1). Supreme Court Orders Preliminary Inquiry Before FIR for Certain Offences Related to Speech & Expression

Case Background

• The case involved an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over an Instagram post.
• The post contained a video clip featuring the poem "Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno".
• The FIR alleged that the post promoted enmity between communities under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
• Pratapgarhi challenged the FIR in the Supreme Court, arguing that it was a frivolous case targeting free speech.
• The Supreme Court examined whether the FIR should have been registered without a preliminary inquiryunder the new provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Issues in the Case

1. Should police conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in cases related to speech, writing, and artistic expression?
2. What is the impact of Section 173(3) of the BNSS on FIR registration?
3. Did the police properly assess whether the words in the post constituted an offence?

Court Observations

1. Preliminary Inquiry Before FIR in Speech-Related Cases

• The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, ruled that FIRs related to speech, writing, and artistic expression require a preliminary inquiry before being registered.
• The Court referred to Section 173(3) of the BNSS, which states that for offences punishable between 3 to 7 years of imprisonment, police may conduct a 14-day preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR, with prior approval from a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
• The Court linked this provision to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
• The Court reasoned that:

  “This will ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 remain protected.”

2. Effects of Words Must Be Considered Before FIR Registration

• The Court emphasized that police must carefully evaluate the meaning and impact of words before registering an FIR under Section 196 of the BNS, which deals with promoting enmity between communities.
• The Court stated that police officers must read or hear the words in question and determine if they prima facie constitute an offence.
• It clarified that this evaluation does not amount to a preliminary inquiry, which is prohibited under Section 173(1) of the BNSS.

3. Changes from Section 154 CrPC

• The Court explained the difference between Section 154 of the CrPC and Section 173 of the BNSS.
• Under Section 154 CrPC, police were obligated to register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence.
• However, Section 173(3) of the BNSS introduces a safeguard, allowing for a preliminary inquiry before FIR registration in certain cases.
• The Court cited the Lalita Kumari case (2014), which allowed preliminary inquiries only when the nature of the offence was unclear.
• The BNSS goes further, permitting police to assess whether an FIR should be registered at all.

Court Rulings 

1. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Imran Pratapgarhi, ruling that the offences alleged were not made out.
2. The Court held that police must conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in speech-related cases where the offence is punishable by 3 to 7 years of imprisonment.
3. The Court mandated that police must evaluate the effect of spoken or written words before initiating criminal proceedings under Section 196 of the BNS.
4. The ruling clarified that the BNSS provides safeguards against frivolous FIRs, ensuring better protection for free speech.

Legal Provisions 

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution – Right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 173(3) of the BNSS – Allows for a preliminary inquiry before FIR registration in cases punishable by 3 to 7 years of imprisonment.
• Section 196 of the BNS – Deals with offences related to promoting enmity between communities.

Significance of the Ruling

• Strengthens free speech protections by ensuring FIRs related to speech are not filed frivolously.
• Clarifies police procedures under the new BNSS, ensuring that preliminary inquiries are conducted in appropriate cases.
• Prevents misuse of criminal law against writers, artists, and politicians for their speech or creative expressions.
• Establishes that FIRs should not be registered without assessing the impact of the speech.

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Imran Pratapgarhi and issued an important ruling on the protection of free speech. It held that police must conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing FIRs in speech-related cases punishable by 3 to 7 years of imprisonment. This decision reinforces constitutional safeguards and prevents the misuse of criminal law against speech, writing, and artistic expressions.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 1545/2025

Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

2). Supreme Court: Words in 'Promoting Enmity' Cases Should Not Be Measured by Those Viewing Criticism as a Threat and Also Quashes FIR Against MP Imran Pratapgarhi, Emphasizes Free Speech Protections

Case Background

• The case involved an FIR registered in Jamnagar, Gujarat, against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi over an Instagram post.
• The post featured a video clip with the poem "Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno" in the background.
• The FIR was filed under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
• Section 196 BNS deals with promoting enmity between groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc..
• The Gujarat High Court refused to quash the FIR, citing concerns about the poem’s references to “the throne”and the potential disturbance to social harmony.
• Pratapgarhi challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that his post was an expression of free speech.

