2025 INSC 162
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
"The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional"
The Supreme Court ruled that failing to inform an arrested person about the grounds of their arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution, making the arrest illegal. The Court emphasized that telling a family member is NOT sufficient—the arrested person must be told directly. This landmark judgment strengthens individual liberty and sets strict standards for police conduct during arrests.
2024 INSC 625
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
"When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity"
The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does NOT impose an absolute bar on anticipatory bail. When the allegations in an FIR do not prima facie make out an offence under the Act, the bar under Section 18 does not apply. The Court emphasized that mere insult to a person who happens to belong to SC/ST is not sufficient—the insult must be "on the ground" or "for the reason" that the person belongs to SC/ST.
2024 INSC 775
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
"Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor"
The Supreme Court ruled that a person with 40% or more disability cannot be automatically disqualified from pursuing MBBS. The Disability Assessment Board must individually assess whether the specific disability will actually prevent the candidate from pursuing the medical course. Blanket exclusion based on disability percentage alone violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).
2024 INSC 714
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
"Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime"
The Supreme Court held that downloading, watching, or possessing child pornography (now termed "Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material" - CSEAM) is a serious criminal offence under Section 15 of POCSO and Section 67B of IT Act. The Court overturned a High Court order that had dismissed such conduct as mere "moral decay." The judgment also recommended replacing the term "child pornography" with "CSEAM" to reflect the true nature of the crime.
2025 INSC 20
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
"When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens"
The Supreme Court ruled that when a senior citizen transfers property to their child with an understanding (even if not explicitly written in the deed) that the child will take care of them, and the child fails to do so, the gift deed can be cancelled under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court emphasized that beneficial legislation for senior citizens must be interpreted liberally, not strictly.
2023 INSC 783
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
"The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages"
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court settled a long-standing debate on whether children born from void or voidable marriages, who are legitimized under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, have rights to ancestral/coparcenary property. The Court held that such children are NOT coparceners in the Hindu Undivided Family but ARE entitled to a share in their parent's interest in coparcenary property upon notional partition.
(2015) 5 SCC 450
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
"When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children"
The Supreme Court ordered the return of two minor children to the United Kingdom after their mother brought them to India without the father's consent, violating UK court orders. The Court emphasized that in international child custody disputes, the principle of "comity of courts" requires respecting orders of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction, and the welfare of the child is best determined by the court in the country of habitual residence.
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders"
The Supreme Court upheld a maintenance order directing a husband to pay maintenance from the date of the wife's application, emphasizing that delays in maintenance proceedings are unacceptable. The Court criticized the prolonged litigation that forces women to struggle for years before receiving maintenance and directed all Family Courts to decide Section 125 CrPC applications within 60 days.
SLP (Civil) D.No. 42786/2025
Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector
"Protecting Senior Citizens' Right to Live in Dignity - Eviction of Ungrateful Legal Heirs"
The Supreme Court restored an eviction order against a legal heir under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that senior citizens have the right to evict legal heirs who fail to provide care and maintenance, and such eviction powers are valid even when the property was transferred through a gift deed before the Act came into force.
2023 INSC 920
Supriyo v. Union of India
"The Landmark Case That Defined Marriage Equality in India"
A 5-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution and declined to legally recognize same-sex marriages. However, the Court recognized queer couples' right to cohabit, directed the government to form a committee to address their legal entitlements, and affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing laws.
2023 INSC 85
Common Cause v. Union of India
"The Right to Die with Dignity: Living Will Made Accessible"
The Supreme Court simplified the procedure for executing a Living Will (Advance Medical Directive) for passive euthanasia. The 2023 order removed the requirement of Magistrate attestation, reduced the experience criteria for doctors, and made the process more accessible. Now, a Living Will can be signed before two witnesses and attested by a Notary or Gazetted Officer.
