1). Article 226: Supreme Court Clarifies Disputed Questions of Fact Don’t Impact Writ Court's Power to Grant Relief 

Case Background

The case involved a company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of power transformers and electrical equipment. The company purchased land to set up its manufacturing unit, but the land later became the subject of legal proceedings.

After the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was enacted, the company declared its excess land holdings to the government. The government initially granted exemptions but later withdrew them. Following an enquiry, the authorities determined that 46,538.43 square meters of land were surplus and required the company to surrender the excess vacant land within 30 days.

The Enquiry Officer claimed that the government took possession of the surplus land through a legal document called a panchnama (an official record of possession). However, the company argued that the possession was only symbolic, and it continued to hold the land physically.

Challenging this, the company filed a writ petition in the High Court, where a Single Judge ruled in its favor, declaring the panchnama void. However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, stating that the issue of possession involved disputed facts, which could not be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The company then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue of the Case

The key issue before the Supreme Court was:

• Can the High Court decide disputed questions of fact in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution?
• Was the government’s claim of taking possession of the land valid, or was it merely an attempt to reject the writ petition?

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan made the following observations:

1. High Courts Can Decide Disputed Facts in Some Cases
   • Normally, High Courts do not investigate disputed factual issues under Article 226.
   • However, if the State creates false disputes just to dismiss a writ petition, the High Court must intervene and determine the facts in the interest of justice.
2. Disputed Possession is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact
   • The Court ruled that questions of land possession are not purely factual but involve legal interpretations.
   • The legality of the possession process under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act must be considered.
3. Government's Actions Can Be Reviewed in Writ Proceedings
   • The Supreme Court relied on State of U.P. & Anr. v. Ehsan & Anr. (2023), which held that:
     • Courts can determine whether the government legally took possession of land based on available evidence.
     • If the government failed to follow proper legal procedures, the Court can draw an adverse inference against it.
4. Protection of Property Rights under Article 300A
   • The Court cited Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, highlighting the seven rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
   • Article 300A states that no person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The Division Bench of the High Court made an error in overturning the Single Judge’s decision.
• The Single Judge correctly ruled that the government had not taken actual possession of the land.
• The appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge’s decision was restored.
• The Supreme Court ruled that Article 226 cannot be restricted based on the mere existence of disputed facts.

Legal Provisions 

• Article 226 of the Constitution – Allows High Courts to issue writs to protect constitutional and legal rights.
• Article 300A of the Constitution – Protects property rights and ensures that no one is deprived of their property without legal authority.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies that High Courts can decide disputed facts if necessary for justice.
• Ensures that the government cannot create false factual disputes to avoid judicial review.
• Strengthens property rights under Article 300A by emphasizing legal possession over symbolic possession.
• Prevents misuse of legal procedures to deprive landowners of their property unlawfully.

The Supreme Court held that mere existence of a factual dispute does not prevent the High Court from granting relief under Article 226. It restored the Single Judge’s ruling, emphasizing that courts must protect property rights and prevent wrongful government actions. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in land acquisition and strengthens constitutional protection for property owners.

Case Name: M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4526-4527 OF 2024

2). Supreme Court Clarifies Court Judgments Are Retrospective Unless Specifically Made Prospective

Case Background

The case revolved around the 2015 Supreme Court judgment in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which laid down a new procedural requirement for filing complaints under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

In the Priyanka Srivastava case, the Court ruled that any complaint filed under Section 156(3) CrPC must be accompanied by an affidavit from the complainant. This rule was introduced to prevent the misuse of the legal process and curb frivolous complaints.

However, a key question arose:

• Would this 2015 ruling apply retrospectively to complaints filed before the judgment, or would it only apply prospectively (to future cases)?
• Could complaints filed before 2015 be rejected for not having an affidavit?

This issue came before the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether its earlier ruling applied retrospectively or prospectively.

Issue of the Case

• Are Supreme Court judgments retrospective or prospective by default?
• Should the Priyanka Srivastava ruling apply to complaints filed before 2015?

