Supreme Court of India judgments

498 Supreme Court of India judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 4 of 21.

Section 114 Customs Act penalty set aside; AI-generated fake citations barred - SC adopts zero-tolerance for unverified AI material : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Section 114 Customs Act penalty set aside; AI-generated fake citations barred - SC adopts zero-tolerance for unverified AI material : SC

The Supreme Court quashed a Rs 425 crore Section 114 Customs Act penalty after finding the order relied on AI-generated citations that were non-existent or mis-quoted. It imposed a zero-tolerance rule for unverified AI material, rendering such decisions void and urging verification by customs officials and litigants.

Section 482 CrPC cannot reopen a Supreme Court-affirmed conviction even if juvenility under Section 7A JJ Act is later proved | SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Section 482 CrPC cannot reopen a Supreme Court-affirmed conviction even if juvenility under Section 7A JJ Act is later proved | SC

The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court cannot invoke its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to set aside a conviction that has already attained finality before the apex court, even if the accused later proves he was a juvenile under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act. This narrows the scope of Section 482, preserving the finality of appellate judgments and limiting relief avenues for convicted persons claiming subsequent juvenility.

Professional Clearing Members Not Statutorily Required to Verify Client Positions; Restitution Orders Exceeding SEBI Act Powers Set Aside | NSE Futures & Options : SC
|Supreme Court of India

Professional Clearing Members Not Statutorily Required to Verify Client Positions; Restitution Orders Exceeding SEBI Act Powers Set Aside | NSE Futures & Options : SC

The Supreme Court held that professional clearing members in the NSE’s futures-and-options segment have no statutory duty to verify individual client positions and that restitution orders beyond the powers granted by the SEBI Act are ultra vires. As a result, SEBI cannot impose blanket restitution on PCMs, leaving liability with the trading members and their clients.

Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Revisionary power limited to three years, cannot be overridden by amendment or Limitation Act : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Revisionary power limited to three years, cannot be overridden by amendment or Limitation Act : SC

A 2014 revision notice cancelling an earlier land-record order was set aside because the Karnataka Land Revenue Act imposes a strict three-year limit on exercising revisionary power, which cannot be extended by subsequent amendments or the Limitation Act. The ruling bars authorities from reviving old cases beyond that period, protecting owners of surveyed lands.

Penalty under Sec 38(3) Finance Act applies only to non-payment of Foreign Travel Tax, not to delayed deposits | SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Penalty under Sec 38(3) Finance Act applies only to non-payment of Foreign Travel Tax, not to delayed deposits | SC

The Supreme Court ruled that a penalty can be imposed only when the Foreign Travel Tax is not paid at all, and that a one-day delay in deposit does not attract the fine under Section 38(3). This limits liability to non-payment, obliges the government to refund the Rs 71.29 million penalty with interest, and affects airlines and other carriers subject to the tax.

Eye-witness testimony alone insufficient for conviction under S.302 IPC | SC acquits six murder accused
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Eye-witness testimony alone insufficient for conviction under S.302 IPC | SC acquits six murder accused

The Supreme Court set aside murder convictions of six accused, ruling that inconsistent eyewitness accounts and the absence of forensic proof failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt under the IPC. This underscores that corroborative evidence is essential for murder charges, affecting future prosecutions relying solely on eyewitnesses.

Section 44A CPC | SC enforces Ras Al Khaimah decree, rejects contempt, orders Rs 200 cr security, defers veil-piercing to execution courts : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Section 44A CPC | SC enforces Ras Al Khaimah decree, rejects contempt, orders Rs 200 cr security, defers veil-piercing to execution courts : SC

The Supreme Court confirmed that a decree issued by Ras Al Khaimah’s Investment Authority is enforceable in India under Section 44A CPC, dismissed a contempt petition based on an ambiguous undertaking, and mandated the respondents to furnish an additional security of Rs 200 crore, leaving any corporate veil-piercing questions to the execution courts. This clarifies cross-border decree enforcement and limits contempt claims tied to vague undertakings.

Limited Certiorari Jurisdiction of HC in Cooperative-Society Arbitration under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 | SC upholds HC interference
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Limited Certiorari Jurisdiction of HC in Cooperative-Society Arbitration under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 | SC upholds HC interference

The Supreme Court affirmed that a High Court may set aside arbitration awards of a cooperative society only when the award breaches statutory provisions, confirming the narrow reach of certiorari under Articles 226/227. This limits judicial interference in internal cooperative disputes, affecting societies and members alike.

