SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 12 | Issue 5

We present Volume 12, Issue 5 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR), our final release of 2025.

With this issue, our dedicated SCO.LR page now hosts 250 judgements, organised by Volume (month) and Issue (week) with individual citations.

We trust that our 2025 docket supported your research, analyses and pleadings. Stay tuned for our next issue as we transition into 2026 with new back issues. Until then, we wish you a very Happy New Year!

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 12 | Issue 5

Bonus Judgements from December 2025

**********

Pre-trial Inquiry in Cheque Bounce Cases

Sri Om Sales v Abhay Kumar

19 December 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1474 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(5)[21]

Bench: Justices Manoj Mishra and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court held that a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA) cannot be quashed at the pre-trial stage by carrying out an enquiry on the disputed question of fact. 

The appellant corporation lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the NIA, alleging that the cheque of Rs 20,00,000 issued by the respondent was declined owing to insufficient funds. After legal notice was issued, the respondent denied having issued the cheque and refused to make the payment. Subsequently, the trial court took cognisance of the complaint. Aggrieved by the summoning order of the trial court, the respondent appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding, holding that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of debt or any other liability.

The Supreme Court held that at the pre-trial stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the material placed on record make out a prima facie case. It cannot carry out a detailed inquiry into the nature of debt or liability. Further, the Court stated that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 by conducting an inquiry at the pre-trial stage. 

Key words/Phrases: Cheque dishonour–Section 138–Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881–Complaint–Section 482–Code of Criminal Procedure–Complaint Quashed–Appeal–Court cannot conduct pre-trial inquiry–Appeal allowed. 

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

Renewal of Passport Pending Criminal Proceedings

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v Union of India

19 December 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1476  | 2025 SCO.LR 12(5)[22]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and A.G. Masih

The Supreme Court held that persons against whom criminal proceedings are pending are not absolutely disentitled to a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, the appellant, sought renewal of his ordinary passport after its expiry while proceedings were pending before the NIA Court, Ranchi, and a criminal appeal against conviction was pending before the Delhi High Court. The NIA Court granted no objection for renewal and directed him to re-deposit the passport. The Delhi High Court also had no objection, subject to the condition that the appellant shall not leave the country without permission. The Regional Passport Office, Kolkata declined renewal by invoking Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act is not absolute and is subject to the exemption under Section 22 read with General Statutory Rules notification No. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993. It distinguished between possession of a passport and permission to travel abroad. It directed re-issue of an ordinary passport to the appellant for ten years.

Keywords/phrases: Passport renewal—Section 6(2)(f) Passports Act—Pending criminal proceedings—Section 22 exemption—GSR 570(E)—No objection by criminal courts—Re-issue of passport

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

Time Bound directions for Completing Investigations

State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohd. Arshad Khan 

19 December 2025 

Citation: 2025 INSC 1480 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(5)[23]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that timelines imposed by High Courts to conclude investigations are the exception rather than the norm. It held that Courts must respect the practical realities of investigations and should only impose deadlines in situations where inaction would lead to adverse consequences.

In this case, three individuals approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 seeking to quash accusations of forging documents and filing false affidavits to procure arms licenses under the Arms Act, 1959, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Relying on Shobhit Nehra v State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the Allahabad High Court directed investigative agencies to conclude the probe within 90 days and granted the accused protection from arrest until the court took cognisance. The State appealed, arguing that the timeline was unjustified, risked prejudicing a serious criminal investigation and ignored the distinct factual context of Shobhit Nehra.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. It noted that Shobhit Nehra arose from a family dispute, unlike the present case involving allegations of serious criminal conduct. The Court held that directions for time-bound investigation must not be issued routinely or as a matter of course. It clarified that relying on judicial precedent is not a mechanical exercise; it must reflect an application of mind to the specific facts of the case.

Key words/phrases: Time bound investigations—Protection from arrest—Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950—Time bound investigation in rare instances—not a mechanical exercise—application of mind—High Court order set aside.

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

*********

Distinction between “Deficiency in Service” and “Medical Negligence” 

Kousik Pal v B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre 

19 December 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1487 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(5)[24]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra 

The Supreme Court held that the benchmark for adjudging medical negligence is the lowest standard of professional skill and competence expected of a medical practitioner. It clarified that “deficiency in service” in patient care is distinct from “medical negligence” and that the two concepts must not be enmeshed.

The case involved an appellant who alleged negligence and deficiency in diagnosis at the respondent hospital. The West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission awarded ₹20 lakh in compensation, noting that an unqualified doctor had performed critical procedures. While a Single Judge upheld this, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversed the decision, holding that negligence and deficiency are intertwined and require a specialised body for assessment.

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s ruling, confirming that the doctor lacked minimum qualifications. The Court held that the Commission acted within its authority under Section 38 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 by focusing on deficiencies in patient care. It held that under Sections 29 and 33 of the Act, hospitals are liable to pay compensation where their actions cause imminent danger, injury or death.

Key words/phrases: Deficiency in Service—West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission—Section 36 of West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017—Section 29—major deficiency in service—Section 33—causing injury or death to the service recipient—Medical Negligence—State Medical Council

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

Reserved Candidates in General Category Seats

Rajasthan High Court v Rajat Yadav

19 December 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1503 |  2025 SCO.LR 12(5)[25]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih

The Supreme Court held that reserve category candidates who score above the cut-off mark for open category candidates cannot be denied equality of treatment merely on account of their caste or community.

The Rajasthan High Court had advertised 2756 vacancies for Junior Judicial Assistants, involving a written test followed by a typewriting test. Several reserved candidates outscored general candidates. The reserved candidates were excluded because their marks were lower than their specific reserved category’s cut-off. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the general category list for qualifying examination should include meritorious candidates of the reserved categories to avoid discrimination against them. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgement. It held that the “Open” category was not a quota and was accessible to all based on merit. Exclusion of such candidates violates the principles of equality, as merit remains the primary benchmark for unreserved posts. 

Key words/phrases: The Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986—Recruitment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II—Reservations—Cut-off marks for reserved candidates higher than general candidates—Reserved candidates who outperformed general candidates denied selection—High Court declares exclusion discriminatory—Supreme Court upholds judgement. 

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map