Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Dynamic Career and Important Judgments of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

“The principle of “Judicial Calm” in the context of a fair trial needs to be elaborated for its observance in letter and spirit. In our view, in the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm”.

: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra¹

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was born on 29 August 1964 at Raigarh (in erstwhile Madhya Pradesh and now in Chhattisgarh). His educational qualifications include B.Sc. and LL. B Degrees from Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

Advocacy²

Justice Mishra enrolled as an Advocate on 4 September 1987 and started his practice in District Court at Raigarh, High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. During his advocacy, Justice Mishra dealt with Civil, Criminal and Writ branches of law.

Justice Mishra was designated as Senior Advocate by High Court of Chhattisgarh in January 2005. He served as Additional Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh from 26 June 2004 to 31 August 2007 and thereafter as Advocate General from 1 September 2007 till his elevation as Judge.

Furthermore, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra had been Chairman of Chhattisgarh State Bar Council and was appointed Member of the Rule Making Committee of High Court of Chhattisgarh.

Justice Mishra had also been Chancellor’s Nominee in the Executive Council of Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur and was later associated with Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) as its Ex-Officio Member in the Executive Council.

Judgeship

After 20 years of dedicated advocacy, Justice Mishra was elevated as Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court on 10 December 2009³. Justice Mishra was also appointed as Acting Chief Justice of High Court of Chhattisgarh from 1 June 2021 to 11 October 2021. Justice Mishra ranked at serial number 21 in the All-India Seniority List of Judges of the High Courts⁴.

Thereafter he was transferred to Andhra Pradesh High Court where Justice Mishra was appointed as Chief Justice and assumed charge of the Chief Justice’s office on 13 October 2021.

Considering Justice Mishra’s 13 years’ tenure as a Judge and his significant experience in diverse fields of law, the Supreme Court Collegium found Justice Prashant Mishra to be worthy for elevation to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Collegium recommended his name, which was expressly approved by the Law Ministry⁵.

*Did you Know? Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court by the Collegium on 16 May 2023 and in what can be considered as a record, the recommendation was approved by the President within two days, i.e., on 18 May 2023.

On 19 May 2023, the Supreme Court of India formally inducted Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, as he took the oath of office administered by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India.

Notable Judgments of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Supreme Court of India

*Did you Know? Since his appointment to Supreme Court in 2023, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra has been a part of over 550 decisions⁶.

Justice Must Prevail Over Witch-Hunting, Superstition & Irrational Beliefs; SC Affirms Murder Conviction

In Balku Oram v. State of Odisha, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1568, arising from the conviction of appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for the murder arising from a witchcraft allegation, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, on finding the testimony of PW3, deceased’s daughter and sole eyewitness, to be reliable and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence. The Court strongly condemned witch-hunting as contrary to human dignity, constitutional morality, and the Rule of Law. The Court observed that, “The malady of witch hunting still plagues sections of our society, where prejudice, superstition and irrational fear supersedes the rule of law, constitutional morality… In such a situation, superstitious beliefs or fears are given precedence leading to vulnerable women becoming victims of collective hostility.”

Caste-Based Abuse Inside House Not an Offence Under SC/ST Act Absent ‘Public Gaze’; Supreme Court quashes proceedings

In Gunjan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834, arising from the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 22 August 2024 whereby the High Court dismissed criminal revision and upheld the trial court’s orders framing charges against the appellants under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) as well as under Section 506 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria* JJ., set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 22 August 2024, quashed the trial Court’s orders dated 26 November 2022 and 30 November 2022 and quashed the FIR along with the charge-sheet filed against the appellants, holding that alleged caste abuse inside residential house not “within public view” under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The Court held that the occurrence of the incident of insult or abuse, towards the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe has to be in “a place within public view”, thereby making the same a sine qua non for constituting the offence under the SC/ST Act.

