Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: March 3 – March 7, 2025
1) Principle of comity of Courts & pre-existing Order of Foreign Court must yield to the best interests of child
The Court reiterated that the principle of comity of Courts and a pre-existing Order of a Foreign Court must yield to the best interests of the child, especially when the Court has decided to conduct an elaborate enquiry in this regard.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal in which the controversy was related to the custody of a 22-year-old citizen of the United States of America (USA) who was diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy.
Cause Title- Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 299)
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan
2) Visually impaired candidates eligible to participate in selection for judicial service posts: Supreme Court strikes down Rule 6A of MP Judicial Service Recruitment Rules
The Court struck down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 insofar as it excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates for appointment in judicial service.
The Court held that visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in selection for the posts under the judicial service. The Court had taken a suo-motu cognizance of a Letter Petition in March 2024, which was addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) by the mother of a judicial aspirant who was a visually impaired candidate.
Cause Title- In Re: Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 300)
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
3) Business of laundry including dry cleaning covered by ‘manufacturing process’ under Factories Act
The Court held that the business of laundry involving cleaning and washing of clothes including dry cleaning would be covered by the expression ‘manufacturing process’ under the Factories Act, 1948.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the Goa State against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Goa by which it quashed the Order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).
Cause Title- The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 306)
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
4) Judiciary to reflect heightened vigilance when young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within 2 years of marriage: Supreme Court cancels bail granted to parents-in-law
Underscoring the seriousness of a case of alleged dowry death where a young bride died within 2 years of marriage, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the parents-in-law after highlighting the mechanical approach adopted by the Allahabad High Court in allowing the bail pleas.
The Court was considering four Criminal Appeals preferred against four separate orders of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the Respondents (in-laws of the deceased woman).
Cause Title- X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 307)
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) Supreme Court quashes rape case, says 16 yr continued sexual relationship sufficient to conclude no element of force or deceit
The Court quashed a rape case holding that the prolonged period of 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship.
The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the Order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the Appellant’s Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the proceedings under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The Complainant had alleged that the Appellant had engaged in a physical relationship with her for over a period of 16 years on false assurances of marriage.
Cause Title- Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 308)
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Law favours the diligent & not the indolent: Supreme Court restores Order rejecting Application for condonation of delay of 1312 days
The Court restored an Order of the Trial Court rejecting the Application for condonation of delay of 1312 days in a property dispute matter after noting that the Application to set aside the ex-parte decree was purely experimental and there was falsity writ large in the submission of the lawyer having misplaced the files.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Order whereby the High Court allowed the plea of condonation of delay, thereby setting aside the ex-parte decree on payment of cost of Rs 1 lakh.
Cause Title- K. Ramasamy v. R. Nallammal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 310)
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
7) Conviction solely on opinion of handwriting expert without substantial corroboration hazardous
The Court reiterated that basing a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert’s evidence without substantial corroboration would be hazardous.
The Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 of the IPC for allegedly preparing a postal cover used to transmit a forged marksheet. The Bench referred to the ‘locus classicus’ on this issue in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980), wherein the Supreme Court laid down the principles with regard to the extent to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of an expert witness and when corroboration of such evidence may be sought.
Cause Title- C. Kamalakkannan v. State Of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 309)
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
8) Legal remedies for ‘delay condonation’ & ‘setting aside ex-parte decree’ are different
The Court set aside an Order of the Telangana High Court as it proceeded automatically to restore a suit for specific performance and observed that the legal remedies concerning setting aside the ex-parte decree and condoning the delay are different and independent.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the Appellants challenging the Order of the Telangana High Court whereby the ex-parte decree was set aside and the Suit was restored.
Cause Title- C Prabhakar Rao and Anr v. Sama Mahipal Reddy and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 311)
Date of Judgment- March 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
9) Once High Court granted relief to similarly placed persons, it ought not to have dismissed professor’s Petition: Supreme Court grants retiral benefits under General Provident Fund Scheme
The Court allowed the Appeal of a former Professor of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University and directed that he be provided retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme.
