SCO.LR | Volume 12 | Issue 4

Volume 12 Issue 4 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here! In this Issue, we have selected five notable judgements delivered by the Supreme Court in its final working week of 2025.

The judgements span a range of issues, including cross-examination, the capacity of a company in a consortium to invoke arbitration proceedings, access to justice, protection of endangered species and testimonial evidence of minor victims.

As always, keep following SCO.LR to stay up to date with the most important judgements of the Supreme Court. Get the compilation directly mailed to your inbox or visit our dedicated SCO.LR page. Happy reading!

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 12 | Issue 4

15 December – 20 December 2025

**********

Leading Questions in Cross-Examination

K.S. Dinachandran v Shyla Joseph

17 December 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1449 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(4)[16]

Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K.V. Chandran

The Supreme Court held that leading questions are permissible in cross-examinations and that answers elicited in response do not, for that reason alone,  lose probative value. The Court further noted that omissions in examination-in-chief can be fixed at the time of cross-examination.

In 1998, the appellant executed a will bequeathing his properties to eight of his nine children, excluding his daughter, who had married outside the community. In 2011, the daughter filed a suit seeking partition of the property. The trial court ruled in her favour, noting that the testimony of the sole surviving attesting witness did not satisfy the requirement for valid execution of the will, owing to the material omission of certain facts during examination-in-chief. The verdict was upheld by the High Court, noting that answers elicited through leading questions in cross-examination could not cure omissions in examination-in-chief.

The Supreme Court held that the probative value of answers given in cross-examination cannot be denied merely because the questions were leading. The Court further noted that the standard of proof required for a will that excludes one legal heir is less stringent than that applicable to a will that divests all legal heirs.

Keywords/phrases: Will–Excluding one out of nine children–Suit for partition of property–Disposition by attesting witness–Requisites of a valid will not satisfied–Verdict upheld by High Court- Challenge to Supreme Court–Probative value of leading questions undeniable–Leave granted 

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap.

**********

Invocation of Arbitration by a Member of a Consortium

Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation  v Tecpro Systems

17 December 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1447 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(4)[17]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar

The Supreme Court held that whether an individual member of a consortium can invoke arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 depends on the terms of the contract and the consortium arrangement.

Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation (APGENCO) awarded an EPC contract for works at its thermal power project to a consortium of companies, including Tecpro Systems. The General Conditions of Contract contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose during execution and Tecpro Systems invoked arbitration in its individual capacity. APGENCO objected before the Telangana High Court, contending that arbitration could be invoked only by the consortium as a whole. The High Court rejected the objection and constituted an arbitral tribunal under Section 11.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order. It held that once the court is satisfied that an arbitration agreement prima facie exists, it should not undertake a detailed enquiry at the Section 11 stage. It noted that questions relating to the authority of a consortium member to invoke arbitration, the continuance of the consortium or the maintainability of claims must be decided by the arbitral tribunal. The appeals were dismissed.

Keywords/phrases: Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996–invocation of arbitration by member of consortium–consortium agreement and principal contract–prima facie satisfaction at referral stage–existence of arbitration agreement–authority of consortium member–issues to be decided by arbitral tribunal–Section 16 jurisdiction–High Court order constituting arbitral tribunal upheld–civil appeals dismissed

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********

Access to Justice Includes Physical Accessibility

Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar v State of Maharashtra

18 December 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1460 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(4)[18]

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and  N. V. Anjaria

The Supreme Court held that decisions relating to the sittings of the High Court, allocation of judicial work, or the organisation of judicial access are integral to the Chief Justice’s administrative responsibilities. 

A  writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the administrative notification issued by the Bombay High Court in exercise of powers under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, appointing Kolhapur as an additional place of sitting with effect from 18 August 2025   The petitioner contended that the power under Section 51(3) could not be used to create what was, in effect, a permanent additional Bench, and that the decision was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21.

The Supreme Court held that districts proposed to be served by the Kolhapur sitting constitute a contiguous region, and the decision therefore bears a clear and reasonable nexus with the object of facilitating access to justice for litigants from that region. It dismissed the petition, holding that no material had been placed on record to suggest that the decision was vitiated by mala fides or influenced by any extraneous consideration.

Key words/phrases: Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 – Chief Justice as the Master of the Roster—exclusive prerogative over Court’s sittings —absence of mala fides or manifest illegality—decisions concerning High Court’s sittings are integral to Chief Justice’s administrative responsibilities

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap.

**********

Conservation of Endangered Species

M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India

19 December 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1472 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(4)[19]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar

The Supreme Court held that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) includes Corporate Environmental Responsibility. The Court ruled that the definition of “community” under the CSR framework explicitly includes the natural world, as there is a fundamental link between social welfare and environmental health.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in 2019 to seek protection for the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a species found primarily in Gujarat and Rajasthan. The Court subsequently tagged connected proceedings seeking the deployment of bird flight diverters along the GIB’s migration path.  By an interim order in  2021, the Court restricted the installation of overhead transmission lines on the migration path and established a committee to consider the feasibility of high-voltage underground power lines. Responding to an Interlocutory Application from the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the Court stated that there was no basis to impose a total prohibition on the installation of transmission lines. The Court appointed an expert committee to suggest recommendations that strike a balance between conservation and development. This committee submitted reports for Rajasthan and Gujarat, identifying priority and non-priority areas where the states would implement in-situ and ex-situ conservation measures.

The Court held that entities engaged in power generation and transmission in both priority and non-priority areas in Rajasthan and Gujarat must remember that they share the environment with the GIB. It reiterated the “species best interest” standard, placing the survival of the species as the top priority. Further, the Court held that the “polluter pays” principle mandates that those responsible should bear the cost of the species’ recovery. Accepting the committee’s report, the Court issued directions to Gujarat and Rajasthan for their implementation.

Key words/phrases: Writ petition—Article 32—endangered Great Indian Bustard—Gujarat and Rajasthan—expert committee report—priority and non-priority areas—implementation of expert committee report—corporate social responsibility—corporate environmental responsibility—species best interest—polluter pays principle 

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap.

**********

Appreciation of Testimonial Evidence of Minor Victims

 K.P. Kirankumar v State

19 December 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 1473 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(4)[20]

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi

The Supreme Court held that in cases of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, the evidence of minor victims must be appreciated with sensitivity and realism. It held that the credible testimony of a minor victim can, by itself, sustain a conviction and cannot be rejected on the basis of minor inconsistencies.

K.P. Kirankumar and another accused were prosecuted for offences relating to procuration, buying and selling of a minor for prostitution and commercial sexual exploitation under Sections 366A, 372, 373 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; read with Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. A minor girl was rescued after a police raid based on information provided by NGO workers. The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the Karnataka High Court dismissed their appeal, holding that the testimony of the minor victim was reliable and sufficiently corroborated.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and held that a minor victim of sex trafficking is not an accomplice and her testimony, if found credible and convincing, can form the basis of conviction as that of an injured witness.  Finding the victim’s age established by school records and her testimony consistent on material particulars, the appeal was dismissed.

Keywords/phrases: child trafficking–commercial sexual exploitation–minor victim testimony–judicial appreciation of evidence–sensitivity and realism–victim not an accomplice–sole testimony sufficient for conviction–Sections 366A, 372, 373 IPC–Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956–Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6–Karnataka High Court judgment affirmed–appeal dismissed

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap