Theory of Abrogation

LEGAL UPDATES
Issue 01 01st Jan. to 31st Jan. 2025

Start your preparation of Judicial Service at

home with our membership plan.
For more details drop a message on WhatsApp
on this number: 8840961324
For our online courses visit:
www.theoryofabrogation.com
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
1 Case: Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors. (2025 INSC 14)
Supreme Court While Holding Gift Deed as Null & Void Held That Adoption by Widow
Would Relate Back to Date of Husband's Death

Date of Judgment: 2 January, 2025

Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Facts of the Case:

• The case involved a dispute over the inheritance of property after the adoption of the appellant
by the widow of the original property owner, Bhavakanna Shahapurkar. Shahapurkar had two
wives, but after his death in 1982, the first wife (Defendant) was granted a share of the
property through a compromise decree.
• In 1994, she adopted the appellant, who later challenged the execution of a Sale Deed and a
Gift Deed made by her, arguing that as her legal heir, such alienations should not have been
made without his consent. The Trial Court declared the Gift Deed null and void but upheld
the Sale Deed. However, the Karnataka High Court reversed the decision, prompting the
appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Decision:
• The Supreme Court ruled that under the "Doctrine of Relation Back," an adoption by a widow
relates back to the date of her husband’s death, making the adopted child a legal heir from
that time. However, the Court clarified that all lawful alienations made by the widow before
the adoption would still be binding on the adopted son.
• While upholding the Sale Deed, the Court declared the Gift Deed null and void, reasoning
that proper acceptance of the gift had not been established. The judgment reinstated the Trial
Court’s decision, recognizing the appellant as the legal heir while confirming that past legal
transactions executed by the widow remained valid.

2 Lslllllll Case: Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2025 INSC 8)

Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked to Quash Criminal Proceedings.

Date of Judgment: 02 January, 2025

Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Facts of the Case:

• The case involved an FIR registered against Kim Wansoo, a foreign national and Project
Manager of Hyundai Engineering & Construction India LLP, under various sections of the
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 Indian Penal Code, including 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 323 (voluntarily
causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120-B (criminal
conspiracy). The complaint alleged default in payment of ₹9 crores to M/s R.T. Construction
for labour services in a project subcontracted by M/s YSSS India Construction Pvt. Ltd. The
Allahabad High Court had refused to quash the FIR, prompting the appellant to approach the
Supreme Court.
Decision:

• The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, ruling that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings when an FIR does not disclose any
offense. The Court held that the complaint did not make specific allegations against the
appellant or his company but was instead directed at a different entity. It emphasized that
making the appellant stand trial in such circumstances would be an abuse of process and a
miscarriage of justice. The Court also cited past judgments to reinforce that vague or frivolous
allegations cannot form the basis of a criminal trial.

3 Case: Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2024 INSC 1046)

Appellate Court Has Discretion Not to Order Deposit of 20% U/S 148 NI Act in Exceptional
Cases

Date of Judgment: 04 January, 2025

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Facts of the Case:

• The appellants, Muskan Enterprises, were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (NI Act) in a cheque bounce case. While admitting their appeal, the Sessions
Court suspended their sentence and granted bail, but imposed a condition that they deposit
20% of the compensation amount within 60 days as per Section 148 NI Act. The appellants
challenged this condition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 CrPC,
but their petition was dismissed.
• After the Supreme Court's ruling in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi (2019) made
the deposit condition mandatory, they filed a second petition citing the judgment in Jamboo
Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2023), which
clarified that appellate courts have discretion to waive the deposit in exceptional cases.
However, the High Court again dismissed their petition, prompting them to approach the
Supreme Court.

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 Decision:

• The Supreme Court quashed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order and remitted
the matter to the Sessions Court for reconsideration of the deposit condition. The Court
held that the appellate court has discretion under Section 148 NI Act to waive the 20%
deposit in appropriate and exceptional cases. It stated that compelling appellants to
deposit the amount despite clear grounds questioning the validity of the conviction
would be unjust.
• Referring to Jamboo Bhandari (2023), the Court emphasized that a purposive
interpretation of Section 148 NI Act should be applied, allowing exceptions where
imposing the deposit condition would deprive an appellant of their right to appeal. The
Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's narrow interpretation was legally
unsustainable and directed the Sessions Court to reconsider the issue in light of the
latest legal precedents.

