MONTHLY MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER

Lexpedia · 1 October 2025 · 85 min read

The Court reiterated the settled principle that anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act is barred unless the allegations clearly do not constitute an offence under the Act.
However, it clarified that courts cannot delve into evidence or conduct a mini-trial while deciding anticipatory bail — the averments in the FIR alone must guide the prima facie analysis.
The use of casteist slurs and physical assault, as alleged in the FIR, was deemed sufficient to establish a caste nexus, satisfying the requirements of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.
This decision reinforces the protective intent behind the SC/ST Act and aims to prevent dilution of safeguards through premature bail orders.

✅C.P. Francis vs. C.P. Joseph and Others, 2025

The Supreme Court clarified and restated the law under Section 100 CPC, highlighting that:
- The High Court must be satisfied that the newly framed issue is a substantial question of law.
- There must be prior framing of at least one substantial question at the time of admission of the second appeal.
- Recording of reasons for framing an additional question is mandatory.
- Parties must be heard on any newly framed issue; otherwise, principles of natural justice are violated.
In this case, the new legal ground (Section 67) was never part of pleadings or evidence, and the High Court's reliance on it was described as an “abstract application” without verifying the factual foundation.
The Court also pointed out that the relationship of key witnesses (DW1 and DW5) was either assumed or uncontested, which further demonstrated that the High Court engaged in judicial overreach.

✅Ajay Kumar Nayyar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025

The judgment demonstrates the judicial caution exercised in economic offences involving high-value fraud and impersonation, especially where:
- Public trust and government institutions are manipulated;
- Repeat offences or criminal antecedents are present;
- Forged documents or cheques are used as tools of deception.
The Court considered the stage of trial (i.e., pending amendment of charge) as a key factor and was reluctant to interfere when the case was still evolving.
The Court also took note of trial delays caused by the accused, signaling that bail cannot be used as a license to stall proceedings.
This decision reaffirms that economic offences involving deceit, impersonation, and misuse of government names will be treated with seriousness by the judiciary.
The order upholds the principle that grant of bail is not automatic, especially in cases where the accused's liberty is in conflict with public interest and trial fairness.

✅Sh. Kewal Krishan v. Sh. Gulshan Kumar & Ors., 2025

This decision aligns with a consistent judicial trend post-2002 CPC amendment, focusing on strict enforcement of procedural rules in civil litigation.
The 2002 amendment was aimed at curbing dilatory tactics commonly adopted by parties to delay proceedings.
It sought to instill procedural discipline in the conduct of civil trials by imposing fixed timelines.
A maximum timeline for filing of the Written Statement was introduced to prevent indefinite delays in the litigation process.
Courts retain discretion to condone delay beyond 90 days, but such discretion must be exercised sparingly.
Delay can only be condoned when the circumstances are truly exceptional and justify deviation from the procedural norm.
Routine reasons, such as the time taken to obtain certified copies, do not constitute exceptional circumstances.
The judgment acts as a cautionary precedent for litigants and legal practitioners to comply with procedural requirements within prescribed timelines.
It reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and finality in the filing of pleadings.
The decision discourages parties from adopting delaying tactics or abusing procedural leeway.
The court made a clear distinction between facts required for pleadings and evidence, which can be brought in later.
Evidence gathering cannot be used as a justification for delay in filing the Written Statement.
The judgment underscores that procedural law must be respected, and timelines must be adhered to strictly.

✅Jaspreet Singh v. Union of India and Other, 2025

The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in K.V. Jankiraman, ensuring that promotion decisions are not unjustly delayed based on mere FIRs.
It clarified that "pendency" under Clause 3(a) must involve formal action (e.g., filing of charge-sheet or framing of charges), not preliminary steps like FIR registration.
The judgment protects the rights of public servants from being prejudiced by unsubstantiated allegations.
It sends a strong message that arbitrary administrative interpretations of service rules cannot override constitutional and legal safeguards.
The decision promotes fairness, administrative accountability, and due process, especially within the military and armed forces service structures.
By labelling the Tribunal’s order as perverse, the Court emphasized the importance of legal reasoning and evidence-based decision-making even by quasi-judicial bodies.

✅Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. State of Kerala, 2025

The Court reaffirmed that while victim testimony alone can support a conviction, it must be credible, consistent, and unshaken.
Delayed FIRs, without satisfactory explanation, can be fatal to the prosecution, especially when the accused is no longer in power and the threat of retaliation is removed.
The ruling sets a high threshold for evidentiary reliability in sexual offence cases—especially in politically sensitive matters.
The judgment draws attention to the dangers of relying on hearsay and evolving testimonies, highlighting the importance of direct, consistent evidence.
The case also reinforces that legal protections must be balanced—while supporting survivors, the rights of the accused must not be eroded by procedural or evidentiary lapses.
The acquittal after nearly two decades of litigation underlines the need for timely justice in sensitive criminal cases.

✅Praveen Rana v. State GNCT of Delhi, 2025

The judgment reflects a compassionate and context-sensitive approach by the court, balancing penal policy with social realities.
It affirms the principle that punishment should not extend to innocent dependents—in this case, the convict’s mother and children.
The court invoked humanitarian grounds, demonstrating judicial recognition of climate-related vulnerabilities and their impact on rural livelihoods.
It underscores how parole is not a concession but a right, especially where rehabilitation and family responsibilities are involved.
Also notable is the court’s insistence that such extensions be logged properly under the second parole clause of the Delhi Jail Manual, maintaining procedural rigor.

✅Arjun v. State, 2025

This ruling underscores the critical importance of age determination in cases of alleged sexual offences involving minors.
The Court emphasized due process and evidentiary standards, particularly when the only age proof (birth certificate and school record) is shown to be fabricated.
The judgment affirms that statutory presumptions under POCSO or IPC (like immateriality of consent) cannot be invoked without first establishing the victim’s minority.
It also flags a procedural lapse by the prosecution in failing to conduct a medical test, which could have provided corroboration.
The Court's analysis is grounded in the principle of benefit of doubt, and the accused’s constitutional right to fair trial.

✅Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh Kumar and Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025

The Court prioritized practicality over procedural rigidity, acknowledging enforcement realities.
The judgment distinguishes customs proceedings from general civil/criminal proceedings where stricter compliance with the Evidence Act might apply.
It emphasizes that evidence shouldn't be excluded solely due to technical non-compliance if authenticity is admitted.
Reinforces the idea of substantial procedural compliance in fiscal/statutory investigations.
This case narrows the strict interpretation laid down in Anvar P.V. by applying contextual and purposive reasoning.

✅Anurag Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another, 2025

The High Court drew a clear distinction between the summary relief mechanism of Section 125 CrPC and the civil nature of rights enforceable under Section 20(3) of HAMA.
It relied on the precedent of Abhilasha v. Parkash (2020) where the Supreme Court clarified that major daughters must approach civil courts under HAMA, not under CrPC.
The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards and proper pleadings are necessary for determining maintenance under civil law.
The ruling protects judicial consistency by preventing the misuse or confusion of jurisdictions between summary criminal proceedings and detailed civil suits.
The court upheld the importance of due process by mandating conversion into a civil suit for such maintenance claims.

✅Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another, 2025

The Court took a beneficial interpretation of Section 24, emphasizing its protective purpose.
It was Referring to Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd., the Court clarified that “stay” does not mean “termination”.
The phrase “during the proceedings” in Section 24 was interpreted broadly to include:
- Pendency at trial stage
- Appeals, revisions, and restoration applications
It was reinforces that maintenance orders under Section 24 are not automatically suspended due to procedural delays or stays.
It Promotes the idea that access to justice must not be denied due to technical procedural limitations.
It Aligns with other High Courts in extending spousal support rights throughout all stages of litigation.

✅Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh & Another, 2025

The judgment strengthens the principle of allowing amicable settlement in cheque bounce cases, especially in the commercial context.
It confirms that the compounding of offences under NI Act can be done even after conviction, provided both parties agree.
The Supreme Court ensured that procedural rigidity does not come in the way of settlement and justice.
Rejecting hyper-technical objections, the Court advanced the beneficial intent of Section 147.
The reliance on Gimpex reiterates that settlement agreements override continued prosecution, avoiding unnecessary burden on the judiciary.
The judgment encourages settlements and promotes restorative justice.

✅Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors., 2025

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the true scope of the "reasonable doubt" standard.
It Aims to prevent systemic failure in prosecuting heinous offences like rape of minors.
It was shown that judicial commitment to victim-centric justice and faith in evidence-based reasoning.
It also clarifies procedural defects must result in real prejudice to warrant acquittal mere irregularities are not sufficient.
A landmark direction for subordinate courts to be cautious while granting acquittals in POCSO and sexual offence cases.

✅ARUN KUMAR RAGHUWANSHI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR., 2025

The Supreme Court’s reasoning underscores the importance of meticulous investigations in suspicious deaths, especially when the victim is a minor and allegations of harassment and threats exist.
The Court emphasized that the physical possibility of the suicide method cannot be taken at face value without expert scrutiny.
By requesting affidavits and autopsy reports, the Court safeguards against premature conclusions and potential miscarriage of justice.
The judgment stresses procedural fairness, evidentiary rigor, and the protection of vulnerable individuals (minors) from wrongful outcomes.
This ruling highlights judicial vigilance in cases where powerful individuals may influence investigations.

✅Suraj Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2025

The judgment underscores the autonomy and authority of Magistrates in bail decisions, especially to rectify systemic delays and unjust detention.
It emphasizes the principle of parity Magistrates should grant bail to similarly placed accused persons if higher courts have granted bail to others in the same case.
It Highlights the importance of victims’ stance on bail and the relevance of compromise in bail consideration.
The Critiques the lack of confidence and fear among Magistrates, often stemming from insufficient support from higher judiciary.
This fear leads to denial of bail even in minor, bailable offenses, causing prolonged incarceration of poor and marginalized persons.
The decision promotes procedural safeguards to protect accused rights and reinforces that bail is a fundamental right in non-serious offenses.
The Calls for a judicial reform to ensure that Magistrates are supported and empowered to make bail decisions without undue fear.

