Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: October 2025

Reports/Judgments

Either Grant Or Deny Relief; Avoid Passing Adverse Orders Against Litigants On Issues Beyond Pleadings : Supreme Court To High Courts

Cause Title: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 970

The Supreme Court set aside certain directions issued by the Kerala High Court that had ordered the Cochin Devaswom Board to re-fix license fees and initiate a vigilance inquiry against Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the High Court's additional directions went beyond the scope of the writ petition filed by the appellants and were passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by P. Radhakrishnan and another, trustees of the Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust, challenging portions of a Kerala High Court judgment dated August 9, 2023, in W.P.(C) No. 29089/2020.

Tender Condition Requiring Past Supply Within One State Irrational, Violates Article 19(1)(g): Supreme Court

Cause Title: Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 971

The Supreme Court (October 6) struck down a Chhattisgarh Government tender condition that mandated bidders to show prior supply experience of at least ₹6 crores to state government agencies in the past three years, as a prerequisite for participating in bids to supply sports kits to government schools in the state.

The Court observed that to confine eligibility for participation in a tender to entities operating within a single State is not only irrational but also disproportionate to the stated goal of ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of sports kits.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe rejected the State's contention that prior experience with the government was necessary since the supply of sports kits was to be made in Maoist-affected areas. The Court held that such a tender condition imposed an unreasonable restriction on trade and violated the doctrine of a level playing field, as it created an artificial barrier that excluded bidders lacking prior government supply experience

Supreme Court Grants Relief To Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd; Directs Essar Power To Reimburse Fixed Charges For Electricity Diverted

Cause Title: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 972

The Supreme Court has granted relief to Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) by setting aside the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's (APTEL) March 2025 judgment and restoring the 2009 order of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) in its long-pending dispute with Essar Power Limited (EPL) over diversion of electricity in breach of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

The Court held that EPL was bound by the PPA to maintain the stipulated proportion of supply, 58% to GUVNL and 42% to Essar Steel Limited (ESL),and that the company's failure to do so amounted to a breach entitling GUVNL to restitution and compensation.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe partly allowed the GUVNL's appeal, holding that “the finding of GERC and the APTEL that GUVNL is not entitled to reimbursement of fixed charges is, therefore, unsustainable.” It said that “once GUVNL did not receive the electricity for which such fixed charges had been computed and paid on a monthly basis, it was entitled to reimbursement thereof, not as compensation, but on the principle of restitution as such payment was not at all due from it.”

For Valid Oral Gift (Hiba) Under Mohammedan Law, Public Possession Must Be Proved; Absence Of Mutation Raises Doubt: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa Parveen

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 973

The Supreme Court observed that an oral gift (hiba) under the Muslim law cannot be projected as a "surprise instrument" to stake claims over a property. To constitute a valid hiba, the Court said, all its necessary ingredients- declaration by donor, acceptance by donee and taking possession of land - are done publicly rather than secretly.

Although oral gift (hiba) is permissible in Mohammedan law, the evidence of acting under the gift - such as collecting rent, holding title, or effecting mutation- is essential to substantiate the claim of possession. Lack of effecting mutation in revenue records can be a crucial factor invalidating such a claim of gift, in the absence of other evidence of possession, the Court said.

It stressed that those claiming rights under a hiba must assert their ownership openly and without delay by mutating land records to reflect possession, an essential requirement for the validity of such a gift.

Order XLI Rule 5 CPC | Deposit Not Mandatory For Stay Of Money Decree, Unconditional Stay Can Be Granted In Exceptional Cases : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies Inc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 974

The Supreme Court (October 7) resolved the long-standing debate on whether deposit or security is an absolute precondition for staying a money decree. It clarified that it is not mandatory for the Appellate Court to impose a condition for deposit of the amount in dispute for grant of stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

Affirming the Delhi High Court's division bench decision, the Court held that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 1(3) and Rule 5(5) of CPC, which require an appellant to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security, are directory, not mandatory. While non-compliance may normally lead to rejection of a stay application, appellate courts retain discretion to grant stay in “exceptional cases” even without such a deposit. Importantly, the Court stressed that failure to deposit cannot result in dismissal of the appeal itself.

“Although, Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, uses the word “shall”, yet a combined reading of the sum and substance of Rule(s) 1(3) and 5(5) would reveal, that for the grant of stay of execution, it is not mandatory for the appellate court to impose a condition for deposit of the amount in dispute. The aforesaid provisions make it abundantly clear that the appellate court, for the grant of stay of execution, has a discretion to impose a condition of deposit of the amount depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.”, the court said.

Supreme Court Upholds Tax On Ink & Chemicals Used To Print Lottery Ticket; Says Their 'Deemed Sale' Occurs With Lottery Sale

Cause Title: M/S. Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow, U.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 975

The Supreme Court (October 7) held that the ink and chemicals used in printing the lottery tickets is a taxable item under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (“Act”).

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan dismissed the appeal filed by an assessee, who is engaged in the business of printing lottery tickets and had been taxed on the value of ink and chemicals used in the printing process. While the Appellate Authority and Tribunal set aside the levy holding these materials were consumed rather than a transferrable good, the High Court restored the tax leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The appellant's primary argument before the Supreme Court was that the ink and chemicals were consumed in the printing process. Since they ceased to exist in their original form and were not delivered to the customer as separate items, there was no "transfer of property," and thus, no tax could be levied. Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala noted that the moment the lottery ticket is transferred to the consumer, the ink and chemicals used in printing of the lottery ticket also gets transferred, making it taxable not as a consumer goods but as a transferred goods classifying it as a 'deemed sale' under Article 366(29-A) (b) of the Constitution incorporated via 46th Constitutional Amendment.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce Helmet Use, Curb Wrong-Lane Driving & Use Of Dazzling Headlights

Case Details: S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 976

The Supreme Court (October 7) issued a slew of significant directions aimed at strengthening road safety measures across the country. In a writ petition filed in 2012 by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, a leading orthopaedic surgeon, the Court directed strict enforcement of helmet use, and measures to curb wrong-lane driving, unsafe overtaking, use of dazzling LED lights, and the unauthorised sale and misuse of red–blue strobe lights and hooters.

The Court further ordered that the complete ban on unauthorised red–blue flashing lights and illegal hooters must be implemented through seizures, market crackdowns, and imposition of penalties.

These directions have been issued by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, considering the recent official figures of the Government of India, which show that more than 35,000 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in 2023, and more than 54,000 riders/passengers of two-wheelers died due to non-wearing of helmets.

Supreme Court Flags Lack Of Pedestrian Crossing Near Delhi High Court; Orders Nationwide Survey To Identify Road Crossing Needs

Case Details: S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 976

The Supreme Court (October 7) expressed concern over the absence of a pedestrian crossing near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road, Delhi, terming it a serious safety lapse that endangers thousands of people who cross the busy stretch every day without traffic signals, foot overbridges, or other safety measures.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and other road-owning agencies to prepare an action plan and conduct a phase-wise survey across major Indian cities to identify locations where additional pedestrian crossings are required.

“One can give the example of the road crossing at the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road where every day thousands of employees, litigants, lawyers, children, and families cross the road, without any red light or foot overbridge or any traffic calming measure, putting their lives at risk,” the Court observed.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce Helmet Use, Curb Wrong-Lane Driving & Use Of Dazzling Headlights

Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 976

The Supreme Court (October 7) issued a slew of significant directions aimed at strengthening road safety measures across the country. In a writ petition filed in 2012 by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, a leading orthopaedic surgeon, the Court directed strict enforcement of helmet use, and measures to curb wrong-lane driving, unsafe overtaking, use of dazzling LED lights, and the unauthorized sale and misuse of red–blue strobe lights and hooters.

The Court further ordered that the complete ban on unauthorised red–blue flashing lights and illegal hooters must be implemented through seizures, market crackdowns, and imposition of penalties.

These directions have been issued by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, considering the recent official figures of the Government of India, which show that more than 35,000 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in 2023, and more than 54,000 riders/passengers of two-wheelers died due to non-wearing of helmets.

Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Money Laundering Case Against JSW Steel Over Dealings With Obulapuram Mining Company

Case Title – Jsw Steel Limited v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 977

The Supreme Court refused to quash PMLA proceedings against JSW Steel Limited in relation to alleged illegal mining by mining companies owned by former Karnataka minister G. Janardhana Reddy.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that JSW steel is no more an accused in the predicate offence investigated by the CBI, and the ECIR also doesn't name JSW Steel as an accused. The Court noted that ED's money laundering complaint was based only on alleged withdrawals of attached amount of ₹33.80 crore and not on any broader charge of criminal liability.

Since JSW's appeal against the attachment orders was already pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the Court declined to intervene at this stage.

Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Money Laundering Case Against JSW Steel Over Dealings With Obulapuram Mining Company

Case Title – JSW Steel Limited v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 977

The Supreme Court refused to quash PMLA proceedings against JSW Steel Limited in relation to alleged illegal mining by mining companies owned by former Karnataka minister G. Janardhana Reddy.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that JSW steel is no more an accused in the predicate offence investigated by the CBI, and the ECIR also doesn't name JSW Steel as an accused. The Court noted that ED's money laundering complaint was based only on alleged withdrawals of attached amount of ₹33.80 crore and not on any broader charge of criminal liability.

Since JSW's appeal against the attachment orders was already pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the Court declined to intervene at this stage.

Nagpur's Futala Lake Not Wetland : Supreme Court Allows Constructions Near It

Cause Title: Swacch Association, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 978

The Supreme Court (October 7) upheld the Bombay High Court's decision declining to classify Nagpur's Futala Lake as a 'wetland' under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, thereby permitting the State authorities to proceed with temporary constructions such as a floating restaurant, banquet hall, musical fountain, and viewing gallery around the lake.

