Latest News Supreme Court issues directions for all Beggars’ Homes across the country. In this case, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court was concerned with Beggars Homes and the conditions of the inmates. The Bench held that “…beggars’ homes cannot be conceived as quasi-penal facilities. Their role must be restorative, not retributive – places of recovery, skill-building, and reintegration into society. The term “home” itself carries semantic and normative weight: it denotes safety, dignity, belonging, and care. Any arrangement that degenerates into a prison-like environment characterised by overcrowding, unhygienic conditions, arbitrary or involuntary confinement, denial of medical treatment, neglect of mental health needs, or restrictions on personal liberty – is not merely a policy failure, but a constitutional infraction striking at the very heart of Article 21” The Bench further held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted in an expansive and purposive manner and “is no longer confined to mere animal existence; it embraces within its fold the rights to dignity, health, shelter, privacy, and humane treatment, with heightened protection for the most vulnerable groups”. The Supreme Court issued directions under the following heads, in respect of all Beggars’ Homes across the country to ensure that the improved conditions are continuously maintained: Preventive Healthcare and Sanitation Infrastructure and capacity Nutrition and Food Safety Vocational Training and Rehabilitation Legal Aid and Awareness Child and Gender Sensitivity Accountability and Oversight Implementation and Compliance The Bench further directed the Union of India, through the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, to frame and notify model guidelines to facilitate uniform implementation of the directions across all States and Union Territories, within three months. The detailed directions can be accessed at 2364720032025-09-12-620452.pdf M.S. PATTER v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 878 of 2004], SUPREME COURT – 12 September 2025.

Latest News Sale without consideration is void. This case concerned a sale deed and arose out of a civil suit that was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs filed a first appeal which was allowed by the district court and the suit was decreed. On the question of limitation, it was held that the limitation period was 12 years applying Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the suit was filed within the said period of 12 years. The defendants filed a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed. On the question of limitation, it was held that the suit was to be filed within 3 years from the date of knowledge (instead of 12 years) applying Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The legal heirs of the original defendants then approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court confined itself to the question whether the plaintiff’s suit was time-barred or not. The Bench held that in order to ascertain whether Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the factual scenario, it has to first determine whether fraud was alleged as regards the contents of the sale deed. Since the plaintiff had not executed the sale deed and the original was also not produced, it was held that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply. The Bench further reiterated earlier law – “If a sale deed is executed without the payment of price, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law, specifically under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Such a sale without consideration would be void and would not affect the transfer of the immovable property.”. Since there was no sale consideration, the Bench held that in the absence of the sale consideration being tendered, the sale deed would be void and the plaintiff would not be required to seek its cancellation. Therefore, Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be said to be applicable. The Bench further held that the plaintiff “could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the date of knowledge that the possession of the defendant was adverse to that of the plaintiff”. The appeal was dismissed holding that the High Court could be said to have committed an error insofar as applying Article 59 instead of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The Bench thus clarified the correct position of law and found no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion of the High Court insofar as the maintainability of the suit on the aspect of limitation is concerned.   SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN v. JAGAN DEVI & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11795 OF 2025, SUPREME COURT – 12 SEPTEMBER 2025.

Latest News No right vested in a plaintiff to file Replication. This case arose from an order of the trial court which dismissed an application of the petitioner to file replication on the ground that testimony of PW1 had already commenced. A single Bench of the Delhi High Court did not find any infirmity in the order of the trial court that had taken into account directions of the Delhi High Court for time bound disposal of the suit. The single Judge held: “It is trite that the Civil Procedure Code does not contemplate filing of the replication, though it is judicially sanctified that once the replication is taken on record, it forms part of pleadings. There is no right vested in the plaintiff to file replication.” DINESH KUMAR VERMA v. RAMESH GHAI, CM(M) 1787/2025, DELHI HIGH COURT – 11 SEPTEMBER 2025.