✅Hareesh @ Harish Kumar v. A.S. Umesh & Others, 2025

The Court’s decision is grounded in preserving legal and societal integrity Section 112 exists to protect children born during a marriage from being declared illegitimate unless strong legal grounds exist.
Randomly allowing DNA tests would undermine marital trust, social stability, and the child's mental well-being.
The ruling cautions lower courts to respect legal thresholds before infringing upon privacy through intrusive procedures like DNA testing.
The Court reinforced that marriage implies paternity unless non-access is specifically and convincingly shown.
The Privacy and dignity are constitutionally protected rights, and cannot be overridden without compelling legal justification.

✅X v. Y, 2025

The ruling is socially progressive and recognizes that maintenance is a right, not charity.
The Court took a compassionate and equitable approach, balancing the financial limitations of the retired husband with the dependency and health condition of the wife.
The case also brings into focus the importance of non-monetary rights in a marriage, such as:
- Access to healthcare via CGHS/DGHS cards
- Protection from deliberate exclusion from benefits arising out of a spousal relationship
The judgment sends a strong message that senior citizen women, especially those estranged but not divorced, must not be forced to live in indignity or dependency due to the refusal of financial or healthcare support by their spouses.
It emphasizes that Courts will intervene when maintenance orders are outdated due to inflation, changes in earning capacity, or changes in needs.
The Court refused to give undue weight to the husband's status as a pensioner, noting that financial hardship must be proportionately balanced between both parties.

✅Rocky Abraham v. Union of India & Ors., 2025

The Court’s notice reflects a judicial inclination towards modernization of criminal procedure, especially bail-related formalities, to prevent avoidable incarceration.
The case highlights a significant practical problem in India’s justice system where manual and paper-based verification causes delay even after bail is granted.
If directed, adoption of digital solutions could streamline processes, reducing human and administrative bottlenecks, and safeguarding the liberty of accused persons.
The involvement of NALSA suggests a broader interest in systemic reform with possible legal aid or policy recommendations.
The petitioner’s case also touches upon the rights of foreign-based Indians or frequent travelers who face unique procedural challenges in bail and surety execution.
The Court’s engagement with issues of alleged custodial mistreatment reflects ongoing judicial sensitivity towards prisoner rights and humane treatment standards.

✅Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Another, 2025

This ruling reshapes the legal framework around notional income for minors in motor accident cases.
The Court reaffirmed the principle that minors should not be deprived of fair compensation merely because they do not have income at the time of the accident.
The judgment bridges the gap between potential and presumed earnings and ensures dignity and just recompense for young victims.
It also places a procedural burden on insurance companies, making it their responsibility to provide minimum wage schedules ensuring that claimants are not denied justice due to lack of income proof.
The direction to circulate the judgment across MACTs ensures uniform application of this principle nationwide.

✅Kuldeep v. State of Haryana and Others, 2025

The Court took a strict view on fraud in public employment, emphasizing that merit and transparency must govern public service appointments.
The judgment aligns with long-standing judicial principles that fraud vitiates everything.
It balances individual hardship (loss of employment after 10 years) against the larger public interest and integrity of the recruitment process.
The directive to fix departmental accountability is a progressive step toward ensuring systemic reform, not just punishing the petitioner.
The judgment also underlines that public employment is not a charity, and constitutional equality of opportunity must be protected against backdoor entries.

✅X v. Y, 2025

The Gujarat High Court reinforces the supremacy of Indian personal law in matrimonial matters involving Indian marriages.
The ruling protects spouses (usually women) who may be subject to forum shopping by the other party to obtain favourable divorce orders abroad.
The emphasis on “origin of marriage” over “current domicile” maintains consistency in family law adjudication.
The reliance on Y. Narasimha Rao (1991) provides strong precedent—foreign divorce decrees must comply with Indian law to be recognized.
The court's observation that “citizenship is irrelevant for a Hindu marriage” strengthens the autonomy of Indian family law from international legal interventions.
This judgment is also significant for non-resident Indians (NRIs) and OCI holders, confirming that Indian courts retain jurisdiction over their Hindu marriages.

✅Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan & Ors., 2025

The judgment balances individual dignity and privacy with legal procedures.
It highlights the non-utility of DNA evidence in a partition suit where legal status is already accepted by the family.
It shows strong deference to social recognition and existing family structures.
It emphasizes that scientific testing must not override constitutional protections arbitrarily.
It upholds the presumption in favor of legitimacy and maternal authority in declaring paternity.
It aligns with progressive privacy jurisprudence post-Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), even though not cited directly.

✅Ramesh Chand (D) Through LRs v. Suresh Chand and Another, 2025

The Supreme Court clarified and reinforced a crucial aspect of evidentiary law: the strict compliance required under Section 68 for proving Wills.
It corrected the High Court’s erroneous interpretation, which could have created a dangerous precedent by suggesting that formal proof requirements can be diluted depending on the nature of the dispute.
The ruling strengthens procedural rigor in property disputes and prevents misuse of Wills not duly proved.
The reiteration regarding GPA and Agreement to Sell echoes the landmark judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, where the Court held that title cannot pass without a registered sale deed.
Overall, this decision contributes to the legal certainty and evidentiary integrity required in property transactions and succession matters.

✅Sreeja D G & Ors. v. Anitha R. Nair & Anr., 2025

This ruling reasserts the hierarchical judicial discipline and the principle of sub judice, emphasizing that lower courts must not act on matters already seized by the Supreme Court.
The judgment acts as a cautionary precedent to prevent High Courts from taking steps that may render Supreme Court proceedings infructuous.
The Court's reference to Chhavi Mehrotra reinforces the doctrine that multiple forums should not be entertained simultaneously on the same issue, preserving the integrity of the judicial process.
It also addresses a growing concern of concealment of material facts by parties, which could amount to abuse of the judicial process.

✅Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025

This judgment draws a critical distinction in procedural law post-cognisance:
- Article 226 jurisdiction is limited once a judicial act (like cognisance) is passed.
- But the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS remain intact.
The ruling reinforces that technical changes during pendency (like charge-sheet filing) do not automatically render a petition infructuous.
The Supreme Court is careful to prevent technical misreadings of precedent (like Neeta Singh) that could curtail access to remedies.
It reflects a balanced approach: protecting judicial discipline while ensuring substantive justice is not denied.

✅Nasir Mohd Sodozey @ Aftaab Ahmed @ Abdullah v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2025

The judgment underscores the exceptional gravity of terrorist offences compared to ordinary crimes.
It balances the individual’s incarceration period against the larger societal interest in security and order.
The Court adopts a restrictive approach to remission for offences threatening national security, emphasizing the policy’s emphasis on societal welfare.
It also reflects the Court’s concern about terrorist networks and their possible revival if such convicts are prematurely released.

✅HM v R, 2025

The Court emphasized that courts must rely on clear and credible evidence when evaluating allegations of cruelty.
Mere allegations without supporting proof are insufficient to establish mental cruelty.
Serious allegations require the filing of criminal cases such as an FIR to add credibility to the claims.
Failure to initiate criminal proceedings significantly weakens the credibility of such allegations.
The act of self-immolation by a spouse is recognized as a grave and deliberate act indicating severe mental distress.
Here, Self-immolation refers to the act of deliberately setting oneself on fire, often as a form of protest or due to extreme despair. In the context of this case, it was recognized by the court as a serious and deliberate act by the spouse that caused mental cruelty to the other party, thereby justifying grounds for divorce.
This act signifies intense emotional turmoil and can deeply affect the marital relationship, demonstrating severe mental cruelty under the law. Such self-inflicted harm constitutes mental cruelty towards the other spouse and can justify divorce.
The Court reiterated that mediation proceedings are to remain strictly confidential and should not be recorded in court orders.
Only successful mediation settlements should be formally submitted to the court.
The judgment highlights that cruelty is not limited to physical harm but also includes emotional, psychological, and mental abuse.
Psychological cruelty alone can be sufficient grounds for granting a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

✅Pravin Nathalal Parch vs State of Maharashtra, 2025

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that biological parents are the primary natural guardians of their children.
While emotional bonds between grandparents and grandchildren are acknowledged, they do not grant legal custody rights over the parents.
The court requires credible and substantive evidence to justify any deviation from parental custody.
The ruling upholds the importance of preserving the parent-child relationship as long as it does not harm the child.
It highlights that domestic disputes or property conflicts should not interfere with the custody rights of the biological parents.
The court also considers the capacity of the custodian and any conflicting claims, including maintenance issues raised by the grandparents.

✅Nanak Chand and Ors. v. UT of J&K & Anr., 2025

The judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding against abuse of criminal law where civil disputes are improperly converted into criminal cases.
It reinforces the principle that malicious prosecution can and should be curbed by the judiciary to prevent harassment and unwarranted litigation.
The Court applied a strict scrutiny of facts, considering age and physical presence, to assess plausibility of allegations.
The ruling reflects judicial concern over litigation misuse and family vendettas being pursued through criminal complaints.

✅State of H.P. v/s Mam Raj, 2025

The judgment stresses the importance of consistency in victim testimony especially in sensitive cases like rape.
It reinforces that mere allegations without corroborative evidence cannot sustain a conviction.
The Court carefully weighed the evidence of love letters to assess the nature of the relationship and possible pressure or coercion.
This case highlights the need for strong and consistent evidence in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well as under the IPC.

✅Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025

The Court has made a significant contribution by articulating a clear, step-wise test for quashing criminal proceedings:
- These steps emphasize the quality, sufficiency, and reliability of the materials relied upon by the accused.
- The ruling is aimed at preventing misuse of judicial process, especially in frivolous or malicious prosecutions.
- The Court stressed judicial economy by stating that continuing such cases wastes valuable court time, especially where conviction is highly unlikely.
- This case adds substantive clarity to the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., now aligned with Section 528 of the BNSS.
The decision also strengthens due process safeguards for the accused, ensuring that trials do not proceed in cases where the foundational complaint lacks integrity or reasonableness.

✅Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2025

The Court followed a principled approach, giving due regard to the statutory framework (NBC, 2016) and the requirement of mens rea in criminal law.
It reemphasized that criminal provisions cannot be invoked mechanically; courts must assess whether the representation materially induced a decision or caused actual or potential harm.
This judgment sets a precedent against over-criminalization in administrative matters, especially where statutory compliance is already met and no real damage is caused.
It also underscores the importance of distinguishing between procedural irregularities and criminal conduct, especially in regulatory fields like education.
The decision adds clarity to the scope of Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC, particularly in cases involving non-material false documents.

✅Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025

The judgment reinforces the broad protection offered by Sections 96–106 IPC, ensuring that individuals are not penalized for defending themselves when faced with imminent and serious harm.
The Court’s non-pedantic approach ensures that criminal liability does not result from split-second defensive decisions in high-risk situations.
The reliance on Darshan Singh principles clarifies the legal limits and applicability of the right of private defence.
It serves as a precedent for cases involving self-defence with fatal consequences, particularly where the aggressor initiates deadly force.
The decision upholds personal liberty while maintaining judicial balance in assessing proportionality and necessity in defensive acts.

✅Ram Sagar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025

The judgment reinforces the flexible and evidence-dependent nature of Section 197 CrPC, which is not a blanket immunity for public servants.
It upholds the trial court’s discretion to decide the sanction issue during trial, rather than prematurely stalling proceedings.
This decision is significant as it avoids procedural bottlenecks in corruption and public servant misconduct cases.
The Court maintains a balance between protecting honest public servants from vexatious litigation and ensuring accountability for genuine offences.
The ruling also limits potential abuse of Section 197 as a shield for delaying prosecution.

✅Savita v. State of H.P. & Ors., 2025

The Court upheld gender equality and non-discrimination, emphasizing that marriage does not sever familial ties, especially when compassionate employment is meant to support the dependent family.
It marks a progressive step toward removing patriarchal biases in interpreting service rules and expands the scope of "family" inclusively.
The Court recognized that financial dependence and emotional bonds do not end with marriage and must be respected in policy application.
The ruling strengthens legal recognition of married daughters as equal stakeholders in compassionate employment matters and may set a binding precedent for similar public employment disputes.

✅Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025

The Supreme Court demonstrated strict adherence to due process and high evidentiary standards, particularly in capital punishment cases.
The judgment reiterates that:
- Last seen theory must be backed by credible and complete evidence.
- Illegally obtained or planted DNA evidence can nullify the prosecution’s case.
- Failure to examine crucial witnesses can lead to adverse inference under the Indian Evidence Act.
- Death penalty must not be imposed unless guilt is proved beyond doubt through a clean and complete evidentiary chain.
The ruling serves as a strong precedent against mechanical convictions in high-stakes criminal cases.

✅Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors., 2025

The Court affirmed the principle from Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) that Stage 1 is Register FIR, and investigation follows.
It re-emphasized that no pre-investigation inquiry into truthfulness of the complaint is required under Section 154 CrPC.
Importantly, it recognized that investigative officers, despite their role in law enforcement, are not immune from scrutiny.
The ruling bolsters accountability of public servants, particularly in sensitive roles like the CBI.
It also serves as a check against potential misuse of power by high-ranking officials.

✅H. S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s MSN Woodtech, 2025

The Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of limitation under Section 142(b), promoting legal certainty and procedural discipline.
The judgment is significant because it:
- Clarifies the procedural safeguard for accused persons.
- Limits judicial discretion in bypassing statutory requirements without application.
- Prevents abuse of process by ensuring delay is not condoned casually or implicitly.
Also serves as a caution to complainants to act within the statutory framework and not expect leniency unless delay is properly explained and accepted.

✅Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal and Anr., 2025

The court emphasized the importance of specific, timely, and substantiated allegations in criminal proceedings.
It highlighted the misuse of legal provisions in the absence of credible evidence.
The ruling reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool for settling personal scores, especially in matrimonial disputes.
The judgment clarified that comments made within a household, not in public view, do not attract Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act.
The decision upholds judicial caution in prosecuting serious offences without adequate prima facie evidence.

✅Chetan v. State, 2025

The Court reaffirmed that penal policy must favor reformation and social reintegration over punitive excess.
It challenged the assumption that discipline must always override reform, especially in matters like furlough, where the impact on public safety is low.
The judgment sends a clear message that administrative rigidity must not undermine legal tools meant for humane treatment of prisoners.
It emphasizes that policies around furlough must reflect constitutional values of human dignity and rehabilitation.

✅Swami Vivekananda University & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2025

The Court clarified the scope and objective of Section 94 BNSS as being aligned with truth-seeking and preventing failure of justice.
By comparing it with Section 91 CrPC, the judgment reinforced that BNSS provisions are not narrower, but allow for expansive interpretation in appropriate investigative contexts.
It reaffirms the principle that judicial interference in ongoing investigations should be rare and restrained.
The case also underscores that shared management or common trusteeship between institutions may justify broader document requisitions.

✅Smt. Pooja v. Mahendra Singh & Ors., 2025

The High Court strongly reaffirmed the purpose and enforceability of a decree, declaring that it cannot remain a "mere paper decree" or be rendered illusory by procedural loopholes.
The judgment reinforces that Section 151 CPC is a powerful tool to achieve substantive justice, allowing courts to pass consequential orders that ensure the effectiveness and integrity of a decree.
It criticized the execution court’s refusal to act, highlighting that abdication of responsibility on technical grounds defeats the essence of judicial adjudication.
The judgment has significant implications for decree-holders facing symbolic compliance, and clarifies the role of courts in ensuring full execution of compromise decrees.

✅ICAR National Research Center Of Plant Biotechnology v. Azad Singh Dagar Prop M/S Servitor Intelligence, 2025

The Court clarified that procedure is not dispensable in the name of substantive justice.
It warned against diluting codified civil procedure, emphasizing that government departments are not above procedural compliance.
This judgment reinforces discipline in civil litigation and discourages habitual delay tactics often employed by state agencies.
It draws a clear line: substantive rights are not absolute they are conditional on following procedural law.

✅SB v. HB, 2025

This judgment reaffirms the principle that economic parity between spouses must be maintained post-separation, especially during litigation.
The High Court clarified that being employed is not a bar to claiming maintenance where there's a stark income gap.
It rejected the argument that Section 24 is being misused to create an "army of idle persons".
The ruling underscores the equitable objective behind Section 24 ensuring that litigation does not economically handicap the weaker spouse.
It sets a progressive precedent, especially relevant in high-income disparity marriages involving working spouses.

✅Ram Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & ors., 2025

The judgment aligns with the principle that rape trials should not become trials of the survivor or subject her to unnecessary and invasive procedures.
It reaffirms that DNA evidence, while powerful, should not be misused to harass or delay the trial process.
The Court rightly held that the focus of a rape trial is on consent and commission of the offence, not on paternity, unless directly relevant.
The verdict provides procedural safeguards for rape survivors and preserves their dignity during trial.

✅XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025

The decision demonstrates a progressive and empathetic interpretation of the POCSO Act, recognizing the reality of adolescent relationships.
The Court acknowledged that the objective of POCSO is to protect children from abuse, not to criminalize consensual relationships among peers.
It respects the agency of the victim, who is now an adult, and her right to choose her partner.
The judgment reinforces the need for judicial discretion and sensitivity in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships.

✅Hamzah Muneer & Anr. v. Mohd. Aqil & Ors., 2025

The ruling clarifies an often misunderstood principle in Muslim succession law regarding the exclusion of grandchildren.
It applies a fact-specific interpretation of Amirullah Khan, aligning with justice and logic by preserving the estate within the direct bloodline.
The Court reinforced that Muslim law does not permit collateral relatives (like nephews) to step in when lineal descendants are available.
The judgment safeguards the rights of grandchildren, especially when the immediate heir (their parent) has predeceased.

✅Khelo Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025

The Court drew a clear distinction between “dangerous weapons” and bodily parts like teeth.
It limited the scope of Section 324 IPC to exclude injuries caused by teeth.
The decision prevents over-extension of Section 324 IPC to cases without a true “dangerous weapon.”
It reinforces legal protection against intrusion and sexual violence.
The judgment stresses that the home is a person’s “castle” and trespass with intent to commit serious offences warrants strict punishment.
The ruling guides lower courts to carefully apply Section 324 IPC only when genuine dangerous weapons or means are involved.

✅X v. Y, 2025

The Court took a progressive approach to marital recognition, relying on substance over form.
It was emphasized that legal marriages can be presumed from long-term cohabitation, especially when children are born.
It Prevented misuse of technicalities to defeat established relationships.
The case reflects a protective stance toward women's and children's rights in marital disputes.

✅X vs. Y, 2025

The Court took a progressive tone by acknowledging the invisible labor of homemakers and the need for policy reform.
However, it adopted a legally conservative position, maintaining that courts cannot create property rights where none exist in law.
The case demonstrates the gap between moral entitlement and legal recognition.
It reiterates that domestic contributions, though significant, do not yet have legal standing in property disputes unless codified.
The Court emphasized the importance of legislative reform, echoing prior debates around marital property law.
The ruling also reaffirms that courts require evidence-based claims—vague assertions without proof cannot succeed.
Ultimately, the judgment walks a line between sympathy and statutory constraint, reflecting a wider systemic issue in gender justice in matrimonial disputes.

✅Vishan Singh v. State, 2025

The Court balanced individual rights with public interest, stressing that bail cannot be automatic even in cases of long detention, especially in serious offences.
It affirmed that Article 21 rights must be interpreted contextually, taking into account:
- Nature of the offence
- Stage of trial
- Evidence available
The judgment shows judicial restraint and sensitivity to the victim’s rights, witness protection, and societal security.
It was reinforced the legal position that “bail is the rule and jail the exception” is not absolute, especially in heinous offences.

✅XX v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2025

The Court took a progressive tone, recognizing the invisible trauma and bodily autonomy of young victims.
It was reasserted that maternal rights under Article 21 remain paramount where continuation of pregnancy poses a risk to life or mental health.
While recognizing the potential viability of the foetus, the Court underscored the need for a clear statutory framework to guide courts on how to handle such complex cases.
Justice Monga highlighted that in cases of sexual assault, especially involving minors, compelling childbirth can amount to state-inflicted trauma.
The decision underscores that constitutional rights must not be made subordinate to rigid biological benchmarks.
It also reflected the crucial role of Medical Boards in balancing medical facts with legal questions in abortion cases beyond 24 weeks.

