considering the Appeals filed by the motor accident claimants.
Cause Title- Sri Malakappa & Ors. v. The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 590)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
10) Employees’ Compensation Act | There can be a departure from the schedule in deciding functional disability: Supreme Court increases extent of disability suffered by employee
The Court increased the disability extent from 34% to 50% for an employee whose working hand was seriously mutilated due to the loss of one or more phalanges of four fingers.
The Court observed that there can be a departure from the Schedule of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, in deciding the functional disability. The Appeal before the Court was filed against the reduction of the disability as per the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.
Cause Title- Kamal Dev Prasad v. Mahesh Forge (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 591)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
11) Determination of cross-subsidy surcharges not necessarily a part of tariff determination process
The Court held that the determination of Cross-Subsidy Surcharges (CSS) is not necessarily a part of the tariff determination process.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the common Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).
Cause Title- Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Ors. v. Rajasthan Textile Mills Association & Anr. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 592)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
12) Plaint not to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when substantial factual disputes exist concerning limitation
The Court enunciated that rejecting the Plaint where substantial factual disputes exist concerning limitation and the scope of authority under the Power of Attorney, is unlawful.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court, which allowed the Civil Revision Petition and rejected a Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) on the ground that the Suit was barred by limitation.
Cause Title- P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 598)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
13) Vesting jurisdiction in Consumer Courts based on value of goods & services not illegal: Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of CP Act provisions
The Court upheld the Constitutionality of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CP Act) prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the District, State and National Commissions on the basis of value of goods and services paid as consideration, instead of compensation claimed.
The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution along with a Civil Appeal, challenging the Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Cause Title- Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 593)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
14) Contractual service rendered prior to regularisation to be counted for payment of pensionary benefits
The Court reiterated that the contractual service period rendered by an employee prior to their regularisation must be counted towards the payment of pensionary benefits.
The Court partly allowed an Appeal against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which held that the Appellants, who were initially appointed on a contractual basis and subsequently regularised, would not be entitled to seniority, service benefits, and pension for the period of their contractual service. It directed the grant of pensionary benefits in accordance with law to the Appellants.
Cause Title- S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 594)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
15) Demand notice issued to KMP of corporate debtor & delivered at its registered office can be construed as deemed service u/s. 8 IBC
The Court held that a demand notice issued to the Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) of the Corporate Debtor and delivered at the registered office of the Corporate Debtor can be construed as a deemed service of demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Cause Title- Visa Coke Limited v. M/s MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 597)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
16) Application to modify order not review, only clerical or typographical errors can be corrected
While remarking that the High Court treated an Application for modifying an Order “as if it were exercising review jurisdiction,” the Court held that the same is impermissible as such applications may only enable Courts to correct clerical or typographical errors.
The Court set aside the decision of the Bombay High Court, which dismissed a Review Application filed by the Appellant challenging the acceptance of the Respondent’s request for an opportunity to seek the modification and rectification as per the Application for Speaking to the Minutes. The case originated from the Respondent's Appeal under Section 66(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act), challenging the Village Panchayat's refusal to issue a construction licence.
Cause Title- Filomena Saldanha Through Power Of Attorney v. Sunil Kohli Represented By His Power Of Attorney & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 595)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
17) Inconsistent decisions from different benches reduce litigation to a punter’s game
While reviving the criminal proceedings against a husband, the Court remarked that inconsistent decisions coming out from different Benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a punter’s game.
The Court set aside an Order of the High Court that had quashed proceedings against a husband under Sections 498A, 324, 355, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC.
Cause Title- R v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 596)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
18) Supreme Court issues directions for making process of digital KYC accessible for persons with disabilities
The Court issued directions for making the process of digital KYC accessible to persons with disabilities, especially for people with facial/eye disfigurements due to acid attacks and visual impairments.
The Court directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to issue guidelines to all regulated entities to adopt and incorporate alternative modes for verifying the “liveness” or capturing a “live photograph” of the customers for conducting Digital KYC/e-KYC beyond the traditional “blinking of eyes” to ensure inclusivity and user-convenience.
Cause Title- Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 599)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
19) Eyewitness to prove rash & negligent driving will not be available in all cases: Supreme Court upholds MACT award
The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the claimants in a motor accident case and held that eyewitnesses to prove rash and negligent driving will not be available in all cases.
