# LawFoyer

> A daily dose for inquisitors

> Generated by All in One SEO Pro v5.0.3, this is an llms.txt file, used by LLMs to index the site.

## Sitemaps

- [XML Sitemap](https://lawfoyer.in/sitemap.xml): Contains all public & indexable URLs for this website.

## Posts

- [Blog](https://lawfoyer.in/blog/)
- [CLAT 2027: Eligibility, Syllabus, Exam Pattern, Fees and PYQs](https://lawfoyer.in/clat-2027-eligibility-syllabus-exam-pattern-fees-and-pyqs/): CLAT 2027 complete guide for undergraduate and postgraduate law aspirants. Check the official exam date, application deadline, eligibility, fees, CLAT UG and PG syllabus, section wise exam pattern, marking scheme, participating NLUs, counselling process, and verified previous year question papers with answer keys. Learn how to apply correctly and prepare effectively using official Consortium resources and timely updates and announcements.
- [LawFoyer: Important Links](https://lawfoyer.in/links/): LawFoyer is a comprehensive platform designed to empower law students, researchers, and professionals through accessible legal knowledge, opportunities, and skill development resources. Connect With Us LinkedIn (Real-time updates):https://www.linkedin.com/company/lawfoyer/ Instagram (Engaging legal content):https://www.instagram.com/lawfoyer/?hl=en Official Website (Daily updates & opportunities):https://lawfoyer.in LawFoyer Connect (Jobs & Internships):https://news.lawfoyer.in Research Publication (LIJDLR Journal):https://lijdlr.com LawFoyer Academy (Courses & Certifications):https://academy.lawfoyer.in YouTube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJzzEjObEIwcFpizucmj4LA Our
- [ONE-DAY NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TECHNOLOGY, ADR & IPR LAWS – 2026 | Organized by The Amikus Qriae (TAQ) in collaboration with Vocal Vakils | Submit Abstract by 15 October 2026 [11:59 PM IST]](https://lawfoyer.in/one-day-national-conference-on-technology-adr-ipr-laws-2026-organized-by-the-amikus-qriae-taq-in-collaboration-with-vocal-vakils-submit-abstract-by-15-october-2026-1159-pm-ist/): ONE-DAY NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TECHNOLOGY, ADR & IPR LAWS – 2026 | Organized by The Amikus Qriae (TAQ) in collaboration with Vocal Vakils | Submit Abstract by 15 October 2026 [11:59 PM IST]
- [4TH NATIONAL ARTICLE WRITING COMPETITION | Organized by Lucknow University Moot Court Association, Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow | Register by 31 October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/4th-national-article-writing-competition-organized-by-lucknow-university-moot-court-association-faculty-of-law-university-of-lucknow-register-by-31-october-2026/): 4TH NATIONAL ARTICLE WRITING COMPETITION | Organized by Lucknow University Moot Court Association, Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow | Register by 31 October 2026
- [28th LawFoyer Quiz on Indian Contract Act, 1872: Prizes worth Rs. 15K + | Cash Prizes, Certification Courses and much more | Register by 24th October, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/28th-lawfoyer-quiz-on-indian-contract-act-1872/): Test your understanding of the contract with the 28th LawFoyer Quiz on Indian Contract Act 1872. Win prizes and register by Oct 3, 2026.
- [25th Batch: 6 Weeks Certificate Course in Basic Legal Drafting by Padha Law Associates | Register Now | Register by 15th November, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/25th-batch-6-weeks-certificate-course-in-basic-legal-drafting-by-padha-law-associates-register-now/): Name of the event 25th Batch – 6 Weeks Certificate Course in Basic Legal Drafting Name of the organiser Padha Law Associates About the course Padha Law Associates is organising its 25th Batch of the 6 Weeks Certificate Course in Basic Legal Drafting, commencing on 15 November 2026. The course will be conducted under the
- [Free Workshop on Beyond Borders: Commonwealth Scholarships, Education and Global Opportunities for Law Students by Canonsphere [15 November 2026] | Last Date to Register: 14 November 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/free-workshop-on-beyond-borders-commonwealth-scholarships-education-and-global-opportunities-for-law-students-by-canonsphere-15-november-2026-last-date-to-register-14-november-2026/): About Canonsphere Canonsphere is a legal EdTech platform offering structured educational programmes, workshops, seminars, competitions and academic initiatives for law students and legal professionals. The organisation focuses on legal education, professional development, research and international academic exposure. Through its collaborations and educational programmes, Canonsphere seeks to connect emerging legal professionals with opportunities extending beyond conventional
- [Free Workshop on Personal Exemption Applications: Drafting, Grounds and Court Strategy by Canonsphere [24 October 2026]](https://lawfoyer.in/beyond-borders-commonwealth-scholarships-education-and-global-opportunities-for-law-student-organized-by-canonsphere-register-by-14th-november-2026/): BEYOND BORDERS: COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS, EDUCATION AND GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR LAW STUDENT | Organized by Canonsphere | Register by 14th November 2026
- [1st All India Maharaja Surajmal Moot Court Competition 2026 | Organized by Aequitas – The Moot Court Society of Maharaja Surajmal Institute | Register by 20th October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-all-india-maharaja-surajmal-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-aequitas-the-moot-court-society-of-maharaja-surajmal-institute-register-by-15th-october-2026/): 1st All India Maharaja Surajmal Moot Court Competition 2026 | Organized by Aequitas – The Moot Court Society of Maharaja Surajmal Institute | Register by 15th October 2026
- [LegalBlur AIBE Quiz Series 2026 | Organized by LegalBlur – Legal Insights Simplified | Quiz scheduled from 20 October to 20 November 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/legalblur-aibe-quiz-series-2026-organized-by-legalblur-legal-insights-simplified-quiz-scheduled-from-20-october-to-20-november-2026/): LegalBlur AIBE Quiz Series 2026 | Organized by LegalBlur – Legal Insights Simplified | Quiz scheduled from 20 October to 20 November 2026
- [CALL FOR RESEARCH | Organized by LegalBlur – Legal Insights Simplified | Register by 30 October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-research-organized-by-legalblur-legal-insights-simplified-register-by-30-october-2026/): CALL FOR RESEARCH | Organized by LegalBlur – Legal Insights Simplified | Register by 30 October 2026
- [INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2026: DIGITAL THREATS & GENDER JUSTICE - RETHINKING CYBERSAFETY & ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS IN CYBERSPACE | Organized by Mar Gregorios College of Law, Thiruvananthapuram, Keralam, in collaboration with the Centre for Human Rights and the Centre for Women and Law | Submit Abstract By 9 November 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-2026-digital-threats-gender-justice-rethinking-cybersafety-enforcement-mechanisms-in-cyberspace-organized-by-mar-gregorios-college-of-law-thiruvananthapuram/): INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2026: DIGITAL THREATS & GENDER JUSTICE - RETHINKING CYBERSAFETY & ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS IN CYBERSPACE | Organized by Mar Gregorios College of Law, Thiruvananthapuram, Keralam, in collaboration with the Centre for Human Rights and the Centre for Women and Law | Submit Abstract by 9 November 2026
- [1st NATIONAL ARTICLE WRITING COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by The Centre for Human Rights, in association with the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), Mar Gregorios College of Law, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala | Register by 30 November 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-national-article-writing-competition-2026-organized-by-the-centre-for-human-rights-in-association-with-the-internal-quality-assurance-cell-iqac-mar-gregorios-college-of-law-thiruvananthapu/): 1st NATIONAL ARTICLE WRITING COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by The Centre for Human Rights, in association with the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), Mar Gregorios College of Law, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala | Register by 30 November 2026
- [HNLU Team Wins 4th Sports Arbitration Moot Award Competition 2026–27](https://lawfoyer.in/hnlu-team-wins-4th-sports-arbitration-moot-award-competition-2026-27/): Raipur, October 10, 2026: Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur, has achieved yet another distinction in the field of sports law and arbitration, with a team of four students emerging as the Winner of the 4th Sports Arbitration Moot Award Competition, 2026–27. The winning team comprised Mahi Agrawal, Siya Gupta, Ambati Nupur Rao, and Atharv
- [Xavier Moot Court Competition 2026 (XMCC’26) | Organized by Moot Court Society (MCS), Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata | Register by 20th October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/xavier-moot-court-competition-2026-xmcc26-organized-by-moot-court-society-mcs-xavier-law-school-st-xaviers-university-kolkata-register-by-20th-october-2026/): Xavier Moot Court Competition 2026 (XMCC’26) | Organized by Moot Court Society (MCS), Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata | Register by 20th October 2026
- [Impact of the Intersection of Innovation and Access by the EU-India FTA | Organized by The Innovation Brief, National Law University Delhi | Register by 20th October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/impact-of-the-intersection-of-innovation-and-access-by-the-eu-india-fta-organized-by-the-innovation-brief-national-law-university-delhi-register-by-20th-october-2026/): Impact of the Intersection of Innovation and Access by the EU-India FTA | Organized by The Innovation Brief, National Law University Delhi | Register by 20th October 2026
- [8th Research Colloquium & Annual Research Scholars’ Day 2026 | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law (RGSOIPL), Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (IIT Kharagpur) | Register by 28 October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/8th-research-colloquium-annual-research-scholars-day-2026-organized-by-rajiv-gandhi-school-of-intellectual-property-law-rgsoipl-indian-institute-of-technology-kharagpur-iit-kharag/): 8th Research Colloquium & Annual Research Scholars’ Day 2026 | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law (RGSOIPL), Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (IIT Kharagpur) | Register by 28 October 2026
- [Call for Papers- Volume VI, April 2027 | Organized by Integral Law Review, Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow | Submit by 1 January 2027](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-papers-volume-vi-april-2027-organized-by-integral-law-review-faculty-of-law-integral-university-lucknow-submit-by-1-january-2027/): Call for Papers- Volume VI, April 2027 | Organized by Integral Law Review, Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow | Submit by 1 January 2027
- [VCPRF - International Moot Court Workshop, 2026 | Organized by Veritas Centre for Policy Research Foundation (VCPRF) | Register by 30 September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/vcprf-international-moot-court-workshop-2026-organized-by-veritas-centre-for-policy-research-foundation-vcprf-register-by-30-september-2026/): VCPRF - International Moot Court Workshop, 2026 | Organized by Veritas Centre for Policy Research Foundation (VCPRF) | Register by 30 September 2026
- [Two-Day International Conference on “Forensic Sciences for Advancing Justice: Integrating Law, Medical Science and Technology” | Organized by Integral University, India in collaboration with MenoufiyaUniversity AL Minufiyah, Egypt | Submit Abstract by 20th October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/integral-university-india-in-collaboration-with-menoufiyauniversity-al-minufiyah-egypt-organized-by-integral-university-lucknow-submit-abstract-by-20th-october-2026/): Integral University, India in collaboration with MenoufiyaUniversity AL Minufiyah, Egypt | Organized by Integral University, Lucknow | Submit Abstract by 20th October 2026
- [10th SGTU Moot Court Competition,2026 | Organized by Moot Court Society, School of Law, SGT University | Register by 5th October, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/10th-sgtu-moot-court-competition2026-organized-by-moot-court-society-school-of-law-sgt-university-register-by-5th-october-2026/): 10th SGTU Moot Court Competition,2026 | Organized by Moot Court Society, School of Law, SGT University | Register by 5th October, 2026
- [National Legal Hackathon | Organized by School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies, National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) | Register by 24 September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/national-legal-hackathon-organized-by-school-of-law-forensic-justice-and-policy-studies-national-forensic-sciences-university-nfsu-register-by-24-september-2026/): National Legal Hackathon | Organized by School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies, National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) | Register by 24 September 2026
- [CALL FOR ABSTRACTS — CCADR JOURNAL FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | Organized by Chanakya Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (CCADR), CNLU | Register by 15th October 2026 | 11:59 p.m.](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-abstracts-ccadr-journal-for-alternate-dispute-resolution-organized-by-chanakya-centre-for-alternative-dispute-resolution-ccadr-cnlu-register-by-15th-october-2026-1159-p-m/): CALL FOR ABSTRACTS — CCADR JOURNAL FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | Organized by Chanakya Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (CCADR), CNLU | Register by 15th October 2026 | 11:59 p.m.
- [How to Register a Trademark and Secure Your Brand Name](https://lawfoyer.in/how-to-register-a-trademark-and-secure-your-brand-name/): Introduction A brand name helps customers identify a business, product, or service and distinguish it from competitors. Registering the name as a trademark can provide stronger legal protection and help the owner establish enforceable rights over the mark. In India, trademark registration is administered by the Trade Marks Registry under the Trade Marks Act, 1999
- [11th Justice Murtaza Husain Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Unity Moot Court Committee, Unity P.G. College, Lucknow | Register by 30th September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/11th-justice-murtaza-husain-memorial-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-unity-moot-court-committee-unity-p-g-college-lucknow-register-by-30th-september-2026/): 11th Justice Murtaza Husain Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Unity Moot Court Committee, Unity P.G. College, Lucknow | Register by 30th September 2026
- [Sibgathullah Khan Subaan of Osmania University Receives Commendation Certificate at Telangana Minorities Excellence Summit](https://lawfoyer.in/sibgathullah-khan-subaan-of-osmania-university-receives-commendation-certificate-at-telangana-minorities-excellence-summit/): Achievements become truly meaningful when they reflect dedication, patience, and the courage to keep moving forward despite challenges. Adding another proud milestone to the journey is Sibgathullah Khan Subaan, an LLB student at Osmania University, who has been recognised with a Commendation Certificate at the Telangana Minorities Excellence Summit. The recognition was presented by the
- [VIDHIKA – Volume 2 Issue 3 | Organized by Nyaya Shastra | Submit by 20th September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/vidhika-volume-2-issue-3-organized-by-nyaya-shastra-submit-by-20th-september-2026/): VIDHIKA – Volume 2 Issue 3 | Organized by Nyaya Shastra | Submit by 20th September 2026
- [MEDEXON INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by Dexon Global | Register by 20 October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/medexon-international-mediation-competition-2026-organized-by-dexon-global-register-by-20-october-2026/): MEDEXON INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by Dexon Global | Register by 20 October 2026
- [K.M. Bashir Memorial Student Constitutional Forum 2026 | Organized by Vakkom Moulavi Foundation Trust (VMFT) | Event on 24 & 25 September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/k-m-bashir-memorial-student-constitutional-forum-2026-organized-by-vakkom-moulavi-foundation-trust-vmft-event-on-24-25-september-2026/): K.M. Bashir Memorial Student Constitutional Forum 2026 | Organized by Vakkom Moulavi Foundation Trust (VMFT) | Event on 24 & 25 September 2026
- [Call for Abstracts: International Conference on International Arbitration | Organized by School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad, in collaboration with Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Submit Abstract by 15 September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-abstracts-international-conference-on-international-arbitration-organized-by-school-of-law-mahindra-university-hyderabad-in-collaboration-with-hidayatullah-national-law-university-hnlu/): Call for Abstracts: International Conference on International Arbitration | Organized by School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad, in collaboration with Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Submit Abstract by 15 September 2026
- [SYNERGY: WHERE LAW MEETS SOCIETY – CASE STUDY COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies (VSLLS), Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies – Technical Campus (VIPS-TC), through the Centre for Social Sciences | Register by 20th October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/synergy-where-law-meets-society-case-study-competition-2026-organized-by-vivekananda-school-of-law-and-legal-studies-vslls-vivekananda-institute-of-professional-studies-techn/): SYNERGY: WHERE LAW MEETS SOCIETY – CASE STUDY COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies (VSLLS), Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies – Technical Campus (VIPS-TC), through the Centre for Social Sciences | Register by 20th October 2026
- [Blackberry Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2026:DHC:3668](https://lawfoyer.in/blackberry-limited-v-controller-of-patents-and-designs-2026dhc3668/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE Blackberry Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2026:DHC:3668 concerns the refusal of Patent Application No. 1976/DEL/2008. The application claimed an invention titled “Colour Differentiating a Portion of a Text Message Shown in a Listing on a Handheld Communication Device.” The Delhi High Court examined whether colour coding recipients in outgoing
- [R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1613; (1978) 4 SCC 118; 1979 SCR (1) 218 ](https://lawfoyer.in/r-g-anand-v-m-s-delux-films-ors-air-1978-sc-1613-1978-4-scc-118-1979-scr-1-218/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1613; (1978) 4 SCC 118; 1979 SCR (1) 218 is a landmark Supreme Court decision on copyright infringement, idea-expression distinction, substantial copying, and cinematic adaptation of dramatic works. The appellant, R.G. Anand, a playwright and dramatist, alleged that the respondents’ film “New Delhi” copied his
- [Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., CS (OS) No. 894/2008, Delhi High Court](https://lawfoyer.in/banyan-tree-holding-p-limited-v-a-murali-krishna-reddy-anr-cs-os-no-894-2008-delhi-high-court/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., CS (OS) No. 894/2008, Delhi High Court, decided on 23 November 2009 is a leading Indian judgment on territorial jurisdiction in internet-based passing off and infringement disputes. The Division Bench, speaking through Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, examined whether a Delhi court
- [Neetu Singh & Anr. v. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors., CS (COMM) 282/2020, Delhi High Court](https://lawfoyer.in/neetu-singh-anr-v-telegram-fz-llc-ors-cs-comm-282-2020-delhi-high-court/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE Neetu Singh & Anr. v. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors., CS (COMM) 282/2020, Delhi High Court, decided on 30 August 2022 is a significant Indian decision on copyright enforcement against digital intermediaries. The judgment was delivered by Justice Prathiba M. Singh. The dispute arose from unauthorised circulation of educational videos, lectures, books, notes,
- [State through CBI v. S.J. Choudhary, 1996(1) BLJR 563](https://lawfoyer.in/state-through-cbi-v-s-j-choudhary-19961-bljr-563/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE State through CBI v. S.J. Choudhary, 1996(1) BLJR 563 is a significant Constitution Bench ruling on expert evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court decided one narrow but important issue. It examined whether a typewriter expert’s opinion is legally admissible. The case arose during a criminal trial involving Section 302
- [Lt. Col. Pooja Pal and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2026 INSC 281](https://lawfoyer.in/lt-col-pooja-pal-and-others-v-union-of-india-and-others-2026-insc-281/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE Lt. Col. Pooja Pal and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2026 INSC 281 is a vital judgment on gender equality in the Indian Army. The Supreme Court examined the denial of Permanent Commission to women Short Service Commission Officers. The appellants belonged mainly to early women officer batches commissioned between September 2010 and March
- [Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2026 INSC 476](https://lawfoyer.in/padam-mehta-and-another-v-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-2026-insc-476/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2026 INSC 476 is a significant Supreme Court judgment on mother tongue-based education, linguistic dignity, and constitutional access to meaningful learning. The appeal arose from a dismissed public interest litigation before the Rajasthan High Court. The appellants sought inclusion of Rajasthani language in the REET-2021 syllabus and directions for
- [6th RFMLR – TT&A Demystifying Series: Certificate Course on Cross Border M&A and Foreign Investment | Organized by RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review (RFMLR), Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab (RGNUL) | Event on 9th September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/6th-rfmlr-tta-demystifying-series-certificate-course-on-cross-border-ma-and-foreign-investment-organized-by-rgnul-financial-and-mercantile-law-review-rfmlr-rajiv-gandhi-natio/): 6th RFMLR – TT&A Demystifying Series: Certificate Course on Cross Border M&A and Foreign Investment | Organized by RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review (RFMLR), Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab (RGNUL) | Event on 3 September 2026
- [INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Register by 20 September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-on-international-arbitration-organized-by-hidayatullah-national-law-university-hnlu-raipur-register-by-20-september-2026/): INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Register by 20 September 2026
- [CALL FOR PAPERS – CAPITAL LAW REVIEW | Organized by Capital Law Review | Submit by 4 September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-papers-capital-law-review-organized-by-capital-law-review-submit-by-4-september-2026/): CALL FOR PAPERS – CAPITAL LAW REVIEW | Organized by Capital Law Review | Submit by 4 September 2026
- [Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 97 ](https://lawfoyer.in/dr-jaya-thakur-v-government-of-india-ors-2026-insc-97/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE is a landmark constitutional judgment on menstrual dignity, school infrastructure, adolescent girls’ education, and substantive equality. The petitioner invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India and sought directions for free sanitary pads for girl children studying in Classes VI to XII, separate toilets for girls in government, aided, and residential schools, cleaners, menstrual health
- [The Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)](https://lawfoyer.in/the-associated-press-v-meltwater-u-s-holdings-inc-931-f-supp-2d-537-s-d-n-y-2013/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE The Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) is a significant copyright judgment on digital news monitoring, online scraping, search-engine analogies, and fair use. The plaintiff, The Associated Press, alleged that Meltwater copied protected expression from AP news stories and delivered excerpts to paying subscribers through its media
- [Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, No. C 24-05417 WHA](https://lawfoyer.in/bartz-et-al-v-anthropic-pbc-no-c-24-05417-wha/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, No. C 24-05417 WHA concerns a copyright class action against Anthropic PBC arising from alleged copying of books from pirate libraries for artificial intelligence inputs. The order is not a final merits judgment on copyright infringement. It is a Memorandum Opinion on Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The
- [Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015)](https://lawfoyer.in/authors-guild-v-google-inc-804-f-3d-202-2d-cir-2015/): A) ABSTRACT Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) is a leading United States fair use judgment. It concerned Google’s mass digitisation of books through the Google Books and Library Project programmes. Google scanned millions of books from major libraries. It created searchable digital text. It also displayed limited snippets to users. The plaintiff authors alleged
- [Advance Local Media LLC et al. v. Cohere Inc., 25-cv-1305 (CM)](https://lawfoyer.in/advance-local-media-llc-et-al-v-cohere-inc-25-cv-1305-cm/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE Advance Local Media LLC et al. v. Cohere Inc., 25-cv-1305 (CM) concerns a major artificial intelligence copyright and trademark dispute. The plaintiffs are prominent news and digital publishers. They alleged that Cohere Inc. copied copyrighted articles for training and retrieval-based outputs. They also alleged that Cohere’s AI product, Command, generated full copies, substantial excerpts, and
- [2nd International Conference on Human Rights | Organized by Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata | Abstract Submission Deadline by15th September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/2nd-international-conference-on-human-rights-organized-by-xavier-law-school-st-xaviers-university-kolkata-abstract-submission-deadline-by15th-september-2026/): 2nd International Conference on Human Rights | Organized by Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata | Abstract Submission Deadline by15th September 2026
- [ALL INDIA 1ST MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by SCHOOL OF LAW, IILM UNIVERSITY, GREATER NOIDA | Register by 20th September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/all-india-1st-mock-trial-competition-2026-organized-by-school-of-law-iilm-university-greater-noida-register-by-20th-september-2026/): ALL INDIA 1ST MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by SCHOOL OF LAW, IILM UNIVERSITY, GREATER NOIDA | Register by 20th September 2026
- [Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1; 2008 AIR SCW 49 ](https://lawfoyer.in/eastern-book-company-ors-v-d-b-modak-anr-air-2008-sc-809-2008-1-scc-1-2008-air-scw-49/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1; 2008 AIR SCW 49 is a leading Supreme Court decision on copyright in law reports, derivative works, originality, public domain material, and copy-edited judgments. The appellants, publishers of Supreme Court Cases, claimed copyright in their copy-edited
- [Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge v. B.D. Bhandari & Anr., RFA (OS) No. 21 of 2009 with FAO (OS) No. 458 of 2008, Delhi High Court](https://lawfoyer.in/syndicate-of-the-press-of-the-university-of-cambridge-v-b-d-bhandari-anr-rfa-os-no-21-of-2009-with-fao-os-no-458-of-2008-delhi-high-court/): A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge v. B.D. Bhandari & Anr., RFA (OS) No. 21 of 2009 with FAO (OS) No. 458 of 2008, Delhi High Court, decided on 3 August 2011, is a leading Indian copyright judgment on educational guidebooks. The Division Bench examined whether grammar exercises
- [INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH: TRANSFORMING LAW, MANAGEMENT, COMMERCE AND SOCIETY” | Organized by Geeta Institute of Law (GIL), Panipat, Delhi NCR, India | Submit Abstract by 15th October 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-seminar-on-artificial-intelligence-for-inclusive-growth-transforming-law-management-commerce-and-society-organized-by-geeta-institute-of-law-gil-panipat-delhi/): INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH: TRANSFORMING LAW, MANAGEMENT, COMMERCE AND SOCIETY” | Organized by Geeta Institute of Law (GIL), Panipat, Delhi NCR, India | Submit Abstract by 15th October 2026
- [Online Certificate Course on Competition Law, Digital Markets & Artificial Intelligence: 4-Week Executive Certificate Programme | Organized by National Law University Delhi | Event Scheduled on 22nd August - 12th September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/online-certificate-course-on-competition-law-digital-markets-artificial-intelligence-4-week-executive-certificate-programme-organized-by-national-law-university-delhi-event-scheduled-on-22/): Online Certificate Course on Competition Law, Digital Markets & Artificial Intelligence: 4-Week Executive Certificate Programme | Organized by National Law University Delhi | Event Scheduled on 22nd August - 12th September 2026
- [POSH Trainer Certification Programme: Empowering Workplaces, Ensuring Dignity, Building Safe Environments | Organized by Faculty of Law, Manipal University Jaipur, in collaboration with Manipal University Jaipur Teachers Empowerment Center (MUJ TEC) | Event Scheduled on 18th & 19th September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/posh-trainer-certification-programme-empowering-workplaces-ensuring-dignity-building-safe-environments-organized-by-faculty-of-law-manipal-university-jaipur-in-collaboration-with-manipal-univer/): POSH Trainer Certification Programme: Empowering Workplaces. Ensuring Dignity. Building Safe Environments | Organized by Faculty of Law, Manipal University Jaipur, in collaboration with Manipal University Jaipur Teachers Empowerment Center (MUJ TEC) | Event Scheduled on 18th & 19th September 2026
- [Call for Papers: RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review (RFMLR) Volume XIV Issue I | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab (RGNUL) | Submit by September 15, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-papers-rgnul-financial-and-mercantile-law-review-rfmlr-volume-xiv-issue-i-organized-by-rajiv-gandhi-national-university-of-law-punjab-rgnul-submit-by-september-15-2026/): Call for Papers: RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review (RFMLR) Volume XIV Issue I | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab (RGNUL) | Submit by September 15, 2026
- [Crucial case: ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI Opco LLC CS(COMM) 1028/2024](https://lawfoyer.in/crucial-case-ani-media-pvt-ltd-v-open-ai-opco-llc-cscomm-1028-2024/): This Indian copyright case weighs whether open ai stored ANI's news for ChatGPT training under Section 52(1)(a), balancing fair dealing with innovation.
- [10th Inter-University Moot Court Competition (10th IMCC) | Organized by Moot Court Society, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University | Pre-Memorial Registration by 10 September 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/10th-inter-university-moot-court-competition-10th-imcc-organized-by-moot-court-society-law-college-dehradun-uttaranchal-university-pre-memorial-registration-by-10-september-2026/): 10th Inter-University Moot Court Competition (10th IMCC) | Organized by Moot Court Society, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University | Pre-Memorial Registration by 10 September 2026
- [Harshita Singh Patel Secures Second Prize in National-Level Research Paper Writing Competition on Vision for Viksit Bharat](https://lawfoyer.in/harshita-singh-patel-secures-second-prize-in-national-level-research-paper-writing-competition-on-vision-for-viksit-bharat/): Academic excellence is not only about marks and degrees. It is also about the courage to explore new ideas, question existing perspectives, conduct meaningful research, and present thoughts with clarity. Demonstrating this spirit of academic curiosity, Harshita Singh Patel, a fifth-year LL.B. (Hons.) student at the Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow, has secured the
- [How Legal Assistance Simplifies Property Registration and Ownership Transfer](https://lawfoyer.in/how-legal-assistance-simplifies-property-registration-and-ownership-transfer/): Learn how legal assistance simplifies property registration and ownership transfer while reducing legal risks and documentation errors.
- [Dr. A.C.S. 1st National Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Moot Court Society, Faculty of Law, Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute (Deemed to be University), Chennai | Register by 15th August 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/dr-a-c-s-1st-national-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-moot-court-society-faculty-of-law-dr-m-g-r-educational-and-research-institute-deemed-to-be-university-chennai-register-by-1/): Dr. A.C.S. 1st National Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Moot Court Society, Faculty of Law, Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute (Deemed to be University), Chennai | Register by 15th August 2026
- [Jus Novum - AU Nationwide Law Fest, 2026 | Organized by Moot Court Society, Apex School of Law, Apex University, Jaipur In Collaboration With District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur (District) | Register by 8th August 2026, 2026 for Hybrid & Online Competitions and 2nd September, 2026 for one day (Offline) Competitions](https://lawfoyer.in/jus-novum-au-nationwide-law-fest-2026-organized-by-moot-court-society-apex-school-of-law-apex-university-jaipur-in-collaboration-with-district-legal-services-authority-jaipur-district-reg/): Jus Novum - AU Nationwide Law Fest, 2026 | Organized by Moot Court Society, Apex School of Law, Apex University, Jaipur In Collaboration With District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur (District) | Register by 31st July, 2026 for Hybrid & Online Competitions and 2nd September, 2026 for one day (Offline) Competitions
- [30-Hour Certificate Programme on the Consumer Protection Laws in India and the United Kingdom | Organized by Chair on Consumer Research and Policy (CCRP), National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi | Register by 13th August 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/national-workshop-on-code-court-future-the-nuances-applications-and-legal-literacy-surrounding-ai-in-india-organized-by-chair-on-consumer-research-and-policy-ccrp-national-university-of-study/): National Workshop on Code.Court.Future: The Nuances, Applications, and Legal Literacy Surrounding AI in India | Organized by Chair on Consumer Research and Policy (CCRP), National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi | Register by 13th August 2026
- [CALL FOR BLOGS | NITISARA BLOGSPACE | Organized by Kautilya Society, Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-blogs-nitisara-blogspace-organized-by-kautilya-society-hidayatullah-national-law-university-hnlu-raipur/): CALL FOR BLOGS | NITISARA BLOGSPACE | Organized by Kautilya Society, Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur
- [Nyaya Setu – The AI & Justice Policy Convention (3rd Edition) | Organized by SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS), Indore | 25th August 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/nyaya-setu-the-ai-justice-policy-convention-3rd-edition-organized-by-svkms-narsee-monjee-institute-of-management-studies-nmims-indore-25th-august-2026/): Nyaya Setu – The AI & Justice Policy Convention (3rd Edition) | Organized by SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS), Indore | 25th August 2026
- [National Workshop on Code.Court.Future: The Nuances, Applications, and Legal Literacy Surrounding AI in India | Organized by Xavier Law School, St. Xavier's University, Kolkata, in association with the Technology Counsel Foundation (TECOF) | Register by 15th August 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/national-workshop-on-code-court-future-the-nuances-applications-and-legal-literacy-surrounding-ai-in-india-organized-by-xavier-law-school-st-xaviers-university-kolkata-in-association-with-t/): National Workshop on Code.Court.Future: The Nuances, Applications, and Legal Literacy Surrounding AI in India | Organized by Xavier Law School, St. Xavier's University, Kolkata, in association with the Technology Counsel Foundation (TECOF) | Register by 15th August 2026
- [TNLRC ESSAY WRITING COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by Tamil Nadu Legal Rights Consortium (TNLRC) under WICCI | Register by 26 June 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/tnlrc-essay-writing-competition-2026-organized-by-tamil-nadu-legal-rights-consortium-tnlrc-under-wicci-register-by-26-june-2026/): TNLRC ESSAY WRITING COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by Tamil Nadu Legal Rights Consortium (TNLRC) under WICCI | Register by 26 June 2026
- [CATALYST 3.0: Startup Law and Policy Summit 2026 | Organized by Centre for Innovation, Incubation and Legal Entrepreneurship (CIILE), Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna | Register by 15th July, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/catalyst-3-0-startup-law-and-policy-summit-2026-organized-by-chanakya-national-law-university-cnlu-patna-register-by-15th-july-2026/): CATALYST 3.0: Startup Law and Policy Summit 2026 | Organized by Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna | Register by 15th July, 2026
- [INTERNATIONAL FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME ON GOVERNANCE, LAW AND SUSTAINABILITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus | Register by 04 July 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-faculty-development-programme-on-governance-law-and-sustainability-in-the-21st-century-organized-by-amity-law-school-amity-university-uttar-pradesh-lucknow-campus-register-by-04-j/): INTERNATIONAL FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME ON GOVERNANCE, LAW AND SUSTAINABILITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus | Register by 04 July 2026
- [WOMEN IN THE WORKFORCE: CHALLENGES, REPRESENTATION AND LABOUR LAW PERSPECTIVES | Organized by Tamil Nadu Legal Rights Consortium (TNLRC) in Association with Lex Lumen Research Journal (LLRJ) | Event held on 25th July 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/women-in-the-workforce-challenges-representation-and-labour-law-perspectives-organized-by-tamil-nadu-legal-rights-consortium-tnlrc-in-association-with-lex-lumen-research-journal-llrj-event-h/): WOMEN IN THE WORKFORCE: CHALLENGES, REPRESENTATION AND LABOUR LAW PERSPECTIVES | Organized by Tamil Nadu Legal Rights Consortium (TNLRC) in Association with Lex Lumen Research Journal (LLRJ) | Event held on 25th July 2026
- [Kartavya 2026 Campus Ambassador Programme – KIIT Samvidhan Mahotsav | Organized by KIIT Centre for Constitutional Law Studies and Research (CCLSR), KIIT School of Law, KIIT Deemed-to-be University | Register by 25th July 2026 (11:59 PM IST)](https://lawfoyer.in/kartavya-2026-campus-ambassador-programme-kiit-samvidhan-mahotsav-organized-by-kiit-centre-for-constitutional-law-studies-and-research-cclsr-kiit-school-of-law-kiit-deemed-to-be-univer/): Kartavya 2026 Campus Ambassador Programme – KIIT Samvidhan Mahotsav | Organized by KIIT Centre for Constitutional Law Studies and Research (CCLSR), KIIT School of Law, KIIT Deemed-to-be University | Register by 25th July 2026 (11:59 PM IST)
- [14th UFYLC–Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2026 | Organized by University Five Year Law College (UFYLC), University of Rajasthan, Jaipur | Register by 31st August 2026 (11:59 PM IST)](https://lawfoyer.in/14th-ufylc-ranka-national-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-university-five-year-law-college-ufylc-university-of-rajasthan-jaipur-register-by-31st-august-2026-1159-pm-ist/): 14th UFYLC–Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2026 | Organized by University Five Year Law College (UFYLC), University of Rajasthan, Jaipur | Register by 31st August 2026 (11:59 PM IST)
- [Beyond Academics: How to Build the Skills that Define successful professionals, National Webinar under Frontiers Welfare Society (NGO) | Organized by Frontiers Welfare Society | Register by 24th July 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/beyond-academics-how-to-build-the-skills-that-define-successful-professionals-national-webinar-under-frontiers-welfare-society-ngo-organized-by-frontiers-welfare-society-register-by-24th-july/): Beyond Academics: How to Build the Skills that Define successful professionals, National Webinar under Frontiers Welfare Society (NGO) | Organized by Frontiers Welfare Society | Register by 24th July 2026
- [Vox Legis Xaveriana – Volume II | Organized by Xavier Society of Law and Justice (XSLAJ) under the aegis of Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata | Event on 19th July, 2026 (Sunday)](https://lawfoyer.in/vox-legis-xaveriana-volume-ii-organized-by-xavier-society-of-law-and-justice-xslaj-under-the-aegis-of-xavier-law-school-st-xaviers-university-kolkata-event-on-19th-july-20/): Vox Legis Xaveriana – Volume II | Organized by Xavier Society of Law and Justice (XSLAJ) under the aegis of Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata | Event on 19th July, 2026 (Sunday)
- [Call for Articles: KOITUR – People of Nature (Special Edition) | Organized by Centre for Law & Indigenous Studies, School of Law & Humanities, Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Submit by 16th August 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-articles-koitur-people-of-nature-special-edition-organized-by-centre-for-law-indigenous-studies-school-of-law-humanities-hidayatullah-national-law-university-hnl/): Call for Articles: KOITUR – People of Nature (Special Edition) | Organized by Centre for Law & Indigenous Studies, School of Law & Humanities, Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Submit by 16th August 2026
- [Advanced Certification Course on Intellectual Property Laws of India](https://lawfoyer.in/advanced-certification-course-on-intellectual-property-laws-of-india/): Learn Intellectual Property Laws of India through live online classes covering trademarks, copyright, designs, patents, GI, IP enforcement, licensing and c....
- [Frame of Suit under Order II Rules 1 and 2 CPC, 1908: Whole Claim, Cause of Action, Splitting of Claims and Bar on Subsequent Suits](https://lawfoyer.in/frame-of-suit-under-order-ii-rules-1-and-2-cpc-1908/): Frame of Suit under Order II Rules 1 and 2 CPC, 1908: Whole Claim, Cause of Action, Splitting of Claims and Bar on Subsequent Suits
- [Parties to Suits under Order I CPC, 1908: Necessary and Proper Parties, Joinder, Misjoinder, Representative Suits, Addition, Deletion and Substitution](https://lawfoyer.in/parties-to-suits-under-order-i-cpc-1908/): Parties to Suits under Order I CPC, 1908: Necessary and Proper Parties, Joinder, Misjoinder, Representative Suits, Addition, Deletion and Substitution
- [Transfer of Suits under Sections 22 to 25 CPC, 1908:  Transfer, Withdrawal and Supreme Court Powers](https://lawfoyer.in/transfer-of-suits-under-sections-22-to-25-cpc-1908/): Transfer of Suits under Sections 22 to 25 CPC, 1908: Transfer, Withdrawal and Supreme Court Powers
- [Place of Suing Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 15–21A, Jurisdiction and Objections](https://lawfoyer.in/place-of-suing-under-the-code-of-civil-procedure-1908/): Place of Suing Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 15–21A, Jurisdiction and Objections
- [Foreign Judgments under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 13, 14 and 44A Conclusive Effect, Natural Justice and Execution in India](https://lawfoyer.in/foreign-judgments-under-the-code-of-civil-procedure-1908/): Foreign Judgments under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 13, 14 and 44A Conclusive Effect, Natural Justice and Execution in India
- [CREDIT-BASED CERTIFICATE COURSE ON THE NEW CRIMINAL LAWS | Organized by National Law University Delhi (NLUD)](https://lawfoyer.in/credit-based-certificate-course-on-the-new-criminal-laws-organized-by-national-law-university-delhi-nlud/): CREDIT-BASED CERTIFICATE COURSE ON THE NEW CRIMINAL LAWS | Organized by National Law University Delhi (NLUD)
- [Res Judicata under Section 11 CPC, 1908: Essentials, Explanations, Constructive Res Judicata and Landmark Supreme Court Cases](https://lawfoyer.in/res-judicata-under-section-11-cpc-1908/): Res Judicata under Section 11 CPC, 1908: Essentials, Explanations, Constructive Res Judicata and Landmark Supreme Court Cases
- [Res Sub Judice under Section 10 CPC: Meaning, Conditions, Stay of Suit and Difference from Res Judicata](https://lawfoyer.in/res-sub-judice-under-section-10-cpc/): Res Sub Judice under Section 10 CPC: Meaning, Conditions, Stay of Suit and Difference from Res Judicata
- [Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 9 CPC: Civil Nature of Suit, Express and Implied Bar, Jurisdictional Error and Landmark Cases](https://lawfoyer.in/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts-under-section-9-cpc/): Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 9 CPC: Civil Nature of Suit, Express and Implied Bar, Jurisdictional Error and Landmark Cases
- [Section 2 CPC Important Definitions: Decree, Judgment, Order, Legal Representative, Mesne Profits and Foreign Judgment](https://lawfoyer.in/section-2-cpc-important-definition/): Section 2 CPC Important Definitions: Decree, Judgment, Order, Legal Representative, Mesne Profits and Foreign Judgment
- [Introduction, Object, Extent and Scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908](https://lawfoyer.in/introduction-object-extent-and-scheme-of-the-code-of-civil-procedure-1908/): Introduction, Object, Extent and Scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- [Services Under the Union and States: Articles 309–311, Doctrine of Pleasure and Civil Servant Safeguards](https://lawfoyer.in/services-under-the-union-and-states/): Services Under the Union and States: Articles 309–311, Doctrine of Pleasure and Civil Servant Safeguards
- [Right to Property in India: From Fundamental Right to Article 300A and Compensation Jurisprudence](https://lawfoyer.in/right-to-property-in-india/): Right to Property in India: From Fundamental Right to Article 300A and Compensation Jurisprudence
- [Freedom of Trade, Commerce and Intercourse Under the Indian Constitution: Articles 301–307, State Taxation and Judicial Development](https://lawfoyer.in/freedom-of-trade-commerce-and-intercourse-under-the-indian-constitution/): Freedom of Trade, Commerce and Intercourse Under the Indian Constitution: Articles 301–307, State Taxation and Judicial Development
- [Non-Constitutional Bodies in India: NITI Aayog, NHRC, NCW, NCPCR, CBI, CVC, Law Commission and Other Key Statutory Bodies](https://lawfoyer.in/non-constitutional-bodies-in-india/): Non-Constitutional Bodies in India: NITI Aayog, NHRC, NCW, NCPCR, CBI, CVC, Law Commission and Other Key Statutory Bodies
- [Constitutional Bodies of India: Election Commission, UPSC, Finance Commission, CAG, National Commissions, Law Officers and Linguistic Minorities](https://lawfoyer.in/constitutional-bodies-of-india/): Constitutional Bodies of India: Election Commission, UPSC, Finance Commission, CAG, National Commissions, Law Officers and Linguistic Minorities
- [Emergency Provisions under the Constitution of India: National Emergency, President’s Rule, Financial Emergency, Fundamental Rights and Judicial Review](https://lawfoyer.in/emergency-provisions-under-the-constitution-of-india/): Emergency Provisions under the Constitution of India: National Emergency, President’s Rule, Financial Emergency, Fundamental Rights and Judicial Review
- [Amendment of the Constitution of India: Article 368, Amendment Procedures, Basic Structure Doctrine and Key Constitutional Amendments](https://lawfoyer.in/amendment-of-the-constitution-of-india-article-368/): Amendment of the Constitution of India: Article 368, Amendment Procedures, Basic Structure Doctrine and Key Constitutional Amendments
- [Centre–State Administrative and Financial Relations in India: Articles 256–263 and 268–293, Finance Commission, GST Council and Cooperative Federalism](https://lawfoyer.in/centre-state-administrative-and-financial-relations-in-india/): Centre–State Administrative and Financial Relations in India: Articles 256–263 and 268–293, Finance Commission, GST Council and Cooperative Federalism
- [Centre–State Legislative Relations under the Indian Constitution: Articles 245–255, Legislative Lists, Repugnancy and Key Doctrines](https://lawfoyer.in/centre-state-legislative-relations-under-the-indian-constitution/): Centre–State Legislative Relations under the Indian Constitution: Articles 245–255, Legislative Lists, Repugnancy and Key Doctrines
- [27th LawFoyer Quiz on (The Constitution of India): Prizes worth Rs. 25K + | Cash Prizes, Smart Watch, Earbuds and much more | Bonuses for All Participants worth Rs. 5K+ | Register by 18th July, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/27th-lawfoyer-quiz-on-the-constitution-of-india/): -------------------------------------------- Attempt Free Open Mock Test -------------------------------------------- Register Now Dates Date of Quiz:- 19th July 2026 ( Sunday 7 Pm) Last Date to Apply:- 18th July 2026, 11:00 pm Result Declaration:- 24th July 2026 Prizes 1st Prize- Cash Prize Rs. 3,000/- + Smart Watch worth Rs. 2,000/- + Hardcopy Certificate of Excellence & Participation + FREE Access to
- [ADVANCED CERTIFICATION COURSE ON MOOTING AND TRIAL ADVOCACY](https://lawfoyer.in/advanced-certification-course-on-mooting-and-trial-advocacy/): Advanced Certification Course on Mooting and Trial Advocacy Click Here to Get 50% Off - Early Bird Offer ending Soon! Download Course Brochure Course Duration 4 Days Course Date 28th June to 1st July 2026 Session Time 6:00 PM (2 Hour Sessions) Mode Live Online Workshops + Lifetime Access to Recordings Wish to Master the
- [HNLU Earns Prestigious Citation of Honour for Advancing a Culture of Service and Voluntary Blood Donation](https://lawfoyer.in/hnlu-earns-prestigious-citation-of-honour-for-advancing-a-culture-of-service-and-voluntary-blood-donation/): Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur, was conferred a Citation of Honour by the Hon'ble Governor of Chhattisgarh, Shri Raman Deka in recognition of the University's sustained and commendable contribution to the cause of voluntary blood donation and community welfare. The honour was bestowed during a special felicitation ceremony organised by the Red Cross Society
- [3RD SHRI O.P. TANDON MEMORIAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by TRINITY INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES (TIPS) | Register by 2nd AUGUST 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/3rd-shri-o-p-tandon-memorial-mock-trial-competition-2026-organized-by-trinity-institute-of-professional-studies-tips-register-by-2nd-august-2026/): 3RD SHRI O.P. TANDON MEMORIAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by TRINITY INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES (TIPS) | Register by 2nd AUGUST 2026
- [VIDHIKA – A Quarterly Law Journal (Vol. 2, Issue 2) | Organized by Nyaya Shastra | Submit Articles & Papers by 15 June 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/vidhika-a-quarterly-law-journal-vol-2-issue-2-organized-by-nyaya-shastra-submit-articles-papers-by-15-june-2026/): VIDHIKA – A Quarterly Law Journal (Vol. 2, Issue 2) | Organized by Nyaya Shastra | Submit Articles & Papers by 15 June 2026
- [Call for Blogs | Centre for Environmental Law, Policy and Research (CELPR), National Law University Delhi | Organized by Collective for Environmental Action (CEA) under the aegis of the Centre for Environmental Law, Policy and Research (CELPR), National Law University Delhi](https://lawfoyer.in/centre-for-environmental-law-policy-and-research-celpr-national-law-university-delhi-organized-by-collective-for-environmental-action-cea-under-the-aegis-of-the-centre-for-environmental-law-p/): Centre for Environmental Law, Policy and Research (CELPR), National Law University Delhi | Organized by Collective for Environmental Action (CEA) under the aegis of the Centre for Environmental Law, Policy and Research (CELPR), National Law University Delhi
- [High Courts and Subordinate Courts under the Indian Constitution: Appointment, Transfer, Writ Jurisdiction, Superintendence and Control](https://lawfoyer.in/high-courts-and-subordinate-courts/): High Courts and Subordinate Courts under the Indian Constitution: Appointment, Transfer, Writ Jurisdiction, Superintendence and Control
- [State Legislature under Indian Constitution: Composition, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council, Qualifications, Disqualifications, Procedure, Money Bills and Powers](https://lawfoyer.in/state-legislature-under-indian-constitution/): State Legislature under Indian Constitution: Composition, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council, Qualifications, Disqualifications, Procedure, Money Bills and Powers
- [Chief Minister and State Council of Ministers under Indian Constitution: Appointment, Powers, Collective Responsibility, Governor’s Role and State Executive Functioning](https://lawfoyer.in/chief-minister-and-state-council-of-ministers/): Chief Minister and State Council of Ministers under Indian Constitution: Appointment, Powers, Collective Responsibility, Governor’s Role and State Executive Functioning
- [Governor of State under Indian Constitution: Appointment, Powers, Discretion and Constitutional Controversies](https://lawfoyer.in/governor-of-state/): Governor of State under Indian Constitution: Appointment, Powers, Discretion and Constitutional Controversies
- [Supreme Court of India: Establishment, Composition, Judges, Powers and Jurisdiction](https://lawfoyer.in/supreme-court-of-india/): Supreme Court of India: Establishment, Composition, Judges, Powers and Jurisdiction
- [Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha: Election, Powers, Removal, Tenth Schedule, Money Bill Certification and Judicial Scrutiny under Indian Constitutional Law](https://lawfoyer.in/speaker-and-deputy-speaker-of-lok-sabha/): Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha: Election, Powers, Removal, Tenth Schedule, Money Bill Certification and Judicial Scrutiny under Indian Constitutional Law
- [Parliamentary Procedure and Legislative Process in India: Ordinary Bills, Money Bills, Financial Bills, Joint Sitting, Assent, Budget, Sessions, Quorum and Voting](https://lawfoyer.in/parliamentary-procedure-and-legislative-process-in-india/): Parliamentary Procedure and Legislative Process in India: Ordinary Bills, Money Bills, Financial Bills, Joint Sitting, Assent, Budget, Sessions, Quorum and Voting
- [Parliamentary Privileges under Article 105 of the Constitution of India: Freedom of Speech, Immunity, Breach of Privilege, Contempt of House and Judicial Review](https://lawfoyer.in/parliamentary-privileges-under-article-105-of-the-constitution-of-india/): Parliamentary Privileges under Article 105 of the Constitution of India: Freedom of Speech, Immunity, Breach of Privilege, Contempt of House and Judicial Review
- [Parliament of India: Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Membership, Disqualification, Office of Profit, Anti-Defection Law and Vacation of Seats](https://lawfoyer.in/parliament-of-india/): Parliament of India: Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Membership, Disqualification, Office of Profit, Anti-Defection Law and Vacation of Seats
- [Attorney General for India under Article 76: Appointment, Qualifications, Duties, Rights, Limitations and Distinction from Advocate General](https://lawfoyer.in/attorney-general-for-india-under-article-76/): Attorney General for India under Article 76: Appointment, Qualifications, Duties, Rights, Limitations and Distinction from Advocate General
- [Prime Minister and Council of Ministers under Indian Constitution: Appointment, Responsibility, Aid and Advice, Cabinet System and Caretaker Government](https://lawfoyer.in/prime-minister-and-council-of-ministers-under-indian-constitution/): Prime Minister and Council of Ministers: Constitutional Foundation ➤ Core Concept: India follows a parliamentary form of government, where the President is the constitutional head and the Prime Minister with the Council of Ministers is the real executive authority. Article 74 provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at
- [Vice-President of India: Election, Qualifications, Term, Removal, Powers, Rajya Sabha Chairmanship and Comparison with President](https://lawfoyer.in/vice-president-of-india/): Vice-President of India: Election, Qualifications, Term, Removal, Powers, Rajya Sabha Chairmanship and Comparison with President
- [President of India under the Constitution of India: Election, Powers, Impeachment, Ordinance, Pardon, Emergency and Constitutional Position](https://lawfoyer.in/president-of-india-under-the-constitution-of-india/): President of India under the Constitution of India: Election, Powers, Impeachment, Ordinance, Pardon, Emergency and Constitutional Position
- [Fundamental Duties under Article 51A of the Constitution of India: Meaning, Origin, Enforceability and Judicial Relevance](https://lawfoyer.in/fundamental-duties-under-article-51a/): Fundamental Duties under Article 51A of the Constitution of India: Meaning, Origin, Enforceability and Judicial Relevance
- [Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution of India: Articles 36 to 51](https://lawfoyer.in/directive-principles-of-state-policy/): Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution of India: Articles 36 to 51
- [Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Constitutional Remedies, Writ Jurisdiction, PIL, Locus Standi and Suspension During Emergency](https://lawfoyer.in/article-32-of-the-constitution-of-india/): Meaning and Importance of Article 32: The Heart of Fundamental Rights ➤ Core meaning: Article 32 of the Constitution of India gives a person the guaranteed right to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. It is not merely a procedural remedy; it is itself
- [Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution: Cultural and Educational Rights of Minorities](https://lawfoyer.in/articles-29-and-30-of-the-indian-constitution/): Introduction to Cultural and Educational Rights ✦ Core idea: Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India protect India’s cultural, linguistic, religious and educational diversity. They ensure that groups with a distinct language, script or culture can preserve their identity, and that religious and linguistic minorities can establish and administer educational institutions of their
- [Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India: Freedom of Religion, Essential Religious Practices and Secularism](https://lawfoyer.in/articles-25-to-28-of-the-constitution-of-india/): Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India: Freedom of Religion, Essential Religious Practices and Secularism
- [26th LawFoyer Quiz on (Indian Contract Act, 1872): Prizes worth Rs. 25K + | Cash Prizes, Smart Watch, Earbuds and much more | Bonuses for All Participants worth Rs. 5K+ | Register by 6th June, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/26th-lawfoyer-quiz-on-indian-contract-act/): Don’t miss the legal quiz on June 7, 2026—tested on Indian Contract Law. Fast-track your legal career with prizes, publications, and access to premium courses. Sign up now!
