Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: August 2025

Reports/Judgments

Supreme Court Refuses To Accept School Record, Relies On Statutory Documents To Reject Juvenility Plea Of Murder Accused

Cause Title: Suresh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 761

The Supreme Court (Aug. 1) overturned an accused's juvenile status, after finding that he was not a juvenile at the time of the commission of the crime.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the appeal filed by the complainant, where both the Trial Court and the High Court had treated Respondent No. 2 (the accused) as a juvenile for a crime committed in 2012, solely on the basis of private school records indicating his year of birth as 1995. These records, the Court noted, were based only on the oral declaration of the accused's father at the time of admission.

Crucially, the Courts below had overlooked more credible public documents, including the Family Register and the Voter List, both of which consistently recorded the year of birth as 1991, making the accused an adult at the time of the offence.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Condition Requiring Husband To Resume Conjugal Life With Wife & Maintain Her With Dignity

Cause Title: Anil Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 762

The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision to impose a pre-arrest bail condition that the accused shall resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honour as his lawful wife.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih called out the imposition of such a condition not traceable to Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

“The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant would maintain the respondent no.2 with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation.”, the court said.

Employer Has Duty To Reasonably Accommodate Employee Who Acquires Disability During Service : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Ch. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Other

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 763

The Supreme Court (Aug. 1) reiterated that an employee who acquires a disability during service must be protected by an employer by providing suitable alternate employment, unless no such post exists in their organization.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar granted relief to a bus driver employed with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), who was prematurely terminated from service after acquiring colour blindness, without any attempt by the employer to identify or offer him an alternative employment.

The Court set aside the High Court's decision, which justified the APRTC's action to terminate the Appellant from employment without making any sincere attempt to identify or offer him an alternative post, despite its obligation to do so.

Supreme Court Doubts View That 'No-Fault' Liability u/s163A Motor Vehicles Act Is Only For Third Party Risks; Refers To Larger Bench

Cause Title: Wakia Afrin (Minor) v. M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 764

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether the families of vehicle owners who die in self-accidents can be allowed compensation under the "no-fault liability" provision(Section 163A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MVA”), or whether such claims are limited solely to third-party liability.

Although the Court expressed the view that legal heirs of vehicle owners who die in an accident can seek compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as part of the no-fault liability scheme, it noted the existence of conflicting precedents that limit the application of this principle to third-party claims only. As a result, the Court referred the issue to a larger bench for authoritative ruling.

“We are of the opinion that this issue concerning the liability of the insurer in a claim under Section 163A qua the owner/insured requires an authoritative pronouncement. The dictum arising from the various decisions of different benches of two Judges is that the claim under Section 163A is restricted to third party risks, which, with all the respect at our command, we are unable to agree with.”, the court said.

Promise To Marriage & Subsequent Relationship Based On Consent Won't Amount To Rape : Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case

Cause Title: Kunal Chatterjee v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 765

Reiterating that a consensual relationship based on a promise to marriage will not amount to the offence of rape, the Supreme Court quashed a case under the POCSO ACt against a man.

"This Court has held in several decisions that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape and the reasons therein have been assigned (See: Prithivirajan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108)," the Court observed.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar quashed the case against a youth, after noting that the complaint was belatedly filed after three years when she became a major, and no forensic evidence suggested that rape was committed upon the prosecutrix.

Pollution Control Boards Can Impose Environmental Compensation On Polluting Entities: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. Etc. (And Connected Matter)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 766

The Supreme Court (Aug.4) ruled that the Pollution Control Boards (PCB) are empowered to impose environmental compensation on polluting entities under their statutory mandate.

“the environmental regulators, the Pollution Control Boards exercising powers under the Water and Air Acts, can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages in the form of fixed sum of monies or require furnishing of bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure to prevent potential environmental damage.”, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra said.

The Court however, drew a line for the Boards to not impose compensation on every violation under the Acts. It is only when “some form of environmental damage or harm has been caused by the erring entity, or the same is so imminent, that the State Board must initiate action under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act.”

Electricity Act | Power Purchase Tariff Not Matter Of Agreement; To Be Fixed Statutorily By Commission : Supreme Court Rejects GUVNL Appeals

Cause Title: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Green Infra Corporate Wind Private Limited And Others Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 767

The Supreme Court (Aug. 4) observed that the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) must act as a "model citizen" and cannot act like a "Shylock" towards wind energy producers contrary to the State's own renewable energy policy as well as the decision of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission

"GUVNL cannot be guided only by its own commercial interests, like a private business entity and it's conduct, as a State-instrumentality, must be of the standard of a model citizen. However, patently unfair treatment was sought to be meted out by GUVNL to the respondent companies by binding them to a rate that was wholly inapplicable to them. Such conduct, akin to a Shylock, does not reflect positively upon GUVNL," the Court observed.

The Court made these observations while dismissing the GUVNL's appeals against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”) and Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (“GERC”) allowing four wind power producers to seek case-specific tariff determination, despite having signed Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with fixed rates, if they have not sought the benefit of accelerated depreciation under the Income Tax Act, holding that they are entitled to case-specific tariff determination, despite having signed Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with fixed rates.

After CJI's Request, Supreme Court Recalls Direction To Remove Allahabad HC Judge From Criminal Jurisdiction

Case Details: M/S. Shikhar Chemicals v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr | SLP (Crl) No. 11445/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 768

In an unusual turn of events, the Supreme Court (August 8) recalled the unprecedented order passed by it on August 4 which had observed that a Judge of the Allahabad High Court should be removed from criminal jurisdiction until his retirement and that he should be made to sit with a seasoned senior judge.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had passed the unusual order while taking exception to an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar of the High Court by which a criminal complaint was refused to be quashed on the ground that a civil remedy for recovery of money was not effective.

However, after the order came under criticism, the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, later wrote to Justice Pardiwala's bench requesting the reconsideration of the strictures against the High Court Judge. Following that, the disposed of matter was relisted for fresh directions. In a related development, thirteen Judges of the High Court also wrote to the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice urging him to not implement the directions of the Supreme Court.

S.142 NI Act | Cheque Dishonour Complaint To Be Filed Where Payee Maintains Bank Account; Not Place Of Presentation : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 769

The Supreme Court reiterated that the territorial jurisdiction for a complaint for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is with the Court having jurisdiction over the place where the payee maintains his bank account through which the cheque was delivered for collection.

The jurisdiction is not where the cheque was physically presented for encashment through the account but at the place where the account is maintained.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and SC Sharma set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which rejected a complaint filed in Mangalore on the ground that the cheque was presented in Mumbai.

Sessions Court Can Summon Additional Accused At Committal Stage Under S.193 CrPC : Supreme Court

Case:  Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar V State Of UP And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 770

The Supreme Court (August 5) held that there is nothing wrong with a Court of Sessions summoning an additional accused to stand trial at the committal stage under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan explained that a Court takes cognizance of the "offence" and not of the "offender" and if the Court, during its proceedings, comes to know about the involvement of the other accused, has the power to summon them.

"Even though the case is committed yet cognizance taken is of the offence and not the offender. Once the case in respect of the offence qua the accused, who are before the Court, is committed and cognizance is taken, the embargo under Section 193 regarding taking cognizance only by committal goes. Summoning additional persons will then be regarded as incidental to the cognizance already taken on committal and as, a part, of, the normal process that follows. A fresh committal of such person is not necessary," the Court stated.

FIR Of Confessional Nature Made By Accused Not Substantive Evidence Of Guilt By Itself: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Narayan Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 771

The Supreme Court (Aug. 5) set aside the conviction of a murder convict, who was convicted based on the confessional FIR registered by him.

The Court held that the confessional FIR filed by the appellant, being barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, could not by itself form the basis for conviction in the absence of strong corroborative evidence establishing guilt. With the FIR deemed inadmissible, the medical evidence, though carrying corroborative value, was also found to be non-conclusive, the court added.

“an FIR of a confessional nature made by an accused person is inadmissible in evidence against him, except to the extent that it shows he made a statement soon after the offence, thereby identifying him as the maker of the report, which is admissible as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Act of 1872. Additionally, any information furnished by him that leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Act of 1872. However, a non-confessional FIR is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Act of 1872 and is relevant.”, the court observed.

Public Institutions Must Handle Cases Diligently; State Must Have Internal Mechanisms To Monitor Pending Litigations : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Odisha State Financial Corporation v. Vigyan Chemical Industries And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 772

The Supreme Court (Aug. 5) criticized the public entity-Odisha State Financial Corporation (“OSFC”) for its careless and irresponsible approach towards handling the litigation in a long-standing dispute, due to which crores of public money were at risk of illegal disbursement in the form of execution of a decades-old decree.

The Court ruled in OSFC's favor while setting aside the decades-old excessive execution demands against it, but did not spare OSFC from criticism. The Court emphasized that public institutions have a heightened duty to act diligently when engaged in litigation involving public funds.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard the dispute which stemmed from a 1985 supply transaction, where a money decree of just ₹90,400 passed in 2001 had inflated to an astronomical ₹8.89 crore by 2025, due to erroneous interest calculations and prolonged delay on the Appellant's part for not ensuring effective representation before the Trial Court. Further, the Court also rebuked the Trial Court for passing the orders without a proper appreciation of the factual matrix or applicable legal principles.

Alimony From First Divorce Irrelevant To Determine Alimony From Second Marriage : Supreme Court

Case: A v. State Of Maharashtra.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 773

The Supreme Court observed that alimony received after the first divorce was not a relevant factor to determine the alimony payable after the divorce of the second marriage.

The Court rejected the husband's contention that the wife was not entitled to alimony as she got a fair settlement from her first divorce.

"The appellant-husband asserts that the 2nd respondent-wife got a fair settlement as alimony from the earlier divorce; which, we find at the outset, is irrelevant in the adjudication of the present dispute...the alimony received by the respondent on the dissolution of her first marriage is not a relevant consideration" the Court said.

IBC Moratorium Doesn't Bar Voluntary Surrender Of Corporate Debtor's Leased Property To Lessor: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Sincere Securities Private Limited & Ors. v. Chandrakant Khemka & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 774

The Supreme Court (August 5) held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), does not bar the voluntary handover of property leased by the corporate debtor to the lessors if retaining the asset is deemed unviable and the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) endorses the decision.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and S.C. Sharma set aside the NCLAT's ruling, which had barred the recovery of the leased property during the moratorium, observing that the NCLAT had failed to give due weight to the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

“The commercial wisdom of the CoC must, accordingly, be given primacy during the CIRP. When UCO Bank, constituting the CoC, decided that retention of the possession of the subject property was not in the interest of the CIRP, that decision must be given the respect that is lawfully due to it.”, the court said, relying on K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and others, (2019) 12 SCC 150.

Entity Won't Lose Character Of Public Trust By Mere Registration Under Societies Registration Act : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 775

The Supreme Court (Aug. 5) held that there's no bar to a representative suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) against a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 if it qualifies as a 'constructive trust'.

Mere registration of a society under the Societies Registration Act, after the entity attained the characteristics of a public trust, will not change the character of the properties which had already been constituted as trust properties.

At the same time, the Court added that registration as a society would not automatically invest the properties of the society with the character of a trust.

When Can S.92 CPC Suit Be Maintained Against Registered Society As 'Constructive Trust'? Supreme Court Explains Principles

Cause Title: Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 775

In a judgment (Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra and others), the Supreme Court summarised the principles related to Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and explained the circumstances when a registered society can be construed as a 'constructive trust' so as to maintain a suit under S.92 against it.

The judgment, delivered by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, summarised, the conclusions as follows :

i. A suit under Section 92 of the CPC is a representative suit of a special nature since the action is instituted on behalf of the public beneficiaries and in public interest. Obtaining a 'grant of leave' from the court before the suit can be proceeded with, acts as a procedural and legislative safeguard in order to prevent public trusts from being subjected to undue harassment through frivolous suits being filed against them and also to obviate a situation that would cause a further wastage of resources which can otherwise be put towards public charitable or religious aims. However, at the stage of grant of leave, the court neither adjudicates upon the merits of the dispute nor confers any substantive rights upon the parties.

Mere Absence Of External Injuries Not Sufficient To Discredit Victim's Credible Testimony In Rape Case : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 776

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl, reiterating that a victim's testimony, if credible, is sufficient for conviction, even in the absence of corroborative medical evidence.

“It is an opt-reiterated dictum of law that in cases of rape, the testimony of the prosecutrix alone may be sufficient and sole evidence of the victim, when cogent and consistent, could be properly used to arrive at a finding of the guilt.”, the court said.

“Merely because the medical evidence was less corroborative and less supportive or absent in details or indictive of no external injuries, it in no way weakened the prosecution case. Sole testimony of the victim was a strong evidence to rely on along with available attendant evidence.”, the court added.

'Castigating Lawyers Over Small Mistake May Affect Their Career': Supreme Court On Action Against AoR & Advocate For Filing Misconduct

Case Details: N. ESWARANATHAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE|Diary No. 55057-2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 777

The Supreme Court (July 23) held that lawyers should not be castigated for small mistakes as that may affect their career detrimentally.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the issue arisingfrom a split verdict by another bench of the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had agreed that the Advocates failed to discharge their duties and did not uphold the honour and dignity of the institution (Supreme Court). However, the judges disagreed on the further course of action to be taken.

Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Alleging Simple Fraud No Bar To Arbitration : Supreme Court

Cause Title: The Managing Director Bihar State Food And Civil Supply Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 778

The Supreme Court has allowed the arbitration proceedings to continue in multi-crore Bihar Public Distribution System (“PDS”) Scam, stating that mere pendency of the criminal proceedings in offences involving simple fraud like cheating, criminal breach of trust doesn't bar a dispute from being referred to an arbitration.

“The mere fact that criminal proceedings can or have been instituted in respect of the same incident(s) would not per se lead to the conclusion that the dispute which is otherwise arbitrable ceases to be so.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra dismissed the batch of petitions filed by Bihar State Food and Supply Corporation (“BSFSC”) against the High Court's decision to allow application for appointment of an arbitrator in 1,500-crore Bihar Public Distribution System (PDS) scam.

S. 389 CrPC | To Suspend Sentence, HC Should Assess If Convict Has Fair Chance Of Acquittal : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Jamnalal v. State Of Rajasthan And Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 779

The Supreme Court (Aug. 6) set aside the Rajasthan High Court's order granting bail and suspending the sentence of a man convicted under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor girl, observing that the High Court failed to assess whether the convict has a fair chance of acquittal.

“One would have expected the High Court hearing an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence to examine whether prima facie there was anything palpable on the record to indicate if the accused had a fair chance of overturning the conviction.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, while referring to Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389, observed that when considering an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., the Court must examine whether the material on record is sufficiently strong to prima facie suggest the likelihood of the convict's acquittal.

Power Tariff Must Be Cost-Reflective; Allow DisComs To Recover Revenue Shortfalls Within 4 Years : Supreme Court To Electricity Regulatory Commissions

Cause Title: BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 780

In a significant ruling (August 6), the Supreme Court held that regulatory assets created by the Electricity Regulatory Commissions (“ERCs”) to shield consumers from immediate tariff hikes should not remain unresolved for extended periods. The Court directed that future regulatory assets must be liquidated within three years, while existing ones must be cleared within four years.

The Court also directed all State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) to submit detailed time-bound roadmaps outlining the schedule for regulatory asset liquidation, including the associated carrying costs.

In brief, 'Regulatory Assets', created by the ERCs, are deferred revenue gaps costs already incurred by DISCOMs (Distribution Companies) but not immediately recovered through consumer tariffs. They are meant to shield consumers from sudden tariff spikes by postponing recovery to future years.

Incestuous Sexual Violence Committed By Parent Requires Severest Punishment : Supreme Court Upholds Father's POCSO Conviction

Cause Title: Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 781

Incestuous sexual violence cannot be condoned under any circumstances as it shakes the very foundation of the familial trust, observed the Supreme Court while upholding the conviction of a father who repeatedly raped his minor daughter aged ten years.

Upholding the life sentence imposed on him for the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Court also directed the Himachal Pradesh Legal Services Authority to pay an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- as compensation to the victim girl, who has attained majority now.

"The facts of the case reveal a story of unspeakable betrayal of trust by none other than the father of the victim," the Court noted with dismay at the very outset. Rejecting the father's argument that he was falsely implicated due to strained domestic relationships, the Court observed, "No daughter, however aggrieved, would fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father merely to escape household discipline."

Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea Challenging CJI's Recommendation For His Removal

Case Details: XXX V THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 699/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 782)

The Supreme Court today(August 7) dismissed the writ petition filed by Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house inquiry report, which indicted him in the case-at-home scandal, as well as the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation made to the President and the Prime Minister for Justice Varma's removal.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih, who had reserved the judgment on July 30, pronounced the judgment today.

Pronouncing the judgment, the bench held at the outset that the writ petition cannot be entertained at all, in view of the conduct of Justice Varma in participating in the in-house inquiry and later questioning the competence of the in-house panel to conduct the inquiry.

CJI Has Authority To Recommend Removal Of Judge While Forwarding In-House Inquiry Report To President & PM : Supreme Court

Case Details: XXX V THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 699/2025

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 782

Whiledismissing the writ petitionfiled by Justice Yashwant Varma against the in-house committee report which indicted him in the unaccounted cash controversy, the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of India has the authority to forward the report to the President and the Prime Minister recommending the removal of the Judge.

The Court held that the provision (paragraph 7(ii)) in the in-house procedure formulated by the Supreme Court, requiring the CJI to the President and the Prime Minister along with the report of the Committee to be "legal and valid."

"The CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, apart from his various other duties owes a duty to the people of the country to keep the justice delivery system pure, clean and unpolluted. It is unreasonable to even think that despite an incident of the present nature, the CJI would wait for the Parliament to take action. As observed before, it is up to the Parliament whether or not to activate Article 124. Left to him, the CJI upon being informed of a Judge's remissness does have the authority – moral, ethical and legal – to take such necessary action as is warranted to keep institutional integrity intact. Any adverse impact on the credibility of the institution could prove dear," the Court observed.

Justice Yashwant Varma Case | Videos, Photos Shouldn't Have Been Published, But In-House Inquiry Not Vitiated: Supreme Court

Case Details: XXX V THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 699/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 782

While upholding the overall sanctity of the in-house procedure, the Supreme Court has stated that the video and pictures of cash at Justice Yashwant Varma's official residence should not have been published on the Court's website. To that extent, the Court has said that there is nothing contemplated in the in-house procedure that the incriminating evidence should be published in the public domain.

Nevertheless, it held that since Justice Varma did not raise this issue at the first instance, it would be deemed acquiescence on his part. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih said:

"Uploading of the photographs/video footage, according to the Petitioner, caused him immense harm. Not only did it lower his reputation, he was convicted in the public eye without even a preliminary inquiry. It could be so. However, what baffles us is the conduct of the Petitioner to acquiesce to such uploading, participate in the inquiry without demur, and to question such uploading only after the COMMITTEE submitted its report to the CJI recording that there was sufficient substance in the allegations.

Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Timelimit For Assessments Under S.144C

Cause Title: Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 783

The Supreme Court (Aug. 8) delivered a split verdict on the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), governing the timeline for passing assessment orders by the Assessing Officer in cases involving eligible assessees, such as foreign companies and transfer pricing matters.

The judgment was delivered by the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma.

In a split verdict, Justice BV Nagarathna ruled that Section 153(3)'s twelve-month cap still governs even in Section 144C proceedings, rendering the assessments time-barred.

'One More Order From Allahabad HC With Which We're Disappointed' : Supreme Court On HC Ignoring Law On Sentence Suspension

Cause Title: Aasif @ Pasha v. The State Of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 784

The Supreme Court again expressed displeasure with an order of the Allahabad High Cour which declined to suspend the fixed-term sentence without applying the settled position of law on sentence suspension.

The Court set aside the High Court's order, observing that it had failed to properly assess the circumstances justifying the denial of sentence suspension in a fixed-term conviction, as the law was settled in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421 which stated that when a person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence should be considered by the Appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.

“The impugned Order is one more from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with which we are disappointed.”, the bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said.

Supreme Court Appoints Ex-Allahabad HC Judge Ashok Kumar As Head Of Committee To Administer Bankey Bihari Temple

Case Title: Devendra Nath Goswami v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 709/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 785

The Supreme Court has constituted a High Powered Committee led by Justice Ashok Kumar, former Allahabad High Court Judge, to oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning of the Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple at Vrindavan, Mathura in Uttar Pradesh.

The Court constituted this Committee while suspending the operation of the Committee constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. The Court relegated the challenge to the Constitutional validity of the Ordinance to the Allahabad High Court. Till the High Court decides the matter, the High-Powered Committee constituted by the Supreme Court will be in charge of the temple.

The Court stayed operation of the Ordinance's provisions in the interregnum, only to the extent they grant the State powers to constitute a Trust for managing the Temple's affairs. This interim order was passed considering the fact that the High Court may take some time in deciding the matter.

Bar Councils Can't Collect Any Amount As "Optional Fee" During Enrolment : Supreme Court

Case Details: K. L. J. A. KIRAN BABU v. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY RAMESH S NAIK (FDA)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 786

The Supreme Court clarified that the Bar Council of India or the State Bar Councils can't collect any fees over and above the statutory fees as "optional fee" for enrolment.

"We make it clear that there is nothing like optional. No State Bar Council(s) or Bar Council of India shall collect any fees of any amount as optional. They shall strictly collect fees in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the main judgment."

The Court affirmed its Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024) judgment that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Therefore, it stated that as stipulated in Section 24, the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs. 750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs. 125 for advocates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories.

Motor Accidents | Insurer Of Registered Owner Liable If Vehicle's Registration Was Not Changed After Transfer: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 787

The Supreme Court held that the insurer of the registered owner of a vehicle will be liable to compensate third-party losses arising out of the use of the vehicle, if the registration of the vehicle was not changed despite its transfer.

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria heard an appeal by a goods carriage driver challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's ruling that held him personally liable to compensate passengers who were killed and injured in a fatal accident that occurred while travelling in his vehicle with their goods. The vehicle was under the driver's possession based on the owner's agreement to transfer the ownership to him; however, the registration was not formally transferred.

The insurer denied liability, contending that the passengers were travelling gratuitously. It further contended that since the ownership was in effect trasnferred, the policy issued in the name of registered owner was no longer in effect, and therefore, the loss could not be indemnified under the policy.

'Against Equality' : Supreme Court Quashes Army Policy To Reserve Higher Number Of JAG Posts For Men Than Women

Case Details: ARSHNOOR KAUR V UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 772/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 788

The Supreme Court today(August 11) struck down a policy of the Indian Army to reserve the posts in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch for men and restricted the number of women who can be appointed to JAG posts.

"Keeping the above noted analytical framework in consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the practice challenged in the present petition results in indirect indiscrimination. The practice of fixing a ceiling limit to recruitment of female candidates has the effect of perpetuating the status quo, which has been historically discriminatory to women candidates. The result of such practice is confinement of women candidates, irrespective of their performance/merit, in their gendered category, thereby being destructive of not just the Constitutional scheme under Articles 15 and 16 as noted hereinabove, but also of the concept of 'gender-neutrality' and 'merit'."

The Court held that the true meaning of gender-neutrality is that all meritorious candidates, irrespective of gender, should be selected. Therefore, it has directed the Union of India and the Indian Army to conduct recruitment in JAG in a manner that there is no bifurcation of seats for any gender, that is, if all female candidates are deserving, all of them should be selected.

Supreme Court Upholds Punjab Jail Official's Conviction For Helping Prisoner's Escape Attempt

Cause Title: Gurdeep Singh v. The State Of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 789

Observing that the custodial officers must be held to the highest standards of integrity, the Supreme Court (Aug. 11) upheld the conviction of a Punjab Jail Official for his role in a criminal conspiracy to facilitate the escape attempt of an undertrial prisoner and assault on police officers.

Condemning the Appellant's conduct, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan refused to interfere with the conviction, citing the Appellant's demonstrated role in helping with the escape of the prisoners. The Court noted that the appellant, as a jail superintendent, was expected to uphold security protocols but instead facilitated a breach.

Adverse Possession Plea Can't Be Raised For First Time At Appellate Stage : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Kishundeo Rout & Ors. v. Govind Rao & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 790

Observing that a court's decision cannot rest on grounds beyond the parties' pleadings, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a suit where the plaintiff, having not originally pleaded adverse possession, raised the claim only at the appellate stage.

“It is important to remember that the basic rule of law of pleadings is, that a party can only succeed according to what he has alleged and proved, otherwise, on the principle of secundum allegata et probata, a party is not allowed to succeed, where he has not set up the case which he wants to substantiate.”, the court said.

“unless the plea of adverse possession has. been specifically raised in the pleadings, put in issue, and then cogent and convincing evidence led on a multitude of points, and an opportunity to refute the case made out by the plaintiff, availed of by the defendant, the plea of adverse possession cannot be allowed to be flung as a surprise, on an unsuspecting defendant, for the first time in appeal.”, the court added.

Ex-Parte Injunction Must Be Vacated If Plantiff Fails To Comply With Order 39 Rule 3 CPC Conditions : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Time City Infrastructure And Housing Limited Lucknow v. The State Of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 791

The Supreme Court observed that the ex parte interim injunction granted under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC can be vacated if the mandatory requirements to record reasons for granting ex parte relief and service of documents to the opposite party was not ensued.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard a case in which the Appellant, who had secured an ex-parte interim injunction, challenged the Allahabad High Court's decision overturning the trial court's order. The High Court found that the trial court had failed to record reasons for granting the injunction and that the plaintiff had not ensured delivery of the relevant documents to the defendant.

Proviso of Order 39 CPC Rule 3, puts an obligation upon the plaintiff to serve documents such as copy of the application for injunction together with, a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; a copy of the plaint; and copies of documents on which the applicant relies to the defendant when the ex-parte injunction order was passed without giving notice to the defendant.

Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Ascertain If Any Prisoner Is Remaining In Jail Even After Serving Sentence

Cause Title: Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State Of (Nct Of Delhi) & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 792

The Supreme Court (August 12) issued an important direction to the Home Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to ascertain if any convict is remaining in prison beyond the period of sentence.

If any such convict is continuing in prison, then they should be immediately released, if not wanted in any other case, the Court ordered.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the direction while ordering the release of an accused, after noting that he has completed the sentence period even without remission.

Is Judicial Officer Eligible For Appointment As District Judge In Bar Vacancy? Supreme Court Refers To Constitution Bench

Case: REJANISH K.V. v. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No(S). 3947/2020]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 793

The Supreme Court (August 12) referred to a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges the issue whether a judicial officer, who has already completed 7 years in the Bar, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against the Bar vacancy.

The Court also referred the issue whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge has to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed the reference order, noting that the issue related to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution which prescribes that a person, who is not already in the service of Union or the State, can be appointed as a District Judge only if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader.

Supreme Court Orders BCI Inquiry After Client Denies Engagement Of Advocates Who Settled His Case

Case Details: BIPIN BIHARI SINHA @ BIPIN PRASAD SINGH v. HARISH JAISWAL|MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(S). 7144/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 794

The Supreme Court directed the Bar Council of India to conduct an inquiry into the proceedings where an allegedly false settlement agreement was prepared by certain advocates to arrive at a settlement between the petitioner and the respondent, where the latter claims to have never engaged an advocate to represent his case.

In a peculiar case before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, the Court had to examine whether to recall its December 13, 2024, order whereby it disposed of a special leave petition after the Court was informed by the parties that they had arrived at a settlement in a matter relating to a property dispute.

However, soon a miscellaneous application was filed by respondent Harish Jaiswal claiming that he had never engaged any lawyer to settled the matter with the appellant.

Place Of Exclusive Jurisdiction Deemed As 'Seat' Of Arbitration : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S Activitas Management Advisor Private Limited v. Mind Plus Healthcare Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 795

The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of a seat or venue of arbitration in the arbitration agreement, the place where the exclusive jurisdiction has been vested as per the agreement would be regarded as the 'seat' of the arbitration.

The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order allowing an application for the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute where the arbitration agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication upon the Bombay High Court.

Relying on Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd. (2020), the Court held that the Bombay High Court would have jurisdiction as the “seat” of arbitration, even in the absence of an expressly specified seat in the agreement.

Supreme Court Quashes HC Order Banning Use Of CM Stalin's Name For TN Govt Scheme; Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Cost On AIADMK MP Who Challenged It

Case: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru. C.Ve. Shanmugam | Slp(C) No. 21487/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 796

The Supreme Court (August 6) set aside the interim order passed by the Madras High Court which prohibited the Tamil Nadu Government from using the name of Chief Minister MK Stalin for the 'Ungaludan Stalin' (Your Stalin) scheme announced to create awareness about welfare programmes.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed the direction in the petitions filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party as well as the Tamil Nadu Government against the High Court's order.  The High Court's order had restrained the use of names and photographs of living personalities, former Chief Ministers, party leaders or political parties for government welfare schemes.

The Supreme Court was critical of the conduct of AIADMK MP C.Ve Shanmugam (the petitioner before the HC) in singling out only the scheme of the TN Government in his challenge when such schemes in the names of leaders were common across the country. The Court noted the submission of DMK that during the term of AIADMK several schemes were carried out in the name of leaders.

Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Olympian Wrestler Sushil Kumar In Murder Case, Directs Surrender In A Week

Case: Ashok Dhankad v. State Nct Of Delhi And Anr | Slp(Crl) No. 5370/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 797

The Supreme Court (August 13) cancelled the bail granted by the Delhi High Court to Olympian wrestler Sushil Kumar in the Sagar Dhankhar murder case.

The Court directed him to surrender within a week.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the order in an appeal filed by Ashok Dhankad, the father of victim Sagar, challenging the order passed by the Delhi High Courtin March this year granting bail to Sushil Kumar.

Supreme Court Directs Shifting Of All Stray Dogs In Delhi To Dog Shelters; Warns Persons Obstructing Of Penal Action

Case Details:  In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'|Smw(C) No. 5/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Expressing serious concerns about the menace of dog bites and rabies, the Supreme Court (August 11) passed an important direction to the authorities in the National Capital Territory of Delhi to immediately start picking up stray dogs from all localities and shift them to dog shelters. The directions also extend to Noida, Gurugram and Ghaziabad.

The Court warned that if any individual or organisation obstructed the authorities from picking up stray dogs, then they would face legal consequences. The authorities can create a dedicated force to pick up the strays, the Court clarified.

The stray dogs should be detained in the shelters and should not be released into the public.

Non-Signatories Have No Right To Attend Arbitration Proceedings, Their Presence Breaches Confidentiality : Supreme Court

Cause Title: KAMAL GUPTA & ANR. v. M/S L.R. BUILDERS PVT. LTD & ANR. ETC. (And Connected Matter)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 799

The Supreme Court (Aug. 13) observed that a party non-signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot participate in the arbitration proceedings, as the signatories to an arbitration agreement are only entitled to remain present in the arbitration proceedings.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which allowed the non-signatories to an arbitration agreement to attend the arbitration proceedings in the presence of their counsels.

Thus, the Court considered the issue of “Whether it is permissible for a non-signatory to an agreement leading to arbitration proceedings to remain present in such arbitration proceedings?”

Supreme Court Strikes Down 2007 Kerala Govt Order Capping Coconut Toddy Alcohol Content At 8.1% v/v

Case Title – Komalan Etc. Etc. v. State Of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 800

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala Government's 2007 notification fixing the maximum ethyl alcohol content in coconut toddy at 8.1% v/v, and quashed all prosecutions based on that limit.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar was hearing a batch of civil appeals arising from the Kerala High Court's decision dismissing writ petitions challenging several FIRs filed against the appellants for alleged violation of Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002. They were facing cases over the allegation that they sold toddy containing alcohol beyond permissible limit.

During the pendency of the appeals, on May 1, 2024, the Court directed the State Government to revisit the Rules to consider whether the ethyl alcohol limit in coconut toddy fixed at 8.1% v/v was appropriate.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Kannada Actors Darshan, Pavitra Gowda In Renukaswamy Murder Case

Case Details: The State Of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. Etc.|Slp(Crl) No. 516-522/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 801

The Supreme Court today(August 13) set aside the bail granted to Kannada actors Darshan, Pavitra Gowda and five other accused in the Renukaswamy Murder Case.

The other accused persons are, namely Nagaraju R., Anu Kumar@Anu, Lakshman M, Jagadeesh@Jagga and Pradoosh S Rao@Pradoosh.

Allowing the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the High Court's order of December 2024 granting them bail, the bench comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ordered :

'No Five-Star Treatment For Accused, Or We Will Suspend Jail Superintendent': Supreme Court Warns

Case Details: The State Of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. Etc.|Slp(Crl) No. 516-522/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 801

Whilecancelling the bailgranted to Kannada Actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case, the Supreme Court has warned the jail authorities against providing any special treatment to the actor over his celebrity status.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan cancelled the bail granted to actors Darshan, Pavitra Gowda and five other accused in the Renukaswamy Murder Case in a plea filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the High Court's order of December 2024. The Court, while cancelling the bail, observed that the High Court's order is perverse and suffers from serious legal infirmities. It also held that the High Court exercised discretion without applying of mind when it considered Darshan's celebrity status as a mitigating factor in granting bail.

Justice Pardiwala, penning a concurring opinion, remarked that the judgment contained a very strong message that the justice delivery system at any level should ensure, at any cost, that the rule of law is maintained.

Supreme Court Recommends Creation Of Appellate Body For Orders Of Tariff Authority For Major Ports

Cause Title: Paradip Port Authority v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 802

The Supreme Court (Aug. 12) recommended the formation of an expert committee to hear appeals against orders of the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP), constituted under the Major Ports Trusts Act, 1961 for tariff determination, in place of the current practice of filing appeals directly before the Supreme Court.

“we recommend to make the remedy of appeal more effective and meaningful without disrespect to any authority. It would be appropriate if an expert appellate body is constituted to hear appeals against the orders passed by the adjudicatory board/TAMP.”, the court said.

In this regard, the Court reiterated the direction made in the case of Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited (2020), which denounced the provisions allowing the filing of the direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the orders passed by the tribunals.

Premium Whiskey Consumers Won't Confuse 'Blenders Pride' With 'London Pride' : Supreme Court Rejects Pernod Ricard's Plea

Cause Title: Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 803

The Supreme Court (Aug. 14) dismissed the interim injunction plea of Pernod Ricard against the alleged infringement of its registered Whisky marks “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “IMPERIAL BLUE” by a country-made Whisky brand “LONDON PRIDE”.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the brands in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies aimed at a discerning consumer base, whose purchase decisions are made with greater care and are unlikely to be swayed by trade dress. Accordingly, the Court found no deceptive similarity between the competing marks that could lead to confusion.

The Court was deciding the appeal filed by Pernod Ricard challenging the orders of the Indore Commercial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court which rejected its interim injunction applications against the respondent. The appellant contended that the respondent used the similar name as "Blenders Pride" and used the similar styling of "Imperial Blue" for "London Pride".

Publish On Website List Of Voters Omitted In Bihar SIR With Reasons; Specify Aadhaar Card Can Be Submitted: Supreme Court Directs ECI

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 804

The Supreme Court (August 14) directed the Election Commission of India to publish on the websites of the District Electoral Officers the district-wise list of approximately 65 lakh voters who have been omitted from the draft electoral roll published after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive in Bihar. The Court also stated that the reasons for deletion, such as death, migration, double-registration etc, should be specified.

This information should also be displayed on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar. The documents should be searchable based on EPIC numbers.

Apart from that, the Court also directed the Election Commission to specify in public notices that the excluded persons, at the time of submitting their claims for inclusion in the final list, can also furnish their Aadhaar cards. Wide publicity should be given through newspapers, electronic and social media that the list will be published on website.

S.6(2)(b) CGST Act | Central Authority Can Issue Summons Despite State Authority Initiating Proceedings : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Cgst, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 805

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (Aug. 14) held that a summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act does not constitute “initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.  Therefore, there's no bar to issuing a summons where the State GST authorities have already issued a show cause notice on the same subject matter.

The Court clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, to avoid duplicity of proceedings, would be applicable only when the Central and State GST authorities initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The Court reasoned that since the summons served are meant to be investigative, not adjudicative, they fall outside the bar Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.

"At the stage of issuing a summons, the Department is yet to determine whether proceedings should be initiated against the assessee. Such evidence-gathering and inquiry do not constitute “proceedings” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The mere issuance of a summons cannot be equated with proceedings barred under the Act, as the subject matter cannot be ascertained solely through summons."

Supreme Court Asks Lawyers To Apologise To Telangana HC Judge For Making Scandalous Allegations In Transfer Petition

Case Details: In Re: N. Peddi Raju And Ors. v.| Smc(C) No. 3/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 806

The Supreme Court (August 11) directed the lawyers involved in filing a transfer petition with 'scurrilous and scandalous' remarks against a sitting Telangana High Court Judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, to place their unconditional apology before the judge within one week.

Justice Bhattacharya was requested to consider and decide the issue of acceptance of the apology tendered.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and AS Chandukar was hearing the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against lawyers who agreed to file a transfer petition with 'scurrilous and scandalous' remarks against a sitting Telangana High Court Judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.

High Court Judges Not Inferior To SC Judges; SC Doesn't Have Administrative Control Over HCs : Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: N. Peddi Raju And Ors. v.| Smc(C) No. 3/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 806

The Supreme Court emphasised that High Court Judges are in no way inferior to the Supreme Court Judges and enjoy the same constitutional position.

Although the Supreme Court can judicially reverse or modify the decisions of the High Court, it does not mean that the Supreme Court has administrative control over the High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria made these observations while directingcertain lawyers, who made scandalous allegations against a Telangana High Court Judge in a transfer petition, to tender unconditional apology to the Judge.

SIT Flags Flaws In NOIDA's Functioning; Supreme Court Bars Projects In NOIDA Without Prior EIA & Green Bench Approval

Case Title: Virendra Singh Nagar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr., Slp(Crl) No. 1251/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 807

After considering a Special Investigation Team (SIT) report which flagged various shortcomings in the functioning of NOIDA authority, the Supreme Court passed a significant order directing registration of preliminary enquiries on the issue of exorbitant payment of land acquisition compensation and the alleged collusion between officers and land-owners.

The Court also restrained project development in NOIDA without prior Environmental Impact Assessment and approval of the report by the Court's green bench. A new SIT comprising three IPS officers was ordered to be constituted, replacing the earlier SIT, to carry out a new mandate.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in a case where it had ordered SIT probe while dealing with the anticipatory bail plea of a NOIDA law officer, following allegations of higher compensation being awarded to some landowners though they were "not entitled".

'Education Now An Industry' : Supreme Court Strikes Down Centre's Exemption For Educational Buildings From Environmental Clearance

Case Title – Vanashakti v. Union Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 808

The Supreme Court struck down a part of the Centre's January 29, 2025 notification that had exempted construction projects related to industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels from obtaining prior environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that this exemption, contained in Note 1 to Clause 8(a) of the amended schedule, was arbitrary and contrary to the purpose of the Environment Protection Act. However, the rest of the notification was upheld.

“We see no reason behind the exemption of 2006 notification for the industry and educational buildings. If any construction activity of an area more than 20000 sqm is carried out, it will naturally have an effect on the environment, even if the building is for educational purpose. We see no reason to discriminate the other buildings with the buildings constructed for industrial or educational purposes. It is common knowledge that education is no more a merely service-oriented profession. It is common knowledge that education has nowadays also become a flourishing industry”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Overturns Haryana Sarpanch Election Result After Recounting Of EVM Votes By Its Registrar

Case Title: Mohit Kumar v. Kuldeep Singh And Ors., Slp(C) No. 18410/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 809

In a rare occurrence, the Supreme Court overturned the results of a Gram Panchayat election in Haryana after summoning the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to itself and recounting of votes by its Registrar.

Upon recounting, the 'defeated' candidate was found to have obtained 51 more votes than the candidate who was declared elected. As such, subject to the final judgment of the Election Tribunal, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Officer, Panipat to issue within 2 days a notification declaring the defeated candidate (petitioner) as the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

The petitioner shall be entitled to assume the said office forthwith and perform his duties, the Court said.

Parties Who Consented To Arbitration Estopped From Opposing Award On Ground Of Non-Arbitrability : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 810

The Supreme Court held that in disputes concerning trusts, once a party voluntarily submits to arbitration and accepts a consent decree, the doctrine of estoppel applies, making it impermissible for that party to challenge later the decree on the ground that such disputes are non-arbitrable.

The bench comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and Atul S. Chandurkar heard the case where the dispute arose among trustees of the Guru Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust. The respondents had initially filed a suit for perpetual injunction, but the Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the suit barred under Section 92 CPC. During the pendency of appeal, the parties moved an application stated that they had resolved their disputes through arbitration and requested that the matter be disposed in terms of the settlement. Thus, the arbitration agreed award was incorporated into a consent decree by the District Court.

When the appellants sought interim measures under S.9 of the Arbitration Act in terms of the award, the respondents challenged its validity, claiming disputes involving charitable trusts were non-arbitrable. Both the Commercial Court and the High Court held in the respondent's favour, declaring the award a nullity, prompting the Appellant to move to the Supreme Court.

WB Premises Tenancy Act | Tenant Not Protected From Eviction If Admitted Rent Not Deposited Within Time As Per S.7 : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 811

Interpreting the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (“Act”), the Supreme Court ruled that once an eviction summons is served on a tenant, the statutory 30-day period for depositing arrears of rent along with applicable interest is mandatory and cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar dealt with a case where the appellant-tenant failed to deposit the admitted rent within the statutory 30-day period and subsequently filed a belated application for determination of rent along with a plea under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Since both mandatory conditions to avoid eviction timely payment of rent within 30 days and filing an application for rent determination within the same period were not met, the High Court declined to grant him relief, leading to his appeal before the Supreme Court.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari observed:

S. 306 IPC | For Abetment Of Suicide, Test Is Whether Accused Intended By His Action To Drive Victim To Suicide : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 812

The Supreme Court (Aug. 18) upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to quash the abetment to suicide case against the Dadra & Nagar Haveli Administrator and other officials over the suicide by MP Mohanbhai Delkar, observing that harassment, without a direct and proximate link to the suicide, is insufficient to sustain charges under Section 306 IPC.

“even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life.”, the court said.

“The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test.”, the court added.

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of FIR Against Dadra & Nagar Haveli Administrator & Officials Over Suicide Of MP Mohanbhai Delkar

Case Details: ABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA| Crl.A. No. 002177 - 002185 / 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 812

The Supreme Court (August 18) has upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court, which quashed the FIR alleging the offences of abetment to suicide and extortion relating to the death of MP Mohanbhai Delkar in 2021.

Today, the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria pronounced the decision and stated :

"HC order confirmed and dismissed the (SLP)."

Supreme Court Orders Husband To Pay Rs. 1.25 Crores Permanent Alimony To Wife While Dissolving Marriage

Cause Title: X V Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 813

The Supreme Court has directed a husband to pay ₹1.25 crore as permanent alimony to his wife while dissolving the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal arising out of a Madras High Court's order which set aside the divorce decree granted in favour of the husband by the family court on grounds of cruelty by Respondent-wife.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath invoked the Court's inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage, stating that the marriage was irretrievably broken down because of the remarriage of the husband which undertook based on the divorce decree passed in his favour by the family court.

RP Act | Mere Failure To Disclose Assets Won't Invalidate Election Unless They're Substantial : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 814

The Supreme Court held that mere failure to disclose assets in the affidavit, if it does not constitute a material defect and is not of a substantial character, will not make the acceptance of the nomination improper, thus invalidating the election.

Such a failure will not amount to a corrupt practice as per Section 123 of the Representative of People's Act, 1951 (“RPA”) to render an election result void as per Section 100(1)(b).

Holding so, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the election of the Bharat Rashtra Samiti (“BRS”) MLA Kova Laxmi who was elected from Asifabad constituency of Telangana Legislative Assembly Elections, 2023.

Supreme Court Forms Search Committee Headed By Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia for Kerala University Vice-Chancellor Appointments

Case Details: THE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS| SLP(C) No. 20680-20681/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Given the stalemate between the Kerala Government and the Kerala Governor regarding the appointment of University Vice Chancellors, the Supreme Court (August 18) appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as the Chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection Committee to shortlist names of regular Vice-Chancellor appointments in two State Universities - APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology.

"We firmly believe that this impasse, which has been created, should be taken care of at earliest. In such circumstances, we appointed Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, former judge of this Court, as chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection University for both universities.

The learned Chairperson is hereby authorized to constitute separate or joint Search-cum-Selection Committees for the two Universities.

Indian Telegraph Act | Supreme Court Recommends Creation Of Statutory Appeal Over District Judge's Compensation Order Under S.16(3)

Cause Title: KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.) v. VINOD AND ORS. ETC. (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 816

The Supreme Court (Aug. 19) recommended to the Union Government to consider introducing a statutory appeal against the compesnation awarded by the District Judge under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for land used to lay down power transmission lines.

The dispute concerned damages arising from the erection of transmission towers and overhead lines, where compensation is governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Under the Act, such disputes are adjudicated by District Judges, whose orders are deemed 'final,' with no statutory right of appeal. The Court noted this legislative gap, as the absence of an appellate remedy compels parties to invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, where the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence. To address this vacuum, the Court directed the Union Government to consider introducing a statutory appeal mechanism against compensation awards by District Judges, rather than relegating parties solely to writ proceedings.

“In the aforesaid background, we are of the opinion that these issues need to be examined by the Law Commission of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, so as to determine whether a statutory remedy of appeal should be provided against judgments/orders passed under Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of the 1885 Act, the Petroleum Act or any other similar statute.”, the court said.

Supreme Court Directs Haridwar Collector To Inquire Into Maa Chandi Devi Temple Trust Management; Allows BKTC's Interim Supervision

Cause Title: MAHANT BHAWANI NANDAN GIRI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. (And Connected Case)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 817

The Supreme Court (Aug. 19) directed the District Collector of Haridwar to conduct a personal inquiry into the management of the Maa Chandi Devi Temple Trust, Haridwar.

The Supreme Court also refrained from disturbing the interim arrangement put in place by the Uttarakhand High Court by which the management of the trust was directed to be under the supervision of the Badarinath Kedarnath Temple Committe (BKTC).

The Court asked the District Collector to conduct a fresh inquiry and recommend a suitable interim management structure in a report to be submitted to the High Court, which shall then take a final call on the permanent/regular management of the temple trust.

Govts Must Not Extract Regular Work From Ad-hoc Workers; Must Create Sanctioned Posts For Recurring Jobs : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 818

The Supreme Court (Aug. 19) set aside the Allahabad High Court's decision that had denied regularization of long-serving ad-hoc employees who performed perennial nature of work at the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, solely on the ground that they were initially appointed as daily wagers and no sanctioned posts were available.

The appellants'-  five Class-IV employees and a Driver- had been continuously working with the Commission since 1989–1992. Despite decades of service, their demand for regularization was rejected by the State, citing “financial constraints” and a ban on the creation of new posts. The High Court's decision affirming the State's decision led to the filing of the instant appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned judgment, and placing reliance on cases of Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reiterated that the plea of employee being outsourced cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism".

NHAI Or Its Agents Can't Levy Toll If Road Is Pothole-Ridden: Supreme Court Affirms Kerala HC View

Case Details: National Highway Authority Of India And Anr. v. O.J Janeesh And Ors| Slp(C) No. 22579/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 819

The Supreme Court affirmed the view of the Kerala High Court that the National Highways Authority of India cannot force commuters to pay toll if the highway is kept in a terrible condition.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed the NHAI's appeal against the Kerala High Court's judgment which suspended the toll collection at Paliyekkara in Thrissur district along NH-544 due to the bad condition of the road.

The bench expressly recorded its agreement with the High Court's view that a citizen paying toll acquires a corresponding right to demand good roads, and if that right is not protected, then the NHAI or its agents cannot demand toll.

Govt Press Releases Not “Change in Law” In PPA : Supreme Court Rejects Power Generators' Plea

Cause Title: NABHA POWER LIMITED v. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS (And Connected Case)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 820

The Supreme Court (Aug. 19) observed that the government decisions and clarifications, including the 'press releases' could not be considered as “change in law” in Power Purchase Agreements (“PPAs”).

Holding thus, the bench comprising Chief Justice Of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the plea filed by Nabha Power Limited (NPL) and Talwandi Sabo Power Limited (TSPL) who sought compensation from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (“PSPCL”) on the grounds of change in law, upholding the findings of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) which ruled that public notices or press release lacking a legislative or statutory backing cannot be considered as a change in law as they merely qualifies as an administrative policy instruments put in place for clarifications by the government.

The case stems from a dispute that arose after the appellants, being special purpose vehicles set up to develop thermal power projects in Punjab, had executed Power Purchase Agreements with PSPCL after tariff-based competitive bidding. They later claimed that government decisions and clarifications, including a press release on mega power project benefits and subsequent DGFT notifications, altered the fiscal framework and thus qualified as a “Change in Law,” entitling them to compensation.

Offences Connected To S.172-188 IPC Can't Be Split Up To Bypass S.195 CrPC Bar : Supreme Court Lays Down Principles

Cause Title: Devendra Kumar v. The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 821

The Supreme Court (Aug. 20) clarified that while Section 195 Cr.P.C. bars a magistrate from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC unless the concerned public servant files a complaint, the bar also extends to other offences that are so closely connected with those provisions that they cannot be split up.

After discussing precedents, the Court observed :

"Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant who was voluntarily obstructed in the discharge of his public functions. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction.”

Limitation Period For Offence Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act Starts From Receipt Of Drug Analyst's Report : Supreme Court

Case Details: MITESHBHAI J. PATEL AND ANR. v. THE DRUG INSPECTOR AND ANR.| @SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 3662-3663/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 822

The Supreme Court held that the period of limitation for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940, punishable with 3 years imprisonment, has to be calculated from the date of publishing of the government analyst's report.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the challenge to the order of the Kerala High Court, which allowed the continuation of proceedings against the appellant under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, holding the complaints to be within the period of limitation.

On 29.01.2010, the Drug Inspector collected samples of two batches of Rabeprazole Tablets from City Medicals, Kozhikode, Kerala. The drug was manufactured by Indica Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd., whose directors are the appellants.

Supreme Court Restores SBI Official's Removal For Taking Bribes To Sanction Loans; Reiterates Limited Interference In Writ Jurisdiction

Cause Title: State Bank Of India & Others v. Ramadhar Sao

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 823

The Supreme Court (Aug. 20) reiterated that writ courts can interfere with disciplinary inquiries only in cases of procedural irregularities or violation of natural justice.

The bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan allowed the State Bank of India's appeal, restoring the disciplinary authority's decision to remove a bank employee accused of corruption. The Court set aside the Patna High Court's order, holding that it wrongly interfered with the disciplinary inquiry despite no procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice.

In support, the court referred to the case of SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021), where it was held that “the power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court...”

PIL Cannot Be Used As A Mechanism To Settle Scores Between Competing Officers : Supreme Court

Case Details: PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA| Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S). 310/1996

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 824

The Supreme Court held that the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation cannot be used to settle scores between competing government officers.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a batch of contempt petitions alleging the violation of the directions given in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 1 by the Jharkhand Government while appointing the DGP.

The contempt petitions were filed by Babulal Marandi, the leader of the opposition in the Jharkhand State Assembly, as well as Akhil Bharatiya Adimjanjati Bikas Samitee Jharkhand. They alleged that the appointment of Mr Anurag Gupta as the DGP of Jharkhand violated the Prakash Singh directions.

Stray Dogs Picked Up Must Be Released After Vaccination, Except Aggressive Or Rabies-Infected: Supreme Court Modifies Earlier Order

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price' | Smw(C) No. 5/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 825

The Supreme Court today(August 22) stayed the direction passed by a two-judge bench on August 11 that stray dogs, which are picked up from the Delhi National Capital Region, must not be released.

The Court opined that the "direction given in the order dated 11th August, 2025, prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh." It noted that Rule 11(9) of the ABC Rules provided that once the stray dogs have been sterilised, inoculated, and dewormed, they have to be released back in the same locality from which they were picked up

A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria clarified that the stray dogs, which are picked up, must be released back to the same area from where they were picked up, after sterilisation, deworming and immunisation, except those dogs which are infected with rabies, suspected to be infected with rabies or are exhibiting aggressive behaviour.

Supreme Court Holds Consumer Fora Can Enforce Final Orders Passed Between 2003-2020; Rectifies Anomaly In S.25(1) Of 1986 Act

Cause Title: Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/S Magar Girme And Gaikwad Associates Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 826

In a major ruling (Aug. 22), the Supreme Court settled a long-standing issue in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which prevented many flat buyers from enforcing orders pertaining to the execution of sale deeds by the developer between 2003 and 2020.

From now, the final order passed between 2003 and 2020, directing the developer to execute the sale deed or deliver possession, can be enforced under Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act, the court said.

Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act will now be read as:

'Disturbing That Contractual Asst Professors Get Only Rs 30K' : Supreme Court Asks Gujarat Govt To Rationalise Pay Structure

Case Details: SHAH SAMIR BHARATBHAI & ORS. v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.|SLP (C) NO. 1347 OF 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 827

The Supreme Court expressed dismay at the low salaries being given to the Assistant Professors who are appointed on contractual basis in various Government Colleges in the State of Gujarat.

The Court stated that it was hightime for the State to rationalise the pay structure of Assistant Professors on the basis of functions that they perform.

It noted that while Assitant Professors appointed on contractual basis are currently drawing a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-, ad-hoc Assistant Professors are drawing approximately Rs.1,16,000/- per month and regular appointees about Rs.1,36,952/-, though all of them are performing identical functions.

Victim's Appeal Under S.372 CrPC Against Acquittal Can Be Continued By Legal Heir : Supreme Court

Cause Title: KHEM SINGH (D) THROUGH Lrs v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) & ANOTHER ETC.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 828

The Supreme Court has held that when a victim dies during the pendency of an appeal against an accused's acquittal, the victim's legal heirs can step in as substitutes to prosecute the appeal originally filed by the deceased victim.

The Court said that the right to appeal of a victim under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. would become redundant if the victim's legal heirs cannot be substituted for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal against the acquittal.

“Any curtailing of the legal right to prosecute an appeal on the death of an original appellant by his legal heir would make the proviso to Section 372 CrPC wholly redundant and in fact may result in a situation which is contrary to the entire object with which the Parliament had inserted the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the Parliament has been conscious to expand the definition of the word 'victim' to not only include the victim himself who had suffered the loss or injury but also to include his legal heir. When a legal heir, who is not a complainant or an injured victim, can prefer an appeal then why not his legal heir on the death of the legal heir who had preferred the appeal be permitted to prosecute the appeal? We see no reason to curtail the right of a legal heir, who had preferred the original appeal, to be denied the right to prosecute the appeal. In the instant cases, the applicant, who is seeking substitution, is the legal heir of the victim who had preferred the appeal before this Court and is also an injured victim.”, the court said.

Environmental Clearance For Sand Mining Can't Be Granted If DSR Doesn't Have Study On River's Replenishment Capacity : Supreme Court

Cause Title: UNION TERRITORY OF J & K (PREVIOUSLY STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR) & ANR. v. RAJA MUZAFFAR BHAT & ORS. (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 829

The Supreme Court (Aug. 23) observed that in the absence of a replenishment study that assesses the river's annual natural recovery capacity, an Environment Clearance cannot be granted for sand mining projects.

The bench, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, observed that replenishment data is a mandatory prerequisite for environmental clearance in addition to the District Survey Report (“DSR”).

After noting that the District Survey Reports (DSRs) prepared in the case were “fundamentally defective” as they lacked replenishment data, making them untenable in law, the Court dismissed the batch of appeals, upholding the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) decision quashing ECs for sand mining in three blocks of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Supreme Court Recognizes Andhra Pradesh FROs As 'State Forest Service', Declares Them Eligible For Indian Forest Service Promotion

Cause Title: P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 830

In a relief to Andhra Pradesh-based Forest Range Officers (“FROs”), the Supreme Court (Aug. 23) ruled that their services shall be entitled to be treated as 'State Forest Service', making them eligible to promotion to Indian Forest Service (“IFoS”).

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih heard the case where the Appellant, being a FRO, was aggrieved by the High Court's decision overturning the CAT's ruling which recognized FROs' eligibility for IFoS promotion.

Since FROs are gazetted officers within the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service, the judgment authored by Justice Datta ruled that they fall within the definition of State Forest Service once the service is duly approved by the Centre. After the Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, conceded tothis interpretation before the Court, the Court directed the Centre & State to consider eligible FROs for IFoS promotion in all future recruitment exercises.

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | Appellate Courts Must First Examine Pleadings Before Allowing Additional Evidence : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 831

The Supreme Court ruled that additional evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC if it is inconsistent with the pleadings. The Court emphasized that appellate courts must first examine the pleadings before allowing such evidence, as evidence unrelated to the pleadings serves no purpose, rendering them inadmissible.