2023 INSC 146
Aparna Firodia v. Ajinkya Firodia
"Children's Right to Privacy: When DNA Tests Cannot Be Ordered"
The Supreme Court ruled that DNA tests cannot be routinely ordered in matrimonial disputes to prove adultery. Children have the right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously—this is part of their privacy rights. A DNA test can only be ordered when there is strong prima facie evidence to rebut the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
2023 INSC 468
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
"Irretrievable Breakdown: When Courts Can End Dead Marriages"
A five-Judge Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court can directly grant divorce on grounds of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" using Article 142, even if the other spouse opposes. The Court can also waive the 6-month cooling-off period for mutual consent divorces and quash related criminal proceedings (Section 498A, Domestic Violence, etc.) based on settlement.
2022 INSC 745
Deepika Singh v. CAT
"Redefining Family: Step-Children and the Right to Maternity Leave"
The Supreme Court ruled that step-children do not count towards the "two surviving children" limit for maternity leave under government service rules. A woman who married a widower with two children is entitled to maternity leave for her biological child. The Court recognized that families take many forms and the law must evolve to protect all of them.
2022 INSC 900
X v. Principal Secretary Health, Delhi
"Reproductive Autonomy: Unmarried Women's Right to Abortion"
The Supreme Court ruled that unmarried women have equal rights to abortion as married women under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. The distinction based on marital status is "artificial and constitutionally unsustainable." The Court also recognized marital rape as "rape" for purposes of the MTP Act, allowing women in such situations to access abortion up to 24 weeks.
2021 INSC 394
State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph
"Disability Rights: Reservation in Promotions is a Right, Not a Favor"
The Supreme Court held that persons with disabilities (PwD) have a right to reservation in promotions, not just in initial recruitment. The mode of entry into service (whether through PwD quota or compassionate appointment) does not affect this right. States must identify posts and implement reservation in promotions for PwD within 3 months.
2019 INSC 855
Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP
"Voice Samples: Filling the Legislative Gap in Criminal Investigation"
The Supreme Court held that compelling an accused to provide voice samples for investigation does not violate Article 20(3) (self-incrimination) or Article 21 (personal liberty). The Court empowered Magistrates to order voice sample collection during investigation, filling a legislative gap in the CrPC. Voice samples are like fingerprints or handwriting—physical evidence, not testimonial compulsion.
2022 INSC 55
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta
"Creamy Layer Exclusion Applies to SC/ST Reservations in Promotions"
The Supreme Court held that the creamy layer principle applies to SC/ST reservations in promotions. While SC/STs do not need to prove backwardness for reservation benefits, the more affluent among them (creamy layer) can be excluded from reservation in promotions. The judgment also clarified that States must collect quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation before providing reservation in promotions.
2018 INSC 886
Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court
"The Case That Opened Supreme Court Doors to the World Through Live Streaming"
The Supreme Court held that live streaming of court proceedings is part of the right to access justice under Article 21 and freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). The Court directed that proceedings of constitutional importance shall be live streamed, starting as a pilot project. This landmark judgment opened the doors of Indian courts to millions who cannot physically attend hearings.
2018 INSC 235
Bar Council v. A.K. Balaji
"Foreign Lawyers Cannot Practice in India - But Can Fly In for Specific Advice"
The Supreme Court held that foreign lawyers and law firms cannot practice law in India (litigation or non-litigation) unless they fulfill requirements of the Advocates Act, 1961. However, they can visit India on a "fly in and fly out" basis for temporary legal advice on foreign/international law, and can participate in international commercial arbitration proceedings in India.
2024 INSC 562
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh
"States Can Sub-Classify SC/STs for More Equitable Reservation"
A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 6:1 majority, held that State governments can create sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for reservation in public employment and education. The judgment overruled the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah decision which had held that SCs form a homogeneous group that cannot be subdivided. States can now prioritize more backward sub-groups within SCs/STs.
2020 SCC OnLine SC 736
Abhilasha v. Parkash
"Unmarried Daughters Have Right to Maintenance From Father Under Hindu Law"
The Supreme Court held that an unmarried daughter has a right to claim maintenance from her father under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, even after attaining majority, provided she proves she is unable to maintain herself. While Section 125 CrPC limits maintenance to minor children, Hindu personal law provides a broader right to unmarried daughters.
(2022) 12 SCC 200
Rajesh Yadav v. State of UP
"Related Witnesses Are Not Interested Witnesses - Quality Over Quantity of Evidence"
The Supreme Court laid down important principles on witness examination in criminal trials. A related witness is not automatically an interested witness - the witness becomes interested only if there is evidence of motive to falsely implicate the accused. The Court also emphasized that evidence must be weighed, not counted - a single credible witness is sufficient for conviction.
