SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 5 | Issue 1

New month, new volume of SCO.LR. Here’s Issue 1 of Volume 5 of Supreme Court Observer Law Reports. This issue covers the week from 1 May to 7 May. 

We’re also releasing the back issue for the last week of January today (Vol 1, Issue 4), where we’ve covered cases on reservation in medical courses and whether “filthy language” amounts to outraging modesty. Read it here. 

If you’ve been using SCO.LR in your research, we’d love to hear from you! Write to us at admin@scoberver.in. 

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

2025 SCO.LR | Vol 5 | Issue 1

1 May – 7 May 2025

**********

Charge of Rape Attracted if Act Done in Furtherance of Common Intent

Raju @Umakant v State of Madhya Pradesh

1 May 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 615 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(1)[1]

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and K.V. Viswanathan

The Supreme Court held that where an act of gang rape was committed by one accused, the other accused persons would be punished if they acted with common intention. The Court confirmed that a victim’s testimony may be relied on without corroboration if it inspires confidence. 

The Trial Court held two persons guilty of abduction and gang rape under Sections 342, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the unamended Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For the offence of gang rape, the Trial Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and the co-accused to a rigorous term of 10 years. The High Court upheld the convictions and the sentences. 

In the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that as he had only assisted in the commission of rape by the co-accused, he should not be convicted for the offence of gang rape. The Court rejected the argument as the explanation to Section 376(2) does not require the prosecution to adduce evidence to show that the actual act of rape was committed by each accused.

However, it reduced the appellant’s sentence to 10 years to bring it on par with the co-accused’s sentence. It further set aside the appellant’s conviction under the Atrocities Act, as there was a lack of evidence to show that the accused was motivated by the victim’s caste identity. 

Keywords/phrases: Gang rape—Conviction upheld—Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860—may rely on victim’s testimony—sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years—Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—requires evidence accused was motivated by victim’s caste identity

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map

**********

Stamp Vendor is a Public Servant

Aman Bhatia v State (GNCT of Delhi) 

2 May 2025 

Citations: 2025 INSC 618 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(1)[2]

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

The Supreme Court held that stamp vendors are classified as “public servant” as they discharge a public duty and receive remuneration from the government. 

Aman Bhatia, a licensed stamp vendor, demanded ₹2 extra for a stamp paper costing ₹10. The Delhi High Court held that he was guilty of corruption as he was a public servant under Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

In the Supreme Court, Bhatia argued that the definition of a public servant is exhaustive and does not cover stamp vendors. The Court held that “public servant” should be given a purposive and wide interpretation. The nature of work undertaken by the person determines whether they fall under the meaning. The vendor was discharging a duty in which both the State and the public have an interest. 

Key words/phrase: Stamp vendors—public servants—Section 2(c)(i)—Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Read the Judgement here

Mind map

**********

Contempt Proceedings Not Barred by Limitation

Shanmugam Lakshminarayanan v High Court of Madras

2 May 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 619 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(1)[3]

Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P.K. Mishra

The Supreme Court held that the stop-clock to calculate the limitation period of one year for filing a case of criminal contempt is the date of initiation of the suo moto contempt action. 

Forged orders in the name of a High Court Judge were presented before the court administration on 17 April 2018. Notice to the parties, however, was issued only in 2022. In the Madras High Court, appellants claimed that proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 because notice was issued four years later. The High Court rejected the argument. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while upholding contempt, reasoning that the limitation clock stopped when the matter was placed before a Single Judge of the High Court on 5 September 2018, which was well within a year since the forgery was first brought to the notice of the court. The Bench observed that “initiation” of contempt proceedings under Section 20 is not calculated solely based on the date when formal notice is issued.

Key words/phrases: Limitation of contempt proceedings—Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—contempt action taken by High Court—notice issued four years later—not barred by limitation

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

PwDs Eligibility to Practice Medicine Must be Assessed Holistically

Kabir Paharia v National Medical Commission

2 May 2025 

Citations: 2025 INSC 623 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(1)[4]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that Persons with Disabilities (PwD) cannot be denied admission into medical courses based on a strict and narrow assessment of disability. 

Kabir Paharia had Benchmark Disability (defined in the law as 40 percent or more). After securing rank 174 in the NEET exam, the Disability Certification Centre assessed his disability at 68 percent and declared him ineligible to pursue MBBS. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court directed AIIMS to conduct the test again. Based on the test results, both the Single Judge and Division Bench turned down Paharia’s petition. 

The Supreme Court noted that the only difficulty Kabir faced during the test was with putting on the gloves. He was able to successfully perform all other tests, from chest compressions to suturing. The Court held that authorities need to keep in mind clinical accommodations and assistive technologies. 

Key words/phrases: High Court order quashed—persons with disability—eligibility to take admission in medical courses—need to consider clinical accommodations and assistive technologies

Read the Judgement here.

Mind mad

**********

Insurance of Trailer not a Prerequisite for Insurer Liability

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company v Honnamma

5 May 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 625 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(1)[5]

Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

The Supreme Court held that a separate insurance for a trailer (an unpowered vehicle towed by a powered vehicle) is not a prerequisite to impose liability on the insurer of the tractor when an accident involving the tractor-trailer is caused by negligent driving. 

Nagarajappa, a coolie who was seated in the trailer, died after the trailer-tractor overturned due to negligent driving. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation and attached liability to the owner. The family appealed to the High Court for higher compensation. The High Court increased compensation but attached liability to the insurer. The insurer moved the Supreme Court, relying on precedent like Dhondubai v Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude (2023), which held that the trailer had to be separately insured. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. It clarified that the liability of the insurer extended to the accident on the ground that the negligent driving of the tractor was the root cause of the accident. Further, the Court held that the decision in Dhondubai was not an “absolute principle of law.”

Key words/phrases: Person in trailer—Death caused by the rash driving of the tractor—trailer uninsured—High Court imposes liability on insurance company—Supreme Court upholds insurer’s liability 

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

This issue of SCO.LR is put together by Ajitesh Singh, Advay Vora, Gauri Kashyap and R. Sai Spandana