Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: March 24 – March 28, 2025
1) Disturbing pattern of student suicides being reported from various educational institutes across country: Supreme Court constitutes National Task Force to address mental health concerns of students
The Court constituted a National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the commission of suicides in Higher Educational Institutions after observing the disturbing pattern of student suicides being reported from various educational institutes across the country.
The Court addressed the alleged caste-based discrimination and mental health concerns at IIT Delhi following the suicides of two students, Ayush Ashna and Anil Kumar. The families of the deceased students, seeking a criminal investigation into the deaths, alleged caste-based harassment by faculty and peers. The Petitions urged the registration of FIRs and an independent inquiry under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the Delhi Police, after an inquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC, concluded that both deaths were suicides due to academic pressure and found no evidence of caste-based discrimination.
Cause Title- Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 384)
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
2) Public authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness: Supreme Court explains significance of notice u/s. 80 CPC
The Court explained certain important points regarding Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), which deals with the procedure for filing a Suit against the Government or a Public Officer. It observed that, in practice, such notices have often become empty formalities and that the Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which it allowed an Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in a Suit.
Cause Title- Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 383)
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
3) Can’t pass direction to CBI in bail application to register case based on Sec.161 CrPC statement
The Court set aside the direction issued by the High Court in a Bail Application whereby it directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case based on a statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Order of the High Court directing the Director, the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case based on the statement of one Dr. Umakant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 and conduct investigation thereon in a bail application.
Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Ritu Garg & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 385)
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
4) The promise of marriage if any was after the first physical intercourse: Supreme Court quashes rape case
The Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape under the inducement of the promise of marriage.
The Court remarked that in both the alleged instances of rape, the victim stated that she was mentally upset, but that did not caution her from again accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.
Cause Title- Jothiragawan v. State & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 386)
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran
5) Delay in recording witness statements, when it’s explained, will not aid an accused: Supreme Court upholds murder conviction
The Court in a murder case, observed that the delay in recording witness statements moreso when the said delay is explained, will not aid an accused.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the Judgment of the Trial Court was upheld.
Cause Title- Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 387)
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
6) ‘Gift’ if there’s gratuitous grant; ‘settlement’ if there’s mutual love; ‘will’ if there’s declaration of testator’s intention
The Court explained the differences between ‘Gift’, ‘Settlement’, and ‘Will’.
The Court was dealing with a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court, which set aside the concurrent findings of the lower Courts and besides granting a Decree in favour of the Plaintiff, declared her right, title, and interest over the property by virtue of a Settlement Deed.
Cause Title- N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 388)
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
7) Govt employees transferred at their own request are generally placed at the bottom, below junior-most employee in the category in the new cadre or department
Highlighting the difference between transfer of a government employee in the public interest and transfer made at one's own request, the Court explained that subject to specific provisions of the Rules governing the services, the latter transferees are generally placed at the bottom, below the junior-most employee in the category in the new cadre or department.
The Court was considering an Appeal against the Judgment allowing the application of a former Staff Nurse working in the Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy, State of Karnataka.
Cause Title- The Secretary to Government Department of Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 389)
Date of Judgment- March 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
8) Caste slur not made within public view: Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to man accused in SC/ST Act case
The Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused under the SC/ST Act while remarking that the alleged insult/caste slur was not within the public view for attracting Sections 2(1)(r) and 2(1)(s) of the said Act.
The Court allowed the Appeal against the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which rejected the Appellant’s application for anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 364, 511, 307, 343, 419, 506, 120B, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Cause Title- Deepak Kumar Tala v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 390)
Date of Judgment- March 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
9) Wisdom dawned upon parties to settle dispute amicably: Supreme Court ends litigation between flat buyers, bank & builder
The Court, in a dispute amongst flat buyers, builders, and ICICI Bank, remarked that “wisdom dawned upon the three parties in a commercial arrangement to settle the dispute amicably.”
The Court, satisfied with the full compliance of its previous Order by all three parties, closed all matters and directed that “there shall be complete quietus to the litigation.” The Court in 2024 had facilitated a settlement between the parties in an Appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act).