Issues in the Case

1. Should the police conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR under Section 196 BNS?
2. What is the correct standard for judging whether speech promotes enmity?
3. Does the FIR violate the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?

Court Observations

1. Standard for Judging Speech Under Section 196 BNS

• A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the effect of written or spoken wordsunder Section 196 BNS must be judged by the standards of a reasonable, strong-minded, and courageous person, not an insecure or overly sensitive individual.
• The Court stated:

  “The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.”

2. Police Duty to Uphold Constitutional Ideals

• The Court reminded the police of their duty to respect constitutional ideals, particularly liberty of thought and expression as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution.
• It emphasized that police officers, as citizens, are bound to uphold fundamental rights.

3. Preliminary Inquiry Requirement Under BNSS

• The Court ruled that if an offence under Section 196 BNS is alleged, police should normally conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before registering an FIR.
• Section 173(3) BNSS allows police to conduct a 14-day preliminary inquiry for offences punishable by 3 to 7 years of imprisonment, with prior approval from a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
• This safeguard ensures that fundamental rights are protected, preventing frivolous FIRs against speech.
• The Court clarified:

  “If the sentence is up to 7 years and when there are written words, normally recourse should be taken to Section 173(3) BNSS so that fundamental rights are protected.”

4. Free Speech vs. Reasonable Restrictions

• Justice Bhuyan emphasized that while Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on free speech, these restrictions must remain reasonable and not be arbitrary or oppressive.
• He stated:

  “Article 19(2), which speaks of reasonable restrictions, must remain reasonable. It can't be fanciful or oppressive. It cannot overshadow Article 19(1).”

Court Rulings 

1. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Imran Pratapgarhi, ruling that his post did not promote enmity between groups.
2. The Court held that speech-related FIRs under Section 196 BNS must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable and firm individual, not an insecure person.
3. The Court directed police to follow Section 173(3) BNSS, conducting a preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR in speech-related cases punishable by 3 to 7 years of imprisonment.
4. The ruling reinforced that police must respect constitutional principles, particularly the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

Legal Provisions

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution – Right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 19(2) of the Constitution – Allows reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interest of public order, security, and morality.
• Section 196 BNS – Penalizes promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, language, etc.
• Section 173(3) BNSS – Allows for a preliminary inquiry before FIR registration in cases punishable by 3 to 7 years of imprisonment.

Significance of the Ruling

• Strengthens free speech protections, ensuring FIRs for speech-related offences are not filed arbitrarily.
• Prevents misuse of criminal laws to target political opponents, writers, or artists for their expression.
• Establishes that police must consider the impact of speech using a reasonable standard, not an overly sensitive or political perspective.
• Reinforces the importance of preliminary inquiries under the BNSS, reducing frivolous cases that violate fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court’s ruling quashed the FIR against MP Imran Pratapgarhi and provided critical guidance on the protection of free speech in India. It held that speech must be evaluated based on reasonable standards and that police must follow due process before registering FIRs in speech-related cases. This judgment prevents the misuse of laws against artists, writers, and politicians, ensuring constitutional freedoms remain protected.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 1545/2025

Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

3). Delhi High Court Rules Service Charges Is Voluntary Payment By Consumers, Can't Be Made Mandatory On Food Bills

Background

The case involved a legal challenge to the 2022 guidelines issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), which prohibited hotels and restaurants from automatically adding service charges to food bills. The guidelines stated that such charges should not be imposed by default and should only be paid voluntarily by customers.

Two restaurant industry bodies, the Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) and the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI), filed petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging these guidelines. They argued that service charges had been a longstanding industry practice, were clearly displayed on menu cards, and were therefore not unfair or illegal.

On the other hand, the CCPA defended its guidelines, arguing that mandatory service charges violated consumer rightsand amounted to an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Issues of the Case

1. Can restaurants mandatorily include service charges on food bills?
2. Does the CCPA have the power to issue guidelines restricting such charges?
3. Do the guidelines violate the fundamental rights of restaurant owners under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or trade)?
4. Is the mandatory inclusion of service charges an unfair trade practice under consumer protection laws?

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh ruled in favor of the CCPA and upheld the 2022 guidelines, making the following key observations:

• Service charges and tips are voluntary payments, meaning that restaurants cannot force customers to pay them.
• Automatically adding service charges to bills is contrary to law. Customers must have the choice to tip service staff at their discretion.
• The CCPA has the legal authority to issue such guidelines to protect consumer rights and prevent unfair trade practices.
• The rights of consumers as a class are more important than the interests of restaurants. The guidelines do not violate the fundamental rights of restaurant owners under Article 19(1)(g), as they serve a larger public interest.
• Many consumers mistakenly believe that service charges are government-imposed taxes, like GST or service tax. This misleads customers and amounts to an unfair trade practice.

The Court also suggested that if restaurants wish to continue seeking voluntary contributions, they should rename"service charge" to "voluntary contribution," "staff contribution," or "staff welfare fund" to avoid misleading consumers.

Court Rulings

• Petitions dismissed: The Court rejected the challenges filed by FHRAI and NRAI and upheld the CCPA guidelines of 2022.
• Penalty imposed: Both petitioners were directed to pay ₹1 lakh each to the CCPA Consumer Welfare Fund.
• Mandatory service charges prohibited: Restaurants cannot impose service charges automatically on food bills.
• Renaming suggested: Restaurants may use alternative terms like "voluntary contribution" to avoid confusion with government taxes.

Legal Provisions 

1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Prohibits unfair trade practices, unfair contracts, and misleading business practices.
2. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Guarantees the right to practice any profession or trade, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in public interest.
3. CCPA Guidelines, 2022 – Issued under the Consumer Protection Act, banning automatic or mandatory service charges on food bills.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthens consumer rights: The ruling ensures that customers are not forced to pay hidden charges.
• Ends misleading pricing: Customers will no longer mistake service charges for government-imposed taxes.
• Protects voluntary tipping: Consumers can still tip restaurant staff, but it will be entirely optional.
• Upholds regulatory authority: Confirms that the CCPA has the power to issue guidelines for consumer protection.

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that service charges cannot be imposed as a mandatory fee on restaurant bills. While tipping remains a consumer's choice, restaurants cannot automatically add it to food bills. The decision ensures transparency in billing and prevents consumers from being misled by charges disguised as taxes or government fees.

Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr

4). Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Register FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma, Calls It Premature

Background

On March 14, a fire broke out in the storeroom of Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence, leading to the discovery of a large amount of cash. This raised concerns and led to an internal inquiry. On March 21, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) formed a three-judge committee to investigate the matter based on a report by Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay. The Delhi High Court later withdrew judicial work from Justice Varma, and the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma has denied all allegations, claiming he is being framed.

Advocate Mathews Nedumpara filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma and challenging the in-house inquiry process. He also argued that judges should not be shielded from regular criminal investigations and that prior permission from the CJI for investigating a sitting judge, as laid down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, should be reconsidered.

Issues of the Case

1. Should an FIR be registered immediately against Justice Yashwant Varma?
2. Is the in-house inquiry process an appropriate method to investigate allegations against judges?
3. Should the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (which requires the CJI’s approval before investigating a sitting judge) be reconsidered?
4. Does the recovery of cash constitute a cognizable offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, requiring a police investigation?
5. Should there be a law, such as the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, to ensure accountability for judges?

Court Observations

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan refused to entertain the petition, calling it premature. The Court stated that:

• The in-house inquiry is already in progress, and after its completion, multiple options will be available to the CJI. The CJI can either order an FIR or refer the matter to Parliament for further action.
• "Today is not the time to consider this petition," Justice Oka remarked, emphasizing that due process must be followed before involving criminal law enforcement.
• Addressing concerns about public perception, Justice Oka advised the petitioner to educate people about the Supreme Court’s rulings on in-house inquiries and their purpose.
• The Court rejected the demand to reconsider judgments such as K. Veeraswami at this stage.

Court Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating:

• The in-house inquiry process must be completed first, after which the CJI will decide the next steps.
• At this stage, there is no need to interfere or to reconsider past judgments related to judicial accountability.

