The present case under appeal involves a land dispute of 53 acres of land which was located in Survey No. 83/2 (Raidurg Panmaktha village), Ranga reddy District, Telangana. The initial land had an area of 526.07 acres and it was owned by 11 individuals and it was subjected to Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act, 1976. In this regard, land of 99.07 acres became the property of State, and 424.13 acres went to APIIC (presently TSIIC). There was a 1982 sale transaction between the owners and Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society, which was later on in the year 2006 validated by an Assistant Registrar, and in the year 2015, the government declared as a fraud. The Supreme Court has fixed that unregistered agreements are not capable of vesting good title to immovable property in accordance with Suraj Lamp case and that physical possession should be established by sound evidence. The Court also observed any suspicious inconsistencies between the sale agreements and decided that the jurisdiction of writ of possession is not exercisable in suspect title and uncertain possession. It reversed the decision of the Single Judge declining the petition, deciding that petitioners could not prove good title or possession.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Vaibhav, who was convicted for the murder of his friend Mangesh. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. Vaibhav claimed that Mangesh’s death was accidental when Mangesh curiously examined a service pistol and pulled the trigger. Medical evidence showed the bullet traveled upward after entering Mangesh’s eye, supporting an accidental discharge. The absence of any motive or enmity further supported this theory. The Supreme Court noted that in a case relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain must point exclusively to guilt. Here, an alternative theory of accidental death was equally probable. Vaibhav’s suspicious conduct in hiding the body was attributed to fear rather than guilt. Applying the principle that when two reasonable conclusions are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail, the Supreme Court acquitted him of murder under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act offences, upholding only the conviction under Section 201 IPC for destruction of evidence.
This case of the Supreme Court concerned a land with 53 acres in Survey No. 83/2, Raidurg Panmaktha, Telangana. Originally owned as 526.07 acre land by 11 people, the land was taken through the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act, 1976 whereby 99.07 acres were taken by the State and 424.13 acres subsequently transferred to the APIIC (now mother of TSIIC). An earlier sale agreement went between the owners and Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society, which was sold off in 1982 and which became valid in 2006 and later declared as a fraud in 2015. The Court ruled that it is not possible that sale agreements, which are not registered, can transfer title and real physical possession has to be established. It observed inconsistencies in versions of agreement, consideration and extent of land and held that the title was suspect. Using Suraj Lamp and Balkrishna Dattatraya decisions the Court proceeded to uphold that transfer of immovable property requires registration of conveyance deeds only. It upheld the rejection of the writ by the Single Judge on the ground that the title and possession was not legally established.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted a young man accused of murder, stating that the mere act of hiding a dead body does not automatically imply guilt. The case involved a youth who was convicted of murder after a person died from an accidental gunshot. The prosecution argued that the concealment of the body indicated an attempt to cover up a crime, thereby establishing guilt. However, the Supreme Court bench disagreed, observing that while the act of hiding a body may raise suspicion, it cannot alone be used as conclusive evidence of murder. The Court emphasized that criminal conviction must be based on clear and convincing evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the evidence pointed towards the gunshot being accidental, and there was no sufficient proof to show premeditated intent or motive. It added that fear, panic, or confusion could lead individuals to act irrationally after an unexpected death, including hiding the body, without necessarily being guilty of murder. This verdict reinforces the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace concrete evidence in criminal trials. The youth was accordingly acquitted and released.
The High Court in Bombay specifically supported the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks in dismissing the contention that, sincerely, there must be a declaration that TikTok has been a well-known trademark under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules of 2017. TikTok Limited had been aggrieved by the order and it had argued that this was not done because the Registrar had not applied Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act and had not considered a substantial material showing that it is globally famous. It was also argued by the petitioner that the continuance of the ban in India was not taken into consideration as well when Section 11(9)(i) clarifies that use in India is not requisite to be awarded the status of well-known mark. The Court however held that Section 11(6) is not exhaustive and the Registrar can take into consideration the ban by the Government on the ground of national sovereignty, integrity and public order to be a sufficient reason of refusal. One of the concerns, which is not over, is that the ban can be considered a serious constitutional issue. In another case, the Court made clarification to the effect that the wrong mentioning of Section 9 was not a ground of invalidation of the order as the reasoning bearing substance was present. It insisted that trademark law should fit into the larger constitutional context and that state-ennacted bans may be applied in assessing trademark status, despite the registration occurring.
