1). Supreme Court Affirms 'Bail is the Rule' Even If Higher Court Orders Arrest During Challenge to Acquittal/Discharge Under Section 390 CrPC

Case Background

This case involved Sudershan Singh Wazir, a Sikh leader and former President of the Jammu and Kashmir State Gurdwara Parbandhak Board, who was one of the accused in the 2021 murder of former National Conference MLC Trilochan Singh Wazir.

On October 26, 2023, the trial court discharged Sudershan Singh Wazir along with three other co-accused while retaining charges against another accused, Harmeet Singh. The Sessions Court granted him bail on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety.

However, the Delhi High Court stayed the discharge order and directed Wazir to surrender. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court, arguing that the stay was granted without hearing Wazir (ex parte) and that the High Court’s order to take him into custody was improper.

Issues of the Case

1. Can an appellate court order the arrest of an acquitted person under Section 390 of CrPC?
2. Should an acquitted person be granted bail when arrested under Section 390 CrPC?
3. Can a High Court stay a discharge order in a criminal case, and under what circumstances?

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that:

1. An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence – When a person is acquitted, the presumption of their innocence becomes even stronger. Therefore, if a court invokes Section 390 CrPC to order their arrest, bail should be the norm rather than sending them to jail.
2. Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception – The court emphasized that in criminal jurisprudence, bail is the general rule, and jail should be an exception. This principle should also apply to cases where an acquitted person is arrested under Section 390 CrPC.
3. Section 390 ensures the accused remains available for trial – The provision allows a court to arrest an acquitted person during an appeal to ensure their presence if the acquittal is overturned. However, it does not mean that the person should automatically be sent to jail.
4. In revision cases, the same rule applies – If a discharge order is challenged in revision, the court can order the accused to appear before the trial court and grant them bail. Since a discharge order is stronger than an acquittal, it is even more important to grant bail rather than commit the person to custody.
5. High Courts should not easily stay discharge orders – The Court held that High Courts should not ordinarily stay discharge orders unless there are exceptional circumstances. Staying a discharge order restores the accused’s status, which can have severe legal consequences.

Court Rulings and Decisions

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sudershan Singh Wazir, setting aside the Delhi High Court’s orders dated October 21, 2023, and November 4, 2024, for the following reasons:

1. The stay on Wazir’s discharge order was granted ex parte (without hearing him), making it illegal.
2. The High Court’s direction to take Wazir into immediate custody was incorrect because bail should have been the norm under Section 390 CrPC.
3. Since the bail bonds granted earlier may have expired, Wazir was directed to furnish fresh bail under Section 390 CrPC.
4. The High Court was ordered to decide the revision application independently without being influenced by the Supreme Court’s observations.

Legal Provisions

• Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Allows the appellate court to order the arrest of an acquitted person and produce them before the trial court, which then decides whether to grant bail or commit them to custody. (Section 431 of BNSS)
• Section 401(1) of CrPC – Gives revisional courts the power to exercise jurisdiction under Section 390 in certain cases. (Section 442(1) of BNSS)
• Criminal Jurisprudence Principle – "Bail is the rule, jail is the exception" was reaffirmed.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthens the presumption of innocence for acquitted persons.
• Clarifies that bail should be the norm under Section 390 CrPC and only in rare and extreme cases should an acquitted person be sent to jail.
• Ensures that ex parte (one-sided) stay orders in criminal cases are not misused.
• Limits the power of High Courts to stay discharge orders, ensuring that such stays are only granted in exceptional cases.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that an acquitted person should not be sent to jail unless there are exceptional circumstances. Instead, bail should be granted as the normal rule under Section 390 CrPC. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s stay order on Wazir’s discharge, calling it illegal, and directed that he be granted fresh bail. This ruling further strengthens the presumption of innocence in criminal law and ensures that acquitted individuals are not unnecessarily deprived of their liberty.

