Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: September 15, 2025 To September 21, 2025

Reports/Judgments

Waqf Amendment Act 2025 : Supreme Court Stays Certain Provisions

Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | W.P.(C) No. 276/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 909

The Supreme Court stayed certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, while observing that several other provisions did not require any interference at the interim stage.

The key points from the interim order passed by the bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih are as follows :

1. Stayed the condition that a person should be a practitioner of Islam for at least 5 years till rules are framed by State Governments to provide a mechanism to determine this question. Without such a mechanism, the provision can lead to arbitrariness, the Court said.

2. Stayed the provisions allowing the Government to derecognise a Waqf land during the pendency of decision by the Government officer on the dispute of encroachment. SC said allowing the Collector to decide the dispute is against the separation of powers.

Till the question of title is decided by the Tribunal or the Court, the disputed Waqf land will not be affected. At the same time, the Court said that no third-party rights should be created on such lands till the dispute is decided.

3. Directed that in the Central Waqf Council, the non-Muslim members cannot exceed 4. In State Waqf Boards, the non-Muslim members cannot exceed 3.

4. Did not stay the provision allowing a non-Muslim to be the CEO of the State Waqf Board. However, the Court said that as far as possible, a Muslim person should be appointed.

5. Did not interfere with the condition of registration.

The Court did not interfere with the other major contentious provisions, such as the abolition of 'waqf-by-user', bar on creating waqfs over Scheduled Areas and protected monuments, condition that only Muslims can create Waqfs, application of the Limitation Act to the Waqf Act etc.

For Search Without Warrant Under Special Enactments, Recording Of Reasons Is Mandatory : Supreme Court

Case Title: ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 11798 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 910

The Supreme Court held that in every search conducted under a special enactment without warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is mandatory.

The Court noted that Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (S.185 BNSS) mandates the recording of reasons for the belief regarding the existence of incriminating materials and the necessity of imminent search, when a search is carried out without warrant. The Court noted that special enactments like the Legal Metrology Act , the Income Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Central Excise Act, the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc., mandate the observance of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to search and seizure. Hence, the mandate of S.165 CrPC has to be followed.

"In every search conducted under a special enactment without a warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is mandatory. The reasons necessitating the search must be relevant and must reflect application of mind based on some information – either from a third party or personal knowledge – and cannot be based on mere presumption or extraneous considerations. Such reasons cannot rest on mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction; something more substantial is required for a prudent person to conclude that a search and/or seizure is necessary," the Court observed.

Financial Bids In Public Tenders Can't Be Altered After Opening; Sanctity Of Process Can't Be Compromised For More Revenue : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v. Mandeepa Enterprises and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 911

The Supreme Court ruled that once financial bids of the tender are opened, it would not be permissible to rectify the bids. Otherwise, the sanctity of the tendering process would be compromised. The Court reiterated that the mere possibility of accrual of more money would not be a ground to rectify the bid once opened.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Calcutta High Court Division Bench's decision that had allowed Respondent No.1 to amend its financial bid after the bids were opened. The High Court had assumed the bidder might have mistakenly quoted a per-day rate instead of the total for 1095 days. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this reasoning, stressing that when the tender rules impose an absolute bar on altering bids after opening, any such rectification is impermissible.

Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC | Defendant Can't File Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Rajul Manoj Shah Alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 912

Holding that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC can be filed only against the plaintiff, the Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision that allowed one defendant to file a counter-claim against a co-defendant.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled in favor of the plaintiff, who appealed against the High Court's decision to allow filing of counter-claim between co-defendants, stressing that filing of counter-claim between co-defendant is impermissible.

The appellant instituted a suit seeking a declaration and injunction against her sister-in-law (defendant no.1), challenging an agreement to sell dated 21 October 2011 that had been executed in favour of respondent no.1 (defendant no.2). During the pendency of the proceedings, defendant no.1 passed away, and pursuant to a consent order of the Gujarat High Court, the Nazir of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, was substituted in her place.

Vantara's Acquisition Of Animals As Per Regulations : Supreme Court Accepts SIT Report

Case Details: C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 783/2025 Diary No. 44109 / 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 913

The Supreme Court (September 15) observed that the acquisition of animals in Vantara (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre) run by the Reliance Foundation at Jamnagar, Gujarat, is prima facie within the regulatory mechanism. There was no foul play found by the Special Investigation Team(SIT) constitutedby the Court to inquire into various allegations, including whether there has been compliance with all laws in the acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants.

"The Court has no hesitation in accepting the conclusion so drawn in the report. Thus, as no contravention of law has been reported by the SIT, the complaints particularly those listed in Schedule A in the summary of the report stand closed."

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale said that they did not deliberately read the report submitted by the SIT headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice J Chelameswar, as they wanted to go through it during the hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Harish Salve(for Vantara), and counsel for the petitioner were all present when the Court went through the report in a cursory manner.

NDPS Act | Non-Production Of Contraband In Trial Not Fatal If Seizure, Sample-Drawing Duly Recorded As Per S.52A : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Kailas S/O Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 914

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that in matters under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the prosecution's case does not fail merely because the seized contraband is not produced in court, so long as the inventory and sample-drawing records are duly prepared and placed on record in compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench order directing a retrial in an NDPS case solely on the ground that the seized contraband was not produced before the trial court. The Supreme Court held that a retrial may be ordered only in exceptional circumstances to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and that non-production of contraband cannot justify such a course where electronic evidence, duly certified under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, along with records of inventory preparation, has already been placed on record.

“mere non-production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn from the seized material. However, to ensure that no adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution for non-production of the seized contraband, documents prepared in terms of the provisions of Section 52-A, inter alia, evidencing preparation of inventory of seized contraband and drawing of samples therefrom, would have to be brought on record.”, the Court observed.

'Debts Incurred For Marriage Have Cascading Effect' : Supreme Court Upholds HUF Karta's Sale Of Family Property After Daughter's Marriage

Cause Title: Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa(D)By Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 915

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is empowered to alienate joint family property for purposes of 'legal necessity,' which includes a daughter's marriage. The Court clarified that such alienation remains valid even if the marriage had already taken place prior to the transfer of the property.

“It is common knowledge families incur heavy debts to perform marriages of their daughters and such debts have a cascading effect on family finances down the years.”, the Court said, justifying alienation of property to cope with the expenses incurred by Karta in his daughter's marriage.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which held that the sale deed executed to alienate joint family property years after the wedding could not be justified as a legal necessity warranting alienation by Karta.

Supreme Court Allows Customs Duty Exemption To LG Electronics For Smart Watch Import From Korea

Cause Title: M/S L.G. Electronics India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 916

The Supreme Court granted relief to LG Electronics India from paying customs duty on imported 'G Watch W7' smartwatches from South Korea, holding that a certificate of origin from a country with which India has a full customs duty exemption agreement is sufficient to claim such exemption.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the LG Electronics appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) order, that declined LG's plea for seeking exemption from custom duty payment for imported watches reasoning that imported watches falls under CTH 8517 good's, which attracted a higher duty, and raised a demand along with penalties.