✅Gautam Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2025

The judgment reflects a modern, realistic approach to adult relationships, especially those involving emotional or physical intimacy outside traditional marriage.
Justice Sharma emphasized that law must evolve with society, and not hold onto outdated moral frameworks.
The case serves as a reminder that criminal law should not be used to seek retrospective justice for relationship breakdowns where there was clear, informed consent.
The Court carefully drew a line between real cases of coercion & rape and failed consensual relationships, where personal responsibility is crucial.
It was emphasized that legal remedy is not appropriate for emotional consequences arising from voluntary romantic choices.

✅XXX v. XXX, 2025

The Court reaffirmed the high threshold for cruelty as a ground for divorce to prevent misuse of matrimonial laws.
It was emphasized that the law aims to preserve marriages, not dissolve them for minor or routine disagreements.
It was highlighted the importance of credible evidence, especially in allegations of physical abuse.
It was reiterated the doctrine of clean hands ensuring that those who seek relief must come without blame.
The decision sends a message against fabricated or exaggerated allegations in matrimonial disputes.
The Court carefully balanced protecting genuine victims while preventing frivolous or malicious claims.

✅Sunita Devi vs. Sumit Bishnoi, 2025

The Court emphasized the principle that an able-bodied spouse cannot avoid maintenance obligations by claiming insufficient income, especially when some income sources are admitted.
The decision balanced the respondent’s earning capacity and the petitioner’s financial needs fairly.
The presumption of earning capacity in able-bodied spouses reinforces the protective scope of maintenance laws for dependents.
By enhancing the maintenance, the Court ensured the petitioner’s reasonable livelihood without unduly burdening the respondent beyond his means.

✅G v. State, 2025

The Court’s reasoning emphasizes the importance of full disclosure of financial documents in maintenance claims.
It demonstrates the principle that courts may draw adverse inferences when a party fails to produce crucial evidence without explanation.
The judgment highlights that Section 125 Cr.P.C. protects dependents but requires credible proof of inability to maintain oneself.
The decision balances the protection of dependents with the need to prevent speculative or fraudulent claims.

✅XXX v. State of Punjab, 2025

The judgment reinforces that in abetment cases, intent (mens rea) is not judged from isolated actions but from a pattern of behavior.
The Court gave due importance to the suicide note as a critical piece of evidence indicating the accused’s role.
The balance was struck in favor of administration of justice over the protection of accused’s rights, given the seriousness of the offence and evidence.
The ruling also highlights the role of digital evidence (phone call records) in modern investigations.

✅State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Others, 2025

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the strict scope of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act: it only applies in true cases of intestacy.
The State cannot act pre-emptively to claim property just because it suspects the absence of heirs.
The ruling emphasizes probate finality and limits State intervention, strengthening the sanctity of Wills and testamentary autonomy.
It clarifies the procedural safeguard under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act – only heirs with a legitimate claim under intestate succession may seek revocation of probate.
The ruling also limits misuse of escheat laws by state governments and protects the rights of private charitable trusts.

✅Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRs. Goran v. Jagan Devi & Others, 2025

The judgment reinforces the strict requirement of consideration in a sale mere execution of a deed is not sufficient.
It upholds the principle from Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar, affirming that payment of price is not optional under TPA.
The Court clarified a frequent confusion in limitation law:
- Void documents do not require cancellation;
- Voidable documents do and only then would Article 59 apply.
This decision protects genuine title holders from being unfairly penalized for failing to challenge a void document, and emphasizes that possession does not override title when the underlying transfer is a nullity.

✅PINJARA TANJILA ALTAFBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS., 2025

The Court followed the principle of subsidiarity under constitutional law where the High Courts must first be approached unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Though grave allegations of custodial torture, sexual assault, and violation of juvenile rights were raised, the Supreme Court refrained from intervening at the initial stage.
The request for preservation of CCTV footage was not entertained, though this could have significant evidentiary implications.
The ruling places a responsibility on High Courts to act swiftly in such cases, especially when the life and dignity of a minor are involved.
The order preserves the right of the petitioner to return to the Supreme Court if the High Court fails to act or protect rights effectively.

✅ITC LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR., 2025

The judgment reinforces the primacy of due process even in cases of regulatory violations under special statutes.
It affirms that CrPC safeguards (like warrant, recording of reasons, witnesses) apply to search and seizure under non-criminal laws as well.
The Court drew a clear distinction between “inspection” and “search”:
- Inspection = verification of compliance.
- Search = broader, invasive, and includes seizure thus requiring stricter safeguards.
This case sets a precedent for industries subject to regulatory checks (e.g., FMCG, pharma, logistics) regarding how searches must be lawfully conducted.
The ruling could curtail arbitrary enforcement actions by regulatory bodies and promote accountability.

✅RAJUL MANOJ SHAH @ RAJESHWARI RASIKLAL SHETH v. KIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ANR., 2025

The judgment reinforces the restricted scope of counter-claims: they must be directed against the plaintiff only.
It also emphasizes the importance of procedural timelines, holding that delayed counter-claims after framing of issues are not maintainable.
Article 227 supervisory powers cannot override settled procedural law.
The Court clarified that reliefs like specific performance must be claimed through an independent suit, not via counter-claims against co-defendants.
This case reaffirms and strengthens the Rohit Singh doctrine.

✅Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana, 2025

The judgment clarifies that while separate trials are the rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C, joint trials are allowed where offences are connected by the same transaction or satisfy conditions under Sections 219-223 Cr.P.C.
Judicial discretion in ordering joint or separate trials must be exercised prudently and early in the proceedings.
The Court emphasized two paramount considerations for joint trials:
- Whether joint trial causes prejudice to the accused.
- Whether it would cause delay or wastage of judicial resources.
The Court highlighted the inefficiency and potential miscarriage of justice if evidence is duplicated or witnesses recalled multiple times in separate trials.
It protects the right to a fair trial by ensuring trial procedures are not manipulated for political or arbitrary reasons.
The decision reinforces judicial economy and the principle that the law treats all accused equally, regardless of political status.

✅Kailas S/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025

The judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s progressive approach to electronic evidence, aligning legal standards with modern technology.
The Court recognizes that technical compliance with Section 65B satisfies the requirement of authenticity for electronic records, reducing unnecessary procedural hurdles.
The ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness balanced with efficiency in criminal trials, especially in NDPS cases where evidentiary proof is complex.
By underscoring the non-fatal nature of non-production of the entire contraband if proper documentation exists, the Court discourages undue emphasis on procedural formalities that do not affect the truth-finding process.
This judgment strengthens the probative value of video evidence and clarifies standards that will reduce retrials and delays, ensuring fair trial rights are protected while facilitating judicial efficiency.

✅DASTAGIRSAB VERSUS SHARANAPPA @ SHIVASHARANAPPA(D)BY LRS. & ORS., 2025

The judgment reinforces the authority of the Karta to manage HUF property, especially for legal necessities.
It acknowledges marriage expenses as a valid legal necessity justifying alienation.
The Court clarifies that alienation after marriage is not per se invalid if connected to the marriage expenses.
By applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court places the burden of proving non-receipt of consideration on the coparceners, not on the purchaser, thus protecting innocent purchasers.
This judgment strengthens the legal certainty in HUF transactions and prevents frivolous challenges by coparceners.
It also highlights the importance of family consent and documentary evidence in alienation cases.

✅Datta Ram and others v/s United India Insurance Company Limited, 2025

The judgment establishes that even in cases where special statutes like the Motor Vehicles Act do not specify limitation periods, the general Limitation Act applies.
It emphasizes the principle that execution proceedings are subject to limitation periods, aligning with general civil law principles.
This ruling prevents the indefinite filing of execution petitions, ensuring legal certainty and finality in litigation.
The Court balances the interests of insurance companies seeking recovery with the rights of vehicle owners to have clear limitation constraints.
The decision clarifies that statutory execution rights should not be interpreted to override well-established limitation principles, preventing misuse of statutory provisions.
The judgment serves as a guiding precedent for lower courts and tribunals handling execution petitions under motor accident claims.

✅Kritika Jain v. Rakesh Jain, 2025

The ruling clarifies the scope of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act in excluding grandchildren from intestate succession when their parent is alive.
It highlights the shift from the traditional concept of ancestral joint family property to absolute ownership by Class I heirs post-HSA.
This decision prevents grandchildren from bypassing the parent’s share during their lifetime and protects the inheritance rights of immediate heirs.
The case reinforces legal certainty in succession matters among Hindus and aligns with statutory provisions.

✅Dharam Kumar Saw and others v. The State of Jharkhand, 2025

The Section 397 CrPC provides concurrent revisional jurisdiction to both the Sessions Court and High Court.
Despite concurrent jurisdiction, litigants should generally first approach the Sessions Court for revision against Magistrate’s orders.
The High Court should intervene at the first instance only in exceptional cases where justice so requires.
Section 397(3) CrPC prevents multiple revision petitions on the same issue filed simultaneously in different forums.
Following the hierarchy respects judicial discipline and avoids duplicative or piecemeal litigation.
This judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint and prudence in exercising revisional powers.

✅Ashish Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2025

The Court balanced strict anti-terrorism laws with fundamental rights, underscoring the importance of due process and speedy trial under Article 21.
The judgment reaffirmed that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed even in sensitive UAPA cases.
It also highlighted systemic issues like delayed prosecution and lack of timely interrogation affecting justice delivery.
By referencing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court emphasized judicial oversight to prevent misuse of prolonged incarceration as a de facto punishment.
The ruling is a reminder that bail is a fundamental right where prolonged detention without trial or sufficient evidence occurs.

✅Sumanlal Kodialbail & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr., 2025

This judgment reinforces the principle that Section 498A IPC must be strictly construed, and misuse of the provision must be checked to protect innocent parties.
The court correctly applied the requirement of “wilful conduct” as laid down in prior decisions like Manoj Mahadeo Ingle v. State of Maharashtra and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana.
The judgment also reflects the judicial concern over false or delayed allegations being used for retaliation or harassment.
The High Court acknowledged the importance of specificity in allegations, especially when prosecuting extended family members.
On limitation, the decision reflects a cautious application of Section 468 CrPC, given the three-year bar for such offences.