Cause Title- Akshay Gupta & Ors. v. ICICI Bank Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 391)
Date of Judgment- March 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol
10) Mere fact that scooter driver only had learners licence wouldn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion of contributory negligence
The Court clarified that the mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would not necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver.
The Court enhanced the motor accident compensation for the Appellant, a Block Development Officer who lost both his legs in a road accident, holding that he is entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle. Earlier, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) had held that the negligence on the trailer driver was only partial and the scooter driver too contributed to the accident by his negligence.
Cause Title- Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 394)
Date of Judgment- March 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran
11) Overt act occasioned in altercation without any pre-meditation: Supreme Court modifies conviction of accused
The Court modified the conviction of an accused in a case of hit and run where an injured man died in an altercation after noting that the one blow inflicted on the head of the deceased resulted in his death after five days and the overt act was without any pre-meditation and was occasioned in an altercation.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the Appellant, who was the sole accused, out of the three, convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The other two accused were acquitted.
Cause Title- Ravinder Kumar @ Raju v. State of Punjab [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 396)
Date of Judgment- March 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
12) Land acquired is never used in the form it exists; 30% to 50% deduction to be made from the rate for development
While modifying the compensation in a land acquisition matter, the Court reaffirmed that the land acquired has to be first developed either for habitation or industrial purposes, and in such a situation, 30% to 50% deduction is to be made from the rate for such development.
The Appellants-owners approached the Court seeking enhancement in compensation for their land, which was acquired for the benefit of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation.
Cause Title- Manilal Shamalbhai Patel v. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 393)
Date of Judgment- March 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
13) Moulded relief must not take aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice; it’s moulded as exception & not as matter of course
The Court observed that the moulded relief must not take the aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice and that such a relief is moulded as an exception and not as a matter of course.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the confirming Judgment and Decree of the Madras High Court.
Cause Title- J. Ganapatha and Others v. M/s. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 395)
Date of Judgment- March 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
14) Validity of sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of trial: Supreme Court revives disproportionate assets case
The Court reiterated that the validity of a sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of trial.
The Court set aside the Order of the Madras High Court that had quashed criminal proceedings against a former Assistant Director (Respondent) at the Nagercoil Local Planning Authority, accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Court held that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute was illegal and invalid.
Cause Title- State v. G. Easwaran (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 397)
Date of Judgment- March 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
15) Cases of those litigants having no regard for truth & suppressing material facts need to be ‘thrown out’ of court
The Court remarked that the cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be ‘thrown out’ of the Court.
The Court remarked thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused in a cheque dishonourment case, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).
Cause Title- Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 399)
Date of Judgment- March 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
16) IBC| Statutory dues if not part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished
The Court reiterated that the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, or any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished.
The Court was deciding a Contempt Petition filed by M/s JSW Steel Limited under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CCA), alleging wilful disobedience of a 2021 Apex Court’s Judgment passed in a Civil Appeal, by the alleged contemnors.
Cause Title- M/s JSW Steel Limited v. Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 401)
Date of Judgment- March 27, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
17) There must be close proximity between positive act of instigation by accused & commission of suicide by victim
The Court reiterated that the close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide.
The Court upheld the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the FIR against the Respondents who were accused under Section 306 of the IPC. The High Court held that for an offence to be constituted under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a proximate and positive act to instigate in aiding suicide.
Cause Title- R Shashirekha v. State Of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 402)
Date of Judgment- March 27, 2025
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
18) Enmity is a double-edged weapon; possibility of being falsely implicated can’t be ruled out: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court acquitted a man convicted of murder while remarking that the possibility of being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out in the case.
The Court quashed and set aside the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC as imposed by the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Aslam Alias Imran v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 403)
Date of Judgment- March 27, 2025
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
19) We believe in “vasudhaiva kutumbakam”; but we are on brink of “one person one family”
The Court remarked that the very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded and we are on the brink of “one person one family”.
The Court remarked thus while upholding the High Court’s Judgment which set aside an Eviction Order passed by the Tribunal.