The Court took note of the fact that the High Court had granted relief to similarly placed persons. The Appeal before the Court arose from an Order of the Patna High Court dismissing the Appellant’s Writ Appeal against the Single Judge’s Order by which the Appellant’s Writ Petition to be included in the University’s General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme of retiral benefits was dismissed.
Cause Title- Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 312)
Date of Judgment- March 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
10) Moratorium u/s 96 IBC doesn’t extend to regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with consumer protection laws
The Court held that the moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) does not extend to regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with consumer protection laws.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in which multiple penalties (27 in total) were imposed on a proprietor for failing to deliver possession of residential units to homebuyers as per the agreed timeline.
Cause Title- Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 314)
Date of Judgment- March 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
11) Party cannot challenge an Order passed on concession or compromise unless fraud or deception is involved
The Court held that once an Order has been passed on a compromise or concession given by a party, that same party cannot challenge the said Order before a higher Court, unless it is a case of fraud or deception.
The Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) challenging the dismissal of their recall applications by the Delhi High Court. The Court clarified that once an employee was considered as an “initial constituent” under the Sports Authority of India (Sports Sciences and Sports Medicine) Staff Recruitment Rules, 1992 (Rules), it would mean that the said person could not be treated as a contractual employee but as a regular employee, who comes under direct enrolment/control of SAI.
Cause Title- Sports Authority Of India & Anr. v. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 319)
Date of Judgment- March 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
12) Merely attending board meetings doesn’t impose financial liability on director; does not attract vicarious liability u/s. 141 NI Act
The Court held that merely attending board meetings does not impose financial liability on a director and thereby, does not attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the NI Act.
The Court quashed criminal proceedings against a non-executive Additional Director (Appellant) of M/s Blue Coast Hotels & Resorts Ltd. (Company) in a cheque bounce case. The Bench allowed the Appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the Appellant’s Petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
Cause Title- K.S. Mehta v. M/s Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 315)
Date of Judgment- March 4, 2025
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
13) Failed to establish that entire amount under post-dated cheques was a legally enforceable debt: Supreme Court sets aside Order enhancing fine in cheque bounce case
The Court set aside the Orders enhancing the fine amount to be paid by the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after noting that the complainant failed to establish that the entire amount under the post-dated cheques, given in relation to a lease-cum-rent agreement, was a legally enforceable debt.
The challenge in the Appeals before the Court was laid to the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, whereby the Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the Appellant were dismissed.
Cause Title- M.S. Nagabhushan v. D.S.Nagaraja (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 316)
Date of Judgment- March 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
14) When dying declaration is suspicious, it's not safe to convict accused in the absence of corroborative evidence
The Court held that it is not safe to convict a person solely on the basis of an uncorroborated dying declaration when it is suspicious.
The Court acquitted a husband (Appellant), who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the alleged murder of his wife. The Court found inconsistencies in the dying declarations of the deceased and held that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the Appellant.
Cause Title- Suresh v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 318)
Date of Judgment- March 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
15) Courts must not hesitate in denying liberty to an accused to ensure corruption free society
The Court emphasised that the Courts should not hesitate in denying liberty to an accused to ensure corruption free society.
The Court emphasised thus in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the Order of the High Court by which it denied anticipatory bail to the accused in a corruption case.
Cause Title- Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 320)
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
16) Necessary to see if expert opinion is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or circumstantial evidence
The Court in an abetment of suicide case, emphasised that it is necessary to see if an expert opinion is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
The Court emphasised thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused persons against the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which affirmed their conviction and sentence in an abetment of suicide case.
Cause Title- Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 322)
Date of Judgment- March 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
17) Oral communication of grounds for detention doesn't amount to adequate communication under Article 22(5) Constitution
The Court quashed the Detention Orders saying that the oral communication even if true did not amount to an adequate communication under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed by the brother of the accused who along with his wife was subjected to preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act).