- [2nd Edition of One Week Faculty Development Programme on Integrating Indian Knowledge System and Law | Organized by Centre for Advanced Studies in Human Rights (CASIHR), RGNUL, Punjab in association with Centre for Advanced Studies in Labour Welfare (CASLW), RGNUL, Punjab | Register by 9 July 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/2nd-edition-of-one-week-faculty-development-programme-on-integrating-indian-knowledge-system-and-law-organized-by-centre-for-advanced-studies-in-human-rights-casihr-rgnul-punjab-in-association-w/): 2nd Edition of One Week Faculty Development Programme on Integrating Indian Knowledge System and Law | Organized by Centre for Advanced Studies in Human Rights (CASIHR), RGNUL, Punjab In association with Centre for Advanced Studies in Labour Welfare (CASLW), RGNUL, Punjab | Register by 9 July 2026
- [Articles 23 and 24 of Indian Constitution: Right Against Exploitation, Forced Labour, Human Trafficking and Child Labour](https://lawfoyer.in/articles-23-and-24-of-indian-constitution/): Articles 23 and 24 of Indian Constitution: Right Against Exploitation, Forced Labour, Human Trafficking and Child Labour
- [Article 22 of the Indian Constitution: Protection Against Arrest and Preventive Detention Safeguards](https://lawfoyer.in/article-22-of-the-indian-constitution/): Article 22 of the Indian Constitution: Protection Against Arrest and Preventive Detention Safeguards
- [Article 21A and Right to Education: Free and Compulsory Education, RTE Act, Equality and Dignity](https://lawfoyer.in/article-21a-and-right-to-education/): Article 21A and Right to Education: Free and Compulsory Education, RTE Act, Equality and Dignity
- [Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Right to Life and Personal Liberty](https://lawfoyer.in/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india/): Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
- [Article 20 of the Constitution of India: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences, Ex Post Facto Laws, Double Jeopardy and Self-Incrimination](https://lawfoyer.in/article-20-of-the-constitution-of-india/): Article 20 of the Constitution of India: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences, Ex Post Facto Laws, Double Jeopardy and Self-Incrimination
- [Article 19 of Indian Constitution: Six Freedoms, Scope, Reasonable Restrictions and Landmark Supreme Court Cases](https://lawfoyer.in/article-19-of-indian-constitution/): Article 19 of Indian Constitution: Six Freedoms, Scope, Reasonable Restrictions and Landmark Supreme Court Cases
- [Article 17 and Article 18 of Indian Constitution: Abolition of Untouchability, Civil Rights Protection, Abolition of Titles and Constitutional Morality](https://lawfoyer.in/article-17-and-article-18-of-indian-constitution/): Article 17 and Article 18 of Indian Constitution: Abolition of Untouchability, Civil Rights Protection, Abolition of Titles and Constitutional Morality
- [Article 16 of the Indian Constitution: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment, Reservation, Promotion Quota, Creamy Layer and Domicile Requirements](https://lawfoyer.in/article-16-of-the-indian-constitution-2/): Article 16 of the Indian Constitution: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment, Reservation, Promotion Quota, Creamy Layer and Domicile Requirements
- [Article 15 of the Constitution of India: Prohibition of Discrimination, Protective Discrimination, Women, Children, SEBCs, SCs, STs and EWS](https://lawfoyer.in/article-15-of-the-constitution-of-india/): Article 15 of the Constitution of India: Prohibition of Discrimination, Protective Discrimination, Women, Children, SEBCs, SCs, STs and EWS
- [Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: Equality Before Law, Equal Protection, Reasonable Classification, Arbitrariness and Administrative Discretion](https://lawfoyer.in/article-14-of-the-indian-constitution/): Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: Equality Before Law, Equal Protection, Reasonable Classification, Arbitrariness and Administrative Discretion
- [Fundamental Rights: General Principles under Articles 12 and 13 of the Constitution of India](https://lawfoyer.in/fundamental-rights/): Fundamental Rights: General Principles under Articles 12 and 13 of the Constitution of India
- [Citizenship under Indian Constitutional Law: Articles 5 to 11 and the Citizenship Act, 1955](https://lawfoyer.in/citizenship-under-indian-constitutional-law/): Citizenship under Indian Constitutional Law: Articles 5 to 11 and the Citizenship Act, 1955
- [Union and its Territory under Indian Constitution: Articles 1 to 4 Explained with Landmark Cases](https://lawfoyer.in/union-and-its-territory-under-indian-constitution/): Union and its Territory under Indian Constitution: Articles 1 to 4 Explained with Landmark Cases
- [Preamble of the Constitution of India: Meaning, Importance, Keywords, Amendability, Interpretative Value and Landmark Cases](https://lawfoyer.in/preamble-of-the-constitution-of-india/): Preamble of the Constitution of India: Meaning, Importance, Keywords, Amendability, Interpretative Value and Landmark Cases
- [Nature of the Indian Constitution: Federal, Unitary, Quasi-Federal, Cooperative Federal and Sui Generis Character Explained](https://lawfoyer.in/nature-of-the-indian-constitution-federal-unitary-quasi-federal/): Nature of the Indian Constitution: Federal, Unitary, Quasi-Federal, Cooperative Federal and Sui Generis Character Explained
- [Salient Features of the Indian Constitution: Comprehensive Legal Notes for Indian Constitutional Law](https://lawfoyer.in/salient-features-of-the-indian-constitution-2/): Salient Features of the Indian Constitution: Comprehensive Legal Notes for Indian Constitutional Law
- [Making of the Indian Constitution and Constituent Assembly: Historical Evolution, Drafting Process and Constitutional Influences](https://lawfoyer.in/making-of-the-indian-constitution-and-constituent-assembly/): Making of the Indian Constitution and Constituent Assembly: Historical Evolution, Drafting Process and Constitutional Influences
- [Constitutional Development and Historical Background of Indian Constitution: Complete Notes on Evolution, Government of India Acts, Cabinet Mission Plan and Constituent Assembly](https://lawfoyer.in/constitutional-development-and-historical-background-of-indian-constitution/): Constitutional Development and Historical Background of Indian Constitution: Complete Notes on Evolution, Government of India Acts, Cabinet Mission Plan and Constituent Assembly
- [Res Judicata under Section 11 CPC, 1908: Meaning, Essentials, Constructive Res Judicata, Exceptions and Landmark Supreme Court Cases](https://lawfoyer.in/res-judicata/): Res Judicata under Section 11 CPC, 1908: Meaning, Essentials, Constructive Res Judicata, Exceptions and Landmark Supreme Court Cases
- [CELPR NLU Delhi – ELDF Essay Writing Competition (First Edition) | Organized by Centre for Environmental Law, Policy and Research (CELPR), National Law University, Delhi (NLU Delhi) | Register by 8th June 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/celpr-nlu-delhi-eldf-essay-writing-competition-first-edition-organized-by-centre-for-environmental-law-policy-and-research-celpr-national-law-university-delhi-nlu-delhi-register/): CELPR NLU Delhi – ELDF Essay Writing Competition (First Edition) | Organized by Centre for Environmental Law, Policy and Research (CELPR), National Law University, Delhi (NLU Delhi) | Register by 8th June 2026
- [Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46](https://lawfoyer.in/uday-v-state-of-karnataka-2003-4-scc-46/): Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46
- [Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 18 SCC 517](https://lawfoyer.in/sonu-subhash-kumar-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-2021-18-scc-517/): Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 18 SCC 517
- [Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608](https://lawfoyer.in/pramod-suryabhan-pawar-v-state-of-maharashtra-2019-9-scc-608/): Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608
- [Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108](https://lawfoyer.in/maheshwar-tigga-v-state-of-jharkhand-2020-10-scc-108/): Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108
- [Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675](https://lawfoyer.in/deepak-gulati-v-state-of-haryana-2013-7-scc-675/): Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675
- [In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1/2025](https://lawfoyer.in/in-re-order-dated-17-03-2025-passed-by-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-in-criminal-revision-no-1449-2024-and-ancillary-issues-suo-motu-writ-petition-criminal-no-1-2025/): In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ancillary Issues, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1/2025
- [Rachana Gangu v. Union of India 2026 INSC 218](https://lawfoyer.in/rachana-gangu-v-union-of-india-2026-insc-218/): Rachana Gangu v. Union of India 2026 INSC 218
- [Pawan Khera v. State of Assam SLP (Crl.) No. 7786 of 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/pawan-khera-v-state-of-assam-slp-crl-no-7786-of-2026/): Pawan Khera v. State of Assam SLP (Crl.) No. 7786 of 2026
- [Harish Rana v. Union of India 2026 SCC OnLine SC 358](https://lawfoyer.in/harish-rana-v-union-of-india-2026-scc-online-sc-358/): Harish Rana v. Union of India 2026 SCC OnLine SC 358
- [Aruna Kumari v. Economic Offences Unit 2026 SCC OnLine SC 719](https://lawfoyer.in/aruna-kumari-v-economic-offences-unit-2026-scc-online-sc-719/): Aruna Kumari v. Economic Offences Unit 2026 SCC OnLine SC 719
- [Advanced Certification Workshop on AI-Powered Legal Research, Writing and Drafting](https://lawfoyer.in/advanced-certification-workshop-on-ai-powered-legal-research-writing-and-drafting/): Enhance your legal expertise with our advanced AI workshop. Get hands-on experience, insights from top mentors, and a 50% discount offer today.
- [TWO DAY NATIONAL SEMINAR ON: “Women, Law and Social Change in India: Navigating Rights, Justice, Contemporary Challenges and Pathways to Empowerment” | Organized by Sri Krishna Jubilee Law College | Register by 5th July, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/two-day-national-seminar-on-women-law-and-social-change-in-india-navigating-rights-justice-contemporary-challenges-and-pathways-to-empowerment-organized-by-sri-krishna-jubilee/): TWO DAY NATIONAL SEMINAR ON: “Women, Law and Social Change in India: Navigating Rights, Justice, Contemporary Challenges and Pathways to Empowerment” | Organized by Sri Krishna Jubilee Law College | Register by 05th July, 2026
- [ONE WEEK NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH ETHICS AND PUBLICATION STRATEGY | Organized by Shri Ram College of Law, Muzaffarnagar – NCR | Register by 30th May 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/one-week-national-workshop-on-research-methodology-research-ethics-and-publication-strategy-organized-by-shri-ram-college-of-law-muzaffarnagar-ncr-register-by-30th-may-2026/): ONE WEEK NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH ETHICS AND PUBLICATION STRATEGY | Organized by Shri Ram College of Law, Muzaffarnagar – NCR | Register by 30th May 2026
- [INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, LEGAL GOVERNANCE, AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: CONSTITUTIONAL, REGULATORY AND SECTORAL PERSPECTIVES (AILGS-2026) | Organized by the Centre for Law, Technology and Innovation, School of Law, Bennett University | Submit Abstract by May 28, 2026 | Register by July 1, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-on-artificial-intelligence-legal-governance-and-sustainable-development-constitutional-regulatory-and-sectoral-perspectives-ailgs-2026-organized-by-the-centre-for-law/): INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, LEGAL GOVERNANCE, AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: CONSTITUTIONAL, REGULATORY AND SECTORAL PERSPECTIVES (AILGS-2026) | Organized by the Centre for Law, Technology and Innovation, School of Law, Bennett University | Submit Abstract by May 28, 2026 | Register by July 1, 2026
- [AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. 2021 SCC Online Del 3417](https://lawfoyer.in/astrazeneca-ab-anr-v-intas-pharmaceuticals-limited-ors-2021-scc-online-del-3417/): AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. 2021 SCC Online Del 3417
- [Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission & Others, 2025 INSC 623](https://lawfoyer.in/kabir-paharia-v-national-medical-commission-others-2025-insc-623/): Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission & Others, 2025 INSC 623
- [Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors., 2026 INSC 53](https://lawfoyer.in/sujata-bora-v-coal-india-limited-ors-2026-insc-53/): Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors., 2026 INSC 53
- [Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2114](https://lawfoyer.in/pramati-educational-cultural-trust-v-union-of-india-ors-air-2014-sc-2114/): Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2114
- [J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India, 1994 Supp (2) SCR 567](https://lawfoyer.in/j-r-kapoor-v-micronix-india-1994-supp-2-scr-567/): J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India, 1994 Supp (2) SCR 567
- [Advanced Certificate Course on DPDP Act, 2023: Law, Compliance and Practice](https://lawfoyer.in/advanced-certificate-course-on-dpdp-act-2023-law-compliance-and-practice/): Boost your legal expertise with our 3-day Certification Course on Data Privacy Law, covering DPDP Act, compliance, and practical advisory skills.
- [1st Client Counseling Competition 2026 by Canonsphere | Organized by Canonsphere | Register by 2nd July, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-client-counseling-competition-2026-by-canonsphere-organized-by-canonsphere-register-by-2nd-july-2026/): 1st Client Counseling Competition 2026 by Canonsphere | Organized by Canonsphere | Register by 2nd July, 2026
- [Landmark Academic Collaboration and Knowledge Exchange Held at NLIU, Bhopal](https://lawfoyer.in/press-releaselandmark-academic-collaboration-and-knowledge-exchange-held-at-nliu-bhopal/): Dated: 18 May 2026An important meeting was held at the Judicial Academy, Bhopal, regarding academic collaboration and exchange of knowledge among the National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal, National Law Institute, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, and National law University and Judicial Academy, Guwahati The meeting was specially attended by Prof. (Dr.) S. Surya Prakash, Vice-Chancellor of
- [Cadila Healthcare Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, AIR 2001 SC 1952](https://lawfoyer.in/cadila-healthcare-limited-v-cadila-pharmaceuticals-limited-air-2001-sc-1952/): Cadila Healthcare Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, AIR 2001 SC 1952
- [Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 4752 of 2025](https://lawfoyer.in/muskan-v-ishaan-khan-sataniya-and-others-criminal-appeal-no-4752-of-2025/): Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 4752 of 2025
- [CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS OF INDIA (CREDAI) V/S VANASHAKTI 2025 INSC 1326](https://lawfoyer.in/confederation-of-real-estate-developers-of-india-credai-v-s-vanashakti-2025-insc-1326/): CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS OF INDIA (CREDAI) V/S VANASHAKTI 2025 INSC 1326
- [Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1326](https://lawfoyer.in/vanashakti-v-union-of-india-2025-insc-1326/): Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1326
- [Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531](https://lawfoyer.in/committee-of-creditors-of-essar-steel-india-limited-v-satish-kumar-gupta-2020-8-scc-531/): Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531
- [State Tax Officer (1) v. Rainbow Papers Limited, Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020](https://lawfoyer.in/state-tax-officer-1-v-rainbow-papers-limited-civil-appeal-no-1661-of-2020/): State Tax Officer (1) v. Rainbow Papers Limited, Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020
- [Mihir Rajesh Shah v. The State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1288](https://lawfoyer.in/mihir-rajesh-shah-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-2025-insc-1288/): Mihir Rajesh Shah v. The State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1288
- [M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2021 SC 1918](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-neeharika-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-maharashtra-air-2021-sc-1918/): M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2021 SC 1918
- [Mission Accessibility v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 1376](https://lawfoyer.in/mission-accessibility-v-union-of-india-ors-2025-insc-1376/): Mission Accessibility v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 1376
- [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717](https://lawfoyer.in/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-air-2020-sc-3717/): Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717
- [Daxaben v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1132–1155 of 2022](https://lawfoyer.in/daxaben-v-state-of-gujarat-ors-criminal-appeal-arising-out-of-slp-crl-no-1132-1155-of-2022/): Daxaben v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1132–1155 of 2022
- [The State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1455–1456 of 2021](https://lawfoyer.in/the-state-of-odisha-v-pratima-mohanty-ors-criminal-appeal-nos-1455-1456-of-2021/): The State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1455–1456 of 2021
- [Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 657](https://lawfoyer.in/ghanashyam-mishra-and-sons-private-limited-v-edelweiss-asset-reconstruction-company-limited-ors-2021-9-scc-657/): Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 657
- [Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 AIR 945](https://lawfoyer.in/mohd-ahmed-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-1985-air-945/): Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 AIR 945
- [Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2021](https://lawfoyer.in/vikash-kumar-v-union-public-service-commission-civil-appeal-no-273-of-2021/): Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2021
- [Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr. (1997) 3 SCC 694](https://lawfoyer.in/brahmdeo-choudhary-v-rishikesh-prasad-jaiswal-anr-1997-3-scc-694/): Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr. (1997) 3 SCC 694
- [Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Another, AIR 1998 SC 1754](https://lawfoyer.in/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-v-rajiv-trust-and-another-air-1998-sc-1754/): Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Another, AIR 1998 SC 1754
- [2-Day Online Workshop on Right to Information (RTI) | Organized by Legal Aid Clinic, Himachal Pradesh National Law University (HPNLU), Shimla, in collaboration with Vidhi Vimarsh Initiative | Register by 30 May 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/2-day-online-workshop-on-right-to-information-rti-organized-by-legal-aid-clinic-himachal-pradesh-national-law-university-hpnlu-shimla-in-collaboration-with-vidhi-vimarsh-initiative-register/): 2-Day Online Workshop on Right to Information (RTI) | Organized by Legal Aid Clinic, Himachal Pradesh National Law University (HPNLU), Shimla, in collaboration with Vidhi Vimarsh Initiative | Register by 30 May 2026
- [Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 144](https://lawfoyer.in/usha-sinha-v-dina-ram-ors-2008-7-scc-144/): Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 144
- [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2023 INSC 866](https://lawfoyer.in/pankaj-bansal-v-union-of-india-2023-insc-866/): Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2023 INSC 866
- [Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2022](https://lawfoyer.in/deepika-singh-v-central-administrative-tribunal-ors-civil-appeal-no-5308-of-2022/): Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2022
- [Vibhor Garg v. Neha 2025 INSC 829](https://lawfoyer.in/vibhor-garg-v-neha-2025-insc-829/): Vibhor Garg v. Neha 2025 INSC 829
- [Tahir V. Isani vs Madan Waman Chodankar 2025 INSC 1044](https://lawfoyer.in/tahir-v-isani-vs-madan-waman-chodankar-2025-insc-1044/): Tahir V. Isani vs Madan Waman Chodankar 2025 INSC 1044
- [Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 593](https://lawfoyer.in/rutu-mihir-panchal-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-2025-insc-593/): Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 593
- [Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 599](https://lawfoyer.in/pragya-prasun-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-2025-insc-599/): Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 599
- [5th MAIMS Mock Trial Competition, 2026 | Organized by Maims Mock Trial Society, Department of Law, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies (MAIMS), in collaboration with the Bar Council of Delhi | Register by 23 August 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/5th-maims-mock-trial-competition-2026-organized-by-maims-mock-trial-society-department-of-law-maharaja-agrasen-institute-of-management-studies-maims-new-delhi-register-by-23-august-2026/): 5th MAIMS Mock Trial Competition, 2026 | Organized by Maims Mock Trial Society, Department of Law, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies (MAIMS), New Delhi | Register by 23 August 2026
- [Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (Crl.) No. 336 of 2018](https://lawfoyer.in/radhika-agarwal-v-union-of-india-and-others-w-p-crl-no-336-of-2018/): Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (Crl.) No. 336 of 2018
- [Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors., 2025 INSC 125](https://lawfoyer.in/dr-tanvi-behl-v-shrey-goel-ors-2025-insc-125/): Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors., 2025 INSC 125
- [Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410](https://lawfoyer.in/imran-pratapgarhi-v-state-of-gujarat-2025-insc-410/): Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410
- [Call for Papers: LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [ISSN No:- 2583-7753] | Vol 4 Issue 2 | Get Free CrossRef DOI, E-Certificate of Publication, & Indexing in 350+ International Libraries & Databases including Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, IIM Bangalore, HeinOnline, Manupatra & many more: Submit Manuscript by June 15](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-papers-lawfoyer-international-journal-of-doctrinal-legal-research-issn-no-2583-7753-vol-4-issue-2-get-free-crossref-doi-e-certificate-of-publication-indexing-in-350-internat/): Call for Papers: LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [ISSN No:- 2583-7753] | Vol 4 Issue 2 | Get Free CrossRef DOI, E-Certificate of Publication, & Indexing in 350+ International Libraries & Databases including Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, IIM Bangalore, HeinOnline, Manupatra & many more: Submit Manuscript by June 15
- [Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9855/2022](https://lawfoyer.in/aparna-ajinkya-firodia-v-ajinkya-arun-firodia-civil-appeal-arising-out-of-slp-c-no-9855-2022/): Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9855/2022
- [K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025](https://lawfoyer.in/k-umadevi-v-government-of-tamil-nadu-ors-civil-appeal-no-2526-of-2025/): K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025
- [Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1118 of 2014](https://lawfoyer.in/shilpa-sailesh-v-varun-sreenivasan-transfer-petition-civil-no-1118-of-2014/): Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1118 of 2014
- [The State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar & Ors., 2026 INSC 63](https://lawfoyer.in/the-state-of-haryana-v-krishan-kumar-ors-2026-insc-63/): The State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar & Ors., 2026 INSC 63
- [Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra & Others, 2025 INSC 1063](https://lawfoyer.in/anjuman-ishaat-e-taleem-trust-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-others-2025-insc-1063/): Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra & Others, 2025 INSC 1063
- [C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph and Others, 2025 INSC 1071](https://lawfoyer.in/c-p-francis-v-c-p-joseph-and-others-2025-insc-1071/): C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph and Others, 2025 INSC 1071
- [Karan Kumar, Sameer Sanjay and Satya Sanatan of Central University of South Bihar Win the 1st L.P. Shahi Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/karan-kumar-sameer-sanjay-and-satya-sanatan-of-central-university-of-south-bihar-win-the-1st-l-p-shahi-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2026/): LawFoyer proudly celebrates the remarkable achievement of Karan Kumar, Sameer Sanjay, and Satya Sanatan, students of the Central University of South Bihar, who secured the Winner's position at the 1st L.P. Shahi Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2026, organized by SKJ Law College. This prestigious national-level competition brought together talented law students from across the
- [International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Legal Governance, and Sustainable Development: Constitutional, Regulatory, and Sectoral Perspectives (AILGS-2026) | Organized by Centre for Law, Technology and Innovation (CLTI), School of Law, Bennett University | Submit Abstract by 28 May 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-on-artificial-intelligence-legal-governance-and-sustainable-development-constitutional-regulatory-and-sectoral-perspectives-ailgs-2026-organized-by-centre-for-law-te/): International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Legal Governance, and Sustainable Development: Constitutional, Regulatory, and Sectoral Perspectives (AILGS-2026) | Organized by Centre for Law, Technology and Innovation (CLTI), School of Law, Bennett University | Submit Abstract by 28 May 2026
- [Khushi Kumari, Alok Ranjan, and Priya Bharati of Gopal Narayan Singh University Excel at 1st L.P. Shahi Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2026 with Best Speaker Recognition](https://lawfoyer.in/khushi-kumari-alok-ranjan-and-priya-bharati-of-gopal-narayan-singh-university-excel-at-1st-l-p-shahi-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2026-with-best-speaker-recognition/): LawFoyer proudly celebrates the remarkable achievement of Khushi Kumari, along with team members Alok Ranjan and Priya Bharati from Gopal Narayan Singh University, for their outstanding performance at the 1st L.P. Shahi Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2026, organized by Shri Krishna Jubilee Law College. This achievement stands as a testament to dedication, perseverance, and
- [Certificate Course on Construction Contracts and Disputes | Organized by Centre for Law & Urban Development (CLUD) in collaboration with Society of Construction Law India (SCL-India) | Register by 4th May 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/certificate-course-on-construction-contracts-and-disputes-organized-by-centre-for-law-urban-development-clud-in-collaboration-with-society-of-construction-law-india-scl-india-register-by/): Certificate Course on Construction Contracts and Disputes | Organized by Centre for Law & Urban Development (CLUD) in collaboration with Society of Construction Law India (SCL-India) | Register by 4th May 2026
- [Eighth One Week Annual Summer School on Understanding Indian Consumer and Competition Law | Organized by School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) | Register by May 25, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/eighth-one-week-annual-summer-school-on-understanding-indian-consumer-and-competition-law-organized-by-school-of-legal-studies-cochin-university-of-science-and-technology-cusat-register-by-may/): Eighth One Week Annual Summer School on Understanding Indian Consumer and Competition Law | Organized by School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) | Register by May 25, 2026
- [CALL FOR PAPERS- NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SHAPING THE FUTURE OF LEGAL EDUCATION: INNOVATION, PRACTICE AND REFORMS | Organized by Government Law College, Ernakulam | Submit Abstract by 7 May 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-papers-national-conference-on-shaping-the-future-of-legal-education-innovation-practice-and-reforms-organized-by-government-law-college-ernakulam-submit-abstract-by-7-may-2026/): CALL FOR PAPERS- NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SHAPING THE FUTURE OF LEGAL EDUCATION :INNOVATION, PRACTICE AND REFORMS | Organized by Government Law College, Ernakulam | Submit Abstract by 7 May 2026
- [1ST AUMP VIRTUAL CLIENT COUNSELLING COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh | Register by 3rd May, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-aump-virtual-client-counselling-competition-2026-organized-by-amity-law-school-amity-university-madhya-pradesh-register-by-24th-april-2026/): 1ST AUMP VIRTUAL CLIENT COUNSELLING COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh | Register by 24th April, 2026
- [P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors., 2026 INSC 121](https://lawfoyer.in/p-suresh-v-d-kalaivani-ors-2026-insc-121/): P.Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors., 2026 INSC 121
- [Savithri Naidu v. M/s The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd, 2026 INSC 150](https://lawfoyer.in/savithri-naidu-v-m-s-the-cotton-corporation-of-india-ltd-2026-insc-150/): Savithri Naidu v. M/s The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd, 2026 INSC 150
- [UILS STUDENT LAW REVIEW – CALL FOR PAPERS (VOL. III, ISSUE II) | Organized by University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS), Panjab University, Chandigarh](https://lawfoyer.in/uils-student-law-review-call-for-papers-vol-iii-issue-ii-organized-by-university-institute-of-legal-studies-uils-panjab-university-chandigarh/): UILS STUDENT LAW REVIEW – CALL FOR PAPERS (VOL. III, ISSUE II) | Organized by University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS), Panjab University, Chandigarh
- [NLUJ-CIPS One Day National Workshop on Intellectual Property and Sports, 2026 (Virtual) | Organized by Centre for Intellectual Property Studies (CIPS), National Law University, Jodhpur | Register by 25 April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/nluj-cips-one-day-national-workshop-on-intellectual-property-and-sports-2026-virtual-organized-by-centre-for-intellectual-property-studies-cips-national-law-university-jodhpur-register-by-2/): NLUJ-CIPS One Day National Workshop on Intellectual Property and Sports, 2026 (Virtual) | Organized by Centre for Intellectual Property Studies (CIPS), National Law University, Jodhpur | Register by 25 April 2026
- [From Inclusion to Impact: Women Entrepreneurship, Digital Rights, ESG Accountability & Corporate Governance Reforms | Organized by KIIT School of Law | Register by 30 April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/from-inclusion-to-impact-women-entrepreneurship-digital-rights-esg-accountability-corporate-governance-reforms-organized-by-kiit-school-of-law-register-by-30-april-2026/): From Inclusion to Impact: Women Entrepreneurship, Digital Rights, ESG Accountability & Corporate Governance Reforms | Organized by KIIT School of Law | Register by 30 April 2026
- [The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 836: 2025 INSC 261](https://lawfoyer.in/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-v-balveer-singh-2025-2-s-c-r-836-2025-insc-261-2/): The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 836: 2025 INSC 261
- [Adrija Bhattacharya and Sejal Joshi of Vivekanand Education Society’s College of Law, Mumbai University Triumph at LJ School of Law Client Counselling Competition 2026, Securing Winner Title with Best Counsel Honour](https://lawfoyer.in/adrija-bhattacharya-and-sejal-joshi-of-vivekanand-education-societys-college-of-law-mumbai-university-triumph-at-lj-school-of-law-client-counselling-competition-2026-securing-winner-title-w/): Excellence, dedication, and composure under pressure define true legal talent, and this spirit shines brightly in the remarkable achievement of Adrija Bhattacharya and teammate Sejal Joshi from Vivekanand Education Society’s College of Law, Mumbai University. The team secured the Winner position at the prestigious Client Counselling Competition 2026 organized by LJ School of Law, Ahmedabad.
- [Centre for Financial Markets and Regulatory Systems, NLIU Bhopal Successfully Hosts 1st National Symposium on Securities Law and Capital Markets 2026; Khushi Kalyani Gautam & Suhana, Yash Arjariya & Ayush Tiwari, and Kyra Mehra & Ananya Rakheja Shine as Top Achievers](https://lawfoyer.in/centre-for-financial-markets-and-regulatory-systems-nliu-bhopal-successfully-hosts-1st-national-symposium-on-securities-law-and-capital-markets-2026-khushi-kalyani-gautam-suhana-yash-arjariya-a/): The Centre for Financial Markets and Regulatory Systems (CFMRS) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal, has set a remarkable benchmark with the successful organisation of the 1st NLIU National Symposium on Securities Law and Capital Markets, 2026, held on 4th and 5th April 2026. This flagship initiative stands as a testament to the institution’s commitment
- [HNLU Team Secures Runner-Up Position at the 23rd Willem C. Vis East International Commercial Arbitration Moot, Hong Kong](https://lawfoyer.in/hnlu-team-secures-runner-up-position-at-the-23rd-willem-c-vis-east-international-commercial-arbitration-moot-hong-kong/): Raipur, — The Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur, proudly announces the exceptional achievement of its student team at the prestigious 23rd Willem C. Vis East International Commercial Arbitration Moot, held in Hong Kong. Competing against leading law schools from across the globe, the HNLU team emerged as the 1st Runner-Up, marking a significant milestone
- [Adrija Bhattacharya, Sejal Joshi, and Taanya Dash of Vivekanand Education Society’s College of Law Secure 2nd Runners-Up Position at LJ School of Law Ahmedabad National Parliamentary Debate Competition, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/adrija-bhattacharya-sejal-joshi-and-taanya-dash-of-vivekanand-education-societys-college-of-law-secure-2nd-runners-up-position-at-lj-school-of-law-ahmedabad-national-parliamentary-debate-co/): Achievement shines brightest when courage meets opportunity, and this is beautifully reflected in the remarkable accomplishment of Adrija Bhattacharya, along with teammates Sejal Joshi and Taanya Dash from Vivekanand Education Society’s College of Law, Mumbai. The team secured the prestigious position of 2nd Runners-Up at the LJ School of Law Ahmedabad National Parliamentary Debate Competition,
- [ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERDISCIPLINARY LEADERSHIP | Organized by Academic and Research Wing (ARW), Kindsouls Welfare Foundation | Early Bird Registration: 20th April 2026 | Late Registration: 25th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/one-day-international-conference-on-interdisciplinary-leadership-organized-by-academic-and-research-wing-arw-kindsouls-welfare-foundation-early-bird-registration-20th-april-2026-late-registr/): ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERDISCIPLINARY LEADERSHIP | Organized by Academic and Research Wing (ARW), Kindsouls Welfare Foundation | Early Bird Registration: 20th April 2026 | Late Registration: 25th April 2026
- [Admissions Open: Master of Cyber Law and Information Security (MCLIS) Program 2026 | National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal | Register by 30 April 2026 | Written Test: 10 May 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/admissions-open-master-of-cyber-law-and-information-security-mclis-program-2026-national-law-institute-university-nliu-bhopal-register-by-30-april-2026-written-test-10-may-2026/): Admissions Open: Master of Cyber Law and Information Security (MCLIS) Program 2026 | National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal | Register by 30 April 2026 | Written Test: 10 May 2026
- [RUAS, SOL Moot Court Competition 2.0 | Organized by School of Law, M. S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences](https://lawfoyer.in/ruas-sol-moot-court-competition-2-0-organized-by-school-of-law-m-s-ramaiah-university-of-applied-sciences/): RUAS, SOL Moot Court Competition 2.0 | Organized by School of Law, M. S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
- [25th LawFoyer Quiz on (Constitutional Law & Indian Polity): Prizes worth Rs. 25K + | Cash Prizes, Smart Watch, Earbuds and much more | Bonuses for All Participants worth Rs. 5K+ | Register by 28th March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/25th-lawfoyer-quiz-on-constitutional-law-indian-polity-prizes-worth-rs-15k/): -------------------------------------------- Download Answer Key -------------------------------------------- 25th LawFoyer's Quiz Competition Winners and Top Rankers -------------------------------------------- Check Results Download Certificate of Participation -------------------------------------------- Dates Date of Quiz:- 29th March 2026 ( Sunday 7 Pm) Last Date to Apply:- 28th March 2026, 11:00 pm Result Declaration:- 5th April 2026 Prizes 1st Prize- Cash Prize Rs. 3,000/- + Smart Watch worth Rs.
- [NYAYA SETU – THE AI & JUSTICE POLICY CONVENTION (3rd EDITION) | Organized by SAMATVA – The Legal Aid & Awareness Cell, NMIMS Indore | Register by 12th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/nyaya-setu-the-ai-justice-policy-convention-3rd-edition-organized-by-samatva-the-legal-aid-awareness-cell-nmims-indore-register-by-12th-april-2026/): NYAYA SETU – THE AI & JUSTICE POLICY CONVENTION (3rd EDITION) | Organized by SAMATVA – The Legal Aid & Awareness Cell, NMIMS Indore | Register by 12th April 2026
- [INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EXPANDING HORIZONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE AGE OF GLOBALISATION | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab | Submit Abstract by 12th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-on-expanding-horizons-of-human-rights-fundamental-freedoms-and-fundamental-rights-in-the-age-of-globalisation-organized-by-rajiv-gandhi-national-university-of-law-rgnul/): INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EXPANDING HORIZONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE AGE OF GLOBALISATION | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab | Submit Abstract by 12th April 2026
- [National Law University Delhi Enters QS World University Rankings by Subject 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/national-law-university-delhi-enters-qs-world-university-rankings-by-subject-2026/): In a significant milestone for Indian legal education, National Law University Delhi (NLU Delhi) has made its debut in the prestigious QS World University Rankings by Subject 2026 for Law & Legal Studies, securing a position in the 201–250 global band, with an overall subject rank of 223. This achievement marks a decisive step in
- [CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION COMPETITION (VIL’s 1st Inter-University Event) | Organized by Vignan Institute of Law, under Vignan's Foundation for Science, Technology & Research (Deemed to be University) | Register by April 20, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/crime-scene-investigation-competition-vils-1st-inter-university-event-organized-by-vignan-institute-of-law-under-vignans-foundation-for-science-technology-research-deemed-to-be/): CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION COMPETITION (VIL’s 1st Inter-University Event) | Organized by Vignan Institute of Law, under Vignan's Foundation for Science, Technology & Research (Deemed to be University) | Register by April 20, 2026
- [6th ADAMAS MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by ADAMAS UNIVERSITY | Register by 4th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/6th-adamas-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-adamas-university-register-by-26-march-2026/): 6th ADAMAS MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by ADAMAS UNIVERSITY | Register by 26 March 2026
- [5-DAY CERTIFICATION COURSE ON TECHNOLOGY LAWS](https://lawfoyer.in/5-day-certification-course-on-technology-laws/): If you want to understand cyber law, data protection, AI regulation, and digital evidence in a clear, practical, and career focused way, this 5 day certificat..
- [TEN-DAY NATIONAL FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ON EMERGING IP JURISPRUDENCE AND EVOLVING TRENDS OF IP TEACHING & RESEARCH | Organized by DPIIT-IPR Chair at Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | 6TH APRIL – 16TH APRIL, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/ten-day-national-faculty-development-program-on-emerging-ip-jurisprudence-and-evolving-trends-of-ip-teaching-research-organized-by-dpiit-ipr-chair-at-hidayatullah-national-law-university-hnlu/): TEN-DAY NATIONAL FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ON EMERGING IP JURISPRUDENCE AND EVOLVING TRENDS OF IP TEACHING & RESEARCH | Organized by DPIIT-IPR Chair at Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | 6TH APRIL – 16TH APRIL, 2026
- [1st NLUJ-CCLRP National Essay Writing Competition, 2026 | Organized by Centre for Consumer Law Research & Practice, National Law University, Jodhpur | Submission Deadline: 15th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-nluj-cclrp-national-essay-writing-competition-2026-organized-by-centre-for-consumer-law-research-practice-national-law-university-jodhpur-submission-deadline-15th-april-2026/): 1st NLUJ-CCLRP National Essay Writing Competition, 2026 | Organized by Centre for Consumer Law Research & Practice, National Law University, Jodhpur | Submission Deadline: 15th April 2026
- [समग्र’26 – Annual Inter-College Sports Meet | Organized by DME Sports Society, Delhi Metropolitan Education | Event Dates: 25th – 30th March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/समग्र26-annual-inter-college-sports-meet-organized-by-dme-sports-society-delhi-metropolitan-education-event-dates-25th-30th-m/): समग्र’26 – Annual Inter-College Sports Meet | Organized by DME Sports Society, Delhi Metropolitan Education | Event Dates: 25th – 30th March 2026
- [Smt. Shakuntala Devi 3rd International Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized Moot Court Society, School of Law, Galgotias University | Register by 26th March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/smt-shakuntala-devi-3rd-international-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-moot-court-society-school-of-law-galgotias-university-register-by-26th-march-2026/): Smt. Shakuntala Devi 3rd International Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized Moot Court Society, School of Law, Galgotias University | Register by 26th March, 2026
- [INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERSECTIONS OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS AND THE FUTURE: LAW, CULTURE, SUSTAINABILITY, AND COLLECTIVE WELL-BEING | Organized by DME Law School, Noida | Register by 20th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-on-intersections-of-traditional-knowledge-systems-and-the-future-law-culture-sustainability-and-collective-well-being-organized-by-dme-law-school-noida-register-by-20/): INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERSECTIONS OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS AND THE FUTURE: LAW, CULTURE, SUSTAINABILITY, AND COLLECTIVE WELL-BEING | Organized by DME Law School, Noida | Register by 20th April 2026
- [1ST NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI – KHAITAN & CO CERTIFICATE COURSE ON TAXATION LAWS | Organized by National Law University Delhi | Register by 29th March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-national-law-university-delhi-khaitan-co-certificate-course-on-taxation-laws-organized-by-national-law-university-delhi-register-by-29th-march-2026/): 1ST NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI – KHAITAN & CO CERTIFICATE COURSE ON TAXATION LAWS | Organized by National Law University Delhi | Register by 29th March, 2026
- [Institute of Law, Nirma University Lifts the 3rd Justice Hidayatullah International Moot Court Trophy with a cash prize of Rs 2 lakhs](https://lawfoyer.in/institute-of-law-nirma-university-lifts-the-3rd-justice-hidayatullah-international-moot-court-trophy-with-a-cash-prize-of-rs-2-lakhs/): Raipur, March 15, 2026 The Institute of Law, Nirma University, Gandhinagar emerged as the Winner of the 3rd Justice Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition (HIMCC) 2026, securing the championship trophy along with a cash prize of ₹2,00,000. National Law University, Odisha was declared the Runner-Up, receiving a cash prize of ₹1,50,000. The competition also recognised
- [International Conference on “Blockchain Technology: Transforming Law, Governance, and the Digital Economy” | Organized by The Department of Cyberspace Law and Justice, School of Excellence in Law, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (TNDALU) | Register by 30 March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-on-blockchain-technology-transforming-law-governance-and-the-digital-economy-organized-by-the-department-of-cyberspace-law-and-justice-school-of-excell/): International Conference on “Blockchain Technology: Transforming Law, Governance, and the Digital Economy” | Organized by The Department of Cyberspace Law and Justice, School of Excellence in Law, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (TNDALU) | Register by 30 March 2026
- [The 4th Xavier Mediation Competition 2026 (XMC’26) | Organized by The Xavier Society of Law and Justice (XSLAJ), Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata | Register by 21st March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/the-4th-xavier-mediation-competition-2026-xmc26-organized-by-the-xavier-society-of-law-and-justice-xslaj-xavier-law-school-st-xaviers-university-kolkata-register-by-18-ma/): The 4th Xavier Mediation Competition 2026 (XMC’26) | Organized by The Xavier Society of Law and Justice (XSLAJ), Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata | Register by 21st March 2026
- [2ND JUDEXIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by Lex Gazette Academy | Register by 12th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/2nd-judexis-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-lex-gazette-academy-register-by-12th-april-2026/): 2ND JUDEXIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by Lex Gazette Academy | Register by 12th April 2026
- [IPC and BNS Basics Explained: Structure, Application, Definitions and Key Differences](https://lawfoyer.in/ipc-and-bns-basics-explained-structure-application-definitions-and-key-differences/): IPC and BNS Basics Explained: Structure, Application, Definitions and Key Differences
- [HNLU crowned as National Champions of the India Qualifying Rounds to compete at the World Rounds of 67th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, 2026 at Washington DC](https://lawfoyer.in/hnlu-crowned-as-national-champions-of-the-india-qualifying-rounds-to-compete-at-the-the-world-moot-court-competition-at-washington-dc-2026/): Raipur, Chhattisgarh Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur, proudly announces the exceptional achievement of its mooting team in being crowned Champions of the India Qualifying Rounds of the 67th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, 2026, held at Jindal Global Law School. Competing in a highly competitive field featuring 65 premier law schools
- [3rd Case Analysis Competition, 2026 | Organized by Environmental Law Society (ELS), Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow | Register by 20th March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/3rd-case-analysis-competition-2026-organized-by-environmental-law-society-els-faculty-of-law-integral-university-lucknow-register-by-20th-march-2026/): 3rd Case Analysis Competition, 2026 | Organized by Environmental Law Society (ELS), Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow | Register by 20th March 2026
- [Legal Startup Online Pitching Competition, 2026 – 2.0 [Be the Next Founder] | Organized by LegalWiki | Register by 15 March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/legal-startup-online-pitching-competition-2026-2-0-be-the-next-founder-organized-by-legalwiki-register-by-15-march-2026/): Legal Startup Online Pitching Competition, 2026 – 2.0 [Be the Next Founder] | Organized by LegalWiki | Register by 15 March 2026
- [Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, 2025 INSC 605.](https://lawfoyer.in/gayatri-balasamy-v-m-s-isg-novasoft-technologies-limited-2025-insc-605/): The decision in Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited represents a landmark clarification in Indian arbitration jurisprudence regarding judicial powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The central controversy concerned whether Indian courts possess authority to modify an arbitral award while adjudicating challenges to such awards. Prior to this ruling, judicial opinions of the Supreme Court showed divergence. Certain judgments permitted limited modification in specific circumstances. Others insisted that courts could only set aside an arbitral award, not alter it. The dispute therefore required authoritative resolution by a Constitution Bench. The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 alongside the UNCITRAL Model Law, comparative international practices, and established principles governing arbitration. The Bench analyzed earlier precedents including Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021) 9 SCC 1, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181, and Vedanta Ltd. v. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd. (2019) 11 SCC 465. These decisions illustrated conflicting interpretations of judicial power in arbitration matters. The Court ultimately held that Indian courts possess a limited power to modify arbitral awards. This power is not equivalent to appellate review and must remain confined within the statutory structure of Section 34. The judgment recognized certain narrow situations where modification is permissible, such as severable awards, clerical or computational errors, modification of post-award interest, or exercise of Article 142 powers by the Supreme Court. This ruling significantly balances two competing objectives. On one side lies the principle of minimal judicial intervention in arbitration. On the other side lies the need to avoid prolonged litigation and unnecessary re-arbitration. The judgment therefore introduces a pragmatic interpretation that allows courts to correct limited defects without undermining the autonomy of arbitral tribunals.
- [1st NLIU National Symposium on Securities Law & Capital Markets, 2026 | Organized by National Law Institute University, Bhopal | Register by 23rd March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-nliu-national-symposium-on-securities-law-capital-markets-2026-organized-by-national-law-institute-university-bhopal-register-by-23rd-march-2026/): 1st NLIU National Symposium on Securities Law & Capital Markets, 2026 | Organized by National Law Institute University, Bhopal | Register by 23rd March 2026
- [1st Smt. Krishna Neotia Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by School of Legal Studies, The Neotia University | Register by 21st March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-smt-krishna-neotia-memorial-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-school-of-legal-studies-the-neotia-university-register-by-21st-march-2026/): 1st Smt. Krishna Neotia Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by School of Legal Studies, The Neotia University | Register by 21st March, 2026
- [Webinar on “The 15 Founding Mothers of the Constitution” | Organized by Tamil Nadu Legal Rights Consortium (TNLRC) | Register by 27 March 2026 at 11:59 PM](https://lawfoyer.in/webinar-on-the-15-founding-mothers-of-the-constitution-organized-by-tamil-nadu-legal-rights-consortium-tnlrc-register-by-27-march-2026-at-1159-pm/): Webinar on “The 15 Founding Mothers of the Constitution” | Organized by Tamil Nadu Legal Rights Consortium (TNLRC) | Register by 27 March 2026 at 11:59 PM
- [International Conference on Political, Economic, & Social Issues of 2025 | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Chhattisgarh | Submit Complete Paper by 19 March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-on-political-economic-social-issues-of-2025-organized-by-amity-law-school-amity-university-chhattisgarh-submit-complete-paper-by-19-march-2026/): International Conference on Political, Economic, & Social Issues of 2025 | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Chhattisgarh | Submit Complete Paper by 19 March 2026
- [Intellectus 2026 – Minds in Motion | Organized by School of Law (Debate Society), Graphic Era Hill University | Register by 17 March 2026 [06:00 PM (IST)]](https://lawfoyer.in/intellectus-2026-minds-in-motion-organized-by-school-of-law-debate-society-graphic-era-hill-university-register-by-17-march-2026-0600-pm-ist/): Intellectus 2026 – Minds in Motion | Organized by School of Law (Debate Society), Graphic Era Hill University | Register by 17 March 2026 [06:00 PM (IST)]
- [INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW SUMMIT 2026 “The WTO@30: Reimagining Multilateralism in International Trade Law” | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Register by 20 July 2026 (till 11:59 PM IST)](https://lawfoyer.in/international-trade-law-summit-2026-the-wto30-reimagining-multilateralism-in-international-trade-law-organized-by-hidayatullah-national-law-university-hnlu-raipur-register-b/): INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW SUMMIT 2026 “The WTO@30: Reimagining Multilateralism in International Trade Law” | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Register by 20 July 2026 (till 11:59 PM IST)
- [RUAS School of Law Moot Court Competition 2.0, 2026 | Organized by School of Law, M. S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences (MSRUAS), Bengaluru | Register by 30 March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/ruas-school-of-law-moot-court-competition-2-0-2026-organized-by-school-of-law-m-s-ramaiah-university-of-applied-sciences-msruas-bengaluru-register-by-30-march-2026/): RUAS School of Law Moot Court Competition 2.0, 2026 | Organized by School of Law, M. S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences (MSRUAS), Bengaluru | Register by 30 March 2026
- [The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr, 2026 INSC 47](https://lawfoyer.in/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-anurudh-anr-2026-insc-47/): The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr, 2026 INSC 47. The Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh, 2026 INSC 47 examined the scope of bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the context of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The appeal arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which granted bail to the accused and issued broad judicial directions mandating medical age determination of the victim at the commencement of investigation in all POCSO cases. The High Court had reasoned that inconsistencies in documentary evidence regarding the victim’s age justified mandatory medical testing to prevent misuse of the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court addressed two major questions. First, whether the High Court, while exercising statutory bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, could issue directions of a legislative or policy-making nature regarding investigation procedures. Second, whether medical age determination of a victim is mandatory at the initial stage of investigation under the statutory framework of the CrPC, POCSO Act, and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing sweeping directions unrelated to the limited question of bail. The Court reiterated that bail courts cannot conduct mini-trials or resolve complex evidentiary issues such as final determination of age. The Court further clarified that age determination must follow the evidentiary hierarchy under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, where documentary evidence such as birth certificates or school records takes precedence over medical tests. Medical examination is only a residual method when documentary evidence is unavailable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directions while reiterating that bail adjudication must remain confined to established parameters such as prima facie case, gravity of offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and risk of absconding.