Only victim may seek quash under Section 482 CrPC | Victim-only settlement requirement : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Only victim may seek quash under Section 482 CrPC | Victim-only settlement requirement : SC

The Supreme Court ruled that a criminal case can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC only when the victim himself settles the dispute, rejecting the notion that a third party can seek quash. This distinction separates compounding from quashing and limits judicial interference to victim-initiated settlements, affecting litigants and prosecutors in pending criminal matters.

Section 8 notice & hearing mandatory for externment orders under Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam | Ex parte order quashed : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Section 8 notice & hearing mandatory for externment orders under Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam | Ex parte order quashed : SC

The Supreme Court struck down an ex parte externment order for breaching the mandatory notice and hearing provision of Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, reaffirming natural-justice safeguards. The ruling bars authorities from imposing exile without prior notice, protecting individuals facing such orders across Chhattisgarh.

Section 86, Representation of People Act | Lack of notarisation and rubber-stamp attestations not fatal for peremptory dismissal of election petition : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Section 86, Representation of People Act | Lack of notarisation and rubber-stamp attestations not fatal for peremptory dismissal of election petition : SC

The Supreme Court ruled that missing notarisation on Form-25 and rubber-stamp attestations do not automatically invalidate an election petition under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act. Such procedural defects are therefore not grounds for peremptory dismissal, safeguarding the petitioner’s right to contest the election result.

Settlement agreement waiving monetary claims bars further DV Act proceedings; continuation deemed abuse of process | Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Settlement agreement waiving monetary claims bars further DV Act proceedings; continuation deemed abuse of process | Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 : SC

Supreme Court set aside Kerala HC’s order, holding that a valid settlement agreement extinguishing monetary claims prevents any later complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that filing such a complaint is an abuse of process. Settled spouses are thus shielded from re-litigation.

Public View Requirement - Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act offences must be made in public view | SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Public View Requirement - Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act offences must be made in public view | SC

The Supreme Court ruled that a caste-based insult must be uttered in a place visible to the public to attract liability under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Consequently, charges were dismissed where the alleged abuse occurred in a private office. This clarifies the public-view test for all future SC/ST Act prosecutions.

Section 100 CPC | Appellate Review Limited to Substantial Questions of Law; Revenue Mutations Do Not Extinguish Title : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Section 100 CPC | Appellate Review Limited to Substantial Questions of Law; Revenue Mutations Do Not Extinguish Title : SC

The Supreme Court set aside the Indore High Court’s dismissal of a co-ownership suit, restoring the lower courts’ decree. It held that Section 100 CPC permits appellate review only on substantial questions of law, revenue mutations do not extinguish title and limitation begins when the impediment is discovered, shaping future land co-ownership litigation.

PSC recommendation does not confer a vested right; Rule 10 of 1983 Service Rules gives finality to eligibility decisions | Registrar appointment : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

PSC recommendation does not confer a vested right; Rule 10 of 1983 Service Rules gives finality to eligibility decisions | Registrar appointment : SC

A candidate recommended by a State Public Service Commission cannot claim an indefeasible right to appointment, as Rule 10 of the 1983 Service Rules makes the eligibility finding conclusive and bars any de novo review by the State. This limits State governments’ ability to reassess eligibility for registrar and similar posts.

Lok Adalat awards invalid without full claimant consent; must be referred to civil court under Sec 30 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Land acquisition dispute : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

Lok Adalat awards invalid without full claimant consent; must be referred to civil court under Sec 30 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Land acquisition dispute : SC

The Supreme Court declared Lok Adalat awards void where any claimant's signature is missing, overturning the High Court's endorsement. It remitted the compensation dispute for fresh reference to the civil court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, impacting all parties in similar land-acquisition cases.

FIR & charge-sheet are prima facie evidence of negligence; criminal acquittal does not bar civil compensation in motor accident claims | Motor Vehicles Act : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

FIR & charge-sheet are prima facie evidence of negligence; criminal acquittal does not bar civil compensation in motor accident claims | Motor Vehicles Act : SC

The Supreme Court ruled that an FIR and the accompanying charge-sheet suffice as prima facie proof of negligence in motor accident cases, and that a criminal acquittal does not extinguish the right to claim civil damages. This expands claimants’ ability to recover full compensation despite a not-guilty verdict.