LG argued that even if classified under CTH 8517, the imports were entitled to complete duty exemption under Notification No. 151/2009, applicable to goods of South Korean origin under the India-Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). The Tribunal rejected this plea on the ground that the necessary Certificate of Origin had not been submitted at the assessment stage, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Land Contributed For Common Purpose But Remaining Unutilised Must Be Returned To Owners : Supreme Court Dismisses Haryana Govt Appeal

Cause Title: State of Haryana v. Jai Singh and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 917

In an important ruling providing relief to Haryana-based landowners, the Supreme Court (Sep.16) held that the 'bachat land' or unutilized land left after utilizing the land earmarked for the common purposes in Panchayats, has to be redistributed amongst the proprietors according to the share in which they had contributed the land belonging to them for common purposes.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan affirmed the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in favor of the landowners-proprietors, stating that unless unutilized/bachat land is specifically reserved for common purposes and their possession is handed over to the Panchayat, it continues to belong to the proprietors.

Upholding the High Court's ruling, which relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Bhagat Ram & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1967) 2 SCR 165 endorsing the same principle, the judgment authored by CJI Gavai observed:

Defaulting Borrower Cannot Claim OTS Benefit Without Fulfilling Bank's Conditions : Supreme Court Allows SBI's Appeal

Cause Title: Assistant General Manager State Bank of India & Anr. v. Tanya Energy Enterprises Through Its Managing Partner Shri Alluri Lakshmi Narasimha Varma

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 918

The Supreme Court observed that availing the Bank's One Time Settlement (“OTS”) scheme is not a borrower's right, particularly where there is a failure to comply with mandatory preconditions such as making the required upfront payment.

Even if a borrower is eligible for OTS benefit, unless the conditions stipulated in the OTS scheme are fulfilled, there is no vested right to avail the benefit.

"Crossing the hurdle of eligibility per se would not entitle a defaulting borrower to claim consideration of his/its application unless the application itself satisfies the other stipulated conditions," the Court observed.

Arbitration | Execution Of Award Cannot Be Stalled Merely Due To Pendency Of Section 37 Appeal : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka Through Spa & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 919

The Supreme Court held that the execution of an arbitral award cannot be stalled merely on the ground that an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is pending.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where the appellant (award-holder/decree-holder) sought execution of the arbitral award. The respondents (judgment-debtors) argued that since a Section 37 appeal was pending against the dismissal of their Section 34 objections, the execution should be deferred.

Aggrieved by the Delhi High Court's decision to adjourn the executing proceedings because the appeal under Section 37 was pending, the award holder approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Register Sikh Marriages, Make Rules Under Anand Marriage Act Within 4 Months

Cause Title: Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India & Ors | Wp(C) 911/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 920

In an important development, the Supreme Court directed 17 States and 7 Union Territories (UTs) to frame rules under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 for the registration of Sikh marriages (Anand Karaj) within four months. The Court stressed that decades of non-implementation created unequal treatment of Sikh citizens across India and violated the principle of equality.

"The fidelity of a constitutional promise is measured not only by the rights it proclaims, but by the institutions that make those rights usable. In a secular republic, the State must not turn a citizen's faith into either a privilege or a handicap. When the law recognises Anand Karaj as a valid form of marriage yet leaves no machinery to register it, the promise is only half kept. What remains is to ensure that the route from rites to record is open, uniform and fair," the Court observed.

Until state-specific rules are notified, the Court directed all States and UTs to immediately register Anand Karaj marriages under their existing general marriage laws (like the Special Marriage Act). The marriage certificate must explicitly mention the 'Anand Karaj' rite if the couple requests. This ensures no citizen is denied proof of marriage.

In Tax Matters, Strict Letter Of Law Must Be Followed; No Tax Can Be Imposed By Inference Or Analogy : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S. Shiv Steels v. State of Assam & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 921

The Supreme Court observed that no tax can be imposed by inference or analogy when the taxing statutes do not authorize the imposition of tax. It added that tax authorities cannot bypass statutory limitation periods by administrative sanction.

“In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta heard a matter related to the assessment under the Assam General Sales Tax Act 1993 (“Act”) where the Sales Tax department had ordered the re-assessments of the Appellant-entity for three years between 2003-2006 under Section 21 of the Act soon after the assessment of these years was declared time barred under Section 19 of the Act.

Customs Act | Provisional Release Of Seized Object Won't Extend Timelimit For Issuing Show Cause Notice In Pre-2018 Cases : Supreme Court

Case Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 922

The Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order directing release of an imported Maserati car seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), upholding the HC's view that failure to issue a show-cause notice within time prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962 entitles the person to release of the seized goods.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta further held that provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act does not stop the operation of Section 110(2), which mandates issuance of a show-cause notice within six months of the seizure.

“The Delhi High Court is right in saying that any effort to say that the release under Section 110A of the Act, 1962 would extinguish the operation of the consequence of not issuing show-cause notice within the statutory period spelt out in Section 110(2) would be contrary to the plain meaning and intendment of the statute”, the Court stated.

S. 482 CrPC/S. 528 BNSS | In Some FIR Quashing Pleas, High Court Must Appreciate Background In Which Case Was Filed : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 923

The Supreme Court (Sep. 18) cautioned High Courts against mechanically dismissing quashing petitions based solely on the contents of the FIR, stressing that the surrounding context and circumstances of its filing must also be taken into account in some cases. The Court added that the High Courts must also take into account whether the FIR was a result of a counterblast or a retaliatory measure filed with an oblique motive just to harass the litigant.

“While it is true that elaborate defences and evidence brought on record is not to be considered at this stage, it is equally true that a mechanical approach cannot be countenanced. What renders a judicial mind distinct is its application to the given facts in accordance with law. Therefore, the Court ought to have appreciated, at least to some extent, the background in which the respondent filed the subject FIR.”, the court said.

While referring to judgments such as CBI v. Aryan Singh and Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, the Court observed that at the S.482 CrPC stage, the High Court is only expected to look at the prima facie possibility of the offence. However, in some cases, the background also must be appreciated.

High Court Cannot Grant Anticipatory Bail By Recalling Initial Order Of Dismissal : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Gurvinder Singh v. Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 924

The Supreme Court set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's unusual order, whereby an anticipatory bail plea  , which was initially rejected, was subsequently recalled and anticipatory bail was granted.

Before a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti, the complainant argued that once a detailed order dismissing the prayer for anticipatory bail had been passed, the proceedings stood finally concluded and could not have been revived by way of recall, much less restoration.

Sports Strengthen Fraternity Across Society; Need To Ensure Sporting Facilities Aren't Concentrated With Urban Elite: Supreme Court

Case Title – All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 925

In the judgment finalising the Constitution of the All-India Football Federation (AIFF), the Supreme Court underscored the role of sports in building fraternity and inclusiveness in Indian society.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted that sport has a unifying power, as teamwork in the field compels individuals to set aside personal distinctions and work together towards a common goal.

