1). 'Insensitivity' : Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC Ruling That Grabbing Breasts & Breaking Pyjama Strings Of Minor Girl Wasn't 'Attempt To Rape'

Case Background

This case involves a serious sexual offence against an 11-year-old minor girl. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Pawan and Akash, committed the following acts:

• Grabbed the minor's breasts,
• Broke the string of her pyjama, and
• Tried to drag her beneath a culvert.

The trial court viewed these actions as an attempt to commit rape and charged the accused under:

1. Section 376 IPC (Rape), and
2. Section 18 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (Attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault).

However, the Allahabad High Court ruled that these acts did not constitute an attempt to rape, but instead amounted to:

• Section 354-B IPC (Assault with intent to disrobe), and
• Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act (Aggravated sexual assault).

This decision effectively reduced the severity of the charges, sparking outrage among legal experts and the public.

Issues of the Case

1. Did the accused's actions amount to an attempt to rape?
2. Was the High Court correct in treating the crime as a lesser offence under the POCSO Act?
3. Did the High Court misinterpret the legal distinction between "preparation" and "attempt"?
4. Was the High Court’s approach insensitive to the victim’s ordeal?

Supreme Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih.

Key Observations

1. The High Court’s Judgment Was “Shocking”
   • The Supreme Court strongly disagreed with the High Court’s ruling.
   • The bench noted that paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 of the High Court’s judgment lacked sensitivity and showed an inhuman approach.
2. Judgment Delivered After Four Months of Deliberation
   • The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court took nearly four months to issue its verdict, meaning the ruling was not made in haste.
   • However, despite this long deliberation, the judgment was legally and morally flawed.
3. Misinterpretation of “Preparation” vs. “Attempt”
   • The High Court ruled that the accused had not gone beyond preparation and could not be charged with an attempt to rape.
   • The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the accused’s actions clearly indicated an attempt to commit rape.
4. Public Outrage Justified
   • The High Court’s ruling received widespread criticism from the public and legal experts.
   • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared before the Court and denounced the judgment, calling it “shocking”.
   • The case was taken up suo motu by the Supreme Court after a letter was sent by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta on behalf of the NGO ‘We the Women of India’.
5. Immediate Stay on High Court’s Order
   • The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s ruling, preventing it from being used as a precedent in similar cases.
   • It also issued notices to:
     • Union of India,
     • State of Uttar Pradesh, and
     • Parties involved in the case.

Supreme Court Ruling

1. The High Court’s ruling was stayed (put on hold).
2. The accused will continue to face the more serious charges under the IPC and POCSO Act.
3. The case will now be reviewed with the correct legal interpretation.

Legal Provisions:

1. POCSO Act:
   • Section 18 – Attempt to commit an offence (punishable under Section 376 IPC).
   • Sections 9/10 – Aggravated sexual assault (lesser punishment than attempted rape).
2. IPC:
   • Section 376 – Punishment for rape.
   • Section 511 – Punishment for attempting to commit an offence.
   • Section 354-B – Assault with intent to disrobe.

Significance of the Case

1. Clarity on Attempt to Rape vs. Sexual Assault
   • The Supreme Court’s intervention suggests that forceful acts with clear sexual intent (like dragging a victim) should be treated as attempt to rape, not just lesser offences.
2. Judicial Sensitivity in POCSO Cases
   • The Supreme Court emphasized that judges must be sensitive while dealing with child sexual abuse cases.
3. Public Outrage & Judicial Accountability
   • The case shows how public pressure and legal activism (like the NGO’s letter) can lead to judicial corrections.

The Supreme Court’s stay on the Allahabad High Court’s order is a strong messagethat courts must interpret sexual offences strictly, especially in POCSO cases. The ruling reinforces that attempted rape should be recognized when there is clear intent, and judges must avoid insensitive interpretations that weaken justice for victims.

The case will now proceed further in the Supreme Court, where a final decision will determine whether the accused should face trial for attempt to rape or a lesser charge.

Case : IN RE: ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1449/2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

2). Supreme Court Explains When Relief Can Be Moulded in a Suit

Case Background

This case involves a property dispute over land originally purchased by Padmini Chandrasekaran in a court auction (1962). Padmini later wrote a Will (1975), leaving the property to Vinayagamurthy and his children, with the Trustmanaging the estate.

However, another person, Somasundaram Chettiar, also executed a Will for the same property, leaving it to his adopted son, Sarvothaman (Defendant No.1).

The dispute arose when Sarvothaman sold the property to Defendants 3–6 (appellants), despite Padmini’s prior ownership.

