Supreme Court This Week: 7 Key Rulings on Arrest, Reproductive Rights, Taxation, Bigamy & More

New Delhi: The Supreme Court delivered several significant judgments during the week addressing constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention, legislative competence over taxation, reproductive autonomy, bonded labour rehabilitation, recognition of foreign matrimonial decrees, criminal liability in cases of unnatural death, and cruelty in matrimonial relationships. The following seven rulings are notable for their legal principles and potential impact on future litigation.

24-Hour Arrest Deadline Runs From Detention, Not Formal Arrest: SC

The Supreme Court held that the 24-hour period prescribed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution begins from the time a person is detained and their liberty is curtailed, rather than from the subsequent formal recording of arrest. A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar ruled that the investigating agency cannot exclude the period between interception and formal arrest while calculating the constitutional deadline for producing an accused before a Magistrate. The Court held that the detention and arrest cannot be treated as distinct events for this purpose and that only the time necessary for the journey to the Magistrate may be excluded. Finding that the accused in an NDPS case had been produced beyond the prescribed period, the Court declared their continued detention illegal and directed their release on bail. It also directed circulation of the judgment among police authorities, High Courts and judicial academies. Read Full Article

Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench Holds State Surcharge on Sales Tax Governed by 1963 Kodar Ruling

A seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the question concerning the validity of State surcharges calculated as a percentage of sales tax payable by dealers would be governed by its 1963 decision in S. Kodar v. State of Kerala, which continues to hold the field. The reference had arisen from a dispute concerning the legislative competence of States to impose surcharges under their respective sales tax laws. The Court observed that subsequent constitutional and legislative developments, including the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax regime through the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, had fundamentally altered the legal landscape. It consequently answered the long-pending reference as infructuous, holding that there was no subsisting conflict requiring reconsideration of Kodar. Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in a separate opinion, also held that Kodar had been correctly decided and required no reconsideration. Read Full Article

Laws That Penalise Having More Than Two Children Have Lost Their Relevance: SC

The Supreme Court referred its 2003 decision in Javed v. State of Haryana, which upheld the disqualification of persons having more than two children from contesting panchayat elections, to a larger Bench for reconsideration. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that the demographic circumstances underlying the two-child norm had significantly changed and that laws penalising individuals for having more than two children had lost their relevance. The Court referred to India's declining fertility rate and examined the implications of such disqualification for political representation, women's rights and reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. It observed that a person should not be forced to choose between exercising reproductive autonomy and participating in democratic governance. The Court clarified that it was not directly striking down the Maharashtra provision but had referred the matter for reconsideration of the legal principles laid down in Javed. Read Full Article

Bonded Labourers Must Get Immediate Assistance Within 7 Days of Release Certificate: SC

The Supreme Court issued nationwide directions to strengthen the identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, directing that immediate financial assistance should ordinarily be provided within seven days of the issuance of a release certificate. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Aparesh Kumar Singh further directed that an individual rehabilitation plan should be initiated within 90 days of rescue. Emphasising that rehabilitation is a continuing constitutional responsibility under Articles 21 and 23, the Court observed that delays in rehabilitation may effectively amount to denial of rehabilitation. It directed the Union Government to ensure uniform implementation of its revised Standard Operating Procedure and required States and Union Territories to streamline the issuance of release certificates, designate nodal officers and ensure that inter-State administrative disputes do not delay assistance. The Court also directed measures concerning child-sensitive rehabilitation, recovery of unpaid wages and monitoring of rehabilitation schemes. Read Full Article

Foreign Divorce on Irretrievable Breakdown Cannot Shield Husband from Bigamy Prosecution: SC

The Supreme Court held that a foreign divorce decree granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot automatically dissolve a marriage solemnised under Hindu rites in India where that ground is not recognised under the applicable matrimonial law. A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar ruled that such a foreign decree must satisfy the requirements of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the applicable rules concerning jurisdiction and the grounds on which matrimonial relief was granted. The Court held that a husband whose first marriage continued to subsist under Indian law could not rely upon the foreign divorce decree to escape prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 IPC. However, the Court quashed the proceedings against the husband's parents and second wife, finding insufficient material to establish their individual involvement or knowledge of the subsisting first marriage. Read Full Article

Failure to Explain Death Attracts Section 106 Evidence Act: SC

The Supreme Court upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of murdering his wife, holding that his failure to offer a plausible explanation for her death attracted the principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya observed that the deceased was found strangled in the matrimonial home while she was in the exclusive company of her husband, placing the relevant circumstances particularly within his knowledge. The Court reiterated that where the prosecution establishes the foundational circumstances of a case, the accused's failure to explain facts especially within their knowledge may constitute an additional link in the chain of circumstances. Dismissing the appeals, the Court upheld the convictions and directed the appellants to surrender within four weeks. Read Full Article

Calling Wife 'Stupid' and 'Useless' Does Not Amount to Cruelty: SC Quashes FIR

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against a husband in a case involving allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty following his wife's death by suicide in Canada. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manmohan held that the allegations of dowry demand were vague and unsupported by material establishing a reasonable connection with the deceased's death. The Court observed that calling one's wife names such as "stupid" and "useless", even if accepted, would not by itself constitute cruelty or criminal intimidation under the circumstances of the case. It further noted that the suicide note did not refer to the husband, his family or any alleged dowry demand, while the available material did not establish the necessary ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B IPC. Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings. Read Full Article