Conversion to Christianity extinguishes SC/ST status and protection under SC/ST Act: Supreme Court

In appeal challenging the quashment of criminal proceedings under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and thus, raising an important question as to whether a person born in a Scheduled Caste but professing Christianity could invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and Manmohan, JJ., held that:

• The appellant, having professed Christianity, could not claim the status of Scheduled Caste and therefore could not invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

• No person who professes a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

• The State Government Order and caste certificate could not override the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

• The High Court had rightly exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC as the allegations under both the SC/ST Act and IPC did not disclose a sustainable case.

Occupation of Residential Premises at Sujan Singh Park not governed by DRC Act; SC sets aside Eviction Orders

While considering Union of India v. Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 658, the Court had to determine whether the nature of Union of India’s (appellant) occupation of residential premises at Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi is governed by the provisions of Section 3, Government Grants Act, 1895 (GG Act) or whether the appellant became amenable to eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(a), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) for non-payment of rent. The Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ., pointed out that the legal character of such a grant made under GG Act does not derive its content from the ordinary incidents of a landlord-tenant relationship under the general law but instead flows from the sovereign grant and the conditions embodied therein. Whereas the DRC Act being a legislation intended to regulate conventional tenancies arising under the general law, does not extend to nor govern a holding originating in and regulated by a government grant. Therefore, the Court held that the DRC Act will not apply over the present matter, hence the eviction orders issued against the appellant were set aside.

Recent Performance carries greater weight than Entire Service Record: SC Upholds CISF Officer’s Compulsory Retirement

In Sushil Sharma v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1501 arising out of judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and upheld the orders of compulsory retirement passed against him, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and Shree Chandrashekhar, JJ., upheld the order of compulsory retirement as well as the Delhi High Court’s judgment, holding that the impugned judgment and order did not suffer from arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity.

1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court

In Sarafat Ali v. Director of Consolidation, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1190 arising from consolidation proceedings concerning the validity of a registered sale deed executed in 1957 and the recording of revenue entries, a Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., set aside the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the consolidation authorities, holding that a transfer allegedly made in contravention of Section 154, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was not rendered void ipso facto under the statutory regime then in force. Observing that the 1982 Amendments to Sections 166 and 167 of the Act introduced substantive changes and could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate accrued rights, the Court further held that a registered sale deed carries a statutory presumption of genuineness and due execution, which cannot be displaced by inconsequential discrepancies relating to an attesting witness in the absence of any plea or proof of fraud, forgery, coercion or impersonation. The Court consequently directed that the appellants’ names be recorded in the revenue records.

Courts Must Ensure “Just Compensation” Even if Conventional Head Was Omitted; Supreme Court Awards Filial Consortium to Parents of Motor Accident Victim

In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalu Ram, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1187 filed by the insurance company for the reduction of the award on account of contributory negligence and by the claimant for enhancing the award, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., held that, “The MV Act being a beneficial legislation, the duty of the Court is to ensure that just compensation is awarded, even if a legitimate conventional head has been omitted by the courts below.” The Court held that claimants shall be entitled to an additional amount of ₹80,000 towards filial consortium. Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the claimants was enhanced from ₹81,21,900 to ₹82,01,900 along with interest at the rate awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).

Article 329(b) Bars Writ Challenge to Rejection of Nomination Papers During the Pendency of Elections; No Exception for Glaring Illegality: Supreme Court

In Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1133, arising out Returning Officer’s order dated 9 June 2026, which rejected the nomination of petitioner, a candidate of the Indian National Congress (INC), for a Rajya Sabha seat from the State of Madhya Pradesh in the biennial Rajya Sabha elections, ground that she had failed to disclose a pending criminal case in the affidavit filed along with her nomination papers in Form 26, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., refused to entertain the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, holding that”

• Article 329(b) expressly bars judicial interference in electoral matters during the election process.

• Rejection of a nomination paper forms part of the election process.

• Any challenge to such rejection must be raised through an election petition after completion of the election.