4 Case: The State of West Bengal v. Amal Chandra Das [Diary No. 27287/2024]

NCBC Opposes Inclusion of 83 Muslim Communities in OBC List by West Bengal.

Date of Judgment: 7 January, 2025

Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih

Facts of the Case

• The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) filed a counter-affidavit before
the Supreme Court opposing the inclusion of 83 Muslim communities in the OBC list of
West Bengal. The petition challenged the Calcutta High Court’s decision striking down
OBC reservations granted by the state government between 2010 and 2012. The NCBC
argued that the state failed to provide any contemporaneous and relevant data proving the
social and educational backwardness of these communities.
• It pointed out that from 1994 to 2009, only 12 Muslim communities were included in the
OBC list based on recommendations by the West Bengal Commission for Backward
Classes. However, a sudden inclusion of 83 more communities lacked justification. The
NCBC also highlighted the absence of statistical evidence demonstrating inadequate
representation of these communities in public services.

Decision
• The Supreme Court deferred the matter, scheduling it for hearing on January 28 and 29, 2025.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the NCBC, submitted that the
commission had already filed a counter-affidavit opposing the inclusion. Senior Advocate Kapil
Sibal represented the State of West Bengal. The Apex Court acknowledged the complexity of the
issue and the need for a detailed hearing. The Calcutta High Court, in its earlier ruling, had held
that the classification of 77 Muslim groups as OBCs was politically motivated and lacked a sound

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 legal basis. The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing will determine the validity of the state's OBC
classification process.

5 Case: Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 47)

Hostile Witnesses' Testimony Can Still Be Considered in Criminal Cases

Date of Judgment: 10 January, 2025

Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

Facts of the Case

• The case involved the conviction of two individuals under Section 302 read with Section 34
of the IPC for the murder of a person in 2001. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along
with their father, attacked the deceased following an altercation over ganja consumption. The
trial court convicted all three accused, but the High Court acquitted the father while upholding
the convictions of the two appellants. During the trial, key witnesses turned hostile, prompting
the defense to argue that their testimony should be disregarded. The appellants approached
the Supreme Court seeking reversal of their conviction.

Decision
• The Supreme Court held that merely because witnesses turn hostile, their entire testimony
cannot be discarded. It ruled that portions of their evidence supporting the prosecution could
still be relied upon. The Court emphasized that non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime
is not fatal to the prosecution’s case if there is direct, credible evidence. The Bench also
observed that reasonable doubt must be based on substantial and fair reasoning rather than
speculation. Ultimately, the Court converted the appellants' conviction from Section 302 IPC
(murder) to Part I of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), thereby
reducing their sentence.
• .

6 Case: Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (2024 INSC 1051)

Right to Access Courts Not Absolute; Must Be Exercised Responsibly

Date of Judgment: 10 January, 2025

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Facts of the Case

• The petitioner, a former employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), was dismissed
from service in 1997 due to habitual absence without permission. His dismissal was upheld
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 through a departmental inquiry and an industrial dispute. Despite multiple unsuccessful legal
challenges, he continued filing meritless petitions, including a second review petition after an
11-year delay. The Supreme Court observed that he engaged in forum shopping and misused
judicial remedies, burdening the legal system with frivolous litigation..

Decision
• The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) and imposed a cost of
₹1,00,000 on the petitioner, emphasizing that the right to access courts is not absolute and
must be exercised responsibly. The Court stated that frivolous litigation wastes judicial time
and obstructs justice for genuine litigants. It also directed lower courts to curb such misuse of
legal processes. The judgment reaffirmed that courts should not entertain repetitive and
meritless pleas that merely serve to delay proceedings..