The Supreme Court held that railways can impose penalties for mis-declared goods even after delivery under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989. Reversing the Railway Claims Tribunal and Gauhati High Court, the Court clarified that the case involved mis-declaration, not overloading, and thus Section 66 applied—not Section 73. Section 66 allows the railways to recover correct charges for false declarations without any timing restrictions. The Court rejected the lower courts’ reliance on the Jagjit Cotton case, stating it was misinterpreted. It ruled that railways are within their rights to issue demand notices post-delivery and allowed the Union of India’s appeals.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Chetan for the murder of Vikram Shinde, relying on strong circumstantial evidence. Though the alleged motive a monetary dispute was not conclusively proven, the Court noted that motive is not essential when the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. Key evidence included the “last seen together” theory, recovery of the murder weapon (a double-barrel gun belonging to Chetan’s grandfather), and ballistic reports confirming it fired the fatal shot. Forensic examination matched pellets and wads found in the victim’s skull with the recovered gun. Additionally, a gold chain belonging to the deceased was found in Chetan’s possession. The Court noted that Chetan’s absconding and false statements amounted to relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, though not conclusive proof of guilt. Despite a 3-day gap between the last sighting and recovery of the body, forensic evidence bridged the timeline. The Court upheld convictions under Sections 302 and 404 IPC, granting limited relief regarding a recovered mobile phone.
The Supreme Court has issued key directions regarding the regularization and recognition of Court Managers, a cadre introduced following the Thirteenth Finance Commission’s recommendations to enhance court administration. Addressing writ petitions by Court Managers across India, the Court emphasized the need for uniform service conditions, regularization of appointments, and recognition of their role in judicial administration. It noted that Court Managers, typically MBA-qualified professionals, assist judges in administrative tasks such as case management, HR, and IT. Despite central guidelines, their appointments remain largely contractual, with varied pay and no structured service benefits. Referring to its 2018 directions and the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) recommendations, the Court reaffirmed the need to grant them Class I Gazetted Officer status, ensure appropriate pay scales, count past service for pension benefits, and frame rules for promotions and duties. The Court directed all High Courts to implement these measures, recognizing Court Managers as essential to effective and efficient judicial functioning across the country.
In a case involving Lal Mohd. and his son, accused of participating in a violent protest on October 10, 2022, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR filed under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Initiallya booked under IPC provisions, the accused were granted bail. However, six months later, a third FIR invoked the Gangsters Act, alleging organized gang activity. The appellants argued the protest was spontaneous, not organized, and the delayed FIR was politically motivated, filed after a family member’s political nomination. The State claimed the violence disrupted public order, justifying the Act. The Court clarified that under Section 2(b), the Act applies only to habitual, organized criminal activity. A single incident without a pattern of criminal behavior cannot justify invoking such stringent laws. The FIR’s delayed timing further raised concerns about misuse. Quashing the FIR, the Court stressed that applying the Gangsters Act in isolated cases undermines its intent and amounts to abuse of power, though pending general criminal proceedings remain unaffected.
In a brutal 2013 case involving the rape and murder of a 2.5-year-old girl in Kolkata, Suresh Paswan was convicted under Sections 364, 376A, and 302 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The City Sessions Court sentenced him to death. The prosecution relied on strong circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony, CCTV footage, and recovery of the victim’s clothes at the accused’s instance. The defense argued inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of direct evidence of rape. The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial chain complete and credible. However, it commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 50 years, citing the "rarest of rare" doctrine from Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh. The Court considered mitigating factors like the accused’s impoverished background, absence of premeditation, and psychological report indicating mild mental disability, concluding the death penalty was not warranted.