It further emphasised that this power increases when everyone, irrespective of race, caste, religion, sex, or economic status, gets the opportunities to participate. The Court highlighted that the constitutional value of fraternity cannot be enforced by judicial command but develops through collective experiences such as sports.

The Court also cautioned that sporting facilities and opportunities should not be concentrated in the hands of the urban economic elite and stressed the need to distribute income from sporting events, intellectual property and media rights so that sport remains affordable.

Converting Imported Goods Into Distinct, Marketable Products Qualifies As 'Manufacture'; Attracts Excise Duty: Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S Quippo Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad – Ii

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 926

The Supreme Court (Sep.19) held that converting imported gas-generating sets (Gensets) into containerized “Power Packs” by placing them in steel containers and fitting them with essential components amounts to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, making the final product liable to excise duty.

“The process of placing the Genset within the steel container and fitting that container with additional, integral components brings into existence a new, distinct, and marketable commodity. This process would thus amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f)(i) of the Act, 1944. Consequently, the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured.”, the court held.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan held that once the Gensets were containerized into Power Packs, involving modifications and the addition of essential components for their operation, their form and structure underwent a transformation into a distinct product with a separate identity, thereby attracting excise duty

S.138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable If Demand Notice Didn't Mention Exact Cheque Amount; Typo Error No Defence : Supreme Court

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 927

The Supreme Court has reiterated that for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to be maintainable, the statutory notice of demand must precisely mention the cheque amount. If the amount mentioned in the demand notice varies from the cheque amount ,then the complaint is not maintainable.

"The notice to be issued under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act must mention the same amount for which the cheque was issued. It is mandatory that the demand in the statutory notice has to be the very amount of the cheque," observed the Court.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice NV Anjaria clarified that a notice mentioning an amount different from the cheque amount, or failing to mention the cheque amount altogether, would be legally invalid.

Touching Private Parts Of Minor Not Offence Of Rape, But Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act : Supreme Court

Case: Laxman Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 928

The Supreme Court held that merely touching the private parts of a minor girl will not constitute the offence of rape under Section 375/376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The Court clarified that such conduct would instead amount to the offence of “aggravated sexual assault” as defined under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, as well as the offence of “outraging the modesty of a woman” under Section 354 of the IPC.

Touching the private parts of a minor, without any penetrative act, will be the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. If the victim is aged below 12 years, such an act would amount to aggravated sexual assault.

A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Joymalya Bagchi delivered the ruling while hearing the appeal of Laxman Jangde, who had been sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment for offences under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Orders and Other Developments

'Entering Political Party Not A Job' : Supreme Court Upholds HC Order That Political Parties Don't Come Under POSH Act

Case Details: Yogamaya M.G. v. State of Kerala and Ors Diary No. - 47381/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging the order of the Kerala High Court, which held that it was not compulsory for political parties to set up an internal complaints committee to address sexual harassment complaints as per the POSH Act 2013. The Court verbally observed that those joining a political party are not under its employment.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and AS Chandurkar was hearing the challenge against the decision of the Kerala High Court, which held that political parties are not legally liable to establish Internal Complaints Commitee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 since there is no employer-employee relationship among its members.

Sr Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the High Court overlooked the broad definition of 'aggrieved woman' who can file a complaint against sexual harassment.

Supreme Court Moots Control Room To Monitor If CCTV Cameras In Police Stations Are Switched Off; Reserves Order

Case Title: In Re Lack of Functional Cctvs In Police Stations Versus, Smw(C) No. 7/2025

The Supreme Court reserved orders in the case where it took suo motu cognizance of a news report on the lack of functional CCTVs and deaths in police custody across the State of Rajasthan.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta expressed that it is considering independent monitoring of the CCTV cameras in police stations without any human intervention, as even if CCTVs are installed in compliance with the Court's earlier directions, the same can be switched off by officials.

"Issue is of oversight. Today there may be compliance affidavit, tomorrow officers may switch off cameras...we were thinking of a control room in which there is no human intervention...any camera goes off, there is a flag...there has to be inspection of police station also by independent agency...we can think of involving IIT to provide mechanism so that CCTV footage is monitored without human intervention", said Justice Mehta, upon hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave.

Bihar SIR | 'Publication Of Final Voters' List Won't Matter To Us If There's Illegality' : Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Till Oct 7

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

The Supreme Court (September 15) adjourned till October 7 the hearing of the petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.

Although the petitioners sought for a hearing before October 1 - the date of publication of the final voters list - the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined, pointing out that the Court is closing for a week for the Dussehra break on September 28.

The publication of the final voter list will not make any difference to the adjudication of the matter, the Court said, assuring the petitioners that if there is any illegality, it will intervene, regardless of the finalisation of the list.

'Our Sympathy With You, But Approach HC First' : Supreme Court On Plea Against Gujarat Police Over Alleged Custodial Torture Of Boy

Case Title: Pinjara Tanjila Altafbhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 371/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking probe into the alleged sexual assault and custodial torture of a 17-year-old boy by the Gujarat Police.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the case as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner (minor boy's sister) to approach the concerned High Court. "You go to the High Court and if the High Court does not deal with your matter, you come back. We will consider your request", said Justice Nath.

"Our sympathy is with your case, but the proper way is to [first] go to the High Court," added Justice Mehta.

Supreme Court Dismisses MP Police Plea Against Quashing Of FIR Against Congress MLA Umang Singhar Alleging Marital Cruelty

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Umang Singhar and Ors | Diary No. 12496-2025

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashing the FIR against Congress MLA Umang Singhar over alleged domestic violence and cruelty towards his wife.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and AS Chandurkar was hearing the challenge by the State to the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The bench was told by the respondent that the FIR was lodged only after Singhar filed cases against his wife.

Caste Discrimination In Colleges: Supreme Court Gives UGC 8 Weeks' Time To Consider Suggestions And Notify Regulations

Case Title: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019

In the PIL assailing caste discrimination in higher educational institutions (HEIs), the Supreme Court gave 8 weeks' time to the University Grants Commission to consider the suggestions received from different stakeholders and take a final decision regarding notification of the Regulations.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and indicated that the petitioners' suggestions on the following aspects may also be considered by the UGC:

- Prohibiting discriminatory practices - that is, a clear ban on all known forms of discrimination and enforce disciplinary consequences;

Supreme Court To Pronounce On Sept 23 Order In Suo Motu Case Initiated Over Environmental Concerns In Himachal Pradesh

Case Title: In Re: Issues Relating To Ecology and Environmental Conditions Prevailing In State of Himachal Pradesh v. W.P.(C) No. 758/2025

The Supreme Court will pronounce on September 23 its order in the matter where it took suo motu cognizance of environmental concerns in the State of Himachal Pradesh arising on account of unchecked development activities.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reserved orders in the matter, after hearing the State's Addl Advocate General and Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (Amicus). Justice Mehta seemed to indicate that the Court is not only concerned about the State of HP, but the entire Himalayan region.