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

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 536-537/2025

2). Notice to User Essential Before Removing Social Media Content, Says Supreme Court in PIL Challenge to IT Rules

Case Background

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Software Freedom Law Centre challenging certain IT Rules, 2009 that allow the blocking of social media accounts or posts without issuing notice to the person who originally uploaded them (the "originator").

The PIL specifically questions the non-compliance with natural justice when only intermediaries (like platforms such as ‘X’ or Facebook) receive notice, while users who uploaded the content do not.

The petition was argued by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, assisted by Paras Nath Singh, AOR. The Supreme Court, after hearing the matter, sought a response from the Union Government.

Issues of the Case

1. Should a notice be issued to the original user (originator) before blocking their content?
2. Does the use of “or” in Rule 8 of the 2009 IT Rules lead to unfair blocking without notifying the user?
3. Does Rule 16’s confidentiality provision prevent judicial review and violate the right to free speech?

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih made the following key observations:

1. Notice should be given to identifiable users – The Court said that if a user who uploaded the content is identifiable, they should receive a notice before their post/account is blocked.
2. Rules can be interpreted in a fair manner – Justice Gavai suggested that the rule could be read in a way that ensures notice is given to identifiable persons. However, if the user is unidentifiable, then the notice may be sent to the intermediary (platform hosting the content).
3. Judicial review is difficult under current rules – Indira Jaising argued that the confidentiality under Rule 16 prevents users from approaching courts, as they do not receive details of why their content was taken down.
4. Blocking without notice affects free speech – The petitioners argued that the government’s ability to remove posts without notice violates the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Court Rulings and Decisions

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government, seeking its response on the PIL. This means the Court has acknowledged the issue and will decide on it after hearing the government’s stand.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 – Allows the government to block public access to any information in the interest of national security, sovereignty, or public order.
• Rule 8 of the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 – Requires reasonable efforts to identify the user or intermediary before issuing a notice for blocking content.
• Rule 16 of the 2009 IT Rules – Mandates confidentiality in blocking decisions, making it difficult for users to challenge them.
• Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution – Freedom of speech and expression, which is affected if users are not informed before their content is blocked.

Significance of the Judgment

• Enhances transparency in blocking decisions – If the Supreme Court mandates notice to users before blocking their posts, it will ensure greater fairness in content regulation.
• Protects freedom of speech and expression – The case raises important constitutional questions about whether content blocking without informing users is an infringement on free speech.
• Ensures judicial review – By challenging Rule 16’s confidentiality provision, the case could make government blocking decisions more accountable.

The Supreme Court recognized the importance of notifying identifiable users before blocking their content and issued notice to the Union Government for its response. This case has the potential to bring greater transparency and fairness to online content regulation while balancing state security concerns with users’ right to free speech. The final judgment will determine whether India’s IT Rules need modification to ensure due process before blocking content on social media.

Case Title: SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INDIA AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 161/2025

3). Madras High Court: Insurance Company Must Pay Compensation Despite Driver's Intoxication at Time of Accident

Case Background

The case involved a road accident that occurred on December 30, 2017, in Chennai, where Rajasekaran, a pedestrian, was hit from behind by a van that was being driven rashly and negligently. He died on the spot.

His family members (Bhuvaneswari & others) filed a claim petition seeking ₹65 lakhs as compensation. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded them only ₹27,65,300 with 7.5% interest.

The MACT also exonerated (freed) the insurance company from liability because the van driver was intoxicated at the time of the accident, which was considered a violation of the insurance policy terms.

The family appealed to the Madras High Court to enhance the compensation and hold the insurance company liableto pay.

Issues of the Case

1. Is the insurance company liable to pay compensation when the driver was drunk?
2. Was the compensation awarded by the MACT too low and should it be increased?

