Supreme Court of India judgments

The Supreme Court ruled that compensation for deceased engineering students must include notional income reflecting future career prospects and filial consortium, enhancing the award beyond traditional calculations. This precedent mandates tribunals to account for professional growth potential, impacting all motor accident claims involving young professionals or students.

The Supreme Court ruled that a woman’s pursuit of her professional career and decision to live separately for her child’s welfare cannot be construed as cruelty or desertion under matrimonial law. The judgment underscores that marriage does not extinguish a woman’s autonomy, and societal expectations cannot override her right to dignity and self-determination.

Supreme Court rules that admission of debt by an Interim Resolution Professional during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process does not constitute acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Financial creditors filing Section 7 IBC petitions after limitation expiry remain time-barred, regardless of moratorium or COVID extensions.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts cannot legislate criminal offences, holding that existing IPC and CrPC provisions suffice to address hate speech. The judgment directs mandatory FIR registration without prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC, rejecting continuing mandamus while emphasizing separation of powers.

Supreme Court holds that a bidder is entitled to a full refund of the bid amount with 7.5% interest from the date of payment when land acquisition lapses, regardless of possession. The ruling underscores that title extinguishment by law triggers restitution obligations, setting a precedent for commercial disputes involving failed acquisitions.

The Supreme Court ruled that conviction under Section 498A IPC cannot stand on contradictory dying declarations and uncorroborated family testimony alone. The judgment underscores the need for independent evidence to establish cruelty, setting a precedent for stricter scrutiny of familial allegations in dowry-related cases.

Supreme Court rules that political motivation during elections negates the necessity for custodial interrogation, even in serious forgery allegations under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The ruling reinforces personal liberty protections for public figures facing politically timed criminal complaints.

The Supreme Court ruled that Indian Railways does not qualify as a 'deemed distribution licensee' under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and is thus liable to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge as a consumer under Section 42. The judgment rejects Railways' claims of sovereign immunity or internal infrastructure exemptions, setting a precedent for open access electricity consumers.

Supreme Court reaffirms that courts cannot reappreciate evidence in departmental proceedings unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The ruling upholds dismissal of a police constable for fraudulently securing dual employment, reinforcing the limited scope of judicial review in service law matters.

The Supreme Court ruled that mere delay in depositing balance sale consideration under a specific performance decree does not automatically rescind the contract. Courts must exercise discretion under Section 28, weighing factors like conduct, equity, and compensatory remedies before ordering rescission, ensuring fairness in property disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled that a plaint seeking title under a Will cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because the funds originated from the plaintiff. The court emphasized that a fiduciary relationship must be explicitly pleaded, not inferred, and testamentary succession does not automatically override the Benami Act's bar. This sets a precedent for stricter scrutiny in benami property disputes involving inheritance claims.

The Supreme Court ruled that candidates cannot claim appointment merely due to non-disclosure of exam records by authorities. Proof of passing the examination is mandatory, and compensation may be awarded for procedural lapses, but not automatic appointment. This reinforces the burden of proof on candidates in public sector recruitment disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled that a collaborator, though not a direct signatory to the main contract, can invoke arbitration if bound by a Deed of Joint Undertaking integral to the contract's execution. This decision underscores that arbitrability hinges on substantive involvement rather than mere signature, impacting contractors, collaborators, and employers in complex bidding arrangements.

Supreme Court holds that a bank cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC if the loan was disbursed to a builder rather than the corporate debtor. The ruling underscores that financial creditor status requires a direct lending arrangement, not merely a contractual transaction.

The Supreme Court ruled that depreciation recovery under electricity tariff regulations is capped by the approved operational period of the asset, even if its technical life extends beyond it. The judgment reinforces consumer protection under Section 61(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003, prioritizing regulatory limits over utility cost recovery demands, impacting tariff determinations for power distribution companies.

The Supreme Court has ruled that disciplinary authorities cannot impose penalties based on allegations not included in the original show cause notice, even if the charges evolve during proceedings. This reinforces that professionals in regulated fields like medicine are entitled to clear, timely notice of accusations against them - ensuring fair hearing under Article 14 and the principles of natural justice.

Supreme Court rules that industries operating in good faith under Pollution Control Board consent (CTE/CTO) cannot be shut down merely for lacking prior Environmental Clearance (EC), provided they applied for EC in a timely manner. The judgment balances regulatory compliance with operational continuity for formaldehyde units in Rajasthan and Haryana.

The Supreme Court ruled that revenue records alone cannot establish title to land proposed for forest reservation under the Hyderabad Forest Act. Original patta documentation is mandatory, and writ courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes between private claimants and the State in such cases.

Supreme Court rules that subsidiaries functioning as mere alter egos of the corporate debtor justify piercing the corporate veil, enabling resolution plans to proceed without GNIDA’s prior consent if dues are settled. This precedent strengthens creditor rights in real estate insolvency cases by preventing statutory authorities from obstructing CIRP completion.

The Supreme Court ruled that candidates must possess prescribed educational qualifications at the time of submitting their application for public service posts, not merely by the interview stage. This decision reinforces strict compliance with statutory eligibility criteria, impacting recruitment processes across public service commissions.

The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts cannot direct police to register an FIR under Article 226 unless the petitioner has first exhausted statutory remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. This reinforces that writ jurisdiction is not a shortcut to bypass procedural due process in criminal investigations, affecting complainants, police, and lower courts relying on expedited judicial orders.

The Supreme Court has ruled that legal heirs of a deceased doctor cannot be held liable for personal injury damages in consumer complaints, as such claims abate upon death under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. They may only be substituted to satisfy pecuniary awards from the deceased’s estate, protecting heirs from unlimited liability while preserving victims’ right to recover quantifiable losses.

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to protect the rights of candidates in select panels under the terminated Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme, mandating their appointment within eight weeks provided they qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) within three years. This ruling balances equitable relief under Article 21A with regulatory compliance, setting a precedent for post-scheme employment disputes.

Supreme Court reinforces that judicial directions for permanent regularisation of daily wage workers are binding on the state, mandating immediate creation of posts within four weeks. The ruling extends benefits to all similarly situated workers, framing regularisation as a constitutional obligation rather than a discretionary scheme.