The Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa (2025) held that judicial officers with seven years of prior advocacy are eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges under Article 233(2), overruling Dheeraj Mor and affirming equality in eligibility.
The Supreme Court in K Gopi v. Sub-Registrar struck down Tamil Nadu’s Rule 55-A(i) for overstepping the Registration Act, reaffirming that Sub-Registrars can’t assess title—only courts can. It’s a landmark on delegated power and property rights.
The Supreme Court of India reinstated a 3-year legal practice requirement for entry-level judicial posts, emphasizing the need for real-world experience to enhance judicial competence. This aligns India with common law traditions, prioritizing practical wisdom.
The Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) ruled the arrest unconstitutional, citing violations of Article 22(1). It held that merely informing the accused’s wife does not fulfill legal requirements, reinforcing safeguards against unlawful detention.
The Supreme Court in Smt. N. Usha Rani & Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025) upheld maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., ruling that even in a void marriage, a woman is entitled to financial support if separation from her first husband is evident and prevents destitution.
The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s ruling that intellectual property loss qualifies for compensation under the SC/ST Act. This landmark decision expands the definition of property, ensuring greater protection for marginalized scholars facing caste-based discrimination.
The Supreme Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Bhonsle (2024) held that courts must confidently reject plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if barred by limitation, stressing that clever drafting can't bypass statutory deadlines.
The Supreme Court upheld the 2017 Amendment Acts permitting Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock-cart races, citing cultural significance and compliance with animal welfare laws. It overruled A. Nagaraja, affirming states’ legislative competence and balancing heritage with cruelty prevention.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Bhonsle reaffirms Order VII Rule 11(d)'s power to reject plaints barred by limitation, emphasizing procedural discipline to curb frivolous litigation and uphold judicial efficiency.
The Supreme Court in Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors. reaffirmed that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act requires strict compliance with statutory prerequisites, including a valid written contract, lawful possession, and willingness to perform obligations.
In Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha, the Supreme Court ruled that the backyard of a private house does not qualify as a "public view" under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, discharging the appellant from charges of caste-based abuse and related IPC offences.
The Supreme Court in C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary-cum-District Collector ruled that religious conversions made solely to avail reservation benefits are a "fraud on the Constitution." The decision emphasizes the need for genuine conversions to uphold social justice.
The SC upheld the UP Madarsa Act, balancing state regulation with minority rights, emphasizing secularism as coexistence, not negation, ensuring quality education without infringing religious freedoms.
In Y. Narasimha Rao and Ors v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Ors (1991), the Supreme Court of India ruled that a foreign court’s decree dissolving a marriage is unenforceable if it lacks jurisdiction under Indian law. The Missouri court’s divorce decree, based on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” was
“Indian courts are not bound to recognize foreign divorce decrees