✅Ratan Kumar Roy @ Ratan Kr. Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2025

The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed the principle that criminal courts should not be used to settle civil disputes, especially in tenancy or property matters.
It clarified the scope of Section 506 IPC, emphasizing that mere threat to evict, even if unlawful, does not inherently cause alarm so as to meet the threshold of criminal intimidation.
The court showed sensitivity to misuse of criminal law to pressure property owners or landlords, especially elderly and vulnerable persons.
The ruling aligns with precedents like G. Sagar Suri v. State of UP (2000) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), where the Supreme Court warned against criminalizing civil disputes.
The judgment strengthens judicial safeguards against abuse of process, preserving the distinction between civil wrongs and criminal offences.

✅Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr, 2025

This ruling aligns with progressive interpretations of Section 125 CrPC, recognizing that economic abuse and neglect can occur even if the wife is partially self-reliant.
It affirms that voluntary unemployment by an able-bodied man cannot be used to evade legal responsibility.
The Court emphasized equality of status and dignity, rejecting the notion that a woman must live in hardship if she can barely survive on her own.
The judgment also reflects judicial sensitivity toward women forced out of their matrimonial homes, who are often blamed or denied maintenance based on narrow interpretations of income.

✅XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025

The Kerala High Court reinforced the procedural mandate under Section 198B CrPC, which is a jurisdictional requirement for prosecuting Section 376B IPC cases.
The judgment reaffirms that special procedural protections exist when dealing with offences arising in marital relationships, especially where consent and separation are legally nuanced.
It underlines that police cannot substitute a wife’s formal complaint with a final report—judicial cognizance cannot be based on police report alone in such cases.
The Court also showed procedural rigor by separating distinct incidents into separate FIRs, reinforcing that criminal charges should be compartmentalized based on facts and timelines.
The ruling ensures that while procedural lapses may invalidate current proceedings, it does not bar future lawful prosecution, balancing due process with access to justice.

✅Gurmeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025

The Court drew a clear procedural distinction between Further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC – permissible by investigating agency.
The Re-investigation or de novo investigation – only by High Courts/Supreme Court
It cited State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) to clarify that Self-incrimination protection under Article 20(3) applies only after formal accusation.
The Court preserved the integrity of investigative procedure, ensuring that manipulative complainants do not escape liability by later claiming protection.
The Investigating agencies can revisit cases, provided due process is followed.
This case reinforces the limited scope of Article 20(3) and ensures that criminal complicity is not shielded by procedural technicalities.

✅Rakhi v. Krishnakumar and Ors., 2025

The Court emphasized the importance of finality in matrimonial disputes, particularly where no appeal is filed within the prescribed time.
It reaffirmed that procedural technicalities such as the exact timing of pronouncement cannot invalidate a legally effective decree.
The judgment provides legal certainty to parties who remarry after a divorce decree, safeguarding them from challenges based solely on timing or non-appeal technicalities.
The ruling also addresses procedural propriety by preventing parties from making contradictory claims (seeking divorce and declaring marriage void simultaneously).
This case clarifies the interpretation of Section 15 regarding remarriage after divorce and reinforces that only an aggrieved former spouse can legally challenge a subsequent marriage within the appeal period.

✅Fr Edwin Pigarez v. State of Kerala, 2025

The Court balanced the gravity of the offence against the principle of fair trial and the right to appeal.
It underscored that the sentence for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) & (n) IPC ranges from a minimum of 10 years to life imprisonment, allowing judicial discretion.
The judgment reflects the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of procedural fairness, especially where the convict has already served a significant part of the sentence.
The decision does not negate the conviction but merely suspends the sentence pending appeal, demonstrating judicial restraint and upholding the appellate process.

✅Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2025

The judgment reinforces a balanced approach under Section 482 CrPC: while courts should not prematurely assess evidence, they also must not ignore suspicious timing or motives behind FIRs.
The Court applied principles from earlier rulings like Rajeev Kourav and Aryan Singh, emphasizing prima facie assessment and contextual evaluation.
This judgment clarifies the boundary between judicial restraint and proactive scrutiny, especially in domestic dispute-related FIRs, where retaliation is a genuine risk.
It also safeguards individuals from misuse of criminal process as a form of vengeance post foreign litigation outcomes (like child custody/divorce).
The judicial commentary cautions against a formulaic or perfunctory use of inherent powers by High Courts.

✅Gurvinder Singh v. Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh & Anr., 2025

The Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes the principle of judicial finality, which is critical for legal certainty and procedural discipline.
The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that procedural lapses in investigation could justify recall of an already dismissed anticipatory bail.
It reinforced that the proper remedy, if any, would have been a fresh bail application, not a recall or restoration.
This judgment prevents judicial inconsistency and arbitrary reversals, especially in sensitive matters like anticipatory bail.
Also acts as a reminder for High Courts to exercise self-restraint and avoid creating judicial anomalies through administrative devices like “recall” where they are procedurally untenable.

✅Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahruden Noorul, 2025

This decision reaffirms the mandatory nature of the demand notice as a condition precedent for invoking Section 138 NI Act.
The Court emphasized the penal nature of the provision, requiring strict interpretation and compliance.
It draws a clear line: "substantial compliance" is not enough—exactitude in legal notices is essential.
The Court rejected the plea of inadvertence or typographical mistake, saying "the rigours of law on this score being strict, the defence would not hold good."
By referencing Suman Sethi, the Court reiterated that while interest/costs may be claimed, the core demand must clearly and separately specify the exact cheque amount.

✅Mangali Devi & Ors v. The State of Bihar, 2025

The Patna High Court strikes a balanced approach between safeguarding the liberty of the accused and preventing abuse of process by wilful evaders.
This decision reaffirms that Section 82/83 proceedings do not create a blanket embargo, unlike situations where the accused has been formally declared a Proclaimed Offender with due process.
The judgment will have significant implications for counter-cases in rural and factional disputes, where both sides often face criminal complaints.
It distinguishes pending proclamation proceedings from completed ones where the accused has been declared absconding through a speaking order.

✅Shelly Mahajan v. Ms. Bhanushree Bahl & Anr., 2025

This is a landmark ruling recognizing a novel tortious claim within Indian law.
The Court acknowledged that Indian jurisprudence has not formally adopted AoA but recognized it as a possible tort.
It creates a precedent for civil accountability for third-party interference in marriages.
The judgment balances personal liberty and the legal protection of marital relationships.
The ruling opens the door to expanding tort law in the realm of domestic and personal relationships, while keeping Family Court jurisdiction limited to purely matrimonial disputes.

✅Laxman Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Court carefully distinguished between penetrative and non-penetrative acts, emphasizing the need for precise evidence in rape/penetrative sexual assault cases.
It reaffirmed that touching without penetration, while morally reprehensible, does not meet the legal threshold for rape or penetrative sexual assault under IPC or POCSO.
The judgment strikes a balance between legal rigor and protection of minors, acknowledging the gravity of non-penetrative abuse through aggravated sexual assault provisions.
This case reinforces the doctrine of strict interpretation in penal law, especially when the conviction leads to severe mandatory minimum sentences.
The Court also underscored the importance of medical evidence and consistent victim testimony.

✅Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka, 2025

The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that confessions made to police are inadmissible, and any exception under Section 27 must be strictly construed.
The judgment reflects judicial skepticism toward joint or "chorus" disclosures, recognizing that such practices are susceptible to manipulation or tutoring.
By relying on the precedent in Kishore Bhadke v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 3 SCC 760, the Court highlighted that only in very specific and corroborated scenarios can joint disclosures be admissible.
The decision emphasizes the importance of complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence in such cases.
It strengthens the jurisprudence on protecting accused from wrongful conviction, especially when the evidence is purely circumstantial and police procedure is questionable.
The ruling serves as a cautionary precedent for lower courts regarding the evaluation of confessions and recoveries in criminal trials.

✅Abhimanue v. State of Kerala, 2025

The Supreme Court reinforced the wide scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, stating that procedural technicalities must not override substantive justice.
It clarified an important procedural issue that a second application for cancellation of bail can be entertained by the High Court, even if the Sessions Court has earlier rejected such a request, as long as it's coupled with the invocation of inherent powers.
On substantive grounds, the Court balanced individual liberty against concerns of misuse of bail, reiterating that criminal antecedents alone cannot form the sole ground for bail cancellation.
This ruling enhances jurisprudential clarity on multiple bail applications and hierarchical powers under CrPC. It also reiterates the liberty-centric approach of Indian criminal law unless there is clear evidence of misuse or threat to justice.

✅Competition Commission of India v. Monsanto Holdings Private Limited & connected matters, 2025

The Supreme Court did not address the core legal issue whether CCI can investigate SEP/patent-related antitrust matters but left the door open for the issue to be litigated again.
The decision reflects a procedural resolution (settlement-induced mootness), not a substantive resolution of competition law vs patent law interplay.
The Delhi HC judgment, however, does have persuasive value and could influence lower forums until the Supreme Court definitively addresses the issue.
The HC's reasoning that the Patents Act is a special statute governing patent licensing—suggests that CCI’s jurisdiction may be ousted where the matter falls squarely within the Patents Act.
However, this narrow interpretation of CCI’s jurisdiction may have far-reaching implications for future antitrust enforcement in IP-heavy sectors, especially tech and biotech.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to settle the law could lead to forum shopping, regulatory gaps, and uncertainty until resolved in another case.

✅M. Rajendran & Ors. v. M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025

The Court has reaffirmed the evolving jurisprudence that distinguishes between substantive and procedural/remedial amendments in terms of retrospective applicability.
By upholding the application of the 2016 amendment to loans disbursed earlier, the Court prioritizes the timing of default and enforcement as the relevant factor.
The decision also aligns with economic policy goals, focusing on faster recovery and reduction of NPAs.
Importantly, the Court highlighted an inconsistency between Section 13(8) of the Act and the corresponding Rules relating to the borrower’s right of redemption, and urged the legislature to amend the law to remove the ambiguity.
The judgment sets a precedent for future interpretation of procedural amendments in remedial legislation and affirms the principle that rights available at the time of cause of action—not contract execution—govern proceedings.

