Analysis
SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 1 | Issue 1
We summarise five significant and unmissable judgements from 1 January to 7 January 2025
This month, we launched the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR). SCO.LR (pronounced ‘scholar’) curates, summarises and presents five significant judgements each week.
The first edition covered decisions from the first week of April 2025. But we want SCO.LR (along with our Case Archive) to be a more comprehensive resource on the Supreme Court for you. To achieve this, we will be releasing back issues from January to March 2025 to complete the annual set. So here we are, presenting Volume 1 Issue 1 of SCO.LR, which covers cases from the first week of January 2025.
Stay tuned for more updates on how SCO.LR can support your research. Do share feedback to help us build the most accurate and accessible archive of the Indian Supreme Court!
**********
The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports
2025 SCO.LR | Vol 1 | Issue 1
1 January – 7 January 2025
**********
Senior Citizen Welfare
Urmila Dixit v Sunil Sharan Dixit
2 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 20 | 2025 SCO.LR 1(1)
Bench: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol
The Court upheld the rights of senior citizens to reclaim property under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Urmila Dixit transferred her property to her son through a gift deed with the expectation that he would care for her. When he failed to do so, she reclaimed the property. In 2020, a Tribunal court set aside the gift deed. A single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld this decision, but a Division Bench later ruled that the Tribunal lacked such jurisdiction under Section 23.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision on the jurisdictional powers of the Tribunal and quashed the gift deed. It confirmed that under Section 23, Tribunals may reverse a transfer that affects the welfare of elderly parents, order eviction and restore possession of property.
Key words/phrases: Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007—Section 23—power of tribunal to reverse a transfer—rights of senior citizens
Read the Judgement here.
**********
Powers of the High Court
Kim Wansoo v State of Uttar Pradesh
2 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 8 | 2025 SCO.LR 1(2)
Bench: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court clarified that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as their writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Kim Wansoo, a South Korean national, challenged criminal complaints by a sub-contractor over unpaid dues. The Allahabad High Court erred in refusing to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the FIR.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court decision. It concluded that no offence was made out as the allegation of default was not against him or the company where he was a Project Manager. The Court observed that it was the duty of the High Court to invoke Article 226 to prevent abuse of the process and secure the ends of justice.
Key words/phrases: Section 482 CrPC—quashing criminal proceedings—Article 226 COI—writ jurisdiction—prevent abuse of process—secure ends of justice
Read the Judgement here.
**********
Bail under Special Legislations
Jayshree Kanabar v State of Maharashtra
2 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 13 | 2025 SCO.LR 1(3)
Bench: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and P.V. Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court clarified that courts must adhere to the specific bail conditions imposed by special criminal enactments like the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999.
The Bombay High Court granted bail to an accused under MCOCA without fully considering the stringent requirements of Section 21(4). The section mandates that bail can be granted only if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to re-offend.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail order, reasoning that it did not meet the standard of restrictions prescribed under the MCOCA. The Court noted that courts must ensure compliance with statutory conditions before granting relief.
Key words/phrases: The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999—Section 21(4)—bail restrictions—special legislations—compliance with statutory conditions
Read the Judgement here.
**********
Evaluating Circumstantial Evidence in Trials
Abdul Nassar v State of Kerala
7 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 35 | 2025 SCO.LR 1(4)
Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that in cases based on circumstantial evidence (Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events, ruling out any other hypothesis.
The case involved the rape and murder of a 9-year-old girl in Kerala in 2012. The Kerala High Court reaffirmed the trial court’s decision to sentence the accused to death. The accused appealed the decision.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as the convict had died. However, it underscored that circumstantial evidence must collectively form “an unbroken chain” of factual conclusions, pointing solely to the accused’s guilt. The Court also highlighted that judgements should clearly articulate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific evidence.
Key words/phrases: Chain of circumstantial evidence—rape and murder case—death penalty upheld by Kerala High Court—appeal dismissed due to convict’s death
Read the Judgement here.
**********
Privatisation of Land for Public Welfare
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v Century Textiles and Industries Ltd
7 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 36 | 2025 SCO.LR 1(6)
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale
The Supreme Court ruled that land earmarked for the welfare of economically weaker sections cannot be privatised for commercial use.
In 1928, Century Textiles leased five acres in Lower Parel under the Poorer Classes Accommodation Scheme for 28 years. The company remained in possession of the land, sought ownership of it in 2006 and applied for commercial redevelopment in 2009. In 2022, the Bombay High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to transfer ownership.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s order, holding private ownership would defeat public interest, reinforcing statutory protections for marginalised communities.
Key words/phrases: Public welfare land protection—Poorer Classes Accommodation Scheme—Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai—land ownership dispute
Read the Judgement here.
**********
This edition of SCO.LR was compiled by Manasi Shah