Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: September 8, 2025 to September 14, 2025

Reports/Judgments

'Judicial Impropriety' : Supreme Court Criticises High Court For Modifying Bail Condition When Bail Order Was Under Challenge In SC

Cause Title: Sreeja D G & Ors. v. Anitha R. Nair & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 874

The Supreme Court criticized the Kerala High Court for 'judicial impropriety' in modifying bail conditions while its anticipatory bail order was already under challenge before the Supreme Court.

“we are constrained to observe that where the order granting anticipatory bail by the High Court was impugned in the instant special leave petition and this Court was seized of the matter, an order modifying the conditions of anticipatory bail set out therein, runs contrary to the principles of judicial propriety and comity. The proper administration of justice demands that when an order passed by the High Court is under challenge and notice has been issued by this Court, thereafter, if any application is filed for modification of the said order, the High Court must exercise restraint, as far as practicable, in passing any orders which can possibly have the effect of circumventing, prejudicing, or rendering infructuous the proceedings pending before this Court.”, the Court said.

The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the accused-respondent no.1, after being granted an anticipatory bail and the challenge to the bail order being pending before the Supreme Court, had filed an application before the High Court seeking modification in the bail conditions, seeking permission to travel abroad (to Dubai for "immigration requirements").

Article 226 Can't Be Invoked To Quash Chargesheet If Cognizance Has Been Taken; Remedy Available Under S.528 BNSS : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875

The Supreme Court observed that FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognisance is taken, but once cognisance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and even the cognisance order, if duly pleaded.

“So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance, provided the same is placed on record along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up.”, the Court observed.

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the Bombay High Court's order, which had dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 528 BNSS for quashing an FIR, treating it as infructuous merely because a charge-sheet was filed during its pendency. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had misunderstood the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Neeta Singh v. State of UP (2024).

Supreme Court Sums Up Principles For Review Jurisdiction, Sets Aside HC Order Denying Daughter Her Coparcenary Right

Cause Title: Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 876

Upholding a daughter's statutory right to a coparcenary share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Supreme Court (Sep. 8) set aside a Madras High Court review order which had reappreciated facts and questioned her entitlement. The Court held that such an exercise was beyond the scope of the High Court under its review jurisdiction.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti heard the case where the dispute began with a partition suit (2000), where one Subramani secured a 2003 decree excluding his sister, i.e., Appellant-Malleeswari. She later sought to amend the decree, claiming a coparcenary share under the HSA 2005 and additional rights via her father's Will. The Trial Court rejected her plea in 2019, but the High Court in 2022, relying on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), upheld her claim. In 2024, however, the High Court on review reversed course, questioning the property's ancestral character and remanding the matter.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti clarified that review jurisdiction under Order 47 CPC is confined to correcting “errors apparent on the face of the record” and cannot be used as a disguised appeal.

Electricity Act | Supreme Court Dismisses Discom Appeals, Affirms All Purchasers Must Share Coal Shortage Costs Equally

Cause Title: Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) and Others v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 877

The Supreme Court (Sep.8) dismissed the batch of appeals filed by the discoms, upholding the APTEL's order, which held that coal shortages and associated costs must be shared fairly by all electricity purchasers from a power plant. The Court added that no DISCOMS can claim priority for power supply in an event of coal shortage.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the dispute arose from a 'Change in Law' event involving a coal shortfall at Respondent-GKEL's 1050 MW Odisha plant, forcing reliance on costly imported coal. The question was whether the additional costs should be shared proportionally among all procurers or borne only by the affected discoms. Haryana Utilities argued its 300 MW linkage coal was exclusive to its PPA, while GRIDCO of Odisha claimed priority rights under its earlier agreement leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court after the CERC's order to share the cost proportionally was affirmed by the APTEL.

“we have already upheld the concurrent findings of the CERC and the learned APTEL that the coal supply from all the sources has to be apportioned amongst all the three DISCOMS in proportion to the energy supplied to them. None of the DISCOMS can claim a priority for supply of power based either on the prior date of agreement or the recital as to the source of coal. In view of the findings given by us while discussing the appeal of the Haryana DISCOMS, we find no merit in the present appeal as well. The same is therefore liable to be dismissed.”, the court observed.

Cash Loan Not Negated Merely Due To Absence Of Documentary Proof : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Georgekutty Chacko v. M.N. Saji

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 878

The Supreme Court held that merely because a part of a money transaction was done through cash instead of bank transfer, it would not mean that only the amount transferred through the banking channel can be accepted as proved, especially when the promissory note records the entire transaction.

The Court added that the absence of documentary proof would not by itself negate the cash transaction. The Court acknowledged that there would be situations where transactions have to be made, for which there wouldn't be any proof.

Supreme Court Asks High Courts Not To Delay Uploading Of Judgments After Pronouncing Operative Part

Cause Title: Rajan v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 879

The Supreme Court warned the High Courts not to delay uploading the judgment once its operative part is pronounced. The Court reiterated that judgments should be made available to the parties within three months from the date of reserving.

“We hope that we may not have to come across any matter wherein there is a delay at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned order more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is pronounced.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter where it noticed that there was delay of over two years in uploading of judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court from the date of reading out operating part of the order in a criminal appeal, where the conviction of the Appellant was affirmed but the reasoned judgment was uploaded after a gross delay of two years and five months.

S. 482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS | Supreme Court Lays Down Four-Step Test For High Courts To Quash Criminal Cases

Cause Title: Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880

The Supreme Court laid down the steps to be considered by the High Court while hearing quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS).

Reserved Category Candidates Availing Age Relaxation Barred From Migrating To General Category Seats If Rules Forbid : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 881

The Supreme Court (Sep.9) observed that reserved category candidates who avail age relaxation to apply under the reserved category cannot later be considered for selection against unreserved (general) category vacancies if the recruitment rules explicitly prohibit such migration.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the case that arose from a Staff Selection Commission (“SSC”) recruitment for Constable (GD) posts, where the age limit was 18–23 years with a three-year relaxation for OBC candidates. The respondents applied as OBC candidates, using this relaxation to qualify. Although they scored higher than the last selected general category candidate, they were ranked lower than the last selected OBC candidate and thus were not appointed.

They approached the High Court, which ruled in their favour, holding that they should be considered for unreserved seats based on merit. Following this, the Union of India approached the Supreme Court.

IBC | Homebuyers Can't Be Denied Flat Possession If Their Claims Were Verified & Admitted By Resolution Professional : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 882

The Supreme Court (Sep.9) observed that once a claim is verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional (RP), it cannot be treated as “belated” to deny substantive relief under a resolution plan.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled in favour of the homebuyers, holding that their verified and admitted claims could not be downgraded to 'unverified' merely because of delayed filing, especially when such treatment had wrongly denied them flat possession and confined them to a partial refund despite having paid substantial consideration.

"What is critical to note is that this is not a case of entertaining a fresh claim beyond the Resolution Plan. It concerns an allottee whose claim was verified and admitted by he Resolution Professional and reflected in the list of financial creditors well before approval of the Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. To disregard such an admitted claim and confine the Appellants to the limited benefit under Clause 18.4(xi) is not to preserve the binding effect of the plan but to misapply it.

Supreme Court Criticises NCDRC For Inventing New Case Of Medical Negligence In Appeal; Orders Complainant To Refund Rs 10 Lakh To Doctors

Cause Title: Deep Nursing Home and Another v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 883

The Supreme Court (Sep. 9) ordered a complainant to refund the ₹10 lakhs compensation received, holding that the NCDRC had wrongly awarded it by inventing a case of 'antenatal negligence' against the doctors, even though the original complaint was confined to 'post-delivery negligence'.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and SC Sharma passed the order reiterating that it would be impermissible to build a new case which was never pleaded in the pleadings/complaint. Since the NCDRC had gone beyond its jurisdiction when it faulted the doctor for alleged “antenatal negligence” despite the complainant's case being restricted to “post-delivery negligence”, the Court held that NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding compensation for “antenatal negligence”.

