MONTHLY MAGAZINE NOVEMBER

✅S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal, 2025

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed a settled principle under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, that injunctions cannot be granted to a plaintiff who is not in possession and who fails to seek declaration of ownership when the title is in dispute.

• The Court emphasized that possession is a key element in injunction suits if the plaintiff is not in possession, the court cannot restrain the rightful possessor from enjoying the property.

• By distinguishing between injunction simplicitor and declaratory relief with possession, the Court provided clarity on the appropriate procedural route in property disputes involving contested ownership.

• The judgment serves as an important reminder to litigants and lawyers that an ill-drafted plaint lacking necessary reliefs can be fatal to the plaintiff’s case, even if title is arguably valid.

• This decision strengthens judicial discipline in property litigation, preventing misuse of injunction suits where possession and ownership are both disputed.

---

✅Shahabeen Hameed v. Muhammed Ajnas A.B, 2025

• he judgment reinforces the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, which discourages litigants from directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 when an adequate statutory appeal mechanism exists.

• The Court relied on the explicit language of Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC, which covers appeals against orders rejecting restoration of suits dismissed for default.

• This decision serves as a procedural reminder that High Courts are not to entertain petitions under Article 226 in civil procedural matters where specific appellate provisions are available.

• The ruling contributes to judicial discipline and procedural propriety, preventing misuse of writ jurisdiction and ensuring that hierarchical remedies are duly followed.

---

✅Sidharth Mahajan & Anr. v. UT of J&K & Anr., 2025

• The judgment clarifies the interplay between compounding provisions (Section 359 BNSS) and inherent powers (Section 528 BNSS) under the new criminal code framework.

• It reaffirms the principle that statutory provisions for compounding do not override or diminish the inherent powers of the High Court to ensure justice.

• The decision aligns with and follows Supreme Court precedents, including:

  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)

  • Narender Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)

  • Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat (2017)

  • Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2022)

  • Gopal Kumar B. Nar v. CBI (2022)

• The Court observed that while compounding of non-compoundable offences cannot be allowed indiscriminately, matrimonial or personal disputes warrant a liberal approach when the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of trial serves no public interest.

• The ruling provides important interpretive guidance on the continuity of CrPC jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, confirming that established principles remain relevant despite legislative restructuring.

---

✅APS v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025

• The Court’s decision reflects a cautious but humanitarian approach in bail jurisprudence, focusing on the nature of the relationship and circumstantial factors rather than the gravity of the charge alone.

• While serious offences like rape and extortion typically warrant stricter scrutiny, the Court appeared persuaded by the mutual acquaintance and possible personal dimensions of the dispute.

• The order also aligns with the judicial trend that bail should not be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment, particularly when investigation is complete and trial is pending.

• However, the decision may invite debate regarding the balance between personal liberty and victim protection, especially in cases involving allegations of sexual exploitation under coercion.

• The Court refrained from commenting on the evidentiary aspects of the obscene videos, leaving those questions open for trial adjudication.

---

✅Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2025

• The judgment reaffirms the scope and intent of Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) BNSS) — ensuring that magistrates can direct investigations where the complaint reveals a cognizable offence, even before taking cognizance.

• The Court relied on Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615, emphasizing that the Magistrate’s discretion to forward a complaint for investigation exists to prevent judicial time from being wasted on matters primarily requiring police investigation.

• The ruling reiterates that truthfulness of allegations is not to be tested at the pre-cognizance stage; only the existence of a cognizable offence matters.

• The decision is also a caution against judicial overreach, stressing that High Courts should not quash FIRs or interfere in investigations unless there is a clear abuse of process or lack of jurisdiction.

• The judgment strengthens the procedural autonomy of the police and magistracy under the new BNSS framework, ensuring continuity with established CrPC jurisprudence.

---

✅Muhammad Shareef C. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025

• The judgment reiterates that personal laws cannot override statutory rules or constitutional values. Even though Islamic personal law allows polygamy in limited circumstances, state laws governing registration must ensure fairness, equality, and procedural justice.
  
  
• Justice Kunhikrishnan’s ruling represents a progressive step in protecting the rights of first wives, aligning with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. By mandating notice and hearing, the Court prevents the marginalization of first wives and promotes transparency in matrimonial registration.
  
  
• The Court candidly acknowledged the emotional and social trauma that women experience when their husbands remarry: "I am sure that 99.99% of Muslim women will be against their husband's second marriage when their relationship with him is in existence… their feelings cannot be ignored by a court.”
  
  
• The judgment delicately balances religious freedom under Article 25 with the constitutional mandates of equality and non-discrimination. It underscores that religious rights cannot justify violation of procedural fairness or denial of notice to an affected spouse.

• Registrars across Kerala must now ensure notice to the first wife before registering any subsequent marriage of a Muslim man.

• First wives have a right to object and, if necessary, seek judicial determination of the validity of the second marriage.

