The Supreme Court of India continued its transformative jurisprudence in 2025 with a series of judgments that clarified long-debated provisions, corrected past errors, and reinforced constitutional safeguards. This second part examines five landmark rulings (cases 6–10 of the most academically and professionally significant decisions of the year) that have already become essential reading for law students, judicial services aspirants, and practitioners.
No. 6. Zunul Saikh v. State of Bihar
Mere Presence in a Crowd Does Not Attract Vicarious Liability under Section 149 IPC
One of the most cited criminal law judgments of 2025, Zunul Saikh authoritatively settled the boundaries of constructive liability for members of an unlawful assembly under Sections 141 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 141 defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons sharing a common object that falls within any of the five enumerated clauses (e.g., using criminal force against public servants, committing mischief, or forcibly dispossessing someone). Section 149 creates vicarious criminal liability: if an offence is committed by any member of such an assembly in prosecution of the common object, or is such as the members knew was likely to be committed, every person who was a member at the time is guilty of that offence.
In Zunul Saikh, a land dispute escalated into violence involving several hundred persons, resulting in two deaths. Seventy persons were charged, twenty-one convicted by the trial court, and eleven convictions were upheld by the High Court. Ten of the convicted individuals appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that mere presence in a large crowd could not establish the requisite common object.
Delivering a unanimous verdict, the Court held:
- Mere presence at the scene of crime, without active participation or overt acts, is insufficient to attract Section 149 liability.
- The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. This cannot be a matter of conjecture or guesswork.
- In large gatherings, especially during protests or land disputes, courts must guard against mechanically applying Section 149 simply because an individual was part of the crowd.
- The fundamental criminal law principle of presumption of innocence cannot be diluted by presuming a common object from proximity alone.
The judgment has been widely welcomed as restoring balance in cases involving mob violence and preventing misuse of Section 149 against peripheral participants.
No. 7. Vibhor Garg v. Neha Garg
Spousal Privilege under Section 122 of the Evidence Act Yields to Fair Trial in Matrimonial Litigation
The intersection between spousal communication privilege and the right to a fair trial received definitive clarification in Vibhor Garg v. Neha Garg.
Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prohibits disclosure of marital communications without the consent of the spouse, the underlying rationale being the preservation of marital harmony. However, the section itself carves out two exceptions: communications are admissible (i) in suits between the spouses, and (ii) when one spouse has committed a crime against the other.
In this case, during bitterly contested divorce proceedings, the husband sought to rely on secretly recorded telephone conversations with his wife to prove cruelty and harassment. The family court admitted the recordings, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed the decision, holding that surreptitious recording violated the wife’s Article 21 right to privacy.
Overturning the High Court, the Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
- Once matrimonial litigation has commenced, the primary objective of Section 122 – preserving marital harmony – ceases to apply. The exception for “suits between spouses” becomes operative.
- The admissibility of audio recordings is governed by the three-fold test laid down in the classic case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973): the recording must be relevant, not tampered with, and clearly identifiable.
- When these evidentiary standards are satisfied, reliance on spousal conversations (including recordings) does not violate Article 21, because the evidence is being used within the framework of a fair trial.
- The right to privacy, though fundamental, is not absolute and must yield to competing constitutional values such as access to justice and fair adjudication.
The ruling resolves a conflict that had persisted across High Courts and provides clear guidance to family courts dealing with digital evidence in matrimonial disputes.
No. 8. Surendra Kohli v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Extraordinary Use of Curative Jurisdiction to Correct Manifest Injustice
Few 2025 judgments attracted as much public attention as the curative petition in Surendra Kohli, a case that underscored the Supreme Court’s willingness to revisit even its own final decisions when required by the ends of justice.
Surendra Kohli had been convicted and awarded the death penalty in 2011 for the rape and murder of a minor (Rimpa Haldar case), largely on the basis of a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and consequent recoveries. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court and a review petition dismissed. In thirteen related cases involving identical investigative methods, however, the Allahabad High Court acquitted Kohli between 2021 and 2023, citing serious investigative lapses, coerced confessions, and broken forensic chains.
Invoking the rare curative jurisdiction (first evolved in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, 2002), Kohli argued that the same evidentiary infirmities vitiated the Rimpa Haldar conviction. A five-judge bench unanimously allowed the curative petition – an extraordinarily rare occurrence – and held:
- A confession recorded under duress or prolonged police custody violates Article 20(3) and cannot be treated as voluntary.
- When identical evidence has been rejected as unreliable in connected cases, continued reliance on the same evidence in one surviving case amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory application of law.
- Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- The curative jurisdiction exists precisely to prevent gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of process, even after exhaustion of appeals and reviews.
By setting aside its own 2011 judgment, the Supreme Court sent a powerful message that finality of decisions must sometimes yield to substantive fairness, particularly in capital cases.
No. 9. Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur
Maintenance and Permanent Alimony Can Be Awarded Even in Void Marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act
The interplay between nullity of marriage and financial remedies received authoritative interpretation in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur.
The husband sought a declaration of nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground that the wife was already married at the time of the second marriage, rendering it bigamous and void ab initio. The wife countered by claiming interim maintenance under Section 24 and permanent alimony under Section 25.
Different High Courts had taken conflicting views on whether financial relief could be granted when the very existence of a valid marriage was denied. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict as follows:
- Section 24 (maintenance pendente lite) is intended to ensure that a financially weaker spouse is not disabled from effectively participating in litigation. The validity of the marriage is itself the subject matter of the proceedings; denying interim support merely because validity is contested would defeat the provision’s purpose.
- Section 25 uses the deliberately wide phrase “any decree” passed under the Act. A decree of nullity under Section 11 is as much a decree as a decree of divorce or judicial separation. Therefore, permanent alimony can be granted even when the marriage is declared void.
- The quantum and grant of relief remain entirely discretionary, to be decided on a case-by-case basis after considering conduct, financial capacity, and equitable considerations.
Importantly, the Court clarified that its ruling does not create an automatic entitlement; trial courts retain full discretion after evaluating the peculiar facts of each case.
No. 10. Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat
Reinforcing Free Speech Safeguards and Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry before FIRs
The year 2025 witnessed a robust reaffirmation of Article 19(1)(a) freedoms in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat.
The petitioner, a well-known Urdu poet, uploaded a recitation of his poem on social media. Certain viewers found the content objectionable and lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 153A, 295A, and other provisions of the IPC. No preliminary inquiry was conducted.
Quashing the FIR, the Supreme Court laid down far-reaching guidelines:
- Restrictions under Article 19(2) cannot be expanded to such an extent that they eclipse the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
- The doctrine of “chilling effect” is an established facet of Indian free speech jurisprudence: fear of legal harassment must not silence citizens.
- When allegations pertain to spoken or written words (as opposed to physical acts), and the alleged offences carry imprisonment of three years or more, police must conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173 CrPC read with the guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh (2014) before registering an FIR.
- Artistic, literary, and political expression enjoys a higher threshold of protection; mere dislike or discomfort caused to some viewers does not satisfy the ingredients of hate speech offences.
The judgment has been hailed as a landmark in protecting creative expression and preventing misuse of criminal law to stifle dissent.
Conclusion
The ten judgments examined across the two parts of this series (five in Part I and five in Part II) collectively represent the Supreme Court’s most significant contributions to Indian law in 2025. From refining the limits of constructive criminal liability and curative jurisdiction to balancing spousal privilege with fair trial rights, and from clarifying financial remedies in void marriages to reinforcing free speech safeguards, these rulings demonstrate a judiciary acutely conscious of both constitutional values and practical realities.
For law students preparing for university examinations, judicial services, or the Bar, thorough familiarity with these decisions is indispensable. They are destined to appear repeatedly in objective questions, essay answers, and interview discussions for many years to come. More importantly, they reflect a maturing jurisprudence that continually strives to harmonise legal doctrine with justice, fairness, and contemporary societal needs.
Post a Comment