Reports/Judgements ♦ Supreme Court Declines Plea Seeking Handover Of Mahabodhi Mahavihara At Gaya To Buddhists; Allows To Approach HCCase Title : Sulekhatai Nalinitai Narayanrao Kumbhare v. The Union of India | Diary No. 19102/2025The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking to hand over the management of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara at Bodh Gaya, Bihar to...
Reports/Judgements
Case Title : Sulekhatai Nalinitai Narayanrao Kumbhare v. The Union of India | Diary No. 19102/2025
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking to hand over the management of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara at Bodh Gaya, Bihar to Buddhists.
The petitioner also challenged the Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949, as per which the temple is managed by a management committee consisting of four Buddhists, four Hindus and one district collector. However, a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed the petition, giving the petitioner liberty to approach the High Court.
Case Title : M/s Alankar Granites v. Thiruvilwalamala Grama Panchayat and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 16999/2025
The issue whether a stone crusher unit can operate in the Eco Sensitive Zones (ESZ) notified around protected forests can be raised before the Kerala High Court, the Supreme Court observed recently, while allowing the withdrawal of a petition.
A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh was hearing a special leave petition filed by M/s Alankar Granites challenging the order of the Kerala High Court, which vacated its earlier stay on the stop memos issued against the stone crushing unit. On June 27, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea and move the High Court.
Case Title : S. Balakrishnan & Anr v. State of Tamil Nadu | SLP(Crl) Diary No(s). 33621/2025
The Supreme Court sought an explanation from the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, for the non-listing of an anticipatory bail plea filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice NK Singh was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed challenging the Registry's refusal to list the petition before the bench on the ground that anticipatory bail was barred under Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court observed that it is ultimately for the bench to decide whether a matter is maintainable or not.
♦ Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Tamil Nadu MLA Jegan Moorthy In Abduction Case
Case Title : M. Jegan Moorthy v. The Inspector Police | SLP(Crl) No. 009477/2025
The Supreme Court granted 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.
A bench of Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice NK Singh was hearing a challenge to the Madras High Court dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by Moorthy in connection with the alleged abduction of a minor boy. Agreeing to issue notice, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Moorthy.
♦ Is SREI Equipment Finance Ltd Bound By RBI Circulars? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Title: International Financial Service Limited v. SREI Equipment Finance Limited & Anr.
The Supreme Court is set to consider the issue whether SREI Equipment Finance Limited is bound by the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India, being a company backed by the Government of India.
The Court recently ordered an interim stay on the proposed debt assignment process initiated by SREI Equipment Finance Limited under the Swiss Challenge Method for the assignment of debt concerning United Asian Traders Limited until the next hearing, scheduled for August 5, 2025.
The order passed by a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran came amidst allegations of regulatory non-compliance and questions over the locus standi of the petitioner, International Financial Service Limited (IFSL). Further, the Court directed SREI to refrain from finalizing the Expression of Interest (EoI).
Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde & Ors. | SLP (Civil) No. 1644-1662 of 2024
The Supreme Court agreed to list on July 14 an application filed by Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) seeking interim reliefs in its petition challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to recognize the Eknath Shinde group as the official Shiv Sena and grant them the 'bow and arrow' election symbol.
The UBT group mentioned the matter before a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice K Vinod Chandran seeking urgent listing. However, the bench was not inclined to list the matter during the partial working days.
Case Title : Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand | SLP(Crl) No. 9452/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by national award-winning scriptwriter and director Sujoy Ghosh seeking to quash a criminal case filed under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, on the allegation that his movie "Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh" was based on a stolen script.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan, while issuing notice to the State of Jharkhand and the complainant, allowed exemption to Ghosh from personal appearance before the Magistrate in the proceedings.
♦ Supreme Court Allows Substitution Of M3M India Property Provisionally Attached By ED
Case Title: M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(C) No. 4027/2025
The Supreme Court recently allowed real estate company M3M Group's plea for substitution of the provisionally attached property by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, subject to stringent safeguards.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan however clarified that the substitution of provisional attached property was allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
Case Title : Kiran Kumar v. State of Kerala | SLP (Crl) 6729/2025
The Supreme Court suspended the 10-year sentence imposed on Kiran Kumar for the death of his wife, Vismaya, over domestic cruelty related to dowry harassment.
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed his release on interim bail in a special leave petition filed by Kumar against the Kerala High Court's refusal to suspend his sentence.
The case relates to the death of Vismaya, a 22-year-old Ayurveda medical student, in 2021, within a year of her marriage. She had died by suicide due to dowry harassment. The Sessions Court had convicted Kumar under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B among others of the IPC and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment and a fine of ₹12.5 lakh.