• The decision may influence other states to adopt similar safeguards in marriage registration processes.

• This ruling is path-breaking in harmonizing personal law practices with constitutional equality principles, reinforcing the message that religious practices cannot operate in isolation from statutory and constitutional safeguards.

• It protects Muslim women’s procedural rights and ensures that registration authorities act fairly when dealing with second marriages.

• The Court’s reasoning reflects a progressive constitutional vision—balancing religious freedom, gender justice, and due process.

• The decision may influence policy reforms or guidelines in marriage registration processes across India, ensuring greater accountability and sensitivity in cases involving polygamy.

---

✅A v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2025

• It was Examined offences alleged and noted that none prescribed a minimum sentence of 7 years, which is required for classification as “heinous offence” under JJ Act.

• The court Cited Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020): offences without minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be treated as heinous offences.

• It was Clarified that while maximum punishment could exceed 7 years, minimum sentence matters for classification.

• It was Emphasized the legislative intent:

  • JJ Act differentiates between petty offences, serious offences, and heinous offences to ensure appropriate treatment for children.

  • Children under 18 are generally rehabilitated, except 16–18-year-olds who commit heinous offences after preliminary assessment.

• It was highlighted importance of maturity assessment:

  • Mental and physical development varies between children aged 16–18.

  • Extent of criminal intent and gravity of offence differ per individual.

---

✅D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025

• The decision reinforces the strict procedural compliance required under the revised reassessment framework introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.

• The Court emphasized that jurisdictional defects in obtaining sanction are not mere technical irregularities but go to the root of the validity of the reassessment notice.

• By referring to Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal, the Court recognized the complex transition between the old and new regimes but clarified that, after 01.04.2021, the hierarchy of approving authorities must be strictly followed.

• This ruling strengthens assessees’ procedural safeguards, ensuring that revenue authorities adhere to statutory requirements before reopening completed assessments.

• It also clarifies that the Principal Commissioner’s approval is insufficient when more than three years have lapsed, aligning with the intent of Section 151(ii) under the new law.

---

✅Riya Suralkar v. Rahul Suralkar, 2025

• The High Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle of fair adjudication: a decree of divorce cannot rest on unchallenged assertions without substantive evaluation.

• The judgment serves as a caution against mechanical disposal of matrimonial cases, ensuring that even ex parte proceedings uphold judicial rigor.

• The ruling emphasizes that matrimonial relief is not granted as a matter of course and must be based on legally acceptable evidence proving cruelty or other statutory grounds.

• This decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s consistent position that failure to contest does not relieve the petitioner of the burden to prove the case.

• The case strengthens procedural fairness in family law, ensuring that both parties’ rights are safeguarded, even when one defaults in appearance.

---

✅The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Lalita & Ors., 2025

The Court’s reasoning rested on two core principles:

• Statutory Presumption under Section 108: A person missing cannot be presumed dead until seven years have elapsed. Hence, the civil court’s 2022 declaration of death could not retrospectively treat the employee as dead from 2012.

• Doctrine of Estoppel and Nature of Compassionate Appointment: Having accepted retirement and pensionary benefits, the family had acknowledged the employee’s continuance in service till retirement. Thus, invoking the death-in-harness scheme later was contradictory and legally untenable.

• The Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointment is an exceptional relief, not a vested right, intended only when death occurs during service, leading to sudden financial distress.

• The judgment ensures consistency in the application of compassionate appointment schemes and prevents misuse of the benefit in situations where an employee’s family has already received retirement benefits.

---

✅Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed and expanded the constitutional interpretation of Articles 21 and 22, ensuring uniform procedural fairness across all categories of offences.

• The Court emphasized the substantive nature of the right—not a mere technicality—since understanding the grounds of arrest allows the accused to:

  • Seek legal advice,

  • Challenge police custody or remand, and

  • Apply for bail effectively.

• The Court’s reasoning underscores that procedural safeguards are essential to the protection of liberty and cannot be diluted even in grave or high-profile cases.

• Importantly, this judgment extends the principle earlier applied in PMLA and UAPA cases (e.g., Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023) to all arrests, thus ensuring uniform constitutional protection.

• The ruling serves as a precedent-setting clarification: the mode, timing, and language of communication of arrest grounds are now constitutionally enforceable requirements.

---

✅Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025

• The Court emphasized that jurisdiction to decide an appeal presupposes the existence of living parties. Once a party dies, the appeal abates unless legal heirs are substituted, as the right to appeal is personal and does not survive automatically.

• Order XXII Rule 6 CPC was interpreted narrowly — it safeguards judgments only if the hearing is complete and the death occurs afterward, thereby ensuring procedural finality.

• However, when death precedes hearing, there is no valid lis (dispute) before the court, and any decision rendered in such circumstances is void and without legal force.

• The Court cited precedents including:

  • Rajendra Prasad & Another v. Khirodhar Mahto & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 1994),

  • Amba Bai & Others v. Gopal & Others (2001 INSC 263), and

  • Bibi Rahmani Khatoon & Others v. Harkoo Gope & Others (1981 INSC 100).

• The ruling underscores the procedural sanctity of substitution and the finality of abatement under the CPC. It serves as a reminder that judicial determinations in the name of deceased parties are legal nullities, no matter how meritorious the judgment might otherwise appear.

---

✅Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India and Another, 2025

• The Court’s order reflects a protective and humanitarian approach, consistent with the welfare objective of the Motor Vehicles Act, which seeks to provide speedy and just compensation to accident victims and their families.

• The 2019 amendment, reintroducing a limitation period of six months, effectively rolled back the 1994 reform that removed such a restriction to safeguard claimants’ rights.

• The petition argues that the amendment was enacted without adequate legislative reasoning, stakeholder consultation, or reliance on expert recommendations such as Law Commission reports, making it arbitrary and unreasoned.

• By staying dismissals on limitation grounds, the Supreme Court ensured uniformity and avoided multiplicity of litigation until the constitutional question is resolved.

• The interim relief preserves the status quo ante, maintaining the right to claim compensation as it existed before the 2019 amendment.

• The order demonstrates the Court’s commitment to upholding procedural fairness and access to justice under Articles 14 and 21.

---

✅Hussain Bin Awaz v. Mittapally Venkataramulu & Others, 2025

• The Court reaffirmed the limited evidentiary scope of Sections 45 and 73, emphasizing that expert opinion is supplementary, not substantive, evidence.

• The Bench noted that a comparison of handwriting or signature must be made only with admitted or proved specimens; otherwise, the exercise becomes speculative.

• The ruling underscores that the trial court’s discretion in permitting or denying expert examination should be respected, particularly when sought belatedly or after trial conclusion.

• The Court reiterated that the onus to prove a case rests with the party asserting it—here, the plaintiff seeking ownership declaration—not on the opposing party to disprove via expert opinion.

• By setting aside the High Court’s “interest of justice” reasoning, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that procedural discipline and evidentiary standards cannot be relaxed merely due to the age or emotional weight of a dispute.

• The decision brings clarity to the interplay between Sections 45 and 73, preventing misuse of forensic examination as a fishing tool in civil litigation.

---

✅T K Vasudevan Nair and Ors. v T Vrij Mohan and Ors., 2025

• Section 12(2) of the Specific Relief Act allows discretion to grant partial specific performance but only when the inability arises from defects or lack of title.

• Courts cannot grant part performance for a lesser extent when defendants have clear, undisputed ownership of the entire property.

• The judgment emphasizes the principle of continuous readiness and willingness by the plaintiff as a condition precedent for specific performance.

• Clarifies the limits of Section 12(2) to prevent plaintiffs from claiming only partial performance based on apprehensions of property extent.

---

✅Manoj Kumar Meena v Smt. Preeti Meena, 2025

• It Reinforces the principle that Article 21 guarantees the right to fair trial, which includes effective access to legal representation.

• It Highlights that external influence on lawyers or Bar associations that prevents a party from securing counsel can justify transfer of trial under Section 407, CrPC.

• It was affirmed that the court’s role in ensuring impartial justice irrespective of litigants’ professional influence.

---

✅Tarkeshwar Pandey v. Deena Nath Yadav and Ors., 2025

• It Reinforces the strict statutory bar on further appeals against orders under Section 104 CPC.

• It Clarifies that Section 100 CPC is only applicable to decrees, not orders, emphasizing the legal distinction between the two.

• It Serves as a precedent to prevent litigants from circumventing Section 104(2) CPC by attempting a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

• It Highlights that procedural bars in CPC are mandatory, and High Courts will enforce them to prevent repetitive litigation.

---

✅The State of Chhattisgarh v. Mangala Sharma, 2025

• The judgment reaffirms the principle of equality before the law, confirming that government departments are equally bound by limitation periods.

• It emphasizes that bureaucratic procedures and procedural formalities cannot automatically justify delay in filing appeals.

• The Court highlighted that the discretionary power to condone delay must be exercised only when a bona fide explanation is provided.

• The case serves as a caution that government entities must act diligently and promptly in filing appeals to avoid rejection on grounds of delay.

---

✅Abdul Hamid v. State of Assam, 2025

• The judgment underscores the principle that scientific evidence, such as DNA tests, can outweigh testimonial evidence when it conclusively contradicts key allegations.

• It clarifies that Section 29 POCSO presumptions are contingent upon establishing foundational facts.

• The Court emphasized the importance of credibility of the prosecutrix, noting that discrepancies and false statements undermine the safety of a conviction.

• The case demonstrates the need for careful assessment of scientific evidence alongside testimonial evidence to ensure justice is served.