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah made the following key observations:

1. General Rule: Court Judgments Are Retrospective
   • Unlike laws passed by legislatures, which apply prospectively, court judgments are retrospective by default.
   • This means that legal principles established by a court apply to past cases unless the judgment itself specifies otherwise.
2. When Do Judgments Apply Prospectively?
   • A judgment is applied prospectively only in exceptional cases to prevent undue hardship.
   • Prospective application is necessary when:
     • It would unfairly burden people who acted in good faith under the old law.
     • It would unsettle long-standing legal positions, creating confusion or injustice.
3. Priyanka Srivastava Judgment Applied Prospectively
   • The Court found that the language of the Priyanka Srivastava judgment clearly indicated that the new requirement of an affidavit was meant to apply from that point forward.
   • Since it introduced a new procedural requirement, it could not be applied to complaints filed before 2015.
   • Therefore, any complaint filed before the 2015 judgment cannot be rejected just because it did not have an affidavit.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The Court reaffirmed that judicial rulings are generally retrospective unless explicitly made prospective.
• However, the Priyanka Srivastava ruling applied prospectively, meaning that the affidavit requirement only applied to complaints filed after the 2015 judgment.
• Complaints filed before 2015 cannot be dismissed for lacking an affidavit.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 156(3) CrPC – Allows a magistrate to direct police investigation on receiving a complaint.
• Principle of Retrospective and Prospective Application of Judgments – Establishes whether a court ruling applies to past cases or only to future ones.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies that court rulings are normally retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise.
• Ensures fairness by preventing the rejection of past complaints due to a rule that did not exist when they were filed.
• Protects individuals who acted based on earlier legal procedures from being unfairly penalized.

The Supreme Court ruled that its 2015 Priyanka Srivastava judgment applied prospectively. This meant that complaints filed before 2015 could not be rejected for lacking an affidavit. The decision reaffirms the principle that court judgments are usually retrospective but can be made prospective to prevent undue hardship.

Case : Kaniskh Sinha v State of West Bengal

3). Supreme Court Rules Stay on Discharge Orders Should Only Be Granted in Exceptional Circumstances

Case Background

The case concerns Sikh leader Sudershan Singh Wazir, who was accused in the 2021 murder of former National Conference MLC Trilochan Singh Wazir. Wazir, a former President of the Jammu and Kashmir State Gurdwara Parbandhak Board, was discharged from the case by a trial court on October 26, 2023, along with three co-accused. However, another accused, Harmeet Singh, was not discharged.

The prosecution challenged the discharge order before the Delhi High Court, which on November 4, 2024, stayed the discharge order and directed Wazir to surrender. The High Court reasoned that once the discharge was stayed, Wazir's release became invalid. However, it allowed him to apply for bail before the trial court.

Wazir then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision to stay his discharge and order his surrender.

Issue of the Case

1. Can a High Court stay a trial court’s discharge order in a criminal case?
2. What happens to an accused who was released after discharge when the discharge order is stayed?
3. What is the proper legal approach under Sections 397, 401, and 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)?

Court Observations

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the following key observations:

1. High Courts Should Not Ordinarily Stay Discharge Orders
   • The Supreme Court held that staying an order of discharge is "completely unheard of" and should only be done in exceptional cases.
   • If a discharge order is stayed, the accused could be forced to face trial despite being discharged, which defeats the purpose of the discharge order itself.
2. Legal Implications of Stay on Discharge Orders
   • The Court questioned how an accused could be forced to surrender after discharge if the discharge order had not been set aside.
   • Justice Oka called the High Court's order "absurd," stating that it resulted in Wazir being treated as an accused despite being discharged.
3. Application of Section 390 CrPC
   • Section 390 CrPC deals with arrest during an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court ruled that even in such cases, bail should be the norm, not jail.
   • Justice Oka observed, "And even for action under Section 390 CrPC, it should be bail and not jail."
4. Concerns About Due Process Under Article 21
   • The Supreme Court raised serious concerns about the violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), questioning how Wazir’s release following discharge could be invalidated without actually overturning the discharge order.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts should not ordinarily stay discharge orders, as this would undermine the judicial process and violate the accused's rights.
• The Court stayed the Delhi High Court’s direction requiring Wazir to surrender and ruled that the trial against him would not proceed until further orders.
• The ruling clarified that an accused's right to bail should be prioritized even in cases where Section 390 CrPC is applied.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 397 CrPC – Revisional powers of the High Court.
• Section 401 CrPC – High Court’s power to revise lower court decisions.
• Section 390 CrPC – Arrest of an accused in an appeal against acquittal.
• Article 21 of the Constitution – Protection of life and personal liberty.

Significance of the Judgment

• Protects accused persons from being unfairly forced to stand trial after being discharged.
• Prevents misuse of judicial stays that can undermine due process.
• Reinforces the principle that bail should be the rule, not jail, even when the prosecution challenges a discharge or acquittal.

