What happens when the conviction of a large group is based on vague and inconsistent evidence in a land dispute turned violent?

The Supreme Court revisits constructive liability under Section 149 IPC, raising probing questions on the treatment of bystanders in unlawful assemblies.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Mere presence at the scene does not establish guilt under Section 149 IPC.

✅ Courts must separate truth from embellishment and avoid convicting passive bystanders.

✅ The prosecution must prove “common object” beyond reasonable doubt for group liability.

Statutes:

✅ Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 323 IPC

✅ Section 27, Arms Act

✅ Section 154, 161 CrPC

#SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #Section149 #UnlawfulAssembly

Can an oral gift (Hiba) of immovable property, claimed decades later, stand its ground against consistent documentary evidence of possession and the bar of limitation?

Key Takeaways:

✅ Supreme Court clarifies that oral gifts under Mohammedan Law require clear proof of possession and mutation in revenue records to be valid.

✅ Mere oral claims or long-delayed assertions, without public acts of ownership, cannot override registered titles or established possession.

✅ The law favours those who safeguard their rights — late claims unsupported by documents face legal hurdles.

Statutes/Sections Cited:

* Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 50, 73

* Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 129

* Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 & 59 #PropertyLaw #SupremeCourt #EvidenceAct #LimitationAct #MuslimLaw

In this judgement, the Apex Court revisits the crucial principles of circumstantial evidence in criminal law.

This verdict underscores the necessity of a complete and unquestionable chain of evidence before convicting an accused under circumstantial proof.

Key Takeaways:

✅ The “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence must be strictly adhered to.

✅ Absence of conclusive forensic evidence weakens the prosecution’s case.

✅ Burden of proof remains strictly on prosecution, not on the accused.

✅ Medical evidence ambiguities can create reasonable doubt.

✅ Motive must be clearly established beyond reasonable doubt.

Statutes:

✅ Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 27)

✅ Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 8, 27, 106)

✅ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 313) #CriminalLaw #SupremeCourt #CircumstantialEvidence #EvidenceLaw

In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder, reinstating the Trial Court’s acquittal.

Central to the judgment was the assessment of eyewitness reliability, contradictory testimonies, and the evidentiary value of weapon recovery under Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Evidence Act.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Identification of accused must be beyond doubt.

✅ Chance witnesses require cautious scrutiny.

✅ Confession admissibility under Evidence Act Sections 25-27 is limited.

✅ The High Court’s interference without perversity was erroneous.

Statutes:

✅ Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302, 34

✅ Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 25, 26, 27

✅ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Relevant procedural provisions

#CriminalLaw #SupremeCourt #EvidenceAct #JudicialReview

MINORS CAN REPUDIATE GUARDIAN CONDUCTED PROPERTY SALES, EVEN WITHOUT FILING A SUIT.

If a minor, upon attaining majority, resells or otherwise demonstrates repudiation within the time limit, the prior unauthorized sale stands voidable. The judgment also underscores the necessity of proving title and personal testimony in court disputes.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Minors can void unauthorized sales by conduct, not just by filing suits.

✅ Burden of proving title lies on the claimant.

✅ Power-of-attorney testimony must be based on personal knowledge.

Statutes Referenced:

✅ Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 8(2), 8(3)

✅ Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 60

#PropertyLaw #SupremeCourt #MinorRightd #Guardianship #PowerofAttorney

What happens when a suit seeks only an injunction without asking for a declaration of title—especially amidst disputed ownership and admitted lack of possession?

The Court holds that when possession and title are both contested, a plaintiff cannot merely seek injunction but must ask for a declaration of title and recovery of possession.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Proving a Will does not suffice if title and possession are disputed.

✅ Plaintiffs out of possession must seek declaration and recovery, not just injunction.

✅ Injunction against alienation was maintained; liberty granted to file fresh suit for title.

Relevant Statutes :

✅ Specific Relief Act, 1963

✅ Indian Succession Act, 1925

✅ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

#PropertyDispute #SupremeCourt #Injunction

The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling regarding the status of Nagpur's iconic Futala Lake.

The Court concluded that Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody, not a statutory wetland under relevant rules.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Futala Lake declared a man-made tank, not a statutory wetland.

✅ Restrictions under Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017, not strictly applicable.

✅ Public trust doctrine extends to man-made waterbodies.

✅ Directions for ecological maintenance and no permanent constructions within the lake.