“In our opinion, before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record. In absence of necessary pleadings in that regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequence as it may not be permissible to take such evidence into consideration.”, the court said.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar heard the dispute stemmed from a 1995 agreement to sell a house in Bangalore. The Appellant-plaintiffs claimed that they paid substantial advances and even sold other properties to arrange funds before filing a suit for specific performance.

Maharashtra Slum Areas Act | Land Can't Be Acquired Without Extinguishing Owner's Preferential Right To Propose Rehabilitation Scheme : Supreme Court

Case Title: Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others, SLP(C) No.19774/2018

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 832

While dealing with acquisition of a parcel of land in Mumbai's Kurla for slum rehabilitation purposes, the Supreme Court held that Chapter I-A of the Slums Act gives preferential right to a landowner, vis-a-vis the State, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), occupiers, and other stakeholders, to redevelop land.

The SRA shall mandatorily issue notice to the landowner inviting its proposal for an SR Scheme and the landowner must submit the Slum Rehabilitation (SR) Scheme "within a reasonable period" , the Court said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh also held that acquisition by the State in terms of Section 14 of the Slums Act [that is, the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971] shall await extinguishment of the landowner's preferential right.

No UAPA Offence Over Attending Meetings Of Organisation Which Isn't Banned : Supreme Court Affirms Bail

Case: Union Of India v. Saleem Khan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 833

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency challenging the bail granted by the Karnataka High Courtto one Saleem Khan under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act over alleged links with 'Al-Hind' organisation.

The Court, noting that 'Al-Hind' was not an organisation banned as per the UAPA, observed that no prima facie offence under the UAPA is attracted if a person is having meetings with it.

"While dealing with the prayer for bail of accused no.11, Saleem Khan, the High Court noticed that the allegations found in the charge-sheet related to his connections with an organisation by the name of ALHind, which admittedly is not a banned organisation under the schedule to UAPA. Therefore, to say that he was attending meetings of the said organisation, AL-Hind and others would not amount to any prima facie offence," observed the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice KV Viswanathan.

If High Court Bench Doesn't Deliver Judgment In 3 Months After Reserving, Registrar Must Place Matter Before Chief Justice : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State Of U.P.|Slp(Crl) No. 4509-4510/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 834

The Supreme Court expressed shock at the manner in which judgments are not being delivered for long period by the High Courts, depriving the litigant to seek appropriate remedy. It reiterated that the guidelines passed by the Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2002), wherein the Court directed that the parties are free to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court for withdrawal of case and to be assigned to a different bench if the judgment is not pronounced within six months after being reserved, must be adhered to properly.

"It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard. This Court is repeatedly confronted with similar matters wherein proceedings are kept pending in the High Court for more than three months, in some cases for more than six months or years wherein judgments are not delivered after hearing the matter. In most of the High Courts, there is no mechanism where the litigant can approach the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice bringing to its notice the delay in delivery of judgment. In such situation, the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice."

Remarking that the principles laid down in Anil Rai must be followed, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said: "We reiterate the directions and direct the Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the Chief Justice of the High Court a list of cases where the judgment reserved is not pronounced within the remaining period of that month and keep on repeating the same for three months. If the judgment is not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing the order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter be assigned to another Bench."

Supreme Court Orders SIT Inquiry Into Affairs Of Vantara Wildlife Centre & Acquisition Of Animals

Case: C R Jaya Sukin V Union Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 835

The Supreme Court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to inquire into the affairs of Vantara (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre) run by the Reliance Foundation at Jamnagar, Gujarat.

The SIT has to inquiry into, among other things, the compliance with the provisions of the Wildlfie Protection Act and other relevant statutes in the acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particulary elephants.

The SIT will be headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice J Chelameswar.

NGT Has No Power To Direct ED Probe Under PMLA : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S C.L. Gupta Export Ltd v. Adil Ansari & Ors. |Civil Appeal No. 2864 Of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 836

The Supreme Court held that the National Green Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the Enforcement Directorate to launch investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against an entity.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the direction of the NGT to the Enforcement Directorate to examine and take appropriate action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In this regard, it cited Waris Chemicals (P) Ltd(2025) and stated that Section 3 of the PMLA is dependent on illegal gains of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Here, there is neither a FIR for any scheduled offence nor any complaint filed alleging such offences under various environmental protection statutes scheduled under PMLA.

The judgment authored by Justice Vinod Chandran stated :

Non-Discovery Of Incriminating Material Does Not Mean Non-Cooperation By Accused: Supreme Court

Case Title: Jugraj Singh v. State Of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 3640/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 837

While granting anticipatory bail to an accused, the Supreme Court observed that mere non-discovery of incriminating material is not an indicator of non-cooperation on the part of the accused.

"Merely because nothing incriminating could be discovered would not mean that there is non-co-operation on the part of accused," said a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The Court was dealing with a case where the appellant-accused was roped in based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, from whom recovery was made. Interestingly, the appellant was booked in a case earlier as well based on statement of co-accused, where he was granted anticipatory bail.

Refusal To Enter Witness Box By Party Having Special Knowledge Of Facts Invites Adverse Inference : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Chowdamma (D) By LR And Another v. Venkatappa (D) By Lrs And Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 838

The Supreme Court (Aug. 25) observed that when certain facts lie exclusively within a party's personal knowledge, the failure to enter the witness box to testify on those facts can lead to serious consequences for that party.

“In civil proceedings, particularly where the facts lie exclusively within the personal knowledge of the party, the refusal to enter the witness box carries grave evidentiary consequences.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the dispute was regarding ascertaining the validity of the first marriage of the plaintiff's mother with one Dasabovi to claim inheritance rights in ancestral property. The Plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to the right in ancestral property as their mother was a legally wedded wife of deceased Dasabovi. However, the defendant no.1-second wife denied the same, stating that she was the only wife of the deceased Dasabovi, hence plaintiffs entitlements towards ancestral property cannot be sustained.

Mere Non-Signing Won't Invalidate Arbitration Agreement If Parties Otherwise Consented To Arbitration : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Glencore International AG v. M/S. Shree Ganesh Metals And Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 839

The Supreme Court observed that merely because an arbitration agreement was not signed, there is no bar to refer the dispute to arbitration, if the parties have otherwise consented to arbitration.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Delhi High Court's decision which declined reference to arbitration merely because Respondent No.1 didn't sign the arbitration agreement. Since the Respondent No.1 consented to the contractual terms via email, the Court held that the High Court's refusal to refer to an arbitration on the ground of non-signing of the arbitration agreement cannot be sustained.

“Noting the fact that the requirement of the arbitration agreement being in writing has been continued in Section 7(3) of the Act of 1996, it was observed that Section 7(4) only added that an arbitration agreement could be found in the circumstances mentioned in the three sub-clauses that make up Section 7(4) but that did not mean that, in all cases, an arbitration agreement needs to be signed. It was held that the only pre-requisite is that it should be in writing, as pointed out in Section 7(3). This legal principle would hold good equally for an arbitration agreement covered by Sections 44 and 45 of the Act of 1996.”, the Court said.

Regulators Cannot Rewrite Power Purchase Agreements Under Guise Of Equity; Sanctity Of Contract Must Prevail : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Cesc) v. Saisudhir Energy (Chitradurga) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 840

The Supreme Court observed that under the guise of equity fairness, the regulatory or adjudicatory fora cannot override the explicit terms of a commercial contract. It added that the Power Purchasing Agreements (“PPAs”) must be enforced strictly as written, without regulators superimposing obligations not contemplated by the parties.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity's (“APTEL”) decision which directed the Appellant to restore to the Developer i.e. Respondent No. 1 herein, the amount realised from the encashment of the performance bank guarantee; extend the timelines for fulfilment of contractual obligations; and to undertake renegotiation of the tariff under the Power Purchase Agreement (the “PPA”) for a solar power project.

“This Court has, in a consistent line of judgements, reiterated that regulatory or adjudicatory fora cannot, under the guise of equity or fairness, rewrite the contractual framework or superimpose obligations alien to the agreement. The PPA, being the product of a competitive bidding process and having received regulatory approval, must be construed and enforced strictly in accordance with its express stipulations. To permit otherwise would be to allow the State Commission or the APTEL to override the parties own allocation of risk under the contract.”, the court said.

'Shabby Investigation, Laconic Trial' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death In Child Rape-Murder Case

Cause Title: Putai v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 841

The Supreme Court (Aug. 26) set aside the conviction of two men in a case involving the rape and murder of a minor in Uttar Pradesh, noting that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, was marred by inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and serious investigative flaws.

“We feel that the present case is yet another classic example of lackluster and shabby investigation and so also laconic trial procedure which has led to the failure of a case involving brutal rape and murder of an innocent girl child.”, the court said.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set aside the conviction of the Appellants, who were sentenced to death and rigorous life imprisonment, respectively, based on the supplementary DNA Report, which was admitted in evidence via affidavit without examining the scientific expert to verify its credibility.

Supreme Court Directs DGFT & CBIC To Update Tech Systems To Ensure Genuine Exporters Don't Lose Benefits Over Clerical Errors

Cause Title: M/S Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 842

The Supreme Court observed that an exporter cannot be denied legitimate entitlements under the government's incentive schemes merely because of an inadvertent clerical error that was later corrected through statutory processes.

Holding thus, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria ruled in favour of an exporter who was denied a claim for benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) just because the column declaring “intent to claim MEIS” in the shipping bills was incorrectly marked “No” instead of “Yes due to oversight of the customs broker.

Though Customs authorities subsequently amended the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) refused to process the claim, citing “system limitations.” The Policy Relaxation Committee rejected the application through a cryptic email, without granting a hearing.

Death Sentence Can Be Challenged In Article 32 Petition For Breach Of Procedural Safeguards: Supreme Court

Case Title: Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union Of India And Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 371/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 843

The Supreme Court allowed an Article 32 petition filed by Vasanta Sampat Dupare, a man convicted and sentenced for the rape and murder of a 4-year old girl, challenging his sentence of death penalty.

"The writ petition is allowed. Therefore, we hold that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers this Court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty without ensuring that the guidelines mandated in Manoj was followed. This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the safeguards laid down in Manoj judgment in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person.

We however add a word of caution. Article 32 of the Constitution is the bedrock of constitutional remedies but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters. Reopening will be reserved for only those cases where there is a clear, specific breach of the new procedural safeguards, as these breaches are so serious that if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused person's basic rights like dignity and fair process" observed the Court.

Criminal Courts Cannot Recall Or Review Their Own Judgments Except For Clerical Or Arithmetical Errors: Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Title – Vikram Bakshi And Ors. v. R.P. Khosla And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 844

The Supreme Court ruled that criminal courts cannot review or recall their judgments except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, while setting aside a Delhi High Court order that had reopened perjury proceedings in a corporate dispute.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the HC order that had recalled its earlier decision dismissing a petition for initiating perjury proceedings in a long-running dispute.

“the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or review their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable, this, despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar”, the Court observed.

Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Bar Not Applicable To Party Who Purchased Suit Property Not From Judgment-Debtor : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Tahir v. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar, (Since Deceased) Now Through His Legal Representatives & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 845

The Supreme Court clarified that the bar under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, which prevents a pendente lite transferee from the judgment-debtor from resisting execution of a decree, does not apply where the objection is raised by a transferee from a third party, who was not a party to the suit.

The Court observed that the bar under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC doesn't apply to objection raised by the transferee from third parties, who were not party to the original suit. The Court added that the transferees from third parties, are entitled to protection under Sections 97-98 CPC, and can raise objection against the execution of decrees subject to the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein.

“However, Rule 102 of Order XXI applies only to a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the immovable property which was subject matter of that suit pendente lite. If the person who is resisting or obstructing the execution of the decree for possession of such property, is not the transferee of judgment debtor, i.e. he does not trace his title from judgment-debtor, bar of Rule 102 does not apply to him. That is to say that if the person who is resisting or obstructing the decree for possession has received the property from person other than the judgment-debtor, such person is competent to gain the benefit of Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI. In fact, he is entitled to such benefit even if he had been transferred the immovable property pendente lite, i.e. during the pendency of the suit, in which the decree was passed.”, the court said.

Order XXX Rule 10 CPC | Absence Of Proprietorship In Suit Not A Defect If Proprietor Is A Defendant: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Dogiparthi Venkata Satish And Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 846

The Supreme Court observed there is no distinction between suing a proprietorship in its trade name or in the proprietor's name, since the firm has no independent legal status and is inseparable from its owner.

“Whether proprietorship concern is sued in its name or through its proprietor representing the concerned is one of the same thing.”, the court said.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision which held that the suit against the proprietorship firm would be maintained against its trade name, and not in the name of the proprietor concern.

Delay In Compliance Without Wilful Intent Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court : Supreme Court

Cause Title: A.K. JAYAPRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH Lrs v. S.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 847

The Supreme Court held that the delay in complying with the Court's direction without any willful or contumacious intent doesn't invite contempt of court.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the contempt petition filed by an ex-bank manager, against the non-compliance of the Court's order which directed the Bank to disburse the outstanding amount to the bank manager within a period of three months. The bank failed to make the payment within three months' time limit, arguing that the delay in compliance was unintentional and pleaded administrative hurdles post-merger of the bank with Punjab National Bank.

Observing that the breach was not deliberate and intentional, the judgment authored by Justice Masih held against the invocation of the contempt jurisdiction in the present case.

Supreme Court Asks HC To Decide If Bank Or EPFO Gets First Charge Over Defaulter's Assets

Cause Title: M/S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Limited v. Regional Pf Commissioner Ii And Recovery Officer, Ro Bengaluru (Koramangala) & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 848

The Supreme Court has directed the Karnataka High Court to adjudicate the critical question of who holds priority over the proceeds from the sale of a defaulter's assets, the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), claiming provident fund dues under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (PF Act), or secured financial creditors enforcing recovery under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a case involving M/s Acropetal Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which had defaulted on provident fund contributions amounting to ₹1.29 crore. Invoking Section 11(2) of the PF Act, the EPFO asserted a statutory first charge over the company's assets. While so, Axis Bank and Edelweiss ARC auctioned the company's secured properties under the SARFAESI framework, realising approximately ₹12 crores and ₹7 crores, respectively.

EPFO insisted that its statutory dues be paid in priority from these proceeds, while Axis Bank resisted, relying on Section 35 of SARFAESI, which gives overriding effect to the Act.

Supreme Court Exonerates Arunachal Pradesh PSC Member Mepung Tadar Bage In 2022 Paper Leak Case

Cause Title: In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 849

The Supreme Court (Aug. 28) exonerated Mepung Tadar Bage, a Member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), of all allegations of “misbehaviour” in connection with the 2022 Assistant Engineer (Civil) mains examination paper leak.

Answering the Presidential reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, the Court conducted a fact-finding inquiry into six charges framed against her and found that none of the allegations were proved against her. The Court added that the charges levelled against her were not in her personal capacity, but general allegations which were not substantiated by cogent evidence.

Highlighting the minimal judicial interference in inquiry proceedings, the court said that when the inquiry results in removal from the constitutional office than the inquiry must be treated with abundant caution.

Recruitment Process Carried Out As Per Statute Can't Be Arbitrarily Scrapped Midway Through Govt Order : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Partha Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors. (and connected case)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 850

Setting aside the Tripura Government's decision to scrap ongoing recruitments midway and replace them with a fresh process under the New Recruitment Policy, 2018 (“NRP”), the Supreme Court (Aug. 28) ruled that executive instructions cannot override statutory recruitment processes and the rules governing them.

The Court said that “executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder. The Executive instructions can only supplement the act and rules through which recruitment process was carried out, but it cannot supplant the specific provisions which already occupy the field.”

“It is not the case of the government that to fill the gaps and to supplement the TSR Act and TSR Rules, the NRP is relevant, therefore, Abeyance Memorandum or Cancellation Memorandum may be upheld. In absence of the same, in our view, the action of the government in cancelling the process of recruitment for the post of Enrolled Followers is not justified and would amount to arbitrary exercise of power.”, the court added.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Income Tax Dept For Launching Prosecution For Tax Evasion Without ITAT Confirmation, Imposes Rs 2 Lakh Cost

Cause Title: Vijay Krishnaswami @ Krishnaswami Vijayakumar v. The Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Investigation)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 851

The Supreme Court imposed Rs. 2 Lakhs cost on Income Tax Department for 'grossly abusing its position' to continue a prosecution against an assessee alleging willful tax evasion.

The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's decision, which refused to quash the prosecution case initiated by the department. The Court criticized the department's action of launching the prosecution against the assessee in contrast to its own circulars, which allow launching the prosecution for tax evasion under Section 276C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) only after the penalty for concealment is confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

Vehicles Plying Only Within Enclosed Premises Of Factory/Plant Not Liable To Pay Motor Vehicle Tax : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S. Tarachand Logistic Solutions Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 852

The Supreme Court ruled that the vehicles operating exclusively within the enclosed premises of a factory or plant are not liable to pay motor vehicle tax, as such areas do not constitute a "public place."

“Motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature. It has a direct nexus with the end use. The rationale for levy of motor vehicle tax is that a person who is using public infrastructure, such as, roads, highways etc. has to pay for such usage. Legislature has consciously used the expression 'public place' in Section 3 (“AP Motor Vehicle Taxation Act”). If a motor vehicle is not used in a 'public place' or not kept for use in a 'public place' then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure; therefore, he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period.”, the court said.

Supreme Court Regularises MBBS Degree Of Student Whose ST Certificate Was Cancelled After Her Course, Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Father

Cause Title: X v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 853

The Supreme Court safeguarded the academic career of a medical student by regularizing her MBBS degree, even though it had been obtained on the basis of a Scheduled Tribe certificate submitted by her father, which was later invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The Court also imposed Rs. 5 Lakhs cost on the father for his fraudulent actions of concealing the invalidation of his community certificate on earlier occasions.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan granted a relief to a student saying that her academic career could not be irreversibly damaged for a fault committed by her father.

'Practice Of One Human Pulling Another In A Cart Inhuman': Supreme Court Bans Hand-Pulled Rickshaws In Matheran

Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 854

Condemning the continuation of the practice of hand-pulled carts/ rickshaws even after 78 years of Independence, the Supreme Court held that manual rickshaw pulling was inhuman and needs to be abolished.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing the issues about a pilot e-rickshaw project in the hill town of Matheran in Maharashtra.

The Court took a serious view on how, even after 78 years of Independence, the practice of hand-pulled carts continues. The Court noted that this is violative of the right to dignity of the individuals.

'Child' Includes 'Orphan Child': Supreme Court Orders Survey To Find If Orphans Are Given Benefits Under Right To Education Act

Case Details: Poulomi Pavini Shukla v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 503/2018

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 855

The Supreme Court directed the States and Union Territories to carry out surveys to find out whether orphan children are getting the benefit of free and compulsory education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 ("RTE Act") or not. The Court passed the order in a writ petition seeking care and protection of orphan children in the country.

Before a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan, advocate and petitioner in person, Poulomi Pavini, submitted that, as per UNICEF's data, there are "25 million orphans" in India, the highest in the world. When Justice Nagarathna asked if the Ministry of Women & Children maintain data on orphan children, Pavini answered that there is no official data maintained. She added that even under the census, the data on them is not collected and insisted that their data should be collected in the census.

Pavini also submitted: "The National Commission of Backwards Classes recommended that orphans can be included in the backward class reservation in 2016." But Justice Nagarathna responded that the reservation is for the States to consider, and the Court can't do anything in that.

Orders and Other Developments

'Let's Close This, Why Be Touchy?' : Supreme Court On BJP Leader's Defamation Case Against Shashi Tharoor's 'Scorpion' Remark About PM Modi

Case Title: Shashi Tharoor v. State Of N.C.T Of Delhi And Anr., Slp(Crl) No. 12360/2024

The Supreme Court today(August 1) orally remarked that proceedings in the criminal defamation complaint against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor over a "scorpion sitting on a Shivling" remark made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018 need to be closed.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh was hearing the matter. The advocate for Tharoor asked for adjournment, whereas the advocate of complainant (BJP leader Rajeev Babbar) sought a hearing on a non-miscellaneous day. On this, Justice Sundresh orally said: "What non-miscellaneous day? Let us close this. Why do you want to be touchy about all this? Let us close all this. That way, administrators, political personalities and judges form the same group, they have sufficiently thicker skin. Don't worry."

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand responded that the matter will have to be heard anyway. Agreeing to this, the Court listed the matter to be heard on some other day. The interim order granted last year will continue.

Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC Rule Barring Retired Judges Of Other States From Applying For Senior Advocate Designation

Case: Vijai Pratap Singh v. Delhi High Court Through Its Registrar General | Slp(C) No. 15148/2025

The Supreme Court (August 1) rejected a petition challenging a rule of the Delhi High Court which prohibits retired judges of other States from applying for senior advocate designation in Delhi.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Vijai Pratap Singh challenging theDelhi High Court's judgment, which had upheld the rule in question.

The challenge was to Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024. As per the Rule, only Judicial Officers who have retired from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service can apply to the Delhi High Court for designation as Senior Advocate. The petitioner had retired from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service.

Supreme Court Grants Last Chance To Union To Frame Guidelines For Safe & Accessible Footpaths

Case Details:  S.Rajaseekaran v. Union Of India And Ors|W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

Pursuant to the May 14 order, the Supreme Court has granted "one last chance" to the Union Government and the State Government to frame rules for protecting the rights of pedestrians, including making footpaths accessible to people with disabilities.

In May, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had held that the right to use footpaths and footways is an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Today, before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, Senior Advocate and amicus Gaurav Aggarwal informed the Court that they are awaiting the guidelines to be framed by the Union pursuant to the May order. He informed that in this matter, the Supreme Court had set up a committee headed by former judge, Justice Sapre, to monitor the implementation of various orders pertaining to road safety. He said, "Once these guidelines are laid down, the committee can start implementing and monitoring those guidelines,. especially for pedestrian safety...It's really important because on Highways, large number of pedestrian deaths are taking place. 10,000 deaths have taken place..."

MBBS Internship: 'You Make Them Work For 18-19 Hours & Pay No Stipend?' : Supreme Court Asks Army College To Clear Arrears Of 2022 Batch

Case Details: Abhishek Yadav v. Army College Of Medical Sciences|W.P.(C) No. 730/2022

The Supreme Court today(August 1) directed the Army Medical College Sciences to pay stipend arrears, calculated at Rs.25,000 per month, to the MBBS interns of 2022.

There was an order passed in September 2023to pay a monthly stipend of Rs. 25,000 to medical students from the batches from October 2023.

At the outset, a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar questioned Senior Advocate R Balasubramanian, for the Army College, why they failed to disburse the stipend even after three years had passed.

NEET-UG 2025 : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner Challenging 3 Questions To Approach High Court

Case Details:  Sabra Ahmad v. National Testing Agency Nta|W.P.(C) No. 728/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 1) dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition, seeking to challenge three questions of physics in the NEET UG examination 2025.

The petition is filed by a NEET UG candidate who had appeared for the examination and found questions 25, 34 and 39 to have been wrongly framed as none of the options provided in the answer were correct.

Her grievance is that because of the wrong questions, she lost 13 marks, which resulted in an overall reduction of her All India Rank. She had made a representation to the National Testing Agency even before the answer keys were released. However, she argues in the petition, she only received evasive replies. The petitioner says she relied on two expert opinions to further her arguments and seeks appropriate remedy by which she may be awarded those marks.

Delhi Police's Negligence Led To Russian Woman Fleeing India With Child : Supreme Court Expresses Disappointment

Case Title – Viktoriia Basu v. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Delhi Police for its “sheer negligence” in allowing a Russian woman to flee the country with her five-year-old child, in violation of its orders in an ongoing custody dispute with the child's Indian father.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed a detailed order after reviewing the status reports filed by the Delhi Police and an affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Court noted that the incident occurred due to the failure of the Delhi Police to act as directed in the Court's earlier order dated May 22, 2025.

“At the outset we are constrained to observe that the incident of taking away the child by the petitioner has happened apparently due to sheer negligence and failure of the Delhi police in performing its duties in terms of the direction contained in para 16(iv) of our order dated 22nd May, 2025”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To States, ED & TRAI On Plea To Ban Betting Apps And Celebrity Endorsements

Case Title – Dr. K.A. Paul @ Kilari Anand v. Union Of India And Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice to all States in a petition filed by evangelist Dr. KA Paul seeking a ban on online and offline betting applications and on celebrity endorsements promoting them.

The Court also issued notice to Directorate of Enforcement, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Google India and Apple India that carry such apps on their app stores, as well as major betting platforms, namely, Dream 11 Fantasy Pvt. Ltd., Mobile Premier League (MPL), and A23 Games (Ace2Three).

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the notices be made returnable in two weeks, and said that it would consider interim directions on the next date of hearing.

Supreme Court Stays MP HC Order Restraining Institutes Recognised In 2025 From Conducting Paramedical Course For 2023-24 & 2024-25 Sessions

Case: REGISTRAR, M. P. PARAMEDICAL COUNCIL v. LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION | 41298/2025

The Supreme Court (August 1) stayed the interim order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which restrained institutes offering paramedical courses, which were granted recognition by the State Paramedical Council in 2025, to conduct academic sessions for the years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the interim order while issuing notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by the Registrar of the MP Paramedical Council.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the MP Paramedical Council, submitted that it is a statutory body. The courses usually start in November every year. Because of COVID, the courses got delayed by two years, and till 2022, no admissions took place. On March 5, 2024, the MP Council was dissolved in the wake of the Central Act, National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021. By this time, applications for the academic year 2023-24 were received, and matter could not proceed. On November 11,2024, the State Government revived the Council, since the regulations under the Central Act were yet to be framed. Between January to July this year, 166 institutions were granted recognition for the year 2023-24, and it was clarified that the teaching sessions would not be retrospective. "So if a student comes today, he will have to spend two years, though technically it goes back to 2023-24. Not that he will have retrospective studying from 2023," Rohatgi said. In March to July, recognition for next year, 2024-2025 was also granted. Rohatgi added that by November this year, the sessions will be for the current this year.

Supreme Court Directs Power Ministry, Regulators To Draw Up Joint Action Plan For Reduction Of Power Sector Emissions

Case Title – Ridhima Pandey v. Union Of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court (July 22) directed the Ministry of Power to convene a joint meeting with the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) to prepare a coordinated action plan to reduce carbon emissions from the power generation sector.

The Court ordered the three bodies to file a joint affidavit within four weeks detailing the applicable legal framework and the proposed steps to address emissions.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar passed this order in a public interest litigation filed by child activist Ridhima Pandey, challenging the Government of India's approach to addressing climate change. The Court has impleaded CEA and CERC as party respondents under Sections 70 and 76 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Supreme Court Asks Justice UU Lalit-led Committee To Independently Select VCs for 15 West Bengal Aided Universities

Case Title – State Of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors.

The Supreme Court modified its previous directions regarding the appointment of Vice Chancellors in West Bengal and entrusted former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and the Selection committee headed by him with the responsibility of independently determining the most suitable candidates for appointment to 15 universities.

“Justice Lalit and members of his selection committee are the best persons to resolve this issue as they have not only interacted with the candidates but examined their academic achievements, experience, ability, and other relevant factors while considering their candidature”, the Court observed.

The Court said that the committee would no longer be bound by the order of preference given by the Chief Minister while recommending names for appointment, but requested the committee to consider the opinions that have already been given by the Governor and the CM.

Supreme Court To Consider Whether Temporary Disability Certificate Bars Persons With Disabilities From PWD Reservation

Case Details: Sajad Ahmad Mir & Anr. V.Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors

The Supreme Court directed the Respondents to keep two seats vacant under the visual disability quota for the first year MBBS course in a plea filed by two students with visual disabilities. The two students, with 40% visual disability in eyes, were disallowed admission in medical colleges in Jammu & Kashmir despite qualifying NEET-UG on grounds that their disabilities are 'temporary' and they don't qualify for reservation under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) quota.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan passed an order in a special leave petition against the order of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, which dismissed the plea of five students for admission under the PwBD quota on the grounds that their disabilities are temporary. Two students with visual disabilities challenged the High Court's order dated December 17, 2024.

Petitioners represented by Advocate on Record Vrinda Bhandari had argued that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, does not require a disability to be "permanent" to qualify for reservation under the benchmark disability category. The only parameter required is that the disability should only be "long-term" under Section 2(x) of the 2016 Act.

Supreme Court Bars Construction Of Badminton/Basketball Courts & Commercial Activities In Park Near Delhi's Shaikh Ali Gumti

Case Details: Rajeev Suri V Archaeological Survey Of India And Ors.|Slp(C) No. 12213/2019

The Supreme Court on July 31 passed further orders for the restoration of the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance, which was illegally occupied by the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), Delhi, and where the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) operated an unauthorised office and parking.

