Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Constitution of India

5,773 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 3,201–3,400.

MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA AND ORS. ETC. ETCversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC

1991 INSC 23313 September 1991Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the second proviso added to Rule 4 and the proviso to Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, which restrict candidates allocated to IPS or Central Services Group A from re‑appearing in the next examination unless they resign. The petitioners argued tha

G.B. MAHAJAN AND ORSversusJALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

1990 INSC 27713 September 1990Dismissed

The Jalgaon Municipal Council, having received a gift of land, sought to develop it by constructing an administrative building, a vegetable market and a commercial complex on a self‑financing basis, appointing a private developer (Respondent No. 6) to execute the project and to dispose of occupancy rights for a fee. Re

STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR & OTHERSversusJAG MOHAN LAL

1988 INSC 27413 September 1988Case Allowed

The respondent, an officer of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, retired at the statutory age of 58 and sought an extension of service under Regulation 19(1) of the Bank's Officers' Service Regulations, 1979. The Bank refused, citing lack of continued utility, good health, and integrity, and the High Court dismissed his p

CALCUTTA PORT SHARMIK UNIONversusCALCUTTA RIVER TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION & ORS.

1988 INSC 27513 September 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The Calcutta Port Sharmik Union, representing about 15,000 bargemen (Dandees and Majhis) at Calcutta Port, claimed that they were "dock workers" under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and therefore entitled to the wages and allowances recommended by the Central Wage Board. The Wage Board had exclud

ALIJAN MIAN AND ANOTHERversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHANBAD

1983 INSC 11913 September 1983Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined two writ petitions challenging orders of preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 issued against Alijan Mian and Jadunandan Sah, who were already in jail and likely to be released on bail. The detaining authority justified the detention on the ground that, if released, the p

IN RE: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF:INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 60513 August 2024Disposed off

The Indian Medical Association filed a writ petition alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., its managing director Acharya Balkrishna and proponent Baba Ramdev, violated an undertaking given to the Supreme Court on 21 November 2023 by holding a press conference on 22 November 2023 and publishing advertisements that claim

MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS.versusRAJNI KANT AND ANR.

2010 INSC 51313 August 2010Dismissed

The dispute concerned the inclusion of Rajni Kant and Anjani Kumar as heirs of the late Chandra Deo Singh in land records (khata) under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The respondents claimed they were legitimate children born out of a long‑standing live‑in relationship between the deceas

M/S GREEN EARTH ASPHALT & POWER P. LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA TR. P.S.O. & ORS.

2008 INSC 93113 August 2008Case Partly allowed

The appellant, M/s Green Earth Asphalt & Power P. Ltd., filed a criminal complaint under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging offences by the firm and its partners. The High Court, invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the entire criminal proceeding, reasoning that the compla

STATE OF GUJARATversusNARENDRA K. AMIN

2007 INSC 82813 August 2007Case Allowed

In a murder case, the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC to Deputy Superintendent of Police Narendra K. Amin. The State of Gujarat appealed, contending that the court failed to consider the prosecution’s apprehension that the accused could influence or coerce witnesses and that custo

BALVANT N. VISWAMITRA AND ORS.versusYADAV SADASHIV MULE (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 44613 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Balvant N. Viswamitra, sued the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased tenant for possession of land after the tenant defaulted on rent. The landlord attempted service of notice by registered post, certificate of posting and affixing it on the premises, but could not obtain the heirs' names and add

SINGER INDIA LTD.versusCHANDER MOHAN CHADHA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 44713 August 2004Dismissed

The landlord sued Singer India Ltd for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging that the American tenant had transferred possession to the Indian company without the landlord's written consent. The transfer resulted from a court‑sanctioned amalgamation compelled by a Reserve Bank of India

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusINDIRA KUMARI

2003 INSC 39013 August 2003Dismissed

The respondents, language teachers employed by the State of Haryana, sought promotion on the ground that the Certificate of Junior Basic Training (J.B.T.) should be treated as equivalent to the required Orientation Training (O.T.). The State had issued a notification on 12 March 1976 declaring J.B.T. equivalent to O.T.

M/S. LAKSHMI PRECISION SCREWS LTD.versusRAM BAHAGAT

2002 INSC 33413 August 2002Dismissed

Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. terminated the employment of Ram Bahagat under Clause 9(f)(ii) of its Certified Standing Orders after he was absent for ten days without leave. The company sent a notice on 17 October 1990 asking him to report within 48 hours, warning that failure would be deemed disinterest and his name w

VICCO LABORATORIES AND ANR.versusART COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 35913 August 2001Dismissed

Vicco Laboratories, a manufacturer of ayurvedic products, hired Art Commercial Advertising and its partners to produce a television serial titled "Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi" for Doordarshan, paying them a fixed sum as sponsorship. Vicco claimed it was the producer and owner of the copyright and the exclusive right to use the

SOPHIA GULAM MOHD. BHAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 32713 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, sister of Bham Faisal Gulam Mohammed, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu was arrested for attempting to smuggle diamonds and was supplied with grounds o

RAIS AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1999 INSC 32813 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rais Ahmad, filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Allahabad High Court. His counsel had obtained leave of absence from the Chief Justice on the ground of illness up to 23 April 1996 and sent an illness slip for the hearing scheduled on 24 April 1996, but the slip was not brought to the notic

VISHAKA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

1997 INSC 60413 August 1997Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a class-action writ petition filed by Vishaka and NGOs seeking enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, prompted by a gang‑rape incident in Rajasthan. The Court held that sexual harassment of women in the workplace viola

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.versusSYED YOUSUDDIN AHMED

1997 INSC 60513 August 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Syed Yousuddin Ahmed, a Deputy Executive Engineer of the Andhra Pradesh Government, claimed that four incentive increments (personal pay) he received should be counted as part of his emoluments for pension calculation. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal held that the incentive increments were part of his emolum

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusSMT. GAYATRI DEVI PANDEY

1996 INSC 88313 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Smt. Gayatri Devi Pandey, originally appointed as a School Psychologist and later regularised as an L.T. Grade teacher, was subsequently appointed on an ad‑hoc basis as Assistant Psychologist and promoted to Vocational Guidance Counsellor. She sought regularisation in these posts, but her representation was rejected. T

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.versusP. RAVINDER & ORS.

1991 INSC 19013 August 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an order on 18 November 1981 granting a 5% weightage to candidates whose basic education was in Telugu medium for appointments to non‑gazetted posts, expressly limiting the benefit to selections made through the State Public Service Commission (SPSC). The State Administrative Tri

HARDEEP SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

1987 INSC 21013 August 1987Case Allowed

Hardeep Singh, a constable on probation in the Haryana Police, was dismissed without a charge sheet or hearing after participating in a peaceful union protest. He challenged the order, arguing it was a punitive dismissal that required compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 16.24(ix)(b) of the Punja

OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

1987 INSC 20913 August 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Osmania University Teachers Association challenged the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986, alleging that it was a duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act and fell within the Union's exclusive legislative field under Entry 66 of List I. The State argued that the Act pertained to e

SHEELA BARSE & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 17113 August 1986Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition filed by Sheela Barse and others under Article 32, examined the right to a speedy trial for child accused of offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. Relying on the earlier Hussainara Khatoon decision, the Court affirmed that the right to speedy trial is imp

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusLALLOO & OTHERS.

1985 INSC 17413 August 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh charged Laloo and three others with the murder of Babu Jaleshwar Singh on 24 September 1974. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eye‑witnesses (PW1‑3), corroborative statements of PW5 and PW6, medical evidence of a fatal neck wound, and a First Information Report (FIR) prepared b

DR. MUNEEB UL REHMAN HAROON AND ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE AND ORS.