"In view of this Court, the Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody and it does not fall within the meaning of the statutory definition and is not a 'wetland' as defined in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. The definition excludes human-made waterbodies and those constructed inter alia for irrigation purposes. The High Court was justified in recording finding in the interim order dated 05.07.2023 and confirming the same while passing the impugned final judgment and order.”, the court said.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria dismissed the petition filed by Nagpur based NGO-Swachh Association, who filed a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court raising concerns about the breach of environmental safeguards under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and argued that the raising temporary structures risked ecological damage.

S.149 IPC | Supreme Court Explains Tests To Determine If Bystander Was Member Of Unlawful Assembly With Common Object

Cause Title: Zainul v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 979

The Supreme Court (October 7) observed that mere presence at the crime scene would not ipso facto render a person a member of the unlawful assembly to book him under Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that the liability would shift to the bystander only when he shared the common object with the unlawful assembly.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan acquitted 10 individuals who were convicted for the 1988 violent community clash in Bihar's Katihar District, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove that they shared a common object with the unlawful assembly. An FIR under Sections 148, 149, 307, and 302 of the IPC was lodged against them.

“At the same time, mere presence at the scene does not ipso facto render a person a member of the unlawful assembly, unless it is established that such an accused also shared its common object. A mere bystander, to whom no specific role is attributed, would not fall within the ambit of Section 149 of the IPC. The prosecution has to establish, through reasonably direct or indirect circumstances, that the accused persons shared a common object of the unlawful assembly. The test to determine whether a person is a passive onlooker or an innocent bystander is the same as that applied to ascertain the existence of a common object.”, the court said.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Only Disclosure Leading To Recovery Of Weapon Admissible; Statement About Its Use Not Admissible : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 980

The Supreme Court (October 7) acquitted three individuals for the offence of murder (Section 302 IPC) after noting that the prosecution had relied on their disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (“Act”), where they confessed that the weapon recovered was the weapon of crime.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that only that part of the disclosure statements under Section 27 would be admissible which supports the recovery of an object, and not that part which supports the maker's statement about the use of the object in the crime, as it would amount to a confession being inadmissible under the Act.

“We are afraid that the submission of the State counsel, that as the appellants themselves stated that they took the police to the place where they hid the weapons, by which they committed the offence indicates that the appellants admitted to have committed the offence with the above weapons, cannot be accepted. The statement of the appellants that the weapons recovered were the weapons of crime cannot be read against them in view of Sections 25 and 26 read with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Only that part of the statement which leads the police to the recovery of the weapons is admissible, and not the part which alleges that the weapons recovered were actually the weapons of crime.”, the court said.

Right To Seek Arbitration Not Lost Just Because Arbitration Clause Became Inoperable Due To Statutory Amendment: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 982

The Supreme Court held that the invalidity or inoperability of an arbitration clause, such as one naming an ineligible arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not nullify the underlying arbitration agreement between the parties. The Court clarified that in such cases, the Court is empowered to step in and appoint a neutral arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act to preserve the efficacy of the arbitration mechanism.

The Court emphasised that the statutory disqualification of a named arbitrator under Section 12(5), read with the Seventh Schedule, does not render the arbitration clause itself void or non-existent. Rather, the clause remains enforceable, and the power to appoint an independent arbitrator shifts to the Court.

In this case, the arbitration clause specified that the Managing Director of the respondent-company will act as the arbitrator. However, as per Section 12(5) of the Act, post the 2015 amendment, the Managing Director was disqualified from being an arbitrator.

Supreme Court Acquits Chennai Man Dashwanth, Who Was Sentenced To Death For Rape-Murder Of 7-Year-Old Girl

Case Title: Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 3633-3634/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 983

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence of one Dashwanth, who was accused of the rape and murder of a 7-year old minor girl at Mugalivakkam, Chennai in 2017.

Acquitting Dashwanth, the Court ordered his immediate release, if he is not wanted in any other case. The Court held that the prosecution has "miserably faield to prove the vital circumstances."

Allowing the appeal filed by Daswhant against his conviction and sentence, the Court pronounced:

Supreme Court Acquits Chennai Man Dashwanth, Who Was Sentenced To Death For Rape-Murder Of 7-Year-Old Girl

Case Title: Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 3633-3634/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 983

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence of one Dashwanth, who was accused of the rape and murder of a 7-year old minor girl at Mugalivakkam, Chennai in 2017.

Acquitting Dashwanth, the Court ordered his immediate release, if he is not wanted in any other case. The Court held that the prosecution has "miserably faield to prove the vital circumstances."

Allowing the appeal filed by Daswhant against his conviction and sentence, the Court pronounced:

Criminal Court Cannot Review Or Recall Its Judgment Except To Correct Clerical Errors : Supreme Court

Case: State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 984

The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court exercising criminal jurisdiction cannot recall or review its own judicial order under the guise of inherent powers, except to correct a purely clerical or accidental error. Setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's direction transferring investigation to the CBI in a mining-related dispute, the Court held that the recall of an earlier order by invoking Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) was beyond jurisdiction.

"Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment. The only permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC]," the Court observed.

Background

Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted For Murdering Mother, Says Suicide Can't Be Ruled Out

Cause Title: Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 985

The Supreme Court (October 8) acquitted a man who was convicted for a murder of his mother (matricide), after noting that the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and K Vinod Chandran found that the appellant-accused was falsely implicated as the prosecution failed to prove that the death of the deceased was at all homicidal in nature, as the medical evidence showed that the deceased was suffering from schizophrenia and may have died by suicide, a fact not disproved by the prosecution.

The case related to an incident in Maharashtra (Taloni Village, Ambajogai) in 2010. The police received an anonymous tip about a "doubtful death." Upon arriving, they found a crowd attempting to hurriedly cremate the body of deceased. When police announced it was a murder, the crowd dispersed. The investigation that followed led to the conviction of Sunanda's son, Nilesh-Appellant.

Railway Accident Claims Not Criminal Trial For Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Avoid Hypertechnical Approach : Supreme Court

Case: Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986

The Supreme Court cautioned against adopting a hypertechnical approach in claims under Section 124A of the Railways Act seeking compensation for deaths or injuries - "untoward incidents"- during train journeys.

The Court said that once foundational facts  - (i) the possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) the occurrence of an accidental fall from train - are established through credible material, it must be statutorily presumed that the victim was a bona fide passenger.

Reaffirming that proceedings under Section 124A of the Railways Act are not "criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities", the Court asked the Railways not to reject genuine claims citing technicalities.

Railway Accident Claims Not Criminal Trial For Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Avoid Hypertechnical Approach : Supreme Court

Case: Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986

The Supreme Court cautioned against adopting a hypertechnical approach in claims under Section 124A of the Railways Act seeking compensation for deaths or injuries - "untoward incidents"- during train journeys.

The Court said that once foundational facts  - (i) the possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) the occurrence of an accidental fall from train - are established through credible material, it must be statutorily presumed that the victim was a bona fide passenger.

Reaffirming that proceedings under Section 124A of the Railways Act are not "criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities", the Court asked the Railways not to reject genuine claims citing technicalities.

Motor Accident Claims | Fake License By Driver Doesn't Absolve Insurer Unless Vehicle Owner Knowingly Allowed Breach : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 987

In a relief to a vehicle owner, the Supreme Court (October 8) observed that the insurance company cannot recover the compensation amount from the vehicle owner merely because the driver was found to be using a fake license.

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria said that a vehicle owner is not expected to verify the credentials of the driver's license from the issuing authority whether it is fake or not. Only when the insurance company proves that there was an absence of due diligence in the employment of the driver or the entrustment of the vehicle, the liability would shift to the insured-vehicle owner.

“As has been rightly held by the precedents above noticed, the owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether the licence is fake or not.”, the court said.

Written Statement Filed In Commercial Suit During COVID Limitation Extension Period Cannot Be Rejected For Delay : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Aroush Motors & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 988

The Supreme Court (October 8) reiterated that the Written Statement filed belatedly in a commercial suit after the mandatory period of 120 days cannot be rejected when it was filed during COVID-19, as the delay fell entirely within the COVID-19 limitation extension ordered by the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which affirmed the Commercial Court's decision rejecting the Appellant's application to file a Written Statement (filed on 07.01.2022) as the 120-day period ended on 14.11.2021. The High Court also justified that the Appellant lacked the right to cross-examine the witnesses, as its statutory right to file a written statement had been forfeited.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court.

District Judge Direct Appointment | 7 Year Practice Mandate Not Fulfilled If There's Break In Practice : Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989

The Supreme Court held that a break in practice cannot be ignored while considering the mandate of 7-year practice as an advocate, prescribed under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, for direct appointment as a District Judge.

The Court clarified that 7-year practice must be "continuous" as on the date of application.

The observation was made by a 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran.

Advocates Cannot Claim Exclusive Quota In District Judge Direct Recruitment : Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that the 25% quota set for direct recruitment for the post of district judges is not exclusively for the candidates from the bar.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran held that :

"We are also not inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the respondents that 25% quota of direct recruitment is reserved only for practising advocates. We are of the view that if the contention in this respect is accepted, it will amount to providing a “quota” for the advocates having seven years' practice. A plain and literal reading of Article 233(2) does not contemplate such a situation. Therefore, the contention as canvassed in that regard does not hold water."

Sex Education Should Be Included In School Curriculum From Younger Age, Not Limited To Classes IX To XII : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Juvenile X v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989

The Supreme Court (October 8) opined that Sex Education should be incorporated in the school curriculum from a younger age, and not be restricted to Classes IX to XII.

“we are of the opinion that sex education should be provided to the children from a younger age and not class IX onwards.”, the court said.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made this observation while hearing the bail plea filed by the juvenile, who committed offences under Sections 376 (Rape) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 2012 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

Judicial Officers With 7 Years Combined Experience On Date Of Application Eligible For Direct Recruitment As District Judges : Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that a judicial officer, who has a combined experience of seven years as a judicial officer and an advocate, is eligible to apply for direct appointment as a District Judge. The eligibility will be seen as on the date of the application.

