Supreme Court Weekly: Major Rulings on CBI Probes, High Court's Review Powers, and Surrogacy Rights

New Delhi – In a packed week of significant judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court of India delivered key judgments spanning criminal procedure, constitutional rights, and the powers of specialized tribunals. The Court transferred the politically sensitive Karur stampede investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), clarified the limited scope of a High Court's power to review its own orders under the new criminal code, and provided crucial relief to couples who began surrogacy procedures before the 2021 Act came into force.

The rulings from October 8 to 15, 2025, also touched upon the Armed Forces Tribunal's authority to substitute convictions, the rights of defendants in civil suits, and the evidentiary burden in railway accident claims, setting important precedents for the legal fraternity.

Karur Stampede Case Transferred to CBI, Supervisory Committee Appointed

In a decisive move to ensure impartiality and restore public faith, the Supreme Court transferred the investigation into the tragic Karur stampede, which claimed 41 lives, from the state police to the CBI. The case, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh , arose from a political rally where the incident occurred. The Court took note of public statements by senior police officials defending their subordinates, which it found could create "doubt about the investigation's impartiality in the minds of the general public."

The bench observed that the "political undertone, the gravity of the incident with wide ramifications, [and] the need to restore public faith in the criminal justice system" necessitated the transfer. The Court also constituted a three-member Supervisory Committee, headed by retired Supreme Court judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi, to monitor the CBI's probe. This order effectively suspends the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the one-man commission previously established, streamlining the inquiry under a single, independent agency.

Reiterating established principles, the Court emphasized that the extraordinary power to direct a CBI investigation must be "exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations," particularly where credibility is at stake or where complete justice is required.

High Courts Cannot Review Own Judgments Under Inherent Powers: SC Clarifies BNSS Provision

The Supreme Court delivered a crucial clarification on the powers of High Courts under the new criminal procedure code, holding that the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) cannot be used to review or recall a final judgment on its merits. This ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi reinforces the finality of judicial orders in criminal matters.

The Court held that the power of review is explicitly barred by Section 403 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 362 of the old CrPC), which only permits the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. The bench stated, "The inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code."

In this case, the Rajasthan High Court had recalled a reasoned order declining the transfer of an investigation. It later passed a new order directing a CBI probe, citing an "inadvertent clerical mistake." The Supreme Court found this to be an impermissible review disguised as a correction. The Court quashed the High Court's subsequent orders, stating they were based on an "erroneous premise" and amounted to an abuse of the inherent jurisdiction.

Relief for Intending Parents Under Surrogacy Act; Age-Limit Rule Not Retrospective

In a significant ruling protecting reproductive autonomy, the Court in Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India held that the age restrictions for intending parents under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, do not apply retrospectively. The Court protected the "vested rights" of couples who had commenced the surrogacy process before the Act's enforcement on January 25, 2022.

The judgment clarifies that the right to pursue surrogacy is an exercise of decisional and reproductive autonomy, a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court defined the "commencement" of the process as the stage where gametes have been fertilized and an embryo has been frozen for transfer. Couples who reached this stage before the Act came into force are exempt from the age-limit certification (50 years for women, 55 for men).

"Where a statutory provision which is not expressly made retrospective seeks to affect vested rights and corresponding obligations, such a provision cannot be said to have any retrospective effect by necessary implication," the bench noted.

This landmark decision provides much-needed relief to numerous couples caught in legal limbo and reaffirms the principle against retrospective application of laws that curtail fundamental rights.

Armed Forces Tribunal's Power to Substitute Conviction Upheld

In S.K. Jain v. Union of India , the Supreme Court upheld the power of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to substitute a court-martial's finding of guilt with a conviction for a lesser, related offence. The Court held that Section 15(6)(a) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, is in pari materia with Section 162 of the Army Act, 1950, and akin to Section 222 of the CrPC.

The appellant was initially convicted for illegal possession of ammunition under the Arms Act but the AFT substituted it with a conviction under Section 63 of the Army Act for an "act prejudicial to good order and military discipline." The Supreme Court found this exercise of power to be "just and proportionate." It noted that the factual finding of recovery of old ammunition was undisputed, which clearly established a failure to follow mandatory disposal procedures—an act falling squarely under Section 63. The Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the AFT's role in ensuring that disciplinary needs are balanced with fairness, even when the original charge is not sustained.

Key Directives and Observations from the Bench

• Civil Procedure & Evidence: The Court in Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Aroush Motors ruled that a defendant’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses is not forfeited even if a written statement is not filed. The Trial Court's denial of this right was deemed "perverse," as cross-examination is vital to elicit truth.
• Railway Accident Claims: In Rajni v. Union of India , the Court adopted a victim-centric approach, holding that the initial burden on claimants to prove a deceased was a "bonafide passenger" can be discharged by an affidavit. The absence of a ticket cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a claim, and tribunals were directed to eschew a "hyper-technical approach."
• NI Act & Trusts: In a significant clarification in Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal , the Court held that a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable against a trustee who signed the cheque, even without formally arraying the Trust as an accused, as a Trust is not a separate legal entity.
• Firecrackers in Delhi-NCR: Balancing environmental concerns with industry interests, the Court in the long-running M.C. Mehta case allowed the limited sale and use of approved "green crackers" in the NCR for a specified period around Diwali as a temporary "test case," relaxing its previous complete ban.
• Voice Samples: Reaffirming its previous stance, the Court in Rahul Agarwal v. State of West Bengal held that a Magistrate has the power to order any person, including a witness, to provide a voice sample for investigation. This power is now explicitly codified in Section 349 of the BNSS, 2023.

This week's judgments from the Supreme Court reflect a judiciary actively engaging with new legislation, balancing individual rights with state interests, and striving to ensure procedural fairness across civil, criminal, and specialized legal domains.