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Dhandapani made the following observations:

1. Insurance company is liable to pay compensation even if the driver was intoxicated – The Court followed the Kerala High Court’s decision in Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid vs. Girivasan E.K. (2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 52) and held that the insurance company cannot escape liability even if driving under the influence violates policy conditions. The company must first pay the compensation and later recover it from the vehicle owner or driver.
2. Compensation amount was too low – The Court noted that:
   • The deceased was earning ₹700 per day and could have easily earned ₹15,000 per month. However, the tribunal wrongly fixed a lower notional income of ₹13,700 per month.
   • The amount awarded for loss of estate (compensation for future financial security) was also inadequate.

Court Rulings and Decisions

• The total compensation was increased from ₹27,65,300 to ₹30,25,000 with 7.5% interest.
• The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 6 weeks.
• The insurance company can later recover the amount from the vehicle owner/driver through legal means.

Legal Provisions 

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Governs liability in motor accident cases.
• Precedent: Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid vs. Girivasan E.K. (Kerala HC, 2023) – Held that insurance companies must first compensate the victim’s family and then recover the amount from the responsible party.
• Notional income principle – Courts estimate income for compensation when no formal proof of earnings is available.

Significance of the Judgment

• Protects accident victims and their families – Ensures that victims' families receive timely compensation even if the driver was drunk.
• Clarifies insurance liability – Insurance companies must first pay and then recover the amount from the driver/vehicle owner, ensuring victims are not left helpless.
• Sets a fair approach for compensation calculation – The court recognized realistic earnings of the deceasedinstead of relying on an underestimated amount.

The Madras High Court ruled that insurance companies cannot avoid liability just because the driver was drunk. They must first compensate the victim's family and later recover the amount from the responsible party. The judgment also increased the compensation amount, ensuring a fairer outcome for the deceased’s family.

Case Title: Bhuvaneswari and others v. M/s. Bvm Storage Solutions Pvt Ltd and Another. 

Case No: C.M.A.No.3392 of 2024

4). Telangana High Court Post-Mortem Certificate Admissible Under Section 32 Evidence Act Even if Doctor Isn't Examined  due to his Death or Unavailability

Case Background

This case involved a dispute over the admissibility of a post-mortem report when the doctor who conducted the autopsy was unavailable.

The case arose from an incident in 2002, where the petitioner had an argument with the de facto complainant while crossing a field with his bullock cart. The argument escalated into a physical fight, and the complainant’s husband was attacked and severely injured, leading to his death.

The petitioner and two others (A2 and A3) were arrested. However, A2 and A3 were acquitted, while the petitioner was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that:

1. The post-mortem report was unreliable since the doctor who conducted the autopsy was not examined.
2. Only interested witnesses were examined, and no independent eyewitnesses supported the prosecution.
3. The deceased had an old injury (15 days before the incident), which could have caused his death.

Both the trial court and the appellate court upheld the conviction, leading to the appeal before the Telangana High Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Can a post-mortem report be considered evidence if the doctor who conducted the autopsy is unavailable or deceased?
2. Was the conviction of the petitioner legally justified based on the evidence?

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal made the following key observations:

Admissibility of Post-Mortem Report

1. Post-mortem reports are usually corroborative evidence, but there is an exception under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. If the doctor who conducted the autopsy is unavailable or deceased, the report remains admissible under Section 32(2).
3. If another doctor can identify the handwriting and signature of the original doctor, the post-mortem report is considered proved.

Conviction of the Petitioner

1. The prosecution proved the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.
2. The claim that the deceased had an old injury did not hold weight because the post-mortem report linked his death to the attack.

Court Rulings and Decisions

• The conviction was upheld, but the court reduced the sentence considering that the petitioner had been facing trial since 2002.
• Instead of serving the remaining jail term, the petitioner was ordered to pay a fine of ₹2,00,000 within three months.
• If the fine is not paid, the petitioner will have to serve one year of simple imprisonment.

Legal Provisions

• Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Allows statements made by a deceased or unavailable person in the course of professional duty to be admissible as evidence. (Section 26 of BSA)
• Section 304 Part II IPC – Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the accused knew that his actions could cause death but did not have the intent to kill. (Section 105 of BNS)

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies the admissibility of post-mortem reports – Courts can rely on the report even if the original doctor is unavailable, provided another doctor can authenticate it.
• Ensures justice while considering long trials – The court acknowledged that prolonged legal battles can impact the accused and reduced the sentence accordingly.
• Reinforces fair trial principles – The judgment balances legal technicalities and practical justice by upholding the conviction but modifying the punishment.