“Once his case, as pleaded and projected, was not made out, the NCDRC clearly erred in building up a new case on his behalf and in pinning negligence and liability upon Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in the context of antenatal care and management of the patient, which was never the subject matter of the complaint case. In doing so, the NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction as it was not for it to travel beyond the pleadings in the complaint case and build up a new case on its own.”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Disapproves High Courts Directly Entertaining Anticipatory Bail Applications, Issues Notice To Kerala HC

Case Title: Mohammed Rasal & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 884

The Supreme Court has expressed disapproval of the practice of High Courts directly entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, bypassing the Sessions Court.

The Court has decided to consider the appropriateness of this practice and issued notice to the Kerala High Court, which passed the order under challenge. The Court also appointed Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, assisted by Adv. G. Arudhra Rao, as amicus curiae in the matter.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta acknowledged that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita conferred concurrent jurisdiction to both the Sessions Court and the High Court to deal with an anticipatory bail application. However, the bench opined that the High Court can directly entertain such matters only in exceptional cases, that too for special reasons to be recorded.

Bid Can't Be Rejected For Non-Production Of Document Not Prescribed In Notice Inviting Tender : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 885

The Supreme Court (Sep.9) observed that a bid pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (“NIT”) can't be rejected solely for non-production of the document that was not prescribed in the NIT. The Court added that the tender authorities cannot impose conditions not expressly stated in the tender document.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi set aside the MP High Court's ruling that upheld a bidder's disqualification for not producing a Joint Venture Agreement, even though the NIT did not mandate its submission.

“In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold the 1st respondent acted contrary to the terms of the NIT and unfairly rejected the appellant's bid for non-production of JV agreement although Clause 5(D) did not prescribe production of such agreement as mandatory to rely on past-experience of such consortium in which the bidder had a defined proportionate share.”, the court observed.

Availing Physical Relaxation Doesn't Bar Reserved Candidate From General Category Selection If Rules Don't Forbid : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Uma Shankar Gurjar v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 28469/2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 886

The Supreme Court (Sep. 9) held that unless recruitment rules expressly prohibit, a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation in physical standards can still be appointed to an unreserved post if selected on merit.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the plea of a general category candidate who missed selection for CISF Assistant Commandant (Executive) by one mark, rejecting his challenge to a reserved category candidate's recruitment on a general post. The Court held that having availed relaxed physical standards under the ST category would not bar a candidate from subsequently claiming a general category seat if it qualify on merit.

In the 2017 recruitment drive, the appellant, a General category candidate, missed selection by one mark, scoring 363 against the cut-off of 364. He challenged the selection of an ST candidate with 366 marks who, despite filling a general post, had availed relaxed height standards meant for ST candidates. The appellant argued that such a candidate should be considered only against an ST-reserved vacancy, leaving the unreserved seat open for him.

Preliminary Inquiry Report Cannot Bar Constitutional Court From Finding Directing FIR Registration: Supreme Court

Case Title – Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887

The Supreme Court recently observed that report of a preliminary inquiry conducted by the investigating agency cannot prevent a constitutional court from concluding that allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable offence and directing the registration of an FIR.

The Court relied on its recent judgment in Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, which held that the genuineness of complaints need not be tested before FIR registration when prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed.

The Court also noted the principle from the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. that FIR registration is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC where information discloses a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is required in such cases.

'Sometimes Those Who Investigate Must Also Be Investigated': Supreme Court Upholds Direction For FIRs Against Former CBI Officials

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887

The Supreme Court today upheld the direction of the Delhi High Court to register FIRs against former Commissioner of Delhi Police Neeraj Kumar as well as one Inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey, following complaints from 2000 alleging intimidation, falsification of records, and forgery during their deputation to CBI.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was dealing with the officers' appeals against High Court orders in writ petitions filed in 2001 by two persons seeking action against the officers. At the time of the alleged offences, Kumar and Pandey were deputed to CBI as Joint Director and Inspector respectively.

“It is trite to point out that the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 2000 and till date the matter had not been allowed to be investigated. It would be dichotomy of justice if such an offence is allowed to go uninvestigated particularly when there is involvement of the officers on deputation to CBI. It is cardinal in law that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. It is high time that sometimes those who investigate must also be investigated to keep alive the faith of the public at large in the system”, the Court observed.

Police Not Required To Go Into Genuineness Of Information To Register FIR : Supreme Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887

The Supreme Court reiterated that the police is not required to go into the genuineness or credibility of a complaint at the stage of registering FIR; if the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, then the police is bound to register the FIR.

"It is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information," the Court observed.

The Court noted that in Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677 it has been laid down that "the genuineness or credibility of the information is not the condition precedent for registration of an FIR."

'Neighbourhood Quarrel Didn't Amount To Abetment Of Suicide' : Supreme Court Acquits Woman In S.306 IPC Case

Case Title: Geeta v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.1044 of 2018

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 888

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a woman accused of abetting suicide of her neighbor, noting that neighborhood quarrels are common to community living and for the charge of abetment of suicide, instigation must rise to a level that left the victim with no choice but to end their life.

"we are not able to persuade ourselves to hold that when the appellant's family and the victim's family had heated exchanges, there was any intention to abet or to cause any member of either family to take their own life. These quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts we are not able to conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide" observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan.

The Court was dealing with a challenge to the Karnataka High Court judgment, which upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 306 IPC but acquitted her for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, as the material available on record was insufficient. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment as well as to pay fine of Rs.5000.

NI Act | '30-Day Time Limit For Filing Cheque Dishonour Complaint Mandatory' : Supreme Court Quashes Belated Complaint

Cause Title: H. S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. M/S Msn Woodtech

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 889

The Supreme Court clarified that the 30 days timeline prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) for filing a complaint is mandatory, unless there is a formal application seeking condonation of delay and a judicial order allowing it.

“Once the statute prescribes a mandatory time limit for filing a complaint, there cannot be any deviation from the same except when an application accompanying the complaint is filed seeking condonation disclosing reasons for the delay and even then it is obligatory on the part of the Court to take note of such filing beyond limitation and to consider the reasons disclosed independently and to come to a judicious conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of that case condonation is justified. The same not having been done, the order cannot be sustained.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran quashed a cheque bounce complaint as it was filed beyond the statutory 30-day limitation period i.e., on thirty fifth day.

'Strong Inference Of Evidence Planting' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death In Child Rape-Murder Case

Case Title – Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 890

The Supreme Court acquitted and set aside death penalty of one Akthar Ali convicted for rape causing death of a 7-year-old girl in 2014. The Court also acquitted co-accused Prem Pal Verma who was convicted for harbouring the offender.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the criminal appeals filed by the two accused against the Uttarakhand High Court's October 18, 2019 judgment that upheld the conviction and death penalty.

“The law is well settled that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly and conclusively established, leaving no room for doubt. Where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove motive, the last seen theory stands contradicted, and the alleged scientific evidence is marred by inconsistencies and serious loopholes. In such circumstances, it would be wholly unsafe to uphold a conviction, much less the extreme penalty of death”, the Court observed.

Issue Of S.197 CrPC Sanction Can Be Raised Before Trial Court At Any Stage Of Proceedings : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Ram Sagar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 891

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the trial court's framing of charges against a public servant in a corruption case, holding that the question of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for IPC offences can be examined at any stage of the proceedings, as the issue depends on the nature of evidence presented to determine whether the acts were committed in discharge of official duty.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the petitioner-public servant was facing trial for offences under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), 477A (falsification of accounts), and 420 (cheating) of the IPC, alongside charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. While a valid sanction under the PC Act had been obtained, no separate sanction under Section 197 CrPC was secured for the IPC offences. His revision petitions before the High Court were rejected, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.

Petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. K. Parameshwar, argued that this rendered the entire trial for the IPC charges void and illegal, as charges could not have been framed for the offences punishable under the IPC for want of a Sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

'Private Defence Can't Be Weighed In Golden Scale' : Supreme Court Acquits Doctor For Killing Attacker Who Fired Pistol

Case Title – Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 892

The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on a doctor from Uttarakhand for shooting a man who had gone to his clinic armed with a pistol and fired at him, accepting his plea of private defence.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar relied on the judgment in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., which culled out 10 principles governing private defence.

“the right of private defence cannot be brushed aside and cannot be weighed in a golden scale. In such a case, the approach of the Court shall not be pedantic. It should be seen from the point of view of a common and reasonable person. When an attack is sought to be made on the accused by a person, who goes to the place of the accused, armed with a pistol and thereafter, shoots him on his head causing injury, there is no way the accused person would apply his rational mind in exercising his right of private defence”, the Court observed.

No Offence Of Cheating Under S.420 IPC If Forged Document Didn't Induce Grant Of Material Benefit : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 893

The Supreme Court (Sep. 10) quashed a cheating case against the head of an educational institute accused of using a fake Fire Department NOC for seeking affiliation.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi held that the alleged submission of a forged Fire Department No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to secure recognition for a college could not amount to cheating or forgery, as the document was neither legally required for the grant of affiliation nor materially induced the Education Department to grant affiliation.

The appellant, head of an educational society, operated a college in a building with a height of 14.20 metres. A criminal case was initiated alleging that he submitted a forged fire safety NOC to the Education Department. Based on the complaint of the District Fire Officer, the police filed a charge sheet under Section 420 IPC (cheating), although the forged document was not recovered.

'Police Must Shed All Biases' : Supreme Court Criticises Maharashtra Police In Akola Riots Case, Forms SIT With Hindu & Muslim Officers

Case Title: Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 8494/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 894

Criticizing the Maharashtra police for failing to probe an assault during the 2023 Akola Riots, the Supreme Court today directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team to investigate the allegations, which shall comprise senior officers from both the Hindu and Muslim communities.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict on the plea of a person claiming to be an eye-witness to a murder during the Akola Riots, which had a communal tenor. This person alleged that instead of the real culprit, FIR was registered against certain Muslim persons and the investigation was biased. He sought action against the erring officials and a proper investigation.

Directing formation of an SIT, the Supreme Court underlined that once a person dons a police uniform, they must rise above all kinds of biases (based on religion, caste, etc.) and discharge their duty in accordance with law.

Supreme Court Allows Pharmacy Council's Application To Revise Timelines For Approval, Admission & Inspection Of Pharma Courses

Case Details: Ma In Parshavanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council For Technical Education and Ors. Civil Appeal No.9048 of 2012

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 895

The Supreme Court on September 8 approved the revised timelines proposed by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) for completion of the process for grant of approvals to institutions and admissions to various pharmacy courses.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vindod Chandran and Atul S Chandukar was hearing an application filed by the PCI.

The PCI had filed an application seeking modification in the time schedule that has been laid down by the Court in its 2012 decision in Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs. All India Council for Tech. Edu & Ors., where the Top Court fixed time schedules for completion of the process for grant of approvals to institutions and admissions to various courses under the All India Council for Technical Education.

Supreme Court Condemns Ashis Nandy's Comments At 2013 Jaipur Literature Fest, Quashes Criminal Cases

Case Title: Ashis Nandy v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No.19 of 2013

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 896

The Supreme Court recently quashed the criminal cases registered against Indian psychologist and critic Ashis Nandy over his objectionable comment made at the 203 Jaipur literature festival that most corrupt people came from the marginalized sections of the society.

Though the Court found that the comments were objectionable and strongly condemned them as such, it deemed the cases fit to be quashed considering Nandy's advance age at this point (90 years) as well as the unconditional apology tendered by him.

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria ordered:

Right To Seek Remission Applicable Even When Convict Sentenced To Imprisonment For Remainder Of Life : Supreme Court

Case Details: Case Title: Mahendra Vishwanath Kawchale v. Union of India W.P.(Crl.) No. 314/2022 Pil

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 897

The Supreme Court observed that the right to seek remission is applicable even when a person is convicted under provisions such as Section 376DA or Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribe the mandatory punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life.

Observing that the right to seek remission is both a constitutional right and a statutory right, the Court refused to adjudicate upon the validity of Section 376DA IPC that penalises gangrape of a minor below 16 years with a life sentence for the remainder of life.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code for prescribing a mandatory life sentence for the remainder of the convict's life.

Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Denying General Category Seats To Persons With Disabilities Scoring Higher Than General Cut-Off

Case Title: Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. U.O.I. and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 898

The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the denial of general category seats to persons with disabilities who score higher than the cut-off marks for the unreserved category.

The Court said that such an approach will defeat the purpose of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court asked the Union Government to explain if appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that PwDs, who score higher than the general cut-off, are given "upward movement" by accommodating them in the general category.

The Court posed a query to the Centre as to whether appropriate measures have been taken to provide upward movement of meritorious candidates applying against the posts reserved for PwDs in case such candidates secure more than the cutoff for the unreserved category. Response to the query shall be placed before the Court on 14 October.

Delay By State Agencies Due To Administrative Lethargy Should Not Be Condoned : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shivamma (Dead) By Lrs. v. Karnataka Housing Board | SLP(C) No. 10704/2019 Diary No. 19303 / 2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899

The Supreme Court warned High Courts not to condone inordinate delays by State agencies on grounds of administrative lethargy and laxity.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made the observation, while setting aside the order of the Karnataka High Court which condoned a delay of 11 years by the Karnaktaka Housing Board in filing a second appeal against a decree.

The Supreme Court explained that for the purpose of condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay has to be explained by establishing the existence of “sufficient cause” for the entirety of the period from when the limitation began till the actual date of filing. If the period of limitation is 90-days, and the appeal is filed belatedly on the 100th day, then explanation has to be given for the entire 100-days.

When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. Goran v. Jagan Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 900

The Supreme Court (Sep.12) held that a suit instituted seeking possession of immovable property on the ground that the defendant's sale deed is void is governed by the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, rather than the shorter 3-year period under Article 59 of the Act.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified that where possession is claimed over property by the defendant based on a forged and void sale deed, he suit can be filed within 12 years, as such possession is treated as adverse to the plaintiff.

“Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the date of knowledge that the possession of the defendant was adverse to that of the plaintiff.”, the Court observed.

Dispose Bail Applications Within Two Months; Can't Keep Them Pending For Years : Supreme Court To High Courts & Trial Courts

Case Title – Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 901

The Supreme Court has directed High Courts and trial courts across the country to take up bail and anticipatory bail applications for disposal within a short time frame, preferably within two months. The Court also directed High Courts to come up with mechanism to avoid accumulation of pending bail and anticipatory bail applications

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that such applications, which directly concern the right to personal liberty, cannot be left pending for years while the applicants continue to remain under a cloud of uncertainty.

"Applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years," the Court remarked, adding that prolonged delay not only frustrates the object of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to the constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21.

Supreme Court Holds NUJS Faculty's Sexual Harassment Complaint Against VC Time-Barred; But Directs VC To Mention Judgment In His Resume

Case Details: Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17936 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 902

The Supreme Court today(September 12) ruled that the sexual harassment alleged by a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Science against the Vice Chancellor of the University, is time-barred as the alleged incident happened in April 2023, but the complaint was filed in December 2023, after a maximum statutory limitation of six months prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

It was argued that while the last alleged sexual harassment took place in April 2023, the consequent administrative actions, such as her removal from the post of Director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies or inquiry by the Executive Council over the misutilisation of UGC funds, also constituted acts of sexual harassment and therefore, the complaint was not time-barred.