- [1st State Level Vidhi-संग्राम 2026– A Two-Day Law Fest | Organized by Dr. D Y PATIL LAW COLLEGE, PIMPRI, PUNE | Register by 22nd March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-state-level-vidhi-संग्राम-2026-a-two-day-law-fest-organized-by-dr-d-y-patil-law-college-pimpri-pune-register-by-22nd-march-2/): 1st State Level Vidhi-संग्राम 2026– A Two-Day Law Fest | Organized by Dr. D Y PATIL LAW COLLEGE, PIMPRI, PUNE | Register by 22nd March 2026
- [TAMIL NADU LEGAL RIGHTS CONSORTIUM (TNLRC) – BROCHURE-MAKING COMPETITION | Organized by Tamil Nadu Legal Rights Consortium (TNLRC) | Register by 4 March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/tamil-nadu-legal-rights-consortium-tnlrc-brochure-making-competition-organized-by-tamil-nadu-legal-rights-consortium-tnlrc-register-by-4-march-2026/): TAMIL NADU LEGAL RIGHTS CONSORTIUM (TNLRC) – BROCHURE-MAKING COMPETITION | Organized by Tamil Nadu Legal Rights Consortium (TNLRC) | Register by March 4, 2026
- [Aaditya Bajpai of Maharashtra National Law University Nagpur Receives University Gold Medal for Best Student in Overall Excellence](https://lawfoyer.in/aaditya-bajpai-of-maharashtra-national-law-university-nagpur-receives-university-gold-medal-for-best-student-in-overall-excellence/): The journey of legal education is often defined by perseverance, discipline, and a deep commitment to excellence. Celebrating such dedication, LawFoyer proudly features the remarkable achievement of Aaditya Bajpai, a student of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur, who has been awarded the University Gold Medal for Best Student in Overall Excellence. This prestigious recognition was
- [Divyanshi Rathour, Shikhar Mishra, and Samriddhi Mishra of City Law College, Lucknow Secure Runner-Up Position at Lex Empathia 2.0 – National Level Client Counselling Competition](https://lawfoyer.in/divyanshi-rathour-shikhar-mishra-and-samriddhi-mishra-of-city-law-college-lucknow-secure-runner-up-position-at-lex-empathia-2-0-national-level-client-counselling-competition/): LawFoyer proudly celebrates the remarkable achievement of Divyanshi Rathour, Shikhar Mishra, and Samriddhi Mishra, students of City Law College, Jankipuram, Lucknow, who secured the Runner-Up position at the Lex Empathia 2.0 National Level Client Counselling Competition organized by Central Law College, Jankipuram, Lucknow on 22 February 2026. This accomplishment highlights the team’s dedication, strong legal
- [Anirudh Soni, Hiral Jain, and Unnati Chhangani of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Win the 1st FIAT Justitia National Moot Court Competition 2026; Anirudh Soni Honored as ‘Best Student Advocate’](https://lawfoyer.in/anirudh-soni-hiral-jain-and-unnati-chhangani-of-jai-narain-vyas-university-jodhpur-win-the-1st-fiat-justitia-national-moot-court-competition-2026-anirudh-soni-honored-as-best-student-advo/): The journey of legal education is filled with opportunities to learn, grow, and test one's abilities. Among these opportunities, moot court competitions stand out as one of the most enriching experiences for law students. Demonstrating exceptional advocacy skills, legal research, and teamwork, Anirudh Soni, Hiral Jain, and Unnati Chhangani from the Faculty of Law, Jai
- [3rd International Conference on Social Sciences Research in the Age of AI (SSRAAI2026) – Part of the ETLTC 2026 Conference Series | Organized by ETLTC Organizing Committee, Japan & USA | Register by 1 June 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/3rd-international-conference-on-social-sciences-research-in-the-age-of-ai-ssraai2026-part-of-the-etltc-2026-conference-series-organized-by-etltc-organizing-committee-japan-usa-r/): 3rd International Conference on Social Sciences Research in the Age of AI (SSRAAI2026) – Part of the ETLTC 2026 Conference Series | Organized by ETLTC Organizing Committee, Japan & USA | Register by 1 June 2026
- [Nyaya Samvardhan: North-Western Region Pro Bono Conclave | Organized by Pro Bono Club, School of Law, Forensic Justice & Policy Studies, National Forensic Sciences University, Delhi Campus | Register by 15 March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/nyaya-samvardhan-north-western-region-pro-bono-conclave-organized-by-pro-bono-club-school-of-law-forensic-justice-policy-studies-national-forensic-sciences-university-delhi-campus-regis/): Nyaya Samvardhan: North-Western Region Pro Bono Conclave | Organized by Pro Bono Club, School of Law, Forensic Justice & Policy Studies, National Forensic Sciences University, Delhi Campus | Register by 15 March 2026
- [NLIU LAW REVIEW – CALL FOR PAPERS [Volume XV, Issue II] | Organized by National Law Institute University, Bhopal](https://lawfoyer.in/nliu-law-review-call-for-papers-volume-xv-issue-ii-organized-by-national-law-institute-university-bhopal/): NLIU LAW REVIEW – CALL FOR PAPERS [Volume XV, Issue II] | Organized by National Law Institute University, Bhopal
- [DME MUN’26 (Model United Nations 2026) Under JusCosmos 2.0 – Competition Contours of Law, Nexus of Justice | Organized by Abhivyakti – The Literary & Debating Society, Delhi Metropolitan Education (DME) | Register by 10th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/dme-mun26-model-united-nations-2026-under-juscosmos-2-0-competition-contours-of-law-nexus-of-justice-organized-by-delhi-metropolitan-education-dme-register-by-28th-february/): DME MUN’26 (Model United Nations 2026) Under JusCosmos 2.0 – Competition Contours of Law, Nexus of Justice | Organized by Delhi Metropolitan Education (DME) | Register by 28th February 2026
- [4th Deo Mangal Memorial Nationwide Moot Court Competition, 2026 (Online Mode) | Organized by Narayan School of Law, Gopal Narayan Singh University | Cash Prize Pool of Rs. 73,000 | Additional Benefits for all Participants | Register by 6th March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/4th-deo-mangal-memorial-nationwide-moot-court-competition-2026-online-mode-organized-by-narayan-school-of-law-gopal-narayan-singh-university-register-by-28th-february-2026/): 4th Deo Mangal Memorial Nationwide Moot Court Competition, 2026 (Online Mode) | Organized by Narayan School of Law, Gopal Narayan Singh University | Register by 28th February, 2026
- [SESSION: The Future of Law: AI, ODR & Legal Technology | Organized by Law Firm Ready | Event on 28th February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/session-the-future-of-law-ai-odr-legal-technology-organized-by-law-firm-ready-event-on-28th-february-2026/): SESSION: The Future of Law: AI, ODR & Legal Technology | Organized by Law Firm Ready | Event on 28th February 2026
- [MASTER DAYANAND 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by School of Law & Legal Studies, Sanskaram University | Register by 20th March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/master-dayanand-1st-national-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-school-of-law-legal-studies-sanskaram-university-register-by-20th-march-2026/): MASTER DAYANAND 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by School of Law & Legal Studies, Sanskaram University | Register by 20th March 2026
- [NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON “THE NEW LABOUR CODES: PROSPECTIVE CONCERNS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS" | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab | Register by 2nd March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/national-conference-on-the-new-labour-codes-prospective-concerns-for-human-rights-organized-by-rajiv-gandhi-national-university-of-law-punjab-register-by-25th-february-2026/): NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON “THE NEW LABOUR CODES: PROSPECTIVE CONCERNS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS" | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab | Register by 25th February, 2026
- [12th Professor V.S. Mani Memorial International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 | Organized by Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University, Jaipur | Register by 7th March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/12th-professor-v-s-mani-memorial-international-law-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-seedling-school-of-law-and-governance-register-by-7th-march-2026/): 12th Professor V.S. Mani Memorial International Law Moot Court Competition 2026 | Organized by Seedling School of Law and Governance | Register by 7th March 2026
- [जनादेश विमर्श – Article Writing Competition | Organized by the Panjab University Students’ Liberty Union | Register by 26 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/जनादेश-विमर्श-article-writing-competition-organized-by-the-panjab-university-students/): जनादेश विमर्श – Article Writing Competition | Organized by the Panjab University Students’ Liberty Union | Register by 26 February 2026
- [Manan Grover of Maharaja Surajmal Institute, Janakpuri Secures Rank 2 with 9.21 CGPA and Receives Academic Excellence Award](https://lawfoyer.in/manan-grover-of-maharaja-surajmal-institute-janakpuri-secures-rank-2-with-9-21-cgpa-and-receives-academic-excellence-award/): Success in law school is never accidental. It is built on patience, discipline, and a strong mindset. Today, LawFoyer proudly celebrates the remarkable academic achievement of Manan Grover, a second year BBA LLB student from Maharaja Surajmal Institute, affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. On 14 February 2026, Manan secured Rank 2 in her
- [Dhanvi Kadian of GD Goenka University Secures Runner Up Position at Second GD Goenka International IP Essay Writing Competition 2025 and Gets Published in IJLRA](https://lawfoyer.in/dhanvi-kadian-of-gd-goenka-university-secures-runner-up-position-at-second-gd-goenka-international-ip-essay-writing-competition-2025-and-gets-published-in-ijlra/): LawFoyer proudly celebrates the remarkable achievement of Dhanvi Kadian, a Final Year BBA LL.B. (Hons.) student from GD Goenka University, Gurugram, Haryana, who secured the Runner Up position at the Second GD Goenka International IP Essay Writing Competition, 2025. Organized by GD Goenka University at the University Level, this prestigious competition witnessed enthusiastic participation from
- [Madhura Vedang, Pragya Mehta, and Himanshu Gove of Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai Shine as Semi Finalists at the 9th GNLU Securities and Investment Law Moot, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/madhura-vedang-pragya-mehta-and-himanshu-gove-of-maharashtra-national-law-university-mumbai-shine-as-semi-finalists-at-the-9th-gnlu-securities-and-investment-law-moot-2026/): LawFoyer proudly celebrates the remarkable achievement of Madhura Vedang, Pragya Mehta, and Himanshu Gove, students of Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai, for securing the position of Semi Finalists and ranking 3rd overall at the prestigious 9th GNLU Securities and Investment Law Moot, 2026 organised by Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. Competing at a national level
- [4th NATIONAL CLIENT COUNSELLING COMPETITION | Organized by Chanakya National Law University, Patna | Register by 22 March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/4th-national-client-counselling-competition-organized-by-chanakya-national-law-university-patna-register-by-22-march-2026/): 4th NATIONAL CLIENT COUNSELLING COMPETITION | Organized by Chanakya National Law University, Patna | Register by 22 March 2026
- [Workshop on Real Estate Litigation: Navigating the Evolving World and Emerging Trends 2026 | Organized by CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore | Register by 25th February, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/workshop-on-real-estate-litigation-navigating-the-evolving-world-and-emerging-trends-2026-organized-by-christ-deemed-to-be-university-bangalore-register-by-25th-february-2026/): Workshop on Real Estate Litigation: Navigating the Evolving World and Emerging Trends 2026 | Organized by CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore | Register by 25th February, 2026
- [XI NCU National Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Moot Court Society, School of Law, The NorthCap University, Gurugram | Register by 23rd March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/xi-ncu-national-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-moot-court-society-school-of-law-the-northcap-university-gurugram-register-by-23rd-march-2026/): XI NCU National Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Moot Court Society, School of Law, The NorthCap University, Gurugram | Register by 23rd March, 2026
- [Call for Papers – Journal of the Faculty of Law (Issue 11), Year 2026 (Vol. 11, ISSN No. 2347-758X) | Organized by School of Law, Mody University of Science and Technology | Register by 30th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-papers-journal-of-the-faculty-of-law-issue-11-year-2026-vol-11-issn-no-2347-758x-organized-by-school-of-law-mody-university-of-science-and-technology-register-by-30th-a/): Call for Papers – Journal of the Faculty of Law (Issue 11), Year 2026 (Vol. 11, ISSN No. 2347-758X) | Organized by School of Law, Mody University of Science and Technology | Register by 30th April 2026
- [3rd National Pro Bono and Legal Aid Conclave – “The Justice Synergy” | Organized by National Forensic Sciences University | Register by 25th February, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/3rd-national-pro-bono-and-legal-aid-conclave-the-justice-synergy-organized-by-national-forensic-sciences-university-register-by-15th-february-2026/): 3rd National Pro Bono and Legal Aid Conclave – “The Justice Synergy” | Organized by National Forensic Sciences University | Register by 15th February, 2026
- [International Conference on "Intersections of Traditional Knowledge Systems and the Future: Law, Culture, Sustainability, and Collective Well-Being" | Organized by DME Law School, Noida from 8th to 9th May, 2026 | Submit Abstract by 30 March, 2026 | Register by 10th April, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-intersections-of-traditional-knowledge-systems-and-the-future-law-culture-sustainability-and-collective-well-being-organized-by-dme-law-school-noida-register-by-10t/): INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "Intersections of Traditional Knowledge Systems and the Future: Law, Culture, Sustainability, and Collective Well-Being" | Organized by DME Law School, Noida | Register by 10th April 2026
- [3rd Case Analysis Competition, 2026 | Organized by Environmental Law Society (ELS), Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow | Register by 20th March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/3rd-case-analysis-competition-2026-environmental-law-society-els-faculty-of-law-integral-university-lucknow-register-by-20th-march-2026/): 3rd Case Analysis Competition, 2026 | Environmental Law Society (ELS), Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow | Register by 20th March, 2026
- [YUVA SANSAD 1.0 | Organized by PRESTIGE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, GWALIOR | Register by 30 March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/yuva-sansad-1-0-organized-by-prestige-institute-of-management-and-research-gwalior-register-by-30-march-2026/): YUVA SANSAD 1.0 | Organized by PRESTIGE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, GWALIOR | Register by 30 March 2026
- [Online International Faculty Development Programme (IFDP) "Law, Technology and Governance in Digital Space" | Organized by Bennett University, Noida | Register by 12 March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/online-international-faculty-development-programme-ifdp-law-technology-and-governance-in-digital-space-organized-by-bennett-university-noida-register-by-12-march-2026/): Online International Faculty Development Programme (IFDP) "Law, Technology and Governance in Digital Space" | Organized by Bennett University, Noida | Register by 12 March 2026
- [INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, & SOCIAL ISSUES OF 2025 | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Chhattisgarh | Submit Abstract by 28 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-conference-on-political-economic-social-issues-of-2025-organized-by-amity-law-school-amity-university-chhattisgarh-submit-abstract-by-28-february-2026/): INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, & SOCIAL ISSUES OF 2025 | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Chhattisgarh | Submit Abstract by 28 February 2026
- [NYAYA ABHYUDAY 2.0 – TECHNO LEGAL FEST | Organized by School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies (SLFJPS), National Forensic Sciences University | Register by 11th March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/nyaya-abhyuday-2-0-techno-legal-fest-organized-by-school-of-law-forensic-justice-and-policy-studies-slfjps-national-forensic-sciences-university-register-by-11th-march-2026/): NYAYA ABHYUDAY 2.0 – TECHNO LEGAL FEST | Organized by School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies (SLFJPS), National Forensic Sciences University | Register by 11th March, 2026
- [National Article Writing Competition | Organized by Centre for Human Rights and Disability Studies (CHRDS), Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla | Register by 28 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/national-article-writing-competition-organized-by-centre-for-human-rights-and-disability-studies-chrds-himachal-pradesh-national-law-university-shimla-register-by-15-february-2026/): National Article Writing Competition | Organized by Centre for Human Rights and Disability Studies (CHRDS), Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla | Register by 15 February 2026
- [ASPIRE COHORT 2 | Organized by LawFirmReady | Register by 26th February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/aspire-cohort-2-organized-by-lawfirmready-register-by-26th-february-2026/): ASPIRE COHORT 2 | Organized by LawFirmReady | Register by 26th February 2026
- [HPNLU JOURNAL OF DISABILITY STUDIES (A Peer-Reviewed Journal) – VOL. III, 2026 (ISSN: 3108-110X) | Organized by Centre for Human Rights and Disability Studies, Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla | Register by July 15, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/hpnlu-journal-of-disability-studies-a-peer-reviewed-journal-vol-iii-2026-issn-3108-110x-organized-by-centre-for-human-rights-and-disability-studies-himachal-pradesh-national-law-un/): HPNLU JOURNAL OF DISABILITY STUDIES (A Peer-Reviewed Journal) – VOL. III, 2026 (ISSN: 3108-110X) | Organized by Centre for Human Rights and Disability Studies, Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla | Register by July 15, 2026
- [1ST NLIU – R.K. DEWAN PAPER PRESENTATION CONFERENCE | Organized by Cell for Studies in Intellectual Property Rights (CSIPR), National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal | Register by 24 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-nliu-r-k-dewan-paper-presentation-conference-organized-by-cell-for-studies-in-intellectual-property-rights-csipr-national-law-institute-university-nliu-bhopal-register-by-24-f/): 1ST NLIU – R.K. DEWAN PAPER PRESENTATION CONFERENCE | Organized by Cell for Studies in Intellectual Property Rights (CSIPR), National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal | Register by 24 February 2026
- [INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW SUMMIT 2026: “The WTO@30: Reimagining Multilateralism in International Trade Law” | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Register by 20 July 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/international-trade-law-summit-2026-the-wto30-reimagining-multilateralism-in-international-trade-law-organized-by-hidayatullah-national-law-university-hnlu-raipur-register/): INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW SUMMIT 2026: “The WTO@30: Reimagining Multilateralism in International Trade Law” | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Register by 20 July 2026
- [2nd Nyaya Shastra Virtual Moot Court Competition | Organized by Nyaya Shashtra | Register by 20th March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/2nd-nyaya-shastra-virtual-moot-court-competition-organized-by-nyaya-shashtra-register-by-20th-march-2026/): 2nd Nyaya Shastra Virtual Moot Court Competition | Organized by Nyaya Shashtra | Register by 20th March 2026
- [CAREERS IN LAW FOR WOMEN: STRATEGIES, SKILLS & PROFESSIONAL GROWTH | Organized by CanonSphere | 13 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/careers-in-law-for-women-strategies-skills-professional-growth-organized-by-canonsphere-13-february-2026/): CAREERS IN LAW FOR WOMEN: STRATEGIES, SKILLS & PROFESSIONAL GROWTH | Organized by CanonSphere | 13 February 2026
- [1st L.P. Shahi Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Sri Krishna Jubilee Law College, Muzaffarpur, Bihar | Register by 28th February, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/1st-l-p-shahi-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-sri-krishna-jubilee-law-college-register-by-28th-february-2026/): 1st L.P. Shahi Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Sri Krishna Jubilee Law College | Register by 28th February, 2026
- [Sooraj KR of Government Law College Thrissur Honoured Among Top Five Papers at National Conference on Constitutional Assembly Debates](https://lawfoyer.in/sooraj-kr-of-government-law-college-thrissur-honoured-among-top-five-papers-at-national-conference-on-constitutional-assembly-debates/): LawFoyer proudly celebrates the academic excellence of Sooraj KR, a fourth-year BBA LL.B. (Hons.) student from Government Law College Thrissur, for securing recognition as one among the best five research papers at a prestigious National Conference on Constitutional Assembly Debates, conducted by the Dr B. R. Ambedkar Chair of Kerala University on 26 November 2025.
- [3rd SHRI O.P.TANDON MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2026 | PRIZE POOL OF ₹54,000 | Organized by TRINITY INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES (TIPS) | Register by 10th FEBRUARY 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/3rd-shri-o-p-tandon-memorial-moot-court-competiton-2026-organized-by-trinity-institute-of-professional-studies-tips-register-by-10th-february-2026/): 3rd SHRI O.P.TANDON MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2026 | Organized by TRINITY INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES (TIPS) | Register by 10th FEBRUARY 2026
- [THEMISIA 4.0 | Organized by Deccan Education Society’s Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune | Register by 10th February, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/themisia-4-0-organized-by-deccan-education-societys-shri-navalmal-firodia-law-college-pune-register-by-4th-february-2026/): THEMISIA 4.0 | Organized by Deccan Education Society’s Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune | Register by 4th February, 2026
- [Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors., [2020] 8 SCR 1138](https://lawfoyer.in/ravinder-kaur-grewal-ors-v-manjit-kaur-ors-2020-8-scr-1138/): The present judgment settles a recurring controversy surrounding family settlements, their evidentiary value, and the requirement of compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Supreme Court examined whether a document styled as a memorandum of family settlement creates rights in immovable property for the first time or merely records a pre-existing oral settlement already acted upon by the parties. The dispute arose between real brothers concerning ownership and possession of ancestral and self-acquired properties, where long-standing possession, construction, and mutual exchange of properties had taken place within the family.
- [Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., [2020] 11 SCR 397](https://lawfoyer.in/sukh-sagar-medical-college-hospital-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-2020-11-scr-397/): The judgment examines the scope and limits of the State Government’s power to withdraw an Essentiality Certificate granted for the establishment of a medical college under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. The appellant Trust was granted an Essentiality Certificate in 2014 to establish a medical college at Jabalpur. Despite issuance of a conditional Letter of Permission for the academic year 2016–17, the college consistently failed to meet mandatory infrastructural, faculty, and clinical requirements prescribed by the Medical Council of India. Renewal permissions were denied for three consecutive academic years due to gross deficiencies, resulting in academic dislocation of the first batch of students.
- [The Chairman, Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust v. M/s Arebee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., [2020] 11 SCR 706](https://lawfoyer.in/the-chairman-board-of-trustees-cochin-port-trust-v-m-s-arebee-star-maritime-agencies-pvt-ltd-ors-2020-11-scr-706/): The judgment resolves long-standing inconsistencies in Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning liability for storage charges, demurrage, and ground rent payable to Major Port Trusts when imported goods remain uncleared by consignees. The dispute arose from the practice of Port Trusts imposing liability on shipping or steamer agents for prolonged periods, particularly beyond tariff-prescribed limits, where consignees abandoned goods. The Court undertook a comprehensive statutory interpretation of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, read harmoniously with the Customs Act, 1962 and principles of bailment under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
- [Gangadhar Alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2020] 7 S.C.R. 173](https://lawfoyer.in/gangadhar-alias-gangaram-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-2020-7-s-c-r-173/): The decision examines the foundational requirement of conscious possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and reiterates that statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 do not dispense with the prosecution’s primary burden to establish possession beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was convicted solely on the basis of ownership inferred from an outdated voters’ list, despite the recovery of 48 kg 200 gms of ganja from a locked house allegedly sold prior to the seizure.
- [M/s EXL Careers and Another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited, [2020] 6 SCR 289](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-exl-careers-and-another-v-frankfinn-aviation-services-private-limited-2020-6-scr-289/): The judgment in M/s EXL Careers and Another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited authoritatively settles the legal position concerning the procedural consequence of the return of a plaint under Order VII Rules 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court examined whether a civil suit, upon return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction, must recommence de novo or could continue from the stage at which it stood prior to such return.
- [Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 7 S.C.R. 158](https://lawfoyer.in/janhit-abhiyan-v-union-of-india-ors-2020-7-s-c-r-158/): The present writ proceedings arise from a constitutional challenge to the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6) into the Constitution of India. The amendment empowered the State to provide up to ten per cent reservation in educational institutions and public employment for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of citizens, excluding classes already covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4).
- [Rama Nand and Others v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another, [2020] 6 SCR 19](https://lawfoyer.in/rama-nand-and-others-v-chief-secretary-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-another-2020-6-scr-19/): The present judgment examines the jurisprudential distinction between promotion and mere cadre reorganisation within the framework of service law, particularly in the context of the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The controversy arose when Telephone Operators employed under the Delhi Fire Service were deployed as Radio Telephone Operators pursuant to a reorganisation of the wireless communication system. The appellants claimed entitlement to financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, asserting that the deployment amounted to a mere re-description of posts rather than a promotion. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the factual matrix, service conditions, eligibility criteria, and governing policy instruments.
- [Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Others, [2020] 13 SCR 318](https://lawfoyer.in/hari-krishna-mandir-trust-v-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-2020-13-scr-318/): The judgment in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Others represents a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional protection accorded to property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, even after the deletion of the right to property as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court examined the legality of an erroneous vesting of a privately owned internal road in favour of a municipal corporation under a Town Planning Scheme framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The case arose from a long-standing factual dispute where a strip of land recorded as a private internal road, never acquired through statutory means, was mistakenly shown as vested in the Pune Municipal Corporation.
- [Brahampal @ Sammay and Another v. National Insurance Company, [2020] 9 SCR 504](https://lawfoyer.in/brahampal-sammay-and-another-v-national-insurance-company-2020-9-scr-504/): The judgment examines the scope and contours of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly the discretionary power of High Courts to condone delay in filing appeals against awards passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. The Supreme Court addressed whether dismissal of an appeal solely on the ground of a short delay of forty-five days defeats the beneficial object of the statute. The Court emphasised that Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act constitutes a self-contained and beneficial legislative framework intended to protect victims of road accidents and their dependents. The interpretation of limitation provisions within such welfare legislation must therefore be remedial and purposive rather than rigid and technical.
- [Government of India & Ors. v. ISRO Drivers Association, [2020] 7 SCR 941](https://lawfoyer.in/government-of-india-ors-v-isro-drivers-association-2020-7-scr-941/): The judgment examines the scope and interpretation of Rule 5(c) of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1993, particularly the meaning of the expression “distinct category of Government servants”. The dispute arose when an association formed exclusively by drivers employed at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre, SHAR, sought recognition as a service association under the 1993 Rules. The competent authority rejected the claim on the ground that an association based purely on job description did not qualify as a “distinct category”.
- [2nd Pan-India Essay Writing Competition, 2026 | Organized by Avantika University | Register by 20 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/2nd-pan-india-essay-writing-competition-2026-organized-by-avantika-university-register-by-20-february-2026/): 2nd Pan-India Essay Writing Competition, 2026 | Organized by Avantika University | Register by 20 February 2026
- [XVII AMITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by The Moot Court Committee of Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus | Register by 7th February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/xvii-amity-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-the-moot-court-committee-of-amity-law-school-amity-university-uttar-pradesh-lucknow-campus-register-by-31st-january-2026/): XVII AMITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2026 | Organized by The Moot Court Committee of Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus | Register by 31st January 2026
- [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., [2020] 10 SCR 135](https://lawfoyer.in/vineeta-sharma-v-rakesh-sharma-ors-2020-10-scr-135/): The Constitution Bench decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. finally authoritatively settles the long-standing judicial conflict concerning the scope, temporal operation, and constitutional intent of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as substituted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The judgment resolves divergent interpretations rendered in Prakash v. Phulavati and Danamma v. Amar, clarifying whether a daughter’s right as a coparcener is contingent upon the father being alive on 09.09.2005.
- [In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr. [2020] 8 SCR 443](https://lawfoyer.in/in-re-prashant-bhushan-and-anr-2020-8-scr-443/): The judgment in In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr. represents a significant constitutional exposition on the contours of criminal contempt in the context of digital speech and public criticism of the judiciary. The Supreme Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against a senior advocate for two tweets that allegedly scandalised the institution of the judiciary and undermined public confidence in the office of the Chief Justice of India.
- [Preet Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [2020] 6 SCR 967](https://lawfoyer.in/preet-pal-singh-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-2020-6-scr-967/): The judgment examines the scope and limits of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly the judicial standards governing suspension of sentence and grant of bail after conviction. The appeal arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court which had suspended the sentence of a convict husband found guilty under Sections 498A, 304B, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and released him on bail during pendency of appeal. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether such suspension was legally sustainable when the conviction involved dowry death punishable with life imprisonment.
- [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 10 S.C.R. 718](https://lawfoyer.in/m-c-mehta-v-union-of-india-ors-2020-10-s-c-r-718/): The judgment examines the jurisdictional limits of the Monitoring Committee constituted by the Supreme Court in the long-running M.C. Mehta environmental litigation. The central issue concerns whether the Monitoring Committee possessed authority to seal purely residential premises situated on private land when such premises were not being used for commercial purposes. The controversy arose from Report No.149, pursuant to which several residential properties in Vasant Kunj and Rajokari were sealed on the basis of a letter issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehrauli.
- [Union of India & Anr. v. M/s K.C. Sharma & Co. & Ors., [2020] 6 S.C.R. 854](https://lawfoyer.in/union-of-india-anr-v-m-s-k-c-sharma-co-ors-2020-6-s-c-r-854/): The decision examines the permissibility of challenging a finalized decree passed in reference proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground of alleged fraud. The dispute arose from the acquisition of large tracts of land belonging to Gaon Sabha Luhar Heri, including banjar land containing shora. The respondents claimed entitlement to compensation as lessees who had invested substantial resources in reclaiming the land. The reference court, by judgment dated 28.09.1989, apportioned 87% compensation to the respondents and 13% to the Gaon Sabha. This decree attained finality as it was never appealed.
- [Babulal Vardharji Gurjar v. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 368](https://lawfoyer.in/babulal-vardharji-gurjar-v-veer-gurjar-aluminium-industries-pvt-ltd-anr-2020-13-s-c-r-368/): The Supreme Court in Babulal Vardharji Gurjar v. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. authoritatively examined the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The judgment resolves a recurring controversy on whether the commencement of the IBC or the existence of secured assets such as mortgages can extend or alter the statutory limitation period for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
- [Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, [2020] 11 S.C.R. 425](https://lawfoyer.in/centre-for-public-interest-litigation-v-union-of-india-2020-11-s-c-r-425/): The judgment addresses the scope, interpretation, and operational sufficiency of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 in the context of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The petition questioned the constitutional and statutory obligation of the Union of India to frame a fresh National Disaster Management Plan exclusively for COVID-19 under Section 11, to prescribe new minimum standards of relief under Section 12, and to mandate exclusive utilisation of the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) under Section 46 instead of the PM CARES Fund. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of the Act, examining the legislative intent, scheme, and functional architecture of disaster governance in India.
- [Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2020] 6 S.C.R. 983](https://lawfoyer.in/ghanshyam-upadhyay-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-2020-6-s-c-r-983/): The judgment in Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others examines the contours of judicial scrutiny over allegations of bias and conflict of interest raised against members of a Commission of Inquiry constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India in public interest, seeking the scrapping of a judicial commission constituted to inquire into the alleged police encounter killing of Vikas Dubey. The challenge was founded exclusively on a newspaper article alleging political and relational proximity of commission members to the ruling establishment.
- [Mohd. Anwar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 7 SCR 150](https://lawfoyer.in/mohd-anwar-v-state-nct-of-delhi-2020-7-scr-150/): The judgment in Mohd. Anwar v. State (NCT of Delhi) addresses critical issues relating to the evidentiary value of witness testimony, refusal to participate in Test Identification Parade, and belated claims of juvenility and mental unsoundness under criminal law. The Supreme Court examined whether such defences, raised for the first time at the appellate stage, could undermine concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court reaffirmed that robbery with hurt under Section 394 IPC stands established when ocular testimony is consistent, credible, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances.
- [Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 427](https://lawfoyer.in/deccan-paper-mills-co-ltd-v-regency-mahavir-properties-ors-2020-13-s-c-r-427/): The judgment in Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors. addresses the evolving jurisprudence on arbitrability of disputes involving allegations of fraud and cancellation of written instruments under section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Supreme Court examined whether a civil suit seeking declaration and cancellation of development agreements on the ground of fraud could bypass a valid arbitration clause contained in a subsequent assignment agreement.
- [Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited, [2020] 10 SCR 791](https://lawfoyer.in/avitel-post-studioz-limited-ors-v-hsbc-pi-holdings-mauritius-limited-2020-10-scr-791/): The decision in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited constitutes a significant exposition on the arbitrability of disputes involving allegations of fraud under Indian arbitration law, particularly in the context of enforcement-related interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The controversy arose from a foreign-seated arbitration governed by Singapore law, where the claimant investor alleged that it was fraudulently induced to invest USD 60 million based on false representations relating to a non-existent BBC contract. The arbitral tribunal rendered a detailed foreign final award holding the appellants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and tort of deceit, awarding restitutionary damages equivalent to the entire investment amount with interest and costs.
- [The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut v. M/s. Cera Boards and Doors, Kannur Kerala & Ors., [2020] 11 S.C.R. 471](https://lawfoyer.in/the-commissioner-of-central-excise-customs-and-service-tax-calicut-v-m-s-cera-boards-and-doors-kannur-kerala-ors-2020-11-s-c-r-471/): The judgment in The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut v. M/s. Cera Boards and Doors, Kannur Kerala & Ors. examines the core principles governing valuation of excisable goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly in the context of alleged undervaluation and evasion of duty. The controversy arose from multiple batches of appeals involving plywood and board manufacturers accused of systematically under-invoicing goods and collecting consideration in cash beyond invoice values. The adjudicating authorities confirmed undervaluation, while the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld such findings but remanded matters for re-quantification of duty.
- [Sardar Bahginder Singh v. Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh & Ors., [2020] 14 S.C.R. 349](https://lawfoyer.in/sardar-bahginder-singh-v-sardar-manjieeth-singh-jagan-singh-ors-2020-14-s-c-r-349/): The judgment adjudicates the statutory conflict concerning the authority to nominate four members to the statutory Board constituted under the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act, 1956. The controversy arose from conflicting factional claims within the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded, a public trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The State Government of Maharashtra assumed the power to nominate four members under Section 6(1)(viii) due to internal disputes in the Diwan and issued a notification dated 21 June 2019.
- [Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy & Anr. v. Sri Ravikumar & Ors, [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1148](https://lawfoyer.in/sri-v-n-krishna-murthy-anr-v-sri-ravikumar-ors-2020-7-s-c-r-1148/): The judgment examines the scope of the expression “person aggrieved” under Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and determines whether purchasers claiming title through sale deeds executed under a General Power of Attorney possess locus standi to challenge a decree cancelling an agreement to sell to which they were not parties. The Supreme Court clarifies that appellate rights are not automatic and accrue only where a decree prejudicially affects legal rights.
- [Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan & Aleya Sultana & Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., [2020] 9 SCR 136](https://lawfoyer.in/wg-cdr-arifur-rahman-khan-aleya-sultana-ors-v-dlf-southern-homes-pvt-ltd-ors-2020-9-scr-136/): The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana & Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. constitutes a decisive exposition on the scope of deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in cases involving delayed delivery of residential flats. The dispute arose from substantial delays, ranging between two to four years, in handing over possession of apartments despite contractual stipulations mandating completion within thirty-six months. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the buyers’ complaint by confining compensation to a contractual clause providing a nominal fixed rate.
- [,Raj Pal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Haryana, Rohtak, [2020] 9 SCR 185](https://lawfoyer.in/raj-pal-singh-v-commissioner-of-income-tax-haryana-rohtak-2020-9-scr-185/): The judgment examines the precise point of accrual of capital gains under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in cases of compulsory acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land belonging to the assessee, which was already in possession of a college as a lessee whose lease had expired prior to acquisition. The controversy centered on whether capital gains accrued on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or on the date of passing of the award under Section 11.
- [Narasamma & Ors. v. A. Krishnappa (Dead) Through LRs, [2020] 7 SCR 528](https://lawfoyer.in/narasamma-ors-v-a-krishnappa-dead-through-lrs-2020-7-scr-528/): The judgment adjudicates a long-standing civil dispute concerning title, possession, and adverse possession over an urban immovable property in Bengaluru. The dispute arose when the original plaintiff sought vacant possession of a revenue site, asserting absolute ownership derived from ancestral property and joint family management. The defendant resisted the claim by setting up a competing narrative of ownership through an unregistered agreement of sale, a General Power of Attorney, and alternatively, perfection of title by adverse possession commencing from the same date.
- [,Union of India and Others v. Agricus LLP and Others [2020] 14 SCR 372](https://lawfoyer.in/union-of-india-and-others-v-agricus-llp-and-others-2020-14-scr-372/): The judgment adjudicates the constitutional and statutory validity of multiple notifications and trade notices issued by the Union of India under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, whereby imports of certain pulses, including peas, moong, urad and tur, were shifted from the free to the restricted category and made subject to quantitative ceilings and prior authorisation. The principal controversy arose from the challenge mounted by importers asserting that such restrictions amounted to quantitative restrictions under Section 9A of the Act, necessitating compliance with the safeguard investigation mechanism and procedural safeguards prescribed under the Safeguard Measures (Quantitative Restrictions) Rules, 2012.
- [V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr., [2020] 6 SCR 991](https://lawfoyer.in/v-sukumaran-v-state-of-kerala-anr-2020-6-scr-991/): The decision in V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr. constitutes a significant exposition of pension jurisprudence under Indian service law, particularly in relation to the treatment of Casual Labour Roll (CLR) service for pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant, who initially served as a CLR worker in the Fisheries Department and was later appointed through Kerala Public Service Commission recruitment and subsequently transferred back to the same department, could claim the benefit of his earlier casual service for pension computation. The State denied such benefit on the technical ground that the appellant was not directly absorbed from CLR to Seasonal Labour Roll (SLR) posts but entered regular service through a distinct recruitment channel.
- [State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rakesh Sethi & Anr., (2020) 7 SCR 734](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-v-rakesh-sethi-anr-2020-7-scr-734/): The judgment examines the constitutional and statutory validity of Rule 55A of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, which authorises the State Government to levy fees for reservation and allotment of specific or “fancy” registration numbers for motor vehicles. The controversy arose when the High Court of Madhya Pradesh struck down Rule 55A as ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, holding that the power to prescribe fees for vehicle registration vested exclusively with the Central Government. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine the scope of Sections 41, 65, and 211 of the Act, and to determine whether the State could, through delegated legislation, impose fees for services connected with registration marks.
- [State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors., [2020] 10 S.C.R. 857](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-punjab-ors-v-davinder-singh-ors-2020-10-s-c-r-857/): The judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. addresses a foundational constitutional question concerning the permissibility of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservation in public employment. The case arose from a challenge to Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which earmarked 50% of Scheduled Caste reserved vacancies for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, identified as the most backward among Scheduled Castes in Punjab. The Punjab and Haryana High Court invalidated the provision by relying on E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous class and cannot be further classified by States.
- [Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala and Others, [2020] 7 SCR 763](https://lawfoyer.in/nazir-mohamed-v-j-kamala-and-others-2020-7-scr-763/): The judgment in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala and Others is a significant exposition on the scope and limits of second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the interplay between declaration of title, recovery of possession, adverse possession, and limitation. The Supreme Court decisively reaffirmed that a second appeal is a statutory and restricted remedy, maintainable only when a substantial question of law arises. The Court held that the High Court gravely erred in interfering with concurrent and well-reasoned findings of the First Appellate Court without formulating or answering any genuine substantial question of law.
- [M/s. Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Limited v. K.P. Jayaram & Anr. [2020] 8 S.C.R. 272](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-radha-exports-india-pvt-limited-v-k-p-jayaram-anr-2020-8-s-c-r-272/): The decision in M/s. Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Limited v. K.P. Jayaram & Anr. authoritatively clarifies the intersection between limitation law and the initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court examined whether a creditor invoking the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process must demonstrate the existence of a legally recoverable financial debt on the date of filing. The controversy arose from advances made between 2002 and 2005 to a proprietorship concern, later taken over by the appellant company, where substantial repayments were pleaded, and a portion of the outstanding amount was converted into share application money. After more than a decade, insolvency proceedings were initiated, alleging subsisting financial debt.
- [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 1139](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-madhya-pradesh-v-centre-for-environment-protection-research-and-development-ors-2020-12-scr-1139/): The judgment examines the statutory limits of powers exercised by the National Green Tribunal under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 in enforcing vehicular pollution norms. The dispute arose from blanket directions issued by the Central Zonal Bench of the NGT, Bhopal, mandating denial of fuel supply to motor vehicles lacking a valid Pollution Under Control Certificate and directing the State of Madhya Pradesh to deposit ₹25 crores as security to ensure compliance. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether such coercive measures were legally sustainable under the existing statutory framework governing motor vehicles and environmental protection.
- [Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others, [2020] 10 SCR 923](https://lawfoyer.in/union-of-india-v-ashok-kumar-sharma-and-others-2020-10-scr-923/): The judgment authoritatively settles the long-standing conflict concerning the procedural competence of police authorities in relation to offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court undertook an extensive statutory and constitutional analysis to determine whether police officers can register FIRs, investigate, and prosecute offences which are declared cognizable and non-bailable under Section 36AC of the Act. The Court held that despite the cognizable nature of such offences, Section 32 of the Act creates a complete code for prosecution, thereby excluding police officers from instituting prosecutions or registering FIRs under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- [Women, Children & the New Criminal Laws: Understanding Protection, Rights and Reforms | Organized by SAGE Winter School - SAGE University | Register by 22 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/women-children-the-new-criminal-laws-understanding-protection-rights-and-reforms-organized-by-sage-winter-school-sage-university-register-by-22-february-2026/): Women, Children & the New Criminal Laws: Understanding Protection, Rights and Reforms | Organized by SAGE Winter School - SAGE University | Register by 22 February 2026
- [5th FIMT Moot Court Competition (All India Participation) 2026 | Organized by Fairfield School of Law, Fairfield Institute of Management & Technology (FIMT) | Register by 15th February, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/5th-fimt-moot-court-competition-all-india-participation-2026-organized-by-fairfield-school-of-law-fairfield-institute-of-management-technology-fimt-register-by-15th-february-2026/): 5th FIMT Moot Court Competition (All India Participation) 2026 | Organized by Fairfield School of Law, Fairfield Institute of Management & Technology (FIMT) | Register by 15th February, 2026
- [Manwee Arya, Shivang Kumar and Gyan Prakash of Central University of South Bihar Shines on the National Mooting Stage as Best Student Advocate (Petitioner) at Shri I.M. Nanavati Memorial Moot Court Competition 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/manwee-arya-shivang-kumar-and-gyan-prakash-of-central-university-of-south-bihar-shines-on-the-national-mooting-stage-as-best-student-advocate-petitioner-at-shri-i-m-nanavati-memorial-moot-court-co/): LawFoyer’s Achievers’ Archive proudly celebrates the remarkable achievement of Manwee Arya, a fourth-year B.A. LL.B student from Central University of South Bihar, who has been honored with the prestigious title of Best Student Advocate (Petitioner) at the Shri I.M. Nanavati Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2026. This recognition reflects not only her individual excellence but also
- [Arush Kalsotra of Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla Wins Upcoming Mediator Award at International Mediation Competition](https://lawfoyer.in/arush-kalsotra-of-himachal-pradesh-national-law-university-shimla-wins-upcoming-mediator-award-at-international-mediation-competition/): LawFoyer proudly celebrates the remarkable achievement of Arush Kalsotra, a dedicated law student from Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, who has been honoured with the Upcoming Mediator Award at the Lex Infinitum VMSCL International Dispute Resolution Competition. The competition was organized by V.M. Salgaocar College of Law, Goa and witnessed participation from talented teams
- [24th LawFoyer Quiz on (Contract Law + Law of Torts): Prizes worth Rs. 15K + | Cash Prizes, Smart Watch, Earbuds and much more | Bonuses for All Participants worth Rs. 5K+ | Register by 24th January, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/24th-lawfoyer-quiz-on-contract-law-law-of-torts-prizes-worth-rs-25k-cash-prizes-smart-watch-earbuds-and-much-more/): 24th LawFoyer Contract and Torts Quiz for law students. Prizes worth Rs 15K, cash, gadgets and bonuses for all. Register by 24th January 2026.
- [IILM Law Journal – Call for Papers (Vol. IV, Issue 1) | Organized by IILM Law Journal, School of Law, IILM University | Register by 24th April 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/iilm-law-journal-call-for-papers-vol-iv-issue-1-organized-by-iilm-law-journal-school-of-law-iilm-university-register-by-24th-april-2026/): IILM Law Journal – Call for Papers (Vol. IV, Issue 1) | Organized by IILM Law Journal, School of Law, IILM University | Register by 24th April 2026
- [V AUAP–JLU International Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal (M.P.) | Register by 31st January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/v-auap-jlu-international-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-jagran-lakecity-university-bhopal-m-p-register-by-28th-january-2026/): V AUAP–JLU International Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal (M.P.) | Register by 28th January 2026
- [NLST National Virtual Moot Court Competition 2026 | Organized by Noida Legal Service Trust (NLST) | Register by 10th February, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/nlst-national-virtual-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-noida-legal-service-trust-nlst-register-by-noida-legal-service-trust-nlst/): NLST National Virtual Moot Court Competition 2026 | Organized by Noida Legal Service Trust (NLST) | Register by Noida Legal Service Trust (NLST)
- [ESG 2.0 – Law, Policy and Practice (Value Added Course) | Organized by Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies (VSLLS), Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies – Technical Campus (VIPS-TC) | Register by 28th February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/esg-2-0-law-policy-and-practice-value-added-course-organized-by-vivekananda-school-of-law-and-legal-studies-vslls-vivekananda-institute-of-professional-studies-technical-ca/): ESG 2.0 – Law, Policy and Practice (Value Added Course) | Organized by Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies (VSLLS), Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies – Technical Campus (VIPS-TC) | Register by 28th February 2026
- [Anushka Sharma and Aryansingh Bagga of GLS University Shine as Winners at Client Counselling Competition 2025–26](https://lawfoyer.in/anushka-sharma-and-aryansingh-bagga-of-gls-university-shine-as-winners-at-client-counselling-competition-2025-26/): At LawFoyer’s Achievers’ Archive, we take immense pride in celebrating young legal minds who exemplify dedication, skill, and a deep understanding of the law in practice. One such inspiring achievement comes from Anushka Sharma and Aryansingh Bagga, students of the Faculty of Law, GLS University, Ahmedabad, who emerged as Winners at the Client Counselling Competition
- [V AUAP–JLU International Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Register by 28 January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/v-auap-jlu-international-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-jagran-lakecity-university-bhopal-madhya-pradesh-register-by-28-january-2026/): V AUAP–JLU International Moot Court Competition, 2026 | Organized by Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Register by 28 January 2026
- [Prajjwal Tiwari Secures 3rd Position in Legal Essay Competition at City Law College, Lucknow](https://lawfoyer.in/prajjwal-tiwari-secures-3rd-position-in-legal-essay-competition-at-city-law-college-lucknow/): LawFoyer proudly celebrates the academic success of Prajjwal Tiwari, a dedicated law student from City Law College, who secured 3rd Position in the Legal Essay Competition organized by his institution. This achievement stands as a reflection of his growing command over legal research, analytical thinking, and structured legal writing. Prajjwal is currently pursuing LL.B (Integrated),
- [Prajjwal Tiwari Secures Second Position in Essay Competition and Constitutional Quiz at City Academy Law College, Lucknow](https://lawfoyer.in/prajjwal-tiwari-secures-second-position-in-essay-competition-and-constitutional-quiz-at-city-academy-law-college-lucknow/): LawFoyer proudly celebrates the academic achievement of Prajjwal Tiwari, a passionate law student from City Law College, affiliated to the University of Lucknow, who secured Second Position in both the Essay Competition and the Constitutional Quiz Competition organized by City Academy Law College, Lucknow, in December 2024. This remarkable accomplishment reflects Prajjwal’s early dedication to
- [Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad v. M/s Adani Gas Ltd., [2020] 8 SCR 875](https://lawfoyer.in/commissioner-of-service-tax-ahmedabad-v-m-s-adani-gas-ltd-2020-8-scr-875/): The judgment examines the scope and interpretation of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994, which levies service tax on the supply of tangible goods for use without transfer of possession and effective control. The controversy arose from service tax demands on gas connection charges collected by M/s Adani Gas Ltd. from industrial, commercial, and domestic consumers for installation of pipelines and SKID measurement equipment. The Tribunal had set aside the demand by holding that such equipment was not used by the consumer. The Supreme Court reversed this finding and upheld the levy.
