1). Supreme Court: States Must Consider Early Release of Convicts Once Eligible, Even Without Requests

Case Background

The case dealt with the power of the government to grant remission (early release) of a convict's sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Supreme Court considered whether remission could be granted automatically under a government policy, or whether a convict must apply for it. The Court also examined the conditions for remission, the process for revoking remission, and the requirement for recording reasons.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether a convict must apply for remission, or if the government has a duty to consider all eligible convicts automatically.
2. What conditions can be imposed while granting remission.
3. Whether remission can be revoked automatically if a convict violates conditions.
4. Whether the government must record reasons while granting or rejecting remission.

Court Observations

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih made the following key observations:

1. No Application Needed for Remission if a Policy Exists

• If a State Government or Union Territory has a remission policy, it must automatically consider all eligible convicts for remission.
• The government cannot refuse to consider a convict just because they did not apply.
• If the government insists on applications, it would be discriminatory and a violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution.
• The power under Section 432(1) of CrPC must be used in a fair and reasonable manner.

2. States Must Create a Clear Policy for Remission

• If a state does not have a remission policy, there is a risk that remission decisions may be arbitrary.
• Therefore, all states and Union Territories without a remission policy must create one within two months.
• This policy can be separate or part of the prison manual.

3. Conditions for Granting Remission Must Be Fair and Reasonable

• The government can impose reasonable conditions on remission orders.
• These conditions must be:
  • Clear and specific (not vague or confusing).
  • Capable of being followed (not impossible to comply with).
  • Not oppressive (should not make remission meaningless).
• Factors to consider before granting remission:
  • The nature of the crime.
  • The motive behind the crime.
  • The convict’s criminal background.
  • Public safety concerns.
• The purpose of remission is to help convicts reintegrate into society.

4. Revocation of Remission Requires a Fair Process

• Remission can be revoked if a convict violates the conditions.
• However, revocation is not automatic—the government must follow a fair process:
  • Convict must receive a notice explaining why remission is being revoked.
  • Convict must get a chance to respond before a final decision is made.
  • The government must record brief reasons for revocation.
• This is necessary because revoking remission affects the convict’s fundamental right to liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution).

5. Government Must Record Reasons for Granting or Denying Remission

• Decisions on remission must be fair and transparent.
• Whether remission is granted or rejected, the government must provide reasons in writing.
• These reasons must be:
  • Communicated to the convict through prison authorities.
  • Sent to the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA) to ensure fairness.
• Prison authorities must inform convicts of their right to challenge rejection in court.

Court Rulings and Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following binding directions:

1. Automatic Consideration for Remission:
   • If a remission policy exists, all eligible convicts must be considered automatically.
   • Convicts do not need to apply for remission.
2. States Must Create a Policy:
   • States and Union Territories without a remission policy must create one within two months.
   • The policy can be a separate document or part of the prison manual.
3. Fair and Clear Conditions for Remission:
   • The government can impose reasonable conditions to ensure the convict’s rehabilitation and public safety.
   • Conditions must be clear, not oppressive, and capable of being followed.
4. Recording of Reasons for Remission Decisions:
   • Whether remission is granted or denied, the decision must include written reasons.
   • These reasons must be shared with the convict and the DLSA.
   • Prison authorities must inform the convict about their right to challenge rejection.
5. Fair Process for Revocation of Remission:
   • Remission cannot be revoked automatically.
   • If a convict violates conditions, the government must:
     • Give a notice explaining the reason for revocation.
     • Allow the convict to respond.
     • Record reasons for revocation in writing.
6. Legal Services Authorities to Monitor Implementation:
   • District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) must ensure proper implementation of these directions.
   • They must track the eligibility of convicts for remission and assist them if needed.
   • State Legal Services Authorities should create an online portal to update remission data in real-time.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 432 of the CrPC, 1973 – Power of the government to remit a convict’s sentence.
• Section 473 of the BNSS, 2023 – Similar provision under the new criminal law.
• Article 14 of the Constitution – Right to Equality (against arbitrary government action).
• Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to Life and Personal Liberty (fair process for remission).
• Principles of Natural Justice – Convicts must get a fair chance to be heard before decisions affecting their liberty.

Significance of the Judgment

• Prevents arbitrary denial of remission: Governments must automatically consider all eligible convicts.
• Ensures fairness and transparency: Governments must explain their remission decisions.
• Protects convict rights: Revocation of remission requires a fair hearing.
• Encourages reintegration into society: Conditions for remission should help, not punish, the convict.
• Improves legal oversight: Legal Services Authorities must monitor remission cases and assist convicts.

The Supreme Court’s judgment strengthens the fairness and transparency of remission decisions. It ensures that eligible convicts are not denied remission unfairly and that governments must follow a clear process before revoking remission. The ruling upholds the constitutional rights of convicts while balancing public safety concerns.