1984 INSC 13813 August 1984Dismissed

The petitioners, a group of medical graduates, applied for admission to the post‑graduate medical course at the Srinagar Medical College for the July 1980 semester and appeared for the entrance test, but the result was never declared and no admissions were made for three consecutive semesters (July 1980, November 1980,

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusSURENDER KOTIANKAR

1984 INSC 13913 August 1984Dismissed

The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 for special leave to challenge the Karnataka High Court's dismissal of its appeals against the conviction of Surender Kotiankar under Sections 408 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had rejected the State's request for enhanced senten

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2026 INSC 67913 July 2026Dismissed

The petitioners, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. and a shareholder, challenged the constitutional validity of the explanations appended to Rule 38 of the 2016 Minerals Concession Rules and Rule 45(8)(a) of the 2017 Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, which require that royalty, District Mineral Foundation (DM

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusBALI RAM NO. 850808321

2026 INSC 68913 July 2026Dismissed

Bali Ram, a CRPF constable, was medically invalidated in 1998 after developing severe ophthalmic disability. He sought only a disability pension, but the Single Judge invoked Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and ordered his reinstatement with full service benefits. The Union of India and other CRPF

SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2020 INSC 45113 July 2020Disposed off

The case concerns the management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram, which has been historically managed by the Travancore royal family. After the integration of princely states, a Covenant in 1949 and the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 preserved the Ruler's control over the

GIRLSH KUMAR SUNEJAversusC.B.L.

2017 INSC 61513 July 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court upheld its earlier order that any prayer for stay or to impede the progress of investigations or trials in the coal block allocation cases must be made only before the Supreme Court, thereby limiting the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The Court held that this restriction is perm

V. VASANTHAKUMARversusH.C. BHATIA AND ORS.

2016 INSC 52113 July 2016Matter referred to larger bench

The writ petition filed by V. Vasanthakumar sought a mandamus directing the Supreme Court to consider proposals for establishing National/Regional Courts of Appeal to alleviate the massive backlog and improve access to justice. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court has increasingly functioned as a regular appell

NABAM REBIA, AND BAMANG FELIXversusDEPUTY SPEAKER AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 52613 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from political turmoil in Arunachal Pradesh where the Governor, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, preponed the 6th session of the Legislative Assembly from 14 January 2016 to 16 December 2015 and issued a message directing the manner of proceedings, including the removal of the Spea

DELHI RACE CLUB LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2012 INSC 28213 July 2012Dismissed

The Delhi Race Club challenged the constitutional validity of the Mysore Race Courses Licensing Act, 1952 (as extended to Delhi) and its 2001 amendment that raised the licence fee for horse racing ten‑fold. The club argued that Section 11(2) gave the Administrator unfettered power to fix fees without guidance, amountin

MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEENversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2011 INSC 48713 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The accused Mustkeem, Nandu and Arun were convicted for the murder of Ram Pal Yadav under IPC s.302/34 and the Arms Act based largely on circumstantial evidence, hostile eyewitnesses, and weapons recovered after the accused’s disclosure. The Supreme Court found that key witnesses had turned hostile, statements were ret

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusS. NARASIMHA KUMAR AND ORS.

2006 INSC 42813 July 2006Disposed off

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against a High Court order acquitting several accused, including D.V. Chandrasekhar (A‑3). While the appeal under Article 136 was pending, Chandrasekhar died, and his wife filed a petition asserting that the appeal had abated. The Court examined whether an appea

HPA INTERNATIONALversusBHAGWANDAS FATEH CHAND DASWANI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 39513 July 2004Dismissed

The vendor, a life tenant of a property, entered into a sale agreement with HPA International to sell his life interest and the reversionary interest of the remaindermen, subject to obtaining a High Court sanction. The sanction suit was opposed by the reversioners and, after two years of delay, the vendor served a noti

HAZI ZAINULLAH KHAN (DEAD) BY L.RS.versusNAGAR MAHAPALIKA, ALLAHABAD

1994 INSC 24713 July 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court allowed a civil appeal by the mother, sister and brothers of Abdul Rehman, a 20‑year‑old college student who was killed when a municipal truck hit his bicycle. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the claim for compensation, relying on the testimony of two inte

SHRIKANT BHALCHANDRA KARULKAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

1994 INSC 24813 July 1994Dismissed

The appellants, owners of agricultural land in Gujarat as well as land in other Indian states, challenged Sections 6(3A), 4, 10 and 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, on the ground that the provision which requires the land held outside Gujarat to be taken into account while computing the ceiling a

SH. BABU LAL, CONVENOR AND ANR.versusNEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITIEE AND ANR.

1994 INSC 24913 July 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, class‑IV employees designated as Storm Water Drains (SWD) Beldars and Mates of the New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC), sought the pay‑scales recommended by the Shiv Shankar Committee (SS Committee) which had already been granted to other class‑IV staff of the NDMC. The NDMC had extended the SS Commit

SHRIRAM CHITS AND INVESTMENT (P) LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1993 INSC 22213 July 1993Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, challenged by various chit fund companies and individuals on the grounds that it infringed their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) and that Parliament lacked legislative competence, alleging the Act dealt with money‑lend

KRISHENA KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1990 INSC 20113 July 1990Dismissed

The petitioners, retired railway employees who had opted for the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme, challenged twelve Railway Board notifications that allowed certain CPF retirees, after specified cut‑off dates, to switch to the pension scheme while denying the same option to other similarly situated retirees. T

STATE OF U. P.versusMOHD .. IQRAM & ANR.

2011 INSC 41313 June 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the Allahabad High Court’s acquittal of two accused (Mohd Iqram and another) in the murder of Rashmi. Police, on routine patrol, heard shrieks, saw three persons scaling a wall, apprehended two, and were led to the victim who later died of strangulation. The trial court convi

ASHOK PANDEYversusKM. MAYAWATI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 69413 June 2007Dismissed

The petition under Article 32 sought a writ of quo warranto against the Chief Minister and a Minister, alleging that their appointment was invalid because they were members of the Rajya Sabha and not of the State Legislature, thus supposedly falling outside Article 164(4). The Supreme Court examined Articles 163, 164(1

JITENDER @ KALLAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

2025 INSC 66713 May 2025Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined the procedure for designating Senior Advocates after concerns were raised in Jitender @ Kalla regarding the 100‑point assessment and the role of bar members in the Permanent Committee. It considered whether the point‑based system introduced in Indira Jaising I and modified in Indira Jaising I

VIJAYA BANK & ANR.versusPRASHANT B NARNAWARE

2025 INSC 69113 May 2025

Vijaya Bank required its senior middle‑manager, Prashant B. Narnaware, to serve a minimum of three years and to pay Rs 2 lakhs as liquidated damages if he resigned earlier, as stipulated in clause 11(k) of his appointment letter. The employee resigned after less than two years and paid the amount under protest, subsequ

DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 41513 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's land was acquired in 1976‑77 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but no compensation was ever paid. After repeatedly seeking payment, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a single High Court judge on the ground of a 42‑year delay. The Division Bench of the High Court then directe

BAIJU K G & ORSversusDR V P JOY

2022 INSC 57513 May 2022Directions issued

The petitioners, victims of Endosulfan pesticide use in Kerala's Kasargod district, sought enforcement of a Supreme Court order dated 10 January 2017 that directed the State Government to pay Rs 5 lakhs compensation to each affected person and to arrange medical facilities. Five years later, only eight petitioners had

DR R. DINESH KUMAR REDDY & ORSversusMEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE (MCC) & ORS.