2024 INSC 530
Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel
"Permanent Alimony to Ensure Decent Living Standard - Not Punishment for Husband"
The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 due to irretrievable breakdown and directed the husband to pay Rs. 2 Crores as permanent alimony. The Court laid down comprehensive principles for determining alimony, emphasizing that it should ensure a decent living standard for the dependent spouse without being punitive to the paying spouse.
(2005) 7 SCC 342
Basavarajappa v. Gurubasamma
"Adopted Son Has Equal Rights as Natural Born Son in Coparcenary Property"
The Supreme Court held that an adopted son becomes a coparcener in the adoptive family with the same rights as a natural-born son, entitled to claim ancestral property by survivorship.
(2006) 8 SCC 367
M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan
"Adoption of Daughter Under Hindu Law and Standards for Injunctions"
The Supreme Court clarified that adoption of a daughter requires proof of actual giving and taking ceremony, and laid down strict standards for granting temporary injunctions in property disputes.
AIR 2019 SC 643
Radhamma v. Muddukrishna
"Coparcener Can Bequeath Undivided Interest in Joint Family Property by Will"
The Supreme Court held that under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, a Hindu coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in joint family property by Will, relaxing the traditional Mitakshara rule of survivorship.
(2019) 7 SCC 193
Doddamuniyappa v. Muniswamy
"Property Inherited from Father Becomes Joint Family Property in Hands of Sons"
The Supreme Court held that property inherited from father (before Hindu Succession Act 1956) becomes joint family property in hands of sons, and grandsons acquire coparcenary rights by birth. A compromise regarding such property without consent of all coparceners does not bind their shares.
(2020) 6 SCC 387
Bhagwat Sharan v. Purushottam
"Burden of Proof Lies on Person Claiming HUF Property"
The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving property is joint Hindu family property lies on the person who asserts it. There is no presumption of property being joint merely because a joint family exists. Also, a person who accepts benefits under a Will cannot later challenge other provisions of the same Will.
AIR 2019 SC 3098
Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur
"Karta Cannot Sell Coparcenary Property Without Legal Necessity"
The Supreme Court held that a coparcener acquires rights in ancestral property by birth under pre-1956 Mitakshara law. The Karta's power to sell is limited to cases of legal necessity or benefit of the estate, and the burden of proving legal necessity is on the purchaser.
(2019) 19 SCC 714
Rathnamma v. Sujathamma
"Registration of Marriage Agreement Alone Does Not Prove Valid Marriage"
The Supreme Court held that mere registration of an agreement of marriage is not sufficient to prove a valid marriage. Under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage must be solemnized according to customary rites and ceremonies.
2025 INSC 789
Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan
"Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Reflecting Pre-Divorce Living Standard"
The Supreme Court enhanced permanent alimony from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000 per month, holding that a divorced wife who remains unmarried is entitled to maintenance reflective of the living standard she enjoyed during marriage, not just bare survival.
2025 INSC 793
Chetan v. State of Karnataka
"Last-Seen Doctrine Extended When Supported by Forensic Evidence"
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, clarifying that the temporal proximity requirement in the "last-seen together" doctrine is elastic, not rigid, when supported by strong forensic evidence and recovery of stolen items.
2025 INSC 1158
Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore Borcar
"Presumptions Under Section 138 NI Act Cannot Be Lightly Ignored"
The Supreme Court restored conviction in a cheque bounce case, holding that presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act are strong safeguards that cannot be lightly ignored. High Courts must not re-appreciate evidence in revision and upset concurrent factual findings.
(2014) 8 SCC 273
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
"Landmark Guidelines to Prevent Arbitrary Arrests Under Section 498A IPC"
The Supreme Court laid down landmark guidelines (known as the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines) to prevent automatic and routine arrests in cases under Section 498A IPC (cruelty against married women) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court mandated that police must satisfy themselves about the necessity of arrest by following a checklist under Section 41 CrPC, and magistrates must independently verify the reasons before authorizing detention. Non-compliance renders officers liable for departmental action and contempt of court.
