Featured Insight: Supreme Court Curbs Compulsory DNA Testing, Upholds Privacy & Legitimacy

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has significantly curtailed the practice of ordering compulsory DNA testing, especially in criminal proceedings where paternity is a collateral issue. This ruling robustly reasserts the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 and reinforces the strong statutory presumption of legitimacy for children born within a valid marriage as per Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that DNA testing is an intrusive procedure reserved only for exceptional cases with an eminent necessity, a strong prima facie case, and after a careful balancing of interests, particularly considering the potential harm of branding a child as illegitimate. For professionals, this judgment underscores the critical interplay of constitutional rights, procedural safeguards, and the stringent evidentiary requirements for compelling such invasive tests, signaling a clear judicial reluctance to allow speculative or exploratory intrusions into personal autonomy.

Read the Full Article: Here

R. RAJENDRAN VS KAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS, decided on 10-11-2025

Other Supreme Court Decisions You Might Find Interesting:

Commercial Litigation Clarity: Plaint Rejection Orders Are Appealable Decrees, Rules SC

The Supreme Court has brought significant clarity to commercial litigation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, ruling that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a 'decree' and is therefore fully appealable under Section 13(1A). This judgment rectifies previous inconsistencies, ensuring that such orders are not erroneously treated as unappealable interlocutory orders. For legal practitioners and businesses, this decision streamlines appellate mechanisms and reinforces access to justice in commercial disputes, confirming the finality and appealability of plaint rejection orders.

Read the Full Article: Here

MITC ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. VS M/S. RENUKA REALTORS AND ORS., decided on 10-11-2025

Real Estate Transactions: SC Differentiates 'Service' from 'Sale' for Tax Purposes

In a crucial ruling for the real estate sector, the Supreme Court held that activities involving the acquisition, development, and eventual transfer of land, structured not as an agency but as transactions where the developer bears the risk and reward, do not constitute 'Real Estate Agent' services taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court emphasized that these are essentially transactions of sale of land, falling outside the definition of 'service'. Furthermore, it reiterated strict conditions for invoking the extended limitation period for tax demands, requiring proof of deliberate suppression rather than mere non-payment or bona fide belief. This provides vital relief and clarity for real estate developers and tax consultants regarding the scope of service tax liability.

Read the Full Article: Here

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VS M/S ELEGANT DEVELOPERS, decided on 10-11-2025

Defining 'Goods': SC Clarifies Excisability of Immovable Plant and Limits Extended Limitation

The Supreme Court has provided significant clarity on the definition of "excisable goods" under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It ruled that a steam generating plant, assembled and permanently affixed at a buyer's site, constitutes immovable property and is therefore not 'excisable goods'. This decision reaffirms the "movability test" for excisability, meaning items that cannot be dismantled without substantial damage are not subject to excise duty. Crucially, the Court also restricted the invocation of the extended limitation period for tax demands, requiring proven wilful suppression with intent to evade duty. This offers vital guidance for manufacturers of heavy machinery and tax professionals navigating central excise liabilities.

Read the Full Article: Here

LIPI BOILERS LTD. VS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD, decided on 10-11-2025

Contractual Integrity: SC Upholds Specific Performance, Invalidates Unilateral ATS Termination

This comprehensive Supreme Court judgment underscores the enforceability of Agreements to Sell (ATS), ruling that unilateral termination is impermissible unless explicitly provided for within the terms of a determinable contract. The Court found that an ATS lacking such a clause could not be unilaterally terminated, and that a suit for specific performance remains maintainable without separately seeking a declaration for such an invalid termination. Furthermore, the Court strictly defined 'bona fide purchaser', holding that 'constructive notice' of a prior ATS—even via a termination notice—negates a subsequent purchaser's claim of good faith. This ruling provides crucial clarity for real estate lawyers, developers, and contract specialists on specific performance and bona fide purchaser status.

Read the Full Article: Here

K.S. MANJUNATH AND OTHERS VS MOORASAVIRAPPA @ MUTTANNA CHENNAPPA BATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AND OTHERS, decided on 10-11-2025

Insurer's Mandate: 'Pay and Recover' Principle Upheld in Policy Breach Cases

The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the 'pay and recover' principle in motor accident claims, instructing insurers to first compensate victims even when there's a clear breach of policy conditions (e.g., carrying excess passengers). The insurer then retains the right to recover the paid amount from the vehicle owner. This judgment prioritizes the welfare of accident victims and reinforces the social welfare objective inherent in motor insurance, ensuring that claimants are not left in limbo due to disputes between the insured and the insurer. This is a critical development for insurance companies, personal injury attorneys, and policyholders alike.

Read the Full Article: Here

AKULA NARAYANA VS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR., decided on 10-11-2025

Justice for the Vulnerable: SC Enhances Compensation for Minor with Permanent Disability

In a compassionate and significant judgment, the Supreme Court substantially enhanced motor accident compensation for a minor student who suffered 77.1% permanent disability. The Court meticulously reassessed various heads of compensation, including loss of future earnings, medical expenses, and non-pecuniary damages such as loss of marriage prospects and pain and suffering. This ruling provides crucial guidance on calculating equitable damages, particularly for minors facing lifelong challenges, underscoring the judiciary's role in ensuring comprehensive rehabilitation and support for accident victims.

Read the Full Article: Here

RIYAS VS P. N. SHINOSH & ANR., decided on 10-11-2025

Beyond Murder: Supreme Court Delineates 'Mens Rea' in Culpable Homicide Cases

This crucial Supreme Court decision offers a deep dive into the intricate distinction between 'culpable homicide' and 'murder', particularly focusing on cases where the direct intention to cause death is absent. The Court converted a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing factors like the absence of premeditation, an element of impulse and anger, and delayed death due to secondary complications (septicemia) as critical in assessing the degree of culpability. This judgment provides vital clarity on criminal intent (*mens rea*) under Sections 299 and 300 IPC, offering indispensable guidance for criminal defense and prosecution professionals.

Read the Full Article: Here

NANDKUMAR @ NANDU MANILAL MUDALIAR VS STATE OF GUJARAT, decided on 10-11-2025