Keeping Pace with Legal Change
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court set out the five golden principles for relying on circumstantial evidence in criminal trials, stressing that every link in the chain must be conclusively established and exclude all reasonable doubt, ensuring that conviction is based only on evidence that points solely to the accused’s guilt.
The case of The Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Kumar & Ors., considers the extent of the liability of an insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly concerning long-term rehabilitation assistance (prosthetics and assistive devices) to a motor accident victim.
The conviction under Section 85 of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Act was maintained by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Raj Shetty vs. Director & Anr. This decision clarified the obligation of a Principal Employer in terms of ensuring that employee payments are deposited. Because of this verdict, accountability in accordance with social welfare regulations is strengthened.
The applicability of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shamsher Singh. The court ruled that the case does not need a grave harm in order to show intent to murder. Following the reversal of the High Court’s acquittal, the Court reinstated the conviction for attempted murder that was handed down by the trial court.
On May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot conduct narco-analysis without the accused’s consent, emphasizing that such tests violate Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also declared the Rajasthan High Court’s precedent in Sunil Bhatt v. State unsustainable, affirming that narco-test results alone are not admissible evidence and cannot justify conviction.
In a decision that was presided over by Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court upheld the decision to fire ITBP Constable Jageshwar Singh for stealing money from the cash box of the institution. The Supreme Court placed a strong emphasis on the principle of proportionality and a zero-tolerance policy on theft of trust.
This report examines the FIR filed against Virat Kohli following the Bengaluru stampede, exploring legal grounds under Sections 304A and 336–338 IPC, investigative procedures, challenges in attributing negligence to a sports figure, and the broader procedural ramifications and implications.
On May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court held that denying disabled employees in supernumerary posts benefits like probation, seniority, and promotion violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that while there was a distinction, it lacked a rational link to the law’s purpose, making the government’s order discriminatory and restoring equal rights to these employees.
Can a public park replace a century-old lake in the name of urban renewal? On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court decided that Mumbai’s redeveloped garden should stay, finding it now serves the public and environment better than the neglected waterbody it replaced. This ruling highlights how courts may balance ecological ideals with practical urban needs.
The Supreme Court, in Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General (May 28, 2025), ruled that building a verandah aligned with existing ones at the High Court does not risk its World Heritage status, and green paver blocks in the parking area used by lawyers and litigants are acceptable, as these do not violate heritage guidelines or involve major construction within the main building.
