The Court issued this direction to ensure that the other side is able to confront the witness in VC with their prior statements.
"Decide where you want to spend your New Year's Eve," CJI Gavai said, warning the Speaker of jail.
In the Maharashtra local body elections matter, the Supreme Court today orally expressed that total reservation was not permitted by it to exceed 50 percent and that the state authorities seemingly misconstrued its order. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. Underlining that the Court did not pass an order permitting reservation to exceed 50%, Justice Kant said during the hearing, "We are very clear about this part. When we said elections are to be conducted as per existing law, the law was very clear. The judgement of this Court that was holding the field clearly said that reservation cannot exceed 50%. One of the reasons given by this court was that this exercise of identifying was not undertaken. For that, Banthia Commission was constituted. Commission's report itself is under challenge. So therefore that issue whether Banthia Commission report can be accepted or not, and if it is accepted based on that whether reservation can exceed 50% or not, are issues which will be examined by this Court at the time of final hearing. There is an earlier unamended law of the state saying that reservation can only be confined to 50%." Justice Bagchi, on his part, opined, "we indicated that pre-Banthia situation may prevail. but does it mean 27% across the board? if it is so, our direction actually militates against earlier orders passed in the same matter because there, a bench presided by Justice Khanwilkar stayed 27% notification. When we said law, we meant these 27% wherever it is fitting into the 50% threshold...if it crosses the 50% threshold to the extent it reaches 50%...otherwise, what would happen is, this order will go against the grain of the other order." Pointing to the May 6 order of the Court, Justice Kant further noted that elections were directed to be held as per situation prevailing before Banthia Commission report. The judge added that there was a 3-judge bench order of the Court pertaining to Maharashtra and unless that is considered, the 2-judge bench will perhaps not be in a position to issue a contrary direction. For context, on May 6, the Court had directed that the elections to the local bodies be held as per the OBC reservation which existed prior to the submission of the Banthia Commission report in July 2022. "The reservation shall be provided to the OBC communities as per the law as it existed in the State of Maharashtra before the 2022 report of the JK Banthia Commission," the Court had observed. Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted that the elections are underway and the nomination-filing is set to commence tomorrow. It was further his contention that the issue whether reservation can exceed the aggregate of 50% was recorded by the Court in its May 6 order as an issue arising for consideration, and yet, elections directed to be conducted. When the SG sought time to file a reply, Justice Kant said meanwhile reservation may not be allowed to exceed 50%. "Please don't implement it beyond 50%. Because then not only matter will become infructuous, if the elections are allowed to be conducted beyond 50%...", the judge remarked. "I don't know what would be the repercussions", replied the SG, while insisting on being given time and suggesting that the developments till the next date be subject to the final outcome on the next date. Ultimately, as Justice Kant dictated issuance of notice on an application, Justice Bagchi told the SG, "please indicate to us to what extend and in how many municipalities the 50% threshold is crossed". Senior Advocate Vikas Singh responded to this by saying "40%". He also referred to the Vikas Kishanrao Gawali case, where the Supreme Court struck down the 27% OBC reservation given under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 on the ground that it resulted in the breach of 50% cap. Justice Kant also remarked that the applicants were right in saying that the orders of the Court were being misconstrued. "We never allowed more than 50%!" exclaimed the judge. When a counsel emphasized that the election process has already commenced, Justice Kant cautioned, "If process is the plea, then we are staying today. Then we will not allow the election to take place. We have permitted that elections be conducted. We will still ensure that they are conducted. But not contrary to the judgment of the Constitution bench. Don't push me and my brother to pass orders which run contrary to the Constitution Bench!" At one point, Senior Advocate Narendra Hooda pointed out that reservation is going upto 70% in some cases. "That can't be permitted", said Justice Kant categorically. Justice Bagchi also supplemented, "Not in respect of OBCs. Constitution Bench is very clear. [Reservation] cannot cross 50% with respect to OBCs". The bench also repeatedly impressed upon the SG to defer nominations till the next date. When he assailed the timing of the plea before the court, Justice Kant said, "they (applicants) came the moment they misconstrued our orders or tried to take undue advantage of our order. There is contempt also. We are not serious today on contempt but our very simply order has been made complicated by the officers." At last when the judge again suggested that nominations be deferred till day after, the SG said, "No, no. What I am suggesting is whatever happens will be subject to what your lordships decide day after". Case Title: RAHUL RAMESH WAGH Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021 (and connected cases)
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 17) acquitted a man accused of murdering an elderly man during a robbery. The Court discarded the sole eyewitness's identification of the accused, made nearly eight years after the incident, noting that it could not inspire confidence because of her weak eyesight and subsequent improvements in testimony. “Once her identification of the accused-appellant in Court is discarded, no substantive evidence remains on record to connect the accused with the crime.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, pointing out that the dock identification was unreliable as it was undertaken years after the incident, having substantial improvements and material contradictions in the eyewitness's testimony. “We may note that the possibility of identification of the accused-appellant by Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) in Court, after a lapse of nearly eight and a half years from the incident, is extremely unlikely. In her testimony, the witness candidly admitted that her distance vision was weak and that she could not see objects at a distance without spectacles. It is also borne out from the record that even at the time of the incident, she was aged about 73 years and was infirm. She was not wearing spectacles at the time of her deposition via video conferencing. In this background, her purported identification of the assailant after such a long lapse of time, that too over video conferencing, does not inspire confidence.”, the court observed. Further, the Court doubted whether the eyewitness had even participated in the TIP, while declaring the Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) to be invalid, noting that the accused's photographs were already shown to the sole eyewitness before the TIP, highlighting that “where the witnesses have had an opportunity to see the accused prior to the holding of the TIP, the evidentiary worth of such proceedings stands considerably diminished.” “It is the duty of the prosecution to establish beyond doubt that right from the time of arrest, the accused was kept baparda to rule out the possibility of his face being seen before the identification proceedings are conducted. If the witnesses have had any opportunity to see the accused before the TIP – whether physically or through photographs – the credibility and sanctity of the identification proceedings would stand seriously compromised.”, the court added. The Court also rejected the prosecution's argument that the accused's refusal to take part in the TIP would draw an adverse inference against him. The judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed: “the prosecution version that efforts made to subject the accused to TIP failed on account of their refusal, stands refuted. While the refusal of the appellant to participate in the TIP may, prima facie, invite an adverse inference, mere such inference cannot support the theory of identification when the very authenticity of the TIP is under a serious cloud of doubt. When it stands established from the record that the TIP attempted by the prosecution was fundamentally flawed, and a doubt is created that the identifying witness herself may not even have been present to participate therein, the very foundation of the identification proceedings falls flat to the ground.” Noting that the entire chain of circumstances remained unlinked, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered the release of the Appellant-accused, who was in jail for about 15 years. Cause Title: RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1113 Click here to download judgment Appearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroopanand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Parkhar Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Dacchita Shahi, Adv. Ms. Arushi Singh, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Adv.
"All institutions demolished...Nothing independent remaining," Justice Amanullah lamented.
The Supreme Court has directed all States to actively consider classifying human-wildlife conflict as a "natural disaster" and to ensure payment of Rs 10 lakh ex gratia for every human death caused in such incidents. The Court said this uniform compensation is mandatory, as fixed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the CSS Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats scheme. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar passed the directions while considering the issues related to the Jim Corbett tiger park in Uttarakhand. NTCA to prepare Model Guidelines within six months The Court has directed the National Tiger Conservation Authority to frame Model Guidelines on Human–Wildlife Conflict within six months. All States must implement these guidelines within six months of their issuance. NTCA has been permitted to consult State Governments and the Central Empowered Committee during the drafting process. Compensation must be easy, inclusive and time-bound The Expert Committee's recommendations, accepted by the Court, require that every State establish compensation systems that are: • smooth and accessible • inclusive of crop loss, human injury or death and cattle loss • free of unnecessary procedural delays The Court emphasised that timely compensation is essential for maintaining public trust and community participation in conservation programmes. Coordination across departments to reduce conflict response time The judgment highlights the need for close coordination between Forest, Revenue, Police, Disaster Management and Panchayati Raj departments. The Court noted that delays in crisis situations often arise due to confusion over responsibilities and stated that each State must ensure swift and coordinated response mechanisms to manage conflict incidents. Classification as natural disaster to enable faster relief The Court recorded that some States, including Uttar Pradesh, have already notified human–wildlife conflict as a natural disaster. It directed other States to positively consider adopting the same approach. The Court explained that such classification enables faster disbursal of funds, immediate access to disaster management resources and clearer administrative accountability. "Notifying 'Human wildlife conflict' as a "natural disaster" (as has already been done by some states like Uttar Pradesh) should be actively considered by other states. All the States are directed to give ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10 lakh as fixed by the MoEF&CC under CSS-IWDH," the Court observed. The Court passed these directions while considering the ecological damage cased to the Jib Corbett tiger reserve in Uttarakhand due to illegal tree felling and unauthorised constructions. Also from the judgment - Supreme Court Issues Directions On Tiger Safaris, Directs States To Notify ESZs Around Tiger Reserves Case : In Re : Corbett Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112 Click here to read the judgment