"We will give you a brief order after summarizing everything, so that then you can get specific instructions", Justice Nath said to the State's counsel, who conveyed during the hearing the steps taken by the state and the changes in ecology of the area.

Supreme Court Seeks NIA's Response On Status Of Trial In Case Of Man Booked Over Transnational Conspiracy Behind Manipur Violence

Case Title: Moirangthem Anand Singh v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 46649-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea filed by one Moirangthem Anand Singh, accused of involvement in a transnational conspiracy behind the Manipur violence, assailing delay in trial and denial of bail.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and sought the NIA's response to ascertain the status of the trial. "Issue notice only to ascertain the status of the trial", the bench ordered.

The counsel who appeared for the petitioner submitted that despite charge-sheet having been filed, the trial has not proceeded and the petitioner is languishing in jail since the last two years. He also argued that the co-accused had been granted bail, but on this ground, the Court was not convinced.

'Misconceived' : Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Reconsideration Of Judgment Upholding WB Madrasah Service Commission Act

Case Title – Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah v. State of West Bengal

The Supreme Court dismissed with costs a writ petition filed by the Managing Committee of the Contai Rahamania High Madrasah in West Bengal seeking reconsideration of its 2020 judgment upholding the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih said the petition was “thoroughly misconceived” and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioner.

“The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and accordingly stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000”, the Court said.

Illegal Firearms : Supreme Court Asks Experts' Committee Formed By Union Govt To Consider Suggestions Of States/UTs

Case Details: Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Miscellaneous Application No. 393/2023 In SLP (Crl) No. 12831/2022

The Supreme Court disposed of the case related to unlicensed firearms after it was informed that a Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of the Director General, Bureau of Police Research and Development ("BPR&D) was constituted by the Union Government to suggest a plan to address and curb the menace of illegal firearms and unauthorised use of legal firearms across the country.

Last year, in November, the Court formeda Committee in each State as well as Union Territories after it found there is a "lackadaisical approach" in the implementation of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016. It had found proliferation of factories and workshops producing unlicensed arms, which are outside the regulatory framework, has resulted in crimes against Society as well as against the State.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted that the Court's committee in each State and Union Territory should place action plans before the Committee of Experts, which shall review and consider implementation of the said plan. The plan shall be approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs and will be enforced across the country.

Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Mahesh Raut On Medical Grounds For 6 Weeks

Case Details: National Investigation Agency v. Mahesh Sitaram Raut and Anr. | Crl.A. No. 3048/2023

The Supreme Court (September 16) granted interim bail on medical grounds for a period of 6 weeks to Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case accused Mahesh Raut, arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, over alleged Maoist links. He has been in custody since his arrest in June 2018.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Kumar Sharma granted bail after Senior Advocate CU Singh mentioned that Raut suffers from Rheumatoid Arthritis, which is an autoimmune disorder which attacks the bones and muscles. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for the NIA) was not present, but another counsel on NIA's behalf opposed the plea, stating that the allegations against him are serious as he is accused of transferring funds to Maoists.

Singh responded that Raut was granted bail on merits by the Bombay High Court onSeptember 21, 2023, but the High Court had stayed the order for a week for the National Investigation Authority (NIA) to file an appeal. Subsequently, the NIA filed an appeal before the Court, which was admitted by a bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi, which also extended one week's stay granted by the High Court till October 5, 2023. Since then, the stay has been extended from time to time.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case On Industrial Pollution Of Rajasthan's Jojari River

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance with respect to River Jojari in Rajasthan noting that industrial waste, primarily from factories, is being discharged there, affecting hundreds of villages and making drinking water not potable.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta called for registration of a suo motu case and ordered, "let the matter be placed before Hon'ble CJI for appropriate orders".

Notably, the same bench took suo motu cognizance of the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations, based on a news report pointing out custodial deaths in the State of Rajasthan. Orders were reserved in the same yesterday, while mooting independent monitoring of the CCTV cameras in police stations without any human intervention.

Supreme Court Seeks States' Responses To Applications Seeking Stay Of Anti-Conversion Laws

Case Details: Citizens For Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Wp(Crl) No. 428/2020 and Connected Matters

The Supreme Court (September 16) asked various States to file their responses to applications seeking a stay of the laws enacted by them dealing with religious conversions.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of laws in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka dealing with religious conversions.

The bench granted four weeks' time to the States for their responses. The matter will be heard after six weeks.

Retired Judges Refusing Tribunal Appointments Due To Lack Of Facilities; Fault Lies With Centre : Supreme Court

Case: Ngt Bar Association Western Zone v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 72/2025

The Supreme Court (September 16) expressed concerns over the trend of many retired High Court Judges expressing unwillingness to accept appointments as Tribunal members after their retirement. The Court observed that the reluctance on the part of the retired Judges is due to the lack of proper amenities in the Tribunals, which is the fault of the Union Government.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan was dealing with the issue of retired Judges declining appointments as Judicial Members of the National Green Tribunal.

The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by NGT Bar Association Western Zone, raising the issue of vacancies. The Union submitted that two ex-Judges, who were offered appointments, did not take charge. Hence, the appointment process will have to be started afresh, which will take time.

Supreme Court Urges P&H High Court To Take Lenient View In Suo Motu Case Against Journalist Over Allegations Against Authorities

Case Title: Pardeep Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 14376/2025

The Supreme Court asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to take a lenient view in a suo motu case involving journalist Pradeep Sharma over certain allegations made against authorities, including judges.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after "genuine repentance" was conveyed on behalf of Sharma over emails written by him between 2023-25 in violation of an undertaking given before the High Court.

In the impugned order, the High Court noted that despite giving an undertaking in 2023, Sharma had written over 200 emails containing allegations against authorities.

Supreme Court Directs To Conduct Maharashtra Local Body Elections By January 31, 2026; Pulls Up State Election Commission For Delay

Case Title: Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court (September 16) pulled up the Maharashtra State Election Commission for its failure to adhere with the earlier time schedule set by the Court for the conduct of local body elections in the State.

While extending the timeline as a one-time concession, the Court directed that elections to all local bodies in Maharashtra shall be conducted by Janaury 31, 2026. No further extension shall be granted.

The Court further directed that ending delimitation shall be completed by October 31, 2025. Delimitation exercise shall not be ground to defer elections, the Court stated.

'Publicity Interest Litigation' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Repair Of Dilapidated Lord Vishnu Idol At Khajuraho Temple

Case Details: Rakesh Dalal v. Union of India and Ors. | Diary No. 32820-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking directions for the reconstruction of a dilapidated 7 feet tall Vishnu Idol at the Javari Temple in Khajuraho Temple Series, Madhya Pradesh.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the matter.

Refusing to entertain the matter, the CJI at the outset termed the petition to be a 'Publicity Interest Litigation'. He said : "This is purely publicity interest litigation…. Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation."