To reclaim the property, the Trust filed a case in the Madras High Court (1992), seeking:

1. A declaration that the sale deeds executed by Sarvothaman were void, and
2. Possession of the property for the Trust.

The Single Bench and Division Bench of the High Court ruled that the sale was invalid but instead of granting possession to the Trust, it gave relief to H.B.N. Shetty (executor of Padmini’s Will) for the benefit of Vinayagamurthy and his children, since the Will was not made in favor of the Trust.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants challenged it before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues of the Case

1. Was the High Court justified in "moulding the relief" by granting possession to H.B.N. Shetty instead of the Trust?
2. Can a court modify relief instead of dismissing a suit if it ensures complete justice?
3. Did the High Court correctly interpret the principles of "moulding of relief"?

Supreme Court’s Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti.

Key Observations

1. Doctrine of Moulding of Relief
   • The Court explained that moulding of relief allows courts to modify the requested relief based on new facts, changing circumstances, or to prevent unnecessary litigation.
   • The goal is to ensure justice rather than strictly adhering to the original relief sought.
2. High Court’s Decision Was Justified
   • Since the Trust was not the legal heir under Padmini’s Will, it could not claim possession of the property.
   • However, H.B.N. Shetty, being the executor of the Will, had the authority to execute the terms of the Willand ensure Vinayagamurthy and his children received their rightful property.
   • The High Court’s approach avoided unnecessary delays and additional litigation.
3. Referring to Past Precedents
   • The Supreme Court relied on Shivanna vs B.S. Puttamadaiah (2023), which outlined conditions for moulding relief:
     • The original relief must have become inappropriate due to changed circumstances.
     • Moulding the relief should shorten litigation and prevent further disputes.
     • The new relief should not unfairly surprise or harm the opposing party.
   • The Court found that these conditions were met in the present case.
4. No Need for Additional Litigation
   • The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that it would be unfair to force H.B.N. Shetty (over 80 years old) to file a separate suit for enforcing the Will.
   • Instead, it upheld the High Court’s decision to grant possession directly to Shetty as an executor, ensuring the true beneficiaries (Vinayagamurthy and his children) could receive their inheritance.
5. Final Ruling and Costs
   • The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision.
   • It imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the appellants, payable to the Legal Aid Services Authority of the Madras High Court within four weeks.

Legal Provisions 

1. Doctrine of Moulding of Relief – Courts have the power to modify relief if:
   • The original relief cannot be granted due to changed circumstances.
   • The new relief ensures justice and avoids unnecessary litigation.
   • The new relief does not unfairly harm the opposing party.
2. Precedent: Shivanna vs B.S. Puttamadaiah (2023) – Conditions for applying moulding of relief.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthens the principle of flexibility in judicial relief.
• Ensures substantive justice rather than dismissing cases due to technicalities.
• Saves litigants from unnecessary delays and additional lawsuits.
• Clarifies the role of executors in enforcing Wills.
• Reinforces the Supreme Court’s power to uphold equitable justice.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to mould relief in favor of H.B.N. Shetty, allowing Padmini’s Will to be enforced without additional litigation. The judgment reaffirmed that courts have the power to modify relief when required to ensure justice, preventing unnecessary hardship and legal delays.

Case Title: J. GANAPATHA AND OTHERS VERSUS M/S. N. SELVARAJALOU CHETTY TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES AND OTHERS

3). Supreme Court Rules Multiplier Can't Be Reduced in Motor Accident Claims for Reason Victims Earning in Foreign Currency

Case Background

This case involved a compensation claim for a 43-year-old software engineer residing in the United States, who died in a road accident in India. The deceased was driving a car when a vehicle owned by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) collided with it, leading to her death.

Her husband and two daughters (appellants) filed a claim with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking compensation.

• The Tribunal assessed her monthly income as $11,600 (after tax deductions) and fixed future prospects at 30%.
• Based on this, MACT awarded ₹8.05 crores as compensation.

However, the Telangana High Court reduced the compensation to ₹5.75 crores by applying a lower multiplier of 10, reasoning that the deceased earned in foreign currency.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Key Issues of the Case

1. Can the multiplier be reduced just because the deceased earned in foreign currency?
2. What exchange rate should be applied when converting foreign income to Indian rupees?

Supreme Court’s Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Key Observations

1. Multiplier Should Not Be Reduced Due to Foreign Earnings
   • The Supreme Court ruled that the multiplier is based solely on the age of the deceased and cannot be altered based on foreign income.
   • The Court referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which clearly established that a 14-multiplier must apply to a 43-year-old individual.
   • It disagreed with the High Court’s decision to reduce the multiplier to 10 and stated:
     "..as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the law is settled that the multiplier for a person aged 43 must be 14. No exception is made for a person earning in foreign currency."
2. Exchange Rate Should Be Fixed on the Date of Claim Filing
   • The Court held that the exchange rate at the time of filing the claim petition should be applied, not the rate on the date of judgment.
   • It relied on Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) and DLF Ltd. v. Koncar Generators & Motors Ltd, which established this principle.
   • Since the claim was filed in 2012, the applicable exchange rate was ₹57 per USD.
3. Final Ruling on Compensation
   • The Supreme Court increased the compensation from ₹5.75 crores (fixed by the High Court) to ₹9.64 crores, applying the correct multiplier and exchange rate.

