Browsing: Indian judiciary

Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 has Retrospective Effect; Orders Release of Man Found to Be a Juvenile at the Time of 1981 Offence

By

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih ordered the release of a man convicted in a 1981 murder case after confirming he was 12 years and 5 months old at the time of the offence. Citing Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Court held that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage and applies retrospectively. The bench ruled that custody beyond the three-year limit under juvenile law violates Article 21 and reaffirmed the rehabilitative nature of juvenile justice while criticizing past procedural lapses.

SC Says Criminal Courts Can Only Fix Clerical Mistakes, Not Recall or review it’s judgement

By

The Supreme Court held that criminal courts cannot review or recall their own final, signed orders except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s recall and transfer of two FIR investigations to the CBI. It ruled that inherent powers under Section 482 (now Section 528 BNSS) cannot override the bar in Section 362 CrPC (now Section 403 BNSS). The Court restored finality to the earlier order and allowed parties to seek appropriate remedies.

SC: Public Possession Must Be Proven for Valid Oral Gift (Hiba) Under Muslim Law as Lack of Mutation Creates Doubt

By

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.

Supreme Court clarifies No Defence in Summary Suit Without Court’s Leave | Order XXXVII CPC

By

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.

Supreme Court: FIRs From Different States and Cases Can’t Be Clubbed Together

By

The Supreme Court on September 26, 2025, ruled that nationwide consolidation of First Information Reports (FIRs) involving different witnesses, evidence, and local laws is impermissible. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to club multiple FIRs registered against Odela Satyam and others across various states in a multi-crore financial scam. The Court clarified that clubbing of FIRs is only permissible when multiple FIRs arise from the same incident or transaction. The judgment distinguished the case from Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021), where FIRs were consolidated for a single televised statement. While rejecting pan-India consolidation, the Court permitted state-wise clubbing of FIRs where multiple cases existed within the same state. The Court emphasized that trials involving investor-witnesses from various locations would make nationwide clubbing impractical and rejected prayers seeking consolidation of future FIRs as “overambitious and outright illegal”.

Supreme Court Rules: If Motor Accident Claimants Can’t Prove Income, Insurers Must Provide Minimum Wage Data

By

In a landmark ruling on September 3, 2025, the Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari directed that when motor accident claimants cannot prove income, insurance companies must furnish applicable minimum wage notifications to tribunals. The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra enhanced compensation for an 8-year-old Gujarat boy with 90% disability from ₹8.65 lakh to ₹35.90 lakh, fixing his income at skilled worker minimum wages.

The Court held that minors cannot be treated as non-earning individuals, emphasizing compensation based on skilled worker wages, with additions for future prospects. Insurance companies now bear responsibility to present wage data in disputed claims. The judgment, circulated nationwide to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, ensures uniform application. This decision strengthens claimants’ rights, curbs arbitrary awards, and sets higher benchmarks for fair compensation in accident cases across India.