2025 INSC 831
Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar
"Partners Can Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act Without Naming the Partnership Firm"
The Supreme Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable against partners of a partnership firm even if the firm itself is not arraigned as an accused. Unlike companies which are separate juristic entities, a partnership firm is merely a compendious name for its partners, who bear joint and several liability. The strict requirement from Aneeta Hada (where the company must be named) does not apply to partnerships.
2025 INSC 1266
Haribhau Kharuse v. State of Maharashtra
"Every Member of Unlawful Assembly Vicariously Liable for Murder Under Section 149 IPC"
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for murder and attempt to murder under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, holding that once participation in an unlawful assembly and sharing of common object are proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for the offence committed in furtherance of that common object, even if they did not inflict the fatal blow.
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108
Jagdeo v. State of Bihar
"High Courts Must Discourage Direct Anticipatory Bail Pleas and Direct Parties to Sessions Court First"
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to persons accused of hiring contract killers to murder a health worker over a money-lending dispute. The Court held that High Courts should discourage direct filing of anticipatory bail applications and direct parties to approach the Sessions Court first, especially in heinous crime cases.
2025 INSC 1270
K. Nagendra v. New India Insurance
"Pay and Recover: Route Permit Violation Cannot Deny Accident Victims Compensation"
The Supreme Court upheld the "pay and recover" principle in motor accident claims, ruling that an insurance company cannot deny compensation to accident victims merely because the offending vehicle deviated from its authorized route permit. The insurer must first pay the victim and then recover the amount from the vehicle owner.
2025 INSC 1386
Neeraj Kumar v. State of UP
"Dying Declaration Valid Despite Time Gap Between Statement and Death - Section 319 CrPC Powers Reaffirmed"
The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration does not lose its evidentiary value merely because there was a time gap between its recording and the death of the declarant. A statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC becomes admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act when the declarant subsequently dies. Neither the absence of a Magistrate nor medical certification invalidates a dying declaration. The Court also reaffirmed that courts should not conduct "mini-trials" when deciding Section 319 CrPC applications to summon additional accused.
2024 INSC 767
Nipun Aneja v. State of UP
"Employer Workplace Harassment Does Not Automatically Amount to Abetment of Suicide"
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC against three Hindustan Lever Limited officers accused of abetting an employee's suicide. The Court held that mere workplace harassment, without a specific intention to drive the employee to suicide, does not constitute abetment. The judgment drew a critical distinction between sentimental (personal) relationships and official (employer-employee) relationships in abetment cases.
(2018) 10 SCC 472
Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP
"Landmark Guidelines to Prevent Misuse of Section 498A IPC in Dowry Harassment Cases"
The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 498A IPC (dowry harassment) which had been used as a tool for harassment in many cases. The Court directed the establishment of Family Welfare Committees to screen complaints before police action, restricted arrests of family members without Magistrate's permission, and introduced procedural safeguards to balance protection of women with prevention of false implication of innocent family members.
2025 INSC 1339
R.L. Chongthu v. State of Bihar
"Investigation Cannot Go On Endlessly - 20-Year Delay Violates Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21"
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against an IAS officer who served as District Magistrate in Saharsa, Bihar, after finding that a 20-year prosecution delay violated his fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. The Court held that prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC must reflect genuine application of mind and cannot be mechanical, and laid down four critical directions on judicial oversight of delayed investigations.
2025 INSC 261
State of MP v. Balveer Singh
"Child Witness Testimony Can Be Sole Basis for Murder Conviction If It Bears the Impress of Truth"
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's acquittal and reinstated the murder conviction of Balveer Singh, holding that a child witness's credible and consistent testimony can form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. The Court laid down twelve comprehensive guiding principles for evaluating child witness testimony in criminal trials.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 95 : 2025 INSC 360
State of Rajasthan v. Chatra
"Traumatised Child's Silence Cannot Favour the Accused - Conviction Restored After 39 Years"
The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused for rape of a three-year-old child under Section 376 IPC, reversing the High Court's acquittal after 39 years. The Court held that the silence of a traumatised child witness during cross-examination cannot automatically favour the accused. When medical and circumstantial evidence form a complete chain consistent only with guilt, conviction can stand even without direct testimony of the prosecutrix. The Court also criticised the High Court for using the victim's real name in violation of privacy jurisprudence.