To ensure a level playing field, the Court held that the minimum age of the in-service candidates applying for District Judges' direct recruitment must be 35 years.

The Court held that the state governments will have to frame rules providing eligibility for in-service candidates. The rules should provide that in-service candidates should be eligible if they have a combined experience of 7 years as a judicial officer and advocate.

Sex Education Should Be Included In School Curriculum From Younger Age, Not Limited To Classes IX To XII : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Juvenile X v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989

The Supreme Court (October 8) opined that Sex Education should be incorporated in the school curriculum from a younger age, and not be restricted to Classes IX to XII.

“we are of the opinion that sex education should be provided to the children from a younger age and not class IX onwards.”, the court said.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made this observation while hearing the bail plea filed by the juvenile, who committed offences under Sections 376 (Rape) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 2012 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

Age Bar In Surrogacy Act Won't Apply To Couples Who Froze Embryos Before Law Came Into Force: Supreme Court

Case Title – Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 990

The Supreme Court held that couples who had begun the surrogacy process before the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 law can proceed with surrogacy despite being over the statutory age limit under section 4(iii)(c)(I). The law mandates that the woman must be between 23 and 50 years of age and the man between 26 and 55 years.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan said that the right to surrogacy of such couples crystallised when they had their empbryos frozen under the law prevailing at the time (before commencement of the Surrogacy Act when there was no age limit) as a part of reproductive autonomy and parenthood, and the age restriction under the Act cannot apply retrospectively to such couples.

"In the result, we hold that section 4(iii)(c)(I) does not have retrospective operation, and therefore will not apply to the petitioners and applicants who are intending couples", the Court held.

Surrogacy Act Does Not Affect Rights Vested In Couples Who Froze Embryos Before Law Took Effect : Justice Viswanathan's Concurring Judgment

Case Title – Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 990

The Supreme Court held that couples who had frozen embryos for surrogacy before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into effect on January 25, 2022, had acquired vested rights to surrogacy which the Act could not retrospectively take away.

Justice KV Viswanathan, in his concurring opinion, said that by completing the fertilisation process before the statutory cut-off date, the couples had already crossed a legally recognised threshold, and the later introduction of age limits under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Act could not invalidate their position.

“by the fertilization of the embryo prior to 25.01.2022, certain rights inhered in the intending couple and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (for short 'the Act') does not divest them of those rights”, he said.

Age Bar In Surrogacy Act Won't Apply To Couples Who Froze Embryos Before Law Came Into Force: Supreme Court

Case Title – Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 990

The Supreme Court held that couples who had begun the surrogacy process before the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 law can proceed with surrogacy despite being over the statutory age limit under section 4(iii)(c)(I). The law mandates that the woman must be between 23 and 50 years of age and the man between 26 and 55 years.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan said that the right to surrogacy of such couples crystallised when they had their empbryos frozen under the law prevailing at the time (before commencement of the Surrogacy Act when there was no age limit) as a part of reproductive autonomy and parenthood, and the age restriction under the Act cannot apply retrospectively to such couples.

"In the result, we hold that section 4(iii)(c)(I) does not have retrospective operation, and therefore will not apply to the petitioners and applicants who are intending couples", the Court held.

S.138 NI Act | Cheque Dishonour Complaint Maintainable Against Trustee Without Arraying Trust As Accused : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 991

The Supreme Court (October 9) observed that a cheque dishonor complaint would be maintainable against a trustee, who has signed a cheque on the Trust's behalf, without arraying the Trust as an accused. The Court reasoned that since a Trust is not a juristic person, and neither sues nor is sued, therefore, trustees responsible for day to day affairs of the Trust would be held liable, particularly the one who signed the cheque.

“When a cause of action arises due to an alleged dishonour of cheque and a complaint is initiated under the NI Act, the same is maintainable against the Trustee who has signed the cheque, without the requirement to array the Trust also as an accused.”, the court held.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case that arose out of a ₹5 crore cheque issued by Orion Education Trust, signed by its Chairman, Respondent, in favour of the Appellant for liaisoning services. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The appellant filed a complaint under Sections 138/142 NI Act against the Respondent personally.

Stamp Act | Stamp Duty Determined By Instruments' Legal Character, Not Its Nomenclature: Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 992

The Supreme Court held that while determining the chargeability of the Stamp Duty, the decisive factor is to ascertain the true legal character of the instrument, not the nomenclature assigned to the instrument.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed an appeal filed by a company that attempted to color a mortgage deed like a security bond to attract lesser stamp duty, affirming the higher demand for stamp duty on the deed.

The appellant executed a “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” in favour of the Meerut Development Authority (MDA) to secure obligations for colony development, including payment of external development charges and provision of amenities. Under the deed, the appellant mortgaged specified properties to the MDA, empowering it to sell them in case of default to recover ₹1,00,44,000/-. An advance deposit of ₹15,00,000/- was also made, with the bond becoming void upon full compliance. A stamp duty of ₹100/- was paid under Article 57, Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act.

Juvenile Justice Act 2000 Applies Retrospectively : Supreme Court Orders Release Of Convict Who Was Juvenile When Crime Was Committed In 1981

Cause Title: Hansraj v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 993

The Supreme Court (October 9) ordered the release of the murder convict under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, after finding he was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence in 1981. The Court held that the JJ Act is retrospective in operation, and applies to offences pre-dated the enforcement of the JJ Act, 2000.

The Court rejected the State's argument that since the offence was committed in 1981, the provision of the JJ Act, 2000 would not be applicable, and the law prevailing at the time of the offence would be applicable. Instead, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih relying on the Constitution bench judgment of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 and two judge bench judgment of Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 5 SCC 344 observed that “all persons who were below the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1st April, 2001 would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the date of commencement of the JJ Act, 2000 and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted.”

The Petitioner, who was twelve years old at the time of the commission of the offence (murder), moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 claiming that his detention exceeded the three-year limit under Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, thereby violating his fundamental right to life and liberty.

Armed Forces Tribunal Empowered To Modify Court-Martial Convictions And Impose Lesser Penalties : Supreme Court

Cause Title: S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 994

The Supreme Court (October 10) observed that the Armed Forces Tribunal (“AFT”) under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (“Act”) is empowered to substitute the findings of the Court Martial if its findings were excessive, illegal or unjust.

“Thus, under Section 15(6) (a) & (b) of the 2007 Act, the Tribunal is empowered to substitute the finding of Court Martial which includes the disciplinary proceedings under the Act and also to interfere with the sentence if the same is found to be excessive, illegal or unjust and to mitigate the punishment awarded.”, the court held.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe upheld the AFT's decision to set aside the court-martial's order of dismissal and replace it with compulsory retirement, granting the appellant pensionary benefits.

Supreme Court Notes Conflict Between Forest Rights Act & Forest Conservation Act On Allowing Houses For Tribes; Seeks Union's Stance

Cause Title: Sugra Adiwasi & Ors. v. Pathranand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 995

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to file an affidavit within four weeks clarifying the scope, method, and manner of permitting construction of dwelling houses under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (“FRA”), in a manner consistent with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (“FCA”). While the FRA guarantees forest dwellers a 'pucca house,' the FCA imposes restrictions on such permanent constructions within forest areas.

Opining that the Forest Conservation Act should not prohibit the construction of a pucca house for forest dwellers, the Court asked the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to hold detailed consultations.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar heard an appeal where the issue for consideration was of great importance, as the court ought to balance two important legislation; where, to provide minimum basic housing even to those who are forest dwellers under FRA, and on the other side, an obligation of State and its citizenry to protect the national forest resource under FCA.

Supreme Court Notes Conflict Between Forest Rights Act & Forest Conservation Act On Allowing Houses For Tribes; Seeks Union's Stance

Cause Title: Sugra Adiwasi & Ors. v. Pathranand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 995

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to file an affidavit within four weeks clarifying the scope, method, and manner of permitting construction of dwelling houses under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (“FRA”), in a manner consistent with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (“FCA”). While the FRA guarantees forest dwellers a 'pucca house,' the FCA imposes restrictions on such permanent constructions within forest areas.

Opining that the Forest Conservation Act should not prohibit the construction of a pucca house for forest dwellers, the Court asked the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to hold detailed consultations.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar heard an appeal where the issue for consideration was of great importance, as the court ought to balance two important legislation; where, to provide minimum basic housing even to those who are forest dwellers under FRA, and on the other side, an obligation of State and its citizenry to protect the national forest resource under FCA.

Supreme Court Raps Plaintiff For Withholding Possession After Receiving ₹2 Crore In Lieu Of Specific Performance, Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Costs

Cause Title: Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 996

The Supreme Court recently came down heavily on a plaintiff in a specific performance suit who refused to vacate the property even after being awarded ₹2 crore as compensation in lieu of specific performance of a sale agreement.

The Court strongly disapproved of the litigant's attempt to exploit the omission in the earlier order,which had not expressly directed the handing over of possession,to continue occupying the property.

The dispute arose from a sale agreement executed in 1989, under which the appellant paid an earnest money of ₹25,000 and obtained possession of part of the property. Over the years, litigation ensued, and in a judgment on April 1, 2025, this Court had set aside the decree granted by lower courts (in favor of specific performance) but awarded an equitable compensation of ₹2 crores to the appellant in lieu of that earnest money

DRT Must Decide Securitisation Applications Within Statutorily Mandated Timeline : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S Radhey Infra Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 997

The Supreme Court recently criticized the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, for failing to decide a securitisation application preferred by a Bank within the statutory timeline mandated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act").

After noting that the DRT failed to abide by the strict timelines prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe directed the DRT to dispose of the matter “without further delay” and strictly in line with Section 17(5) SARFAESI Act which requires a disposal of a securitization application within 60 days of filing the application, extendable up to four months.