Image By: Siddharth Anand The Patna High Court recently awarded compensation of ₹2 lakh to an accused who was illegally detained for six days despite a court order granting him bail. A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey directed the State to compensate the petitioner, who had been in custody for an alleged violation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The petitioner was granted bail, and the Special Excise Judge issued a release warrant on September 29, 2025, which was sent to the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Gaya, where the petitioner was lodged. Despite this, he remained in custody until his virtual production before the Court on October 4, 2025, resulting in six days of illegal detention. The Court summoned the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, to explain the lapse. The IG Prisons defended the delay, claiming that the petitioner's continued incarceration was “occasioned due to the intervening Durga Puja holidays.” However, the Court noted that the illegal detention for six days was an admitted fact and held as follows: “7. There being an admitted position that it is a case of unauthorized detention of the petitioner from 29.09.2025 until 04.10.2025 and this practice is going on without drawing much attention of the Department, this Court being a Constitutional Court cannot remain a silent spectator. The Court proceeded to grant compensation to the detenu, noting the admitted fact of his illegal detention. It first invited the Inspector General of Prisons to suggest a reasonable compensation amount, to which the officer proposed ₹10,000. However, the counsel for the petitioner strongly opposed this, contending that the case involved a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and sought compensation of ₹1 lakh. After considering several precedents from other High Courts, the Patna High Court held that the petitioner's continued detention was a serious violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It awarded ₹2 lakh in compensation to the petitioner for the unauthorized detention, which would eventually be recovered by the State from the officer responsible. The Court also directed the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services to issue guidelines within two weeks to prevent such violations in the future. In finally allowing the writ petition, the Court concluded: “12. Since we have come to know that this practice is going on in other jurisdictions of the Jail Superintendents in the State, the I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services is directed to issue appropriate guidelines to all the Jail Superintendents in the State of Bihar requiring them to strictly abide by the Constitutional Mandate and order of the Court without any exception. Such guideline shall be issued within a period of two weeks from today. The Respondent State of Bihar shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the petitioner within one month from today. Following the settled principle as discussed in the case of K.K. Pathak (supra), we direct that the amount so paid to the petitioner shall be realized from the erring official in accordance with law.” Cause Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Singh v. State of Bihar Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2761 of 2025 Appearance: Mr. Siddharth Harsh and Mr. Jitendra Kumar appeared for the petitioner. Mr. P.N. Sharma and Mr. Pranav Kumar appeared for the State. Click Here To Read/Download Order
Former Supreme Court judge Justice L Nageswara Rao is set to mediate a trademark dispute between India's leading whiskey-selling brands John Distilleries and Allied Blenders. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi today requested the former judge to facilitate the process of amicable settlement between the companies on a priority basis. The development came in John Distilleries' plea against the Madras High Court order which ruled in favour of Allied Blenders, the maker of Officer's Choice whisky, and ordered the removal of John Distilleries' 'Original Choice' trademark from the register of trademarks. In this order of November 7, the High Court held that Original Choice was deceptively similar to Officer's Choice and that its registration violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also confirmed that Allied Blenders' registration for Officer's Choice remains valid. The dispute arose as Allied Blenders filed a rectification petition before the trademark registry seeking removal of John Distilleries “Original Choice” trademark, claiming it was phonetically and visually similar to its mark and likely to confuse consumers. In turn, John Distilleries filed its own rectification plea against Allied Blenders' “Officer's Choice” mark, alleging that Allied Blenders had suppressed facts when seeking registration and that its 1990 registration application was filed before it had obtained ownership of the mark. In 2013, the IPAB dismissed both petitions, ruling that the marks were not deceptively similar. Both companies then approached the Madras High Court. Vide the impugned order, the High Court found that the IPAB (since defunct) erred in its 2013 order by comparing only the word elements of the rival marks instead of assessing the labels as a whole. Considering the long pendency of the case and the abolition of the IPAB, the Court decided to examine the marks itself instead of sending the matter back. The High Court first examined whether Allied Blenders' 1990 application for the trademark Officer's Choice was valid. It found no element of fraud in Allied Blenders' application and noted that the same was supported by proper board resolutions, an assignment agreement, and a subsequent deed of assignment with the original proprietor. On the other hand, the Court rejected John Distilleries' claim that its mark 'Original Choice' had co-existed peacefully with Officer's Choice. It held that the IPAB had failed to exercise its powers under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act to properly assess the validity of the registration. Referring to Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(2)(a) of the Act, the Bench emphasized that a trademark which lacks distinctiveness or is likely to deceive the public cannot be allowed to remain on the register. It was concluded that Original Choice lacked distinctiveness and was likely to deceive the public. Accordingly, the High Court ordered the rectification of the Original Choice trademark, set aside the IPAB's earlier dismissal of Allied Blenders' petition, and allowed Allied Blenders' writ petition in full. Appearance: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Harish Salve, Dr AM Singhvi and Shyam Diwan Case Title: M/S. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LIMITED Versus M/S. ALLIED BLENDERS AND DISTILLERS PVT LTD., SLP(C) No. 33238-33239/2025
The Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions regarding Tiger Safaris, the management of Tiger Reserves and the protection of sensitive tiger landscapes. Accepting the findings of the Expert Committee constituted after the Corbett Tiger Reserve violations came to light, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar has issued mandatory directives that all States must now implement within strict timelines. Tiger Safaris cannot be permitted inside core or critical tiger habitats The Bench relied on the statutory design of Sections 33(a) and 38-V of the Wildlife Protection Act, and its March 2024 ruling in T N Godavarman, to underline that "Tiger Safari shall not be permitted in the core or a critical tiger habitat area." Tiger Safaris only on degraded or non-forest land in buffer areas The Court directed that Tiger Safari shall be established on 'non-forest land' or 'degraded forest land' in buffer area provided that is not part of a tiger corridor. Tiger Safari shall be allowed only in association with a full-fledged rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers where conflict animals, injured animals or abandoned animals are housed for care and rehabilitation. Zoo-sourced tigers completely barred The Court endorsed the Expert Committee's detailed guidelines with additional mandatory conditions: • Only rescued or conflict tigers from the same Tiger Reserve or landscape may be housed. • Enclosure design must be approved by the CZA and must prevent any interaction between wild and captive animals. • Field Directors will have management control, supervised by the Chief Wildlife Warden. • All Safari earnings must flow back into the Tiger Conservation Foundation. • Carrying capacity norms must be developed. • Solar, hybrid and electric vehicles must be used and strictly regulated. • Zero discharge of waste water is mandatory. Nationwide mandate to notify Eco-Sensitive Zones for all Tiger Reserves The Court has directed that all Tiger Reserves must have notified Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) within one year. The Court endorsed the MoEF&CC's 2018 advisory stating that the minimum extent of ESZs must cover the entire buffer and fringe areas, with at least a one-kilometre radial cushion around critical habitat where the buffer is missing. The Court held that ESZs, traditionally notified around National Parks and Sanctuaries, must apply equally to Tiger Reserves, reinforcing the ecological shield around these landscapes. Once notified, the same restrictions as those under the 9 February 2011 ESZ Notification will apply. This includes a complete ban on mining within one kilometre of tiger habitats, buffer areas or ESZ boundaries, whichever is larger. "We were informed during the proceedings, that not all Tiger Reserves have notified ESZs. We are of the firm belief that ESZs cannot only be restricted to Sanctuaries or National Parks, and must include buffer and peripheral areas of Tiger Reserves as well. Therefore, all State Governments are hereby directed to notify ESZs around all Tiger Reserves, including buffer and fringe areas, no later than 1 year from the date of this judgment," the Court directed. Prohibited activities in buffer and fringe areas The Court approved the Expert Committee's list of prohibited activities, including: • commercial mining • sawmills • polluting industries • commercial firewood use • major hydroelectric projects • introduction of exotic species • hazardous substance production • low-flying aircraft and tourism aircraft • waste discharge into natural ecosystems • tree felling without approval Regulated activities, such as hotels, water use, road widening and night vehicular movement, will require adherence to strict wildlife safeguards and must be consistent with Tiger Conservation Plans. Resorts restricted; night tourism banned; silence zones mandated The Court issued specific directions on tourism near Tiger Reserves: • New eco-friendly resorts allowed only in buffers, never in corridors. • Homestays and community-run establishments to be encouraged. • Zero waste practices mandatory. • Mobile phone use banned in tourism zones of core habitats. • Vehicular carrying capacity to be enforced. • Night tourism banned entirely. • Roads passing through core areas must be closed from dusk to dawn, except for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the Court ordered that the entire Tiger Reserve, including its ESZ, must be notified as a Silence Zone under the Noise Pollution Rules within three months. Other pna-India directions To correct systemic weaknesses in tiger governance, the Court issued several pan-India directions: • All States must notify core and buffer areas within 6 months. • All States must prepare or revise Tiger Conservation Plans within 3 months. • Steering Committees for each Tiger Reserve must be constituted within 2 months and meet twice annually. • NTCA must monitor whether TCPs and Steering Committees are effectively functioning. • Community-based tourism models must replace mass tourism. The Court further held that Critical Tiger Habitats under the Wildlife Protection Act must be treated at par with Critical Wildlife Habitats under the Forest Rights Act, ensuring consistency in recognition of ecological value and rights of forest dwellers. It also directed that CAMPA funds should continue to support voluntary relocation and that additional dedicated funds must be earmarked to make core habitats inviolate. The Court passed these directions while considering the ecological damage cased to the Jib Corbett tiger reserve in Uttarakhand due to illegal tree felling and unauthorised constructions. Case : In Re : Corbett Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112 Click here to read the judgment
The Court also issued comprehensive directions on tiger safari, eco-tourism etc., in the region.
Trusted legal partner delivering expertise, justice, and client-focused solutions.