---

✅K. S. Manjunath and Ors. v. Moorasavirappa @ Muttanna Chennappa Batil (Since Deceased) by his LRs and Ors., 2025

• The Court reinforced that the law protects parties who are ready and willing to perform contracts.

• It emphasized that allowing unilateral termination as a defense could frustrate the objectives of specific performance under the law.

• This judgment strengthens the legal certainty in non-determinable agreements and prevents misuse by the terminating party.

---

✅P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors., 2025

• The Supreme Court emphasized that legal efficacy of a relinquishment deed is immediate and independent of physical implementation.

• The judgment underscores the collateral admissibility of unregistered family arrangements for proving severance of joint family status, reinforcing the principle that registration is not mandatory for such evidentiary purposes.

• The Court differentiated between severance of status and division by metes and bounds, clarifying that formal physical division is not required to recognize separate ownership or enjoyment.

• This ruling strengthens the position of coparceners relying on formal written instruments and settlements, ensuring that long-standing separate possession is legally recognized.

---

✅Samiullah v. The State of Bihar, 2025

• The Court reaffirmed the principle that registration does not equate to ownership, addressing the longstanding gap in India’s property record system.

• It emphasized that arbitrary restrictions on property transactions, even if introduced by subordinate legislation, are unconstitutional and illegal.

• By highlighting technological reforms like blockchain, the Court stressed the importance of a modern, reliable land registry, reducing litigation and enhancing public trust.

• The judgment underscores the need for national-level reform in property registration and titling, moving away from a presumptive system to a conclusive ownership framework.

• This decision is significant for property owners, registrars, and state authorities, ensuring free and easy transfer of property without undue administrative obstacles.

---

✅Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) & Others, 2025

• The judgment reaffirms the limited scope of Section 482 Cr.PC, ensuring courts do not preemptively dismiss valid complaints.

• Courts cannot substitute quashing proceedings for a trial, protecting victims’ access to justice in dowry harassment cases.

• By emphasizing prima facie material, the judgment reinforces that minor inconsistencies in prior statements do not nullify serious allegations.

• This case strengthens judicial guidelines to avoid discouraging victims by prematurely quashing FIRs in domestic violence/dowry cases.

---

✅Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal, 2025

• The Court applied estoppel principles, emphasizing that long-term tenants cannot dispute the landlord’s title after decades of rent payments.

• Probate of the Will established legal sanctity of ownership, showing the Court gives effect to formal testamentary documents even if earlier courts doubted them.

• Recognition of bona fide requirement reinforces protection for landlords seeking possession for legitimate family or business needs.

• The judgment sets a precedent for long-term tenancy disputes, highlighting that continuous rent payments and valid deeds cannot be undermined later by tenants.

---

✅V. Maheswari and Others v. S. Bhaskarachari, 2025

• The judgment reaffirms the principle of burden of proof that the party asserting a claim bears the onus of proving it.

• In this case, the plaintiffs themselves admitted the existence of a registered partition deed, which carried a presumption of validity under law.

• Therefore, it was not open to them to shift or share the burden of proof with the defendants.

• The Court distinguished between an ordinary partition suit (where both sides may bear different burdens depending on their pleas) and the present case, where the plaintiffs sought to invalidate an admitted deed.

• The High Court agreed with the Trial Court’s observation that the reservation of the right to rebuttal evidence could be implied, but that did not apply here since no issue was pending for which defendants bore the burden.

• The ruling clarifies the narrow scope of Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC and emphasizes judicial restraint in allowing parties to reserve evidence inappropriately.

• This judgment thus strengthens procedural discipline by ensuring that plaintiffs must present their full case upfront when they bear the complete evidentiary burden.

---

✅Sanjay Tiwari v. Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao & Others, 2025

• The Court reaffirmed the legal position established in Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar, clarifying that the structure of Order VIII Rule 6-A strictly limits counterclaims to disputes between the defendant and the plaintiff, not between defendants inter se.

• The Court reasoned that allowing counterclaims among co-defendants would distort the procedural framework of civil litigation and create complications not envisaged by the CPC.

• The Court also clarified that impleadment of parties does not automatically entitle them to raise independent claims against other defendants through a counterclaim; such claims must be pursued through separate suits.

• The judgment reinforces procedural discipline in civil litigation and prevents misuse of counterclaim provisions.

• The Court underscored that procedural economies, such as avoiding multiplicity, cannot override explicit statutory limitations.

---

✅Akula Narayana v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., 2025

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed its consistent stance that innocent third-party victims in motor accident cases cannot be made to suffer because of policy breaches by vehicle owners.

• Referring to established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated the “pay and recover” doctrine, which balances the rights of claimants and insurers:

  • Claimants are protected and promptly compensated.

  • Insurers retain remedy against negligent or breaching vehicle owners.

• The Court emphasized that the deceased passenger committed no wrong, and thus compensation cannot be denied on technicalities.

• This judgment strengthens the protective framework of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring that procedural or contractual violations by vehicle owners do not prejudice third parties.

