Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

SURYA KANT

48 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

RAJU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2024 INSC 63331 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and co-accused were alleged to have attacked four youths with knives and lathis on a night in May 1994, leading to an FIR filed by the victims' father who was not an eye‑witness. The trial court acquitted all accused due to lack of clear evidence of who inflicted the stab injuries and the absence of a mot

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.versusPANKAJ BABULAL KOTECHA & ORS.

2025 INSC 79230 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a theme park developed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) on land alleged to be the site of a 100‑year‑old lake, Khajuria Lake. A public‑interest writ petition before the Bombay High Court ordered demolition of the park and restoration of the lake, a decision later appealed to the

CHETANversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 79330 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant was convicted of murder (IPC s.302), misappropriation of property (IPC s.404), and unlawful possession and use of a firearm (Arms Act s.3, s.5) based largely on circumstantial evidence, including the last‑seen theory, forensic ballistics, and his subsequent abscondence. The Supreme Court examined whether

AJAY MALIKversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

2025 INSC 11829 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from FIR No. 60/2017 alleging wrongful confinement, trafficking and conspiracy against Ajay Malik for employing a tribal domestic worker. Malik sought quashing of the criminal proceedings and compounding of the offences, supported by a no‑objection affidavit from the complainant, while the State opposed

BINDU KAPUREAversusSUBHASHISH PANDA & ORS.

2025 INSC 78428 May 2025

The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) unauthorised felling of over a thousand trees in the Delhi Ridge and its failure to disclose this during a hearing, despite pending applications for permission. The Court held that these actions amounted to wilful disobedience of its 1996 order in M.C.

ARIF MD. YEASIN JWADDERversusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

2025 INSC 78528 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a lawyer, filed a public interest litigation alleging that up to 171 police encounters in Assam between 2021 and 2022 were fake and that the State had violated the procedural safeguards laid down in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) guidelines. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition as

IVAN RATHINAMversusMILAN JOSEPH

2025 INSC 11528 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ivan Rathinam, was alleged by the respondent and his mother to be the biological father of the respondent, who was born during the respondent's mother's marriage to Mr. Raju Kurian. The parties litigated in a Munsiff Court, a Sub‑Judge Court and a Family Court over a declaration of paternity, a DNA test,

MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 76227 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Manisha Ravindra Panpatil, was elected Sarpanch of Vichkheda Gram Panchayat in 2021. Private respondents alleged she was residing in a house built on government land and sought her disqualification. The Collector, without a proper fact‑finding exercise, issued a summary order disqualifying her, which was

K. PURUSHOTTAM REDDYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2025 INSC 89425 July 2025Dismissed

The petitioners, K. Purushottam Reddy and others, challenged two notifications issued by the Union of India that effected delimitation of constituencies only for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, arguing that the exclusion of the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana violated Article 14 and the statutory manda

DR. SUNIL KUMAR SINGHversusBIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (THROUGH SECRETARY) AND ORS.

2025 INSC 26425 February 2025Case Allowed

Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, an MLC from the RJD, was expelled from the Bihar Legislative Council after the Ethics Committee found his conduct unparliamentary and his subsequent refusal to cooperate with the Committee. He challenged the expulsion through a writ petition under Article 32, arguing that the Ethics Committee's p

DIVYANGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR (DEAD) AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 114524 September 2025Dismissed

The appellants, descendants of original Portuguese "Alvara" holders in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, claimed perpetual lease rights over agricultural lands granted under the Organizacao Agraria (OA). The Collector rescinded these grants on 30 April 1974 invoking Article 12 of the OA for non‑cultivation, leading to a protract

VISHU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHANversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 88423 July 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned ownership of a 2‑18‑10 bigha parcel of land in NOIDA, jointly purchased in 1997 by Reddy, Sudhakar and Vishnu. Reddy later sought to establish sole ownership by filing separate suits and a writ petition, suppressing the earlier joint‑ownership litigation, and obtained a High Court order declaring

X ETC.versusRAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 57923 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Kerala High Court erred in quashing five FIRs filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a computer teacher accused of inappropriate conduct with female students. The allegations included holding students' hands while using a mouse, asking inva

TANKADHAR TRIPATHYversusDIPALI DAS

2025 INSC 101722 August 2025

The appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy, was elected from the Jharsuguda Assembly Constituency, after which the respondent, Dipali Das, filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices and EVM irregularities. The appellant challenged the petition's maintainability, arguing that the petition lacked a Form 25 affidavit as