2025 INSC 1209
Vijaya Kumari v. Union of India
"Surrogacy Act Age Bar Cannot Retrospectively Strip Reproductive Rights of Couples Who Froze Embryos Before the Law"
The Supreme Court held that the age restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 cannot be applied retrospectively to couples who had already commenced the surrogacy process by freezing embryos before the Act came into force on 25th January 2022. The Court recognized reproductive autonomy as a dimension of personal liberty protected under Article 21.
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1058
Yadwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
"Mere Refusal to Marry Does Not Amount to Instigation or Abetment of Suicide"
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) against a government advocate who had refused to marry his partner due to family opposition. The deceased, also a government advocate, consumed poison and died. The Court held that mere refusal to marry, even if it causes emotional distress, does not amount to instigation under Section 107 IPC, and criminal law must distinguish between moral wrongs and criminal liability.
2025 INSC 1089
Geeta v. State of Karnataka
"Supreme Court Clarifies That Neighbourhood Quarrels Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Under Section 306 IPC"
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant Geeta of the charge under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), setting aside her conviction by the Trial Court and the High Court of Karnataka. The case arose from a prolonged neighbourhood dispute between two families in Vijaypur, which culminated in the victim Sarika self-immolating and succumbing to 58% burn injuries. The Court held that neighbourhood quarrels, verbal abuse, and even physical altercations, however regrettable, do not per se constitute abetment of suicide. For a conviction under Section 306, the prosecution must establish that the accused, by her acts or omissions, left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide and that the accused had the specific intention or mens rea to instigate the suicide. The Court found that the evidence disclosed a mutual neighbourhood feud, not a deliberate campaign of instigation.
2025 INSC 1094
Deep Nursing Home v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal
"Consumer Forums Cannot Travel Beyond Pleadings to Frame a New Case in Medical Negligence Complaints"
The Supreme Court set aside orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had found a nursing home and its attending doctor liable for medical negligence in the death of a patient and her newborn during delivery. The Court held that the NCDRC had grossly exceeded its jurisdiction by building an entirely new case based on alleged antenatal care deficiencies when the original complaint was confined to post-delivery negligence. Five separate Medical Boards had found no negligence, and the NCDRC itself had exonerated the doctors on the original allegations. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to refund Rs. 10 lakhs received during litigation.
2025 INSC 1114
Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra
"Supreme Court Mandates Two-Month Disposal of Bail Applications to Protect Personal Liberty"
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against the rejection of anticipatory bail filed by two retired revenue officers accused of certifying forged mutation entries to facilitate an illegal land transfer. While upholding the Bombay High Court's refusal of anticipatory bail, the Court issued landmark directions mandating that all High Courts and subordinate courts dispose of bail and anticipatory bail applications within two months of filing. The Court strongly condemned the six-year delay in deciding the appellants' bail applications, holding that prolonged pendency of liberty-related matters violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
2025 INSC 913; MANU/SC/1004/2025
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra
"Supreme Court Bans Monetary-Deposit Conditions in Bail Orders Nationwide"
The Supreme Court categorically prohibited all Trial Courts and High Courts from granting regular bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of monetary undertakings or deposit conditions offered by accused persons. The Court held that bail must be decided strictly on the merits of the case and in accordance with law, not on extraneous undertakings, assurances, or financial conditions. The judgment arose from a fraud case where the accused obtained bail by volunteering to deposit Rs. 25 lakh, then failed to honour his commitment, leading to bail cancellation which the Supreme Court upheld while issuing binding nationwide directions.
2025 INSC 957
Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab
"Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Jail Officer for Criminal Conspiracy in Undertrial Escape Plot"
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Gurdeep Singh, an Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana, for criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) in connection with a 2010 plot to help an undertrial prisoner escape during transit. The Court reaffirmed key evidentiary principles: criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and coordinated conduct; testimony of a hostile witness need not be discarded in its entirety; and a single credible eyewitness suffices for conviction under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The Court also held that prior exoneration by a police inquiry does not bar subsequent summoning under Section 319 CrPC if trial evidence reveals involvement.