7 Case: R v. D & Anr. (2025 INSC 55)

Wife’s Refusal to Return to Matrimonial Home Does Not Disqualify Her from Maintenance.

Date of Judgment: 10 January 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Facts of the Case:

• The case involved a dispute regarding a wife’s entitlement to maintenance under Section
125(4) CrPC after she refused to return to her matrimonial home despite her husband securing
a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The wife alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental abuse, including demands for
dowry and mistreatment during her pregnancy, which led to a miscarriage.
• The Family Court granted her maintenance, but the Jharkhand High Court overturned the
decision, ruling that her refusal to return disqualified her from receiving maintenance under
Section 125(4) CrPC. Aggrieved, the wife approached the Supreme Court.

Decision:
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's ruling and reinstated the Family Court’s order,
affirming the wife’s right to maintenance despite her refusal to return. The Bench held that a
restitution decree does not automatically disqualify a wife from maintenance, especially when
there are valid reasons for her refusal to return. The Court found that the husband’s behavior
and the circumstances leading to her departure demonstrated just cause for her refusal.
• It ruled that the husband’s attempt to use the restitution decree as a defense against
maintenance lacked bona fides. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the husband to pay
₹10,000 per month as maintenance, effective from the date of filing the maintenance
application, with arrears payable in three equal installments.

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
8 Case: ABC v. XYZ (2024 INSC 1052)

No Rape on False Promise to Marry When Parties Had Consensual Relations for Years

Date of Judgment: 12 January, 2025

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Facts of the Case:

• The petitioner filed an FIR under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging that the respondent had sexual relations with her based on
a false promise of marriage. However, the respondent contended that their relationship was
consensual and lasted for 4-5 years before the complaint was filed. The case also involved a
financial dispute settled through a payment of ₹25 lakh via demand drafts. The petitioner
sought the transfer of proceedings related to a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Decision:
• The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Section 376 IPC, ruling that consensual relations
between two adults over several years do not amount to rape merely because one party later
claims that a promise to marry was not fulfilled. The Court cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar
v. State of Maharashtra (2019) and a 2024 judgment to support its decision.
• It emphasized that the complaint lacked sufficient grounds for a rape charge. Additionally, the
Court dismissed the transfer petition in the cheque bounce case as withdrawn, given that the
financial dispute had already been settled. The Court also ordered that the names of the parties
be masked to protect their privacy.

9 Centre Notifies Appointment of Patna High Court Chief Justice as Supreme Court Judge

Notification of Justice K. Vinod Chandran’s Appointment to the Supreme Court

Date: 13 January 2025

About Justice K Vinod:

• The Ministry of Law and Justice notified the appointment of Justice K. Vinod Chandran,
Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme
Court Collegium recommended his elevation on January 7, 2025, citing his extensive judicial
experience of over 11 years and his seniority ranking (13th among all High Court judges and
1st among Kerala High Court judges). Justice Chandran was initially appointed as a judge of
the Kerala High Court on November 8, 2011, and later elevated as Chief Justice of the Patna
High Court on March 23, 2023. His appointment addresses the lack of representation from
the Kerala High Court in the Supreme Court.
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 • The notification, issued under Article 124(2) of the Constitution, states that Justice Chandran
will assume office as a Supreme Court Judge upon taking charge. Following this, the Ministry
of Law and Justice also appointed Justice Ashutosh Kumar as the Acting Chief Justice of the
Patna High Court under Article 223 of the Constitution. Justice Kumar, previously a Judge at
the Patna High Court, has held judicial positions since 2014 and was repatriated to the Patna
High Court in 2017. His appointment will be effective from the date Justice Chandran
relinquishes his office.

10 Case: Shrikant Kumar v. State of Bihar (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).13083/2023)

Supreme Court held that Irrelevant Bail Conditions Under Section 438 CrPC Are
Unwarranted

Date of Judgment: 14 January, 2025

Bench: Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti

Facts of the Case

• The case arose from an anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant-husband in a case
registered under Sections 498(A), 504, 379, and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. While granting bail, the Patna High Court imposed a condition requiring the
appellant to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, with a provision for cancellation
of bail if he defaulted for two consecutive months.
• The appellant challenged this condition before the Supreme Court, arguing that maintenance-
related matters should be decided separately and not as a condition for bail. The complainant-
wife did not appear before the Supreme Court, but the State defended the High Court's order,
stating that the condition was imposed based on the appellant’s initial willingness to pay
maintenance.

