SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 9 | Issue 1

Volume 9, Issue 1 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here. In this first Issue of September 2025, we cover five important judgements from the last week of August. 

This edition covers important decisions on death penalty sentencing; what constitutes ‘child abuse’; whether ‘collective responsibility’ applies to members of Public Service Commissions; executive orders in government recruitment when statutory rules exist; and the collection of tax for a motor vehicle that isn’t using a ‘public place’.  

To read all judgements in HTML format on our SCO.LR page, click on the cause title. 

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 

SCO.LR | Volume 9 | Issue 1

25 August–30 August 2025 

**********

Revisiting Death Penalty Sentence under Article 32 for Violation of Procedural Safeguard 

Vasanta Sampat Dupare v Union of India 

25 August 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1043 | 2025 SCO.LR 9(1)[1]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta 

 The Supreme Court held that it can revisit the sentencing aspect of death penalty cases under Article 32 petitions, in case procedural safeguards have not been followed. 

Dupare’s conviction and death sentence, initially imposed in 2010 for the sexual assault and murder of a four-year-old girl, were affirmed through appeals and review, and his mercy petitions were rejected. Subsequently, new medical records and psychological evaluations emerged, indicating Dupare suffered from major depressive disorder, psychotic features, Specific Learning Disability (SLD), low intellectual functioning and organic brain injury.

The Supreme Court set aside Dupare’s death sentence and directed that a fresh hearing be conducted in conformity with the guidelines in Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh (2022). While affirming this extraordinary power, the Court cautioned that Article 32 is not a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters, but is reserved for cases involving a clear, specific and serious breach of procedural safeguards that undermine basic rights. The Court clarified that the finding of guilt would remain untouched. 

Key words/phrases: Constitution of India—Article 32—Article 14—Article 21—capital punishment—death  penalty—sentencing—Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh—procedural safeguards—retrospective application of judgements

Read the Judgement here. 

**********

Ingredients of ‘Child Abuse’

Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v The State of Goa

26 August 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta 

Citations: 2025 INSC 1041 | 2025 SCO.LR 9(1)[2]

The Supreme Court held that there must be evidence of “deliberate or sustained mistreatment” of a child to convict an accused for child abuse. 

In February 2013, an FIR was filed against Santosh Sahadev for hitting a child in a school with a schoolbag. The Children’s Court, Goa, convicted him for “child abuse” under Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court reduced his sentence under several charges, but Sahadev, still aggrieved by his conviction, moved the top court. 

The Supreme Court acquitted him of the charge of “child abuse”, noting that it cannot be invoked at every trivial instance involving a child. It must be directly correlated with the intention of cruelty and abuse. 

Key words/phrases: Goa Children’s Act, 2003—Section 8—child abuse—hitting child with bag—isolated incident not child abuse—evidence of deliberate or sustained mistreatment

Read the Judgement here

**********

‘Misbehaviour’ under Article 317 Requires Specific Individual Acts

In re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission

28 August 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1047 | 2025 SCO.LR 9(1)[3]

Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar

The Supreme Court clarified that the removal of a member of a Public Service Commission under Article 317  requires proof of specific individual acts amounting to ‘misbehaviour’. 

The reference arose from the leak of a question paper for an examination conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). A candidate’s complaint led to an FIR and subsequent CBI investigation, which implicated the Deputy Secretary-cum-Deputy Controller of Examinations but not Bage, a member of the APPSC. A state-appointed inquiry found procedural lapses but made no personal allegations. The President referred six charges against Bage to the Supreme Court under Article 317(1). 

The Court rejected the argument that ‘collective responsibility’ applies to individual members of the Public Service Commission and revoked Bage’s suspension. The Court emphasised that ‘misbehaviour’ under Article 317, though wider than ‘misconduct,’ must still be proven on the basis of cogent evidence showing conduct undermining the office.

Key words/phrases: Article 317—Public Service Commission—misbehaviour—misconduct—individual accountability—collective responsibility—procedural lapses—Presidential Reference—suspension revoked

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Status of Government Orders when Statutory Rules Govern Recruitment 

Partha Das v State of Tripura

28 August 2025 

Citation: 2025 INSC 1049 | 2025 SCO.LR 9(1)[4]

Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal

The Supreme Court held that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules in a recruitment process—they can only supplement them.

The case arose after the Tripura government issued a memorandum halting ongoing recruitment processes under both the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 and the Tripura Civil Service Rules, 1967. The government subsequently introduced a New Recruitment Policy (NRP) to govern all new appointments. The Tripura High Court gave conflicting rulings: it upheld the government’s decision regarding the State Rifles on the grounds of “public interest,” but it held that the NRP could not supersede statutory rules in the Civil Services instance. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Judgement on the State Rifles, stating that a recruitment process “cannot be left at the whims and fancies of the State to interfere through executive orders.” The Court upheld the High Court’s Judgement on the Civil Services recruitment, on the ground that applying the NRP would amount to an illegal change of rules midway through the process.

Key words/phrases: Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983—Tripura Civil Service Rules, 1967—recruitment process—New Recruitment Policy—changing the rules of the game—executive notifications cannot override statutory rules 

Read the Judgement here. 

**********

Motor Vehicle Tax when Vehicle not Used in a ‘Public Place’

M/s Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited v State of Andhra Pradesh

29 August 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 1052 | 2025 SCO.LR 9(1)[5]

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan