Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: December 8 – December 12, 2025
1) Evidence of hostile witness not to be totally rejected; it has to be subjected to closer scrutiny
While acquitting two men in a case pertaining to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Court reiterated that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of either the prosecution or the accused. The Court reaffirmed that the same would have to be subjected to closer scrutiny.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Appeal filed by the Appellants, who were convicted in a case registered under Sections 354 and 323 of the IPC as well as Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Cause Title- Dadu @ Ankush v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1395)
Date of Judgment- December 8, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
2) Mechanical route taken in releasing accused by granting anticipatory bail: Supreme Court directs accused to surrender in ₹3 crore misappropriation case
The Court set aside an Order releasing an accused booked for allegedly misappropriating more than Rs 3 crore. The Court held that the High Court, vide the impugned Order, appeared to take a mechanical route in releasing the accused under the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the final Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the Respondent accused came to be enlarged on bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Cause Title- Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1396)
Date of Judgment- December 8, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
3) Omission of accused’s name in FIR completely impeaches credibility of prosecution case: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court acquitted a man in murder case, saying that the omission of name of the accused in the FIR (First Information Report) completely impeaches credibility of prosecution case.
A Criminal Appeal was filed against the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which upheld the conviction of the accused.
Cause Title- Govind Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1399)
Date of Judgment- December 8, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
4) Complainant’s house can’t be considered to be "place within public view" to attract offence u/s.3(1)(s) SC/ST Act
While quashing a criminal case registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Court held that the house of the Complainant cannot be considered to be within public view.
The Court further held that the essential requirement of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) was not satisfied. The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed. The said Appeal was instituted against an Order of the Trial Court summoning the Appellants to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Cause Title- Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1397)
Date of Judgment- December 8, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge government’s economic or fiscal policy
The Court held that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts cannot be exercised in public interest to question economic or fiscal policy decisions undertaken by the Government or its functionaries. The Court observed that revision of property tax by municipal authorities falls within the domain of policy determination and is not ordinarily open to interference in a public interest writ petition.
The Court was hearing Appeals filed by Akola Municipal Corporation challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had quashed the Corporation’s resolution revising property tax rates for the period 2017–18 to 2021–22 pursuant to a public interest litigation.
Cause Title- Akola Municipal Corporation & Another v. Zishan Hussain Azhar Hussain & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1398)
Date of Judgment- December 8, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Power of Arbitral Tribunal to pass order to terminate proceedings lies only u/s. 32(2) A&C Act
The Court held that the power of the Arbitral Tribunal to pass an Order to terminate the proceedings under the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) lies only in Section 32(2).
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal arising from the Judgment and Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the Petition for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section(s) 11(5) and (6) of the A&C Act was rejected.
Cause Title- Harshbir Singh Pannu and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1400)
Date of Judgment- December 8, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
7) Referral court u/s 11 A&C Act not deprived of jurisdiction from examining whether non-signatory is in real sense party to agreement
The Court held that the Referral Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is not deprived of its jurisdiction from examining whether the non-signatory is in the real sense a party to the arbitration agreement.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Bombay High Court by which Section 11(4) Application under A&C Act was allowed and an Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties.
Cause Title- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1401)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
8) No wrongful dispossession; land covered by sale deed in favour of accused: Supreme Court quashes FIR under SC-ST Act
The Court quashed a case registered under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after noting that there was no wrongful dispossession of a member of a Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe from the land.
The Court noted that the FIR based on the First Information Statement was a clear abuse of the process of law. The Appellants approached the Court challenging an Order refusing to quash the proceedings.
Cause Title- Amal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1402)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
9) Corporation cannot reject gratuity claim on ground of resignation if not exempted from Payment of Gratuity Act
The Court held that gratuity cannot be denied to an employee merely because they resigned from service when the employer continues to be governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and has not obtained a statutory exemption from its applicability. The Court clarified that the right to gratuity is a statutory entitlement, independent of pension rules, and resignation does not operate as a bar to such entitlement where the establishment remains subject to the Act.
