Argument Lab

Key Precedents

• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 — Constitution Bench held that regularization of employees appointed de hors sanctioned posts is impermissible; exception applies only to irregular appointments in sanctioned posts for ten years or more without court protection.
• State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 — Clarified that one-time measure under Umadevi applies only to employees working in vacant posts and possessing requisite qualification.

Key Precedents

• Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (1995) 4 SCC 459 — Held that mere deprivation of natural heirs is not by itself a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea of a Will is to interfere with normal succession.
• Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277 — Held that suspicious circumstances must be real, germane and valid; the exclusion of natural heirs without more does not qualify.
• G. Amalorpavam v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224 — Held that non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC does not vitiate judgment if there is substantial compliance.

Key Precedents

• Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2020 SCC OnLine Del 931) — Delhi High Court held that if admitted income of the respondent is on record, the Court may fix ad-interim maintenance even before affidavits are filed; this direction has not been overruled by the Supreme Court.
• Inder Singh v. Sumitra (2019 SCC OnLine Del 9485) — Delhi High Court held that filing of a separate application for interim maintenance is not a pre-condition under Section 125 CrPC; the Court can grant maintenance without an application.
• Rajesh Chaudhary v. Nirmala Chaudhary (2006) 86 DRJ 61 — Delhi High Court held that ad-interim maintenance may be granted based on the respondent's admitted income to avoid hardship.

Key Precedents

• Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 5 SCC 24 — Held that no conditions beyond those in the statute can be imposed; the landowner cannot be made to waive statutory rights; the mutual rights and obligations are enumerated in the statute.
• Kukreja Construction Company v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 14 SCC 594 — Held that compensation is payable without a representation; delay and laches do not bar claims for statutory compensation; a duty is cast on the State under Article 300A.
• Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai (2023) 15 SCC 110 — Held that when the law is unclear, the right to claim additional TDR is in suspended animation; waiting does not amount to abandonment.

Key Precedents

• Abuthagir v. State (2009) 17 SCC 208 — Held that mere belated disclosure of a particular fact by a witness is not, by itself, a ground to discard such testimony, provided the evidence is otherwise cogent and credible.

Key Precedents

• TPDDL v. PPCL (Petition No. 199/MP/2019, CERC, 29.11.2023) — Held that misdeclaration of declared capability requires absence of adequate coal stock or plant shutdown/repair; mere failure to achieve declared capacity is not sufficient.
• PSEB v. CERC (Appeal No. 79 of 2007, APTEL, 11.12.2007) — Held that less than 1% deviation is within practical limits and does not justify an allegation of gaming.
• Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. CCI (2017) 8 SCC 47 — Held that where two reasonable interpretations are possible, the interpretation favouring the assessee should be adopted, especially for penal provisions.

Key Precedents

• State of U.P. v. Anurudh 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40 — Cited to recognise the distinction between constitutional power and statutory power, but distinguished on the ground that the directions in the present case do not contradict any statutory scheme and are within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

Key Precedents

• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 — Held that the evidence of an approver must satisfy the twin test of reliability and sufficient corroboration; the High Court correctly found that PW12's evidence did not meet this test.
• Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 — Stands for the proposition that re-enactment evidence is not admissible if it amounts to testimonial compulsion.
• Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424 — Held that Article 20(3) protects against any form of testimonial compulsion, including re-enactment that reveals personal knowledge.

Key Precedents

• Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 — Constitution Bench affirmed the plenary nature of Article 142 powers, holding that prohibitions in ordinary laws cannot ipso facto act as limitations on constitutional powers.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231 — Constitution Bench held that Article 142 powers can be exercised to modulate statutory application consistent with constitutional values, as long as the order is not plainly and expressly barred by statutory provisions based on fundamental principles of public policy.
• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 — Constitution Bench held that Article 142 powers are curative and cannot be used to supplant substantive law, but can be exercised to balance equities and iron out creases.

Key Precedents

• Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 — Held that vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of recruitment rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules.
• Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala 2025 SCC OnLine SC 71 — Held that executive instructions issued under Article 162 have statutory force and bind the State government.
• Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 — Held that the decision not to fill up vacancies must be taken for bona fide reasons supported by appropriate reasons.

Key Precedents

• Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 5 SCC 403 — Held that under Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act, if the accusation is prima facie true, bail becomes absolutely impermissible; the legislative intent is that 'bail must be rejected as a rule.'
• Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10 — Held that K.A. Najeeb does not create a mechanical rule that mere passage of time automatically entitles an accused to bail; delay must be considered along with other factors.
• NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 — Held that the High Court had conducted a mini trial and reappreciated evidence at the bail stage, exceeding the limited scope of a bail petition.

Key Precedents

• Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande (1995) 3 SCC 413 — Held that a preliminary decree declares rights and liabilities leaving the actual result to be worked out in further proceedings; the final decree carries into fulfilment the preliminary decree.
• Bimal Kumar v. Shakuntala Debi (2012) 3 SCC 548 — Held that what is executable is a final decree and not a preliminary decree unless the final decree is a part of the preliminary decree.
• Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan (2022) 16 SCC 71 — Held that after passing a preliminary decree, the trial court must proceed to draw up a final decree; the suit comes to an end only when a final decree is drawn.