“Once the statute itself mandates that the DRT should dispose of the matter within the stipulated time, it is incumbent upon the DRT, Dehradun, to abide thereby. Further, in the event it fails to do so, the proviso to Section 17(5) ordains that reasons need to be recorded. We find from the orders passed by the DRT, Dehradun, that this statutory direction has also not been respected.”, the court said.

For Lawyers To Double Up As Mediators, They Need To Acquire Different Skills; Listen Than Speak : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Raksha Devi v. Parkash Chand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 998

The Supreme Court recently commended a Court-appointed mediator for successfully resolving a 40-year-old civil dispute, observing that it is “inevitable” for lawyers to transition into the role of mediators, which demands a shift in approach from adversarial litigation to constructive problem-solving.

"If lawyers are to double-up and evolve as mediators, a development which we consider is inevitable, they must cultivate a distinct set of skills and adopt a new attitude towards dispute resolution, one that diverges from adversarial litigation. The acquisition of these skills and mind set begins with revisiting certain traditional techniques and practices developed for argumentation," the Court observed.

The Court said that the fundamental principle of mediation is "to listen, rather than speak."

Supreme Court Orders CBI Investigation Into Karur Stampede; Retired SC Judge To Monitor Probe

Case Details: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh and Ors. | Diary No. 58048-2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 999

The Supreme Court ordered an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the Karur stampede, which took place on September 27, during the rally of actor Vijay's political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), claiming 41 lives.

"Looking to the fact that the issue involved certainly has a bearing on the fundamental rights of the citizens and the incident which has shaken the national conscience, deserves fair and impartial investigation. As such, by way of interim measure, direction deserves to be issued to handover the investigation to the CBI which would lead to fair administration of justice. There cannot be any doubt that fair investigation is the right of a citizen.," pronounced the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria.

The Court observed that the political undertones of the case, as well as the comments made by the top officials of the State Police to the media, may create doubt in the minds of the citizenry on impartiality and fair investigation.

Land Acquisition Can't Be Challenged After Accepting Compensation: Supreme Court Rejects Company's Plea To Restore Singur Land

Cause Title: State of West Bengal and Others v. M/S Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

The Supreme Court has overturned the Calcutta High Court's decision to restore land to a private company based on the 2016 Kedar Nath Yadav v State of West Bengal precedent. The Court stated that its 2016 ruling, which quashed the Tata Nano plant acquisition in Singur, provided a targeted remedy for farmers and was not a general right for commercial entities that had accepted the acquisition for a decade.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi while allowing the State of West Bengal's appeal, held that the High Court erred in granting land restoration to the respondent-private entity, which had accepted the acquisition and full compensation but challenged it belatedly.

“Once the proceedings conclude in the award and possession is taken without challenge, the Court would not entertain any belated grievance from the interested person.”, the court said.

Plea Of Lack Of State's Consent For CBI's Investigation Should Be Taken Soon After FIR Registration : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. M/S Narayan Niryat India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

The Supreme Court held that objections regarding the CBI's lack of state consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, must be raised at the earliest stage, usually right after the FIR is registered. It clarified that once the investigation is complete, a chargesheet is filed, and a magistrate takes cognizance, such objections cannot be used belatedly to invalidate the proceedings, except where a quashing petition was already pending before cognizance was taken.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench order, which quashed the criminal case registered under Sections 420 read with 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

The High Court allowed the Respondents' quashing plea even after the trial court took cognizance of the offence against the Respondents. The High Court noted that there was a lack of the State's consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, and no allegations had been made out, making the Respondents prima facie guilty of the offences.

Magistrates Can Direct Witnesses To Give Voice Samples, Not Just Accused; Article 20(3) Not Violated : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Rahul Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1002

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate can direct the collection of voice samples not only from accused persons but also from witnesses. It ruled that such samples, whether voice, fingerprints, handwriting, or DNA, constitute material evidence rather than testimonial evidence, and therefore do not infringe the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran relied on the 2019 precedent Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., which held that even in the absence of an explicit provision in the Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate has the authority to direct a “person” to provide a voice sample for investigation. The Court clarified that the term “person” is not confined to the accused alone but also extends to witnesses.

“it was held in Ritesh Sinha that despite absence of explicit provisions in Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person, to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation for a crime. We specifically note that this Court had not spoken only of the accused and specifically employed the words 'a person', consciously because the Rule against self-incrimination applies equally to any person whether he be an accused or a witness.”, the court said.

Supreme Court Reverses Acquittal Of Man For Daughter-in-Law's Murder In 1997

Cause Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Janved Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1003

The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of a father-in-law in a case connected to the murder of his daughter-in-law, after noting that the circumstantial evidence pointing towards his guilt, including the chain of circumstances, was complete.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior Bench order, noting that although the appeal against the acquittal carries with it a proof of innocence, the Appellate Court can overturn the order of acquittal if the same was passed upon misappreciation of the evidence.

The deceased was found dead in her matrimonial home in December 1997. The Respondent-accused initially reported that she died of accidental electrocution while ironing. However, medical evidence revealed she died of strangulation, with burn marks inflicted post-mortem.

Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case Against Ex-MLA For Allegedly Using Fake Caste Certificate In Election

Cause Title: Komal Prasad Shakya v. Rajendra Singh and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

The Supreme Court restored the criminal case against former MLA Rajendra Singh and others accused of fraudulently procuring a Scheduled Caste certificate to contest elections from a reserved constituency of Guna, Madhya Pradesh.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan set aside the MP High Court's Gwalior Bench order, which held a mini-trial, despite having a prima facie case, stating that once a complaint discloses prima facie offenses of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy, the matter must go to trial and cannot be interfered at the quashing stage.

The complainant alleged that Rajendra Singh, historically recorded as belonging to the General Category, obtained a fraudulent Scheduled Caste (Sansi) certificate in 2008, enabling him to contest and win from the Guna (SC Reserved) constituency.

Uncontrolled Use Of Firecrackers Affecting Health Can't Be Permitted Solely Based On Traditions & Religious Norms : Supreme Court

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

While allowing the limited use of green crackers in the National Capital Region for Diwali, the Supreme Court said that commercial interests and festive celebrations cannot outweigh concerns about public health and the environment, while considering issues related to the manufacture and use of firecrackers.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that bursting firecrackers is deeply rooted in India's cultural and religious fabric, often seen as a joyful expression of festive spirit during celebrations and auspicious occasions. However, the Court cautioned that such traditions cannot justify practices that harm public health or degrade the environment

“The commercial considerations and the festive spirit should take a back seat when it concerns the environment and health,” observed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran while lifting the blanket ban on firecrackers in NCR. The sale of green crackers has been permitted from October 18 to October 20, 2025. Their use is allowed on October 19 and October 20, between 6AM to 7AM and 8PM to 10 PM. The authorities have been directed to strictly monitor the situation to ensure that unauthorised crackers are not used.

Supreme Court Criticizes Casual Practice Of Declaring Witnesses Hostile For Minor Inconsistencies

Cause Title: Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1006

The Supreme Court criticized the practice of declaring witnesses hostile merely for minor inconsistencies in their statements, emphasizing that this should be done only in exceptional situations where the witness completely departs from the prosecution's case, gives false testimony, or shows clear hostility towards the party on whose behalf they are testifying.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan cautioned that courts should not routinely or casually invoke their discretionary powers under Section 154 Evidence Act. (now Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) to allow a party to cross-examine its own witness. The Court stressed that such discretion must be exercised only after carefully examining and weighing the surrounding circumstances.

“We are frequently coming across cases where the prosecutor, for no ostensible reason, wants to treat the witnesses hostile and the Court indiscriminately grants permission. It is well settled, by judgments of this Court, that before a witness can be declared hostile and the party examining the witnesses is allowed to cross-examine, there must be some material to show that the witnesses are not speaking the truth or has exhibited an element of hostility to the party for whom he is deposing.”, the court noted.

'Rental Compensation Requires Complete Deprivation of Property', Supreme Court Denies ₹238 Crore Claim Against Nashik Corporation

Cause Title: Pradyumna Mukund Kokil v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

Observing that the 'rental compensation' in land acquisition proceedings is granted only when the owner is completely deprived of its property's use, the Supreme Court denied a massive claim of ₹238 Crores in "rental compensation" made against the Nashik Municipal Corporation for its alleged unauthorized use of a plot of land over 45 years.

Rental compensation is awarded to the land owner when the acquiring authority uses the acquired property (before the acquisition) in an unauthorised manner, depriving the land owner of the benefit of possession.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the case relating back to 1972, when the Nashik Municipal Corporation resolved to reserve the land for public purposes and took possession of a portion of it without initiating acquisition proceedings. While a part of the land was formally acquired in 1978, the disputed 3,700 sq. meters was left out, yet the Corporation continued to use it.

ITC Cannot Be Denied To Bona Fide Purchasers If Seller Defaults On Tax Payment : Supreme Court

Case Title: Commissioner Trade and Tax Delhi v. M/S Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

The Supreme Court held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods purchased from registered dealers cannot be denied to bona fide purchasers merely because the seller failed to deposit the Value Added Tax (VAT) with the government.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that there was no infirmity in the order of Delhi High Court granting credit to the respondent, a bonafide purchaser.

“We do not find a good reason to interfere with the order of the High Court directing for grant of ITC benefit after due verification.,” while dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the Delhi Trade and Tax Department.

Dismissing Employee For A Charge Not Mentioned In Show-Cause Notice Improper : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

The Supreme Court set aside the suspension of school teachers in Jharkhand, after finding that they were declared ineligible based on a different charge, which was never labelled against them in the show cause notice.

The candidates were held ineligible based on an erroneous marks calculation method, which was never part of the original show cause notice, and denying them the opportunity of a hearing before ordering their dismissal on a different charge. In short, the teachers were penalised on a charge they were never asked to answer. They successfully defended against Charge A, but were punished for un-levelled Charge B.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan heard the case where the Appellants, who were appointed as teachers, were terminated from their posts as Intermediate Trained Teachers in 2016, just months after their appointment in 2015. Primarily, the show cause notice levelled allegations against the Appellants that they have not secured a minimum of 45% marks to be eligible for the post. The Appellants replied to the notice informing that as a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate, they only need 40%, and having secured such marks, their eligibility cannot be disputed.