The Madras High Court granted divorce to Rajesh, holding that unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations by his wife Anupriya against him and his father amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The couple, married in 2015, had a child in 2016. Rajesh alleged that Anupriya lived with him for only 51 days, was abusive, and filed false police complaints. The Family Court earlier dismissed his divorce plea and allowed her restitution petition. On appeal, the High Court found that Anupriya’s serious allegations, later withdrawn without pursuing investigation, caused stigma and mental trauma. Though she claimed the complaints included false content “without her knowledge,” the Court held her conduct to be cruel. The Court rejected WhatsApp evidence due to lack of authentication but allowed the divorce, dismissing her restitution plea. However, it upheld her right to ₹25,000 monthly maintenance and ensured the child’s financial security, emphasizing the child’s welfare in matrimonial adjudications.
J. Revathy, who married Mohana Krishnan in 2023 and had a child in 2024, applied for a passport in April 2025. However, the Regional Passport Office, Chennai, refused to process her application, citing her ongoing matrimonial dispute and demanding her husband's signature on Form-J. Challenging this, Revathy filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a directive to issue her passport without requiring her husband’s consent. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court delivered a progressive judgment, stating that a woman retains her individual legal identity after marriage and does not need her husband's permission to apply for a passport. The Court criticized the requirement as discriminatory and reflective of patriarchal thinking. It also held that in the context of a pending matrimonial dispute, requiring the husband's signature was unreasonable and impractical. The Court issued a mandamus directing the passport office to process her application independently and complete the issuance within four weeks, upholding women’s autonomy and equality.
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the preventive detention of petitioners arrested under Sections 126, 170, and 130 of the BNSS, 2023, amid a property dispute. Despite having tenancy rights, they were arrested for allegedly disturbing public order. The Executive Magistrate granted bail but imposed illegal conditions, including a ₹50,000 bond and two character certificates. Failure to comply led to continued incarceration. The Court ruled this punitive use of preventive powers violated Article 21 and was a misuse of Section 170 BNSS, which grants only limited preventive jurisdiction. It held that preventive arrest cannot substitute ongoing criminal proceedings and that arbitrary bail conditions lack legal basis. The Court criticized the Executive Magistrate’s policing mindset and directed the Rajasthan government to review such appointments, enforce judicial training for Executive Magistrates, and take action against the ACP. Emphasizing judicial independence, it declared the detention illegal and ordered systemic reforms to prevent future misuse of preventive laws.
In a property dispute between Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. and Mahaveer Lunia, the Supreme Court ruled that an unregistered agreement to sell does not transfer title to immovable property. In 2014, the appellant borrowed ₹7.5 crores from the respondent and executed an unregistered agreement to sell and power of attorney as security. After revoking the documents in 2022, the respondent executed sale deeds, prompting the appellant to file a civil suit, claiming the transaction was a mortgage. The Court held that under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, only registered documents can convey title, and an agreement to sell merely creates a right to seek specific performance. It further ruled that a power of attorney does not transfer ownership and is ineffective once revoked. The Court restored the plaint, stating that suits cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if triable issues exist. Civil courts retain jurisdiction over title disputes, and revenue records alone do not prove ownership.
A 12-year-5-month-old girl, pregnant due to sexual abuse by her cousin uncle, approached the Bombay High Court through her father seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy at 28–29 weeks. An FIR was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act. A Medical Board, after evaluation, stated that while the procedure was high-risk due to the minor’s age and gestational stage, a hysterotomy could be performed with proper consent. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the minor’s right to bodily autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution must be respected, and the family consented to the procedure. The State opposed termination, citing medical risks. The Court, however, held that forcing a minor to carry an unwanted pregnancy violates her fundamental rights. It allowed the termination, emphasizing the girl’s right to decide over her body. The Court directed that the procedure be done under expert supervision, reinforcing the legal principles of reproductive autonomy, consent, and constitutional protection of personal liberty.