• The ruling also discourages insurers from outright denying claims on rigid technical grounds.

---

✅Mohammed Rasal C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025

• The Supreme Court recognized the importance and nationwide implications of deciding whether High Courts may directly hear anticipatory bail pleas.

• While acknowledging the concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS, the Court indicated that hierarchical discipline ordinarily requires approaching the Sessions Court first.

• The Court’s earlier preference that direct High Court filing must be exceptional aligns with principles of judicial efficiency and respect for the designated hierarchy of courts.

• Appointment of an amicus and involvement of the KHCAA underscore the significance and contentious nature of the issue, particularly in Kerala.

• The referral to a three-judge bench signals the Court’s intention to settle the issue through a binding precedent, which may impact anticipatory bail practice nationwide.

---

✅Kapadam Sangalappa & Ors. v. Kamatam Sangalappa & Ors., 2025

• The Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed the legal principle that execution of decrees requires strict proof, especially in cases involving historical compromise decrees concerning religious practices.

• The Court criticized the Executing Court's reliance on assumptions, stating that absence of quarrels or disputes over decades cannot legally establish that any specific term was breached.

• By asserting that “findings based on presumption cannot replace proof,” the Court reinforced the importance of evidentiary rigor.

• The judgment clarifies that execution courts cannot reconstruct historical compliance through inference—they must rely on cogent, affirmative evidence.

• The Court noted that both parties failed to fulfill significant parts of the compromise decree, thereby weakening the appellants’ selective claim of violation.

• The ruling preserves judicial fairness by preventing arbitrary enforcement of ancient decrees without concrete proof.

• This judgment strengthens standards relating to burden of proof, execution jurisprudence, and limitations on presumptive findings.

---

✅Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025

• The Court reaffirmed that execution proceedings cannot enforce decrees passed in favor of deceased parties without proper substitution, emphasizing legal nullity over mere voidable decrees.

• This judgment clarifies that the merger doctrine is subject to validity of the appellate decree.

• Reinforces that courts must scrutinize the validity of appellate proceedings, especially regarding procedural safeguards like substitution of heirs.

• Establishes that trial court decrees may be enforced despite appellate intervention, if appellate orders are void ab initio.

• Strengthens the principle that the onus lies on courts to ensure decrees are legally enforceable, and invalid decrees cannot be executed against rightful parties.

---

✅MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Renuka Realtors & Ors., 2025

• It Clarifies appealability of orders under Commercial Courts Act.

• It Distinguishes final vs interlocutory orders for appeal purposes.

• It Reinforces that procedural provisions must be interpreted harmoniously, not in a restrictive manner.

• It Confirms High Court can entertain revision or Article 227 petition when an order is interlocutory.

• It Restores litigant’s right to challenge final orders rejecting plaints, strengthening procedural clarity in commercial suits.

---

✅Surendra Koli v. State of UP, 2025

1. Confession (Section 164 CrPC):

• Confession recorded after ~60 days in police custody without effective legal aid.

• Magistrate failed to make required voluntariness note.

• Investigating Officer’s involvement compromised voluntariness.

• Confession referred to tutoring/coercion → inadmissible under Section 24 Evidence Act.

2. Recoveries (Section 27 Evidence Act):

• No contemporaneous disclosure memo; seizure records conflicted with remand papers.

• Items recovered were from known areas → not a valid discovery by accused.

3. Forensic Evidence:

• Searches yielded no bloodstains, tissue, or transfer patterns.

• Weapons lacked traces of blood or hair.

• DNA tests linked victims to families but not Koli.

4. Investigation Lapses:

• Scene not secured; remand papers contradictory; prolonged custody without medical exam.

• Crucial forensic evidence lost; witnesses not adequately questioned.

• Organ-trade angle not investigated.

5. Constitutional Violations:

• Upholding conviction on discredited evidence would violate Article 21 (life & fair procedure) and Article 14 (equality before law).

• Arbitrary disparity in outcomes undermines public confidence in judiciary.

6. Curative Jurisdiction:

• Curative relief applied due to manifest miscarriage of justice (as per Rupa Ashok Hurra precedent).

• Ensures integrity of adjudication and correction of inconsistent judicial outcomes.

• Identical evidence cannot produce opposite outcomes.

• Criminal justice must respect legality over expediency; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• True perpetrator remains unidentified due to investigative lapses.

• Media influence noted in trial court proceedings.

---

✅Commissioner of Service Tax v M/s Elegant Developers, 2025

• The Court reinforced that the definition of “service” excludes mere transfer of immovable property by sale.

• Key distinction: acting on own account vs acting as agent/consultant determines tax liability.

• The ruling clarifies that service tax cannot be imposed on straightforward land sales, even if the seller arranges title transfer or documentation.

• It underscores the burden of proof on the Revenue to establish intentional suppression for extended limitation to apply.