2022 INSC 56713 May 2022Dismissed

The petitioners, a group of MBBS graduates who had participated in the NEET‑PG 2021 counselling process, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking the quashing of the National Board of Examinations' notification fixing the NEET‑PG 2022 exam for 21 May 2022, a postponement of the exam, a fresh date after eight week

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 40413 May 2015Disposed off

Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking to restrain the Union and State governments from using public funds for advertisements that project individual functionaries or political parties, and asked the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines. The Court, invoking

HINDUSTAN ZINC LTDversusRAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

2015 INSC 99613 May 2015Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered appeals by Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and other captive power generators challenging the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (RERC) Renewable Energy Obligation Regulations of 2007 and 2010, which require them to purchase a minimum quantum of electricity from renewable sources. The appell

RISAL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2014 INSC 39513 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Assistant Sub‑Inspector Risal Singh was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, who dispensed with a disciplinary inquiry and gave no reasons for the dismissal. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that a reason must be ascribed when an inquiry is waived, and the Hi

CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2013 INSC 34413 May 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of a 2010 notification issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) introducing the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to postgraduate medical courses across India. Petitioners challenged the MCI's competence under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, to imp

BALCHANDRA L. JARKIHOLI & ORS.versusB.S. YEDDYURAPPA & ORS.

2011 INSC 40013 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Thirteen BJP MLAs wrote to the Governor withdrawing support from Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa, prompting the Governor to ask the CM to prove his majority and the CM to file a disqualification application under the Tenth Schedule against them. The Speaker issued show‑cause notices, gave only three days to respond (in

MOHAMMAD AHMAD & ANR.versusATMA RAM CHAUHAN & ORS.

2011 INSC 39813 May 2011Dismissed

The appellants, tenants of two 240 sq ft shops, were originally paying Rs 60 per month. After a landlord‑tenant dispute, the High Court Single Judge stayed their eviction and first raised the rent to Rs 600 per month (Sept 2005). In Feb 2007, following a landlord’s offer and the tenants’ acceptance, the Judge further i

SANTOSH KUMAR SATISHBHUSHAN BARIYARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2009 INSC 80813 May 2009Dismissed

The appellant, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, while his co‑accused received life imprisonment. The appellant challenged the legality of the Sessions Judge's grant of pardon to the approver (PW‑1) under Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and argue

KASHMIR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2008 INSC 65213 May 2008Disposed off

The case concerned the tenure of members of the Sikh Judicial Commission under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, and the validity of several notifications issued by the Punjab Government and the Central Government. The appellant, Kashmir Singh, challenged the removal of commission members and the re‑constitution notificati

RITESH AGARWAL AND ANR.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT AND ORS.

2008 INSC 65713 May 2008Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined SEBI’s action against the promoters of Ritesh Polyster Ltd., whose 1995 public issue was found to be a fraudulent hoax. SEBI directed the promoters – including the father, his wife and two sons who were minors at the time – to disassociate from the capital market for ten years under Sections

STATE OF PUNJABversusPREM SAGAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 65813 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were convicted under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for illegally transporting 2,000 litres of rectified spirit and were sentenced by the trial court to one year imprisonment. The High Court, noting that the offence occurred 19 years earlier, reduced the sentence by granting probation unde

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.versusMADAN MOHAN JOSHI AND ORS.

2008 INSC 65913 May 2008Disposed off

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of lecturers of Kumaon University after their ad‑hoc appointments were regularised under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation Rules, 1979. The first respondent, Madan Mohan Joshi, was placed lower in the seniority list than a junior colleague, Savita (Mohan) Dhondyal, prompting a w

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusBABBU BARKARE @ DALAP SINGH

2005 INSC 28213 May 2005Disposed off

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the High Court's reduction of a seven‑year rigorous imprisonment awarded to Babbu Barkare @ Dalap Singh for rape under Section 376 IPC to the eleven months already served, on the ground that the accused was an illiterate labourer from a rural area. The Supreme Court held tha

BABURAOversusMANIKRAO AND ANR.

1999 INSC 24913 May 1999Dismissed

In the 1995 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections, both the appellant Baburao and the first respondent Manikrao filed nominations from Nilanga constituency. The respondent's name appeared in the electoral rolls of both Nilanga and Latur constituencies. Baburao objected, claiming that this dual entry disqualified t

A.K. SINGH AND ORS.versusUTTARAKHAND JAN MORCHA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 24713 May 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the Allahabad High Court’s extensive directions issued in the wake of the 1994 Uttarakhand agitation, which ordered massive compensation to victims, large fund allocations for regional development, and pre‑emptive rulings on the need for sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, the composition

R.C. SOODversusHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN

1998 INSC 23213 May 1998Case Allowed

The petitioner, a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, was suspended and subjected to a departmental enquiry by the High Court on allegations of administrative irregularities. The petitioner challenged the initiation of the enquiry, arguing that a prior order by the Chief Justice had already exonerated him

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SECONDARY) AND ANR.versusPUSHPENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS

1998 INSC 23413 May 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned dependents of teaching and non‑teaching staff of non‑government aided schools in Uttar Pradesh who, after the death of the employee, applied for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The District Inspector appointed them to Class IV posts, but the applicants filed

VISHAL JEETversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 23613 May 1998Dismissed

Vishal Jeet, claiming to be an advocate, filed a fresh contempt petition (CRL No. D4I06 of 1998) against the Union of India and others, alleging that he had been denied membership of the Central Advisory Committee. An earlier contempt petition (No. 1/1994) on the same grievance had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

RATAN CHANDRA SAMMANTA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1993 INSC 20113 May 1993Dismissed

The petitioners, former casual labourers of the South Eastern Railway appointed between 1964‑69 and retrenched between 1975‑78, sought inclusion in the live casual labour register and re‑employment according to seniority, also requesting that vacancies not be filled from the open market. They relied on Railway Board ci

ANOSH EKKAversusSTATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2026 INSC 35713 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The former Jharkhand minister Anosh Ekka was convicted in two separate cases arising from the same set of allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and misusing his office. The High Court rejected his application for suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of the appeal, prompting a special leave pet

DHANANJAY RATHIversusRUCHIKA RATHI

2026 INSC 36013 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The husband and wife, married in 2000, lived separately from 2022 and entered into a mediated Settlement Agreement in May 2024 that provided for a mutual‑consent divorce, payment of Rs 75 lakh, a car purchase, jewellery hand‑over and other financial transfers. The first motion for divorce was granted after the husband

NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 25313 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd lodged an FIR alleging forgery and fraud against three respondents under several IPC sections. The respondents filed a petition under Article 226 and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashment of the FIR and obtained a blanket interim order from the Bombay High Court directing the po

SHIVRAJ SINGH CHOUHAN & ORS.versusSPEAKER MADHYA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS.

2020 INSC 33513 April 2020Disposed off

In Madhya Pradesh, twenty‑two INC legislators tendered resignations, six of which were accepted by the Speaker. The Chief Minister, fearing loss of majority, sought a floor test, and the Governor, on the basis of material indicating a possible loss of confidence, directed a trust vote on 16 March 2020. The Assembly was

TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 33213 April 2018Matter referred to larger bench

The Tamil Nadu Medical Officers’ Association challenged the amendment to Regulation 9(4) and (8) of the Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, which allowed reservation of 50% of state‑quota seats for in‑service medical officers. The petitioners argued that such reservation exceeded the legislative competen

K. K. MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2018 INSC 34113 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

K.K. Mishra, a Congress spokesperson, allegedly made three statements about the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh during a press conference. The State Government sanctioned the public prosecutor to file a complaint under Section 199(2) of the CrPC on the same day, leading to Mishra's conviction under Section 500 IPC for

AGNIGUNDALA VENKATA RANGA RAOversusINDUKURU RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 34513 April 2017Dismissed

The plaintiff, a holder of agricultural land exceeding the ceiling prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, sold the land to the respondents on 16 July 1975, after the Act had come into force. The Land Ceiling Tribunal in 1976 declared the sale void and the land dee

AVINASH MEHROTRAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2009 INSC 48913 April 2009Disposed off

The petition arose after a fire in a thatched‑roof school in Kumbakonam killed 93 children, highlighting the unsafe conditions of many Indian schools. The petitioner sought directions that every school provide education in safe premises, invoking Articles 21, 21‑A and 51‑A(k) of the Constitution. The Court examined whe

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusINTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO WORKERS UNION & ANR.