A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has directed that the park in the Gumti should not be used for construction of Badminton/Basketball Courts and there shall be no commercial activity nor any kiosks/shops be allowed in the area. It has said that the park should retain its natural beauty. It has also been assured by Senior Advocate, Garima Prasad, Counsel for the MCD, that the waste lying in the park will be cleared.

"We have also been assured that after taking opinion of all the concerned parties, particularly the Members of the Committee, the experts and also the Court Commissioner, including the petitioner, the park which consists of 04 quadrants, as it exists now, shall be maintained and beautified so that it retains its natural beauty and may be used for the benefit of the general public.

Supreme Court Rebukes Bihar IPS Officer For Filing Affidavit Supporting Murder Convict; Issues Show Cause Notice

Cause Title: Madhuri Devi v. Arjun Das @ Kariya & Ors.

The Supreme Court (Aug. 1) took strong exception to the casual conduct of the senior police officer from Bihar for filing a counter-affidavit in support of the accused in a criminal matter, in contradiction with the State's prosecution case.

The bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti issued a show-cause notice to Ashok Mishra, IPS, the then Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, asking why action should not be initiated against him for his conduct of filing affidavit in support of the accused, which was in sharp contrast to the State's original stance, which had led to a conviction after investigation and trial.

“The Court was really concerned with the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, a senior officer in which he had basically given a clean chit to the accused though it was the same police who had conducted the investigation and filed a charge-sheet.”, the court observed.

'If You're True Indian, You Wouldn't Say This' : Supreme Court Rebukes Rahul Gandhi For Claim That Chinese Occupied Indian Territory

Case Details: Rahul Gandhi V State Of U.P. And Anr|Diary No. 31445-2025

The Supreme Court (August 4) stayed the proceedings in the criminal defamation case against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi over the remarks made by him about the Indian Army in the context of the 2020 Galwan Valley clash with China.

Even though interim relief was granted, during the hearing, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih made oral remarks expressing disapproval of Gandhi's remarks.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Rahul Gandhi, at the outset submitted that if an opposition leader cannot raise issues, it would be an unfortunate situation. "If he can't say these things which are published in the Press, he can't be a leader of opposition," Singhvi said.

Tamil Nadu Govt Moves Supreme Court Against HC Restraint On Naming Welfare Schemes After Living Persons, Former CMs

The State of Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court challenging the interim order passed by the Madras High Court restraining the use of names and photographs of living personalities, former Chief Ministers, party leaders or political parties for government welfare schemes.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai agreed to list the matter this week after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the State, mentioned it for urgent listing.

"This is an extremely urgent and unusual case. The High Court of Madras has passed an order that no scheme of the Government can have the name of the Chief Minister or any other political figure. This is completely contrary to your lordship's judgment which said don't put the photographs except the photos of Prime Minister, Chief Minister. Why can't we name a scheme? These are schemes for the welfare of the poor," Rohatgi submitted.

Banke Bihari Temple : Supreme Court Questions UP Govt's Hurry In Ordinance; Proposes To Recall Judgment Allowing State Use Of Temple Funds

Case Title:

The Supreme Court (August 4) questioned the "tearing hurry" in which the Uttar Pradesh Government promulgated the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, for taking over the management of the Bankey Bihari temple in Vrindavan, Mathura.

The Court also expressed disapproval of the "clandestine manner" in which the Uttar Pradesh Government secured permission from the Supreme Court through the May 15 judgmentfor the use of temple funds for the corridor development project, by filing an application in a civil dispute.

The Court orally proposed to recall the directions in the May 15 judgmentwhich allowed the State to use the temple funds. The Court also proposed to constitute a committee headed by a retired High Court judge to oversee the management of the temple while the validity of the Ordinance is decided by the High Court.

'Respect Army; You Sleep Peacefully Because Of Them' : Supreme Court Affirms CBI Probe Against Punjab Cops Accused Of Assaulting Colonel

Case Details: Harjinder Singh Dhillon v. Pushpinder Singh Bath|D No. 41450/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 4) strongly deprecated the conduct of Punjab police officers who were accused of assaulting a serving Army Colonel, Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son.

Bath, who was posted at the Army headquarters in New Delhi, alleged that on the night of March 13, four Inspector-rank officers of Punjab Police and their armed subordinates attacked him and his son without any provocation in Punjab. It is the case that both were allegedly beaten up because they refused to move their cars while they were having food at an eatery while travelling from Delhi to Patiala. It is also the case of the Army Officer (the complainant in this case) that no FIR was lodged despite their running from pillar to post because the State was trying to shield its officers.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the special leave petition challenging the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's order directing an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI").

'Can't Go Endlessly' : Supreme Court Questions Delay In Forensic Report On Tapes Alleging Biren Singh's Role In Manipur Violence

Case Details: Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union Of India|W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

The Supreme Court today(August 4) asked why a fresh forensic science laboratory report ("FSL Report") on the authenticity of the audio clips allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in the State's ethnic violence has not been submitted even after 3 months since the Court passed an order for it.

In April, a bench comprising former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, while hearing a petition filed by Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust seeking a Court-monitored investigation into certain leaked audio clips, allegedly in the voice of Biren Singh, after expressing dissatisfcation with the report submitted by the Central FSL,  had asked for a fresh FSL report.

Before a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner organisation, stated that it's been a year since the recordings surfaced. At the outset, Justice Kumar asked the Union of India: "We asked for the fresh forensic report."

Supreme Court Asks Ex-Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel, Son To Approach High Court For Interim Reliefs In Liquor 'Scam' & Other Cases

Case Title:

The Supreme Court (August 4) asked former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and his son Chaitanya Baghel to approach the Chhattisgarh High Court for interim reliefs in the Coal 'scam' cases, Liquor 'scam' cases, Mahadev betting app cases, Rice milling cases and DMF 'scam' cases lodged by the Enforcement Directorate, CBI and State Police.

Briefly put, Chaitanya Baghel (who was arrested 2 weeks ago) questioned the necessity of his arrest and sought interim bail in the ED case registered in relation to the Chhattisgarh Liquor 'scam'. He further prayed for a relief of no-coercive action in an EoW case and challenged Sections 50 and 63 of PMLA.

Bhupesh Baghel, on the other hand, sought protection from coercive actions in all 5 cases mentioned above. While one of his petitions sought reliefs in cases lodged by ED and challenged Sections 44, 50 and 63 of PMLA, the other petition sought reliefs in cases lodged by CBI and State Police, as well as reading down of Section 173(8) CrPC.

CJI BR Gavai To Discuss With Justice Surya Kant On Hearing PMLA Review & Pleas To Refer 'Vijay Madanlal' Judgment Together

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (August 4) requested Chief Justice of India to list the petitions seeking the larger bench reference of the 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary' judgment (which upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act)  along with the review petitions against the said judgment, which are scheduled to be heard on August 6.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta however opposed the request, saying that the petitioners were attempting to expand the limited scope of the review.

CJI BR Gavai agreed to speak with Justice Surya Kant, who is heading the bench hearing the PMLA review, regarding the listing of the reference pleas.

S. 18(5) MSMED Act | Supreme Court To Examine Whether Time Limit For Deciding Reference By Facilitation Council Is Mandatory

Cause Title: M/S. Vast India Private Ltd v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the issue of whether the 90-day time limit prescribed under Section 18(5) of the MSMED Act for resolving disputes by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“Council”) is mandatory or merely directory.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and SC Sharma issued a notice in a plea filed by one M/s Vast India Pvt. Ltd. challenging Bombay High Court's Division Bench's order which quashed the award passed by the Council in its favour stating that the award was passed beyond the statutory time limit of 90 days' making the Council 'functus officio'.

The dispute arose when the Respondent, Maharashtra State Public Service Commission, filed a counterclaim before the statutory Council constituted under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, despite the fact that the 90-day period stipulated for completing conciliation proceedings had lapsed.

Supreme Court Tells Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind To Approach HC Against NCPCR Letters To Close Madarsas

Case Title – Jamiat Ulema I Hind v. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights And Ors.

The Supreme Court continued interim protection granted against communications issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) directing withdrawal of recognition of Madrasas not compliant with the Right to Education Act, 2009.

The Court also suggested that the petitioner may consider approaching the jurisdictional High Court.

The Court recorded in its order: “We put it to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that approach can be made to the High Court with sufficient interim protection. Let her take instructions. List after three weeks.”

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea To Restore Criminal Case Over Suicide Of Late MP Mohan Delkar

Case Details: Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State Of Maharashtra| Crl.A. No. 002177 - 002185 / 2024

The Supreme Court (August 4) reserved its decision on the challenge to the Bombay High Court order, which quashed criminal charges of abetment to suicide and extortion relating to the death of MP Mohanbhai Delkar in 2021.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the challenge made by the son of to the Bombay High Court order which quashed FIR against Dadra and Nagar Haveli Administrator Praful Khoda Patel, Collector Sandeep Kumar Singh, Police Superintendent Sharad Darade, and other authorities for allegedly abetting suicide of Mohanbhai Sanjibhai Delkar, seven times Member of Parliament (MP) of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The petition was filed by Abhinav Mohan Delkar, the son of the deceased MP.

On September 8, 2022, the High Court bench of Prasanna B. Varale and Shrikant D. Kulkarni allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by the accused persons seeking to quash the FIR registered against them.

Supreme Court Stays Kerala HC's Ban On Single-Use Plastics In Hilly Areas

Case Details: Ms Anna Polymers, Through Its Proprietor v. Suo Motu Writ Petition Intitiated By The High Court & Ors.| Diary No. - 38486/2025

The Supreme Court (August 4) stayed theKerala High Court's banon single-use plastic in the state's hilly areas and public gatherings .

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the challenge against the Kerala High Court order which banned the use and sale of single-use plastic in the State especially in hilly areas, public functions and weddings.

The bench issued notice in the matter and stayed the operation of the impugned direction.

Supreme Court Rejects DMK's Plea Against Madras HC Order Restraining Use Of OTP Verification For Membership Campaign

Case Details: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Represented By Its General Secretary v. Rajkumar|Slp(C) No. 20528/2025 Diary No. 40023 / 2025

The Supreme Court today(August 4) dismissed a Special Leave Petitionseeking to challenge an interim injunction order passed by the Madras High Court restraining Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam from sending OTP verification messages to the mobile numbers of persons under its 'Oraniyil Tamil Nadu' scheme running across Tamil Nadu.

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, Senior Advocate P Wilson, for DMK Party, submitted that the scheme is a mass membership door-to-door drive organised across Tamil Nadu by the DMK, which parties like Bharatiya Janta Party and Aam Aadmi Party also carry out. Wilson objected to the interim injunction, stating that there was no prayer before the High Court seeking interim relief.

Justice Narasimha, however, praised the manner in which the High Court handled the matter. He said: "We appreciate that High Court has equally shown sensitivity of handling [personal information]...The issue is sensitive..."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On US-Based Professor's Plea Challenging Law On Automatic Revocation Of Indian Citizenship After Acquiring Foreign One

Case Title: Sanjay Gundlagutta Reddy v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 731/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for automatic termination of an individual's Indian citizenship upon voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order and tagged the case with Dr Radhika Thappeta v. Union of India, where similar issue of OCI (Overseas Citizens of India) status revocation is pending consideration.

The bench also issued notice on an interim application filed by the petitioner, wherein it is prayed that he may not be required to renounce his Indian citizenship in order to obtain the foreign one. This was after the petitioner's counsel, Advocate Warisha Farasat, pointed out that in a similar petition, the Supreme Court granted leave that the party may not be required to renounce Indian citizenship as challenge to Section 9 is pending.

Supreme Court Asks Karnataka Collector To Appear After Alleged Non-Compliance With Order In Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest Case

Case Title: Vidyadas Babaji v. v. Rashmi Mahesh And Ors., Slp(C) No. 14917/2025

The Supreme Court called on the Collector of a Karnataka district to appear before it (online), after it was informed that its earlier order with respect to Sri Anjaneya Temple head priest was not being complied with.

Apparently, in 2018, the district Collector had directed taking over of the temple management from its head priest. Subsequently, the Karnataka High Court passed an interim order in favor of the head priest and the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi orally called for the Collector's appearance, after Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain (for the temple priest) alleged that the top Court's order was not being complied with and impediments were being created for worshippers.

'Approach HC' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Action Against Raj Thackeray Over Alleged Hate Speech Targeting Hindi-Speakers

Case Details: Sunil Shukla v. Union Of India | W.P.(C) No. 000316 / 2025

The Supreme Court (August 4) refused to entertain a petition seeking an independent investigation against the alleged hate speech given by MNS President Raj Thackery, which led to violence against Hindi-speaking employees in Mumbai. The Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the writ petition under Article 32 filed by the National President of Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena, Sunil Shukla.

Refusing to entertain the matter, the bench asked the petitioner to approach the High Court.

'Make Him Sit With Senior Judge' : Supreme Court Directs To Remove Allahabad HC Judge From Criminal Jurisdiction For 'Absurd' Order

Case Details: M/S. Shikhar Chemicals V The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr|Slp(Crl) No. 11445/2025

Update on August 8 - The strictures against the HC judge were removed by order passed on August 8.

The Supreme Court on August 4 took serious exception to an order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which refused to quash a criminal complaint by saying that the civil suit remedy to recover the money was not effective.

While setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court Judge, who passed the order, should be made to sit with a senior judge in a division bench. Further, the Court observed that no criminal matters should be allotted to the High Court Judge.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea To Restore Statehood Of Jammu & Kashmir On August 8

The Supreme Court will hear on August 8 an application seeking directions to the Union Government to restore the statehood of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and said that it is shown as listed on August 8. He requested that the matter not be deleted from the list of that day. CJI accepted the request.

Incidentally, today, August 5, is the sixth anniversary of the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370.

Let GST Council Look Into Tracking Of GST Paid On Foreign OIDAR Services : Supreme Court

Case Title – Pradeep Goyal v. Union Of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for setting up a mechanism to track services provided by foreign entities in India under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order after briefly hearing Advocate Charu Mathur, who appeared for the petitioner.

During the hearing, Advocate Mathur submitted, “If Facebook provides some services or OpenAI provides some services, there is no way to track those by the Indian Government and we are losing out on a lot of revenue.”

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging ONGC Relaxing Height Criteria For Tribal & Hill Area Candidates

Cause Title: P. Ashok Kumar v. The General Manager Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition challenging the differential height criteria prescribed for general category and Scheduled Caste candidates as compared to tribal or hill area domicile candidates for the post of Junior Fire Supervisor at ONGC.

The bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan agreed to examine the issue while hearing a plea filed by P. Ashok Kumar, a candidate who challenged the Madras High Court's decision upholding the rejection of his candidature for the post of Junior Fire Supervisor at ONGC. The Petitioner contended that his application was rejected despite he being taller than several selected candidates from tribal or hilly areas, who were granted a relaxed height criterion under domicile-based concessions.

A recruitment advertisement was released by the Respondent-ONGC inviting applications for the selection of candidates for the post of Junior Fire Supervisor for ONGC, Karaikal, Southern Sector. The respondent specified the minimum height for tribal candidates as 163 cm and for other candidates as 168 cm. The petitioner admitted that he participated in the process of selection and was successful in the written examination. However, he was not selected during physical verification of height as he has not satisfied with the required height as prescribed in the recruitment notification.

Ordinance Made For Better Administration Of Banke Bihari Temple; No Intention To Interfere With Religious Rights : UP Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Title:

In pleas challenging the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, the Uttar Pradesh government urged before the Supreme Court that it did not intend to interfere with any religious rights by means of the Ordinance. It further claimed that the Ordinance will soon be placed before the Legislative Assembly for ratification.

"Let me clarify the Ordinance first...it has nothing to do with the earlier writ petition...a PIL was filed before High Court, where certain directions were issued...court asked to come out with better scheme...State never intended nor it intends to interfere with any of the religious rights of any of the parties...it's only with regard to the secular activities, that is, for better administration of temple that Ordinance has been issued and shortly it's going to be ratified in the Assembly...this temple has a history...daily, around 20000-30000 devotees are visiting...on weekend, there are 2-3 lakh visitors...we require better facilities, also we have to prevent mismanagement of funds...these are different considerations that weighed in the mind of the government", submitted Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj (for State of UP).

The submissions came in the backdrop of some critical observations made by the Supreme Court yesterday, when it questioned the UP government's "tearing hurry" in promulgating the Ordinance for taking over management of the Bankey Bihari temple in Vrindavan, Mathura. In the said hearing, the Court expressed disapproval of the "clandestine manner" in which the state government secured permission from it through the May 15 judgment for the use of temple funds, by filing an application in a civil dispute to which the temple management was not party.

NEET-UG Candidate Given Question Paper With Wrong Sequence; Supreme Court Orders Manual Checking

Case Details:  Robin Singh v. Union Of India|Writ Petition (C)/D No. 31136/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 5) passed an interim order directing reevaluation of a NEET-UG 2025 candidate who has alleged that due to the wrong sequencing of his paper, there was a reduction in his marks and rank.

It is the case that the question paper should have been sequenced from question no. 1 to 180 but it was from question 1 to 27, then 54 to 81 and then 28 to 53, and then 118 to 151, 82 to 117 and then 152 to 180. Since the OMR sheet attached to the said question paper was in rising serial from 1 to 180, there was no match of question paper and OMR. He had asked for invigilators for another copy of question paper but he was denied.

Before a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave appeared. She suggested that this is the rarest of rare instances, and such instances don't usually happen. Justice Nagarathna responded that this could be a genuine mistake, but nevertheless suggested that the paper could be checked manually for the satisfaction of the candidate.

'What Use Of Keeping Accused In Jail For Optics?' : Supreme Court Stresses Need For Effective Prosecution

Case Title:

During the hearing of a plea seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to businessman-Suryakant Tiwari in the Chhattisgarh Coal Levy 'Scam' case, the Supreme Court lamented that accused these days are kept in jails only for the 'optics of prosecution', while states follow 'archaic' prosecution strategies and fail to prioritize protection of witnesses.

"We only send people to jail and feel that there is an optics, that criminal law is in motion", orally remarked Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Reiterating an earlier concern regarding prosecution agencies' laxity in witness protection, the judge added,

"Only way of protecting witness is to keep an accused in jail. And knowing technology today, the physical and spatial distance is of little consequence in influence. There is hardly any state prosecuting agency which really invests its money, time, and energy to ensure an environment of safety and confidence in the witnesses. So what is the use of keeping an undertrial in jail and creating optics of prosecution?"

Telangana MBBS Domicile Quota : Supreme Court Says Students Can't Be Excluded Just Because They Went Outside State For Class 12; Reserves Judgment

Case Details: The State Of Telangana And Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram And Ors. Slp(C) No. 21536-21588/2024

The Supreme Court (August 5) reserved its order on the challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court, which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.

The bench led by CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the plea filed by the Telangana State Government. Previously, the Court had stayed the impugned order while taking on record the state of Telangana that it was ready to grant a one-time exception for the petitioners who had approached the High Court.

Before the High Court, a batch of petitions challenged the validity of Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (Rules 2017), which was amended by the State on July 19, 2024. The amendment was done as per G.O no.33 dated 19.7.2024.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Centre's Notification Of ISIS As Terrorist Organisation

Case Title: Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan v. Union Of India, W.P.(C) No. 1362/2023

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a challenge to the government notifications whereby the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and others, were declared as 'terrorist organizations' under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the matter, being of the view that instead of challenging the government notifications, individual reliefs (including bail) in the relevant Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case could be sought before the appropriate forum.

"It seems to us that instead of bringing challenge to the impugned notifications, the remedy for the petitioner, or for his son, lies in approaching the appropriate forum and make out a case that the activities undertaken by them do not fall within the offending clauses of UAPA and/or that for any other valid reason, they are entitled to be released on bail. We have no reason to doubt that the court of competent jurisdiction will earnestly consider such submissions with reference to prayer for bail and/or any other relief that may be claimed by the petitioner or his son in the pending case(s)", Justice Kant dictated.

'Fear Of FIRs Among Officers Can Lead To Policy Paralysis' : Supreme Court On Challenge To S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act

Case Details:  Centre For Public Interest Litigation V Union Of India|W.P.(C) No. 1373/2018

The Supreme Court today(August 5) extensively heard arguments on a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of some latest amendments in thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988("PC Act"), introduced in 2018.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan heard a writ petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which is represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan.

During the arguments, several issues were raised orally, such as what materials/factors are considered while granting a sanction to prosecute a public servant. Secondly, what are the safeguards in the legislation to protect honest officers who are not involved in the corrupt practices to prevent "policy paralysis". The Court orally remarked that the issues raised in the writ petition are more towards the realm of implementation of the provisions rather than the constitutionality part of it.

Supreme Court Cancels Dheeraj Wadhawan's Bail In DHFL Fraud Case, Orders Surrender In 2 Weeks

Case Details: Cbi V Dheeraj Wadhawan|Slp(Crl) No. 3959/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 5) cancelled the bail granted to former promoter of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) Dheeraj Wadhawan, accused in a case of bank loan misappropriation and cheating to the tune of Rs. 34,000 crores.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order against the Delhi High Court's order, which had granted bail to Wadhawan on medical grounds in September 2024. The Central Bureau of Investigation had challenged the grant of bail.

In May this year, the Court constituteda Medical Board comprising the Superintendent of Grant Government Medical College and Sir JJ Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, to determine his present health conditions.

No Designated Senior Advocate Will Be Allowed To Mention Matters From August 11 : CJI BR Gavai

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said that no designated Senior Advocate will be allowed to orally mention matters in Court no.1  from next Monday (August 11).

CJI Gavai made this statement when Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared to make an oral mention of a matter. CJI said that juniors must be given the opportunity.

CJI said that he is making this rule effective only from next Monday, so that everyone gets notice about it.

Bihar SIR : Supreme Court Seeks ECI Response On Allegations Of Irregularities In Deleting 65 Lakh Voters From Draft List

The Supreme Court (August 6) asked the Election Commission of India to respond by Saturday on the allegations of irregularities regarding the deletion of 65 lakh voters from the draft electoral roll list published with respect to Bihar after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The Court asked the ECI to specify if the draft list, published on August 1, was shared with the political parties before publication.

The Court told the Election Commission of India to respond to the allegations made in an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms, which alleged that the ECI has not disclosed who the omitted 65 lakh voters are. The NGO also contended that the ECI has not specified whether the omitted voters are dead or have migrated. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for ADR, contended that political parties were not shared with the lists at the block level and that there was no clarity whether the inclusions/omissions were with the recommendations of the Booth Level Officers.

Snake Venom & Rave Party Case | Supreme Court Stays Trial Proceedings Against YouTuber Elvish Yadav

Case Title – Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth v. State Of U.P. And Anr.

The Supreme Court (August 6) granted a stay on trial court proceedings against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in a case alleging that he misused snakes and snake venom for a YouTube video and was involved in organising rave parties where foreigners allegedly supplied snake venom and other intoxicating drugs.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice in a plea against Allahabad High Court's order dated May 12, 2025, which had dismissed Yadav's petition challenging the chargesheet and summoning order issued in a case under various provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, IPC, and NDPS Act.

The Court tagged the matter with another case by a complainant seeking protection which is kept for hearing on August 29. Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta for Yadav requested an interim stay in the meantime after contending that NDPS case is not made out against Yadav and there is non-compliance with statutory provisions.

Say On Affidavit That No Prosecution Sanction Against Ministers & DMK Leaders Was Withrawn Without Probe : Supreme Court To TN Govt

Case Title: Karuppiah Gandhi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 501/2023

The Supreme Court asked the Tamil Nadu government to state on affidavit that no sanction for prosecution has been withdrawn in cases against any sitting/former Minister or any politician of the ruling DMK party without the completion of a proper investigation.

"[State] seeks and is granted 2 weeks' time to file a specific affidavit that there is no case against any sitting or a former Minister or any other politician of the political party in power where earlier sanction was accorded for prosecution but even before the investigation could be taken to a logical conclusion, such consent was withdrawn and as such the criminal procedure dropped", ordered the Court.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order in a Chennai-based lawyer's public interest litigation seeking transfer outside Tamil Nadu of trials pending against incumbent Ministers of the state.

ECI Hasn't Given Reasons For Deleting 65 Lakh Electors From Bihar Draft Roll : ADR To Supreme Court

Case Title – Association For Democratic Reforms & Ors. v. Election Commission Of India

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission of India (ECI), despite possessing data on the reasons for deleting nearly 65 lakh names from the electoral roll in Bihar, removed the column specifying these reasons before publication of the draft roll-on August 1.

The Supreme Court asked the ECI to respond to the application by Saturday.

The Court directed the ECI to clarify whether the draft roll was shared with political parties prior to publication, and to specify which parties were given the lists.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Petition Challenging S 17A Prevention Of Corruption Act

Case Details: Centre For Public Interest Litigation V Union Of India|W.P.(C) No. 1373/2018

The Supreme Court today(August 6) reserved judgment in a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act("PC Act"), which was introduced through an amendment in 2018. The writ petition was filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan heard Advocate Prashant Bhushan(for CPIL) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for Union) for two days.

To summarise briefly, Bhushan has challengedSection 17A of the PC Act, arguing that it allows sanction for investigation to be given by the government ministers who themselves are involved in taking high-level decisions. He submitted that the validity of a single directive issued by the Government to the CBI, and Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 were struck down in Vineet Narain's judgment and Dr. Subramaniam Swamy case (2014), respectively, because it required prior sanction of the designated authority before initiating investigation against government officers, etc.

Courts Should Not Be Used To Settle Scores Between Political Parties; Fight Political Battles Before Electorate : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru. C.Ve. Shanmugam | Slp(C) No. 21487/2025

The Supreme Court (August 6) reiterated that political parties cannot use the Courts to fight their political battles.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria observed while hearing the petitions filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party as well as the Tamil Nadu Government against the Madras High Court's interim orderwhich had restrained the use of the name of Chief Minister MK Stalin for a government welfare scheme. The High Court passed the order in a PIL filed by AIADMK MP C.Ve Shanmugham, who belonged to the opposition.

The  Court was critical of the conduct of the AIADMK MP in singling out only the scheme of the TN Government in his challenge when such schemes in the names of leaders were common across the country. The Court noted the submission of DMK that during the term of AIADMK, several schemes were carried out in the name of leaders.

Lakhimpur Kheri Case : Supreme Court Questions UP Police For Not Acting On Witness's Complaint Of Threat

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State Of U.P. Slp(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Supreme Court directed Uttar Pradesh police to verify allegations and take necessary action on a complaint made by a person regarding threats/inducement to not depose in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case involving former Union Minister's son Ashish Mishra.

Insofar as the UP government did not register an FIR despite a formal complaint being made by the person, on the ground that he did not appear before the police authorities, the Court expressed dissatisfaction and said,

"That may not be a satisfactory explanation on behalf of the police. In case the complainant has been reluctant in coming forward in support of his complaint, some senior police officer can be deputed to visit the complainant/to verify if complaint has been made by him. If such contents are acknowledged, it is imperative for police to investigate. Necessary consequences must follow."

'You've Been Successful In Keeping Accused In Jail Without Trial For Years' : Supreme Court Questions ED's Conviction Rate

The Supreme Court (August 7) verbally expressed concerns over how the Enforcement Directorate has been 'successful' in sentencing the accused by keeping them as undertrials for years, even though they are not ultimately convicted.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran was hearing the review against the Supreme Court's decision, which rejected the resolution plan of JSW Steel for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) and directed the liquidation of BPSL.

During the hearing, SG Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the Committee of Creditors, mentioned how the ED has so far collected 23000 crores of amount, which has been distributed amongst the victims. The submission was made in the context of the ED cases against the promoters of the BPSL.

Supreme Court Orders Release Of Rs.1 Crore Deposited By Lok Sabha MP Karti P Chidambaram As Pre-Condition For Foreign Travel

Case Title: Karti P. Chidambaram v. The Directorate Of Enforcement, Delhi, Ma 820/2023 In T.C.(Crl.) No. 4/2018

The Supreme Court ordered release of Rs.1 crore amount deposited by Lok Sabha MP Karti P Chidambaram with the Court's Secretary General as a pre-condition for foreign travel in 2022.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, noting that pursuant to the 2022 order, Chidambaram travelled abroad and deposited his passport with the Investigating Officer after coming back to India.

"Miscellaneous application is allowed and amount of Rs.1 crore deposited by him alongwith interest accrued thereupon is directed to be released in 1 week", ordered the bench.

