Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: February 3 – February 7, 2025
1) There cannot be discrimination between PwBD & PwD candidates in granting scribes & other such facilities in writing the exams
The Court held that there can be no discrimination between PwBD and PwD candidates in granting facilities such as scribes, compensatory time, etc. in writing the examination.
The Court allowed the Writ Petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Petitioner diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia (Writer’s Cramp) seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection directing them to provide the facility of a scribe, compensatory time, and other necessary accommodations to Persons with Disabilities (PwD) candidates.
Cause Title- Gulshan Kumar v. Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 142)
Date of Judgment- February 3, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
2) If forfeiture of earnest money under a contract is reasonable, it won’t fall within Section 74 of Indian Contract Act
The Court reiterated that if the forfeiture of earnest money under a contract is reasonable, then it does not fall within Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA), inasmuch as, such a forfeiture does not amount to imposing a penalty.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) by which it disposed of a Consumer Complaint.
Cause Title- Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 143)
Date of Judgment- February 3, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
3) Supreme Court dismisses NHAI’s Application seeking prospective Application of 2019 ruling in Tarsem Singh case
The Court dismissed NHAI’s Application seeking prospective application of its judgment in Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors (2019) while reaffirming the principles established in that case regarding the beneficial nature of granting ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’.
The Miscellaneous Application, before the Apex Court, was filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) through its Project Director, seeking clarification regarding the judgment Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019) to the extent that the judgment is to be applied prospectively, thereby precluding the reopening of cases where land acquisition proceedings have already been completed and the determination of compensation had also attained finality.
Cause Title- Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh and others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 146)
Date of Judgment- February 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
4) Court must proceed cautiously with other evidence where accused persons are unknown & not named in FIR: SC in robbery case
The Court observed that where the accused persons are unknown and are not named in the FIR, the Court must proceed cautiously with other evidence.
The Court observed thus in two Criminal Appeals preferred by the accused persons against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court by which the Trial Court’s Judgment was upheld.
Cause Title- Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 145)
Date of Judgment- February 4, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
5) Extra-judicial confession lacks credibility, unsafe to sustain conviction on weak circumstantial evidence: SC orders acquittal of murder convict
The Court quashed the conviction of a man booked for allegedly murdering his wife after noting that the extra-judicial confession made before the witnesses lacked credibility and the circumstantial evidence was weak.
The Appeal by special leave was directed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the accused appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (IPC). He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
Cause Title- Ramu Appa Mahapatar Appellant v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 147)
Date of Judgment- February 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
6) Burden upon department is limited in disciplinary enquiry; required to prove its case on principle of preponderance of probabilities
The Court clarified that in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the Principle of Preponderance of Probabilities.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court by which the Division Bench allowed an Appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s Order.
Cause Title- Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 149)
Date of Judgment- February 4, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) State Transport Authority can delegate its functions u/s 68(5) MV Act: SC upholds repeal of Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act
The Court held that the State Transport Authority (STA) can delegate its functions under Section 68(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 is constitutional.
The Court held thus in a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred by the Private Bus Operators and Karnataka State Road Transport Authority against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
Cause Title- M/s. S.R.S. Travels v. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Workers & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 152)
Date of Judgment- February 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
8) Insurance claim cannot be repudiated on frivolous ground; non-payment of authorisation fee does not invalidate valid permit
The Court, while setting aside NCDRC’s Order, has held that an insurance claim cannot be repudiated on a frivolous ground that in the absence of non-depositing of authorisation fee, a National Permit cannot be said to be a valid permit. The Court allowed the Appeal against the Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which held that the insurance claim cannot be allowed in the absence of any valid permit.
The Bench held that the Appellant was not only entitled to the entire claim amount right from the date it became due but was also entitled to the interest on it from the date of the complaint made before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission).
Cause Title- Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 154)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
9) Offence u/s 276CC Income Tax Act is committed as soon as there is assessee’s failure in furnishing return within due time
The Court observed that an offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA) is said to have been committed as soon as there is an assessee’s failure in furnishing the return of income within the due time.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court by which it rejected a Writ Petition and upheld the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT).
