IMPORTANT RECENT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IMPORTANT RECENT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

By Advocate Avichal Pandey, Allahabad High Court

1. Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Remains Restricted

●Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the supervisory power of High Courts under Article 227 is confined to examining jurisdictional errors committed by subordinate courts. This power cannot be exercised as if it were an appellate jurisdiction to reassess evidence or disturb factual findings.

The same principle was reiterated in:

1.Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu

2.Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natwarlal Shamji Gada

The Court emphasized judicial restraint in supervisory intervention.

2. Bail in Offences Punishable Up to Seven Years

●Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court

The Court clarified that in non-bailable offences carrying punishment up to seven years, grant of bail does not automatically attract the stringent statutory conditions contemplated under Section 480(3) BNSS.

This ruling strengthens the principle that bail should remain the norm unless exceptional circumstances justify denial.

3. Legal Vulnerabilities in Live-In Relationships

●Prosecutrix of Crime No. 27/2025 v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court observed that women in live-in relationships presently do not enjoy the same legal protections available within marriage.

The Court noted that remedies such as maintenance claims or prosecution for bigamy generally arise only in legally recognized matrimonial relationships, thereby highlighting a gap in legal protection.

4. Long-Term Live-In Relationship and Promise to Marry

●Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

The Court held that where parties remain in a prolonged live-in relationship, it may indicate absence of any mutual intention to marry.

Consequently, allegations that consent was obtained solely on a false promise of marriage must be assessed cautiously in such circumstances.

5. Admissibility of Joint Disclosure Statements

●Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court clarified that disclosure statements jointly made by multiple accused persons are admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only where each disclosure independently results in discovery of a distinct fact.

A fact already discovered cannot be repeatedly attributed to different accused.

6. Delay in Trial Violates Article 21

●Vaibhav Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial amounts to violation of the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21.

The judgment reinforces liberty as a foundational constitutional value.

7. Prior Sanction Not Required for FIR Registration Orders

●Brinda Karat v. State of NCT of Delhi

●Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India

The Supreme Court ruled that prior sanction under Sections 196/197 CrPC (and corresponding BNSS provisions) is unnecessary when a Magistrate directs FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Sanction becomes relevant only when the court proceeds to take cognizance.

8. Scope of Section 156(3) CrPC Clarified

The Court reiterated in:-

1.Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan

2.State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju

3.Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh

that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) is purely a pre-cognizance step and does not amount to judicial cognizance of the offence.

9. FIR Registration Is Mandatory

●Brinda Karat v. State of NCT of Delhi, Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the binding principle laid down in Lalita Kumari, holding that police authorities are duty-bound to register FIR where cognizable offences are disclosed.

The Court reiterated statutory remedies available to aggrieved complainants through senior police authorities, Magistrates, and private complaints.

10. Criminal Prosecution of Artists Requires Strong Evidence

●Shekhar Suman v. State of Maharashtra

The Bombay High Court held that prosecution under Section 295A IPC requires clear proof of deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.

Mere artistic expression, absent criminal intent, cannot invite prosecution.

11. Communication of Grounds of Arrest

●Ravi Kant v. CBI

The Uttarakhand High Court held that Article 22(1) stands satisfied if grounds of arrest are meaningfully conveyed, including through a properly drafted arrest memo.

No separate written communication is mandatory if the substance is clearly explained.

12. Income Tax Details Protected Under RTI

●Kapil Agarwal v. CPIO, Income Tax Officer

The Delhi High Court held that a spouse cannot seek disclosure of the other spouse’s income tax information under RTI merely for matrimonial litigation.

Such information remains protected personal data unless overriding public interest is established.

13. Objections Cannot Stall Execution Proceedings

●Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Kamal

The Supreme Court ruled that execution proceedings cannot be frustrated by belated objections when earlier opportunities to challenge the decree existed.

Judicial finality must be respected.

14. Immediate Release After Bail

●Saw Timothy v. State

The Calcutta High Court held that once bail is granted, release must follow without avoidable delay.

Administrative or procedural delays cannot justify continued detention.

15. Wakf Property Cannot Be Alienated

●A.P. State Wakf Board v. Janaki Busappa

The Supreme Court ruled that service inam lands dedicated to religious purposes assume the character of Wakf property and are legally non-transferable.

16. Written Power of Attorney Requires Written Revocation

●Smt. Champa Devi v. Jogaram

The Rajasthan High Court held that oral cancellation of a written power of attorney has no legal validity.

Revocation must be documented in writing and duly communicated.

17. Marriage Registration Not Essential for Divorce Petition

●Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah

The Karnataka High Court clarified that registration under the Special Marriage Act is not a mandatory prerequisite for seeking divorce under Section 27 of the Act.

18. Maintenance and Earning Capacity of Wife

●Dr. Garima Dubey v. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey

The Allahabad High Court held that maintenance may be declined where a qualified and employable spouse intentionally avoids gainful employment despite having capacity to earn.

The Court stressed fairness and prevention of misuse of maintenance provisions.

19. Arbitration Jurisdiction Challenge Deferred

●MCM Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. v. Construction Industry Development Council

The Supreme Court ruled that challenges to an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction must ordinarily await the final award.

Interference during pendency of proceedings is impermissible.

20. Meaning of “Living Separately” in Mutual Divorce

●Kumari Vagisha v. Kumar Sangam

The Patna High Court clarified that “living separately” includes both physical separation and the demonstrated intention to terminate matrimonial relations.

21. Summary Judgment Principles

●Reliance Eminent Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority

The Supreme Court held that summary judgment is justified where material facts are undisputed and the defence lacks any genuine prospect of success.

22. Religious Freedom and Public Order

●Aseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Allahabad High Court held that religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 is not absolute.

Practices causing public disorder or disturbing communal harmony may lawfully invite State intervention.

Avichal Pandey

Advocate

Allahabad High Court