Dharmasthala Burials : Temple Dharmadhikari's Brother Approaches Supreme Court Against HC Quashing Restraint Order On YouTube Channel

Case Details: Harshendra Kumar D v. Kudla Rampage| Diary No. - 43657/2025

The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow the plea challenging the Karnataka High Court Order, which lifted the restraint order on a YouTube channel from publishing defamatory content against the Dharmasthala temple family in relation to the Dharmasthala Burial case.

The petitioner, Harshendra Kumar D, who is the Secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple Institution, has filed the SLP challenging the High Court Order.

The counsel for Kumar mentioned before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran that several YouTube channels were publishing allegedly defamatory content against the family running the Temple. He said :

Supreme Court To Rehear Case In Which Harsh Order Was Passed Against Allahabad HC Judge

Case Details: M/S. Shikhar Chemicals V The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr|Slp(Crl) No. 11445/2025

The Supreme Court will rehear the case in which it passed an unprecedented order that a Judge of the Allahabad High Court should be made to sit with a senior Judge and that criminal jurisdiction should not be allotted to him till his retirement.

The matter, which was disposed of by the harsh order passed on August 4, is now seen as re-listed for tomorrow before the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.  The matter is listed under the head "Direction Matters" tomorrow.

The status of the case is now being shown as "pending" on the Supreme Court's website.

'ED Can't Act Like A Crook; Must Act Within Corners Of Law' : Supreme Court Judge Flags Low Conviction Rates

The Enforcement Directorate cannot act like a "crook" and has to act "within the four corners of law", said Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, flagging the low conviction rates in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Pointing out that the conviction rates in PMLA cases were below 10%, Justice Bhuyan said that the Court not only concerned about the liberty of the people but also about the image of the ED.

The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice NK Singh was hearing the review petitions against the 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case.

JSW Faltered In Executing Resolution Plan; Need Fresh CIRP, Not Liquidation Of BPSL : Ex-Promoter Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Punjab National Bank And Anr. v. Kalyani Transco And Ors.

The Supreme Court heard the appeals against the resolution plan of JSW Steel for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL).

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran heard the matter. Last week, the bench, in exercise of review power, had recalled the May 5 judgment which had rejected JSW's resolution plan and decided to hear the matter afresh. Notably, the bench of Justices  Bela Trivedi and SC Sharma set aside the resolution plan on 5 main grounds and directed the liquidation of BPSL.

Sr Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the erstwhile promoters of BPSL, mainly contended that JSW had faltered in executing the plan as promised. Mehta submitted that the promoters wanted the Insolvency process to happen afresh and did not favour the liquidation of BPSL.

'Mother' Needn't Be Biological Mother : Supreme Court Urges IAF To Revisit Exclusion Of Stepmothers From Family Pension

Case Title: Jayashree Y Jogi v. Union Of India And Ors., Diary No. 53874-2023

In a matter pertaining to Indian Air Force's denial of pension benefit to a stepmother who raised the deceased officer-son since the age of 6 years, the Supreme Court yesterday expressed that for welfare purposes like pension scheme, the expression 'mother' should not be a static expression.

A case should be seen on its particular facts to determination who infact played the role of a mother in the child's life, without limiting the benefit to only biological mothers, it said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.

Can Voters Be Denied NOTA Option In Elections With Only One Candidate? Supreme Court Asks ECI

Case Title: Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy v. Union Of India And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 677/2024

"If there is one candidate, but substantial part of voters, through NOTA (None of the Above), do not want him to be elected, should their 'invisible will' be [allowed to be] defeated?" the Supreme Court questioned yesterday during the hearing of a PIL challenging direct election of candidates in uncontested elections (that is, without conduct of a poll).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy's plea against Section 53(2) of the RP Act as well as Rule 11 read with Forms 21 and 21B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

In terms of Section 53(2), if the number of contesting candidates in an election is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats. Rule 11 of Conduct Rules, 1961, likewise, deals with declaration of results of an uncontested election in such form [Form 21 (in case it is a general election) or Form 21B (in case it is an election to fill a casual vacancy)] as may be appropriate.

Supreme Court Dismisses CBI's Review Petition Against 'Ritu Chhabaria' Judgment That Incomplete Chargesheet Won't Defeat Default Bail

Case: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT v. RITU CHHABARIA & ORS | R.P. (CRL.) NO. 124/2025 IN W.P. (CRL.) NO. 60/2023

The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the 2023 judgment in the case  Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India And Ors which held that the filing of an incomplete chargesheet will not defeat the right of the accused to seek default bail.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice MM Sundresh dismissed the review petition in chamber observing, "we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the review petition."

The Ritu Chhabaria judgment was delivered on April 26, 2023, by a bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice CT Ravikumar (both of them retired now) holding that "if the Investigating Agency files a chargesheet without completing the investigation, the same would not extinguish the right of the accused to get default bail."

After CJI's Request, Supreme Court Recalls Direction To Remove Allahabad HC Judge From Criminal Jurisdiction

Case Details: M/S. Shikhar Chemicals V The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr|Slp(Crl) No. 11445/2025

In an unusual turn of events, the Supreme Court (August 8) recalled the unprecedented order passed by it on August 4 which had observed that a Judge of the Allahabad High Court should be removed from criminal jurisdiction until his retirement and that he should be made to sit with a seasoned senior judge.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had passed the unusual orderwhile taking exception to an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar of the High Court by which a criminal complaint was refused to be quashed on the ground that a civil remedy for recovery of money was not effective.

However, after the order came under criticism, the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, later wrote to Justice Pardiwala's bench requesting the reconsideration of the strictures against the High Court Judge. Following that, the disposed of matter was relisted for fresh directions. In a related development, thirteen Judges of the High Court also wrote to the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice urging him to not implement the directions of the Supreme Court.

Banke Bihari Temple | Will Pass Order To Suspend Committee Under Ordinance Till HC Decides Its Validity : Supreme Court

Case Title: Devendra Nath Goswami v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 709/2025

The Supreme Court stated that it will pass an order to suspend the operation of the Committee/Trust under the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, which has been vested with the management of the Bankey Bihari temple in Vrindavan, Mathura.

The Court indicated that it will pass an order relegating the petitioners to the High Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the Ordinance, and till the High Court decides the matter, the Committee will be kept in abeyance. To ensure the smooth administration of the temple in the meantime, the Court said that it will constitute another Committee, which will be headed by a former Judge of the High Court. The Committee will also have certain Government officers and the representatives of the Goswamis, who are the traditional caretakers of the temple.

The Court further stated that it will recall the directions in the judgment delivered in Mayby a coordinate bench which allowed the State Government to utilize the temple funds for a  redevelopment project.

Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Agrees For Early Listing Of Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea

The Supreme Court (August 8) accepted a request for early hearing of the bail plea by Dalit rights activist and advocate Surendra Gadling in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case under the UAPA over alleged Maoist links.

Sr Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, mentioned the matter before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria.

Supreme Court Dismisses Telangana MLA Aadi Srinivas's Plea Against Ramesh Chennamaneni Over 2018 Election

Case Details: Aadi Srinivas v. Ramesh Chennamaneni|Diary No. 39256 / 2025

The Supreme Court today(August 8) dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Telangana High Court order's which, even though it declared Ramesh Chennamaneni a German citizen and consequently disqualified him from contesting and holding public office, failed to formally declare Aadi Srinivas, who had secured the second-highest votes, as the MLA from Vemulawada.

Chennaimaneni was elected as a MLA from Vemulawada district four consecutive times by suppressing facts that he is a German citizen. In December last year, the Telangana High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 30 lakhson him for suppressing material facts regarding his German citizenship. This was in response to a writ petition filed by him challenging the 2019 decision of the Central Government to cancel his Indian citizenship.

Before a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal submitted that even though the High Court found Chennamaneni committed fraud on the country, the High Court failed to grant any relief. He added that the Respondent continues to draw legislative benefits, including a pension. However, the bench said it's not inclined to interfere with the High Court's order.

'HC Interfered Prematurely' : Supreme Court On Delhi HC Deferring PMLA Charge Hearing Against Karti Chidambaram MP

Case Title: Directorate Of Enforcement v. Karti P. Chidambaram, Diary No. 40582-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on Enforcement Directorate's plea against a Delhi High Court order which deferred arguments on charge against Congress MP Karti Chidambaram in the PMLA proceedings related to Chinese visa and Aircel Maxis cases.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for ED), who questioned why PMLA trial should await framing of charges in the predicate offense.

At first, Justice Kant expressed that the impugned order does not really cause any prejudice to ED. "Let's suppose in the predicate offense, tomorrow no charge is framed, or the trial court frames charges but the High Court or this Court sets aside that, the entire labor, hard-work will go in waste", said the judge.

'Colonial Sedition Law Brought Back' : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Constitutionality Of Section 152 BNS

Case Details: S.G. Vombatkere v. Union Of India W.P.(C) No. 720/2025

The Supreme Court (August 8) agreed to consider the plea challenging the constitutional validity of S.152 BNS.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria issued notice in the petition and tagged it with a pending matter in which the same provision is under challenge.

The writ petition is filed by SG Vombatkere (retired Major General, Indian Army), who had previously challenged the sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) in the case titled SG Vombatkere v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 682/2021. In 2021, the Supreme Court had kept the operation of S.124A IPC in abeyance.

Dharmasthala Burials : Supreme Court Asks Trial Court To Decide Temple Family's Injunction Plea Against Media Houses Soon

Case Title: Harshendra Kumar D v. Kudla Rampage And Ors., Diary No. - 43657/2025

The Supreme Court (August 8) directed the Bengaluru Civil Court to decide within two weeks from the next date of hearing an application filed by Harshendra Kumar D, the brother of the Dharmasthala Temple Dharmadhikari, seeking to restrain media houses from publishing defamatory content against the temple administration or the family in relation to the Dharmasthala burial cases.

Having regard to the fact that the trial court has been asked by the Karnataka High Court to take a fresh decision on the injunction applications, the Supreme Court declined to pass any such restraint order.

The Court was dealing with the plea filed by Harshendra Kumar D (who is also the Secretary of the Temple Administration), challenging the Karnataka High Court's order which lifted the restraint order on a YouTube channel, by directing the trial court to decide the matter in a time-bound manner.

Supreme Court Stays MP HC Order Setting Aside Declaration Of Saif Ali Khan, Siblings & Mother As Heirs Of Last Nawab Of Bhopal

Case Title – Omar Faruq Ali v. Sharmila Tagore

The Supreme Court (August 8) granted an interim stay on MP High Court's direction to remand a long-standing property dispute involving the private estate of actor Saif Ali Khan's ancestor and Bhopal's last ruler Nawab Hamidullah Khan back to the trial court for fresh adjudication.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar issued notice on the plea filed by Omar and Raashid Ali, heirs of the elder brother of the late Nawab Mohd Hamidullah Khan – the last ruler of the erstwhile Bhopal state – challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's June 30, 2025 order.

The High Court had set aside the trial court's February 14, 2000 judgment, which upheld the exclusive right of Sajida Sultan, the Nawab's daughter, her son the late Mansoor Ali Khan and her heirs actor Saif Ali Khan, Soha Ali Khan, Saba Sultan and actress Sharmila Tagore to the Nawab's estate.

Supreme Court Stays NGT's Rs 50 Crore Penalty On Delhi Jal Board & MCD Over Yamuna River Pollution

Case Details: Delhi Jal Board v. Blk (North) Gk 1 Rwa | Diary No. - 32510/2025 And Connected Matters

The Supreme Court (August 8) stayed the order of the National Green Tribunal, which imposed a fine of Rs. 50.44 crores on the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi over failure to prevent sewage pollution of Delhi's stormwater drains and the Yamuna River.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a challenge by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) against the NGT's order dated November 21, 2024.

ASG SV Raju, appearing for DJB, stressed that the penalty imposes significant financial burdens on the public authorities.

'Why Pick Only Air India?' : Supreme Court Rejects PIL For Safety Audit Of Air India Fleet

Case Title: Narendra Kumar Goswami And Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 628/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking independent probe into Air India's safety checks, maintenance procedures, etc. in the aftermath of the tragic Ahmedabad Plane Crash, which claimed 270 lives.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner file an appropriate writ petition at an appropriate time. "Wait for some time. Go to the authority...about safety mechanism, etc...if you give your suggestions, we are quite sure they will consider. If they don't really do anything, then will think of [doing something]..." said Justice Kant.

The PIL, filed by Narendra Kumar Goswami and Laxman Prasad Goswami, sought constitution of an independent committee, headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court, to investigate Air India's safety practices, maintenance procedures, and operational protocols, with a report to be submitted within 3 months. It further prayed for a comprehensive safety audit of Air India's entire fleet by an international aviation safety agency accredited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), addressing deficiencies identified in the 2024 ICAO audit report.

SG Requests Supreme Court To Sustain Observation In JSW-BPSL Judgment That NCLT Cannot Review ED's Actions

During the hearing of the Bhushan Power & Steel Insolvency matter, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Committee of Creditors of BPSL, requested the Supreme Court to sustain the observations in the May 5 Judgment that NCLAT/NCLT has no jurisdiction to review the actions taken by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran was hearing the appeals challenging the resolution plan of JSW Steel for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), which are being heard afresh after the Court recalled the May 5 judgment, which had rejected JSW's resolution plan for BPSL.

In the May 5 decision, the bench emphatically stated that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) cannot review the actions taken by statutory authorities under other laws.

Supreme Court Requests SCLSC Chairman To Consider Plea Of SCLSC Permanent Employees For Pay-Parity With SC Registry Staff

Case Details: Harish Bhardwaj & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors.|Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(S).30437/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition where permanent employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee ("SCLSC") sought pay parity with other employees. The petition was disposed of with a request to the Chairman of the SCLSC, who is Justice Vikram Nath, to consider the representation of such employees and take an appropriate decision in this matter.

Before a comprising Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, the petitioners, who are permanent employees of the SCLSC, contended that they had been placed in a lesser pay scale as compared to other outsourced or contractual employees or those employed on a deputation basis from the Supreme Court Registry.

The petitioner sought parity in pay scale with the employees working in the Supreme Court Registry. However, the bench found that the petitioner did not approach the competent authority, namely the Chairman of the SCLSC, for their grievances. Therefore, the Court directed that the representation must be made through the Secretary of the SCLSC within 2 weeks to the Chairman.

'Take Leave To Write Pending Judgments': Supreme Court Tells Jharkhand High Court Judges

Case Title: Poonam Kumari v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 489/2025 (And Connected Cases)

Taking note of continuing delay in pronouncement of judgments by the Jharkhand High Court, the Supreme Court suggested that its judges take leaves and clear the backlog.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with 6 petitions raising grievances with respect to recruitment process of home guards in the state. The High Court apparently failed to pronounce the judgments in the petitioners' cases despite lapse of 2 years (since 2023).

The petitioners were declared successful in a recruitment process for home guards held in 2017. However, despite the selection, their appointment remained pending. They approached the High Court for relief and in 2023, the High Court reserved orders in their cases. But despite lapse of 2 years, the judgments in these cases were not pronounced.

'How Can Govt Land Be Used For Political Purposes?' Supreme Court Upholds Madras HC Order To Remove Flagpoles From Public Places

Case Title: Ammavasithevar v. K.R. Chithan And Ors., Slp(C) No. 20885/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Madras High Court order which directed all political parties and other organizations to remove permanent flagpoles erected by them in public places, including national highways and government land.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter.

The petitioner's counsel assailed the direction for removal of flagpoles from public places and argued that the High Court passed a variety of directions, even though the relief sought in the underlying case was limited.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Kerala High Court Suspending Toll Collection In Paliyekkara In NH 544

The Supreme Court (August 11) agreed to hear a petition filed against the Kerala High Court's judgment, which suspended the toll collection in Paliyekkara toll plaza in Thrissur district along the National Highway 544.

"Toll collection has been suspended by the Kerala High Court, which is costing me Rs 50 lakhs per day on the ground of some statutory mandate not being followed by me," the counsel submitted.

After the petition was mentioned for urgent listing, a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai agreed to list the matter.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Shifting Of Kolhapur Temple Elephant Mahadevi To Vantara

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the transfer of Kolhapur Temple Elephant Mahadevi(also called Madhuri( to Vantara's Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust, Jamnagar.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and AS Chandukar agreed to list the matter for Thursday.

The Counsel urged for an early listing on the matter and said :  " Mylords, there is a sanctuary called Vantara, and they have forcibly taken a temple elephant away."

Supreme Court Affirms Medha Patkar's Conviction In Delhi LG VK Saxena's Defamation Case; Sets Aside Penalty

Case Title – Medha Patkar v. Vk Saxena

The Supreme Court (August 11) refused to interfere with the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in the criminal defamation case lodged against her by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant General of Delhi, in 2001.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh however set aside the penalty of Rs 1 lakh imposed on Patkar. The trial court had exempted her from jail sentence by applying probation. The Supreme Court modified the probation order, which required her periodic appearance, and instead allowed her to furnish bonds.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for Patkar, submitted that the appellate court had disbelieved two major witnesses. Also, the email, which was projected as the crucial evidence, was not certified as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering it inadmissible.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bombay HC Order Against Pigeon Feeding In Mumbai 'Kabutarkhanas'

Case Title: Pallavi Sachin Patil And Anr. v. Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And Ors., Slp(C) No. 22103-22104/2025

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's orders which observed that feeding pigeons poses serious health hazards and directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to register criminal cases against people who continue to feed pigeons at Mumbai's 'kabutarkhanas' in violation of the Corporation's directives.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi observed, "Parallel indulgence by this Court is not proper. Petitioner can move HC for modification of order".

To recap, the High Court was seized of a bunch of petitions filed by animal lovers and animal rights activists, assailing the Mumbai civic body's demolition of decades-old 'kabutarkhanas' (pigeon feeding spots) beginning around July 3.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Direct State Election Commissions To Curb Illegal Acts Of Parties

Case Details: Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay v. Union Of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000304 / 2025

The Supreme Court (August 11) refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions to all State Election Commissions to formulate a scheme to watch and curb illegal activities of political parties.

The Court refused to interfere as the petitioner directly approached the Apex Court without exhausting his remedies before the High Court.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and AS Chandukar was hearing the plea.

Supreme Court Refuses To Expunge Observations In Judgments Against Senthil Balaji; Clarifies They Shouldn't Influence Trial

Case Title:

In ex-Tamil Nadu Minister V Sethil Balaji's applications seeking expunction of certain remarks made in judgments related to the cash-for-jobs scam case, the Supreme Court indicated that it would not change even a single word of the previous judgments in cases concerning him.

"We will not expunge anything, we will not touch a single word...We are not touching the judgment. We will only clarify that the observations shall have no bearing on the trial. That's a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence...Basic principles are always to be followed...there's no question of entertaining any review", said the Court.

Although Balaji had moved the applications for expunction of remarks in 3 judgments, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Balaji, did not press the said relief and limited the former Minister's prayer to a clarification that the Court's observations shall not influence the trial Court.

"Can These So-Called Animal Lovers Bring Back Kids Killed By Rabies?": Supreme Court While Ordering Removal Of Delhi Stray Dogs

Case Details: In Re 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'|Smw(C) No. 5/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 11) questioned the animal rights activists and organisations, who are against the shifting of stray dogs to animal shelters, and asked if they can bring back the young infants and children who have lost their lives due to rabies and dog bites.

The Court was hearing asuo motu matter against the increasing incidents of infants, young children and the elderly falling prey to rabies. While it was dictating an order that the stray dogs in the National Capital Region be immediately moved to the dog shelters/compounds dedicated for them and shall not be released in the localities, even after sterilisation, the Court was informed about the possible intervention by the animal rights activists and organisations.

Even Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the NCT of Delhi, had pointed out that one animal activist had sought a stay in the Delhi High Court against the decision of the State of NCT Delhi earmarking a space at the outskirts where stray dogs could be moved. An intervenor had also filed an application representing the Welfare Association. He also said that the lady feeds 20-30 stray dogs.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ex-Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel's Challenge To S.44 PMLA On ED's Further Investigation Powers

Case Title: Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 301/2025

While refusing to entertain former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel's challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 44 of PMLA, the Supreme Court allowed persons aggrieved by violations of 'further investigation' powers of Enforcement Directorate to approach jurisdictional High Courts.

Briefly put, Baghel's petition assailed the Explanation to Section 44 PMLA as per which “the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any accused person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been filed, whether named in the original complaint or not.”

He contended that this provision enabled the ED's filing of piecemeal, multiple complaints, one after the other, without permission of the Special Court. Claiming that the practice was prevalent throughout the country, and questioning the ED's powers to file such complaints, Baghel argued that trials were delayed as a result of the practice and it violated right to fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.

'Parliament's Domain': Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Amendments In IT Act To Provide Stricter Punishments For Cyber Offences

Case Title: Adv. Harish Sharad Bhambare v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 711/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed an advocate's public interest litigation seeking amendments in the Information Technology Act and Rules to provide stricter punishments for serious cyber crimes.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the petitioner was calling on the Court to "legislate" and therefore rejected the PIL as "misconceived".

During the hearing, the bench was amused when on a specific query, the petitioner (appearing in-person) conceded that he was seeking a "direction" to the Parliament. Justice Kant enquired from him about the number of years he had spent in practice, in response to which the petitioner informed that he had been practicing since a year.

Supreme Court Vacates Stay On Ayush Ministry's Notification That Permitted Advertisements Of Ayurvedic, Unani & Siddha Drugs

Case Title – Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court vacated the interim order staying the omission of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which prohibits advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani drugs without licensing authorities' approval.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Vishwanathan disposed of a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) concerning misleading claims and advertisements against allopathic medicine.

“The prayers sought for have been achieved in as much as the reliefs have been granted by the court. We find that no object and purpose would be served in considering the petition any further. Hence the writ petition stands disposed of. However liberty is reserved to the parties/intervention applicants to seek relief in accordance with law if they have any grievance with regard to the omission of Rule 170. Consequently the interim order dated 27th August 2024 stands vacated”, the Court observed.

'Child Trafficking Rampant In Delhi' : Supreme Court Seeks Report From Centre

Case Details: Pinki V The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr.|Ma 729/2025 In Crl.A. No. 1927/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 11) sought a reply from the Union Government on what further steps have been taken to curb the menace of child trafficking, especially in Delhi, where the crime has become rampant. It has also asked for the current status of the number of child trafficking cases in Delhi.

"We would like to know from the Union what further steps have been taken to curb this crime, which is very rampant nowadays in the city of Delhi. We would like to know the current status of the child trafficking cases so far as Delhi is concerned."

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing criminal appeals filed against the orders of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to accused persons in the child trafficking cases. In April, the bench cancelled bail granted to 13 such accused personsby the Allahabad High Court. While it called the approach of the High Court 'callous for exercising discretion in granting bail,' it also questionedwhy the Uttar Pradesh Government did not seek cancellation of the bail orders.

After Recalling Rejection Of JSW Steel's Resolution Plan, Supreme Court Reserves Decision In Bhushan Power & Steel Insolvency Case

The Supreme Court (August 11) reserved its decision in the batch of appeals challenging the resolution plan of JSW Steel for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL).

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran heard the matter. Previously, the bench, in exercise of review power, had recalled the May 2 judgment, which had rejected JSW's resolution plan and decided to hear the matter afresh. In the May 2 judgment, the bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and SC Sharma set aside the resolution plan on 5 main grounds and directed the liquidation of BPSL.

Key Arguments Raised By Different Stakeholders During The Proceedings

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Sub Quota For Economically Weaker Persons Within Reserved Categories

Case Title: Ramashankar Prajapati And Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 682/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking priority reservation for economically weaker candidates within categories entitled to reservation in government employment and education processes.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order. After dictating the order, justice Kant told the petitioners' counsel to "be ready" for arguments on the next date, as there would be "lot of opposition" from the other side, given a "very strong opinion" on both sides.

During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel clarified, "In this PIL, we are requesting that reservation should be prioritized based on economic criteria. We are not disturbing percentage of the reservation...".

Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of NHRC, NCW & NCPCR On Pleas Challenging Islamic Divorce By 'Talaq-e-Hasan'

Case Title: Benazeer Heena v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 348/2022

In a batch of petitions challenging constitutionality of 'Talaq-e-Hasan', a form of divorce under Muslim law through which a man can separate from his wife by pronouncing "talaq" once a month for three months, the Supreme Court yesterday expressed disinclination to entertain any opposition on the basis of maintainability and/or locus of the petitioners.

"Maintainability and locus can't be the issues in these matters. There are aggrieved persons before us", the Court said, in response to Senior Advocate MR Shamshad's submission regarding the majority opinion in Shayara Bano on the interpretation of "law" under Article 13 of the Constitution and the Court's jurisdiction.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was seized of 9 petitions related to the issue. Listing the matter in November, it called for the responses of National Commission for Women, National Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

Summons To Advocates Over Legal Advice : AG & SG Oppose Bar Bodies' Suggestion For Magistrate's Approval; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation Of Cases And Related Issues | Smw(Cal) 2/2025

The Supreme Court (August 12) reserved judgment in the Suo Motu case take over the issue of investigating agencies issuing summons to advocates over the legal advice given to their clients.

The Court indicated that it will lay down guidelines to ensure that the independence of the legal profession as well attorney-client privilege is not breached.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the Suo Motu case titled "In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues".

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To 'The Wire' Editor In Assam FIR Under S.152 BNS Over Article On Operation Sindoor

Case Title: Foundation For Independent Journalism And Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 316/2025

The Supreme Court (August 12) granted interim relief to the members of the Foundation running the online news outlet 'The Wire' and its Founding Editor Siddharth Varadarajan by protecting them from coercive action in an FIR registered by the Assam Police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The FIR was registered by the Morigaon Police on July 11 with respect to the article  “IAF Lost Fighter Jets to Pak Because of Political Leadership's Constraints': Indian Defence Attache" published by The Wire in relation to the Operation Sindoor.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism (the trust owning The Wire) and Varadarajan, challenging the constitutionality of Section 152 BNS, which the petitioners contended was a repackaged version of the colonial sedition law. The bench issued notice to the Union Government on the writ petition and tagged it with another petition which also questioned the validity of the provision.

'How Can We Restrict Someone From Forming A Political Party Just Because They're Convicted?': Supreme Court

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Uoi And Anr., Wp(C) No. 1152/2017

"Merely because a person has been disqualified for a statutory right, you can't ipso facto deprive him of his constitutional right", the Supreme Court orally observed during the hearing of a public interest litigation seeking a ban on convicted persons from creating political parties/giving party tickets.

To recap, the PIL, filed in 2017, involves interpretation of Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and raises the issue whether the Election Commission of India is empowered to de-recognize political parties formed by convicted persons.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the PIL raises an interesting issue "worth consideration", but indicated that it will hear it on another day.

Supreme Court Bars Coercive Steps Against Owners Of 10-Year-Old Diesel & 15-Year-Old Petrol Vehicles In Delhi NCR

Case Details: Mc Mehta v. Union Of India Wp (C) No. 13029 Of 1985 And Ias

The Supreme Court (August 12) directed that no coercive action will be taken against owners of 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles in Delhi NCR.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria passed the interim direction while hearing a batch of pleas on environmental issues in the MC Mehta Case.

The bench also issued notice in the review petition filed by the Delhi Govt.

'Bihar SIR Process Illegal, ECI Can't Put Burden Of Proving Citizenship On Voters' : Petitioners Argue In Supreme Court

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Ors. v. Election Commission Of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court (August 12) heard the arguments of the petitioners in the pleas challenging Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter during the entire second half of the day.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha) submitted that the exclusion of about 65 lakh voters from the draft electoral roll published on August 1, without any objection to their inclusion, is illegal. However, the bench said that as per the Rules, the persons excluded have to submit applications for inclusion, and it is only at this stage that anyone's objection will be considered.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into 2021 Telangana Lawyer Couple Murder

Case Title – Gattu Kishan Rao v. State Of Telangana

The Supreme Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the probe into the 2021 killing of lawyer couple Gattu Vaman Rao and PV Nagamani in Telangana's Peddapalli district, observing that the case requires further investigation.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a plea filed by Rao's father, Gattu Kishan Rao, who sought a CBI inquiry. He challenged the Telangana High Court's 2021 order disposing of his plea to transfer the investigation on the ground that the investigation was complete

The petitioner alleged that the offence was committed due to prior enmity, as the couple was pursuing a matter to expose certain persons. He also claimed that the investigation was not conducted properly despite the availability of a video in which one of the victims implicated another person, who was not made an accused.