2009 INSC 48313 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The International Airport Authority of India (IAAI) terminated a licence with a private ground‑handling firm, after which the firm’s workers formed a cooperative society and entered into a contract‑labour agreement with IAAI. The workers later sought absorption as regular employees, alleging that the contract was a sha

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 22413 April 2006Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Haryana Local Area Development Tax Act, 2000, which imposed an entry tax on goods entering local areas. The key issue was whether such a tax qualified as a "compensatory tax" and therefore fell outside the prohibition of Article 301 of the Constitution. The

R.D. UPADHYAYversusSTATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 22513 April 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the plight of children who reside in jails with their mother‑prisoners, whether under‑trial or convicted, and found that existing provisions were inadequate. Relying on constitutional guarantees (Articles 14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47) and international child‑rights norms, the Court

SWAMY ATMANANDAversusSWAMI BODHANANDA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 20613 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Swamy Atmananda, challenged a Madras High Court order that had granted a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the respondents to assist in taking over management of certain institutions in accordance with a decree of a civil court. The High Court had allowed the writ petition, treating it as an a

DR. KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.

2004 INSC 26613 April 2004Dismissed

Dr. Karan Singh, son of the former Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir, claimed that 563 heirloom articles in the state Toshakhana were his private property. After a 1983 representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs was rejected, he filed a writ petition which was partially allowed by the High Court, declaring 42 items his.

STATE THROUGH SUPDTT. CENTRAL JAIL, NEW DELHIversusCHARULATA JOSHI AND ANR.

1999 INSC 18013 April 1999Disposed off

A news magazine sought permission from the Additional Sessions Judge to interview an under‑trial prisoner, Babloo Srivastava, in Tihar Jail. The Sessions Judge granted a blanket permission, which the High Court modified by imposing conditions that the prisoner must consent and the interview must not offend the court or

RAJA T BARAN ROY ETC.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

1999 INSC 17713 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, members of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service, were compulsorily retired at age 58 by orders of the Governor, allegedly on the basis of a High Court pre‑retirement assessment and the State's power under Rule 75(aa). They contended that the retirement age had been raised to 60 years by the Supreme

HARI SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1993 INSC 15013 April 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved six accused, including Hari Singh, Satbir and Gulbir, who were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC for the death of Mange Ram. The trial court and High Court upheld the convictions, but the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the earlier rejection of Special

VELLORE ELECTRIC CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

1989 INSC 12613 April 1989Dismissed

Three private electricity supply companies in Tamil Nadu, whose licences were granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, were initially ordered to be acquired by the State under the 1954 Act, but the orders were stayed. The Tamil Nadu Private Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1973 later nullified

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusTHANA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. & OTHERS.

1989 INSC 12713 April 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The Thana Electricity Supply Company held a licence to supply electricity which the Maharashtra State Electricity Board exercised its option to purchase upon expiry. The Indian Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976 replaced the market‑value basis for the purchase price with a depreciated book‑value amount and a

TINSUKHIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

1989 INSC 12813 April 1989Dismissed

The petitioners, Tinsukia and Dibrugarh Electric Supply Companies, challenged the Assam Electricity (Assam Amendment) Act, 1973 and the Tinsukia & Dibrugarh Electric Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1973 on the ground that the statutes were colourable, lacked a real nexus with Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constit

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusN. HARGOPAL & ORS.

1987 INSC 10513 April 1987Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 applies to government establishments and whether it obliges any employer to recruit only candidates sponsored by employment exchanges. It held that government offices are "establishments in public sector" and th

MIZO CHIEF COUNCIL MIZORAM, THR. PRESIDENT SHRI L. CHINZAHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2026 INSC 23613 March 2026Dismissed

The Mizo Chief Council filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of tribal chieftains alleging that the State had acquired their traditional lands without paying due compensation, violating their fundamental right to property. The petition was filed in 2014, more than six decades after the 1955 notification that

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusRAGHUWAR PAL SINGH

2018 INSC 23413 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent was appointed as Veterinary Compounder in the Central Cattle Breeding Farms in 1999 by the then Director In‑charge without obtaining prior written approval of the competent authority as required by the Central Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and IV) Recruitment Rules, 1969. The Department later issued a

KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusN. NARASIMAHAIAH AND ORS.

2008 INSC 35313 March 2008Dismissed

The Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) had granted a loan to an industrial concern and obtained personal guarantees and hypothecated properties from its directors. When the industrial concern defaulted, KSFC invoked Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to take possession of the guarantors'

ASH OK KUMAR KAPUR AND ORSversusASHOK KHANNA AND ORS

2007 INSC 28413 March 2007Matter referred to larger bench

The case concerned a pension fund set up as a trust by Mis Dunlop India Ltd. After the beneficiaries had been paid, the trustees applied to the Calcutta High Court under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act seeking a direction on the surplus fund. The High Court refused to entertain the application, holding that Section

PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (PUCL) AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 17613 March 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 33B (also called Section 338) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, inserted by the 3rd Amendment Act, 2002, which barred candidates from disclosing any information not expressly required by the Act despite Supreme Court directions. The Court held tha

STATE OF KARN ATAKA AND ORS.versusDRIVE IN ENTERPRISES

2001 INSC 14113 March 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Drive‑In Enterprises, operated a drive‑in cinema where patrons could view films while seated in their motor cars. The State of Karnataka imposed an entertainment tax on the admission of each motor vehicle into the auditorium under sub‑clause (v) of clause (i) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Entertainment

NEW BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 37613 March 1996Dismissed

The New Bank of India, a loss‑making nationalised bank, was merged with Punjab National Bank under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The Central Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, framed a Placement Scheme to determine the inter‑se seniority of the tran

PANDURONGA TIMBLO INDUSTRIES ETC. ETCversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1992 INSC 7913 March 1992Dismissed

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Goa, Daman and Diu Barge Tax Act, 1973, arguing that a 'barge' is not a 'boat' within the meaning of Entry 58, List II of the Seventh Schedule, which permits states to tax 'animals and boats'. They contended that the term 'boat' should be limited to vessels p

SAUDAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC.versusN.D.M.C. AND ORS. ETC.

1992 INSC 7613 March 1992Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered numerous writ petitions filed under Article 32 and special leave petitions under Article 136 by pavement hawkers and squatters alleging that the New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) violated their fundamental right to carry on trade under Article

PRAKASH WAREHOUSING CO.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR.

1991 INSC 7313 March 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Prakash Warehousing Co., obtained a licence and later an assignment of rights over two corporation godowns and, with the corporation’s knowledge, allowed a second respondent to store goods under an agreement. The corporation later formalised the appellant’s status as principal occupier by a deed dated 17

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusG. SREENIVASA RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.

