New Delhi: The Supreme Court delivered several significant rulings and passed important orders this week across criminal law, constitutional law, arbitration, environmental regulation, corporate liability, food safety and insolvency. Here are eight key Supreme Court developments from the week:
Corporal Punishment Does Not Amount To Aggravated Sexual Assault: SC
The Supreme Court quashed a POCSO prosecution against a school teacher in West Bengal, holding that beating two minor girl students with his hands for failing to complete their lessons did not constitute “aggravated sexual assault” under Section 10 of the POCSO Act in the absence of sexual intent. A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that although the teacher’s conduct in resorting to corporal punishment was inappropriate, the statements of the students did not disclose the ingredients of sexual assault. The Court also noted the delay in registration of the FIR and the hearsay nature of statements relied upon against the teacher, and held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. Read More
Supreme Court Questions FSSAI’s ‘High Sugar, Salt, Fat’ Warning Labels
The Supreme Court flagged several unresolved issues in the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s proposal for Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) on foods high in fat, sugar and salt. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran sought clarifications on the proposed thresholds, phased implementation, dimensions and placement of warning labels, use of “added” versus “total” sugar and “saturated” versus other fats, pictorial warnings and the proposed composite red hexagonal label. The Court also questioned the absence of a fixed timeline between the two proposed phases and directed FSSAI to file a further affidavit addressing thirteen specific questions. The matter is next listed for September 28, 2026. Read More
High Court Cannot Treat Article 226 Writ As Article 227 To Deny Appeal: SC
The Supreme Court set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which had treated a petition filed under Article 226 as one under Article 227, thereby denying the petitioner an intra-court appellate remedy. The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva reiterated that the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 cannot be curtailed merely by re-characterising a petition as one under Article 227. The Court further held that orders of Revenue Courts exercising statutory quasi-judicial powers can be examined under Article 226 and restored the writ appeal before the High Court for consideration on merits. Read More
Arbitrator, Not Writ Court, Must Decide ‘Excepted Matters’: SC
The Supreme Court clarified that the question whether a claim falls within an “excepted matters” clause of a works contract is primarily within the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose from a contract between GVV Constructions and South Central Railway concerning railway track doubling. The Court held that although an arbitration clause may exclude certain matters from arbitration, such exclusion does not prevent a court from examining the validity of decisions concerning those matters. It further held that a writ appellate court cannot circumscribe the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, including the arbitrability of a termination dispute. Read More
Human Rights Court Can Be Approached Directly Without Prior NHRC Inquiry: SC
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, holding that a victim can directly approach a Human Rights Court without first obtaining an inquiry or recommendation from the Human Rights Commission. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta distinguished the functions of Human Rights Commissions, which are inquisitorial and recommendatory, from those of Human Rights Courts, which exercise judicial powers under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Court found no provision making a prior Commission inquiry a condition precedent to invoking the jurisdiction of a Human Rights Court and restored the criminal proceedings that had been quashed by the Karnataka High Court. Read More
Land Procurement Not Mandatory To Initiate Bio-Medical Waste Clearances: SC
The Supreme Court restored the environmental clearance and consent to establish granted to M/s Punahchakran Private Limited for a Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment Facility in Uttar Pradesh, setting aside the National Green Tribunal’s order cancelling the approvals. The Court held that although the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 are mandatory, land procurement is not a strict precondition for initiating the environmental clearance or consent-to-establish process. It clarified that an application could be made upon identification of a prospective site, while actual land allotment or the requisite relaxation would be required before consent to establish could be issued. Read More
Company Can Face Mens Rea Prosecution Without Employee Being Arraigned: SC
The Supreme Court dismissed Sanofi India Ltd.’s plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in a bribery case linked to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, holding that a corporation can be prosecuted for an offence requiring mens rea even when the individual employee whose acts and state of mind are attributed to the company has not been identified or arraigned as an accused. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra laid down a three-stage framework for determining when the acts and state of mind of a natural person can be attributed to a corporation. The Court clarified that the chargesheet must disclose prima facie that the corporation itself committed the offence and that quashing would still be justified where allegations are merely bald assertions unsupported by material. Read More
Homebuyers Cannot Be Penalised For Developer’s Default: Supreme Court Waives NOIDA’s Time Extension Charges
The Supreme Court held that homebuyers and a Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be burdened with penalty charges imposed by NOIDA for the defaulting developer’s delay in completing a housing project. The Court was dealing with the Lotus Boulevard and Lotus Panache projects, where homebuyers had pooled their own funds to continue construction after the developer entered insolvency proceedings. Holding that the extension charges were intended to penalise the defaulting developer, the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran found it improper to impose that burden on homebuyers and the resolution applicant who were not responsible for the delay. The Court consequently directed NOIDA to waive the penalty charges in the peculiar facts of the case and set aside the NCLAT’s direction treating them as CIRP costs. Read More
