Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27, 2025 To November 02, 2025

Reports/Judgments

S.12A Commercial Courts Act | Pre-Litigation Mediation Not Mandatory In Cases Of Continuing IPR Infringement: Supreme Court

Case Details: Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

The Supreme Court held that the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be mechanically applied in cases involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, such as trademark violations. The Court observed that insisting on mediation before filing a suit in such situations would effectively leave the plaintiff without a remedy, allowing the infringer to continue profiting under the cover of procedural formalities. The provision, the Court said, was never intended to produce such an “anomalous result.”

The Supreme Court has held that the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be mechanically applied in cases involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, such as trademark violations. The Court observed that insisting on mediation before filing a suit in such situations would effectively leave the plaintiff without a remedy, allowing the infringer to continue profiting under the cover of procedural formalities. The provision, the Court said, was never intended to produce such an “anomalous result.”

Also from the judgment: Supreme Court Explains Tests To Determine Urgency To Exempt Pre-Litigation Mediation In Commercial Suits

Decision On Limitation Made On Demurrer Not Final; Party Autonomy In Arbitration Cannot Override Statute: Supreme Court

Case Details: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

The Supreme Court has held that when an arbitral tribunal decides a preliminary issue such as limitation on the basis of demurrer, that decision cannot preclude the tribunal from revisiting the issue at a later stage if evidence warrants it.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan affirmed the Bombay High Court's view that a decision on demurrer is provisional and not an adjudication on merits.

The Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions filed by Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (UIREF), a Mauritius-based private equity fund, which had questioned the Bombay High Court's order permitting the arbitral tribunal to reconsider the issue of limitation in its dispute with Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal had earlier held, on demurrer, that UIREF's claims were within limitation. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court held that such a finding could not bar a later factual examination of limitation, since the question involved mixed issues of fact and law.

Supreme Court Quashes 37-Year-Old Dismissal Of Railway TTE, Orders Grant Of Benefits To Legal Heirs

Case Details: V.M. Saudagar (Dead) Through Legal Heirs v. Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

The Supreme Court (October 27) set aside the 37-year-old dismissal of a Railway Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE), holding that the disciplinary findings were perverse and unsupported by evidence. The employee, who passed away during the prolonged litigation, will now have all consequential benefits released to his legal heirs.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench order, allowing the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased employee, restoring the earlier decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had quashed the dismissal order. The Court strongly criticized the Railway authorities' enquiry process and the Bombay High Court's subsequent approval of it.

It was alleged that the deceased employee-appellant was on duty on May 31, 1988, aboard the Dadar-Nagpur Express when the vigilance team conducted a surprise check. A Railway vigilance team levelled four charges against him, including demanding illegal gratification from passengers, possessing excess cash, failing to recover a fare difference, and forging a duty pass. Based on an Enquiry Officer's report, he was dismissed from service in 1996.

Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes' Patent Infringement Suit Against Atomberg's “Intellon” Water Purifier To Bombay High Court

Case Title – Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

The Supreme Court has transferred a patent infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where a related suit by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited for “groundless threat of infringement” is already pending.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar allowed Atomberg's transfer petition and dismissing Eureka Forbes' counter-transfer petition.

“In the interest of saving precious judicial time and to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, it would be expedient to transfer the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no.1 pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court where the suit instituted by the petitioner for Groundless Threat of Infringement is pending,” the Bench held.

Supreme Court Grants Relief To Class IV Employees Of UP Judiciary Who Were Terminated 17 Years Ago

Case Title – Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (Up)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

The Supreme Court quashed the termination of 4 Class IV employees of the Ambedkar Nagar District Judgeship in Uttar Pradesh, holding that their removal in 2008 for being appointed beyond the notified vacancies was unjustified.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed that those who have not yet reached the age of superannuation be reinstated in existing or supernumerary posts, while those who have crossed the age of 60 be paid minimum pension.

The appellants were appointed in 2001 to Class IV posts based on an advertisement issued on October 18, 2000 for twelve vacancies. The advertisement stated that the number of posts could “increase or decrease.” However, in 2008, their services were terminated on the ground that six appointments had been made in excess of the vacancies advertised.

NDPS Disposal Rules Don't Bar Interim Release Of Seized Vehicle To Innocent Owner : Supreme Court

Case Details: Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

The Supreme Court (October 27) held that when the owner of a vehicle establishes that it was used for transporting narcotic substances without his knowledge or connivance, he cannot be denied interim custody of the vehicle pending trial.

The Court clarified that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (“2022 Disposal Rules”) cannot divest the Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act to order interim release of the confiscated vehicle when the owner prima facie establishes that he is unconnected with the seized contraband.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal filed by a lorry owner whose vehicle was intercepted and thereafter confiscated by the police for allegedly carrying a NDPS substance. Despite the Appellant prima facie establishing that he was unconnected with the transporting of the contraband, as his lorry was used for carrying iron sheets, both the Special Court and the Madras High Court rejected his plea for interim release of the vehicle, holding that the NDPS Act and the 2022 Disposal Rules precluded the Court from granting such relief.

'Evidence Not Clear, There Can't Be Moral Conviction', Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict In Child Rape-Murder Case

Case Details: Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was convicted and sentenced to death for an offence of murder and raping of a 4-year-old girl, noting that the accused's extra-judicial confession, which formed the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, was unreliable and insufficient for conviction as it was marred by glaring inconsistencies, coupled with a lack of independent witnesses supporting the discovery of the deceased body based on the accused extra-judicial confessions.

The Court observed hat a conviction can only be made when guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, there "cannot be a moral conviction in law."

"Though the offence in question strikes at the human conscience, there being a murder of a four-year-old girl child, the evidence brought by the prosecution is not clear and unimpeachable, pointing towards the guilt of the accused alone," the Court held.

S.195A IPC | Police Can Register FIR For Offence Of Threatening Witness; Court's Complaint Not Needed : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

The Supreme Court ruled that the offense of threatening a witness under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a cognizable offense, empowering the police to directly register an FIR and investigate, without waiting for a formal complaint from a court.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe set aside the Kerala High Court's decision which held that an FIR for offence pertaining to threating a witness under Section 195A IPC cannot be registered by the police, and such offenses could only be prosecuted through a written complaint by the concerned Court under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Disapproving the High Court's decision, the Court explained that Section 195A IPC was deliberately conceptualized as a distinct offense with a different procedural pathway and being a cognizable offence, the police is empowered to directly register FIR based on threatened witness statements.

Filing Petition Under NALSA's Free Legal Aid Program Without Convict's Consent Is Misuse Of Process: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kamaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

The Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed with a delay of 2,298 days by a convict from Punjab, holding that the petition was filed merely under a legal aid programme without the convict's consent, and that such a practice amounts to misuse of process.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was hearing the plea filed on behalf of Kamaljit Kaur, who was convicted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2018. The petition was filed through legal aid nearly seven years after the High Court's judgment.

At the previous hearing, the Court had found the explanation for the inordinate delay unsatisfactory and had directed counsel for the petitioner to obtain instructions from jail authorities and file a more detailed affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay.

IBC | Preference Share Holders Are Investors, Not 'Financial Creditors'; Can't File Insolvency Petition : Supreme Court

Case Details: Epc Constructions India Limited v. M/S Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

The Supreme Court (October 28) held that holders of Cumulative Redeemable Preference Share (“CRPS”) are investors, and not financial creditors, and therefore cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, since non-redemption of such shares does not constitute a “default” under the IBC.

“It is well settled in Company Law that preference shares are part of the company's share capital and the amounts paid up on them are not loans. Dividends are paid on the preference shares when company earns a profit. This is for the reason that if the dividends were paid without profits or in excess of profits made, it would amount to an illegal return of the capital. Amount paid up on preference shares not being loans, they do not qualify as a debt.”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan heard the case where the Appellant-EPCC had converted ₹250 crores of dues under an engineering and construction contract into 8% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) redeemable in three years. When the Respondent-Matix failed to redeem them, EPCC's liquidator filed for insolvency, claiming financial creditor status. Both NCLT & NCLAT rejected the plea, holding that CRPS holders are investors, not financial creditors.

Non-Recovery Of Weapons Not Fatal To Prosecution If There's Direct Evidence : Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction

Case Details: Om Pal & Ors v. State of U.P (Now State of Uttarakhand) | Criminal Appeal No. 1624 of 2011

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

The Supreme Court on October 28 upheld the conviction of four persons in a double murder case, rejecting their criminal appeal pending since 2011. The Court held that despite the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-recovery of weapons, the prosecution case rested on direct eyewitness testimony, which was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence establishing that the appellants had knowingly and intentionally attacked the complainant's side with dangerous weapons.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, relying upon Nankaunoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(2016), held:

"From the above discussion, there remains no doubt in our minds that the present appellants in furtherance of their common intention formed an unlawful assembly. Inncha and Dharamvir stood armed with sharp edged deadly weapons committed the murder of Braham Singh and Dile Ram, while in order to achieve their common intention, they had also inflicted such injuries on the physical person of Bangal Singh knowing fully well that had Bangal Singh died on account of the said injuries they ought to have been held guilty of causing his murder in this matter."