- [Praneeth K. & Ors. v. University Grants Commission (UGC) & Ors., [2020] 8 SCR 917](https://lawfoyer.in/praneeth-k-ors-v-university-grants-commission-ugc-ors-2020-8-scr-917/): The judgment examines the constitutional validity and statutory force of the UGC Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 mandating conduct of final year/terminal semester examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitions raised an intense conflict between academic standardisation under central law and public health decisions taken by States under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Supreme Court was required to adjudicate whether the University Grants Commission acted within its statutory mandate under Section 12 of the UGC Act, 1956, whether the impugned guidelines violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and whether State decisions cancelling final examinations could override UGC directions.
- [Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited & Anr., [2020] 12 SCR 301](https://lawfoyer.in/jaipur-vidyut-vitran-nigam-ltd-ors-v-adani-power-rajasthan-limited-anr-2020-12-scr-301/): The decision in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited & Anr. constitutes an authoritative exposition on the interpretation of “Change in Law” clauses in tariff-based competitive bidding power purchase agreements executed under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Supreme Court examined whether the shortfall and restructuring of domestic coal supply under the New Coal Distribution Policy, 2013 amounted to a compensable change in law when the bid and tariff were premised on domestic coal.
- [Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), [2020] 9 SCR 245](https://lawfoyer.in/mukesh-singh-v-state-narcotic-branch-of-delhi-2020-9-scr-245/): The Constitution Bench judgment in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) resolves a long-standing judicial conflict on whether a criminal trial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 stands vitiated when the informant/complainant police officer himself conducts the investigation. The reference arose due to divergent judicial opinions, culminating in the decision of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018), which had held that such a course automatically vitiates the trial.
- [Dr. Vijay Mallya v. State Bank of India and Ors., [2020] 13 SCR 658](https://lawfoyer.in/dr-vijay-mallya-v-state-bank-of-india-and-ors-2020-13-scr-658/): The decision in Dr. Vijay Mallya v. State Bank of India and Others concerns the limited and well-settled scope of the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, particularly when invoked in proceedings arising out of civil contempt. The review petitions were filed by Dr. Vijay Mallya against the judgment dated 09.05.2017, by which he was held guilty of contempt of court for non-disclosure of assets and violation of restraint orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka. The principal ground urged in review was that the Court had proceeded on an erroneous factual assumption that no reply had been filed by the contemnor to the response of the banks, whereas a reply dated 30.01.2017 was in fact on record.
- [In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr., [2020] 8 S.C.R. 510](https://lawfoyer.in/in-re-prashant-bhushan-and-anr-2020-8-s-c-r-510/): The judgment in In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr. represents one of the most significant contemporary decisions on the law of criminal contempt of court, particularly in the context of social media speech by members of the legal profession. The Supreme Court was seized of suo motu contempt proceedings arising out of two tweets published by a senior advocate, which were found to scandalize the institution of judiciary and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court examined the constitutional balance between freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the inherent contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 129.
- [Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 8 SCR 583](https://lawfoyer.in/tamil-nadu-medical-officers-association-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-2020-8-scr-583/): The judgment adjudicates the constitutional and statutory competence of State Governments to provide a separate source of admission or reservation for in-service medical officers in postgraduate medical degree courses, vis-à-vis the regulatory framework under the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India.
- [M/s. L. R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, [2020] 10 SCR 1043](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-l-r-brothers-indo-flora-ltd-v-commissioner-of-central-excise-2020-10-scr-1043/): The judgment addresses the fiscal consequences arising from contravention of Export-Import Policy conditions by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in floriculture. The appellant had availed customs duty exemption on imported inputs under Notification No. 126/94-Cus dated 03.06.1994 but effected Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) sales of cut flowers without prior approval of the Development Commissioner and without achieving the prescribed positive Net Foreign Exchange Earnings (NFE) under the EXIM Policy 1997–2002.
- [Sarika v. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (M.P.) & Ors., [2020] 9 SCR 303](https://lawfoyer.in/sarika-v-administrator-shri-mahakaleshwar-mandir-committee-ujjain-m-p-ors-2020-9-scr-303/): The present judgment arises from the Supreme Court’s continued supervisory jurisdiction in matters concerning the preservation of religious and cultural heritage, specifically addressing the progressive erosion of the Jyotirlinga at Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple, Ujjain. The case reflects the Court’s constitutional responsibility to balance religious practices, heritage conservation, and scientific preservation.
- [Union of India v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India & Ors., [2019] 16 SCR 672; [2020] 11 SCR 541](https://lawfoyer.in/union-of-india-v-association-of-unified-telecom-service-providers-of-india-2020-11-scr-541/): The judgment addresses the continuing ramifications of the Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretation of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, particularly concerning the enforceability, payment structure, and insolvency-related implications of AGR dues owed by Telecom Service Providers. The Court examined representations made by telecom operators and financial institutions seeking staggered payment of AGR liabilities and considered the broader economic impact on the telecom sector and banking system.
- [The Designated Authority & Ors. v. M/s. Andhra Petrochemicals Limited, [2020] 7 SCR 1158](https://lawfoyer.in/the-designated-authority-ors-v-m-s-andhra-petrochemicals-limited-2020-7-scr-1158/): The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India addresses the limits of judicial review over anti-dumping investigations conducted by the Designated Authority under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. The dispute arose from repeated writ petitions filed by M/s. Andhra Petrochemicals Limited challenging the refusal of the Designated Authority to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of certain alcohols from Saudi Arabia and other countries. The High Court not only interfered with the investigation process but also initiated contempt proceedings and directed replacement of the Designated Authority.
- [Shridhar C. Shetty (Deceased) Through LRs v. The Additional Collector and Competent Authority & Ors., [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1002](https://lawfoyer.in/shridhar-c-shetty-deceased-through-lrs-v-the-additional-collector-and-competent-authority-ors-2020-6-s-c-r-1002/): The judgment in Shridhar C. Shetty (Deceased) Through LRs v. The Additional Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. examines the scope and limits of statutory power exercised by authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The dispute arose from the failure of the landholder to comply with the conditions attached to an exemption granted under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, specifically the obligation to surrender a stipulated number of residential tenements to Government nominees. Upon breach, instead of withdrawing the exemption as statutorily envisaged, the competent authority issued a demand for recovery of the market value of seven tenements along with interest and penalties, treating the amount as arrears of land revenue.
- [M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni & Ors., [2020] 10 SCR 1075](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-bandekar-brothers-pvt-ltd-anr-v-prasad-vassudev-keni-ors-2020-10-scr-1075/): The decision in M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni constitutes a definitive exposition on the scope and mandatory nature of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in cases alleging false evidence and fabrication of evidence under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court was confronted with the recurring misuse of private complaints to bypass the statutory safeguards embedded in Section 195 CrPC, particularly where allegations relate to acts committed in or in relation to judicial proceedings. The Court undertook a meticulous doctrinal distinction between offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, clarifying that the latter applies exclusively to cases of forgery of documents while in custodia legis, whereas the former governs offences affecting the administration of justice itself.
- [Ilangovan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [2020] 6 SCR 1132](https://lawfoyer.in/ilangovan-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-2020-6-scr-1132/): The judgment examines the criminal liability of an accused convicted for causing death during a sudden altercation arising out of prior enmity between two families. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the High Court correctly modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC by invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
- [The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Swapnil Bhingardevay & Ors., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 465](https://lawfoyer.in/the-karad-urban-cooperative-bank-ltd-v-swapnil-bhingardevay-ors-2020-13-s-c-r-465/): The present judgment examines the scope of judicial interference with the commercial wisdom exercised by the Committee of Creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside an approved resolution plan on grounds of alleged lack of viability, breach of confidentiality, defective advertisement, and non-consideration of disputed assets.
- [LEX CARNIVAL 2026 (5th Amity Law Fest – Juris Trek) | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus | Register by 31st January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/lex-carnival-2026-5th-amity-law-fest-juris-trek-organized-by-amity-law-school-amity-university-uttar-pradesh-lucknow-campus-register-by-31st-january-2026/): LEX CARNIVAL 2026 (5th Amity Law Fest – Juris Trek) | Organized by Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus | Register by 31st January 2026
- [3rd ALL INDIA IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION | Organized by School of Law, IILM University, Greater Noida | Register by 14th March 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/3rd-all-india-iilm-moot-court-competition-oragnized-by-school-of-law-iilm-university-greater-noida-register-by-14th-march-2026/): 3rd ALL INDIA IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION | Oragnized by School of Law, IILM University, Greater Noida | Register by 14th March 2026
- [CALL FOR PAPERS: Two-Day International Conference on “Law, Rights & Indigenous Futures” (Online) | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Submit Abstract by 15th February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-papers-two-day-international-conference-on-law-rights-indigenous-futures-online-organized-by-hidayatullah-national-law-university-hnlu-raipur-submit-abstract-by/): CALL FOR PAPERS: Two-Day International Conference on “Law, Rights & Indigenous Futures” (Online) | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Submit Abstract by 15th February 2026
- [Essay Writing Competition | Organized by The Cyber Blog India | Register by 10 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/essay-writing-competition-organized-by-the-cyber-blog-india-register-by-10-february-2026/): ESSAY WRITING COMPETITION | Organized by The Cyber Blog India | Register by 10 February 2026
- [R. Poornima and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [2020] 8 SCR 89](https://lawfoyer.in/r-poornima-and-ors-v-union-of-india-and-ors-2020-8-scr-89/): The judgment in R. Poornima and Others v. Union of India and Others resolves a constitutional challenge concerning the interpretation of Article 217(2) of the Constitution of India, particularly Explanation (a) and (aa), governing eligibility for appointment as Judges of a High Court. The petitioners, directly recruited District Judges of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, asserted that their prior experience at the Bar should be clubbed with their subsequent judicial service to satisfy the mandatory ten-year eligibility requirement for elevation to the High Court. Despite being senior in the District Judge cadre, they were excluded from consideration as they had not completed ten years of judicial service on the relevant date. The petitioners alleged discrimination under Article 14 and argued that the constitutional scheme permits cumulative reckoning of experience regardless of sequence.
- [The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Somwati and Others, [2020] 10 SCR 1132](https://lawfoyer.in/the-new-india-assurance-company-limited-v-smt-somwati-and-others-2020-10-scr-1132/): The present judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India resolves a recurring conflict in motor accident compensation jurisprudence concerning the scope and limits of non-pecuniary damages under conventional heads. The core controversy pertained to whether compensation could be simultaneously awarded under the heads of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, and whether the concept of consortium was confined exclusively to spousal relationships. The appeals were instituted by multiple insurance companies challenging the legality of High Court judgments which had granted compensation to each claimant under both heads. The Supreme Court undertook a doctrinal examination of earlier precedents, including the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, and subsequent clarificatory judgments.
- [M/s Bangalore Club v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax & Anr., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 488](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-bangalore-club-v-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-anr-2020-13-s-c-r-488/): The judgment examines the scope and applicability of Section 21AA of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in determining whether a social members’ club, namely M/s Bangalore Club, can be subjected to wealth tax as an association of persons. The controversy arose from assessment years 1981–82 and 1984–85 to 1990–91, where the revenue authorities treated the Club as a taxable association holding assets with indeterminate shares. The Supreme Court undertook an extensive interpretative exercise to determine the legislative intent behind Section 21AA, emphasizing that the provision was enacted as an anti-avoidance measure and not as an expansion of the charging section under Section 3.
- [Shreyas Sinha v. The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences & Ors., [2020] 9 S.C.R. 869](https://lawfoyer.in/shreyas-sinha-v-the-west-bengal-national-university-of-juridical-sciences-ors-2020-9-s-c-r-869/): The Supreme Court examined whether the National University of Juridical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2018, which introduced mandatory reservation of at least thirty percent seats for candidates domiciled in West Bengal, could be applied to an ongoing admission process for the academic session 2019–2020 conducted through Common Law Admission Test (CLAT). The appellant, having participated in CLAT after the amendment came into force, claimed entitlement to domicile reservation for the same academic year. The University declined such benefit, contending that the admission process had commenced prior to the amendment and that applying the new reservation would disturb the settled selection framework.
- [Stalin v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, [2020] 7 S.C.R. 283](https://lawfoyer.in/stalin-v-state-represented-by-the-inspector-of-police-2020-7-s-c-r-283/): The judgment addresses the recurring doctrinal issue in Indian criminal law concerning whether a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained when the death of the victim results from a single injury. The Supreme Court revisits and clarifies the legal position that no rigid or mechanical rule exists excluding murder liability merely because only one blow was inflicted. The determination must depend on the cumulative assessment of attendant circumstances, including the nature of the weapon, the part of the body targeted, the force applied, and the contextual sequence of events preceding the act.
- [Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Goverdhan Lal Soni & Anr., [2020] 10 SCR 238](https://lawfoyer.in/rajasthan-state-road-transport-corporation-ors-v-goverdhan-lal-soni-anr-2020-10-scr-238/): The judgment examines the legal entitlement of surplus employees absorbed from a defunct State Public Enterprise into another State Corporation to receive pensionary benefits under the absorbing organisation’s pension regulations. The dispute arose after employees of the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited, which followed only a Contributory Provident Fund scheme, were absorbed into the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, which was governed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1989.
- [Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2020] 7 SCR 546](https://lawfoyer.in/rizwan-khan-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-2020-7-scr-546/): The judgment in Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh examines critical procedural and evidentiary dimensions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, particularly concerning recovery, proof of possession, and reliance on police testimony in the absence of independent witnesses. The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act on multiple grounds including alleged non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 55, discrepancies in sample marking, non-examination of independent witnesses, and failure to establish ownership and recovery of the vehicle from which contraband was seized.
- [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 7 SCR 1078](https://lawfoyer.in/pravin-kumar-v-union-of-india-ors-2020-7-scr-1078/): The judgment in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. examines the contours of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings involving members of an armed force of the Union, particularly in cases alleging corruption, fabrication of official records, and intimidation of subordinates. The appellant, a Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force, challenged his dismissal from service arising out of a departmental enquiry conducted under the CISF Rules, 1969. The enquiry followed recovery of unaccounted cash from a subordinate constable, which ultimately revealed a structured mechanism of illegal collection of bribes from contractors operating within the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited refinery premises.
- [National Co-operative Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-V, [2020] 13 SCR 517](https://lawfoyer.in/national-co-operative-development-corporation-v-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-v-2020-13-scr-517/): The judgment examines the deductibility of non-refundable grants disbursed by a statutory corporation from interest income earned on temporarily parked government funds, within the framework of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the National Cooperative Development Corporation Act, 1962. The controversy arose from the Revenue’s disallowance of deduction claimed by the National Co-operative Development Corporation for grants released to cooperative societies, contending that such outgo constituted capital expenditure or mere application of income.
- [,Jeet Ram v. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh, [2020] 7 SCR 558](https://lawfoyer.in/jeet-ram-v-the-narcotics-control-bureau-chandigarh-2020-7-scr-558/): The Supreme Court in Jeet Ram v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh examined the legality of the High Court’s interference with an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial court had acquitted the accused on grounds of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, absence of independent witnesses, doubts regarding conscious possession, and apprehension of sample tampering. The High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted the accused, and imposed a sentence of fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment.
- [Abhilasha v. Parkash & Ors., [2020] 11 S.C.R. 244](https://lawfoyer.in/abhilasha-v-parkash-ors-2020-11-s-c-r-244/): The judgment in Abhilasha v. Parkash & Ors. authoritatively settles the legal position concerning the entitlement of an unmarried Hindu daughter to claim maintenance from her father after attaining majority. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and clarified the distinct scope, nature, and jurisdictional limits of these two provisions. The Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a summary and immediate remedy confined to minor children, with an exception only in cases where a major child suffers from physical or mental abnormality or injury rendering her unable to maintain herself. In contrast, Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 recognises a broader and substantive personal law right of an unmarried Hindu daughter to seek maintenance till marriage, subject to proof of inability to maintain herself.
- [Jugut Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2020] 6 SCR 1140](https://lawfoyer.in/jugut-ram-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-2020-6-scr-1140/): The judgment in Jugut Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh examines the fine doctrinal distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the context of a village altercation arising out of a land dispute. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether an assault with a lathi on the head, resulting in death on the following day, disclosed the intention necessary for conviction under Section 302 IPC or merely knowledge sufficient to attract Section 304 Part II IPC. The Courts below had convicted the appellant for murder, despite concurrent findings that the incident was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of passion.
- [Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC, [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1036](https://lawfoyer.in/balasore-alloys-limited-v-medima-llc-2020-6-s-c-r-1036/): The judgment addresses the legal complexity arising from the coexistence of multiple arbitration clauses contained in distinct contractual instruments governing a single commercial transaction. The dispute originated between Balasore Alloys Limited, a manufacturer of High Carbon Ferro Chrome, and Medima LLC, its overseas distributor, following disagreements concerning pricing mechanisms, deductions, and payment reconciliation under a series of purchase orders and a subsequent long-term agreement. The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by relying on arbitration clauses embedded in 37 individual purchase orders. The respondent resisted this attempt by asserting that the overarching contractual relationship was governed by an “Umbrella Agreement” dated 31.03.2018, which contained a distinct arbitration clause referring disputes to ICC arbitration seated in London.
- [Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan & Others, [2020] 6 SCR 1015](https://lawfoyer.in/neetu-kumar-nagaich-v-state-of-rajasthan-others-2020-6-scr-1015/): The judgment addresses the constitutional scope of judicial intervention in criminal investigations where the process itself stands compromised. The Supreme Court was confronted with a prolonged, inconsistent, and demonstrably deficient investigation into the homicidal death of a young law student. The State Police, despite overwhelming circumstantial indicators of homicide, attempted to portray the death as accidental or suicidal for nearly three years. The belated registration of the FIR under Section 302 IPC, failure to secure the crime scene, non-examination of critical witnesses, and disregard for technological evidence such as CCTV footage, mobile location data, and digital trails collectively undermined the credibility of the investigation.
- [Government of India v. Vedanta Limited (formerly Cairn India Ltd.) & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 1](https://lawfoyer.in/government-of-india-v-vedanta-limited-formerly-cairn-india-ltd-ors-2020-12-scr-1/): The judgment examines the legal framework governing enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India under Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court authoritatively settles the issue of limitation applicable to enforcement of foreign awards, holding that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs applications filed under Sections 47 and 49 of the 1996 Act. The Court clarifies that foreign awards are not decrees of Indian civil courts and only become deemed decrees upon recognition by the enforcing court. The decision also elaborates the conceptual distinction between supervisory jurisdiction of seat courts and secondary jurisdiction of enforcement courts. It reiterates the limited scope of judicial intervention at the enforcement stage and rejects any review on merits under the guise of public policy.
- [Iti Gupta Shines as Gold Medalist in BA LLB at Vivekananda Global University](https://lawfoyer.in/iti-gupta-shines-as-gold-medalist-in-ba-llb-at-vivekananda-global-university/): Academic excellence is never accidental. It is the result of dedication, discipline, and an unwavering commitment to growth. At LawFoyer’s Achievers’ Archive, we take immense pride in celebrating such stories that inspire countless young legal minds. One such remarkable achievement is that of Ms. Iti Gupta, who has been awarded the Gold Medal in BA
- [Yash Sharma, Aseem Simlote & Muskan’s Remarkable Four-Peat Victory in Intra-College Moot Court Competitions Reflects Consistency, Skill, and Legal Excellence](https://lawfoyer.in/yash-sharmas-remarkable-four-peat-victory-in-intra-college-moot-court-competitions-reflects-consistency-skill-and-legal-excellence/): Achievements in law are not built overnight. They are the result of consistent effort, disciplined preparation, and a genuine passion for learning and advocacy. One such inspiring journey is that of Yash Sharma, Aseem Simlote & Muskan, final-year B.A. LL.B. students from S.S. Jain Subodh Law College, Jaipur, whose repeated success in moot court competitions
- [Trustees of H.C. Dhanda Trust v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., [2020] 11 SCR 268](https://lawfoyer.in/trustees-of-h-c-dhanda-trust-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-2020-11-scr-268/): The judgment addresses the scope and limits of discretionary power vested in the Collector of Stamps under Section 40(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, particularly concerning the imposition of penalty up to ten times the deficient stamp duty. The dispute arose from the execution of a Deed of Assent by trustees of a private trust in favour of beneficiaries pursuant to a testamentary trust. The revenue authorities classified the instrument as a gift deed, determined substantial deficit stamp duty, and imposed the maximum statutory penalty of ten times the deficiency. The orders of the Collector and the Board of Revenue were upheld by the High Court.
- [Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others, [2020] 7 SCR 968](https://lawfoyer.in/pappu-deo-yadav-v-naresh-kumar-and-others-2020-7-scr-968/): The decision in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others is a significant pronouncement on the assessment of compensation for permanent disability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court revisited the rigid and mechanical approach often adopted by tribunals and High Courts while evaluating loss of earning capacity in cases involving grievous injuries. The appellant, a young data entry operator/typist, suffered amputation of his right upper limb, resulting in 89% permanent disability as medically certified.
- [M/s. MSD Real Estate LLP v. The Collector of Stamps & Anr., [2020] 6 SCR 1027](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-msd-real-estate-llp-v-the-collector-of-stamps-anr-2020-6-scr-1027/): The present judgment examines the liability of a subsequent purchaser to discharge outstanding stamp duty penalties attached to immovable property, and the legality of recovery proceedings initiated by revenue authorities when such penalties remain unpaid. The Supreme Court considered whether the acceptance of post-dated cheques towards penalty amounts could be treated as valid compliance under stamp law, and whether municipal authorities were justified in denying building permission on account of unpaid statutory dues.
- [B. Santoshamma & Anr. v. D. Sarala & Anr., [2020] 11 S.C.R. 1](https://lawfoyer.in/b-santoshamma-anr-v-d-sarala-anr-2020-11-s-c-r-1/): The judgment examines the contours of specific performance of contracts relating to immovable property, particularly where the vendor creates third-party interests after executing an agreement for sale. The dispute arose from an agreement dated 21 March 1984 for sale of 300 square yards of land for a total consideration of Rs. 75,000, out of which a substantial portion had already been paid. Subsequently, the vendor executed a registered sale deed in favour of a third party for 100 square yards of the same land. The vendee sought specific performance of the agreement.
- [Sagufta Ahmed & Ors. v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., [2020] 9 SCR 472](https://lawfoyer.in/sagufta-ahmed-ors-v-upper-assam-plywood-products-pvt-ltd-ors-2020-9-scr-472/): The Supreme Court in Sagufta Ahmed & Ors. v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. examined the statutory contours of limitation under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and clarified the legal distinction between “period of limitation” and “period up to which delay may be condoned”. The appellants challenged the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissing their appeal as time-barred and refusing condonation of delay beyond the statutorily permissible period. The central issue concerned whether the benefit of the Supreme Court’s suo motu order dated 23.03.2020, extending limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, could enlarge the maximum condonable period prescribed under a special statute.
- [Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla & Anr. v. National Law School of India University, Bengaluru & Ors., [2020] 10 SCR 299](https://lawfoyer.in/rakesh-kumar-agarwalla-anr-v-national-law-school-of-india-university-bengaluru-ors-2020-10-scr-299/): The judgment examines the legality of a unilateral decision taken by National Law School of India University, Bengaluru to conduct a separate entrance examination named National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) for admissions to its five-year integrated B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) programme for the academic year 2020–2021. The decision was taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing delay in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities.
- [,National Alliance for People’s Movements & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2020] 8 SCR 997](https://lawfoyer.in/national-alliance-for-peoples-movements-ors-v-state-of-maharashtra-ors-2020-8-scr-997/): The judgment in National Alliance for People’s Movements & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. examines the constitutional validity of the classification adopted by the High Powered Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court for decongestion of prisons during the Covid-19 pandemic. The case arose from a public interest challenge to the guidelines framed by the High Powered Committee of Maharashtra, which excluded certain categories of prisoners, particularly those charged under special statutes and those convicted of offences punishable above seven years, from the benefit of interim bail or parole. The petitioners contended that such categorisation was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- [State of Kerala & Anr. v. M/s RDS Project Limited & Ors., [2020] 6 S.C.R. 837](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-kerala-anr-v-m-s-rds-project-limited-ors-2020-6-s-c-r-837/): The judgment examines the limits of judicial review under Article 226 in matters involving technical and administrative decision-making based on expert opinion. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the High Court of Kerala exceeded its jurisdiction by directing a load test on the Palarivattom Flyover despite the State Government having accepted the recommendation of a High-Level Expert Committee. The flyover, constructed on a National Highway and inaugurated in 2016, developed structural cracks within a year. Divergent expert opinions emerged. IIT Madras recommended rehabilitation using carbon fibre composite treatment, while Dr. E. Sreedharan proposed demolition and reconstruction with a guarantee of a 100-year service life.
- [Union of India & Ors. v. M/s G.S. Chatha Rice Mills & Anr., [2020] 14 SCR 571](https://lawfoyer.in/union-of-india-ors-v-m-s-g-s-chatha-rice-mills-anr-2020-14-scr-571/): The judgment examines the legal effect and enforceability of an electronically published customs notification enhancing import duty under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether Notification No. 5/2019, enhancing customs duty to 200% on goods originating from Pakistan, could be applied to import consignments for which bills of entry had already been electronically filed and self-assessed prior to the time of publication of the notification on the e-Gazette.
- [Sri Nilanjan Bhattacharya v. State of Karnataka and Others, [2020] 14 SCR 445](https://lawfoyer.in/sri-nilanjan-bhattacharya-v-state-of-karnataka-and-others-2020-14-scr-445/): The judgment concerns the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of India in an international child custody dispute arising from a petition for habeas corpus. The appellant-father sought repatriation of his minor son, a US citizen by birth, from India to the United States after the respondent-mother unilaterally decided not to return to the US following a temporary visit to India. The Karnataka High Court allowed repatriation but imposed conditional restrictions linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring certificates from Indian and US authorities. The Supreme Court examined not only the validity of those conditions but also reassessed the entire custodial arrangement in light of the welfare of the child.
- [Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar & Anr., [2020] 11 SCR 31](https://lawfoyer.in/beli-ram-v-rajinder-kumar-anr-2020-11-scr-31/): The decision in Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar & Anr. addresses a recurring and unsettled question at the intersection of motor vehicle insurance law and workmen’s compensation jurisprudence, namely whether an employer can escape liability when a workman-driver suffers injury while driving with an expired but otherwise genuine driving licence. The Supreme Court examined the scope of employer diligence under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the employer’s statutory obligation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The Court clarified that the duty of an employer does not end at initial verification of a driving licence but extends to ensuring its continued validity.
- [Anwar Ali and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [2020] 9 S.C.R. 878](https://lawfoyer.in/anwar-ali-and-another-v-state-of-himachal-pradesh-2020-9-s-c-r-878/): The judgment in Anwar Ali and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh constitutes a significant reaffirmation of settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, particularly in cases founded entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court was seized of a challenge to the reversal of acquittal by the High Court, where the trial court had acquitted the accused after finding serious infirmities in the prosecution’s case. The prosecution alleged that the accused had committed murder, robbery, cheating and destruction of evidence, and relied exclusively on circumstantial links such as recoveries, disclosure statements and alleged conduct of the accused.
- [Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, [2020] 9 S.C.R. 482](https://lawfoyer.in/maheshwar-tigga-v-state-of-jharkhand-2020-9-s-c-r-482/): The decision in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand constitutes a significant judicial exposition on the contours of consent, misconception of fact, and promise of marriage under Sections 375 and 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while simultaneously reinforcing the procedural sanctity of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court was confronted with a prosecution narrative alleging rape on the pretext of marriage spanning over four years, initiated by a complaint lodged shortly before the accused’s marriage to another woman. The Court undertook a meticulous scrutiny of evidentiary inconsistencies, particularly relating to the age of the prosecutrix, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the nature of the interpersonal relationship between the parties.
- [State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Amit Shrivas, [2020] 11 SCR 46](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-v-amit-shrivas-2020-11-scr-46/): The judgment examines the legal contours of compassionate appointment in the context of work-charged and contingency-paid employees under the service jurisprudence of Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the dependent of a deceased employee, who had attained the status of a permanent employee under the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, could be treated as a regular government servant for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
- [Subed Ali and Others v. State of Assam, [2020] 8 SCR 731](https://lawfoyer.in/subed-ali-and-others-v-state-of-assam-2020-8-scr-731/): The decision in Subed Ali and Others v. State of Assam authoritatively revisits the doctrinal contours of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly in situations where one accused has not inflicted any overt physical injury. The Supreme Court examined whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC could be sustained when two co-accused had already been acquitted on the benefit of doubt on the same evidentiary record. The Court undertook a meticulous appraisal of eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and surrounding circumstances to assess the existence of a shared mental element among the accused.
- [Satish @ Sabbe v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2020] 9 SCR 21](https://lawfoyer.in/satish-sabbe-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-2020-9-scr-21/): The judgment in Satish @ Sabbe v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant reaffirmation of reformative penology within Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine the legality of repeated executive refusals to grant premature release on probation to life convicts despite long incarceration, clean antecedents, and satisfactory prison conduct. The Court scrutinised the manner in which the State authorities exercised discretion under Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 and found a consistent pattern of mechanical rejection grounded in extraneous considerations such as the gravity of offence, age of prisoners, and speculative apprehensions of victims.
- [M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, [2020] 11 SCR 59](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-magma-fincorp-ltd-v-rajesh-kumar-tiwari-2020-11-scr-59/): The judgment examines the legal character of a hire-purchase agreement and the scope of consumer protection remedies in disputes arising from repossession of financed vehicles. The Supreme Court clarified that under a hire-purchase arrangement, ownership of the vehicle remains with the financier until all instalments are paid and the option to purchase is exercised. The Court decisively held that repossession of a vehicle by the financier upon default, when carried out in accordance with the contractual terms, does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- [Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2020] 11 SCR 117](https://lawfoyer.in/parvez-noordin-lokhandwalla-v-state-of-maharashtra-anr-2020-11-scr-117/): The judgment examines the constitutional and procedural limits on judicial discretion while imposing conditions of bail, particularly where such conditions interfere with the fundamental right to travel abroad. The appeal arose from an order of the Bombay High Court refusing to relax interim bail conditions to allow the appellant, an Indian citizen and long-term US resident, to travel abroad for revalidation of his Green Card. The appellant was facing criminal proceedings arising from allegations of forgery under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on a private complaint filed in 2014.
- [Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, [2020] 13 SCR 886](https://lawfoyer.in/gujarat-mazdoor-sabha-anr-v-state-of-gujarat-2020-13-scr-886/): The judgment in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. State of Gujarat examines the constitutional and statutory limits of emergency powers exercised by a State Government under Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948. The Supreme Court was called upon to scrutinize the legality of two notifications issued by the State of Gujarat during the COVID-19 pandemic, which exempted all registered factories from compliance with statutory safeguards relating to working hours, rest intervals, and overtime wages. The core controversy revolved around whether the economic downturn caused by the pandemic constituted a “public emergency” within the meaning of Section 5, justifying a blanket suspension of labour welfare protections.
- [Pravasi Legal Cell & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 12 S.C.R. 102](https://lawfoyer.in/pravasi-legal-cell-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-2020-12-s-c-r-102/): The judgment in Pravasi Legal Cell & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. addresses the legality of airline refund practices during the unprecedented nationwide lockdown imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple public interest litigations were instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of domestic and international airlines to provide cash refunds for cancelled flights, instead offering credit shells. The petitioners contended that such practices violated the binding Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) framed under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Aircraft Rules, 1937.
- [Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, [2020] 8 SCR 741](https://lawfoyer.in/gurcharan-singh-v-state-of-punjab-2020-8-scr-741/): The Supreme Court of India in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab examined the scope and evidentiary threshold required for sustaining a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 107 IPC. The case arose from the suicide of a young married woman, Shinder Kaur, who left behind two minor children. The Trial Court acquitted the accused husband and his parents of charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC but nevertheless convicted the husband under Section 306 IPC, despite no charge being framed for abetment. The High Court affirmed this conviction primarily on conjectural reasoning that a woman with two small children would not ordinarily commit suicide unless compelled by adverse matrimonial circumstances.
- [T. K. David v. Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. [2020] 13 SCR 663](https://lawfoyer.in/t-k-david-v-kuruppampady-service-co-operative-bank-ltd-ors-2020-13-scr-663/): The judgment in T. K. David v. Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. authoritatively settles the question of maintainability of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution when filed solely against an order rejecting a review petition, after the dismissal of an earlier SLP against the main judgment. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine of finality of litigation and clarified the contours of the doctrine of merger in the context of review proceedings.
- [Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 151](https://lawfoyer.in/amit-sahni-v-commissioner-of-police-ors-2020-12-scr-151/): The judgment in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. addresses the constitutional contours of the right to protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India in the context of prolonged public road blockades during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The dispute arose from the indefinite occupation of the Kalindi Kunj–Shaheen Bagh stretch in Delhi, which resulted in severe disruption of public movement and civic life. The Supreme Court was called upon to balance the fundamental right to peaceful dissent with competing public rights, particularly the right of commuters to free movement.
- [Commissioner of Police and Another v. Umesh Kumar [2020] 11 S.C.R. 583](https://lawfoyer.in/commissioner-of-police-and-another-v-umesh-kumar-2020-11-s-c-r-583/): The judgment examines the scope of vested rights in public employment and the limits of judicial intervention in recruitment processes when results are revised prior to appointment. The Supreme Court addressed whether candidates whose names appeared in a provisional select list, and who had completed medical and character verification, could claim an enforceable right to appointment after being excluded in a subsequently revised merit list. The controversy arose from a recruitment process initiated in 2013 for the post of Constable (Executive) – Male in the Delhi Police, which witnessed multiple cancellations, revisions, and re-evaluations owing to administrative lapses, including failure to award bonus marks for height and errors in answer keys.
- [Satya Deo @ Bhoorey v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2020] 12 S.C.R. 128](https://lawfoyer.in/satya-deo-bhoorey-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh2020-12-s-c-r-128/): The present judgment examines the retrospective and continuing applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to criminal proceedings that arose prior to its enforcement, where the accused was below eighteen years of age on the date of commission of the offence. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the appellant, convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, could claim the benefit of juvenility at the appellate stage, despite the offence having been committed in 1981 and despite the appellant having crossed the age threshold under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
- [Ankita Kailash Khandelwal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1007](https://lawfoyer.in/ankita-kailash-khandelwal-and-ors-v-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-2020-8-s-c-r-1007/): The judgment examines the legality of continued academic exclusion of postgraduate medical students arising from bail conditions imposed during pendency of a criminal prosecution. The appellants, three postgraduate residents in M.D. Gynaecology and Obstetrics, were implicated in a criminal case involving allegations of ragging and abetment to suicide following the death of a junior resident. Though bail was granted by the High Court, stringent conditions effectively barred the appellants from entering their college and hospital, thereby preventing continuation of their medical education and residency training.
- [Miss ‘A’ v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [2020] 11 SCR 515](https://lawfoyer.in/miss-a-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-another-2020-11-scr-515/): The judgment in Miss ‘A’ v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another authoritatively settles the procedural law governing the right of an accused to obtain a copy of a victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court examined whether an accused is entitled to such a copy immediately upon filing of the charge-sheet or only after the court takes cognizance and reaches the statutory stage contemplated under Sections 207 and 208 CrPC. The case arose from allegations of sexual exploitation involving a powerful accused, triggering suo motu intervention by the Supreme Court and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team.
- [Karulal & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2020] 9 SCR 494](https://lawfoyer.in/karulal-ors-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-2020-9-scr-494/): The judgment in Karulal & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh represents a reaffirmation of settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in criminal trials, particularly concerning related witnesses, hostile witnesses, and the plea of false implication due to prior enmity. The Supreme Court examined whether conviction under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained when the prosecution case substantially rested upon the testimony of three eyewitnesses, two of whom were closely related to the deceased, while several other witnesses had turned hostile.
- [Ashish Seth v. Sumit Mittal and Others, [2020] 11 SCR 525](https://lawfoyer.in/ashish-seth-v-sumit-mittal-and-others-2020-11-scr-525/): The judgment concerns prolonged non-compliance with a Memorandum of Settlement dated 04.05.2015 entered into between two rival groups, namely the Seth Group and the Mittal Group, arising out of disputes in a Joint Venture real estate project. The settlement had been judicially recognized and incorporated into an order of the Supreme Court disposing of connected writ petitions. Persistent defaults by the Mittal Group in fulfilling their contractual and court-mandated obligations led to contempt proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
- [Nilay Gupta v. Chairman NEET PG Medical & Dental Admission/Counselling Board 2020 & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 161](https://lawfoyer.in/nilay-gupta-v-chairman-neet-pg-medical-dental-admission-counselling-board-2020-ors-2020-12-scr-161/): The judgment examines the legality of deletion of the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota in postgraduate medical and dental admissions for the academic year 2020–2021 in Rajasthan. The dispute arose when private medical colleges, after initially indicating a 15% NRI quota and initiating verification of NRI candidates, eliminated the quota at a late stage and merged the seats with the management quota. Two NRI candidates challenged this action before the Rajasthan High Court. The Single Judge held the deletion arbitrary and directed their admission under the NRI quota. The Division Bench reversed this decision, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court.
- [Ferrodous Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. v. P. Gopirathnam (Dead) & Ors., [2020] 13 SCR 673](https://lawfoyer.in/ferrodous-estates-pvt-ltd-v-p-gopirathnam-dead-ors-2020-13-scr-673/): The judgment adjudicates a prolonged dispute concerning specific performance of an agreement to sell executed in 1980 and its enforceability in light of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and its subsequent repeal in 1999. The litigation trajectory reflects repeated judicial reconsideration across Single Judge, Division Bench, Full Bench, and finally the Supreme Court. The central controversy revolved around whether an agreement to sell, which required statutory permission under the ceiling law, stood rendered void ab initio due to statutory prohibition, or whether such an agreement remained enforceable when the obligation to obtain permission rested upon the vendor.
- [Anand Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 925](https://lawfoyer.in/anand-yadav-ors-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-2020-13-s-c-r-925/): The judgment addresses a persistent controversy concerning eligibility qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Education) in government-aided colleges in Uttar Pradesh. The dispute arose from conflicting interpretations of whether M.Ed. degree holders could be treated as eligible and equivalent to M.A. (Education) degree holders for the purposes of recruitment. The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection Commission issued an advertisement in 2014 which led to rejection of candidates possessing M.Ed. degrees. A subsequent advertisement in 2016 adopted a broader criterion of “post-graduate degree in the relevant subject,” triggering expert review and issuance of a corrigendum permitting M.Ed. candidates.
- [Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab [2020] 12 S.C.R. 875](https://lawfoyer.in/bikramjit-singh-v-state-of-punjab-2020-12-s-c-r-875/): The judgment in Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab authoritatively settles the law concerning default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as modified by Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Supreme Court examined the interplay between the CrPC, the UAPA, and the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, particularly on the question of jurisdiction to extend the statutory period of investigation from ninety days to one hundred eighty days. The case arose from a terrorist attack involving a hand grenade at a religious congregation, resulting in multiple deaths and serious injuries. The appellant sought default bail upon expiry of ninety days, which was rejected by the Magistrate on the basis of an extension order passed without jurisdiction.
- [Amar Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi), [2020] 8 SCR 751](https://lawfoyer.in/amar-singh-v-the-state-nct-of-delhi-2020-8-scr-751/): The judgment examines the evidentiary limits of criminal conviction resting upon the sole testimony of a related eye-witness in a prosecution for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court scrutinised whether the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court could be sustained when the prosecution case suffered from serious inconsistencies, hostile witnesses, and conduct of the alleged eye-witness that was incompatible with normal human behaviour. The Court undertook a detailed evaluation of the ocular testimony of PW-1, the sole remaining eye-witness, in light of medical evidence, surrounding circumstances, and procedural lapses in investigation.
- [Raghunath (D) by LRs v. Radha Mohan (D) through LRs & Ors. [2020] 14 S.C.R. 462](https://lawfoyer.in/raghunath-d-by-lrs-v-radha-mohan-d-through-lrs-ors-2020-14-s-c-r-462/): The judgment in Raghunath (D) by LRs v. Radha Mohan (D) through LRs & Ors. authoritatively settles the controversy concerning the temporal scope and limitation of the right of pre-emption under the Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 21 of the Act read with Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 commences afresh upon every subsequent sale of the same immovable property, or whether such right is confined to the first post-statute transfer where the pre-emptor consciously refrains from exercising it.
- [Small Voices: Big Rights: 1st National Essay Competition | Organized by National Law University, Delhi | Register by 1st March, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/small-voices-big-rights-1st-national-essay-competition-organized-by-national-law-university-delhi-register-by-1st-march-2026/): Small Voices: Big Rights: 1st National Essay Competition | Organized by National Law University, Delhi | Register by 1st March, 2026
- [SGTU–RANKA INTERNATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 3.0 | Organized by SGT University, Gurugram | Register by 15th February, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/sgtu-ranka-international-trial-advocacy-competition-3-0-organized-by-sgt-university-gurugram-register-by-15th-february-2026/): SGTU–RANKA INTERNATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 3.0 | Organized by SGT University, Gurugram | Register by 15th February, 2026
- [Call for Blogs | NLIU Labour & Employment Law Blog | Rolling Submission Academic Year 2025-26 | Submission on Rolling Basis](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-blogs-nliu-labour-employment-law-blog-rolling-submission-academic-year-2025-26-submission-on-rolling-basis/): Call for Blogs | NLIU Labour & Employment Law Blog | Rolling Submission Academic Year 2025-26 | Submission on Rolling Basis
- [Call for Applications: The Capital Tank: 1st NLIU–CFMRS Investment Challenge, 2026 | Organized by National Law Institute University, Bhopal | Register by 20 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-applications-the-capital-tank-1st-nliu-cfmrs-investment-challenge-2026-organized-by-national-law-institute-university-bhopal-register-by-20-february-2026/): Call for Applications: The Capital Tank: 1st NLIU–CFMRS Investment Challenge, 2026 | Organized by National Law Institute University, Bhopal | Register by 20 February 2026
- [Call for Applications: The Capital Tank: 1st NLIU–CFMRS Investment Challenge, 2026 | Organized by National Law Institute University, Bhopal | Register by 20 February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-applications-the-capital-tank-1st-nliu-cfmrs-investment-challenge-2026-organized-by-national-law-institute-university-bhopal-register-by-20-february-2026-2/): Call for Applications: The Capital Tank: 1st NLIU–CFMRS Investment Challenge, 2026 | Organized by National Law Institute University, Bhopal | Register by 20 February 2026
- [5TH IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by IILM University, Gurugram | Register by 31st January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/5th-iilm-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-iilm-university-gurugram-register-by-31st-january-2026/): 5TH IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by IILM University, Gurugram | Register by 31st January 2026
- [CALL FOR PAPERS – RGNUL FINANCIAL AND MERCANTILE LAW REVIEW (RFMLR), VOLUME XIII, ISSUE II | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab | Register by 15th February 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-papers-rgnul-financial-and-mercantile-law-review-rfmlr-volume-xiii-issue-ii-organized-by-rajiv-gandhi-national-university-of-law-rgnul-punjab-register-by-15th-february-20/): CALL FOR PAPERS – RGNUL FINANCIAL AND MERCANTILE LAW REVIEW (RFMLR), VOLUME XIII, ISSUE II | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab | Register by 15th February 2026
- [VERDICTUS 2.0 – Annual Law Fest | Organized by Navrachana University, School of Business and Law | Register by 12th January, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/verdictus-2-0-annual-law-fest-organized-by-navrachana-university-school-of-business-and-law-register-by-12th-january-2026/): VERDICTUS 2.0 – Annual Law Fest | Organized by Navrachana University, School of Business and Law | Register by 12th January, 2026
- [Two-Credit Certificate Course on Labour Codes | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab | Register by 16th January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/two-credit-certificate-course-on-labour-codes-organized-by-rajiv-gandhi-national-university-of-law-rgnul-punjab-register-by-16th-january-2026/): Two-Credit Certificate Course on Labour Codes | Organized by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab | Register by 16th January 2026
- [CALL FOR BLOGS | Centre for Law and Urban Development (CLUD), National Law University Delhi](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-blogs-centre-for-law-and-urban-development-clud-national-law-university-delhi/): CALL FOR BLOGS | Centre for Law and Urban Development (CLUD), National Law University Delhi
- [Global Trade Careers, The WTO’s 30-Year Legacy, and Future Pathways | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Register by 28 January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/global-trade-careers-the-wtos-30-year-legacy-and-future-pathways-organized-by-hidayatullah-national-law-university-hnlu-raipur-register-by-28-january-2026/): Global Trade Careers, The WTO’s 30-Year Legacy, and Future Pathways | Organized by Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur | Register by 28 January 2026
- [Call for Chapters | Organized by Department of Law, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies (MAIMS) | Submit Abstract by 5th January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-chapters-organized-by-department-of-law-maharaja-agrasen-institute-of-management-studies-maims-submit-abstract-by-5th-january-2026/): Call for Chapters | Organized by Department of Law, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies (MAIMS) | Submit Abstract by 5th January 2026
- [Anil Bhardwaj v. The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., [2020] 9 SCR 442](https://lawfoyer.in/anil-bhardwaj-v-the-honble-high-court-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-2020-9-scr-442/): The judgment examines the limits of judicial review over decisions taken by High Court Selection Committees concerning suitability for appointment to judicial service. The appellant, selected for the post of District Judge (Entry Level), had disclosed the pendency of a criminal case under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. Despite provisional selection, his candidature was cancelled following adverse character verification. The appellant was subsequently acquitted and sought reconsideration of his candidature on that basis.
- [Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment and Animals & Ors., [2020] 10 S.C.R. 273](https://lawfoyer.in/hospitality-association-of-mudumalai-v-in-defence-of-environment-and-animals-ors-2020-10-s-c-r-273/): The judgment addresses the legality and constitutional validity of the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu declaring an elephant corridor in the Sigur Plateau of the Nilgiris District and directing resort owners and private landholders to vacate lands falling within the notified corridor. The dispute arose from resistance by resort owners and landholders who challenged the scientific basis, statutory competence, and procedural fairness of the notification. The Supreme Court examined the ecological significance of elephant corridors, the doctrine of sustainable development, and the applicability of the precautionary principle in environmental governance. The Court emphasized that elephants constitute a keystone species whose migratory movement is essential to maintaining ecological balance, biodiversity, and genetic diversity. The judgment reconciles property rights with environmental obligations by affirming the State’s authority under Entries 17A and 17B of the Concurrent List, read with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and constitutional mandates under Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g). While upholding the validity of the corridor notification and restrictions on commercial activity, the Court acknowledged grievances relating to factual discrepancies in acreage and implementation. Consequently, it constituted an independent Inquiry Committee to examine allegations of arbitrariness by district authorities. The decision reinforces the primacy of ecological preservation over commercial exploitation and strengthens environmental jurisprudence by operationalizing constitutional duties through executive action.
- [Ganesan v. State represented by its Inspector of Police, [2020] 8 S.C.R. 768](https://lawfoyer.in/ganesan-v-state-represented-by-its-inspector-of-police-2020-8-s-c-r-768/): The judgment in Ganesan v. State represented by its Inspector of Police examines the evidentiary value of the sole testimony of a child victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether conviction under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act could be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, particularly when one of the material witnesses, namely the mother of the victim, had turned hostile. The appellant further questioned the fairness of appellate proceedings before the High Court on the ground that the legal aid counsel was appointed only a few days prior to disposal of the appeal, allegedly rendering the hearing illusory.
- [Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, [2020] 12 SCR 189](https://lawfoyer.in/satish-chander-ahuja-v-sneha-ahuja-2020-12-scr-189/): The judgment in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja marks a seminal shift in the judicial understanding of shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Supreme Court undertook an exhaustive interpretative exercise of Sections 2(s), 17, 19, and 26 of the Act while examining the maintainability of a civil suit for injunction filed by a father-in-law against his daughter-in-law. The controversy arose in the backdrop of matrimonial discord where the daughter-in-law asserted a statutory right of residence in the suit property by invoking the DV Act, while the father-in-law claimed exclusive ownership and sought her eviction through civil proceedings.
- [,State of U.P. v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, [2020] 7 S.C.R. 959](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-u-p-v-gayatri-prasad-prajapati-2020-7-s-c-r-959/): The judgment in State of U.P. v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati addresses the legal permissibility and judicial discipline required while granting interim bail on medical grounds to an accused charged with serious sexual offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in granting interim bail solely on medical considerations when adequate and continuous medical treatment was already being provided under State supervision in premier government hospitals. The Court scrutinised the medical records, medical board report, and treatment history of the respondent, a former minister, and found that the High Court failed to consider material evidence on record, including the findings of a duly constituted medical board and reports from a super-speciality hospital. The judgment reiterates that humane treatment of prisoners is a constitutional obligation, yet emphasises that medical bail cannot be granted mechanically or sympathetically without recording satisfaction that continued custody would jeopardise the life or health of the accused. The decision underscores the principle that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised with due application of mind to the complete factual matrix, particularly when allegations involve grave offences and when the accused is already receiving specialised treatment under State care.
- [Saravanan v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, [2020] 8 SCR 1035](https://lawfoyer.in/saravanan-v-state-rep-by-the-inspector-of-police-2020-8-scr-1035/): The judgment in Saravanan v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police constitutes a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional and statutory character of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court examined the legality of conditions imposed by the High Court while granting statutory bail, particularly a monetary deposit linked to alleged amounts involved in the offence and an onerous daily reporting requirement. The Court categorically held that default bail is not discretionary but an indefeasible statutory right, accruing to the accused upon failure of the investigating agency to file a charge-sheet within the prescribed period. The Court clarified that conditions ordinarily relevant to regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. cannot be transplanted into the statutory framework of default bail. Any such condition, especially one compelling deposit of disputed amounts, defeats the legislative intent of Section 167(2) and dilutes the protection of personal liberty under criminal procedure. The judgment draws a clear doctrinal distinction between punitive pre-trial detention and procedural safeguards against investigative delay. By quashing the financial condition and modifying the reporting requirement, the Court reinforced that statutory bail cannot be converted into a tool of coercive recovery or indirect punishment. This ruling consolidates prior jurisprudence, particularly the principle of “indefeasible right” articulated earlier, and serves as a binding precedent restraining courts from imposing extraneous conditions that frustrate statutory mandates.