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh
"Landmark Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence Standards, Prosecution Disclosure, and Death Penalty Sentencing Reform"
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentences of three accused persons in a triple murder case, finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The Court identified material suppression of a key investigating officer's role, forensic evidence chain-of-custody failures, and procedural irregularities. The judgment also established critical directions requiring prosecution to disclose all unused material, mandated psychological and psychiatric evaluation of death row convicts at the trial stage, and reaffirmed that public prosecutors must act as officers of the court committed to fair trial rather than securing convictions at any cost.
2025 INSC 1043
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India
"Article 32 Empowers Reopening of Death Penalty Sentencing When Procedural Safeguards Are Breached"
The Supreme Court held that Article 32 empowers it to reopen the sentencing stage in death penalty cases where mandatory procedural safeguards — particularly the Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) guidelines — were not followed. The Court set aside the death sentence of Vasanta Sampat Dupare, convicted for rape and murder of a 4-year-old child, and remitted the case for a fresh sentencing hearing. The Court applied the Blackstonian theory to hold that sentencing safeguards declared in Manoj operate retrospectively, emphasizing that procedural finality cannot override constitutional protections when human life hangs in the balance.
2025 INSC 1080
Malleeswari v. K. Suguna
"Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits of Review Jurisdiction and Protects Daughter's Coparcenary Rights"
The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's review order that had reversed its own earlier decision recognising Malleeswari's coparcenary rights as a daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded the permissible scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC by re-appreciating facts and substituting its findings, effectively treating the review petition as an appeal in disguise. The September 2022 order restoring the daughter's one-third coparcenary share was reinstated.
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP
"Four-Step Test for Quashing Criminal Cases Based on False Promise of Marriage"
The Supreme Court laid down a definitive four-step test for High Courts to apply when deciding whether to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) in cases involving allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage. The Court held that a mere failure to fulfil a commitment to marry, without any fraudulent or mala fide intention from the very beginning, does not constitute the crime of rape. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant, finding the complaint lacked credibility due to a four-year delay, absence of corroboration, and the complainant's failure to even accept court notice.
2025 INSC 883
Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal
"Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage, Quashes All FIRs, Orders Public Apology, and Endorses Two-Month Cooling-Off Period for Section 498A Cases"
The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to comprehensively settle a protracted matrimonial dispute between IPS officer Shivangi Bansal and her husband Sahib Bansal. The Court dissolved their marriage, granted custody of the minor daughter to the mother, quashed all pending criminal and civil proceedings across multiple jurisdictions, directed the wife to publish an unconditional public apology for false allegations that led to the husband's 109-day incarceration, and endorsed the Allahabad High Court's two-month cooling-off period and Family Welfare Committee guidelines for Section 498A cases nationwide.
(2022) 10 SCC 51
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI
"Landmark Bail Reform Guidelines: Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception"
The Supreme Court issued comprehensive bail reform guidelines reinforcing that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception." The Court categorized offences into four groups (A, B, C, D) for streamlined bail consideration, mandated strict compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of CrPC, directed that non-compliance with arrest procedures entitles the accused to bail, recommended enactment of a separate Bail Act, set time-bound disposal of bail applications (two weeks for regular bail, six weeks for anticipatory bail), and directed all States to issue standing orders on arrest procedures. The judgment also clarified that when an accused cooperates during investigation and is not arrested before chargesheet filing, there is no need for arrest at the instance of the court.
2025 INSC 892
Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh
"Constitutional Bar Against Retrospective Imposition of Harsher Penalty Under POCSO Act"
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the sexual assault of a five-year-old girl, but modified the sentence from life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to rigorous imprisonment for life. The Court held that the 2019 POCSO Amendment, which enhanced the minimum sentence from 10 years to 20 years and redefined life imprisonment as imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed before the amendment came into force on August 16, 2019. The constitutional bar under Article 20(1) against retrospective imposition of harsher penalties was declared clear and absolute.