♦ Legal Heirs Of Negligent Driver Not Entitled To Compensation Under Motor Vehicle Act : Supreme Court
Case Title: G. Nagarathna & Ors. v. G. Manjunatha & Anr.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the legal heirs of the deceased person driving a vehicle negligently cannot seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan refused to interfere with the Karnataka High Court's decision, which had dismissed the plea filed by the deceased legal heirs for claiming compensation under Section 166 MV Act for his rash and negligent driving.
Case Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan v. State pf Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 9602/2025
Sashidhar Jagdishan, the CEO of the HDFC Bank, approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the FIR registered at the behest of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust.
The petition was mentioned before a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran, seeking urgent listing, saying that 3 Bombay High Court judges had recused from hearing the matter, causing a delay in listing.
Case Title: Union of India v. Manash Dey Munshi, SLP(Crl) No. 9500/2025
The Supreme Court refused to set aside a Calcutta High Court order which imposed cost on the Union Government for its delay in filing an appeal against acquittal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS). The Court however modified the order to say that the cost should be deposited by the Union government and not the officers involved in the making and filing of the appeal (as directed by the High Court).
Further, the bench of Justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran reduced the quantum of the cost from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs.50,000/-.
Case Title: R.Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal v. The State of Tamil Nadu, SLP(C) No. 017191 - 017194 / 2025
The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain the petition filed by Vidhayahar of Thiruchendur's Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, in Tamil Nadu, contesting fixation of timing of a consecration ceremony (Kumbhabhishekam) at the temple on July 7 based on recommendations of a committee comprising 5 priests.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N Kotiswar Singh declined to entertain under Article 136 jurisdiction the Vidhayahar's plea that the timing of the ceremony shall be as per his opinion.
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors., SLP(C) No. 17129/2025
The Supreme Court today upheld the compulsory retirement of an Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officer based on adverse service record entries against him. Notably, allegations against the judicial officer included that of passing bail orders for extraneous considerations.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran was dealing with the petitioner-judicial officer's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order of April, whereby his compulsory retirement was upheld. The bench noted that a Full Bench of the High Court had arrived at the decision to compulsory retire the petitioner and there were service records to support the decision.
♦ NEET-UG 2025 : Candidate's Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Result, Alleges Error In Answer Key
Case Title : Shivam Gandhi Raina v. National Testing Agency | WP(C) 620/2025
A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the final answer key and the result of the NEET-UG 2025 exam held by the National Testing Agency. The petitioner, a candidate of the NEET-UG exam, alleged that there were manifest errors in the provisional answer key, which were not corrected by the NTA in its final answer key, despite the objections submitted by the petitioner.
On July 4, this petition was dismissed by a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan. "Exam matter we are not going to interfere. You may be right on principle that there could be multiple correct answers. Despite that, to interfere in an all-India exam at this stage, will create...", remarked Justice Narasimha.
Case Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan v. State pf Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 9602/2025
The Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition filed by Sashidhar Jagdishan, CEO of HDFC Bank, for quashing of the FIR registered against him at the behest of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan observed that it would be improper on the part of the Supreme Court to intervene when Jagdishan's petition is listed before the Bombay High Court on July 14.
♦ Prosecutor Working On Contractual Basis Cannot Claim Regularisation : Supreme Court
Case Title: Anupam Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 29533/2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 692
The Supreme Court recently rejected a plea by a Public Prosecutor, appointed on a contractual basis, seeking regularisation. A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the Calcutta High Court had not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner's writ application seeking directions for regularisation.
The Court noted that the petitioner had himself been requesting the District Magistrate of Purulia to allow him to continue in the role on a contractual basis to earn a livelihood.
♦ Supreme Court Stays MP HC Direction Mandating IPS-Level Supervision Of All Serious Crime Probes
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sunit @ Sumit Singh, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 18819/2025
The Supreme Court recently stayed a direction issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court mandating the formation of a Serious Crimes Investigation Supervising Team in each district, to be headed by a senior IPS officer, for overseeing every investigation in serious crimes.
A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh directed the state to submit an SOP which balances the High Court's objective of preventing careless and sloppy investigation with the constraints on available senior-level officers.
♦ Don't Seek God In Judges, We're Humble Public Servants : Justice MM Sundresh
Case Title: Govind Ram Pandey and Anr. v. Nutan Prakash and Ors., SLP(C) No. 12579-12580/2025
“Please don't seek God in us, please seek god in justice”, told Supreme Court judge-Justice MM Sundresh to a counsel today, who assailed as 'contemptuous' a client's notice stating that judges get "fixed" by lawyers.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran was hearing an advocate's plea for discharge from a case, on the basis that the client was not heeding to his advice and making aspersions of fixation against judges.
Appearing for the advocate, an AoR expressed, "We see God in our judges". While asking her to not get emotionally swayed, Justice Sundresh remarked that judges are "humble public servants" and not bothered by the assailed remarks. Instead of judges, people should see God in justice, the judge said.
