The Supreme Court directed Bihar and Jharkhand to pay interest on the decades-old dues of employees of five defunct State corporations of undivided Bihar: 12% a year on delayed provident fund dues under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act and 6% on salary and other dues. Rejecting the plea that the corporations were separate legal entities, it also awarded each daily-wage worker a one-time Rs 1,00,000, holding a flat Rs 42.50 daily wage since 1992 unfair (paras 39-59).
Deciding a wife's transfer petitions, the Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 and quashed all 18 civil and criminal cases between the spouses and their families in Odisha, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. The husband paid Rs 35 lakh as permanent alimony, and the parties were barred from filing fresh cases against each other (paras 22-26).
The Supreme Court cancelled the bail of a Kalyan Dombivli municipal corporator and three others accused of assaulting three doctors, including a woman doctor, at a municipal hospital in Dombivli. The High Court had restored their bail without explaining what had changed since it stayed it, and ignored the corporator's criminal antecedents and the fear caused to the medical fraternity; the trial is to end within six months (paras 56-73).
Taking suo motu cognisance of recent sexual offences against women and minor girls in Delhi NCR, the Supreme Court held that the right to live free from the fear of violence is part of Article 21, and that expressions of concern without accountability are not enough (paras 5-6). It called for status reports on how safety mechanisms actually work on the ground and ordered interim steps within four weeks, including vulnerability mapping, patrolling, and lighting and CCTV audits of public spaces (paras 9-12).
The Supreme Court set aside orders compelling the CBI to produce documents it had not relied on, at the stage of framing of charges. Without deciding the conflict between Debendra Nath Padhi and Sarla Gupta, it held that an accused may access documents held by the prosecution to shape the defence, but the stage depends on the document: voluminous unrelied material is inspected, and specific documents are produced at trial.
The Supreme Court set aside the appellant’s rape conviction, finding that the prosecutrix’s evidence did not inspire confidence. It reiterated that sole testimony can sustain conviction when credible, while moral disapproval cannot substitute for proof. (Paras 28–31)
The Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal of Academic Grade Pay benefits paid by mistake to teachers of a National Institute of Technology, because they had given undertakings to refund any excess. The Rafiq Masih (White Washer) exceptions did not help them, hardship was not pleaded, and the Court observed that the law on recovery of excess payments has perhaps not developed on correct lines (paras 16-26).
The Supreme Court quashed a 2012 cheating case against two directors of a steel trading company who withheld Rs 1.19 crore for TMT bars to set off a Rs 2 crore deposit they said the supplier owed them. The grievance was essentially civil, no civil suit had been filed, and using criminal proceedings to recover money was an abuse of process (paras 22, 27-30).
The Supreme Court held that a victim's appeal against an acquittal recorded by a Magistrate lies to the Sessions Court, not the High Court. Under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS, a victim's appeal lies to the court that ordinarily hears appeals against convictions by the trial court, and Section 415(3) sends appeals from a Magistrate's conviction to the Court of Session. The Court upheld the High Court's order and allowed the petitioner to appeal to the Sessions Court within one month (paras 10-13).
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had remanded a cheque-dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for fresh trial from the defence-evidence stage. The remand relied on Mandvi Cooperative Bank v. Nimesh B. Thakore, under which an accused cannot be examined on affidavit. The Court held that the ruling must be applied with reference to prejudice, which the accused had never pleaded, and restored the revision for a decision on its merits (paras 6-9).
The Supreme Court has set aside a Patwari's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that recovery of tainted currency alone cannot establish bribery without proof of an actual demand. Two prosecution witnesses admitted they saw neither the demand nor the money being handed over, applying the settled rule that demand is the sine qua non of the offence.
The Supreme Court held that when an accused is released because the police breached Article 22(1), by not giving written grounds of arrest, or Article 22(2), by not producing him before a Magistrate within 24 hours, the same police cannot re-arrest him on their own. Re-arrest needs the Magistrate's permission on an application made after furnishing the grounds, explaining the lapse and endorsed by a superior officer. The Court set aside the High Court's contrary order (paras 24-25, 36, 38).