• The constitutional bar operates irrespective of the petitioner’s allegation that the rejection is manifestly illegal.

“Hopefully, the story of her life will be an eye-opener for many”: SC Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case

In Gour Acharjee v. State of Tripura, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 931 concerning the death of a woman found hanging in her matrimonial home within 15 months of marriage, a Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., upheld the conviction of the husband under Sections 302 and 498-A, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), holding that the case was not one of suicidal hanging but of “simulated hanging or homicidal hanging”. Relying on medical evidence, post-mortem findings and authoritative texts on medical jurisprudence, the Court observed that the absence of a typical ligature mark and the presence of multiple ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased clearly negated the theory of suicide. Reiterating that where an offence occurs within the privacy of a house, the inmates owe a corresponding duty to explain the circumstances leading to the victim’s death, the Court held that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under the facts of the case. Finding no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the Director General of Police, Tripura, to immediately take steps to apprehend the absconding convict.

No DNA Test unless Section 112 Presumption of Legitimacy is rebutted and paternity question linked to offence: Inside Supreme Court Ruling

InR. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2372 where the central question was whether to direct DNA testing to establish paternity in a criminal investigation predicated on allegations of an extra-marital relationship between a doctor and his patient’s wife, which purportedly led to the birth of a child, the bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., held that a DNA test to challenge paternity cannot be directed as a matter of routine unless the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been rebutted. The Court held that in the absence of strong, unambiguous evidence of non-access between a married couple, compelling the third party for DNA testing would be an unjustified intrusion into privacy and dignity, especially when the paternity issue was collateral to the core offences of cheating and harassment.

Article 226 cannot be invoked to quash FIR, once cognizance of offence has been taken; remedy under Section 528 BNSS can be availed: Supreme Court

In Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 6 SCC 813, the petitioner filed the special leave to appeal, challenging the order dated 1-7-2025, passed by the Bombay High Court (‘the High Court’), whereby the petition to quash the FIR was disposed of on the ground that after the charge sheet was filed, the petition had become infructuous. The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., stated that so long the cognizance of the offence was not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226 of Constitution. However, once cognizance is taken, power under Section 528 of the BNSS was available to quash the FIR/charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance, provided the same was placed on record along with the requisite pleadings. The Court stated that in the present case, the Division Bench of the High Court did have the jurisdiction to pass such an order, since its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS was also invoked and accordingly, set aside the impugned order.

Read why Supreme Court set aside Delhi HC’s order granting bail to Wrestler Sushil Kumar in Sagar Dhankhar murder case

In Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690, the division bench of Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. viewed that the High Court had erroneously passed an order releasing the accused on bail. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and directed the accused to surrender before the court concerned within one week. The Court stated that the grant of bail constituted a discretionary judicial remedy, which necessitated a delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests.

Supreme Court directs Registrar General of all High Courts to place matters before Chief Justice if judgment not delivered within three months

In Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1813, wherein appeals were filed against the impugned interim orders dated 28-8-2024 and 9-1-2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court, by which a criminal appeal preferred by Respondent 2 was not taken up for hearing. The Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ., referred to the report of the Registrar General and was extremely shocked and surprised that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard. The Court stated that in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 (‘Anil Rai Case’), it had issued certain guidelines for pronouncement of judgments and thus, for its adherence, it reiterated the directions in the present case and directed that if the judgment was not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders.

Know why Supreme Court held this Company as ‘victim’ within the ambit of S. 2(wa) read with Proviso to S. 372 CrPC?

In Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1427, while considering this appeal by Asian Paints Ltd, (appellant) whereby the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., were faced with the question that whether the appellant would fall under the definition of ‘victim’ as per Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Court opined that Section 2(wa) CrPC does not define ‘victim’ in a narrow sense. The Court further stated that Section 372 of the CrPC is a self-contained and independent Section; i.e., it is a stand-alone Section and is not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX of the CrPC including Section 378. Thus, the right of a victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC Therefore, the Court opined that Appellant was a ‘victim’ as it suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant.