Decision
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s condition linking anticipatory bail with the
payment of maintenance. The Bench emphasized that bail conditions must be relevant to
ensuring the accused's presence for trial and preventing the risk of flight, not for enforcing
financial obligations unrelated to the bail process. The Court reiterated that irrelevant
conditions under Section 438 CrPC should not be imposed and ruled that the appropriate
forum for deciding maintenance disputes is the family or magistrate courts. The Supreme
Court directed the trial court to impose appropriate bail conditions strictly for ensuring the
appellant’s availability during the trial.

11 Case: Ram Pyarey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 71)

Supreme Court Clarifies Presumption Under Sections 113B and 113A of the Evidence Act

Date: 19 January, 2025

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

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 Facts of the Case
• The case involved allegations of dowry harassment against the deceased’s husband and in-
laws, including the appellant (brother-in-law). The victim allegedly died by setting herself on
fire after being harassed for dowry, including demands for a buffalo and a gold chain. The
Trial Court charged the accused under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death but acquitted them
under this provision while convicting them under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A
(cruelty). The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction, leading the appellant to approach
the Supreme Court.

Decision
• The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, ruling that Section 113B of the Evidence Act
creates a mandatory presumption for dowry death, whereas Section 113A provides a
discretionary presumption for abetment of suicide. It emphasized that for Section 113A to
apply, there must be cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment. In the absence of such
evidence against the appellant, the Court held that his conviction could not be sustained. The
Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, acquitting the
appellant of all charges.

12 Case: The State of Karnataka v. Battegowda & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1694/2014)

Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC Can Arise Spontaneously

Date of Judgment: 18 January, 2025

Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Facts of the Case

• The case arose from a property dispute that escalated into a violent altercation. The
prosecution alleged that accused No. 3 stabbed the complainant with a knife, while accused
No. 2 attacked with a chopper, causing grievous injuries. The Trial Court convicted both
accused under relevant IPC provisions. However, the High Court acquitted accused No. 1 and
downgraded accused No. 2’s conviction to voluntarily causing hurt. The State of Karnataka
appealed the decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erred in
excluding the applicability of Section 34 IPC.

Decision:
• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's findings, holding that common intention
under Section 34 IPC does not always require a pre-planned conspiracy but can develop
spontaneously during an incident. The Bench noted that both accused were armed with deadly
weapons and acted together to assault the complainant, establishing common intention. The
Court restored the conviction of accused No. 2 under Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt) read
with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 ₹75,000. The Court directed the accused to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining
sentence.

13 Case: Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 93)

Extra-Judicial Confession Before ‘Village Police Patil’ Admissible in Evidence

Date of Judgment: 22 January 2025

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

Facts of the Case:

• The case involved the murder of the appellant’s wife. The prosecution alleged that the
appellant strangled his wife to death due to suspicions about her chastity. The deceased’s body
was later discovered in the appellant’s house. The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial
confession made by the appellant before the Village Police Patil. The Trial Court acquitted the
appellant, but the Bombay High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him under Sections
302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC. The appellant
challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court.

Decision:
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s conviction and restored the appellant’s
acquittal. It held that while an extra-judicial confession made before a ‘Village Police Patil’ is
admissible in evidence and not barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act (as the Village
Police Patil is not a ‘police officer’), such a confession must be trustworthy and corroborated
by other evidence. The Court found that the confession was vague, the prosecution failed to
prove foundational facts, and the discovery of the dead body was not conclusively linked to
the appellant. The Bench emphasized that mere suspicion and motive cannot justify a
conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

14 Supreme Court Orders Reservation for Women in Delhi Tax Bar Association

SC Orders 30% Reservation for Women in Delhi Tax Bar Association.