Why Persons With Haemophilia Excluded From PwD Quota In UPSC Exams? Supreme Court Asks Centre

Case Details: Prema Ram v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 619/2025

The Supreme Court (September 16) said that it will hear a case relating to the exclusion of persons with haemophilia from appearing for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) exams.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a writ petition filed by an UPSC aspirant suffering from haemophilia. Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for the petitioner, stated that although haemophilia is a benchmark disability provided under the Schedule of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, it is not covered in the 4% reservation provided to persons with benchmark disabilities. She argued that the consequence of haemophilia is locomotive disability, which is covered under Section 34 for reservation.

Justice Kumar said that the Court will not go into the issue of what the consequence is of a person suffering from haemophilia. But it asked the Union as to why there is an exclusion of the blood disorder from the reservation. Justice Kumar: "What is the wisdom that has gone into? Tell us about it. That is all the issue...Suppose we accept the contention, we may reject her contention. What is the nature of the wisdom gone into the decision-making process? If its rationalise and not discriminatory, we will accept it. Having included in the Schedule, you don't want to include it in substantive law, that means it is discrimination...Leave granted, let it come."

Telangana Domicile Case | State Denying Benefit Of Judgment To Children Of Central Govt Employees : Plea In Supreme Court

A plea has been filed in the Telangana Domicile Case seeking clarifications by the Supreme Court, contending that the Government of Telangana is granting the benefit of the local domicile only to children of the State employees and not Central government employees

The counsel mentioned before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that an application has been filed seeking clarification of the Court's directions in the Telangana Domicile matter.

The Counsel said that while the decision expressly granted relaxations to students whose parents were State or central employees should also be considered as local candidates, the State is only extending the domicile benefit. He said :

Delhi Ridge Tree Felling : Supreme Court Seeks Report From Forest Dept On Compensatory Afforestation

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

In a follow-up to the Delhi Ridge Tree Felling contempt case, the Supreme Court called for a detailed report from the Forest Department of Delhi government with regard to the suitability of 185 acres of land allocated for compensatory afforestation/plantation.

"[The report] shall also briefly explain the species of the plants resolved to be planted and the timeline within which the plantation will be completed. In respect of the other directions also, the Chief Secretary, GNCTD and Vice Chairman, DDA are directed to file their respective status reports. Forest Department will also place on record a sketch plan depicting the location of the 185 acres of land within the NCT of Delhi alongwith the proposal for plantation", the Court ordered.

Insofar as the Forest Department claimed that the allocated land is not fenced, and therefore, some more funds may be required from DDA, the Court asked the Department to raise the demand and file an affidavit in case of any reluctance on part of DDA. "Funds should not be an impediment", the Court said.

'Why Suspend Sentence Of Such A Man?' Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Gangster Chhota Rajan In 2001 Jaya Shetty Murder Case

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan @ Nana Sheth @ Sir and Anr., Diary No. 5707-2025

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by Bombay High Court to gangster Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje, also known as Chhota Rajan, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in the 2001 murder case of hotelier Jaya Shetty.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for CBI), noting that Chhota Rajan stands convicted in 4 other cases and remained absconding for 27 years. "4 convictions and abscondence of 27 years...why suspension of sentence to such a man?" remarked Justice Mehta.

Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, for Chhota Rajan, argued that it was a case of no-evidence and in 47 out of 71 cases, CBI did not find any material against him and closed the cases. On a specific query, the counsel acknowledged that the present conviction was Chhota Rajan's second conviction in a murder case. Ultimately, the Court was swayed to cancel Chhota Rajan's bail.

Supreme Court Advises Against Construction Ban In Delhi-NCR During Winter; Asks Air Quality Commission To Consider Other Solutions

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

The Supreme Court asked the Commission for Air Quality Management to consider alternative solutions to the air pollution problem in Delhi-NCR, instead of imposing a blanket ban on construction work during the winter season, as it adversely affects the livelihood of daily wage workers.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed the CAQM to hold deliberations with all the concerned stakeholders to explore the possible alternative to a blanket ban on construction during the winter season.

The Court reasoned that such a prohibitory order was counterproductive, as many workers were not getting compensation. The bench observed :

Jailing Farmers Who Indulge In Stubble Burning Will Send Right Message : Supreme Court Asks Centre To Consider Penal Provision

Case Details: In Re: Filling of Vacant Posts In The State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees v. Smc(C) No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court expressed the need to prosecute those farmers who engage in stubble burning, which contributes to air pollution in Delhi-NCR during the winter season.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while hearing the issue of Air Pollution in Delhi-NCR, asked whether there were penal provisions to criminalise stubble burning.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union, submitted that the CAQM Act includes penal provisions against the erring officers. She clarified that the Environment Protection Act does not have any such penal provisions against stubble burning.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Global Ayyappa Devotees Meet At Sabarimala

Cases: Vc Ajikumar v. State of Kerala | SLP(C) 26732/2025; Ps Mahendra Kumar v. State of Kerala | Diary No. 52637-2025; Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v. State of Keral | SLP (C) 26640/2025

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court's order, which allowed the conduct of the Global Ayyappa Devotees' meet on September 20 in the premises of Sabarimala Shrine and at the banks of the River Pamba.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar dismissed three petitions filed against the High Court's order, which allowed the Travancore Devaswom Board to hold the meet subject to certain conditions. The bench observed that the conditions laid down by the High Court should be followed.

The petitioners contended that the holding of the event, where several delegates are expected to attend, at an ecologically sensitive area will lead to environmental problems.

Supreme Court To Hear Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In Gadchiroli Arson Case On September 24

Case Title – Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra

Senior Advocate Anand Grover told the Supreme Court that the case against Dalit rights activist and advocate Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli Surajgad arson incident was “completely false” and based only on electronic evidence illegally seized in the Bhima Koregaon case.

"In the other case, that is the Bhima Koregaon case, according to them they had electronic evidence. The electronic evidence was seized without following any procedure under the law. As your lordship knows electronic evidence can be altered. This is a completely false case; I would say planted evidence. They went to the trial court, asked for search warrant - denied. Once again went, denied again. Without following the procedure they go to his house, seize the electronic evidence without following any procedure known to law under the IT Act, Evidence Act and then they say that there is evidence in those electronic devices that you are a member of the Maoist party, that you are providing finance on their behalf and that you said that it's actually good to attack, there was a proposal to clear the forest and that should be enforced", he said.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing Gadling's appeal challenging the Bombay High Court order denying him bail in the case. The Court adjourned the matter to next Wednesday (September 24) after briefly hearing Grover and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju.

Supreme Court Seeks Response From Union On PIL For CBI Probe Into Tiger Poaching

Case Details: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000879 / 2025

The Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre, CBI and National Tiger Conservation Authority (NCTA) in a PIL seeking a CBI probe into tiger poachings in India

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran agreed to consider the PIL and issued notice to the Union, Department of Personnel and Training, CBI and National Tiger Conservation Authority (NCTA).