Supreme Court grants bail to Telugu Journalist Kommineni Srinivasa Rao arrested for alleged derogatory remarks about Amaravati women during Live TV debate

In a writ petition filed by Telugu journalist Kommineni Srinivasa Rao, who was arrested by the Andhra Pradesh Police in connection with offensive remarks made by a panelist during a television show he hosted, the division bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan, JJ. granted him bail. The Court considered that the allegedly defamatory statement was not made by KS Rao himself. Emphasising the significance of protecting journalistic freedom, the bench ruled in favor of granting bail to the accused. The Court observed that the accused, a senior journalist aged seventy, is the TV anchor of the show “Live with KSR” on Sakshi TV. He was challenging his arrest and remand, arguing that during the episode on 06-06-2025, one of the panelists made a statement that was allegedly defamatory. However, the accused did not make the statement, nor did he object to it, though he was seen laughing. The bench noted that the accused was not involved in the statement made by the panelist.

Supreme Court upholds conviction of lawyer for outraging modesty of female judge during court proceedings

In Sanjay Rathore v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1351, challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the conviction of a lawyer for using abusive and inappropriate language towards a female judge during proceedings in a challan matter, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan, JJ. declined to grant any relief to the petitioner and refused to interfere with the impugned orders. However, at the request of counsel for the petitioner, the Court granted the petitioner two weeks’ time to surrender.

Right to close business protected under Art. 19(1)(g), but subject to reasonable restrictions; SC strikes down state action against closure as unconstitutional

In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1303, The Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. held that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, includes the right not to carry it on as well, thereby extending constitutional protection to decisions of voluntary closure by businesses.

S. 25 HMA | SC stays Gujarat HC order remanding matter to Family Court for reconsideration on issue of Permanent Alimony; Issues notice

In Darshankumar Kalani v. Bhavika Darshankumar Kalani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1172, while considering the instant special leave to appeal concerning Gujarat High Court’s decision in Darshankumar v. Bhavika Darshankumar Kalani, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 1260, whereby the High Court had quashed the judgment and order of the Family Court, Vadodara, dated 16-01-2019 and remanded the matter to the Family Court over the issue of permanent alimony; the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., issued notice in the matter and put a stay on the High Court’s direction to remand the matter to the Family Court over issue of permanent alimony.

“Findings in NI Act proceedings bind parties in subsequent cases involving same issue”; Supreme Court affirms applicability of res judicata in criminal matters

In S.C. Garg v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 791, a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, wherein the petitioner’s application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was dismissed, the division bench comprising of Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra*. JJ. allowed the appeal. The Court held that a person cannot maintain a prosecution based on allegations that had already been raised as his defence in earlier proceedings where he was the accused. It further observed that the business relationship existed solely between the two companies involved, with cheques and demand drafts exchanged from one company to the other, and no payment made by the complainant partner to the accused in his personal capacity. Thus, the Court held that the present case warranted the quashing of the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused.

Motor Vehicle Accident | SC gives wider interpretation to ‘legal representative’, includes financially dependent father & younger sister while enhancing compensation

In Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Kushwaha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554, a batch of civil appeals was filed by the dependents of the deceased against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision, seeking enhanced amount of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of 24-year-old deceased, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. allowed the appeal and modified the amount from Rs.9,77,200 to Rs. 17,52,500.

Read what the Supreme Court said while quashing 2-decade long NDPS case against former IPS Officer Bharti Arora

In Bharti Arora v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3728, filed by retired Haryana IPS officer Bharti Arora against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had upheld the order of the Special Court relating to proceedings initiated against her under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), the three-judge bench comprising B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., granted relief to Bharti Arora. The Court quashed the summons issued by the Special Judge and the subsequent proceedings under Section 58 of the NDPS Act.