• Implication: Firms involved in real estate transactions purely for sale purposes are not liable for service tax, strengthening certainty in property dealings.

---

✅R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others, 2025

• The Court reaffirmed the primacy of Section 112 in protecting the legitimacy of children born during marriage, preventing casual or unsubstantiated claims from illegitimizing a child.

• DNA testing is recognized as a powerful scientific tool but must only be used when absolutely necessary, proportional, and relevant to the case.

• Article 21 was invoked to emphasize that privacy rights of individuals including the child and the alleged father cannot be overridden by speculative investigation.

• Consent of one party does not waive the privacy rights of others involved.

• The judgment prevents misuse of DNA profiling in criminal investigations for collateral issues unrelated to the offense.

• Establishes a two-fold safeguard: (i) necessity for the test, (ii) balance of interests between parties.

• Courts must exercise circumspection in ordering scientific tests that may affect the dignity, social legitimacy, or legal rights of individuals.

---

✅Pradeep v. Station House Officer and Another, 2025

• The Court emphasized that for consent to be vitiated under Section 90 IPC (misconception of fact), the prosecution must establish that from the very beginning, the accused never intended to marry the victim.

• Relying on Supreme Court precedents:

  • Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003)

  • Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013)

  • Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra

  • Naim Ahamed v. State

  the Court reiterated that consensual relationships arising from love and emotional involvement cannot be treated as rape unless deception is shown from inception.

• The Court found that:

  • The relationship began while the woman was still legally married, which weakened the claim that she relied solely on his promise of marriage.

  • Their relationship continued for years, demonstrating a deep emotional bond, not a relationship induced by deceit.

• Under Section 198 CrPC, offences relating to marriage require a complaint by the aggrieved person.

• The police filing a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC cannot substitute such a complaint.

• Thus, prosecution under Sections 493 and 496 IPC was procedurally barred.

• The judgment reinforces the principle that not every failed relationship or broken promise to marry amounts to rape.

• It underscores the need for clear, foundational deceit for rape charges based on false promise of marriage.

• It restricts misuse of marriage-related IPC provisions by affirming procedural safeguards under Section 198 CrPC.

---

✅SXXXX v. State of Haryana, 2025

• The Court emphasized that Section 90 IPC does not apply where a fully mature, educated, married woman voluntarily engages in sexual relations.

• The prosecutrix was:

  • 35 years old,

  • a practicing advocate,

  • aware of her subsisting marriage,

  • and aware that petitioner was her legal counsel, handling her case under Section 498-A IPC.

• Thus, she was in a position of full awareness, not vulnerability.

• The Court found her version implausible, especially the idea that she believed in the promise of marriage while still legally married.

• No date, time, or place of alleged rape was provided.

• Initial complaint did not mention rape on pretext of marriage this emerged only in a later improved version under Section 164 CrPC.

• Such improvements raised serious doubts about genuineness.

• Allegations against her parents, siblings, husband, and petitioner’s father were found false during investigation, indicating misuse of the criminal process.

• The prosecution appeared motivated by emotional backlash, particularly after the petitioner’s engagement to her sister.

• The Court recognized a pattern of retaliatory complaint.

• Consent of a married adult woman, especially one well-versed in law, cannot be deemed induced by promise of marriage.

• Courts should scrutinize improved statements carefully.

• FIRs lacking particulars cannot sustain grave charges like rape.

---

✅Govind v. State of Haryana, 2025

• The Court reinforced the principle that mere recovery of a weapon, even if supported by FSL evidence, cannot alone sustain a murder conviction.

• The judgment highlights the necessity of:

  • Independent witnesses to corroborate the recovery of the weapon.

  • Proper documentation and maintenance of the chain of custody.

  • Evidence supporting motive and last seen links to establish culpability.

• It was noted that speculative motive or association with co-accused cannot replace direct evidence.

• The Court relied on precedent from Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023), holding that recoveries from areas accessible to others are suspicious without corroboration.

• The decision strengthens procedural safeguards in criminal trials and ensures that convictions are not based solely on circumstantial evidence or forensic reports, upholding the principle of reasonable doubt.

---

✅State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu, 2025

• Reinforces the principle that habeas corpus petitions cannot be used to bypass the regular process of bail applications in criminal cases.

• Emphasizes that repeated dismissals of bail by competent courts establish that custody is lawful, and detention cannot be declared illegal simply due to perceived delays or hardships.

• Clarifies the limits of judicial review in habeas corpus proceedings, stressing that merit-based appeal of bail decisions cannot be disguised as a habeas corpus plea.

• Protects the due process of law in criminal cases and prevents the misuse of habeas corpus petitions to circumvent judicial decisions on bail.

---

✅RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, 2025

• The ruling reinforces the principle that conviction must rest on sterling quality testimony, especially in capital offences.

• It clarifies that identification evidence is critical, and procedural lapses or tainted TIPs fatally undermine prosecution.