The petitioner in person, Gaurav Kumar Bansal, stressed that more than 35% of the tigers in this country are outside the Tiger Reserves and the protective zones.

Supreme Court Questions TN Govt Over Missing Files Of Idol Theft Cases; Seeks Centre's Response On Recovering Idols From Foreign Museums

Case Title – Elephant G. Rajendran v. Secretary & Ors.

The Supreme Court (September 16) issued notice to the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Culture in a case concerning recovery of idols stolen since 1985 from various temples in Tamil Nadu, which are said to be in foreign museums.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan passed the order while hearing a petition filed by advocate Elephant G Rajendran seeking an investigation into the disappearance of 41 case diaries connected to thefts of antique temple idols, artefacts, jewels and other properties in Tamil Nadu.

“We have perused the affidavits and find that in order to achieve an effective solution to the issues that have been raised by the petitioner herein, it would be necessary to implead Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and Ministry of Culture, Government of India represented by the concerned Secretary as respondent nos.5 and 6. Cause title be amended accordingly. Issue notice to the aforesaid respondents”, the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Suspends Sentence Of Catholic Priest Convicted For Rape Of Minor Girl

Case Details: Fr Edwin Pigarez v. State of Kerala | Crl.A No. 1321 of 2016, Crl.A No. 160 of 2017

The Supreme Court suspended the life sentence of Father Edwin Pigarez, a priest of the Roman Catholic church, who was convicted for raping a minor girl.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while suspending the appellant's sentence, granted bail during the pendency of his appeals against the order of conviction by the High Court.

In February 2024, the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of the priest for repeated rape and sexual assault of a minor girl in his parish, but reduced the sentence imposed upon him by the Special Court from life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life to rigorous imprisonment of twenty years without remission.

Judicial Officers File Contempt Plea Alleging Denial Of Vehicle Loan; Supreme Court Issues Notice To Delhi Chief Secretary

Case Title: Judicial Service Association of Delhi (Regd.) v. Dharmendra, Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 623-624/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Court's order which accepted the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) with regard to conveyance/transport allowance of judicial officers and directed state governments to implement the same.

A bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran, Atul S Chandurkar passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, who argued that despite further orders having been passed by the Court in the matter, and a statement by the concerned Additional Solicitor General regarding compliance with the Court's directions, the Delhi government has failed to do the needful.

The Court issued notice to the Delhi Chief Secretary and Finance Secretary considering the allegation that there was non-compliance with the SNJPC recommendation to provide soft nominal loan facilities of upto Rs.10 lakhs to judicial officers (for purchasing vehicles).

Judicial Service | Supreme Court To Examine Lack Of Promotional Avenues After Amicus Flags Young Lawyers' Disinterest

Case: All India Judges Association v. Union of India | Wp(C) 1022/1989

The Supreme Court has decided to examine the issue of lack of promotional avenues for the entry-level posts in the judicial service, which is dissuading many bright young lawyers from joining service at the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

The issue was raised by Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in the All India Judges Association case. He highlighted an "anomalous situation" in many States, where Judicial Officers recruited as Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) often do not reach even the level of the Principal District Judge, leave aside reaching the position of the High Court Judge.

He put forth a proposal to reserve a certain percentage of posts from the cadre of Principal District Judges for the promotion of Judges selected initially from the JMFC Cadre.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Advocate's Degree After University Denies Its Authenticity

Cause Title: Naresh Dilawari v. Charanjit Singh Oberoi

The Supreme Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to verify the authenticity of an advocate's B.Com degree, after the concerned university declared the certificate to be 'forged and not issued by it.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the appeal against the Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee decision, where the question was regarding the Bachelor of Commerce (“B.Com”) degree possessed by the Petitioner being forged.

On the previous date of hearing, the Court had taken note of a letter issued by the Controller of Examinations of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, stating that the mark sheet and B.Com degree in the Petitioner's name (Examination 1991) were “forged and not issued from the University.” At that time, the Court had directed him to produce photocopies of the degrees under which he claimed to be a graduate in Commerce and Law.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Karnataka Govt Inviting Booker Prize Winner Banu Mushtaq For Dasara Festival

Case: Shri Hs Gaurav v. State of Karnataka | Diary No. 53364/2025

A petition has been filed against the Karnataka High Court's judgment which approved the decision of the State Government to invite Booker Prize winner Banu Mushtaq as the Chief Guest for Dasara festival celebration inauguration at the Chamundi temple, Mysuru.

Advocate Sughosh Subramanyam, the counsel for the petitioner HS Gourav, mentioning the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing,  submitted, "This is a plea against the Karnataka Government's decision to allow a non-Hindu to perform Agra Puja at the Chamundeshwari Temple for the inauguration of Dasara in Mysuru."

He sought a listing for tomorrow, saying that the event is on September 22. CJI BR Gavai agreed to list it tomorrow.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay HC Order Quashing TN Govt Decision To Use Temple Funds For Marriage Halls' Construction

Case Title: Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple Palani. v. Rama Ravikumar and Anr., SLP(C) No. 26368-26369/2025 (And Connected Case)

The Supreme Court refused to stay the Madras High Court judgment which quashed a state government order granting permission for construction of marriage halls by utilizing funds of 5 different temples.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and issued notice on the petition challenging the High Court order. The Court will be considering whether construction of marriage halls using temple funds is commercial in nature or not.

Questioning the state government's decision, the bench remarked that surplus funds of religious places like temples should not be used for construction of marriage halls, where dance, music and service of alcohol are likely to take place.

Supreme Court Makes Interim Anticipatory Bail Of TN MLA Jegan Moorthy In Abduction Case Absolute

Case Details: M Jegan Moorthy v. Inspector of Police | SLP(Crl) No. 9477/2025

The Supreme Court (September 18) made the June 30 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, absolute subject to the bail conditions imposed.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a special leave petition 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. A bench comprising Justice Misra had extended his anticipatory bail, and the matter was finally disposed of, considering the fact that the abductee has been recovered, but not from the possession of the MLA.

The State, represented by Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, vehemently opposed making the anticipatory bail permanent. The Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the offence alleged to have been committed by Moorthy was very serious and that it is punishable with life imprisonment.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against 25% Domicile Reservation At National Law University Jodhpur

Case Title – Anindita Biswas v. National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP challenging the Rajasthan High Court judgment upholding 25% domicile-based reservation at National Law University, Jodhpur (NLUJ).

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar said, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”

The petition before the High Court was against the NLUJ's Executive Council's Resolution, passed in 2022, introducing the domicile-based reservation for students from Rajasthan, arguing it to be violative of Articles 14 and 15, and lacking any statutory basis.

NEET-PG | Transgender Persons Seek Direction To Keep Some Seats Empty For Them Before Counselling; Supreme Court To Hear Next Week

Case Details: Kiran A.R and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 461/2025

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider next week the issue of allotting two seats in the transperson category in the All India and one each in the Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh State Quota of NEET-PG Admissions.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinodchandran was hearing a plea seeking horizontal reservation for transgender persons in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-PG 2025. The exam took place in August and the results are awaited.