Cause Title- Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. The State of Nagaland and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 321)
Date of Judgment- March 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih
18) When evidence of three eye witnesses is of sterling quality, failure to examine other alleged eyewitnesses not fatal: Supreme Court upholds murder conviction
The Court upheld the conviction of a Police Constable and others in a murder case after rejecting his alibi plea and finding the evidence of three eyewitnesses to be of sterling quality.
The Apex Court was considering the appeals filed by the accused-appellants challenging their conviction under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Tanaji Shamrao Kale v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 323)
Date of Judgment- March 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
19) Dying declaration is duly proved; lacuna in other evidence insignificant: Supreme Court upholds murder conviction
The Court upheld the conviction of three accused persons in a murder case observing that when the dying declaration made by the deceased is proved, the lacuna in other evidence is insignificant.
The three Appellants, who approached the Court, had been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The first accused was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment.
Cause Title- Suresh @ Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 324)
Date of Judgment- March 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
20) Lawyer must respect decision-making right of client; undertaking to Court can’t be without his requisite authority
The Court emphasised that the Lawyer must respect the decision-making right of the client and any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client.
The Court emphasised thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which Defendants were held guilty of disobedience of their undertaking before the Trial Court of not alienating the property, subject matter of the Suit.
Cause Title- Lavanya C & Anr. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deceased by LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 325)
Date of Judgment- March 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Karol
21) Section 142 NI Act allows filing of complaint before Courts within whose jurisdiction collection branch of bank falls
The Court held that Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) allows the Complainant to file a Complaint before the Courts within whose jurisdiction the collection branch of the Bank falls.
The Court held thus in a Transfer Petition preferred by a proprietary concern through its proprietor under Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), praying to transfer a Criminal Case.
Cause Title- M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 328)
Date of Judgment- March 6, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
22) Supreme Court sets aside COFEPOSA detention; says preventive detention laws cannot be invoked as a tool for enforcement of law & order
The Court set aside the detention under COFEPOSA, reiterating that preventive detention laws, an exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations, should not be invoked in cases as a tool for enforcing law and order.
The Court allowed the Appeal of the wife (Appellant) of the detenu challenging her husband’s preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act). The Bench explained that the Courts are incapable of interference by substituting their own reasoning to upset the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, especially since preventive detention law is not punitive but preventive and precautionary.
Cause Title- Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 327)
Date of Judgment- March 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran
23) Execution proceedings must be completed within 6 months; presiding officer to be answerable otherwise
The Court directed all the High Courts to call for the necessary information from the District Courts regarding the pendency of the Execution Petitions. The Court further directed that once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an Administrative Order or Circular, directing their respective District Judiciary to ensure that the Execution Petitions pending in various Courts shall be decided and disposed of within 6 months without fail otherwise the concerned Presiding Officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.
The Court was deciding Civil Appeals filed against the common Judgment of the Madras High Court, by which it rejected the Revision Petitions and affirmed the Orders of the Additional Subordinate Judge (ASJ), allowing the Application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and rejecting the one seeking amendment in the Execution Petition.
Cause Title- Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 329)
Date of Judgment- March 6, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal
24) Conclusion of trial won’t have bearing on adjudication of application u/s 319 CrPC in terms of HC’s directions in Revisional Order
The Court held that the conclusion of trial will not have a bearing on the adjudication of an Application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) in terms of the directions of the High Court in its Revisional Order.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which rejected an Application and affirmed the Sessions Court’s Order summoning the accused persons under Section 319 of CrPC.
Cause Title- Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 330)
Date of Judgment- March 6, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
25) Each vote has its own value irrespective of its effect in final outcome of an election; its sanctity has to be protected
The Court has observed that each vote has its own value irrespective of its effect in the final outcome of the election which is why its sanctity has to be protected. The Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed the Order for a recount of votes in the election for Gram Pradhan on the grounds that the recount was ordered without any documentary evidence.
The Court restored the Order for recount, finding that the allegations of discrepancies in vote counting, missing electoral records, and affidavits submitted by three of the four candidates raised substantial concerns regarding the fairness of the election process.