However, the Court held that the last alleged incident in April 2023 was a complete act in itself, and the subsequent administrative measures, although they may have given the impression that it was done as a matter of retaliation and were linked to previous acts, did not constitute sexual harassment.

Every New Housing Project Must Be Registered With Local Revenue Authority On Buyer Paying 20% Cost : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma and Anr. (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 903

In order to safeguard the interests of homebuyers, the Supreme Court has ordered that every residential real estate transaction for new housing projects shall be registered with local revenue authorities upon payment of at least 20% of the property cost by buyer/allottee.

The Court further directed that contracts that significantly deviate from the Model RERA Agreement to Sell, or that incorporate returns / buyback clauses where the allottee is over the age of 50, must be supported by an affidavit sworn before the competent Revenue Authority, certifying that the allottee understands the attendant risks.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan passed this direction while upholding an NCLAT judgment which had rejected the insolvency petitions filed by speculative buyers against a housing project.

NCLT, NCLAT Vacancies Must Be Filled On War Footing; RERA Must Be Adequately Staffed : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma and Anr. (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 903

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to fill up the vacancies at the National Company Law Tribunals(NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal(NCLAT) on a "war-footing".

"Dedicated IBC benches with additional strength should be constituted. Services of retired judges may be utilized on ad hoc basis until regular appointments are made," the Court observed.

The Court noted that though such directions were issued earlier also, no effective step has been taken on the ground.

'Trial Can't Be Separated Only Because Accused Is MLA' : Supreme Court Quashes Direction To Segregate Trial Against Legislator

Case Details: Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 904

The Supreme Court quashed the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order directing a separate trial for Haryana Congress MLA Mamman Khan solely on the ground of his being an MLA. The Court held that while speedy disposal of cases involving public representatives, as stressed in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2023), is necessary, it cannot justify deviating from the law to deny a public representative the right to a joint trial where such trial is legally permissible.

“While expeditious disposal of cases involving legislators is undoubtedly desirable, such administrative prioritization cannot override the procedural safeguards guaranteed under the Cr.P.C. or the constitutional mandate of equality. Segregating the appellant's trial solely on account of his political office, in the absence of any legal or factual necessity, amounts to arbitrary classification and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice process.”, the court observed.

Is Offence Of Murder Made Out When Death Occurs Days After Fatal Injury ? Supreme Court Lays Down Tests

Case Details: Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 905

The Supreme Court ruled that the lapse of time between an injury and the victim's death does not, by itself, justify reducing a murder charge under Section 302 IPC to attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, so long as the death is directly traceable to the injury. The Court clarified that the correct test is whether the death was a natural, probable, or necessary consequence of the injury. If the complications leading to death are a likely or inevitable outcome of the original injury, the offence amounts to murder.

Hindu Succession Act| State Cannot Invoke Doctrine Of Escheat To Challenge A Will Which Is Granted Probate : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Others | SLP (C) No(S).14721-14723/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 906

The Supreme Court recently held that a State Government cannot invoke the doctrine of escheat under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act once a Hindu male has executed a Will, which has been declared to be valid and has been granted  probate by a Court.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a challenge to the order of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the Will executed by Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri.

The case relates to the Will of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri (Rajasthan), who died in 1987. As per the Will dated October 30, 1985, all his property was to be given to a public charitable trust by the name of “Khetri Trust”.

Supreme Court Upholds Coal India's Dual Pricing Policy, Says 20% Hike For Non-Core Sectors Justified

Cause Title: Coal India Ltd. and Ors. v. M/S Rahul Industries and Ors. (And Connected Case)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 907

In a crucial development, the Supreme Court (Sep.12) upheld Coal India Ltd.'s (“CIL”) 2006 interim policy that introduced a 20% price hike for non-core sector consumers. The Court validated CIL's “dual pricing” approach, reasoning that core sectors such as power and steel must be shielded from price increases due to their vital public utility functions, whereas higher prices for non-core industries, producing non-essential goods, can be justified given their minimal impact on the public.

“we observe that the Interim Coal Policy made a reasonable classification between the linked industries of the core and non-core sectors and was introduced with the legitimate aim of ensuring an adequate supply of coal in the market by reinforcing the financial capabilities of the appellant company to sustainably operate and invest in the production of coal. Therefore, it can be no gainsaying that the Interim Coal Policy fulfilled the test of reasonable classification and hence, was not contrary to Article 14 to this extent.”, the court observed.

The Court dismissed the non-core consumer companies' contention that the coal price hike was arbitrary and discriminatory. It held that core and non-core sectors cannot be placed on the same footing, and differential pricing for non-core industries is both reasonable and permissible.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Humane Conditions In Beggars' Homes Across Country

Case Details: M.S. Patter v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(C) No. 878/2004 Diary No. 23647 / 2003

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 908

The Supreme Court on September 12 has ordered that all Beggars Homes across the country must maintain data on the deaths that have been caused due to negligence or the lack of basic facilities, or failure to provide timely medical care. In such cases, the State/UT is responsible for providing a 'reasonable compensation' to the next of kin of the deceased. In cases where warranted, criminal proceedings can also be initiated against those responsible.

These directions were passed in a case which arises out of a grave and unfortunate incident at the Beggars' Home Lampur (Delhi) in 2000, where contamination of the drinking and cooking water with coliform bacteria resulted in an outbreak of cholera and gastroenteritis. It led to multiple deaths and widespread illness, exposing serious lapses in sanitiation, hygience, and healthcare facilities within the institution.

The Court stated that Beggars' Homes need a paradigm shift- from being perceived as an instrument of social control to being recognised as spaces of social justice.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Dismisses BJP Telangana's Defamation Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over Claim That BJP Would End Reservations

Case: Bharatiya Janata Party (Telangana) v. A. Revanth Reddy | SLP (Crl). 13483/2025.

The Supreme Court (September 8) dismissed a petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (Telangana) seeking the restoration of a criminal defamation case against Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing the challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court, which quashed the complaint filed by BJP State General Secretary, Karam Venkateshwarlau, over Reddy's statements that the BJP will abolish SC/ST/OBC reservations if they get 400 seats in the Lok Sabha elections.

As soon as the matter was taken, the Chief Justice told the petitioners' lawyer, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, "Dismissed." When Kumar sought to press the matter again, CJI said, "We have repeated on many occasions, courts cannot be converted into political battlegrounds." As Kumar tried to pursue the matter further, CJI Gavai stated, "If you are in politics, you should have a thick skin. Dismissed."

Justice Vinod Chandran Recuses From Hearing PIL Seeking Probe Against Vedanta Group Over Allegations By Viceroy LLC

Case Details: Shakti Bhatia v. Union of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 832/2025

Justice K Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court recused from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking investigation into the allegations made by US-based short-seller Viceroy Research LLC against Vedanta group companies.

The PIL, filed by Shakti Bhatia, was listed before a bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S Chandurkar.

Justice Chandran was earlier a partner of the law firm which was appearing for the respondent-SEBI.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Tenant Who Disowned Undertaking To Deposit Rent Arrears; Directs Cost To Be Paid To Punjab Flood Relief Fund

Cause Title: Santosh Gosain v. M/S Beli Ram Sareen & Anr.

The Supreme Court deprecated the conduct of a tenant who tried to disown his undertaking given to the Court to deposit rent arrears by claiming that his advocate had given the statement without his instructions.

The bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the tenant. The cost has to be deposited in the Punjab CM's disaster relief fund.

The bench was hearing a petition challenging the High Court's order to strike off the tenant's defence in the eviction suit for not depositing the admitted rent arrears in terms of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Supreme Court Orders MP Govt To Pay Rs 25 Lakhs Compensation To Convict Who Spent Extra 4.7 Years In Jail After Serving Sentence

Case Details: Sohan Singh @ Bablu v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court (September 8) directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs to a convict who had to remain in jail for more than 4.7 years after having undergone the entire sentence of seven years in a rape case.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan passed an order after coming down heavily on the State of Madhya Pradesh for its lapse, which led to the over-incarceration of the convict. Initially, when the notice was issued to the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court noted that the convict had suffered 8 extra years of incarceration. But the Court was informed by Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi (for State of Madhya Pradesh) that the convict was out on bail for some time.