The Court issued noticein the matter in May after hearing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (for petitioners), who argued that despite the judgment in NALSA v. Union of India, the Union and the States have not provided reservations to transgender persons. The plea challenges the NEET PG notification to the extent that it did not provide counselling for transperson candidates.

"I Respect All Religions" : CJI Gavai Reacts To Social Media Row Over His Comments In Vishnu Idol Case

Responding to the controversy sparked by his observations while dismissing a petition seeking reconstruction of a dilapidated Lord Vishnu Idol at a temple in Khajuraho, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said that he respected all religions.

The CJI clarified that his comments were made in the context of the fact that the temple was under the jurisdiction of the ASI.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran was hearing the issue of large-scale illegal iron ore mining in Karnataka that led to severe environmental damage.

Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Delhi PWD For Manual Sewer Cleaning Outside SC's Gate

Case Details: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 324/2020

The Supreme Court (September 18) imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakhs on the officials of the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Delhi Government for engaging manual sewer cleaners for drainage cleaning at the very gate (Gate F) outside the Supreme Court itself, in violation of the Court's judgment prohibiting manual sewer cleaning.

The Court noted that the PWD had not only engaged labourers without the safety gears but also engaged a minor for this work. If the violations are repeated, the Court warned that FIR will be registered against the concerned officials.

The cost has to be deposited with the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis within four weeks.

Supreme Court Designates 6 Former High Court Judges, 1 Chief Justice As Senior Advocates

After a Full Court held meeting on September 17, the Supreme Court has designated 7 former Chief Justice/Judges of High Courts as Senior Advocates. These include -

(1) Sh. Attau Rahman Masoodi (former Judge, Allahabad High Court),

(2) Sh. Avinash Gharote (former Judge, Bombay High Court),

Bio Diesel Makers Approach Supreme Court To Direct Oil Marketing Companies To Accept Their Supplies

Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 13029/1985

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Union in a plea filed by the Biodiesel Association of India challenging the government notification, which extends the excise duty exemption on the sale of unblended High-Speed Diesel for another year, from April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice in the application while hearing the batch of petitions in MC Mehta v. Union of India.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union, sought time to file a reply, submitting that " We have a reason, we will place it on affidavit my lords."

Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Of Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid & Others In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case Till September 22

Case Details:

The Supreme Court (September 19) adjourned till Monday (September 21) the hearing of 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.

The petitions were listed before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Manmohan.

The matter was listed on September 12 before a bench comprising Justice Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, but it was adjournedas the Court expressed difficulty about taking up these matters, saying that the files of the supplementary list were received only at 2.30 night.

Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Varavara Rao's Plea To Modify Bail Condition Requiring Him To Be In Mumbai

Case Title: P. Varavara Rao and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., Ma 1675-1676/2025 In Crl.A. No. 1206/2022

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea to modify the medical bail condition imposed on 85-yr old P Varavara Rao, accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the Bhima Koregaon case, which requires him to seek prior permission from the Trial Court if he wishes to leave the Greater Mumbai area.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed as withdrawn Rao's plea after hearing Senior Advocate Anand Grover.

Grover submitted that Rao has been on bail for 4 years but his health is deteriorating. Earlier, his wife used to take care of him but she has shifted to Hyderabad, and as such, there is no one to look after him. "Today also, he fell from dizziness", the senior counsel said.

Air India Crash | NGO Moves Supreme Court Alleging Bias In Preliminary Probe; Seeks Disclosure Of Flight Data & Court-Monitored Probe

Case: Safety Matters Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. | Diary No.: 53715 / 2025

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an independent, court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight AI171, which killed 260 people, including passengers, crew and persons on the ground, on June 12, 2025.

The petition, filed by Safety Matters Foundation, an aviation safety NGO led by Capt. Amit Singh FRAeS, under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleges that the manner in which the probe has been conducted violates the fundamental rights to life, equality, and truthful information.

According to the petition, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) issued its Preliminary Report on July 12, 2025, attributing the crash to “fuel cutoff switches” being moved from RUN to CUTOFF, thereby suggesting pilot error. The petitioner contends that the report withholds crucial flight data such as the complete Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) output, the full Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcript with timestamps, and the Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording (EAFR) data, all of which are essential for an objective understanding of the incident.

Supreme Court Allows Prosecutors & Govt Advocates To Provisionally Appear For Chhattisgarh Civil Judge Exam Without Enrolment Condition

Case: Urwashi Kour and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh | Diary No. 53495/2025

The Supreme Court passed an interim order permitting certain petitioners who have approached it, who are working as Public Prosecutors and Government Advocates, to provisionally appear for the Preliminary examination of the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) which is scheduled to take place on Sunday.

The Court asked the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) to permit the petitioners, who possess the requisite qualification, to appear in the exam without insisting on the condition that they must remain enrolled as Advocates as on the date of advertisement.

The petitioners were not issued admit cards since the exam notification mandated that the candidates must be Advocates enrolled with the State Bar Council as on the date of advertisement. The persons who get appointed as Public Prosecutors/Government Advocates are required by the rules to suspend their enrolment. Therefore, the State Public Service Commission (CGPSC) did not issue them admit cards, saying that they are not enrolled.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Karnataka Govt's Invite To Booker Prize Winner Banu Mushtaq For Dasara Festival

Case Title: H.S. Gaurav v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 26999/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court order which approved the decision of the State Government to invite Booker Prize winner Banu Mushtaq as the Chief Guest for Dasara festival celebration inauguration at Chamundi temple, Mysuru.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the matter after a brief hearing.

Senior Advocate PB Suresh, for the petitioner, submitted that  a non-Hindu person cannot be allowed to perform the pujas. Justice Nath then pronounced, "Dismissed."

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo Over David Yale-Joseph Hynmers Tomb In Madras High Court Compound

Case Title: T Mohan v. B Manoharan and Ors., Diary No. 26324-2025

The Supreme Court ordered that status quo be maintained with respect to the Tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hynmers situated in the compound of Law College within the Madras High Court campus.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, while issuing notice on Senior Advocate T Mohan's plea challenging the Madras High Court order which ordered relocation of the structure holding that it did not qualify as an "ancient monument".

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the petitioner and argued that the respondent (petitioner before the High Court) persuaded the High Court to order relocation of the monument as he was purportedly facing parking problems. The senior counsel referred to a notification dated 20.01.1921 issued under Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, vide which the tomb was declared as a protected monument. He particularly highlighted Section 3(4), which provides:

'There Has To Be Finality To Proceedings' : Supreme Court On Vodafone's New Petition Over AGR Dues

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

The Supreme Court (September 19) asked if it can entertain a fresh petition filed by Vodafone India over the issue of Adjusted Gross Revenue dues, ignoring the Court's earlier order, which dismissed a previous petition filed by the company on the same issue.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria 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.