1989 INSC 8813 March 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals concerning senior government employees who were paid less than their juniors in the same cadre after promotions under Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules. The seniors argued that this violated the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Articles 39(d), 14

KUMARI SUNEETA RAMCHANDRAversusSTATE OP MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

1986 INSC 3913 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Kumari Suneeta, daughter of a Central Government servant transferred to Maharashtra, applied for admission to Nagpur Medical College under Rule C6(ii) which provides a concession for such children. She was denied admission on the ground that the rule limited the concession to two seats in all Government Medical College

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusBASANTIBAL MOHANLAL KHETAN & ORS.

1986 INSC 4013 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of sub‑sections (3) and (4) of section 44 of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1976, which prescribe a specific method of calculating compensation for land acquired in municipal areas. The petitioners (the State of Maharashtra and the Housing Authority) appeal

VISHUNDAS HUNDUMAL, ETC.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

1981 INSC 6713 March 1981Case Allowed

The petitioners, holders of stage‑carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, challenged Scheme No. 50‑M which reserved certain routes for exclusive operation by the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. When the scheme came into force, the permits of some operators whose routes overlapped the reserved ro

ZUBAIR. PversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2026 INSC 15113 February 2026Dismissed

The appellant, Zubair P, a teacher with BA and MA in Economics and a B.Ed. in Social Sciences, had passed the State Eligibility Test (SET) in Malayalam and was appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics) on 15 July 2021. The State of Kerala and other respondents objected, contending that the Kerala Educati

THE TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATIONversusANNA NAGAR CRICKET CLUB & ANR. ETC.

2026 INSC 15413 February 2026Case Partly allowed

The Tiruchirappalli District Cricket Association (TDCA), a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, was challenged by a former office‑bearer (respondent No.2) who sought a fresh voters list and a free, fair election, invoking directions from the High Court that were based on the S. Nith

HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2026 INSC 15913 February 2026

The appellants, a group of agriculturists and a nearby school, challenged a Change of Land Use (CLU) dated 13‑12‑2021 that permitted a cement‑related grinding unit on land classified as a rural agricultural zone in the Sangrur Master Plan. The High Court had upheld the CLU, relying on a subsequent approval recorded on

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusMAHADEO KRISHNA NAIK

2025 INSC 21813 February 2025Disposed off

Mahadeo Krishna Naik, a bus driver for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), was dismissed after a fatal accident in 1996. The Labour Court upheld his dismissal, but the corporation later obtained a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award that placed sole blame on the lorry driver, a fact it failed

DR KAVITA KAMBOJversusHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA & ORS

2024 INSC 19213 February 2024Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's recommendation to promote thirteen in‑service judicial officers to Additional District and Sessions Judges under the 65% promotion quota of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007. The State of Haryana refused to accept t

HAJI ABDUL GANI KHAN & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 12413 February 2023Dismissed

The petition challenged the increase in seats of the Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory Legislative Assembly and the constitution of a Delimitation Commission under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 and the Delimitation Act, 2002. The Court held that Article 170, which governs State legislatures, does not a

ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERSversusV. GOPINATH & ORS

2023 INSC 12313 February 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 19(b)(II)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Development Control Rules and Regulation 29(7)(a), which require that layouts exceeding 10,000 square metres reserve 10% of the area as open space for communal and recreational purposes and transfer that land to the local authority free of co

RAMBABU SINGH THAKURversusSUNIL ARORA & ORS.

2020 INSC 17713 February 2020Disposed off

The petitioners alleged that political parties had failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, which required disclosure of pending criminal cases of candidates. The Court examined data showing a rise in the proportion of MPs with criminal cases and noted the pa

REENA SURESH ALHATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER

2017 INSC 13513 February 2017Dismissed

Two candidates contesting the Pune Municipal Corporation elections filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court challenging a nomination rejection and a symbol allotment by the State Election Commission. The High Court dismissed both petitions on constitutional and alternative‑remedy grounds. The aggrieved candidates

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2012 INSC 8713 February 2012Disposed off

The petitioners sought a direction to the Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarh to prepare and fund a rescue plan for the endangered Asiatic Wild Buffalo, to prevent inter‑breeding with domestic buffalo and to relocate villages from Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary. The State of Chhattisgarh argued that it lacked suffi

JAGRAJ SINGHversusBIRPAL KAUR

2007 INSC 13013 February 2007Dismissed

Jagraj Singh married Birpal Kaur in 1993; the wife later filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging desertion and cruelty. The trial court ruled it lacked territorial jurisdiction but nonetheless decided the merits, denying divorce. The High Court, invoking Section 23(2) of the Act, ordered b

DEEPA GOURANG MURDESHWAR KATREversusTHE PRINCIPAL, V.A.V. COLLEGE OF ARTS & ORS.

2007 INSC 13213 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre, was appointed on a temporary basis as an English lecturer in a government‑aided college where the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. For six successive years no Scheduled Caste applicant applied, and the college repeatedly appointed her on a temporary basis.

KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN AND ANR.versusPRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH

2006 INSC 7913 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Kishore Kumar Khaitan filed a suit seeking a declaration of tenancy and a perpetual injunction against the owners of a building, also applying for an interim injunction. The trial court refused an ex‑parte injunction; the Additional District Judge then issued an ex‑parte order directing the parties to maintain the stat

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSRI JANARDHAN DEBANATH AND ANR.

2004 INSC 10513 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Four employees of the Postal Services Department were transferred from the Agartala Division to the Meghalaya Division on the ground of alleged misbehaviour with a senior lady officer. They challenged the transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which did not interfere, and subsequently filed writ petitions

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS.versusSWASTIK ROADWAYS AND ANR.

2004 INSC 10813 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, which require clearing and forwarding (C&F) agents to furnish transaction details and impose a penalty of three times the tax evaded if they fail to do so. The High Court had struck down thes

U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.versusU.P. RAJYA SETU NIGAM S. KARAMCHARI SANGH

2004 INSC 10913 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. terminated the services of 168 muster‑roll employees after they remained absent for more than ten consecutive days, invoking Clause L‑2.12 of its Certified Standing Orders. The employees, represented by a union, filed writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the termination. T

K.T. VENATAGIRI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 7813 February 2003Disposed off

The appellants, manufacturers of liquor, challenged Karnataka's 1989 amendment that appointed Mysore Sales International Ltd (MSIL) as the sole distributor of liquor, arguing that the interim stay order of 20 November 1989, which required payment of compensation to MSIL if the appeals were dismissed, should not bind th

RAN SINGH MALIKversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 7813 February 2002Dismissed

The appellant, appointed as Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) in 1987, claimed that his post was a regular Class I veterinary cadre post and sought the revised pay scales of 1987 and 1988 and seniority over two respondents appointed later to cadre posts. The State argued that the post was an ex‑cadre position created w

P.A. NARYANANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 9513 February 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's wife was assaulted and robbed on a running local train in 1981. She pulled the alarm chain, but the guard and motorman failed to stop the train, and she later died from her injuries. The Railway Board denied compensation, holding that liability arose only in railway accidents, and the High Court upheld

KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKHversusDISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

1996 INSC 23613 February 1996Case Allowed

The petitioners were detained under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and filed representations against their detention on 23 August 1995. They alleged that the State and Central Governments failed to dispose of these representations promptl

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 23713 February 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court entertained a social‑action writ filed by the Indian Council for Enviro‑Legal Action on behalf of villagers of Bichhri, who suffered severe water, soil and health damage due to untreated effluents and toxic sludge from private chemical industries. The petition sought directions against the Union of In

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusA. SANYASI RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 23513 February 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Sections 44AC and 206C of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, which allow tax to be levied on a presumptive basis on traders of specified goods. Petitioners argued that the provisions were ultra‑vio​les, beyond Parliament’s competence under Schedule VII, Entry 82, and violated Articles 

HIRALAL CHAWLA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1990 INSC 3213 February 1990Disposed off

The Supreme Court dealt with writ petitions filed under Article 32 challenging the acquisition of land previously bought by cooperative housing societies for residential purposes when the area was later notified for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The Court examined the validity of the acquisiti

COLLECTOR OF 24 PARGANAS AND ORS.versusLALIT MOHAN MULLICK & ORS.