Supreme Court issues guidelines for High Court Judges regarding time limit for pronouncement of judgments

In Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2985, while considering the instant appeal, wherein the appellant alleged that the relevant reasoned order for his case was passed after 1 year in 2024 and the same was ante-dated to project that it was passed in 2023; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., strictly observed the egregious breach of law by the Gujarat High Court in dealing with the appellant’s case. However, the Court being mindful of the pressure on the High Court Judges vis-a-vis pendency of cases, laid down 3 options/guidelines for the Judges as regards to the time limit for delivering/ pronouncing judgments by the High Courts.

Supreme Court rules on refund of stamp duty for an un-executed conveyance deed and fraudulent transaction

In a civil appeal titled Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Inspector General of Registration & Controller of Stamps, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 979, filed against a decision of the Bombay High Court whereby the appellant’s demand for refund of Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed was dismissed and upheld the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps’ order (respondent), the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders and decision.

Strong incriminating evidence required for application of Res Ipsa Loquitor doctrine; SC upholds NCDRC order denying medical negligence

In an appeal titled Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, (2024) 3 SCC 37, filed against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) dated 03-08-2010 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was rejected, the division bench of A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ. while upholding the findings of NCDRC, viewed that the appellant has failed to establish negligence on the part of respondents in taking post operative care. Further, it held that for applying the principles of Res Ipsa Loquitor, it is necessary that a ‘Res’ is present to establish the allegation of negligence. Strong incriminating circumstantial or documentary evidence is required for application of the doctrine.

‘Constitutional Courts monitor functioning of environmental bodies to protect environment and ecology’; SC lays down Guidelines for effective functioning of authorities

The three Judges Bench of B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., in In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 86, while hearing the petition on the functioning and constitution of the Central Empowered Committee, the Court gave a slew of directions for the effective functioning of bodies, authorities, regulators, and executive offices entrusted with environmental duties. Original Constitution of CEC till 2023.

Coordinate Bench’s view of same HC cannot be ignored even if considered to be incorrect in law; Reference to larger bench the only option: SC

In a criminal appeal titled Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2057, against a decision of the Kerala High Court whereby the appellant’s/ detenu’s sister-in-law’s application was dismissed upholding the detention order of the detenus issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (“COFEPOSA”), the three Judge Bench of BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan, JJ. allowed the appeals and quashed the detention orders along with the order of confirmation of the said detention orders. The Court held that when the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court based on same grounds of detention and on the basis of the same material, which was relied on by the detaining authority, had come to a considered conclusion that non-supply of certain documents had vitiated the right to make an effective representation of the detenus, another Coordinate Bench in the impugned decision could not have ignored the same.

Proof of application for Certified Copy from HC must while seeking exemption in filing Certified Copy of Judgment with SLP: Supreme Court

In, Harsh Bhuwalka v. Sanjay Kumar Bajoria, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1916, which was a criminal special leave petition against a decision of the Calcutta High Court, wherein, the present petitioner’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was dismissed, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. noted that in majority of matters arising from the High Courts, the special leave petitions are accompanied by applications seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the judgments and orders impugned in such petitions. The Court’s mild approach in accepting these applications has generated a sense of belief among litigants that they can get away scot-free even by making statements which are far from the truth.

Therefore, the Court issued practice direction to be followed by all litigants who propose to file special leave petitions both in civil and criminal matters with effect from 20-08-2024.

Dying Declaration cannot be the sole basis of conviction; Supreme Court reproduces 11 factors to determine its weightage

In appeal titled Irfan v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060, filed by the convict against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court affirmed the conviction order and sentence of death passed by the Sessions judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 436 and 326-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the full bench of BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. while setting aside the conviction order, has held that dying declaration while carrying a presumption of being true must be wholly reliable and inspire confidence. Where there is any suspicion over the veracity of the same or the evidence on record shows that the dying declaration is not true it will only be considered as a piece of evidence but cannot be the basis for conviction alone.