Cause Title- Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 155)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sanjay Karol
10) Well-reasoned Single Bench Judgment reversed by merely relying on affidavit by BDA: SC sets aside HC Division Bench Judgment
The Court set aside the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court which upheld the acquisition of the Appellant's land for a development project by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
The Single Bench had earlier quashed the acquisition Order.
Cause Title- D.M. Jagadish v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 157)
Date of Judgment- February 4, 2025
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran
11) Normally Courts & Tribunals have to apply multiplier as per ruling in Sarla Verma case; Any deviation from the same warrants special reasons
The Court enhanced the compensation in a case of motor accident and set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby compensation was substantially reduced and no special reason was recorded while applying the split method.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the impugned order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a motor accident case. The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹28,66,994. However, the High Court reduced the compensation to ₹19,66,833 observing that the deceased was to remain in service only for another 2 years and thereafter would have retired. A split method for the calculation of dependency was applied.
Cause Title- Maya Singh and Others v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 161)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
12) Maximum sentence for attempt to murder u/s. 307 IPC, if life is avoided, can only be 10 years
The Court set aside an Order of the Appellate Court granting 12 years rigorous imprisonment for attempt to murder under section 307 of the IPC and explained that the maximum sentence under this provision, if life is avoided, can only be a maximum of 10 years.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by a man who was accused of perpetrating continuous harassment on his wife and children.
Cause Title- Ganesan v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. By Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 158)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
13) Father's remarriage can’t stand against claim for child custody; Grandparents can’t have better claim than him
The Court ruled that the father’s remarriage can’t stand against the claim for custody and grandparents cannot have a better claim than the father, who is the natural guardian.
The Appellant, father of a minor child, assailed the order of the Writ Court in a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition which denied the custody of the child who was with his grand-parents after his mother passed away.
Cause Title- Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 159)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
14) Implicating relatives in domestic violence cases without specific allegations & proceeding without prima facie evidence amounts to abuse of law
The Court observed that in domestic violence cases, implicating relatives without specific allegations and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence, amounts to abuse of the process of law.
The Court observed thus in Criminal Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which it refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused persons.
Cause Title- Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 160)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
15) Just compensation to be paid to claimant even though he agreed to consolidated sum before HC: SC enhances motor accident compensation
The Court enhanced the compensation in a motor accident case where the claimant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It reiterated that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the Judgment of the Orissa High Court which in turn was preferred against the Judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.
Cause Title- Hare Krushna Mahanta v. Himadri Sahu & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 165)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
16) Notifications under Minimum Wages Act can be considered in absence of evidence to evaluate monthly income: SC enhances motor accident compensation
The Court granted over Rs 20 lakh to a victim labourer as motor accident compensation and reiterated that notifications under the Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor when there is no evidence available to evaluate monthly income.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which in turn was preferred against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.
Cause Title- Jitendra v. Sadiya & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 166)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
17) Glaring inconsistencies concerning recoveries made by police pursuant to alleged disclosure made by accused: SC acquits man in murder case
The Court acquitted a man (Appellant) accused of murder while holding that there were glaring inconsistencies with respect to the recoveries made by the police pursuant to the alleged disclosure made by the Appellant.
The Court set aside the Order of conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC which was upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court. However, the Supreme Court found serious doubts in the prosecution’s case as it failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Cause Title- Raja Khan v. State Of Chattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 167)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan
18) "Was there anything more sinister?": SC quashes suicide abetment case; orders reinvestigation by SIT
While questioning whether there was anything more sinister to the circumstances of an alleged suicide by a girl, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to reinvestigate the unnatural death.
The Directions came from the Judgment by the Court hearing an Appeal under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court which declined to quash the proceedings instituted against the Appellants under Section 306 of the IPC. The Court allowed the Appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the Appellants.
Cause Title- Ayyub & Ors. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 168)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan
19) Informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) Constitution
The Court held that the requirement of informing a person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant alleging violation of his right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution as he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest. The Court clarified that the information about the arrest is completely different from information about the grounds of arrest, therefore, “Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.”
Cause Title- Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 162)
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