- [Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, [2020] 7 SCR 572](https://lawfoyer.in/navin-chandra-dhoundiyal-v-state-of-uttarakhand-and-others-2020-7-scr-572/): The decision in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v. State of Uttarakhand and Others settles an important question relating to service jurisprudence in university administration, namely the interpretation of statutory provisions governing the date of superannuation and continuation in service of university teachers. The Supreme Court was concerned with the correct construction of Statute No. 16.24 of Kumaun University, particularly its proviso which permits continuation of teachers beyond the date of superannuation until 30 June following, treating such continuation as re-employment. The appellants, all professors, challenged an office order fixing their retirement on the last day of the month in which they attained the age of 65 years, contending that such action disregarded the statutory protection intended to preserve continuity in academic sessions. The Court undertook a plain, purposive, and contextual interpretation of the statute, harmonising the main provision with its proviso. It emphasised that while no teacher has a vested right to re-employment after superannuation, the proviso creates a statutory exception designed to prevent disruption of teaching mid-session and to protect students’ academic interests. The judgment reaffirms the doctrine of stare decisis by endorsing earlier High Court interpretations and approving analogous reasoning adopted by the Allahabad High Court Full Bench. By setting aside the contrary view of the Uttarakhand High Court, the Supreme Court restored doctrinal clarity and administrative consistency, holding that teachers whose superannuation does not fall on 30 June are statutorily entitled to continue till the end of the academic session on re-employment basis, with consequential benefits.
- [State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors. [2020] 13 SCR 571](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-u-p-v-sudhir-kumar-singh-and-ors-2020-13-scr-571/): The judgment in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors. is a significant exposition on the doctrine of audi alteram partem and the evolving contours of judicial review in contractual matters involving the State. The Supreme Court examined whether cancellation of a concluded tender and contract by a State instrumentality, without affording a prior hearing to the successful bidder, could withstand constitutional scrutiny under Article 14 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute arose from repeated cancellations and reissuance of e-tenders by the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation for handling and transportation contracts, culminating in cancellation of an already executed contract after one year of performance, solely on the basis of ex parte inquiries alleging financial irregularities. The Court reconciled competing considerations of public interest, financial loss to the State, and procedural fairness owed to the contractor. It clarified that breach of natural justice itself may not always result in invalidity, unless prejudice is shown, but equally reaffirmed that prejudice is presumed where the affected party is kept completely in the dark. The judgment also authoritatively restated when writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is maintainable in contractual disputes involving State action, especially where allegations of arbitrariness and violation of natural justice are raised. While partially setting aside the High Court’s judgment for exceeding the scope of relief sought, the Supreme Court upheld the core finding that the tender cancellation was vitiated by denial of natural justice. The ruling harmonizes administrative efficiency with constitutional fairness and serves as a doctrinal guide on the “prejudice test” in natural justice jurisprudence.
- [Rajesh Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1057](https://lawfoyer.in/rajesh-dhiman-v-state-of-himachal-pradesh-2020-8-s-c-r-1057/): The judgment in Rajesh Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh examines the contours of fair investigation, evidentiary standards, and appellate interference in acquittals under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Supreme Court addressed whether an investigation stands vitiated merely because the complainant is also the investigating officer, particularly in prosecutions involving commercial quantities of contraband. The Court revisited earlier conflicting jurisprudence and relied upon the Constitution Bench ruling in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) to reaffirm that no automatic presumption of bias arises from such dual roles unless actual prejudice or likelihood of bias is demonstrated. The judgment further clarifies the doctrine of reasonable doubt, emphasizing that fanciful or implausible defence theories cannot undermine a consistent prosecution case supported by official witnesses. The Court also dealt with the evidentiary value of hostile independent witnesses and reiterated that non-examination of such witnesses is not per se fatal. Importantly, the judgment upholds the High Court’s power to reverse an acquittal where the trial court has misapplied legal principles or adopted a perverse appreciation of evidence. The ruling strengthens prosecutorial standards in NDPS cases while balancing the accused’s right to a fair trial, thereby contributing significantly to criminal jurisprudence on narcotics control and appellate review.
- [M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, [2020] 12 SCR 915](https://lawfoyer.in/m-ravindran-v-the-intelligence-officer-directorate-of-revenue-intelligence-2020-12-scr-915/): The judgment in M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence authoritatively settles the scope, nature, and enforceability of the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Supreme Court examined whether such a right, once accrued and invoked by the accused upon expiry of the statutory investigation period of 180 days, can be defeated by the prosecution through the subsequent filing of an additional complaint before disposal of the bail application. The Court firmly reaffirmed that the right to default bail is not a procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 21. It held that the accused is deemed to have “availed of” the right the moment an application for default bail is filed along with willingness to furnish bail, and not when actual release occurs. Any contrary interpretation would legitimise illegal detention and permit prosecutorial manipulation. The judgment harmonises prior conflicting interpretations arising from Sanjay Dutt, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, and Uday Mohanlal Acharya, while emphatically preferring an interpretation that protects personal liberty. It further cautioned courts and prosecutors against dilatory tactics that undermine statutory mandates. The ruling strengthens due process, reinforces investigative accountability, and elevates default bail from a statutory right to a constitutional imperative.
- [Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [2020] 8 SCR 1044](https://lawfoyer.in/raveen-kumar-v-state-of-himachal-pradesh-2020-8-scr-1044/): The judgment in Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh examines the permissible scope of appellate interference with an order of acquittal under criminal jurisprudence, particularly in prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the High Court was justified in reversing an acquittal based on erroneous reliance placed by the trial court on a prosecution reply filed during bail proceedings. The Court analysed the evidentiary value of court records, the legal consequences of non-confrontation of such material with witnesses, and the principles governing appreciation of testimony of official witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration. A crucial legal determination was made regarding the doctrine of “chance recovery” and the extent to which prior information must be proved to invoke the safeguards under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The judgment clarifies that pleadings filed before a court do not enjoy any presumption of truth unless duly proved and confronted during trial. The Court further reinforced that hostile testimony of an independent witness does not efface corroborative value if material portions support prosecution compliance. On sentencing, the Court revisited the mandatory minimum punishment under Section 20 of the NDPS Act both before and after the 2001 amendment and reconciled the High Court’s lenient approach with subsequent authoritative clarification in Hira Singh v. Union of India. While upholding conviction and sentence, the judgment significantly contributes to evidentiary law, appellate standards, and NDPS sentencing jurisprudence.
- [Satyama Dubey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 9 SCR 517](https://lawfoyer.in/satyama-dubey-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-2020-9-scr-517/): The judgment in Satyama Dubey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. arises out of an extraordinary invocation of Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking judicial intervention in the investigation of a brutal gang rape and subsequent death of a nineteen-year-old woman in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. The petitions raised serious constitutional and procedural concerns relating to fair investigation, alleged illegal cremation, witness protection, and judicial monitoring. The Supreme Court was confronted with competing institutional considerations: safeguarding the victim’s family and public confidence in criminal justice, while respecting the federal structure and jurisdictional primacy of the High Court. The Court acknowledged that the State of Uttar Pradesh had already transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, thereby neutralising apprehensions of police bias. Emphasis was placed on judicial restraint and institutional comity, with the Court declining to monitor the investigation when the Allahabad High Court had already assumed seisin through a suo motu public interest litigation. A significant constitutional intervention was made by directing Central Reserve Police Force protection to the victim’s family and witnesses as a confidence-building measure, without casting aspersions on the State Police. The judgment also addressed statutory confidentiality under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, cautioning against disclosure of the identity and familial particulars of a rape victim. The decision reflects a calibrated balance between victims’ rights, due process, and judicial federalism, reinforcing the principle that constitutional remedies must not disrupt parallel proceedings unless compelling circumstances so demand.
- [Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 557](https://lawfoyer.in/dharmendra-kumar-singh-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-2020-12-scr-557/): The judgment in Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. addresses a recurring conflict between environmental protection and vested commercial interests in the mining sector. The Supreme Court examined whether mining leaseholders, whose operations were halted due to judicial and administrative interdictions aimed at forest conservation, were entitled to an extension of their mining leases for the obstructed period. The appellants argued that since mining was stopped without fault on their part, equity demanded extension of leases to restore them to their original position. The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that neither the Uttar Pradesh Mining Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 nor the lease deeds permitted such extension, and that statutory policy had shifted decisively towards auction-based grants. The Court rejected the proposition that every judicial interdict automatically entitles a party to restoration by extension of contractual or statutory rights. It held that extension of a mining lease must strictly flow either from statutory authority or contractual terms, and cannot be granted merely on equitable considerations. The Court interpreted Rule 68 narrowly as a limited relaxation provision and affirmed that Rule 40(h) exhaustively governs consequences of disruption of mining operations. In light of the New Mining Policy, 2017, which mandates e-auction and does not contemplate extensions, the Court declined to order lease extensions. However, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court balanced equities by directing refund of security deposits and advance royalties with simple interest at 9% per annum. The judgment reinforces statutory supremacy, restricts judicially created commercial benefits, and clarifies that environmental protection orders cannot be used as a basis to bypass transparent mining policies.
- [Mrs Ritika Sharan v. Mr Sujoy Ghosh, [2020] 10 SCR 363](https://lawfoyer.in/mrs-ritika-sharan-v-mr-sujoy-ghosh-2020-10-scr-363/): The judgment concerns a complex matrimonial and guardianship dispute involving the custody and overseas relocation of a minor child amid pending divorce and domestic violence proceedings. The appellant-mother and respondent-father had been living separately since 2016, with the minor child continuously residing under the care of the mother. The dispute arose when the appellant, upon being posted to Singapore for employment, sought permission to take the child along. The Family Court restrained such removal on jurisdictional apprehensions, which was later affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court decisively intervened, holding that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, overriding procedural technicalities and jurisdictional objections. The Court clarified that assistance rendered by maternal grandparents does not divest the mother of legal custody. Importantly, the Court engaged directly with the minor child through video conferencing and placed substantial weight on the child’s expressed preference to live with the mother. Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and permitted the child’s relocation to Singapore with the mother, while simultaneously safeguarding the father’s visitation and access rights through structured directions. The ruling reinforces a welfare-centric, child-sensitive approach in custody jurisprudence, especially in transnational employment contexts, and demonstrates the Supreme Court’s willingness to transcend procedural rigidity to secure substantive justice.
- [Thomas Lawrence v. State of Kerala & Ors., [2020] 9 S.C.R. 325](https://lawfoyer.in/thomas-lawrence-v-state-of-kerala-ors-2020-9-s-c-r-325/): The judgment in Thomas Lawrence v. State of Kerala & Ors. addresses the procedural and substantive contours of environmental adjudication before the National Green Tribunal, particularly in relation to execution proceedings arising from prior directions concerning alleged destruction of wetlands. The appeal arose from the dismissal of an execution application by the National Green Tribunal on the ground that no separate orders were required, as the matter could be examined within another pending original application. The appellant contended that the execution application stemmed from an earlier NGT order directing the District Collector to take action regarding alleged destruction of wetlands and a ten-acre pond within the Technopark region in Thiruvananthapuram. The Supreme Court examined whether the execution application remained maintainable once the District Collector had already passed an order pursuant to the NGT’s original direction. The Court carefully analyzed the scope of the NGT’s order dated 19.12.2018, the subsequent order of the District Collector dated 30.04.2019, and the legal effect of such compliance on execution proceedings. Emphasis was placed on the statutory framework under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, especially the exemption provisions for public purpose projects. The Court held that once the Collector had passed an order in compliance with the NGT’s direction, the execution application became infructuous. However, it preserved the appellant’s right to challenge the Collector’s order independently in accordance with law, granting protection against dismissal on the ground of delay if such challenge was filed within a stipulated period. The decision clarifies the boundary between execution jurisdiction and substantive judicial review in environmental matters.
- [Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, [2020] 12 SCR 583](https://lawfoyer.in/tofan-singh-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-2020-12-scr-583/): The Constitution Bench decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu marks a watershed moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence concerning prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The central controversy before the Supreme Court revolved around the evidentiary admissibility of confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by officers empowered under Sections 42 and 53. The Court was tasked with determining whether such officers qualify as “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, thereby rendering confessions made to them inadmissible. The majority opinion, authored by Justice R.F. Nariman, decisively held that officers vested with investigative powers under Section 53 NDPS Act exercise powers identical to those of police officers, including investigation culminating in the filing of a police report. Consequently, they fall squarely within the mischief of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Court ruled that statements recorded under Section 67 cannot be treated as confessional or substantive evidence and any conviction founded solely upon such statements would infringe Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution of India. In overruling Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India and Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India, the Court reaffirmed constitutional primacy over coercive investigative shortcuts, especially under a statute prescribing draconian punishments. The dissent by Justice Indira Banerjee underscored societal interest and effective enforcement of narcotics law, yet the majority emphasized procedural fairness and fundamental rights as non-negotiable.
- [State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Heem Singh, [2020] 13 S.C.R. 951](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-rajasthan-ors-v-heem-singh-2020-13-s-c-r-951/): The judgment examines the legal permissibility of sustaining a departmental dismissal of a police constable for grave misconduct arising out of alleged involvement in a murder, despite his acquittal in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court scrutinised the limits of judicial review under Article 226 in disciplinary matters, particularly where the High Court interferes with findings of misconduct recorded by the disciplinary authority. The Court reaffirmed the settled distinction between the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials and departmental proceedings, holding that proof beyond reasonable doubt governs criminal liability, whereas preponderance of probabilities governs service discipline. The Court analysed whether the respondent’s acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt amounted to a clean acquittal warranting reinstatement. It was held that an acquittal does not automatically obliterate the findings of a departmental enquiry, especially where the conduct of a police officer adversely impacts the integrity, credibility, and public confidence in the police force. The judgment emphasises that disciplinary proceedings are not constrained by the rigours of criminal procedure or the strict rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court further delineated the “two ends of the spectrum” doctrine governing judicial review in service law. While courts must ordinarily defer to the disciplinary authority as the primary fact-finding body, interference is justified where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or where vital evidence has been ignored. Applying these principles, the Court found that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in reappreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions. The reinstatement order was therefore set aside, reinforcing institutional discipline and administrative autonomy.
- [Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2020] 8 SCR 1071](https://lawfoyer.in/chunthuram-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-2020-8-scr-1071/): The judgment examines the evidentiary fragility of a murder conviction resting primarily on weak forensic linkage, defective Test Identification Parade, and unreliable ocular testimony. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC for the alleged murder of the deceased while returning from the market. The prosecution case was built on recovery of weapons, identification of a lungi, and testimony of an alleged eyewitness. The Supreme Court scrutinised whether these circumstances formed an unbroken chain pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the appellant. The Court found that the alleged weapons of assault were never scientifically connected to the crime. The purported chemical analyst report was neither produced nor available on record. Vital forensic material, including the seized shirt of the co-accused, was withheld, attracting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Test Identification Parade was vitiated by police presence and internal inconsistencies, rendering it unreliable in law. The testimony of the sole eyewitness suffered from serious infirmities. His admitted poor eyesight, weak hearing, adverse weather conditions, and unnatural post-incident conduct eroded his credibility. The motive suggested by the prosecution was remote and lacked proximity. Applying the settled principle that where two views are possible the one favouring the accused must prevail, the Court set aside the conviction. This decision reinforces the constitutional commitment to fair trial standards, the evidentiary value of forensic science, and the cautious approach required while relying on solitary eyewitness testimony in criminal trials.
- [M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and Another, [2020] 12 SCR 373](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-imperia-structures-ltd-v-anil-patni-and-another-2020-12-scr-373/): The judgment in M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and Another authoritatively settles the long-standing conflict between remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Supreme Court examined whether the enactment of RERA impliedly ousted the jurisdiction of consumer fora in disputes concerning delay in delivery of possession and refund of amounts paid by homebuyers. The controversy arose from a housing project launched in 2011, where despite substantial payments by allottees, construction remained incomplete even after the contractually stipulated period. Consumer complaints were instituted before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking refund with interest. The builder resisted the complaints on grounds that the allottees were not consumers, that RERA created an exclusive statutory mechanism, and that registration of the project under RERA deferred any finding of delay. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions and reaffirmed that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional and concurrent. The Court clarified that Section 79 of RERA bars only civil courts and not consumer fora, which are quasi-judicial bodies. The judgment underscores legislative intent by reading Sections 18 and 88 of RERA harmoniously with Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. It recognizes the autonomy of the allottee to choose the forum and protects consumer rights against delayed real estate projects. The ruling has significant implications for real estate litigation, forum choice, and the balance between special statutes and consumer welfare legislation.
- [Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra, [2020] 13 SCR 1](https://lawfoyer.in/shatrughna-baban-meshram-v-state-of-maharashtra-2020-13-scr-1/): The judgment examines an extremely grave instance of sexual assault and homicidal death of a minor child aged two and a half years, committed by a close family member. The Supreme Court was called upon to assess the correctness of conviction under Sections 376(2)(f), (i), (m), 376A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as well as the confirmation of death penalty imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The case was founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen theory, medical evidence, DNA profiling, and forensic corroboration. The Court undertook a meticulous evaluation of the chain of circumstances in light of the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reaffirming that circumstantial evidence, when unimpeachable and complete, can sustain conviction even in capital cases. The judgment further engages in an elaborate doctrinal discussion on the interplay between Sections 299 and 300 IPC, especially clause fourthly of Section 300, to determine whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea for murder. While upholding the conviction for murder and aggravated sexual assault, the Court revisited the jurisprudence on rarest of rare doctrine and sentencing proportionality. It ultimately commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for 25 years under Section 376A IPC, holding that although the crime was exceptionally brutal, the option of a lesser sentence was not entirely foreclosed due to absence of specific intent to cause death.
- [The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. K. Fazlur Rahman & Anr., [2020] 9 SCR 906](https://lawfoyer.in/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-v-k-fazlur-rahman-anr-2020-9-scr-906/): The judgment examines the scope and limitations of the State Government’s power to supersede a Waqf Board under Section 99 of the Waqf Act, 1995, particularly in light of the second proviso inserted by the 2013 amendment. The dispute arose from the supersession of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board on the ground that the number of elected members had fallen below nominated members, allegedly rendering the Board incapable of functioning. The Supreme Court closely scrutinised whether such a situation, arising without any fault or misconduct of the Board, could justify supersession.
- [Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Anit Kumar Das [2020] 9 SCR 925](https://lawfoyer.in/chief-manager-punjab-national-bank-anr-v-anit-kumar-das-2020-9-scr-925/): The Supreme Court examined the legality of continuation in service of a candidate appointed as a Peon in Punjab National Bank despite being ineligible under the prescribed recruitment criteria. The Bank’s recruitment advertisement, issued pursuant to internal circulars, expressly disqualified graduates from applying for the post of Peon, limiting eligibility to candidates who had passed 12th Standard with basic English knowledge. The respondent, though a graduate since 2014, suppressed this material fact and declared only Higher Secondary qualification in his application. An appointment order was issued based on the disclosed qualifications, but during document verification, the Bank discovered the respondent’s graduation degree and cancelled his candidature.
- [Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors., [2020] 11 SCR 865](https://lawfoyer.in/shri-ram-sahu-dead-through-lrs-v-vinod-kumar-rawat-ors-2020-11-scr-865/): The decision in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. is a definitive exposition on the limits of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court examined whether a High Court, while exercising review powers, could delete substantive factual observations made in an earlier appellate judgment concerning possession of immovable property. The controversy arose after the High Court, nearly two years after disposing of a first appeal, entertained a review petition and deleted an entire paragraph recording findings on possession, solely on the ground that no specific issue on possession had been framed by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court emphatically held that such an exercise amounted to overstepping review jurisdiction. It reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or to unsettle findings recorded after detailed examination of pleadings and proof. The Court underscored that absence of a formally framed issue does not vitiate findings when parties were aware of the controversy, led evidence, and suffered no prejudice. Observations on possession were based on depositions, pleadings, and even admissions by defendants through interlocutory applications. By restoring the deleted paragraph, the Court reaffirmed the doctrine of finality of judgments, clarified the distinction between error apparent on the face of record and erroneous findings, and reinforced judicial discipline in exercising review powers. The judgment carries substantial precedential value in civil procedure, particularly in property litigation and appellate practice.
- [Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana, [2020] 14 SCR 1](https://lawfoyer.in/rajesh-sarkari-anr-v-state-of-haryana-2020-14-scr-1/): The judgment addresses the foundational criminal law principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary worth of alleged eye-witness testimony, forensic inconsistencies, and the legal effect of refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade in a prosecution for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case rested substantially on the testimonies of the deceased’s father and brother, who claimed to have witnessed the shooting inside a university campus and to have transported the injured victim to hospital. However, documentary evidence in the form of the ruqqa, hospital records, and defence testimony created serious doubt regarding their presence at the scene of occurrence. The Court undertook a meticulous scrutiny of forensic science laboratory reports prepared across two different FIRs and highlighted irreconcilable discrepancies concerning the recovery, identification, and ballistic linkage of alleged weapons. The non-examination of ballistic experts, despite serious contradictions in forensic reports, was held to be fatal in the absence of unimpeachable direct evidence. The Court further clarified that refusal to undergo a Test Identification Parade is not substantive evidence and cannot independently sustain a conviction where the prosecution fails to establish the identity of the accused beyond doubt. The judgment reinforces constitutional protections under criminal jurisprudence by emphasizing procedural fairness, evidentiary rigor, and the prosecution’s burden of proof. Ultimately, the appellants were acquitted and extended the benefit of doubt, resulting in the reversal of concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court.
- [Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., [2020] 13 SCR 1093](https://lawfoyer.in/rajnesh-v-neha-anr-2020-13-scr-1093/): The judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. constitutes a landmark exposition on the law of maintenance in India, particularly addressing the systemic inconsistencies arising from overlapping statutory remedies, prolonged pendency of interim maintenance applications, and difficulties in enforcement of maintenance orders. The Supreme Court was seized of an appeal challenging concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Bombay High Court granting interim maintenance to the wife and minor child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While affirming the maintenance awarded in the present case, the Court expanded the scope of adjudication by exercising its constitutional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to frame comprehensive and binding guidelines on maintenance. The Court undertook a purposive interpretation of maintenance laws, locating them firmly within the constitutional framework of Articles 15(3) and 39, emphasizing their role as instruments of social justice. Recognizing the multiplicity of proceedings under statutes such as the Cr.P.C., Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court sought to harmonize their operation. The judgment mandates uniform disclosure of assets and liabilities, clarifies the date from which maintenance should ordinarily be awarded, lays down criteria for determining quantum, and strengthens enforcement mechanisms. By addressing both the individual dispute and the broader jurisprudential vacuum, the decision serves as a guiding precedent aimed at ensuring consistency, transparency, and fairness in maintenance adjudication across India.
- [Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., [2020] 9 SCR 593](https://lawfoyer.in/hitesh-verma-v-state-of-uttarakhand-anr-2020-9-scr-593/): The judgment examines the scope and limits of Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly in disputes arising out of property and civil conflicts. The Supreme Court scrutinised whether allegations of caste-based abuse, arising during a private land dispute and allegedly occurring within the four walls of a house, satisfy the statutory ingredients of an offence under the Act. The Court clarified that every insult or intimidation against a Scheduled Caste member does not ipso facto attract the Act, unless such conduct is intentionally directed at humiliating the victim because of caste identity and occurs in a place within public view. The judgment further reaffirms the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, holding that there is no legal prohibition against quashing a charge-sheet in part. The Court carefully balanced the object of the SC/ST Act with safeguards against its misuse in purely civil disputes. It emphasised that invocation of civil remedies by either party cannot, by itself, be construed as caste-based oppression. By quashing the charges under the SC/ST Act while permitting prosecution under the IPC to continue, the Court delineated the doctrinal boundary between caste-based atrocities and ordinary criminal or civil disputes, ensuring that the protective intent of the Act is preserved without allowing procedural abuse.
- [C. Bright v. The District Collector & Ors. [2020] 7 SCR 997](https://lawfoyer.in/c-bright-v-the-district-collector-ors-2020-7-scr-997/): The Supreme Court in C. Bright v. The District Collector & Ors. examined the legal character of the time limits prescribed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The controversy centred on whether the statutory mandate requiring the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to pass orders within thirty days, extendable to sixty days with recorded reasons, is mandatory or merely directory. The appellant contended that failure to comply with the outer limit renders the authority functus officio, thereby frustrating the secured creditor’s remedy. The Court rejected this contention and upheld the High Court’s reasoning that the time stipulation is directory in nature. The judgment reaffirmed settled principles of statutory interpretation that the mere use of the word “shall” does not conclusively determine mandatory intent. Emphasis was placed on the object, purpose, scheme, and consequences of non-compliance. The Court held that Section 14 performs a public function aimed at facilitating recovery of public dues and that the secured creditor has no control over the Magistrate’s administrative functioning. Treating the provision as mandatory would defeat the legislative purpose and enable defaulting borrowers to obstruct recovery. By harmonising SARFAESI’s objectives with constitutional and interpretative doctrines, the Court clarified that procedural timelines imposed on public authorities are ordinarily directory unless penal consequences are prescribed. The decision reinforces judicial restraint against hyper-technical interpretations that undermine economic legislation intended for expeditious enforcement of security interests.
- [Gurusimran Singh Narula v. Union of India & Anr., [2020] 12 S.C.R. 351](https://lawfoyer.in/gurusimran-singh-narula-v-union-of-india-anr-2020-12-s-c-r-351/): The writ petition examined the legality and constitutional permissibility of spraying or fumigating chemical or organic disinfectants on human beings and exposing individuals to artificial ultraviolet rays as a preventive response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petition asserted that such practices violated the right to life and health under Article 21. The petitioner relied upon advisories issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and international guidance, particularly from the World Health Organization, which cautioned against human disinfection through tunnels and sprays. Despite such advisories, several public authorities and organisations continued deploying disinfection tunnels, creating regulatory ambiguity and health risks. The Supreme Court analysed the Disaster Management Act, 2005, particularly Sections 10 and 36, to determine whether the Union Government merely possessed discretionary powers or was under a positive statutory obligation to act. The Court reaffirmed that statutory powers conferred for public welfare are powers coupled with duties. It held that issuance of advisories alone was insufficient when evidence showed continued harmful practices across the country. While the Court refrained from imposing an immediate blanket ban, it directed the Union Government to actively consider and issue binding directions regulating or prohibiting such practices, including exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The judgment reinforces the jurisprudence that public health protection during disasters requires affirmative executive action, and that regulatory silence in the face of known harm amounts to constitutional failure.
- [Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2020] 9 SCR 455](https://lawfoyer.in/hindustan-unilever-limited-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-2020-9-scr-455/): The judgment in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh examines the interplay between corporate criminal liability, vicarious liability of nominated officers, and the effect of repeal and savings clauses under Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court was required to decide whether prosecution and punishment under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 could continue despite its repeal by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and whether a nominated officer could be convicted independently when the company itself was not convicted. The Court reaffirmed the settled doctrine under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 97 of the 2006 Act, holding that repeal does not extinguish pending prosecutions or liabilities unless a contrary intention is expressly stated. It categorically rejected the argument that the accused could claim the benefit of the milder penal regime under the 2006 Act. More significantly, the judgment clarifies that Section 17 of the 1954 Act creates conjoint and not alternative liability. The Court held that the company and the nominated person form an inseparable unit for the purpose of prosecution. In the absence of conviction of the company, conviction of the nominated officer alone was held to be legally unsustainable. The Court further deprecated the High Court’s decision to remand the matter after three decades to cure a fundamental defect, holding such remand to be unfair, prejudicial, and contrary to principles of criminal justice. The ruling strengthens safeguards against prolonged criminal trials and reinforces strict compliance with statutory requirements in corporate prosecutions.
- [Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 279](https://lawfoyer.in/shanti-devi-alias-shanti-mishra-v-union-of-india-ors-2020-12-scr-279/): The judgment examines the contours of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India in the context of pensionary disputes of a retired employee. The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ petition challenging the stoppage of pension and recovery of pension amounts could be entertained by the Patna High Court when the employee had served in West Bengal but was receiving pension at his native place in Bihar. The Court clarified that cause of action must be assessed from the bundle of facts giving rise to the grievance and not merely from the place of employment or location of the authority. The Court distinguished between two writ petitions filed by the deceased employee. The first writ petition related to refund of allegedly illegal deductions from provident fund and was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The subsequent writ petition challenged a later administrative action involving stoppage of pension after eight years and recovery of a substantial amount already paid. The Supreme Court held that these petitions arose from distinct causes of action, and dismissal of the earlier petition did not bar the later one. Significantly, the Court reaffirmed that receipt of pension and its stoppage at the place of residence constitutes an integral part of cause of action. The hardship caused to a retired employee was emphasized, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens was held inapplicable. The judgment restores the writ petition before the Patna High Court and grants interim relief of provisional pension to the widow, reinforcing the constitutional mandate of access to justice.
- [Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [2020] 9 SCR 607](https://lawfoyer.in/vetindia-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-another-2020-9-scr-607/): The judgment examines the legality, proportionality, and procedural validity of an indefinite blacklisting order passed against a licensed pharmaceutical manufacturer without any direct supply of the drug to the State authority. The dispute arose from allegations of misbranding of a veterinary drug, based on a State Analyst’s report, even though the appellant was neither a successful tenderer nor a supplier under the concerned tender. The Supreme Court scrutinised the scope of tender conditions, principles of natural justice, and the constitutional limits on administrative discretion while imposing blacklisting. The Court held that blacklisting is a drastic civil consequence amounting to commercial civil death and therefore mandates strict adherence to procedural safeguards. It reaffirmed that a show-cause notice must expressly or by necessary implication disclose the proposed action of blacklisting. Invocation of tender clauses against a non-supplier was held to be a fundamental jurisdictional error reflecting complete non-application of mind. On the issue of delay, the Court clarified that limitation does not strictly apply to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and delay cannot defeat relief where the illegality is continuing and the petitioner has been diligently pursuing remedies. The judgment also reiterated that permanent or excessively long blacklisting is arbitrary and disproportionate, ordinarily exceeding permissible administrative limits. The decision strengthens procedural fairness in public procurement, restricts arbitrary blacklisting, and balances State power with constitutional equity.
- [UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India & Anr., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1175](https://lawfoyer.in/umc-technologies-private-limited-v-food-corporation-of-india-anr-2020-13-s-c-r-1175/): The judgment addresses the legality of blacklisting by a State instrumentality in the absence of a clear and specific show cause notice. The appellant, a private recruitment agency, was awarded a contract by the Food Corporation of India for conducting recruitment examinations for watchmen. Following allegations of question paper leakage during an examination conducted by the appellant, the Corporation terminated the contract and blacklisted the appellant for five years. The appellant restricted its challenge before the Supreme Court only to the order of blacklisting. The Court examined whether the principles of natural justice were complied with prior to the imposition of blacklisting. It held that blacklisting has grave civil consequences, including stigmatization, loss of reputation, and long-term exclusion from government contracts. Such an action therefore mandates a prior, unambiguous, and particularized show cause notice clearly indicating the proposed penalty of blacklisting. The show cause notice issued to the appellant merely referred to contractual breaches and vaguely stated that “appropriate action” would be taken. It neither expressly proposed blacklisting nor permitted such inference. The Court reiterated that an administrative authority cannot travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The existence of a contractual clause referring to blacklisting does not cure the defect of a deficient notice. Relying on settled precedents including Erusian Equipment, Raghunath Thakur, and Gorkha Security Services, the Court quashed the blacklisting order while leaving the termination of contract undisturbed. The ruling reinforces procedural fairness as a non-negotiable requirement in State actions involving penal civil consequences.
- [Rattan Singh & Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors., [2020] 12 S.C.R. 422](https://lawfoyer.in/rattan-singh-ors-v-nirmal-gill-ors-2020-12-s-c-r-422/): The judgment adjudicates a complex intra-family property dispute founded on allegations of fraud, impersonation, and misuse of fiduciary trust in execution of a General Power of Attorney and multiple sale deeds. The plaintiff alleged that her step-brothers and step sister-in-law procured her signatures by deceit and used them to alienate her share in ancestral land through registered instruments executed in 1990. The Trial Court dismissed both suits for want of proof of fraud. The First Appellate Court substantially concurred, with marginal modification. The High Court, however, reversed concurrent findings, inferring fraud from circumstances and discrepancies. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court and First Appellate Court findings, emphasizing settled principles governing registered documents, burden of proof, attestation, expert evidence, and limitation. It held that registration raises a presumption of genuineness and the initial burden lies on the party alleging fraud. Mere suspicion, familial confidence, or clerical inconsistencies cannot displace statutory presumptions. The Court reaffirmed that civil cases are decided on preponderance of probabilities and expert opinions are corroborative, not conclusive. On limitation, the Court held that Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires proof of both fraud and discovery, which the plaintiff failed to establish. The judgment also delineates the limited scope of second appeals and condemns interference with concurrent factual findings based on conjecture. The ruling is significant for property law, evidence law, and civil procedure, reinforcing judicial restraint and evidentiary discipline in fraud-based challenges to registered conveyances.
- [NTPC Ltd. (Simhadri Project) v. Rajiv Chakraborty, [2020] 13 SCR 1090](https://lawfoyer.in/ntpc-ltd-simhadri-project-v-rajiv-chakraborty-2020-13-scr-1090/): The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in NTPC Ltd. (Simhadri Project) v. Rajiv Chakraborty addresses the limited yet significant issue concerning the classification of creditor claims in the Information Memorandum prepared during a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant, NTPC Ltd., contended that its claim ought to have been reflected under the category of Operational Creditors rather than being placed in the List of Other Creditors. The claim was, however, pending adjudication before an Arbitrator at the relevant time. The Court clarified the legal nature and purpose of the Information Memorandum, emphasizing that it is a disclosure document meant to present the financial position of the corporate debtor and does not operate as a determinative instrument adjudicating claims. The Resolution Professional, the Court held, lacks the statutory authority to accept, reject, or finally classify claims that remain sub judice before a competent forum. The judgment reinforces that a claim pending adjudication does not stand extinguished merely due to its categorization in the Information Memorandum and remains enforceable subject to final adjudication or operation of law. The decision thus preserves the rights of creditors whose claims are under adjudication while also protecting the integrity of the insolvency resolution framework by preventing premature adjudication by insolvency professionals. The Court left open all remedies available to the appellant against the final resolution plan, if aggrieved, thereby balancing procedural discipline with substantive justice.
- [Kirpa Ram (Deceased) Through LRs & Ors. v. Surendra Deo Gaur & Ors., [2020] 13 SCR 1030](https://lawfoyer.in/kirpa-ram-deceased-through-lrs-ors-v-surendra-deo-gaur-ors-2020-13-scr-1030/): The judgment resolves a long-standing dispute concerning civil court jurisdiction over land possession disputes where overlapping claims arise between two revenue estates. The Supreme Court examined whether a suit for permanent injunction based purely on possession is barred by statutory revenue laws, specifically Section 28 and Section 83 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellants contended that the controversy constituted a boundary dispute between Village Basai Darapur and Village Shakarpur and therefore lay exclusively within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. The Court rejected this contention and clarified the conceptual distinction between a boundary dispute between revenue estates and a dispute regarding identification and possession of private land. The Court reaffirmed that civil courts enjoy plenary jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly barred. It held that the Land Revenue Act does not provide any mechanism for granting injunctions relating to possession, thereby preserving civil court jurisdiction. The judgment also addresses procedural aspects concerning Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and reiterates settled law on Section 100 CPC, holding that a High Court is not bound to frame a substantial question of law where none arises. This decision strengthens the doctrinal clarity on jurisdictional overlap between civil courts and revenue authorities and reinforces access to civil remedies under the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium.
- [M/s. Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, [2020] 12 S.C.R. 956](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-fertico-marketing-and-investment-pvt-ltd-and-others-v-central-bureau-of-investigation-and-another-2020-12-s-c-r-956/): The judgment in M/s. Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another addresses the scope, nature, and legal consequences of consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in the context of investigations conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation within a State. The case arose from allegations of diversion and black-marketing of coal supplied under a Fuel Supply Agreement, allegedly executed through collusion between private company officials and State Government public servants. The principal challenge before the Court related to the legality of the CBI investigation on the ground that prior consent of the State Government had not been obtained before registration of the FIR and completion of investigation. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the federal scheme underlying Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act, the distinction between private individuals and public servants, and the jurisprudence governing procedural irregularities in investigation. The Court clarified that no consent under Section 6 is required for investigation against private individuals, where general consent exists. In relation to public servants of the State Government, the Court held that post-facto consent granted by the State Government was valid in law, particularly where the accused were not named in the FIR and where no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. Relying upon settled precedents such as H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi and Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, the Court reaffirmed that defects or irregularities in investigation do not vitiate criminal proceedings unless they result in failure of justice. The judgment reinforces doctrinal clarity on federal consent, investigative jurisdiction of the CBI, and the prejudice test under criminal procedure, while remitting unresolved ancillary issues back to the High Court for determination.
- [Ram Sharan Maurya and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, [2020] 12 S.C.R. 466](https://lawfoyer.in/ram-sharan-maurya-and-others-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-2020-12-s-c-r-466/): The judgment in Ram Sharan Maurya and Others v. State of U.P. and Others examines the legality and constitutional validity of fixation of minimum qualifying marks for the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019 (ATRE-2019) conducted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The dispute arose primarily from challenges mounted by Shiksha Mitras, ex-servicemen, and persons with disabilities against the post-examination prescription of qualifying cut-off marks at 65% for General category candidates and 60% for reserved categories. The appellants contended that such fixation was arbitrary, retrospective, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court undertook an extensive examination of the statutory framework governing teacher recruitment, including the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. A crucial issue concerned the authority of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to prescribe eligibility norms, including permitting B.Ed. candidates to teach Classes I to V subject to a six-month bridge course, as laid down in its Notification dated 28.06.2018. The Court upheld the power of the State Government to determine minimum qualifying marks “from time to time” under Rule 2(1)(x) read with Rule 14 of the 1981 Rules, even after the conduct of the examination, provided the decision is free from mala fides and aligned with the objective of selecting meritorious teachers. The judgment reaffirms the primacy of educational quality under Article 21A and validates the State’s policy decision to raise standards to ensure competent primary education.
- [Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Udayant Malhouta, [2020] 14 S.C.R. 327](https://lawfoyer.in/securities-and-exchange-board-of-india-v-udayant-malhouta-2020-14-s-c-r-327/): The judgment in Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Udayant Malhouta addresses the contours of SEBI’s power to pass ex-parte interim orders, particularly in cases alleging insider trading under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015. The dispute arose from allegations that the respondent, being the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of the listed company, had traded in company shares while allegedly in possession of unpublished price sensitive information relating to unaudited financial results. Acting on this allegation, SEBI issued an ex-parte interim order directing the respondent to deposit a quantified amount representing notional loss allegedly averted. The Securities Appellate Tribunal set aside this interim order on the ground that no extreme urgency existed, especially since the investigation had been pending since 2017 and information had already been supplied in 2019. The Supreme Court, while affirming the Tribunal’s conclusion on facts, clarified that SEBI does possess statutory authority under Section 11(4) of the SEBI Act, 1992 to pass interim orders, including ex-parte directions, but such powers must be exercised in accordance with statutory parameters and factual necessity. Importantly, the Court held that the interpretation of law made by the Tribunal concerning SEBI’s powers should not be treated as precedent. The ruling thus balances investor protection with procedural fairness, reinforcing that regulatory urgency must be real, demonstrable, and proportionate to the action taken.
- [Jayantilal Verma v. State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh), [2020] 12 S.C.R. 411](https://lawfoyer.in/jayantilal-verma-v-state-of-m-p-now-chhattisgarh-2020-12-s-c-r-411/): The decision examines the evidentiary standards applicable in cases of homicidal death occurring within the privacy of a matrimonial home. The Supreme Court was concerned with a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of a wife by strangulation, where the prosecution case substantially rested on circumstantial evidence, medical testimony, and the statement of a solitary witness. The Court scrutinised whether the absence of multiple eyewitnesses, hostile witnesses, and the non-recovery of the weapon of offence could dilute the prosecution’s case. The judgment reiterates that when a death occurs in the exclusive domain of the accused, particularly within the matrimonial household, the burden on the prosecution is comparatively lighter once foundational facts are established. In such circumstances, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 assumes critical relevance, placing an obligation on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the cause of death. Mere denial under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held insufficient. The Court upheld the conviction of the husband, relying on consistent testimony of the deceased’s brother, corroborated by medical evidence indicating death by strangulation. At the same time, the Court showed sentencing sensitivity by directing the State to consider premature release after completion of fourteen years of actual imprisonment. The judgment reinforces settled principles relating to circumstantial evidence, hostile witnesses, and domestic homicide within the privacy of the home.
- [M/s Kaledonia Jute and Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Axis Nirman and Industries Ltd. & Ors., [2020] 11 SCR 800](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-kaledonia-jute-and-fibres-pvt-ltd-v-m-s-axis-nirman-and-industries-ltd-ors-2020-11-scr-800/): The judgment resolves a significant conflict arising during the transition from the Companies Act, 1956 regime to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court examined whether a winding-up proceeding, already admitted and advertised by a High Court, could be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal at the instance of a financial creditor who was not the original petitioning creditor. The dispute emerged against the backdrop of overlapping jurisdictions between Company Courts and the NCLT, especially where insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC run parallel to winding-up proceedings. The Court interpreted Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, including its fifth proviso inserted by the IBC (Second Amendment) Act, 2018. A detailed examination of Rules 5 and 6 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 and Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was undertaken to determine the stage at which transfer is permissible. The Court clarified that while Rules 5 and 6 restrict automatic transfer once service under Rule 26 is completed, these restrictions do not apply where transfer is sought under the fifth proviso to Section 434(1)(c). Importantly, the Court held that winding-up proceedings are proceedings in rem, and any creditor of the company is a “party” entitled to seek transfer. Allowing parallel proceedings would defeat the object of the IBC. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s refusal and directed transfer of the winding-up proceedings to the NCLT to be heard along with the Section 7 application.
- [Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law](https://lawfoyer.in/intellectual-property-rights-and-competition-law/): Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and Competition Law are both necessary for innovation and economic growth. IPRs create exclusive rights while Competition Law seeks to correct market failures caused by monopolies and restrictive practices. Tension arises when IPRs are used to restrict competition beyond the intended scope.
- [Personality Rights as an Emerging Intellectual Property in India](https://lawfoyer.in/personality-rights-as-an-emerging-intellectual-property-in-india/): Personality rights in India empower individuals to control the commercial use of their identity, including name, image, likeness, or other distinctive traits. These rights, though not explicitly codified, have been recognized through judicial interpretations, intertwining with the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution...
- [RGNUL–SAM LEGISLATION DRAFTING COMPETITION, 2026 | Centre for Advanced Studies in Cyber Law and Artificial Intelligence (CASCA), Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab | Last Date to Register for the Event - 15th January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/rgnul-sam-legislation-drafting-competition-2026-centre-for-advanced-studies-in-cyber-law-and-artificial-intelligence-casca-rajiv-gandhi-national-university-of-law-rgnul-punjab-last/): RGNUL–SAM LEGISLATION DRAFTING COMPETITION, 2026 | Centre for Advanced Studies in Cyber Law and Artificial Intelligence (CASCA), Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab | Last Date to Register for the Event - 15th January 2026
- [Rusoday Securities Ltd. v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Ors., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 218](https://lawfoyer.in/rusoday-securities-ltd-v-national-stock-exchange-of-india-ltd-ors-2020-13-s-c-r-218/): The judgment examines the scope of regulatory powers of a recognised stock exchange and its clearing corporation under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, particularly in relation to the issuance and enforceability of operational circulars governing trading exposure limits, capital adequacy, withdrawal of trading facilities, closing out of open positions, expulsion of members, and realisation of security deposits and withheld securities. The Supreme Court addressed whether a circular dated 19.05.1997, prescribing gross exposure limits and consequences of breach, required prior approval of the Central Government or SEBI, and whether such circular was ultra vires the Byelaws of the National Stock Exchange. The Court upheld the validity and binding nature of the circular, holding that operational parameters fall within the autonomous regulatory domain of the Exchange under its approved Byelaws and do not require separate governmental approval. It further clarified the distinction between withdrawal of trading facility and expulsion from membership, holding that obligations relating to capital adequacy and security deposits continue even during suspension of trading rights. The judgment also draws a clear legal line between security deposits and withheld securities, elaborating on statutory lien, vesting, declaration of defaulter, and the applicability of equitable principles such as nemo dat quod non habet, fiduciary duties, and constructive trust. The decision provides authoritative clarity on the enforceability of exchange circulars, the scope of residuary powers under exchange byelaws, and the legal framework governing realisation of assets of defaulting trading members, thereby strengthening market discipline and regulatory certainty.
- [Venkatesan Balasubramaniyan v. The Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Bangalore, [2020] 9 SCR 942](https://lawfoyer.in/venkatesan-balasubramaniyan-v-the-intelligence-officer-d-r-i-bangalore-2020-9-scr-942/): The judgment examines the interplay between default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and cancellation of such bail under Section 439(2) CrPC in the context of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case arose from a coordinated investigation by different zonal units of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence involving recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances at different locations but forming part of a single transaction. The accused were granted default bail by the Special Court at Hyderabad on the ground that the complaint was not filed within 180 days. However, it later emerged that a combined complaint encompassing both recoveries had already been filed within the statutory period before the Special Court at Omerga, Maharashtra. The Supreme Court addressed whether miscommunication or non-disclosure of the filing of a combined complaint could confer an indefeasible right to default bail. The Court reaffirmed that default bail is not an absolute right divorced from factual reality and statutory compliance. Where the complaint is filed within the prescribed period before a competent court having jurisdiction, default bail granted due to an erroneous assumption can be cancelled under Section 439(2) CrPC. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural lapses or administrative miscommunication cannot defeat substantive justice in serious NDPS offences. It also clarifies jurisdictional competence, continuity of offence, and the legal permissibility of filing a consolidated complaint covering multiple recoveries forming part of the same conspiracy.
- [Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman, Gujarat Maritime Board v. Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd. & Ors., [2020] 10 SCR 375](https://lawfoyer.in/chief-executive-officer-and-vice-chairman-gujarat-maritime-board-v-asiatic-steel-industries-ltd-ors-2020-10-scr-375/): The judgment examines the obligation of a statutory maritime authority to act fairly while refunding contractual consideration and interest where a public contract becomes commercially unviable due to the authority’s inaction. The dispute arose from the allotment of a ship-breaking plot by the Gujarat Maritime Board, where despite receipt of earnest money and substantial premium, the allotted land remained unusable owing to unremoved rocks and lack of infrastructure. The respondent company sought refund with interest after prolonged correspondence and inaction by the Board. The Supreme Court scrutinised whether interest could be awarded in the absence of an express contractual clause and without a formal finding of breach. The Court emphasised that interest is compensatory in nature, especially where a public authority retains money without justification. It held that arbitrariness, discrimination, and deliberate inaction by a State instrumentality violate constitutional norms of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While affirming the High Court’s direction to refund the principal with interest, the Supreme Court corrected the commencement date for interest calculation, holding that interest could only accrue from the date on which the full consideration was actually paid and not from the earlier date of earnest money deposit. The judgment reinforces that public bodies cannot compel parties to litigate for legitimate refunds and must act proactively, transparently, and equitably.
- [Tej Bahadur v. Shri Narendra Modi, [2020] 13 SCR 554](https://lawfoyer.in/tej-bahadur-v-shri-narendra-modi-2020-13-scr-554/): The judgment addresses the foundational requirement of locus standi in election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether a person whose nomination paper was rejected for non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements could maintain an election petition questioning the election of a returned candidate. The appellant, a former Border Security Force employee dismissed from service, challenged the election of the respondent from the Varanasi Parliamentary Constituency after his nomination was rejected due to non-submission of a mandatory certificate under Section 33(3) read with Section 9(2) of the Act. The Court analysed the statutory meaning of “candidate” under Section 79(b) and the scope of Section 81 governing who may present an election petition. The Court reaffirmed that compliance with nomination requirements is a condition precedent to claiming the status of a candidate. The absence of the certificate rendered the nomination legally non est. The Court further upheld the power of courts to summarily reject election petitions lacking cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 86(1) of the Act. The judgment reinforces strict statutory interpretation in election law and discourages frivolous or speculative election challenges.
- [B. K. Ravichandra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 974](https://lawfoyer.in/b-k-ravichandra-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-2020-12-scr-974/): The judgment examines the legality of continued occupation of privately owned immovable property by the Union of India after the statutory lapse of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952. The appellants, successors-in-interest of the original landowner, challenged the refusal of the Karnataka High Court to direct restoration of possession despite categorical findings that the lands were never lawfully acquired. The Supreme Court scrutinized the legal character of requisition, emphasizing its inherently temporary nature and the impermissibility of its conversion into de facto acquisition without statutory sanction. The Court reaffirmed that although the right to property no longer enjoys the status of a fundamental right, it remains a valuable constitutional right under Article 300-A, deeply anchored in the rule of law. The judgment condemns executive lawlessness and judicial condonation thereof, holding that continued possession after 1987 was unconstitutional and illegal. It underscores the judiciary’s constitutional role as a protector of liberties and rejects the notion that public purpose or national defense can justify unlawful deprivation. The Court ordered restitution of possession within a fixed timeframe and permitted fresh arbitration for compensation for continued unlawful occupation. The ruling reinforces constitutional accountability of the State and decisively curtails indefinite executive possession without authority of law.