1986 INSC 1513 February 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The State issued a notification under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 to acquire land for the "resettlement of immigrants" and later declared the acquisition. The landowners discovered, through internal letters, that the land was actually intended for a hospital for crippled children run by the

KASAMBHAI ARDUL REHMANBHAI SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

1980 INSC 2413 February 1980Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for adulterating turmeric powder. After the prosecution presented some evidence, a plea‑bargaining arrangement was reached among the prosecution, the defence and the magistrate, leading the accused to

DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2026 INSC 5613 January 2026

The petitioner, Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar, sought admission for his children in a nearby unaided school under the 25% quota mandated by Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, but the school refused and the High Court dismissed his writ on the ground that he had not followed the onl

KANCHANA RAIversusGEETA SHARMA & ORS.

2026 INSC 5413 January 2026Dismissed

The deceased Dr. Mahendra Prasad died in 2021 leaving three sons; one son, Ranjit Sharma, died after his father’s death and his wife Geeta Sharma filed a maintenance petition under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, claiming she was a dependant. The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding she was not a

ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2023 INSC 2913 January 2023Disposed off

The petitioners, old Indian settlers of Sikkim, challenged the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the proviso that excluded a Sikkimese woman who married a non‑Sikkimese after 1 April 2008 from the tax exemption. They argued that the exclusion of settlers whose names were not

C. HARIDASANversusANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP & OTHERS

2023 INSC 3713 January 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, C. Haridasan, entered into an agreement to sell Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights in 2005, paid a nominal advance and was to pay the balance within six months after the defendants provided title documents. The defendants failed to provide the documents, the plaintiff delayed serving a legal notice until Novembe

M. C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 3213 January 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition under Article 32, examined the severe air and water pollution in Delhi and the National Capital Region, identifying stubble burning, construction and demolition activities, open waste dumping, unpaved roads, garbage burning and traffic congestion as major contributors. It held

MADHUversusSTATE OF KERALA

2012 INSC 2713 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Madhu and his co-accused Sibi were convicted for robbery and murder of Padmini Devi based largely on confessional statements to police and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the confessions were inadmissible because they did not lead to the discovery of any unknown fact, violating Sectio

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusDAYA LAL & ORS.

2011 INSC 4313 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging High Court orders that had granted regularisation and salary parity to employees of aided hostels and part‑time cooks/chowkidars in government hostels. It held that employees of privately‑run aided hostels are not state employees and the gov

CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACEversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2009 INSC 2213 January 2009Disposed off

The petitioners, a citizens' organization, filed a writ under Article 32 challenging the appointment and continuation of Shri P.C. Pandey as Director General of Police (DGP) of Gujarat, alleging dereliction of duty during the 2002 communal riots and claiming that his presence would prejudice ongoing investigations and

R.B. RAMLINGAMversusR.B. BHUVANESWARI

2009 INSC 3113 January 2009Hearing Adjourned

The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) 568 days after the Madras High Court judgment of 18 September 2006, claiming the delay was caused by the pendency of a review application filed within the prescribed period. The central issue was whether the prosecution of a review proceeding could be considered a "su

K.K. BHALLAversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 2113 January 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged the allocation of two parcels of land in Jabalpur—one to a newspaper proprietor and another to YMCA—arguing that the State of Madhya Pradesh, acting under a purported policy decision, had exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Master Plan prepared under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha

JAMSHED HORMUSJI WADIAversusBOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF MUMBAI AND ANR.

2004 INSC 3313 January 2004Disposed off

The Bombay Port Trust (BPT), an instrumentality of the State, engaged consultants to value its land and proposed a massive rent revision for its lessees, issuing notices of termination and higher rent. Lessees challenged the revision as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, leading a Single Judge to strike down the no

REFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN RESPECT OF SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, CHAIRMAN, PB. PUBLIC SERVICE COMversus.

2003 INSC 813 January 2003Disposed off

The President referred a matter to the Supreme Court under Article 317(1) seeking the suspension and removal of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, former Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission, on grounds of grave misconduct. The Chairman's six‑year term ended on 8 September 2002 and he had tendered a resignation

CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusPAWAN K. SARAF AND ANR.

1999 INSC 913 January 1999Dismissed

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s order that quashed prosecution of Pawan K. Saraf for alleged adulteration of compounded asafoetida under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court had relied on a Public Analyst’s report finding the sampl

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusPRATAPSINGH DAYAL SINGH RAJPUT

1998 INSC 1413 January 1998Dismissed

The respondent, a Civil Judge, was graded 'A' by the Judgment Scrutiny Committee, had a clean confidential record and performed well in the interview, leading to his inclusion in the interview committee's select list for promotion to Additional District Judge. The Full Court of the Bombay High Court later excluded his

S.K. MATHUR AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 1513 January 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, originally Assistant Inspectors (Control) at the India Security Press, were appointed on deputation as Inspectors (Control) at the Bank Note Press before any recruitment rules under Article 309 existed. After the Bank Note Press later framed recruitment rules, the appellants were permanently absorbed, a

SURESH CHANDRA SHARMAversusCHAIRMAN, UPSEB AND ORS.

1998 INSC 1313 January 1998

The Supreme Court entertained a public interest writ petition under Article 32 concerning large‑scale electricity theft, loss of coal wagons and related malpractices by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB). After hearing counsel for the petitioners, the State, UPSEB and an amicus curiae, the Court ordered

S. NAGARAJANversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM AND ORS.

1997 INSC 2113 January 1997Dismissed

The appellant claimed Scheduled Tribe (Konda Reddy) status to obtain reservation benefits in the Central Civil Services Examination, but the Union Public Service Commission doubted his claim and ordered an enquiry. Multiple authorities—including the Deputy Tehsildar, Tehsildar, R.D.O., and the District Collector—examin

INDIAN TRIATHLON FEDERATIONRYAND ANR. ETC.versusPONDY TRIATHLON ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC.

1997 INSC 2313 January 1997Disposed off

The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Indian Triathlon Federation against an order of the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, as the petition was withdrawn. The Court also dismissed a transfer petition seeking to move the appeal from the City Civil Court to the Arbitration Board under

ROMESH CHANDERversusSMT. SAVITRI

1995 INSC 3113 January 1995Disposed off

The appellant, a sanitary inspector, and the respondent, a teacher, were married for 25 years and have an adult child. The appellant previously faced a desertion suit, and the present appeal arose from a cruelty petition where the respondent alleged the appellant's immoral conduct, which was not proved. The Supreme Cou

DR. MOHAMMAD KHALIL CHISTIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2012 INSC 58412 December 2012Disposed off

The case arose from a 1992 altercation in Ajmer that resulted in the death of Idris and injuries to several persons, leading to two FIRs (cross‑FIRs). The trial court convicted four accused (Yasir, Khalil, Akil and Farukh) under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonmen

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMR. AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MANIPUR AND ANOTHER

2011 INSC 84212 December 2011Disposed off

The Chief Information Commissioner of Manipur and another filed two RTI applications under Section 6 seeking details of magisterial inquiries, but received no response from the State Public Information Officer. They lodged complaints under Section 18, prompting the Commissioner to direct the officer to disclose the inf

MAHAVIR SINGHversusKHIALI RAM & ORS.