Waitlisted Candidates' Right Extinguish When All Selected Candidates Join Posts : Supreme Court

Cause Title: The Union of India & Ors. v. Subit Kumar Das

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

Observing that the waitlist of candidates cannot operate indefinitely and ceases once all the posts are filled up via recruitment process, the Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court's ruling which directed notional absorption of the waitlisted candidate years after the initial recruitment resulted in filling up of all the posts.

Allowing the Union government's plea, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the candidate's claim as a “waitlisted candidate extinguished when all the selected candidates joined on their respective posts.” The Court stressed that a waitlist cannot be treated as a permanent source of recruitment, and once exhausted, it cannot be revived to fill vacancies in later years.

The case stemmed from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio for three Technician posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The Respondent was placed first on the reserve panel (waitlist), but all selected candidates joined their posts, leaving the panel inoperative. In 1999, during tribunal proceedings, government counsel assured that the Respondent would be “absorbed as soon as a vacancy arises.” That assurance became the bedrock of his litigation for nearly 25 years.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Rejection Of Plaint To Be Decided Solely On Plaint Averments : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1011

The Supreme Court observed that an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC shall be decided based on the averments made in the plaint, and does not consider the defendant's defence or any external evidence.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's ruling, which rejected the plaint at the threshold, taking into account the defendant's defence while ignoring the averments made in the plaint.

“while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defence is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint.”, the court said.

CBI Investigation Must Be Ordered Only In Exceptional Cases; May Not Be Appropriate In Recruitment Disputes : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors. (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

The Supreme Court set aside theAllahabad High Court's ruling, which directed a CBI enquiry into alleged irregularities in the recruitment process for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and Assembly secretariats.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi reiterated that CBI investigations are an extraordinary measure, justified only in rare circumstances such as where State agencies are compromised, fundamental rights are at stake, or issues of national importance arise. Recruitment disputes, the Court noted, do not ordinarily cross this threshold unless it shakes the Court's conscience.

“The Court may exercise such discretion, where the incident may have national or international ramifications and with intent to do complete justice or for enforcing the fundamental rights. Mere sweeping remarks are not enough to direct for CBI investigation, until prima facie disclosure of commission of criminal offence is made out. It is further said that in the matters relating to recruitment, it would not be appropriate to direct CBI investigation in routine course unless the facts brought on record are so abnormal that shake the conscience of the Court.”, the court said.

Art. 226 | High Courts Should Not Entertain Writ Petition In Matters Within Domain Of Tribunals : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Leelavathi N. and Ors. Etc. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

The Supreme Court observed that matters falling within the jurisdiction of the tribunals should not be interfered with by the High Court upon invoking its Writ Jurisdiction.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of appeals concerning the recruitment of 15,000 primary school teachers in Karnataka, affirming the Karnataka High Court's Division bench ruling, which had set aside the Single Judge decision entertaining the Writ petitions despite an alternative remedy to approach the Tribunal being available to the petitioners.

Noting that there's a mandatory requirement of first approaching the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) in service disputes, in line with the Constitution Bench ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Court said “where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals.”

Mohammedan Law | Muslim Widow With No Child Entitled To 1/4th Share In Deceased Husband's Estate : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Zoharbee & Anr. v. Imam Khan (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1014

The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's decision that had denied a Muslim widow a 3/4th share in her late husband's estate. The Court said that the widow, a Muslim wife having no child, is entitled to receive only 1/4th share.

Further, the Court clarified that a mere agreement to sell executed by the deceased's brother could not defeat the widow's inheritance rights, since such an agreement neither transfers nor extinguishes ownership.

Non-Resident Company Need Not Have Permanent Office In India To Be Taxed On Income Accruing Here : Supreme Court

Case: Pride Foramer S.A. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

The Supreme Court has clarified that under the Income Tax Act, a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection within the country, even if it does not maintain a permanent office or physical establishment here.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in its judgment examined the scope of Sections 4, 5(2), and 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that the statute does not make it mandatory for a non-resident assessee to have a “permanent establishment” in India to be considered as carrying on business in the country. The Court explained that what determines tax liability is whether the income has accrued or arisen, directly or indirectly, through any business connection in India.

'Prosecution Suppressed Origin & Genesis Of Offence', Supreme Court Acquits Four Men In 1990 Murder Case

Cause Title: Kannaiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

The Supreme Court acquitted four persons who were convicted in a 1990 murder case, giving them the benefit of doubt since the prosecution is found to have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence of the offence.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the convicts, after noting grave inconsistencies with respect to the place of the incident mentioned in an FIR and narrated by the eyewitnesses.

The Court observed that such suppression and inconsistency regarding the start of the incident struck at the very foundation of the prosecution's case. “Once the prosecution is found to have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence, the only proper course is to grant the accused the benefit of doubt,” the Court said.

Should AYUSH Doctors Have Equal Service Conditions As Allopathy Doctors ? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anisur Rahman and Connected Cases.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether doctors practicing under indigenous medical systems (AYUSH, Unani, Ayurveda, Homeopathy etc.) can be equated with allopathic doctors in regard to service conditions such as retirement age and pay scales.

The reference was made in a batch of appeals challenging differential treatment by States in prescribing retirement age and benefits for doctors of different systems of medicine.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran noticed conflicting judgments on this issue and referred the question as to whether the doctors, practising allopathy and indigenous medicine, like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani etc. can be treated equally for the purpose of determining service conditions, specifically retirement age.

Supreme Court Awards Compensation To Transwoman Teacher Dismissed Over Gender Identity; Forms Committee On Transgender Rights

Case Details: Jane Kaushik v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1405/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

The Supreme Court, in a significant pronouncement on transgender rights, has awarded compensation to a transwoman whose services as a teacher were terminated by two private schools, one in Uttar Pradesh and another in Gujarat, within a year, on the ground of her gender identity.

The Court noted that not only the institutions but the respective States failed to comply with the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020. Through their omission, the States and the respective ministries committed omissive discrimination.

The Court noted that one of the provisions of the 2019 Act requires the establishment to appoint a complaint officer as a grievance redressal mechanism to address the issue of discrimination. However, both two schools did not have a complaint officer.

'Dock Identification Without Test Identification Parade Unreliable When Witness Had No Familiarity With Accused' : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

The Supreme Court acquitted three persons convicted of murdering a minor, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, observing that they were strangers to the key witness and that their dock identification, unsupported by any Test Identification Parade ("TIP"), was unreliable.

“where the accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP is held, courts must exercise extreme caution in accepting such identification.”, the court said.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case where the Appellants-accused were convicted for the offence of the murder of a 10-year-old boy, where the witness claimed to have last seen them with the deceased, however no TIP was done to test the reliability of their identification. The trial court convicted the Appellants based on the witnesses' dock identification during trial ignoring the fact that the Appellants were strangers to them and no TIP took place.

'Don't Detain International Travellers In Haste' : Supreme Court Cites Rolex Watch Seizure At Airport; Quashes Case Against NRI

Case: Rocky Abraham v. Union of India Wp(Crl) 331/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

In a strong message to enforcement and airport authorities, the Supreme Court has cautioned against the hasty detention and arrest of international traveller and directed that such actions should be taken only after obtaining appropriate legal opinion and adopting a pragmatic approach. The Court warned that ill-advised arrests at airports could tarnish India's image globally and violate human rights.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observations while quashing the arrest and criminal proceedings against Rocky Abraham, an Indian citizen settled in Italy for over two decades, who was detained at the Delhi airport in January 2025 for allegedly carrying a deer horn in violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Abraham, who had travelled from Italy to Kochi via Delhi for a vacation and medical treatment, was arrested after airport officials found the horn in his baggage and registered an FIR under Sections 39, 49, and 51 of the Act. He remained in custody for nearly two weeks before securing bail with onerous conditions, including a ban on leaving India.

'Religious Gatherings Or Charity Not Offences Under UP Conversion Act': Supreme Court Quashes Cases Against SHUATS University VC

Case Details: Rajendra Bihari Lal and Anr. v. State of UP and Ors. | WP (Crl.) No. 123/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

The Supreme Court has quashed multiple FIRs registered in Uttar Pradesh against Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), and several other university officials, holding that the proceedings were based on “completely incredulous material” and amounted to an abuse of criminal process.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra delivered the ruling in a batch of appeals arising from criminal proceedings lodged in various police stations of Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, along with IPC offences.

In the judgment, the Court noted that one FIR was legally barred as it was not lodged by a victim. As per the UP Act, as it stood then, only victims(or their relatives) could have lodged an FIR.

Supreme Court Expresses Anguish At Insurance Companies Filing Unnecessary Appeals Raising Technical Pleas

Cause Title: Alok Kumar Ghosh v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

The Supreme Court observed that the entire burden of compensating an employee injured during the course of work cannot be shifted onto the employer alone, as the insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with the employer.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Calcutta High Court's ruling that had absolved the insurer of liability to compensate the employee along with the employer, despite the existence of an insurance contract that made the insurer liable for such compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ordered both the employer and insurer to pay compensation jointly and severally. The Calcutta High Court modified the award, making only the employer liable, who could then seek reimbursement from the insurer, leading to the filing of an instant appeal on the employer's behalf before the Supreme Court, which reversed the High Court, reinstating the Commissioner's order.

