Supreme Court Monthly Digest - February

The Supreme Court delivered 107 judgments in February 2025. We bring you a comprehensive digest featuring concise summaries, along with statistics on the number of judgments authored by each judge.

Access the complete digest by clicking here

1. SUKHDEV SINGH VS SUKHBIR KAUR [C.A. NO.-002536-002536 - 2019]
   Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih

   A spouse in a marriage declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse under Section 25. Such relief is discretionary and dependent on the facts and conduct of the parties. Additionally, maintenance pendente lite may be granted under Section 24 if the relevant conditions are met, also based on the parties' conduct. This decision clarifies previous conflicting interpretations related to Sections 24 and 25 of the Act.

2. VIHAAN KUMAR VS THE STATE OF HARYANA [CRL.A. NO.-000621-000621 - 2025]
   Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

   The appellant's discharge from charges under Sections 420 and 120B IPC was valid, as there was no evidence of conspiracy or deliberate withholding of information. The AICTE granted approval for the 'Business School of Delhi' despite knowledge of the bank loan and land mortgage, with no AICTE officials implicated in wrongdoing. A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was maintainable but not appropriate given the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The requirement of informing an arrested person of the grounds for arrest as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution is mandatory, and non-compliance invalidates the arrest and subsequent remand orders. The investigating agency bears the burden of proving this compliance. Additionally, the appellant's right to dignity under Article 21 was violated due to being handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. Guidelines were to be issued to prevent such actions by police. The appeal led to the appellant's arrest being declared vitiated, resulting in immediate release upon bond, while allowing continued investigation and trial despite acknowledging the violation of constitutional safeguards during arrest.

3. GOPAL SINGH VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [CRL.A. NO.-001408-001408 - 2014]
   Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
   The prosecution did not establish the identity of the appellants, Gopal Singh and Avtar Singh, as the accused. Eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-3 failed to identify the appellants during court examination, and other witnesses provided hearsay evidence that was insufficient for identification. Consequently, the convictions were quashed, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

4. VINOD KUMAR VS STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [CRL.A. NO.-002482-002482 - 2014]
   Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

   The conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC was set aside due to significant inconsistencies, omissions, and contradictions in key prosecution witness testimonies. Key circumstances relied upon, including the "last seen together" theory and the accused's evasive replies, were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It was emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be fully established. Additionally, procedural issues regarding the reproduction of prior statements without proper proof were noted. As a result, the appellant was acquitted.

5. SAHAKARMAHARSHI BHAUSAHEB THORAT SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. VS THYSSEN KRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA P.LTD. [C.A. NO.-003194-003194 - 2014]
   Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
   The High Court's rejection of the appellant's claim for Rs.68.15 lakhs due to non-performing machinery and equipment was upheld. The claim was not based on warranty provisions but rather sought a refund for expenses related to the plant. Under the agreement's liquidated damages provisions, the appellant's claim was limited to specified amounts. Additionally, the appellant did not choose to replace the defective machinery at the respondent's expense as allowed by the agreement. The appeal was dismissed with no errors identified in the High Court's judgment.

6. UDHAW SINGH VS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [CRL.A. NO.-000799-000799 - 2025]
   Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

   The appellant, arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is eligible for bail pending trial due to prolonged incarceration exceeding 1 year and 2 months, coupled with a trial expected to last several years, as only 1 out of 225 witnesses has been examined. This situation is distinguished from another case where the accused had been in custody for less than 7 months and the trial was anticipated to conclude more quickly.

7. IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL VS [SMW(CRL) NO.-000004 - 2021]
   Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

   The appropriate government has the authority to remit a convict's sentence under Sections 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. When a policy for premature release or remission exists, the government must consider all eligible convicts, even without an application from them. Guidelines for imposing conditions on remission and procedures for cancellation in case of breach were established. All states and Union Territories lacking a remission policy must formulate one within two months, and decisions on remission must include brief reasons.

8. SUDERSHAN SINGH WAZIR VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [CRL.A. NO.-000536-000537 - 2025]
   Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
   The High Court's stay of the discharge order for the appellant was deemed inappropriate, as a discharge places the accused in a more favorable position than an acquittal. A stay on discharge is permissible only in rare circumstances where the order is evidently flawed and the accused is given a chance to be heard. If a revision application against the discharge order is admitted, the accused can be required to appear before the Trial Court and may be released on bail instead of being imprisoned. The High Court's orders to stay the discharge and to arrest the appellant were quashed, and the appellant was instructed to furnish bail before the Sessions Court. The High Court can proceed with the revision application without consideration of this judgment's remarks.

9. JAY KISHAN VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [CRL.A. NO.-000727-000727 - 2025]
   Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
   The FIR against the appellants under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is unsustainable as the underlying offences relate to civil property disputes rather than serious antisocial activities. The invocation of certain IPC sections does not suffice to meet the Act's requirements, necessitating a higher threshold of criminality beyond mere allegations. The FIR has been quashed, with a clarification that the observations do not affect ongoing criminal or civil proceedings.

10. RUPA AND CO. LIMITED VS FIRHAD HAKIM [C.A. NO.-002376-002378 - 2025]
    Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih
    The High Court mistakenly referred the matter for mediation despite the appellants' opposition, disregarding its own earlier writ order directing the state government to convey the disputed land to the appellants on a freehold basis. The state government's attempt to charge the appellants the current market rate instead of the agreed price was considered aggravated contempt, undermining the authority of the High Court. The High Court's order was quashed, and the Chief Secretary of the state was directed to comply with the initial order, facing potential contempt proceedings for non-compliance.

    Access the complete digest by clicking here