2025 INSC 920
Ch. Joseph v. TSRTC
"Supreme Court Upholds Disabled Employees' Right to Alternate Employment and Reasonable Accommodation"
The Supreme Court set aside the medical retirement of Ch. Joseph, a bus driver with TSRTC who was found colour blind during service and forcibly retired without any effort to provide alternate employment. The Court held that Clause 14 of the binding 1979 Memorandum of Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act specifically entitled colour-blind drivers to alternate employment with pay protection. The Court further held that employers bear the burden of proving that no suitable alternate post is available, that administrative circulars cannot override statutory industrial settlements, and that reasonable accommodation for employees acquiring disabilities during service is a constitutional imperative rooted in Articles 14 and 21. TSRTC was directed to reinstate Joseph in a suitable non-driving post at the same pay grade within 8 weeks, with 25% of arrears from the date of termination.
2025 INSC 830
Shubha v. State of Karnataka
"Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction but Invokes Article 161 Pardon Powers for Young Woman Forced into Engagement"
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentences of Kum. Shubha (A-4) and three co-accused for the murder of her fiance B.V. Girish in December 2003. While rejecting eyewitness testimony as unreliable, the Court sustained the conviction on the strength of circumstantial evidence, particularly meticulous analysis of Call Detail Records (CDR) that revealed a coordinated conspiracy. In a significant exercise, the Court extensively discussed Article 161 of the Constitution (Governor's power to grant pardons), granting the appellants eight weeks to petition the Karnataka Governor for pardon and suspending their sentences pending that consideration.
2025 INSC 904
Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance
"Commuting Accidents Covered Under Employees' Compensation Act When Nexus With Employment Established"
The Supreme Court held that an accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to his place of employment or vice versa is covered under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, provided a nexus between the circumstances, time and place of the accident and the employment is established. The Court interpreted Section 51E of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 as clarificatory with retrospective effect and applied the doctrine of statutes in pari materia to extend its interpretive principles to the EC Act. The High Court's reversal was set aside and the Commissioner's compensation award of Rs. 3,26,140 with 12% interest was restored.
2025 INSC 829
Vibhor Garg v. Neha
"Secretly Recorded Spousal Conversations Are Admissible Evidence in Divorce Proceedings"
The Supreme Court held that secretly recorded telephonic conversations between spouses are admissible as evidence in divorce proceedings. The Court clarified that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which protects spousal communications, contains an express exception for suits between married persons. The right to privacy under Article 21 does not create an absolute bar against such evidence in matrimonial litigation. The Court established that admissibility of covert recordings depends on the three-fold test of relevance, voice identification, and authenticity, not on the manner of their procurement.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 272 : 2025 INSC 865
Ram Charan v. Sukhram
"Landmark Judgment Upholding Tribal Women's Equal Inheritance Rights Under Constitutional Morality"
The Supreme Court held that tribal women and their heirs are entitled to equal inheritance rights when no custom explicitly prohibits the same. The Court ruled that denying inheritance to female heirs of Scheduled Tribes in the absence of a contrary custom amounts to gender discrimination violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. The judgment set aside all lower court decisions that had denied the appellants their share in the ancestral property of their maternal grandfather, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond, a member of the Gond Scheduled Tribe.
2025 INSC 876
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v. UT of J&K
"Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe, Quashes Counter-FIR, and Awards Compensation in Custodial Torture Case"
The Supreme Court directed a CBI investigation into allegations of brutal custodial torture of a J&K police constable, including genital mutilation, quashed a counter-FIR for attempted suicide lodged against the victim, and awarded Rs. 50 lakh compensation. The Court held that mandatory FIR registration under Lalita Kumari applies to complaints against public officials for custodial violence, that a counter-FIR designed to shield perpetrators constitutes institutional abuse and perversion of criminal justice machinery, and that CBI investigation is warranted where local police have an irreconcilable conflict of interest.