Once Court Indicates Its Mind, Counsel Must Refrain From Further Submissions; Continued Insistence Affects Decorum: Supreme Court

Case Details: State Election Commission v. Shakti Singh Bharthwal and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1038

The Supreme Court has observed that once a Bench has indicated its inclination and requested counsel to refrain from making further submissions, such direction must be respected, as continued insistence thereafter serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings.

“Once the Court has indicated its mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further submissions, the same is expected to be respected. Orders are passed by the Court only after due consideration. The Court is always mindful of the submissions advanced and does not dismiss the matters without careful examination. Continued insistence thereafter, especially after the Court expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings,” the Court stated in an order passed on October 28.

“There needs to be a balance in the duty that advocate has towards his/her client and the Court.The orderly functioning of the Court is best ensured when both the Bench and the Bar move in symphony and mutual respect,” the Court added.

Supreme Court Suggests Amendment To Employees Compensation Act To Include 'Adult Widowed Sister' In Definition Of 'Dependent'

Case Details: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kogga & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

The Supreme Court has recommended an amendment to the definition of the word 'dependent' under Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Since, the current definition excludes the 'major widowed sister' from getting benefit as a deceased employee's dependent, the Court asked the Union Government to refer the matter for consideration by the Law Commission of India for suitable amendments in the definition.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan passed an order, thereby upholding compensation awarded to two widowed sisters of a deceased worker who were major at the time of demise. The Court dismissed the New India Assurance Company Ltd.'s appeal, which argued that since the deceased 'widowed sisters were not minors at the time of his demise, they were not entitled to claim compensation as dependents.

The definition of the word 'dependent' in Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d) means “a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor.”

2018 Amendment To Specific Relief Act Is Not Retrospective, Clarifies Supreme Court

Case Details: Annamalai v. Vasanthi and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1041

The Supreme Court has clarified that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which made the grant of specific performance of contracts a mandatory relief, has no retrospective effect and does not apply to suits or transactions that arose before its enforcement on October 1, 2018.

The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, observed that prior to the 2018 amendment (brought through Act 18 of 2018) the grant of specific performance was a matter of judicial discretion, not a mandatory relief.

The bench referred to its earlier decision in Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd(2022).,which held that the 2018 amendment was prospective in nature and could not govern contracts or suits instituted before its commencement. Although the decision in Katta Sujatha Reddy was later reviewed and recalled in Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy(2024), the Supreme Court clarified that even in the review judgment, there was no express finding that the amended provisions would apply to suits filed prior to October 1, 2018.

Minor Discrepancies In Subsequent Statements Do Not Weaken First Dying Declaration If Found Reliable And Consistent : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jemaben v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

The Supreme Court (October 29) upheld the conviction of a woman for murder, relying on the first dying declaration made by the deceased. The Court observed that even when multiple dying declarations exist, the first declaration cannot be disregarded if it is reliable, consistent, and supported by corroborative evidence.

A Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the Gujarat High Court's decision that overturned the acquittal of the appellant-accused, holding that the victim's first dying declaration, made to the attending doctor, was reliable, consistent, and clearly implicated the appellant for pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire.

The Appellant-accused argued that since there were three dying declarations made by the deceased victim that had inconsistencies, she should be given the benefit of doubt and be acquitted of the offence. However, the prosecution stated that in the case of multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration will have to be considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value, and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other.

S. 149 IPC | Members Of Unlawful Assembly Vicariously Liable Once Common Object Proven, Even If No Fatal Blow Inflicted : Supreme Court

Case Details: Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1043

The Supreme Court (October 29) upheld the conviction of three individuals who were part of a six-member group involved in a fatal assault on the deceased. The Court held that, regardless of their individual acts, once they shared a common object and participated with overt intent as members of an unlawful assembly, they were vicariously liable for an offence under Section 149 IPC.

“it is not necessary for each member of the unlawful assembly to have committed a specific overt act. Once participation and sharing of the common object are proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of that object.”, the court said, placing reliance on Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202.

A bench of Justices PK Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's decision, which set aside the acquittal of the appellants-accused persons in a premeditated assault that led to the death of one person and grievous injury to two others. The attack, carried out by a group of six men armed with sharp-edged weapons, was allegedly motivated by prior enmity. The Appellants, though, didn't inflict the fatal blow but played a crucial role in facilitating the attack.

Motor Accident | Insurer Must Pay Compensation Even If There Was Route Permit Violation; Can Recover From Owner : Supreme Court

Case Details: K Nagendra v. New India Insurance Co Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1044

The Supreme Court has held that insurance companies cannot deny compensation to accident victims merely because the vehicle involved had deviated from its permitted route. Emphasising the social purpose of motor vehicle insurance, the Court observed that to deny compensation on such a technical ground would be “offensive to the sense of justice”.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made these observations while dismissing an appeals filed by vehicle owner K Nagendra and insurer, The New India Insurance Company Limited. The case arose from a fatal accident involving a bus that had strayed from its sanctioned route at the time of the mishap. While the insurer challenged the High Court's direction to pay compensation first and later recover from the owner, the owner challenged the High Court's order allowing recovery from him.

Dismissing both the appeals, the bench stated that 'pay and recover' direction was justified. The bench rejected the insurer's contention that route permit violation absolved it from the liability.

'Significant Gaps In Evidence' :Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Rape, Murder & Robbery Of 85 Year Old Woman

Case Details: Mohamed Sameer Khan v. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1045

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man accused of rapine, robbing and murdering an 85-year-old woman, observing that the prosecution's case, based solely on circumstantial evidence, failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the non-examination of a crucial witness, who was last seen with the accused, left significant gaps in the investigation and created a strong possibility of false implication.

The Appellant, Mohamed Sameer Khan (“Appellant”), had been convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court for Bomb Blast Case, Coimbatore) on 17 November 2017 under Sections 302, 449, 376 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of an 85-year-old woman, robbery of two gold bangles, and sexual assault(no semen found).

On 19 December 2016, early morning, the deceased was found strangulated with a towel around her neck, two gold bangles missing from her hands, and evidence of sexual assault.

'High Courts Must Keep Their Hands Away When Supreme Court Is Seized Of A Matter': SC Pulls Up Uttarakhand HC

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1046

The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Uttarakhand High Court for entertaining a plea and staying a sanction order that was passed during the pendency of proceedings before the apex court concerning illegal constructions and felling of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve.

“The High Court, no doubt, is a Constitutional Court and not inferior to this Court. However, in judicial matters, when this Court is seized of the matter, it is expected of the High Courts to keep their hands away,” the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed while expressing its displeasure over the High Court's intervention.

The apex court, which has been monitoring the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged illegal constructions in Corbett, noted that it had earlier questioned the Uttarakhand Government for not granting sanction for prosecution. Following the Court's oral observations on September 8, 2025, the State granted sanction for prosecution against one officer on September 16, 2025.

Cause Of Fire Is Immaterial If Insured Didn't Instigate It : Supreme Court Explains Principles On Fire Insurance  

Case Details: National Insurance Company Ltd v. Orion Conmerx Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1047

Reiterating that the exact cause of a fire is immaterial so long as the insured is not its instigator, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company and upheld the insured's claim for loss arising from a fire that originated from multiple sources.

“Once it is established that the loss is due to fire and there is no allegation/finding of fraud or that the Insured is the instigator of the fire, the cause of fire is immaterial and it will have to be assumed and presumed that the fire is accidental and falls within the ambit and scope of fire policy.”, the court observed.

'Crime Was Not Result Of Lust But Love' : Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Act Conviction Noting Marriage Between Accused & Victim  

Case Details: K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1048

In a rare judgment invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has quashed the conviction and sentence of a man who had been found guilty under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, after taking note of his subsequent marriage to the victim and their settled family life.

The Court also imposed a condition upon the appellant to not desert his wife and child and to maintain them with dignity for the rest of their lives, warning that any breach of this condition could invite serious consequences.

The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that while the appellant had been convicted of a heinous offence, the peculiar facts of the case called for “a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy”, especially since the victim, now his wife, had expressed her wish to live peacefully with him along with their infant child.

Supreme Court Expresses Dismay At HC Suspending Murder Sentence On Condition To Plant Tree Saplings

Case Details: Surajpal Singh Jadon v. Prashant Sikarwar and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 13465/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1049

The Supreme Court (October 27) expressed dismay at an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which suspended the sentences of two murder convicts on the condition to plant 10 saplings each as a matter of social cause.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria set aside the April 29 order passed by Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh of the High Court in an application under Section 389(1) of the CrPC for the suspension of jail sentence and the grant of bail. The two accused persons were convicted in 2023 by the Trial Court under Sections 302(murder) and 341(punishment for wrongful restraint) of the IPC.

Supreme Court Upholds Sealing Of Property Misused For Commercial Purpose In Delhi's New Rajinder Nagar Market

Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

The Supreme Court (October 31) dismissed a plea seeking the de-sealing of a commercial premise situated in New Rajinder Nagar Market, Delhi. The Court upheld the sealing, noting an unauthorized misuse of residential spaces for commercial gain.

The Court held that the applicant's property was sanctioned as a “shop-cum-residence”, permitting commercial use only on the ground floor, while the upper floors, which the applicant himself had sought and obtained for residential use, were being illegally utilized for commercial purposes.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the case that arose out of the long-standing public interest litigation filed by M.C. Mehta relating to unauthorized constructions and environmental violations in Delhi. The applicant filed an interim application seeking relief on the strength of a general order dated December 18, 2023, issued by a Judicial Committee that had recommended treating the New Rajinder Nagar Market as a fully commercial area. However, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) opposed the plea, asserting that the applicant had violated building bye-laws and misused residential areas for commercial activity.

S.132 BSA Intended To Protect Advocates From Bullying By Investigating Agencies To Disclose Communications With Clients: Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

The Supreme Court, while issuing directions to protect the advocates from arbitrary summons by investigating authorities, observed that Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provisions S.132-134 are intended to shield lawyers from unnecessary bullying for disclosing privileged communications with their clients.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria pronounced the decision in the suo motu case taken by the Court over the issue of investigating agencies arbitrarily summoning advocates representing the accused.

The judgment, authored by Justice Chandran, highlights that S.126 of the Indian Evidence Act (S.132(1),(2) of BSA now) is intended to protect advocates, who are part of the justice administration system. Terming the deceitful few advocates as the 'occasional black sheep', the Court acknowledged the presence of such professionals within the system.

No Summons To Advocates Except Under S.132 BSA Exceptions; Prior Approval Of Superior Officer Mandatory: Supreme Court Issues Directions

Case Details: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

The Supreme Court (October 31) issued a set of directions to ensure that investigating agencies do not arbitrarily issue summons to advocates in criminal cases over the legal advice given by them to the accused.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria pronounced the decision in the suo motu case taken by the Court over the issue of investigating agencies arbitrarily summoning advocates representing accused.

While the Court refrained from issuing any guidelines and ruled out the need for Magisterial supervision before the issuance of summons, it issued certain directions.

Supreme Court Issues Directions On Production Of Advocates' Digital Devices For Investigation; Says Clients' Documents Not Covered By S.132 BSA

Case Details: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

The Supreme Court has issued detailed directions regulating the production of advocates' documents and digital devices that may contain client information.

The Court clarified that documents belonging to a client but held by an advocate are not covered by privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), whether in civil or criminal proceedings. However, such production must follow strict procedural safeguards.

In criminal cases, if an advocate is directed to produce a client document, it must be done before the court under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 165 of the BSA, ensuring judicial supervision. In civil proceedings, production will be governed by Section 165 BSA and Order 16 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Upon production, the Court must hear both the advocate and the client before ruling on objections regarding production or admissibility.

Surprised That High Court Did Not Quash Police Summons Issued To Advocate Over Case In Which He Appeared : Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

The Supreme Court in the Suo Motu Case of arbitrary summoning of advocates by in investigating authorities has sternly frowned upon the refusal of the Gujarat High Court to entertain a plea by an advocate who was summoned.

The bench observed that being a Constitutional Court, the High Court's refusal to entertain such a plea was an abdication of its inherent powers.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria pronounced the decision in the suo motu case. The bench held that investigating agencies cannot arbitrarily summon advocates to get the details of their clients and that such summons can be issued only if the matter falls within the exceptions to Section 132 BSA.

In-House Counsel Not 'Advocate'; Their Communication With Employer Not Protected Under S.132 BSA : Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

The Supreme Court has held that communications between in-house counsels and their employers are not protected by client-attorney privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), as in-house counsel are not 'advocates' within the meaning of the Advocates Act, 1961.

However, the Court held that communications between in-house counsel and the legal advisor to their company will be protected from disclosure as per Section 134 BSA.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran made this observation in the suo motu case on the issue of investigating agencies summoning advocates over the legal advivce given by them to their clients.

Kulwinder Kaur and others v Prashant Sharma and another

Case Details: Kulwinder Kaur and Ors. v. Prashant Sharma and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

The Supreme Court partly allowed an appeal filed by the family of one Rajinder Singh Mihnas, enhancing their compensation for his death in a road accident from ₹1,17,20,200 to ₹1,60,15,280 with 6% interest.

A bench of Justice NV Anjaria and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the claimants were entitled to the benefit of “future prospects” in terms of the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court had omitted while enhancing the award earlier.

Motor Accident Compensation | Supreme Court To Decide If Income Earned Abroad Should Be Moderated; Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: Tharunoju Eshwaramma & Ors. v. K. Ram Reddy & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1053

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of how to assess compensation in motor accident cases where the deceased was employed in a foreign country, in view of divergent judicial precedents on whether income earned abroad should be moderated before applying standard deductions and multipliers.

A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Tharunoju Eshwaramma and others, the family members of one Hari Shankar Brahma, who died in a road accident in 2009 at the age of 27 while working as a System Analyst with Nihaki Systems Inc., New Jersey, USA, earning an annual salary of USD 47,050 (₹21,17,250).

Tender Authority Cannot Impose Conditions Contrary To Notice Inviting Tender : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1054

The Supreme Court set aside the disqualification of a bidder in a tender process, holding that the tendering authority had compelled the bidder to meet a condition not prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender (“NIT”).

“we are of the opinion that rejection of appellant's technical bid on ground that appellant's certificate was not issued by District Magistrate is dehors the terms of the NIT and is liable to be quashed.”, the court said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the case where a dispute arose in a tender floated by the Mandi Parishad for leasing a banquet hall. The process involved two stages- technical and financial bids. Under Clause 18 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), bidders were required to submit a 'haisiyat praman patra' (certificate of means/resources) demonstrating a minimum worth of ₹10 crores.

Long-Standing Rituals In Places Of Worship Should Not Be Altered For Administrative Convenience: Supreme Court

Case Title – PC Hary v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1055

The Supreme Court has observed that rituals and practices performed as part of a long-standing religious tradition should not be disturbed on grounds of possible public inconvenience.

The observation came while considering the dispute relating to the performance of Udayasthamana Pooja at the iconic Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple in Kerala on Vrishchikam Ekadasi.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that the Udayasthamana Pooja has been performed on Vrishchikam Ekadasi “since long.”

Arbitration | When Delay In Pronouncing Arbitral Award Can Be Ground To Set It Aside : Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: M/S. Lancor Holdings Limited v. Prem Kumar Menon and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1056

The Supreme Court clarified that while mere delay in pronouncing an arbitral award does not invalidate it, an inordinate and unexplained delay making the decision ineffective or unworkable can render the award void. The Court further held that an award lacking consequential relief and forcing parties to seek redress again in court is contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable.

'No Discrimination Once State Fixes Higher Limit', Supreme Court Upholds Higher Gratuity Amount For Retired Employees Of Assam Finance Corp

Case Details: Assam Financial Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Bhabendra Nath Sarma & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1057

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Gauhati High Court's ruling which ruled in favor of the retired employees granting them higher limit of gratuity set by the State Government. The Court said that once the State's regulation specifies a higher limit for the grant of gratuity, then there can't be discrimination regarding the disbursal of the amount of gratuity and every employee shall be given equal treatment.

'Mere Refusal To Marry Won't Amount To Instigation Under S.107 IPC': Supreme Court Quashes Abetment Of Suicide Case

Case Details: Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1058

The Supreme Court has held that mere refusal to marry, even if true, by itself would not amount to “instigation” as contemplated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, while quashing an FIR registered against a man accused of abetting the suicide of a woman who allegedly took her life after he backed out of their proposed marriage.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed an appeal filed by Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's refusal to quash an FIR registered against him under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Suit Seeking Simple Injunction Not Enough When Plaintiff Is Not In Possession Of Property & Title Is Disputed : Supreme Court

Case Details: S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1059

The Supreme Court held that when the title to the suit property is in dispute and possession rests with the defendant, a mere suit for injunction restraining interference with peaceful enjoyment of the property is not maintainable unless it is accompanied by a suit seeking a declaration of title and consequential recovery of possession.

In other words, the Court held that when the plaintiff is not in possession and the defendant claims ownership, the proper remedy is a declaratory suit, not a bare injunction under the Specific Relief Act, 1963

A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran heard the case where the plaintiff sought injunction against the defendant from alienating and interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property. The plaintiff sough interim relief based on the disputed Will, and even lacked possession of the suit property, moreover no declaration of title was sought while filing a suit for injunction.

Orders and Other Developments

PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Regulation Of Artificial Intelligence Tools To Prevent Deepfake Misuse

A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Union Government to frame a comprehensive regulatory and licensing framework for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, especially those capable of generating synthetic images, videos, and audio impersonations of real individuals.