Date: 22 January 2025

Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

All About Reservation:

• The Supreme Court directed that 30% of executive committee seats, including the post of
Treasurer, be reserved for women in the Delhi Sales Tax Bar Association and the Delhi Tax
Bar Association. The decision follows last year's ruling mandating similar reservations in the
Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and district bar associations. The Apex Court
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 noted the importance of increasing women's representation in legal institutions and stressed
the need for gender inclusivity in bar associations. The judgment builds on earlier rulings,
including the May 2, 2024, order reserving 33% of executive committee seats for women in
the Supreme Court Bar Association.

• The Supreme Court mandated the immediate implementation of the reservation policy for
upcoming elections in the Delhi Tax Bar Association. It also issued a notice on a petition
seeking 33% reservation for women in Bangalore bar associations, indicating a broader
judicial effort to enhance gender representation across legal bodies. The Court emphasized
that increasing women's participation in bar associations fosters diversity and inclusion in the
legal profession. The ruling was consistent with the Court’s previous directions for gender-
based reservations in other bar associations, reinforcing its commitment to women's
empowerment in the legal field.

15 Case: Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 111)

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment in Multiple Murder Case.

Date of Judgment: 27 January 2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the Case:

• The Appellant, Deen Dayal Tiwari, was convicted for the brutal murder of his wife and four
minor daughters in 2011. On the night of the incident, his brother and others heard frantic
cries of “bachao-bachao” (save-save) from the Appellant’s house, which was adjacent to their
own. They rushed towards the house and found the door locked from inside. Despite knocking
and threatening to break it open, the Appellant did not respond. Eventually, he briefly emerged
holding a blood-stained axe and warned them to leave, threatening to kill them if they
intervened, before locking himself inside again.
• Alarmed by the situation, the Appellant’s brother lodged a complaint, and an FIR was
registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Upon the arrival of the police,
the door was forcefully opened with the help of villagers, and the Appellant was found holding
a blood-stained axe. Inside the room, the lifeless bodies of his wife and four daughters lay in
pools of blood. He was immediately apprehended, and the case proceeded to trial. The Trial
Court convicted him and sentenced him to death, which was subsequently upheld by the
Allahabad High Court. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant approached the Supreme
Court.

Decision:
• The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, ruled that while the crime was undeniably
heinous, it did not meet the threshold of the "rarest of rare" category required for awarding
the death penalty. The Bench emphasized that capital punishment should be an exception
rather than the rule and should only be imposed when there is no possibility of reform. The
Court noted that there was no material evidence suggesting that the Appellant posed a
perpetual threat to society or was beyond rehabilitation. Reports from the Probation Officer
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 and the Superintendent of District Jail indicated that the convict demonstrated a potential for
reform.
• Furthermore, the Court took into consideration mitigating factors such as the Appellant’s lack
of prior criminal history and his conduct in prison. Citing established legal principles, the
Bench held that alternative punishments, including life imprisonment for a specified term,
could be considered as an alternative to capital punishment. Accordingly, while upholding the
conviction under Section 302 IPC, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life
imprisonment till the Appellant's last breath, ensuring that he remains incarcerated for the
remainder of his natural life..

16 Case: Prithvirajan v. The State [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12663/2022]

Supreme Court held that Physical Relations Based on Promise to Marry Do Not
Automatically Constitute Rape

Date of Judgment: 27 January 2025

Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Facts of the Case:

• The case originated from an FIR (Crime No. 1/2019) filed against the appellant, alleging rape,
cheating, and criminal intimidation under Sections 417, 376, and 506 Part I of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC). The prosecutrix claimed that the accused engaged in a sexual relationship with
her under a false promise of marriage. She alleged that he misled her into giving consent for
physical relations by assuring marriage, only to later refuse.

• The appellant challenged the charges, contending that the relationship was consensual and
that the promise to marry was not false at its inception but could not be fulfilled due to
unforeseen circumstances. The case was initially heard by the High Court, which refused to
quash the FIR. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, seeking relief on the
grounds that his promise to marry was genuine and not a ploy to deceive the prosecutrix.