The claimants had approached the Court challenging an Order of the High Court which allowed the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the claim petition for reason of no eyewitness having been examined to prove the rash and negligent driving.
Cause Title- Meera Bai & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 600)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
20) Contributory negligence will be equal when deceased car driver didn’t take sufficient care while undertaking & lorry was not being driven at normal speed
Determining the deceased car driver's negligence at 50%, the Court awarded half the amount of compensation to the claimants and explained that neither the car driver took sufficient care while undertaking the lorry nor the lorry was being driven at a normal speed.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the claimants from an Order of the High Court, determining the contributory negligence of the deceased driver of the car, whose death was sought to be compensated at 70%.
Cause Title- Smt. M. Sabitha & Ors. v. Brahma Swamulu & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 601)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
21) Amount granted is far higher: Supreme Court upholds ₹27l compensation granted for permanent disability suffered by minor girl in motor accident
The Court upheld the award of Rs 27 lakh granted as compensation for the amputation and permanent disability suffered by a minor girl in a motor accident.
The Special Leave Petition before the Court was filed against the Order of the Orissa High Court enhancing the compensation granted to the minor child of the appellant for the injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident leading to amputation and permanent disability of the minor child. The petitioner sought further enhancement of the compensation.
Cause Title- Rina Rani Mallick v. Susim Kanti Mohanty & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 602)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
22) Story put up by prosecution full of holes, raises reasonable doubt: Supreme Court acquits two rape accused
The Court acquitted two men in an alleged case of rape after finding that the story put up by the prosecution raised a grave suspicion which qualified as reasonable doubt.
The accused Appellants were alleged to have committed rape and were arrayed along with two others, before the Trial Court. They stood convicted for abduction and rape while the other two were convicted for abduction alone.
Cause Title- Keshav S/o Laxman Rupnar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 604)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
23) Court u/s. 34 A&C Act can rectify computational, clerical, or typographical errors in arbitral award if such modification doesn't require merits-based evaluation
The Court held that a Court reviewing an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act possesses the authority to rectify computational, clerical, or typographical errors, as well as other manifest errors, provided that such modification does not necessitate a merits-based evaluation.
The Court, in a 4:1 majority, held that Courts have a limited power to modify an arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Cause Title- Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 605)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice KV Viswanathan, and Justice Augustine George Masih
24) High Court can’t invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 Constitution to entertain prayer for rejection of plaint
The Court held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 can’t be invoked to entertain a prayer for rejection of the plaint.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court in rejecting the plaint in exercise of its supervisory powers under Article 227.
Cause Title- K. Valarmathi & Ors. V. Kumaresan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 606)
Date of Judgment- April 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
25) Services provided were directly relatable to import of goods: Supreme Court dismisses Appeal of Coal India Ltd. in customs case
The Court dismissed the Civil Appeal of the M/s. Coal India Limited (CIL) in a customs case.
The Appeal before the Court was filed under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata.
Cause Title- M/s. Coal India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Customs House, Kolkata (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 609)
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
26) Unauthorised construction has to be demolished: Supreme Court cautions about 'judicial regularisation'
While highlighting the fact that law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours, the Court emphasized that the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority.
The Court was considering a Special Leave Petition where the Petitioner sought the regularisation of an unauthorised construction.
Cause Title- Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 610)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
27) Mere non-payment of sale price not an offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating
The Court held that non-payment of the sale price cannot be an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
The Court allowed an Appeal and set aside the Order of the Gujarat High Court, which refused to quash an FIR registered against the director (Appellant) of an import and export company registered in Sri Lanka for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
Cause Title- Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 614)
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti
28) Inhuman practice of two-finger test not to be repeated on sexual assault victims: Supreme Court while upholding gang rape conviction
The Court while upholding a gang rape conviction, re-emphasized that the inhuman practice of two-finger test shall not be repeated on sexual assault victims.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused, challenging the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which confirmed his conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge for the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Cause Title- Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 615)
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
29) Arbitral tribunal has power to implead non-signatories to arbitration agreement on its own accord
The Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal has power to implead a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement and proceedings on its own accord.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the Appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and affirmed the Order of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Cause Title- ASF Buildtech Private Limited v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 616)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
30) Alternative relief u/s. 22 Specific Relief Act, including refund of earnest money, cannot be granted suo moto by Courts
The Court clarified that while a plaint can be amended at any stage to seek alternative relief like refund of earnest money, Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act prohibits Courts from granting such relief suo moto, as the inclusion of a prayer clause is a sine qua non.