Statutes:

✅ Article 21, 48-A, 51A(g) — Constitution of India

✅ Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017

✅ Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

#EnvironmentalLaw #SupremeCourt #PublicTrustDoctrine #WetlandLaw

Imagine undertaking the project of a lifetime—building a state-of-the-art hospital—only to be blindsided by an unexpected, multi-crore fee from a government authority.

This is the exact scenario that confronted Dr. Kamala Selvaraj, a medical professional who was handed a staggering demand for ₹1.64 crore by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA).

This decision strengthens protections for landowners against improper levies and clarifies the limits of planning authorities.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Historical sub-division validated

✅ OSR charges not applicable below 3,000 sq. meters

✅ Strengthens checks on arbitrary planning fees

Statutes:

✅ Constitution of India (Art. 136)

✅ Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971

✅ Chennai Metropolitan Development Regulations (Annexure XX) #LandLaw #PropertyRights #SupremeCourt #UrbanPlanning

Whether the absence of a recovered railway ticket can defeat compensation—was answered decisively, with the Court ruling that official verification of a ticket is sufficient proof of bona fide travel.

Procedural lapses like lack of a seizure memo cannot undermine legitimate claims. This decision fortifies the welfare intent of the Railways Act and eases the evidentiary burden on victims’ families.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Official railway inquiry verifying ticket suffices as proof of travel.

✅ Absence of seizure memo or technical lapses don’t defeat bona fide claims.

✅ Court reaffirmed welfare objectives of compensation under the Railways Act.

Statutes:

✅ Section 124-A, Railways Act, 1989

✅ Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

#SupremeCourt #RailwayAccident #CompensationLaw #WelfareLaw

The judgment clarifies that delay in filing a written statement during COVID-19 cannot bar a defendant’s right to present a defense or cross-examine, ensuring substantive justice prevails over technicalities.

The Court protected the litigant’s right to a fair trial by remanding the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing that procedural rules must aid—not obstruct—justice.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Procedural law must facilitate justice, not restrict substantial rights.

✅ COVID-19 limitation extensions apply to commercial suits.

✅ Right to cross-examine survives, even if written statement is delayed.

Statutes :

✅ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VIII Rule 1, Order V Rule 1

✅ Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 16

✅ Constitution of India - Article 142

#SupremeCourt #CommercialCourt #AccessToJustice

Court acquitted Dashwanth, highlighting crucial lapses in police investigation and breach of the accused's constitutional rights during trial.

The Court questioned the reliability of circumstantial evidence—last seen theory, unproduced CCTV footage, and forced confessional statements.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Importance of fair trial and legal aid

✅ Prosecution must prove case with credible evidence

✅ Circumstantial evidence faces strict judicial scrutiny

Statutes :

✅ Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 363, 366, 354-B, 201

✅ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Sections 6/5(m), 8/7

✅ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 366, Section 374

✅ Constitution of India: Articles 21, 22

#SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #POCSO #FairTrial

An insurer cannot recover compensation from the vehicle owner simply on suspicion of a fake licence, unless actual negligence or collusion is proven.

The judgment overturns the High Court’s “pay and recover” order, reinforcing principles of fairness for insured parties.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Mere suspicion of a fake licence doesn't establish owner’s breach.

✅ Insurer’s right of recovery is conditional on proof of owner’s negligence or collusion.

✅ Supreme Court upholds fair protection for vehicle owners.

Statutes :

✅ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Sections 149, 168, 174

✅ Related Supreme Court precedents: United India Insurance Co. v. Lehru (2003), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004), PEPSU RTC v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013), IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi (2023)

#SupremeCourt #MotorAccidents #InsuranceLaw

Whether High Courts can recall or review their criminal judgments.

The Supreme Court set aside Rajasthan HC’s order directing a CBI probe, reaffirming that criminal courts can only correct clerical errors, not review substantive judgments. This decision has stirred wide discussion on judicial powers versus procedural safeguards.

Key Takeaways:

✅ High Courts lack power to recall/review criminal orders, except for rectifying clerical errors

✅ Only statutory remedies can be pursued after dismissal

✅ Ensures procedural integrity in criminal justice

Statutes:

✅ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 156(3), 362, 482

✅ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Sections 403, 528

✅ Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 406, 420, 384, 379, 120-B

✅ Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 303(2), 333, 305(a), 60(a)

#SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #JudicialReview #CBI

Supreme Court addressed the limits of military discipline under the Army Act. Colonel S.K. Jain’s conviction for possessing old ammunition was downgraded from a civil offence to an act prejudicial to good order under Section 63, reflecting the Tribunal’s power to substitute charges under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

The Court upheld the view that disciplinary justice must balance fairness with institutional integrity.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Judicial restraint, substitution of conviction, proportional punishment.