Decision:
• The Supreme Court observed that for an act of consensual sexual relations to amount to rape
on the grounds of a false promise of marriage, certain conditions must be met. The accused
must have made the promise solely to obtain consent for sexual relations, without any intention
of fulfilling it from the beginning. Furthermore, the prosecutrix must have been directly
influenced by such a promise while giving her consent. In this case, the Court found no
evidence of deliberate intent to deceive.

• Referring to precedents such as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) and
Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Court reiterated that a false promise
of marriage only constitutes rape if it was made with the sole intention of securing consent for

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 sexual relations. Since no such intent was apparent in the present case, the Court concluded
that the allegations lacked legal merit.

• The Court further criticized the continued prosecution as an abuse of the legal process, stating
that allowing the trial to proceed would be unjustified. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set
aside the High Court’s order dated June 29, 2022, and quashed the FIR and criminal
proceedings against the appellant.

17 Case: Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema v. Union of India [WP (C) No. 994 of 2019]

Supreme Court Asks Centre for Data on FIRs Registered Under Triple Talaq Act

Date of Judgment: 28 January 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Facts of the Case:

• The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of
the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalizes the
practice of Triple Talaq. The petitioners argued that the law is discriminatory as abandonment
in matrimonial disputes is not a criminal offense for any other community. They contended
that criminalizing Triple Talaq is disproportionate, and an FIR is often filed merely upon its
pronouncement, unlike in other matrimonial cases.

• The Bench raised concerns about the rationale behind penalizing Triple Talaq when the
divorce itself is legally void. The Court directed the government to submit data on the total
number of FIRs registered and cases pending under the Act, particularly in rural areas. It also
sought details on whether similar challenges were pending before any High Court.

Direction of SC:

• The Supreme Court directed all parties to submit written arguments and scheduled the matter
for further hearing in the week commencing from March 17, 2025. The Bench acknowledged
the concerns raised regarding the proportionality of the punishment and sought a detailed
response from the Union government. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the law,
stating that criminalization is essential to protect Muslim women from arbitrary
abandonment and that such practices do not exist in other communities.
• The government’s affidavit, filed in August 2024, defended the legislation, arguing that the
Triple Talaq Act was enacted following the Supreme Court’s decision in Shayara Bano v.
Union of India (2017), which declared talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional. The affidavit
emphasized that the law aims to provide protection and justice to Muslim women and that
its constitutionality should not be questioned based on proportionality.

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 • The Court will further examine the matter in the upcoming hearing and review the
government’s submission on FIR data before making a final ruling.

18 Case: Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI [Misc. App. No. 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021

Supreme Court Bars Service of Section 41A Notices via WhatsApp; Directs Strict Compliance
with CrPC/BNSS Guidelines

Date of Judgment: 28 January 2025

Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Facts of the Case:

• The Supreme Court was monitoring compliance with its earlier rulings in the Satendar Kumar
Antil v. CBI case, which established safeguards against unnecessary arrests and ensured fair
treatment of undertrial prisoners. The issue arose when it was brought to the Court’s attention
that some state police departments, particularly in Haryana, were serving Section 41A CrPC
notices via WhatsApp, email, SMS, or other electronic means.

• Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing as amicus curiae, raised concerns about a
Haryana Police Standing Order (dated January 26, 2024), which allowed such electronic
service of notices. He argued that this practice violated procedural norms and Supreme Court
precedents, including its 2022 decision in Satender Kumar Antil, which upheld the Delhi High
Court ruling in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya. The BNSS, 2023, allows electronic means
for trials and inquiries but does not extend such provisions to serving notices under Section
35.

