Supreme Court of India judgments

Supreme Court rules that remission policies framed under Article 161 of the Constitution prevail over statutory policies under CrPC, entitling convicts to more liberal remission terms. The judgment clarifies that constitutional powers cannot be restricted by subsequent statutory frameworks, impacting remission eligibility for life convicts across India.

The Supreme Court ruled that income tax returns (ITRs) cannot be mechanically applied to determine compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Courts must evaluate ITRs contextually, considering the deceased’s employment status-salaried individuals’ ITRs reflect actual income, while self-employed claimants’ ITRs may understate earnings due to business deductions. The judgment mandates a nuanced approach to prevent unjust compensation reductions, impacting insurers, claimants, and tribunals.

The Supreme Court ruled that a compromise decree under CPC Order XXIII Rule 3 is invalid unless parties provide express written authorization. Fraud allegations or procedural delays cannot override statutory requirements, reinforcing strict adherence to procedural safeguards in civil litigation.

The Supreme Court has ruled that monetary compensation cannot be substituted for a mandatory injunction when the plaintiff has not prayed for it, reinforcing that judicial relief must strictly adhere to pleaded claims. This upholds the foundational principle of party autonomy in civil litigation and prevents courts from rewriting pleadings under the guise of equitable remedies.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment, despite being notified under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, cannot claim exemption because its function is investigating corruption-not intelligence or security. This clarifies that transparency obligations apply to any public body engaged in anti-corruption probes, reinforcing accountability in state investigative agencies.

The Supreme Court ruled that a tree falling on a stationary auto-rickshaw does not qualify as an accident arising from the 'use of a motor vehicle' under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but exercised its extraordinary power under Article 142 to award Rs. 25 lakh in compensation, setting a precedent for equitable relief in natural calamity cases where no statutory liability exists.

The Supreme Court has ruled that excluding married daughters from the definition of 'family' for compassionate allotment of fair price shops violates constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The judgment mandates that dependency and residence, not marital status, must determine eligibility - empowering millions of women who sustain households after a dealer's death, regardless of marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled that property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act vests as tenancy-in-common with definite shares, stripping the karta of authority to alienate it without consent. This clarifies succession rights for heirs, particularly daughters and step-relatives, and restricts unilateral property transactions under claims of legal necessity.

The Supreme Court ruled that casual labourers conferred temporary status for over a decade under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, are entitled to pensionary benefits regardless of formal regularisation. This judgment reinforces the constitutional right to social security for long-serving temporary workers, impacting thousands of similarly placed employees in government departments.

The Supreme Court has ruled that detaining a prisoner beyond the date of a valid court order granting parole constitutes illegal detention under Article 21, entitling the detainee to monetary compensation. This establishes a new accountability standard for state authorities who delay implementation of judicial orders, reinforcing that liberty cannot be withheld by bureaucratic inertia even after a court has spoken.

The Supreme Court upholds an arbitral award for termination payment under a BOT concession agreement, ruling that contractual obligations can be enforced based on implied intent and performance, even if not expressly pleaded. This reinforces party autonomy and narrows judicial review under Section 34, setting a critical precedent for infrastructure arbitrations across public-private partnerships.

The Supreme Court holds that constructive notice through revenue mutation proceedings, even without direct service, starts the three-year limitation clock under Article 137 for challenging a probate. This binds all heirs and successors who should have reasonably discovered the probate through public records, reshaping how probate challenges are timed across India.

The Supreme Court has ruled that under the PFUTP Regulations, mere position cornering or breach of trading limits does not amount to securities fraud unless there is evidence the manipulative activity induced investors to buy or sell. This sets a critical precedent for SEBI enforcement, requiring regulators to prove deceptive intent - not just market distortion - to establish fraud.

Supreme Court rules that objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act regarding stamp duty deficiencies cannot be challenged via writ petition before the final award. Parties must await Section 34 proceedings, reinforcing the competence-competence principle and limiting judicial interference in interim arbitration disputes.

The Supreme Court has ruled that private properties declared by former princely rulers under merger agreements devolve according to the Hindu Succession Act, not customary primogeniture. This decisively ends the legal ambiguity surrounding inheritance rights of royal descendants, affirming statutory succession over feudal custom in post-merger India.

Supreme Court rules that mere cutting and grooving of aluminum composite panels does not qualify as 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, unless the process results in a distinct, marketable product. The ruling clarifies the jurisdictional limits of excise duty and sets a precedent for similar disputes in tax and corporate law.

The Supreme Court ruled that the use of a firearm during kidnapping, even without an explicit ransom demand or call records, constitutes a sufficient threat under Section 364A IPC. This holding clarifies that the essential ingredient of 'threat to life' can be inferred from conduct alone, impacting prosecutions in abduction cases.

The Supreme Court has ruled that when an appellate court reverses an acquittal and convicts an accused for the first time, it must personally hear the accused on sentencing under Section 235 CrPC - it cannot remit the matter to the trial court. This upholds the statutory right to be heard before sentence, reinforcing natural justice in appellate criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court has ruled that permitting a defendant to file an inconsistent additional written statement after trial has begun amounts to an abuse of process under the CPC. This clarifies that once issues are framed and evidence is recorded, parties cannot pivot to mutually exclusive legal positions - safeguarding trial integrity and fairness for plaintiffs and courts alike.

The Supreme Court has ruled that while the Central Government must give due consideration to the State's recommendation on Voluntary Retirement applications under Rule 16(2A), it is not bound by it and must independently evaluate pending disciplinary proceedings. This clarifies the legal duty of DoPT and ministries when balancing service efficiency with accountability, affecting all All India Services officers with pending inquiries.

The Supreme Court has ruled that prior service with Indian Railways must be fully reckoned for pay fixation and pension benefits when a railway employee joins another Central Government entity, affirming that railways are integral to Central Government service under Article 309. This ensures equitable treatment and prevents arbitrary denial of service credit, impacting over 1.2 million former railway employees transitioning to other central posts.

Supreme Court sets aside bail granted by Allahabad HC, ruling that gaps in an inquest report cannot nullify material evidence like FIR, post-mortem, and weapon recovery in serious offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The judgment reinforces that bail considerations must weigh all substantive evidence, not just procedural lacunae.

Supreme Court sets aside bail for an accused who absconded post-cancellation, ignored CCTV evidence, and intimidated witnesses in a Section 307 IPC case. The ruling reinforces that bail can be revoked for post-grant misconduct, even if parity claims exist, emphasizing witness protection and evidentiary compliance.

The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 506 IPC for threatening to upload a woman’s private video, holding that digital exposure to impute unchastity qualifies as criminal intimidation. The ruling expands the scope of 'unchastity' under IPC to include modern forms of digital harassment, reinforcing protections for women’s dignity and privacy.