Legal Provisions

1. Principle of Multiplier in Motor Accident Cases
   • The multiplier method is used to calculate compensation in motor accident cases.
   • National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) mandates that the age of the deceased determines the multiplier.
   • The multiplier for a 43-year-old is 14, irrespective of income source.
2. Exchange Rate for Compensation in Foreign Currency
   • Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) and DLF Ltd. v. Koncar Generators & Motors Ltd set the rule that the exchange rate on the date of claim filing applies.

Significance of the Judgment

• Protects uniformity in compensation – Courts cannot arbitrarily reduce the multiplier for foreign income earners.
• Clarifies exchange rate application – Compensation must be based on the rate at the time of claim filing, ensuring fairness.
• Ensures justice for victims’ families – The ruling prevents discrimination against those earning abroad.
• Strengthens legal precedent – Reinforces the Pranay Sethi (2017) ruling on multipliers and exchange rates in motor accident cases.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s reduction of the multiplier and ensured proper compensation for the victim’s family. By applying the correct multiplier (14) and fixing the exchange rate at ₹57 per USD, the Court increased the compensation to ₹9.64 crores. This judgment reinforces that income in foreign currency cannot be a reason to alter compensation rules, ensuring fair treatment for accident victims and their families.

Case Title: Shyam Prasad Nagalla & Ors. v. The Andhra Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation & Ors.

4). Supreme Court Orders Central Adoption Resource Authority to Issue NOC for Easier Inter-Country Adoption

Case Background

A 49-year-old single Indian woman, who is an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) living in the United Kingdom (UK), filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to adopt her brother’s twin children and take them to the UK with her.

The children were born through surrogacy, and the petitioner legally adopted them under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) on January 9, 2020. The adoption deed was executed on September 19, 2022.

The biological mother of the children passed away in 2023 due to an accident, and the petitioner's brother (the father) was raising them alone before the adoption.

The Madras High Court, in its order dated April 17, 2024, denied the petitioner a No Objection Certificate (NOC)from the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), stating that the UK authorities must legally recognize the adoption before CARA can issue an NOC under the Hague Adoption Convention, 1993.

The petitioner challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that CARA should issue the NOC without requiring prior approval from UK authorities.

Key Issues in the Case

1. Should CARA issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) before the UK authorities recognize the adoption?
2. Does the adoption fall under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), or is it solely governed by HAMA?
3. Did the Madras High Court wrongly apply the 2022 Adoption Regulations to this case?

Supreme Court’s Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma.

Key Observations

1. CARA Must Issue the NOC Within 4 Weeks
   • The Court directed CARA to issue an NOC within four weeks, ensuring that the adoption process is not delayed further.
   • The Court aimed to simplify the adoption process and remove procedural obstacles.
2. Adoption is Governed by HAMA, Not the JJ Act
   • The petitioner argued that the adoption was done under HAMA, not under the JJ Act, which applies to orphans, abandoned, or surrendered children.
   • The Supreme Court agreed with this argument and clarified that HAMA-governed adoptions are excluded from the JJ Act’s rules under Section 56(3) of the JJ Act.
3. Regulation 68 of the Adoption Regulations 2022 Does Not Apply
   • The Madras High Court applied Regulation 68, which requires a sponsorship letter, a background check, and other formalities for inter-country adoptions.
   • The Supreme Court noted that this regulation only applies to adoptions after September 17, 2021, whereas the petitioner’s adoption was finalized in 2020.
   • Therefore, the High Court wrongly applied the regulation to this case.
4. CARA’s Role Under the JJ Act
   • Section 60 of the JJ Act states that CARA must issue an NOC for inter-country adoptions after a District Magistrate's order.
   • Section 68(c) empowers CARA to frame adoption regulations, but these must be applied correctly based on the date of adoption.
   • The Court clarified that CARA’s role is only to issue an NOC, not to determine whether foreign authorities will recognize the adoption.

