498 Supreme Court of India judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 5 of 21.
The Supreme Court quashed the convictions of two village officials, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a demand for a bribe. It also ruled that the sanction order was invalid because it was issued by an officer without the authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Referral commissions earned by automobile dealers for steering customers to banks and insurers are now deemed a Business Auxiliary Service and thus taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. Because the dealer had settled the entire tax liability before the show-cause notice, the Supreme Court set aside the penalty under Section 73. This clarifies tax treatment for dealers and limits penalty exposure when tax is paid promptly.
A magistrate’s denial of a Section 156(3) application does not amount to a conclusive decision, so it cannot invoke res judicata to block FIR registration. This ensures police can proceed with investigations even after an initial refusal, affecting complainants and law-enforcement agencies alike.
The Supreme Court upheld the discharge of RPF constables who failed to disclose pending criminal cases during character verification, ruling that deliberate suppression of multiple cases constitutes suppressio veri warranting termination without further departmental inquiry. The decision reinforces that candidates for security-sensitive posts bear a heightened duty of candour, and non-disclosure of criminal antecedents - regardless of eventual acquittal - vitiates the appointment ab initio.
The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL challenging hanging as the sole mode of execution, reaffirming the Constitution Bench ruling in Deena v. Union of India (1983) that Section 354(5) CrPC (now Section 393(5) BNSS) does not violate Article 21. The Court held that absent empirical evidence of botched executions or proven superiority of lethal injection, the legislative choice of execution method stands.
The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 10's 'special circumstances' cannot cure illegal deputation and subsequent absorption, overturning the High Court's sympathetic retention of four engineers with 18 years' service. Repatriation to the parent Development & Panchayat Department was ordered, affirming that prolonged service does not legitimize backdoor entry into public employment.
The Supreme Court held that non-participating bidders' four-month delay in challenging tender conditions bars relief under the doctrine of delay and laches. It also distinguished Vinishma Technologies on the Delhi office/warehouse requirement, leaving its validity open. The decision safeguards procurement timelines from strategic challenges by non-participants.
The Supreme Court held that an insurer is not bound by an agent's unauthorized assurance of coverage when the statutory premium condition under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, remains unfulfilled. The ruling underscores that premium payment is a condition precedent to coverage, overriding any agency representations, and overturns the NCDRC's award to the insured.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission may compel seizure reports within 24 hours, must complete investigations within a year, and cannot withdraw election-related prosecutions without High Court permission, tightening controls on black-money influence in elections. This binding directive applies to all future election cases across India, affecting political parties, candidates and enforcement agencies.
The Supreme Court has set aside the Commercial Court’s dismissal and referred the challenge to a larger bench, ordering a constitutional review of the 10 % pre-deposit security clause in arbitration agreements. The referral signals that such clauses may breach Article 14’s equality guarantee and conflict with Section 18 of the Arbitration Act, impacting contractors and public-sector projects.
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act grants trial priority only when two cases have overlapping dates, and cannot be used to halt an ongoing murder trial. This narrows the Act’s reach, ensuring parallel prosecutions continue unless scheduling conflicts arise, affecting prosecutors and accused in gang-related and other serious offences.
The Supreme Court cancelled the bail of a foreign national accused of large-scale heroin trafficking after discovering the pledged sureties were non-existent, and directed all courts to implement a rigorous verification process for NDPS sureties. The order tightens bail safeguards in drug cases and obliges authorities to confirm surety authenticity, affecting future bail applications involving foreign nationals and narcotics offences.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court’s order barring oral testimony on internal documents, stressing that earlier exclusions are binding under res judicata and imposing a Rs 10 lakh cost on Reliance. The ruling underscores finality of evidentiary rulings in commercial contract disputes.
The Supreme Court set the quantum of loss of consortium at Rs 48,400 per claimant and ordered a 10 % uplift every three years in motor accident compensation, while expanding the definition of ‘legal representative’ under the Motor Vehicles Act. This raises compensation for families of accident victims and clarifies who may claim on behalf of the deceased.
The Supreme Court ruled that the exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act applies only to the personal guarantor who is the judgment-debtor, not to his legal heirs. It also held that a failure to serve notice under Order XXI Rule 22 does not invalidate the auction of the secured property.
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the evidence supports accidental drowning rather than intentional homicide, and therefore quashed the life sentences imposed under IPC 302, 34, 201 and 120B. This ruling underscores that a plausible drowning scenario defeats a murder conviction, impacting future cases involving similar factual circumstances.
The Supreme Court ruled that a will is enforceable only if it complies with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and is proved under Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act. Because the will in dispute failed these tests, the trial court's partition decree was restored, impacting the heirs in the succession case.
The Supreme Court ruled that a lone eyewitness who is a close relative is not per se an interested witness and can alone satisfy the evidential burden for a Section 302 IPC murder conviction; a delayed FIR is not fatal if explained. This guides prosecutors and defence in homicide trials.
An agreement to sell a premises and receipt of part-payment cannot by themselves terminate an existing lease; only a surrender under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act ends tenancy. This clarifies that landlords must obtain a formal surrender before evicting tenants, protecting occupants in similar sale-related disputes.
Supreme Court ruled the Central Excise Department cannot invoke the proviso to Section 11A to reopen assessments without a specific allegation of wilful suppression of valuation. The decision curtails the department’s ability to extend the limitation period, shielding job-work vehicle manufacturers from retrospective tax claims.
The Supreme Court overturned a High Court order remanding a partition suit, emphasizing that an appellate court’s power to send a case back under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC is discretionary, not a matter of right. Remand is permissible only when the appeal lacks essential material needed for a decision. Litigants in civil appeals must therefore demonstrate a material deficiency before seeking remand.
The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court order, reinstating the quash of a Rs 3.23 million provisional assessment and ruling that a Section 135 assessment can proceed only with proven theft and mens rea. This protects consumers from arbitrary disconnections based merely on suspicion.
The Supreme Court ruled that in urgent narcotics raids, merely substantial compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act satisfies procedural requirements, and Section 50’s notice-to-owner provision does not apply to vehicle searches. This narrows procedural safeguards for suspects and streamlines enforcement actions.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 2019 amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act cannot be applied to offences committed before its enactment, so the higher punishment under the IPC - life imprisonment - remains. This prevents convicted child rapists from benefiting from the reduced sentence provision and clarifies the hierarchy of punishments for such offences.