Decision:
• The Supreme Court ruled that police authorities cannot serve notices under Section 41A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, or Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, through WhatsApp, email, or any other electronic mode. The Court
emphasized that such methods are not recognized under the prescribed modes of service in
CrPC or BNSS and stressed strict adherence to procedural norms.
• The Court issued the following key directives:
o Service Through Recognized Modes Only: Police authorities must serve notices
strictly through the modes prescribed in CrPC/BNSS. Notices sent via WhatsApp,
email, or other electronic means will not be recognized.
o Adherence to Guidelines: States and Union Territories must ensure compliance with
earlier Supreme Court judgments in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya and Amandeep
Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi).

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 o Extension to Other Sections: The same directives apply to notices under Section 160
CrPC/Section 179 BNSS and Section 175 CrPC/Section 195 BNSS, requiring service
only through legally prescribed modes.
o High Court Monitoring: All High Courts must convene monthly committee meetings
to oversee compliance, with progress reports submitted to the Supreme Court.
• The Court set a compliance deadline of three weeks from January 21, 2025, directing the
Registrar Generals of High Courts and Chief Secretaries of States/UTs to ensure
implementation. Compliance affidavits must be submitted within four weeks. The Court will
review the matter on March 18, 2025, warning that non-compliance would result in appropriate
consequences.

Case: Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee v. The District Collector,

19 Vellore District & Others (2025 INSC 131)

Supreme Court Issues Directions in Vellore River Pollution Case, Labels Tanneries Among
Most Polluting Industries

Date of Judgment: 30 January 2025

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

Facts of the Case:

• The Supreme Court was hearing Civil Appeals against the Madras High Court’s dismissal of
a writ petition filed by the Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee regarding
pollution in the Palar River caused by tannery industries. The appellants argued that tanneries
in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu, were responsible for severe environmental degradation due
to the discharge of untreated or partially treated effluents into the river, groundwater, and
agricultural land.

• Vellore District, home to nearly 45% of India’s tanneries, has seen significant pollution,
impacting local farmers, groundwater reserves, and public health. The tannery industry, while
economically significant, has created severe environmental hazards, leading to the
contamination of drinking water sources and loss of agricultural productivity.

• A Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, had earlier filed
a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking compensation for victims of pollution and
demanding stringent action against polluting industries. The High Court dismissed the
petition, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

Decision:
• The Supreme Court ruled that tanneries are among the most polluting industries and
acknowledged the irreversible environmental damage caused by their operations. The Court
emphasized that industrial development must not come at the cost of ecological destruction
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 and public health. It underscored the need for sustainable development and strict enforcement
of environmental regulations.
• The Court issued several key directives:
o Compensation for Affected Individuals: The State Government must ensure
compensation is paid to affected families as per earlier awards.
o Formation of Environmental Audit Committee: A committee, chaired by a retired
High Court judge and including government officials, environmental experts, and
representatives of affected communities, must be formed within four weeks.
o Regular Inspections of Tanneries: The State Government must conduct quarterly
inspections of tanneries and publish compliance reports.
o Comprehensive Environmental Audits: All rivers in Tamil Nadu must undergo
environmental audits to assess pollution levels and depletion of water resources.
o Use of Advanced Technology for Monitoring: Installation of IoT-based sensors at
discharge points, rivers, and groundwater wells to monitor pollution in real time.
o AI-Based Regulatory Compliance: Artificial Intelligence (AI) should be used to
analyze data from IoT sensors and industry reports to detect pollution violations.
o Polluter Pays Principle: Polluting industries must bear the costs of river restoration
and environmental rehabilitation.
o Alignment with Global Standards: The State and Central Pollution Control Boards
must set emission standards for the tannery industry in line with international
environmental norms.
• The Court emphasized that the pollution in Vellore District could be classified as ecocide,
highlighting the urgency of corrective action. It also criticized the failure of municipalities in
treating sewage and holding industries accountable for contamination.
• The Supreme Court disposed of the Appeals while directing strict enforcement of its orders to
restore environmental balance in the region

Social Media hyperlinks for all out accounts:

Follow on Instagram Page: Theory of Abrogation.
Follow us on LinkedIn: Theory of Abrogation.
Follow our Facebook Page: Theory of Abrogation.
Visit our Website: www.theoryofabrogation.com
Click here to view our YouTube Channel
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025