The Court granted compensation considering the 4.7 years of extra incarceration suffered by the convict as informed by Advocate Mahfooz A. Nazki (for the convict). It also questioned the State's counsel for filing "misleading" affidavits in this matter. It disposed of the matter with a direction to the Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority to carry out an exercise to find similarly placed persons.

Supreme Court Directs ECI To Accept Aadhaar Card As '12th Document' In Bihar SIR As Proof of Identity

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and Connected Cases)

In the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, the Supreme Court (September 8) directed the Election Commission of India to treat Aadhaar card as a "12th document" which can be produced as proof of identity for the purpose of inclusion in the revised voters list of Bihar.

This means that Aadhaar card can be submitted as a stand-alone document for inclusion in the voters list, like any of the other eleven documents originally specified by the ECI as acceptable ones.

The Court also clarified in its order that Aadhaar is not a proof of citizenship. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to issue instructions to its officials on the ground regarding the acceptance of Aadhaar.

Supreme Court Transfers To Itself Petitions In High Courts Challenging Online Gaming Act 2025

Case Details: Union of India v. Head Digital Works Private Limited and Anr | T.P.(C) No. 2484-2486/2025

The Supreme Court (September 8) allowed transfer petitions by the Union Government, seeking the consolidation and transfer of three writ petitions pending before Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court filed by online skill-gaming companies, challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 ("Online Gaming Act"), which seeks to prohibit 'online money games' and offering of bank services, advertisements, etc. related thereto.

It also clarified that any such petition pending before any of the High Courts also stands transferred.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan ordered: "This is at the instance of the Union of India with the following prayers. We transfer as prayed for is allowed. The proceedings from Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh High Courts stand transferred to this Court. Respective High Courts are directed to transfer entire records with all interlocutory applications filed within 1 week. Let this transfer be done digitally to save time."

Supreme Court Asks UPSC To Send Recommendations For Tamil Nadu DGP Appointment Soon

Case Details: Henri Tiphagne v. The State of Tamil Nadu | Diary No. - 49640/2025

The Supreme Court (September 8) asked the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) to expeditiously consider sending recommendations for the appointment of the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu.

On receipt of recommendations from the UPSC, the State should immediately process the appointment of a regular DGP, the Court added.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a contempt petition filed by human rights lawyer, Henri Thipange, against the State of Tamil Nadu, over non-compliance of the Top Court's 2018 interim directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging Prof Naima Khatoon's Appointment As Aligarh Muslim University's Vice Chancellor

Case: Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 19209/2025

The Supreme Court (September 8) refused to interfere with the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as the first woman Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University.

A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Professor Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani and Professor Faizan Mustafa against theAllahabad High Court's order, which upheld Professor Khatoon's appointment.

Earlier, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria, had orally questioned the presence of Prof.Khatoon's husband, Professor Mohd. Gulrez, then officiating Vice-Chancellor, in the Executive Council meeting that shortlisted her name for the panel. However, the matter was later assigned to the present bench, after Justice Vinod Chandran recused from hearing, citing that he (as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court) had appointed Prof.Mustafa as the VC of CNLU. Although the Solicitor General expressed the Union had no objection to Justice Chandran hearing the matter, the Judge chose to recuse himself, saying that since the issue related to alleged bias in selection, it was appropriate that he also recused due to his professional connection with one of the petitioner.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Journalist Mahesh Langa's Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case

Case Title: Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa v. State of Gujarat and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13743/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on the bail plea of journalist Mahesh Langa in a money laundering case lodged in connection with two FIRs (which included the offence of cheating).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Langa), who argued that the cases have been registered on false allegations.

"One FIR, anticipatory bail. Second FIR, anticipatory bail. Third FIR, they say there is income tax evasion..." Sibal urged. Based on the allegations, Justice Kant commented, "What kind of a journalist he (Langa) is?"

Supreme Court Sets Deadline For Union's Response On Plea For SIT Probe Into Award of Public Contracts To Arunachal CM's Relatives

Case Title: Save Mon Region Federation and Anr v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 54/2024

The Supreme Court called on the Union of India to file within 3 weeks its counter-affidavit to a PIL seeking directions for an SIT probe into alleged irregular allotment of public contracts to companies owned by relatives of Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners) pointed out that in terms of a March, 2025 order, the State government has filed an affidavit giving details of the contracts, but the Union (that is, the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Finance) has not.

Notably, at the outset of the hearing, Bhushan commented that the Pema Khandu is running the state like his private limited company. When a counsel submitted that Ministry of Finance needs to be impleaded in the case, the bench retorted that there was a specific direction in the earlier order for the two Ministries to file their responses, which was enough for them to file their reply. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta were present during the hearing as well, noted Justice Mehta.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Filed By UAPA Accused In Custody Since More Than 5 Years

Case Title: Dashrath Singh Bhokta @ Dashrath Ganjhu v. Union of India, SLP(Crl) No. 10018/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on the bail plea of a man booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, who has been in custody for over 5 years.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing the petitioner's counsel who argued that the decision in Union of India v. KA Najeeb would apply to the case. "Could not understand the High Court judgment", remarked Justice Kant.

Briefly put, the present case pertains to the incident of extortion/levy collection by TPC cadres in Left Wing Extremist (LWE) affected state of Jharkhand. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the 2nd supplementary charge sheet and is in judicial custody since 17.05.2020. The provisions invoked include Sections 386/120-B of IPC, Sections 17,18,20 and 21 of UAPA and Section 17 of CLA Act 1908.

Supreme Court Asks Medha Patkar Why Drag Her 25 Yr Old Defamation Case Against VK Saxena; Refuses To Entertain Plea To Examine Addl Witness

Case Title – Medha Patkar v. Vk Saxena

The Supreme Court refused to entertain Medha Patkar's plea challenging a Delhi High Court judgment refusing to allow her to examine an additional witness in her 2000 criminal defamation case against Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, who was then the chief of the NGO National Council for Civil Liberties.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma permitted Patkar to withdraw the petition after expressing disinclination to interfere with the High Court's judgment.

During the hearing, Justice Sundresh asked Patkar's counsel, “Why do you want to drag this?”

Supreme Court Raises Eyebrows Over Doctor's Plea Questioning 'Brain Death' Concept

Case Title: Dr. S. Ganapathy v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 15696/2025

The Supreme Court expressed reservations about entertaining a petition which disputed the practice of declararing a patient as "brain dead" - a point at which law allows for transplantation of organs.

The petitioner, Kerala-based doctor, Dr S Ganapathy, advanced a theory that 'brain death' was a fictitious concept which has been devised by doctors to facilitate organ trade.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, after hearing the petitioner for some time, adjourned the matter to decide it after another pending case filed by the same petitioner has been disposed of.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Payment of Wage Arrears of Sahara Employees

Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Subrata Roy Sahara and Ors. and Ors. Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 001820 - 001822 / 2017 and Connected Matters.

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Sahara Group for the payment of pending wages of over 16 crores.

The counsel mentioned before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar that an application has been filed in the SEBI v. Sahara Case seeking directions in relation to the pending payment of wages to Sahara employees.

Supreme Court To Hear Tamil Nadu's Suit Against Karnataka Over Pennaiyar River Dispute On Sept 23

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Anr., Original Suit No. 1 of 2018

The Supreme Court will hear on September 23 the dispute pending between the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over sharing of Pennaiyar river water resources.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta by a counsel who stated that a Tribunal needs to be constituted but the same has not been done for over a year. The matter has been pending since 2018, she said.