Cause Title- Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 404)
Date of Judgment- March 27, 2025
Coram- Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 404)
20) Delay on part of investigating officer in recording statements unfathomable; casts cloud on veracity of testimonies: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court acquitted accused in a murder case after finding the evidence of witnesses to be completely untrustworthy and specious. The Apex Court also highlighted the delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording the statements of the crucial witnesses.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by four accused men challenging the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirming their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of one Mohan Singh under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Cause Title- Arun & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 406)
Date of Judgment- March 27, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
21) They should represent litigants instead of fighting cases against each other: Supreme Court quashes FIRs, ends 7-year-long dispute between lawyers
The Court quashed two FIRs registered at the instance of 2 lawyers against each other and observed that they should contribute to the legal system by representing litigants instead of fighting cases against each other.
The Appeal before the Court arose between the first appellant and the second respondent, who are both members of the Bar and practice before the Courts in Kodaikanal.
Cause Title- Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v. State through the Inspector of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 405)
Date of Judgment- March 27, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
22) Methodically & scientifically fixed circle rates can contribute to strengthening economy & boosting tax collections
The Court emphasised that methodically and scientifically fixed circle rates can contribute to strengthening the economy and boosting tax collections.
The Court emphasised thus in a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC), relating to the applicability of the “theory of deduction” for determining the compensation payable under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act).
Cause Title- Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 408)
Date of Judgment- March 27, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
23) Always appropriate to conduct preliminary inquiry u/s.173(3) BNSS in cases alleging offences covered under Article 19(2) of Constitution
The Court held that when an allegation pertains to an offence covered under the restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, it is appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists before proceeding against the accused.
The Court made the observation while refusing to entertain a Writ Petition challenging the immunity granted to judges from immediate criminal prosecution, citing the recent controversy involving Justice Yashwant Varma and seeking an FIR against him.
Cause Title- Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation No. 2025 INSC 410)
Date of Judgment- March 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
24) Principle of preponderance of probability doesn't provide accurate test; "most akin" test more precise for classification under Customs Act
The Court held that the application of the principle of preponderance of probability does not provide an accurate test and the more accurate and precise test will be whether the goods are “most akin” or most similar to the specified goods, under the Customs Act, 1962.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals in which the issue was whether the imported goods are to be treated as Base Oil as claimed or High-Speed Diesel (HSD) as determined by the Customs Authorities.
Cause Title- Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 411)
Date of Judgment- March 28, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
25) Article 311(1) Constitution| Departmental proceeding against civil servant don’t have to be initiated only by appointing authority
The Court clarified that Article 311(1) of the Constitution does not say that the departmental proceedings against a civil servant have to be initiated only by the appointing authority.
The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the State, setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's Order that had reinstated a civil servant (Respondent) dismissed for financial irregularities and forgery of documents constituting misconduct. The Court ruled that the disciplinary proceedings were lawfully conducted and that the absence of separate approval of the charge-sheet by the Chief Minister did not invalidate the process.
Cause Title- State Of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 412)
Date of Judgment- March 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
26) Parties have spent their adult lives fighting marital battles in courtrooms: Supreme Court grants divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage
While remarking that the parties have already spent a large number of years of their adult lives fighting marital battles in the courtrooms, the Court granted a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The Court, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved the marriage between the parties after noting that the relations between the parties had “evidently grown sour beyond the point of return and such a long period of separation has turned these differences irreconcilable.”
Cause Title- X v. Y & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 413)
Date of Judgment- March 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale
27) Possibility of tampering can’t be ruled out: Supreme Court grants acquittal in NDPS case where seized contraband was kept in separate room in IO’s office for 15 days
While granting acquittal in an NDPS case, the Court held that the fact that the seized contraband was kept by the Investigating Officer in a separate room in his office for fifteen days could give rise to an allegation that the seized contraband was by itself substituted and some other items were planted to falsely implicate the accused.
The Court also highlighted the importance of following the Standing Orders and held that any departure from the same must be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds.
Cause Title- Surepally Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 414)
Date of Judgment- March 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