The Court, while also delving into the validity of the forfeiture of advance money, dismissed an Appeal challenging the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which affirmed that the advance money paid, being primarily a security for the due performance of a contract, was rightfully forfeited. The Court further emphasised on the law regarding the alternative relief of refund under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (the Act).
Cause Title- K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 617)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
31) Licensed stamp vendor is a public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act
While remarking that the role performed by a licensed stamp vendor is a “highly important public duty essential for ensuring the efficient collection of revenue on behalf of the State,” the Court held that a licensed stamp vendor falls within the ambit of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court set aside the conviction of a stamp vendor (Appellant) in a bribery case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), which the Delhi High Court earlier upheld. The Court held that the Appellant was eligible to receive a discount on the purchase of stamp papers owing to the license that he was holding.
Cause Title- Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 618]
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
32) Employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered for promotions, unless disqualified
While allowing the appeal of a Police Constable seeking consideration for promotion, the Court held that an employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified.
The Appellant, a Police Constable in the service of the State of Tamil Nadu approached the Apex Court challenging the denial of consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
Cause Title- P. Sakthi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 620)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
33) Creating fake orders of Court one of the most dreaded acts of contempt, has inbuilt intention of committing forgery of record: Supreme Court confirms conviction of 3 accused
While confirming the conviction of three accused persons for creating bogus orders of the Madras High Court, the Court held that creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court.
The three Appellants before the Court stood convicted by the High Court for committing contempt of Court and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The Appellants called in question the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the High Court in the Appeals.
Cause Title- Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 619)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
34) NCLT & NCLAT do not have jurisdiction to review decision of statutory authority under PMLA
The Court in its recent Judgment, held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) do not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the Statutory Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals filed against the Judgment of the NCLAT, New Delhi in the Company Appeals filed by various parties.
Cause Title- Kalyani Transco v. M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 621)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
35) Recruitment Rules’ amendment with retrospective effect which takes away individual’s right violates Articles 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution
The Court held that an amendment of the Recruitment Rules with retrospective effect, which takes away an individual’s right, violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Madras High Court in a dispute concerning seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Tamil Nadu State.
Cause Title- R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 612)
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
36) While absence of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is curable defect, its compliance remains crucial to ensure enforceability & representative effect of orders passed
The Court observed that while the absence of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is a curable defect, its compliance remains crucial to ensure the enforceability and representative effect of the Orders passed.
The Court observed thus in Civil Appeals filed against the Orders of the Madras High Court, which declared re-election of all the office bearers since it was held that the electoral college itself was flawed and appointed committee of administrators to conduct re-elections.
Cause Title- Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 622)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
37) Reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right: Supreme Court directs admission of MBBS aspirant in PwBD quota in AIIMS
The Court observed that reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution.
The Court observed thus while directing AIIMS to allocate a seat to a medical aspirant with locomotor disability in the MBBS UG course 2025 against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota.
Cause Title- Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission And Other (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 623)
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
38) Remarks questioning manhood, though hurtful, cannot itself be construed as sufficient provocation for abetment of suicide
The Court held that alleged remarks questioning a person’s manhood, though hurtful, cannot by itself be construed as sufficient provocation for abetment of suicide.
The Court set aside the Judgment of the Madras High Court, which dismissed the Petitions by the Appellants under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the chargesheet against them under Section 306 of the IPC. The Court held that merely because the alleged act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide.
Cause Title- Shenbagavalli & Ors. v. The Inspector Of Police, Kancheepuram District & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 607)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
39) Accused is a 71-year-old individual afflicted with various ailments: Supreme Court reduces jail sentence in 30-year-old cheating & forgery case
In light of the fact that the accused is a 71-year-old man who has suffered three heart attacks and the incident is more than 30 years old, the Court reduced the sentence of the accused in a case of cheating and forgery which was related to a supply order of the Road Construction Department.
The Appeal before the Court was preferred against the Judgment of the Patna High Court whereby the Appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order of conviction and sentence by the Special Judge CBI-II, stood dismissed.
Cause Title- Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India Through Director, CBI (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 608)
Date of Judgment- April 30, 2025
Coram- Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