Case Title: Safdar Nagori v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Diary No(s).34189/2025
The Supreme Court agreed to examine whether its 2022 order staying proceedings under Section 124A IPC (sedition) should prevent High Courts from deciding appeals against conviction for the offence of sedition.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan issued notice in a special leave petition filed by one Safdar Nagori, who has been incarcerated for 18 years following his 2017 conviction under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition) along with other charges.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. K. Venkatachalapathy @Kutty and Ors., SLP(C) No. 17220/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Madras High Court's stay of its legislative amendments taking away the Governor's power to appoint Vice Chancellors of state-run Universities.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan issued notice to the respondents on the state's prayer for interim relief as well and gave liberty given to the state to mention the cases for early hearing.
On May 21, the High Court had passed the impugned interim order staying the amendments, which were brought in pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment in the TN Governor case (which defined the scope of powers of the Governor).
A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging Election Commission of India's order passed on June 25 for a Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll in Bihar. The petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms contends that the ECI order is arbitrary and can disenfranchise millions of voters.
The ECI's directive calls for a Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar, as per which voters who do not figure in the 2003 electoral rolls have to submit the specified citizenship documents to prove they are genuine citizens.
The petitioner contends that the ECI order violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, along with provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
A PIL has been filed before the Supreme Court by psephologist and politician Yogendra Singh Yadav challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, apprehending that it could result in large-scale disenfranchisement ahead of the state's upcoming Assembly elections.
The PIL seeks an immediate stay on the SIR, calling it "manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of electoral laws." As part of the interim relief, the petitioner has urged the Court to stay the ongoing SIR process, prevent any deletions from the existing electoral rolls last updated in January 2025, and direct the ECI to conduct Bihar's elections using those existing rolls.
Mahua Moitra, Member of Parliament from Krishnanagar constituency in West Bengal, has moved Supreme Court against Election Commission's order for Electoral Roll revision in Bihar.
She has sought a direction to quash the Order dated 24.06.2025 issued by Election Commission of India under which Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar is being conducted in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 325, 326 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Representation of People (RP) Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors (RER) Rules, 1960.
The petitioner has also sought a direction from restraining ECI from issuing similar orders for Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll in other states of the country. The petition states that it can lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of eligible voters in the country thereby undermining democracy and free and fair elections in the country.
♦ PUCL Approaches Supreme Court Challenging ECI's Electoral Roll Revision In Bihar
The People's Union for Civil Liberties has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the move of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in directing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the entire country, with immediate enforcement in Bihar a few months ahead of the assembly elections.
The petition challenges the validity of the order issued by the ECI on June 24 for conducting the SIR, saying that ECI has "not defined any legitimate aim, nor sought to avoid disproportionate harm to electors."
RJD MP Manoj Jha has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to hold a "Special Intensive Revision" of electoral rolls in Bihar, contending that the process is "not only hasty and ill-timed, but has the effect of disenfranchising crores of voters, thereby robbing them of their constitutional right to vote."
According to Jha, the decision, which has been taken without any consultation with the political parties, is "being used to justify aggressive and opaque revisions of electoral rolls that disproportionately target Muslim, Dalit and poor migrant communities, as such, they are not random patterns but are engineered exclusions."
He points out that as per the settled law, the burden of proving citizenship of a person lies with the State and not the person concerned. After the initiation of the present SIR process, an overwhelming majority (about 4.74 crore out of 7.9 crore on the current Electoral Roll) carry a disproportionately high burden of proving their citizenship with the help of proofs of date and place of birth.
Other developments
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai sought to dispel the impression that the Supreme Court is the "CJI's Court" by saying that it is a court of all decisions. Underscoring that the administrative decisions of the Supreme Court are taken by the full court and not solely by the Chief Justice, CJI Gavai said that he was following the attempts made by his predecessors, particularly Justices UU Lalit and Sanjiv Khanna, to dispel the notion that the Supreme Court is the CJI's Court.
"Like Justices Khanna and Lalit, I too am a firm believer in the principle that a CJI is only the "first among the equals" and not the "Master of the Supreme Court...There is a growing belief that the SC is a CJI's court and not the court of all the judges. But I must say, with a matter of pride that Justices Lalit and Khanna and even I have attempted to dispel this notion," CJI Gavai said at Nagpur at a felicitation organized by the High Court Bar Association of Nagpur, his hometown.
♦ Under CJI Gavai, Supreme Court Introduces SC/ST Reservations In Its Staff Recruitment For First Time
The Supreme Court has introduced reservations for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in its staff appointments. The employees were informed through a circular recently that a model reservation roster has been made effective from June 23.
Notably, the policy, a first-of-its-kind initiative, has been introduced during the tenure of CJI BR Gavai, who is also the second CJI belonging to the Scheduled Caste community.