The Supreme Court has set an important precedent by ruling that stays on discharge orders should only be granted in rare and exceptional circumstances. The decision strengthens the rights of accused persons, upholds due process, and clarifies the proper application of CrPC provisions regarding revisions and appeals.

Case Title – Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 536-537/2025

4). Supreme Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case, Condemns Chhattisgarh Police for Violating Interim Protection Orders

Case Background

The case concerns an accused who was granted interim protection from arrest by the Supreme Court on January 2, 2025. Prior to that, he was already facing FIR No. 39 of 2024, in which he had been granted bail. However, soon after receiving the Supreme Court’s protection order, the Chhattisgarh police added Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to the same FIR, effectively nullifying the court’s interim relief.

Issue of the Case

1. Can the police apply stringent UAPA provisions to bypass a Supreme Court order granting interim protection?
2. Was it necessary for the State to seek the Court’s permission before taking further action against the accused?
3. Did the police’s actions amount to misconduct or contempt of court?

Court Observations

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval of the Chhattisgarh police’s conduct, making the following key observations:

1. Abuse of Legal Process
   • The police were fully aware of the Supreme Court's interim protection order and yet hurriedly added UAPA charges to ensure the accused was arrested.
   • The Court called this "gross impropriety" and stated, "We see the game in this."
2. Failure to Seek Court Permission
   • Justice Oka questioned why the State did not seek the Court’s permission before adding UAPA charges, stating, “Was it not necessary for you to come before the court and seek leave before taking action?”
   • The Court made it clear that such actions undermined judicial authority.
3. Possible Contempt of Court
   • Justice Oka warned that the Court would not hesitate to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the police officer responsible for the decision.
4. Attempt to Nullify Supreme Court’s Order
   • The timing of the UAPA charges (January 28, 2025) was seen as deliberate and meant to defeat the Court’s interim relief order of January 2, 2025.
   • The Court stated that this violated the fundamental principles of justice.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The Supreme Court condemned the police’s actions and ruled that the accused was entitled to bail in FIR No. 39 of 2024 as well.
• The Court granted bail to the accused, citing that his arrest under UAPA was solely to override the Court’s previous order.
• The Court indicated that it might take further action against the responsible police officer for misconduct.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 13 of UAPA – Punishment for unlawful activities.
• Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – Possible initiation of contempt proceedings against the police officer.
• Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to life and personal liberty, ensuring fair legal proceedings.

Significance of the Judgment

• Prevents misuse of UAPA to unfairly detain individuals.
• Reaffirms that law enforcement must respect court orders and seek proper legal permissions before taking new actions.
• Sends a strong warning against attempts to manipulate judicial processes through strategic application of stringent laws.

The Supreme Court’s ruling strongly upholds the rule of law and warns against misuse of UAPA to undermine judicial protections. This decision sets an important precedent for ensuring that law enforcement agencies do not exploit legal loopholes to bypass court orders.

Case Name : MANISH RATHORE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH | SLP(Crl) No. 17921/2024 

5). Supreme Court Ruling: Partner’s Contribution Becomes Firm’s Property, LegalHeirs Cannot Claim Ownership under Section 14 of Partnership Act

Case Background

The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a hotel property that was originally owned by Bhairo Prasad Jaiswal but later used for the partnership business he formed with his brother Hanuman Prasad Jaiswal in 1972. After Bhairo Prasad’s death, his legal heirs claimed ownership of the hotel property, arguing that since their father had originally acquired the land, it should remain in the family and should not be treated as the partnership firm's property.

On the other hand, the other partners of the firm contended that since Bhairo Prasad contributed the land to the partnership, it became the firm's property, and his legal heirs had no exclusive rights over it.

Issues of the Case

1. Does property contributed by a partner to a partnership firm remain personal property, or does it become firm property?
2. Can legal heirs of a deceased partner claim ownership over such contributed property?
3. Is a formal document required to transfer property to a partnership firm?

Court Observations

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah made the following key observations:

1. Property Contributed to a Firm Becomes Firm Property
   • The Court referred to Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which states that any property contributed by a partner becomes the property of the firm unless there is a contrary agreement.
   • In this case, since Bhairo Prasad contributed his land and constructed a hotel for the partnership business, it became firm property.
2. Legal Heirs Have No Exclusive Rights Over Firm’s Property
   • The Court rejected the claim of Bhairo Prasad’s heirs, clarifying that they could only claim a share in the profits of the firm but not the property itself.
   • Since the land was used for business purposes, it no longer belonged to any individual partner.
3. No Formal Document Needed for Property Transfer to Partnership Firm
   • The Court held that a formal relinquishment deed is not required to transfer property to a firm.
   • Mere contribution of property for partnership business is enough to make it firm property.
   • The intention of the partner is key in determining whether property belongs to the firm.
4. Previous Court Decisions Support the Same View
   • The Court relied on the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, which held that property contributed to a partnership loses its individual ownership status.
   • It also cited the 1970 Madras High Court ruling in The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Chidambaram, which stated that a partner’s intent alone is sufficient to convert individual property into firm property.