✅Hansura Bai v. Hanuman Prasad Meena, 2025

The Court strongly indicated that state complicity or institutional cover-ups will not be tolerated.
Justice Nagarathna’s remarks reflect judicial intolerance toward failure of accountability in custodial death cases.
The proceedings emphasize the Supreme Court’s role as a constitutional guardian to uphold:
- Rule of law
- Protection of fundamental rights, especially of vulnerable tribal citizens
The case underscores the growing judicial scrutiny of custodial deaths, CBI conduct, and lack of transparency.
The Court is holding high-level officers personally accountable, which could redefine institutional liability in custodial crime cases.

✅NHS vs ANS, 2025

The Court emphasized the importance of informed consent in marital relationships under Hindu law.
By referring to medical expert testimony, it reaffirmed that incurable illnesses must be disclosed.
The Court took a balanced view, stating the disease itself isn’t a reason for divorce, but its concealment is.
This decision is likely to strengthen the jurisprudence on what constitutes fraud in matrimonial matters.
It also highlights that emotional and mental cruelty could arise from fraudulent inducement into marriage.

✅X v. Y, 2025

The judgment reinforces that mental cruelty is a valid ground for divorce and extends beyond physical abuse to include psychological and emotional harm.
The Severing familial bonds and coercive pressure to leave a joint family setup can constitute cruelty.
The acts of public humiliation and verbal abuse, especially in a professional setting, are serious forms of cruelty impacting the dignity of the spouse.
The use of legal processes (police complaints) as a tool of harassment amounts to mental cruelty.
The Court drew a clear line between normal marital conflicts and intolerable cruelty that harms mental wellbeing.
This ruling strengthens protection for spouses against non-physical forms of abuse within marriage

✅AMIT SETHI v. LALIT SETHI & ORS, 2025

The Court reaffirmed that after the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 8 marks a clear departure from traditional Hindu law principles.
There is no survivorship or birthright in the self-acquired property of a living father.
A grandson cannot claim coparcenary rights unless the property is ancestral and falls under traditional Mitakshara law, which is not the case here.
The rejection of the suit reinforces the importance of clear legal rights and valid causes of action in partition suits.
The Court is drawing a boundary between joint family property and self-acquired property to prevent frivolous litigation.

✅SXXXX v. XXXX, 2025

The plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after conviction, as laid down in Supreme Court precedents.
It was cited the Vinod Katara case, where a similar direction was issued despite the accused having crossed age 50.
The School Leaving Certificate was verified by the Principal of the issuing school.
The birth could not be verified from village records, as the family had migrated, and Anganwadi records only dated back to 2006.
Since there is prima facie material, the Court found it necessary to conduct a formal inquiry.

✅MOHD KAMRAN v. STATE NCT OF DELHI, 2025

The court observed that “Merely because the applicant has not responded to the questions on the dotted lines or has not made any confession, it cannot be termed non-cooperation.”
“The accused has answered the questions, and whether the answers are evasive or not is a matter for trial, not for pre-trial custody.”
The Preventive custody was not warranted as there was no threat of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The Allegations were at the trial stage and did not justify denial of bail.
It was noted that the opposition to bail by complainant appeared ego-driven, not legally granted.

✅Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025

The Court reiterated well-established principles regarding causation in criminal law when evaluating attempt to murder, courts must not focus only on individual injuries but also consider the combined effect.
If the natural and probable consequences of the act are death or grievous injury, then Section 307 IPC is rightly attracted.
The decision strengthens the jurisprudence around criminal intention and knowledge, especially when death is avoided by chance or medical intervention.
The ruling aligns with precedent, particularly decisions that emphasize the "proximate cause" test rather than requiring a direct and fatal injury.

✅Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. vs Karnataka Housing Board, 2025

The ruling settles a long-standing judicial divergence regarding the scope of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Court adopted a literal and plain interpretation of the statute, reinforcing procedural discipline.
The judgment ensures that parties seeking condonation cannot selectively justify only the delay beyond limitation, but must account for the entire period.
This decision prevents misuse of condonation provisions and promotes timely filing and justice.
The refusal to condone delays caused by administrative inefficiency underlines the Court’s focus on public accountability and efficiency in governance.
The decision balances procedural flexibility with the need for legal certainty and fairness.

✅SMT USHA SHARMA AND ANOTHER v. SWATI SHARMA, 2025

The judgment highlights the balance between protection of women from domestic violence and preventing misuse of such provisions.
The Court asserts that legal rights should not be weaponized to harass grieving family members.
It stresses the importance of due process—notice and hearing must be given before orders affecting parties are passed.
The ruling serves as a deterrent against frivolous or vindictive litigation under protective laws.
It was emphasizes that justice cannot be divorced from fairness and reasonableness in the legal process.

✅Mahendra Vishwanath Kawchale v. Union of India, 2025

The Court affirmed the principle that no punishment is beyond constitutional review, even in serious crimes.
It clarified the distinction between sentence awarded and the right to apply for remission—the former doesn’t eliminate the latter.
The decision emphasizes the balance between retributive justice and reformative possibilities.
By leaving the validity of mandatory sentencing open, the Court avoids a sweeping declaration in a PIL without individual facts, aligning with judicial restraint.

✅Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra, 2025

The Court balances the need for legal process with urgency in personal liberty cases.
It reinforces constitutional values in criminal justice, especially in pre-trial rights.
While respecting judicial discretion, it introduces a time-frame to avoid misuse or neglect.
It reflects on judicial accountability, particularly of High Courts, in safeguarding liberty.
The dismissal of bail here was on merits, not just procedural delay.

✅Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd., 2025

The judgment strengthens the principle of finality in judicial proceedings by preventing repeated litigation over the same order.
It highlights the importance of litigants’ responsibility to seek liberty if they intend to challenge orders afresh after withdrawal.
The Court distinguished prior cases where review petitions were allowed despite dismissal of SLPs by non-speaking orders, clarifying that voluntary withdrawals without liberty differ fundamentally.
This ruling supports judicial efficiency and discourages vexatious litigation.
The reliance on established CPC procedural rules reinforces procedural discipline in special leave petitions.

✅Arjun Sonar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2025

The judgment underscores the paramount importance of protecting child victims in criminal trials and not subjecting them to further trauma by unnecessary court procedures.
The Court carefully balanced the accused’s right to a fair trial with the need to uphold the integrity and dignity of the victim’s testimony.
It reaffirmed the principle that once courts have concurrently found guilt after full trials and appeals, reopening the case on procedural grounds without compelling reasons undermines the justice system.
The Court’s reasoning reflects a progressive stance on preventing misuse of procedural delays to harass victims and ensuring that criminal justice delivers both conviction and restitution.
The award of compensation represents an effort to provide substantive, compassionate justice recognizing the trauma endured by child survivors beyond mere punishment of the offender.

✅Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and Others, 2025

The Court took a pro-welfare approach, consistent with its previous rulings (e.g., S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, 2021).
It was emphasized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is a welfare legislation and should be interpreted liberally.
The court rejected the High Court’s interpretation as technically flawed and contrary to legislative intent.
It was reinforced that procedural technicalities should not defeat the substantive rights of vulnerable senior citizens.
The judgment safeguards the dignity, security, and right to residence of aged parents, and strengthens the role of Maintenance Tribunals.

✅Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2025

The judgment reinforces the principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases by giving them artificial criminal color
The Court emphasized the extraordinary nature of Section 482 CrPC, which must be used sparingly, but firmly, to prevent abuse
It reiterated precedents such as Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. for disapproval of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies
The Court warned against the weaponization of FIRs in commercial contexts, calling it abuse of criminal machinery
The conviction under Section 138 N.I. Act strongly supported the inference of mala fides
This ruling aims to preserve judicial integrity and prevent harassment of individuals through misuse of police powers

✅The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali, 2025

The judgment serves as a wake-up call to the judiciary regarding deteriorating trial practices, particularly in sexual violence cases.
It reaffirms that Section 309 CrPC (now Section 346 BNSS) is mandatory, not optional.
The Court acknowledges real-world challenges like:
- Festive holidays
- Administrative constraints
- Lack of staff and heavy dockets
Yet, it strongly insists that courts must:
- Schedule witness examination proactively
- Avoid unnecessary adjournments
- Impose costs and take coercive steps against parties (including accused or lawyers) who cause delays
The judgment is a significant contribution to judicial reform, urging courts to rebalance priorities in favor of speedy justice over procedural convenience.

✅THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUNIL DAS @ HARI CHARAN DAS @ HARI BABA @ SWARUP ROY @ GURUDEV, 2025

The Court carefully evaluated the evidence, including witness testimonies (especially PW15, the victims' father), forensic reports, and recovered sedatives (Cetirizine, Alzolam).
It acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but applied Supreme Court guidelines on the rarest of rare doctrine, leading to commutation of the death penalty.
The Court emphasized the need for societal protection, given the accused’s pattern of exploitation.
The ruling reflects a balanced application of penal philosophy: punishment, deterrence, and the evolving stance on capital punishment.
The judgment reinforces the duty of courts to protect vulnerable members of society from spiritual frauds and exploiters.

✅R v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr & other connected matter, 2025

The Court emphasized the need to view such cases beyond individual abuse, highlighting systemic risks like trafficking and illegal custody.
The judgment is a strong critique of police and judicial oversight, particularly the failure to trace the origin of the child or follow adoption protocol.
The Court acknowledged that the victim's young age and unverified custody made her uniquely vulnerable to repeated abuse.
Legal Implication: This ruling sets a precedent for including child trafficking inquiries in any case where the child’s custody is unclear or unverified, especially where abuse is involved.
The judgment sends a strong signal for reforming investigative approaches to child abuse and trafficking cases.

