10 December 2025 Legal Updates

ARTICLE 226 | WRIT JURISDICTION CAN'T BE EXERCISED TO QUESTION ECONOMIC OR FISCAL REFORMS: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title: 

• Akola Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Zishan Hussain & Anr.

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision: 

• December 8, 2025

(d) Bench: 

• Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Background

The Akola Municipal Corporation (appellant) revised property tax rates in 2017 after 16 years (no revision since 2001). Dr. Zishan Hussain, a corporator and resident of Akola, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court, challenging the revision as arbitrary and procedurally improper. The High Court quashed the tax revision. The Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

• Whether the PIL was maintainable or was it a disguised private grievance?
• Whether the High Court overstepped its judicial review powers in interfering with a municipal tax policy decision?
• Whether the Corporation had the authority and justification to revise the tax?

Supreme Court’s Ruling

1. On Maintainability of PIL:

• The petitioner, being a corporator, was aware of the Corporation’s functioning. He did not represent the public nor show any public injury—only his individual grievance. The Supreme Court held the PIL was a subterfuge to bypass statutory remedies (like appeals under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act).

2. On Scope of Judicial Review:

The Court reiterated that judicial review does not extend to questioning economic/fiscal policies unless they violate constitutional or statutory provisions.

The Court emphasized:

•  
• Courts should not substitute their judgment for that of experts or policymakers.
• Judicial restraint must be exercised in policy matters, especially taxation.
• Only if a policy is arbitrary, perverse, or illegal should courts intervene.

The High Court had exceeded its power by reassessing the merits of the tax revision, which was within the Corporation’s domain.

3. On Justification for Tax Revision:

• The Corporation had not revised taxes for 16 years, leading to revenue shortfalls affecting public services (sanitation, infrastructure, health). Municipal bodies need financial autonomy to function effectively. Regular tax revisions are necessary to meet rising costs. The Court held the revision was justified and lawful, and the Corporation was actually under a statutory duty to revise taxes periodically.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and upheld the Corporation’s tax revision.

Key Takeaways

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Must involve genuine public injury, not private grievances.
• Judicial Review: Limited to examining legality and procedure, not the wisdom or merits of policy decisions.

'FAILURE TO NAME KNOWN ACCUSED IN FIR A CRUCIAL OMISSION', SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE MURDER CONVICTION

(a) Case Title: 

• Govind Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision: 

• December 8, 2025

(d) Bench: 

• Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Background

The appellant, Govind Mandavi, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 302/34 and 460 IPC for the murder of Bivan Hidko, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), the deceased's wife, who claimed to be an eyewitness. The FIR was lodged by the deceased's father, Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), based on information from PW-2, but it did not name the accused.

Key Issues

• Whether the omission of the accused's name in the FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case.
• Whether the eyewitness testimony (PW-2) is reliable given contradictions and improvements.
• Whether the recovery of blood-stained articles and the Test Identification Parade (TIP) are sufficient to sustain conviction.

Supreme Court’s Analysis & Ruling

• Omission in FIR – Fatal to Prosecution: The FIR stated that two unknown masked persons committed the crime. The name of the accused was not mentioned. PW-2 claimed she identified the accused because his mask fell off and she recognized his voice, but this was not stated in the FIR. The Court held that such a vital omission undermines the prosecution's case, especially when the witness had narrated other details meticulously.
• Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony: PW-2’s statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded four days after the incident, in which she named the accused for the first time. Her testimony was contradictory and improved during trial. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. The Court found her belated identification suspect, especially given prior enmity between the families (the accused is the brother of the deceased’s second wife).
• Invalidity of TIP and Recovery Evidence: The Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted after the accused was already named, making it redundant and suspicious. Recovered articles (axe, clothes, etc.) had human blood but the blood group could not be determined, so they could not be linked to the crime. The Court held that mere recovery of blood-stained items is not conclusive without connecting them to the victim.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case.

Key Takeaways

• FIR as a Vital Document: Omission of crucial facts in the FIR can weaken the prosecution's case significantly.
• Eyewitness Testimony: Delayed disclosure, improvements, and contradictions can render testimony unreliable.