'Genuine Cultivators Should Not Be Made To Suffer' : Supreme Court Declares Plantation Vested With Kerala Govt As Not Private Forest

Case: M. Jameela v. State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

“Genuine cultivators should not be made to fight a prolonged battle to vindicate rights that are apparent from the public records,” the Supreme Court observed while declaring that 37.5 acres of land in South Wayanad, cultivated with coffee and cardamom, is private plantation land and not a vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV. Anjaria set aside the 2012 judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had upheld the Forest Tribunal's rejection of the claim by M. Jameela, and restored ownership and possession of the land to her. The Court held that the entire extent of 37.5 acres was exempt from vesting under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the 1971 Act.

The Bench found that the land had been cleared and converted to coffee and cardamom plantations as early as 1957 by the original owner, Parappu Mappilakath Imbichi Ahmed, after obtaining permission from the District Collector under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. The plantations, the Court noted, were duly registered with statutory boards before the appointed day. The Coffee Board Registration Certificate No. 284/1972 and Cardamom Registration Certificate No. 81/SW dated June 30, 1971 established their existence prior to May 10, 1971, the appointed day as perr the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act .

Tests To Determine Employer-Employee Relationship In Cases Under Industrial Disputes Act, Factories Act Etc : Supreme Court Discusses

Case Details: General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd v. Achchey Lal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

In a judgment clarifying the principles governing the determination of employer–employee relationships, the Supreme Court discussed the tests to be applied while adjudicating disputes under legislations such as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Factories Act, 1948.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta discussed the tests to determine employer-employee relationship to be kept in mind while deciding matters arising from legislations like Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Factories Act, 1948 etc.

They are, the Control Test, Organisation (Integration) Test, Multifactor Test, and the Refined Multifactor Test, which have been evolved over various precedents.

The Court explained that the existence of an employer–employee relationship is a mixed question of fact and law and depends on the degree of control, supervision, integration, and economic dependence in each case.

Hindu Succession Act Doesn't Apply To Scheduled Tribes: Supreme Court Reiterates

Case: Nawang and Another v. Bahadur and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a direction issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had held that daughters in tribal areas of the State would inherit property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act and not tribal customs.

The apex court observed that such a direction ran contrary to Section 2(2) of the HSA.

UAPA | Mandate To Furnish Grounds Of Arrest Not Fulfilled By Remand Court's Explanation: Supreme Court

Case: Ahmed Mansoor and Others v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

The Supreme Court has quashed the arrest and remand of three individuals booked for the offences of unlawful activities and conspiracy under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the offences of criminal conspiracy, promotion of communal harmony, etc. under the Indian Penal Code, holding that the mandatory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest was not complied with.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which held that the mandate under Section 43B of the UAPA is fulfilled when the remand requisition report, containing the grounds of arrest is served on the accused.

“Suffice it is to state that the explanation by the Court before whom the arrestees are produced can never be an adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing an accused” the bench held, setting aside the Madras High Court's order that had upheld the arrest.

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

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

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

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

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

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Kamaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1038

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Annamalai v. Vasanthi and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1041

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Jemaben v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1043

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1044

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1045

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1046

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1047

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1048

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1049

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

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

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

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

Kulwinder Kaur and others v Prashant Sharma and another

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1053

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1054

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

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

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

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

Case Title – PC Hary v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1055

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1056

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1057

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1058

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1059

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

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

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

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre On Plea Against Sonam Wangchuk's Detention; Wife Seeks Grounds

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

The Supreme Court today(October 6) issued notice to the Central Government in a writ petition filed by Ladakh social activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, following the recent violent clashes in Ladakh .

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria stated that the matter will be heard on next Tuesday (October 14).

The writ petition filed under Article 32 is a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of Wangchuk, reportedly lodged in a jail in Jodhpur. As per the writ petition, Angmo has challenged the detention as illegal under Article 22, as no grounds of arrest have been supplied to either of them. The Union Government, Ladakh Administration and the Superintendent of the Jodhpur Central Jail are the respondents in the petition.

'Fight Political Battles Before Electorate' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Probe Against Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan In CMRL Case

Case Details: Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v. Pinarayi Vijayan and Ors. | Diary No. 33761-2025

The Supreme Court (October 6) dismissed a petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan seeking probe against Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena with respect to the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) scam.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court's judgmentwhich dismissed the revision petitions challenging the Vigilance Court orders refusing to order probes into corruption allegations.

As soon as the matter was taken, CJI BR Gavai told Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, the petitioner's lawyer, "We have been consistently saying, fight your political battles before the electorate and not in the Court."

Advocate Tries To Hurl Shoe At CJI BR Gavai During Supreme Court Proceedings

In an unusual incident at the Supreme Court, a person attempted to throw an object at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during the morning session.

The man, who was heard shouting slogans, was quickly escorted out of the courtroom by security personnel. The incident caused a brief interruption for a few minutes in proceedings before the session resumed.

According to lawyers present, the individual shouted, “Sanatan Dharam ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan” (“India will not tolerate disrespect towards Sanatan Dharma”) while being removed from the courtroom. Some witnesses claimed he tried to throw a shoe, while others said he appeared to be hurling a roll of paper. The man was reportedly dressed in a lawyer's robe.

'What Were You Doing When Your Children Lived In Cave?': Supreme Court Pulls Up 'Father' Of Russian Kids Found In Gokarna

Case Title: Dror Shlomo Goldstein v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 28198/2025

The Supreme Court pulled up a man claiming to be the father of two minor Russian girls who, along with their mother, were found living in a cave near Gokarna, Karnataka, earlier this year.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the man's plea challenging a Karnataka High Court order that had permitted the Union government to issue travel documents for their repatriation to Russia.

As the matter came up, Justice Surya Kant asked the petitioner's counsel, “What is your right? Who are you?” The counsel responded that the petitioner was the father of the children and sought time to serve a copy of the petition on the Union of India.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Telangana Govt Raising Backward Classes Quota In Local Bodies To 42%; Allows To Move HC

Case Title – Vanga Gopal Reddy v. State of Telangana

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the Telangana government's order raising the quota for Backward Classes in municipalities and panchayats to 42%, which pushed the total reservations in local bodies to 67%.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed agriculturist Vanga Gopal Reddy to withdraw his plea seeking to declare G.O.Ms. No. 09 dated September 26, 2025, as unconstitutional, illegal and void for violating Articles 14, 243D and 243T of the Constitution.

The petition contended that the order violated the 50% ceiling on reservations laid down by the Court in various judgments. It submitted that together with the existing 15% reservation for Scheduled Castes and 10% for Scheduled Tribes, the aggregate reservation exceeded 67%.

'Misconceived' : Supreme Court Rejects Senthil Balaji's Plea Against Order Which Forced His Resignation As Minister

Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji v. K. Vidhya Kumar and Ors., MA 1185/2025 In MA 2454/2024 In Crl.A. No. 4011/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain ex-Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji's plea seeking expunction of the remarks made by the Court which forced him to resign as a Minister.

In April, a bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih had strongly criticised Balaji for assuming charge as Minister soon after he was granted bailin the money laundering case. The bench led by Justice Oka orally warned that Balaji's bail will be cancelled if he did not resign. Choose between "post" and "freedom", Justice Oka orally said, following which Balaji resigned. Taking note of the resignation, the Court disposed of the applications seeking recall of the bail.

Later, the present miscellaneous application seeking expunction of remarks made by the Court was filed.

SCBA Contemplates Disciplinary Action Against Advocate Who Attempted Attack On CJI BR Gavai

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) issued a statement condemning the recent attack on the Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, by its temporary member advocate. The SCBA has also clarified that it is contemplating appropriate disciplinary actions against the offending advocate, Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to hurl a shoe at the CJI.

The statement expressed that the attack was an aftermath of the wrongly portrayed remarks of CJIin the Vishnu Idol Case, where his bench 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.

Bar Council Of India Suspends Advocate Who Attempted Attack On CJI BR Gavai

In the wake of the attempted attack on Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, morning, the Bar Council of India has suspended the offending advocate's license with immediate effect.

Solicitor General Condemns Advocate's Attempt To Attack CJI BR Gavai In Court; Says Social Media Misinformation Resulted In It

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, has condemned the unfortunate incident of an advocate, Rakesh Kishore, attempting to throw an object at the Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, early today.

In a statement, he said that this incident is a result of misinformation on social media and appreciated the calm manner in which the CJI reacted.

"Today's incident in the Chief Justice's court is unfortunate and deserves condemnation. This is the result of misinformation on social media. It is really heartening that the Chief Justice of India reacted with magnanimity and majesty of the highest court of the country. I only hope that this magnanimity is not treated by others as the weakness of the institution," SG Mehta said.

NEET-PG : Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Centre, States On Reservation For Transgender Persons

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

The Supreme Court today(October 6) heard a petition writfiled by two transgender persons seeking reservation in the NEET-PG exam as per the 2014 NALSA judgment, which had directed that transgender persons should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes and extend all kinds of reservation in educational institutions. It has asked States who are yet to file affidavit to file the same indicating in what time they are going to implement the horizonmental reservation for transgender persons.

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising(for petitioners) sought an interim order for the horizontal reservation of two seats in the All India quota and one each in the Tamil Nadu and the Andhra Pradesh State quota, where the petitioners reportedly belong. As per them, the counselling is yet to begin, and they have challenged the NEET PG notification to the extent that it did not provide counselling for transgender person candidates.

On interim relief, the Court was informed by Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, for the Union, that another contempt petition (Mx Kamlesh & Ors. v. Niten Chandra) is before the bench of Chief Justice of India, who was earlier hearing the present matter. She said that all States and Union Territories are a party to that matter. Initially, the present bench said that the matter should ideally be placed before the CJI bench, but then directed Dave to find out the scope of that petition, clarifying that it does not want to run parallel proceedings.

Supreme Court Dismisses Lawyer's Plea To Preserve Video Recordings Of Court Proceedings

Case Details: Mathews J Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India | W.P.(C) No. 828/2025

The Supreme Court (October 6) dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking directions to ensure the preservation of video recordings of court proceedings and to make them accessible to lawyers and litigants as a matter of right. The petition was premised on the contention that such a measure would help end the “ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants” and guarantee an equal opportunity of hearing, irrespective of the counsel's status

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan heard Advocate Nedumpara briefly before dismissing the plea. Arguing in person, Nedumpara submitted that despite virtual hearings being held in most courts and tribunals across the country, there is still no mechanism for preserving such records for a reasonable period or for providing access to litigants and advocates as a matter of right.