The petition, filed by advocate Aarati Sah, urges the court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to establish a statutory mechanism for the responsible deployment of AI technologies and to ensure accountability from digital intermediaries like Meta Platforms and Google.

According to the petition, the unregulated spread of AI-generated content, popularly known as deepfakes, has led to serious violations of privacy, dignity, and reputation. “The unchecked use of AI tools capable of cloning voices and images has already caused immense harm to individuals and poses an imminent threat to public trust, social harmony, and national security,” the plea states.

Take Suo Motu Action Against Witnesses Who Aren't Truthful : Supreme Court To Trial Court In Murder Case

Case: Rahul Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) 15630/2025

The Supreme Court directed a Trial Court in Delhi to take suo motu action against witnesses who are found to have made untruthful statements in a murder trial.

The trial pertains to the murder of one Vijendra Singh in Shahdara (Delhi) in April 2019. Challenging the Delhi High Court's order granting bail to one of the accused, named Raj Sharma, the son of the victim, Rahul Sharma(petitioner), approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of his bail.

The petitioner contended that after other accused persons were released on bail, many prosecution witnesses turned hostile. He added that police complaints have been filed against the accused for alleged intimidation of witnesses.

Supreme Court Summons Haryana Authority Over Cutting Trees For Access To BJP's Karnal Office; Orders Status Quo

Case Details: Col. Davinder Singh Rajput v. State of Haryana & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 46157/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Haryana and ordered status quo in regard to the development that has taken place in Sector 9-Karnal, where authorities are allegedly trying to carve out the road from the green belt adjoining the GT Road to give access to the Bharatiya Janata Party to its newly built office in the residential area, by cutting more than 40 trees.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan also issued notice to the Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, responsible for the planned development of that area, and has directed its Chief Administrator to remain personally present with the entire record and offer an explanation as to under what circumstances more than 40 trees were cut in the name of development.

"On the next date of hearing the Chief Administrator of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran shall remain personally present before this Court with the entire record. He shall explain in what circumstances 40 plus trees were felled in the name of development. We would like to know what has the respondent no.2(Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran) done with the trees which were felled. If any further development is undertaken from now onwards, we shall take a very strict view of the matter."

Mumbai Custodial Death Case : Supreme Court Orders To Preserve CCTV Footage & Medical Documents

Case Details: Jaitunbi Mohammad Salim Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(S). 55997/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Maharashtra and ordered the preservation of CCTV footage and medical documents in an alleged case of custodial torture of a 19-year-old boy, who died in custody whilst incarcerated at Mumbai Central Prison.

The notice on the special leave petition was issued by a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Vipul M Pancholi on October 13. The SLP is filed against the September 24 order of the Bombay High Court by the mother of the deceased.

As per the plea, the petitioner, represented by Advocate Payoshi Roy, seeks urgent interim directions for the production and preservation of the CCTV footage from the Arthur Road Prison and the Kala Chowki Police Station from September 16 to September 24, and medical records and other relevant documents of the deceased.

Can Multi-State Cooperative Societies Submit Resolution Plans Under IBC? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Title – Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Ravi Sethia & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed that the Central Registrar of Multi-State Cooperative Societies be made a party to the appeal filed by a multi-state co-operative society against a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment that had held the society ineligible to submit a resolution plan for a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan sought a response from the Central Registrar on whether multi-state cooperative societies are barred from submitting a resolution plan for a corporate entity under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Court observed that the presence of the Central Registrar was necessary for an effective and complete adjudication of the issues raised in the case. The Court therefore directed the appellant to amend the cause title of the appeal to implead the Central Registrar as respondent no. 4.

Supreme Court To Examine If Transfer Of Leasehold Rights Attracts GST

Case Title – Union of India & Anr. v. M/S Life Sciences Chemicals & Anr.

The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the assignment of leasehold rights constitutes a “transfer of land” or amounts to a “supply of service” under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was dealing with Centre's plea challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that held that assignment of leasehold rights in land and building does not amount to a taxable supply under the GST Act.

Before the High Court, M/s Life Sciences Chemicals, a sole proprietorship, had challenged a GST demand order of over Rs. 8.5 lakhs under Section 74 of the Central and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017, in connection with the transfer by erstwhile partnership firm with the same trade name 'M/s Life Sciences Chemicals' of leasehold rights over a plot at the GIDC Industrial Estate, Panoli, Ankleshwar.

Is POCSO Act Gender Neutral? Supreme Court To Consider; Stays Trial Against Woman Accused

Case Title – Archana Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by a woman accused of sexually assaulting a minor boy, in which she has challenged the applicability of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 to female accused.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioner Archana Patil, submitted that Sections 3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c) of the POCSO Act are gender specific and have no application to the case of the petitioner.

Recording the submission, a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ordered, “Issue notice. In the meantime, further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.”

Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order Restricting Kirloskar Trademark Licensing

Case Title: Kirloskar Proprietary Limited v. Kirloskar Brothers Limited

Case Number: Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 29662-29663/2025

The Supreme Court on October 17 stayed a Bombay High Court order that had barred Kirloskar Proprietary Limited from licensing the 'Kirloskar' trademark to other group companies operating in businesses that overlap with Kirloskar Brothers Limited.

The interim order was passed by a Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The court noted that the licensing ban was added through a modification order passed while the original appeal was still pending.

Two Law Clerk Positions In Supreme Court To Be Open For Bhutan Law Graduates, Announces CJI BR Gavai

In a significant step towards deepening judicial cooperation between India and Bhutan, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai announced that two positions of Law Clerks at the Supreme Court will be offered annually to law graduates from Bhutan.

The announcement came during CJI Gavai's official visit to Bhutan, where he held meetings with His Majesty the King of Bhutan, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, on October 25, and with Prime Minister Dasho Tshering Tobgay a day earlier. The Chief Justice discussed ways to enhance collaboration between the judiciaries of both countries and reaffirmed India's commitment to strengthening bilateral relations grounded in mutual respect and cooperation.

Justice Gavai also assured India's continued support to the Bhutanese judiciary in areas such as technology integration, capacity building, and knowledge exchange. The initiative to include Bhutanese graduates in the Supreme Court's clerkship programme is aimed at fostering academic engagement and professional exposure for young legal minds from Bhutan within India's judicial system.

Stray Dogs Case : Supreme Court Summons Chief Secretaries Of States/UTs For Not Filing Compliance Affidavits On ABC Rules

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

In the Stray Dogs matter, the Supreme Court summoned the Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories, except West Bengal and Telangana, for not filing affidavits regarding the steps taken by them to implement the Animal Birth Control Rules.

On August 22, the Court had directed the States/UTs to file the compliance affidavits. , the bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria noted that only West Bengal, Telangana and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had filed the compliance affidavits.

Hence, the Court directed the Chief Secretaries of the defaulting States/UTs to appear to explain why compliance affidavits were not filed. The Court also noted that there was no representation on behalf of the defaulting states during the hearing.

Expressing dissatisfaction at the development, Justice Vikram Nath said that the Court had issued notices to all States/UTs and the order was also widely reported.

'See If You Can Come Out With Something, 5 Years Over' : Supreme Court To Delhi Police In Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeeel Imam Etc

Case Details:

The Supreme Court (October 27) declined Delhi Police's request for two weeks' time to file counter-affidavits to the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shifa Ur Rehman seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Asserting that enough time has already been granted, the bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria posted the matter to Friday for hearing, asking the Delhi Police to file the counter affidavit in the meantime.

At the outset, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Delhi Police, sought time to file a counter-affidavit.

Can Another Bench Pursue Contempt Action When CJI Has Pardoned Advocate For Shoe-Hurling Bid? Supreme Court Asks In SCBA Plea

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Rakesh Kishore | Conmt.Pet.(Crl.) No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court questioned whether it could initiate contempt proceedings against advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on October 6, when the CJI himself had chosen to pardon the act.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking criminal contempt action against Kishore and a John Doe order to restrain social media glorification of the incident.

Appearing for the SCBA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh said that while the CJI had initially decided not to press charges, Kishore later gave media interviews boasting about his act and vowing to repeat it. “This whole thing is being glorified. The court has sufficient powers to ensure it does not happen again,” Singh submitted.

Supreme Court Proposes Transferring All Digital Arrest Scam Cases Across States To CBI

Case Title – In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents

The Supreme Court issued notices to all States and Union Territories in a suo motu case concerning a series of digital arrest scams carried out through forged court orders and impersonation of police and judicial officers.

Earlier, the Court had taken suo motu cognisanceof the matter after receiving a letter from a senior citizen couple from Haryana, who were victims of one such cyber fraud.