TARABAI NAGAR CO-OP. HOG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 101522 August 2025Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over the acquisition of a 9,054‑sq‑m land in a Slum Rehabilitation (SR) Area in Mumbai, owned by Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (ICM) but claimed by the Tarabai Nagar Co‑op. Housing Society. The Court considered whether the owner has a preferential right to redevelop the SR Area

SALDANHA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusBISHOP JOHN RODRIGUES AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 101622 August 2025Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the acquisition of a 1,596.40 sq. m. parcel of land owned by the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount (a public trust) under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The High Court had set aside a public notice and an order approving the ac

BARLA RAM REDDYversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

2025 INSC 53122 April 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined three separate land acquisitions in Narsingi and Poppalguda made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Outer Ring Road project. The High Court had enhanced compensation to INR 1.35 crore per acre by relying on post‑notification auction sales of the Golden Mile project, and also granted

HORRMAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2024 INSC 79721 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for 302.75 acres of land acquired by the State of Haryana under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the market value should reflect the land's strategic location and potential. The High Court had restored the lower award given by the Land Acquisition Collector

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusRAJESH KUMAR @ MUNNU

2025 INSC 33120 February 2025Dismissed

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed the High Court’s order acquitting Rajesh Kumar (Munnu) of offences under Sections 376 and 452 IPC, alleging that the trial court’s conviction was based on sufficient evidence. The alleged incident occurred on 13 August 2007, but the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay, and t

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusM/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR.

2024 INSC 45517 May 2024

The Supreme Court examined a massive batch of land‑acquisition disputes involving the Government of NCT of Delhi and its agencies versus private landowners, notably M/s BSK Realtors LLP. The core issues were whether the dismissal of a civil appeal by one authority in the first round barred other authorities from filing

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusTEJPAL & ORS.

2024 INSC 45617 May 2024Disposed off

The Delhi Development Authority and other government bodies filed a batch of appeals and petitions seeking condonation of delay for challenging High Court orders that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appellants argued that subsequent judici

THE STATE OF KERALA ETC. ETC.versusTHE PRINCIPAL, KMCT MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2025 INSC 51816 May 2025Disposed off

The Kerala Medical Education Act, 2017 created an Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee to fix fees for private medical colleges. The Committee approved a fee of Rs. 20 lakhs for NRI students, directing that Rs. 5 lakhs of each fee be placed in a corpus fund for BPL scholarships, a decision later challenged by the Sta

JANSHRUTI (PEOPLE’S VOICE)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 53615 April 2025Dismissed

The petitioners, Janshruti (People’s Voice), filed a writ under Article 32 seeking gender‑neutral guidelines for domestic violence complaints and a declaration that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) is unconstitutional. The Court examined whether the provision violate

CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 48315 April 2025Dismissed

The dispute arose when Inox India Ltd filed a trademark suit alleging that Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd and LNG Express infringed its proprietary engineering drawings and related literary works used in cryogenic semi‑trailers. LNG Express moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the drawings w

SATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 49115 April 2025Dismissed

The petitioners, retired officers of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation, challenged the denial of pension benefits under the 1999 corporate sector pension scheme, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood, which upheld a cut‑off date of 02‑12‑2004, was per

PARTHA CHATTERJEEversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 62713 December 2024Disposed off

The former West Bengal Education Minister, Partha Chatterjee, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a large‑scale teachers recruitment scam and alleged money‑laundering offences under the PMLA. After raids recovered substantial cash and gold from his associates and companies, he was denied bail

ARVIND KEJRIWALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2024 INSC 68713 September 2024Disposed off

The appellant, a three‑time Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested by the CBI in June 2024 in connection with an FIR registered in August 2022 under sections 120B, 477A IPC and section 7 PC Act. He challenged the legality of the arrest under Sections 41A and 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC and also sought regular bail. The Hig

HANUMANTHARAJU B (DEAD) BY LR.versusM AKRAM PASHA & ANR.

