Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: August 18, 2025 to August 24, 2025

Reports/Judgments

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 Vs. 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.) VERSUS 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 VERSUS 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 recent 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 VERSUS 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 VERSUS 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. VERSUS 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.

Orders and Other Developments

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 Vs Union Of India | Slp(C) No. 19209/2025

(August 18), 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 Vs 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 VS. 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 Vs Javed And Ors Diary No. 35376-2022, Ncpcr Vs 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 Reference on 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 which was released evening, 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 that invalidated 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 Vs. 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 Chandurkar 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 petition seeking 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. State of West Bengal & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 566/2024

A day after Justice Dipankar Datta expressed his disappointment with 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 finalization 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 along with 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.

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.

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.

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 recent 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 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.