Executing Court cannot hold execution decree inexecutable, merely because decree-holder lost possession to an encroacher

In an appeal titled Ved Kumari v. MCD, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1065, which was filed against judgment and orders dated 7-04-2916 and 4-11-2016 passed by the Delhi High Court affirming the order passed by Executing Court holding that the decree for possession of immoveable property was not executable against the judgment-debtor, Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ. reiterated that the Executing Court could not hold execution decree as inexecutable merely for the reason that the decree-holder lost possession of decretal land to a third party or encroacher, and that it must adjudicate resistance to delivery of possession as per Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’).

Supreme Court decides taxability of interest income on Bank FDs of Clubs; Illuminates Ratio Decidendi

In a batch of Special Leave Petitions titled Secundrabad Club v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004, arising against Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Court pertaining to Secunderabad Club, Madras Gymkhana Club, Madras Cricket Club, The Coimbatore Cosmopolitan Club, Madras Club, Wellington Gymkhana Club and Coonoor Club, wherein, the High Courts have uniformly held that the interest earned on the bank deposits made by the clubs is liable to be taxed in the hands of the clubs, restricting the principle of mutuality, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. held that the decision in Bangalore Club v. CIT, (2013) 5 SCC 509 was to be construed as a precedent and therefore, income earned on fixed deposits by the said Clubs fell within the meaning of Section 2(24) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

‘Courts cannot lose sight of serious accusations against an accused while granting bail’; SC sets aside cryptic and casual bail order

In Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 870, filed against the Order of Rajasthan High Court wherein bail was granted to the accused persons for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., found that the High Court not right in granting bail to the accused persons and viewed that the High Court had lost sight of the vital aspects of the case.

Judicial Body like NGT cannot simply accept Expert Committee recommendations without complying with Principles of Natural Justice

While hearing a batch of civil appeals titled Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 824, against the Judgment and order of the National Green Tribunal (‘NGT’), wherein the NGT had directed remedial measures for flying ashes and public health issues in several Thermal Power Plants (‘TPPs’), the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order of the NGT for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

[Development of Amravati Capital City] Andhra Pradesh HC issues directions to construct and develop Amaravati capital city and region within 6 months

The Full Bench of the High Court in Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. State of A.P., 2022 SCC OnLine AP 490, issued a series of directions for the State authorities vis-à-vis creation of new capital city of Amravati

• Direction given to not to alienate/mortgage or create any third- party interest on the land pooled, except for the construction of capital city or development of capital region.

• Develop the reconstituted plots belonging to landowners in Amaravati capital region by providing approach roads, drinking water, electricity connection to each plot, drainage etc. to enable the same to be fit for habitation in the Amaravati Capital city.

• To deliver/handover the developed reconstituted plots in Amaravati capital region, on ground, to the land holders who surrendered their land as promised by the State.

Judges are required to discharge their duties without fear or favour by virtue of the oath administered to them

The Full Bench of the High Court comprising of Prashant Kumar Mishra, C.J. and M. Satyanarayana Murthy and D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, JJ., in State of A.P. v. Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshana Samithi, 2022 SCC OnLine AP 485, while hearing the application seeking that either Justices Satyanarayana Murthy and D.V.S.S. Somayajulu recuse themselves from hearing certain writ petitions or prove their qualifications, dismissed the application observing that if a Judge is recused to hear the matter, it is nothing but violating the oath of the office administered in terms of constitutional mandate.

Whether Pan Masala and Gutka containing tobacco are “food” within the meaning of the FSSA, 2006? Andhra Pradesh HC answers

The Division Bench of the Court comprising of Prashant Kumar Mishra, C.J. and D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J., in Dwarapudi Sivarama Reddy v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 444, noted that the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 being a general Act, provides that it is an Act to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for laying down science based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Thus, the FSSA, 2006 deals with food as defined under Section 3(j) of the said Act, whereas Tobacco and Tobacco products are covered under the COPTA, 2003.