The Court was hearing an Appeal against the dismissal of claims for pension, gratuity, and leave encashment made by a former conductor of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), whose resignation was accepted by the Corporation.
Cause Title- Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead Through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi Transport Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1404)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
10) Any unnecessary remand by higher court generates fresh round of litigation & it should be avoided
While dealing with a matter involving the correction of a map for a plot where the case was remanded to the Additional Collector, the Court held that any unnecessary remand by a Higher Court generates fresh round of litigation, which should be avoided.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Order passed by the Allahabad High Court remanding the case to the Additional Collector (Judicial) for consideration afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
Cause Title- Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1405)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
11) Contempt jurisdiction not an "armour for judges"; bona fides of apology must be assessed before imposing punishment
The Court held that a High Court exercising contempt jurisdiction must examine whether an apology tendered by the alleged contemnor satisfies the statutory requirements under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act before imposing punishment.
The Court was hearing an Appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, challenging the Bombay High Court’s Order convicting the Appellant for criminal contempt, sentencing her to one week’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000. The proceedings arose from a suo motu criminal contempt action initiated by the Bombay High Court over a circular issued by the Appellant containing statements scandalising the judiciary.
Cause Title- Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Own Motion (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1408)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
12) Material placed by financial creditor in Section 7 IBC application should be examined; corporate debtor can’t delay process by raising moonshine defence
The Court reiterated that the proceedings under the IBC cannot be defeated by a corporate debtor by raising a moonshine defence only to delay the process. The Court further affirmed that the adjudicating authority must advert to the contentions put forth on the application filed under Section 7 of the IBC and examine the material placed before it by the financial creditor.
In the matter before the Court, the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by an operational creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was in issue.
Cause Title- M/s. Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries v. Mohammad Moinuddin Khan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1410)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
13) Substitution of sole arbitrator is warranted when his mandate ceases to exist
The Court held that the substitution of a sole arbitrator is warranted, when his mandate ceases to exist to effectuate the object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which mandates expeditious resolution of the dispute.
The Court further explained that on expiry of the initial period or extended period, the arbitrator cannot proceed with the arbitration proceeding and his mandate terminates, subject to an order of the Court passed in a proceeding under Section 29A(4). The Court was considering the Appeals filed against an Order of the Delhi High Court by which it had declined substitution of a sole arbitrator but had extended his mandate under Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for a further period of four months.
Cause Title- Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. M/s Bharat Textiles & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1409)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
14) Time is crucial facet of scheme under IBC; can't allow proceedings to lapse into indefinite delay
The Court reiterated that time is a crucial facet of the scheme under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and to allow proceedings to lapse into indefinite delay would plainly defeat the very object of the statute.
The Court reiterated thus in Civil Appeals filed by a company challenging the Judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which dismissed its Appeals.
Cause Title- M/s. Shri Karshni Alloys Private Limited v. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1411)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
15) Infliction of knife blows on unarmed person at vital parts of body indicative of acting cruelly: Supreme Court refuses to convert conviction u/s. 302 to 304 IPC
While refusing to reduce the period of sentence imposed upon an accused in a case of murder, the Court held that the infliction of 4 knife blows to an unarmed person, on vital parts of the body, is indicative of the accused acting in a cruel manner.
The Appeal was filed by a man who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The impugned Order of the High Court affirmed his conviction.
Cause Title- Surender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1412)
Date of Judgment- December 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
16) Supreme Court summarizes principles on power of police to seize property u/s 102 CrPC
The Court summarized the principles on the power of police to seize property under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal in which the question that arose was whether, when proceedings initiated against a person are only under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act), would it be open for the investigating authorities (police) to freeze the accounts of the accused persons under Section 102 of CrPC.