2025 INSC 68213 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Sub‑Inspector of the CRPF was injured in a road accident and claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded compensation based on a 61.94% disability assessed by a Medical Board, but on reconsideration a Commissioner appointed by the Tri

M/S TOMORROWLAND LIMITEDversusHOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 20713 February 2025Disposed off

M/s Tomorrowland Limited, the highest bidder for a 5‑star hotel site, paid the first instalment but argued that HUDCO (Housing and Urban Development Corporation) was obliged to obtain statutory approvals and execute a sub‑lease before demanding further payments. HUDCO failed to secure the necessary approvals and a perp

TUSHAR HIMATLAL JANIversusJASBIR SINGH VIJAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 66312 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant inherited a 22,000‑sq‑ft plot in Chembur and terminated a 1972 lease to a partnership firm, filing an eviction suit. Respondent No.1, claiming tenancy rights over 550 sq ft based on a family settlement agreement, obtained an interim injunction restraining the appellant from dispossessing him, which the Hi

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNLversusSUBHASHCHANDRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 20812 March 2024Disposed off

The Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (Corporation) sought compensation for about 13,000 acres of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for several water and irrigation projects. The Karnataka High Court had enhanced compensation amounts in a series of judgments, but the Supreme Court found that the High C

KAZI AKILODDINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 50510 July 2024

The appellant, owner of a 1.25‑lac‑sq‑ft land in Akola, challenged the award of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a flood‑protection wall, contending that the land was not wholly within the statutory ‘Blue Zone’ and that the market value should be based on arm‑length transactions.

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDARSHAN LAL BOHRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 50810 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) sought to acquire 83.761 hectares of land for industrial development, issuing a Section 4 notification in 2013. Several landowners filed objections under Section 5A, claiming their lands were "abadi" and should be exempt, but the Collector dismissed the objections

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSAJIB ROY

2025 INSC 10849 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Staff Selection Commission advertised recruitment for Constable (GD) posts with an age limit of 18‑23 years, granting a three‑year relaxation to OBC candidates. Several OBC applicants, including Sajib Roy, availed this relaxation, failed to secure selection in the OBC quota, but scored higher than the last candidat

RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS.versusPREM CHAND KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 10839 September 2025

The Railway Board issued an employment notice for 659 (later 763) constable ancillary posts in the Railway Protection Force, reserving seats for SC/ST/OBC candidates with age and physical‑measurement relaxations. Several SC/ST candidates who availed these relaxations scored higher than the cut‑off for the unreserved ca

THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusDR. SANAT KUMAR GHOSH AND ORS.

2024 INSC 4698 July 2024Directions issued

The State of West Bengal appointed 24 Vice‑Chancellors in 2022, but the High Court held the State‑constituted Search Committee invalid for lacking a UGC‑nominated member, rendering those appointments unlawful. Subsequent attempts by the State to extend tenures and appoint interim Vice‑Chancellors were also challenged,

MAHESH CHAND BARETH & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 4668 July 2024Dismissed

The appellants challenged the recruitment of Prabodhak teachers in Rajasthan, arguing that Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, which gave age relaxation to persons who had served in certain educational projects, violated Article 14 of the Constitution, and that the award of bonus m

AMANATULLAH KHANversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS.

2024 INSC 3837 May 2024

The appellant, Amanatullah Khan, challenged the inclusion of his minor children and wife in a police "History Sheet" that alleged his bad character, arguing that there was no adverse material against them. The Delhi High Court dismissed his writ petition under Article 226 and Section 482 of the CrPC, prompting an appea

STATE OF PUNJABversusGURPREET SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 1546 February 2024Disposed off

The State of Punjab appealed against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s acquittal of Gurpreet Singh and three co‑accused under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Amarjit Kaur. The trial court had convicted them based on the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s husband and daughter, the reco

SIDDHARTH DALMIA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 3513 March 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, invoking Article 32, sought a court order to stop private hospitals from forcing patients to purchase medicines and consumables exclusively from the hospitals' own pharmacies at inflated prices, alleging exploitation and violation of the right to life under Article 21. They highlighted personal experie

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusTARSEM SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 1463 February 2025Dismissed

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) filed a miscellaneous application seeking clarification on whether the Supreme Court's 2019 judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which mandated payment of solatium and interest to landowners whose land was acquired under the NHAI Act, should operate only prospectiv

SHARMILA VELAMURversusV. SANJAY AND ORS.

2025 INSC 2992 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The mother (appellant) and father (respondent No.4) of Aadith Ramadorai, a 22‑year‑old US citizen with ataxic cerebral palsy and severe cognitive limitations, disputed his custody after the father took him to India without the mother’s knowledge. The mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court, which

STATE OF KERALAversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 2531 April 2024Matter referred to larger bench

The State of Kerala filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution challenging the Union of India's imposition of a Net Borrowing Ceiling that limited the State's ability to raise funds, including borrowings by State‑Owned Enterprises and public‑account liabilities. Kerala sought a mandatory interim injun

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