During 's hearing, the Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed serious concern over the growing instances of such scams across the country and hinted that the investigation may be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Supreme Court Allows Centre To Reconsider Demand For AGR Dues From Vodafone

Case Details: Vodafone Idea Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 882/2025

The Supreme Court permitted the Union to reconsider and reconcile Vodafone Idea's pending AGR dues worth ₹5,606 for the 2016-17 period.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition filed by Vodafone India challenging the Department of Telecommunications' additional demand towards AGR dues of 2016-17 period.

According to Vodafone, the additional demand is unsustainable as the liabilities were already crystallised by the Supreme Court's 2019 judgment.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Star-Rating For Vehicles To Reduce Air Pollution

Case Details :Sanjay Kulshresthra v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000834 / 2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking directions to implement a star-rating system for vehicles across India to help reduce air pollution and related deaths.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition by Doctor Sanjay Kulshesthra, who stressed that the implementation of the star ratings in vehicles would enable the public to opt for eco-friendly vehicles, which would reduce air pollution.

Notably, a 'star-rating' system for vehicles signals how safe the vehicle is for consumers on a scale of 1-5. Presently, India is following the Global New Car Assessment Programme (G-NCAP).  India's adapted version - Bharat New Car Assessment Programme (BNCAP) has been pending as a draft procedure since July 2023. 

CIC Appointments | 'No Reason To Doubt Union': Supreme Court Refuses To Direct Disclosure Of Shortlisted Candidates' Names

Case Title: Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Ma 1979/2019 In W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

The Supreme Court declined to direct the Union Government to publicly disclose the names of candidates shortlisted for appointments to the Central Information Commission (CIC), observing that there was “no reason to doubt” that the Centre would follow the guidelines earlier laid down by the Court for transparent appointments under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest petition filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, regarding delays and lack of transparency in appointments to the Central and State Information Commissions.

Bhushan pointed out that despite the previous orders of the Supreme Court directing the Centre to fill vacancies in the commissions, the government defaulted.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To 3 Accused In Sambhal Violence Case

Case Details:

The Supreme Court (October 27) granted bail to three persons accused in the case over the violence that took place on November 24 last year during the court-ordered survey of the Sambhal Jama Masjid mosque to determine whether a temple existed at the premises.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan passed the order. The three accused persons are Danish, Faizan, and Nazir, who were involved in various cases and were represented by Advocate Sulaiman Mohd Khan.

Faizan and Danish challenged the May 19 order of the Allahabad High Court, wherein the single judge dismissed their plea for bail.

Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Seeks Release Of Passport Surrendered As Bail Condition; Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Till Nov 18

Case Title: Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025

Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who has been booked by Haryana Police over his social media posts about 'Operation Sindoor', prayed for release of his passport before the Supreme Court.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Mahmudabad and sought the relief, since Mahmudabad was directed to surrender his passport as a bail condition. The bench however adjourned the hearing till November 18.

"In the meantime, let the passport be returned to him. I don't know why the passport is kept...", Sibal urged. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for Haryana) responded to the submission, saying, "if he wants to go abroad, he can give the itinerary". The ASG clarified that the passport was surrendered to authorities as a bail condition but they would not object to his foreign travel. "If you are not going to object, then give the passport back", retorted Sibal.

Supreme Court Seeks Views Of MP HC & Govt On Plea To Raise Retirement Age Of District Judges To 61 Years

Case Details: Madhya Pradesh Judges Association v. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 000986 / 2025

The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the State Government over the issue of refusal to enhance the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the challenge to the administrative order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which refused to increase the retirement age of judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years. The Petition has been filed by the MP Judges Association.

The Association contends that this was in clear violation of the Supreme Court'sdirections on May 26.The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih had clarified that there was no impediment in raising the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years and asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take an administrative decision on enhancing the retirement age within 3 months.

Vasai-Virar Illegal Constructions Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice On ED's Challenge To HC Quashing Arrest Of IAS Officer

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Anilkumar Khanderao Pawar and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 16841/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging Bombay High Court's declaration of suspended IAS officer and Vasai Virar City Municipal Commissioner Anilkumar Pawar's arrest as illegal.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for ED). On a specific Court query, the ASG informed that the photographs of ornaments (stated to be recovered during raids) were taken prior to Pawar's arrest. "My lords will be shocked if you look at the Whatsapp chats", the ASG said.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared for Pawar and submitted that it is not a case that merits intervention. He contended that Pawar has not been named in any of the 5 FIRs lodged over the allegations and that out of over 40 builders arraigned in the FIRs, only 1-2 were named in the prosecution complaint.

Supreme Court Dismisses Centre's Plea Against High Court Direction To Resume MGNREGA Scheme In West Bengal

Case: Union of India v. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity | Diary No. 42326/2025

The Supreme Court (October 27) dismissed a petition filed by the Union Government challenging an order of the Calcutta High Court directing the prospective implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme in the State of West Bengal, from 1st August 2025. The scheme was put on hold in the State since 2022 over allegations of embezzlement.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the matter.  "We are not convinced that the impugned order requires any interference. The SLP is dismissed," the bench stated.

The High Court had passed the order in a matter on the non-payment of dues to daily wage labourers under the MGNREGA scheme. The High Court had observed that the irregularities in paymnet cannot be a ground to put on hold the scheme for eternity. While allowing the Centre to continue its inquiry into the allegations of embezzlement, the High Court directed it to resume it from August 1, 2025.

'I Fought Tooth & Nail For Suo Motu Designation In Good Cases': Justice Surya Kant Recalls P&H HC Lawyer's Senior Designation

Case Title: Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Ma 1979/2019 In W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

While hearing the PIL relating to the appointment of Information Commissioners, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court shared an anecdote about how he, as a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, batted for the designation of an advocate of the Punjab and Haryana High Court even though the lawyer did not formally apply for said designation.

During 's hearing of the CIC appointments case, the Justice Kant-led bench was informed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners) that the Union was considering appointing candidates who had not even applied. In this regard, Justice Kant opined that appointment of someone who has not applied may not necessarily be a bad thing.

The judge reminisced that he(as a HC judge) advocated for the designation of Anupam Gupta as a senior advocate, and alongwith a former judge, convinced others that suo motu power be exercised to designate lawyers in reasonable cases.

Supreme Court Flags Lack Of Stenographers & Staff In Jammu CAT Bench; Suggests Hiring Of Retired Persons, Contractual Staff

Case Title: Achal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 877/2020

The Supreme Court proposed engagement of retired personnel and contractual staff to deal with shortage of stenographers in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the case where, in December, 2023, the Court was informed of a tentative proposal as per which, once the new complex for Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court is completed, the CAT bench at Jammu could shift into the old building.

During the hearing, Justice Kant orally conveyed to Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj that the government is expected to allot land and budget for construction of the High Court bench in Jammu, after which the High Court old building can go to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Stray Dog Case | Continuous Incidents Are Happening, Country's Global Image Affected : Supreme Court

During the hearing of the stray dog matter , the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the recurring incidents of stray dog attacks, observing that such reports were tarnishing the country's image at the global level.

“Continuous incidents are happening, and the image of the country is being shown as down in the eyes of foreign nations. We are also reading news reports,” Justice Vikram Nath, the presiding judge of the bench, observed.

When a counsel referred to cruelty committed towards dogs, Justice Sandeep Mehta, the second judge of the bench, commented, "What about the cruelty towards humans?"

Supreme Court Says Proposed Mining Ban In Jharkhand's Saranda Forest Will Apply To SAIL's Mines Too

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

The Supreme Court verbally asserted that it would not allow any mining activities within the Saranda/Sasangdaburu forests proposed to be declared as a wildlife sanctuary in the State of Jharkhand.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran considered the issue of repeated non-compliance by the State of Jharkhand with its previous assurances given to declare the Saranda/Sasangdaburu forests as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve.

On the last hearing, Sr Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state of Jharkhand, informed the bench that a draft notification was prepared for declaring the region as a wildlife sanctuary. However, he flagged that within the region, approximately 6 acres were occupied by villagers. He urged the Court to allow the notification to exempt the area occupied by the villagers.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Quash Criminal Case Over Social Media Post Saying 'Babri Masjid Will Be Rebuilt'

Case Title: Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 16370/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to quash a criminal case lodged against a man booked over his social media post on Babri Masjid, which said that "Babri Masjid will one day be rebuilt, just like Turkey's Sophia Mosque".

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the case as withdrawn, after hearing Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman (for petitioner). The counsel argued that there was no vulgarity in the petitioner's post. The counsel submitted that it was another person who published a vulgar and inflammatory comment, but they were not investigated.

Unconvinced, Justice Kant said that the bench had gone through the petitioner's post. "Don't invite any comment from us", cautioned the judge. The matter was disposed of with an observation that all contentions raised by the petitioner shall be considered by the trial court on their own merit.

Are Private Doctors Who Worked During Pandemic & Died Of COVID Eligible Under PM Insurance Scheme? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title – Pradeep Arora v. Director, Health Department

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment in a plea concerning the Central Government's insurance coverage scheme "Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19", for doctors who lost their lives due to COVID-19 during the pandemic.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan, which made significant observations emphasising the duty of the State to protect those who served during the pandemic crisis.