To recap, the dispute was brought to the top court by State of Tamil Nadu in form of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution against State of Karnataka and Union of India. Over the course of hearings, it was suggested that as negotiations between the States did not result in a solution, the Union government may constitute a Tribunal to do the needful.

Supreme Court Seeks Responses of HC Legal Services Committees & Jail Superintendents On SCLSC's Suggestions For Timely Filing of Appeals

Cause Title: Shankar Mahto v. State of Bihar

In a case concerning speedy legal aid for indigent litigants and prisoners, the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) proposed a framework before the Supreme Court, which directed High Court Legal Services Committees (HCLSCs) and jail superintendents to file their responses to the suggested measures.

Although the case arose out of a Special Leave Petition against a Patna High Court judgment (2014), the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted the long delay in filing and chose to focus on administrative reforms sought by the SCLSC. The Committee requested the Court to issue time-bound directions to High Court Legal Services Committees (HCLSCs) and Jail Superintendents for quicker handling of documents essential for providing legal aid

The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee has proposed the following framework for HCLSCs and Jail Superintendents:

'Not A Healthy Practice': Supreme Court Criticises Advocate-on-Record For Seeking Discharge of Original AoR From Case

The Supreme Court deprecated the conduct of an Advocate-on-Record who filed an application seeking discharge of another AoR from the case (who was originally engaged).

"Why one AoR is asking for discharge of another AoR? Why embarrass your colleague in the Bar? He [new AoR] must apologize to her [original AoR]...this is not a healthy practice. We don't want to make any inference about it. Tomorrow, every AoR is vulnerable. Another AoR will say discharge that AoR, I will appear in the matter!" remarked Justice BV Nagarathna.

A bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan heard the matter and orally commented that the AoR who filed the discharge application (new AoR) must apologize to the original AoR.

Supreme Court Judges Resolve To Contribute Rs 25,000 Each To PM's Relief Fund For Flood Crisis

The Judges of the Supreme Court have resolved to contribute Rs 25,000 each to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund in view of the prevailing flood situation across various regions of the country.

The Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court Judges expressed their deep sympathy for the affected families and expressed hopes for swift relief, recovery and restoration of normalcy.

Parts of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab are grappling with a flood crisis following the torrential rains.

'Why Bureaucrats Should Decide Landowner Compensation?': Supreme Court Asks Union To Revisit Provisions of National Highways Act

Case Title: M/S Riar Builders Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 26933-2025 (and Connected Cases)

While questioning the provisions allowing bureaucrats to determine compensation for land acquisition, the Supreme Court yesterday asked the Union to "revisit" certain provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The Court orally observed that the 1956 Act leaves adjudication of compensation up to the executive, even though acquisitions under other laws, such as the Land Acquisition Act, require judicial oversight. While underlining the importance of fairness, it was suggested that the determination of compensation in case of NHAI acquisitions must undergo independent judicial scrutiny.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to obtain instructions from the Union on this aspect, while dealing with a challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which held Sections 3J and 3G of the NHA Act as unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14.

'Attempt To Cover-up Poor Prosecution': Supreme Court Criticises States For Not Challenging Acquittals In PC-PNDT Cases

Case Title: Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 301/2022

The Supreme Court questioned as to why States are not filing appeals against acquittals of offenders in Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act cases.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan was hearing a PIL where direction has been sought for strict compliance with Rule 18A(5)(vi) of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1966. This rule mandates immediate action for filing appeal, revision or other proceedings in higher courts in case of order of acquittal within a period of 30 days but not later than 15 days of receipt of the order.

The last effective order in the matter was passed in September 2024 when the Court called for the States' response along with data from January 1, 2015 onwards indicating the number of cases of acquittal where "appeal, revision or other proceedings" were filed by the authorities.

Presidential Reference : Karnataka, Kerala & Punjab Argue In Supreme Court Against Giving Governors Power To Withhold Bills Indefinitely

States of Karnataka, Kerala and Punjab concluded their arguments in the ongoing Presidential Reference relating to timelines for assent to bills, arguing that the constitutional scheme under Article 200 does not provide for the Governor to exercise discretion.

While Senior Advocate KK Venugopal (for Kerala) emphasised that the Governor can't be allowed to exercise discretion in such a manner that he can withhold even money bills, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramaniam (for the State of Karnataka) submitted that both the President and the Governor are "titular heads" and they exercise their powers on aid and advice of the cabinet ministers.

Subramaniam argued that no such powers can be given to the Governor that allow him to become an "all-pervading authority". Referring to Article 200, he added that the power to grant assent is not legislative, as was argued by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The Governor is only a part of the legislative process in regards to assent to the Bill, and he is under a constitutional obligation to act in urgency in granting assent.

Supreme Court Seeks CEC Report On Proposed Mhadei Tiger Reserve, Orders Goa To Maintain Status Quo In Area

Case Title – State of Goa Through Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Goa Foundation & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine the issue of notifying Goa's Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary and adjoining areas as a tiger reserve and submit a report within six weeks.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar also ordered the State of Goa to maintain status quo in respect of the areas which the Bombay High Court had directed to be notified as a tiger reserve until the matter is heard again.

“We find that it will be appropriate if the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) examines the issue and submits a report before this Court….In the meantime, the petitioner-State is directed to maintain status quo as on in respect of the areas which are directed to be notified as tiger reserve by the High Court”, the Court ordered.

Umar Khalid Approaches Supreme Court Against Delhi HC's Denial of Bail In Riots Conspiracy Case

Case: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | Diary No. - 51747/2025

Former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in Delhi riots larger conspiracy case under the Unlwaful Activities Prevention Act, in which he has been under custody for five years.

Khalid has challenged the Delhi High Court ruling passed on September 02 by a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur denying bail to him.

By the impugned order, the Delhi High Court also denied bail to co-accused Sharjeel Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed.

How Can You Say States Are Raising False Alarm When Bills Are Pending With Governor For Years? Supreme Court Asks Centre

During the Presidential Reference hearing, the Supreme Court orally questioned how the Union could say the States are raising "false alarms" when Bills continue to be pending with Governors for 3-4 years. This was in response to the plea taken by the Union that in the last 55 years, assent has been withheld in only 20 Bills out of the "17000" and in 90% of cases, Bills have been assented to within 1 month.

In this context, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union, said: "Essentially, the Governor's role will have to be as a guardian of the Constitution, protector and representative of Union of India, and a person who takes the interest of the entire nation because he represents the President of India. Everything he should do in consultation and collaboration with Council of Ministers. Your lordship would recall yesterday when KK Venugopal was arguing, he gave a list of dates in case of Kerala, and in fact, said that this is how it should function. I fully agree that the Governor calls upon the Chief Minister over tea, some issues are discussed and this is how the Constitution works, and this is how it has worked. I will show that with empirical data that this his how the Constitution has worked. Now, we are raising a false alarm that there is a need to do something."

Questioning this argument, Chief Justice BR Gavai asked: "How can you say [States are raising false alarms] when bills are pending with the Governor for four years?"

'Cricket Not Above National Interest' : Plea In Supreme Court To Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup Match After Pahalgam Terror Attack

Case Title: Urvashi Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.

A PIL has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of the India-Pakistan cricket match scheduled to be held on September 14 as part of the Asia Cup T20 tournament.

The four petitioners, who are currently pursuing law, argue that India playing the cricket match with Pakistan, in the aftermath of Pahalgam Terror Attack and Operation Sindoor, is against national interest and belittles the sacrifices of armed forces as well as the citizens who lost lives in the attack.

"playing with Pakistan sent the opposite message that while our soldiers sacrificing their lives, we are celebrating sports with the same country sheltering terrorists. It can also hurt the sentiments of the families of the victims who lost their lives in the hand of the Pakistani terrorist. The dignity of the nation and security of citizens come before entertainment" the plea states.