Statutes:

✅ Army Act, 1950 — Sections 63, 69, 70

✅ Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — Section 15

✅ Arms Act, 1959 — Section 3, 25(1-B)

#SupremeCourt #MilitaryLaw #ArmyLaw

Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against G. Prasad Raghavan, accused of cheating and conspiracy in a Puducherry land fraud case.

Held - There was no evidence of inducement or involvement by Raghavan, as he was a minor when the alleged fraud occurred and later purchased the property legitimately. This decision clarifies the requirement of “active involvement” for criminal liability in property transactions.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Mere familial association or subsequent purchase does not constitute criminal intent.

✅ Courts must avoid “roving inquiries” absent direct evidence against the accused.

Statutes:

✅ IPC: Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 294(b), 506, 34

✅ CrPC: Section 239

#SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #PropertyLaw #IPC

The Supreme Court clarified that the Kedar Nath Yadav judgment’s land restoration relief was meant exclusively for vulnerable cultivators; not corporate entities.

Held - Santi Ceramics, having accepted full compensation and remained inactive for years, could not claim restitution. The judgment underscores limits of judicial compassion and reinforces that passive opportunism cannot override settled acquisitions.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Restoration benefits only disadvantaged farmers;

✅ Compensation acceptance implies acquiescence;

✅ Commercial entities excluded.

Statutes:

✅ Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 5-A, Section 6, Section 11

#SupremeCourt #LandAcquisition #KedarNathYadav #PropertyLaw

Court’s decision sparks vital debate on the judiciary’s power to order voice samples from witnesses, not just accused persons.

The Court firmly held that furnishing a voice sample is merely physical evidence and does not infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Magistrates can direct both accused and witnesses to provide voice samples.

✅ Voice sampling is material, not testimonial evidence; Article 20(3) protection does not apply.

✅ Section 349 BNSS (2023) now provides express statutory support.

Statutes:

✅ Indian Constitution Article 20(3)

✅ Section 349 BNSS, 2023

Precedent: Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019 8 SCC 1)

#SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #VoiceSample #Article20 #BNSS

Supreme Court clarified the evidentiary threshold for criminal liability in alleged meter tampering cases.

The Court reversed the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing that suspicion or approximation cannot substitute for strict proof of dishonest abstraction or tampering. It reiterated that statutory presumptions under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act require substantive evidence of artificial means.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Presumption of theft arises only on strict proof of use of artificial means.

✅ Conjecture and possibilities are insufficient for conviction.

✅ Statutory protections for accused in electricity theft cases.

✅ Upholding fair trial standards in criminal appeals.

Statutes:

* Indian Electricity Act, 1910: Sections 39, 44, 50

* Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 313, 248(1), 452, 378

* Constitution of India: Article 136

#SupremeCourt #ElectricityAct #CriminalLaw

The Delhi High Court examined whether the Directorate of Education can regulate fee hikes in unaided private schools.

The Bench reaffirmed that government intervention is justified only to curb profiteering, capitation, and commercialization — not to impose blanket fee control.

Key Takeaways:

✅ DoE can intervene only to prevent profiteering or misuse of surplus.

✅ Fee regulation cannot extend to unaided schools’ internal management.

✅ Schools must maintain transparency under DSEA, 1973 and DSER, 1973.

Statutes:

✅ Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (Sections 17, 18, 24, 173–184)

✅ Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (Rules 172–179)

#DelhiHighCourt #EducationLaw #SchoolFeeRegulation

The Delhi High Court addressed the impact of digital-era technical errors on government recruitments. ISSUE - whether a candidate’s clerical mistake in an online application form could override their substantive eligibility and merit as a Primary Teacher.

HELD - that genuine qualifications must take precedence over minor procedural lapses, directing KVS to appoint the deserving candidate while criticizing rigid bureaucratic practices.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Substantive merit overrides trivial application errors.

✅ The law must prioritize fairness over technicalities.

✅ Recruitment authorities should ensure accessible and accurate application processes.

Statutes:

✅ Constitution of India, Article 14 (Right to Equality)

✅ Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Act, 2019

✅ Recruitment Advertisement No. 16/2022

#DelhiHighCourt #KVSJudgement #RecruitmentLaw #Article14