The petition challenges a Bombay High Court judgment which denied insurance coverage under the scheme to doctors who were not formally requisitioned by the government for COVID-19 duties.

After Acquittal In Death Penalty Cases, 3 Men Seek Compensation For Wrongful Incarceration; Supreme Court Seeks Assistance Of AG & SG

Case Title – Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court is set to examine writ petitions filed by three men seeking compensation for wrongful conviction and death sentence, after they were acquitted by the Supreme Court.

The lead petitioner, a 41-year-old man, Ramkirat Munilal Goud, is seeking compensation from the State of Maharashtra for his wrongful conviction and twelve-year incarceration, six of which he spent on death row.

Notably, while acquitting him, the Supreme Court had given a finding that the conviction was based on a “flawed and tainted investigation.”

Wife Of Slain BSP Leader Armstrong Approaches Supreme Court Supporting CBI Investigation, Questions Tamil Nadu Police Probe

Case Details: The Commissioner of Police v. K. Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong and Another | SLP(Crl) No. 15897/2025

An intervention application has been filed in the Supreme Court by the wife of slain BSP leader and prominent Dalit activist Armstrong, supporting the demand for a CBI investigation into his murder.

Porkodi, Armstrong's wife, filed the intervention application in the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Madras High Court's order which quashed the chargesheet filed by the State Police in the murder case and transferred the investigation to the CBI.  Though the Supreme Court, on October 10, stayed the High Court's order quashing the chargesheet, it did not interdict the CBI investigation.

Stating that the case has a bearing on the "national conscience", Porkodi submitted that a CBI investigation is necessary under the monitoring of a Supervisory Committee headed by a former Supreme Court Judge, as was done in the Karur stampede case.

Delhi Ridge Tree Felling | DDA Transferred Rs 46 Crores To Forest Dept For Afforestation, GNCTD Chief Secretary Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda and Ors., Ma 1652/2025

In the Delhi Ridge Tree Felling contempt case, the Chief Secretary of the Delhi government has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court detailing steps taken towards compensatory afforestation/plantation in compliance of the Court's earlier directions.

The affidavit states that a meeting was held on 29.09.2025 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary with the DDA Vice-Chairman, Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) and other Forest Department officials, wherein DDA informed that it has transferred Rs. 46.13 crores to the Forest Department for carrying out plantation & maintenance (up to 7 years) as per demand.

The case pertains to the felling of trees in the Delhi ridge forest to widen road for the the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital in violation of the Supreme Court's orders. Following that, the Court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the DDA officials.

Before Filing Interlocutory Applications, They Must Be Served On The Opposite Party: Supreme Court Reminds Lawyers

While hearing a matter , the Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the practice of documents not being served to the opposite party before being taken on record, and the lack of scrutiny by the Court Registry in such instances. The observations came in connection with an interlocutory application filed in an ongoing case, which had been accepted by the Registry without prior service to the other side.

A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a case in which the Union Government has challenged aDelhi High Court judgmentupholding an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal had held that candidates who appeared for the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) examinations could not be disqualified solely for failing to sign the opening page of their answer sheets, provided that other identifying remarks such thumb impression were there.

When the Advocate Solicitor General SD General Sanjay informed the Court that an IA filed by the respondent has not been served to them and he requested some time to respond to the same, Justice Kumar orally remarked: "We will reject that IA. If it's not served, if you file any interlocutory application without taking your opponent into confidence and without serving a copy on the other side, we will straightaway reject the document. Before you file, it should be served and then filed in the pending matter. We don't know, we are surprised why Registry does not raise an objection."

MBBS Stipend | 'Wake Up From Slumber' : Supreme Court Chides NMC For Not Enforcing Directive To Colleges To Disclose Stipend Details

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

In a batch of cases concerning the non-payment of stipends to medical students, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the National Medical Commission (NMC) for failing to comply with its own directive issued in July requiring all medical colleges and institutions to mandatorily disclose stipend details within seven days.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria directed the NMC to file a compliance affidavit within 2 weeks. It remarked that it is expected that the NMC would wake up from "slumber" and comply with its own communication.

It ordered: "The conduct of the NMC requires to be deprecated in as much as the payment of the stipend to the interns has been pending since long before this Court and yet, NMC seems to be dragging its feet without any serious consideration. As such, we are forced to make this observation. We hope and trust the NMC would get up from its slumber and take appropriate steps as indicated in its own communication dated 11. 07. 2025, at least by the next date of hearing. The NMC shall also file an affidavit enclosing the list of medical colleges/institutes which have published the details as indicated in the communication dated 11.07.2025 and also produce the copy for the perusal of this Court. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shall ensure that the NMC would comply as indicated in the communication dated 11.07.2025."

Automobile Dealers Association Moves Supreme Court Over Compensation Cess Lapse After GST 2.0 Reforms, Claims Loss Of Rs.2500 Cr

Case Title: Federation of Automobile Dealers Association v. Union of India, Diary No. 60671/2025

The Federation of Automobile Dealers Association has moved the Supreme Court seeking relief related to compensation cess input tax credit worth Rs.2500 crores, which stands locked in dealers ledgers as a consequence of revision in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.

Briefly put, a notification issued on September 17 scrapped the compensation cess on motor vehicles. This was done, as per the FADA, "without providing any transitional or refund mechanism". Therefore, dealers' accumulated compensation cess lapsed on September 22 and may not be carried forward.

Without contesting the policy reform per se, FADA says that the cess-lapsing risks hurting MSME auto dealers who operate on thin margins and have been rendered incapable of recovering the cess paid by them, leading to blocked unusable credits.

Trial Judiciary Will Be In Crisis If Junior Division Judges Prioritise District Judge Exam Over Case Adjudication, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India |

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court commenced its hearing on the issues regarding inter-se seniority in the cadre of higher-judicial service. The Court is also considering the issue of whether there should be a quota in the District Judge posts for the promotion of judicial officers who joined the service at the entry level. This is to address the problem of career stagnation faced by judicial officers who join as Civil Judge Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, due to lack of adequate promotional avenues.

The 5-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the matter.

During the hearing, the bench orally expressed concern over the unintended consequences of the judgment in Rejanish KV v. K Deepa allowing judicial officers with seven years of experience to appear for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge. Justice Surya Kant observed that while the judgment aimed at balancing seniority, it might inadvertently encourage junior judicial officers to focus more on preparing for the examination rather than adjudicating cases, leading to a crisis at the lower judicial level. Agreeing with him, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, amicus curiae,  remarked that such officers would prioritize exam preparation over their core judicial work and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), thereby distorting the incentive structure and shifting the focus away from judicial performance.

Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Framing Charges In Criminal Trials, Mulls Pan-India Directions

Case Details: Aman Kumar v. State of Bihar | SLP(Crl) No. 8437/2025

The Supreme Court expressed grave concern over inordinate delays in the framing of charges in criminal trials, despite the mandate in Section 251(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that charges in cases exclusively triable by a court of sessions, charge must be framed within 60 days of the first hearing.

Observing that such delays are among the primary causes for stagnation in criminal proceedings, the Bench said it was “of the considered opinion that certain directions need to be issued pan-India” to ensure adherence to the statutory mandate.

The Court requested Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra to assist it as amicus curiae in the matter, alongside the counsel for the State of Bihar. The Court also sought the assistance of the Attorney General for India, as it proposed to consider issuing nationwide directions to address the systemic delay. Assistance has also been sought from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu.

Sonam Wangchuk's Detention Based On Stale FIRs, Grounds Not Fully Supplied Within Time Limit : Gitanjali Angmo To Supreme Court

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

Dr.Gitanjali Angmo has filed an amendment application before the Supreme Court, raising additional grounds challenging the detention of her husband and Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been detained under the National Security Act, 1980, after the recent Ladakh protests turned violent.

She has submitted that the detention order and grounds of detention are ex facie unsustainable in law as they are premised upon irrelevant grounds, stale FIRs, extraneous material, self-serving statements, and suppression of information.

2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case: Surendra Gadling Objects To State's Delay In Filing Affidavit Explaining Reasons For Trial's Delay

Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

Lawyer and activist Surendra Gadling objected to the State of Maharashtra's delay in filing an affidavit before the Supreme Court in his plea seeking bail in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case.

At the request of Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for State), a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi however granted the State 1 week's time to file the document, as a last opportunity.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover appeared for Gadling and contended that about 6 weeks have passed since the State was asked to file the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in trial. However, the same had not been filed and the trial alongwith the co-accused was not being split despite their absconding.

Supreme Court Chides Odisha Govt For Delay In Recovering ₹2700 Crore Compensation From Illegal Mining Leaseholders

Case: Common Cause v. Union of India

The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Odisha for its failure to recover compensation exceeding ₹2,700 crore from mining leaseholders involved in illegal mining of iron and manganese ore without obtaining prior environmental clearance.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea concerning the non-recovery of dues that were imposed pursuant to the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment, which had directed the State to recover compensation from defaulting leaseholders operating in the districts of Keonjhar, Sundargarh and Mayurbhanj.