Supreme Court Questions Trial Court's Delay In Examining Rape Victim In 2021 West Bengal Post-Poll Violence Case

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman Ara Mir Usman Ali | SLP(Crl) No. 969/2025

The Supreme Court (on September 8) observed that a trial Court in West Bengal, by conducting the examination of a rape victim in a piecemeal manner, was indirectly facilitating the accused to tamper with the evidence. It sought an explanation from the trial Court as well as the public prosecutor why the victim had not been examined despite the fact that the accused was granted bail an year ago.

The case relates to the post-poll violence which took place in West Bengal in 2021.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan ordered:

'Let Match Go On': Supreme Court Declines Urgent Listing of Plea To Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup Cricket Match

Case Title: Urvashi Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.

The Supreme Court refused to urgently list a PIL seeking cancellation of the India-Pakistan cricket match scheduled to be held on September 14 as part of the Asia Cup T20 tournament.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi. "What is the urgency? It's a match, let it be" remarked Justice Maheshwari, on hearing the counsel who mentioned the matter for listing tomorrow.

When the counsel pointed out that the match is on Sunday (Sept 14), and the petition would become infructuous if the matter is not listed tomorrow, the judge said, "Match is this Sunday? What we can do in that? Let it be. Match should go on."

Governor Has No Power To Sit On Bills Endlessly; But Timelines Can't Be Laid Down : Centre To Supreme Court

On the last day of the hearing of thePresidential Reference, the Solicitor General of India told the Supreme Court that Governors cannot sit on Bills endlessly.

SG Tushar Mehta said that since Article 200 uses the expression "as soon as possible", the Governors cannot sit on bills "perennially or for three or four years." At the same time, SG opposed the Court laying down fixed timelines as a "straightjacket formula".

"While not taking an extreme situation that there can be perennial sitting over bills, there cannot be any straightjacket timelines too. It all depends on the subject matter of the bill," SG Tushar Mehta submitted before a 5-judge bench.

TN MLA Jegan Moorthy Says Settlement Reached In Abduction Case; Supreme Court Extends Interim Anticipatory Bail

Case Details: M. Jegan Moorthy v. Inspector Police | SLP(Crl) No. 009477 - / 2025

The Supreme Court extended the interim order granting anticipatory bail to "Poovai" Jegan Moorthy, MLA of KV Kuppam, Tamil Nadu, in the case alleging his involvement in the abduction of a minor boy.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice NK Singh was hearing the challenge against the Madras High Court's order dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by Moorthy in connection with the alleged abduction of a minor boy.

Advocate Muthucharan Sundresh, appearing for Moorthy, submitted that the parties involved have reached a settlement and have filed an affidavit regarding the same before the magistrate's court.

Supreme Court Reserves Opinion In Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent After 10-Day Hearing

The Supreme Court (September 11) reserved its opinion in the reference made by the President of India under Article 143 raising questions related to the timelines for granting assent to Bills by the President and the Governor under Articles 200/201 of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar heard the matter for ten days.

The Presidential reference was made in May, soon after the judgment delivered by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case which laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act on Bills.

Presidential Reference | Centre Requests Supreme Court To Declare Tamil Nadu Governor Case Judgment Wrong

On the last day of the hearing of the Presidential Reference on the issues related to grant of assent to Bills, the Solicitor General of India, for the Union, requested the Supreme Court to declare that the two-judge benchTamil Nadu judgmentdoes not lay down the correct law. After 10 days of hearing, the Supreme Court reserved its opinion in the Presidential Reference on 14 questions, including whether timelines can be prescribed for the assent of Bills.

Mehta referred to the2G Reference to submit that although the Court is not sitting in an intra-Court appeal while exercising its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143, this does not preclude it from holding that the law laid down in an earlier judgment is incorrect without disturbing the binding value of the judgment inter-se parties. He added that the Court is exercising its inherent jurisdiction here. This argument was made in reference to the arguments made by States and interveners that the questions raised in reference have already been settled via the Tamil Nadu judgment, and the Court can't unsettle while exercising Article 143 powers.

"There was an extreme argument that you can't do anything about Tamil Nadu view, I am not talking about the judgment. Intra-party, the judgment is final. That is the law of the land, it binds us. We can't argue contrary to it. But my lordships have the jurisdiction and power to declare that the Tamil Nadu judgment is not the correct law. That is what, as a last proposition, I would like to submit...There is a 2G judgment, where the questions referred by the hon'ble President one of the questions was whether this particular judgment of so and so is a correct law. Court said intra-party, we can't do, but can say a previous view is incorrect."

'Sorry State of Affairs': Supreme Court Pulls Up Punjab National Bank For Settling With Borrower After Auction Sale of Secured Property

Case Title – Mohammad Zubair Ahmad v. Punjab National Bank & Anr.

The Supreme Court pulled up Punjab National Bank (PNB) for entering into a settlement with a borrower after already having auctioned the borrower's property. The court asked the bank to take a policy decision at the earliest to ensure that such instances do not recur.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta directed PNB to issue a final sale certificate to the auction purchaser. The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the auction purchaser, who was aggrieved by the bank's decision to refund the sale amount deposited by him, instead of issuing a sale certificate.

The Court said that it was a sorry state of affairs for a nationalised bank to operate like this. “Why the banks are turning a blind eye to all this? Nationalized banks? Sorry state of affairs. Don't do this, otherwise the auctions are losing their sanctity. Nobody will participate; financial institutions, bank will be at a loss. No one will come forward to purchase secured assets. They will think why should I get into this trouble, I can invest this money somewhere else,” the court said.

SC Collegium Recommends Appointment of Chief Justices At Patna, Manipur & Meghalaya High Courts

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Patna, Meghalaya and Manipur.

As per the recommendation made to the Union, the following shuffling is suggested :

1) Justice PB Bajanthri (Karnataka High Court) to be appointed as the Chief Justice of Patna High Court (he is presently the Acting Chief Justice);

Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear Tomorrow Reference On Judicial Officer's Eligibility For District Judge Appointment In Bar Vacancy

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

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench will tomorrow hear the issue of whether a judicial officer, who has already completed 7 years in the Bar, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against the Bar vacancy.

The 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran will consider the matter.

The bench has been constituted after the 3-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed an order on August 12, referring the matter to a larger bench

Supreme Court To Commence Hearing On Judicial Officers' Eligibility For District Judge Appointment In Bar Quota From September 23

Case: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [Civil Appeal No(S). 3947/2020] and Other Connected Matters

The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench hearing on the issue of whether a judicial officer, who has already completed 7 years in the Bar, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against the Bar vacancy, will commence on September 23.

The 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran set down the hearing schedule. The bench proposed to complete the hearing on September 25, giving each sides 1.5 days to present their versions.

The bench has been constituted after the 3-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed an order on August 12, referring the matter to a larger bench

'You've Added Spice' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Kangana Ranaut's Plea To Quash Complaint Over Tweet On Farmers' Protest

Case Title: Kangana Ranaut v. Mahinder Kaur, SLP(Crl) No. 13756/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed by actress and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut for quashing of a criminal defamation complaint filed against her tweet about a woman-participant in the 2021 farmers' protests.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Mehta expressed reservations about the comments of the petitioner. "What about your comments? It was not a simple re-tweet. You have added your own comments. You have added spice," Justice Mehta observed.

Supreme Court Bans Photography, Videography In Court's High Security Zone After Bar's Concerns Over 'Reels' & Selfies

The Supreme Court has issued a circular prohibiting photography and videography within its High Security Zone, except for official purposes, in a move aimed at safeguarding the dignity and security of the Court.

The circular, issued by the Secretary General, lays down strict guidelines with immediate effect. It stated that Advocates, litigants, interns, law clerks, and media personnel have been specifically barred from using cameras, mobile phones, or equipment such as tripods and selfie sticks for creating reels, clicking pictures, or recording videos inside the High Security Zone.