Legal Provisions

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Defines cognizable offenses and governs criminal investigations.
2. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) – Requires prior approval from the CJI before investigating a sitting judge of the High Court or Supreme Court.
3. Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 – A proposed law aimed at ensuring judicial accountability, which has not been enacted yet.

Significance of the Judgment

• Judicial Independence vs. Accountability: The ruling highlights the delicate balance between maintaining judicial independence and ensuring accountability.
• Limits of Public Pressure: The Court emphasized that public outcry alone cannot determine legal action. Proper procedures must be followed.
• Clarification on In-House Inquiry: The judgment reaffirms that in-house inquiries are the first step in dealing with allegations against judges before considering criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the idea that judges cannot be subjected to immediate criminal investigations without following the due process laid down by the judiciary. While the public and legal community may demand greater transparency, the ruling underscores the importance of respecting established judicial procedures. The case also brings attention to the need for legal reforms to address judicial accountability more effectively.

Case no. – Diary No. 15529-2025

Case Title – Mathews J Nedumpara and Ors. v. Supreme Court of India and Ors.

5). Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Evict Son, Clarifies Senior Citizens Act Doesn't Require Eviction in Every Case

Background

The case involved an elderly couple who sought the eviction of their son from their ancestral home under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("2007 Act"). The father filed a complaint before the Tribunal, alleging that the son was mistreating them and not fulfilling his responsibilities. The son was running a utensils shop in one portion of the house and was living there with his family.

The Tribunal ordered the son to continue paying maintenance to his parents but refused to evict him. Instead, it directed him not to encroach upon any part of the house beyond his shop and his living quarters.

Dissatisfied, the elderly parents appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which reversed the decision and ordered the son's eviction. However, the High Court partially allowed the son's appeal, setting aside the eviction order but maintaining the other directions of the Tribunal.

Aggrieved by this decision, the elderly mother approached the Supreme Court, arguing that under recent judgments, the Tribunal has the power to evict children if necessary for the protection of senior citizens.

Issues of the Case

1. Does the 2007 Act allow for the eviction of children from parental property?
2. Can a Tribunal order eviction if it is necessary to ensure the well-being of a senior citizen?
3. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in ordering the eviction of the son?

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti examined the case and made the following observations:

• The 2007 Act primarily provides for maintenance, not eviction. The Act does not explicitly state that children can be evicted from parental property.
• The Tribunal has the power to order eviction, but it is not automatic upon filing a complaint. The eviction can only be ordered in exceptional cases where it is necessary for the senior citizen’s protection.
• In this case, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court found eviction necessary. The Appellate Tribunal did not provide sufficient reasoning for ordering the son's eviction.
• The Supreme Court distinguished this case from Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025), where it was held that the Tribunal may order eviction, but it is not mandatory in every case.

Court Ruling

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the eviction order.
• The Court ruled that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in ordering the son’s eviction without recording specific reasons proving that it was necessary to protect the senior citizens.
• The Court also noted that property disputes related to the case were still pending in a civil court, and eviction could not be ordered without resolving those issues.

Legal Provisions 

1. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Provides for maintenance but does not explicitly provide for eviction.
2. S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (2021) – Held that the Tribunal may order eviction if necessary for the protection of senior citizens.
3. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (2025) – Clarified that eviction under the 2007 Act is not mandatoryin every case.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies the Scope of the 2007 Act: The ruling confirms that while the Act aims to protect senior citizens, it does not automatically allow for eviction.
• Protects Property Rights: The Court balanced parental rights with the property rights of children, ensuring that eviction is only granted in exceptional cases.
• Emphasizes Family Values: The Court expressed concern over the rising breakdown of family relationships, warning that society is moving toward a "one person, one family" culture.

The Supreme Court's decision reinforces that eviction is not a guaranteed right under the 2007 Act. Instead, eviction orders must be based on necessity and specific circumstances that impact the senior citizen’s well-being. The judgment also highlights the need for family harmony and resolution of disputes through mutual understanding rather than litigation.

Case Title: SAMTOLA DEVI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.