Legal Provisions

1. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA)
   • Governs adoptions between Hindus and does not require CARA’s involvement unless it is an inter-country adoption.
2. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act)
   • Section 56(3): Adoptions under HAMA are excluded from the JJ Act’s regulations.
   • Section 60: When an Indian relative adopts a child and takes them abroad, CARA must issue an NOCbased on a District Magistrate’s order.
   • Section 68(c): Gives CARA the power to frame adoption regulations.
3. Adoption Regulations, 2022
   • Regulation 68 applies to cases initiated after September 17, 2021.
   • Since the petitioner adopted the children in 2020, this regulation does not apply.
4. Hague Adoption Convention, 1993
   • Ratified by both India and the UK, ensuring cooperation in inter-country adoptions.
   • The petitioner argued that an NOC from CARA is required under the Convention, which supports her case.

Significance of the Judgment

• Eases Inter-Country Adoptions – The ruling simplifies the process and removes unnecessary delays.
• Clarifies CARA’s Role – CARA must issue an NOC without requiring prior recognition from foreign authorities.
• Prevents Wrongful Application of Laws – The Supreme Court corrected the High Court’s mistake in applying Regulation 68 to an adoption finalized before 2021.
• Strengthens the Hague Convention’s Purpose – By directing CARA to comply with the Hague Adoption Convention, the Court reinforces India’s international obligations.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing CARA to issue the NOC within four weeks. The Court overturned the Madras High Court’s decision, stating that foreign recognition of adoption is not a prerequisite for issuing an NOC. It also clarified that the adoption falls under HAMA, not the JJ Act, and that Regulation 68 does not apply since the adoption was done in 2020.

This judgment simplifies inter-country adoptions, ensuring that legal guardians and adoptive parents do not face unnecessary hurdles while securing a future for their children abroad.

Case Details : PREMA GOPAL vs. CENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCE AUTHORITY| SLP(C) No. 014886 - / 2024

5). Justice Oka Calls for Introspection: We Have No Right to Say Common Man Has Faith in Judiciary

Introduction

At an event celebrating 75 years of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Abhay S. Oka raised concerns about long-pending cases, inadequate judicial infrastructure, and delays affecting undertrial prisoners. He delivered a lecture on "Access to Justice and 75 Years of Constitution - Bridging the Gap Between Judiciary and Citizens" at Bharat Mandapam, organized by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.

Key Issues Highlighted by Justice Oka

1. Neglect of Trial Courts

• Justice Oka pointed out that trial courts have been wrongly considered "subordinate" or "lower" courts" for the past 75 years.
• Since trial courts are the first point of access for common people, neglecting them has weakened access to justice.
• Over 4.54 crore cases are pending in India, with 25-30% of them older than 10 years.
• He questioned whether the judiciary could claim that people have "great faith" in courts when so many cases remain unresolved.

2. Rising Case Backlog

• The judge identified matrimonial cases as a major reason for judicial burden, as one dispute often leads to 4-5 related cases.
• He warned that if efforts are not made to resolve cases early, the entire judicial system could collapse.
• The judge-to-population ratio is stagnant, which means not enough judges are available to handle the rising number of cases.
• He stressed that increasing judge numbers alone is not enough; courts need better staff, infrastructure, and technology.

3. Delays in Bail Matters and Impact on Undertrials

• Justice Oka criticized the denial of bail in clear-cut cases, leading to accused persons spending years in jail before being acquitted.
• He pointed out that some prisoners suffer 10 years in jail, only to be found innocent due to lack of evidence.
• He warned that one day, such undertrial prisoners might sue the judiciary, asking, "Who will compensate my family for the years lost?"

4. Issues Faced by Victims and Witnesses

• Victims and complainants are not properly informed about the progress of investigations.
• Witnesses in criminal cases are summoned multiple times but sent back without being heard.
• There is no real protection for witnesses, and the allowances paid to them are inadequate.

5. Poor Judicial Infrastructure and Legal Aid System

• Labor and industrial courts suffer from poor infrastructure and lack basic facilities.
• Legal aid lawyers do not conduct proper cross-examinations, leading to wrongful convictions.
• Justice Oka suggested that each court should have a dedicated Public Prosecutor (PP) instead of 1 PP managing multiple courts.

6. Criticism of the Judiciary in the Media

• He stated that criticism of the judiciary is now more public due to electronic and social media.
• He advised that unless criticism is baseless or amounts to contempt, courts should accept it and introspect.

7. Adjournments and Lawyers’ Role in Delays

• The culture of frequent adjournments, bulky pleadings, and absentee lawyers delays justice.
• He warned that if lawyers abstain from court work, bail matters and trials get delayed for months or years.
• He called lawyers' unnecessary absence from court "criminal", as it harms litigants waiting for justice.

Conclusion

Justice Oka urged judges, lawyers, and policymakers to work together to improve the justice system. He emphasized that trial courts must be strengthened, delays must be reduced, and judicial infrastructure must be modernized. He concluded by reminding the Bar and judiciary to ensure that court time is not wasted and that justice is delivered efficiently.