SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 4 | Issue 3

Here’s Volume 4, Issue 3 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR), where we cover five key judgments from 14–20 April 2025. 

There’s two new things to share this week:

1. To complete and round off the SCO.LR docket for this year, we will gradually release back issues from January 2025. Here are Issues 1 and 2 of Volume 1 from January 2025. 
2. SCO.LR is designed for convenience and clarity. This week, we experiment with AI-generated mind maps (reviewed by us, of course) for each judgement. Our mind maps break down the key issues, legal principles and the Court’s decision. 

SCO.LR, our newest content offering, is still a work in progress, and we’d love to hear from you about how we can make it the most accurate and user-friendly archive of Supreme Court decisions.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

2025 SCO.LR | Vol 4 | Issue 3

14 April – 20 April 2025 

**********

Guidelines to states and High Courts to tackle child trafficking and pending cases

Pinki v State of Uttar Pradesh

15 April 2025 

Citations: 2025 INSC 482 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(11)

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to collect data on and monitor pending trials related to child trafficking. The Court also directed that High Courts instruct trial courts to complete hearings in six months.

The Allahabad High Court had granted bail to 13 persons involved in interstate child trafficking. The High Court considered various factors, such as the initial exclusion of some names from the FIR, the lack of a criminal record, and the lack of proof that the accused would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Several accused persons absconded after receiving bail.

The Supreme Court criticised the High Court’s “callous approach” and for ignoring the severity of the accusations. It held that the personal liberty of the accused must be balanced with the larger social interest as per the rule of law. The Court gave directions to frame charges, find the absconding persons within two months, prosecute them separately and for the trial court to expeditiously complete hearings. It also issued guidelines directing all state governments to study and implement a report published by Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development (BIRD) in 2023. The report deals with child trafficking data and suggests recommendations. The Court warned that non-compliance with these guidelines would attract contempt proceedings. 

Key words/phrases: Child Trafficking accused—bail granted by Allahabad High Court—severity of crime ignored by HC—bail order set aside—states to implement BIRD recommendations—high courts to monitor child trafficking cases

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

Unenforceability of Consequential Relief if Primary Relief is Barred by Limitation 

Nikhila Divyang Mehta v Hitesh P. Sanghvi 

15 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 485 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(12)

Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V. Bhatti

The Supreme Court held that when a primary relief sought in a suit is rejected for being time-barred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, any ancillary relief claimed in connection with it also becomes unenforceable.

The plaintiff filed a suit for the court to declare his father’s Will and Codicil as null and void. A Trial Court rejected the suit on the ground that it was filed after the three years prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, reasoning that apart from seeking a declaration that the Will and Codicil were null and void, the plaintiff had also sought other reliefs. 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that it “manifestly erred in law” in reversing the Trial Court’s Order. The Court observed that the primary relief in the case was to declare the Will and Codicil as null and void. Any other relief sought was only consequential. Therefore, if the primary relief is barred by limitation, then the secondary reliefs will also become unenforceable. 

Key words/phrases: Rejection of Plaint—Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Limitation Act—primary and consequential relief

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********
Usage of Additional Language apart from Official Language of the state is permissible

Varshatai v State of Maharashtra 

15 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 486 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(13)

Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K.V. Chandran

The Supreme Court held that the use of Urdu in addition to Marathi on a signboard of the new building of the Municipal Council, Patur in Maharashtra, does not violate the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. 

The appellant, Varshatai, a former member of the Municipal Council, objected to the display of the name of the building in Marathi at the top with its translation in Urdu below. She argued that the government only used Marathi as the official language of Maharashtra. In June 2021, the Bombay High Court dismissed her petition. After the 2022 Act came into force the top court directed the High Court to reconsider the matter based on the new law. In the second round too, the Bombay High Court rejected the petition and the contention that the Act only recognises Marathi. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view. The Court reasoned that while the 2022 Act mandates the use of Marathi, it does not contain any prohibition on the use of an additional language, such as Urdu, included in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution. The judges relied on Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which held that mere adoption of Hindi as an official language under a statute does not bar the legislature from adopting another language as an official language.

Key words/phrases: Maharashtra Local Authorities Act—Official language—no prohibition on using additional language—Constitution of India—Eighth schedule—Marathi—Urdu
Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

Injunction Suit Fails Without Possession or Title

RBANMS Educational Institution v B. Gunashekar

16 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 490 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(14)

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court directed all Sub Register Officers to notify tax authorities about all cash transactions above ₹2,00,000. 

RBANMS Educational Institution is a 148-year-old charitable trust which has had continuous possession of land in Bengaluru since 1929. The respondent in the case, Gunashekar, initiated a suit against the trust in 2018, seeking an injunction restraining RBANMS from creating any third-party interest over the suit property. He claimed to have entered into an agreement to purchase the same property from third parties unconnected to RBANMS and alleged payment of ₹75 lakh in cash as an advance towards a ₹9 crore agreement to sell. RBANMS applied for rejection of the plaint which was rejected by the Trial Court and then by the Karnataka High Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and held that the respondent had no enforceable legal right as he was not in possession of the property. The Court noted that the agreement that Gunashekhar relied upon was with unrelated third parties and did not confer upon him any right to seek such an injunction. It took note of the alleged ₹75 lakh cash transaction, which prompted the Court to address the issue of large cash transactions. The Bench directed the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and the Income Tax Department to work together to verify all instances where parties claim a cash transaction of a sum larger than ₹2,00,000/-.

Key words/phrases: Order VII Rule 11 CPC—rejection of plaint—no injunction without title or possession—abuse of process in land suits—Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961—income tax reporting mandate for courts

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map

**********

Article 32 Not a Substitute for Review or Curative Petition 

Satish Chander Sharma v State of Himachal Pradesh

16 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 491 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(15)

Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be filed to attain the same relief that has already been negated by the Court in a previous judgement.

A group of retired officers of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited sought pensionary benefits under a 1999 Himachal Pradesh Corporate Employee Scheme, which was discontinued in 2004. The petitioners, who retired after this, argued that they cannot be denied pension. They challenged State of H.P. v Rajesh Chander Sood (2016), which had denied similar claims. The petitioners contended that the Rajesh Chander Sood judgment was per incuriam as it allegedly ignored binding precedents.

The Supreme Court rejected the writ petition, clarifying that the 2016 judgement gave elaborate reasons for its decisions without ignoring any binding precedents. It also held that Article 32 is not an appropriate forum to challenge or seek reconsideration of a judgement even if the petitioners were not parties to the previous decision. The Court reiterated that proper channels to challenge a judgement, was through a review or a curative petition.

Keyphrases: Article 32—Constitution of India—Writ Petition—finality in adjudication—Per incuriam—pensionary benefits—review 

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map

**********

This edition of SCO.LR was compiled by Advay Vora, Ajitesh Singh, Gauri Kashyap, Manasi Shah and R. Sai Spandana.