The Court went into neither the merits of the revision petitions nor the underlying criminal case. The remand decides nothing about who is right; it restores the appellants' right to be heard before the High Court decides afresh.
- Case
- A. Thulasiraman v. The State & Anr.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Augustine George Masih; Sunita Agarwal
- Judgment by
- Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal (bench order)
- Case numbers
- Criminal Appeal Nos. (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 6229 and 8055 of 2026)
- Outcome
- Criminal appeals (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 6229 and 8055 of 2026) disposed of on 15 October 2026: the Madras High Court's order dated 10.11.2025 in CRLRC No. 2329 of 2025 is set aside; the case is remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits; parties to appear before the High Court on 16 November 2026.
What the Court decided
The Supreme Court has set aside a Madras High Court order of 10 November 2025 that had allowed criminal revision petitions, on the ground that notice was never served on the appellants. A Bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal granted leave, set aside the impugned order "without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereupon," and remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.
The Court directed the parties to appear before the High Court on 16 November 2026, and disposed of the appeals with those observations.
The procedural lapse
The appeals arose from Special Leave Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 6229 and 8055 of 2026, challenging the Madras High Court's order dated 10.11.2025 in CRLRC No. 2329 of 2025. The appellants' counsel contended that when the High Court allowed the revision petitions, notice had not been served on the appellants.
That factual claim proved decisive because it was not contested: the Court recorded that the fact had been "acknowledged by the learned counsel for the complainant very fairly in the Court." With the lapse admitted, the Court saw no need to examine anything further.
Why remand, not decision
An order passed against a party that was never notified of the proceeding violates the most basic requirement of natural justice — audi alteram partem. Such an order cannot stand, but the Supreme Court is not the forum to decide the revision petitions in the first instance: the High Court, as the revision court, must hear both sides and decide afresh.
The remand is therefore corrective, not substantive. By fixing 16 November 2026 for the parties' appearance, the Court ensured the rehearing begins promptly rather than drifting.
BANTHRY ANALYSISAnalysis: the fair concession
Notice the Court's pointed praise — the complainant's counsel acknowledged the lapse "very fairly." Appellate courts remember candour. A concession on an indefensible procedural point costs the conceding party nothing (the remand was inevitable) and buys credibility for the merits round that follows.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that service of notice is jurisdictional in character: get it wrong, and everything built on it falls, no matter how sound the reasoning underneath.
Procedural posture
The appeals were listed as Item No. 12 in Court No. 16 (Section II-C) before the Bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal. They arose from Special Leave Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 6229 and 8055 of 2026, which in turn challenged the Madras High Court's final judgment and order dated 10.11.2025 in CRLRC No. 2329 of 2025.
Leave was granted in both petitions; the impugned High Court order was set aside without any comment on the merits; and the appeals stood disposed of with the remand directions.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This is audi alteram partem in its purest form: no notice, no valid order. In exams, pair this with the rule that violation of natural justice goes to the root — the order is void, not merely voidable, and the appellate court need not ask whether the outcome would have differed.
Also distinguish remedies: the Court set aside and remanded rather than substituting its own decision, because the High Court is the court of first decision on the revision. Appellate restraint is itself a principle worth naming in your answers.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Supreme Court refuse to decide the revision petitions itself instead of remanding them?
- What fact did the complainant's counsel acknowledge, and why was it decisive?
- What is the practical effect of the 16 November 2026 direction?