Case Name: IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021

2). Supreme Court: Without Active Participation, Mere Presence at Crime Scene Doesn’t Attract Section of 34 IPC 

Case Background

In this case, the husband (appellant) was convicted by the Karnataka High Court for allegedly participating in the murder of his wife. According to the prosecution, the husband and his mother set his wife on fire. However, his conviction was based only on his presence at the crime scene, without any direct evidence proving his active participation. The husband challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether mere presence at the crime scene is enough to establish guilt under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Whether the husband actively participated in the crime or shared a common intention with his mother.

Court Observations

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan reviewed the case. The Court made the following key observations:

• Mere presence is not enough: A person being present at a crime scene does not automatically make them guilty under Section 34 IPC, unless there is proof of active participation in the crime.
• Requirement of common intention: Section 34 IPC applies only if the accused shares a common intention with others involved in the crime. If someone is merely a bystander and does not contribute to the offense, they cannot be held guilty.
• No overt act by the husband: The prosecution failed to provide direct evidence of the husband's active involvement in the crime. On the contrary, his act of pouring water on his burning wife indicated that he was not a participant.
• Distinction from Section 149 IPC: The Court clarified that Section 34 IPC requires active participation, which is different from Section 149 IPC, where mere membership in an unlawful assembly can be enough for liability.

Court Rulings

• The Supreme Court set aside the husband’s conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove his participation in the crime.
• The Court upheld the conviction of the mother-in-law, as evidence clearly established her role in the offense.
• The husband was acquitted, and the appeal was partly allowed.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 34 IPC: Joint liability for a criminal act done with common intention.
• Section 149 IPC: Liability for offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces that:

• Mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient for conviction under Section 34 IPC.
• Active participation or a shared common intention must be proven for liability.
• Courts must distinguish between mere presence and actual involvement in a crime.

The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights the importance of proving active participation in cases involving joint liability under Section 34 IPC. The acquittal of the husband clarifies that without direct evidence of participation, a person cannot be held guilty merely for being present at the scene of a crime.

Case Name: VASANT @ GIRISH AKBARASAB SANAVALE & ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

3). Supreme Court: Charitable Trusts’ Eligibility for Tax Exemption to Be Determined by Proposed, Not Actual, Activities  

Case Background

A charitable trust involved in education and medical aid applied for registration under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to avail tax exemptions under Sections 10 and 11. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the registration, stating that the trust had not provided enough proof of actual charitable activities.

The trust appealed this decision, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in its favor, directing the Commissioner to grant registration. The High Court upheld this decision. Dissatisfied, the Commissioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, arguing that a trust must prove its actual charitable activities before being granted registration.

Issue of the Case

The main question before the Supreme Court was:

• Whether the tax authorities should consider the proposed activities or the actual activities of a charitable trust while deciding on registration under Section 12-AA.

Court Observations

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan examined the case and made the following key observations:

1. Proposed vs. Actual Activities: The Court reaffirmed that registration under Section 12-AA should be based on a trust’s proposed charitable activities rather than what it has already done.
2. No Automatic Right to Tax Exemption: Even after registration, a trust is not automatically entitled to income tax exemptions under Sections 10 and 11. The Assessing Officer must verify whether the trust's activities are genuinely charitable when it files its income tax return.
3. Assessing Officer’s Authority: If the materials provided by the trust do not convincingly prove its eligibility for tax exemptions, the Assessing Officer can deny the exemption.
4. No Need for Larger Bench Review: The Revenue Department argued that the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Ananda Social should be reconsidered. However, the Court rejected this request, stating that the Ananda Socialcase was correctly decided.
5. Reference to Ananda Social Case: In the Ananda Social Welfare Trust case, a three-judge bench of Justice SA Bobde, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant had already ruled that “activities” under Section 12-AAinclude proposed activities.

Court Rulings

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, affirming that registration under Section 12-AA should be based on a trust’s proposed activities.
• It rejected the argument that a trust must provide proof of actual charitable activities before registration.
• However, the Court clarified that even if a trust is registered, the Assessing Officer can deny tax exemptionsunder Sections 10 and 11 if it finds that the trust’s activities are not genuinely charitable.
• The Court refused to refer the Ananda Social judgment to a larger bench, reaffirming its correctness.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act: Deals with the registration process for charitable trusts seeking tax benefits. The Commissioner must verify whether the trust’s objects and proposed activities are genuinely charitable before granting registration.
• Sections 10 and 11 of the Income Tax Act: Provide tax exemptions for income derived by charitable trusts, subject to certain conditions.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling is important because it:

1. Clarifies the registration process for charitable trusts – Tax authorities must consider the proposed activities, not just past activities.
2. Maintains a balance between registration and tax exemptions – Registration does not automatically mean that a trust will get tax benefits. The Assessing Officer can later deny exemptions if the trust’s activities are not genuinely charitable.
3. Upholds the Ananda Social ruling – Ensures consistency in interpreting Section 12-AA, reducing unnecessary legal disputes.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that charitable trusts do not need to prove actual activities for registration under Section 12-AA. Instead, authorities must assess whether their proposed activities align with charitable purposes. However, merely obtaining registration does not guarantee tax exemptions, which can still be denied if the trust fails to meet the required conditions.