Court Ruling and Decision

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Bhairo Prasad’s heirs, confirming that the hotel property belonged to the partnership firm and not to the deceased partner’s legal heirs.
• The Court upheld the trial court and High Court decisions, which had ruled in favor of the partnership firm.
• It reiterated that partners or their heirs cannot claim exclusive ownership over firm property once it has been contributed.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – States that any property contributed by a partner becomes the firm's property unless there is an agreement stating otherwise.
• Case Precedents:
  • Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa (1966) – Established that property contributed to a partnership becomes firm property.
  • The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Chidambaram (1970) – Held that a partner’s intention alone can convert personal property into partnership property.

Significance of the Judgment

• Protects business partnerships by ensuring that contributed assets belong to the firm, not individual partners.
• Prevents legal heirs from claiming firm assets unless explicitly agreed upon in the partnership deed.
• Clarifies that no formal transfer document is required when a partner contributes property to the business.

The Supreme Court’s decision strengthens the legal framework for partnerships, ensuring that property contributed to a firm is treated as firm property. This ruling prevents future disputes among legal heirs and partners, upholding the principles of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Case Title: SACHIN JAISWAL Versus M/s HOTEL ALKA RAJE & OTHER

6). Commercial Resale of IRCTC Train Tickets without Authorisation Punishable Under Section 143 of Railway Act: Kerala High Court 

Case Background

A woman approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash criminal proceedings against her for allegedly booking and selling railway e-tickets without authorization from the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC).

The police had registered a case under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989, which prohibits anyone other than railway officials or authorized agents from procuring and selling railway tickets.

The police had seized e-tickets, IRCTC user profiles, and other electronic devices from the petitioner’s travel agency, alleging that she booked tickets through IRCTC and sold them at a higher price for profit.

Issues of the Case

1. Does selling train tickets booked through IRCTC violate the Railways Act?
2. Can a person use IRCTC accounts to book tickets for others as a business?
3. Are IRCTC’s terms and conditions legally binding on users?

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice S. Manu made the following key observations:

1. Section 143 of the Railways Act Applies to E-Tickets
   • The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v. Mathew K Cheriyan (2025) and stated that Section 143 covers e-tickets booked through IRCTC.
   • Since the petitioner was not a railway official or an authorized agent, she violated the Railways Act by selling tickets commercially.
2. IRCTC Website Terms and Conditions Prohibit Commercial Use
   • The Court examined the terms and conditions of IRCTC, which clearly state that users cannot book tickets for commercial resale or profit.
   • Clause 8.6 specifies that IRCTC services are for personal use only.
   • Clause 9 states that all railway ticketing rules also apply to online bookings.
   • Clause 16 reinforces that users cannot exploit IRCTC services for business purposes.
3. Petitioner Used IRCTC Profiles to Make Profits
   • The petitioner booked tickets using multiple IRCTC profiles and charged commission/service fees for providing them to customers.
   • The Court found that this was a clear misuse of the IRCTC platform for personal gain, which affected genuine passengers who rely on the service.

Court Ruling and Decision

• The Court dismissed the petitioner’s request to quash the criminal case.
• It held that a prima facie case was made out against her under Section 143 of the Railways Act.
• The petitioner was ordered to face trial for her actions.

Legal Provisions Applied

• Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 – Prohibits anyone other than railway officials or authorized agents from procuring and selling railway tickets.
• IRCTC Terms and Conditions – Clearly state that users cannot book tickets for commercial resale or profit.

Significance of the Judgment

• Protects railway passengers by ensuring that ticket bookings remain fair and accessible to genuine users.
• Prevents misuse of IRCTC’s online services for black marketing of train tickets.
• Clarifies that Section 143 applies to e-tickets as well, setting a legal precedent for future cases.

The Kerala High Court upheld that selling train tickets booked through IRCTC for profit is illegal and violates both the Railways Act and IRCTC's terms of use. This judgment reinforces strict action against unauthorized ticket sellers, ensuring that railway reservations remain transparent and fair for all passengers.

Case Title: Afeefa Khadir v State of Kerala 

Case No: CRL.MC NO. 3290 OF 2020