Cause Title- Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 332)
Date of Judgment- March 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
26) Findings of fact can’t be disturbed by High Court in second Appeal unless they are perverse: Supreme Court grants relief to elderly landlord
The Court allowed a Civil Appeal filed by a septuagenarian landlord against an octogenarian tenant and held that the substantial question of law was entirely a question of fact and not open to adjudication by the High Court in the second appeal.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the Judgment of the Orissa High Court allowing the tenant’s Appeal.
Cause Title- Rabindranath Panigrahi v. Surendra Sahu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 333)
Date of Judgment- March 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
27) Mere empanelment or enlistment doesn’t result in accrual of indefeasible right in candidate’s favour
The Court observed that mere empanelment or enlistment does not result in accrual of any indefeasible right in favour of an empanelled or a selected candidate.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed by the Assam State and its officers against the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court’s Division Bench.
Cause Title- State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 334)
Date of Judgment- March 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
28) Can’t direct funds in liquidation proceedings for payment of unearned income due to large number of claims: Supreme Court dismisses DDA’s plea
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), saying that it cannot direct the funds available in liquidation proceedings for payment of the unearned income due to large number of claims.
The Appeal before the Court arose from the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a lease case.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 337)
Date of Judgment- March 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
29) Supreme Court allows discharge in electrocution case; says absence of safety measures doesn’t meet the threshold required u/s. 304 Part II IPC
The Court allowed the discharge of accused in an electrocution case while holding that absence of safety measures would not make out a prima facie case under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court set aside the Judgment of the Bombay High Court which rejected the discharge applications by the Appellants.
The employees engaged in the work of decoration of a shop were struck by electricity as a result of which they got electrocuted and fell down. It was alleged that the Appellants had not provided safety equipment such as safety belts, helmets, or rubber shoes to the deceased employees.
Cause Title- Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 338)
Date of Judgment- March 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
30) Supreme Court upholds conviction in 1984 rape case; says absence of injuries on private parts of victim not always fatal to prosecution’s case
The Court upheld the conviction of an accused in a rape case dating back to 1984 reiterating that the absence of injuries on the private parts of a victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court which upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC. The Court held that merely because in the medical evidence, there were no major injury marks, the same cannot be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the victim.
Cause Title- Lok Mal @ Loku v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 344)
Date of Judgment- March 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B Varale
31) Supreme Court acquits govt. employees in corruption case; says prosecution could not prove allegations of demand & acceptance of bribe
The Court acquitted two government employees in a corruption case because the prosecution could not establish and prove the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court.
The Appeals arose from a case involving an alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe by an Enforcement Inspector and an Office Assistant in the Supply Department, leading to their prosecution under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
Cause Title- Madan Lal v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 340)
Date of Judgment- March 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran
32) Far more takers of govt jobs than there are jobs available: Supreme Court cancels bail of two accused for taking assistance of dummy candidate in exam
The Court set aside the bail granted to two accused persons for using a dummy candidate in a Civil Engineer Competitive Examination while highlighting the reality that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available.
The Appeal before the Court filed by the State questioned the correctness of the final judgment of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to two accused in a case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022.
Cause Title- The State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 341)
Date of Judgment- March 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
33) POCSO Act| Section 42A can’t override scope of Section 42 mandating punishment of greater degree: Supreme court Confirms conviction of man for sexually assaulting minor daughter
The Court confirmed the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting his minor daughter and held that the provisions of Section 42A of POCSO Act can’t be interpreted to override the scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., Section 42. Section 42 mandates that when the alleged acts or omissions constitute offence both under the IPC and the POCSO Act then the law which prescribes the punishment of greater degree would have to be applied.
The Appeal before the Court was preferred on behalf of the Appellant-accused challenging the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Jail Appeal preferred by the Appellant convicted under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Cause Title- Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of UP (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 335)
Date of Judgment- March 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
34) Subsequent cancellation of power of attorney will have no effect on conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred
The Court observed that the subsequent cancellation of the power of attorney will have no effect on the conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Order of the High Court reversing the rejection of a plaint on the ground of limitation.
Cause Title- V. Ravikumar v. S. Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 343)
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