Key Precedents

• State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 — Held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court must consider broad probabilities and total effect of evidence; if there is prima facie material, charge must be framed.
• Swaran Singh v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 — Held that a place can be a private place yet be within public view if it is accessible to public gaze. The balcony and ground floor of a house on a street are accessible to public gaze.
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — Held that quashing of FIR is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, only when the FIR does not disclose any offence on its face.

Key Precedents

• Prashant Bhushan (Contempt Matter), In re (2021) 1 SCC 745 — Held that a deliberate attack on the institution of judiciary cannot be wished away with apologies; apology must be bona fide and sincere.
• Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P. (2016) 8 SCC 335 — Held that upon conviction for contempt, an advocate is automatically disqualified from practicing for two years under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• Yatin Narendra Oza v. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti (2016) 15 SCC 236 — The Supreme Court accepted the Appellant's apology in 2016 but cautioned that 'the apology and repentance shall see the appellant in a different incarnation.' The Appellant failed to reform.

Key Precedents

• Hind Charitable Trust v. Union of India, order dated 24 September 2014 — This Court directed that fees shall be at Government rates 'till the students so admitted pass out', which the Trust has complied with.

Key Precedents

• Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 8 SCR 133 — Held that the evidence of a partisan witness must be carefully weighed but not mechanically rejected, and that a relative of the deceased is a natural witness.
• Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) 3 SCC 627 — Held that the evidence of a hostile witness is not completely effaced and can be accepted to the extent it is found dependable.
• State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73 — Held that minor discrepancies in medical evidence do not destroy the prosecution case if the core finding is consistent.

Key Precedents

• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 — Established that the voter's right to know the antecedents of candidates is fundamental to democracy and is embedded in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
• Krishnamoorthy v. Shivakumar (2015) 14 SCC 58 — Held that non-furnishing of information pertaining to criminal antecedents causes undue influence and impedes the free exercise of electoral right, and the question whether the election was materially affected would not arise.
• Pritam Singh v. State (1950 INSC 9) — Established that Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and will be exercised only in special or exceptional cases; no such case exists here.

Key Precedents

• Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746 — Supports the proposition that where parties have voluntarily settled and consent to divorce, the waiting period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be waived.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) — Supports the exercise of Article 142 powers in matrimonial settlements.

Key Precedents

• Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 — Supreme Court held that the concept of shared household requires the woman to have lived there with the consent of the respondent; consent can be withdrawn.
• S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (2021) 15 SCC 730 — Supreme Court held that while the right to reside is important, courts must balance the rights of all parties, including senior citizens.

Key Precedents

• Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105 — Held that cruelty depends on the type of life the parties are accustomed to and their social conditions; what is cruelty in one case may not be in another.
• N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 — Held that the court must consider the context and the conduct of both parties when determining cruelty.

Key Precedents

• Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi (2001) 4 SCC 250 — Held that matrimonial matters must be decided on their own facts and that irretrievable breakdown should not be applied as a straitjacket formula for grant of divorce.
• N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 — Held that the petitioner must prove cruelty, and that the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities, but the conduct must be such as to cause reasonable apprehension of harm or injury.

Key Precedents

• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994 INSC 170) — Recognises that arrest must be justified with reasons, but does not require written grounds; the reasons can be recorded in the police diary as required by Section 47(2) of the BNSS 2023.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014 INSC 463) — Requires police to follow procedural safeguards but does not mandate written grounds of arrest for the arrestee; it focuses on the notice to be given before arrest for certain offences.

Key Precedents

• Davies Jenkins & Co. Ltd. v. Davies (1968) AC 1097 — House of Lords decision holding that the word 'where' in statutes is often used as a conditional conjunction meaning 'if' or 'whenever', not as a reference to a physical place.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 — The foundational case establishing the Vishaka Guidelines, which the POSH Act was enacted to codify; emphasises that the objective is to provide a safe workplace free from sexual harassment.

Key Precedents

• Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972 INSC 134) — Cited by the State but actually supports the respondent because the case holds that courts must evaluate whether the discrepancy affects the substratum; here, the High Court found that the discrepancies went to the root of the prosecution case.
• K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao (2003) 1 SCC 217 — Held that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is rebuttable and if the accused can show that the death was accidental or that there was no demand, the presumption stands discharged.

Key Precedents

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium case) (1997) 2 SCC 353 — Established that industrial development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive; the Court balanced heritage conservation with economic activity by imposing proportionate pollution control measures rather than shutting down all industry.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 — While establishing the precautionary principle, this Court also held that the principle must be applied in a reasoned, proportionate manner, not as a license for absolute prohibition without evidence.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 324 — Recognised that sustainable development requires integration of conservation and development, and that courts should rely on expert committees for complex environmental fact-finding.

Key Precedents

• Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narian Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 — Supports that even without express words, exclusion of the Limitation Act can be implied from the scheme of the special law where it provides a complete and exhaustive limitation mechanism.
• State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187 — Held that where a special statute provides for its own limitation and the consequences of delay, the general Limitation Act does not apply by necessary implication.