Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 26 – May 30, 2025
1) Consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant can’t be a ground for invoking criminal machinery: Supreme Court quashes rape case
The Court quashed rape charges against a man while holding that a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State.
The Court set aside the Order of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed the Appellant’s Petition seeking the quashing of a criminal case under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
Cause Title- Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 782)
Date of Judgment- May 26, 2025
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
2) Supreme Court directs Assam Human Rights Commission to enquire into police encounters between May 2021 and August 2022
The Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct an independent probe into police encounter cases where proper procedure was allegedly not followed in the state between May 2021 and August 2022.
The Bench which disposed of a plea alleging fake encounters by Assam police, said that though a few specific instances might warrant further evaluation, a blanket direction based on a mere compilation of cases was not justified. The plea sought an independent investigation into over 171 police encounters in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022.
Cause Title- Arif Md. Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 785)
Date of Judgment- May 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh
3) Delhi ridge functions as the lungs of the city: Supreme Court disposes of contempt proceedings in unauthorised tree felling in the Delhi ridge
The Court disposed of the Contempt Petitions against Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) vice-chairman Subhasish Panda for allowing the large-scale felling of trees in the southern Ridge's Satbari area to construct a road from Chhattarpur to South Asian University in Delhi.
The Court reiterated that the Delhi Ridge functions as the “lungs of the city,” while issuing directions for “urgent and time-bound remedial measures” to be undertaken by the DDA in coordination with the GNCTD.
Cause Title- Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 784)
Date of Judgment- May 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
4) HC administration under obligation to provide appropriate facilities for lawyers & litigants who throng the Courts
The Court held that the High Court administration is under an obligation to provide appropriate facilities for the lawyers and the litigants who throng the Courts. The Court has provided a "breathing space" to the Chandigarh Administration by keeping in abeyance the contempt proceedings related to the construction of a verandah at the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Court upheld the Orders of the High Court concerning the construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No.1 of the High Court and the placement of green paver blocks. The Chandigarh Administration argued against the verandah construction, highlighting the imminent possibility of the loss of World Heritage status of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, which includes the High Court building, a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2016.
Cause Title- Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court Of Punjab And Haryana, Chandigarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 786)
Date of Judgment- May 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) No continuing public interest: Supreme Court quashes fraud & corruption case after noting settlement between bank & accused
The Court quashed a case of corruption, cheating and fraud registered against two accused persons in light of the fact that a settlement had been arrived at between the Bank and the accused persons. It was further noticed by the Court that there was no continuing public interest and the Bank had not raised any objection to the closure of the matter.
The Appeals before the Court were filed against the Order passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Cause Title- N.S. Gnaneshwaran Etc. v. The Inspector of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 787)
Date of Judgment- May 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Attack on the roots of democracy: Supreme Court sets aside bail orders in 2021 West Bengal post-poll violence case
The Court set aside the Bail Order granted to the accused in connection with the 2021 post-poll violence in West Bengal while calling the incident an “attack on the roots of democracy.” The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), setting aside the Orders of the Calcutta High Court that granted bail to the accused.
The Court said that there is prima facie material to establish that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and launched a concerted attack on the house of the complainant, vandalising the same and looting away the household articles.
Cause Title- Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Sekh Jamir Hossain & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 788)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) Wife entitled to level of maintenance reflective of standard of living she enjoyed during marriage
The Court held that a wife is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage. It modified an Order of the Calcutta High Court by increasing the permanent alimony payable to the wife in a divorce case.
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the wife challenging the quantum of alimony awarded as not being commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during their marriage.
Cause Title- X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 789)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
8) FIR is a bundle of lies; accused justified in backing out from proposed marriage: Supreme Court quashes rape case
Calling the FIRs registered against a man involving allegations of rape on false promise of marriage and SC-ST Act violations a bundle of lies, the Court held that the accused was justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behavior and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against an Order of the Telangana High Court whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was rejected.
Cause Title- Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 790)
Date of Judgment- May 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
9) Connotes an unambiguous communication: Supreme Court explains essential elements of a ‘legal notice’
The Court explained certain essential elements of a legal notice. It observed that the expression ‘legal notice’ connotes an unambiguous communication along with legal consequences to a noticee who is alleged to be in default.
The Court explained thus in Civil Appeals filed by the Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT) against the common Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, which upheld the cancellation of allotment of land admeasuring 125 acres situated in the Utelwa Industrial Area, Jagdishpur, District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC).
Cause Title- Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust & Anr. v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 791)
Date of Judgment- May 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
10) Classic case of counterproductive remedial intervention: Supreme Court allows Appeal against restoration of Mumbai’s Khajuria lake
While allowing an Appeal against a Bombay High Court Order directing the restoration of Khajuria lake, which allegedly existed on the premises for approximately 100 years, the Court held that a thriving recreational facility has been made and maintained at the location, which has become integral to community life.
The Court also termed this matter a classic case of counterproductive remedial intervention. The fulcrum of the controversy revolved around the redevelopment of a theme park undertaken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) on a plot situated at Mumbai’s Khajuria Tank Road, Kandivali (West). This redevelopment allegedly resulted in the obliteration of a lake that had existed on the premises for approximately 100 years.
Cause Title- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 792)
Date of Judgment- May 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
11) “While men may lie, circumstances do not”- Supreme Court upholds conviction in murder case
The Court upheld the conviction of a man while relying upon the circumstances of the case.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Cause Title- Chetan v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 793)
Date of Judgment- May 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
