The Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts should refrain from entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 in service recruitment disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Deciding appeals related to teacher recruitment in Karnataka, the Court upheld a Division Bench order directing parties to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). It emphasized that no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing this remedy. The Court clarified that provisional select lists do not create vested rights and urged the KSAT to conclude the matter within six months.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Magistrates may direct witnesses, not only accused persons, to provide voice samples for investigation, holding that such directions do not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Restoring a Magistrate’s order and overturning a High Court decision, the Court said voice samples are non-testimonial evidence used solely for comparison. Citing Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kathi Kalu Oghad, the bench noted that Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita now expressly empowers Magistrates to obtain voice samples from any person during investigations.

The Supreme Court clarified key principles on oral gifts (Hiba) under Mohammedan law in *Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi v. Syeda Arifa Parveen* (October 7, 2025). It ruled that oral gifts cannot be “surprise instruments” and must meet three simultaneous conditions: donor’s declaration, donee’s acceptance, and delivery of possession. Without evidence like mutation or acts of ownership, the gift claim fails. The Court set aside the Karnataka High Court ruling and held the 2013 suit time-barred, stressing strict proof and possession as decisive for validating Hiba claims.

The Supreme Court held in *Executive Trading Co. v. Grow Well Mercantile* that defendants in summary suits under Order XXXVII CPC must obtain the court’s permission (“leave to defend”) before filing any defence. The ruling preserves the fast-track nature of summary proceedings, requiring defendants to apply within set timelines and support their plea with an affidavit showing a substantial defence. Courts may grant leave with conditions, but cannot permit routine replies without leave. The decision enforces strict procedural compliance to protect quick recovery of liquidated commercial claims.

The Supreme Court quashed a rape case against Surendra Khawse, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, filed by a colleague alleging rape under a false promise of marriage. The Court found the complaint was filed months after the alleged incident and likely motivated by revenge following workplace disputes. It emphasized that rape on false marriage promise requires proving deception from the start, and not every broken promise constitutes rape. The judgment highlights the Court’s role in preventing misuse of criminal law while ensuring genuine victims can seek justice, relying on Sections 376 IPC and inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

News Summary The Supreme Court of India recently quashed criminal proceedings against a woman’s in-laws…