- [Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, [2020] 13 SCR 1191](https://lawfoyer.in/director-general-of-police-railway-protection-force-ors-v-rajendra-kumar-dubey-2020-13-scr-1191/): The judgment authoritatively delineates the constitutional limits on judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in matters arising from departmental disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the legality of interference by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which had substituted the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on a Railway Protection Force officer with reversion in rank and reinstatement with 50% back wages. The Court reaffirmed that a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not function as a court of appeal over disciplinary findings. Re-appreciation of evidence, reassessment of factual conclusions, or substitution of punishment is impermissible unless the disciplinary process is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, absence of evidence, perversity, arbitrariness, mala fides, or statutory non-compliance. The delinquent officer, holding a position of trust as a Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force, was found guilty of gross neglect of duty leading to theft of railway property and consequent pecuniary loss. The Supreme Court emphasized the heightened standard of integrity expected from personnel entrusted with protection of public property. By restoring the order of compulsory retirement, the Court underscored that proportionality of punishment must be assessed with reference to the nature of duties, gravity of misconduct, and institutional discipline, and not on sympathetic considerations. The ruling consolidates long-standing service jurisprudence restricting judicial intervention in disciplinary matters and reinforces administrative autonomy in maintaining discipline within uniformed forces.
- [Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2020] 11 S.C.R. 786](https://lawfoyer.in/skoda-auto-volkswagen-india-private-limited-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-2020-11-s-c-r-786/): The judgment addresses the limits of judicial intervention at the stage of criminal investigation, particularly when allegations overlap with issues pending before a specialized environmental forum. The case arose from a challenge by a major automobile manufacturer seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy in relation to alleged installation of emission “defeat devices” in vehicles sold in India. The petitioner argued that the FIR was barred because the same subject matter was pending before the National Green Tribunal and this Court in connected civil appeals, and further that the complaint was vitiated by delay and factual inaccuracies. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that criminal investigations cannot be interdicted merely because civil or environmental proceedings on overlapping subject matter are pending. The jurisdiction of the police to investigate cognizable offences remains intact so long as the FIR discloses the commission of an offence, even broadly. The Court emphasized that proceedings before the NGT were environmental and regulatory in nature and did not adjudicate individual consumer grievances or alleged misrepresentations made to specific purchasers. Questions relating to delay, number of vehicles purchased, existence of defeat devices, and alleged representations were held to be disputed questions of fact incapable of determination in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The judgment consolidates jurisprudence discouraging premature quashing of FIRs and reiterates the doctrine of separation of functions between investigative agencies and constitutional courts.
- [Manohar Lal Jat & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2020] 11 SCR 948](https://lawfoyer.in/manohar-lal-jat-ors-v-state-of-rajasthan-ors-2020-11-scr-948/): The judgment concerns the determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and departmental promotees appointed to the newly created post of Tax Assistant under the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975. The controversy arose from the first-ever recruitment to a newly constituted cadre consisting of 554 posts, filled through two streams: 80% by direct recruitment and 20% by departmental promotion through examination. Separate advertisements were issued at different times, and though the direct recruitment process commenced earlier, departmental promotees were appointed earlier owing to administrative and procedural factors. The seniority list consequently placed departmental promotees above direct recruits, triggering litigation. The appellants argued that Rule 27, particularly its second proviso, mandated seniority based on the chronology of selection rather than appointment. The respondents contended that post the 2002 amendment, seniority was determined strictly from the date of appointment and that both recruitments formed part of a composite first selection. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed interpretative exercise of Rule 27, its provisos, and their legislative intent. It affirmed that the main rule governed seniority and that the proviso applied only when selections were from the same source. Administrative delay in issuing appointment orders to direct recruits did not vitiate the seniority determination. The Court upheld the seniority of departmental promotees, dismissing allegations of mala fides, and clarified the doctrinal limits of provisos in service jurisprudence. The ruling reinforces principles of statutory interpretation, service law equity, and administrative practicality.
- [Noy Vallesina Engineering SpA v. Jindal Drugs Limited & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 1019](https://lawfoyer.in/noy-vallesina-engineering-spa-v-jindal-drugs-limited-ors-2020-12-scr-1019/): The judgment conclusively settles the long-standing controversy relating to the maintainability of petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against foreign arbitral awards. The Supreme Court examined whether Indian courts can exercise supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral awards rendered outside India when the substantive law of the contract is Indian law, but the seat of arbitration is located abroad. The Court reaffirmed the territorial principle of arbitration and emphasized that the seat of arbitration is determinative of curial law and supervisory jurisdiction. It held that once parties have consciously chosen a foreign seat, Indian courts are excluded from entertaining challenges under Part I of the Act. The Court harmonized earlier conflicting precedents by clarifying the scope and applicability of Bhatia International and Venture Global in light of the Constitution Bench ruling in BALCO. The judgment also addressed the scope of appellate remedies under Section 50, holding that no appeal lies except as expressly provided, thereby barring Letters Patent Appeals or other appellate mechanisms in enforcement proceedings concerning foreign awards. This decision strengthens India’s pro-arbitration stance, aligns domestic arbitration jurisprudence with the New York Convention, and reinforces certainty in international commercial arbitration by preventing multiple and parallel challenges across jurisdictions.
- [Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2020] 11 SCR 896](https://lawfoyer.in/arnab-manoranjan-goswami-v-state-of-maharashtra-ors-2020-11-scr-896/): The judgment examines the constitutional limits on State power in criminal prosecution and the corresponding duty of constitutional courts to safeguard personal liberty. The Supreme Court scrutinised the arrest of the appellant under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising out of allegations of non-payment of contractual dues leading to suicide. The Court analysed whether the First Information Report, even if taken at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide. Relying on a consistent line of precedent, the Court reaffirmed that mere financial disputes, business disagreements, or mental stress without active instigation, intentional aid, or proximate conduct cannot attract criminal liability under Section 306 IPC. The decision strongly criticises the failure of the Bombay High Court to conduct a prima facie evaluation of the FIR while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, and consequently declining interim bail under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court emphasised that constitutional courts cannot abdicate their duty by mechanically relegating an accused to statutory remedies when personal liberty is at stake. The ruling reiterates that liberty is not to be sacrificed at the altar of procedural formalism. The judgment also clarifies the scope of further investigation after acceptance of an ‘A Summary’ and balances investigative autonomy with constitutional restraint.
- [Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr., [2020] 2 SCR 246](https://lawfoyer.in/madras-bar-association-v-union-of-india-anr-2020-2-scr-246/): The decision in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. represents a decisive reaffirmation of constitutional principles governing tribunalisation in India. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020, framed under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017. The challenge was rooted in concerns of excessive executive control, dilution of judicial independence, short tenure of tribunal members, exclusion of advocates from eligibility, and retrospective application of subordinate legislation. The Court revisited a long line of precedents beginning from S.P. Sampath Kumar through L. Chandra Kumar and Rojer Mathew, reiterating that tribunals exercising judicial functions must conform to standards equivalent to constitutional courts. Emphasis was placed on judicial dominance in appointments, security of tenure, financial independence, and insulation from executive interference. A major constitutional intervention was the direction to constitute a National Tribunals Commission as an independent supervisory body. The Court also modified several provisions of the 2020 Rules relating to tenure, search-cum-selection committees, disciplinary control, eligibility of advocates and members of the Indian Legal Service, housing allowance, and timelines for appointments. The ruling strengthens the doctrine of separation of powers and reinforces that tribunals, though creatures of statute, cannot be reduced to executive-controlled bodies. It underscores that rule of law and access to justice are compromised when adjudicatory institutions lack independence, stability, and institutional dignity.
- [Indian Commodity Exchange Limited v. Neptune Overseas Limited & Ors., [2020] 13 SCR 129](https://lawfoyer.in/indian-commodity-exchange-limited-v-neptune-overseas-limited-ors-2020-13-scr-129/): The judgment in Indian Commodity Exchange Limited v. Neptune Overseas Limited & Ors. addresses the delicate balance between regulatory authority and procedural fairness under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. The Supreme Court examined whether the proceedings initiated by the Forward Markets Commission suffered from violation of principles of natural justice, particularly in relation to supply of documents and grant of reasonable opportunity to respond. The dispute arose from allegations of serious trading irregularities and abuse of fiduciary position by the promoters of a recognised commodity exchange. The show cause notice issued was extensive, supported by voluminous documentation exceeding 4,000 pages, yet the respondents were provided limited time to reply. The Court scrutinised whether denial of adjournments and partial supply of documents vitiated the proceedings. It clarified that service of notice on a key individual holding dual roles could be deemed service on the corporate entity when facts justify piercing of the corporate veil. However, the Court emphasised that reliance on voluminous records obliges the regulator to furnish copies and adequate time. The judgment reiterates that natural justice is not a ritualistic formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power. The ruling harmonises earlier jurisprudence on substantial compliance, test of prejudice, and reasonable opportunity, while directing a fresh adjudication by SEBI with procedural safeguards. It reinforces that regulatory efficiency cannot override fairness when serious civil and penal consequences ensue.
- [Gajendra Sharma v. Union of India and Another [2020] 13 SCR 835](https://lawfoyer.in/gajendra-sharma-v-union-of-india-and-another-2020-13-scr-835/): The writ petition arose in the backdrop of the unprecedented economic and social disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the nationwide lockdown imposed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The petitioner, a housing loan borrower, challenged the Reserve Bank of India Notification dated 27.03.2020 to the limited extent that it permitted accrual of interest during the moratorium period. The petitioner asserted that charging interest during a period when economic activity was suspended defeated the very purpose of the moratorium and infringed the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition also invoked principles of natural justice and proportionality, arguing that the State could not simultaneously halt livelihoods and allow financial institutions to impose interest burdens. During the pendency of the petition, the Union of India placed on record a series of affidavits detailing policy measures undertaken to mitigate borrower distress. Central to the resolution was the Ministry of Finance Order dated 23.10.2020, approved by the Union Cabinet, introducing an ex-gratia scheme for waiver of the difference between compound interest and simple interest for specified categories of loans up to ₹2 crores, including housing loans. The petitioner acknowledged that his loan fell squarely within the eligibility framework of the scheme and expressed satisfaction with the relief granted. The Supreme Court, while recognising the magnitude of economic hardship caused by the pandemic, refrained from adjudicating the constitutional validity of the RBI notification. Instead, it disposed of the petition in view of subsequent executive policy decisions, directing effective implementation of the relief scheme so that its benefits reach eligible borrowers. The judgment underscores judicial restraint in economic policy matters during emergencies and affirms the State’s proactive role under disaster management jurisprudence.
- [The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. & Anr., [2020] 14 S.C.R. 45](https://lawfoyer.in/the-state-of-jharkhand-ors-v-brahmputra-metallics-ltd-anr-2020-14-s-c-r-45/): The judgment addresses the enforceability of fiscal incentives promised under a State industrial policy and the consequences of administrative delay in issuing statutory notifications. The dispute arose from the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2012, which assured 50 percent exemption from electricity duty for captive power plants for five years and mandated issuance of implementing notifications within one month. Despite the policy assurance, the State issued the exemption notification under Section 9 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 after nearly three years and applied it prospectively. The respondent industrial unit contended that such delay defeated the policy promise and violated the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The High Court struck down the prospective operation of the notification. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evolution of promissory estoppel, its distinction from legitimate expectation, and the standards of fairness binding State action under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that while the State retains discretion in fiscal matters, it cannot act arbitrarily when it has made a clear representation inducing reliance. The unexplained delay and prospective application of the exemption were found to negate the solemn assurance contained in the policy. However, relief was confined strictly to the financial years consistent with the policy’s own stipulation that benefits accrue from the financial year following commencement of production. The judgment reinforces constitutional accountability in economic governance and clarifies the doctrinal boundaries between promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation in Indian administrative law.
- [S. D. Containers Indore v. M/s Mold Tek Packaging Ltd., [2020] 12 SCR 1104](https://lawfoyer.in/s-d-containers-indore-v-m-s-mold-tek-packaging-ltd-2020-12-scr-1104/): The decision in S. D. Containers Indore v. M/s Mold Tek Packaging Ltd. addresses the nuanced jurisdictional conflict arising at the intersection of the Design Act, 2000 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Supreme Court was called upon to clarify the legal mechanism governing the transfer of suits involving design infringement where the defendant raises a plea for cancellation of a registered design under Section 19 of the Design Act, 2000. The core controversy emerged from the improper reliance placed by the High Court on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd., leading to an erroneous conclusion that only the Controller of Designs possessed exclusive jurisdiction over cancellation proceedings. The Court undertook a meticulous statutory interpretation of Sections 19 and 22 of the Design Act, 2000, delineating the two independent remedies available for cancellation of registered designs. It reaffirmed that while Section 19 empowers any interested person to seek cancellation before the Controller, Section 22(4) mandates the transfer of an infringement suit to the High Court when revocation is pleaded as a defence. The judgment further clarified that the transfer is automatic and ministerial in nature once such defence is raised. The ruling decisively resolves the confusion concerning the appropriate High Court to which such suits must be transferred, holding that jurisdiction vests in the High Court within whose territorial limits the cause of action arises. By setting aside the High Court’s order and remitting the matter to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, the Supreme Court reinforced jurisdictional discipline and procedural clarity in intellectual property litigation.
- [Sandeep Kumar and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2020) 13 SCR 848](https://lawfoyer.in/sandeep-kumar-and-others-v-state-of-uttarakhand-and-another-2020-13-scr-848/): The judgment examines the legal sustainability of a conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 concerning an alleged dowry death by poisoning. The appellants, being the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased, were acquitted by the Trial Court, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and imposed life imprisonment. The Supreme Court scrutinised whether the essential statutory ingredients of dowry death were satisfied and whether the High Court was justified in overturning a reasoned acquittal. The Court undertook a meticulous reappreciation of evidence relating to dowry demand, cruelty soon before death, and unnatural death. The prosecution case rested heavily on oral testimonies alleging a demand of Rs. 10 lakhs and a theory of poisoning. However, material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, absence of contemporaneous complaints, lack of medical or forensic proof of poisoning, and credible defence evidence regarding the deceased’s prolonged medical condition were found decisive. The judgment reiterates that Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 creates a presumption only after the prosecution discharges its foundational burden. The Court clarified that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof, and appellate interference with acquittal is permissible only where findings are perverse or manifestly illegal. By restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal, the Court reaffirmed principles governing dowry death prosecutions, evidentiary standards in poisoning cases, and the limited scope of appellate reversal of acquittals.
- [Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 770](https://lawfoyer.in/paramvir-singh-saini-v-baljit-singh-ors-2020-13-s-c-r-770/): The judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors. addresses the persistent failure of States, Union Territories, and central investigative agencies to meaningfully implement prior directions of the Supreme Court concerning installation and functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations and investigative offices. The Court examined compliance with its earlier order dated 03.04.2018 passed in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which mandated videography of crime scenes and establishment of oversight mechanisms. Upon perusal of affidavits filed by several States and Union Territories, the Court found the disclosures grossly inadequate, vague, and evasive, particularly regarding the number, positioning, operational status, audio-video capability, and data retention period of CCTV cameras. The judgment emphasises that CCTV surveillance in police stations is not an administrative luxury but a constitutional necessity flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court laid down detailed directions regarding constitution of State Level and District Level Oversight Committees, allocation of funds, technical specifications of CCTV systems, responsibility of Station House Officers, preservation of footage, and accessibility of recordings for redressal of custodial violence, serious injuries, and deaths. The judgment also extended the mandate to central agencies such as CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI, and SFIO. The Court reinforced accountability, transparency, and human rights protection as the core constitutional values underpinning these directions and treated non-compliance as a serious affront to rule of law.
- [Sandeep Kumar and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another, [2020] 13 S.C.R. 848](https://lawfoyer.in/sandeep-kumar-and-others-v-state-of-uttarakhand-and-another-2020-13-s-c-r-848/): The judgment concerns the scope and limits of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, dealing with dowry death, and the corresponding presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in reversing an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in a case alleging dowry death by poisoning. The deceased, married within seven years of her death, was found dead under circumstances alleged to be unnatural. The prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, assertions of dowry demand, and alleged poisoning. The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous reappreciation of evidence, emphasizing that proof of unnatural death and cruelty or harassment soon before death in connection with dowry demand are foundational requirements under Section 304B IPC. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish poisoning as the cause of death, particularly in light of the Forensic Science Laboratory report negating the presence of poison and medical testimony suggesting alternate natural causes such as tuberculosis. The Court also scrutinized contradictions in testimonies regarding the alleged demand of ₹10 lakhs and found them irreconcilable. Importantly, the Court reiterated the settled principle that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with acquittals unless findings are perverse or manifestly illegal. Holding that the High Court exceeded its appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court restored the acquittal.
- [Nimay Sah v. State of Jharkhand, [2020] 13 S.C.R. 566](https://lawfoyer.in/nimay-sah-v-state-of-jharkhand-2020-13-s-c-r-566/): The judgment in Nimay Sah v. State of Jharkhand examines the evidentiary threshold required to sustain a conviction under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court scrutinised the legality of the conviction of the appellant, who was the elder brother of the deceased’s husband, in a prosecution alleging dowry-related harassment. The case arose from allegations that the deceased woman was subjected to cruelty and harassment for a dowry demand of ₹10,000 shortly after her marriage, culminating in her unnatural death. While the husband and father-in-law were also tried, the present appeal was confined to the role attributed to the appellant-brother-in-law. The Court undertook a meticulous evaluation of oral testimonies and emphasised the distinction between generalised allegations and specific, cogent evidence required to establish cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. It noted that the prosecution witnesses failed to attribute any definite acts of cruelty or persistent dowry demands to the appellant individually. The judgment reiterates that criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of familial proximity or omnibus allegations. It reinforces the principle that conviction under penal statutes demands proof beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the charge concerns matrimonial cruelty implicating extended family members. The decision thus clarifies the scope of Section 498-A IPC and safeguards against its mechanical application, while balancing the legislative intent to curb dowry harassment with the fundamental requirement of fair trial and evidentiary rigour.
- [Chaman Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [2020] 12 SCR 1000](https://lawfoyer.in/chaman-lal-v-state-of-himachal-pradesh-2020-12-scr-1000/): The judgment examines the legal permissibility of reversing an acquittal in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a prosecution concerning rape of a mentally retarded woman. The prosecutrix, whose IQ was assessed at 62, was found medically incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of sexual acts. The trial court had acquitted the accused primarily on grounds of delay in lodging the FIR and an erroneous appreciation of the prosecutrix’s mental capacity. The High Court reversed the acquittal after a complete re-appreciation of evidence, particularly medical and psychiatric testimony, and convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the trial court’s approach was perverse and contrary to settled principles governing sexual offences involving persons of unsound mind. The Court clarified the scope of appellate powers in acquittal appeals, reiterating that where material evidence is ignored and conclusions are illogical, reversal is justified. The judgment significantly interprets clause fifthly of Section 375 IPC, emphasizing that consent obtained from a person incapable of understanding due to mental retardation is legally invalid. The Court underscored the obligation of courts to adopt a victim-centric approach in cases involving vulnerable persons and condemned exploitation of mental disability. The ruling reinforces judicial sensitivity towards sexual offences against persons with intellectual disabilities and strengthens the jurisprudence on appellate scrutiny of acquittals.
- [Inderjit Singh Sodhi and Others v. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board and Another, [2020] 11 SCR 966](https://lawfoyer.in/inderjit-singh-sodhi-and-others-v-the-chairman-punjab-state-electricity-board-and-another-2020-11-scr-966/): The decision in Inderjit Singh Sodhi and Others v. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board and Another addresses the limits of parity claims in service jurisprudence where promotional benefits are structured through distinct statutory channels for promotees and direct recruits. The controversy arose from the claim of time bound promotional scales by Assistant Engineers who had entered the cadre by promotion from Junior Engineer posts under the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965. The appellants sought parity with juniors appointed through direct recruitment and granted higher scales under a later circular. The Supreme Court examined the architecture of the Regulations and two contemporaneous circulars issued in April and May 1990 providing for stagnation relief through time bound scales. The judgment clarifies that promotional benefits must strictly flow from the source and mode of recruitment. It underscores that a legal fiction created for limited categories cannot be expanded to obliterate statutory distinctions. The Court reaffirmed that dismissal of Special Leave Petitions does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 and cannot override a reasoned judgment of the Supreme Court. By relying on Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij, the Court harmonised service equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with regulatory classification based on qualifications and recruitment channels. The ruling reinforces doctrinal clarity on stagnation schemes, parity claims, and the non-extension of benefits contrary to express regulatory intent.
- [Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., [2020] 13 SCR 151](https://lawfoyer.in/skill-lotto-solutions-pvt-ltd-v-union-of-india-ors-2020-13-scr-151/): The writ petition questioned the constitutional validity of levying Goods and Services Tax on lottery transactions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly challenging the inclusion of actionable claims within the statutory definition of goods under Section 2(52). The petitioner, an authorised distributor of State-run lotteries, alleged violation of Article 14 on the ground of hostile discrimination, arguing that only lottery, betting, and gambling were taxed while other actionable claims were excluded under Schedule III. The petition further contested the legislative competence of Parliament to expand the constitutional meaning of goods, contending that actionable claims stood excluded under established legal understanding as reflected in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The Court examined the scope of Article 32 maintainability, the nature of inclusive definitions under constitutional interpretation, and the effect of Article 246A inserted by the 101st Constitutional Amendment. Reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench ruling in Sunrise Associates, clarifying that lotteries are actionable claims and that such classification formed the ratio decidendi of that judgment. The Court also analysed the valuation mechanism under Section 15 read with Rule 31A of the CGST Rules, rejecting the plea to exclude prize money from the taxable value. The judgment upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions, reaffirmed Parliament’s plenary taxing power under the GST regime, and reiterated judicial restraint in fiscal matters. The writ petition was dismissed in entirety.
- [Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab and Another, [2020] 13 SCR 812](https://lawfoyer.in/sumedh-singh-saini-v-state-of-punjab-and-another-2020-13-scr-812/): The judgment in Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab and Another examines the scope and discretionary contours of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the context of a prosecution revived after an extraordinary lapse of time. The case arises from allegations relating to the illegal abduction, custodial torture, and alleged murder of Balwant Singh Multani in the year 1991. Nearly twenty-nine years later, an FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased, invoking serious penal provisions including Sections 364, 201, 344, 219, 120-B, and subsequently Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, a former Director General of Police, Punjab, sought anticipatory bail contending that the FIR was a second FIR on identical facts, that the delay was unexplained and fatal, and that the addition of Section 302 IPC was founded solely on statements of approvers recorded decades later. The State and the informant opposed the plea, asserting the gravity of allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court, while consciously refraining from adjudicating the legality or maintainability of the FIR, focused on the limited question of entitlement to anticipatory bail. The Court emphasised the significance of prolonged delay, prior quashing proceedings in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, the appellant’s status as a retired senior police officer, and the procedural history relating to the belated addition of the murder charge. Ultimately, the Court held that the cumulative circumstances justified the grant of anticipatory bail, clarifying that such protection would not prejudice pending proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR. The decision reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail serves as a shield against arbitrary arrest, even in serious offences, when the factual matrix discloses exceptional features warranting judicial protection.
- [Jayant Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2020] 11 SCR 665](https://lawfoyer.in/jayant-etc-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-2020-11-scr-665/): The decision in Jayant Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh addresses the interface between the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the context of illegal mining, storage, and transportation of minor minerals. The Supreme Court examined whether a Judicial Magistrate can exercise powers under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct registration of an FIR for offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules framed thereunder, notwithstanding the statutory bar under Section 22 of the Act. The Court clarified the doctrinal distinction between the stage of investigation and the stage of cognizance, holding that the bar under Section 22 is attracted only when the Magistrate takes cognizance and issues process, and not at the pre-cognizance stage of directing investigation. The judgment further analysed the effect of compounding of offences under Section 23A MMDR Act, concluding that once an offence under the Act or the Rules is compounded, no further proceedings can continue in respect of such offences, though prosecution under the Indian Penal Code for distinct offences such as theft remains unaffected. The ruling harmonises environmental protection objectives with procedural criminal law, reinforces the autonomy of police investigation in cognizable offences, and reiterates the doctrine that offences under special statutes and the IPC can coexist when their ingredients are distinct.
- [Pankjeshwar Sharma and Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, [2020] 13 S.C.R. 198](https://lawfoyer.in/pankjeshwar-sharma-and-others-v-state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-2020-13-s-c-r-198/): The judgment in Pankjeshwar Sharma and Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others examines the constitutional validity of appointments made to public service posts in deviation from the merit list prepared under statutory recruitment rules. The Supreme Court was confronted with a complex service law dispute arising from a prolonged recruitment process initiated in 1999 for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Executive) in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. The litigation spanned over two decades and involved three distinct rounds of judicial scrutiny. The core controversy centered on whether appointments granted to twenty-two candidates—who were admittedly lower in merit than the appellants—could be sustained when such appointments were made pursuant to a concession recorded by the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings, and not strictly in accordance with the redrawn State-wise merit list. The appellants invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, contending that denial of appointment to more meritorious candidates amounted to arbitrariness and hostile discrimination. The Court undertook an elaborate analysis of the doctrine of negative equality, reiterating that illegality or irregularity committed in favour of one candidate cannot be relied upon by others to claim similar relief. While holding that the appointments of the twenty-two candidates were irregular and not in conformity with recruitment rules, the Court declined to disturb them on equitable considerations, including long years of service, bonafide state action, and the need to bring quietus to prolonged litigation. The judgment draws a critical distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and reinforces settled principles governing public employment, merit-based selection, and constitutional equality.
- [Telangana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 987](https://lawfoyer.in/telangana-power-generation-corporation-ltd-v-andhra-pradesh-power-generation-corporation-ltd-2020-13-s-c-r-987/): The judgment addresses a long-standing and complex service law dispute arising from the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The core controversy pertained to the allocation and distribution of employees of power sector undertakings between the newly formed State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. Following the appointed day, 02.06.2014, the respective power utilities failed to reach consensus on modalities for employee distribution as mandated under Section 82 of the Act. In the absence of agreement, the Telangana power utilities unilaterally relieved 1157 employees based predominantly on the principle of nativity, directing them to join Andhra Pradesh utilities. This action triggered multiple writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, which decisively rejected nativity as a valid criterion and quashed the unilateral action. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling and, with the consent of parties, constituted a One-Man Committee headed by Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari (Retd.) to effectuate final allocation. The Committee’s process culminated in a Final Report, Supplementary Report, and a Concluding Report, collectively allocating 655 employees from Telangana to Andhra Pradesh and an equal reciprocal number in the reverse direction, subject to special categories such as spouse, medical, SC/ST, and retirement cases. A series of miscellaneous applications challenged the Committee’s mandate, methodology, reciprocity principle, and finality of allocation. The Supreme Court rejected all objections, reaffirmed the binding nature of the Committee’s conclusions, and clarified that no employee, utility, or association could challenge the finalized allocation before any forum. The judgment reinforces statutory intent, administrative equity, and finality in post-reorganisation service matters.
- [QUIZ COMPETIITON ON UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT | Organized by CANONSPHERE LAW REVIEW | Register by January 7, 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/quiz-competiiton-on-unlawful-activities-prevention-act-organized-by-canonsphere-law-review-register-by-january-7-2026/): QUIZ COMPETIITON ON UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT | Organized by CANONSPHERE LAW REVIEW | Register by January 7, 2026
- [Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Others, [2020] 14 S.C.R. 198](https://lawfoyer.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-and-others-2020-14-s-c-r-198/): The judgment in Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Others addresses the constitutional and statutory boundaries of hate speech, freedom of speech and expression, and criminal process in the context of televised media debates. The case arose from allegedly offensive remarks made by the petitioner during a live news debate concerning The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, wherein references were made to Pir Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, a revered Sufi saint. Multiple FIRs were registered across several States invoking Sections 153A, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner sought quashing of FIRs, protection from arrest, and consolidation of proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court undertook an extensive doctrinal and comparative analysis of hate speech jurisprudence, identifying three determinative elements—content, intent, and harm. The Court clarified that Section 295A IPC criminalises only aggravated and malicious insults to religion and does not penalise mere offensive or careless speech. It emphasised that the evaluation of hate speech requires contextual and factual inquiry, rendering premature quashing inappropriate at the FIR stage. The Court rejected the plea for quashing but granted interim protection from arrest, subject to cooperation with investigation. Applying the doctrine against multiplicity of FIRs, all subsequent FIRs were directed to be transferred and clubbed with the first FIR at Ajmer. The judgment reinforces constitutional balance between free speech and public order while preserving investigative autonomy.
- [The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy & Ors., [2020] 14 SCR 86](https://lawfoyer.in/the-project-director-project-implementation-unit-v-p-v-krishnamoorthy-ors-2020-14-scr-86/): The Supreme Court in The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy & Ors. authoritatively examined the scope of legislative and executive competence of the Union of India under Articles 246, 248 and Entry 23 of List I of the Seventh Schedule concerning declaration and construction of national highways over green-field lands. The controversy arose from challenges to notifications issued under Sections 2(2) and 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquisition of lands for the Chennai–Krishnagiri–Salem National Corridor under Bharatmala Pariyojana – Phase I. The Madras High Court had partially invalidated the acquisition on grounds of lack of legislative competence, arbitrariness in route realignment, and absence of prior environmental clearance. The Supreme Court reversed these findings and held that the 1956 Act empowers the Central Government to declare any land, including non-existing roads and green-field lands, as national highways. The Court applied the doctrine of pith and substance to affirm Parliament’s exclusive domain over national highways and clarified that Entry 13 of List II does not dilute Entry 23 of List I. The Court further held that prior environmental or forest clearance is not a precondition for issuing notifications under Sections 2(2) or 3A, and such clearance is required only before commencement of actual construction. The judgment also clarified judicial restraint in policy decisions, especially infrastructure planning, and laid down a crucial interpretative mechanism under Article 142 to exclude time spent in environmental clearance from the statutory lapse period under Section 3D(3). The decision reinforces federal balance, sustainable development jurisprudence, and limits of judicial review in land acquisition for national infrastructure projects.
- [Daulat Singh (D) Thr. LRs v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2020] 11 SCR 845](https://lawfoyer.in/daulat-singh-d-thr-lrs-v-state-of-rajasthan-ors-2020-11-scr-845/): The judgment examines the legality of reopening concluded ceiling proceedings and the validity of a registered gift deed executed prior to statutory cut-off dates under Rajasthan land ceiling laws. The dispute arose when land gifted by an agriculturist father to his son in 1963 was later subjected to reopening under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. The State authorities alleged that the transfer was invalid due to absence of acceptance and that the land exceeded the permissible ceiling limit. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 15 of the Ceiling Act, 1973, determining the limitation framework governing reopening of settled cases. It clarified that the crucial dates are the date of the earlier final order and the issuance of the show-cause notice, and not the final reopening order. The Court also exhaustively examined Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, reiterating that acceptance of a gift need not be express and may be inferred from conduct, possession, and surrounding circumstances. By relying upon documentary evidence, mutation records, and statements of both donor and donee, the Court held that acceptance was clearly established. Further, the Court harmonized Sections 30C, 30D, and 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, emphasizing the overriding nature of Section 30DD, which protects bona fide agricultural transfers made before 31 December 1969. The judgment reinforces statutory intent to protect genuine family transfers among agriculturists and curtails arbitrary resumption of land by the State.
- [Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., [2020] 12 SCR 1118](https://lawfoyer.in/anita-sharma-ors-v-the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-anr-2020-12-scr-1118/): The decision in Anita Sharma v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. constitutes a significant reaffirmation of the settled principles governing adjudication of motor accident compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine whether the High Court was justified in reversing a reasoned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by discarding the testimony of a sole independent eyewitness and by importing standards of proof akin to criminal trials. The judgment analyses the evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony rendered by a disinterested bystander acting as a Good Samaritan, the legal consequences of failure to cross-examine a crucial witness, and the improper shifting of burden of proof upon claimants. The Court reiterates that MACT proceedings are summary in nature and governed by preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It also clarifies the limited evidentiary worth of an FIR lodged on hearsay and at a belated stage. Importantly, the Court emphasises that the non-examination of an interested respondent who pleads an alternative version of events may give rise to an adverse inference. The ruling further aligns compensation jurisprudence with the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi by granting future prospects to the deceased’s income. The judgment thus restores claimant-centric justice and reinforces the benevolent object of accident compensation law.
- [The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr., [2020] 11 SCR 821](https://lawfoyer.in/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-anr-v-u-p-state-bridge-corporation-ltd-anr-2020-11-scr-821/): The judgment adjudicates upon the legality of rejection of technical bids in a public procurement process and delineates the boundaries of judicial review in tender matters. The dispute arose from a Notice Inviting Tender dated 02.12.2019 issued by the Public Works Department, State of Madhya Pradesh for construction of an elevated corridor in Indore. The bid of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. was rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts relating to a prior FIR and charge-sheet concerning collapse of a bridge constructed by it. The High Court interfered and directed issuance of a Letter of Intent in its favour, holding that no “investigation” was pending on the date of bid submission. The Supreme Court reversed this view by interpreting paragraphs 11 and 13 of Appendix-I-A conjointly with Clause 7(b) of Annex-I and the definition of fraudulent practice under Clause 4.3(b). The Court held that filing of a charge-sheet amounts to being “indicted” and non-disclosure thereof constitutes suppression of a material fact. The Court further upheld rejection of Rachana Construction Co. on the ground of failure to satisfy Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) relating to experience of one similar work. The ruling reiterates judicial restraint in contractual matters, emphasizes transparency in public tenders, and affirms that public interest cannot override mandatory disclosure requirements. Keywords:
- [Titty Alias George Kurian v. The Deputy Range Forest Officer, [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1230](https://lawfoyer.in/titty-alias-george-kurian-v-the-deputy-range-forest-officer-2020-13-s-c-r-1230/): The judgment examines the legal consequences of possession and seizure of a turtle allegedly protected under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The controversy arose when forest officials seized a turtle from the respondent and registered offences under Sections 2, 9, 39A, 49A and 51 of the Act. The decisive issue before the Supreme Court was whether the seized turtle belonged to a species notified under Part II of Schedule I, thereby attracting penal consequences. The Veterinary Surgeon’s certificate identified the turtle as Indian Flap Shell Turtle (Lissemys punctata), whereas Schedule I, Part II includes only Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata). The Court analysed the statutory scheme, scientific classification, and evidentiary value of the identification report. It reaffirmed the limited but significant jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent abuse of process where basic statutory ingredients of an offence are absent. The Supreme Court concluded that continuation of prosecution would be legally unsustainable as the seized turtle was not a notified species. The judgment reinforces strict construction of penal statutes and underlines that wildlife offences must rest on precise statutory inclusion rather than assumptions or broad biological similarities.
- [Saritha S. Nair v. Hibi Eden, [2020] 13 SCR 635](https://lawfoyer.in/saritha-s-nair-v-hibi-eden-2020-13-scr-635/): The decision in Saritha S. Nair v. Hibi Eden examines two interconnected legal questions arising under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The first issue concerns whether defects relating to verification, annexures, and prayer clauses in an election petition are incurable so as to mandate dismissal under Section 86(1) of the 1951 Act. The second issue concerns the scope and operation of disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act when the execution of sentence is stayed but the conviction itself remains unsuspended. The petitioner, a convicted individual sentenced to imprisonment exceeding two years in two criminal cases, challenged the rejection of her nomination papers and the dismissal of her election petition by the High Court of Kerala. The High Court treated procedural defects in the election petition as incurable and also held that the petitioner continued to suffer statutory disqualification. The Supreme Court undertook an extensive examination of precedent governing election petition procedure and reaffirmed the settled principle that defects in verification and prayer clauses fall within the category of curable defects. The Court found fault with the High Court’s approach in refusing an opportunity to rectify such defects. However, on the substantive question of electoral disqualification, the Court reiterated that suspension of sentence does not dilute the effect of conviction for the purposes of Section 8(3). Only a judicial stay of conviction under Section 389(1) CrPC can remove the statutory bar. The judgment harmonises procedural fairness in election litigation with the strict legislative mandate against criminalisation of politics.
- [Madhavi v. Chagan & Ors., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1208](https://lawfoyer.in/madhavi-v-chagan-ors-2020-13-s-c-r-1208/): The judgment in Madhavi v. Chagan & Ors. addresses a recurring dispute in service jurisprudence under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules, 1981, concerning inter se seniority and eligibility for promotion in secondary schools. The controversy arose from competing claims to the post of Head Master, where the respondent asserted seniority based on an earlier date of appointment, while the appellant relied on possession of requisite academic and training qualifications at the time of initial entry into service. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework governing qualifications, categorisation, and seniority of teachers, particularly the distinction between primary and secondary schools under Schedule ‘F’. The Court clarified that seniority in secondary schools is determined not merely by the date of initial appointment but by placement within the prescribed hierarchical categories based on qualifications. Teachers who enter service without the minimum graduate and training qualifications cannot retrospectively claim seniority in a higher category upon later acquisition of such qualifications. Relying on Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the respondent, who was initially an untrained undergraduate teacher, could not claim parity with teachers who were trained graduates from inception. The judgment decisively rejected the High Court’s reliance on Viman Vaman Awale, holding it applicable only to primary schools. The ruling reinforces the principle that statutory categorisation under Schedule ‘F’ constitutes a ladder of seniority, ensuring that professional qualifications remain central to promotion in secondary education institutions.
- [Kush Kalra v. Union of India and Others, [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1133](https://lawfoyer.in/kush-kalra-v-union-of-india-and-others-2020-12-s-c-r-1133/): The decision in Kush Kalra v. Union of India and Others examines the legality and constitutional validity of the practice adopted by several States and Union Territories during the COVID-19 pandemic of affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons undergoing home isolation. The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, raised serious concerns relating to right to privacy, human dignity, and non-discrimination, particularly in the context of public health emergencies. The petitioner challenged the administrative actions of State authorities as being arbitrary, stigmatizing, and unsupported by any statutory mandate under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Supreme Court confined its adjudication to the narrow but crucial issue of whether such a practice was authorised by the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Court relied heavily on the Revised Guidelines for Home Isolation dated 02.07.2020 and the subsequent D.O. Letter dated 19.11.2020, which clarified that no instruction existed for pasting posters outside residences of infected persons. Without entering into a detailed adjudication on privacy jurisprudence, the Court restrained States from continuing the practice unless expressly authorised by a competent authority under the 2005 Act. The judgment reinforces administrative discipline during emergencies and underscores that even during disasters, executive action must remain anchored to statutory authority and constitutional values.
- [The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors. v. Shaji Poulose & Ors., [2020] 9 S.C.R. 851](https://lawfoyer.in/the-institute-of-chartered-accountants-of-india-ors-v-shaji-poulose-ors-2020-9-s-c-r-851/): The judgment addresses the exercise of the Supreme Court’s transfer jurisdiction under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution of India in the context of multiple writ petitions pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of Chapter VI of the Guidelines dated 08.08.2008 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The impugned guidelines impose a numerical ceiling on the number of tax audit assignments a Chartered Accountant may undertake in a financial year under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The writ petitioners before various High Courts contended that the said restriction infringes their fundamental right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g) and results in arbitrary disciplinary action under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The petitioner Institute sought transfer of all such writ petitions to the Supreme Court to avoid conflicting decisions, multiplicity of proceedings, and legal uncertainty affecting a regulated profession of national importance. The respondents opposed the transfer, invoking the sanctity of Article 226 jurisdiction and arguing that Article 139A is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly. The Supreme Court, while not adjudicating upon the constitutional validity of the guidelines themselves, held that the controversy raises questions of general public importance, impacting not only Chartered Accountants but also citizens subject to compulsory tax audits. Emphasising the need for authoritative settlement of law and uniformity, the Court allowed the transfer petitions while protecting existing interim orders. The ruling clarifies the scope of transfer jurisdiction and balances institutional regulation with constitutional safeguards.
- [Rohtas & Anr. v. State of Haryana, [2020] 11 S.C.R. 983](https://lawfoyer.in/rohtas-anr-v-state-of-haryana-2020-11-s-c-r-983/): The judgment in Rohtas & Anr. v. State of Haryana authoritatively examines the legal permissibility of altering charges during the course of criminal proceedings, particularly when a prosecution initially framed under Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 fails due to acquittal of some accused, resulting in the number falling below the statutory minimum of five persons constituting an unlawful assembly. The Supreme Court analyses the scope and object of Sections 211–224, 386 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and clarifies that criminal courts are vested with wide discretion to modify or alter charges at any stage, including at the appellate level, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused and no failure of justice ensues. The Court further draws a doctrinal distinction between Section 149 IPC and Section 34 IPC, emphasizing that while both impose vicarious liability, the former is based on mere membership of an unlawful assembly, whereas the latter requires proof of common intention and active participation. On facts, the Court finds that despite the collapse of the unlawful assembly charge, the evidence unmistakably established individual culpability of the appellants for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC. The judgment also addresses evidentiary principles relating to reliance on related witnesses and non-examination of independent witnesses in crimes occurring in private spaces. Finally, the Court adopts a victim-centric approach to sentencing, refusing leniency in light of the gravity of injuries and permanent disability caused to the complainant. The decision reinforces substance over form in criminal justice and curtails hyper-technical objections that obstruct accountability.
- [APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University & Anr. v. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology & Ors., [2020] 13 SCR 732](https://lawfoyer.in/apj-abdul-kalam-technological-university-anr-v-jai-bharath-college-of-management-and-engineering-technology-ors-2020-13-scr-732/): The decision of the Supreme Court in APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology & Ors. authoritatively clarifies the scope of statutory powers of a State Technical University to prescribe norms and standards for affiliation of additional courses, even in the interregnum period prior to the framing of University Statutes. The judgment addresses an important institutional conflict between university autonomy and regulatory oversight by the All India Council for Technical Education. The Court decisively rejects the view that, in the absence of formally notified Statutes, the Syndicate of the University becomes functus officio in matters of affiliation. It holds that the power of the Syndicate to prescribe norms flows directly from the parent Act and is not contingent upon the existence of Statutes. The Court further delineates the correct interpretation of Section 14(6) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, holding that the Vice-Chancellor’s interim regulatory power cannot eclipse the statutory authority of the Syndicate. On the second limb, the judgment reaffirms settled constitutional doctrine that while universities cannot dilute minimum standards prescribed by AICTE, they are legally entitled to impose enhanced norms in furtherance of academic excellence. The Court critically examines post-2012 AICTE regulatory practice based on online self-disclosure and underscores the continuing responsibility of universities towards students and institutional reputation. The ruling restores institutional balance, strengthens university autonomy, and harmonises regulatory federalism in technical education.
- [Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation, [2020] 11 SCR 1001](https://lawfoyer.in/vidya-drolia-and-others-v-durga-trading-corporation-2020-11-scr-1001/): The judgment in Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation constitutes a seminal exposition on arbitrability, judicial intervention at the reference stage, and the doctrines of separability and competence–competence under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive reconsideration of conflicting precedents to settle the scope of judicial scrutiny under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act. The Court authoritatively held that the jurisdiction of courts at the pre-arbitral stage is identical, limited, and prima facie in nature, and interference is permissible only where the arbitration agreement is manifestly non-existent, invalid, or the dispute is ex facie non-arbitrable. A four-fold test was crystallized to determine non-arbitrability, focusing on actions in rem, third-party rights, sovereign functions, and statutory prohibitions. Applying this framework, the Court clarified that landlord–tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable, while disputes under rent control statutes are not. The decision overruled prior inconsistent rulings and reinforced India’s pro-arbitration stance by emphasizing minimal judicial interference and prioritizing arbitral tribunals as the first forum to decide jurisdictional objections. The judgment harmonizes Indian arbitration law with international standards and ensures predictability, efficiency, and party autonomy.
- [Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homoeo Pharmacy v. The Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH & Ors., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1074](https://lawfoyer.in/dr-akb-sadbhavana-mission-school-of-homoeo-pharmacy-v-the-secretary-ministry-of-ayush-ors-2020-13-s-c-r-1074/): The Supreme Court in Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homoeo Pharmacy v. The Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH & Ors. examined the permissible scope of practice of Homeopathic practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic and the extent to which courts may issue regulatory directions beyond the pleadings. The appeal arose from a Kerala High Court judgment that, while disposing of a writ seeking implementation of the Ministry of AYUSH advisory dated 06.03.2020, issued wide directions cautioning AYUSH practitioners against advertising or prescribing medicines claiming a cure for COVID-19 and authorised monitoring and action under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The appellant, though not a party before the High Court, challenged these directions as excessive, prejudicial, and unsupported by the advisory framework. The Supreme Court analysed the AYUSH advisory and subsequent Homeopathy guidelines and clarified that Homeopathy was envisaged as a preventive, prophylactic, symptomatic, and add-on therapeutic aid, subject to strict limitations against claiming a cure. The Court also reaffirmed that statutory ethical regulations already prohibit advertisement by Homeopathic practitioners, rendering additional judicial directions unnecessary. The judgment balances public health imperatives, statutory regulation of medical ethics, and judicial restraint, while correcting an over-expansive approach adopted by the High Court.
- [Smt. S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 1057](https://lawfoyer.in/smt-s-vanitha-v-the-deputy-commissioner-bengaluru-urban-district-ors-2020-12-scr-1057/): The judgment in Smt. S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. examines the legal tension between the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly when eviction proceedings against a daughter-in-law intersect with her claim of residence in a shared household. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether senior citizens could secure eviction of their daughter-in-law through summary proceedings under the 2007 Act in a manner that effectively extinguished her statutory right of residence under the 2005 Act. The dispute arose from intra-family property transfers, matrimonial discord, and competing claims of vulnerability between aged parents and a deserted woman with a minor child. The Court undertook an in-depth statutory interpretation exercise, emphasizing harmonious construction between two special welfare legislations, each containing overriding provisions. It clarified the scope of the expression “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the 2005 Act and reinforced that a woman’s right of residence is not contingent upon ownership or title. The judgment cautions against mechanical eviction orders by Tribunals under the 2007 Act without considering competing remedies available to women under the 2005 Act. The ruling reaffirms gender-sensitive constitutional values under Articles 14, 15, and 21 and underscores that statutory protections for senior citizens cannot be misused to defeat safeguards against domestic violence. The Court ultimately held that eviction orders under the 2007 Act must be moulded to avoid negating the right to residence guaranteed under the 2005 Act.
- [Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India & Ors., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1044](https://lawfoyer.in/samir-agrawal-v-competition-commission-of-india-ors-2020-13-s-c-r-1044/): The judgment in Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. marks a significant doctrinal development in Indian competition jurisprudence concerning the locus standi of informants under the Competition Act, 2002. The Supreme Court decisively rejected the restrictive interpretation adopted by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which confined access to the Competition Commission of India only to persons who had suffered direct legal injury. The Court clarified that proceedings under the Act are in rem and driven by public interest, thereby permitting any person to furnish information regarding alleged anti-competitive conduct irrespective of personal harm. The Court undertook a purposive interpretation of Sections 19, 26, 35, 53B and 53T of the Act, read with the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, to hold that the legislative intent post the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 was to replace adversarial complaint-based mechanisms with an inquisitorial information-based regime. The judgment also examined allegations of cartelisation and price fixing in the context of algorithmic pricing employed by digital cab aggregators Ola and Uber. Affirming concurrent findings of the CCI and NCLAT, the Court held that algorithmic fare determination did not amount to a hub-and-spoke cartel nor satisfied the statutory requirement of an agreement or meeting of minds under Section 3. The ruling strengthens access to competition enforcement mechanisms while simultaneously safeguarding enterprises through statutory deterrents against frivolous or mala fide information.
- [Sanjai Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [2020] 9 S.C.R. 966](https://lawfoyer.in/sanjai-tiwari-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-2020-9-s-c-r-966/): The judgment in Sanjai Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. decisively examines the contours of locus standi in criminal proceedings, particularly in the context of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court scrutinised whether a third party, styling himself as a social activist and advocate, could invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to seek expeditious disposal of a pending criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While reaffirming the settled principle that trials relating to corruption offences must be concluded expeditiously owing to their deleterious impact on public administration and societal confidence, the Court simultaneously underscored that such procedural directions cannot be sought by strangers to the prosecution under the guise of public interest. The ruling harmonises two competing considerations. One relates to the constitutional and statutory obligation of courts to ensure speedy trials, especially in corruption cases. The other concerns the sanctity of criminal process, which restricts participation to the State, the accused, and legitimately aggrieved parties. By setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court clarified that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be converted into a forum for unsolicited third-party interventions. The judgment draws authoritative support from Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, reinforcing that criminal law cannot be piloted by self-appointed public watchdogs. At the same time, the Court carefully preserved the trial court’s discretion to independently expedite proceedings, thereby maintaining institutional balance between efficiency and procedural propriety.
