SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 5 | Issue 2

Today, we bring you Volume 5, Issue 2 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) with five key Judgements from 8-14 May. 

Are employees absorbed into another organisation after a merger entitled to pension benefits? Is direct evidence necessary to establish a conspiracy in terror cases? Can courts direct media organisations to take down content relating to subjudice matters? 

This week’s SCO.LR judgements answer all these questions and more. Scroll along to read them all!

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

2025 SCO.LR | Vol 5 | Issue 2

8 May – 14 May 2025

**********

Strict Adherence to Environmental Regulations Mandatory for Mining 

State of Uttar Pradesh v Gaurav Kumar

8 May 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 650 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(2)[6]

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra

The Supreme Court held that a valid and final District Survey Report (DSR) is mandatory to grant environmental clearance for mining activities. A draft DSR is insufficient. 

The District Magistrate of Saharanpur issued e-tenders for sand mining without a final DSR. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) quashed the e-auction notice after a petition challenged it as illegal, as there was no DSR. The Uttar Pradesh government moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s decision. The Court observed that the auction was conducted without a valid DSR and was therefore illegal. It set aside letters issued in favour of successful bidders and stressed the strict adherence to the DSR. 

Key words/phrases: District Survey Report (DSR)—mandatory for sand mining—DSR forms the basis for environmental clearance—e-auction without final DSR is illegal

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Orders to Remove Online Content must be Necessary and Proportional

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v ANI Media Private Limited

9 May 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 656 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(2)[7]

Bench: Justices A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court held that Courts can direct media organisations to take down online content about an ongoing case only when it poses a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the court proceedings.

ANI Media had filed a suit against the Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court, seeking the removal of allegedly defamatory content. A Single Judge’s order directing the disclosure of subscriber details was criticised on Wikimedia’s platform. A Division Bench directed Wikimedia to take down these pages, stating that they interfered with court proceedings.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. It ruled that the Court could not direct the removal of content in subjudice matters, unless it scandalises the Court, a Judge or is contemptuous. The right to know and receive information is a facet of Article 19(1)(a). 

Key words/phrases: Validity of orders directing the removal of content in subjudice matters—valid if there is a substantial risk of interfering with Court proceedings—Article 19 upheld—Right to know—High Court Order set aside

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Direct Evidence not Necessary to Determine Conspiracy in Terror cases 

Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v State of Gujarat 

13 May 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 662 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(2)[8]

Bench: Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh

The Supreme Court held that physical recovery of contraband is not necessary to determine conspiracy and facilitation of a crime in a narcotics smuggling operation.

Harpreet Singh Talwar was accused of facilitating the import of a consignment containing heroin and carrying out a transnational smuggling operation linked to Afghan-based syndicates, with proceeds alleged to have been linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. No narcotics were directly retrieved from his consignment. He was charged with criminal conspiracy and large-scale drug trafficking under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1890 (IPC). The Gujarat High Court had denied bail to Talwar.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgement denying bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. It ruled that direct evidence is not necessary when there is a pattern of conspiracy under UAPA and NDPS. 

Key words/phrases: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act—no bail under Section 43D(5)—Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act—direct evidence not necessary for criminal conspiracy

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Effects-based Analysis Essential to demonstrate violation of Competition Act 

Competition Commission of India v Schott Glass India 

13 May 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 668 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(2)[9]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale 

The Supreme Court held that volume-based discounts by a market player do not automatically amount to discriminatory pricing under Competition Law. There must be demonstrable evidence of harm to competition.

In 2010, Kapoor Glass, a manufacturer of ampoules and vials, filed a complaint against Schott India, a dominant supplier of neutral borosilicate glass tubes. They alleged that it offered preferential discounts in volumes, resulting in discriminatory pricing. This placed other downstream buyers at a competitive disadvantage in the market. In 2012, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Schott India had violated Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, but the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) overturned the order.

On appeal, the Court found no evidence that Schott India’s conduct had resulted in, or is likely to result in, an adverse effect on competition. It affirmed the COMPAT’s order, holding that Section 4 prohibits the abuse of market dominance, not market dominance per se. 

Key words/phrases: Section 4—Competition Act, 2002—abuse of market dominance—volume discounts in themselves do not harm competition—volume-based discounts do not amount to discriminatory pricing—adverse effect on competition should be demonstrated

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Employees Absorbed Post-Merger Entitled to Pension Benefits

Vijay Kumar Joshi v Akash Tripathi 

13 May 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 670 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(2)[10]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale 

The Supreme Court held that employees who are absorbed into a service under the State Government are entitled to pension benefits at par with regular employees, from the date of their absorption.

In 1995, a large number of co-operative societies and their employees involved in the distribution of electricity were merged with the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB). In 2019, a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the absorbed employees were not entitled to the same pension benefits as the employees of MPSEB in a petition filed by a labour union. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision. It held that there cannot be two classes of employees within the same organisation. It would be discriminatory to deny the same pension benefits to the absorbed employees as provided to other MPSEB employees. 

Key words/phrases: Merger and absorption—pension benefits to the absorbed employees—Labour Union—Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB)—no discrimination—pension available from date of absorption

Read the Judgement here.

**********

This Issue of SCO.LR was put together by Advay Vora, Ajitesh Singh, Raaz and R. Sai Spandana