Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: September 2025

S. 86 Electricity Act | Power Generators, Discoms Cannot Fix Tariffs Privately, Need Regulatory Commissions' Approval : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. KKK Hydro Power Limited v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 856

The Supreme Court held that a generating company and a distribution licensee cannot unilaterally fix tariffs through a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), ruling that tariff determination requires the prior approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission

Citing Section 86 of the Electricity Act of 2003, the court observed:

“...fixing of the price for the purchase of electricity is not a matter of private negotiation and agreement between a generating company and a distribution licensee. The price as well as the agreement, i.e., PPA, incorporating such price and providing for purchase of electricity at that price necessarily have to be reviewed and approved by the State Commission under this provision.”

“We, however, clarify and affirm that a generating company and a distribution licensee cannot, by private agreement, execute a PPA on their own or stipulate tariff therein as per their choice, for supply of electricity within a State, without seeking the review and approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1) (b) of the Act of 2003.”, the court added.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and NV Anjaria dismissed the appeal filed by a power-generating company, which sought a higher tariff for its hydroelectric power supplied to the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB) based on the unilateral revision in the tariff rates in the PPA without the approval of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (“HPERC”).

Past Misconduct Can Add Weight To Dismissal, Even If Not Mentioned In Show Cause Notice : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 857

The Supreme Court set aside the reinstatement of the ex-Punjab Armed Forces Constable for his repeated unauthorized absence from the service, stating that past records of indiscipline though not specifically referred to in the show cause notice, cannot save the delinquent officer from dismissal as the same can be used to adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order directing the reinstatement of a constable, holding that the High Court erred in treating the disciplinary authority's reliance on his past conduct, though not mentioned in the show cause notice, as a violation of natural justice.

Ensure Every Unauthorised Construction In Kolkata Is Dealt With As Per Law : Supreme Court To Calcutta High Court

Case Details: M/S. T.S Construction v. Howrah Zilla Parishad, SLP(C) No. 23989/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 858

The Supreme Court asked the Calcutta High Court to take up the issue of unauthorized constructions in the city and deal with each of them appropriately in the interest of the general public.

"It is high time that the High Court in larger public interest takes up this issue and ensures that each and every unauthorized construction across the city of Calcutta is dealt with appropriately in accordance with law" observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.

The case pertained to some construction carried out by the petitioner, deviating from the sanction plan, in relation to which the Howrah Zilla Parishad had passed a resolution directing that it be removed. This Resolution noted that the petitioner was aware of government norms and the deviations were made "knowingly and deliberately".

Supreme Court Upholds Telangana Domicile Rule Mandating 4 Year Continuous Study In State With Relaxation To Children Of Govt Servants

Case Details: State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 859

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Telangana against the order of the Telangana High Court, which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran upheld the 2017 Rules, which mandated that a candidate must study for four consecutive years in the State of Telangana to qualify for the "local candidate" quota in MBBS and BDS courses.

To address the difficulties faced by children of parents who work in All India Services or PSUs, who get transferred outside the State, the State Government suggested an amendment, which the Court accepted. With this amendment, the Court upheld the 2017 Rules as amended in 2024.

Customs Act | Electronic Evidence Admissible Without S.138C(4) Certificate If Assessee's S.108 Statement Admits Contents : Supreme Court

Case Details: Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh Kumar and Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 859

The Supreme Court held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“DRI”) can be admissible even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, if the assessees has acknowledged these the documents in the devices in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

Section 138C (4) of the Customs Act requires the production of a certificate, similar to the mandate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act for proving electronic evidence.

Here, the Court clarified that where obtaining such a certificate is impossible, and the Record of Proceedings has been duly acknowledged by the assessee, the evidence collected cannot be treated as inadmissible merely for want of the formal certificate. If there is due compliance otherwise, the electronic evidence can be admitted.

Supreme Court Mandates TET Qualification For Teachers In Non-Minority Schools; Allows Time For In-Service Teachers To Clear Test

Case Details: Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors | C.A. No. 1385/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 861

The Supreme Court held that qualifying the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for those aspiring for appointment as teachers and also in-service teachers aspiring for promotions..

As regards those teachers appointed prior to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 ("RTE Act") and have more than five years of service left, the Court granted a time of two years to pass the Teachers' Eligibility Test ("TET").

At the same time, the Court held that the TET requirement under the RTE Act wouldn't apply to minority educational institutions, till the larger bench decides the issue regarding the applicability of the RTE Act to minority schools.

Supreme Court Doubts Correctness Of Judgment Exempting Minority Schools From RTE Act; Refers To CJI

Case Details: Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors | C.A. No. 1385/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 861

The Supreme Court (September 1) expressed doubt over the correctness of the 2014 Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust judgment delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench insofar as it held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 ("RTE Act") exempts minority schools, whether aid or unaided, under the purview of the RTE Act.

"In view of the foregoing discussions, we respectfully express our doubt as to whether Pramati insofar as it exempts application of the RTE Act to minority schools, whether aided or unaided, falling under clause 1 has been correctly decided," observed a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.

The bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to decide whether a larger bench reference is warranted.

Agreement To Sell, General Power Of Attorney Won't Confer Title In Property : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 862

The Supreme Court (Sep.1) reaffirmed that the title of the immovable property cannot be transferred without a registered sale deed.

The bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which affirmed the trial court's order decreeing the suit for possession, mandatory injunction, and declaration despite there being no registered sale deed executed validating conveyance in the plaintiff's favour.

The Plaintiff-Respondent claimed that he had purchased the property from his father in 1996 through an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, receipt, and a registered Will. He alleged that his brother, Ramesh Chand (defendant), was initially a licensee who later sold half the property to a third party (Respondent No. 2) illegally.

NGT Cannot Outsource Its Adjudicatory Functions To Expert Committees : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 863

The Supreme Court (Sep 1) criticized the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for functioning like a mere rubber stamp by outsourcing its responsibilities to external committees.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a case alleging that the Appellant-company was polluting water bodies by discharging untreated effluents. The NGT, blindly relying on a Joint Committee report by the CPCB, UPPCB, and the District Magistrate, found multiple violations illegal disposal of effluents, dilution of discharge, and failure to maintain records. In February 2022, the NGT held the company guilty and, in September 2022, imposed ₹18 crore compensation (2% of turnover). However, the proceedings were challenged as violating natural justice and the Water Act, as samples were improperly collected and tested.

Setting aside the NGT's order, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan observed:

'Every Acquittal Of Actual Culprit A Blot On System' : Supreme Court Warns Against Misapplying 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt'

Case Details: Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 864

The Supreme Court (Sep. 1) cautioned against granting acquittals by loosely invoking the principle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', emphasizing that minor contradictions in evidence cannot be elevated to the level of reasonable doubt to justify an acquittal.

The Court emphasized that the application of the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' to acquit the accused should not be used in every case where there were minor inconsistencies, contradictions and deficiencies in the prosecution's case; otherwise the misapplication of this principal results into culprits walking free by taking benefit of doubt.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Patna High Court's decision, which had acquitted the Respondents who were convicted for the rape of a minor under the POCSO Act, based on the minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, which had not made the prosecution's case highly improbable.

Conviction Under S.138 NI Act Can't Be Sustained After Complainant & Accused Enter Into Settlement : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 865

The Supreme Court has held once a complainant signs a compromise deed acknowledging receipt of the full settlement amount, the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained.

The Court set aside an order of the High Court which dismissed an application filed by the accused seeking alteration of his conviction based on the settlement arrived at with the complainant after the dismissal of his revision petition.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said, “Once the complainant has signed the compromise deed accepting the amount in full and final settlement of the default sum the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot hold water, therefore, the concurrent conviction rendered by the Courts below has to be set-aside.”

Company Law | NCLT Can Examine Allegations Of Fraud & Validity Of Documents In Oppression & Mismanagement Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: Mrs. Shailja Krishna v. Satori Global Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 866

The Supreme Court (Sep.2) observed that the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has jurisdiction to examine allegations of fraud and validity of documents in oppression and mismanagement cases.

The Court said that when “a member who holds the majority of shares in a company is reduced to the position of minority shareholder in the company by an act of the company or by its Board of Directors in a mala fide manner, the said act must ordinarily be considered to be an act of oppression against the said member.”

The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Appellant being an Executive Director and holding 98% of the shares in the company was ousted from the company based on fraudulent activities carried out by her husband and in-laws upon producing a gift deed allegedly transferring her shares to her mother-in-law, board resolutions approving her removal passed in meetings without proper notice to her or quorum, and records showing her resignation.

Arbitration | Delivery Of Award To Govt Official Not Connected With Case Doesn't Amount To Valid Service On State : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Motilal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 867

The Supreme Court has clarified that when the government or one of its departments is a party to arbitration, delivery of an arbitral award to an official who is not connected with or aware of the proceedings cannot be treated as valid service for commencing the limitation period to challenge the award.

Citing its ruling of Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors (2005), the Court said that the delivery of the copy of the arbitral award should be made to the “party to the proceedings”, and if government is part to the proceedings than the delivery should be made to an individual who has the knowledge and is the best person to understand and appreciate an award and more particularly, to take decision for its challenge.

“This Court has held that the award should be received in the context of huge organisations by the person who has knowledge of the proceedings and who would be the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral award as also to take a decision in the matter of moving appropriate applications.”, the court said.

S. 37(1)(a) Arbitration Act | Clause Restricting Interest On Delayed Payments By Itself Won't Bar Pendente Lite Interest : Supreme Court

Case Details: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. M/S G & T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 868

The Supreme Court (Sep.2) observed that an Arbitral Tribunal can grant pendente lite interest unless expressly or impliedly barred in the contract. It added that a contractual clause barring interest on delayed payments does not prevent an arbitral tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest, i.e., the interest for the period during which the arbitration is pending.

“…arbitral tribunal can be denuded of its power to award pendente lite interest only if the agreement/ contract between the parties is so worded that the award of pendente lite interest is either explicitly or by necessary implication (such as in the case of Sayeed & Co. (supra) and THDC First (supra)) barred. A clause merely barring award of interest on delayed payment by itself will not be readily inferred as a bar to award pendente-lite interest by the arbitral tribunal.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra dismissed the ONGC's appeal, affirming the Gauhati High Court's decision, which justified the grant of pendente lite interest as there was no clause barring the award of pendente lite interest.

Anticipatory Bail Is Permissible Under SC/ST Act Only If Prima Facie Offence Isn't Made Out : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 869

The Supreme Court observed that a grant of anticipatory bail is impermissible under the SC/ST Act unless is prima facie shown that no offence under the Act is made out.

"where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code.”, the court observed.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria, allowed the complainant's appeal and set aside the Bombay High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1, who had allegedly abused and humiliated the appellant in public by referring to his caste name.

S.100 CPC | High Court Must Assign Reasons For Framing Additional Question Of Law In Second Appeals : Supreme Court Lays Down Principles

Case Details: C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 870

The Supreme Court (Sep.3) observed that it is mandatory for the High Courts to record reasons while framing an additional question of law which was not originally raised in a second appeal in a civil case.

Proviso to Section 100(5) CPC grants power to the High Courts to frame an additional question of law, but this power cannot be routinely exercised, but only in exceptional circumstances, for which a reason needs to be recorded by the High Court, the court said.

“High Court is competent and endowed with discretionary jurisdiction to formulate a substantial question of law not stated when the second appeal was admitted. The High Court is entitled to formulate an additional substantial question of law for reasons to be recorded if the High Court is of the view that the case involves such a question of law. The proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 100 of the CPC comes into operation in exceptional cases, albeit for strong and convincing reasons to be specifically recorded by the High Court.”, the court said.

Motor Accident Claims | If Claimant Doesn't Produce Income Proof, Insurer Must Furnish Applicable Minimum Wages Notification : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871

The Supreme Court increased the compensation awarded to a minor, who sustained permanent disability in a road accident, from ₹8.65 lakh to ₹35.90 lakhs, holding that a minor cannot be classified as a non-earning individual for determining income. Instead, the Court ruled that the minor's income should be treated as equivalent to the minimum wage for a skilled worker notified in the State where the cause of action arose.

“It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises.”, the court observed.

Also, a direction is issued by the Court that in cases where the income of the claimant/deceased has not been properly established, it shall be the obligation of the insurance company to furnish the schedule of minimum wages prevalent in the respective state where the cause of action arose. The Court asked circulation of a copy of the order to the High Courts, who in turn, will circulate one copy each to the respective Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in their State.

'Witness Protection Scheme Not Substitute For Bail Cancellation' : Supreme Court Deprecates Allahabad High Court's 'Cyclostyled' Orders

Case Details: Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 872

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Allahabad High Court for issuing cyclostyled template orders in bail cancellation matters, where, instead of examining allegations that the accused had threatened witnesses, the High Court directed complainants to seek recourse under the Witness Protection Scheme.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that in the last year alone, it had come across forty such orders of the High Court where, instead of deciding applications seeking cancellation of bail on the ground of threats by the accused, the court treated the Witness Protection Scheme as an alternative remedy and directed complainants to apply under it.

“We have come across a catena of orders from the Allahabad High Court proceeding on an incorrect assumption of the law, more particularly that the Witness Protection Scheme is a substitute for cancellation of bail. According to the High Court it is an alternative remedy. We are at pains to note that we came across at least forty recent orders, that have been passed in the last one year alone… All of the above orders are a verbatim copy of each other. We are dismayed to note that the aforesaid practice of passing cyclostyled template orders has been in vogue past more than two years.”, the court said.

Supreme Court Criticises High Court For Asking Why Accused Was Not Arrested Instead Of Deciding Anticipatory Bail Plea

Case Title – Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 873

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to a man facing corruption charges while criticising the Punjab and Haryana High Court for passing a “cryptic and unusual” order in the matter.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta criticised the High Court for seeking an explanation from the police for not arresting the man, instead of treating the non-arrest as a factor supporting the anticipatory bail plea.

“we do not approve the manner in which the High Court has dealt with the plea of the anticipatory bail. Either the High Court should have allowed the application granting anticipatory bail or should have declined it on its own merits”, the Court observed.

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 874

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 876

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 877

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 878

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

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

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

Cause Title: Rajan v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 879

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 881

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 882

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 883

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 884

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 885

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 886

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 888

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 889

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 890

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: Ram Sagar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 891

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 892

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 893

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 894

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 895

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 896

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 897

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 898

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 900

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 901

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 902

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 903

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 903

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 904

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

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

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

Case Details: Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 905

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 906

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 907

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 908

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

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

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

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 favour 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) constituted by 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 favour 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 Time Limit 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.

'Antecedents Alone Not Ground To Cancel Bail': Supreme Court Restores Bail To Accused In SDPI Leader Shan Murder Case

Case: Abhimanue v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 929

The Supreme Court (September 22) set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court, which cancelled the bail granted to five persons who are accused of murdering the then Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) State Secretary KS Shan in December 2021.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih granted bail to five accused, who are alleged to be members of the RSS. The crime was alleged to have been carried out of political enmity.