Latest News Past misconduct cannot be an effective reason for dismissal but may be mentioned only for adding weight to the decision of imposing punishment. This case concerned a respondent who instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction praying that the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority be declared null, void and illegal; and mandatory injunction be issued for his reinstatement with continuity of service along with back wages with interest @ 12% per annum. The suit was dismissed, first appeal was dismissed, the second appeal was allowed but the relief of back wages was denied to the respondent by the High Court since he had filed an affidavit in the department whereby he had forgone the relief of back wages. The Supreme Court in appeal observed that absence of the respondent from duty on various occasions in a short tenure of service of around 7 years was a gross indiscipline and thus there was no illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing him from service. The Supreme Court held –“The disciplinary authority, while imposing the penalty, had merely referred the past conduct and also given weight to the gravest act of misconduct. The order of dismissal is not based on the charge of “cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service”… As such, it is concluded that the dismissal of the respondent was based on gravest act of misconduct, for which he was dealt with by the disciplinary authority following the procedure as prescribed and in due observance of principles of natural justice, hence, we do not find any fault in the same.” The appeals were allowed setting aside the high court judgment. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. EX. C. SATPAL SINGH, Supreme Court Decision – 29 August 2025.

Latest News Factors to be considered for grant of maintenance u/s.125 Cr.P.C. This case dealt with quantum of maintenance awarded to the wife which was under challenge by the husband. The Delhi High Court held – “For granting the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., essentially two factors have to be considered. Firstly, that the wife has not deserted the husband without any reasonable cause; and Secondly, determination of quantum of maintenance, depending upon the circumstances and working capacity of both the parties.” The Delhi High Court observed that nothing had been brought on record to show that the Respondent-wife had separated without any reason or had deserted the Petitioner-husband and upheld the decision of the family court that the Petitioner-husband had failed to prove that the wife was living separately without any sufficient cause. The Court further held – “The maintenance amount must be determined in a balanced manner; it should be one that ensures adequate support for the wife and child, while also taking into account the Petitioner’s financial obligations of his lability towards Home Loan, his expenses and responsibility towards parents.” The quantum of maintenance was reduced. ANKUSH KUMAR PARASHAR v. SAPNA @ MONA & ANR., Delhi High Court Decision – 29 August 2025.

Latest News Call Detail Records and Mobile Location of Spouse can be sought to ascertain adultery In Matrimonial Disputes. Four connected Appeals assailing different parts of a common interlocutory Order passed on 29th April 2025 by a Family Court came to be filed before the Delhi High Court. The appeals arose out of a matrimonial dispute which also involved impleadment of an alleged paramour as a party to the proceedings. On impleadment of the alleged paramour, the Delhi High Court held –“Section 13(1)(i) of the HMA recognises adultery as a distinct ground for divorce. The procedural framework governing such petitions requires that full particulars of the alleged matrimonial offence be furnished, including the identity of the person alleged to be involved. Courts have consistently required impleadment of such person to ensure fairness in adjudication… the Family Court cannot effectively or fairly adjudicate the ground of adultery without the presence of the alleged participant. This legislative mandate also underscores a policy choice that allegations of adultery, by their very nature, touch upon the reputation and dignity of a third party, and therefore justice requires that such person be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.” On The Court further held           “In matrimonial disputes where adultery is alleged, courts have consistently held that proof may often be circumstantial, and that evidence of association, stay at hotels, or patterns of communication may constitute relevant circumstances. CDRs [Call Detail Records] and tower location data, if appropriately circumscribed to a defined period, serve as corroborative material to either establish or negate the charge of adulterous association. Such material cannot, therefore, be dismissed as a roving enquiry; it is directly relevant to the issue in controversy.” On production of documents u/Order XI Rule 14 CPC, the Delhi High Court held –“The scope of discovery under this provision is wide but not unlimited. Courts have consistently held that discovery is intended to facilitate fair trial and enable parties to substantiate their claims or defenses. It cannot, however, be used as a vehicle to compel production of irrelevant or extraneous material. The exercise must be guided by relevance to the matters in issue, and the applicant must demonstrate a prima facie link between the requested documents and the claim or defense… In exercising discretion, the Court must balance the right to evidence with the need to protect parties from undue burden or intrusion into private matters not relevant to the issues in dispute. The Court is not bound to grant all requests automatically; it may narrow or refuse requests which are irrelevant, speculative, or disproportionate.” The Delhi High Court upheld the family court’s decision rejecting the application of the alleged paramour for deletion of the name from the array of parties holding that impleadment is both statutorily mandated and necessary to uphold the principles of natural justice. The High Court upheld the decision of the family court allowing the Wife‘s application for production of the Husband‘s CDRs and tower location data of both the Husband and alleged paramour for a specific period holding that the directions were proportionate, directly connected to the pleadings, and were to be complied with under confidentiality safeguards in sealed covers. The decision of the family court allowing production of certain documents was upheld while rejecting some of the others (financial records and hotel details) was set aside. SMITA SHRIVASTAVA v. SUMIT VERMA & ANR., Delhi High Court Decision: – 29 August 2025.