[Doctrine of Separability] Andhra Pradesh HC discusses the enforceability of arbitration clause embedded in an unstamped charter party/agreement

A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ and M Satyanarayan Murthy, J., in VR Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Norivic Shipping Asia Pte. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine AP 1001, discussed the doctrine of separability vis-à-vis an arbitration clause. The Judges pointed out that The doctrine of separability treats an agreement to arbitrate contained within a contract as an independent agreement that is deemed to be separable from the main contract. The doctrine preserves the validity and enforceability of the arbitration clause in a contract, even when the primary contract is found to be invalid and unenforceable, providing autonomy to the arbitration clause. The UNCITRAL Model law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, Article 16[1], integrates the doctrine of separability as an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract.

Chhattisgarh High Court

[COVID Vaccination] │ Redistribution of unused Antyodaya or other category vaccines at the end of the day: Chhattisgarh HC agrees to hear the matter

A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Parth Prateem Sahu JJ., in Suo Moto WP (PIL) v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 1110, laid down allotment of vaccines in percentage to the ‘Antyodaya Group’, the persons belonging to the ‘Below Poverty Line’ and the persons belonging to the ‘Above Poverty Line’. The present issue has come up before the Court regarding that the vaccine allotted to a particular category like Front Line Worker or Antyodaya or BPL (Below Poverty Line) remained unused in a particular vaccination center at the end of the day and the previous orders under the same PIL no. does not provide as to how the unused vaccines would be redistributed on the following day or any other day. Also the vaccine quantity allocated to Antyodaya category persons remains unused and at the same time persons belonging to other category and willing to be vaccinated returned without being vaccinated at the end of the day.

Judicial separation not to be granted mechanically in applications for divorce by mutual consent; Serious dispute not pre-requisite for seeking divorce by mutual consent: Chhattisgarh HC

A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.K. Chandravanshi, JJ., in Sandhya Sen v. Sanjay Sen, 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 1888, reversed a decree of judicial separation passed by the trial court, and instead passed a decree of divorce by mutual consent as originally prayed for the parties. The High Court said that the provisions contained in Section 13-B does not provide for existence of a ground like the ones contained in Section 13 for grant of divorce by mutual consent. There need not be a serious dispute between a married couple for seeking a divorce by mutual consent.

Wife attempts suicide; consistently behaves abnormally. Is this mental cruelty and a ground for husband to obtain divorce? Chhattisgarh HC elucidates

The Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.K. Chandravanshi, JJ., in Rajeshwar Prasad Kaushal v. Gayatri Kaushal, 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 799, while finding error in trial court’s decision held that wife attempting to commit suicide and consistently showing abnormality in her behaviour by pressing neck of daughter and husband, jumping to neighbour’s roof will amount to mental cruelty forming ground for dissolution of marriage.

Can an application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 CrPC be filed directly before the High Court? Chhattisgarh HC answers

A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ., in Hare Ram Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 639, observed that, Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should ordinarily be filed before the Sessions Court at the first instance. Such an application can be filed directly before the High Court when there exist exceptional, rare or unusual reasons.

Prospective accused is neither necessary nor a proper party in a writ petition seeking direction for registration of FIR and investigation into cognizable offence: Chhattisgarh HC

A Full Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra, Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ., in Dhananjay Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 4, held that the prospective accused is neither necessary nor a proper party in a writ petition seeking direction for registration of FIR and investigation into a cognizable offence. The Court was answering the question formulated by the Single Judge.

Chhattisgarh HC allows Inter-country adoption of a surrendered child to prospective adoptive parents in Italy in accordance with JJ Act and Adoption Regulations

A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vimla Singh Kapoor, JJ., in Sarbjanik Vikas Vahini v. Baruffaldi Enrico Baruffaldi Danilo, 2019 SCC OnLine Chh 43, allowed an appeal filed against the order of the Family Court whereby it had rejected the appellant’s application under Section 59 (7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 thereby refusing to allow inter-country adoption of a “surrendered child”, aged about 1 year and 7 months.