During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, Common Cause, alleged that the State authorities appeared to be “in collusion” with the leaseholders, given the prolonged inaction. “There has been inordinate delay. The monies had to be paid by 31 December 2017, and this amount is without interest. With interest, it will be almost double,” he submitted.

District Judge Appointments | Won't Take Away High Courts' Discretion, Says Supreme Court While Mulling Quota For Promotee Judges

Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India

While hearing the issue whether there should be a quota for the promotion of serving judicial officers as District Judge posts, the Supreme Court observed that it will not issue any direction to take away the discretionary powers of the High Courts in making appointments.

The Court also said that it wanted to ensure that the aspirations of all categories, promotee judges and direct recruits, are protected alike.

A 5-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the issue of whether there should be a quota in the District Judge posts for the promotion of judicial officers who joined the service at the entry level.

Supreme Court Transfers Hit-and-Run Case Against Judicial Magistrate From Punjab To Delhi

Case Title: Aashima v. State of Punjab and Anr., Diary No. 54082-2025

On the victim's family showing apprehension of bias, the Supreme Court transferred trial in a hit-and-run case involving a sitting Judicial Magistrate as an accused from Punjab to Delhi. The judicial officer is serving in Punjab.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Advocate Raja Choudhary for petitioner (victim's wife).

Supreme Court Summons Jabalpur Municipal Commissioner Over Non-Appearance In Case Against Illegal Constructions

Case Details: Rajnish Kumar Sanghi v. Raj Kemtani | SLP(C) No. 29936/2025

While hearing a matter relating to the regularisation of alleged illegal construction, the Supreme Court raised concern about why, despite the notice including dasti being served to the parties, they chose not to appear. It passed an order summoning the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, to be present in the next hearing to offer an explanation why no officer was appointed despite the notice served.

The Court also questioned the petitioner's counsel for not serving the two other Respondents despite notice issued, including dasti. It orally remarked that if parties are not particular about their case, the Court shouldn't bother.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order as: "Our order dated reads thus. We made it abundantly clear that Respondent no. 3 and 4 shall depute a responsible officer to personally remain present before us with the necessary records. We are informed that Respondent no. 3 and 4 are duly served on 24 October, 2024, however, no one has appeared as directed. We direct the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, to be personally present with the records on next hearing. The Commissioner owes an explanation why our order has not been complied with."

'Umar Khalid And Others Playing Victim Card; No Ground For Bail,' Delhi Police Tells Supreme Court In Riots Conspiracy Case

The Delhi Police has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing the grant of bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shifa Ur Rehman in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The police said that the petitioners were trying to play "victim card" on the ground of long incarceration when they themselves are responsible for delaying the trial.

In the affidavit, the police contended that no grounds for bail can be made out on the basis of delay, asserting that the petitioners themselves were responsible for postponing the commencement of the trial for “mala fide and mischievous” reasons.

Supreme Court Asks Insurance Companies, IRDAI To Explore 'Uniform' Motor Vehicle Policies To Avoid Consumers' Confusion

Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Thungala Dhana Laxmi and Ors., SLP(C) No. 8563/2025

The Supreme Court asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) and 22 Insurance Companies to explore the possibility of having a Uniform Insurance Policy to better protect people in motor accident cases.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra was dealing with the plea of National Insurance Company Limited against a Telangana High Court order which directed it to pay the respondent-claimants compensation amount of Rs.10 lakhs (approx.) alongwith interest.

Seemingly, the Court's concern stemmed from the fact that different insurance companies have different insurance policies, which use distinct words and provide varied coverage. It previously called for information on policy profile of the insurance companies, alongwith coverage, and on seeing the diversity in the definition of different types of policies across different insurance companies, felt that there should be uniformity.

Justice Surya Kant Appointed As 53rd Chief Justice Of India

The President has signed the Warrant for the appointment of Justice Surya Kant, the second senior Judge of the Supreme Court, as the Chief Justice of India with effect from November 24, following the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, on November 23.

'Over 50 Percent Vehicles In India Plying Without Insurance', Supreme Court Expresses Shock

Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Thungala Dhana Laxmi and Ors., SLP(C) No. 8563/2025

The Supreme Court expressed shock on learning that over 50 percent vehicles plying on roads in India are not insured.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra was dealing with an Insurance Company's challenge to a Telangana High Court order which directed it to pay the claimants compensation amount of Rs.10 lakhs (approx.) alongwith interest. The claimants had lost their family member in a 1996 accident.

The judges interacted with General Managers of 22 Insurance Companies, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), and the General Insurance Council, when they were told by Senior Advocate Joy Basu (for respondents) that nearly 50% of vehicles in India are not insured as on date.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To NIA On Bail Plea Of Man Booked Over Alleged Association With IS

Case Title: Mazin Abdul Rahman @ Mazin v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. - 56454/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on the bail plea of Mazin Abdul Rahman who has been booked under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged association with banned terrorist outfit Islamic State (IS).

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with Rahman's challenge to a Karnataka High Court order, which dismissed his appeal against the special court order denying bail.

Karur Stampede | Supreme Court Asks Person Alleging Coercion By State Officials To Approach CBI

Case: S Prabhakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court asked a person, who alleged that he was being threatened and cajoled by the Tamil Nadu State officials in relation to the Karur stampede, to approach the Central Bureau of Investigation.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing an application filed by S. Prabhakaran, family member of a person who died in the stampede which occured in Karur during a rally by actor Vijay's political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam. The application was taken up by the bench after an oral mention by Advocate Balaji Srinivasan.

Allowing the petitioner to approach the CBI, the bench disposed of the application. It did not express anything on the merits of the matter.

Supreme Court Upholds HC Order Allowing Tamil Nadu Govt To Proceed With Eco Park Works Near Madras Race Club

Case Title – Madras Race Club v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order of the Madras High Court that permitted the Tamil Nadu Government to proceed with works relating to the strengthening and development of a pond and other public projects in the Guindy area, where the Madras Race Club is located.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan, however, clarified that the High Court's observation permitting such works would entitle the State only to create what is required for the proposed eco park, and that this permission would remain subject to the final decision of the case.

“While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, we clarify that the portion in paragraph no. 25 which reads, "...permit the State to carry out all works relating to strengthening/development of pond and any other project of public interest and the respondent club shall co-operate and not obstruct such work....." shall entitle the respondent(s)-State only to create what is required for the eco park, and will be subject to final decision”, the Court held.

Bar Councils Will Face Contempt Action If Enrollment Fee Above Rs 750 Is Taken; Don't Withhold Applicants' Documents: Supreme Court

Case Details: Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee

The Supreme Court (October 30) has given one last chance to the State Bar Councils to comply with its directions issued last year to not charge anything beyond Rs. 750 as enrollment fees.

In Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024) judgment, the Supreme Court had said that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is stipulated in Section 24 that 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.

In a contempt case initiated for non-compliance of this judgment, the Court has now directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to again send written circulars to the State Bar Councils for compliance. The Court also warned that in future, if it comes to know that any State Bar Council is charging beyond the statutory fees, the Court will directly hold them in contempt of Court.

Supreme Court Directs Guruvayur Temple To Hold Udayasthamana Pooja On Vrishchikam Ekadashi As Per Traditions

Case Title – PC Hary v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee

The Supreme Court directed the administration and the Chief Priest of Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple to ensure that the Udayasthamana Pooja is carried on Vrishchikam Ekadasi (falling on December 1)itself.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing the challenge to the Kerala High Court's order passed last year refusing to entertain the dispute over the cancellation of the Udayasthamana Pooja on Vrishchikam Ekadasi by the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple.

The High Court had upheld the decision of the temple administration to cancel the pooja on the date of Ekadashi due to crowd management concerns.

Stray Dogs Case | 'They Have To Come Physically' : Supreme Court Refuses To Allow Chief Secretaries Of States/UT To Appear Virtually

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

The Supreme Court rejected a plea made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to exempt physical appearance of Chief Secretaries of States/UTs in the Stray Dogs matter.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to allow the Chief Secretaries to appear virtually, expressing anguish at the non-compliance with its directions.

"No, let them come physically. It's very unfortunate that Court is wasting time here trying to deal with the problems, which should have been addressed by the Municipal Corporation, by the State governments over the years...Parliament frames rules, no action is taken. We require them to file compliance affidavit, they are sleeping over it! No respect for order of the Court! Let them come, we will deal with them. They have to physically come and explain why compliance affidavits were not filed! And then they must file compliance affidavits" said Justice Nath.