The trial court had granted bail to the five men - Abhimanue, Athul, Sanand, Vishnu and Dhaneesh- in December 2022 after almost a year of custody. In December 2024, the High Court, on the State's appeal, set aside the bail order.

High Court's Inherent Power Can Be Invoked To Cancel Bail After Sessions Court's Dismissal Of S.439(2) CrPC Plea : Supreme Court

Case: Abhimanue v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 929

The Supreme Court has held that a plea for cancellation of bail can be moved before the High Court by invoking its powers under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if the Sessions Court has already declined a cancellation application under Section 439(2).

The Court rejected the contention that once a Sessions Court declines an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for cancellation of bail, a second application under the same provision cannot be filed directly before the High Court.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih was considering an appeal against a judgment of the Kerala High Court cancelling the bail of the accused.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Simultaneous Disclosure Statements Made By Multiple Accused Need Greater Scrutiny: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 930

The Supreme Court (Sep. 22) observed that for joint disclosure statements, made by multiple accused simultaneously, to become admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, high scrutiny is needed to rule out the possibilities of tutoring of the accused.

The Court added that while simultaneous disclosure statements can be legally admissible, courts must exercise heightened caution, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the disclosures were genuine, independent, and corroborated by other evidence.

“While asserting that a joint or simultaneous disclosure would per se be not inadmissible under Section 27, it was observed that it is very difficult to place reliance on such an utterance in chorus; which was also held to be, in fact, a myth. Recognising that there would be practical difficulty in placing reliance on such evidence, it was declared that it is for the Courts to decide, on a proper evaluation of evidence, whether and to what extent such a simultaneous disclosure could be relied upon.”, the Court said relying on Kishore Bhadke v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 3 SCC 760.,

SARFAESI Act | 2016 Amendment To S. 13(8) Applies To Pre-Amendment Loans If Default Occurred After That: Supreme Court

Case: M Rajendran v. M/S KPK Oils and Proteins India Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 931

The Supreme Court held that the 2016 amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, which extinguishes a borrower's right of redemption once the secured creditor publishes an auction notice, will apply even to loans taken before the amendment came into force, provided the default occurred after September 1, 2016(the date when the amendment came into force).

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R Mahadevan rejected the contention of borrowers that since their loan was obtained in January 2016, the unamended Section 13(8) - which gave borrowers the right of redemption till the actual transfer of secured asset took place - would govern their rights. The Court held that the amended provision was applicable because the loan account was declared a non-performing asset (NPA) only in December 2019, and the auction notice was issued in January 2021, well after the amendment came into force.

"We do not find any merit in the principal contention raised on behalf of the borrowers referred to above. The amended provision extinguishes the right of redemption of the borrower in the event he fails to repay his dues and redeem the asset before publication of the Auction Notice. This unambiguous language used in the amended provision of Section 13(8) furthers the object and reasons of the SARFAESI Act for which it was enacted i.e., to ensure that the lender is able to enforce his security interest at the earliest and with least possible intervention of the courts," the Court observed.

Supreme Court Summarises Principles On Retrospective Application Of Laws

Cause Title: M. Rajendran & Ors. v. M/S KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 931

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court summarised the principles on retrospective application of legislations.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made the discussion while holding that the 2016 amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act will apply to loans taken before the amendment came into force, if the default took place after the amendment.

The bench summarised the principles as follows :

No Export Duty On Transfer From Domestic Tariff Area To SEZ : Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Appeal Against Adani Power

Cause Title: Union of India Through Secretary & Other v. M/S Adani Power Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 932

Observing that the movement of goods from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is a domestic supply and not an export outside India, the Supreme Court provided relief to Adani Power Ltd. and other entities from paying export duty under the Customs Act, 1962, for the movement of goods from DTA to SEZ.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed the Union of India's appeal against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which ruled that export duty cannot be levied for movement from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to an SEZ. The High Court had held that it was a domestic supply and not an export outside India, therefore exempted from the payment of the export duty.

The Union government had levied export duty on goods supplied from the DTA to SEZs, arguing that the transaction fell under the Customs Act's definition of "export," which simply means "taking out of India to a place outside India." The revenue authorities contended that since SEZs are considered foreign territory for trade operations, any supply to them was an "export." However, the companies challenged this, relying on the specific and expansive definition of "export" within the SEZ Act, 2005, which explicitly includes three types of transactions, including "supplying goods... from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Unit or Developer."

Supreme Court Dismisses Airports Authority's Appeal Against Service Tax Levy For Cargo Handling

Case: Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 933

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) challenging the levy of service tax on services rendered in handling export cargo, ruling that such services fall within the ambit of “taxable services” under the Finance Act, 1994.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that while “handling of export cargo” is excluded from the definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23) of the Act, cargo handling service nonetheless qualifies as a “taxable service” in terms of sub-clause (zzm) of Section 65(105) was introduced with effect from September 10, 2004.

AAI, a government body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, argued that services such as unloading, carting, X-ray scanning, and export packing provided to exporters should be exempt as per the statutory exclusion of export cargo handling. The Court, however, clarified that Section 65 deals only with definitions and not charging provisions. The charging section is Section 66, which explicitly levies service tax on all services covered under its sub-clauses, including airport services.

Second Special Leave Petition Not Maintainable If First SLP Against Same Order Was Withdrawn Unconditionally : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Satheesh V.K. v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 934

The Supreme Court (Sep.23) held that once a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is withdrawn unconditionally, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. The Court further clarified that if a review against the impugned order is dismissed, neither the dismissal of the review nor the original order can thereafter be challenged.

“a second special leave petition would not be maintainable at the instance of a party, who elects not to proceed with the challenge laid by him in an earlier special leave petition and withdraws such petition without obtaining leave to file a fresh special leave petition; if such party applies for a review before the court from whose order the special leave petition was initially carried and the review fails, then he can neither challenge the order rejecting the review nor the order of which review was sought.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case arising out of the Kerala High Court, which, had directed the Appellant-Satheesh to repay loan dues in instalments. Challenging this, he approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP in 2024. However, on November 28, 2024, when the Court expressed doubts on merits, counsel withdrew the petition unconditionally, without seeking liberty to file afresh.

'Child Abuse Survivors Must Not Be Re-Traumatized' : Supreme Court Rejects POCSO Convict's Plea To Recall Victim For Cross Examination

Case No. – Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 34304/2025

Case Title –Arjun Sonar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 935

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea filed by a man convicted for raping a 11-year-old girl seeking to recall her to the stand for cross-examination. The Court noted that his conviction by the trial court was upheld by the High Court, and said that granting such a relief would re-traumatize survivors of child abuse and undermine the justice system.

“Courts have a duty to ensure that survivors of child abuse are not re-traumatized by the very justice system they turn for protection. Allowing such technical plea being raised in cases of such gravity, especially when guilt has been established after full-fledged trial and confirmed in appeal, risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. It sends the wrong message/signal that procedural tactics override substantive findings. That cannot be permitted”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Directs MP High Court To Conclude Civil Judge Recruitment Process As Per 2023 Advertisement Soon

Case Details: High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Jyotsna Dohalia and Anr, SLP(C) No. 21353/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 936

The Supreme Court side aside the June 2024 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed re-computation of marks and weeding out of "ineligible candidates", who do not satisfy the Amended Recruitment Rules, from the main examination for Civil Judge entry-level posts.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar noted that no ineligible candidates were selected in either the preliminary or mains examination as the new recruitment criteria were followed. Consequently, the Court directed that the process of the Civil Judge, Junior Division(Entry Level) Recruitment 2023 shall be concluded at the earliest.

"The appellants(High Court) shall conclude the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.11.2023 at the earliest," the Court said.

Supreme Court Grants Relief To Tribal Woman Denied Job For One-Day Delay In Medical Test

Cause Title: Shreya Kumari Tirkey v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 937

The Supreme Court has granted relief to a Scheduled Tribe candidate whose selection for a government post was cancelled merely because she reported one day late for the medical examination, despite having cleared the preliminary, mains, and interview stages.

The candidate appeared for the medical test the 'next day' after the entire interview process, while the Jharkhand Public Service Commission required her to appear the day after her own interview. Observing that the phrase 'next day' was ambiguous and undefined in the advertisement, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision, which justified the Appellants' rejection as valid.

The Court ruled that her candidature rejection was 'disproportionate and unjust.'

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

Case Details: SOHAN SINGH @ BABLU v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 938

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 939

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

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

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

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against ₹3,500 Fee For All India Bar Examination

Case Title – Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 940

The Supreme Court on September 2 dismissed a petition challenging the Rs. 3,500 fee and other incidental charges levied by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE).

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta agreed with BCI's contention that the judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, which held that Bar Councils cannot charge more than the statutorily prescribed Rs. 750 for enrolment, does not apply to the AIBE fees.

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala asked the petitioner why he was not following the Gaurav Kumar judgment.

Prevention Of Corruption Act | High Court Cannot Discharge Accused For Invalidity Of Sanction : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case: Karnataka Lokayuktha Police v. Lakshman Rao Peshve

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 941

The Supreme Court reiterated that the alleged invalidity of sanction cannot be a ground to discharge an accused in a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed appeals filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, setting aside a Karnataka High Court order that discharged the accused on the ground of lack of sanction. The High Court also quashed the money laundering case as well which was based on the corruption case.

Sanction Issue Cannot Be Examined At Pre-Trial Stage

Supreme Court Dismisses Allottees' Plea Against Collector's 1974 Order For Forfeiture Of Alwara Lands In Dadra And Nagar Haveli

Case Title: Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., C.A. No. 1479/2006

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 942

The Supreme Court dismissed the pleas filed by allottees of Alwara lands in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, which challenged the Collector's order for their forfeiture.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment, holding that the Collector's order of 1974 was not actuated by malafides. It also vacated the status quo order passed in 2006.

No Estoppel Against Govt In Exercise Of Sovereign, Legislative Or Executive Power : Supreme Court

Case Title: Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., C.A. No. 1479/2006

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 942

The Supreme Court has held that the plea of estoppel cannot be raised against the Government in the exercise of its Legislative, Sovereign, or Executive functions.

"When pressed against the Government, the plea of waiver faces an especially high threshold and rarely succeeds," the Court said.

The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice NK Singh agreed with the Bombay High Court's observations which were as follows :

'Advocate Attesting Affidavit Not Responsible For Its Contents' : Supreme Court Dismisses 'Malicious' Complaint Against Lawyer

Case: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 943

The Supreme Court has held that an advocate who merely attests or identifies the deponent of an affidavit does not thereby assume responsibility for the truth or correctness of the statements made in it.

Dismissing a special leave petition arising out of disciplinary proceedings against Mumbai-based advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, the Court upheld a Bombay High Court order quashing the complaint and termed the allegations against her as “absurd, untenable and malicious.”

Background Of The Case

Jural Relationship Between Complainant & Advocate Necessary To Invoke Disciplinary Jurisdiction For Professional Misconduct : Supreme Court

Case: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 943

The Supreme Court of India has held that disciplinary jurisdiction under the Advocates Act, 1961, can ordinarily be invoked only when there exists a jural (professional) relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while quashing proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), described such complaints as “highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for.”

Frivolous Complaints by Opposite Parties Rejected

Supreme Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa For Entertaining Frivolous Complaint Against Advocate

Case Title – Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 943

The Supreme Court (September 24) imposed a cost of Rs 50,000/- on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for entertaining a frivolous complaint against an advocate.

The cost has to be paid to the advocate who faced the proceedings.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order while the appeal filed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed disciplinary proceedings against an advocate.

Jural Relationship Between Complainant & Advocate Necessary To Invoke Disciplinary Jurisdiction For Professional Misconduct : Supreme Court

Case : Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 943

The Supreme Court of India has held that disciplinary jurisdiction under the Advocates Act, 1961, can ordinarily be invoked only when there exists a jural (professional) relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while quashing proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), described such complaints as “highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for.”

S. 31(7)(b) Arbitration Act | Claim For Additional Post-Award Interest Barred When Award Fixes Rate Until Payment : Supreme Court

Cause Title: HLV Limited (Formerly Known As Hotel Leelaventure Pvt. Ltd.) v. PBSAMP Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 944

The Supreme Court (Sep. 24) held that if an arbitral award provides a composite interest rate covering the entire period from the cause of action to payment, the award holder cannot claim additional compound interest at the post-award stage under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”).

Section 31(7)(b) of the Act provides for post-award interest at 18% from the date of the award until payment. However, if the arbitral award specifies a composite rate of interest, the award holder cannot claim additional 18% compound interest under this provision. In such cases, the interest is governed solely by the rate in the award, as Section 31(7)(b) applies “unless the award otherwise directs.” In this case, the award expressly set interest at 21% until repayment, therefore the question of awarding post-award interest would not arise, the court said.

The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the sale of land. Under Clause 6(b) of the MoU, the appellant had agreed to refund an advance paid by the respondent, along with interest at 21% per annum from the dates of disbursement until actual repayment, in case of termination.

'Criminal Complaints In Matrimonial Disputes Need Great Scrutiny' : Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Harassment Case Against Brother-in-Law

Case: Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 945

The Supreme Court once again reiterated that criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes have to be scrutinised with great care, taking into account pragmatic realities.

Quashing an FIR lodged by a wife against her brother-in-law alleging offences of dowry harassment, domestic cruelty etc, the Court observed :

"Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law."

States Cannot Use Weapon Of Taxation To Discriminate Against Goods Imported From Other States : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S. U.P. Asbestos Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 946

The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot discriminate between goods manufactured within their territory and those brought in from other states for sale. Striking down a 2007 Rajasthan government notification that granted VAT exemption to local asbestos sheet manufacturers while imposing full VAT on sheets imported outside Rajasthan, the Court held the measure to be “discriminatory” and unconstitutional as it created a fiscal barrier against inter-state trade.

“there cannot be tax barriers or fiscal barriers in the interest of free trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India guaranteed by Article 301. Thus, the weapon of taxation cannot be used to discriminate against the imported goods vis-à-vis the locally manufactured goods.”, the court said.

The Court said that the States are at liberty to design their fiscal legislations in a such a manner that they do not discriminate between the products manufactures within their State and products manufactures outside their State.

Child Can Be Evicted From Senior Citizen Parent's Property If There's Breach Of Obligation To Maintain Parents : Supreme Court

Case: Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 947

The Supreme Court reiterated that a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has the power to order the eviction of a child from the property of the senior citizen, if there is a breach of obligation to maintain the senior citizen.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by 80-year-old man and his 78-year-old wife, and set aside the Bombay High Court's order which had invalidated the eviction directive passed against their eldest son.

The Court stressed that the Act was enacted to address the plight of senior citizens by ensuring their care and protection, and therefore its provisions must be construed in a manner that promotes its welfare objective.

Maintenance & Welfare Of Senior Citizens Act | Age To Be Determined Based On Date Of Application : Supreme Court

Case: Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 947

The Supreme Court has clarified that the relevant date to determine whether a person qualifies as a “senior citizen” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is the date of filing of the application before the Maintenance Tribunal, not the date of adjudication.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held so while allowing the appeal of 80-year-old Kamalakant Mishra and his wife against a Bombay High Court ruling which had struck down the eviction of their son.

The case arose after the couple, aggrieved by the conduct of their eldest son who had taken possession of two of their properties in Mumbai and denied them residence, approached the Maintenance Tribunal in July 2023. At the time of the application, the son was 59 years old. The Tribunal directed his eviction and also ordered him to pay maintenance of ₹3,000 per month. This order was upheld by the Appellate Authority in September 2024.

Criminal Law Can't Be Used To Settle Civil Disputes Or Wreak Vengeance : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 948

The Supreme Court (Sep.24) quashed a criminal case against an individual against whom an FIR was registered in a pure civil dispute by giving it a criminal colour. The Court deprecated the growing use of criminal prosecution as a tool for harassment in purely commercial disputes.

“Even if the allegations are assumed to be true, they unmistakably arise out of a commercial / contractual transaction relating to loan and repayment, which has been given a criminal colour….the machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance.”, the court reiterated.

The Court noted that the dispute – concerning repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in execution of documents – is purely civil in character. The essential ingredients of cheating or forgery were not found to be prima facie made out. The institution of multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after the appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforces the inference of mala fides.

'Day-to-Day Trial Practice Must Be Revived In Sensitive Cases' : Supreme Court Gives Guidelines To Courts On Speedy Trial

Case: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 949

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the discontinuation of the practice of holding trials on a day-to-day basis in important or sensitive cases, observing that a tradition that existed three decades ago has now been “given a complete go-by”.

“We sincerely believe that it is high time that the courts revert to that practice,” the bench observed, stressing that speedy and continuous trial hearings are essential for justice delivery, particularly in cases involving grave social or political ramifications.

The Court directed that all High Courts should constitute Committees to deliberate on how the practice of day-to-day trial can be revived and implemented effectively in their respective district judiciaries.

Offences Of 'Cheating' & 'Criminal Breach Of Trust' Cannot Co-Exist On Same Allegations : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 950

The Supreme Court observed that the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot co-exist on the basis of same allegations. The Court said that the offence of cheating (S.420 IPC/S.318 BNS) involves criminal intention from inception; however, for criminal breach of trust (S.406 IPC/S.316 BNS), there is lawful entrustment at the beginning, which is later misappropriated.

So, both these offences cannot exist simultaneously on same facts, as they are "antithetical" to each other.

“For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriates the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously. Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct. The said offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.”, the Court observed.

'Interest Charged By Builder Can Be Granted To Buyer' : Supreme Court Enhances Interest Payable On Delayed Handover Of Plot

Cause Title: Rajnesh Sharma v. M/S. Business Park Town Planners Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 951

In an interesting order, the Supreme Court granted relief to homebuyers by enhancing interest from 9% to 18% for the delayed handover of a plot possession, observing that a builder who imposes 18% interest on buyers for delayed payments cannot evade the same liability when failing to deliver possession on time to the consumer.

“there is no principle of law that interest in default charged by the builder can never be granted to the buyer.”, the court said.

The Court observed that while the interest rate charged by a builder on delayed payments from a homebuyer cannot automatically serve as the benchmark for compensating delays in handing over possession, principles of equity and fairness may justify applying the same standard to the builder.

Supreme Court Modifies Guidelines On Compounding Of Cheque Dishonour Cases

Case: Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952

The Supreme Court has recently modified the guidelines on compounding dishonour of cheque Cases issued in Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice NV Anjaria in Sanjabij Tari Vs Kishore S Borkar and another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952, observed that since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases are still pending and interest rates have fallen in the last few years, the Court is of the view that it is time to 'revisit and tweak the guidelines' issued by Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H.

S.138 NI Act - Cheque Bounce Case Maintainable Even For Cash Loan Above ₹20,000 : Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Ruling

Case: Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952

The Supreme Court (September 25) set aside the 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.

A bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice NV Anjaria, while deciding an appeal against a Bombay High Court Judgment, observed that the Kerala High Court's recent judgment in P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese and Anr, delivered on June 25, 2025 was wrong.

It may be noted that the bench was not deciding an appeal against the Kerala High Court's judgment. The Special Leave Petition filed against the Kerala High Court's judgment, on which the Supreme Court last week issued notice, is pending.

No Need For Pre-Cognizance Summons To Accused In S.138 NI Act Case : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Speedy Trial Of Cheque Bounce Cases

Case: Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952

The Supreme Court held that an accused need not be heard at the pre-cognizance stage of complaints filed for dishonour of cheque as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Court agreed with the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Ashok Vs. Fayaz Aahmad, that there is no requirement to issue summons to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for NI Act complaints.

"Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in Ashok Vs. Fayaz Aahmad, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 490 has taken the view that since NI Act is a special enactment, there is no need for the Magistrate to issue summons to the accused before taking cognizance (under Section 223 of BNSS) of complaints filed under Section 138 of NI Act. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, this Court directs that there shall be no requirement to issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage," the Court observed.

Bank's Failure To Disclose Encumbrances Of Property In Auction Notice Invalidates Sale : Supreme Court Orders Refund To Auction Purchaser

Cause Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Corporation Bank & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 953

The Supreme Court quashed the auction by the Corporation Bank of a prime property located in Delhi, as the Bank failed to disclose the liability attached to the property in the e-auction.

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe emphasized that strict adherence to procedural safeguards is mandatory in public auctions to ensure the integrity of the debt recovery system and maintain public confidence in court-mandated sales.

Supreme Court Upholds JSW Steel's Resolution Plan For Bhushan Power & Steel, Says JSW Can't Be Penalised For Reviving Loss-Making Entity

Case Details: Kalyani Transco v. Ms Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. | C.A. No. 1808/2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 954

The Supreme Court upheld the resolution plan of JSW Steel Ltd for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) and rejected the objections raised by the ex-promoters and certain creditors of BPSL.

Allowing the appeals after JSW has revived the loss-making entity by infusing huge amounts of funds will lead to "disastrous results", the Court said.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran had re-heard the appeals against the resolution plan after recalling the judgment delivered by a two-judge bench in May which invalidated the resolution plan and ordered the liquidation of BPSL.

Committee Of Creditors Continues To Exist Till Resolution Plan Is Implemented Or Liquidation Order Is Passed : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kalyani Transco v. Ms Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. | C.A. No. 1808/2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 954

In the JSW Steel matter, the Supreme Court held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) does not become functus officio merely upon the approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Court held that the CoC continues to have a role until the resolution plan is fully implemented or an order of liquidation is passed.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria observed that accepting the contention that the CoC ceases to exist after finalisation of the resolution plan would lead to an “anomalous situation” where creditors would be left “high and dry” if the resolution plan fails to take off for any reason.

“It may lead to a situation wherein though the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, however it is not implemented for 'a' reason or 'b' reason thereby leaving the creditors high and dry. If the contention is accepted, the creditors would not be in a position to take any steps that are found necessary for realizing its dues from the Corporate Debtor,” the Court observed.

Supreme Court Restores CCI's 2015 Penalty Order Against Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation For Anti-Competitive Practices

Case Details: Competition Commission of India and Ors. v. Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation and Ors. | C.A. No. 9726/2016

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 955

The Supreme Court restored the September 8, 2015 order of the Competition Commission of India ("CCI"), which imposed penalties on the Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) and two of its office bearers (P.V. Basheer Ahmed and M.C. Bobby) for indulging in anti-competitive practices by denying the screening of Tamil and Malayalam films in the theatres of the informant (Crown Theatre).

The Court allowed the appeal filed by the CCI against the order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal(COMPAT) which interfered with the penalty order on the ground that show-cause notice was not issued to the office-bearers.

Two complaints were filed before the CCI alleging anti-competitive activities by KFEF and its office-bearers. In the first, CCI found the allegations to be true and imposed a penalty of 7% of their salary on the KFEF and its two office bearers.

Supreme Court Sends Tenant To Tihar Jail For Not Vacating Premises, Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Fine On Aged Co-Tenant

Cause Title: M/S Laxmi Construction & Anr. v. Harsh Goyal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 956

The Supreme Court (September 26) held two tenants guilty of contempt for wilfully disobeying its order to vacate rented premises in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and imposed civil imprisonment on one of them along with monetary penalties.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi sentenced one contemnor to three months' civil imprisonment and directed that he be taken into custody and lodged in Tihar Jail. He was also ordered to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two months, failing which he will undergo an additional one month in prison.

As the second contemnor was 82 years old, the Court refrained from sending him to jail but imposed a ₹5 lakh fine, to be deposited within two months, failing which he will serve one month's civil imprisonment.

Telangana Judicial Service | Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bar On Advocates From Other States In District Judge Appointment

Case: Usha Kiran Kshatri and Others v. State of Telangana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 957

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Telangana Judicial Service Rule, which mandates that a candidate aspiring for a District Judge appointment must have practised for at least 7 years in the Courts in Telangana.

The Special Rules in question - Telangana State Judicial Service Rules- were introduced in 2023 in supersession of the previous rules. Rule 5 (5.1) (a) of the 2023 Rules specified that a person seeking direct recruitment as a District Judge must have been "practicing as an Advocate in the High Court or Courts working under the control of the High Court for not less than 7 years as on the date of the notification". "High Court" was defined in the Rules as "the High Court for the State of Telangana."

The High Court, in December 2023, dismissed the challenge, holding that the Rule was in consonance with Article 233 of the Constitution.

Clubbing Of FIRs Arising Out Of Different Transactions In Multiple States Impossible : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Odela Satyam & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 958

The Supreme Court (Sep.26) observed that nationwide consolidation of FIRs involving different witnesses, laws, and evidences is impermissible. It added that clubbing of FIRs is only permissible when multiple FIRs arise from the same incident/transactions.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to club multiple FIRs registered against the Appellant across States in a multi crore financial scam, which involved different local laws, witnesses. The Court rejected the Appellants reliance on Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021), which permitted consolidation of FIRs arising out of a single incident of hurting religious sentiments via telecasting in a television show, stating that the same was not permissible in the present case as the multiple FIRs registered were not part of the same incident.

S. 37 Provincial Insolvency Act | Only Valid Sales Made During Insolvency Stand Protected After Insolvency Annulment: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Singamasetty Bhagavath Guptha & Anr. v. Allam Karibasappa (D) By Lrs./Allam Doddabasappa (D) By Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 959

The Supreme Court clarified the effect of annulment of insolvency proceedings on transactions carried out during the insolvency period.

The case arose from a long-standing dispute over the shareholding in a partnership firm, M/s Gavisiddheshwara & Co., originally formed in 1963. After the death of one of the partners in 1975, his son (the appellant) and widow were declared insolvent due to large debts left behind. During the insolvency, the District Court directed the court-appointed Receiver to transfer the deceased partner's 1-anna share in the firm to another partner, Mr. Allam Karibasappa, based on documents said to record an offer and acceptance of sale. A registered transfer deed was executed in 1983 in pursuance of that order.

Subsequently, the insolvency adjudication was annulled after the debtor repaid the creditors. This raised the question of whether the transfer deed executed during insolvency remained valid. The District Court, after examining the evidence, found that the documents said to record the sale were fabricated and that the transfer lacked a valid foundation. However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that the transfer deed stood protected under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, which saves all sales and dispositions “duly made” during insolvency, even if the insolvency is later annulled.

'Vague & General Allegations' : Supreme Court Quashes Marital Cruelty Case Lodged By Wife Against In-Laws

Cause Title: Sanjay D. Jain & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 960

The Supreme Court (Sep. 26) quashed criminal proceedings against a woman's in-laws, who had been accused of domestic cruelty and subjecting her to mental torture, based on a vague and general allegation.

The bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S Chandurkar allowed the appeal filed by the woman's father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, setting aside the Bombay High Court's refusal to quash the case.

The FIR against them alleged the offences punishable under Sections 498-A(cruelty), 377 (unnatural sex) and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Supreme Court Dismisses Telangana Govt's Plea Against Quashing Of 2015 Cash-for-Vote Scam Case Against One Accused

Case Details: State of Telangana v. Jerusalem Mathai and Anr SLP (Crl.) 5248 of 2016

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 961

The Supreme Court (September 26) upheld the quashing of charges against Jerusalem Mathai, one of the accused in the 2015 Telangana cash-for-votes scam.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Telangana in 2016 against the High Court's judgment, which quashed the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court also dismissed a connected SLP filed by Elvis Stephenson challenging the High Court's judgment.

The case revolves around allegations of offering bribe to then-nominated MLA Elvis Stephenson during the MLC Elections for Legislative Council. The bribe was purportedly aimed at securing Stephenson's vote in favour of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). Notably, the current Chief Minister of Telangana, Revanth Reddy (then a member of TDP in 2015), is another accused in the case.

Supreme Court Orders Two Delhi Judicial Officers To Undergo 'Special Training' For 'Perverse' Order Granting Bail

Case: M/S Netisty Systems Pvt Ltd v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 962

The Supreme Court recently directed that two Judicial Officers in the Delhi Judicial Service must undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days for the illegal and erroneous manner in which they granted bail to two accused.

While setting aside the bail granted to a couple accused in a multi-crore scam, the Court directed the judicial officers who passed the impugned bail orders -the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who granted bail and the Karkardooma Sessions Judge who refused to interfere with it - to undergo "special judicial training" of at least seven days. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been requested to make arrangements, with a focus on sensitising judicial officers on how to conduct proceedings and the deference to be accorded to superior court rulings.

Calling the judicial officers' approach “untenable” and bordering on “perversity”, the bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti observed that the accused had misled the Delhi High Court while enjoying four years of interim protection and later concealed the rejection of their anticipatory bail applications while seeking regular bail.

Arbitral Award Must Be Within Parameters Of Agreement Between Parties : Supreme Court Dismisses Chinese Company's Appeal

Cause Title: Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 963

The Supreme Court has recently upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award of nearly ₹995 crore granted in favour of Chinese company SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, holding that the arbitral tribunal had erred by re-interpreting contractual terms and departing from the agreed stipulations in violation of Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

“Numerous precedents laid down by this Court have often emphasised that an arbitrator lacks the power to deviate from or to reinterpret the terms of the contract while making an award. The awards must be within the parameters of the agreement entered between the parties.”, the Court said.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the case where the contractual terms do not allow waiver of notice for raising claims unless the parties have agreed to it in written form. After SEPCO left the construction site in 2015, arbitration followed, and in 2020, the tribunal awarded SEPCO ₹995 crore, holding that GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd had waived notice requirements via a 2012 email. The Orissa High Court's Division Bench set aside the award, prompting SEPCO's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Motor Accident Compensation - Minimum Wages Can't Be Fixed Solely On Educational Qualification, Must Consider Nature Of Work: Supreme Court

Case: Sharad Singh v. HD Narang

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 964

The Supreme Court has held that minimum wages cannot be determined solely on the basis of a person's educational qualification, without reference to the nature of work carried on. The Court was deciding a motor accident compensation case where the quantum of income was in dispute.