2025 INSC 652
Muruganandam v. Muniyandi
"Unregistered Agreement to Sell Admissible as Evidence of Contract in Specific Performance Suits"
The Supreme Court held that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court set aside the Madras High Court's order that had dismissed the appellant's civil revision petition, and allowed the interlocutory application seeking permission to place the original agreement dated 01.01.2000 on record. The respondent's right to challenge the document's relevancy and validity was preserved.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 545 : 2025 INSC 734
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal
"Supreme Court Affirms High Court Power to Quash Domestic Violence Proceedings Under Section 482 CrPC"
The Supreme Court held that High Courts possess inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. While DV Act proceedings are predominantly civil in nature, they are adjudicated by Magistrates functioning as criminal courts, thereby attracting the supervisory inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the Court emphasized that such power must be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross illegality, manifest injustice, or clear abuse of the legal process.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 216 : 2025 INSC 778
In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents
"Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Conviction but Waives Imprisonment, Prioritizing Victim Rehabilitation Over Retribution"
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of controversial observations made by the Calcutta High Court while acquitting a POCSO accused. The Court restored the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC, but in an extraordinary exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, waived the mandatory 20-year imprisonment. The Court held that the victim's trauma arose not from the original incident but from the subsequent legal proceedings, parental abandonment, and systemic failures of the welfare state. Extensive directions were issued for the rehabilitation of the victim and her child, along with institutional reforms for child protection.
2025 INSC 790
Batlanki Keshav Kumar v. State of Telangana
"Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIRs Based on False Promise of Marriage Finding Fabricated and Malicious Allegations"
The Supreme Court quashed two FIRs (Crime No. 751 of 2021 and Crime No. 103 of 2022) registered against the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) IPC (rape on false promise of marriage) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court found the allegations to be a "bundle of lies" full of "fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations," noting critical contradictions between the two FIRs, the complainant's own chat admissions of manipulative conduct, and a prior similar complaint against another person. The Court held that the accused was justified in withdrawing from the marriage upon discovering the complainant's aggressive sexual behaviour and obsessive nature.
2025 INSC 782
Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra
"Consensual Relationship Turning Sour Cannot Be Ground for Invoking Criminal Machinery"
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 IPC against a 25-year-old agricultural student accused of rape on the basis of a false promise to marry by a separated but legally married woman. The Court held that a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of the State. The promise of marriage made to a woman who was still legally married was inherently illegal and unenforceable, and the complainant's own conduct of sustaining the relationship for over 12 months contradicted her allegations of sexual assault.
2025 INSC 810
Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
"Supreme Court Quashes Forced Narco-Analysis, Reaffirms Right Against Self-Incrimination"
The Supreme Court held that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The Court set aside a Patna High Court order that had accepted an investigating officer's proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on the accused during bail proceedings. While clarifying that an accused may voluntarily request such a test during trial, the Court ruled there is no indefeasible right to undergo narco-analysis, and any results obtained cannot independently form the basis of a conviction.
2025 INSC 599
Pragya Prasun v. Union of India
"Supreme Court Declares Digital Access a Fundamental Right, Issues 20 Directions for Accessible e-KYC for Persons with Disabilities"
The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment consolidating two writ petitions filed by acid attack survivors and a visually impaired lawyer, declared that the right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that mandatory digital KYC (Know Your Customer) processes requiring eye-blinking, facial recognition, or visual verification systematically excluded persons with disabilities from essential banking, telecom, insurance, and pension services. The Court issued 20 binding directions mandating alternative liveness verification methods, acceptance of thumb impressions, universal accessibility compliance under WCAG standards, appointment of digital accessibility nodal officers, periodic accessibility audits, inclusion of persons with disabilities in user acceptance testing, and establishment of dedicated grievance mechanisms.
2026 INSC 47
State of UP v. Anurudh
"Supreme Court Sets Aside Mandatory Age Determination in POCSO Cases, Recommends Romeo-Juliet Clause"
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's directions mandating medical age determination tests in all POCSO cases across Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that age determination is a matter for trial, not at the bail stage, and that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act prescribes a strict hierarchy of documentary evidence for age determination, with medical tests being only a last resort. The Court also recommended the Central Government consider introducing a "Romeo-Juliet clause" to exempt genuine consensual adolescent relationships from the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.
(2014) 2 SCC 1
Lalita Kumari v. State of UP
"The Judgment That Made FIR Registration a Fundamental Right"
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory when information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR, except in seven narrow categories of cases where the information is vague or dubious. Any preliminary inquiry must be completed within seven days. Non-registration of FIR attracts action against the erring police officer.
More Cases Coming Soon
We're continuously adding new case summaries. Subscribe to our newsletter or follow us on social media to stay updated on the latest landmark judgments.