2008 INSC 143012 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Mahavir Singh was appointed Lambardar of Village Thurana by the District Collector under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, which consider factors such as hereditary claim, land ownership, service to the State, character and age. Respondent No.1, Khiali Ram, challenged the appointment before the Punjab and Ha

DEDDAPPA & ORS.versusTHE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

2007 INSC 126912 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's daughter was killed when a tempo, owned and driven by Respondent No.2, ran over her. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co., but the insurer claimed the policy was cancelled because the premium cheque was dishonoured, invoking Section 64‑VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The Motor Accidents Cl

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusWILLAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES AND ORS.

2007 INSC 127512 December 2007Disposed off

The case concerned Williamson Financial Services, which earned composite income from growing, manufacturing and exporting tea. The assessee claimed a deduction under s.80HHC of the Income‑Tax Act on the entire tea income before applying the 60:40 apportionment mandated by Rule 8(1) of the Income‑Tax Rules, 1962. The As

GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH WEST RAILWAY & ORS.versusCHANDA DEVI

2007 INSC 127612 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The widow of Ram Niwas, a project casual labourer who was later treated as a temporary employee under a scheme approved by the Supreme Court, applied for family pension after his death in 1988. The Railway Administration rejected the claim, citing the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which they said did not exte

DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.

2006 INSC 99612 December 2006Disposed off

Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., a private mining firm, applied for a ten‑year lease for minor minerals under Rule 9‑A of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. After the bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh, the new State of Uttarakhand adopted the rules with modifications and introduced a policy that, as

UTTARANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND ANR.versusJABAR SINGH AND ORS.

2006 INSC 99912 December 2006Disposed off

The Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation engaged daily‑wage workers for measuring wood and protecting timber. When work ceased, the workers were retrenched under Section 6‑N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held the retrenchment valid, saying the corporation was not an "industrial establishme

M/S. ASHOKA SMOKELESS COAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 61212 December 2005

The petitioners, industrial undertakings linked with Coal India Ltd., challenged the company’s new e‑auction scheme which required them to pay a price higher than the previously notified price for coal. They sought interim relief to continue receiving coal at the notified price. The Supreme Court, after hearing both si

STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.versusK.K. ROY

2003 INSC 71612 December 2003Disposed off

K.K. Roy was appointed as Law Officer‑cum‑Draftsman in the Government of Tripura to a single‑post cadre that had no promotional avenues. He filed a writ petition seeking at least two promotional avenues, and the High Court directed the State to create a graded pay scale. The State appealed, arguing that the employee ha

K.S. BHOIRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2001 INSC 60512 December 2001Dismissed

The Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test of 2001 contained errors in the biology paper of one version, leading the State to re‑evaluate answer sheets and issue a revised merit list that displaced several already admitted students. To accommodate the displaced candidates, the State Government sought a one‑ti

PRADYUT BORDOLOIversusSWAPAN ROY

2000 INSC 58712 December 2000Dismissed

Pradyut Bordoloi, a Clerk Grade‑I in Coal India Ltd., filed his nomination for the Margherita Legislative Assembly seat. A complaint alleged that his employment constituted an "office of profit" under the Government of India, invoking disqualification under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Re

K.R. LAKSHMAN AND ORS.versusKARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

2000 INSC 58812 December 2000Dismissed

The Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) amended its 1969 Recruitment and Promotion Regulations to introduce a 1:1 ratio for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer between technically qualified direct recruits and technically unqualified promotees, within a 35% promotion quota. Direct recruits challenged the amendment a

R.KESHAVAversusM.B. PRAKASH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 58612 December 2000Dismissed

The appellant challenged the preventive detention of Maheshraj under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1974, arguing that his representation to the Advisory Board was not considered by the Karnataka Government, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The det

G.S.I.C KARMACHARI UNION AND ORS.versusGUJARAT SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147612 December 1996Disposed off

The G.S.I.C. Karmachari Union filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Gujarat Small Industries Corporation's resolution of 29 August 1987 that sought to implement a roster system for reservation in promotions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees retrospectively from 1 January 1976. The petiti

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusFATEH CHAND SONI

1995 INSC 87712 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned officers of the Rajasthan Police Service who were promoted from the Senior Scale to the Selection Scale. The respondent, Fateh Chand Soni, challenged the seniority list prepared on the basis of the date of appointment to the Selection Scale, arguing that such appointment did not constitute a promotio

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusM/S. MURUGAN TALKIES

1995 INSC 88212 December 1995Disposed off

The Union of India challenged the validity of Sections 24 and 25 of the Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 and a 1986 notification requiring employers and employees to contribute to a provident fund. The Madras High Court upheld the Act but ordered the respondent, Mis. Murugan

DHARAMDEOversusBIJARAT AND ORS.

1995 INSC 88312 December 1995Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1972, which sought to eliminate letter‑patent appeals in land‑reform matters. Petitioners contended that the Act exceeded State legislative competence, violated Article 14’s equality guar

N.S.K. NAYAR AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 33812 December 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, permanent Class‑II officers, were promoted to the Senior Time Scale (STS) of the Indian Telecommunication Service Group A under Rule 27(b) of the Telegraph Engineering Service (Class I) Rules, 1965, as temporary officiating appointments between 1975 and 1979 and thereafter served in those posts for 10‑

DAYA RAM TRIPATHIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

1986 INSC 26812 December 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Daya Ram Tripathi, a physically handicapped candidate, cleared the 1982 Combined State Services Examination and was entitled to a reserved post in the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) under a 2% reservation policy announced by GO No. 43/90/66 dated 18 July 1972 and reaffirmed by

WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. AND ANR.versusHINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. AND ORS.

1984 INSC 23712 December 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the dismissal of an assistant of Hindustan Steel Ltd. who was removed from service under Standing Order 32 on the ground that his continued employment was "inexpedient". The employer dispensed with the disciplinary enquiry prescribed in Standing Order 31 and did not record any specific reason

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAversusSMT. V. LAKSHMIKUTTY

1980 INSC 23412 December 1980Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered two distinct matters. In Official Liquidator v. Lakshmikutty, the Court held that Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 incorporates the set‑off rule of Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, so that where a creditor and a company in winding up have mutual dealings, only the net bala

HARJIT SINGH MANNversusS. UMRAO SINGH AND OTHERS

1979 INSC 26512 December 1979Dismissed

Harjit Singh Mann challenged the election of S. Umrao Singh on three grounds: the alleged late filing of his nomination paper, failure to make the required oath, and alleged bribery by the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the nomination paper was filed after the statutory deadline of 3 p.m., a mandatory defect u

SADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2021 INSC 71912 November 2021Dismissed

The appellants, Sadakat Kotwar and another, were convicted for stabbing two victims, PW7 and PW8, with a dagger, causing grievous injuries to vital parts of the body. The prosecution presented ten witnesses, including the injured eye‑witnesses PW7 and PW8, whose testimonies were found reliable. The appellants argued th

LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

2018 INSC 104512 November 2018Dismissed

Petitioners, police personnel of Manipur Police, filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking a mandamus to quash oral observations made by the Supreme Court on 30 July 2018 in the EEVFAM case and to obtain the bench's recusal, alleging that those observations would prejudice the investigations and trial. The Court ex

PREMLATA JOSHIversusCHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

2013 INSC 75012 November 2013Dismissed

The case concerned the promotion of Dr. Premlata Joshi to the post of Director, Medical Health in Uttarakhand. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) evaluated candidates' Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and, contrary to the Government Order dated 16‑April‑2003, classified officers into "very good", "good" and "

LALITA KUMARIversusGOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS.