The Telangana High Court ruled that a post-mortem report remains valid even if the doctor who conducted the autopsy is unavailable, provided it is authenticated by another doctor. The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence due to the long duration of the trial, imposing a fine instead of further imprisonment. This judgment highlights the balance between legal formalities and fair justice.

Case title: Jillela, Kotha Venkat Reddy vs. State of AP

5). Orissa High Court: Court Not Obliged to Hold Preliminary Inquiry Before Making or Refusing Complaint Under Section 379 BNSS

Case Background

The case involved a dispute between a wife (appellant) and her husband (respondent) over alleged false statementsmade by the husband in his affidavit before the Family Court during proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (maintenance claims).

The wife claimed that the husband deliberately provided false information in his affidavit, such as:

1. Stating he was the only son of his father, while he actually had a brother.
2. Claiming that his father was dependent on him, even though his father was a practicing lawyer with a stable income.

Based on these claims, she sought criminal proceedings against her husband for perjury under Section 340 CrPC(now replaced by Section 379 BNSS from July 1, 2024).

The trial court dismissed her application, stating that the allegations involved disputed facts that required further proof. The wife then appealed to the Orissa High Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Is a preliminary inquiry mandatory before a court can initiate proceedings under Section 379 BNSS (previously Section 340 CrPC)?
2. Was the trial court justified in dismissing the wife's petition for criminal proceedings against her husband?

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy made the following key observations:

1. Applicability of BNSS Instead of CrPC

• The wife filed the appeal under Section 341 CrPC, but since CrPC has been replaced by BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) from July 1, 2024, the court decided to treat the appeal as one under Section 379 BNSS instead.

2. Preliminary Inquiry is Not Mandatory Under Section 379, BNSS

• Section 379 BNSS deals with criminal proceedings for false statements, contempt of lawful authority, and offenses against public justice (previously covered under Section 340 CrPC).
• The language of Section 379 does not make preliminary inquiry mandatory—it only states that the court "may" conduct an inquiry if it finds it necessary in the interest of justice.

3. Supreme Court Precedents

The court referred to two Supreme Court cases:

1. State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh (2022) – The SC had clarified that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatorybefore initiating criminal proceedings under the old Section 340 CrPC.
2. Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) – A Constitution Bench ruled that a court should decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings only if it is necessary for the interest of justice, not in every case.

4. Disputed Facts Require Trial, Not Direct Criminal Proceedings

• The court noted that the wife's claims involved disputed facts, which could only be proved during trial.
• Since the allegations arose from matrimonial disputes (where both parties had made allegations against each other), the court found no strong reason to initiate criminal proceedings against the husband.

Court Rulings and Decisions

• The court dismissed the wife’s appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision.
• It ruled that preliminary inquiry under Section 379 BNSS is not mandatory—a court may conduct an inquiry only if it finds it necessary for justice.
• The court found no urgent need for criminal proceedings in this matrimonial dispute and rejected the request to prosecute the husband for perjury.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 379 BNSS (Previously Section 340 CrPC) – Deals with procedures for prosecution in cases involving false statements, contempt of lawful authority, and offenses against public justice.
• Section 215 BNSS (Previously Section 195 CrPC) – Governs criminal proceedings related to perjury and offenses affecting judicial proceedings.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies the scope of Section 379 BNSS – Courts do not have to conduct a preliminary inquiry in every case; it is optional based on the need for justice.
• Prevents misuse of perjury proceedings in matrimonial disputes – The ruling ensures that false affidavit claims are not used to harass parties unnecessarily.
• Ensures fairness in criminal proceedings – Criminal action should be taken only when strong and clear evidence exists, not just based on allegations.