In May, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had dismissedthe writ petitions filed by Vodafone and two other companies seeking waiver of interest, penalty, and interest on penalty components on their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues. Then, the bench led by Justice Pardiwala had made scathing remarks against the company for filing the petition despite the conclusion of the AGR litigation with the dismissal of curative petitions.

Chief Justice Of Australia Visits Supreme Court, Shares Bench With Chief Justice Of India

The Supreme Court welcomed the Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, Justice Stephen Gageler, who witnessed the proceedings as a special invitee.

In the morning session, Justice Gageler joined the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria as an observer judge.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, welcoming Justice Gageler, said that his present visit was too short to explore a beautiful country like India.

'If It Wants To Do Social Service, What's Your Problem?' Supreme Court Rejects Union's Challenge To NGO's FCRA Registration

Case Title: Union of India v. M/S Sharma Centre For Heritage Education, SLP(C) No. 26284-26285/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's challenge to a Madras High Court orderwhich directed it to process and grant renewal of registration to a Non-Government Organization (NGO) which was receiving foreign contributions.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and asked the Union to not harass the NGO any further.

"Have they misappropriated? is there any abuse of these funds received by them? There is no such finding at all. If they are doing some social service for the society, what is your problem? You monitor, keep a check, let them file their accounts annually - that's all. Don't complicate things, don't further harass them", said Justice Nath to Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave.

Chhattisgarh NAN Scam | Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Of Anil Tuteja & Alok Shukla, Orders 4 Weeks' ED Custody

Case Title – SLP(Crl.) No. 6323-6324/2020

The Supreme Court set aside the anticipatory bail granted to former IAS officer Anil Tuteja and co-accused Alok Shukla in the 2015 Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam relating to corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Chhattisgarh.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order in the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) appeals challenging the anticipatory bail granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2020.

The ED had submitted that because of the anticipatory bail granted to Tuteja and Shukla, it could not file the prosecution complaint under the PMLA. Further, it argued that Tuteja and Shukla are misusing the anticipatory bail.

Supreme Court Seeks CPI(M) Response In Dispute Over Land Where Kerala Headquarters Is Located

Case Details: Indu v. Finance and Investment Corporation and Ors | Diary No. 40969-2025

The Supreme Court has sought a reply from the Communist Party of India(Marxist), Kerala, over a dispute on the land where its Kerala headquarters, AKG Centre at Thiruvanathapuram, is situated.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Manmohan considered the matter.

The dispute arises out of a court action sale . The SLP Petitioner, who purchased a property from judgment debtor, while the execution petition was pending against the judgment debtor/defendant, claims that the court auction sale was not conducted properly. On the other hand, the CPI(M) which purchased the property from the auction purchaser in the court sale, claims that they are the bona fide purchaser and the court auction was conducted after the court complied with all procedures. The original suit from execution petition arose in fact filed in 1974 and decreed in 1978.

Justice PV Sanjay Kumar 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 PV Sanjay Kumar 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 Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe.

The bench directed that the matter be listed, subject to the orders of the CJI, before a bench of which Justice Sanjay Kumar is not a part.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo In Plea Challenging HP HC Judgment Which Set Aside Power Of Govt To Regularise Encroachments

Case Details: Onkar Singh Shad v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 53469/2025

The Supreme Court ordered status quo in a petition challenging thedecisionof the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which declared Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1952, as unconstitutional.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the matter.

S.163A empowered the State Government to frame rules for the regularisation of encroachments on government land.

Supreme Court Appoints Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud As Mediator In Commercial Dispute

Cause Title: Euro Pratik Ispat (India) Private Limited v. Geomin Industries Private Limited & Ors.

The Supreme Court (Sep.19) appointed former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud to act as a mediator in a dispute between two companies over ownership of 170,000 MT of iron ore in Sihora, Jabalpur.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed an order while hearing Euro Pratik Ispat Ltd.'s appeal against the MP High Court's decision, which reversed with the Commercial Court's order returning the plaint because of non-compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act, 2015.

The dispute originated from the Commercial Court's decision to return the plaint filed by Geomin Industries Pvt Ltd for failing to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which requires pre-litigation mediation except in cases involving urgent interim relief. On appeal, the High Court overturned this ruling, finding that Geomin's request for an injunction to stop Euro Pratik from selling or transferring the iron ore squarely qualified as a case of genuine urgency.

Is S.138 NI Act Complaint Maintainable If Cheque Was Issued For Cash Debt Above Rs 20,000? Supreme Court To Decide

Case: Shine Varghese Koipurathu v. State of Kerala and Another | SLP(Crl) 14187/2025

The Supreme Court is set to examine the question whether a complaint for cheque dishonour is maintainable if the cheque was presented to recover a debt above Rs 20,000 which was paid completely in cash.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed against ajudgment of the Kerala High Court which held that a debt created by a cash transaction above Rupees Twenty Thousand in violation of the Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961 cannot be considered as a "legally enforceable debt" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless there is a valid explanation for the same.

Noting that as per Section 269SS of the IT Act, any transaction above Rs. 20,000/- can only be made through an account transaction or by issuance of a cheque or a draft, the High Court held : "Hereafter, if anybody pays an amount in excess of 20,000/ to another person by cash in violation of Act 1961, and thereafter receives a cheque for that debt, he should take responsibility to get back the amount, unless there is a valid explanation for such cash transactions. If there is no valid explanation in tune with Section 273B of the Act 1961, the doors of the criminal court will be closed for such illegal transactions."

'Abuse Of Process' : Supreme Court Hauls Up Advocate Who Lodged FIR Against 71-Year-Old Woman Alleging Forgery In 1971 Sale Deed

Case Title: Usha Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr., SLP(Crl.) No. 9346/2025

The Supreme Court directed an advocate to explain why exemplary costs should not be imposed on him for lodging an FIR in 2023 alleging forgery of a sale deed executed more than five decades ago, in 1971. Observing that the case appeared to be an abuse of the process of law, the Court also called upon the Station House Officer concerned to show cause as to why the proceedings be not quashed.

The accused in the FIR was a 71-year old woman. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and NK Singh was considering the petition filed by the woman, who was denied anticipatory bail by the Allahabad High Court.

PIL Filed In Delhi High Court Seeking Removal Of Graves Of Afzal Guru, Mohammad Maqbool Bhatt From Tihar Jail Premises

Case Title: Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh v. Union of India & Ors.

A public interest litigation has been initiated before the Delhi High Court Court seeking the removal of the graves of Mohammad Maqbool Bhatt and Mohammad Afzal Guru, who were executed for terrorism-related offences, from Delhi's Central Jail, Tihar.

As an alternative, it is prayed that the authorities relocate their mortal remains to a secret location in accordance with law, “so as to prevent glorification of terrorism and misuse of the jail premises”.

The plea, filed through one “Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh”, states that the construction and continued existence of these graves inside a State-controlled prison is illegal, unconstitutional, and against public interest.