Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, imposed in place of death penalty, and barring early release, is constitutionally valid. Judicial review of the President’s clemency power under Article 72 is confined to narrow grounds; the Court cannot sit in appeal over its exercise.

Ramasrey @ Fakkad and five other convicts, sentenced to death for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), filed four writ petitions under Article 32. The convicts had previously filed individual demonstrations to High Courts and the President and got their sentence modified to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. They argued that Sections 45 and 53 of the IPC permit only death or life imprisonment, and that such a sentence defeats remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as misdirected. The Court held that the issue was foreclosed by Union of India v V. Sriharan and Swamy Shraddananda (2) v State of Karnataka. Two of the convicts had not sought remission. The Court found no grounds for judicial review of the President’s orders.

The Supreme Court held that a post-facto environmental clearance scheme may be created only through a properly issued, narrowly tailored and time-bound notification serving a larger public interest. A prior clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory.

In May 2025, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down a 2017 Notification and a 2021 Office Memorandum which permitted projects commenced without prior clearance to seek approval later. A Bench of three-judges, in November 2025, in Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India v Vanashakti, recalled that judgement and restored the matters for a fresh hearing.

The Supreme Court upheld the 2017 Notification as valid delegated legislation issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It found that the notification created a limited, one-time process for dealing with existing violations. It quashed the 2021 Office Memorandum prospectively, stating that an administrative order could not replace the prior-clearance regime with an open-ended post-facto process. It barred any fresh applications and directed that existing clearances will remain valid and pending applications may be decided.

The Supreme Court held that recovery of information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 alone cannot lead to a conviction unless backed by credible corroborative evidence.

A Trial Court acquitted an accused in a 1988 murder case noting that all evidence—eye witnesses, dying declaration and discovery—recovered under Section 27 were based on ‘sketchy premises’. The Bombay High Court remitted the matter to the trial court and directed it consider the evidence afresh after the brother of the deceased filed a criminal revision petition. Aggrieved, the accused moved the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition.

The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the trial court. It held that without the chain of evidence leading to the hypothesis of guilt, discovery under Section 27 alone cannot be ground for conviction.

The Supreme Court held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 operates against the corporate debtor alone and cannot be extended to subsidiary companies, promoters, directors, personal guarantors and more.

The appellants had filed a consumer complaint against seven respondents over non-delivery of possession of an apartment despite substantial payment of the sale consideration. While the complaint remained pending, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against the developers and a Section 14 moratorium was imposed against Respondent 1. The appellants moved the Supreme Court after the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) adjourned the complaint against the remaining respondents on grounds of Section 14.

The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s decision and directed continuation of proceedings against the remaining respondents. It clarified that Section 14 operates against Respondent 1 alone and in the absence of a legal bar, cannot be extended to Respondents 2-7.

The Supreme Court held that conditions imposed during police custody must be such that they protect the rights of an accused without making investigation ineffective.

A police officer was arrested after a man allegedly died in police custody and his body was hidden. The Magistrate granted eight days of police custody to the SIT, adding that he may only be interrogated inside the Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram, recorded continuously, and be interrogated only in the presence of a lawyer. The conditions were challenged at the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which upheld all of them and permitted the SIT to take the respondent to the alleged crime scene. The State challenged these restrictions before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court modified the conditions. It held that Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not contemplate the continuous presence of a counsel, while it permits the accused to meet a lawyer during interrogation. Further, Section 187 permits an enlarged window for seeking police remand. There cannot be an absolute, non-extendable cap on police custody. Lastly, uninterrupted recording of the accused’s travel between locations is unnecessary and unworkable.