Elections To Bar Councils Of Punjab & Haryana As Well As Uttar Pradesh To Be Notified Soon: BCI Tells Supreme Court

Case Title – M. Vardhan Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court recorded the Bar Council of India's (BCI) statement that the election of the Punjab and Haryana State Bar Council will be announced within ten days and efforts will be made to complete the process by December 31, 2025.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi recorded, “BCI Chairman Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra assured us that election to the Punjab and Haryana State Bar Council will be notified within 10 days and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the elections by 31st December 2025.”

After Justice Kant dictated the order, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said that completing the process within 2025 may be difficult because, under the BCI Rules, the election procedure takes 180 days. Justice Kant asked the BCI that a committee headed by a retired High Court judge be constituted for supervising the election to Punjab and Haryana Bar Council. Mishra agreed to the direction.

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | '5 Years Behind Bars, No Proof Of Violence': Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam & Gulfisha To Supreme Court Seeking Bail

Case Details: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP (Crl) No. 14165/2025

The Supreme Court (October 31) heard the arguments in the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, in which they are booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria adjourned the matter till Monday to hear the arguments of co-accused Meeran Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shifa Ur Rehman, as well as the Delhi Police.

The petitions have been filed against the Delhi High Court'sjudgment delivered on September 2, dismissing their bail applications. A division bench comprising Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur had pronounced the judgment in FIR 59 of 2020, registered by Delhi Police's Special Cell.

Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Plea To Review Judgment Directing Phased Reduction Of IPS Deputation In CAPF Posts

Case Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjay Prakash & Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed by the Union Government seeking reconsideration of its judgment dated May 23, 2025, which had held that the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are part of the Organised Group-A Services (OGAS) for all cadre-related matters.

In that judgment, the Court had also directed that the number of posts filled through deputation of IPS officers in each CAPF up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level should be gradually reduced over a period of time to ensure that CAPF officers have better chances of promotion.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the review petition.

Nobody Can Call 'India' As 'Indian State And J&K': Solicitor General Objects To Kashmiri Separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah's Bail Plea In Supreme Court

Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 13399/2025

During the hearing of Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah's bail plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected before Supreme Court to the use of words "Indian State and Jammu and Kashmir", instead of "India".

Seemingly with reference to Shah's old speeches in 1990s, the SG said that nobody can say "Indian State and Jammu and Kashmir". When urgency in the matter was cited saying Shah is "very sick", the SG retorted, "he is sick, that's the problem".

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with Shah's bail plea in a terror funding case. Earlier, it denied Shah the relief of interim bail.

GLAS Trust Moves Supreme Court Against NCLAT Order Allowing Aakash to Proceed wth Rights Issue

GLAS Trust Company LLC, a US-based lender to embattled ed-tech Byju's (Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd.), has moved the Supreme Court challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT)order that refused to stay Aakash Educational Services Ltd.'s Extra Ordinary Meeting to approve rights issue.

The lender, which represents Byju's largest creditors, has sought an immediate halt to the fundraising exercise, arguing that it could dilute Byju's 25.41% stake in the coaching subsidiary.

The appeal comes after the NCLAT's Chennai Bench, on October 28, dismissed GLAS Trust's plea to block Aakash's extraordinary general meeting (EGM) scheduled for October 29, where shareholders approved the rights issue.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Filed By Ex-Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel's Son Challenging ED Arrest In Liquor Scam Case

Case Title: Chaitanya Bhaghel v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 17232/2025 (And Connected Case)

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel's son Chaitanya Baghel challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and N Hariharan (for Baghel). Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for ED.

A request for release from custody was sought to be made on Baghel's behalf, but Justice Kant categorically declined.

Supreme Court Confers Senior Designations On Five Former High Court Judges

The Supreme Court has designated five former judges of various High Courts as Senior Advocates.

The decision was taken in a Full Court Meeting held on 29th October 2025, presided over by the Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court.

According to the notification issued on 31st October 2025, the designation will take effect from 29th October 2025.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Club FIRs Against Woman Accused Of Sending Bomb Threats To Frame Man Who Refused To Marry Her

Case Title: Rene Joshilada v. State Represented By The Sub Inspector of Police, Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and Ors., Diary No. 51497-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea to club FIRs registered against Chennai techie Rene Joshilda accused of sending bomb threat emails across multiple states seemingly to frame a man who refused to marry her.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat (for Joshilda) who argued that the prosecution was not bonafide and the emails were continuing to be sent from Joshilda's VPN (virtual private network) after her arrest.

The bench asked Kamat to substantiate the contention by showing any email which was sent post her detention, on which the senior counsel said that the same would be produced on the next date. Though a prayer was made to restrain further FIRs on similar allegations, the bench declined to pass any "blanket order".

Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Service Of Notice Through WhatsApp

Case Details: Manoj Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha and Anr | SLP(Crl) No. S/2025

While hearing an anticipatory bail matter, the Court orally remarked that the notice should not be served through social media platforms such as WhatsApp or Twitter.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was dealing with a case in which the person is accused of raping and is charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 351(2), 296 and 3(5) of BNS. When the Court asked if the petitioner's counsel had served the complainant-victim, she submitted that the complainant is not reachable and therefore, they served the notice on WhatsApp.

On this, Justice Kumar orally remarked: "No, no. No WhatsApp or Twitter. Go and serve."

Falcon Invoice Scam : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Chartered Accountant's Plea To Consolidate FIRs In 6 States

Case Details: Sharad Chandra Toshniwal v. State of Telangana and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 423/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to several states on a writ petition filed by  Sharad Toshniwal, a Chartered Accountant, seeking to consolidate the FIRs in relation to the Falcom Invoice scam worth Rs. 792 crores.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria  heard the matter.

Toshniwal has approached the Top Court seeking the consolidation of 12 FIRs and trial at one place. So far, 4 FIRs are registered against him in Telangana, 3 in Maharashtra, 1 in Delhi, 1 in Rajasthan, 1 in Andhra Pradesh and 1 in West Bengal.

Civil Service Exams | Planning To Introduce Screen Reader Software For Visually Impaired Candidates : UPSC Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Mission Accessibility v. Union of India and Anr | W.P.(C) No. 206/2025

The Union Public Service Commission(UPSC) informed the Supreme Court that it plans to introduce Screen Reader Software for visually impaired candidates in the UPSC exam as soon as it has acquired proper infrastructure.

"as soon as the feasibility and availability of proper infrastructure/ software and proper testing is ensured at various Centres to conduct its Examinations in a secured manner, the Commission would conduct its Examinations for Visually Impaired candidates by providing Screen Reading Software," UPSC has said in its affidavit.

Before a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, UPSC informed that on May 9, it had orally made a statement that for introducing screen reader software, it does not require an amendment to the Common Services Examination Rules, 2025, after the Court had asked them to examine the same.

Plea In Supreme Court Questions MP Prison Law As Discriminatory Against Denotified Tribes Due To Vague Definition Of Habitual Offenders

Case Details: In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India | Suo Moto No. 10/2024

The Supreme Court (October 31) allowed an intervention filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project, arguing that the State of Madhya Pradesh has violated the 2024 Sukanya Shantha judgment through its Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024, in the suo moto matter concerning discrimination inside prisons in India. As per the intervenor, the 2024 Act contains various provisions that discriminate against denotified tribes.

In Sukanya Shantha judgment, the Supreme Court observed that discrimination inside prisons based on grounds of caste, gender, and disability is illegal and initiated a suo motu proceedings titled In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India, which it continues to monitor for compliance with the directions passed. For the denotified tribes, it was observed that discrimination against them is prohibited under the ground of "caste" in Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Viswanathan allowed the intervention application, which was mentioned by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat. The intervenor has submitted that Madhya Pradesh defines a habitual offender as "prisoners who are sent to prison and correctional institutions repeatedly for their crimes," which is void for vagueness, manifestly arbitrary and violates the 2024 judgment.

SC Comes Down Heavily On UP Police Officer Who Defied Order Saying “Main Kisi Supreme Court Ka Aadesh Nahi Maanunga”

Case: Ram Sagar Tiwari v. Gulaab Singh Sonkar & Anr | Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 408/2025 In SLP(Crl) No. 4755/2025

The Supreme Court came down heavily on Uttar Pradesh's Pratapgarh, Kandhai Police Station's Station House Officer, who refused to comply with the Court's order, and arrested and assaulted a petitioner despite clear judicial directions against coercive action.

Refusing to comply with the Court's order, the SHO in vernacular language said, “Main kisi Supreme Court ka aadesh nahin manunga, mai tumhara sara High Court aur Supreme Court nikal dunga aaj.” (I will not obey the order of any Supreme Court; I will get your entire High Court and Supreme Court removed .)

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria heard the contempt petition, where it was complained that, despite the protection order dated March 28, 2025, the petitioner was allegedly dragged from his workplace, arrested, and physically assaulted by the contemnor(SHO) Gulaab Singh Sonkar on April 23, 2025. It was further alleged that even when the petitioner produced a copy of the Supreme Court's order, the SHO abused him in vernacular language, disrespecting the Court's order and refusing to comply with the same.