Cause Title- The State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1413)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
17) Section 36(1)(viii) Income Tax Act not a general exemption; deduction limited to profits from long-term finance
The Court held that a deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is confined strictly to profits derived from the business of providing long-term finance and does not operate as a general exemption for all income earned by a statutory financial corporation.
The Court was hearing a challenge to a common Judgment of the Delhi High Court upholding Orders of the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and ITAT, all of which held that the disputed receipts were not profits “derived from” the business of providing long-term finance. The matter arose from Appeals filed by the National Cooperative Development Corporation challenging the disallowance of deduction on three income streams: dividend income, interest on short-term bank deposits, and service charges received for monitoring Sugar Development Fund loans.
Cause Title- National Cooperative Development Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1414)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
18) ICC has jurisdiction under POSH Act over employee of different workplace where aggrieved woman isn’t working
The Court held that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace has jurisdiction over an employee of a different workplace under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [POSH Act].
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, which confirmed the Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Cause Title- Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1415)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
19) Supreme Court issues directives on pending criminal cases under UAPA like laws which poses reverse burden of proof on accused
The Court has requested Chief Justices of all High Courts to examine the number of cases pending within their States under laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), posing a reverse burden of proof on the accused.
The Court was hearing Criminal Appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court, by which six accused persons were released on bail.
Cause Title- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1418)
Date of Judgment- December 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
20) Minor procedural lapses u/s. 52-A NDPS Act not fatal when evidence proves conscious possession
The Court upheld the conviction of a woman accused under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), holding that minor lapses in the sampling process do not undermine an otherwise cogent prosecution.
The Court was hearing an Appeal against concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Madras High Court, both of which had affirmed the Appellant’s conviction for conscious possession of 23.5 kg of Ganja, a commercial quantity.
Cause Title- Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1417)
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul Pancholi
21) Invocation of COVID-19 regulations constituted requisitioning of medical services; PMGKY-Package extends to all requisitioned doctors
The Court held that the invocation of statutory powers under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Maharashtra Prevention and Containment of COVID-19 Regulations, 2020, constituted a requisition of medical professionals, including private practitioners, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court was hearing a challenge to the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed the claim of the widow of a deceased medical practitioner in a writ petition seeking insurance benefits under the PMGKY scheme. The High Court had concluded that the deceased doctor’s services were not “requisitioned” and therefore his family was not entitled to coverage.
Cause Title- Pradeep Arora & Ors. v. Director, Health Department, Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1420)
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan
22) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act shall override provisions in rent control legislations
The Court held that the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 shall override the provisions in the Rent Control Legislations. The Court held thus in a batch of cases in which the issue under reference was whether the provisions of the PP Act, 1971 would prevail over the respective State Rent Control legislations, in relation to premises let out prior to the commencement of the said Act, as against the premises let out after its enforcement but before their acquisition or transfer to the Government or any statutory corporation, by which the character of such premises stood transformed into “public premises” within the meaning of the Act.
In view of two conflicting Judgments on the aspect of overriding applicability of the PP Act as against State Rent Control Legislations, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court passed an Order in 2015, referring the matters for adjudication by a three-Judge Bench.
Cause Title- Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vita (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1419)
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
23) Foundation of any claim based on equity has to be devoid of element of negative discrimination
The Court in a compassionate appointment related case, observed that the foundation of any claim based on equity has to be devoid of the element of negative discrimination.
The Court was hearing eight Civil Appeals arising out of a common Judgment of the Madras High Court passed in the Review Applications.
Cause Title- The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1423)
Date of Judgment- December 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
24) Liability under Motor Vehicles Act must be established through credible evidence: Supreme Court upholds claim dismissal
The Court upheld the dismissal of a claim in a motor accident case after noting that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle. The Court also held that the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act must be established through credible evidence.
The Court was considering Appeals challenging the Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Appellants, the legal representatives of both the deceased. The High Court had affirmed the Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that dismissed the claim petitions filed by the Appellants.
Cause Title- Sithara N.S. & Ors. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1425)
Date of Judgment- December 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