- [Seelan @ Jeyaseelan v. The Inspector of Police, [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1235](https://lawfoyer.in/seelan-jeyaseelan-v-the-inspector-of-police-2020-13-s-c-r-1235/): The judgment in Seelan @ Jeyaseelan v. The Inspector of Police concerns the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition challenging conviction and sentence for the offence of rape of a minor child. The Supreme Court was required to examine whether the petitioner’s plea that the charge was framed only under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and not under Section 376(2) could sustain interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The case involved the rape of a six-year-old girl, supported by consistent ocular and testimonial evidence, including that of the victim and her mother, who was an eye witness. The petitioner attempted to raise technical objections regarding the nature of the charge and physical incapacity on account of having only one hand. The Court rejected these submissions, holding that the charge framed under Section 376 IPC necessarily included Section 376(2) and that both courts below had adequately dealt with the plea of physical impossibility. The Supreme Court emphasized the settled principle that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, particularly in cases involving grave sexual offences against children, unless there was manifest perversity or miscarriage of justice. The dismissal of the petition reaffirmed the evidentiary value of a child victim’s testimony, the limited scope of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and the approach of courts in sexual offences involving minors.
- [Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd., [2020] 13 SCR 783](https://lawfoyer.in/action-ispat-and-power-pvt-ltd-v-shyam-metalics-and-energy-ltd-2020-13-scr-783/): The judgment in Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd. examines the scope and application of the fifth proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 in the context of transfer of winding-up proceedings from the High Court to the National Company Law Tribunal. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a winding-up petition, which had already been admitted and in which a Company Liquidator had taken possession of assets, could still be transferred to the NCLT for resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court undertook a detailed statutory analysis of Chapter XX of the Companies Act, 2013, juxtaposed with the objectives and overriding nature of the IBC under Section 238. It reaffirmed that the legislative intent behind the IBC prioritises revival and resolution over liquidation, and that winding-up is a measure of last resort. The Court clarified that the power to transfer winding-up proceedings is discretionary and not constrained by the stage of the proceedings, provided that no irreversible steps such as sale of assets have occurred. Applying this principle, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Company Judge and the Division Bench that mere possession of assets by the Official Liquidator does not amount to irreversibility. The judgment harmonises corporate insolvency jurisprudence by preventing parallel proceedings and reinforces the supremacy of the IBC framework in achieving value maximisation and equitable treatment of stakeholders.
- [M/s. SS Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Aaditiya J. Garg & Anr., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 779](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-ss-group-pvt-ltd-v-aaditiya-j-garg-anr-2020-13-s-c-r-779/): The judgment in M/s. SS Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Aaditiya J. Garg & Anr. addresses the interplay between statutory limitation under consumer law and extraordinary constitutional powers exercised by the Supreme Court during the Covid-19 pandemic. The dispute arose from consumer complaints filed by flat purchasers alleging deficiency in service due to delayed possession and seeking refund. The builder failed to file its written statement within the mandatory 45-day period prescribed under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission refused to take the written statement on record, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., which categorically held that consumer fora lack power to extend this limitation. The Supreme Court examined whether the suo motu extension of limitation ordered in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation applied even to proceedings governed by special statutes prescribing non-condonable timelines. The Court held that the pandemic-related order, issued under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution, had universal application across all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Since the limitation period expired during the subsistence of the extension order, the delay of four days in filing the written statement was held to be legally condonable. The ruling harmonises strict procedural mandates with constitutional equity during extraordinary circumstances, reaffirming the binding nature of Supreme Court directions during national crises.
- [Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. [2020] 14 SCR 294](https://lawfoyer.in/dr-naresh-kumar-mangla-v-smt-anita-agarwal-ors-2020-14-scr-294/): The judgment in Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. constitutes a significant reaffirmation of the principles governing anticipatory bail, cancellation of bail, and judicial oversight over defective criminal investigations, particularly in cases involving dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine the legality of an order passed by the Allahabad High Court granting anticipatory bail to the parents-in-law and relatives of a deceased woman who died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The deceased’s father alleged sustained dowry harassment, physical assault, financial extortion, and ultimately murder camouflaged as suicide. The Court found that the High Court’s approach suffered from grave perversity, as it disregarded specific allegations in the FIR, ignored documentary evidence of money transactions, and prematurely assessed disputed facts such as the authenticity of a suicide note and absence of external injuries. The judgment draws a clear distinction between cancellation of bail due to supervening circumstances and setting aside a perverse bail order passed in ignorance of material evidence. Further, the Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to transfer further investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, citing serious lapses, selective investigation, and erosion of public confidence due to the influential status of the accused. The decision strengthens victim-centric criminal jurisprudence and underscores that anticipatory bail cannot become a shield against fair and effective investigation in heinous offences like dowry death.
- [Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala and Another [2020] 13 SCR 621](https://lawfoyer.in/rahna-jalal-v-state-of-kerala-and-another-2020-13-scr-621/): The decision in Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala and Another addresses the interpretative contours of Section 7(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 vis-à-vis the power of courts to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appeal arose from the denial of anticipatory bail to a mother-in-law accused in a criminal case involving allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the 2019 Act, following the alleged pronouncement of talaq-e-biddat by her son. The Supreme Court undertook a purposive and harmonious interpretation of the statutory framework governing bail, personal liberty, and gender-specific penal provisions. The Court clarified that the offence created under Sections 3 and 4 of the 2019 Act is exclusively attributable to a Muslim husband and cannot be extended to female relatives by implication. It further held that Section 7(c) does not impose an absolute bar on anticipatory bail, but prescribes procedural safeguards, including a mandatory hearing of the aggrieved Muslim woman and judicial satisfaction of reasonable grounds. Drawing upon constitutional principles of personal liberty under Article 21, and precedents interpreting non-obstante clauses, the Court reinforced that statutory exclusions of anticipatory bail must be express and strictly construed. The judgment serves as a critical exposition on balancing statutory intent, gender justice, and fundamental rights within criminal procedure.
- [Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd. [2020] 14 SCR 510](https://lawfoyer.in/anglo-american-metallurgical-coal-pty-ltd-v-mmtc-ltd-2020-14-scr-510/): The judgment concerns an international commercial arbitration arising out of a long-term coal supply agreement between an Australian mining company and an Indian public sector enterprise. The dispute stemmed from the respondent’s failure to lift the contracted quantity of coking coal during the Fifth Delivery Period, coinciding with the global financial crisis of 2008–09. The arbitral tribunal, by majority, held the respondent guilty of breach and awarded substantial damages representing the difference between the contract price and the market price. The dissenting arbitrator took the opposite view, holding that the claimant had failed to establish availability of coal and proof of damages. The Supreme Court examined the scope of judicial interference with international arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as it stood prior to the 2015 amendment. The Court decisively reaffirmed that courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute their interpretation for that of the arbitral tribunal if the award represents a possible view. A significant part of the judgment analyses the application of Sections 92, 94, and 95 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to contractual correspondence, especially in distinguishing patent ambiguity from latent ambiguity. The Court held that the Delhi High Court Division Bench erred in cherry-picking isolated emails while ignoring the entire chain of correspondence and oral evidence. The Majority Award was restored, reinforcing party autonomy, evidentiary finality in arbitration, and minimal judicial intervention in international commercial awards.
- [,Registrar, Karnataka University & Anr. v. Dr. Prabhugouda & Anr. [2020] 9 S.C.R. 859](https://lawfoyer.in/registrar-karnataka-university-anr-v-dr-prabhugouda-anr-2020-9-s-c-r-859/): The judgment in Registrar, Karnataka University & Anr. v. Dr. Prabhugouda & Anr. authoritatively settles the controversy relating to the effective date of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for university teachers whose prior service was rendered in affiliated colleges. The dispute arose from the claim of an Associate Professor, who, after joining a constituent department of Karnataka University, sought CAS promotion to the post of Professor from a date anterior to his entry into university service by relying upon his earlier teaching experience in an affiliated college. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine the interpretation of the term “College” under the relevant Statute framed under Section 40(1)(k) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, and to determine whether service in an affiliated college could justify a retrospective effective date of CAS promotion within the University. The Court undertook a purposive and harmonious interpretation of the Statute, particularly the Preamble and Clauses 12.6 and 12.7, and decisively rejected the expansive interpretation adopted by the High Court. It held that while past service in affiliated colleges may be counted for eligibility, the effective date of promotion cannot precede the date of entry into the service of the University or its constituent colleges. The judgment reinforces settled principles of service jurisprudence that promotion is intrinsically linked to the employer-employee relationship and cannot be granted for periods when such relationship did not subsist. The ruling restores institutional discipline in CAS promotions and clarifies the legal distinction between constituent colleges and affiliated colleges for promotional benefits.
- [Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia v. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu @ Dhiraj Sahu & Anr., [2020] 14 S.C.R. 480](https://lawfoyer.in/pradeep-kumar-sonthalia-v-dhiraj-prasad-sahu-dhiraj-sahu-anr-2020-14-s-c-r-480/): The judgment adjudicates a narrow yet constitutionally significant question concerning the temporal operation of disqualification under Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The dispute arose out of the biennial election to the Council of States from Jharkhand, where the margin of victory was extremely slender. The controversy centered on whether a vote cast by a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly in the forenoon of the election day could be invalidated on account of his criminal conviction and sentence pronounced later on the very same day. The appellant argued that the phrase “from the date of such conviction” in Section 8(3) must be interpreted to mean the entire calendar day beginning at midnight, thereby rendering the vote void. The Supreme Court rejected this construction, holding that disqualification is a consequence of conviction and cannot precede the cause. The Court emphasized the principle of legality and the foundational presumption of innocence until conviction. The judgment carefully harmonizes constitutional provisions, election law, criminal jurisprudence, and interpretative principles. It clarifies that the expression “date” is context-dependent and can denote a precise point of time rather than a full calendar day. The Court also invoked the de facto doctrine to sustain the validity of acts performed before the disqualification actually came into existence. The ruling thus reinforces certainty in electoral processes while preserving fundamental criminal law principles.
- [,The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone & Anr. [2020] 11 S.C.R. 597](https://lawfoyer.in/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-v-keshao-vishwanath-sonone-anr-2020-11-s-c-r-597/): The judgment addresses the constitutional limits on judicial intervention in matters concerning Scheduled Tribes identification under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court examined whether the Bombay High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the Gowari community as synonymous with the Gond Gowari Scheduled Tribe listed under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Court undertook a detailed historical, constitutional, and statutory analysis of amendments made to the Scheduled Tribes Order from 1950 to 2002. It emphasized the exclusive power of Parliament under Article 342(2) to include or exclude tribes from the notified list. The judgment critically evaluated reliance placed by the High Court on census data, anthropological literature, and historical extinction theories. The Court reaffirmed settled constitutional jurisprudence laid down in B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa and State of Maharashtra v. Milind, holding that courts cannot conduct evidentiary inquiries to alter Scheduled Tribe entries. It categorically held that Gowari and Gond Gowari are distinct communities, rejecting the High Court’s finding that Gond Gowari had become extinct prior to 1911. The decision restores constitutional discipline in affirmative action jurisprudence and reinforces the doctrine of separation of powers. It also balances equities by protecting admissions and appointments secured during the pendency of litigation while denying future Scheduled Tribe benefits to Gowari claimants.
- [M/s Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers v. M/s New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors & Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 1090](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-galaxy-transport-agencies-contractors-traders-transports-and-suppliers-v-m-s-new-j-k-roadways-fleet-owners-and-transport-contractors-ors-2020-12-scr-1090/): The judgment addresses the contours of judicial review in contractual and tender matters, particularly emphasising the doctrine of judicial restraint in the interpretation of tender conditions by constitutional courts. The Supreme Court examined the legality of interference by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir with the decision of a tendering authority relating to technical eligibility under an e-tender issued by the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone, for the supply of commercial vehicles for troop movement. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Condition No. 31 of the Notice Inviting Tender, which required ownership of “30 vehicles both HMV/LMV”, and Condition No. 27, which prescribed five years of work experience with a minimum valuation of Rs. 2 crores. The Court reaffirmed that the author of the tender document is the best judge of its requirements, and unless the interpretation adopted by the authority is perverse, arbitrary, or mala fide, courts must not substitute their own construction. The Division Bench was found to have exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating technical criteria and substituting the expert opinion of the Tender Opening Committee with its own assessment. The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the Single Judge, reinforcing the settled position that judicial review does not extend to technical evaluation of bids. The ruling strengthens predictability in public procurement and safeguards administrative discretion from unwarranted judicial interference.
- [Suresh Shah v. Hipad Technology India Private Limited, [2020] 13 SCR 821](https://lawfoyer.in/suresh-shah-v-hipad-technology-india-private-limited-2020-13-scr-821/): The judgment in Suresh Shah v. Hipad Technology India Private Limited authoritatively examines the arbitrability of landlord–tenant disputes arising out of lease and sub-lease deeds governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether disputes concerning determination of lease, forfeiture, and eviction under the TP Act could be resolved through arbitration when an arbitration clause exists between the parties. The Court undertook a detailed doctrinal and statutory analysis of Sections 111, 114, and 114A of the TP Act and clarified that these provisions confer equitable and discretionary relief, not statutory protection akin to Rent Control legislations. The judgment resolves the doctrinal conflict created by Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, which had expanded the category of non-arbitrable disputes to include TP Act governed tenancies. Relying on the reasoning in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, the Court conclusively held that landlord–tenant disputes under the TP Act are arbitrable, provided the tenancy is not protected by a special rent statute. The Court further clarified that arbitrators are competent to consider equitable reliefs available under Sections 114 and 114A while adjudicating eviction claims. The decision reinforces party autonomy, strengthens arbitration jurisprudence, and draws a clear distinction between statutory tenancies and contractual leases. It also confirms the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in cases qualifying as international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- [In Re: Proper Treatment of COVID-19 Patients and Dignified Handling of Dead Bodies in the Hospitals Etc. [2020] 13 S.C.R. 762](https://lawfoyer.in/in-re-proper-treatment-of-covid-19-patients-and-dignified-handling-of-dead-bodies-in-the-hospitals-etc-2020-13-s-c-r-762/): The Supreme Court of India, exercising its suo motu jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, addressed systemic failures exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly incidents of fire in dedicated COVID hospitals and deficiencies in treatment, safety, and dignified handling of deceased patients. Triggered by the tragic fire incident at a COVID hospital in Rajkot, Gujarat, which resulted in multiple fatalities, the Court expanded the scope of adjudication to encompass broader public health governance, disaster management, hospital safety compliance, and enforcement of pandemic-related guidelines. The judgment underscores the constitutional status of the right to health as an integral facet of Article 21, extending beyond mere access to treatment to include affordability, safety, and dignity in death. The Court recognised the pandemic as an unprecedented national crisis akin to a “world war” requiring coordinated action between the Union, States, local administrations, and citizens. It examined affidavits filed by the Union of India and various States, particularly focusing on fire safety audits, issuance and renewal of fire safety No Objection Certificates, hospital inspections, and compliance with advisories issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Significant emphasis was placed on the failure of implementation of Standard Operating Procedures and guidelines under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, leading to avoidable loss of life. The Court issued wide-ranging mandatory directions relating to hospital fire safety, price regulation of private hospitals, enforcement of public health guidelines, crowd management, police deployment, testing transparency, containment strategies, and regulation of political gatherings during elections. The judgment reflects judicial assertiveness in safeguarding public health while reiterating citizens’ constitutional duties during a public emergency.
- [Saurav Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2020] 11 SCR 281](https://lawfoyer.in/saurav-yadav-ors-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-2020-11-scr-281/): The judgment in Saurav Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. settles a long-standing conflict concerning the correct application of horizontal reservation vis-à-vis vertical reservation in public employment. The controversy arose from the recruitment of constables in the Uttar Pradesh Police pursuant to the 2013 selection process, where female candidates belonging to reserved categories, despite securing marks higher than the last selected candidate in the General Female Category, were denied placement in the open category. The State justified this exclusion by relying on judicial precedents of the Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts which had adopted an interpretation that prevented such migration. The Supreme Court decisively rejected this interpretation, holding that the open/general category is not a reserved compartment, but one that is available to all candidates solely on the basis of merit. The Court reaffirmed that horizontal reservation is interlocking in nature and does not operate as a rigid quota excluding meritorious candidates merely because they belong to reserved social categories. The ruling harmonises constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16 with established precedents such as Indra Sawhney, Anil Kumar Gupta, and Rajesh Kumar Daria. The Court disapproved the so-called “second view” adopted by certain High Courts and approved the “first view” which prioritises merit in open category selection. Relief was moulded to protect existing appointees while extending appointment to eligible OBC female candidates. The decision strengthens the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity and prevents artificial compartmentalisation that undermines merit.
- [Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors., [2025] 4 SCR 651 : 2025 INSC 451](https://lawfoyer.in/soumen-paul-ors-v-shrabani-nayek-ors-2025-4-scr-651-2025-insc-451/): The judgment in Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors. addresses a recurring controversy in public employment relating to the determination of the cut-off date for possessing minimum educational qualifications. The dispute arose from recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in West Bengal, governed by the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016, particularly Rule 6(2) as amended on 22.12.2020. The appellants were candidates enrolled in the 2020–2022 Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) batch whose examinations were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and administrative paralysis of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education. Apprehending disqualification on age grounds, the appellants approached the High Court seeking equitable relief. The Single Judge permitted provisional participation in the recruitment process. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision by treating 29.09.2022 as the recruitment notification date and holding that the appellants lacked the requisite qualifications on that date. The Supreme Court rejected this approach, holding that Rule 6(2) merely incorporates the NCTE-prescribed qualifications prevailing at the time of recruitment and does not prescribe any cut-off date for acquisition of qualifications. The Court clarified the settled position that where rules do not specify a cut-off date, the date mentioned in the recruitment advertisement, or alternatively the last date of application, would govern eligibility. The judgment reinforces transparency in recruitment, prevents arbitrary exclusion of candidates affected by systemic delays, and reaffirms judicial restraint against importing cut-off dates not contemplated by statutory rules. The Court further exercised its Article 142 powers to ensure completion of the recruitment process in the interests of justice.
- [Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 695 : 2025 INSC 448](https://lawfoyer.in/kousik-das-ors-v-state-of-west-bengal-ors-2025-4-s-c-r-695-2025-insc-448/): The judgment in Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. examines the legal validity of excluding candidates possessing an 18-month Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) obtained through NIOS under Open and Distance Learning mode from teacher recruitment processes. The controversy arose after the West Bengal Board of Primary Education imposed a blanket exclusion pursuant to a High Court directive, relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Jaiveer Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. The Supreme Court scrutinised the statutory framework under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the 2014 NCTE Regulations, and the Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. The Court clarified that the 18-month D.El.Ed. programme was a one-time statutory relaxation intended solely for in-service untrained teachers appointed on or before 10.08.2017, enabling them to meet minimum qualifications before the statutory cut-off of 01.04.2019. The High Court’s interpretation was found erroneous as it imposed an indiscriminate ban without considering the limited statutory purpose of the relaxation. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that eligible in-service teachers who completed the programme within the stipulated period are valid diploma holders, entitled to consideration for recruitment, promotional avenues, and applications to other institutions. The ruling reinforces statutory interpretation principles, prevents administrative overreach, and protects vested service rights arising from transitional educational policies.
- [Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors., [2025] 5 SCR 13 : 2025 INSC 449](https://lawfoyer.in/jogeswar-sahoo-ors-v-the-district-judge-cuttack-ors-2025-5-scr-13-2025-insc-449/): The judgment in Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors. adjudicates the legality of post-retirement recovery of financial benefits extended to ministerial staff of the district judiciary pursuant to retrospective promotion based on Shetty Commission recommendations. The appellants, who served as Stenographer Grade-I and Personal Assistants, were granted arrears following retrospective upgradation in 2017. These amounts were credited without any allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment. After their superannuation in 2020, recovery proceedings were initiated in 2023 on the ground that the financial benefit had been granted due to an erroneous interpretation of the recommendations. The Supreme Court confined its inquiry to the permissibility of recovery after retirement, particularly when no opportunity of hearing had been afforded. The Court reiterated the equitable doctrine consistently followed in service jurisprudence that recovery of excess payment is impermissible when the employee is not at fault and the error is attributable solely to the employer. Emphasis was placed on the vulnerability of retired ministerial employees and the disproportionate hardship caused by belated recovery. The judgment reinforces the principle that such protection flows not from enforceable entitlement but from judicial equity. It also clarifies that undertakings extracted mechanically do not override settled equitable doctrines. By setting aside the recovery orders and reversing the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed constitutional fairness in administrative action under service law.
- [A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 681 : 2025 INSC 447](https://lawfoyer.in/a-rajendra-v-gonugunta-madhusudhan-rao-ors-2025-4-s-c-r-681-2025-insc-447/): The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors. authoritatively settles the commencement point of limitation for filing appeals under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The controversy arose from the dismissal of appeals by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on the ground of limitation, where the appellant asserted that limitation should commence from the date of knowledge or receipt of a certified copy rather than from the date of pronouncement of the order. The Court rejected this contention and reaffirmed that the triggering event for limitation is the date of pronouncement of the order, except in cases where the order is not pronounced and is later uploaded. The judgment reinforces the strict and time-bound framework of the IBC and emphasizes that procedural flexibility cannot be employed to dilute substantive legislative intent. The Court meticulously interpreted Section 61(2) of the IBC, its proviso, and the interplay with the Limitation Act, 1963 and NCLAT Rules, 2016. It clarified that the right to receive a free certified copy does not dispense with the obligation to apply for one and that exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act is available only upon a formal application for a certified copy. The ruling strengthens certainty in insolvency jurisprudence, curtails dilatory tactics, and upholds the primacy of the IBC over general procedural statutes. It also reiterates judicial discipline by refusing to extend limitation beyond statutorily prescribed limits, even through equitable considerations or Article 142 powers.
- [New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. v. Clifford D Souza Etc. Etc., [2025] 5 S.C.R. 177 : 2025 INSC 440](https://lawfoyer.in/new-mangalore-port-trust-anr-v-clifford-d-souza-etc-etc-2025-5-s-c-r-177-2025-insc-440-2/): The judgment examines the interplay between the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly addressing whether recovery proceedings for arrears of licence fee under Section 7 of the PP Act are barred by limitation and whether acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act extends the limitation period. The dispute arose after the New Mangalore Port Trust revised licence fees retrospectively pursuant to a TAMP notification, and raised demands for arrears against licensees. While the revision itself had been upheld by a Single Judge of the High Court, the licensees resisted payment citing pendency of intra-court appeals. Subsequent statutory recovery proceedings were quashed by the District Judge and affirmed by the High Court on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court decisively held that once the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under the PP Act, all its provisions, including Section 18, apply. The Court interpreted written objections by the licensees, stating that payment was premature due to pending appeals, as a valid acknowledgment of liability, even though accompanied by a refusal to pay at that stage. The judgment clarifies that an acknowledgment need not be unconditional or immediate and that technical objections on limitation cannot be used to unjustly delay statutory dues. The Court further criticised the High Court for deciding the writ petitions without awaiting the outcome of pending intra-court appeals on the substantive tariff issue. The ruling reinforces doctrinal clarity on limitation, acknowledgment of debt, and procedural discipline in public revenue recovery.
- [M/s R. K. Transport Company v. M/s Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. (BALCO), [2025] 5 SCR 401 : 2025 INSC 438](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-r-k-transport-company-v-m-s-bharat-aluminum-company-ltd-balco-2025-5-scr-401-2025-insc-438/): The judgment addresses the precise computation of limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and clarifies the applicability of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitral proceedings. The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated 09.04.2022 passed in favour of the appellant, which was admittedly received by the respondent on the same date. The respondent filed an application under Section 34 on 11.07.2022. The controversy centred on whether the limitation period of three months expired on 08.07.2022 or 09.07.2022, and whether exclusion of the date of receipt of the award was permissible. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the phrase “three months” in Section 34(3) signifies three calendar months and not ninety days. It held that Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under Section 34, thereby mandating exclusion of the date on which the award was received. Consequently, the limitation period commenced on 10.04.2022 and expired on 09.07.2022, which was a court holiday. The benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act was therefore available, rendering the filing on the next working day within time. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision allowing the Section 37 appeal and dismissed the civil appeal. The ruling consolidates jurisprudence on limitation in arbitration and reinforces procedural certainty.
- [State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 617 : 2025 INSC 456](https://lawfoyer.in/state-nct-of-delhi-v-rajeev-sharma-2025-4-s-c-r-617-2025-insc-456-2/): The judgment addresses the precise interpretative scope of Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly the phrase “imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years”. The controversy arose in the context of offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where the statute prescribes a maximum punishment extending up to fourteen years, but does not stipulate any minimum mandatory sentence. The respondent-accused claimed statutory or default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was not filed within sixty days from the date of arrest. The State contended that the ninety-day period applied, arguing that the offence was punishable up to fourteen years and thus fell within clause (i) of the proviso to Section 167(2). The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the legislative intent behind the phrase “not less than ten years” necessarily postulates the existence of a statutorily prescribed minimum sentence. In the absence of such minimum, an offence punishable with imprisonment up to fourteen years cannot be equated with an offence punishable with imprisonment not less than ten years. Relying on the authoritative pronouncement in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam and its subsequent reaffirmation in M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Court held that the sixty-day period was applicable. The respondent was therefore entitled to default bail upon the failure of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within the stipulated time. The decision reinforces the constitutional significance of personal liberty and procedural safeguards in criminal investigation, and clarifies that statutory ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the accused when liberty is at stake.
- [UCO Bank & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Handa, [2025] 5 S.C.R. 389 : 2025 INSC 442](https://lawfoyer.in/uco-bank-anr-v-vijay-kumar-handa-2025-5-s-c-r-389-2025-insc-442-2/): The decision in UCO Bank & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Handa settles an important question in Indian service jurisprudence concerning the entitlement of a bank employee to terminal and pensionary benefits after being removed from service for gross misconduct. The controversy arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a clerical employee of UCO Bank for riotous, disorderly, and indecent behaviour within bank premises. While the disciplinary authority imposed dismissal from service, the appellate authority modified the punishment to removal from service with terminal benefits. This appellate order attained finality when it remained unchallenged by the employer. Subsequently, an industrial dispute led to judicial scrutiny of the proportionality of punishment under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, culminating in the High Court restoring the appellate authority’s punishment. The dispute resurfaced when the employee claimed pensionary benefits under the UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, which the Bank resisted by invoking Regulation 22 relating to forfeiture of service. The Supreme Court harmonised the apparent conflict between Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 and Regulation 22, relying on its earlier ruling in Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool. The Court affirmed that where an employee is removed from service with terminal benefits and satisfies eligibility requirements, pension cannot be denied. The judgment reinforces the binding nature of bipartite settlements and clarifies the legal consequences of unchallenged appellate disciplinary orders in service law.
- [Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr., [2025] 5 SCR 446 : 2025 INSC 472](https://lawfoyer.in/kashmiri-lal-sharma-v-himachal-pradesh-state-electricity-board-ltd-anr-2025-5-scr-446-2025-insc-472/): The judgment examines the constitutional and statutory legitimacy of extending the age of superannuation for persons with disabilities and the permissibility of withdrawing such benefit through executive instructions. The appellant, a locomotor-disabled employee with 60% permanent disability, challenged his retirement at the age of 58 years, contending that the Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013, which extended retirement age to 60 years, though expressly limited to visually impaired employees, ought to apply to all persons suffering from disabilities recognised under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled position that persons suffering from benchmark disabilities constitute a homogeneous class for the purpose of service benefits once employed. Confining retirement age extension only to visually impaired employees was held discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, relying decisively on Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab. However, the Court upheld the withdrawal of the benefit by OM dated 04.11.2019, applying Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, holding that executive authority competent to issue an office memorandum retains the power to rescind it. The Court clarified that no employee has a fundamental right to continue in service till a particular age, and superannuation does not amount to removal under Article 311(2). The appellant was held entitled to the benefit of age extension only till the date the OM remained operative, i.e., 04.11.2019, and not beyond. Consequently, partial relief was granted with back wages and pensionary benefits.
- [Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and Ors., [2025] 4 SCR 497 : 2025 INSC 433](https://lawfoyer.in/vinay-aggarwal-v-state-of-haryana-and-ors-2025-4-scr-497-2025-insc-433/): The judgment in Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and Ors. addresses the judicial limits on directing transfer of criminal investigation from State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court scrutinised the legality and sustainability of an order passed by a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing CBI investigation at a nascent stage of inquiry based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations against local police officials. The appellant, accused of impersonation and financial extortion under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, challenged the High Court’s intervention contending absence of exceptional circumstances warranting such extraordinary relief. The Court reaffirmed settled constitutional jurisprudence that although Constitutional Courts possess wide powers to direct CBI investigation, such power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional cases. Mere allegations of police bias, without cogent material or prima facie evidence, were held insufficient. The judgment emphasises judicial restraint, federal balance, and institutional respect for State investigative machinery. By setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court clarified that extraordinary investigative transfers cannot be invoked as a matter of course, thereby reinforcing procedural discipline and safeguarding investigative autonomy.
- [The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Ch. Bhaskara Chary, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 543; 2025 INSC 428](https://lawfoyer.in/the-superintending-engineer-operation-telangana-state-southern-power-distribution-company-ltd-ors-v-ch-bhaskara-chary-2025-4-s-c-r-543-2025-insc-428/): The dispute concerns the respondent’s claim for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the ex-casual labourers quota framed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) through its policy dated 18.05.1997. The respondent’s candidature was rejected multiple times on grounds ranging from the alleged non-genuineness of his service certificate to the absence of vacancies in his category. The High Court intervened and directed consideration of his claim in parity with other similarly placed candidates who, despite possessing less man-days and being lower in the seniority list, had already been appointed pursuant to judicial directions. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in treating the respondent at par with those candidates and whether the list relied on by the High Court constituted a seniority list. Holding that the list titled “Seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of LDCs” was indeed a seniority list and that persons placed below the respondent with fewer man-days had secured appointment, the Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning. The Court directed reconsideration of the respondent’s appointment to the post of LDC or any equivalent post in which a vacancy exists, while permitting the authority to evaluate other factual objections raised by it. The ruling reaffirms parity principles in service jurisprudence, especially where similarly situated candidates secure benefits through judicial intervention.
- [Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. v. Sri Anand Kumar and Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 521; 2025 INSC 434](https://lawfoyer.in/smt-uma-devi-and-ors-v-sri-anand-kumar-and-ors-2025-4-s-c-r-521-2025-insc-434/): The decision in Smt. Uma Devi & Ors. v. Sri Anand Kumar & Ors., 2025 INSC 434, concerns the propriety of the High Court’s interference with a trial court order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, rejecting a partition suit of 2023 as time-barred and disclosing no cause of action. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter for trial despite overwhelming material showing a prior oral family partition of 1968, subsequent mutation entries, and registered alienations executed in 1978 by members of the family lineage from which the plaintiffs themselves derived title. The Court emphasised that registered sale deeds operate as constructive notice and confer full publicity to the world, placing a corresponding duty of inquiry upon interested parties. Since the plaintiffs’ predecessors lived for decades after the execution of the 1978 deeds without ever challenging them, the Court held that the cause of action was extinguished by lapse of time and by the presumption of notice arising under Section 3, Transfer of Property Act, and principles laid down in Suraj Lamp Industries, Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, and Dahiben. The Court read the plaint meaningfully and found suppression of material facts, absence of specific pleadings on knowledge of earlier transactions, and an attempt at “clever drafting” to create an illusion of a cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in treating the matter as a triable dispute and in remanding the suit. The trial court’s rejection of the plaint was restored. The judgment underscores the strict discipline of pleadings, finality of long-settled family partitions, and the curtailment of stale litigation re-agitated after decades.
- [Maukam Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 336 : 2025 INSC 435](https://lawfoyer.in/maukam-singh-others-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-2025-4-s-c-r-336-2025-insc-435-2/): The dispute arose from hostility regarding ownership of a place of worship, which escalated when the accused appellants, armed with deadly weapons—specifically a farsa and a luhangi—entered the house of the deceased Than Singh and confronted the victims. A scuffle ensued, during which the deceased suffered fatal head injuries and his grandchildren sustained multiple wounds. The Trial Court convicted the appellants under ss.302/34, 323, 324 r/w s.34 IPC, and the High Court affirmed those findings. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the ocular testimony of PWs 1–3, each of whom was an injured eyewitness and a grandchild of the deceased. The Court reiterated that relationship alone does not render witnesses “interested,” especially when their presence at the scene is natural. The medical evidence showing a possibility of accidental fall did not dilute the prosecution’s case, because the ocular evidence consistently indicated a blow to the deceased’s head with the reverse side of an axe. The Court rejected the defence plea for conversion to s.304 Part II IPC, holding that the appellants were aggressors who trespassed with premeditation, armed with lethal weapons, and inflicted injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No Exception to s.300 IPC applied. The conviction under s.302/34 IPC and accompanying sentences were upheld.
- [The Management of Worth Trust v. The Secretary, Worth Trust Workers Union, [2025] 5 S.C.R. 360 : 2025 INSC 432](https://lawfoyer.in/the-management-of-worth-trust-v-the-secretary-worth-trust-workers-union-2025-5-s-c-r-360-2025-insc-432-2/): The dispute concerned whether The Management of Worth Trust, an organization originally founded for charitable rehabilitation of leprosy-cured and differently abled persons, could claim exemption under Section 32(v)(a) or (c) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and thus refuse statutory bonus to its employees. The Trust had gradually expanded from purely charitable work to robust industrial and commercial manufacturing activities after 1985, generating surplus from factories engaged in the production of automobile and industrial machinery components. Workers employed in these factories—most of whom were rehabilitated individuals—had formed a union and raised an industrial dispute seeking bonus and ex-gratia for the year 1996-97. The Tribunal awarded minimum bonus at 8.33% and upheld entitlement to ex-gratia. Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Madras High Court affirmed the award with minor modification. The Supreme Court held that once the Trust was running factories, its employees were workmen and employees under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. A charitable character does not nullify statutory obligations when commercial industrial operations yield surplus. The Court rejected the plea that the Trust was an institution “like the Indian Red Cross Society” or “not established for profit” under Section 32(v)(a) and (c). Ex-gratia payments also cannot substitute statutory bonus. The Trust was directed to pay bonus from 1996-97 onwards within one month.
- [Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 504 : 2025 INSC 427](https://lawfoyer.in/ashok-singh-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-2025-4-s-c-r-504-2025-insc-427-2/): The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in overturning the concurrent conviction of respondent no.2 under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant had advanced a loan of Rs. 22,00,000 to the accused, for which a cheque was issued and subsequently dishonoured with the endorsement “payment stopped by drawer”. Despite statutory notice, the accused neither replied nor repaid the amount. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found the accused guilty, relying on the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 that favour the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The High Court, however, upset these findings by holding that the complainant had failed to establish the source of the funds. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach was erroneous since the complainant is not initially required to prove his financial capacity unless the accused raises a specific defence regarding such inability, which was absent in this case. The defence of a lost cheque was found untrustworthy because the police intimation was in fact made only in 2011, despite being back-dated. The Court held that the complaint was also maintainable even though the Partnership Firm was not arrayed as an accused, as the signatory partner was the person in charge of the firm. While restoring the conviction, the Court modified the sentence by imposing only a fine considering the age of the accused.
- [Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc., [2025] 5 S.C.R. 369 : 2025 INSC 425](https://lawfoyer.in/jomon-k-k-v-shajimon-p-ors-etc-2025-5-s-c-r-369-2025-insc-425-2/): The dispute concerns whether the appellant, who possessed a Syrang’s licence (a superior licence) but did not hold a current Lascar’s licence on the last date for receipt of applications, could be deemed eligible for appointment to the post of Boat Lascar under the Kerala State Water Transport Department. The Special Rules of 1975 mandated possession of a current Lascar’s licence as an essential qualification. Despite the statutory prescription, the Director of Ports issued a communication suggesting equivalence between a Syrang’s licence and a Lascar’s licence, resulting in candidates with higher licences, including the appellant, being included in the KPSC “Ranked List.” Subsequent challenges before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal led to the direction to recast the Ranked List and exclude those without a current Lascar’s licence. The appellant’s appointment, made while litigation was pending, was later cancelled. The Supreme Court affirmed that recruitment must strictly follow statutory qualifications, and no authority could dilute the explicit mandate of Rule 6 of the Special Rules. A higher qualification could not substitute a mandatory essential qualification, particularly where the recruitment process carved out a distinct class: holders of a current Lascar’s licence. The Court further held that public employment must maintain equality of opportunity; permitting candidates with superior licences, without extending that relaxation to all similarly placed candidates, would distort competition and unfairly advantage some aspirants. The appellant’s non-joinder before the Tribunal did not invalidate the proceedings because he chose not to challenge the Tribunal’s order until after termination. The Court refused to invoke Article 142, noting that the appointment was contrary to statutory norms and therefore void.
- [M/s Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 529 : 2025 INSC 429](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-ferro-concrete-construction-india-pvt-ltd-v-the-state-of-rajasthan-2025-4-s-c-r-529-2025-insc-429-2/): The controversy in M/s Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 529 : 2025 INSC 429 concerns the scope of an arbitrator’s power to award pendente lite interest under the Arbitration Act, 1940 when the contract contains a clause stating that the contractor “shall not be entitled to claim any interest upon any payment, arrears or upon any balance which may be found due to him at any time”. The Supreme Court evaluated whether this phrasing constituted an express bar on the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to grant interest during the pendency of arbitration proceedings. The Court reaffirmed earlier jurisprudence such as Secretary, Irrigation Dept., Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy and N.C. Budharaj, which recognised an implied arbitrator’s power to award interest under the 1940 Act unless contractually excluded. It examined the interpretative scheme in Reliance Cellulose and the First Ambica decision, which mandate strict construction of interest-ouster clauses and require a clear, specific exclusion for disputes, misunderstandings, delays, or arbitral references. The Court held that Clause 22 in this contract did not sufficiently exclude pendente lite interest because it merely restricted the contractor from claiming interest, without addressing disputes, arbitration, or delayed payments. The Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the arbitrator’s power, though it modified the rate of pendente lite interest to 9% considering the long passage of time and payments already made.
- [Shri. Masaidevi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha Maryadit Warewadi v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2025] 5 S.C.R. 409; 2025 INSC 436](https://lawfoyer.in/shri-masaidevi-vividh-karyakari-sahakari-seva-sanstha-maryadit-warewadi-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-2025-5-s-c-r-409-2025-insc-436-2/): The judgment in Shri. Masaidevi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha Maryadit Warewadi v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 INSC 436; [2025] 5 S.C.R. 409, concerns the legality of government action in granting registration to a proposed Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society (PACCS). The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly set aside the State Government’s order that had overridden the Scrutiny Committee’s rejection of the appellant-society’s registration proposal. The Committee, constituted under Government Resolution dated 23.09.2013, had rejected the application owing to multiple deficiencies, primarily the absence of proof of economic viability as required under Sections 4 and 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and under Government Resolution dated 14.02.2017. The State, however, allowed the appeal by relaxing these mandatory prerequisites on the basis of unsubstantiated undertakings and general assertions by the appellant-society. The Supreme Court emphasised that the statutory mandate under Section 4 prohibits registration of societies that are “likely to be economically unsound,” and that the policy regime instituted through Government Resolutions makes the Scrutiny Committee the expert body responsible for evaluating such financial viability. The State, by disregarding the Committee’s findings and accepting hypothetical claims, acted contrary to its own binding policy framework. The High Court, therefore, was justified in restoring the Committee’s decision. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view and dismissed the appeal, holding that administrative discretion cannot be exercised in a manner that defeats the statutory scheme or the objectives of cooperative development.
- [The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS) & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2025] 5 S.C.R. 342 : 2025 INSC 422](https://lawfoyer.in/the-secretary-all-india-shri-shivaji-memorial-society-aissms-ors-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-2025-5-s-c-r-342-2025-insc-422/): The judgment in The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS) & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2025] 5 S.C.R. 342 : 2025 INSC 422 addresses a recurrent interpretational conflict surrounding academic qualifications, career progression, and entitlement to higher pay scales within technical education regulated by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. The Supreme Court examined whether Assistant Professors who had completed three years in the pre-revised scale of ₹12,000–18,300 as of 01.01.2006 could claim placement in the Pay Band of ₹37,400–67,000 with AGP ₹9,000 and re-designation as Associate Professors under Clause (ix) of the AICTE Notification dated 05.03.2010, despite lacking the essential qualification of Ph.D., mandated from 15.03.2000 onwards. The Court differentiated teachers appointed prior to 15.03.2000—when Ph.D. was not compulsory—from those appointed after, who were bound by the stipulation to possess or acquire Ph.D. within seven years per the AICTE Notifications of 2000 and 2005. It held that non-Ph.D. appointees after 15.03.2000 who failed to acquire the qualification within the statutory period could neither claim higher pay scales nor redesignation. The expression “incumbent Assistant Professors” in the 2010 Notification was confined only to qualified personnel—those possessing Ph.D. either at entry or within the stipulated period, or those appointed before the qualification became mandatory. The Court affirmed the regulatory primacy of AICTE as an expert body and reiterated judicial restraint in academic-policy matters unless shown to be arbitrary or ultra vires. Teachers falling outside the mandated qualification matrix were held disentitled to claim parity in pay or designation. Certain respondents, however, including those appointed before 15.03.2000 and one who later acquired Ph.D., were granted consequential benefits with interest.
- [Kishore Chhabra v. The State of Haryana & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 327 : 2025 INSC 419](https://lawfoyer.in/kishore-chhabra-v-the-state-of-haryana-ors-2025-4-s-c-r-327-2025-insc-419-2/): The dispute concerns the appellant’s attempt to secure release of his industrial land from compulsory acquisition initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. His grievance arose from the State’s alleged discriminatory refusal to release his land, despite comparable release orders granted to neighbouring factories under various policies. The State resisted on grounds of delay, deemed vesting, and lack of entitlement under policy norms. Central to the adjudication was the statutory requirement of obtaining a Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate under the Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, which governs controlled areas around Sonipat since the 1964 notification. The appellant, though claiming long-standing industrial use, failed to produce any CLU either for himself or his predecessor. The Supreme Court held that CLU is a mandatory prerequisite for seeking land release and the absence of CLU disentitles the appellant from parity with industries whose land had been released after securing CLU. The plea of discrimination thus failed. The Court also weighed the extensive public expenditure already made to develop the acquired area and found that release of the appellant’s land would disrupt planned development. Nevertheless, acknowledging continued physical possession and the existence of a running factory, the Court exercised its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct that compensation be calculated under the more beneficial Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The decision thus reaffirms the statutory rigidity of CLU requirements while balancing equitable considerations through constitutional discretion.
- [Judgment Unfolded: Case Law Narration Competition 2026 | Organized by Canonsphere | Event Scheduled on 10th and 11th January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/judgment-unfolded-case-law-narration-competition-2026-organized-by-canonsphere-event-scheduled-on-10th-and-11th-january-2026/): Judgment Unfolded: Case Law Narration Competition 2026 | Organized by Canonsphere | Event Scheduled on 10th and 11th January 2026
- [Trade Law in the Digital Age: Navigating E-Commerce & Cybersecurity (Free National Webinar) | Organized by The Lawscape | Webinar on 21 December 2025 (Sunday)](https://lawfoyer.in/trade-law-in-the-digital-age-navigating-e-commerce-cybersecurity-free-national-webinar-organized-by-the-lawscape-webinar-on-21-december-2025-sunday/): Trade Law in the Digital Age: Navigating E-Commerce & Cybersecurity (Free National Webinar) | Organized by The Lawscape | Webinar on 21 December 2025 (Sunday)
- [Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited (Formerly Known as Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited) v. 63 Moons Technologies Limited & Others, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 344](https://lawfoyer.in/piramal-capital-and-housing-finance-limited-formerly-known-as-dewan-housing-finance-corporation-limited-v-63-moons-technologies-limited-others-2025-4-s-c-r-344/): The judgment resolves a complex cluster of appeals arising from the insolvency resolution of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The central contest involved the permissibility of the clause in the Resolution Plan (RP) submitted by Piramal Capital, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), which allowed it to appropriate the recoveries arising from Section 66 avoidance applications filed by the Administrator. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that such a clause was illegal and remanded the plan back to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration. The Supreme Court, applying the limited scope of judicial review under Sections 30(2), 31, and 61(3) of the IBC, reinstated the NCLT-approved RP and set aside the NCLAT’s interference. The Court undertook a careful examination of the legal position on avoidance applications, the commercial wisdom of the CoC, and the rights of suspended or superseded directors under the IBC and the RBI Act, 1934. The judgment further addressed the grievances of Fixed Deposit Holders (FDHs) and Non-Convertible Debenture Holders (NCDHs) who sought full repayment under the RP. The Court held that Section 238 of the IBC prevails over the NHB Act and RBI Act, and that FDHs constitute financial creditors bound by the CoC-approved distribution mechanism. The Court also clarified that superseded directors of an FSP are not entitled to participate in the CoC or seek copies of RPs during CIRP, though once approved by the NCLT, the RP becomes a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. The judgment thus harmonizes the treatment of avoidance recoveries, creditor rights, and director rights within the specialized insolvency regime for Financial Service Providers.
- [Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2025] 5 S.C.R. 205 : 2025 INSC 480](https://lawfoyer.in/zulfiquar-haider-anr-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-2025-5-s-c-r-205-2025-insc-480-2/): The Supreme Court addressed the legality of the demolition of the appellants’ residential structures by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Court found that the action of demolition, executed within 24 hours of service of the last communication and conducted on a Sunday, constituted a gross violation of Article 21, specifically the right to shelter, and breached the doctrine of due process. The judgment emphasised that the statutory mandate of Section 43 concerning service of notices necessitates multiple bona fide attempts at personal service, and service by affixing may only follow after demonstrating that “the person cannot be found,” which itself requires genuine repeated efforts. The Court underscored that residential structures cannot be demolished summarily without ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice, including a reasonable opportunity to show cause and adequate time to file an appeal under Section 27(2). The demolition was labelled an instance of “bulldozer justice,” exhibiting high-handedness and disregard for constitutional protections. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, which mandates proper service by registered post A.D. along with affixture and a mandatory 15-day period for response. Finding the PDA’s action arbitrary, illegal, and inhuman, the Court set aside the High Court order dismissing the writ petition and imposed costs of Rs.10,00,000/- in each appeal. It further directed the PDA to strictly comply with the demolition guidelines from the 2024 decision and left the appellants free to pursue compensation and further proceedings regarding rights over the land.
- [Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others, [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1; 2025 INSC 416](https://lawfoyer.in/satbir-singh-v-rajesh-kumar-and-others-2025-5-s-c-r-1-2025-insc-416-2/): The matter concerns the ambit of Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, specifically the standard for summoning additional accused after commencement of trial. The Supreme Court examines whether the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, was justified in overturning the Sessions Judge’s order summoning four individuals—Rajesh Kumar, Sagar @ Bittoo, Neeraj, and Ankit—to stand trial alongside the principal accused Mukesh. The factual matrix describes a violent altercation following a volleyball dispute, where the appellant Satbir Singh, a serving Army personnel, sustained knife injuries allegedly inflicted by Mukesh while the other respondents allegedly held, assaulted, or threatened him. Despite repeated police enquiries exonerating these co-accused, the appellant’s examination-in-chief directly implicated them. The Sessions Judge, relying on the principles crystallized in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and reaffirmed in Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, concluded that the evidentiary threshold for invoking Section 319—a satisfaction higher than prima facie yet lower than certainty of conviction—stood satisfied. The High Court, however, interfered, giving weight to medical reports, the absence of injuries attributable to the co-accused, and multiple DSP enquiries that negated their involvement. The Supreme Court restores the Sessions Judge’s order, reiterating that police enquiries cannot override sworn testimony during trial, and that the High Court ought to have adopted a “hands-off” approach, as its revisional jurisdiction mandates intervention only where the lower court’s view is perverse or untenable. The Court affirms that the Sessions Judge’s satisfaction was plausible, rooted in evidence, and compliant with the framework laid down in Hardeep Singh. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the summoning of the co-accused is reinstated.
- [Amresh Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., [2025] 4 SCR 488; 2025 INSC 417](https://lawfoyer.in/amresh-shrivastava-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-2025-4-scr-488-2025-insc-417/): The decision examines the permissibility of initiating disciplinary proceedings against a Tehsildar for a land settlement order passed in exercise of quasi-judicial powers under Section 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The core conflict centred on whether the order contained elements of extraneous influence, recklessness, undue favour, negligence, or corrupt motive as contemplated in the categories outlined in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan. The Supreme Court assessed whether the allegations within the Show Cause Notice (2009) and Chargesheet (2011) contained any material pointing to misconduct beyond a mere erroneous quasi-judicial order. The Court found that the accusations reflected only that the order granting settlement to the applicants was “wrong,” without any suggestion of bribery, mala fides, ulterior motive, or recklessness. It observed that the order was passed after following notice, Gram Panchayat consultation, Patwari statement, and satisfaction of procedural requirements. The Court further addressed the 14-year unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary action. Noting that the alleged irregularities were always within the knowledge of the department and that no justification for the delay was provided, the Bench held that such inordinate and unexplained delay militated against allowing the proceedings to continue. The Court applied precedent in State of M.P. v. Bani Singh and P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, TN Housing Board, affirming that delayed disciplinary action imposes hardship, mental distress, and unfairness on employees. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order quashing the chargesheet, holding that neither the factual allegations nor the substantial delay permitted continuation of departmental proceedings. The appeal was allowed.