'Dirty Politics In Cricket Association' : Supreme Court Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao As Ombudsman Of Bihar Cricket Association

Case Details:  Secretary Bihar Cricket Association v. Bihar Cricket Association|Slp(C) No. 21132-21133/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 12) appointed Justice L. Nageswara Rao, former judge of the Supreme Court, as an Ombudsman of the Bihar Cricket Association ("BCA") to take action against illegal activities of the office bearers. Consequently, it disposed of the matter, remarking that dirty politics is going on in such associations, wasting the public revenue.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a special leave petition against the order of the division bench of the Patna High Court, which had set aside an order passed by a single bench directing the appointment of Justice Shaikesh Kumar Singh, former judge of Patna High Court, as Ombudsman.

The single judge, Justice Sandeep Kumar, had held that the Ombudsman was appointed to take care of violation of rules and regulations in the Association. The order was passed in a writ petition filed by then Secretary of the Cricket Association of Bihar, Aditya Prakash Verma. However, this was set aside by acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy, who held that the competent authority for the appointment of the Ombudsman is the Board of Control for Cricket in India ("BCCI").

'Bihar SIR Is Intensive Deletion Exercise' : Yogendra Yadav Appears In Supreme Court With Two Persons Deleted As Dead By ECI

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Ors. v. Election Commission Of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)

In the pleas challenging the Election Commission's special intensive revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls, political activist Yogendra Yadav produced before the Supreme Court two persons who have allegedly been declared dead in the ECI's draft electoral rolls.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and will continue the hearing tomorrow.

While Yadav's allegation was opposed by ECI counsel-Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, saying that instead of the "drama", Yadav could help the affected individuals in getting the rolls rectified, the bench said that there may have been an "inadvertent error", which could be rectified.

CJI Not Superior To Other Judges; Can't Review Other Benches' Orders : CJI BR Gavai

Case: Directorate Of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar| Slp(Crl) No. 5724/2023 And Connected Matter

The Supreme Court (August 12) questioned the Union Government over the application filed by it to recall the 2023 judgment in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India which held that right of an accused to seek default bail is not extinguished when the investigating agency files an incomplete chargesheet.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria also observed that the bench of the CJI cannot vary the orders passed by other benches.

The operation of the Ritu Chhabaria judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and CT Ravikumar, was however effectively suspended by a bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud which ordered that default bail applications based on the said judgment must be deferred by the Court. This order was passed while considering a Special Leave Petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

Supreme Court Directs District-Wise Survey To Ascertain POSH Act Compliance By Employers

Case Details: Aureliano Fernandes v. The State Of Goa And Ors., Diary No. 22553-

The Supreme Court on August 12 directed that an extensive Survey within 6 weeks be conducted to collect information on the constitution of the Internal Committee (formerly Internal Complaints Committee) in all the Government and Private institutions within every district of each State. It also directed the Labour Commissioner in each District and Chief Labour Officer of each State to supply the information on the entities registered so that information on the constitution of the Internal Committee could be supplied to the Deputy Commissioner or officer similarly placed, which in turn could be used for the survey.

The Court orally warned that failure to comply with the said directions, it will order the Labour Department not to renew the license of the entities.

The direction was passed after the Court was informed that only the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar had successfully carried out a district-wise survey of the constitution of the Internal Committee, including in private institutions. It was informed that Andaman and Nicobar also have an Internal Committee in private institutions as well as government institutions.

'I Will Look Into It' : CJI BR Gavai On Plea Relating To Stray Dogs

Case: Conference For Human Rights (India) (Regd.) v. Union Of India | Slp(C) No. 014763 - / 2024

A matter relating to stray dogs was mentioned today( August 13) before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. The petition was filed by an organisation named Conference for Human Rights (India) in 2024, challenging a Delhi High Court's order in its PIL seeking directions for sterlisiation and vaccination of community dogs in Delhi as per the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules.

When the counsel mentioned the matter, CJI BR Gavai pointed out that another bench has already passed an order in relation to stray dogs. CJI was referring to the order passed by a bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala on August 11 for the relocation of the stray dogs in Delhi to dog shelters.

The counsel then referred to an order passed by a bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari in May 2024, whereby the petitions relating to the stray dog issue were relegated to the respective High Courts.

Kerala Governor-Govt Deadlock : Supreme Court Says It'll Constitute Search Committee For University VC Appointments

Case Details: The Chancellor, Apj Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State Of Kerala And Ors| Slp(C) No. 20680-20681/2025

Given the stalemate between the Kerala Government and the Kerala Governor regarding the appointment of University Vice Chancellors, the Supreme Court (August 13) said that it will constitute a Search Committee to shortlist the names for VC appointments in two State Universities - APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Digital University.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan asked the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta (for the State) to give four names for inclusion in the 5-member committee. One member will be nominated by the University Grants Commission.

The bench has kept the matter tomorrow for further consideration.

Kancha Gachibowli | Considering New Proposal For IT Site Balancing Environment Interests : Telangana Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: In Re Kancha Gachibowli Forest, State Of Telangana v. |Smw(C) No. 3/2025 (And Connected Case)

During the hearing of the Kancha Gachibowli Deforestation case, the Telangana Government informed the Supreme Court that it was planning to come up with a better proposal for its IT Site, keeping sustainable development in mind.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the suo motu matter on the Telangana Government's felling of 1,000 trees in the Kancha Gachibowli area in the outskirts of Hyderabad.

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the State, requested additional time to file a reply. He added that the State Government is thinking of coming up with a better execution plan.

Supreme Court To Hear Tomorrow Plea Seeking Restoration Of Statehood To Jammu & Kashmir

Case Details: Zahoor Ahmad Bhat And Anr. v. Union Of India Ma 2259/2024 And Connected Matter

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear tomorrow (August 14) the issue of the restoration of statehood of Jammu & Kashmir.

The matter is listed before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.

The bench will be hearing the application seeking directions to the Union Government to restore the statehood of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

'Stray Dogs Being Picked Even Though SC Order Is Yet To Be Uploaded' : Advocate Tells CJI BR Gavai

In the wake of the Supreme Court direction on relocation of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, an urgent mentioning was made evening regarding the picking up of the community dogs by authorities even before the official court order is uploaded.

AOR Garima Sharma apprised the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that while the order of August 11 is yet to be uploaded on the official site of the Supreme Court, local authorities have begun the relocation drive.

" In West Delhi, the strays were picked up at 12 o'clock", she added.

Bihar SIR| Supreme Court Refers To S.21(3) RP Act; Asks If ECI Doesn't Have Residual Power For Special Intensive Revision

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Ors. v. Election Commission Of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court (August 13) asked the petitioners challenging the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls whether the ECI does not have the residual power to conduct such an exercise in a manner it deemed fit.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi  in this context referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit."

The bench asked when the subordinate rules do not specify the manner in which the special revision has to be done, won't the ECI have a discretion to lay down its own procedure.

Will Take Up West Bengal Voter Roll Revision Issue Later, Says Supreme Court In Bihar SIR Matter

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Ors. v. Election Commission Of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)

During the hearing of the Bihar SIR matter, the Supreme Court said that it is not going to take up the issue regarding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal for the time being.

"Bengal can wait, nothing is happening right now", a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms in the Bihar case, independently made submissions on behalf of the State of West Bengal. He said that the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal has made a statement that the State is ready for the SIR, without any consultation with the State Government.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Challenge To Amendment Allowing Executive Magistrates To Validate Delayed Birth/Death Certificates

Case Details: Minaxi Chandulal Shah & Ors. v. The Union Of India & Ors.|Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 21524/2025

The Supreme Court, on August 12, issued a notice in a matter relating to the power to decide on the delayed registration of births and deaths after one year. Through a 2023 amendment under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the power to issue the delayed registration of births and deaths after one year has been shifted from a Judicial Magistrate to an Executive Magistrate.

Before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, 19 practising advocates registered with the Gujarat Bar Council filed a special leave petition challenging the Gujarat High Court's order dated April 24, whereby it upheld the validity of Section 13 of the Act, which had brought the changes.

Section 13(1) provides for delayed registration upto 30 days by payment of prescribed fees and Section 13(2) empowers the prescribed authority to register on payment of fees if the delay is more than 30 days but less than one year. Section 13(3), before amendment, provided that for registration for delay beyond period of one year after verification by a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Delhi Stray Dog Matter Shifted To 3-Judge Bench Of Supreme Court; Hearing Tomorrow

The suo motu case taken on the stray dog issue, in which a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court onAugust 11 passed directions to relocate the stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to dog shelters, has now been shifted to a 3-judge bench.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria will hear the matter tomorrow.

The directions to remove the stray dogs were passed by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on August 11. This 2-judge bench had earlier (July 28) taken suo motu cognizanceof the issue based on a Times of India report titled "In a city hounded by strays, kids pay price".

Stray Dogs Shouldn't Be Mistreated In Shelter Homes; Adoption Can Be Considered : Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'|Smw(C) No. 5/2025

Two days after dictating the directions, the Supreme Court released the judgment in which it passed directions for the shifting of all stray dogs to dog shelters/pounds in the Delhi-National Capital Region.

In the now uploaded judgment, the Court has included directions to ensure that the dogs are not ill-treated in shelter homes. It has been said that it is "sympathetic" to their lives and has clarified that at no stage, the dogs be subjected to any mistreatment or cruelty.

The two judge-bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said :

Bihar SIR | ECI Removing Searchable Draft Roll From Its Website Shows Malafides : Prashant Bhushan To Supreme Court

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Ors. v. Election Commission Of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)

In the pleas challenging Election Commission's special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, Advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged before the Supreme Court that the ECI has indulged in a malafide exercise by arbitrarily deleting many electors without giving proper reasons and concealing data from the public.

In particular, the counsel claimed that the Election Commission initially uploaded draft electoral rolls on its website with a 'searchability' feature, which enabled people to easily search their names and find out if their names have been deleted. However, a day after Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha) held his press conference alleging vote theft in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment under the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha Constituency, the ECI replaced the file with a version which has no search feature.

"We have no knowledge of any press conference", Justice Surya Kant said in response to Bhushan's claim.

Is Sex Education Provided In Higher Secondary Schools? Supreme Court Asks UP Govt

Cause Title: Juvenile X v. The State Of U.P., Slp (Crl.) No. 10915/2025

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Uttar Pradesh Government about the inclusion of Sex Education in the school curriculum in the higher secondary schools of the state.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and SC Sharma said :

“We are of the opinion that an additional counter affidavit/reply would be required to enable the State to inform us as to whether sex education is provided as a part of the curriculum in higher secondary schools within the State of Uttar Pradesh, so that young adolescents are made aware of the hormonal changes that come with puberty and the consequences that may flow therefrom.”

'Directions To Shift Stray Dogs Impractical & Illegal' : NGO Files Plea In Supreme Court Seeking Recall Of Order

Case Details: In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” Vs.| Diary No. - 41706/2025

An application seeking a recall as well as a stay on thedirection on relocation of stray dogs from Delhi NCR has been filed before the Supreme Court.

The application filed on August 12, a day after the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan issued directions to the authorities in the National Capital Territory of Delhi to immediately start picking up stray dogs from all localities and shift them to dog shelters. The directions also extend to Noida, Gurugram and Ghaziabad.

The directions come after the bench took suo motu cognisance of a new report by The Times of India, which allegedly stated that a 6-year-old girl died due to dog bites.

Supreme Court Deletes Stay On Telangana HC Order Quashing Nomination Of 2 MLCs

Case Title – Dr. Dasoju Sravan Kumar v. Secretary To Her Excellency, The Hon'ble Governor, State Of Telangana

The Supreme Court modified its earlier interim order in the dispute over two Telangana Legislative Council nominations under the Governor's quota, deleting the stay on the High Court judgment that had quashed the nominations of Prof. M Kodanda Rama Reddy and Amer Ali Khan.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said the August 14, 2024 order, passed in pleas by BRS leaders whose names were rejected by the Governor in 2023, had been a mistake.

Justice Nath clarified that the intention was to make any future nominations subject to the final outcome, not to stay the High Court ruling that had set aside earlier recommendations.

'Stray Dog Issue Due To Authorities' Inaction': Supreme Court Reserves Order On Plea To Stay Directions To Remove Delhi Stray Dogs

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'|Smw(C) No. 5/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 14) reserved order on the pleas to stay the directions passed by a two-judge bench on August 11 to remove the stray dogs in Delhi National Capital Region to shelter homes.

A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter. In a dramatic turn of events yesterday, the suo motu case relating to stray dogs, in which the August 11 directions were passed by a two-judge bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, was shifted to this three-judge bench, after some lawyers mentioned before the Chief Justice of India that those directions were in conflict with the previous orders passed by other benches.

At the outset, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Government of NCT of Delhi, started by saying that "there was a loud vocal minority and a silent suffering majority." "I have seen people posting videos of eating meat and then claiming to be animal lovers," SG said.

'Ground Realities Have To Be Seen; Can't Ignore Pahalgam Attack' : Supreme Court On Plea For J&K Statehood Restoration

Case Details: Zahoor Ahmad Bhat And Anr. v. Union Of India Ma 2259/2024 And Connected Matter

The Supreme Court (August 14), while hearing the plea seeking directions for restoration of Statehood in Jammu & Kashmir, verbally observed that it was crucial to consider ground realities in the region and one cannot ignore the instances such as the Pahalgam terrorist attack.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the application seeking directions to the Union Government to restore the statehood of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for the applicant and college teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, stressed that "It has been 21 months since that judgment(Article 370 case), there has been no movement partly because, mylords fairly trusted the Union when they made this statement before the Court that they will implement the statehood."

'When Road Is In Bad Condition, How Toll Can Be Collected?': Supreme Court Asks NHAI Over Toll Collection At Paliyekkara In NH 544

Case Details: National Highway Authority Of India And Anr. v. O.J Janeesh And Ors| Slp(C) No. 22579/2025

The Supreme Court (August 14) expressed reluctance to entertain the petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenging thejudgment of the Kerala High Courtwhich suspended the toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza in Thrissur district along National Highway 544 due to the bad condition of the highway.

Both Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, the members of the two-judge bench, said that they have personally experienced the bad condition of the road stretch.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that the NHAI was primarily aggrieved with the High Court stating that the concessionaire can recover from the NHAI the losses it suffered due to the suspension of the toll collection. "My worry is they(concessionaire) will claim from me(NHAI), though it is their responsibility[to maintain the road]," SG said.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre & 9 States On Plea Alleging Detention Of Bengali Muslim Workers As Bangladeshis

Case Title: West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board And Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 768/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation which alleged that migrant Muslim workers from West Bengal were being detained in many Stateso over the suspicion of being Bangladesh citizens.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and called for the responses of the Union as well as respondent-states/UTs (Odisha, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Delhi, Bihar, UP, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and West Bengal). Orally, it questioned how the directions that were being sought could be implemented and expressed that it will seek respondents' opinion on what can be done to prevent what's stated to be happening on pan-India basis.

The PIL, filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board, alleges that pursuant to an MHA circular of May, various state authorities are randomly picking up Bengali Muslim migrant laborers, alleging that they are Bangladeshi, and detaining them. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, argued that almost in all cases, when matter was sent for verification, it was found that the worker was an Indian citizen. "In some cases, they even sent them out of the country...after verification, they have had to bring them back to India...Delhi police is saying their documents are in Bangladeshi language, there is no Bangladeshi language...it's Bangla (that is, Bengali)", he added.

Supreme Court Questions Petitions Filed Against Vantara Wildlife Centre

Case Title – C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Union Of India And Ors.; Dev Sharma v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court (August 14) criticised two petitions alleging illegalities in Vantara's operations and the transfer of Kolhapur temple elephant Mahadevi, as “vague”, but allowed the petitioners to amend them and fixed both matters for hearing on August 25.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna Varale heard two separate petitions concerning the operations of Vantara and the transfer of the Kolhapur temple elephant Mahadevi, also known as Madhuri, to its Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust in Jamnagar.

The first petition before the Supreme Court seeks the constitution of a monitoring committee for alleged illegalities at Vantara, the return of all captive elephants to their owners, the rescue and release of all wild animals and birds from Vantara into the wild, and a declaration that the High-Power Committee constituted by the Tripura High Court is unconstitutional.

Experience As Judicial Officer Can't Be Counted Towards '3-Year Practice' For Civil Judge Exams : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ma In  All India Judges Association And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors|W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

The Supreme Court (August 14) refused to entertain an application seeking to modify its earlier order on the 3-year practice rule to state that a judicial officer's experience be treated equivalent to a practising lawyer. The Court said that it will lead to opening Pandora's box.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an application filed in the recent decision, which mandates a minimum practice of three years as an advocate for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in the judicial service.

The Counsel sought a clarification of the judgment to the extent that prior experience as a judicial officer be considered as equivalent to a practising lawyer.

'No Immediate Threat Of Nimisha Priya's Execution In Yemen, Negotiations Going On': NGO Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council v. Union of India And Anr.

The Supreme Court adjourned for eight weeks the plea filed by Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council seeking directions to secure the release of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, who is on the death row in Yemen.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter after being informed that there was no immediate threat of execution and that negotiations with the victim's family were ongoing.

The Court ultimately adjourned the matter for 8 weeks.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Safety Protocols For Mountain Helicopter Operations After Uttarakhand Crashes

Case Title – Shubham Awasthi v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court (August 14) issued notice in a plea seeking directions for framing a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for helicopter operations in mountainous and high-risk terrain.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the notice returnable in three weeks. The petition raises concerns over recurring helicopter crashes in the high-altitude pilgrimage zones of Uttarakhand, particularly around Kedarnath valley.

“several helicopter operator companies conducting pilgrimage flight services in the Kedarnath valley and adjoining high-altitude corridors have demonstrated a consistent pattern of operational negligence, regulatory non-compliance, and procedural lapses, thereby putting the lives of thousands of pilgrims, residents, and flight crew at risk. Despite the sensitive nature of terrain-specific aviation and the fact that most of these flight operations occur in densely crowded pilgrimage circuits with limited emergency infrastructure, these companies have operated with impunity, emboldened by the lack of effective enforcement by the DGCA and the State regulatory authorities”, the petition states.

ECI Has Power To Conduct SIR; But Procedure Must Be Voter-Friendly & Reasonable : Supreme Court Says Prima Facie

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Ors. v. Election Commission Of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)

During the hearing of pleas challenging Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the Supreme Court verbally expressed a prima facie view that the Election Commission of India has powers to conduct a SIR of electoral rolls.

The Court expressed that the powers of the ECI for a Special Intensive Revision are traceable to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act. Hence the Court said that it did not wish to interdict the ECI from the process.

However, the Court added that the manner of its exercise should be 'reasonable' and provide a certain degree of comfort to the citizens and voters.

Sakshi TV Channel Alleges Blocking By Andhra State Authorities; Supreme Court Issues Notice

Case Title – M/S. Indira Television Limited & Anr. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice in writ petition against alleged coordinated suppression of the television news channel, Sakshi TV, by State authorities in Andhra Pradesh. The channel has claimed that it faced “sustained, unlawful, and targeted action aimed at silencing its independent editorial voice” after the declaration of 2024 Assembly election results.

“Issue notice on the prayers for interim relief as well as on the Writ Petition”, the Court stated.

The petitioners have sought interim relief of immediate restoration of transmission of Sakshi TV on a bouquet basis during the pendency of the writ petition.

Supreme Court To Decide If S.223 BNSS Will Apply When Cognizance Is Taken Of Complaints Filed Before July 1, 2024

Case: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate Of Enforcement  | Slp (Crl) 12055/2025

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition which raises an important legal question whether Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 will apply when cognizance is taken after July 1, 2024 of complaints filed before July 1, 2024.

The BNSS came into effect on July 1, 2024. As per the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before cognizance is taken of a complaint. Such a provision did not exist in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which the BNSS replaced.

The present issue arose with respect to a prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate. While the complaint was filed on June 26, 2024, the Special Court took cognizance on July 2, 2024. The accused challenged the cognizance order, contending that it was illegal for not complying with Section 223 BNSS.

Supreme Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On BSNL For Frivolous Plea Against Compassionate Appointment; Allows Recovery From Officers

Cause Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (A Government Of India Enterprises) & Ors. v. Pavan Thakur

The Supreme Court imposed Rs. 1 Lakh cost on BSNL for filing a frivolous plea against the granting of a compassionate appointment to an individual whose parents died in harness (during service).

The bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti expressed shocked about filing of such petitions, despite a well settled law on grant of compassionate appointment to the deceased employee's legal heirs. The Court, however, gave a liberty to the BSNL to recover the cost from the officer who advised filing of such a plea before the Supreme Court.

BSNL approached the Supreme Court against the MP High Court's order which affirmed the CAT's order granting a compassionate appointment to the Respondent in a Group-D category job, whose father and mother died in harness.

After Disqualification As MLA, Abbas Ansari Urges Supreme Court To Relax Bail Conditions In Gangsters Act Case

Case Title: Abbas Ansari v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, Slp(Crl) No. 1091/2025

In his plea plea seeking bail in an Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act case, former Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari prayed before Supreme Court yesterday that his interim bail conditions be modified so that he does not have to seek prior permission of the trial court before travelling within India.

The matter was before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which was told by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Ansari) that Ansari has incurred disqualification to hold the post of MLA following his conviction and sentencing for 2 years' imprisonment in a 2022 hate speech case.

For context, under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, if an MLA is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years or more, he is immediately disqualified from the Assembly.

PIL Filed In Supreme Court Seeking Mechanism For Appointment Of A 'Politically-Neutral' CAG; Questions Current CAG's Appointment

Case Title: Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S N Shukla, I.A.S. (Retd.), Advocate v. Union Of India And Ors., Diary No. 17740-2025

A public interest litigation has been initiated before the Supreme Court questioning appointment of K Sanjay Murthy as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and seeking formulation of a transparent mechanism by the Union for appointment of a "politically neutral person" to the high constitutional office.

The petition, filed in public interest by the NGO 'Lok Prahari', seeks a declaration that the existing selection procedure for appointment of CAG is against the mandate of the Constituent Assembly and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner further questions the appointment of K Sanjay Murthy (respondent No.3) as the CAG on account of being 'prima facie arbitrary and malafide'. He seeks a direction for the Union to lay down a proper transparent and objective procedure for appointment of a politically neutral person as the CAG.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Struggles Faced By Cadets Disabled During Military Training

Case: In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle | Smw(C) No. 6/2025

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the issue faced by cadets who incurred disabilities during military training.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan will hear the suo motu case titled "In Re : Cadets Disabled During Military Training Struggle" tomorrow.

The move follows a report published in The Indian Express on August 12, which highlighted the plight of cadets medically discharged after suffering disabilities at premier institutions such as the National Defence Academy and the Indian Military Academy. Since their injuries occurred prior to commissioning, these cadets are denied ex-servicemen benefits like disability pension or treatment under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme, leaving them to bear mounting medical expenses without institutional support.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain AAP MP Sanjay Singh's Plea Against Closure Of 105 Govt Primary Schools In UP

Case Details: Sanjay Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors| W.P.(C) No. 767/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 18) dismissed as withdrawn a plea filedby Rajya Sabha MP belonging to the Aam Aadmi Party, Sanjay Singh, against the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government to shut down 105 government-run primary schools.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih refused to entertain the writ petition as matters are already pending before the Allahabad High Court. Before the bench, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, assisted by Advocate Dr Farrukh Khan, apprised the bench of the plight of hundreds of students who are at stake. However, the Court said that since the matter involved the enforcement of statutory rights under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act”) and since the High Court is already hearing the matter, it is better for it to decide.

Sibal then requested that the Court direct the High Court to consider the matter expeditiously. The Court stressed that with the future of thousands of students at stake, the High Court must decide the matter with priority and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court.

'Why Pay Toll If Traffic Block Lasts 12 Hours?' : Supreme Court Reserves Order On NHAI's Plea Over Paliyekkara Toll Collection In NH 544

Case Details: National Highway Authority Of India And Anr. v. O.J Janeesh And Ors| Slp(C) No. 22579/2025

The Supreme Court (August 18) reserved orders on the petition filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment which suspended the toll collection in Paliyekkara toll booth in Thrissur district due to the bad condition of the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch in the National Highway 544.

The bench also heard the petition filed by the Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd, the concessionaire who is collecting the toll, challenging the High Court's judgment.

During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria repeatedly highlighted the huge traffic block which lasted for over 12 hours on this stretch during the last weekend. Even on the previous hearing date (August 14), the bench had expressed reluctance to entertain the petition, asking how the toll can be collected from the commuters when the road is not kept in a motorable condition.

'Husband Attending Meeting Which Selected His Wife's Name Raises Doubts' : Supreme Court On Prof Naima Khatoon's Appointment As AMU VC

Case: Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani v. Union Of India | Slp(C) No. 19209/2025

The Supreme Court verbally questioned the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as the first woman Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, noting that her husband, Professor Mohd. Gulrez, then officiating Vice-Chancellor, was part of the Executive Council meeting that shortlisted her name for the panel.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by Professor Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani and Professor Faizan Mustafa against the Allahabad High Court's order which upheld Professor Khatoon's appointment.

The primary ground of challenge, raised by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for the petitioners, was that the appointment of Professor Khatoon was vitiated since her husband had presided over the meeting of the Executive Council and University Court, which included her name in the panel to be sent to the Visitor. "If this is the way Vice Chancellors are appointed, I shudder to think what will happen in future," Sibal exclaimed.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Insurance Coverage & Rehabilitation For Cadets Disabled During Military Training

Case Details: In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle | Smw(C) No. 6/2025

The Supreme Court (August 19) issued notice to Union Ministries of Defence, Finance and Social Justice as well as Chiefs of Defence Staff, Army Staft, Airforce Staff, and Navy Staff in a suo motu case concerning the struggles faced by cadets who sustained disabilities during military training.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan asked the authorities to examine whether monthly medical expenditure for disabled cadets could be increased, whether insurance coverage could be provided to meet contingencies of death or disablement, and whether injured cadets could be reassessed after treatment for rehabilitation. The Court also said their rights under the Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 should be considered.

"During the discussion, this court pointed out whether there could be an increase in medical expenditure payable per month to the cadets. Whether there could be insurance coverage for the trainee cadets to beat any such contingencies of death or disablement. Whether there could be a reassessment of the injured cadets after their treatment is completed, and thereafter any suitable training could be given to them so that they could be rehabilitated. Further, the rights that such candidates have under the Disabilities Act could also be examined by the respondents", the Court recorded.

Entire Delhi Gets Paralysed If It Rains For Two Hours : CJI BR Gavai

Merely two hours of rain will paralyse Delhi, remarked Chief Justice of India BR Gavai while hearing the case concerning the toll collection in Paliyekkara in Kerala along the National Highway 544.

A bench comprising CJI, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the petition filed by the NHAI against the Kerala High Court suspending the toll collection at Paliyekkara for four weeks due to the bad condition of the NH stretch and traffic congestion.

During the hearing, the NHAI submitted that the work of the service roads was impacted by the Monsoon rains.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Islamic Personal Law Restriction On Bequeathing More Than One-Third Property By Will

Case Title – Sheheen Pulikkal Veettil v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government in a plea seeking a declaration that Muslims in India have the right to execute Wills (Wasiyat) equitably in accordance with the Holy Quran, without the restriction that they cannot bequeath more than one-third of their property without the consent of legal heirs.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimhaand and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar issued notice and tagged the plea with another similar case Tarsem v. Dharma & Anr. In that case, the Court framed similar questions of law regarding the extent of testamentary power under Mohammedan law.

The petitioner, a lawyer practising in Abu Dhabi, has sought directions declaring that the exclusion of Muslims from testamentary succession under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, along with the one-third limitation imposed under uncodified Muslim Personal Law, violates Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, and 300A of the Constitution.

'Why A Judge From Bengal Being Avoided?' : Justice Dipankar Datta Questions Listing Of WB Madarsa Matter Before Another Bench

Case Details: Mastara Khatun v. Directorate Of Madrasah Education|D No. 36427/2024

Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court questioned why the Supreme Court Registry suddenly kept a matter before another coordinate bench although he was part of the bench which had passed three orders in connected similar matters.

"We are seriously questioning the system followed by the Registry. How could these matters go before another bench? If the coram rule is to be followed, it should come before me. Why is it that a judge from Bengal is being avoided? We know the ins and outs of what has happened there," Justice Datta remarked.

The matter pertains to the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, which constituted a commission to appoint teachers in madrasas. In 2015, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court declared Sections 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the 2008 Act ultra vires on grounds that the process of appointment of teachers in an aided Madrasah, which was recognised as a minority institution, was taken over and entrusted to the Commission appointed under Section 4 of the Commission Act.

Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections Over Alleged Bogus Voting

Case: CHETAN CHANDRAKANT AHIRE v. UNION OF INDIA | DIARY NO. - 39091/2025

The Supreme Court (August 18) dismissed a petition challenging the validity of the Maharashtra Assembly Elections held in November 2024.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh dismissed a petition filed by Chetan Chandrakant Ahire who sought to declare the election results as void on the allegation that about 75 lakh bogus voters had cast their votes after the closing of the polls at 6 PM.

He approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court's dismissal of his writ petition in June 2025. The petitioner also claimed there were several discrepancies in almost 95 constituencies, wherein the number of votes polled and the number of votes counted, did not match.

'Absurd': Supreme Court Stays Uttarakhand Govt Notification Which Barred Blind Candidates From Applying In General Category

Case Details: Sravya Sindhuri v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission And Ors.|W.P.(C) No. 570/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 18) stayed a 2018 Uttarakhand Government notification which restricts persons with blindness, visually impaired persons and those with locomotor disability, who are already excluded from reservation under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities ("PwBD"), to appear in the general category for the Uttarakhand Judicial Services.

The Court has directed that those persons, who are excluded from the PwBD category and also from the general category by virtue of being excluded from the PwBD category, can appear in the preliminary test scheduled to be held on August 31 in the general category/SC/ST/OBC.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petitionfiled by a blind candidate seeking to appear for the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Exams. She has challenged the exclusion of persons with blindness and locomotor disability, and also persons who are not domiciled in Uttarakhand, from being eligible for the PwBD quota in the Uttarakhand Judicial Exams. On last occasion, the Court had issued a notice to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ("UKPSC").

Supreme Court Dismisses NCPCR's Challenge To HC Ruling That 16-Year-Old Muslim Girl Can Marry Under Personal Law

Case Details: National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights (Ncpcr) v. Gulaam Deen And Ors.| Slp(Crl) No. 10036/2022, Ncpcr v. Javed And Ors Diary No. 35376-2022, Ncpcr v. Fija And Ors Slp(Crl) No. 1934/2023

The Supreme Court (August 19) dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) challenginga 2022 judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which held that a 16-year-old Muslim girl can enter into a valid marriage with a Muslim man and granted protection to the couple from threats.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan observed that the NCPCR was a stranger to the litigation and had no locus standi to challenge the High Court's judgment.

Why should the NCPCR be challenging an order of the High Court granting protection to the life and liberty of the couple who were facing threats, asked the bench.

'We'll Be Just Expressing A View On Law, Not On TN Governor Decision' : Supreme Court On Presidential Reference Over Bill Timelines

Case Details: In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation Of Bills By The Governor And The President Of India

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which is hearing the Presidential Referenceon the issue relating to Bills, orally observed during the hearing (August 19) that it was only sitting in an advisory jurisdiction and not in appeal over the judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case which laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act on Bills submitted for their assent.

"We will be expressing just a view of law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case," Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said in response to the preliminary objections raised by the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to the maintainability of the Reference.

"We are in advisory jurisdiction, we are not in appellate. In Article 143, the court can render an opinion that a certain judgment does not lay down correct law but it will not overrule the judgment," Justice Surya Kant stated.

'Be Loyal To Constitution, Not Bosses': Supreme Court Reprimands Bihar IPS Officer For Filing Affidavit Supporting Murder Convict

Cause Title: Madhuri Devi v. Arjun Das @ Kariya & Ors.

The Supreme Court (Aug. 19) reprimanded Bihar IPS officer Ashok Mishra for filing a "shockingly irresponsible" affidavit supporting an accused in a murder case, contradicting the state's prosecution stance.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti had earlier taken serious exceptionto Mishra's affidavit, which effectively gave a "clean chit" to the accused in a case where the police had initially secured a conviction. The affidavit, filed before the Supreme Court, directly contradicted the chargesheet and trial court findings, raising suspicions of either gross negligence or deliberate misconduct.

During today's hearing, Mishra, currently posted as SP (Special Branch) in Patna, appeared personally and tendered an unconditional apology, calling it a "big learning experience." However, the bench expressed deep concern over the casual manner in which senior officers file affidavits without proper scrutiny.

If Governor Keeps Bills Pending For Long, What Is The Recourse? Supreme Court Asks AG In Presidential Reference

Case: IN RE: ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA | SPL.REF. No. 1/2025

During the hearing of the Presidential Reference on the questions relating to granting assent to Bills, the Supreme Court (August 19) orally remarked that the judgment by the two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case might have been given to "handle an egregious situation" created by the Governor keeping the Bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly pending for a long time.

The Court also asked the Attorney General for India what would be the "Constitutionally permissible recourse" when the Court is confronted with a situation where the Governor was keeping Bills pending for several years. If the Court is wrong in declaring deemed assent for the Bills, what should be the next option, the bench asked.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani said that even in such an undesirable fact situation, the Court cannot take over the functions of the Governor and declare assent for the Bills.

Dr.Ambedkar Opposed Setting Time Limit For President To Decide On Bill's Assent : Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation Of Bills By The Governor And The President Of India|Spl.Ref. No. 1/2025

In the Presidential Referenceon the issues relating to the granting of assent to Bills, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the Constituent Assembly had consciously omitted to set timelines for the President and the Governors to act on Bills.

He submitted that Dr.BR Ambedkar had moved an amendment to delete the time limit of six weeks proposed for the President to grant assent to money bills under Article 111.

Referring to Section 68 of the Government of India Act, 1915, and Section 32 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Constituent Assembly debates, SG Mehta submitted that Ambedkar moved an amendment to replace 'not later than six weeks' introduced by Dr BN Rau in draft Article 91(now Article 111) with 'as soon as possible'. He pointed out that a member of the Constituent Assembly, H.V. Kamath, had opposed this amendment, calling the term vague and meaningless and raising the apprehension that the President may not always act idealistically. However, Dr Ambedkar's amendment was adopted.

Supreme Court Directs ASI To Supervise Repair & Restoration Of Ancient Dargahs In Delhi's Mehrauli

Case Details: Zameer Ahmed Jumlana v. Delhi Development Authority (Dda) And Ors.|Diary No. 6711-2024

The Supreme Court (August 19) directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to take under its supervision the repair and renovation of the 14th-century Ashiq Allah Dargah and Chillagah of Baba Farid in Mehrauli Archaeological Park, Delhi.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a challenge against the Delhi High Court's order, which refused to pass specific directions for protecting centuries-old religious structures inside the Mehrauli Archaeological Park in Delhi, including the 13th-century Ashiq Allah Dargah (1317 AD) and Chillagah of Baba Farid.

Previously,the Court had directed the petitioners and authorities to make their representations to a court-constituted Religious Committee first. The decision taken by the Religious Committee was to be placed on record before its implementation.

Supreme Court Dismisses NHAI's Appeal Against Kerala HC Suspending Toll Collection At Paliyekkara In NH-544 Due To Bad Condition

Case Details: National Highway Authority Of India And Anr. v. O.J Janeesh And Ors| Slp(C) No. 22579/2025

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI)  challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment which suspended the toll collection in Paliyekkara toll booth in Thrissur district due to the bad condition of the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch in the National Highway 544.

The Court also dismissed the appeal filed by Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd, the concessionaire who is collecting the toll.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran had reserved the order yesterday. In the order, the bench stated that the appeals are dismissed.

'Entire Selection Was Compromised' : Supreme Court Refuses To Review Quashing Of West Bengal SSC Recruitments

Case: State Of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) And Others R.P (C) No. 1729 Of 2025 And Connected Petitions

The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the State of West Bengal against the April 3 judgment thatinvalidated nearly 25000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission (SSC) in 2016.

A bench comprising Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the April 3 judgment was passed "after hearing extensive and exhaustive arguments and upon considering all aspects, factual and legal."

The bench stated that the judgment was passed after duly considering the illegalities in the selection process brought out by the reports of the Justice (Retd.) Bag Committee and the Central Bureau of Investigation along with the admissions made by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in their counter-affidavits.

Supreme Court Stays Disproportionate Assets Case Trial Against TN Minister I Periyasamy

Case Details: I. Periasamy v. State Represented By The Public Prosecutor| Diary No. - 31484/2025

The Supreme Court on August 18 stayed the proceedings against Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy in a disproportionate asset case.

The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih issued notice in the matter and ordered a stay on the proceedings before the Trial Court. The relevant part of the order states :

"There shall be stay of proceedings in Special CC No. 27 of 2014 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Dindigul."

If Bills Can Be Withheld Without Returning To Assembly, Won't Elected Govts Be At Governors' Whims? Supreme Court Asks

If Governors can simply withhold their assent to Bills without returning them to the Legislative Assembly, would it not place the Governments elected by the majority at the whims and fancies of the Governor, asked the Supreme Court during the hearing of the Presidential Reference on questions relating to the grant of assent to Bills.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing the arguments of Solicitor General of India.

SG Tushar Mehta submitted that, as per Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor has four options: grant assent, withhold assent, reserve the Bill for the President's consideration, or return the Bill to the Assembly. SG argued that if the Governor says that he was withholding the assent, then it means that the "Bill dies." The Governor need not return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration if assent was withheld, according to the SG.

Clinical Establishment Rules 2012 Still In Operation, Not Stayed : Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Details: All India Ophthalmological Society And Anr. v. Union Of India| W.P.(C) No. 214/2024 And Connected Matters

The Supreme Court clarified that the Clinical Establishment (Central Government) Rules, 2012, which are under challenge before it, are still in operation and have not been stayed.

The bench of  Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandukar was hearing petitions that raised issues regarding the provisions of the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, and the Clinical Establishment (Central Government) Rules, 2012.

In the lead petition, filed by the All India Ophthalmological Society, the challenge is against government regulations that mandated uniform rates for ophthalmological procedures nationwide. Pertinently, a similar petitionseeking the enforcement of Rule 9 was also taken up along with these petitions.

After Justice Datta's Objection, SC Bench Refers WB Madrasa Matters To CJI For Appropriate Listing

Case Details: Najma Khatun & Ors. v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.|Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S). 566/2024

A day after Justice Dipankar Datta expressed his disappointmentwith the Supreme Court Registry for assigning the West Bengal Madrassa matter to another bench, the other bench, comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, directed that the matters be kept before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders on listing.

The issue arose after a bench comprising Justice Datta and Justice AG Masih, on August 18, came across a petition relating to the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 (MASTARA KHATUN v. DIRECTORATE OF MADRASAH EDUCATION).

Justice Datta was informed that another set of petitions is being heard by a bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in which stay orders were passed. He inquired how the Registry could assign a different bench other than him when he has been a part of the bench which passed several earlier orders in similar matters. He remarked, "Why is it that a judge from Bengal is being avoided?"

PIL In Supreme Court Seeks SIT Inquiry Into Rahul Gandhi's Allegations Of Electoral Roll Manipulation In Bengaluru Central

Case: Rohit Pandey v. Union Of India And Others | Diary No.46726/2025

A Public Interest Litigation petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team(SIT) headed by a former Judge to inquire into the allegations raised by the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, regarding large-scale voters list manipulation in the Bengaluru Central constituency during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

The petition filed by Advocate Rohit Pandey also sought a direction that no further revision or finalisation of electoral rolls be undertaken until compliance with the Court's directions and completion of an independent audit of the rolls.

The petitioner further sought the framing and issuance of binding guidelines to the Election Commission of India to ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in the preparation, maintenance, and publication of electoral rolls, including mechanisms for the detection and prevention of duplicate or fictitious entries.

Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing Of Plea Against MCD Circular On Picking Up Stray Dogs

The Supreme Court refused to urgently list an application filed in the Stray Dogs matter against a circular statedly issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for the picking-up of stray dogs.

The application was mentioned before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi. The bench however turned down the request for urgent listing, pointing out that orders have been reserved in the stray-dog matter by a 3-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath.

When the counsel who mentioned the application clarified that orders have been reserved on the interim prayers, but he was mentioning a fresh application in a connected case that is also listed tomorrow alongwith the writ petition raising stray dogs issue, Justice Maheshwari said, "in reserved cases, we can't...".

If Governor Is Sitting On Bills, There're Political Solutions; Courts Can't Fix Timeline : Solicitor General To Supreme Court

If some Governors are sitting over Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly, then political solutions have to be explored by the States instead of judicial solutions, submitted the Solicitor General of India before the Supreme Court during the hearing of the Presidential Reference relating to the grant of assent to Bills.

Courts are not the solutions for every problem in the country, SG Tushar Mehta stated before a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.

Addressing the queries of the bench regarding the way out if a Governor is delaying bills, SG Mehta submitted :

Allow Visually Challenged CLAT-PG Candidates To Give Answers In Computer : Supreme Court

Case Title – Yash Dodani & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court has directed that visually impaired candidates appearing in future editions of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) must be provided facilities including the use of JAWS (Job Access With Speech) screen reader, and permission to use customised keyboards and mouse to answer questions on a Word document on the computer, with the additional option of using a scribe as per government guidelines.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the interim directions issued earlier on December 5, 2024, and December 11, 2024, regarding facilities for visually impaired candidates for the All India Bar Exam, shall apply to future editions of CLAT.

“Meanwhile, the interim directions issued by this Court on 05.12.2024 and 11.12.2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the CLAT Examination in future to be conducted by the respondents”, the Court stated.

Governor Withholding Bills Indefinitely Will Make Legislature Defunct : Supreme Court In Presidential Reference Hearing

During the hearing of thePresidential Referenceon issues related to assent to Bills, the Supreme Court (August 21) orally remarked that if the Governors withhold Bills indefinitely, then it will make the legislature defunct. Are the Courts powerless to intervene in such a situation, the Court asked.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar is hearing the matter. Responding to the Solicitor General's submission that the judiciary cannot issue binding directions to the President and the Governor, CJI BR Gavai asked :

"Suppose a particular function is entrusted with the Governor, when this court has set aside the constitutional amendment which took away the power of judicial review as it was violative of the basic structure, with those judgments, can we say that however high the constitutional functionaries may be, if they do not act, the court is powerless? Assent is given or rejected, the reasons we are not going into, why he has given or not given. Suppose an act passed by the competent legislature, if hon'ble governor only sits over it, then?"

Supreme Court Refuses To Review 2024 Judgment Quashing Hyderabad Land Allotments For MP/MLAs, Judges, Journalists, IAS Officers Etc

Case Title: Ganduri Kamakshi Devi v. Dr Rao V.B.J. Chelikani And Ors., Diary No. 429-2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions filed against its November, 2024 judgment which quashed preferential allotment of lands to housing societies of MPs, MLAs, civil servants, judges, defense personnel, journalists etc. within the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih passed the order on the review petitions after hearing a battery of advocates/senior advocates including Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan, Anitha Shenoy, Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra, Atmaram Nadkarni, Bikashranjan Bhattacharya, Jaideep Gupta and Dama Seshadri Naidu (for review-petitioners) and Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant (for respondents).

Pleading for "mercy" and consideration on the ground of "equity", it was argued on behalf of the review-petitioners that the land allotments were made in 2008, after which constructions were carried out and today, in 2025, they have nowhere else to go. A willingness to pay market rates, as deemed fit by the Court, was also expressed on behalf of some.

Supreme Court Directs Centre To Remind States, UTs To Submit Data On Missing Children

Case Title – Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan v. Union Of India & Ors.

In a PIL on child trafficking and unresolved cases of missing children recorded on the Khoya/Paya portal, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to issue strong reminders to several States and Union Territories that have not furnished data relating to missing children cases.

The petition highlights the plight of children who are victims of organised trafficking networks operating across multiple States.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the direction after Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that information from multiple states was still awaited.

Supreme Court To Pronounce Order Tomorrow On Plea To Stay Directions To Remove Stray Dogs In Delhi-NCR

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'|Smw(C) No. 5/2025

The Supreme Court will pronounce tomorrow its order on the pleas to stay the directions passed by a two-judge bench on August 11 to remove the stray dogs in Delhi National Capital Region to shelter homes.

A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter. In a dramatic turn of events on August 13, the suo motu case relating to stray dogs, in which the August 11 directions were passed by a two-judge bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, was shifted to this three-judge bench, after some lawyers mentioned before the Chief Justice of India that those directions were in conflict with the previous orders passed by other benches.

On August 14, the three-judge bench heard the matter and reserved order on whether to stay the August 11 directions.

Supreme Court Proposes To Avoid Answering Question In Presidential Reference On Whether States Can File Article 32 Petition

Case Details: In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation Of Bills By The Governor And The President Of India|Spl.Ref. No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court orally said that it will not go into the 14th question of the Presidential Reference as to whether the Constitution bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments, except by way of a suit under Article 131, and whether a State can file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

This comes after Justice PS Narasimha yesterday had asked why the Court needs to go into this when the issues are mostly related to the assent of the President and the Governor on Bills.

Today, answering Justice Narasimha's query, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the issue can be "kept open" and the Court does not need to answer that.

PIL In Supreme Court Seeking To De-Register Congress For "Vote-Chori" Campaign & Restrain Comments Against ECI

Case Title: Satish Kumar Aggarwal v. Union Of India & Ors.

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking de-registration of the Indian National Congress as a political party as well as constitution of a special investigation team to investigate party leaders Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge's'Vote-Chori' campaign against the Election Commission of India.

As a temporary measure, the petitioner seeks ex-parte ad-interim stay restraining INC, Gandhi, Kharge, their agents, and representatives from making any public statements, speeches, campaigns, or issuing publications undermining the authority, impartiality, and credibility of ECI during pendency of the case.

The petition is filed by one Satish Kumar Aggarwal, ex-Vice President of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, claiming that he is aggrieved by “the nationwide anti-constitutional activities, propaganda, and campaigns orchestrated” by the INC, Gandhi and Kharge against ECI – a constitutional authority.

Supreme Court Prohibits Feeding Of Stray Dogs In Streets & Public Places Except Dedicated Areas

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'|Smw(C) No. 5/2025

The Supreme Court held that it is illegal to feed stray dogs on the streets and in public places. The Court directed that stray dogs must be fed only in the dedicated feeding spaces to be created in each Municipal ward by the authorities.

If anyone is found to violate this direction, they will be proceeded as per law. The Court passed this direction on the basis of reports regarding untoward incidents caused by the unregulated feeding of stray dogs. The Court stated that this practice must be eliminated so that the common citizens walking on the streets are not put to difficulties.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria passed this direction while modifying the August 11 order passed by a two-judge bench which directed the relocation of the stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to dog shelters.

Supreme Court Stays Coercive Action Against 'The Wire' Editor & Karan Thapar In Assam Police FIR Under S.152 BNS

Case Title: Foundation For Independent Journalism And Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 316/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to online news portal-The Wire's Founding Editor Siddharth Varadarajan and Consulting Editor-Karan Thapar in an FIR registered by Assam police under Section 152 of the BNS.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after taking up the matter following a mentioning by Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan. She submitted that after the Supreme Court granted interim protection to the petitioners in one FIR of the Assam Police, a summons was issued to them in another FIR.

The Court ordered :

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Suit Against Sambhal Masjid Till Monday

Case Title – Committee Of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain

The Supreme Court (August 22) ordered status quo till Monday (August 25) with respect to the Hindu plaintiffs' suit against the Sambhal Mosque in Uttar Pradesh.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar was hearing the Sambhal Mosque Committee's plea against the May 19, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court that held that the suit against the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, for the petitioner, submitted that the challenge was to the High Court's finding that the suit was not barred by the Places of Worship Act. Justice Narasimha at this point asked if the matter should be tagged along with the batch of petitions relating to the Places of Worship Act.

Supreme Court Refuses To List Application Against 'Umeed Portal', Says Will Consider In Waqf Amendment Act Challenge

The Supreme Court (August 22) refused urgent listing of an application seeking the suspension of the 'Umeed Portal' launched by the Union Government for the online registration of waqfs, including waqfs-by-user.

The Court orally said that it will consider this issue in its pending decision on the plea to stay the operation of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. "You register it, nobody is refusing you from registration ....we will be considering that part," Chief Justice of India BR Gavai told Advocate Sharukh Alam who mentioned the application for listing.

Alam stated that the registration conditions cannot be fulfilled by 'waqf by user' at this stage. "Union has launched Umeed Waqf Portal - requires mandatory registration of all waqfs, including waqfs by users; requirements are such that waqf by users cannot be fulfilled at such a stage."

Bihar SIR | Voters Excluded From Draft Rolls Can Submit Applications Online With Aadhaar Card : Supreme Court

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Ors. v. Election Commission Of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)

In the Bihar SIR matter, the Supreme Court ordered that the persons who are excluded from the draft electoral roll can submit their applications for inclusion through online mode and that physical submission of forms is not necessary.

The Court further clarified that any of the eleven documents mentioned by the Election Commission of India or an Aadhaar card can be submitted along with the applications seeking inlcusion in the list.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also directed the 12 recognised political parties in the State of Bihar to instruct their Booth Level Agents to assist the persons in their respective booths for the submission of the forms. The Court impleaded all those recognised parties as respondents in the petitions, if they are not already petitioners in the matter.

Blanket Direction To Pick Up All Stray Dogs & Place Them In Shelters Can Lead To Catch-22 Situation: Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'|Smw(C) No. 5/2025

The Supreme Court has stated that the blanket directions of the two-judge bench to relocate all stray dogs from Delhi to dog shelters/pounds can lead to a Catch-22 situation, as it is impossible to comply without first evaluating whether there is sufficient infrastructure to accommodate them.

"A blanket direction to pick up all the strays and place them in dog shelters/pounds without evaluating the existing infrastructure may lead to a catch-22 situation because such directions may be impossible to comply with."

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria stayed the August 11 direction passed by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan that stray dogs picked up should not be released back onto the street, after they are sterilised and immunised.

Supreme Court Stays MP High Court Direction To Register FIR Against Congress MLA Arif Masood Over Alleged Forgery

Case Title: Indira Priyadarshani College Bhopal v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

The Supreme Court stayed the Madhya Pradesh High Court direction for registration of an FIR against Congress MLA Arif Masood, the secretary of the governing body of Aman Education Society which operates Indira Priyadarshani College, for allegedly securing and continuing the affiliation of the college through forged documents for nearly two decades.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed the order, putting on hold para 13 of the High Court order, which directed registration of the FIR against Masood (and others). It also issued notice on the college's petition against the High Court order.

"Issue notice. In the meantime, further action pursuant to the direction as issued in para 13 of the impugned order shall remain stayed", the bench ordered. It also orally clarified that para 12 of the impugned order, which allowed the college to continue functioning and stayed its de-affiliation, would remain as it is.

Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Direction To Recast WBJEB Results As Per Pre-2010 OBC Reservation

Case: State Of West Bengal V X | Diary No.45628/2025

The Supreme Court (August 22) stayed the direction of the Calcutta High Court, which ordered the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examinations Board to recast the merit list drawn up for the 2025 Joint Entrance Exams, to bring them in conformity with the pre-2010 percentage of OBC reservations.

The stay order in effect allows the declaration of WBJEE 2025 results in terms of the State's new OBC reservation list notified on June 10, 2025.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice in the petition filed by the State of West Bengal and directed a stay on the operation of the impugned decision of the High Court.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Attorney General In Plea For Media Gag In Nimisha Priya Case

Case Title – Dr. K. A. Paul @ Kilari Anand Paul v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Attorney General of India in response to a petition by evangelist Dr. KA Paul seeking a temporary order to prevent the media from reporting the developments related to the case of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, who is on death row in Yemen.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed that notice be served to the Attorney General's office and listed the matter for further hearing on August 25, 2025. The Court tagged the plea with another plea seeking directions to the Centre to secure her release.

“Let notice be issued to learned Attorney General, returnable on 25th August, 2025. Let copy of this petition be served to the office of learned Attorney General today itself”, the Court ordered.

Plea Against Resident Doctors' Inhuman Working Hours : Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Centre & NMC

Case: United Doctors Front (Udf) Regd v. Union Of India And Others | Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 21183/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by the United Doctors Front (UDF) challenging what it terms as the "systematic exploitation" of the resident doctors across the country.

The petitioner sought the implementation of the 1992 Central notification that restricts the duty hours of resident doctors to 12 hours per day and 48 hours per week

A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh called for responses from the Union Government and the National Medical Commission (NMC).

Supreme Court Seeks Bar Council Of India's Response On Challenge To Moratorium On New Law Colleges

Case: Jatin Sharma v. Bar Council Of India & Ors. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S). 799/2025

The Supreme Court (August 22) sought the response of the Bar Council of India on a petition challenging its notification imposing a three year moratorium on new law colleges.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was considering a writ petition filed by Advocate Jatin Sharma. The matter is likely to be listed after four weeks.

The petitioner challenged the notification contending that such a blanket ban was arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21.

Ex-NRC Coordinator Moves Supreme Court Seeking Reverification Of Assam NRC; Says Large-Scale Errors Occurred

Case Title – Hitesh Dev Sarma v. Union Of India

A writ petition before the Supreme Court seeks a complete, comprehensive and time-bound reverification of the draft and supplementary National Register of Citizens (NRC) for Assam under Clause 4(3) of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.

“since the preparation of a correct and error free NRC is an issue integral to national security and is being closely monitored by this Hon'ble Court, the writ petitioner deems it necessary to apprise this Hon'ble Court certain omission and commission that has occurred during the updation of NRC for its kind consideration and possible remedial action as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case”, the plea states.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar yesterday issued notice in the plea.

S. 138 NI Act | Supreme Court Doubts Kerala HC View That Cheque Dishonour Case Can Be Filed Over Debt For Illegal Consideration

Cause Title: K.K.D. Pandian v. S. Tamilselvi

The Supreme Court prima facie observed held that cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot be initiated for liabilities stemming from an illegal or unenforceable debt.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal arising from a Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) order that had acquitted the respondent-accused in a cheque dishonour case, holding that the cheque was issued towards repayment of an illegal debt.

Challenging this decision, the petitioner-complainant approached the Supreme Court, relying on the Kerala High Court ruling in C.V. Rajan v. Illikkal Ramesan (2015), to argue that even if the debt arose from an illegal promise or purpose, it would still fall within the ambit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Does S.68(3) MV Act Restrict State Transport Authorities From Issuing Permits For Routes Other Than Govt Prescribed? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Title: Dharmendra Singh Yadav v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Slp(C) No.21417/2025

The Supreme Court is set to consider the issue as to whether Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act restricts issuance of permits by transport authorities of a State on routes other than those formulated by the State government.

"Issue notice on the point as to whether clause (ca) inserted by an amendment in 1994 in Section 68(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, restricts issuance of permits by the State Transport Authority of a State or the Regional Transport Authorities in a State on any route other than those formulated by the State Government," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih ordered.

For context, Section 68 of the Act provides that a State government shall constitute a 'State Transport Authority' and 'Regional Transport Authorities' by way of official gazette notifications to discharge prescribed functions. According to sub-section (3) thereof, the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities shall give effect to directions issued to them by the State government under Section 67 (which authorizes the government to control road transport).

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Eviction Drive In Assam's Golaghat

Case Title: Abdul Khalek And Ors. v. The State Of Assam And Ors., Slp(C) No. 23647-23648/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday ordered status quo with respect to eviction and demolition actions initiated in Uriamghat and adjoining villages of Golaghat District, Assam.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, while issuing notice on a petition challenging the Gauhati High Court's judgment which rejected the petitioners' writ appeals and upheld the eviction action initiated by the respondent-authorities.

Briefly put, the petitioners have approached the Court aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to protect "long-settled residents" from forcible eviction, many of whom are stated to have been in uninterrupted occupation for over seven decades. It is claimed that the eviction action is without due process, rehabilitation, or settlement inquiry as mandated under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

Russia Obligated To Legally Assist India In Locating Woman Who Fled With Child During Custody Case: Supreme Court

Case Title: Viktoriia Basu v. The State Of West Bengal And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 129/2023

In the case where a Russian woman has fled the country with her child, despite pendency of a custody battle with her Indian husband, the Supreme Court observed that in terms of the Treaty entered by it, Russia has obligation to legally assist India in its criminal investigation.

The Court urged the Ministry of External Affairs to make a fresh request to the Russian authorities for assistance, despite their initial failure to help.

"In terms of the obligations contained in the Treaty, we direct MEA to submit a fresh request to Embassy of Russian Federation alongwith copy of FIR and other relevant documents to impress upon the requested party to provide the requisite assistance in terms of the mutual obligations. In addition, ld. ASG is requested to contact the Indian embassy in Russia and to see that the Indian embassy uses its diplomatic channels in finding out the whereabouts of the petitioner and the minor child" ordered the Court.

Supreme Court Asks Samay Raina & 4 Other Comedians To Post Apologies On Social Media For Making Fun Of Disabled

Case Title:

The Supreme Court asked 5 comedians, including Samay Raina, to publish apologies on their YouTube channels and other social media handles for making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities (PwDs).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by M/s SMA Cure Foundation (represented by Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh) flagging the jokes made by Samay Raina, Vipun Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar a.k.a. Sonali Aditya Desai and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar. The organization also sought guidelines to ensure that the PwDs are not lampooned.

The bench stated that it will decide on the penalty/cost to be paid by the comedians at an appropriate stage. "The degree of repentance should be higher than the degree of offending, it's like purging contempt", said Justice Kant. The bench also allowed an impleadment application filed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

Supreme Court Stays FIRs Against Prof Sanjay Kumar Of CSDS Over Erroneous Analysis Of Maharashtra Elections

Case Details: Sanjay Kumar v. State Of Maharashtra And Others | W.P.(Crl.) No. 330/2025

The Supreme Court (August 25) stayed the proceedings in the FIRs registered by the Maharashtra police against Professor Sanjay Kumar, psephologist and the Co-Director of Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) over a tweet carrying a mistaken analysis of the Maharashtra assembly elections of 2024.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice NV Anjaria passed the interim order while issuing notice on the writ petition filed by Kumar seeking the quashing of the FIRs.

During the brief hearing, the counsel for the petitioner said, "This person has impeccable integrity. 30 years of conscientious service to the nation and to the world. He is highly respected. It was a mistake. He apologized."

Supreme Court Stops Magistrate From Taking Cognizance Of Haryana Police Chargesheet Against Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad

Case Title: Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State Of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025

The Haryana Police informed the Supreme Court that it has filed closure report in one FIR against Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who teaches political science at the Ashok University, and has filed chargesheet in another FIR against him over his social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'.

Taking note of this development, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi quashed the FIR in which the closure report was filed; as regards the other FIR, the Court passed an interim order barring the Magistrate from taking cognizance of it. Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju appeared for the Haryana Police.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, told the bench that it was "most unfortunate" that the police invoked Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with offences attacking the sovereignty of the nation, for the social media comments. Sibal added that the Supreme Court is now examining the constitutionality of Section 152 BNS.

UP Bar Council's Demand Of Rs 14K At Advocates' Enrolment Prima Facie Violates Judgment : Supreme Court

Case Details:  Deepak Yadav v. Bar Council Of India|W.P.(C) No. 774/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 25) issued notice in a writ petition claiming that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is charging Rs. 14,000 in the name of a certificate of practice in violation of the Court's Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024).

In Gaurav Kumar, the Supreme Court held that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Therefore, it stated that as stipulated in Section 24, the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs. 750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs. 125 for advocates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories.

Initially, when the matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, the Court asked why such petitions are being continuously filed when a judgment has already been given.

SC Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Justices Alok Aradhe, Vipul Pancholi As Supreme Court Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, as Supreme Court Judges.

Justice Aradhe originally belongs to the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Justice Pancholi to the Gujarat High Court. The recommendation was made by the SC Collegium in its meeting held today.

The Supreme Court presently has two vacancies out of its strength of 34 judges due to the recent retirements of Justices Bela Trivedi and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Public Comments On Nimisha Priya Case

Case Title: Dr. K. A. Paul @ Kilari Anand Paul v. Union Of India, W.P.(C) No. 803/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a petition filed by evangelist Dr KA Paul seeking to restrain public comments and media reporting in relation to the case of Keralite nurse Nimisha Priya, who is on death row in Yemen for the murder of Yemeni national Talal Abdo Mahdi.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. During the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed that the Union holds periodic press briefings on the case and assured that it would take care of the media reporting issue until final resolution of Priya's impending sentence.

During the hearing, the Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council (comprising former judges, MPs, MLA, etc. who have come together to save Priya) also orally conveyed to the Court that they would refrain from addressing the media.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For Conducting Elections To Village Committees In Tripura Tribal Areas

Case Title – Pradyot Deb Burman v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court (August 25) issued notice in a writ petition alleging failure of authorities to conduct elections to the Village Committees under the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC).

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a plea filed by Pradyot Deb Burman seeking directions to the ECI and Tripura Election Commission to immediately conduct overdue Village Committee elections under the Tripura Tribal Areas Automatic District Council Act, 1994.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan submitted that the Village Committees are equivalent to Municipal Corporations. He said that the elections have not been conducted despite orders of the High Court.

Supreme Court Stays Kerala HC Order Which Held Cochin International Airport Ltd To Be A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act

Case Title: M/S.Cochin International Airport Limited v. The State Information Commission And Anr., Slp(C) No. 23330-23345/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday stayed a Kerala High Court order which held that the Cochin International Airport (CIAL) is a 'public authority' coming within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for CIAL). Granting leave, the bench listed the matter in January, 2026.

To briefly put facts of the case, in 2019, the State Information Commission held CIAL to be a 'public authority' under the RTI Act and directed it to disclose certain information. The decision was challenged by CIAL before the High Court, contending that Kerala government had no control over the decisions taken by the Board, and the ultimate decision maker as per the Articles of Association was CIAL's Board of Directors.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends New Chief Justice For Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 25th August, 2025 recommended appointment of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, presently a Judge of the Bombay High Court as the Chief Justice of that HC.

Born in May 1965, Justice Chandrashekhar is the senior most judge of the Bombay High Court after present CJ Alok Aradhe, who will demit office upon superannuation in April next year.

Justice Chandrashekhar completed his LL.B. course from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi in the year 1993 and was enrolled as an Advocate with the Delhi State Bar Council in December that year.

Justice MM Sundresh Recuses From Hearing Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case

Case Title – Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State Of Maharashtra

Justice MM Sundresh of the Supreme Court recused himself from hearing the bail plea of Dalit rights activist and advocate Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case. The matter was listed before a bench of Justice Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh.

The bail plea arises from a challenge to a Bombay High Court order that declined to release Gadling on bail in connection with the December 2016 incident in Maharashtra's Gadchiroli district.

Gadling is booked under Sections 307, 341, 342, 435, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120(B) of the IPC, Sections 5 and 28 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

If Governors Can Veto Bills By Withholding Assent, Even Money Bills Could Be Blocked : Supreme Court In Presidential Reference Hearing

During the hearing of thePresidential Reference on the issue of assent to bills, the Supreme Court expressed concerns at the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution that Governors have an independent power to withhold a Bill, without returning it to the State Legislative Assembly.

If such an interpretation is accepted, it would mean that Governors can even withhold money bills, which they are otherwise bound to approve, the Court orally remarked. The Court remarked that such a situation is "problematic".

The hearing is before a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vilkram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.

As FSL Didn't Make Clear Finding On Biren Singh's Voice, Supreme Court Refers Manipur Tapes To National Forensic Laboratory

Case Details: Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union Of India|W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

The Supreme Court (August 25) directed that the audio recordings allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the state's ethnic violence be sent for forensic examination to the National Forensic Science Laboratory (NFSL), Gandhinagar, after noting that the earlier report by the Guwahati Forensic Sciences laboratory did not return a clear finding on whether the voice matched with that of Singh's.

A Bench comprising Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar was considering a petition filed by Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust  seeking an independent probe into the tapes. The bench observed that the Guwahati Forensic Science Laboratory had been asked to match the voices in the admitted and disputed audio exhibits but “no clear finding was returned.”

In view of this, the Court held that a fresh examination by the NFSL, Gandhinagar, was necessary to clarify two critical aspects:

Journalist Abhisar Sharma Moves Supreme Court Challenging Assam Police FIR Over Video Against Govt; Challenges S.152 BNS

Case Title: Abhisar Sharma v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 338/2025

Journalist and YouTuber Abhisar Sharma has approached the Supreme Court against an FIR registered by Assam police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

He says that the FIR was registered after he published a video criticizing Assam government's 'communal politics' and questioning its allotment of 3000 bighas of land to a private entity.

He also challenges the vires of Section 152 BNS (which is stated to have replaced the erstwhile sedition law under the IPC). The matter is listed for hearing on August 28 before a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh.

Supreme Court To Examine Validity Of Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act Provision On District Collector's Powers To Confiscate Property

Case Title: The State Of Bihar & Ors. v. Shankar Baranwal, Slp(C) No. 20640/2025

The Supreme Court will soon examine the validity of Section 58 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which deals with a District Collector's powers of confiscation of property related to offenses under the Act.

A bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran, NV Anjaria issued notice on a petition filed by the State of Bihar challenging a Patna High Court decision which held that seizure of the respondent's vehicle and its auctioning at "throwaway prices" was harsh and directed payment of Rs.1,65,000 to him by the state.

Vide the impugned order, the High Court further deprecated the practice of "wholesale" valuation of vehicles by Motor Vehicle Inspectors in Bihar, without there being any individualized and thorough assessment.

Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Transfer Of 14 High Court Judges

In a significant reshuffle of the higher judiciary, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of 14 judges across various High Courts. The move involves judges from Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madras, Rajasthan, Delhi, Allahabad, Gujarat, Kerala, Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh, and Patna High Courts.

According to the collegium statement, published after the meetings held on Augsut 25 and 26, the following transfers have been proposed:

Last month, 17 High Court Judges and4 HC Chief Justices were transferred.

Is It Sufficient To Apply PwD Reservation Only In Open Category? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Dawood Ahmad Bhat v. Jammu And Kashmir Public Service Commission & Ors|Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 9330/2025

The Supreme Court will hear a special leave petition in November, where the issue arises as to whether 4%  reservation provided for physically challenged persons is a compartmentalised horizontal reservation to the different categories, such as open competition/Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Economically Weaker Section etc or an overall horizontal reservation for the posts of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Examination.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar will hear the matter.

The SLP is filed against an order passedby the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, wherein it held that, as per the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, 4% reservation is provided to the physically challenged persons in the horizontal category. By horizontal, it means that the reservation would cut across the vertical reservation, and the persons selected against the physically challenged quota would be placed in the appropriate category. It held, therefore, that it is an overall horizontal reservation.

'Serious Lapse': Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From MP Govt For Convict Spending Additional Year In Jail After Sentence Period

Case Details: Sohan Singh @ Bablu V State Of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court sought a reply from the State of Madhya Pradesh as to why a person, convicted for the offence of rape, remained in jail for more than eight years after having undergone the entire sentence of seven years.

Remarking that it's a matter of "serious lapse," a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan has asked the State to file a reply within two weeks.

"We would like to know how such a serious lapse occurred and why the petitioner remained in jail for more than 8 years even after undergoing the entire sentence of seven years. We want the State to offer appropriate explanation in this regard."

Centre Notifies Elevation Of Justices Alok Aradhe & Vipul Pancholi As Supreme Court Judges

The Centre has notified the appointments of Justice Alok Aradhe (presently Chief Justice of Bombay High Court) and Justice Vipul Pancholi(CJ of Patna HC) as Supreme Court judges, two days after theSupreme Court Collegium's recommendation for their elevation.

Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal posted in X : "In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint (i) Shri Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice, Bombay High Court and (ii) Shri Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Chief Justice, Patna High Court as Judges of the Supreme Court of India."

The Collegium's recommendation for Justice Pancholi's elevation sparked a controversy after reports emerged that Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court had dissented in the Collegium meeting. Justice Nagarathna reportedly cited his relatively low rank in the All India Seniority and also raised concerns about the reasons behind his transfer from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court in 2023. Also, the fact that Gujarat High Court already has two judges in the Supreme Court is also understood to have been raised.

NEET-PG : After Two Claims Over Lone Radio Diagnosis Seat, Supreme Court Asks NMC If General Medicine Seat Can Be Converted

Case Title: Mutum Anilkumar Singh v. The State Of Manipur, Slp(C) No. 21750/2025

Given an "extraordinary" situation, the Supreme Court directed the National Medical Commission to consider if the General Medicine seat occupied by a NEET-PG candidate could be converted to one under Radio Diagnosis, as he had spent 6 months studying the said course before another candidate, who has a higher claim in the institutional reservation, became eligible for the Radio Diagnosis seat.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order thus:

"In view of a rather extraordinary situation, the National Medical Commission is directed to consider if the seat occupied by the petitioner in General Medicine can be converted as the seat for Radio Diagnosis. This direction, only to consider, is in view of the fact that the petitioner has spent six months pursuing Radio Diagnosis and also for the reason that he is meritorious."

Supreme Court Bars Arrest Without Permission In Fresh FIR By UP Police After Accused Assail Repeated FIRs As Means To Defeat Bail

Case Title: Wazid & Ors. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 450/2024

In a matter alleging registration of multiple FIRs by State of Uttar Pradesh in order to defeat grant of bail, the Supreme Court directed that the accused shall not be arrested in any subsequent FIR without leave of the Court.

"...the petitioners shall not be arrested by the respondents in any of the FIR(s) which will be lodged hereinafter, without the leave of this Court" a bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran ordered, while granting bail to the accused in an FIR already registered by the police under provisions of the SC/ST Act and IPC.

Briefly put, the petitioners approached the Court claiming that in order to ensure that they kept languishing in jail, the UP police was registering fresh FIRs whenever they secured relief of bail. Notice was issued on the petition in November, 2024. On a previous hearing date, the petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, expressed an apprehension that upon their release, fresh FIR may be registered against them and they may be arrested.

Supreme Court To Hear PIL On Rights Of Neurodivergent Persons

Case Title – Action For Autism v. Union Of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL seeking directions to address “persistent neglect, institutional apathy, and failure” in upholding constitutional, statutory, and international obligations towards individuals with neurodivergent conditions like Autism, Dyslexia, ADHD etc.

“Despite progressive legislation, critical gaps persist in India's mental health infrastructure, funding, accessibility, and public awareness. These include inadequate budgetary allocations, fewer numbers of rehabilitation centres and inadequate community-based rehabilitation services. Moreover, institutional apathy and stigma prevent effective care and social inclusion”, the petition highlights.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan issued notice on the PIL to Union of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Insurance Regulatory and Developmental Authority of India.

Supreme Court Mulls Standard Operating Procedure For Citizens' Right To Trauma Care; Seeks Attorney General's Assistance

Case Title: Savelife Foundation v. Union Of India, W.P.(C) No.726/2024

The Supreme Court proposed formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure to safeguard citizens' right to trauma care. In this regard, the Court requested Attorney General R Venkataramani to render assistance and submit a report on the stands taken by different states/Union Territories.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed the order, stating,

"it transpires that formulation of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in consultation with the State Governments may be appropriate...we deem it appropriate to request learned Attorney General for India to provide assistance of his good office in scrutinizing the stands of different State Governments and Union Territories and after an opportunity to the petitioners, he may submit a report."

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Journalist Abhisar Sharma's Challenge To Assam Police FIR U/s 152 BNS; Asks Him To Approach HC

Case Title: Abhisar Sharma v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 338/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain journalist and YouTuber Abhisar Sharma's challenge to an FIR registered by Assam police under Section 152 of BNS over his video criticising the state government for 'communal politics' and questioning its allotment of 3000 bighas of land to a private entity.

The Court, however, granted him interim protection for 4 weeks in order to approach the Gauhati High Court for appropriate relief. It also issued notice on Sharma's challenge to the vires of Section 152 of BNS and tagged the matter with a similar case.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Sharma), who claimed that S.152 BNS has become an "omnibus" provision which is being invoked just against anybody.

President Wants Court's Opinion On Whether States Can File Article 32 Petitions Against Union : Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court (August 28) that the President of India wants to press the questions raised in the Presidential Reference relating to the maintainability of a writ petition filed by a State Government against the Union Government under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Earlier, the Constitution Bench had proposed to avoid answeringthis issue raised in the Reference, saying that the substantive issues are relating to the grant of assent to Bills by the Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India. Suggesting that the issue can be kept open for being decided in a future case, the Court had asked the Solicitor General to get instructions from the Union on whether this issue is pressed in the reference.

Today, SG Tushar Mehta told the Court that he has instructions to seek answers on this issue.

Governor Can't Be A Judicial Reviewer Of Repugnancy Or Illegality Of Bills : Singhvi Tells Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

During the hearing of the Presidential Reference on the issue of assent to Bill, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the State of Tamil Nadu, argued before the Supreme Court that the Governor cannot act like a judge and review a Bill, and that it was for the Courts to see if a Bill was violative of the Constitution or repugnant to any Central law.

He argued that withholding of assent and returning the bill to the Assembly were interwoven components and that the Governor cannot simply withhold a Bill without returning it to the Assembly.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar asked if the Governor can reserve the Bill for the President's assent, after it has been re-passed unmodified by the Assembly on being returned by the Governor in the first instance.

Justices Alok Aradhe & Vipul Pancholi Take Oath As Supreme Court Judges

Justice Alok Aradhe (former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court) and Justice Vipul Pancholi( former Chief Justice of Patna HC) took oath as Supreme Court Judges.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai administered the oath to the newly appointed Judges at a Full Court Ceremony held at 10.30 AM.

On August 27 the Union cleared the appointment of the two judges. This was after the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the elevation of the two judges to the Supreme Courton August 25.

Bihar SIR | Supreme Court Agrees To Hear On Monday Pleas To Extend September 1 Deadline For Claims & Objections

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Ors. v. Election Commission Of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court agreed to hear (September 1) the petitions relating to the Bihar Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in order to consider applications seeking the extension of deadline to file claims and objections.

A bench led by Justice Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, agreed to list the matter after an urgent mentioning was made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan (representing Association for Democratic Reforms).

Bhushan informed that the leading opposition party in Bihar- the Rashtriya Janata Dal, and few other parties, have filed applications seeking extension of the September 1 deadline to file claims and objections with respect to the draft electoral rolls.

'You Don't Allow Lawyers To Argue' : Supreme Court Dismisses Former DRT Chandigarh Judge's Plea Against Extension Of Suspension

Case Title: M. M. Dhonchak v. Union Of India, Slp(C) No. 23602/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by MM Dhonchak, former Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Chandigarh, against an order extending his suspension.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

Counsel for Dhonchak argued that he was an efficient officer who served for 35 years and disposed of maximum cases. Unconvinced, Justice Mehta remarked, "On the face of the record, he does not want the advocates to present cases. He can just put them (cases) under a lawnmower and...? Where is the statutory right to stick onto the post? Inquiry is still underway".

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Dr Subramanian Swamy's Plea For Timely Decision By Centre On 'National Monument' Status For Ram Setu

Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union Of India And Others., W.P.(C) No. 584/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Dr Subramanian Swamy seeking a direction to the Union government to timely decide his representation seeking National Monument status for Ram Setu bridge and a survey by the Geological Survey of India & the Archeological Survey of India in respect to Ram-Setu as an Ancient Monument of National Importance.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order. Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija appeared on behalf of Dr Swamy, as he had a medical issue.

To recap, Dr Swamy's petition states that the Central Government is duty-bound to protect Ram-Setu from any form of misuse, pollution or desecration. "this archeological site is a matter of faith and shradha of people treating Ram-Setu as a pilgrimage", it says.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Kerala SRTC's Plea Against HC Quashing Bar On Private Stage Carriages For Permits Beyond 140 KM

Case: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V.Rajesh K. Jacob And Ors.|Diary No. 36057-2025 And The State Of Kerala And Ors. V Baby Joseph And Ors. Diary No. 47784-2025

The Supreme Court (August 29) issued notice on a petition filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation challenging the Kerala High Court's verdict, which quashed the State Government's decision to deny permits to private stage carriers for routes beyond 140 kilometers.

The State of Kerala also filed a separate special leave petition against the High Court's judgment, on which also notice was issued to the private respondents.

A bench comprising Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also issued notice on the application filed by the KSRTC seeking interim stay of the High Court's judgment.

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner Challenging J&K Govt's Ban On 25 Books To Approach High Court

Case Title: Shakir Shabir v. Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 794/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging Jammu and Kashmir government's notification which declared 25 books, including some written by prominent figures like A.G. Noorani and Arundhati Roy, as 'forfeited' over their alleged propensity to excite secessionism and endanger sovereignty of India.

The Court however granted liberty to the petitioner to move the J&K&L High Court for appropriate relief. It requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to list the matter before a 3-judge bench (presided over by the CJ) and decide the same at the earliest.

The petition, moved by Kashmir-based Advocate Shakir Shabir, also challenged Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with the power of a state government to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for same. It was claimed that the provision is ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Allows YSRCP Member Pedda Reddy To Have Police Security At Own Expense

Case Details:  Kethireddy Pedda Reddy v. P. Jagadeesh|Slp(C) No. 24299/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 29) kept in abeyance an August 20 interim order passed by the Andhra High Court's division bench, which suspended a single judge's order providing necessary security for YSR Congress Party former MLA Kethireddy Pedda Reddy to visit his residence in Tadipatri.

Reportedly, clashes broke out after last year's election results in the backdrop of the rivalry between Pedda and another candidate, senior TDP leader J.C. Prabhakar Reddy. Pedda lost the 2024 elections against Reddy, and he was apparently forced to leave Tadipatri.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed an order in a special leave petition mentioned and argued by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & BCI On Plea To Bring Bar Councils Under POSH Act For Women Advocates

Case Title – Seema Joshi v. Bar Council Of India And Ors.

A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking declaration that the protections under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 extend to women advocates who are registered with State Bar Councils and practicing before courts.

The petition also seeks directions to Bar Councils and Bar Associations to constitute Internal Committees to hear the complaints of women advocates.

“The Preamble to the POSH Act itself states that sexual harassment violates a woman's fundamental rights to equality under Articles 14 and 15, life and dignity under Article 21, and freedom to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g), which includes the right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment. The very object and design of the statute is to give effect to these rights, and any interpretation that excludes women advocates from its protection is contrary to the constitutional purpose that the Act seeks to fulfil”, the petition states.

MHADA Seeks Urgent Hearing Of Plea In Supreme Court On Demolition Of Dilapidated Buildings

Case Title: Maharashtra Housing Area v. Javed Abdul Raheem, Slp (C) No. 21699-705/25

The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) has sought urgent hearing before the Supreme Court of pleas challenging the Bombay High Court judgment which directed constitution of a high-level committee to examine issuance of 935 notices under Section 79-A of the MHAD Act.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The SG submitted,

"the finding of the High Court is that MHADA is not competent to demolish dilapidated buildings. The urgency is that because of heavy rains, some buildings have started collapsing, so we would be praying for stay of the order...it would need urgent hearing."

'Important Issue' : Supreme Court Urges Madras High Court To Expeditiously Hear Pleas Challenging BNS, BNSS & BSA

Case Title: Federation Of Bar Associations Of Tamil Nadu And Puducherry v. Union Of India And Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 690-692/2025

The Supreme Court requested the Madras High Court to give an expeditious hearing to writ petitions pending before it on the question of constitutional validity of 3 new criminal laws viz. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).

"Having regard to the importance of the issue and the fact that writ petitions are awaiting effective hearing, we request Chief Justice of the High Court to place all matters before a Division Bench, with further request for early/out-of-turn hearing in the matters", it ordered.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was dealing with a petition filed by a Federation of Bar Associations of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, seeking transfer of the cases from the High Court to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Stays Trial Against Telangana IAS Officer Y Srilakshmi In Obulapuram Mining Case

Case Details: Sri Lakshmi Y v. The State Of Telangana|Slp(Crl) No. 12594/2025 Diary No. 45017 / 2025

The Supreme Court today(August 29) stayed trial against IAS officer Y. Srilakshmi in the Obulapuarm Mining scam. The Court passed the interim order while issuing notice on the officer's petition against the Telangana High Court's order dismissing her petition seeeking dicharge.

Srilakshmi had approached the trial Court after a supplementary chargesheet was filed naming her. She prayed that there is a mere suspicion against her, which is not enough to frame charges, and in the absence of specific allegations, she is entitled to discharge. However, the trial Court in 2022 dismissed her plea.

Against this, she approached the High Court, which allowed the revision petition and discharged the petitioner on November 8, 2022. Against this, the CBI preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal on May 7 and remitted the matter to the High Court for passing a reasoned order and ultimately, her criminal revision was disallowed by the High Court.

Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan High Court's Strictures Against Sessions Judge

Case Details: Sonika Purohit V State Of Rajasthan|Diary No. 44069-2025

The Supreme Court today(August 29) granted a stay against the Rajasthan High Court's order wherein the High Court passed strictures and made adverse remarks against a judicial officer posted as Special Judge, POCSO Court.

A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the order on a special leave petition argued by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave.

As per the brief facts, a minor accused a juvenile of raping her and alleged that the act was facilitated by her father. After it was determined that the juvenile was to be tried as an adult, the case of the two came before the judicial officer under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Supreme Court Asks Union To Verify Allegations That Bengali Migrant Workers Were Detained As Foreigners Only Because Of Language

Case Title: West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board And Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 768/2025

In the PIL assailing detention of migrant Muslim workers from West Bengal, over suspicion of their being Bangladeshi citizens, the Supreme Court sought a clarification from the Union as to whether Bengali-speaking migrants were detained as foreigners only because of the use of a particular language.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi heard the matter and issued notice on an interim application filed by the petitioners seeking to restrain the respondent-authorities from deporting any person without first ascertaining their citizenship.

Calling for the Union's response within 1 week, the Court also impleaded State of Gujarat as a party-respondent, pursuant to an application seeking impleadment of the state, on the basis that persons were similarly being picked up and pushed out by Gujarat authorities.

Supreme Court Seeks NALSA's Report On Two Shelter Homes For Urban Poor In Delhi

Case Details: E.R. Kumar v. Union Of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 Of 2003

In the matter relating to relocation of temporary shelters for homeless person in Delhi's Anand Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan, the  Supreme Court (August 29) directed the NALSA to submit a report on capacity and quality of facilities provided by the State in the proposed new shelters.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices NV Anjaria and Alok Aradhe was hearing a PIL on the issue of setting up shelter homes for the urban homeless across the country.

Counsels for the Union submitted that the present temporary shelters located in Anand Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan needed to be relocated as they were coming in way of Metro development projects. The bench was informed that at present the Metro construction work was stopped. ASG Aishwarya Bhati also appeared for the Union.

Supreme Court To Hear PIL Seeking To Monitor If Hospitals Built On Govt Concessions Provide Free Aid To EWS/BPL Patients

Case Details: Sandeep Pandey v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000808 / 2025

The Supreme Court agreed to consider a PIL on the lack of free treatment for EWS and BPL patients in private hospitals built on government lands or with government concessions.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices NV Anjaria and Alok Aradhe issued notice to the Union of India, all States and Union Territories in the matter.

Review Petition Filed Against Supreme Court Direction That Only District Judges Can Head District Consumer Commissions

Case Details: Parivarthan v. Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar And Ors. | Diary No. 49239/2025

A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated May 21, 2025, in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Others v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors in which directions were issued regarding the appointment, eligibility, selection, and tenure of Presidents and Members of State and District Consumer Commissions.

One important direction issued in the judgment was that only serving or retired District Judges can be the President of District Consumer Commissions. The Union Government was directed to frame new rules under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in terms of the directions.

Can Live-In Partner Seek Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC? Supreme Court Issues Notice On Man's Appeal

Cause Title: KP Raveendran Nair v. Vasantha KV

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea filed by a man against the maintainability of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance application filed by his live-in-partner before the family court.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale heard the plea filed by the male partner against the Kerala High Court's decision that dismissed his plea questioning the maintainability of a Section 125 CrPC maintenance plea before the family court.

After Supreme Court's Warning, West Bengal SSC Undertakes To Bar Tainted Candidates From Fresh Exams For Teacher Selection

Case Title: Rehana Begum and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. | Diary No. 47466/2025

After a stern warning by the Supreme Court, the West Bengal School Service Commission gave an undertaking that no candidate, who has been specifically found to be tainted by the Court's earlier judgment in relation to the 'cash-for-jobs' scam in the 2016 recruitment, will be allowed to appear in the fresh recruitment exams scheduled to take place in September.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma recorded the undertaking given by the WBSSC in its order passed on August 29.

In Rare Move, Supreme Court Directs Seizure Of High Court Judge's Secretary's Steno Book To Find Out When Order Was Uploaded

Case Details: Ajay Maini v. State of Haryana & Ors. | Diary No. 45855/2025

In an unusual development, the Supreme Court ordered the seizure of the steno book of the Secretary of a High Court Judge to ascertain the date of uploading of an order.

The Court directed a "discreet inquiry" to find out when the order was typed, corrected and uploaded, and sought a report from the NIC (National Informatics Centre) regarding this.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed this unusual order after the Registrar General of the High Court could not exactly specify when the order was uploaded, since the Secretary of the Judge did not give a reply regarding this