2013 INSC 74812 November 2013Reference answered

The Constitution Bench examined whether a police officer must register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) upon receiving information of a cognizable offence, or may first conduct a preliminary inquiry to test its veracity. Relying on the literal meaning of

SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS.versusSTATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

2009 INSC 123112 November 2009Dismissed

The case concerned a dispute between Sub‑Inspectors (General) and Sub‑Inspectors (Stenographers) of the Odisha Police regarding inter‑se seniority and promotion. The appellants argued that the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court wrongly relied on letters from the Home Department and Law Ministry as executive ins

STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.versusABDULLAH KADHER BATCHA & ANR.

2008 INSC 129112 November 2008Case Partly allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu detained Abdullah Kadher Batcha under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on 11 August 1999. The detenu filed a representation on 4 September 1999 requesting copies of documents that formed the basis of his detention, including

M/S. CANON STEELS P. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

2007 INSC 113612 November 2007Disposed off

Mis. Canon Steels Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court against the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s dismissal of its customs appeal, arguing that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the original adjudication order was passed in Mumbai and the appellate order by CESTAT was issued in Delhi. The Supreme Court

DHARAM CHAND AND ORS.versusHARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS

2003 INSC 62612 November 2003Dismissed

The appellants, clerical staff appointed after 6 June 1980, challenged a University notification that gave a higher pay scale to clerks appointed before that date, invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work. The University had revised pay scales on 6 June 1980 and, following the Anomaly Removal Committee’s reco

INDIRA VIJversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2003 INSC 62812 November 2003Dismissed

Indira, an English teacher who became Head of Department in Applied Sciences at a government polytechnic, sought promotion to Principal of an Engineering Institute. Under the Haryana Technical Education Department (Group‑A) Service Rules, Rule 9(1)(c)(i) allowed promotion only from Heads of Departments in Engineering,

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (M)versusBHARAT KUMAR AND ORS.

1997 INSC 72612 November 1997Dismissed

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) organized a bandh in Kerala, prompting a petition that the bandh violated citizens' fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the bandh interfered with the freedom of speech, assembly and personal liberty of the public at large

UNION OF INDIAversusTHE SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (ZA) AND ORS.

1995 INSC 71912 November 1995Disposed off

The Department of Space (Union of India) sought land in Tamil Nadu for a rocket‑launching station under a notification issued pursuant to Article 258(1) of the Constitution. After the Land Acquisition Officers awarded compensation, owners obtained a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the

KIHOTO HOLLOHANversusZACHILLHU AND OTHERS

1991 INSC 28712 November 1991Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Constitution (Fifty‑Second Amendment) Act, 1985, which inserted the Tenth Schedule (anti‑defection law). The key disputes were whether Paragraph 7 of the Schedule, which bars all courts from hearing any matter relating to a member’s d

MAHARAJ DHIRAJ HIMMATSINGHJI & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

1986 INSC 23412 November 1986Dismissed

The plaintiffs, four sons of the former Maharaja of Jodhpur, claimed a retrospective annual allowance of Rs 30,000 each, based on a 13 September 1946 order issued by the Maharaja. They argued that the order was a "law" under Section 3(ii) of the United State of Rajasthan Ordinance I of 1949, which continued the laws of

DEVENDRA NATH SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2022 INSC 107112 October 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a former District Manager, challenged a High Court order that directed the magistrate to order further investigation into his alleged role in the misappropriation of foodgrains, despite the magistrate having taken cognizance only against a lower‑level employee. The Supreme Court examined whether the High

KAMAL NATHversusELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 96812 October 2018Dismissed

Kam​al Nath, President of the Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking (i) VVPAT verification at 10% of polling stations and (ii) that the Election Commission of India (ECI) publish the draft electoral roll in a searchable PDF (text‑searchable) format. The petitioner relied on C

M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 96512 October 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

The appellants, registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged the denial of input tax credit (ITC) on inter‑state sales where Form C was not filed, contending that Section 19(5)(c) of the Act and Rule 10(9)(a) of the Rules were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the provision is a v

MS. INDIRA JAISINGversusTHROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.

2017 INSC 103112 October 2017Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the practice of designating Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, alleging violations of Articles 14, 15, 18 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether the power to confer the designati

ASGER IBRAHIMAMINversusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 76412 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, who had served LIC for over 23 years and resigned after turning 50, sought pension under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, which were given retrospective effect. The corporation denied the claim, arguing that resignation forfeited pension rights. The Supreme Court e

SHRI GIRISH VYAS & ANR. .versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2011 INSC 75612 October 2011Disposed off

The case concerned a 3,450‑sq‑metre plot (FP No.110) in Pune that was originally reserved for a garden and later for a primary school under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). After the land was acquired, the developer, who was the son‑in‑law of the then Chief Minister, obtained a developme

SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 75212 October 2011Dismissed

The appellants, institutions recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and offering B.Ed. courses, were granted additional intake without NAAC accreditation. The NCTE later issued Regulations 8(4) and 8(5) requiring NAAC accreditation with a Letter Grade B for such institutions, which the appellan

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.versusPRANTIYA SINCHAI AVAM BANDH YOGANA SHRAMIK MAHAPARISHAD

2007 INSC 105412 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Fourteen daily‑wage workers in the Uttarakhand Irrigation Department had worked for more than six years, completing at least 240 days each calendar year. The Labour Court ordered their regularisation, but the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the workers were entitled to regularisation. O

G.K. MOHAN AND ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2007 INSC 105512 October 2007Dismissed

The appellants, Chargemen Grade II of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, were placed in Grade IV of Category I under Rule 6(4)(a) of the DRDO Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 because they lacked the qualifications prescribed in Schedule III. They challenged the rule as violative of Articles 14 an

DIMPLE GUPTA (MINOR)versusRAJIV GUPTA

2007 INSC 105712 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Minor Dimple Gupta, through her mother Narain Dassi, filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance from Rajiv Gupta, alleging he was her father. The trial magistrate held that she was the illegitimate child of the respondent and ordered maintenance, relying on the mother’s te

JOHN K. JOHNversusTOM VARGHESE AND ANR.

2007 INSC 106512 October 2007Dismissed

John K. John filed criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that Tom Vargheese issued two cheques which were dishonoured for insufficient funds. The trial court and the appellate court held that the respondent was guilty, but the Kerala High Court, on revision, acquitted him, fin

THE EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. & ORS.versusTHE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

2007 INSC 107412 October 2007Case Partly allowed

The Empire Jute Co. Ltd. entered into a sale contract for raw jute with the Jute Corporation of India, which was subject to a Production Control Order compelling the mill to purchase jute at a fixed price. The appellant alleged the supplied jute was of inferior quality, refused to purchase, and filed a writ petition ch

SWAPAN KUMAR PALversusACHINTYA KUMAR NAYAK AND ORS.

2007 INSC 107712 October 2007Dismissed

The case concerned the grant of a Modified Rationing (MR) dealership in West Bengal. Both Swapan Kumar Pal (appellant) and Achintya Kumar Nayak (first respondent) applied, and the Sub‑Divisional Controller, after applying criteria of financial solvency, possession of a godown and trade proficiency, recommended the firs

PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS.versusV.K. KAPOOR AND ANR.

2007 INSC 108212 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, originally appointed as Supervisor Grade‑A, were promised a second examination to be graded as Chargeman Grade‑II under a 1967 scheme, but the examination was never held and a "pick‑and‑choose" policy was adopted. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ordered that the appellants be given notional se

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search