- [Rakesh Bhanot v. M/s. Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 573 : 2025 INSC 445](https://lawfoyer.in/rakesh-bhanot-v-m-s-gurdas-agro-pvt-ltd-2025-4-s-c-r-573-2025-insc-445-2/): The judgment in Rakesh Bhanot v. M/s. Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. addresses whether proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be stayed owing to the interim moratorium under Section 96, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 triggered upon filing personal insolvency applications under Section 94 IBC. The Supreme Court rejects the plea for stay, emphasizing that the moratorium available under Part III of the IBC is intended only to suspend civil actions relating to recovery of debt and not criminal prosecutions arising from penal statutes. The Court distinguishes between protection accorded to a corporate debtor under Section 14 IBC and the scheme applicable to individuals under Sections 96 and 101 IBC, reiterating that insolvency mechanisms do not extinguish personal criminal liability for dishonour of cheques. The Court underscores that the liability under Sections 138/141 NI Act is personal, statutory and penal, intended to uphold the credibility of negotiable instruments. It holds that neither the presentation of personal insolvency petitions nor the commencement of interim moratorium can bar or stall criminal prosecutions which aim not at “recovery of debt” but at punishing dishonour of cheque. The doctrine of noscitur a sociis is invoked to interpret “legal action in respect of any debt” under Section 96 IBC as confined to civil recovery actions only. The Court relies extensively on P. Mohanraj, Narinder Garg, and Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka, clarifying that directors, signatories, and natural persons remain personally liable notwithstanding corporate insolvency or personal insolvency proceedings. The appeals and writ petitions are dismissed, affirming the High Courts’ orders refusing to stay Section 138 proceedings.
- [Ramayana Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 436 : 2025 INSC 424](https://lawfoyer.in/ramayana-ispat-pvt-ltd-anr-v-state-of-rajasthan-ors-2025-4-s-c-r-436-2025-insc-424-2/): Ramayana Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7964/2019 (decided 1 Apr. 2025, Vikram Nath & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.) addresses the conflict between the statutory scheme of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the territorial reach and substance of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms & Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2016 (“Regulations of 2016”). The principal controversies concerned (i) whether a State Electricity Regulatory Commission may regulate aspects of open access where electricity is sourced inter-state but delivered/consumed within the State; (ii) whether scheduling conditions (notably a 24-hour advance scheduling requirement in Regulation 26(7)) and penalties for deviation (notably Regulation 21 on unscheduled interchange pricing) unlawfully trench upon the statutory right to open access and are arbitrary or discriminatory (particularly as against captive power producers — CPPs); and (iii) whether the combined effect of the Regulations forecloses open access. The Supreme Court upheld the Regulations. It read the Act as drawing a practical distinction between inter-state transmission (CERC domain under Section 79(1)(c)) and intra-state aspects of open access (State Commission domain under Section 42 and Section 86), emphasised grid stability and the technical necessity of scheduling and deviation charges, and held that the impugned provisions are reasonable, proportionate and within the competence of the RERC. The Court relied on statutory architecture, Energy Watchdog v. CERC, and prior precedents, while giving weight to the regulatory expertise of commissions in framing operational rules for system security.
- [M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (3), Mumbai & Ors., [2025] 5 S.C.R. 331; 2025 INSC 423](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-faime-makers-pvt-ltd-v-district-deputy-registrar-co-operative-societies-3-mumbai-ors-2025-5-s-c-r-331-2025-insc-423/): The dispute concerns competing applications under Sections 5 and 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 where the Competent Authority first dismissed an application by Prakash Apartment Co-op Housing Society Ltd. on 22.02.2021 because of unresolved legal complications, granting liberty to re-apply only after those complications were settled. Without approaching a civil court as directed, the Society filed a second application which the Competent Authority allowed on 05.10.2021. The landowner, M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd., challenged that second order. The High Court upheld the Competent Authority’s later order. The Supreme Court examined whether the first order operated as a final determination binding the Competent Authority (a quasi-judicial body) and whether entertaining and allowing the second application amounted to an impermissible review or collateral re-decision contrary to the doctrine of res judicata. The Court held that the 22.02.2021 order did not grant unconditional liberty to re-apply; it required the Society to get the complications resolved before a civil forum and only thereafter seek relief. Applying settled authority that the principles of res judicata and finality bind quasi-judicial authorities, the Court concluded the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second application contrary to its earlier findings and quashed the 05.10.2021 order. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.
- [Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1350 : 2025 INSC 411](https://lawfoyer.in/gastrade-international-v-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-2025-3-s-c-r-1350-2025-insc-411/): Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla concerns classification of imported cargo declared as Base Oil SN 50 but treated by revenue authorities as High Speed Diesel (HSD). The Adjudicating Authority (Commissioner of Customs) found the goods to be HSD, ordered confiscation and penalties; CESTAT reversed and treated the goods as Base Oil since full IS:1460:2005 testing was not performed; the High Court reversed CESTAT and sided with revenue on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The Supreme Court re-examined laboratory reports from three notified labs (Vadodara Central Excise & Customs Lab; Central Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi; IOCL Central Laboratory, Mumbai) and the testimony of the IOCL expert, Dr. Gobind Singh. The Court held that classification under Chapter 27 depends on whether the substance is “most akin” to a specified commodity under the Tariff Act and that the “most akin” test (Rule 4 of General Rules) requires a higher degree of certainty than mere preponderance of probability when penal/confiscatory consequences attend. The Court found laboratory reports and expert evidence ambiguous and incomplete (many parameters untested; evasive answers on flash-point significance) and therefore inadequate to classify the goods as HSD. Applying the most akin test, the Court concluded benefit of doubt must go to appellants and set aside confiscation and penalties. Key legal themes: standards of proof (preponderance vs heightened certainty for technical classification with penal consequences), role and limits of expert opinion (Evidence Act, s.45), and the primacy of most akin rule for tariff classification.
- [Akhilesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1431 : 2025 INSC 431](https://lawfoyer.in/akhilesh-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-1431-2025-insc-431/): This appeal arises from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’s revision setting aside a trial court order that had summoned two persons under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to face trial for the murder of the deceased in a daylight firing. The FIR named four assailants and criminal proceedings were charge-sheeted only against two; a final report was filed in respect of the other two (the present respondent nos. 2 & 3). During the trial the depositions of PW-1 (the complainant-son) and PW-2 (an eyewitness cousin) implicated those two persons. Relying on those testimonies the trial court exercised its power under Section 319 CrPC and summoned them. The High Court, on revision, set aside that summoning order giving weight to certain s.161 CrPC statements and perceived weaknesses in the witnesses’ credibility. The Supreme Court restored the trial court order, holding that the scope of Section 319 CrPC is wide; once prima facie evidence surfaces in the course of trial that a person not charged appears to be involved, the court may summon such person and try him along with the accused already facing trial. The Court emphasized that challenges to credibility and contradictions that go to the root of the witnesses’ testimony are matters for full trial and cross-examination and should not obstruct exercise of Section 319 powers at the summoning stage. The decision applied Rajesh v. State of Haryana and S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak and cautioned against giving undue weight to s.161 CrPC statements at the summoning stage.
- [The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1254 : 2025 INSC 412](https://lawfoyer.in/the-state-of-jharkhand-ors-v-rukma-kesh-mishra-2025-3-s-c-r-1254-2025-insc-412/): The appeal concerns the validity of disciplinary proceedings culminating in dismissal of a State civil servant on the ground that the charge-sheet was not separately approved by the Chief Minister at or about the time of its issuance. The respondent faced nine articles of charge for alleged dishonesty, financial irregularities and forgery; a proposal containing a draft charge-sheet and ancillary proposals (suspension; names of inquiry and presenting officers) was placed before the Chief Minister who approved the proposal on 21 March 2014; the formal charge-sheet was issued thereafter and inquiry followed, culminating in dismissal by the Government on 16 June 2017. The High Court quashed the dismissal holding that the charge-sheet lacked requisite approval, relying on Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal. The Court analysed the interplay of Article 311(1), the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (Rule 55), and the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (notably Rules 16 and 17). It reaffirmed that absent a statutory rule requiring that the appointing authority must itself draw up or approve the charge-sheet, initiation by a competent controlling authority or by delegation is permissible; that the phrases “draw up” and “cause to be drawn up” have distinct meanings allowing delegated preparation; and that where the draft charge-sheet formed part of the file placed before and approved by the Chief Minister, such approval must be read as inclusive of the draft charge-sheet and related proposals. The High Court’s reliance on B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar was held misplaced on the facts and by reason of differing rules; orders of the Single Judge and Division Bench were set aside while preserving the respondent’s right to pursue statutory appeal or revision.
- [CNLU-DPIIT-IPR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by Chanakya National Law University, Patna | Register by 26 December, 2025](https://lawfoyer.in/cnlu-dpiit-ipr-national-moot-court-competition-2026-organized-by-chanakya-national-law-university-patna-register-by-26-december-2025/): CNLU-DPIIT-IPR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2026 | Organized by Chanakya National Law University, Patna | Register by 26 December, 2025
- [Call for Blogs | Organized by Centre for Research in Air and Space Law (CRASL), Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai | Submit Blogs by 7th January 2026](https://lawfoyer.in/call-for-blogs-organized-by-centre-for-research-in-air-and-space-law-crasl-maharashtra-national-law-university-mumbai-submit-blogs-by-7th-january-2026/): CALL FOR BLOGS – IRASL BLOG ON EMERGING TRENDS IN AIR AND SPACE LAWS | Organized by Centre for Research in Air and Space Law (CRASL), Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai | Submit Blogs by 7th January 2026
- [Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309 : 2025 INSC 410](https://lawfoyer.in/imran-pratapgadhi-v-state-of-gujarat-anr-2025-3-s-c-r-1309-2025-insc-410/): Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309 : 2025 INSC 410 — The Supreme Court examined whether the recitation (in Urdu) of a poem that appeared as background audio in a 46-second video posted by a Rajya Sabha member attracted offences under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The informant alleged that the poem promoted communal enmity, hurt religious feelings and threatened national unity. On close textual and contextual analysis the Court held that the poem did not refer to any religion, caste, community, language or region; its tenor was protest and sacrifice against rulers and a call to suffer injustice with love rather than incite inter-communal violence. Applying the statutory text, constitutional guarantees under Article 19(1)(a) read with its exception in Article 19(2), and established judicial standards for speech-related offences (reasonable, strong-minded person test), the Court found no prima facie case under the cited BNS provisions. The Court additionally underlined the duty of police under Article 51-A(a) to respect constitutional freedoms and explained the scope of Section 173(3), BNSS (preliminary inquiry for offences punishable between three and seven years). Because mens rea is an essential ingredient where speech offences are alleged, and because the police did not exercise the s.173(3) option (or, on a plain reading, receive information disclosing a cognizable offence), the FIR was mechanically registered and constituted an abuse of process; the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR was set aside and the FIR quashed.
- [Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel and Others, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1277 : 2025 INSC 408](https://lawfoyer.in/madhya-pradesh-road-development-corporation-v-vincent-daniel-and-others-2025-3-s-c-r-1277-2025-insc-408/): This analysis examines Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3998 of 2024; judgment dated 27 March 2025) focusing on whether the judicially evolved theory of deduction (developed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) can be applied to reduce compensation under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter 2013 Act). The Supreme Court held that the market value under s.26(1) of the 2013 Act must be computed by applying the statutory criteria — clauses (a)–(c) and the four Explanations — and that the highest value among (a) circle/stamp-act value, (b) average sale price of similar land, and (c) consented amounts, is the market value. Where clause (a) yields the highest value (circle rate fixed under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899), it binds unless the Collector, after recording reasons under Explanation 4, finds it not to reflect the prevailing market value and adjusts it. Consequently, in the facts of this case (no reliable exemplars and no PPP/private-company consent), the circle rate (Collector’s Guidelines 2014) governed and the Commissioner’s enhancement and award (including assets and solatium) were upheld; the theory of deduction could not be used to reduce compensation in the absence of an exercise of Collector’s discretion with recorded reasons. This judgment emphasises the primacy of statutory criteria in s.26, the limited and reasoned scope of Explanation 4, and the importance of scientifically fixed, transparent circle rates.
- [Ramesh Kumaran & Anr. v. State Through The Inspector of Police & Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1245 : 2025 INSC 405](https://lawfoyer.in/ramesh-kumaran-anr-v-state-through-the-inspector-of-police-anr-2025-3-s-c-r-1245-2025-insc-405/): This judgment concerns cross-registered First Information Reports arising from a single incident between two practising advocates in Kodaikanal. The dispute produced FIR No.499 of 2017 (registered by the first appellant) and FIR No.500 of 2017 (registered by the second respondent), both alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, explored and facilitated an amicable resolution because the parties are members of the same local Bar, the incident had a history of past animosity, and both litigational and professional interests of the parties were at stake. The second respondent filed a voluntary, unconditional affidavit of apology; the first appellant initially reacted emotionally (threatening self-harm if the other FIR were quashed) but subsequently filed an affidavit of apology and an undertaking. Taking these facts into account and noting that the complaints were mirror-image in offences and closely spaced in time, the Court quashed FIR No.500 of 2017 and quashed FIR No.499 of 2017 only against the second respondent, while recording the apologies and undertakings. The order emphasises restorative resolution between legal professionals, the Court’s duty to deliver substantial justice, and the limited use of penal process when reconciliation is practicable.
- [Aslam alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1226 : 2025 INSC 403](https://lawfoyer.in/aslam-alias-imran-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-2025-3-s-c-r-1226-2025-insc-403/): Aslam alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Crim. App. No. 1538 of 2025 ([2025] 3 S.C.R. 1226 : 2025 INSC 403) examines whether the prosecution proved murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt where the case largely rested on the testimonies of lay witnesses who were internally inconsistent, delayed in furnishing statements, partially hearsay, and affected by prior enmity with the accused. The trial court convicted and the High Court affirmed. On appeal the Supreme Court scrutinized witness credibility — focusing on contradictions between PW-1 (brother of the deceased) and other witnesses, absence of expected bloodstains on carriers, failure to inform nearby police or use an available telephone, delayed recording of statements, suppression or non-production of earlier statements, and that several witnesses were hostile or deposed on hearsay. The Court held that these cumulative infirmities generated serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case. The Court further observed that though prior enmity supplies motive, it equally raises the possibility of false implication. In consequence the conviction under Section 302 IPC was quashed, the appellant acquitted and bail bonds discharged.
- [Hiralal Motilal Parikh (Deceased Through Lrs) v. Spl. LAQ Officer & Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1519 : 2025 INSC 815](https://lawfoyer.in/hiralal-motilal-parikh-deceased-through-lrs-v-spl-laq-officer-anr-2025-3-s-c-r-1519-2025-insc-815/): The appeal concerns enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for non-agricultural Survey No. 25 (≈33,387 sq. m.) acquired by Gujarat Housing Board. The Reference Court fixed compensation at Rs. 45/- per sq. m., the High Court raised it to Rs. 53/- per sq. m., and the claimants challenged adequacy before the Supreme Court. The appellants relied primarily on two proximate exemplars: (i) Exhibit 44, an allotment letter dated January 1985 allotting adjacent Survey No. 864 at Rs. 65/- per sq. m. (pre-notification); and (ii) Exhibit 53, a sale deed dated 29.08.1985 of an adjoining plot in a developed cooperative colony at Rs. 152.37/- per sq. m. (post-notification but within one month). Applying settled principles in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special LAO and Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai v. State of Gujarat, the Court accepted proximate, bona fide transactions as exemplars unless there is evidence that the acquisition itself inflated prices. The Court found Exhibit 53 genuine (supported by purchaser testimony) and Exhibit 44 indicative of pre-acquisition official valuation. Accounting for development-leftover (30% deduction for layout/development cost) and averaging the exemplars, the Court determined a fair compensation at Rs. 107/- per sq. m. (rounding the mean Rs.108.68 toward Rs.107), with statutory benefits (solatium, severance, interest) to follow as earlier awarded. Appeal partly allowed; directions issued for recalculation and payment.
- [M/s JSW Steel Limited v. Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1200 : 2025 INSC 401](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-jsw-steel-limited-v-pratishtha-thakur-haritwal-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-1200-2025-insc-401/): M/s JSW Steel Limited v. Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal & Ors., Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 629 of 2023 arising out of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1177 of 2020 (decided 27 March 2025) concerns the legal consequence of a Resolution Plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the I&B Code) and whether post-approval recovery actions by State authorities for pre-transfer statutory dues — not included in the approved plan — are barred and, if persisted in after specific Supreme Court precedent was brought to their notice, whether such actions constitute contempt. The Bench reaffirmed the principles laid down in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (paras 95, 140 of that judgment) that on approval of a resolution plan all claims not forming part of that plan stand extinguished and the successful resolution applicant takes over the corporate debtor on a clean slate. Applying that ratio to the facts where tax demand notices were issued after approval for the period prior to transfer, the Court held such demands to be contemptuous and quashed them, while extending leniency by not imposing punitive sanctions because the revenue officers tendered unconditional apology and were given the benefit of doubt. The judgment distinguishes State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd. on material facts (there the State had raised claims before the CoC) and relies on precedents such as Essar Steel (CoC v. Satish Kumar Gupta) and the Court’s earlier order in the Income-Tax SLP of August 2018. Practical directions and doctrinal clarity reinforce finality of an approved plan, obliging statutory authorities to assert claims during CIRP.
- [R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka and Others, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1217 : 2025 INSC 402](https://lawfoyer.in/r-shashirekha-v-state-of-karnataka-and-others-2025-3-s-c-r-1217-2025-insc-402/): R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka and Others, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1217 : 2025 INSC 402, examines the scope of judicial interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in petitions seeking quashing of FIRs where allegations of abetment of suicide (s.306 IPC) and cheating (s.420 IPC) arise from documents discovered post-facto. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s quashing of the s.306 count, affirming that a proximate, positive act of instigation is indispensable to sustain abetment of suicide, and that a wide temporal gulf between alleged instigatory acts and the act of suicide can dissolve the requisite proximate nexus. Conversely, the Court found the High Court’s quashing of s.420 proceedings to be cursory and inadequately reasoned: when material seized in investigation prima facie points to cheating, the High Court must articulate why such material is insufficient rather than summarily quashing the charge. The decision therefore splits the impugned order — upholding quash in relation to s.306 IPC while restoring the s.420 IPC proceedings for trial — and clarifies that while quashing powers must prevent abuse of process and mini-trials, they must not substitute for careful evaluation of investigative material, especially where offences like cheating are concerned.
- [Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1235 : 2025 INSC 404](https://lawfoyer.in/samtola-devi-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-1235-2025-insc-404/): The appeal concerns whether an Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 could lawfully order eviction of the eldest son from a portion of a house alleged to belong to his deceased father, when parallel civil suits over title and partitions are pending and the son is paying maintenance ordered by the Family Court. The Maintenance Tribunal initially imposed limited occupancy conditions and preservation of peaceful co-existence; the Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction; the High Court set aside the eviction while preserving other protective directions. The Supreme Court, after examining statutory scheme, prior authority including S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., held that though the Tribunal may in exceptional circumstances order eviction under Section 23 read with the Act’s protective object, eviction is not an automatic or mandatory remedy in every petition. On facts—existence of pending civil suits claiming 1/6th share, transfer/gift/sale deeds executed by the father, continued payment of maintenance and absence of fresh material showing harassment after the Tribunal’s order—the Appellate Tribunal erred in directing eviction without recording necessity or expediency to protect the senior citizen. The High Court’s interference setting aside eviction but keeping other protective conditions was sustained.
- [Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1503 : 2025 INSC 624](https://lawfoyer.in/sheikh-javeed-ahmad-anr-v-state-of-jk-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-1503-2025-insc-624/): Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 4426–4427 of 2025, decided 27 March 2025, concerns the validity of appointments of two doctors as Assistant Professors in the Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR) at Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) when they lacked the prescribed two-year diploma in PMR. The High Court set aside the appointments on the view that there was no evidence of impossibility in obtaining that diploma and that the candidates had not made efforts to secure admission. The Supreme Court reversed. It emphasised the notification of SKIMS which expressly blocked two posts for the candidates subject to SKIMS sponsoring them for the two-year diploma and executing a service bond; therefore SKIMS, not the candidates, bore the affirmative duty to secure admissions. The record showed SKIMS could not obtain diploma seats because many institutions discontinued the diploma course; instead short-term on-the-job training at AIIMS, New Delhi was arranged and completed. A letter from the Head, PMR, AIIMS explained AIIMS did not run a diploma and recommended short-term training for practical competence. The Court held the High Court erred in ignoring these material facts and in discrediting expert recommendation by Dr. U. Singh. The Supreme Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, directed revival of the specific posts and allowed the appeals — while stating the decision should not be treated as precedent.
- [State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai City-I Department v. G. Easwaran, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1174 : 2025 INSC 397](https://lawfoyer.in/state-rep-by-the-deputy-superintendent-of-police-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-chennai-city-i-department-v-g-easwaran-2025-3-s-c-r-1174-2025-insc-397/): The appeal challenges the High Court of Madras order quashing criminal proceedings under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against a public servant accused of possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income for the check period 01.01.2001–31.08.2008. The prosecution registered FIR No. 11/AC/2009/CC-III on 27.07.2009; sanction to prosecute was recorded in G.O. Ms. No. 178 dated 08.07.2013; charge-sheet was filed on 23.09.2013. The trial court dismissed the accused’s discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C.; the High Court dismissed the revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.; but, within seven months, the accused invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings on substantially identical grounds. The High Court allowed the quashing petition, holding (inter alia) that the sanction was tainted by delay/irregularity and that the documents and witness statements did not justify prosecution. The Supreme Court restored the trial, holding that the High Court exceeded the narrow limits of Section 482 Cr.P.C., impermissibly embarked upon a mini-trial and revisited findings already negatived by the trial court and the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court reiterated settled principles: (i) inherent powers must be exercised sparingly; (ii) discharge-stage scrutiny requires that prosecution material be accepted on its face value to determine prima facie ingredients; (iii) validity of sanction ordinarily calls for trial-stage examination and prejudice must be proved; and (iv) mere delay in sanction is not automatically fatal. The judgment emphasizes adherence to precedents such as Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, Renu Kumari v. Sanjay Kumar, State by Karnataka Lokayukta v. M.R. Hiremath, Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, AAI and Director, CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aswal in delimiting quashing jurisdiction.
- [Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1417 : 2025 INSC 532](https://lawfoyer.in/angadi-chandranna-v-shankar-ors-2025-4-s-c-r-1417-2025-insc-532/): Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1417 : 2025 INSC 532, considers whether land transferred within a family-division context remains ancestral or becomes self-acquired when subsequently purchased by one brother from another and later alienated to a stranger. The dispute arose after a registered partition deed dated 09.05.1986 among three brothers, followed by a sale deed dated 16.10.1989 by which the share allotted to C. Thippeswamy (the A-schedule plot) was sold to C. Jayaramappa (Defendant No.1), and a later sale deed dated 11.03.1993 transferring that same land to the appellant (Defendant No.2). Plaintiffs (children of Defendant No.1) sued for partition and separate possession asserting the property was effectively joint/ancestral because it was acquired out of nucleus/joint family funds or blended with the family stock. The trial Court decreed plaintiffs; the First Appellate Court reversed; the High Court in second appeal set aside the First Appellate Court and restored the trial decree; the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the First Appellate Court. The Court held that the High Court improperly re-appreciated evidence under Section 100 CPC and mis-applied Section 103 CPC and the doctrine of blending. Where partition had lawfully converted joint family lands into separate shares, the share so allotted became self-acquired for the allottee unless the plaintiffs proved the existence of an income-yielding nucleus from which the later purchase was made. On the record, the evidence supported the conclusion that Defendant No.1 purchased the suit land from his brother using his own funds and a loan from DW3, not from joint family nucleus; the High Court’s factual re-appraisal therefore could not stand.
- [Yadwinder Singh v. Lakhi alias Lakhwinder Singh & Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1407 : 2025 INSC 420](https://lawfoyer.in/yadwinder-singh-v-lakhi-alias-lakhwinder-singh-anr-2025-3-s-c-r-1407-2025-insc-420/): Yadwinder Singh v. Lakhi alias Lakhwinder Singh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1713–1720 of 2025) concerns the scope and exercise of the court’s power under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon persons not originally arraigned as accused where evidence produced during trial points to their complicity. The appellant (informant) alleged a brutal homicide of his brother; the FIR named several private persons as being present at the scene. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) later reported no incriminating material against some private respondents, and the High Court set aside a Trial Court order summoning those private respondents under Section 319. The Supreme Court, after reviewing authorities including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, held that (i) the SIT’s negative findings do not fetter the court’s power under Section 319, (ii) evidence given in examination-in-chief before the trial court — even if untested by cross-examination — is evidence for the purposes of Section 319 and may ground the exercise of the power where the court is satisfied that stronger-than-mere-possibility material points to complicity, and (iii) discretionary exercise of Section 319 must be sparing but not mechanically fettered by investigative findings. On the facts, eyewitnesses had named the private respondents as present at the occurrence; the Supreme Court found the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion not arbitrary and set aside the High Court’s order, directing fresh summons.
- [Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1189 : 2025 INSC 399](https://lawfoyer.in/rekha-sharad-ushir-v-saptashrungi-mahila-nagari-sahkari-patsansta-ltd-2025-3-s-c-r-1189-2025-insc-399/): Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., Criminal Appeal No. 724 of 2025, concerns the maintainability of a complaint under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where the complainant suppressed material documentary communications that, if disclosed, would have materially affected the Magistrate’s satisfaction under Section 200, CrPC. The respondent-credit society lodged the complaint after the deposit and dishonour of a security cheque. The appellant replied to the statutory demand by seeking production of documents relied upon in the notice; two letters from the appellant’s advocate dated 28 November 2016 and 13 December 2016 requesting loan documents were not produced with the complaint and were omitted from the complainant’s sworn statement. The Supreme Court held that recording of the complainant’s statement under Section 200, CrPC is substantive and the Magistrate must test the veracity of facts and documents before issuing process. Where a complainant suppresses very material documents and thereby makes out a false case that the accused failed to reply to the demand notice, it amounts to abuse of process. Reliance was placed on the principle in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Ors. that a party must come to court with clean hands. The Court quashed the complaint and cognizance order, while leaving open civil/recovery remedies. The decision underscores the duty to disclose material documentary communications when initiating criminal proceedings under Section 138 and emphasises the Magistrate’s active role under Section 200, CrPC to elicit the truth.
- [J. Ganapatha & Ors. v. M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. by its Trustees & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1150 : 2025 INSC 395](https://lawfoyer.in/j-ganapatha-ors-v-m-s-n-selvarajalou-chetty-trust-rep-by-its-trustees-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-1150-2025-insc-395/): This dispute concerns competing claims of title arising from a court auction sale (04.05.1962) and a subsequently executed Will (30.05.1962) coupled with later inter vivos transfers. The core legal question was whether the Plaint Schedule — a 0.75-cent parcel — stood transferred to the late Padmini Chandrasekaran by virtue of the court auction and consequent sale deed dated 25.09.1963 (advocate-commissioner deed) so as to defeat the testamentary bequest made by Somasundaram Chettiar in favour of S. Sarvothaman (defendant No.1) and later transfers by defendant No.1 to purchasers (defendant Nos.3–6). The trial court and the Division Bench accepted that the court sale order (04.05.1962) and sale deed vested title in Padmini, and on that factual matrix moulded relief in favour of the executor H.B.N. Shetty (arm of the testatrix) to set aside sale deeds in favour of defendants 3–6 and to give effect to the testatrix’s testamentary provision for Vinayagamurthy and his children. The Supreme Court upheld the findings: (i) the court sale and sale deed remained valid and conclusive; (ii) testamentary disposition by Somasundaram executed after the court sale could not defeat the perfected conveyance; and (iii) the courts below legitimately exercised discretionary power to mould relief to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectuate justice. The decision reiterates the twin limits on moulding: it must be exercised to do complete justice and must not take a party by surprise or cause prejudice. Relevant precedents referred include Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders and Shivanna v. B.S. Puttamadaiah; the appeal was dismissed with costs.
- [Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1113 : 2025 INSC 394](https://lawfoyer.in/srikrishna-kanta-singh-v-the-oriental-insurance-company-ltd-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-1113-2025-insc-394/): This judgment examines an appeal from an award in a Section 166 claim where the claimant, a Block Development Officer riding pillion on a scooter, suffered amputation of both legs in a collision with a long trailer on 3 November 1999. The Tribunal apportioned blame and reduced recovery by finding contributory negligence on the part of the scooter owner/driver; the High Court affirmed that view after scrutinising witness statements and a sketch map. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the finding of contributory negligence. The Court emphasised that a criminal charge-sheet and the FIR recording rash and negligent driving by the trailer driver constitute material evidence that shifts the preponderance of probability in favour of the claimant. It held that driving with a learners licence, or the mere fact of collision at the trailer’s tail-end, does not automatically or presumptively establish contributory negligence; negligence must be proved as a matter of fact and not presumed. On quantum, the Court reassessed heads of loss — medical treatment (including prosthetics), permanent disability, pain and suffering, attendant cost — and allowed a composite award of ₹16,00,000, directing the trailer’s insurer to pay with statutory interest and adjustments. The decision reinforces (i) that motor accident claims are non-adversarial and decided on the preponderance of probabilities, (ii) that illegality/error such as driving with a learners licence is not per se negligence for apportionment without supporting proof, and (iii) principles for assessing just compensation for severe amputative injuries.
- [Akshay Gupta & Anr. v. ICICI Bank Limited & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1122 : 2025 INSC 391](https://lawfoyer.in/akshay-gupta-anr-v-icici-bank-limited-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-1122-2025-insc-391/): This judgment records and accepts a comprehensive settlement between three commercial actors — the borrowers (flat purchasers), the developer (Rajsanket Realty Ltd.) and the lender (ICICI Bank Ltd.) — in four consolidated consumer appeals arising from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decision dated 02.01.2023. The Supreme Court, through orders dated 23.10.2024 and 06.11.2024, delineated precise financial adjustments: waiver components, 30% discount on pre-EMI interest by the Bank, 50% share of pre-EMI by the Builder, and timelines for deposits and reconciliations. The parties complied and filed affidavits proving performance; the Bank issued a certificate that no further dues remained. The Court addressed three residual contentions: (i) removal of the word “settlement” from loan account records and substitution with “re-paid” or treating the account as fully paid up; (ii) completion and handing over of possession of apartments by 31.03.2025; and (iii) formal written acknowledgment by the Builder for payments received. The Court directed the Bank to close accounts and withdraw recovery proceedings before the DRT, directed the Builder to issue acknowledgments and complete possession, and required appellants to withdraw RERA proceedings. The appeals were disposed of with directions to ensure “complete quietus to the litigation”, thereby converting a negotiated commercial compromise into a final judicial closure.
- [The Secretary to Government Department of Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1133 : 2025 INSC 389](https://lawfoyer.in/the-secretary-to-government-department-of-health-family-welfare-anr-v-k-c-devaki-2025-3-s-c-r-1133-2025-insc-389/): The Secretary to Government Department of Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki concerns fixation of seniority when a government employee is moved from one cadre to another by reason of medical incapacity at the employee’s request and after invocation of Rule 16(a)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. The respondent, originally appointed as Staff Nurse in 1979, sought a cadre change to First Division Assistant on medical grounds; a medical board confirmed bronchitis and the State placed her in the clerical cadre subject to her written consent “to take seniority below the last person”. Final cadre-change orders were issued in 1989. When a seniority list published in 2007 placed her seniority from 1989, the respondent challenged, asking that her seniority in the new cadre be reckoned from her original appointment in 1979. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and Karnataka High Court accepted the respondent’s claim — relying on an earlier High Court precedent — but the Supreme Court reversed. The Court analysed the exceptionality and operation of Rule 16 and the express provisos of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, distinguished transfers “in public interest” from transfers “at the request of the officer”, and held that where transfers occur at the officer’s request (even for medical reasons) and on the officer’s consent to forego seniority, the transferee must be slotted below incumbents in the new cadre. The High Court’s equating of a cadre change following a medical-board report with a transfer in the public interest was held unsound. Consequently, the State’s final seniority list (seniority from 19.04.1989) was upheld.
- [Jothiragawan v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police & Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 951 : 2025 INSC 386](https://lawfoyer.in/jothiragawan-v-state-rep-by-the-inspector-of-police-anr-2025-3-s-c-r-951-2025-insc-386/): Jothiragawan v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1434 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, K. Vinod Chandran, J., 24 March 2025) examines whether criminal proceedings alleging rape and cheating should be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court in Section 482, Cr.P.C.. The victim and accused were close relatives who admitted a prior relationship and three instances of sexual intercourse occurring after meetings and visits. The High Court refused quashing, relying on a precedent (Prithvirajan). On appeal the Supreme Court closely analysed the FIR and statements to determine whether the ingredients of Section 376, IPC were made out or whether proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. The Court found no evidence that promise of marriage preceded the first intercourse and concluded the alleged promise, if any, was made after sexual intercourse; the victim repeatedly accompanied the accused willingly to hotel rooms; statements contained inconsistent contentions of both consent and force; and the sequence of events made inducement by prior promise improbable. The Court held that where the complainant’s own statements show a consensual relationship and the promise of marriage (if asserted) arose after intercourse, continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process. Exercising Section 482, Cr.P.C., the Court quashed the proceedings. The decision emphasises careful scrutiny of preliminary statements where alleged consent and inducement overlap, and draws a limiting principle on invoking criminal process where material averments contradict each other and suggest abuse.
- [N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 957 : 2025 INSC 388](https://lawfoyer.in/n-p-saseendran-v-n-p-ponnamma-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-957-2025-insc-388/): This analysis examines N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4312 of 2025 (Supreme Court, 24 March 2025) and focuses on whether the instrument dated 26.06.1985 (Ext.A1 / “Dhananischayaadharam”) is a gift, settlement or will, and whether legal requirements for vesting a right were satisfied. The Court held that Ext.A1 must be read as a settlement (gift by settlement): its opening clause effectuates an immediate disposition in praesenti in favour of the daughter (Respondent No.1), while later clauses reserve a life interest and limited mortgage rights to the donor (father). The judgment applies settled principles: (i) nomenclature is not decisive — substance and intention govern construction; (ii) delivery of possession is not an absolute requirement for gifts of immovable property where a registered instrument and conduct show acceptance; (iii) a settlement may contain elements of gift and consideration (often non-monetary) and such consideration may be satisfied by familial care/obligations; (iv) unilateral revocation of a valid gift/settlement is barred by s.126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and (v) later repugnant clauses cannot cut down an earlier absolute disposition (doctrine of repugnancy / priority of earlier clause). Applying these principles to the facts and recitals, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decree declaring Respondent No.1’s title and holding the 1993 cancellation and sale deeds void as against her. Key authorities and statutory provisions (discussed below) were applied to interpret acceptance, consideration in settlements, life-interest reservations and revocability.
- [Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. The State of Maharashtra, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 933 : 2025 INSC 387](https://lawfoyer.in/firoz-khan-akbarkhan-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-2025-3-s-c-r-933-2025-insc-387/): The appeal challenges concurrent convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 for an incident in Gujri Bazar, Village Hiwarkhed where the deceased Sukhdeo Mahadeorao Dhurve was stabbed to death allegedly by the appellant and co-accused on 19 April 2005. The core factual matrix records a prior quarrel the previous night and an encounter next morning near a shop where the three accused approached the deceased; the appellant is described by multiple eyewitnesses as inflicting repeated knife-stabs causing instant death. Trial and High Court convictions rested on consistent eyewitness testimony, post-mortem and seizure records, and the Investigating Officer’s account; delay of 2–3 days in recording statements under Section 161, CrPC was explained by communal disturbances/riots and police engagement in controlling law and order. The appellant’s alternate plea of heat-of-the-moment culpable homicide was rejected because the knife was found to be with him, indicating prior intention to cause grievous bodily injury likely to cause death. On remission, this Court recalled principles from State of Haryana v. Jagdish and Union of India v. V Sriharan, held that remission policy ordinarily follows policy at conviction date (or more benevolent policy if applicable), and granted liberty to the appellant to make a fresh representation for premature release; the State to decide by reasoned order expeditiously.
- [STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. CHATRA, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 95 : 2025 INSC 360](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-rajasthan-v-chatra-2025-4-s-c-r-95-2025-insc-360/): The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Chatra re-affirmed conviction for rape of a three-year-old child under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court set aside the acquittal order of the Rajasthan High Court, which had reversed the trial court conviction mainly due to the child victim’s silence in court and minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony. The Court held that no rigid formula governs competency or evidentiary value of a child witness, and that the silence of a traumatised child cannot automatically favour the accused. The Bench emphasised that when medical and circumstantial evidence form a complete chain, conviction can stand even without direct testimony of the prosecutrix. The judgment discussed principles on appreciation of child-witness evidence drawn from precedents like Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, Panchhi v. State of U.P., Hari Om v. State of U.P. and State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar. The Court also applied the “panchsheel” tests for circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. Further, the Bench criticised the High Court’s casual approach as first appellate court and its use of the prosecutrix’s name despite privacy jurisprudence under Nipun Saxena v. Union of India. The medical testimony identifying genital injuries on the child and compatible injuries on the accused, coupled with prompt FIR, conduct of parties and absence of credible motive for false implication, created a conclusive chain pointing to guilt. The Court therefore restored the trial court judgment and directed the accused to surrender and serve the remaining sentence.
- [Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Dept. of Revenue & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1011; 2025 INSC 383](https://lawfoyer.in/yerikala-sunkalamma-anr-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-dept-of-revenue-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-1011-2025-insc-383/): Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Dept. of Revenue & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4311 of 2025, raises whether appellants who trace title by purchase and long possession could sustain a declaratory title and possession remedy against the State which asserted the land to be an assigned government land subject to resumption. The trial court accepted documentary and oral proof — notably a registered sale deed (10.12.1970), continuous possession from 1970, issuance of a pattadar passbook and years of revenue receipts — and decreed title and possession for the plaintiffs. The High Court reversed, treating the property as an assigned land and holding that assignment conditions (including Government’s right of resumption) prevent transferees and successors from acquiring superior title. The Supreme Court re-examined (i) the evidentiary weight of a pattadar passbook under the Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971, (ii) the operation of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, (iii) the statutory presumption created by s.113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and (iv) the purpose and exigencies of s.80 CPC notice practice. The Court concluded that appellants had established possession and pattadar rights; the State failed to prove a subsisting title or lawful resumption; and, as practical justice, ordered compensation rather than demolition of long-standing public constructions.
- [A. John Kennedy Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1437 : 2025 INSC 443](https://lawfoyer.in/a-john-kennedy-etc-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-2025-3-s-c-r-1437-2025-insc-443/): The judgment in A. John Kennedy Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others addresses restoration and protection of the Agasthyamalai landscape — a biodiversity hotspot in the Western Ghats — and the competing claims of displaced plantation workers evicted from lands formerly under Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Ltd. (BBTCL). The Court emphasises the primacy of forest conservation for ecological balance, water security and climate resilience and reiterates the established principle that core critical tiger habitat and reserved forests merit the highest protection. Noting historical leases and century-long plantation cultivation on Singampatti Zamin lands which were subsequently notified as reserved forest, wildlife sanctuary and core tiger habitat, the Court finds the conservation imperative outweighs non-forestry uses and orders a scientific, technology-enabled survey by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to identify non-forestry activities, encroachments and to recommend restoration measures for reserved forests, tiger habitats, elephant corridors and wildlife sanctuaries within the Agasthyamalai landscape. The Court frames time-bound directions for completion of the survey and lists future dates for receipt of the CEC report and separate consideration of rehabilitation claims. The decision builds on a line of Supreme Court precedents stressing restoration of forest cover and enforcement of statutory safeguards under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
- [Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 897; 2025 INSC 378](https://lawfoyer.in/sudam-prabhakar-achat-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-2025-3-s-c-r-897-2025-insc-378/): Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2024; judgment dated 21 March 2025) raises whether a conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be converted to a lesser offence under Section 304 (Part I or II), IPC. The prosecution case—based on ocular testimony of relatives and corroborative medical evidence—found that a sudden quarrel over the use of a shared bundh (boundary) escalated when the appellant and his co-accused attacked the deceased; the latter succumbed to injuries the same night. The courts below convicted the appellant under ss.302/34 and 324/34 IPC; the High Court affirmed. Before the Supreme Court the principal contentions were (i) that the testimony of interested, related witnesses is unreliable, and (ii) that the facts do not disclose murder but at most culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court accepted (i) that relatives’ evidence must be scrutinized with circumspection but not discarded merely for relationship, and (ii) that the assault arose in a sudden quarrel, with weapons being a stick and the blunt side of an axe — tools readily available in agricultural fields — and that the injuries and manner of assault did not indicate premeditation, cruelty or taking undue advantage. Applying Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, the Court converted the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I and directed that the appellant be sentenced to time already undergone (having served six years ten months). The judgment clarifies the approach to interested-witness testimony, the test for premeditation and cruelty, and the scope for altering a murder conviction to culpable homicide where heat of the moment and weapon-type vitiate the existence of murderous intention.
- [Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 904 : 2025 INSC 381](https://lawfoyer.in/dhirubhai-bhailalbhai-chauhan-anr-v-state-of-gujarat-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-904-2025-insc-381/): The appeal concerns whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal and convicting six villagers as members of an unlawful assembly that took part in night-time rioting at village Vadod on 28.02.2002. The core legal question is whether mere presence at a large public disturbance — a mob of over a thousand persons where police resorted to firing and a stampede ensued — can, without specific overt acts or incriminating material, sustain a conviction under ss. 143, 147, 153A, 295, 436 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted all accused due to perfunctory and stereotyped police evidence, failures of identification, absence of seized weapons/inflammables and contradictions in eyewitness testimony. The High Court partially reversed that acquittal for those named in the FIR and arrested on the spot, treating arrest and naming as proof of presence and hence participation. The Supreme Court, on appellate scrutiny, emphasized the heavy duty to protect innocent bystanders in group-clash cases, reiterated the evidentiary limits of general witness statements in large crowds, and applied cautious inferential standards (including reference to the plurality test and principles in Masalti, Nagarjit Ahir and Busi Koteswara Rao). Holding that no reliable evidence connected the appellants to any overt act, arms or incendiary material, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal.
- [Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 915 : 2025 INSC 382](https://lawfoyer.in/inder-singh-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-2025-3-s-c-r-915-2025-insc-382/): The appeal concerns the condonation of an inordinate delay of 1,537 days by the State of Madhya Pradesh in preferring a Second Appeal after reversal in the first appellate forum and after a belated review petition. The High Court condoned the delay under Section 5 / Section 5/51 (Extension of prescribed period) of the Limitation Act, 1963, permitting the Second Appeal to be listed on merits. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine whether the High Court erred in treating the State more liberally on limitation grounds and whether the facts warranted condonation. The majority reasoned that although delay cannot be lightly condoned, when a dispute involves title to land claimed and held by the State as government land, and possession and public interest are implicated, the court must weigh substantive justice and prima facie considerations against strict limitation rules. Reliance was placed on established precedents endorsing a pragmatic, case-sensitive exercise of discretion where merit scrutiny is necessary. The delay was condoned subject to a costs condition of Rs.50,000 payable by the State within one month, failing which the Second Appeal would stand dismissed. The judgment reiterates that the State enjoys no undue indulgence; it must act with due diligence, but courts may adopt a liberal approach when substantial justice requires adjudication on merits.
- [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 144 : 2025 INSC 377](https://lawfoyer.in/state-of-madhya-pradesh-v-shyamlal-ors-2025-4-s-c-r-144-2025-insc-377/): The appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenges the High Court’s conversion of convictions under Section 302, IPC into convictions under the second part of Section 304, IPC and the consequent sentencing order in respect of an assault on 1 November 1989 that culminated in the subsequent death of Laxman. The Trial Court had convicted respondents for offences under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, 323 read with Section 149, IPC and awarded life imprisonment for the Section 302/149 counts. On appeal the High Court (Jabalpur) set aside the Section 302/149 conviction and convicted the accused under the second part of Section 304, IPC, reducing punishment to the sentence already undergone and levying fines; it also directed payment of compensation to the deceased’s family and to injured victims. The State contends that the brutal nature and multiplicity of injuries, and the medical evidence documenting occipital injury and internal trauma, warranted affirmation of Section 302/149 convictions. The Supreme Court examined the contemporaneous medical records, post-mortem notes and the testimony of PW-17 (medical officer), and observed that the cause of death was recorded as asphyxia with the post-mortem opinion unable to specify a definitive causal mechanism linking the earlier external injuries to death fifteen days later. Because the medical evidence left open a real doubt on whether the injuries inflicted by the accused caused death, the conversion to Section 304 (second part) and remission to the sentence already undergone was upheld; additionally, the Court recorded the importance of giving priority to old criminal appeals where an accused is on bail and the effect of long pendency and advanced age on sentencing.
- [Vaibhav Goel & Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 841 : 2025 INSC 375](https://lawfoyer.in/vaibhav-goel-anr-v-deputy-commissioner-of-income-tax-anr-2025-3-s-c-r-841-2025-insc-375/): This analysis examines Vaibhav Goel & Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. where the Supreme Court considered whether post-approval demands by the Income-tax Department for earlier assessment years can be sustained when those dues were not submitted as claims during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and were not part of the approved resolution plan. The Court reaffirmed the clean-slate effect of an approved resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, relying on the binding precedents of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss ARC. Where statutory dues (including Central Government dues) existing prior to approval are not included in the approved resolution plan, they stand extinguished and cannot be the subject of subsequent proceedings. The facts showed that income-tax demands for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 were raised after approval though no claim was filed during CIRP; those dues were not part of the plan. The NCLT had dismissed the Monitoring Professional’s application without reasons and imposed costs; NCLAT affirmed. The Supreme Court set aside both orders, held the post-approval demands invalid, criticised NCLT’s non-consideration and costs order, and emphasised the necessity of finality for a successful resolution applicant to restart business on a clean slate. This analysis draws only on the attached judgment.
- [Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 129 : 2025 INSC 372](https://lawfoyer.in/chandra-shekhar-singh-and-others-v-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-2025-4-s-c-r-129-2025-insc-372-2/): Chandra Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 129 : 2025 INSC 372, addresses whether the word degree in the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 and in a state recruitment advertisement for Food Safety Officer (FSO) can be confined to an undergraduate qualification or whether it embraces postgraduate and doctoral qualifications as well. The appellants, who possessed Master’s degrees in relevant sciences (microbiology, food science and technology), were shortlisted but later disqualified by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on the ground that the advertisement required only a degree at the graduate level for specified subjects, with an explicit reference to Master’s degree in Chemistry only. The High Court upheld disqualification. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme — notably Sections 37, 91 and 94 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the definition of degree under Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 — and applied the golden rule of interpretation. The Court concluded that, absent an express exclusion, degree includes Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate degrees; the special mention of Master’s degree in Chemistry imposes a higher minimum only for Chemistry, not an exclusion for other subjects. The appeal was allowed and the appellants were directed to be reinstated at the interview stage, with provision for supernumerary posts if necessary; appointments, if made, were to be without back wages but with notional service benefits.
- [Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) v. Neetu Gaur & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 850 : 2025 INSC 374](https://lawfoyer.in/indian-council-of-social-science-research-icssr-v-neetu-gaur-ors-2025-3-s-c-r-850-2025-insc-374/): Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) v. Neetu Gaur & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 850 : 2025 INSC 374 (Supreme Court, 20 March 2025) examines the limits of control exercised by a funder-authority over a recipient autonomous society and the lawful exercise of grant-withholding powers where the beneficiary has been found to flout conditions attached to grants. The Court upheld ICSSR’s discretion to withhold recurring grant-in-aid where independent enquiry reports found systemic irregularities at the recipient institution, Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development (CRRID), including appointments on dubious qualifications, irregular promotions and misuse of grant funds. The High Court’s conclusion that ICSSR exercised “deep and pervasive” control over CRRID — thereby imposing on ICSSR an obligation to pay employee salaries — was rejected. The Supreme Court held that (i) the mere nomination of ICSSR representatives on CRRID’s governing body and the fact of financial dependency does not convert CRRID into a State instrumentality under Article 12; (ii) grant-in-aid under ICSSR Rules is discretionary and conditional, and compliance failures permit withholding and refund actions; and (iii) employer-employee liabilities rest with CRRID, not ICSSR. The Court directed CRRID to pay withheld salaries from its own resources, allowed ICSSR to continue withholding further grants if CRRID failed, and ordered release of sums deposited in Court to ICSSR.
- [State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 156 : 2025 INSC 376](https://lawfoyer.in/state-cbi-v-mohd-salim-zargar-fayaz-ors-2025-4-s-c-r-156-2025-insc-376-2/): State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1681 & 1770 of 2009 (judgment 20 March 2025) examines the scope and mandatory nature of procedural safeguards under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules for confessions recorded by police officers not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The appeals arose from acquittals by the Special Court in two separate but related criminal trials concerning kidnapping and subsequent murders (including the Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University) where the prosecution’s case relied heavily on confessional statements recorded by an SP (A.K. Suri). The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on admissibility and reliability of such confessions, adherence to the Kartar Singh guidelines, the doctrine of issue estoppel where an identical confession had been earlier rejected, and the impact of non-recovery of the weapon and weak ocular testimony. The Court found pervasive non-compliance with Rule 15 — absence of questions and answers establishing voluntariness, failure to record time/place or reflection period, discrepancies in dates, recording in intimidating environments (BSF camps/JICs) and lack of authorization for the Recording Officer — and held that the Special Court rightly rejected the confessions and acquitted the accused. The appeals were dismissed. This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards under Section 15 and Rule 15, emphasises the protective rationale behind excluding police confessions, and reiterates the limits to reliance on confessions in the absence of corroboration and compliance with statutory safeguards.
- [M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Limited v. Snehasis Nanda, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 866 : 2025 INSC 371](https://lawfoyer.in/m-s-citicorp-finance-india-limited-v-snehasis-nanda-2025-3-s-c-r-866-2025-insc-371-2/): This judgment examines whether the compla