SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 10 | Issue 4

Volume 10 Issue 4 of SCO.LR is here!

The Supreme Court was on Diwali break this past week, which meant that there were no new judgements. For this issue, we have widened our scope to offer five judgements delivered this month.

As always, SCO.LR judgements are available on an HTML page which makes reading and searching a simple task! SCO also offers a feature to link paragraphs directly to your research and assignments. Look out for the 🔗 symbol on the top right corner of every paragraph.

Read this Issue and all other Issues of 2025 on our SCO.LR page.

*********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 10 | Issue 4

Bonus Judgements from October 2025

**********

Repudiation by Conduct Valid for Voidable Sale of Minor’s Property

K.S. Shivappa v K. Neelamma
7 October 2025
Citations: 2025 INSC 1195 | 2025 SCO.LR 10(4)[16]
Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale

The Supreme Court held that a formal, separate suit under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is not mandatory if a minor (upon attaining majority) repudiates a sale of their immovable property made by their guardian without the permission of the Court.

A father sold a property purchased in the names of his three sons without seeking permission of the court. After attaining majority, the sons sold the same property to K.S. Shivappa within the limitation period stipulated under the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby repudiating their father’s sale. Neelamma, who had purchased the property that was initially sold by the father, filed a suit for declaration and possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the earlier sale had been effectively repudiated by the sale initiated by the sons. The first appellate court and the Karnataka High Court both held that a decree of cancellation was necessary to effectively repudiate the sale initiated by the father.

The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decree, and held that repudiation need not take the form of a separate suit. It may be inferred from conduct such as a subsequent sale or open assertion of ownership. If the repudiation occurs within the limitation period, the earlier transaction becomes void and conveys no title to subsequent purchasers. The Court also noted that Neelam had failed to prove her title, having not entered the witness box herself.

Keywords/phrases: Section 8 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956—sale by guardian without permission of court—voidable sale—repudiation by conduct of minor—no mandatory suit for repudiation of prior sale—Karnataka High Court—trial court decree restored

Read the Judgement here. 

**********

 CBI Probe Justified in Exceptional Cases to Ensure Fair and Independent Investigation 

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v P.H. Dinesh 

13 October, 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1224 | 2025 SCO.LR 10(4)[17]

Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria

The Supreme Court held that a court must exercise its discretion when ordering a CBI probe in cases where allegations have been levelled against the integrity of the investigation conducted by the police. A mere complaint concerning the independence of the investigation does not invoke the CBI’s involvement. 

The Karur stampede claimed the lives of 41 people in September 2025. Multiple petitions were filed before the Madras High Court’s Principal and Madurai Benches, seeking an impartial probe conducted by the CBI, citing the influence of the ruling party on the police. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the investigation is still in its early stages and that the investigation by the local police was “not flawed”. 

The Supreme Court held that a complaint concerning the fairness and independence of the police investigation does not automatically qualify the case to be investigated by the CBI. However, the Court exercised its discretion to hold that the circumstances surrounding the Karur stampede gave justifiable reason to initiate the CBI’s investigation. 

Keyphrases: CBI investigation—Karur stampede—Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam—public rally deaths—crowd management—judicial propriety—fair investigation—Article 32—State of West Bengal v CPDR (2010)—Justice Ajay Rastogi (Supervisory Committee)—Tamil Nadu police—SIT suspended—public confidence

Read the Judgement here. 

**********

Sustainability of Conviction When There are Contradictory Witness Testimonies

Kannaiya v State of Madhya Pradesh

17 October 2025 

Citations: 2025 INSC 1246 | 2025 SCO.LR 10(4)[18]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that a conviction cannot be sustained if the genesis and manner of the incident in a criminal case cannot be corroborated beyond doubt. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to release convicts who were not parties to the case. 

Kannaiya, the appellant and three others were convicted of murder under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. An FIR alleged that Kannaiya and nine others were damaging a hut when Ramesh intervened to stop them. Ramesh was beaten by the assailants and later succumbed to his injuries. The Trial Court convicted Kannaiya and three others. Their appeal was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Kannaiya appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court and the Trial Court’s verdict. It found that the witness had provided contradictory statements in their testimony. Moreover, the witnesses failed to identify each other’s presence at the spot where the incident took place. Further, the witnesses contradicted the location of the crime. The Bench noted that such “conflicting versions cannot co-exist within a credible narrative”, and all four co-accused were entitled to be released. As Kannaiya was the only appellant, the Bench exercised its inherent powers under Article 142 to release the other accused. 

Key words/phrases: Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860—Murder—Acts done by several persons with a common intention—Credibility of witness statements—no conviction when statements are doubtful and contradictory—Article 142—releasing co-accused who are not parties to the case

Read the Judgement here. 

**********

Transgender Rights Reduced to a ‘Dead Letters’ by State Indifference

Jane Kaushik v Union of India

17 October 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1248 | 2025 SCO.LR 10(4)[19]

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

The Supreme Court constituted a committee to frame an equal opportunity policy for transgender persons, in light of the legislative shortcomings in the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The Committee’s policy will be binding until the government frames its own. 

A teacher approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging discriminatory termination and denial of employment opportunities by two private schools in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. The Court found insufficient grounds to establish discrimination by the first school but held the second school guilty of denying opportunity on the basis of gender identity. 

It noted that both schools had failed to comply with the 2019 Act and held state authorities responsible for their lack of strict implementation. The Court further observed that the lack of grievance redressal mechanisms, Transgender Welfare Boards and Transgender Protection Cells had left the petitioner with no means to redress or remedy the violation of her rights. 

Keyphrases: Transgender persons—fundamental rights—Article 32—National Legal Services Authority v Union of India, (2014)—Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019—equal opportunity—reservations—gender identity—Transgender Welfare Boards

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Impermissibility of multiple FIRs in relation to the same incident

Rajendra Bihari Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh

17 October 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1249 | SCO.LR 10(4)[20]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra 

The Supreme Court held that special criminal laws cannot be made a tool of harassment of innocent persons on the basis of completely incredulous material. 

An FIR was filed after a complaint by the Vice-President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad alleging mass religious conversion under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (UPPUCRA). This triggered subsequent FIRs and resulted in multiple writ petitions at the Allahabad High Court seeking that they be set aside. The Allahabad High Court quashed the first FIR stating that the person was not competent to register it under Section 4 of the UPPUCRA. However, it refused to quash any subsequent FIRs that were filed in relation to that incident. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgements and stated that the subsequent FIRs for the same offence were impermissible in light of T.T. Antony v State of Kerala (2001), which held that any complaints related to an incident covered in an FIR will be treated as a statement under Section 162 of the CrPC, not an FIR. Therefore, any consequent proceedings were held to be quashed and impermissible. 

Key words/phrases: Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021—FIR can be filed by any ny aggrieved person, parents, brother, sister or any person related by blood, marriage or adoption alleging conversion by fraudulent means – —FIR filed by incompetent person under Section 4—Subsequent FIRs upheld—T.T. Antony v State of Kerala (2001)–Subsequent FIRs relating to same offence impermissible 

Read the Judgement here.