The case concerned a 20-year-old B.Com final year student who had also enrolled with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, but was rendered paraplegic after a motor accident in 2001 and remained bedridden for two decades until his death. The Tribunal and the Delhi High Court had computed his income for the purpose of awarding compensation by applying the minimum wages notified for workmen, i.e., Rs. 3,352/- per month. The High Court reasoned that although the victim had academic prospects, he had not yet attained the qualification of a Chartered Accountant, and therefore the income could not be fixed at that level.

Disagreeing with this approach, a Bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria observed that the minimum wages schedule cannot be applied on the basis of educational qualification alone. “We were not convinced that the minimum wages would be determined on the basis of the educational qualification alone without reference to the nature of work carried on,” the Court said, adding that adopting the wages of a skilled worker was also not proper in the circumstances. Taking into account that the victim would reasonably have been employed as an accountant upon graduation, the Court fixed a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- in 2001, with 40% addition towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi.

High Courts Should Discourage Direct Filing Of Anticipatory Bail Pleas, Ask Parties To Approach Sessions Court First: Supreme Court

Case: Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 965

The Supreme Court has once again cautioned High Courts against directly entertaining anticipatory bail applications, stressing that litigants should ordinarily be directed to first approach the Sessions Court before invoking the High Court's concurrent jurisdiction.

The case arose from the murder of a health worker in Patna, who was shot dead in broad daylight allegedly at the behest of moneylenders demanding repayment at exorbitant rates of interest. The complainant alleged that after extorting lakhs of rupees from the deceased, the accused engaged contract killers when she was unable to meet further demands. The accused persons, apprehending arrest, directly approached the Patna High Court for anticipatory bail, which was granted.

Setting aside the High Court's order, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the anticipatory bail had been granted without any cogent reasoning, despite grave allegations involving a contract killing. The Court noted that the High Court had not even impleaded the complainant as a party before granting relief.

Trial Court Cannot Take Cognizance Of Offence Not Mentioned In Chargesheet Only Based On Private Witness's Affidavit : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Deepak Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 966

The Supreme Court has held that a Trial Court cannot take cognizance of additional offences not mentioned in the chargesheet solely on the basis of affidavits filed by private witnesses, without relying on the investigation record or ordering further investigation.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SC Sharma set aside the Allahabad High Court's unusual order where it approved the trial court's order taking cognizance of an offence under Section 394 IPC (voluntary causing hurt in committing or attempt to commit robbery) based on the affidavits furnished by the complainant's witness, without forming its own satisfaction regarding the applicability of Section 394 IPC to the case.

“In fact, only on the basis of affidavits of witnesses filed along with the petition on behalf of the complainant, the Court has taken cognizance under Section 394 of the IPC. We do not approve of such exercise in the manner it has been done.”, the Court observed.

Trial Judge Can't Refuse To Decide Case Saying Timeline Set By Supreme Court Expired : SC

Cause Title: Shiv Kumar Shaw & Anr. v. Rekha Shaw

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 967

The Supreme Court recently came across an unusual order of the trial court where it refrained from exercising the jurisdiction just because the timeline prescribed by the Supreme Court for it to dispose of the proceedings was not followed by the trial court.

“We are pained to note the manner in which the order has been passed by the learned Judge. If for any reason, the Judge was not able to dispose of the matter within the prescribed time period fixed by this Court, the appropriate remedy available to him was to ask for extension of time but he cannot say that he has lost jurisdiction over the matter as the time allowed has lapsed.”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale heard the miscellaneous application filed in a criminal appeal where the Court by its order dated 18.01.2024 directed the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Alipore, South 24, Parganas to dispose of AC-2053/2017 within a period of six weeks.

'Vehicle For Vengeance' : Supreme Court Quashes Case Lodged By Woman Accusing Her Colleague Of Rape On False Marriage Promise

Case Details: Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 968

The Supreme Court quashed a chargesheet alleging rape on the pretext of marriage, holding that the criminal proceedings were instituted as an afterthought and with an ulterior motive.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused to quash the proceedings, and observed that the FIR was filed only after the complainant was served with a show-cause notice by her employer, following representations made by the accused.

Order XXXVII CPC | In Summary Suit, Defendant Can't File Reply/Defence Without Court's Leave : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Executive Trading Company Private Limited. v. Grow Well Mercantile Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 969

The Supreme Court clarified that no defence would be allowed to come on record in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC without the leave of the court.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti set aside the Bombay High Court's ruling, where it allowed the defendant to file a reply to the plaintiff's summons for judgment, bypassing the mandatory requirement of obtaining the leave of the court for filing a defence.

“we are of the view that the order impugned needs to be interfered with in as much as if a reply or defence is allowed to come on record in a summary suit without the Leave of the Court then the distinction sought to be maintained between a Suit normally instituted and Summary Suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC stands effaced.”, the court said.

The Court stressed that the very objective of Order XXXVII CPC to would stand defeated if the defendant submits defence without the leave of the Court.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On PIL Transgender-Inclusive Sexuality Education In School Textbooks

Case Title – Kaavya Mukherjee Saha v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court (September 1) issued notice to the Union and the State Governments on a PIL by a Class XII student seeking directions for the inclusion of transgender-inclusive Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) in school curricula and textbooks prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs).

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the matter.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging E20 Petrol Policy & Seeking Ethanol-Free Fuel Option For Older Vehicles

Case Details: Akshay Malhotra v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000813 / 2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) dismissed a PIL challenging the Union Government's Ethanol Blending Programme mandating the sale of petrol blended with 20% ethanol (E20).

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the matter.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, for the petitioner, referred to a 2021 NITI Ayog Report, which he said, expressed concerns about the impact on older vehicles which are not compliant with E20. He clarified that the petitioner was not against Ethanol-blending, but was only seeking an option of Ethanol-free petrol for vehicles manufactured before 2023, which are not compatible with E20.

Bihar SIR : Claims/Objections Can Be Filed Even After Sept 1 Deadline, Says ECI; Supreme Court Deputes Paralegals To Assist Voters

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

In the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, the Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court that claims/objections can be filed with respect to the draft electoral rolls even after the September 1 deadline and that all such claims/objections filed before the last date of nominations will be considered.

Taking note of this submission, the Court did not pass any order to extend the September 1 deadline. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering the applications filed by political parties seeking to extend the deadline by two weeks.

The bench recorded the submission of the Election Commission of India that claims/objections can be submitted even after the deadline (September 1) and that they will be considered after the roll has been finalized. The process will continue until the last date of nominations and all inclusions/exclusions will be integrated in the final roll, the ECI stated, which the Court recorded.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Alleging Discrimination Against Dalits In Andhra Village; Asks To Approach HC

Case Details: Dasari Chenna Kesavulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 265/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking reliefs in respect of alleged caste-discrimination and social boycott of Dalits in a village in Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court and/or avail other available remedies.

The petition was filed by one Dasari Chenna Kesavulu, who appeared in person, and argued that there was caste-discrimination and social boycott in this village, which falls within Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan's Pithapuram constituency. He submitted that till date, no FIR has been registered or compensation paid to the family of one person who died. Praying for justice, he sought directions to the concerned officers as well as to Pawan Kalyan.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On TN Govt's Plea Against HC Order To Reimburse Private Schools Even If Centre Doesn't Release RTE Funds

Case Details: Government of Tamil Nadu v. v. Eswaran | Diary No.- 44034/2025

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the challenge to the Madras High Court order, which held that the State Government cannot cite non-receipt of funds from the Union Government as a reason to wriggle out of its statutory liability under Section 12(2) of the Right to Education Act to reimburse private schools admitting students from economically weaker sections.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Union Government and the private respondent in the matter.

Appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, Sr Advocate P Wilson stressed that the impugned order would lead to excessive financial burden upon the state.

Supreme Court Extends Status Quo Order In Sambhal Jama Masjid Case

Case Details: Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 and Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) 21599/2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) continued the status quo with respect to the Hindu plaintiffs' suit against the Sambhal Mosque in Uttar Pradesh, as was ordered on August 22.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing the Sambhal Mosque Committee's plea against the May 19, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court that held that the suit against the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.

On last occasion, Advocate Shashank Shri Tripathi had informed the Court that against the May order, he has filed the special leave petition for the Mosque Committee ( SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 through) AoR Anil Kumar. However, another SLP (C) 21599/2025 has been filed by the Mosque Committee through AoR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi in which Senior Advocate Huzefa A Ahmadi appeared. Considering that the two SLPs challenging the same order has been filed by the same petitioner, the Court directed the Registry to file a report as to which SLP has been correctly filed within two weeks.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On International Sailor's Plea Against HC Quashing Goa Govt Order On Sports Quota In MBBS Admissions

Case Details: Pearl Milind Colvalcar v. State of Goa and Ors Diary No. 49037-2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) issued notice in a plea filed by India's international sports sailor Pearl Milind Colvalcar against the August 25 order of the Bombay High Court(Goa Bench), whereby it quashed and set aside a decision of the Goa State Government allocating vacant seats under the Children of Freedom Fighter category to eligible meritorious sports persons under the sports quota.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice.

By an order dated August 25, the High Court set against a government decision dated August 1 whereby the said allotment to eligible meritorious sports persons was made. The petitioner seeks admission in an MBBS course under the sports quota in the NEET(UG) 2025. However, the decision was set aside on the grounds that it was arbitrary and amounted to changing the rules midway through the admission process.

Supreme Court Affirms Bombay HC's Dismissal Of Plea Against Colaba Jetty Project Near Gateway Of India

Case Title – Clean Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court (September 1) dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Colaba residents challenging the Bombay High Court's decision to uphold the construction of a jetty facility near the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and Gateway of India in South Mumbai.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard arguments from Senior Advocates CU Singh and Shiraz Rustomjee for the petitioners and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State.

Singh submitted that the residents were not opposed to decongestion of the area but objected to shifting the jetty by merely 250 metres. He contended that the appropriate environmental authorities had not been consulted, and that the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority or the Central authority should to have been involved.

Supreme Court Expresses Reluctance To Club Cases Against Udhayanidhi Stalin Over Remarks On 'Sanatana Dharma'

Case Details: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 104/2024

The Supreme Court (September 1) orally remarked that it will not entertain a plea by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's plea for clubbing of criminal cases registered against him across multiple states over his controversial 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks.

Before a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi briefly mentioned the plea. However, at the outset, Justice Nath said: "Mr Rohatgi, you know this Court will not do that[clubbing of FIRs]. If you want to argue somewhere else..."

On this, Rohatgi requested that the matter be adjourned to 2026, which the Court allowed.

'Go To HC': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Rehabilitation For 1983 Nellie Massacre Victims

Case Details: Rumi Begum and Ors. v. State of Assam and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 833/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking a comprehensive scheme for rehabilitation of victims and survivors of the 1983 Nellie massacre in Assam's Nagaon district, as well as reassessment of compensation amounts already awarded.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and asked the petitioners to approach the High Court, considering the wider scope of Article 226 vis-a-vis Article 32 of the Constitution.

Advocate Warisha Farasat appeared for the petitioners and submitted that a small amount of compensation was awarded to the victims/survivors. "This is one of those cases which we come across as lawyers where we have the ability to help a large section of people. Rarely do we come across such cases" she said.

NDPS Act | Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Against Judgment That Total Weight Of Mixture Determines Contraband Quantity

Case Details: Mayank Girishbhai Shah v. UoI, Writ Petition 816/2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) issued notice in a writ petition challenging the correctness of its 2020 judgment in Hira Singh v. Union of India, which upheld the Central Government Notification dated 18.11.2009 issued under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act"), which says small, intermediate and commercial quantities under the NDPS Act will be determined with reference to the total weight of the mixture seized, rather than the price weight of the offending drug within the mixture.

The 2009 notification says: "The quantities shown in Column 5 and Column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in Column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers, and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its Pure drug content ."

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh issued notice.

Supreme Court Asks NGT To Decide Pleas Relating To Delhi Airport Noise Pollution

Case Details: Society For Protection of Culture, Heritage, Environment, Traditions and Promotion of National Awareness (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors. | C.A. No. 11051/2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) directed the NGT to expeditiously decide any applications that may be filed before it relating to the issue of compliance of its 2024 directions to Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) to take steps to monitor noise levels at its runways.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a challenge to the NGT's order, which refused to issue specific directions on the issue of noise pollution created by the use of runway no. 29/11 at IGI Airport, affecting nearby residents of Vasant Kunj. Notably, more than 50% flights use the specific runway for arriving/ departing.

The NGT bench of Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava and expert member A Senthil Vel passed the impugned order, observing that the Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) has complied with its previous directions of March 21, 2024.

Insurer Moves Supreme Court Against NCDRC Order To Pay 'Rajasthan Royals' Rs 82 Lakhs Over Sreesanth's Injury In 2012 IPL

Case Details: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Royal Multisport Private Limited, Diary No. 33872-2025

The Insurance Company which insured 'Rajasthan Royals' owner for the IPL Cricket Tournament of 2012 has approached the Supreme Court challenging NCDRC's order which directed it to pay a sum of over Rs.82 lakhs to the franchise owner on account of S. Sreesanth's injury at the time, which rendered him incapable of playing in the tournament.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter to enable the appellant to file additional documents, including the application submitted by the respondent for obtaining insurance, along with the necessary documents (such as Sreesanth's fitness certificate).

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the appellant-United Insurance Company and submitted that the impugned order dealt with the issue from the angle Sreesanth's pre-existing toe injury, which had no connection with the knee injury (suffered during the insurance period). However, the appellant was on the non-disclosure of the toe injury, rather than the connection between the two injuries.

'Can A Person Shoot Himself On Chest With Rifle?' : Supreme Court Asks MP Police In Death Case Treated As Suicide

Case Details: Arun Kumar Raghuwanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., SLP(Crl) No.9053/2025

Questioning whether it is possible for a person to shoot himself in the chest with a rifle, the Supreme Court called on the Madhya Pradesh Police in a death case treated as a suicide whether all relevant aspects had been probed - including possibility of a murder.

"To our understanding whether a person would be able to use a rifle to shoot himself on the chest needs examination. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to require the State to file an affidavit whether the investigating agency has investigated all aspects of the matter including possibility of a murder", a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan observed.

From the case of the prosecution, it seemed as though the deceased died by suicide by using a rifle to shoot himself on the chest. In that view of the matter, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2-accused under Section 306 of IPC.

Instances Of Delay In Bills Assent Can't Justify Imposing Fixed Timelines For Governors & President : Supreme Court During Hearing

On the 6th day of the hearing of the Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court orally observed that certain instances of delay in granting assent to Bills cannot justify the laying down of a blanket timeline for the Governors and President to act as per Articles 200 and 201of the Constitution respectively.

If there are individual cases of delay, the aggrieved parties can approach the Court to seek relief, and the Court may direct that the decision should be taken within a time limit; however, it cannot mean that the Court should lay down a general timeline for the actions of the Governor and the President, the Court verbally said.

The Court pointed out that the Constitution has specifically provided for "flexibility" by saying that the Bills be returned "as soon as possible" without specifying any time limits.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against ₹3,500 Fee For All India Bar Examination

Case Title – Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr.

The Supreme Court on September 2 dismissed a petition challenging the Rs. 3,500 fee and other incidental charges levied by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE).

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta agreed with BCI's contention that the judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, which held that Bar Councils cannot charge more than the statutorily prescribed Rs. 750 for enrolment, does not apply to the AIBE fees.

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala asked the petitioner why he was not following the Gaurav Kumar judgment.

Collegium Recommends 26 New Judges To Allahabad HC Including SC Advs Garima Prashad, Abdhesh Chaudhary & Swarupama Chaturvedi

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of 12 lawyers and 14 judicial officers as judges of the Allahabad High Court

Out of the 26 persons recommended, three of them, Senior Advocates Garima Prashad, Swarupama Chaturvedi and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, practice at the Supreme Court.

Garima Prashad is also the Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh.

Presidential Reference | Sibal Disagrees With Singhvi's Argument That Governor Has No Discretion While Acting On Bills [Day 6]

The Supreme Court orally remarked that the arguments made by those opposing the Presidential Reference are self-contradictory in terms of the different approaches offered by them in reading Article 200.

Justice Vikram Nath orally said this in the context of an argument made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal(for the State of West Bengal) that the Governor is not a mere post office and there is inherent evidence in Article 200 to suggest that he acts independently in sending the Bill for the President's reconsideration. Justice Nath then asked if the Governor does not consider the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers at this stage, to which Sibal said he disagrees with the argument made by Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for the State of Tamil Nadu) in this regard.

Singhvi had argued that the Governor has no discretion, and he must take the aid and advice of the State cabinet. He had submitted that when the Governor sends the Bill for the President's consideration, the Governor is acting on aid and advice because there may be a situation where either the State Government wants the President to reconsider, or where the bill deals with a matter which requires Presidential assent.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Digital Verification Of Bail Sureties To Avoid Delay In Release Of Prisoners

Case Details: Rocky Abraham v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking directions to the police authorities for the use of digital technology to verify bail sureties to obviate delay in the release of prisoners who have secured bail.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the matter. The bench also impleaded the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) through its member secretary.

The petitioner is a senior citizen who has been settled in Italy for the last 23 years and was arrested in January at the Delhi Domestic Airport under Sections 39/49/51 of the Wild Animal Protection Act,1972, on the allegation that he was transporting a "deer horn" from Italy, valued at approximately 20 Euros. Due to the delay in the verification of his sureties, who came from Kerala to Delhi, the petitioner had to undergo eight more days in jail after the grant of bail.

After Nigerian National Absconds, Supreme Court Says Govt May Frame Policy To Prevent Foreign Accused From Fleeing

Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Alex David @ M.U. Henry & Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 8629/2022

Unable to secure presence of a foreign national who jumped bail in a cyber fraud case and fled to Nigeria, the Supreme Court disposed of a bail cancellation matter while leaving it open for the Union to formulate a policy to ensure that foreign nationals do not flee the process after committing crimes.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih closed the proceedings after it was highlighted that there is no bilateral treaty between India and Nigeria and therefore extradition of the accused was unlikely.

Briefly put, an FIR was registered in 2019 and the accused (respondent no.1) was charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He was granted bail by the Jharkhand High Court on 13.05.2022. The State approached the Supreme Court against the grant of bail, however, respondent No.1 flouted the bail conditions and absconded.

Couple Approaches Supreme Court Seeking FIR Against Pvt Hospital Over Alleged Baby Swapping

Case Details: Usha Singh & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 27076/2025

The Supreme Court is set to consider a plea by parents seeking criminal action against a hospital for allegedly swapping their boy child with a girl child soon after delivery.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the challenge to the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which refused to direct registration of an FIR against the director of a private hospital in Raipur and his wife (who is the gynaecologist at the hospital) for the alleged offence of kidnapping an infant right after delivery.

The petitioner's case is that she delivered a boy and a girl at the private hospital, but soon discovered that instead of a boy and a girl, there were two girls. She made a complaint and, thereafter, a DNA test was carried out, which revealed that the DNA of one girl matched that of her biological parents. However, the DNA of the other girl did not match that of the parents/ petitioners.

Supreme Court Directs AIFF To Conduct ISL 2025-26; Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao To Oversee Selection Of Commercial Partner

Case Details: All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra and Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 30748-30749 of 2017

The Supreme Court accepted a proposal offered by the All-India Football Federation (AIFF) and its commercial partner for the football season 2025-26 and ordered the AIFF to take steps for timely commencement of the football competitions under its control.

"we direct AIFF to take such measures as may be necessary for timely commencement of football calendar and to maintain competitive continuity for the 2025-2026 season with respect to Super Cup and other competitions under its control", said a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi.

Resolving an embargo put in place by it, which led to some uncertainties after introduction of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the Court directed the AIFF to issue tenders inviting bids for open, competitive and transparent process for selection of its commercial partner to conduct Indian Super League.

Supreme Court Seeks IIT Roorkee Report On Preservation Of Mysuru's Devaraja Market And Lansdowne Heritage Buildings

Case Title: G. Satyanarayana Gouri Satya v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court has directed the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee to examine whether the 19th-century Devaraja Market Building and Lansdowne Buildings in Mysuru can be preserved through repairs or renovation. The report is to be filed in a sealed cover.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing a plea challenging the Karnataka authorities' decision to demolish the heritage structures and reconstruct them with the same façade.

Taking note of the report by the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) that preservation is possible with renovation and repairs, the Court observed, “Prima facie, if it is possible to preserve the two structures as they are with some repairs/renovation then they should be preserved.” The Bench added, “Although there is one report of INTACH as an expert body, we would still like to call for one other report from IIT Roorkee.”

Constitution Can't Be Interpreted In A Manner Making Governors Unaccountable: Sibal To Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

On the seventh day of the Presidential reference hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for the State of West Bengal) urged that the Constitution must not be read in a way giving powers to the Governor which makes him unaccountable, as it is contrary to the constitutional scheme envisaged.

He made this argument in the context of the submission of the Solicitor General on Article 361, that the Governor's actions are not justiciable and that he has discretion to withhold a Bill permanently under Article 200.

Remarking that such exercise of powers will make Article 200 the only provision where the Governor's actions are not accountable, Sibal submitted:

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case On Lack Of CCTV Cameras In Police Stations

The Supreme Court (September 4) registered a suo motu case on the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across the country.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta took the suo motu action based on a report published by Dainik Bhaskar. As per the report, around 11 people have died in police custody in the last seven to eight months this year.

In December 2020, the Supreme Court, in the case Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, had mandated that all State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning under them. However, compliance remains patchy, with many cameras either not installed or lying defunct.

Centre Moves Supreme Court Seeking Transfer Of Pleas In High Court Challenging Online Gaming Act 2025

The Union of India has filed a plea before the Supreme Court seeking that various writ petitions in 3 High Courts that challenge the Online Gaming Act 2025 be transferred to the Apex Court.

Videos Of Timber Logs Floating In Himachal Flood Waters Show Illegal Tree Felling Up Hills : Supreme Court Takes Serious View

The Supreme Court (September 4), referring to videos of timber logs floating in floodwaters in Himachal Pradesh, observed that rampant illegal tree felling appeared to be taking place in the Himalayan region.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran stressed that it was a serious matter.

"We have seen unprecedented landslides and floods in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. From the media reports, it is also noticed that in the flood, huge number of wooden logs were flowing around. Prima facie, it appears that there has been illegal felling of the trees which has been going on up hills," the bench observed while considering a Public Interest Litigation raising the issue of environmental degradation in the Himalayan region.

NEET-UG 2025 | Supreme Court Dismisses Candidate's Plea Alleging OMR Sheet Tampering

Case Details: Dudekula Shameera v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 23025/2025 Diary No. 44714 / 2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea alleging OMR tampering in the NEET(UG) 2025.

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara submitted that a NEET(UG) aspirant had approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a writ petition against the National Testing Agency, claiming that the OMR answer sheet given to her after the examination was not the one she had submitted as she had answered 171 questions correctly out of 180, whereas the OMR sheet showed she answered only 11 questions. She also claimed that the signature and the thumb impression on the disputed OMR sheet did not belong to her.

Against this, the NTA submitted that she answered 11 questions, out of which only two were correct. It was also pointed out that the OMR sheets were sealed in a pink envelope in the presence of students in the exam room itself and procuring signatures of two students as witnesses for due observance, a process the candidate did not dispute. Considering this, and also the fact that the High Court found general inconsistencies in the candidate's signature, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed her plea against which she approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Denies Interim Bail To Kashmiri Separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah; Issues Notice On Plea For Bail

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

The Supreme Court issued notice on Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah's bail plea in a terror funding case, but declined to grant the relief of interim bail at this stage.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for Shah and beseeched the Court to grant interim bail as Shah is "very sick", subject to a condition that he would remain at home. "His days of speeches are over", Gonsalves said.

Shah was arrested in June 2019 and arrayed as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA on October 04, 2019. The allegations against him are that he played a key role in building a separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, paying tribute to the families of slain terrorists, receiving money through hawala transactions and raising funds through LOC trade used to “fuel subversive and militant activities.”

BREAKING: 'Is There Ego Issue'? Supreme Court Summons MCD Commissioner For Failing To Remove Debris In Lodhi-Era Gumti

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 12213/2019

The Supreme Court took a serious view of the consistent violations of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD"), failing to remove debris for the restoration of the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance, which was illegally occupied by the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), Delhi, and where the MCD operated an unauthorised office and parking. In the morning, it had directed the MCD Commissioner's physical presence in the Court at 3 pm.

When the Commissioner appeared after lunch, the Court expressed its anguish with the repeated failure of the MCD to comply with its orders. The Court said that it is "pained" and is "very unhappy" with the manner MCD has cooperated in this matter. It was orally said that it appears to be an ego clash between the MCD and the Archaeological Survey of India ("ASI") and warned of a suo moto contempt if, on next occasion, the orders are not complied with.

Court's appointed Commissioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan, before lunch had informed the Court that he had visited and the debris from the demolition two months ago, which took place pursuant to the Court's order of the illegal construction, is still lying there. The Court also questioned the failure of the MCD's Counsel, Senior Advocate Garima Prasad, in complying with the order.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Smooth & Transparent Conduct Of SSC Exams

Case Details: Nikhil Kumar v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 848/2025 Diary No. 48355 / 2025

The Supreme Court (September 4) issued notice in a writ petition seeking the streamlining of the national recruitment examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Commission ("SSC"). Directions have been sought to ensure that the exam is conducted fairly and transparently.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar issued notice.

As per the writ petition, the SSC is responsible for conducting recruitment examinations for several gazetted and non-gazetted posts in various Ministries. For this purpose, it had issued a tender to Tata Consultancy Services for the past several years, which had been conducting examinations smoothly and transparently.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To YSRCP Leader Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy, Brother In TDP Activists' Double Murder Case

Case Details: Pinnelli Rama Krishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13622/2025 (And Connected Case)

The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to YSRCP leader and former MLA Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy, as well as his brother Pinnelli Venkatarami Reddy, in the double murder case of two Telegu Desam Party (TDP) activists.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, while issuing notice on the Pinnelli brothers' pleas for anticipatory bail. Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave and Shoeb Alam appeared for the petitioners.

To recap, the Pinnelli brothers are accused in the double murder case of TDP activists Javishetti Venkateshwarlu and his brother Javisetti Koteswara Rao, who were killed while travelling on a motorbike in an Andhra Pradesh district.

Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Against Bombay High Court Orders Allowing Plaster Of Paris Idol Immersion

Case Title – Rohit Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging two interim orders of the Bombay High Court dated June 9, 2025, and July 24, 2025 that permitted the use of Plaster of Paris (PoP) for idol manufacture and immersion during religious festivities.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice returnable in 4 weeks.

By its June 9 order, the High Court modified its earlier January 30, 2025 direction that had prohibited PoP, and allowed its use for making idols. The Court, however, said that such idols could not be immersed in natural water bodies without prior leave of the Court.

'Timebound Trials In Heinous Cases Necessary, Otherwise Hardened Criminals Will Hijack System': Supreme Court

Case Details: Kailash Ramchandani v. State of Maharashtra, SLP(Crl) No. 4276/2025

The National Investigation Agency informed the Supreme Court that it is holding consultations with States on constitution of dedicated NIA Courts and a positive decision may likely be reached soon.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the case where it earlier flagged a need for dedicated courts to deal with trial of special cases under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

During the hearing, the Court underlined the importance of timebound completion of trials. "It's an opportunity for you to incentivize...if you can have timebound trials, particularly in these heinous offenses, it would send a very good message to society...to all hardened criminals also, they think they can hijack the entire system...for 10 years, they will not allow the trial to be concluded, courts will under compulsion grant bail", said Justice Kant to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

'Approach HC' : Supreme Court To SHUATS University On Plea Against Alleged Forceful Installation Of Idols

Case Details: Sam Higginbottom Educational and Charitable Society v. State of U.P | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000354 / 2025

The Supreme Court (September 4) refused to entertain a writ petition seeking directions to the State of UP to protect the minority character of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Science (SHUATS) after miscreants allegedly forcefully installed idols in the Dean's office.

The Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court under Article 226 Jurisdiction.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition filed by Sam Higginbotham Charitable Society under Article 32 seeking directions to the state authorities to take cognisance of the representation made by the University regarding the forceful installation of idols in the Dean's office and celebration of Ganesh Chaturthi as opposed to the minority character of the University.

Supreme Court Urges Union To Enhance Monetary & Insurance Aid For Cadets Injured During Military Training

Case Details: In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle | SMW(C) No. 6/2025

The Supreme Court requested the Union of India to enhance monetary and insurance benefits given to military cadets boarded out due to disabilities suffered during training and come up with a scheme for medical reassessment and resettlement of such cadets.

“As far as monetary benefit is concerned, we have perused the amounts that are provided ex gratia with effect from 2017. Having regard to the lapse of time since 2017 we find that endeavour could be made to enhance the said figures accordingly particularly bearing in mind the current inflation and the price rise”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra appointed Senior Advocate and former Delhi High Court judge Rekha Palli to assist the Court in the suo moto case concerning the plight of invalidated and out boarded military cadets.

Sharjeel Imam Moves Supreme Court Against Bail Denial In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Sharjeel Imam has moved the Supreme Court seeking bail in the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

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

The matter is yet to be listed for hearing before the Apex Court. Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020.

Gulfisha Fatima Approaches Supreme Court Against Delhi High Court's Bail Denial In Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State of NCT of Delhi | Diary No. 50992/2025

Student activist Gulfisha Fatima has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Delhi High Court denying her bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Fatima, who was in the forefront of organising protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, was arrested on April 9, 2020, and has been under custody ever since over allegations under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The Delhi police chargesheet has accused her, along with several other individuals, of orchestrating a "larger conspiracy" behind the communal riots which rocked the national capital in the last week of February 2020.

On September 2, a division bench of the Delhi High Court passed a common order dismissing the bail applications of Fatima and eight co-accused. Sharjeel Imam has also filed a petition challenging the High Court's order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Medha Patkar v. VK Saxena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: Shankar Mahto v. State of Bihar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Seeman v. State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case: C R Jaya Sukin v. Union of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential Reference | Issues Raised & Key Observations By Supreme Court

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

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

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

'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 Committee 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 formed a 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 on September 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 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 January 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 along with 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 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 poaching 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 up to 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 Vinod Chandran 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 notice in 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: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

The Supreme Court (September 19) adjourned till 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 adjourned as 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 dismissed the 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 order which 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 Nagarik 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 Thiruvananthapuram, 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 the decision of 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 a judgment 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 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.

Are Hyderabad Cricket Association Officers 'Public Servants' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act? Supreme Court To Examine

Cause Title: Nandlal Shivlal Yadav & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.

The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the officers of Hyderabad Cricket Association (“HCA”) fall within the category of public servants to be tried in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale heard the petition filed against the Telangana High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIRs against the petitioners in connection with charges of corruption, conspiracy, and misappropriation related to HCA activities, primarily the inflated construction cost of Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Hyderabad.

The cases, investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), stem from complaints filed by members of local cricket clubs. The charge sheet filed by the ACB alleged large scale irregularities in the construction of cricket stadium such as inflating the stadium's construction cost from an initial estimate of ₹31 crore to over ₹108 crore, paying excessive prices for furnishings, such as bucket chairs procured for ₹910 each against a market price of ₹450, leading to an alleged excess payment of ₹2.07 crore, irregularities in ticket sales that led to a ₹44 lakh sales tax fine imposed on the HCA, and awarding contracts for grounds and floodlights without following tender processes.

Actress Jacqueline Fernandez Moves Supreme Court For Quashing Of 200 Cr-Money Laundering Case Involving Sukesh Chandrashekhar

Case Title: Jacqueline Fernandez v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 14759/2025

Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez has moved the Supreme Court challenging Delhi High Court's dismissal of her quashing plea in the 200 cr-money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. As an interim measure, the actress prays for stay of trial qua her.

To recap, Fernandez's plea before the High Court sought quashing of ED's ECIR as well as the second supplementary complaint arraigning her as the tenth accused in the case. In her plea, the actress said that the evidence filed by ED would prove that she is an “innocent victim” of Sukesh's “maliciously targeted attack.”

It added that was an admitted case of ED that the Tihar jail officials provided Sukesh unrestricted access to mobile phones and other technology which was used by him to con the original complainant and many film artists including her with an identical modus operandi. It was also submitted that once ED, in its discretion, had presented Fernandez as a prosecution witness in the predicate offence, it logically followed that any proceedings arising as a consequence of the same should be quashed.

'Let Justice Dhulia's Report Come' : Supreme Court On Kerala Governor's Plea To Remove CM From Committee To Select University VCs

Attorney General for India requested the Supreme Court to hear an application moved by the Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar seeking the removal of the Kerala Chief Minister from the Committee constituted by the Court for the appointment of regular Vice Chancellors for the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology.

The Court however said that it would prefer to await the report of Justice (Retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia, the head of the Committee. On August 18, the Court had constituted the Committee, in view of the stalemate between the Chancellor and the Kerala Government over the appointment of regular VCs. In the order, the Court said that the VCs should be shortlisted in the order of preference recommended by the Chief Minister.

Mentioning the application seeking the modification of the order, AG Venkataramani stated that a subsequent order passed by another coordinate bench restores the Governor as the appointing authority to appoint the Vice Chancellors.

"Time Has Come To Decriminalise Defamation": Supreme Court While Hearing The Wire's Plea Against Ex-JNU Professor's Case

Case : Foundation For Independent Journalism v. Amita Singh | Diary No. 47139-2025 and Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashasta v. Amita Singh Diary No. 47135-2025

The Supreme Court (September 22) issued notice on the petitions filed by Foundation for Independent Journalism (the trust which runs the online portal 'The Wire') and its Deputy Editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha seeking to quash the summons issued to them by a Court in a criminal defamation case filed by ex-JNU professor Amita Singh.

The defamation case is filed over an article published by The Wire in 2016 titled “Dossier Call JNU "Den of Organised Sex Racket"; Students, Professors Allege Hate Campaign”.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioners before a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Air India Flight Crash | 'Unfortunate': Supreme Court Criticises Media Narrative Of Pilot Error From Selective Leak Of Preliminary Report

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

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the selective leak of the preliminary inquiry report, which fuelled a media narrative blaming pilot error for the crash of Air India Flight AI171 in June 2025.

The Court orally observed that the selective and piecemeal publication of the preliminary inquiry report was "unfortunate". Till the enquiry is complete, it is important to maintain absolute confidentiality, the Court stressed.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a PIL seeking an independent, Court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight, which took place shortly after its take off from Ahmedabad airport, killing 260 people, on June 12, 2025.

Tirupati Laddu Row | CBI Director Approaches Supreme Court Against AP HC Observation That Officer Outside SIT Was Given Investigation

Case Details: Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. v. Kaduru Chinnappanna and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 12653/2025

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the plea by the CBI Director challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order, which held that he had violated the Apex Court's directions by appointing an officer outside the SIT to probe allegations of adulterated ghee in Tirumala Tirupati Temple's prasadam.

Supreme Court Dismisses Jacqueline Fernandez's Plea To Quash Money Laundering Case Over Association With Sukesh Chandrasekhar

Case Details: Jacqueline Fernandez v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 14759/2025

The Supreme Court today(September 22) dismissed a plea moved by Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of the Rs. 200 crores money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. The actress moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay of trial, after the Delhi High Court dismissed her quashing plea in July.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court at appropriate stage.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the actress, submitted that the prosecution's case is that she should have been more careful while accepting gifts from Sukesh.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Vijaywada Utsav Celebrations At Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Land

Case Title: Buragadda Sujay Kumar and Anr. v. Society For Vibrant Vijayawad and Ors., SLP(C) No. 27275/2025

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Andhra Pradesh High Court order which stayed a Single Bench's order restraining lease of Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple land to a private society for Dasara celebrations.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the matter.

Considering that the impugned order of the High Court's Division Bench was only interim in nature, the bench dismissed the case. During the hearing, Justice Nath remarked, "Two things are very clear - one, that the land belongs to the temple, and [second] that the lands have been allotted and leased out."

Tamil Nadu Govt Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Transfer Of Plea In Madras High Court Against University Law Amendments

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. K Venkatachalapthy @ Kutty and Ors., T.P.(C) No. 1511/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on Tamil Nadu government's plea to transfer to the Apex Court a PIL pending before the Madras High Court against certain state laws which took away the Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors of State-run Universities.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for TN), who pointed out that without notice having been issued, the University Grants Commission had already filed its response. Considering the advance filing of UGC's counter-affidavit, the bench formally issued notice to the respondents.

To recap briefly, the subject amendments took away the power to appoint VCs from the Governor and vested it in the state government. On May 21, the High Court stayed the said state 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). Tamil Nadu government has challenged the stay order by way of a special leave petition, on which the Supreme Court recently issued notice.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid & Others In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case; Next Hearing On Oct 27

The Supreme Court (September 22) issued notice to the Delhi Police on 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.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria posted the matter next on October 27.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal (for Khalid), AM Singhvi (Fatima), Siddharth Dave (for Imam), Siddharth Agarwal etc appeared for the petitioners.

Supreme Court Again Calls For Performance Evaluation Of High Court Judges, Says They Should Have 'Self-Management Mechanism'

Case Title: Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025

The Supreme Court reiterated the need for guidelines on the performance evaluation of High Court judges, saying that legitimate expectations of the public must be met by the judiciary.

The Court also said that the judges need to have a "self-management system" so that files do not pile up, causing anxiety and leading to adjournments.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, while dealing with the issue of nearly three years' delay by the Jharkhand High Court in pronouncing verdicts in reserved criminal appeals, clarified that the Supreme Court was not proposing to act like a "school principal" over High Court Judges, but to ensure that there are some broad guidelines.

Supreme Court Has Become Bail Court: Justice Nagarathna Flags Overload Of Bail Matters In SC

Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted the large number of bail matters coming before the Supreme Court, observing that the apex court has effectively become a “bail court.” She noted that the bench had heard 25 bail matters and 19 today, saying, “One after the other, we are considering either granting or refusing bail.”

She added, “The Supreme Court has become a bail court.”

Justice Nagarathna's remarks came in response to Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan expressing gratitude that the bench led by her takes a lunch break on miscellaneous days, allowing lawyers also to have a break for lunch.

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Which Disqualified Woman From SC-Reserved Post For Following Christianity

Case Title: V Amutha Rani v. V Iyyappan and Ors., SLP(C) No. 26877/2025

The Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court order which upheld the disqualification of a Panchayat's woman-Chairman from holding a reserved post observing that she had embraced Christianity.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the order, while issuing notice on a petition challenging the High Court decision.

A Single Bench of the High Court dealt with the respondent's plea to disqualify the petitioner, who was elected to the Theroor Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari on a post reserved for Scheduled Caste (General) category. The respondent submitted that the petitioner was born in the SC category but lost that status on account of professing Christianity. Therefore, she could not claim the benefits of reservation.

WB Universities VC Appointments | Supreme Court Seeks Views Of Governor & Govt On 12 Unanimous Recommendations Of Justice Lalit's Committee

Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

In the matter pertaining to the appointment of Vice Chancellors for certain West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court noted that names of 12 candidates for appointment as Vice-Chancellor to 12 universities have been unanimously recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

The Curt sought the views of the University Chancellor (Governor) and the State Government on these unanimous recommendations. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta were asked to get the instructions from the Chancellor and the Government, respectively.

"After considering academic record, experience and opinions of the Chief Minister and Hon'ble Chancellor, and the written vision statements of the candidates, the Search-cum-Selection Committees have given their preference list for 15 universities. The report reveals that for 12 universities, the Search-cum-Selection Committee was unanimous. For the remaining 3 universities, two different preference list are prepared by different groups within the Committee", observed the Court.

Chandni Chowk Illegal Constructions : Supreme Court Vacates Stay On MCD's Sealing Orders With Effect From Dec 31

Case Title: Dr. S. Jaitley and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 35312-2024

Dealing with the matter pertaining to unauthorized and illegal constructions in Delhi's Chandni Chowk area, the Supreme Court asked the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to appoint a Presiding Officer for Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (ATMCD).

The order was passed by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, after it was informed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's counsel that the ATMCD passed stay orders on sealing action proposed with regard to properties where unauthorized constructions were made or where properties were being used for purposes other than residential. But, the stay orders were continuing as the post of Presiding Officer, ATMCD is lying vacant since the expiry of term of the previous PO. Further, in some cases, stay orders have been obtained from the High Court as well.

In this backdrop, the bench directed that all stay orders passed in unauthorized construction cases pertaining to the Chandni Chowk area shall stand stayed and become ineffective with effect from December 31. If any person has any grievance regarding vacation of the stay orders, they may approach the Court prior to December 31.

Telangana Phone Tapping Case | State Says Ex-Intelligence Chief Destroyed Digital Evidence, Urges Supreme Court To Cancel Interim Protection

Case Title – T. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Telangana

The State of Telangana submitted before the Supreme Court that former Telangana intelligence officer T Prabhakar Rao, prime accused in the Telangana phone tapping case, wiped his iPhones and an official laptop while enjoying interim protection from arrest.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the State, said this amounted to destruction of digital evidence even as proceedings were pending in the High Court and the Supreme Court.

“The report of FSL says that he formatted on 5th of April'25. Well, this is the date on which his anticipatory bail was pending before the High Court. So he destructs the evidence pending before the High Court. Something serious, more serious happens. This Hon'ble Court gives the interim protection on 29th of May'25. He formats the phone on 15th July'25, during the pendency of petition before this Court and during the pendency of your Lordship's and my Ladyship's protection that he should not be arrested. This is the seriousness”, he submitted.

Supreme Court Dismisses CCI's Appeal Against Delhi High Court Verdict Quashing Probe Against Ericsson & Monsanto

Case Title – Competition Commission of India v. Monsanto Holdings Private Limited and Connected Matters

The Supreme Court recently dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) challenging a Delhi High Court judgment which had quashed the CCI proceedings against Ericsson and Monsanto.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order considering the Delhi High Court's observation that once a settlement had been reached between the informant and the person against whom the information was filed, the basis of the investigation was lost.

The Bench stated, “Taking into consideration the HC's observations and the fact that the original informants have nothing further to say in view of the settlement arrived at, we do not interfere with the impugned judgment.”

Is Scheduled Caste Reservation In Special Component Plan Colleges Bound By 50% Ceiling Limit? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details : Yuvraj Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr | Diary No. 51735-2025

The Supreme Court is set to examine the issue whether the reservation for Scheduled Castes in special educational institutions, which are established with the funds and schemes specifically earmarked for SCs, are bound by the rules of reservation applicable for ordinary colleges.

The issue arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which struck down the 70% SC reservation in four Special Component Plan (SCP) medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh on the ground that it exceeded the 50% ceiling limit. A single bench of the High Court struck down the reservation, and a division bench, in the State's appeal, by an interim order, agreed with the single bench's view though suspended the implementation for the ongoing academic year 2025-2026.

Challenging the High Court's judgment, certain students approached the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice on the Special Leave Petition.

Uphaar Cinema Tragedy | Supreme Court Proposes Inspection Of Trauma Centres Built Using Fine Amount Paid By Ansal Brothers

Case Title: Association of Victims of Uphar Tragedy v. Sushil Ansal and Ors., Ma 743-745/2025 In Crl.A. No. 600-602/2010

In the matter concerning victims of the 1997 Uphaar Cinema Fire tragedy, the Supreme Court called for an inspection of the trauma centres stated to have been constructed using the Rs.60 crores penalty amount imposed on the Ansal brothers.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter, and told Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta (appearing for petitioner-Association of Victims of Uphar Tragedy) to depute someone to carry out the visit.

During the hearing, Mehta argued an application seeking implementation of the directions issued by the Court while letting off the Ansal brothers in 2015. He claimed that the convicts have taken benefit of the leniency shown by the Court but not fulfilled the responsibilities imposed at the time. He further pointed out that the Delhi Vidyut Board was to allot 5 acres land in terms of the Court's directions, but the same has not been done.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking CBI/SIT Investigation Into Murder Of Congress Leader's Driver In Madhya Pradesh

Case Title: Rajiya Ali v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 364/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday issued notice on a petition seeking transfer of investigation into the 2023 murder case pertaining to Salman Khan, who was allegedly run over by a car at the behest of politically influential persons.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, after hearing Advocate Varun Thakur.

The petition, filed by Salman Khan's widow, seeks transfer of investigation into the FIR lodged by Madhya Pradesh police to a Special Investigation Team or the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner further seeks protection of her life and liberty, alleging that the deceased's family is being pressurized to settle the case.

Supreme Court Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Cost On Advocate For Scandalous Allegations Against Woman; Suspends Bar License For 3 Years

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Priyanka Bansal, C.A. No. 6679/2024

The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with a 3-year suspension order for an advocate's license, noting that he was harassing the woman-complainant by levelling scandalous allegations against her.

The Court also imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on the advocate and directed that his license shall not be renewed without its prior permission.

"Having regard to the serious misconduct carried out by the appellant-advocate, who appears to be an obstinate character in making scandalous allegations against the respondent-complainant, we do not want to take any lenient view. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.1 lakh", the Court ordered.

'You Can't Plead Helplessness' : Supreme Court Pulls Up CBI For Not Arresting Two Cops In MP Custodial Death Case

Case No. – Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 594/2025

Case Title – Hansura Bai v. Hanuman Prasad Meena

The Supreme Court pulled up the Central Bureau of Investigation for its failure to arrest two police officers allegedly responsible for the custodial death of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi in Madhya Pradesh.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan was hearing a contempt petition filed by Pardhi's mother alleging breach of its May 15, 2025 order to arrest the police officers responsible for the incident within one month.

“This can't go on like this. Despite a Supreme Court order you are unable to act. Then what is the use? You are pleading helplessness! 'He is absconding, proclamation is there, we can't trace.' Please don't plead helplessness. We will only say your helplessness feels in the garb of protection”, Justice Nagarathna said.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Age-Relaxation For Displaced Kashmiri Pandits In Govt Recruitments

Case Details: Panun Kashmir Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 881/2025

The Supreme Court today(September 23) dismissed a writ petition filed by Panun Kashmir Trust under Article 32, seeking parity in age-relaxation benefits in recruitment to Groups D and C of Central Government jobs for victims of the Kashmiri riots at par with the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and 2002 Gujarat riots.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the writ petition, remarking that such matters are for the policy-makers to decide. When Advocate on Record Sudarshan Rajan (for petitioners) began his arguments, at the outset, Justice Nath orally remarked: "Is this in the scope of Article 32? Is it for the Supreme Court or High Court to decide? These are policy decisions to be taken by the Government."

Panun Kashmir had approached the Supreme Court on behalf of the displaced Kashmiri Pandits. As per the petition, the victims were forced to flee their ancestral homes in the wake of the riots in the valley in 1980s. It has been claimed in the petition that the "deliberate exclusion" of Kashmiri Hindus from age relaxation benefits has led to hostile discrimination.

'Disturbing' : Supreme Court Slams Registry For 3 Years' Delay In Listing Case, Orders Enquiry

Cause Title: X v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

The Supreme Court strongly criticized its Registry for delaying the listing of a case by over three years despite a clear judicial order to list it 'immediately after service.' The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to conduct an inquiry into the lapse and submit a report within two weeks identifying the officer responsible."

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing the plea filed by the victim of the sexual offence against the Madras High Court's order granting bail to the accused. The petition filed in 2022, was pending when the accused secured a settlement and filed a quashing petition before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings.

In the meantime, when the petition was pending for listing before the Supreme Court, the High Court based on the settlement between the parties had quashed the criminal case against the accused.

Judicial Officer Who Completed 7 Year Practice At Bar Eligible For District Judge Direct Appointment : Petitioners Argue In Supreme Court [Day 1]

Case: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [Civil Appeal Nos. 3947/2020]

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

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

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

Builder-Bank Nexus: After Preliminary Enquiry Finds Cognizable Offence Over Outside NCR Projects, Supreme Court Asks CBI To Register FIR

Case Title: Himanshu Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7649/2023

In the matter where the Supreme Court ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into a builder-banks nexus exploiting homebuyers in the national capital region, the CBI was allowed to proceed with registration of criminal cases qua projects outside NCR.

On a mentioning, a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh allowed the CBI to register regular cases, after it was informed that the 7th preliminary enquiry was complete and disclosed commission of a cognizable offense.

To recap, this is the matter where the Court directed CBI to conduct 7 preliminary enquiries into the "unholy" nexus of builders and banks in NCR, noting that certain real estate companies, and banks which sanctioned loans to them for their projects in NCR, had taken poor homebuyers to ransom.

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Judicial Officers' Career Stagnation Due To Delay In Promotions

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

The Supreme Court expressed concerns over how young judicial officers are facing career stagnation due to systemic delays in promotions as a District Judge.

The 5-judge constitution bench was considering the issue of whether a judicial officer, who has already completed 7 years in the Bar, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against the Bar vacancy.

The matter was being considered by the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran.

“Existential Crisis In Himalayas”: Supreme Court Poses Queries To Himachal Govt On Zoning, Deforestation, Mining, Constructions, Etc

In Re: Issues Relating To Ecology and Environmental Conditions Prevailing In The State of Himachal Pradesh | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 758 of 2025

The Supreme Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to file comprehensive and verified responses on a wide range of issues concerning its fragile ecology and environmental conditions, in the wake of unprecedented monsoon rains that wreaked havoc across the State earlier this year.

The order was passed on September 23, in Suo Motu case initiated by the Court following the widespread devastation of lives and properties caused by flash floods and landslides.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that the State, and the Himalayan region as a whole, was facing a “serious existential crisis” as unregulated development activities compounded natural vulnerabilities. The Court had earlier remarked that “humans, not nature” were responsible for recurring landslides, collapsing buildings, and sinking roads, with factors such as hydropower projects, four-lane highways, deforestation, and multi-storey constructions contributing significantly to the disaster.

Supreme Court Orders Forced Eviction Of Tenant Who Defied Undertaking To Vacate, Warns Him Of Jail

Case Details: Jayakandammal v. A. Selvaraju | Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 44/2025 In SLP(C) No. 13281/2023

The Supreme Court ordered the forced eviction of a tenant from premises in Salem, Tamil Nadu, after finding him guilty of wilful disobedience of the undertaking given to vacate the premises.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi directed the Principal District Munsif, Salem to take possession with police assistance and to take the 84-year-old tenant named Selvaraju into custody if he resists. The Court also imposed ₹10,000 per month as occupation charges from January 2024.

The bench directed police to secure a fresh undertaking from Selvaraju for his appearance on the next hearing. If he again defaults, the Court warned it would issue non-bailable warrants and send him to jail with an appropriate sentence.

Supreme Court Allows Urgent Listing Of Plea Challenging Allahabad HC's Stay Of Ramlila Celebrations In School Ground; Hearing Tomorrow

Case Title: Shree Nagar Ram Lila Mahotsav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, Diary No.55261/2025

The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow the plea of a Ramlila organizing committee challenging Allahabad High Court's ex-parte stay of ongoing Ramlila celebrations at a school ground in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh allowed urgent listing of the case, upon a mentioning. The counsel who mentioned the case on behalf of the petitioner (Ramlila organizing committee) submitted that the High Court passed the ex-parte order without hearing it.

"In a PIL, it has stayed the ongoing Ramlila proceedings...10 days we have organized it, day before the order was passed...ongoing Ramlila proceedings have been stayed by the High Court at the behest of the PIL petitioner without impleading us or hearing us, on the ground that Ramlila is being organized in school grounds and there's interference with school activity", he said.

Supreme Court To Hear Union's Plea To Modify 'Shatrughan Chauhan' Judgment On Death Row Convicts' Mercy Petitions

Case Details: Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India | Ma 265/2020 In W.P.(Crl.) No. 55/2013

The Supreme Court today(September 24) said that it will hear a modification application by the Union seeking further guidelines in the 2014 Shatrughan Chauhan judgment to make it more victim-centric.

It may be recalled that the Union's modification application dates back to 2020 filed in the context of the pending execution of death warrants of the four convicts in the 2012 Delhi gangrape-murder case. The death warrants were only executed in 2020 after the Supreme Court rejected their final plea in a special sitting at midnight.

In 2014, a three-judge bench laid down various guidelines for the protection of the rights of death row convicts and declared that long pendency in the disposal of a mercy petition is a ground to commute the death penalty to a life sentence. It also said that a 14-day period should be there between the intimation of the rejection of the mercy petition and the final execution, so that the death row convict cannot just seek a remedy but also mentally prepare himself for the execution.

'Why Did You Not Hang Him Till Now?': Supreme Court Asks Centre In Balwant Singh Rajoana's Plea To Commute Death Sentence

Case Details: Balwant Singh v. UoI & Ors, W.P.(Crl.) No. 414/2024

The Supreme Court (September 24) heard the petition filed by Balwant Singh Rajoana, Babbar Khalsa terrorist, seeking commutation of the death sentence awarded to him in the Punjab CM Beant Singh assassination case. He is seeking commutation on the grounds of the delay in considering the mercy petition pending before the President of India since 2012.

Appearing for Singh, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, submitted before a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria that Rajoana has been incarcerated for more than 29 years.

"This man has been on death row for 15 years. So, when I came to your lordship in the earlier petition, your lordship said no, he has not moved the mercy petition. The Gurudwara Committee has moved. With great respect, this is contrary to the provisions. The provisions say it does not matter who moves; it should be considered. It is a matter of Article 21 and 433 [CrPC]. Your lordship finally said, so much time has gone by, they should decide it sometime. This was said two and a half years ago," Rohatgi added.

"How Long Can You Keep A Person In Custody Without Trial?" : Supreme Court Questions Delay In Trial Against Surendra Gadling

Case Title – Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court (September 24) raised concerns over the prolonged pendency of trial proceedings against lawyer and activist Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadhchiroli arson case..

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi asked whether a person can be kept in custody as an undertrial for many years.

“But why is the trial not going on? Because... you keep a person in custody without trial for how many years?” Justice Maheshwari asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the State of Maharashtra.

Supreme Court Asks State Bar Councils To Hold Elections By January 31; Says Roll Verification Can't Be Reason To Postpone

Case Title: M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Anr., WP(C) No. 1319/2023 (And Connected Cases)

Noting that the elections of State Bar Councils across India have not been held since many years, the Supreme Court asked the Bar Councils to hold the elections by January 31, 2026.

"Having regard to the fact that elections to the State Bar Councils have not been held for decades, we have impressed upon ld. senior counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India to ensure that elections of all State Bar Councils are held, if not simultaneously, in phased manner, by January 31, 2026", the Court ordered.

Orally, the Court also indicated that the verification of genuineness of LLB certificates of advocates shall not per se lead to indefinite postponement of the elections. In this regard, the Court was informed that the verification process has revealed figures of fake voters. Hearing the same, the Court lamented that there are not only voters with fake LLB degrees, but sometimes even hardened criminals come in lawyers' robes and indulge in violence.

Can Judicial Officer's Experience Be Counted Towards '7-Year Practice' For District Judge Direct Appointment? Supreme Court Hears [Day 2]

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

The Supreme Court continued the hearing of its constitution bench on the issue of whether a judicial officer, who has already completed 7 years in the Bar, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against a Bar vacancy.

The petitioners emphasised that several factors are to be seen behind why a potential candidate discontinues advocacy; the discontinuation alone cannot mean that the candidate would not have adequate merit for being considered as a district judge.

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

'Duty-Free Import Of Yellow Peas Harming Indian Farmers', Says Kisan Group In PIL; Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response

Case : Kisan Mahapanchayat v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 911/2025

The Supreme Court (September 25) issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the policy of the Union Government to allow the import of yellow dal without any duty.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice NK Singh was hearing the petition filed by 'Kisan Mahapanchayat', a farmers' organisation, which contended that the policy was harming Indian agriculturists.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, submitted that the policy has resulted in the fall in the prices of soyabean, groundnut, urud, moong and tur dal below the Minimum Support Price.

Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC Order Halting Ramlila Celebrations At Firozabad School Ground

Case Title: Shree Nagar Ram Lila Mahotsav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, Diary No.55261/2025

The Supreme Court stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court which stopped the ongoing Ramlila celebrations at a school ground in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.

Having regard to the fact that the festivities have already started, the Court allowed the Ramlila celebration to continue at the playground of Zila Parishad Vidyalaya, Tundla, Firozabad, subject to the condition that no inconvenience should be caused to the students.

Considering the fact that the said ground has been used for the festivities for about 100 years, the Court requested the High Court to impress upon the District Administration to resolve the issue by identifying some alternate site for the Ramlila Celebrations so that playground of the school can be exclusively used by the students. The Court said that all stakeholders be heard before taking a decision.

Plea Filed In Supreme Court To Prevent Disposal Of Body Of Man Killed In Chhattisgarh 'Fake Encounter'

Case Title: Raja Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh, Diary No. - 55729/2025

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court to prevent disposal of a dead body by state-authorities in an alleged fake encounter in Chhattisgarh.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh.

On a Court query, the counsel who mentioned the case submitted that the petitioner had initially approached the Chhattisgarh High Court. However, urgent listing was not allowed and there is apprehension that the respondents would dispose of the dead body.

Supreme Court Forms Committee Led By Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia To Determine Encroachment Extent In Obulapuram Mining Case

Case Details: Govt. Of A.P. & Ors. v. M/S Obulapuram Minig. Co. P. Ltd. & Ors.

The Supreme Court recently appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, a former judge of the Supreme Court, as the Chairman of the Committee to fix the boundaries of the leased areas and the reserved forest areas to examine the extent of illegal encroachment and mining and other unauthorised activities in the Obulapuram mining case in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In this case, former Tourism and Infrastructure Minister of Karnataka, Gali Janardhan Reddy, is one of the accused.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, passed the order after taking note of a September 18 communication from the Andhra Pradesh Commissioner and Director of Mines & Geology, which stated that the State Government had decided to request the Court to set up a committee on the issue.

Although this suggestion was vehemently opposed by the Respondent, stating that what was agreed upon was only the demarcation of the leasehold areas, the Court nevertheless accepted the suggestion of the State.

