Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging interim protection granted to contractual Junior Engineers, permitting them to continue in service on the same terms and conditions pending the High Court’s decision on regularization.
The latest set of directives issued by the Supreme Court in pursuance of its December 2025 directions intends to address the systemic delay and ineffective implementation attending prosecutions under Sections 304-B, Section 498-A, Penal Code, 1860 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
CJI Surya Kant on retired Justice Sanjay Karol’s judicial philosophy, at his farewell hosted by the SCBA. Video Courtesy: SCBA YT
Hailing from Garli, India’s first heritage village, Justice Sanjay Karol served his parent High Court of Himachal Pradesh as Acting Chief Justice and High Courts of Tripura and Patna as Chief Justice before his elevation as a Supreme Court Judge on 6 February 2023.
The Supreme Court, by order dated 9 May 2014 in Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 795, had directed the transfer of investigation into the Saradha Chit Fund Scam and other chit fund cases from the State Police to the CBI.
The Court held that where material facts are disputed, the appropriate remedy ordinarily lies before the competent adjudicatory forum and not before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court examined whether a husband’s adultery allegations against his wife, supported by photographs and videos, could justify denial of interim
Supreme Court held that termination for suppression of criminal antecedents is not automatic where the employee proves bona fide lack of knowledge, and directed reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages.
The Court explained that Insider Trading, in essence, is a “dealing in a company’s securities having been informed by confidential information which is likely to affect the price of the securities in the market, once such information is made public”.
Supreme Court enhanced maintenance for a wife undergoing cancer treatment and her 2 minor children, holding that PF and ESPP deductions are benefits accruing to the husband and not permanent charges.
While deciding a matrimonial maintenance dispute where a husband presented videos and photographs obtained from a private investigator before the trial court to prove his wife’s adultery, the Court expressed massive concerns over breach of privacy, proper authorisation thereby highlighting engagement of private investigators as “an area sans regulation”.
A husband can’t simply delay a wife’s interim maintenance by alleging adultery, but if he proves it clearly, at the very outset, the law is equally clear: she isn’t entitled to a rupee, interim or final. The Supreme Court draws the line between the two.
The Court clarified that the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 shall be strictly followed. No live-in partner or relative should be arrested without the mandated preliminary safeguards.
Supreme Court awarded ₹15 lakhs compensation to the widow of a man who died after a stray bull attack, holding that relegating the claimants to a civil suit after nearly 2 decades would leave them “remediless”.
The Court stated that National Commission for Scheduled Castes has powers to requisition documents and receive evidence, but it does not have the power to make an order in furtherance of that evidence.
The Court held that although the expression “arising out of” receives a broad interpretation and compensation proceedings are governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, the existence of some link whatsoever between the car, and the death had to be established.
Upholding the appellant’s conviction for gang rape, the Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of remission after considering his young age, absence of criminal antecedents, satisfactory conduct in prison and the possibility of reformation.
The Supreme Court held that Railways cannot be held liable for shortage of goods booked at “owner’s risk” unless negligence or misconduct is proved under Section 97, Railways Act, 1989. The Court clarified the burden of proof under Section 65(2) and dismissed the compensation claim.
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, concurring with Justice Sanjay Karol, stated that “the right of pre-emption as conferred under Section 22 of the HSA is, in its pith and substance, an incident of succession and nothing more”.
The Court observed ITRs are statutory documents when it comes to assessing one’s income, for the purposes of compensation under the MV Act. Hence, it issued the Guidelines for annual income assessment after effectively making a bifurcation between salaried individuals and self-employed individuals.