• The judgment underscores the right to fair trial and fair confrontation — courts must ensure identification processes are protected and free from contamination.

• The bench directed that when witnesses are examined virtually, their prior statements must be electronically transmitted for fairness under Section 145 Evidence Act.

---

✅X v. Y, 2025

• The Delhi High Court emphasized that child custody is not a dispute about parental rights but a determination centered entirely on the welfare of the child.

• The Court clarified that custody cannot act as a reward for one parent or a punishment for the other, and factors such as economic power, unproven allegations, temporary living arrangements, and parental disputes cannot outweigh the child’s need for emotional security and continuity of care, which are essential for healthy development.

• The Court highlighted that moral accusations, especially those lacking credible evidence, cannot influence custody decisions.

• It observed that allegations of immorality must be legally substantiated, and even if proven, their relevance must be assessed based solely on whether such conduct has adversely affected the children. This approach protects against the misuse of custody litigation for character assassination or personal vendettas between spouses.

• The judgment underscored the importance of the primary caregiver doctrine, noting that stability and continuity in a child’s caregiving environment especially when the mother has historically fulfilled this role should be preserved unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise.

• The Court recognized the mother's role in providing emotional nurturing, routine, and reassurance, all of which are crucial components of child welfare.

• The High Court expressed disapproval of the father’s unilateral relocation with the children to Gurugram. It found that this decision disrupted the children’s routine, disturbed the caregiving balance, and attempted to turn a self-created temporary custody situation into a legal advantage.

• The Court made clear that such conduct cannot determine custody outcomes and should not be permitted to influence judicial decisions.

• Both the Family Court and the High Court personally interacted with the children to assess their comfort, emotional needs, and bonding with each parent.

• These interactions revealed a strong, nurturing bond between the mother and the children.

• Although the father argued that he could offer superior material comfort and financial stability, the Court reiterated that emotional nurturing, psychological stability, and affectionate bonding are far more important for young children than material advantages.

• The ruling reinforces the broader principle that custody adjudication must never become a forum for character attacks between parents. Instead, the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological welfare must remain the sole and paramount consideration.

• By doing so, the judgment strengthens long-established jurisprudence that the best interest of the child overrides all other considerations in custody disputes.

---

✅ROBERT LALCHUNGNUNGA CHONGTHU @ R. L. CHONGTHU v. State of Bihar, 2025

• The Supreme Court’s analysis strongly reinforced the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation as an integral part of Article 21.
  
  
• It observed that allowing an investigation to continue for 11 years, without adequate justification, inflicts undue mental, professional, and social hardship on the accused, placing them under perpetual fear of prosecution.
  
  
• The Court clarified that granting leave for further investigation under Section 173(8) does not strip the trial court of its supervisory powers; rather, it imposes a greater responsibility on the court to exercise judicial stewardship and ensure that continued investigation proceeds within a reasonable timeframe.
• The judgment underscores that reasons and accountability are foundational to criminal justice. Prolonged silence or inaction from investigating agencies cannot be brushed aside.
  
  
• The Court affirmed that while investigations are complex and cannot be bound by rigid timelines, endless investigations violate constitutional rights and may justify quashing proceedings outright.
  
  
• By highlighting the necessity of timely investigation, application of mind in sanction orders, and judicial monitoring, the Court established a framework that protects not only the accused but also maintains the integrity of the criminal justice system.

---

✅RIKHAB CHAND JAIN v. Union of India & Ors., 2025

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that Article 226 is a discretionary remedy, meant to protect parties only where statutory remedies are inadequate, inefficient, or unavailable.
  
  
• If a statutory remedy is effective, speedy, and capable of providing relief, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked, especially where delay by the petitioner has prevented the use of that remedy.
  
  
• This approach ensures that statutory schemes are respected and prevents misuse of writ jurisdiction to circumvent legislative provisions.
  
  
• The decision underscores the need for litigants to avail the remedies explicitly provided by statutes and demonstrates that judicial discretion is tempered by the presence of alternate efficacious remedies.

---

✅Md. Akil Alam v. Tumpa Chakravarty, 2025

• The ruling reinforces that marriages solemnised under the Special Marriage Act are governed exclusively by the Act, and personal religious laws cannot override statutory provisions.

• Restitution of conjugal rights is a positive remedy, but entitlement depends on truthful disclosure, absence of cruelty, and no reasonable cause for withdrawal from cohabitation.

• Concealing prior marriages or children constitutes a fundamental defect, defeating the claim for restitution.

• The Court ensures protection of spouses who act in good faith and prevents misuse of statutory remedies by parties who have misled or deceived their spouse.

• The judgment clarifies that restitution under Section 22 SMA is discretionary, equitable, and must be assessed on the merits, conduct, and factual circumstances of the parties.

• This decision strengthens jurisprudence regarding SMA marriages, emphasizing that statutory remedies must be applied fairly and uniformly, and personal law arguments cannot circumvent them.