Latest News A 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is hearing the Presidential Reference by President Droupadi Murmu on 14 questions on the power to assent on Bills, including whether a court can fix timelines for the President/Governor to decide on Bills. The Constitution Bench comprises of the Chief Justice of India, H.M.J. Surya Kant, H.M.J. Vikram Nath, H.M.J. P.S. Narasimha and H.M.J. Atul S. Chandurkar. The Presidential Reference, made under Article 143, came a month after the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor matter, wherein the Court held that the Governor did not act bona fide in reserving Bills to President. The Constitution Bench commenced the hearing on 19th August, 2025 hearing first the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Reference. The Union of India and the parties supporting the stand of Union of India will be heard on 19, 20, 21 and 26 August, 2025. The parties opposing the Reference will be heard on 28 August and 2, 3 & 9 September, 2025. Rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Union of India would be heard on 10 September, 2025. IN RE: ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA, SPL.REF. No. 1/2025.

Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to decide: “Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation; as alleged in this case, would lead to a charge of abetment, if the person at the receiving end commits suicide, is a vexed question the Courts are called upon to decide when a charge is raised under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860” now s.108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. A 7-time MP committed suicide in February 2021 leaving behind a suicide note which named persons in the administration and police, who according to him, conspired to defame, degrade and demean him so as to end his political career and bring down his social standing, thus driving him to suicide; which he proclaimed in his last note, was his only option. The accused, named in the suicide note, filed separate applications to quash the FIR, u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitions were allowed by the Bombay High Court by a common order, against which the appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. The Bench held that “…even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life… The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test.”. The Bench noted the complaints made, the statements recorded, the suicide note; over which there was a cloud, and the subsequent conduct of the police regarding the delay in registering a crime and the casual statements made in the FIR and dismissed the appeals holding that the allegations levelled were not the direct causation of the death. ABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., Crl. Appeal Nos.2177-2185/2024, Date of Decision: 18 August 2025.

Latest News A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that a Memorandum of Family Settlement “does not require registration because neither any new right is sought to be created nor extinguished, only the manner of enjoyment of suit property has been delineated, which does not result in the creation of any right”. The Bench further held that “Modification, novation and alteration of a contract is regulated by Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Its first requirement is that the parties to the contract agree to substitute a new contract… The second requirement is that there should be an intention to substitute the previous contract with a new contract…”. It was observed that once the respective shares of the family members were identified by a memorandum of family settlement, a Builders’ Agreement entered into for construction of a building, will not result in its modification or novation. The appeals was dismissed. SUMAN SINGH VIRK & ANR. v. DEEPIKA PRASHAR & ANR., RFA(OS) 61/2024, Date of Decision: 18 August 2025.

Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court taking suo moto cognizance of a disturbing and alarming Newspaper cutting reported by the `Times of India’ titled “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”, passed directions to immediately start picking up stray dogs from all localities and shift them to dog shelters. The Bench further said that not a single stray dog was to be released. The Bench warned that any individual or organisation obstructing the authorities from picking up stray dogs, would face legal consequences. The directions also extend to the NCR region. The Supreme Court Bench clarified that authorities can use force if it was necessary to pick up the strays. The State of NCT of Delhi, MCD and NDMC have been directed to immediately make dog shelters and report about the creation of infrastructure within 8 weeks. IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE”, SMW (C) No.5/2025.