✅XXX v. XXXX

The Court rightly followed Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Amol Bhagwal Nehul v. State of Maharashtra – Held that a breach of promise to marry does not amount to rape without proof of fraudulent intent.
- Jothiragawan v. State – Reiterated the requirement of mens rea (fraudulent intention) at the time of securing consent.
The judgment emphasizes judicial restraint in criminalising private consensual conduct between adults where evidence of coercion or fraud is absent.
It warns against giving a “criminal colour” to failed relationships, which could erode the sanctity of consent and misuse rape provisions.
Encourages safeguarding due process while protecting genuine victims, by maintaining the distinction between rape and consensual sex in good faith relationships.

✅Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, 2025

The Court adopted a progressive and constitutional approach, balancing Islamic customary practices with fundamental rights.
It recognised the authority of religious bodies (Jamaths), but limited their discretion by making it subject to constitutional scrutiny.
The ruling reinforces that religious customs cannot override fundamental rights, especially in matters like marriage, burial, or association.
The Court's reference to the Wakf Board’s condemnation of arbitrary actions by Jamaths strengthens institutional accountability.
The judgment prevents abuse of religious authority to settle personal scores, especially in matters affecting individual liberty.

✅Hamid Raza v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025

The Court’s approach was empathetic, contextual, and rights-based, focusing on liberty and autonomy rather than rigid technicalities.
It recognised the real-life implications of statutory provisions in cases of consensual adolescent relationships that evolve into marriages.
The judgment sheds light on the tension between POCSO’s strict liability framework and personal law marriages.
Justice Monga’s observations suggest a need for nuanced interpretation where the minor is now an adult, affirming that state intervention must not infringe personal liberty unnecessarily.
The Court also demonstrated institutional humility by acknowledging Islamic law experts and thanking the Amicus Curiae, Ms. Nandita Rao, for her contributions.

✅Subhas Sharma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025

The judgment reflects a reformative and restorative approach to criminal justice.
By directing tree plantation and care, the Court promotes accountability, social responsibility, and environmental consciousness.
The order is careful to clarify that merits of the case were the primary basis for bail, and community service is an additional obligation, not the reason for bail.
The Court linked violence with disharmony, and saw ecological harmony as a symbolic counter to violence.
The decision is part of a growing jurisprudence where Indian courts have used alternative sentencing and creative remedies to instil a sense of responsibility in offenders.

✅Arpit Garg v. Ekta Gupta, 2025

The judgment highlights the protective nature of Section 14, ensuring marriages are not ended hastily without valid reasons.
It clarifies that a mutual consent divorce within six months is not an automatic right; it must be justified with extraordinary circumstances.
The ruling balances the legislative aim to protect marriage while acknowledging that divorce is sometimes necessary, ensuring that courts maintain oversight on such early petitions.
The Court’s reasoning discourages misuse of mutual consent divorce provisions to bypass legal safeguards designed to support marital stability.

✅Malleeswari versus K. Suguna and Another, 2025

The judgment firmly upholds the statutory rights of daughters to inherit ancestral property equally, reinforcing the progressive interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act post its 2005 amendment.
It draws a clear distinction between appellate and review jurisdiction, preventing courts from using review petitions to relitigate settled issues or facts.
The Supreme Court stresses the need for judicial discipline to avoid prolonged litigation and procedural misuse, especially in family and property matters.
The decision strengthens the legal certainty and finality of judgments on property rights, encouraging adherence to established principles and preventing unnecessary delays.
This case highlights how judicial review must be narrowly construed to ensure that courts do not overstep their powers or create confusion by reopening settled issues without valid grounds.

✅M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation, 2025

The Court acknowledged that Section 148 was intended to secure compensation but has been misused to deny bail.
It criticized the ambiguous drafting of Section 148 and its lack of procedural clarity for enforcement (e.g., freezing bank accounts).
The proportionality doctrine was used to test the validity of the 20% deposit rule the Court found it arbitrary and excessive in some cases.
It emphasized the difference between corporate and individual liability, holding that vicarious liability cannot be used to compel employees or signatories to deposit.
The judgment seeks to protect weaker sections who issue cheques under emergency financial distress and may not afford large deposits.
Reiterated that appeals must not be delayed indefinitely on procedural grounds, especially in bailable offences like Section 138 NI Act.

✅X v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 2025

This ruling reinforces that juvenility claims are special and remedial, and courts must favor rehabilitation over punishment.
It clarified the limited scope of inquiry under Section 94, which prioritizes official documents and discourages unnecessary medical testing.
The Court adopted a child-friendly interpretation, aligned with the protective spirit of the JJ Act.
The judgment also protects procedural flexibility, ensuring juvenility claims are not struck down on technical delays or formalistic bars like res judicata.
Reflects reliance on Supreme Court precedent and reaffirms that standard of proof is relaxed unless fabrication is shown.

✅D A Minor Through Her Mother And Natural Guardian Mrs. Rupi Babbar v. State, 2025

The ruling reinforces that bail in POCSO cases involving incestuous abuse must be granted with extreme caution, especially when digital evidence corroborates the victim’s version.
The judgment reflects the Court’s commitment to upholding child protection laws and condemns institutional failure in prematurely releasing alleged sexual offenders.
The observation that liberty cannot override the safety of a vulnerable child, especially when power and proximity are abused, sets a strong precedent.
The decision also clarifies that matrimonial disputes cannot be used as a blanket defence in grave sexual offence cases.

✅Jubairiya v. Saidalavi, 2025

This decision sets a precedent in balancing legal obligations with economic realities.
The Court acknowledged the humanitarian crisis and urged the State’s intervention instead of imposing impracticable legal obligations.
It clarified that Section 125 CrPC is not a blanket provision, and the ability to pay is a precondition.
The ruling also subtly criticized the lack of robust welfare schemes, hinting at systemic gaps in supporting vulnerable women.
The Court’s remarks on polygamy reaffirmed that religious practices cannot override individual justice, especially in inequitable situations.

✅Ashish Chandrakant Chauhan v. Mohini Mukesh Chauhan & Anr., 2025

The ruling widens the protective scope of the Domestic Violence Act by recognizing past cohabitation as a valid ground for relief.
It reaffirms that property rights are not a prerequisite for claiming shelter or residence under the Act.
The Court liberally interpreted Sections 2(f) and 17, ensuring the Act fulfills its social welfare objective.
The judgment highlights that economic abuse, such as denial of shelter, can be as damaging as physical abuse and must be remedied by law.
It also clarifies that mutual agreements or private deeds of divorce hold no legal value unless ratified by a competent court.
The decision strengthens the residential rights of widowed or separated women, particularly in cases where they may be harassed or excluded by in-laws.

✅Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma and Anr., 2025

The judgment draws a clear legal distinction between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors, protecting the sanctity of insolvency mechanisms.
It affirms the social and constitutional importance of housing, elevating it from a contractual right to a fundamental right.
The Court's directive to create a revival fund reflects an approach toward policy-level intervention for systemic real estate issues.
It recognizes the interdependence of housing, banking, employment, and allied sectors, highlighting the broader economic impact of unresolved real estate stress.
The Court rightly calls for administrative reforms, such as:
- Mandatory project registration upon buyer paying 20%
- Urgent filling of vacancies in NCLT/NCLAT
- Strengthening RERA infrastructure
The decision will likely be cited in future IBC and housing rights jurisprudence, especially regarding intent-based interpretation of contracts.

✅Pinak Pani Mohanty v. Union of India, 2025

The Court showed its proactive stance in securing justice for financially vulnerable depositors.
It rejected bureaucratic delay and focused on practical and timely execution.
By appointing Justice Reddy and involving the Central Registrar, the Court ensured institutional checks are in place.
This judgment reinforces judicial supervision over large-scale financial fraud recoveries and prioritizes public interest.

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

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of judicial discipline and respecting the procedural framework designed to maintain order in criminal justice.
The Sessions Courts have access to essential case materials such as the case diary and prosecutorial input, enabling better fact-finding and quicker decisions on bail matters.
The decision helps manage the caseload of High Courts, reserving their intervention for cases where lower courts either refuse relief or where extraordinary circumstances exist.
This judgment may seem to contrast with previous rulings (like Manjeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh) where direct High Court applications were permitted, reflecting a nuanced balance between accessibility to justice and judicial efficiency.
The Supreme Court's appointment of an amicus curiae to study the issue indicates further refinement and guidelines on this matter might be forthcoming.

✅SHOBHA GUPTA AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., 2025

The Court’s intervention highlights a systemic lapse in prosecutorial diligence in protecting the rights of the unborn and enforcing anti-sex-selection laws.
By mandating that appeals be filed promptly, the Court aims to close loopholes that allow offenders to escape punishment due to procedural negligence.
The Court’s appointment of an Amicus Curiae indicates the seriousness of the issue and the need for independent oversight.
The ruling underscores the federal responsibility while the Union can set policy, States are responsible for implementation, necessitating greater accountability at the state level.

✅MS AM v. Government of State of GNCT of Delhi, 2025

The ruling stresses the importance of balancing child protection with protecting innocent family members from malicious litigation.
It highlights the potential for misuse of POCSO laws in contentious family disputes, cautioning courts against being used as instruments of personal vendetta.
The judgment reinforces judicial vigilance to ensure testimony of minor victims is corroborated and free from parental manipulation before extending criminal liability.
By imposing costs payable to DLSA, the Court aims to compensate the public system burdened by frivolous or vexatious litigation.
This ruling sets an important precedent for curbing abuse of sensitive child protection mechanisms and preserving the integrity of the justice system.

✅X v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS, 2025

The judgment affirms the fundamental right to liberty (Article 21) and personal autonomy of a major woman, especially in contexts unrelated to criminal accusations or investigations.
It clarifies the limits on the powers of a Magistrate concerning protective custody—highlighting that protection cannot transform into unlawful detention.
The ruling prevents misuse or overreach of protective provisions that could otherwise impinge on personal freedoms under the guise of protection.
The case underscores the need to balance women’s safety and individual autonomy, ensuring protection does not become coercive or punitive.
The Court’s refusal to uphold the Magistrate’s inappropriate observations signals judicial vigilance against paternalistic or intrusive actions that could affect the dignity and liberty of individuals.