---

✅Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti | Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025

• The majority stressed practical realities, balancing environmental regulation with public interest and economic consequences.

• The judgment clarifies that while environmental compliance is critical, absolute rigidity without considering feasibility and prior precedents can be counter-productive.

• It highlights the principle that a judgment delivered per incuriam (without taking into account relevant precedent) may be revisited to avoid unjust outcomes.

• The dissent reinforces the rule of law and environmental protection, holding that violators should not benefit from procedural flexibility.

• The case illustrates tension between environmental jurisprudence and public policy, showing the Court’s role in balancing strict legal compliance with broader socio-economic impacts.

• It also affirms the continuing relevance of coordinate bench judgments, and that no judgment should ignore prior settled law on exceptional powers to grant post-facto EC.

---

✅X v. Y, 2025

• The Court reinforced the principle that mental cruelty includes repeated verbal abuse, threats, withdrawal from cohabitation, and desertion, and is sufficient to ground divorce.

• Belated or reactive criminal allegations cannot be used as a shield to defeat genuine claims of cruelty.

• The judgment highlights that the possibility of restoration of matrimonial harmony is nullified when fundamental trust between families is breached.

• It emphasizes the role of consistent, unshaken evidence over post-litigation claims, demonstrating the Court’s approach to balancing procedural fairness with substantive justice.

• The judgment also underscores the emotional and social dimensions of divorce, recognizing that dissolution is not about victory but legal acknowledgment of an irreparable breakdown.

---

✅Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, 2025

• The Court reaffirmed the principle that criminal liability for serious offences is not a private matter but a societal concern.

• It stressed the need to protect the sanctity of Rule of Law and prevent perception of justice being a purchasable commodity.

• By highlighting the deceased as the primary victim, the judgment strengthens victim-centric jurisprudence in criminal law.

• The decision aligns with Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that inherent powers to quash FIRs must be used sparingly and not to override the public interest.

• It reinforces that monetary compromise cannot substitute for legal accountability in offences involving death or grievous harm.

---

✅Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab and Another, 2025

• The Court’s reasoning promotes a modern, humane, and proportionate approach to sentencing.

• Reinforces that youthful offenders with no prior record and mitigating circumstances deserve reformative consideration.

• Balances public safety, deterrence, and offender rehabilitation, aligning punishment with principles of penal parsimony.

• Highlights the Court’s discretion in crafting sentences that serve both justice and societal welfare.

---

✅MOHAMMADHANIF MOHAMMADIBRAHIM PATEL & ORS. v. PALLAVIBEN RAJENDRA KUMAR PATEL & ORS., 2025

• The Supreme Court emphasized that an appeal is a continuation of the original suit, and appellate courts have co-extensive powers to prevent irreparable harm pending the appeal.

• The Court criticized lower courts for mechanically applying Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, which only applies to stays during execution of a decree, not when the trial suit is dismissed.

• The judgment reinforces that interim relief applications must be considered independently on the merits, focusing on:

  • prima facie case,

  • balance of convenience, and

  • irreparable injury.

• It strengthens plaintiffs’ rights to seek protective measures during appeals, particularly in cases involving immovable property and specific performance.

---

✅A v. I, 2025

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a finding of irretrievable breakdown requires thorough examination of facts rather than mere observation of living separately.

• The Court highlighted the detrimental effects of premature divorce on spouses and children, emphasizing careful judicial evaluation.

• The judgment clarifies that courts must evaluate evidence of cruelty, desertion, and maintenance obligations before granting divorce.

• This ruling strengthens protection for spouses, especially women, against unilateral or forced separation-based divorce claims.

---

✅Ashwani Anand vs State of U.P. and 3 Others, 2025

• The judgment reinforces judicial discretion in quashing cases under POCSO when the victim does not support prosecution.

• It highlights that the law is not an instrument for harassment, especially in cases where proceeding would be futile and oppressive.

• The Court invoked the spirit of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, analogous to Section 482 CrPC, to intervene at an early stage, preventing unnecessary litigation.

• The judgment also draws attention to the judiciary’s duty to protect women and vulnerable individuals from legal harassment.

• Establishes precedent that a married victim’s support can justify quashing POCSO proceedings, provided the marriage is valid and consensual.

---

✅Arvind Verma & Anr Vs State of J&K, 2025

• Reaffirms the principle that dock identification is substantive evidence, while TIP serves as a prudential safeguard.

• Clarifies that TIP is not mandatory, but strengthens corroboration in identification.

• Establishes that a trial court has discretion to rely on eyewitness testimony without TIP if credible and corroborated.

• Provides guidance to investigating agencies and trial courts on the relative evidentiary value of TIP vs. dock identification.

• Balances the need for procedural safeguards with practical realities of criminal trials, preventing unnecessary procedural technicalities from derailing prosecutions.

---