He further contended that instances of ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants in courts continue unabated, and that preservation and accessibility of video recordings would be the only effective remedy to ensure transparency and accountability in court proceedings

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Constitutionality Of Securities Transaction Tax

Case Title – Aseem Juneja v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), a tax on buying and selling stocks and other securities on Indian stock exchanges, imposed under the Finance Act, 2004.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan issued notice returnable in four weeks.

“The principal argument canvassed before us is that the Securities Transaction Tax is the only tax levied in the country on the mere act of carrying out a profession and is sought to be levied irrespective whether there is a profit derived or not. This, according to the petitioner, renders the levy almost punitive or deterrent in nature. Otherwise, according to the petitioner, all other taxes in India are levied on the profit at the year-end but the STT is levied even if the stock market trader is operating in a loss. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks”, the Court recorded.

Delhi Police Releases Advocate Who Tried To Throw Shoe At CJI BR Gavai As Supreme Court Refrains From Pressing Charges

The Delhi Police has released 71-year-old Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted tothrow a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in open Court, as the Supreme Court Registrar declined to pursue legal action against him, reported The Indian Express.

As per The Indian Express, the advocate has now been released, as the Court's Registrar General refused to press any charges against him.

The newspaper has reported that the police recovered a white paper note from his possession, which read: "Mera sandesh har sanatani ke liye hai...Sanatan Dharma ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan (My message is for all followers of Hinduism, this country will not tolerate any disrespect to Hinduism."

West Bengal Govt, Governor Agree To 6 More Vice Chancellor Appointments; Remaining To Be Resolved By Supreme Court

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 was informed that the State government and the Governor are in agreement over the recommendation of 6 more candidates as VCs.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and indicated that for appointment of VCs to the remaining universities, the matter will be taken up in-chamber.

"It is clear that there is no impediment in appointment of VCs to following universities...Calcutta University, Biswa Bangla Biswabidyalaya, Sadhu Ram Chand Murmu University of Jhargram, Gour Banga University, Kazi Nazrul University, Jadavpur University...As regards to remaining universities, matter shall be taken up in chamber", the bench recorded.

Supreme Court Proposes Transfer Of Corruption Cases' Trial Against Senthil Balaji From TN To Delhi

Case Title:

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking clubbing of charge sheets in the 'cash-for-jobs' cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act involving former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, calling for the State's reply on aspects including maintainability of the petition.

During the hearing, Justice Kant posed to Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi & Amit Anand Tiwari (for State) and Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for petitioner) if the trial can be transferred from Tamil Nadu to another "neutral" jurisdiction like Delhi.

Supreme Court Seeks Union, RBI Responses On PIL Seeking Portal To Access Unclaimed Financial Assets & Dormant Bank Accounts

Case Title: Aakash Goel v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 812/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking a centralized portal for enabling individuals to access a comprehensive list of all financial assets held across entities regulated by the Reserve Bank of India and other financial regulators.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order on a petition filed by one Aakash Goel.

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta appeared for the petitioner and submitted that the matter pertains to small investors/depositors. "First it's made inoperative. Range is 1-3 years. And then 7-8 years, it's unclaimed. As of today, it is Rs.3.5 lakh crores of money - it is not being given back to those people, beneficiaries, investors, etc...I made a representation [as well]...SEBI is at a better stage", she said, urging that the amounts had not been returned to the rightful owners.

Supreme Court Dismisses Congress MP Adoor Prakash's Challenge To Kerala HC Condoning Delay In State's Revision Against His Discharge

Case Title: Adoor Prakash and Anr. v. State of Kerala, SLP(Crl) No. 14677/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed Lok Sabha MP and former Kerala Minister Adoor Prakash's challenge to a Kerala High Court order which condoned the delay of 225 days in state's filing of a criminal revision petition against the order discharging him in a corruption case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for petitioners). Without expressing anything on the merits, the bench said that it found no reason to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The plea, filed by Adoor Prakash and his former Private Secretary, averred that the High Court condoned a delay of 467 days in filing of the appeal by the state without assigning any reasons. It was the petitioners' contention that since the "inordinate delay" had not been sufficiently explained by the state, the High Court ought not to have condoned the delay taking a liberal view.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Sealing Of Advocates' Office In Basement Of Delhi Building

Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | I.A. No. 182567 and 182573 of 2019 In W.P. No. 4677 of 1985

The Supreme Court heard a matter relating to the sealing of a basement office run by lawyers.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the application filed by lawyers who purchased a basement office in Greater Kailash-I for setting up their chambers. Their office was subsequently sealed in 2019 by the orders of the Monitoring Committee.

Sr Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appeared for the aggrieved lawyers.

Karur Stampede : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Madras High Court's Refusal To Order CBI Investigation

Case: Panneerselvam Pitchaimuthu v. Union of India | Diary No.57588/2025

The Supreme Court will hear a plea challenging the Madras High Court's order, which declined to order a CBI investigation into the stampede which occurred in Karur in Tamil Nadu on September 27 during a political rally by actor Vijay's political party TVK.

The petition was filed by P Panneerselvan, father of a child who died in the incident.

Supreme Court Refers To Constitution Bench Issue Regarding Lack Of Promotion Chances For Judicial Officers

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

The Supreme Court (October 7) referred to a Constitution Bench the issues relating to the career stagnation faced by young judicial officers, who join entry-level posts, due to limited promotional avenues in judicial service.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the reference order in the All India Judges Association case.

Earlier, the bench had soughtthe responses of the High Courts and the State Governments, expressing concerns over the issue. Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in case, had 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 alone reaching the position of the High Court Judge. The amicus stated that this situation often discouraged bright youngsters from joining the judiciary.

Cough Syrup Deaths: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe, Review Of Drug Controls & Seizure Of Contaminated Medicines

Following the recent spate of child deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan caused by the consumption of toxic cough syrups, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an independent, court-monitored probe into the incident and a nationwide review of drug safety mechanisms.

The petition, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, calls for the constitution of a National Judicial Commission or Expert Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the manufacture, testing, and distribution of contaminated cough syrups containing Diethylene Glycol (DEG) and Ethylene Glycol (EG), the same toxic compounds that have previously caused fatalities.

The PIL comes amid alarming reports from Shivpuri in Madhya Pradesh and Barmer in Rajasthan, where several children reportedly died after consuming Coldrif Cough Syrup, a formulation manufactured by M/s Sresan Pharma Pvt. Ltd., a Tamil Nadu-based pharmaceutical company. Preliminary investigations by local authorities and drug control departments have pointed to suspected contamination in the syrup, reigniting concerns over recurring lapses in India's drug quality control and export monitoring systems.

Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Frame Rules Under Motor Vehicles Act For Pedestrian Safety, Footpaths & Road Designs

Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

The Supreme Court (October 7) issued a series of final directions relating to the safety of pedestrians on roads and footpaths, including the wearing of helmets, wrong lane driving, and the use of unauthorised hooters on cars in a long-standing writ petition.

It has directed the States and Union Territories to formulate Rules under Section 138(1A) the Motor Vehicles Act in the interest of road safety for the purpose of regulating the activities and access of non-mechanically propelled vehicles and pedestrians to public places and national highways.

The States/UTs were also directed to make Rules under Section 210D for the design, construction and maintenance standards for roads other than national highways. All these Rules have to be formulated within six months.

Supreme Court Transfers Trial Against Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti From MP To Delhi After He Alleges Intimidation Of Defence Witnesses

Case Title: Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, T.P.(Crl.) No. 1120/2024

The Supreme Court transferred to Delhi the trial in a cheating case against Congress Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti after taking note of his allegation that the defense witnesses were pressurized.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Bharti), Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for State) and Senior Advocate Saurabh Mishra (for complainant), on Bharti's plea seeking transfer of the trial outside Madhya Pradesh.

In February this year, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had stayed the trial in the case, expressing dissatisfaction with the State's evasive replies on whether it enquired into allegations that witnesses were intimidated. During the hearing, the bench was told that the defence witnesses were taken to a hotel and pressurized to give evidence against the petitioner. The State, however, flatly denied the allegation.

Unnao Rape Survivor's Mother Seeks Restoration Of CRPF Security; Supreme Court Asks Delhi Govt Report On Threat Perception

Case Details: In Re Alarming Rise In The Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents v. | MA 1415/2025 In SMW(Crl.) No. 1/2019

The Supreme Court (October 7) heard a miscellaneous application filed by the mother of the 2017 Unnao rape survivor, alleging grave threat to the life and liberty of herself and her immediate family members. She has sought recall of the Court's recent order allowing the withdrawal of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) security to her family.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to file an affidavit within two weeks stating whether there exists any threat perception to the life of the applicant and her family members, and whether they have approached the competent authority seeking security cover.

The development follows the Court's March 25 order allowing an intervention application filed by the Union of India seeking modification of the Supreme Court's August 1, 2019 direction that had mandated CRPF protection to the survivor, her lawyer, mother, siblings, uncle, and the uncle's immediate family. The Union sought withdrawal of security from all except the survivor herself.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Take-Down BJP Assam Unit's AI-Video Showing Muslim Domination If Party Loses Election

Case Title: Qurban Ali v. Union of India and Others., W.P.(C) No. 24/2022 (And Connected Case)

The Supreme Court issued notice on an application seeking the take-down of an AI-generated video posted on 'X' by Bhartiya Janata Party's Assam unit which statedly showed apprehension of a takeover of the state by Muslims if the party loses elections.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Advocate Nizam Pasha (for applicants), who argued:

"A video has just been posted as part of upcoming election...it shows that in case a certain political party does not come to power, a certain community will take over...it shows people with skullcaps and beards...[as per Court's directions] FIR should be suo motu lodged...if FIR is not lodged, contempt action is to be undertaken."