The Orissa High Court upheld the dismissal of the wife’s petition, ruling that:

1. Preliminary inquiry is not mandatory under Section 379 BNSS before initiating perjury proceedings.
2. The case involved disputed facts, which should be examined in trial rather than through direct criminal proceedings.
3. Matrimonial disputes alone do not justify criminal prosecution for perjury unless there is clear and convincing evidence.

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be misused in personal disputes and that courts have discretion in deciding whether to initiate perjury proceedings.

Case Title: Priyadarshini Amrita Panda v. Biswajit Pati 

Case No: CRLA No. 1257 of 2024

Add-On

J&K High Court Unveils New Guidelines for Safeguarding Vulnerable Witnesses, Focuses on Age-Appropriate Questioning

The Chief Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has approved new guidelines to ensure that vulnerable witnesses feel safe and comfortable while testifying in court. These guidelines are meant to reduce intimidation and make it easier for witnesses, especially children, survivors of sexual violence, people with disabilities, and those facing threats, to provide their testimony.

Why Were These Guidelines Introduced?

Many witnesses, especially children, abuse survivors, and people with disabilities, find it difficult to testify in court. They may fear facing the accused, aggressive questioning, or repeated court appearances. These challenges often prevent them from speaking up, which can affect justice. The new guidelines aim to address these issues and ensure witnesses can testify without fear or pressure.

Key Safeguards for Vulnerable Witnesses

1. In-Camera Proceedings

• The court can restrict public access when a vulnerable witness is testifying.
• This helps protect their privacy and emotional well-being.

2. Live Video Testimony

• Witnesses can testify through video conferencing from a safe remote location.
• This reduces stress and fear of facing the accused.

3. Support Persons

• Vulnerable witnesses can have a guardian or legal aid volunteer present while testifying.
• This provides them with emotional and moral support.

4. Secure Waiting Areas

• Witnesses can wait in separate rooms to avoid coming into contact with the accused.

5. Right to Be Informed

• Witnesses and their parents, guardians, or lawyers must be kept informed about:
  • The stage of the case
  • The charges against the accused
  • Other important court procedures

6. Age-Appropriate Questioning

• Courts must ensure that questions are simple and clear, especially when questioning children.
• Judges must make sure that witnesses do not feel intimidated during cross-examination.

Directions for Criminal Courts, Juvenile Boards & Children's Courts

1. High-Priority Handling

• Vulnerable witnesses should be given priority to minimize delays and avoid repeated appearances in court.

2. Scheduled Hearings

• Judges must set hearing dates based on the witness’s physical needs, school exams, and other commitments.

3. Time to Refresh Memory

• Witnesses must be given enough time to refresh their memory before testifying.

4. Sexual Offences Cases

• Judges should not ask victims to demonstrate where they were touched.
• Instead, they can use body outline diagrams to indicate the location.

5. Transportation Costs

• Courts may provide transport or reimburse travel expenses for witnesses.

6. Special Provisions for Disabled Witnesses

• Courts should provide additional measures for specially-abled witnesses, such as:
  • Recording testimony in Braille (for visually impaired witnesses).
  • Using sign language interpreters or mobile apps to help them communicate.
  • Making court orders and summons available in accessible formats.

Balancing Witness Protection with Fair Trial Rights

• While these safeguards protect witnesses, the rights of the accused must also be respected.
• Defense lawyers still have the right to cross-examine witnesses, but courts will ensure that questioning is not harassing or intimidating.
• The identity of vulnerable witnesses will remain confidential, and any video testimony will be protected by court orders.

Implementation & Future Review

• These guidelines apply immediately to all courts, including Juvenile Justice Boards in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
• The High Court has also directed an annual review of the system to improve implementation.
• Legal experts and research bodies will assess how well the guidelines are working.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has taken an important step in making the judicial system more witness-friendly. These guidelines will help ensure that children, abuse survivors, and disabled individuals can testify without fearwhile also maintaining a fair trial process.