Talking on the issue of sexual harassment of women at workplace, Supreme Court judge, Justice N Kotiswar Singh, said that women do not require charity and that it is “our solemn obligation” to ensure their dignity.
Speaking at the launch of portal for complaints of sexual harassment of women at workplace by the Delhi High Court, the judge said that it is important for men at workplace to understand what makes a female counterpart uncomfortable, either with the use of certain words or acts.
“We have to learn to respect any discomfort expressed by the women by resorting to appropriate behavior, which may include maintaining appropriate physical distance, avoiding using certain words and expressions, which has been already clearly mentioned in the [POSH] Act."
Speaking at an event, retired Supreme Court judge-Justice Abhay S Oka called out the government over delays in approving names of judges recommended for appointment by the Supreme Court collegium.
While delivering a lecture as part of the first edition of Late Mr. Justice HR Khanna Memorial Lecture Series hosted by Goa High Court Bar Association, Justice Oka noted that there are executive delays in appointments of judges, even though former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna went transparent and made public every single document regarding how the collegium system functions.
To ensure that there is no 'external interference' in the appointment of judges, the Supreme Court Collegium will be adopting 'complete process of transparency', said Chief Justice of India BR Gavai recently.
The CJI referred to an earlier speech delivered by Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court, who had flagged the issue of interference of "external forces" in the functioning of the SC Collegium and the appointment of judges. Responding to the same, CJI Gavai that the Collegium will be adopting completely transparent process of appointing judges. The CJI was speaking at his felicitation ceremony held by the Bombay Bar Association (BBA).
♦ After SC/ST Quotas, Supreme Court Introduces OBC Reservations In Staff Appointments For First Time
The Supreme Court has introduced reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in staff recruitments for the first time. This follows the recent decision to introduce quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in staff recruitments.
Reservations for physically challenged, Ex-servicemen and dependents of Freedom Fighters have also been provided. This has been done through an amendment to the Supreme Court Officers and Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961. By a notification dated July 3, Rule 4A has been substituted by the Chief Justice of India in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 146 of the Constitution.
♦ CJI Gavai Launches Live Streaming Facility In Bombay High Court
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai recently launched the "live streaming" of the Bombay High Court proceedings. As of now only the proceedings of the first five benches of the HC will be live streamed. Besides the live streaming facility, CJI Gavai also launched the free wifi and internet facilities, recently installed in the Bombay High Court. This service will be made available to the lawyers, litigants, court staff and the media.
Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar has withdrawn her consent for appointment as a judge of the Delhi High Court after the Centre kept the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation of her name pending for nearly a year. She confirmed the development to LiveLaw, though did not disclose any reasons for her decision.
On August 21, 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium, then headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, had recommended Majumdar's name along with two other advocates, Ajay Digpaul and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. While the Central Government, on January 6, 2025, cleared the appointments of the other two advocates who were recommended in the same resolution, Majumdar's name was left pending without any reasons being assigned.
Former Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur recently highlighted concerns surrounding judicial independence and advocated for essential judicial reforms in India during his participation at the World Justice Forum, held in Warsaw from June 24-26.
Participating in a distinguished panel titled "Strengthening Accountability through Rule of Law Reforms in the Asia Pacific," Justice Lokur joined international legal experts to address pressing challenges facing judiciaries across the region.
♦ Supreme Court Asks Union Govt To Reclaim CJI Bungalow As Ex-CJI Chandrachud Overstays
In an unprecedented development, the Supreme Court administration has requested the Union Government to get the official bungalow of the Chief Justice of India vacated as former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud's stay there has exceeded the permissible limit.
According to a report of The Hindustan Times, the Supreme Court administration wrote to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs requesting to take possession of Bungalow No. 5 on Krishna Menon Marg, the official bungalow of the CJI, since the permission allowed to the Justice Chandrachud to retain it expired on May 31, 2025.
Justice Chandrachud, who retired on November 10, 2024, has continued to occupy the official residence for nearly 8 months post-retirement.
♦ Krishna Iyer's Principle 'Bail Is The Rule' Was Somewhat Forgotten By Courts Recently: CJI BR Gavai
Speaking at an event, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai acknowledged that the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception had been somewhat forgotten in recent times.
However, he said he had an opportunity to reiterate it in the bail cases of Manish Sisodia and Kavita v. Enforcement Directorate last year. He noted that Justice VR Krishna Iyer was in favour of granting bail with protective and curative conditions and opposed imposing onerous conditions relating to security and sureties. The CJI highlighted that Justice Iyer believed undertrials should not be jailed for long periods.
“Justice Iyer is known for breaking new grounds in Indian judiciary by asserting what was once taboo - bail is the rule and jail the exception. I admit that in recent past this principle was somewhat forgotten but I had an opportunity the last year to reiterate this legal principle in the cases of Prem Prakash, Manish Sisodia and Kavitha versus the ED”, Chief Justice Gavai said.