While media interviews and live broadcasts of news will continue to be permitted, these can only be conducted at the designated media lawn in the Low Security Zone.

'Got Files Late Night' : Supreme Court Adjourns Bail Pleas of Umar Khalid & 3 Others Till September 19

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

The Supreme Court (September 12) adjourned the hearing of the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider and Gulfisha Fatima seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case till September 19.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria. Justice Aravind Kumar expressed difficulty about taking up these matters , saying that the files of the supplementary list were received only at 2.30 night.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and CU Singh (for Khalid), Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi(for Fatima), and Siddharth Dave (for Imam) etc are appearing for the petitioners.

Plea In Supreme Court Alleges Custodial Torture & Sexual Assault of Minor Boy By Gujarat Police; Seeks SIT/CBI Probe

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging sexual assault and custodial torture by the Gujarat Police on a 17-year-old boy. The petition seeks the constitution of an SIT or CBI investigation into the incident.

Advocate Rohin Bhatt mentioned before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that a writ petition under Article 32 has been filed against the alleged police brutality and sexual assault on the petitioner's minor brother.

He added that the plea seeks the urgent constitution of a medical board of AIIMS doctors, considering that the minor is in a critical condition.

Supreme Court Allows Fresh Disbursal of Rs 5000 Crores From SEBI-Sahara Fund To Depositors; Extends Time For Payment Release Till Dec 2026

Case Title: Pinak Pani Mohanty v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 191/2022

At the request of the Union government, the Supreme Court permitted fresh disbursal of Rs.5,000 crores out of the funds deposited by the Sahara group with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to repay the dues of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. It further extended till December 31, 2026 the time period for disbursal to the investors of amounts released pursuant to a March 2023 order, as well as today's order.

Notably, a counsel appeared for SEBI at a later stage and requested time till Monday to obtain instructions. However, the bench clarified that it has not passed a consent order. The counsel prayed that the order may be kept on hold till Monday, but the bench was not convinced.

Supreme Court Seeks ECI's Response On Plea Seeking Rules For Political Parties' Registration To Curb Use of Black Money

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 850/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking direction to the Election Commission to frame rules for registration and regulation of political parties, in order to curb the menace of corruption and black money use in politics.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing petitioner-Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The bench asked him to implead all national political parties recognized by the Election Commission as party-respondents.

Briefly put, besides the direction to ECI, the PIL seeks a direction to the Union of India to review the Bill drafted by Justice MN Venkatachaliah Committee and take effective steps for reducing the menace of "Corruption, Casteism, Communalism, Criminalization, Linguism and Regionalism in politics".

Supreme Court Says Firecracker Ban In Delhi-NCR Needs To Be Extended Across Country

Case Details: Mc Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court orally expressed the need to explore a pan-India ban on firecrackers, considering the right to pollution-free air for all citizens and not just those residing in Delhi-NCR.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the MC Mehta matter concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR from various sources, such as firecrackers and stubble burning.

Previously, the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana to issue directions under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, enforcing a complete ban on firecrackers in the National Capital Region (NCR).

Supreme Court Suggests Increasing Cadre Strength, Engaging Retired Judges To Set Up More Special Courts For UAPA, MCOCA Cases

Case Title: Mahesh Khatri @ Bholi v. State NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 1422/2025 (and Connected Case)

Again emphasizing on a need for dedicated courts for exclusive trial of cases under special statutes, the Supreme Court suggested that there be an increase in cadre strength of judicial officers instead of earmarking of cases within existing strength as the latter would increase the burden on other courts.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with two cases citing delay in trial, one relating to NIA, when it conveyed its concerns to Additional Solicitor Generals Aishwarya Bhati and SD Sanjay.

In response to what was falling from the bench, the two ASGs assured that a joint meeting at the highest level will be held and a proposal with respect to establishment of exclusive courts to conduct expeditious trials under the special statutes shall be considered.

Supreme Court Asks Tamil Director-Politician Seeman To Apologise To Complainant To Quash 'Rape On False Marriage Promise' Case

Case Title – Seeman v. State

The Supreme Court suggested that Tamil film director and politician Seeman tender an apology in the 2011 rape-on-false-promise-of-marriage case against him filed against him by an actress.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan told Seeman that it would consider quashing the FIR if he tendered an apology to the complainant for making objectionable comments against her.

Justice Nagarathna said, “She is the lady. Let the man apologise, bring an end to it.”

Supreme Court Seeks AG's Intervention After Bombay HC Cancels Recognition of PG Courses Offered By College of Physicians & Surgeons

Case Details: College of Physician and Surgeon CPS House v. Suhas Hari Pingle | SLP(C) No. 13079-13081/2025

The Supreme Court (September 12) requested the intervention of the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, to arrive at a viable solution to secure the future of students after the Bombay High Court upheld the derecognition all postgraduate medical courses offered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mumbai ("CPS").

Before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Sanjay R Hegde submitted that the future of hundreds of students admitted into the courses offered by the CPS is currently at stake. He added have been left in limbo as they were awaiting the conduct of the examination.

On August 16, 2024, the Post Graduate Medical Education Board derecognised all courses offered by the CPS on the grounds of failure to comply with the regulatory mechanism under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 ("NMC Act"). The show cause notice stated that the CPS, Mumbai, considers itself an examination-like body National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences with authority to give medical qualification. However, the National Board is a government organisation under the NMC Act, whereas CPS is a non-government organisation and has no authority to permit or recognise any course of qualification run by any hospital or to conduct examination or award degree.

SIT Inquiring Allegations Against Vantara Wildlife Centre Submits Sealed Cover Report In Supreme Court

Case: C R Jaya Sukin v. Union of India

The Special Investigation Team constituted to inquire into the affairs of Vantara (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre) run by the Reliance Foundation at Jamnagar, Gujarat has submitted its report in a sealed cover before the Supreme Court.

"The SIT formed by this Court has submitted a report in a sealed cover along with pen drive which also contains the report as well as its annexures. It is accepted and directed to be taken on record," recorded a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

It was on August 25 that the bench ordered the constitution of the SIT headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice J Chelameswar to inquire into the allegations against Vantara.

Issued Directions To Take Preparatory Steps For SIR of Electoral Rolls In All States/UTs : Election Commission Tells Supreme Court

Case: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Others | WP(C) 634/2025

The Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court that it has issued communications to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories, except Bihar, to initiate preparatory steps for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. January 01, 2026, has been set as the qualifying date for the nationwide SIR.

The ECI said that it has decided to conduct SIR in different states and has issued a letter addressed to the CEOs of all States (except Bihar) and UTs to initiate "immediate pre-revision activities for the SIR of electoral rolls." The ECI further stated that to coordinate the steps, it convened a conference of all CEOs of States and UTs at New Delhi on September 10.

The ECI made these statements in its counter-affidavit filed in response to a PIL by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya who seeks directions to conduct a nationwide Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in all States at regualar intervals.

Presidential Reference | Issues Raised & Key Observations By Supreme Court

The Presidential Reference on 14 questions referred by the President Droupadi Murmu concluded on September 11, after 10 days of hearing.

A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing the reference made a month after the Tamil Nadu judgment was delivered wherein, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan declared 10 Bills as having got "deemed assented" noting the Governor acted mala fide in sitting over Bills, the oldest pending since 2020, and then reserving it for the President after they were re-enacted by the Tamil Nadu State Assembly.

The two-judge bench laid down timelines, stating that the President must decide on the reserved Bills within three months, and if the Governor decides to withhold assent or reserve for the President upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, he must choose forthwith within one month. If the Governor reserves the Bill for the President's consideration on grounds of patent unconstitutionality, the latter ought to seek the Court's advice under Article 143. It was also held that the actions of both the President and the Governor are amenable to the Court's jurisdiction.