Case Name: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS VERSUS M/S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE

4). Failure to Sign Witness Deposition by Magistrate in Warrant Cases is Fatal, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Background

This case involved two government school teachers accused of harassing a female colleague. The complainant alleged that the accused pushed her into a room and tried to close the door with the intention of outraging her modesty, but she managed to escape.

Following an investigation, a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) convicted the accused under Sections 294 and 357 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000. Their appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed. The accused then filed a revision petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, seeking to set aside their conviction.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether failure to sign witness depositions by the Magistrate, as required under Section 275(4) CrPC, affects the prosecution’s case?
2. Whether the testimony of an Investigating Officer, who was not cross-examined, can be relied upon?

Court Observations

The case was heard by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who made the following key observations:

1. Signing of Depositions is Mandatory
   • The Court held that under Section 275(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) (now Section 310 BNSS), a Magistrate must sign the written depositions of witnesses for them to be considered valid evidence.
   • Failure to do so is not a minor irregularity, but a serious flaw that affects the entire prosecution case.
   • Any testimony recorded in a warrant case without compliance with Section 275(4) CrPC cannot be read as evidence.
2. Unreliable Investigation Due to Lack of Cross-Examination
   • The Investigating Officer (ASI Rajbir Singh), who prepared the site plan, did not appear for cross-examination. This left a crucial question—whether the place of the incident was public or private—unanswered.
   • Another Investigating Officer (also named Rajbir Singh), who appeared as PW5, gave testimony, but his deposition was not signed by the Magistrate, making it unreliable.
   • Since the accused were not given a chance to cross-examine key witnesses, the Court found this to be a violation of their right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Court Rulings

• The conviction order passed by the JMIC and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge was set aside.
• The petitioners (accused teachers) were acquitted.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 275(4) CrPC (Section 310 BNSS): Requires that depositions of witnesses in warrant cases must be signed by the Magistrate for them to be admissible as evidence.
• Sections 294 and 357 IPC: Deal with obscene acts in public places and assault on women, respectively.
• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Guarantees the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to cross-examine witnesses.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Upholds Procedural Fairness – Reinforces that procedural laws like Section 275(4) CrPC are mandatory and not just formalities.
2. Ensures Fair Trial – Accused persons must be given a chance to cross-examine key witnesses; otherwise, their conviction cannot stand.
3. Strengthens Judicial Accountability – Magistrates must diligently sign depositions to maintain the credibility of evidence.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that failure to sign witness depositions is a serious procedural lapse that weakens the prosecution’s case. Additionally, lack of cross-examination of key witnesses violates the accused’s right to a fair trial. Based on these findings, the Court acquitted the accused teachers and set aside their conviction.

Case Name: Rajender Singh v. State Of Haryana

5). Chhattisgarh HC: NDPS Case Can Proceed Even If Standing Order Not Followed, Provided Recovery Is Proven From Other Evidence 

Case Background

This case involved an accused caught transporting 217 packets of cannabis (Ganja), weighing 222.800 kg, along with a co-accused. The police apprehended them on January 5, 2020, and they could not provide any explanation for carrying such a large quantity of contraband.

The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The accused then filed an appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court, arguing that several procedural violations under the NDPS Act made the conviction invalid.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether failure to comply with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order 1/89 (relating to sampling of seized contraband) is fatal to the prosecution?
2. Whether non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act affects the case?
3. Whether the prosecution provided enough evidence to prove possession and recovery of the contraband?

Court Observations

The case was heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal. The Court made the following key observations:

1. Section 42 Not Applicable – Section 43 Applies Instead
   • Section 42 of the NDPS Act applies when a search is conducted inside private premises, requiring prior recording of reasons for belief.
   • However, in this case, the vehicle was searched in a public place, so Section 43 (search in public places) applied. Under Section 43, prior written information is not required.
2. Section 50 Not Required for Vehicle Searches
   • The accused argued that Section 50 of the NDPS Act (which allows the accused to request a magistrate's presence during a search) was violated.
   • The Court clarified that Section 50 applies only to personal searches, not vehicle searches. Since the cannabis was found in the vehicle and not on the accused's person, Section 50 was irrelevant.
3. Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act Not Fatal
   • The accused claimed that the sampling of the seized contraband was not done as per Section 52A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order 1/89 issued by the Central Government.
   • The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 LiveLaw SC 84), which held that mere non-compliance with Section 52A is not fatal if recovery is otherwise proven with strong evidence.
   • In this case, the seizure proceedings were properly conducted, and independent witnesses confirmed the recovery.
4. Prosecution’s Case Was Strong and Credible
   • Independent witnesses confirmed that the vehicle was stopped, and 217 packets of cannabis were found in the accused’s possession.
   • The Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate supervised the seizure, weighed the contraband, and confirmed its sampling.
   • The accused failed to provide any evidence to challenge the prosecution’s claims or prove false implication.

Court Rulings

• The trial court’s judgment was upheld, as it was based on proper appreciation of evidence.
• The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and life sentence were affirmed.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act – Punishment for possession of commercial quantities of cannabis.
• Section 42 NDPS Act – Requirement for prior written information for searches in private premises (not applicable in this case).
• Section 43 NDPS Act – Allows search and seizure in public places without prior written approval (applicable in this case).
• Section 50 NDPS Act – Gives the accused the right to request a magistrate’s presence during a personal search(not applicable to vehicle searches).
• Section 52A NDPS Act – Procedure for handling and sampling seized contraband (not strictly mandatory if other evidence supports recovery).

Significance of the Judgment

1. Clarifies Legal Procedure – Reinforces that vehicle searches do not require compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act.
2. Strengthens Prosecution in Drug Cases – Confirms that technical lapses in sampling do not weaken a case if recovery is otherwise proven.
3. Prevents Misuse of Legal Loopholes – Accused cannot escape liability merely by citing minor procedural lapses if strong evidence proves possession.

The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the accused’s conviction and life sentence, ruling that non-compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act is not fatal if the prosecution proves possession and recovery of contraband through reliable evidence. This judgment strengthens the enforcement of drug laws while ensuring that procedural technicalities do not undermine the fight against narcotics trafficking.

Case Name - Shahbaz Ahmed Sheikh vs State of Chhattisgarh

6). Gujarat HC: Plea of Non-Receipt of Signed Award Cannot Be Raised for First Time in Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration Act

Case Background

The case involved the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), which filed an appeal against the rejection of its plea for condonation of delay in challenging an arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Civil Court dismissed NHAI's application because there was a delay of approximately 200-230 days in filing the challenge. In response, NHAI argued that the limitation period had not started because it never received a signed copy of the arbitral award, as required under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.

The Gujarat High Court had to decide whether this argument could be raised for the first time in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Issues of the Case

1. Can NHAI argue for the first time in appeal that the limitation period did not start due to non-receipt of a signed arbitral award?
2. Does the limitation period under Section 34(3) begin only after the signed award is received?

Court Observations

The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi. The Court made the following observations:

1. NHAI Should Have Raised the Issue Before the Civil Court
   • The Civil Court dismissed NHAI’s plea due to excessive delay, and at that time, NHAI did not argue that it had not received a signed copy of the award.
   • The Court held that such an argument cannot be raised for the first time at the appeal stage under Section 37.
   • If NHAI believed that Section 31(5) was not followed, it should have raised this issue in its original challenge under Section 34.
2. Applicability of Supreme Court Ruling in ARK Builders Case
   • The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2011) held that the limitation period under Section 34(3) starts only when the signed award is delivered to the party.
   • However, the Gujarat High Court clarified that this ruling does not apply when a party fails to raise the issue of non-receipt before the lower court.

Court Rulings

• Since NHAI did not raise the issue before the Civil Court, the High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to condone the delay.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 31(5) Arbitration Act – Requires that a signed copy of the arbitral award be delivered to each party.
• Section 34(3) Arbitration Act – States that an application to set aside an award must be filed within 3 months from the date of receipt of the signed award.
• Section 37 Arbitration Act – Provides for appeals against orders under Section 34, but new arguments cannot be introduced at this stage.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Prevents Delay Tactics – The ruling ensures that parties cannot introduce new arguments at the appellate stage to escape limitation periods.
2. Strengthens Procedural Discipline – Parties must raise all relevant issues at the first opportunity and not wait until the appeal stage.
3. Clarifies Scope of ARK Builders Case – Reinforces that non-receipt of a signed award must be argued at the first instance for the ARK Builders precedent to apply.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed NHAI’s appeal, ruling that the argument about non-receipt of the signed award should have been raised before the Civil Court under Section 34. This decision reinforces procedural discipline in arbitration cases, ensuring that limitation arguments cannot be misused at the appellate stage.

Case Name: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Versus KISHORBHAI VALJIBHAI JETHANI & ORS.

Case Number: C/FA/4705/2023