Supreme Court Judgments

Supreme Court Restricts Use of Section 311 CrPC, Disallows Examination of Minor Witness at Advanced Stage of Trial

Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2025 INSC 1475)

LOREM IPSUM

Mutation In Revenue Records Can Be Based On A Will And Cannot Be Rejected At Threshold, Supreme Court Holds

Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr. (2025 INSC 1485)

Supreme Court holds that mutation of land records can be granted on the basis of a will, clarifying that revenue authorities cannot reject testamentary mutation applications at the threshold under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.

High Courts Cannot Grant Blanket Protection From Arrest Or Impose Routine Investigation Timelines While Declining To Quash FIRs

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Mohd. Arshad Khan & Ors. (2025 INSC 1480)

Supreme Court holds that High Courts cannot grant blanket protection from arrest or impose routine investigation timelines while declining to quash FIRs, reaffirming limits of writ jurisdiction and binding precedent on criminal procedure.

Supreme Court Upholds Government Land Status Over Disputed Property

The State of Telangana vs. Mir Jaffar Ali Khan (Dead) Thr. LRS. & Ors.

The Supreme Court affirms the status of disputed land as government property, rejecting claims by successors of Salar Jung III in Telangana.

Supreme Court Dissolves Long-Separated Marriage Under Article 142 and Fixes One-Time Permanent Alimony

Jatinder Kumar v. Jeewan Lata

In Jatinder Kumar v. Jeewan Lata (2025 INSC 1463), the Supreme Court dissolved a marriage after long separation using Article 142 and fixed ₹20 lakh permanent alimony.

Experience Gained Through a Joint Venture Must Be Considered When Evaluating Tender Eligibility Unless Expressly Excluded

M/s. Surguja Bricks Industries Company v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

The Supreme Court holds that proportionate experience gained as a joint venture partner must be considered in tender evaluation unless the eligibility clause expressly excludes such experience.

Only the Central Government May Lower the NEET Qualifying Percentile for BDS Admissions and State Relaxation Is Without Authority

Siddhant Mahajan and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

In 2025 INSC 1458, the Supreme Court holds that only the Central Government may lower NEET percentile for BDS admissions and modifies the High Court’s directions.

Bail Orders Can Be Annulled When Granted Without Addressing Prior Cancellation, Misuse of Liberty, and Threat to Fair Trial

Lakshmanan v. State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors.

In Lakshmanan v. State (2025 INSC 1483), the Supreme Court annuls a High Court bail order for ignoring prior bail cancellation and witness intimidation risks.

Section 45A of the ESI Act Cannot Be Invoked When Records Are Produced and There Is No Obstruction to Inspection

M/s. Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. ESI Corporation

In M/s. Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. ESI Corporation (2025 INSC 1455), the Supreme Court holds Section 45A cannot be invoked when records are produced and inspection is not obstructed.

Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO)

Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO)

Supreme Court reiterates that High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or rewrite arbitral awards under Section 37, and restores a reasoned arbitral award upheld under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Rajesh Upadhayay v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Rajesh Upadhayay v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Supreme Court holds that suspension of sentence in murder convictions cannot be granted routinely and requires exceptional circumstances and cogent judicial reasoning under Section 389 CrPC.

Communal rotation applies during the validity of a rank list and cannot be deferred merely because the wait list remains operative

Radhika T. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Others (2025 INSC 1462)

Supreme Court holds that communal rotation applies even during the validity of a rank list and that wait-listed candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment.