Supreme Selections: Top Supreme Court Judgments of February 2025

28 February, 2025

Share on:

Overview of February Month

The Supreme Court (SC) of India pronounced multiple judgments this month relating to cases such as child custody, alimony or maintenance, bail, domestic violence, income tax act, narcotics act, and many more. It also gave certain orders in YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia’s controversy case, pleas concerning the Places of Worship Act, reconsideration of judgments concerning senior designation system and others. Let us explore some of the top Supreme Court judgments of February 2025.

Important Verdicts of February Month

Accused’s Arrest Illegal If Police Fails To Inform Grounds For His Arrest

Judgment Name: Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (February 07, 2025)

Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Article 22} and {The Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The issue canvassed by the appellant, in this case, was that his right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India was violated as he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest. The SC ruled that the arrest of an accused was illegal due to the police’s failure to inform him of the grounds for his arrest. It opined that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. It added, “Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1).” Also, the bench expressed concern over the shocking treatment, handcuffing and chaining to a hospital bed, given by the police to the appellant (accused). While directing the State Government to issue necessary directions to ensure that such illegalities are never committed again, the top court said that the right to live with dignity is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21, which are violated with the police’s actions.

Compassionate Appointment: In Hand-to-Mouth Cases

Judgment Name: Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (February 11, 2025)

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Articles 226 and 142}

Judgment Brief and Decision: In this case, the SC bench said that a claim for compassionate appointments should be granted only in hand-to-mouth cases. The operative part of the judgment reads, “It is only in ‘hand-to-mouth’ cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such ‘hand-to-mouth’ cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is 'below poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.”

Permanent Alimony Or Maintenance, Void Marriage

Judgment Name: Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur (February 12, 2025)

Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Article 15(3)}, {The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Sections 24 and 25}, and {The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956- Section 18}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The questions addressed in this case were, “Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void by a competent Court under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the 1955 Act?” and “Whether in a petition filed seeking a declaration under Section 11 of the 1955 Act, a spouse is entitled to seek maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the 1955 Act?” The Supreme Court bench ruled that spouse is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 even when their marriage has been declared void. The operative part of judgment reads, “A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act…The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary…Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied…”