'You Are Protecting Them' : Supreme Court Slams MP Govt Over Police Officers Absconding In Custodial Death Case

Case No. – Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 594/2025

Case Title – Hansura Bai v. Hanuman Prasad Meena

The Supreme Court questioned the State of Madhya Pradesh for not suspending two police officers allegedly responsible for the custodial death of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi, even though they have not shown up for duty for five months.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a contempt petition filed by the mother of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi regarding his death while in custody of the Madhya Pradesh police. The Supreme Court had on May 15, 2025 ordered CBI to arrest all officers responsible for the incident within one month.

“You are colluding with them...You have been searching for them since April why you haven't suspended them?”, Justice R Mahadevan said.

BREAKING| Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Judicial Officers' Eligibility For District Judge Direct Recruitment In Bar Vacancy

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

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

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

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

'Mention Dates Of Reserving, Pronouncement & Uploading Of Judgments In Certified Copy': Supreme Court Directs High Courts

Case Title: Pila Pahan@ Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025

As per a recent Supreme Court order, High Courts across the country must now mention in their certified copy of judgments the date on which the judgment was reserved, the date on which it was pronounced and the date on which it was uploaded on the High Court website.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, directing all High Courts to modify their existing practice or formats within 4 weeks in compliance of the above.

"all the High Courts are directed to suitably modify their existing practice or formats to ensure that (i) the date when the judgment is reserved; (ii) the date when the judgment is pronounced; and (iii) the date when the judgment is uploaded on the website are clearly mentioned in the uploaded/certified copy of judgment. The High Court may do the needful within four weeks", the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Dismisses Uttarakhand State Election Commission Plea Supporting Candidates With Dual Entries In Voter List; Imposes Rs.2 Lakhs Cost

Case Title: State Election Commission v. Shakti Singh Bharthwal and Anr., Diary No. 41232-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the Uttarakhand State Election Commission's challenge to a High Court order which stayed its clarificatory circular allowing candidates with names in multiple electoral rolls to contest panchayat elections.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order and imposed a cost of Rs.2 lakhs on the SEC. "How can you decide contrary to the statutory provision?", posed Justice Nath to SEC's counsel.

To recap, the High Court passed the impugned order in a petition filed by respondent No.1 highlighting several instances where persons with names in multiple voter lists were being allowed to contest the elections.

Tirupati Laddu Case | 'Can't SIT Delegate To Another Officer?' : Supreme Court Stays Andhra Pradesh High Court Order Against CBI Director

Case Details: Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. v. Kaduru Chinnappanna and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 12653/2025

The Supreme Court (September 26) stayed the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which observed that the CBI Director had violated the Apex Court's directions by appointing an officer outside the SIT to probe allegations of adulterated ghee in Tirumala Tirupati Temple's prasadam.

The Court passed the interim order in a Special Leave Petition filed by the CBI Director against the High Court's order. During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria orally observed that there was nothing wrong with the SIT delegating the investigation to another officer, when the entire probe was being monitored by the CBI Director.

"If SIT wants to appoint a particular officer, what is wrong with that?" CJI Gavai asked at the outset.

Hit-And-Run Case Against Judicial Magistrate: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Transfer Trial From Punjab To Delhi

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

The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea to transfer a hit-and-run case involving a sitting Judicial Magistrate as an accused from Punjab to Delhi.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, upon hearing Advocate Raja Choudhary on behalf of the petitioner (deceased's wife). The Court stayed further proceedings in the trial pending before a Phagwara Court and asked the petitioner to seek transfer of a connected writ petition as both the cases must be heard together.

The petitioner raised an apprehension of lack of fair trial in Punjab since the accused is working in the judicial service there.

Supreme Court Directs Preservation Of Body Of Alleged Maoist Killed In Chhattisgarh Encounter Till HC Decides Son's Plea For Probe

Case Details: Raja Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh | W.P.(Crl.) No. 395/2025

The Supreme Court today(September 26) directed that the dead body of Katha Ramchandra Reddy, who was killed in an encounter in Chhattisgarh as an alleged Maoist commander, must be preserved in a mortuary till the Chhattisgarh High Court decides the writ petition filed by his son against the encounter.

The son, Raja Chandra, alleges that it was a fake encounter. He approached the Supreme Court, saying that the High Court had refused to grant an urgent hearing for his petition before the closure for Puja vacations.

The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih disposed of the petition with the direction to preserve the body till the High Court decided the matter. The bench requested the High Court to prioritise the hearing. It clarified that the contentions are left open without any expression on the merits.

Supreme Court Allows Manufacture Of Green crackers In Delhi-NCR, Bars Their Sale In NCR

The Supreme Court asked the Centre to take a decision on revising the absolute ban on manufacture of firecrackers in Delhi-National Capital Region after holding consultations with all the stakeholders.

In the meantime, the Court allowed certified manufacturers of green crackers, who have the permits from the NEERI and the PESO, to manufacture green crackers in Delhi-NCR, subject to the condition that they will not be sold in the NCR.

"In the meantime, we permit the manufacturers who are having the certification of green crackers as certified by the NEERI as well as PESO to manufacture. However, this will be subject to an undertaking by the manufacturers to this Court that until further orders passed by this Court, they would not sell any of their crackers in the prohibited areas."

'You Didn't Deserve To Be In Judiciary': Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Judicial Officer For Filing Criminal Case Against HC Judges

Case Title: Prabhakar Gwal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr., Diary No. 58426-2024

The Supreme Court rejected a plea filed by a former judicial officer who was dismissed from service over filing of criminal cases against an ex-Chief Justice and Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the matter and remarked that the petitioner did not deserve to be in any government service, much less the judicial service.

Briefly put, petitioner-Prabhakar Gwal was a judicial officer in Chhattisgarh. He was dismissed from service after the Full Court recommended his dismissal without inquiry on finding that he, through his wife, filed a criminal case against many persons, including the then Chief Justice and a senior judge of the High Court. Gwal challenged the dismissal order before the High Court, but both the Single Bench and the Division Bench held against him and confirmed his dismissal. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Sets Oct 7 Deadline For CBI To Arrest Absconding MP Police Officers In Custodial Death Case

Case No. – Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 594/2025

Case Title – Hansura Bai v. Hanuman Prasad Meena

The Supreme Court warned that it would frame contempt charges against officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the State of Madhya Pradesh over their failure to arrest two police officers allegedly responsible for the custodial death of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi and gave them time till October 7 to arrest the accused.

"Comply with the direction of the Apex Court of the country. If not complied, we know how to get the things complied. We will frame charges and consequences under the will follow under the Contempt of Courts Act. We are giving you an opportunity. We are proceeding slowly. We are not hasty, rushing to framing of charges yet", the Court said.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a contempt petition filed by Pardhi's mother alleging breach of the Court's May 15, 2025 order by which it ordered CBI to arrest within one month all officers responsible for the incident. The Court transferred the probe to CBI holding that the state police were attempting to cover up and influence the investigation.

Supreme Court Relaxes UP MLA Abbas Ansari's Bail Conditions In Gangsters Act Case; Allows Him To Travel Outside UP

Case Title: Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 1091/2025

Relaxing his bail conditions in the Gangsters Act case, the Supreme Court allowed UP MLA Abbas Ansari to travel outside the State of Uttar Pradesh without prior permission from the Trial Court.

The Court said that when Ansari wishes to travel outside the state, he must furnish particulars about the place of visit, along with contact details, to the Investigating Officer. On the bail condition restricting public statements, the politician was advised that statements shall not be made on pending cases.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Advocate Nizam Pasha (for Ansari). Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj represented State of Uttar Pradesh.

Supreme Court Poses 12 Queries To Rajasthan Govt Over Lack Of Functioning CCTVs In Police Stations & Non-Preservation Of Footage

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

In a suo motu case concerning lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations, the Supreme Court called for the Rajasthan government's response on 12 questions including whether regular audits are carried out to ensure the functioning of CCTVs.

The Court further asked the government to state the period for which CCTV footage of police stations is preserved. It also questioned whether there is provision for surprise inspections and forensic validation of tamper proofing.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, noting that efforts to procure the CCTV footage from the concerned police stations of Rajasthan remained unsuccessful as the information was not supplied on "frivolous grounds".

Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Ban On Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses'

Case Title: Mohd. Arshad Mohd. Jamal Khan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 915/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking ban on Indian-British novelist Salman Rushdie's book “The Satanic Verses”.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order on a PIL claiming that the book was blasphemous and violative of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The bench orally remarked that by way of the writ petition, the petitioners were indirectly challenging the order of the Delhi High Court which lifted the ban on the book. "At present, there is no live notification", commented Justice Mehta.

Supreme Court Stays Coercive Action Against Kerala IT Company Owner In Case Alleging Sexual Exploitation Of Employee

Case Details: Venu Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Another | SLP (Crl) 15379/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of Venu Gopalakrishnan, owner of an IT company at Info park, Kerala, in connection with a rape and sexual harassment case filed by a female employee.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan, considering his petition against the Kerala High Court's denial of anticipatory bail, issued notice to the State and the complainant. The bench further ordered that no coercive action should be taken against him, subject to the petitioner cooperating with the investigation.

On September 11, the Kerala High Court had refused anticipatory bail to Venu, while extending protection from arrest to other accused in the case, including the firm's director and employees. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had observed that there were serious allegations in the complaint, noting anomalies in the investigation process, and expressed that the allegations against Venu could not be said to be wholly false.

NEET PG 2025 : Supreme Court Issues Notice On 3 Petitions Seeking Publication Of Answer Keys

Case Details: Meghraj Roy v. National Board of Examination In Medical Sciences | W.P.(C) No. 851/2025 Diary No. 48426 / 2025

The Supreme Court today(September 26) issued notice in three petitions seeking publication of the answer keys in the NEET-PG exam.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan considered the matter. It was submitted to the Court that more than 2 lakh students appeared in the exam, and 20 petitioners have approached the Court in Meghraj Roy's petition seeking not just disclosure of questions and answer keys but also raising issues of transparency. On this, Justice Pardiwala asked: "In the 2 lac students who appeared in the NEET PG, why only 14 have approached us?"

Senior Advocate Shikhil Suri, who appeared in one of the matters, submitted that the petitioners are not trying to interfere with the counselling process, which will begin consequently since the results have been declared. But the issue of non-disclosure of answer keys is going to impact a large number of students.

'Nowadays, Mother-in-Law & Husband Very Wary Of Wife Due To False Complaints; S.498A IPC Very Draconian ': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC while hearing a matrimonial dispute. The case involved a complaint filed under Section 498A by a woman within one-and-a-half months of her marriage.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the matter.

During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna observed, “Nowadays, the mother-in-law that is the mother of the son, and the husband are very very wary of the wife because of false complaints filed. We have quashed quite a few complaints. We are not saying every case is false, but 498A is very very draconian and misused. 498A we are telling you, it is like squeezing lemon on a relationship. Nothing further we will say.”

'No Chief Information Commissioner In CIC', Petitioners Flag Unfilled Vacancies, Supreme Court Hearing On Oct 27

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

The Supreme Court will hear on October 27 the PIL assailing non-fulfilment of vacancies in Information Commissions set up under the Right to Information Act.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi by Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners). Bhushan informed the Court that the post of Chief Information Commissioner is currently unfilled and out of 10 information commissioner posts, 8 are lying vacant.

It may be recalled that in January, the Supreme Court called on the Union and states to furnish data regarding appointments and selection process for the Information Commissions (including proposed timelines) as well as total pendency of cases/appeals before them.

WB Universities VC Appointments: Supreme Court Asks Governor, CM To Give Reasons For Reservations On Committee Recommendations

Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

In the matter pertaining to the appointment of Vice Chancellors for West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court asked the Governor and the Chief Minister to place before it reasons behind their reservations, if any, about certain candidates recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.

Earlier, the Court had modified the directions issued in July and left it upon Justice UU Lalit-led Committee to determine its own order of preference regarding Vice-Chancellor appointments for 15 remaining universities. On September 22, Justice Kant said that the Committee recommendations had come in a sealed envelope, wherein it was stated that the Committee members were unanimous in their views qua 12 candidates' appointment. There was however divergence in views regarding appointment of VCs for 3 universities.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Jharkhand Govt For Delay In Notifying Saranda, Sasangdaburu Wildlife Sanctuaries

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

The Supreme Court recently pulled up the State of Jharkhand over repeated non-compliance with its previous assurances given to declare the Saranda/Sasangdaburu forests as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve. The Court observed that if the compliance with previous orders on the issue is not done before the next date of hearing, the Chief Secretary of the State will have to show cause why no contempt should be initiated against him.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an application against the State Government in the batch of environmental matters under the TN Godavarman case.

The Bench noted that although the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had, by its order dated July 12, 2022, directed the State Government to consider declaring the area a sanctuary, no steps were taken until the applicant was compelled to move an interlocutory application. Taking note of the rich biodiversity and pristine Sal forests, the Court directed the State on November 20, 2024, to file an affidavit explaining its inaction.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy : Supreme Court Issues Notice To Officials In Contempt Plea Alleging Non-Compliance With Directions For Medical Care

Case Details: Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghathan and Anr. v. Punya Salila Srivastava and Ors | Diary No. 39365-2025 PIL-W

The Supreme Court, on September 26, issued notice to the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Director General of the Indian Council of Medical Research, Chief Secretary of Government of Madhya Pradesh and Principal Secretary of Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation Department in a contempt petition regarding the non-compliance of the directions passed by the Court in 2012 for the Bhopal gas tragedy victims for computerisation of medical records and providing medical care to them.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar issued notice in regards to the non-compliance of directions issued in writ petition no. 50 of 1998 in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v Union of India, passed on August 9, 2012. Through the said directions, the Court had also transferred the matter to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur bench, for the administrative supervision and proper execution of the orders.

The contempt petition alleges that the matter has been pending before the High Court for more than 12 years for compliance with directions. The petitioners had filed a contempt petition in 2015 for the non-compliance; however, for the last ten years, the High Court has restrained itself from initiating any punitive action against the Respondent authorities.

Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan HC Judgment Which Held POCSO Act Safeguards Won't Apply Once Victim Turns 18 During Trial

Case No. – Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 51513/2025

Case Title – XXX v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

The Supreme Court stayed a Rajasthan High Court judgment which held that procedural safeguards under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) end once the victim turns 18 during the trial.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale issued notice returnable in six weeks on a petition challenging the High Court's order dated May 27, 2025.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether procedural safeguards under Section 33(2) of the POCSO Act should continue to apply to a victim who has turned 18 during the pendency of the trial.

Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of IITs Kharagpur & Delhi On Student's Plea Seeking Transfer For Mental Healthcare

Case : XXX v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and Others | WP(C) 889/2025

The Supreme Court (September 26) issued notice to the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur, on a petition filed by a student seeking transfer to IIT Delhi.

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste student who is in need of mental healthcare treatment, seeks transfer to IIT-Delhi so that he can stay with his parents and avail treatment at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice to the IIT Delhi and AIIMS as well, seeking their responses.