✅Sweta Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another, 2025

The judgment emphasizes the importance of a formal decree for annulling a voidable marriage.
The Court protects the legal and financial rights of women, especially when they are left vulnerable by deceptive marital conduct.
It prevents misuse of technical legal arguments (like potential annulment) to deny basic rights such as maintenance.
It reinforces that Section 125 Cr.P.C. serves a social welfare purpose and should not be defeated by assumptions.

✅MABRB vs State of Maharashtra, 2025

The court relied on the SC’s observations in the suo motu case Right to Privacy of Adolescents, Suo Motu WP (C) No.3/2023.
It noted the Union Government’s opposition to lowering the age of consent.
It was reaffirmed that POCSO is a social legislation, aimed at protecting children, and cannot be circumvented through marriage customs.
The Court highlighted that justice must be done according to law, not sentiments or individual situations.

✅SM v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025

The Court balanced the rights of both parents and emphasized the constitutional power to intervene in exceptional cases under Article 226.
It clarified that Indian courts are not bound to enforce foreign custody orders but can consider them to assess welfare.
The ruling reiterates the progressive jurisprudence around child custody, recognizing that "best interest of the child" trumps procedural technicalities.
It reflects the judiciary's role in protecting minors even in cross-jurisdictional custody disputes.

✅State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chander Sharma & Others, 2025

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s test for awarding the death penalty from the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
It was emphasized that moral outrage alone is not a sufficient basis for imposing capital punishment—evidentiary standards must be met.
The court recognized the possibility of reformation, stating that there was no evidence the convicts were beyond redemption.
It reinforced the importance of procedural justice, especially in capital cases, by acquitting an accused where reasonable doubt existed.
It demonstrated a balanced approach, ensuring that public sentiment did not override constitutional safeguards.

✅K v. STATE NCT OF DELHI, 2025

The case underscores that abetment includes intentional assistance or facilitation, not merely passive acquiescence.
The Parents or guardians are under a statutory and moral duty to protect children and report abuse; failure to do so attracts penal consequences under POCSO.
The court gave weight to the victim’s consistent testimony, showing the judiciary’s sensitivity to protecting child victims while considering minor inconsistencies as common in trauma cases.
Upholding the sentence demonstrates the court’s intent to send a strong deterrent message against parental complicity in child sexual abuse.
The judgment strengthens the child protection regime and reinforces the preventive aims of the POCSO Act.
It also clarifies that family members, especially parents, can be criminally prosecuted for abetting or facilitating abuse.

✅Abhishek Singh Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others, 2025

This judgment clarifies that minority is not a bar to filing maintenance claims under Sections 125 and 128 CrPC, removing any procedural ambiguity about applications against minors.
It emphasizes that the key consideration in maintenance cases is the means of the respondent and welfare of the dependent, not the respondent’s age alone.
The ruling aligns with the broader protective purpose of the CrPC maintenance provisions, ensuring dependents are not left destitute.
The Court balanced the husband’s status as a minor and his income capacity with the rights of the wife and child to receive maintenance.
The judgment also reflects sensitivity to the social realities of child marriage and seeks to enforce responsibilities once the minor attains majority.
It relies on Supreme Court precedent (Rajnesh v. Neha) for proportional maintenance, promoting consistency in legal standards.
By not remanding the case, the Court streamlined the process, aiming to reduce delays in family law matters.

✅Deepak Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025

The Supreme Court reaffirmed due process principles by stressing that cognizance must be grounded in investigative record, not affidavits.
It criticized mechanical addition of charges without judicial application of mind.
The judgment places accountability on the police and prosecution to present complete and truthful records.
It also reinforces the Trial Court’s active role in scrutinizing whether the legal ingredients of offences are made out.
The warning to the Superintendent of Police marks a strong signal against suppression of evidence, pushing for institutional transparency.
This judgment strengthens safeguards against misuse of criminal procedure and ensures greater procedural fairness, particularly where serious offences like robbery are involved.

✅Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2025

The Court’s reasoning is grounded in the principle of judicial discipline and procedural fairness.
The ruling protects the integrity of the criminal process by requiring a structured approach to bail applications.
The non-impleadment of the complainant was a significant procedural lapse, undermining the adversarial process.
This case echoes earlier judgments like Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam and reflects the Court's growing concern over direct High Court interventions in anticipatory bail.
By emphasizing the two-tiered scrutiny, the Court seeks to prevent forum shopping and ensure that bail decisions are well-reasoned, especially in serious crimes.

✅Odela Satyam & Another v. State of Telangana & Others, 2025

The Supreme Court upheld judicial federalism and practicality in investigation/trial.
A pan-India consolidation would create logistical and legal complications, especially in producing local witnesses and applying state-specific financial and criminal laws.
The Court clarified that the principle of consolidation cannot override the specificity of facts, geography, and parties.
The judgment differentiates types of multi-FIR cases — a key doctrinal point for future jurisprudence on FIR consolidation.
This ruling ensures that victims in each State have proper access to justice in their own jurisdiction, rather than being forced into a centralized trial elsewhere.
It protects against dilution of regional legal enforcement while offering administrative relief through intra-State FIR clubbing.

✅Sanjay D. Jain & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2025

The Supreme Court followed its consistent jurisprudence on misuse of Section 498-A, where it has previously cautioned against dragging all family members into criminal proceedings without specific, provable allegations.
The Court relied on Digambar v. State of Maharashtra (2024), reinforcing that for Section 498-A to apply, there must be cruelty of such severity that it causes grave injury or drives the woman to suicide.
The judgment also reflects the Court’s concern with the weaponization of matrimonial laws in some cases.
Importantly, the judgment preserves the rights of genuinely aggrieved women while protecting innocent relatives from baseless harassment.
The ruling strengthens the principle that criminal law cannot be invoked lightly and must pass the threshold of specificity and intent.

✅BS v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025

The Court found the survivor’s testimony to be credible at its core, especially in light of corroborating DNA evidence.
This reaffirms the principle that minor inconsistencies do not defeat the prosecution if core allegations remain intact.
Despite the lack of paternity, the presence of semen was sufficient for conviction. This aligns with the legal understanding that penetration alone suffices for the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC.
The Court provided a significant clarification on sentencing under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (pre-2019).
The Courts can impose fixed-term sentences between 10 years and life.
A binary view (10 years or life only) would collapse the sentencing scheme and limit judicial discretion unfairly.
By highlighting the double gravity of a father raping his minor daughter, the Court emphasized the psychological harm and violation of trust, thereby justifying an enhanced sentence in the interest of deterrence, victim dignity, and social justice.

Monthly Magazine

MONTHLY MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER

✅Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr., 2025

✅C.P. Francis vs. C.P. Joseph and Others, 2025

✅Ajay Kumar Nayyar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025

✅Sh. Kewal Krishan v. Sh. Gulshan Kumar & Ors., 2025

✅Jaspreet Singh v. Union of India and Other, 2025

✅Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. State of Kerala, 2025

✅Praveen Rana v. State GNCT of Delhi, 2025

✅Arjun v. State, 2025

✅Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh Kumar and Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025

✅Anurag Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another, 2025

✅Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another, 2025

✅Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh & Another, 2025

✅Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors., 2025

✅ARUN KUMAR RAGHUWANSHI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR., 2025

✅Suraj Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2025

✅Hareesh @ Harish Kumar v. A.S. Umesh & Others, 2025

✅X v. Y, 2025

✅Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Another, 2025

✅Kuldeep v. State of Haryana and Others, 2025

✅X v. Y, 2025

✅Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan & Ors., 2025

✅Ramesh Chand (D) Through LRs v. Suresh Chand and Another, 2025

✅Sreeja D G & Ors. v. Anitha R. Nair & Anr., 2025

✅Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025

✅Nasir Mohd Sodozey @ Aftaab Ahmed @ Abdullah v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2025

✅HM v R, 2025

✅Pravin Nathalal Parch vs State of Maharashtra, 2025

✅Nanak Chand and Ors. v. UT of J&K & Anr., 2025

✅State of H.P. v/s Mam Raj, 2025

✅Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025

✅Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2025

✅Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025

✅Ram Sagar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025

✅Savita v. State of H.P. & Ors., 2025

✅Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025

✅Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors., 2025

✅H. S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s MSN Woodtech, 2025

✅Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal and Anr., 2025

✅Chetan v. State, 2025

✅Swami Vivekananda University & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2025

✅Smt. Pooja v. Mahendra Singh & Ors., 2025

✅ICAR National Research Center Of Plant Biotechnology v. Azad Singh Dagar Prop M/S Servitor Intelligence, 2025

✅SB v. HB, 2025

✅Ram Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & ors., 2025

✅XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025

✅Hamzah Muneer & Anr. v. Mohd. Aqil & Ors., 2025

✅Khelo Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025

✅X v. Y, 2025

✅X vs. Y, 2025

✅Vishan Singh v. State, 2025

✅XX v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2025

✅Gautam Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2025

✅XXX v. XXX, 2025

✅Sunita Devi vs. Sumit Bishnoi, 2025

✅G v. State, 2025

✅XXX v. State of Punjab, 2025

✅State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Others, 2025

✅Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRs. Goran v. Jagan Devi & Others, 2025

✅PINJARA TANJILA ALTAFBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS., 2025

✅ITC LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR., 2025

✅RAJUL MANOJ SHAH @ RAJESHWARI RASIKLAL SHETH v. KIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ANR., 2025

✅Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana, 2025

✅Kailas S/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025

✅DASTAGIRSAB VERSUS SHARANAPPA @ SHIVASHARANAPPA(D)BY LRS. & ORS., 2025

✅Datta Ram and others v/s United India Insurance Company Limited, 2025

✅Kritika Jain v. Rakesh Jain, 2025

✅Dharam Kumar Saw and others v. The State of Jharkhand, 2025

✅Ashish Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2025

✅Sumanlal Kodialbail & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr., 2025

✅Ratan Kumar Roy @ Ratan Kr. Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2025

✅Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr, 2025

✅XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025

✅Gurmeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025

✅Rakhi v. Krishnakumar and Ors., 2025

✅Fr Edwin Pigarez v. State of Kerala, 2025

✅Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2025

✅Gurvinder Singh v. Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh & Anr., 2025

✅Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahruden Noorul, 2025

✅Mangali Devi & Ors v. The State of Bihar, 2025