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.
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.