Supreme Court Issues Notice To IndiGo On Plea Of Customs Dept & GST Council Against Ruling On IGST Exemption For Imported Parts

Case: Principal Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) and Others v. InterGlobe Aviation Ltd | Diary No. 49140-2025

The Supreme Court sought a response from IndiGo's parent company, InterGlobe Aviation, on a petition filed by the Customs Department challenging a Delhi High Court ruling that exempted the airline from paying Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on imported aircraft parts that were repaired and serviced abroad.

A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice to InterGlobe Aviation while hearing the department's plea against the March 2024 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had quashed a portion of a customs notification that mandated IGST payment on the import of repaired aircraft engines and components.

Along with the Customs Department, Union Government, GST Council and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs are the other petitioners.

Bihar SIR | There's Confusion If Additions In Final Voters' List Are From Names Deleted Earlier : Supreme Court Tells Election Commission

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

In the pleas challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar,the Supreme Court (October 7) orally said that there was some confusion as to whether the voters added in the final electoral list were from the list of voters who were previously deleted from the draft list or totally new names.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was responding to the petitioners' demand that the Election Commission of India must publish the list of names of 3.66 lakh voters who were additionally deleted from the final list, and the names of the 21 lakh voters who were included in it.

“Told My Brother Judge To Keep It To My Ears”: CJI BR Gavai In Lighter Vein On Social Media Misreporting Of Judges' Remarks

Case Details: All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai made a lighter vein comment on how the remarks made by Judges are wrongly portrayed on social media.

Because of the chances of misinterpretation, CJI Gavai said that he once refrained his brother Judge, Justice K Vinod Chandran, from making certain open observations in a case concerning judicial service, and instead advised him to share the comments privately with him.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the All-India Judges Association case. When arguments were being made about the lack of promotion chances for judicial officers, CJI said in a lighter vein :

Criminal Contempt Action Sought Against Aniruddhacharya & Ajeet Bharti For Provocative Comments Against CJI BR Gavai

Founder of Mission Ambedkar, Suraj Kumar Bauddh, has written a letter to the Attorney General of India seeking permission to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against two individuals allegedly involved in inciting the attempted attack against Chief Justice of India BR Gavai.

In the letter addressed to AG R Venkataramani, Baudhh highlighted that prior to the attack on October 6, a religious orator named Aniruddhacharya aka Aniruddh Ram Tiwari made a video threatening the CJI over hisremarks in the Vishnu Idol Case.

"On September 21, 2025, a video featuring religious orator Aniruddhacharya alias Aniruddh Ram Tiwari went viral on social media, in which he issued a direct threat against the Chief Justice of India, stating, "If you want to get your chest ripped open, then let me know." This statement, made in response to remarks attributed to the Chief Justice concerning the deity Vishnu, was widely interpreted as an incitement to violence against the highest judicial authority of the country."

Supreme Court Issues Bailable Warrant Against Advocate Who Made 'Scandalous' Police Complaint Against SCBA Election Committee, Judges

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Bd Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023

The Supreme Court issued bailable warrants against an advocate who made a police complaint against members of the Election Committee constituted to hold Supreme Court Bar Association elections.

The Court noted that the advocate did not refrain from levelling allegations even against judges of the Court and failed to enter physical appearance despite previous directions.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan passed the order in the SCBA v. BD Kaushik case, observing that the advocate's conduct prima facie amounted to criminal contempt of Court.

Supreme Court Directs Centre To Examine Amicus Suggestions For Rehabilitation Of Cadets Injured During Military Training

Case Title – In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to consider suggestions made by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Rekha Palli to recognise and rehabilitate officer cadets who suffer disabilities during military training and are discharged before commissioning.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan observed that the out-boarded cadets have not been given any status or recognition and consequently lack appropriate facilities.

“In this regard we would also observe that these out-boarded officers would have entered into their post as Commissioned officers at the entry level but as of now they have not acquired or given any status or recognition in regard to the injury sustained during training and consequently there has been lack of appropriate facilities and amenities that are being provided to such out-boarded cadets”, the Court observed.

Actor Vijay's Party TVK Approaches Supreme Court Against Madras High Court Order In Karur Stampede Case

Case: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. Ph Dinesh Diary No. 58048/2025

Tamil Actor Vijay's political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's order which constituted a Special Investigation team to investigate the Karur stampede.

The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai for urgent listing. CJI agreed to list the petition, when another connected petition - challenging the High Court's refusal to transfer the investigation to the CBI - is also listed.

The petition has been filed through the party's secretary Aadhav Arjuna, TVK. They have sought an independent investigation under the monitoring of the Supreme Court. The party took objection to the Madras High Court constituting an SIT only with officers of the Tamil Nadu police.

Criminal Contempt Action Sought Against Advocate Rakesh Kishore Who Tried To Hurl Shoe At CJI BR Gavai

A Supreme Court lawyer has written to the Attorney General for India seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai inside the Supreme Court.

In the letter, Advocate Subhash Chandran KR urged the Attorney General R Venkataramani to grant consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, stating that Kishore's conduct of hurling shoe at the dias and shouting slogans against the CJI amounts to gross interference with the administration of justice and undermines the dignity of the Supreme Court.

The lawyer pointed out that, even after the incident, Kishore made contemptuous remarks against the Chief Justice in media interactions, expressing no remorse and instead justifying his actions. The petitioner contends that such behaviour reflects a deliberate attempt to scandalise the court and erode public confidence in the judiciary.

'We Had To Almost Frame Contempt Charges For You To Act' : Supreme Court Slams CBI's Delay In Arrest Of 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 came down heavily on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for their delay in arresting two Madhya Pradesh police officers accused in the custodial death of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi, observing that the arrests took place only after the Court issued stern warnings of contempt.

A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the Court's earlier direction, passed on May 15,  to arrest the officers.

The Court noted that the CBI had now filed an affidavit stating that both absconding officers have been arrested - one on September 27 and the other on October 5.

Supreme Court To Hear Shiv Sena Symbol Dispute On November 12; Uddhav Seeks Hearing Before Maharashtra Local Polls

Case Title: Uddhav Thackeray v. Eknathrao Sambhaji Shinde and Anr., SLP(C) No. 3997/2023

The Supreme Court agreed to hear on November 12 the plea filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to recognize the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and allot it the party's traditional symbol, the bow and arrow.

A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh took note of the submission made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Thackeray, who sought urgent listing of the matter.

“There's urgency. Local elections are scheduled for January. Please hear it at the earliest,” Sibal urged.

'They Have Opened A Showroom Here': Justice Surya Kant On United Nations Agency Issuing Refugee Cards To Immigrants In India

Case Title: Yousif Haroun Yagoub Mohamed v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 931/2025

Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court recently deprecated a United Nations agency's issuance of Refugee Cards to immigrants in India. "They have opened a showroom here and are issuing certificates", the judge said.

A bench of Justices Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the petition of a man who hails from Sudan but has been in India since 2013. As per claims, he has two children, including a 40-day old infant, and his wife as well as child have been issued Refugee Cards. He is seeking asylum in Australia and prayed the Supreme Court for interim protection.

Arguing for the man, Senior Advocate S Muralidhar contended that persons who have been issued Refugee Cards by the United Nations agency (United Nations High Commission for Refugees) are on a different footing. They are also treated differently by the Ministry of Human Affairs and the Foreigners' Registration Office.

Supreme Court Quashes Rape On False Marriage Promise Case Against Tamil Director-Politician Seeman After Parties Settle Dispute

Case Title – Seeman v. State

The Supreme Court quashed the rape-on-false-promise-of-marriage case filed by an actress against Tamil film director and politician Seeman, after both parties filed affidavits agreeing to end all litigation between them.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan noted that Seeman had, in his affidavit, tendered an unconditional apology, withdrawn allegations made against the actress, and undertaken not to contact her in any manner. The actress, in turn, filed an affidavit withdrawing her complaint and FIR against Seeman.

Recording the settlement, the bench observed, “the object and purpose of filing these affidavits by the parties is in order to give a quietus to all controversies and litigations between the parties. The affidavits have been filed in a spirit of bringing to an end all litigations and court proceedings between the parties.”

Karur Stampede : BJP Leader Approaches Supreme Court Seeking CBI Investigation, Alleges Lapses By State Machinery In Crowd Control

Tamil Nadu BJP Leader and State Legal Cell Vice President G.S. Mani has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a CBI investigation into the Karur stampede that occurred during a rally organised by actor Vijay's political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), on September 27, claiming 41 lives.

He has sought an investigation by either the CBI or an independent Special Investigation Team headed by a retired or sitting Supreme Court judge.

Mani, who is also a practising advocate, has challenged the October 3 order of the Madras High Court, which rejecteda bunch of PILs seeking a CBI probe, including one writ petition filed by him seeking transfer of investigation from the State police to CBI and for the payment of adequate compensation.

Supreme Court Dismisses 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(October 8) dismissed a modification application filed by the Union seeking further guidelines in the 2014 Shatrughan Chauhan judgmentto 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 executedin 2020 after the Supreme Court rejectedtheir final plea in a special sitting at midnight.

In 2014, a three-judge bench laid downvarious 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 can not just seek a remedy but also mentally prepare himself for the execution.

'Sitting In London', 'Blackmailers': Sharp Exchange Between Harish Salve & Prashant Bhushan; Supreme Court Seeks ED's Stand On Indiabulls

Case Title: Citizens Whistle Blower Forum v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 2993/2025

During the hearing of Citizens Whistle Blower Forum's plea for SIT probe against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (now Sammaan Capital), Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Advocate Prashant Bhushan exchanged sharp words before the Supreme Court.

Taking objection to Salve's use of the word 'blackmailer' for the petitioner-Forum, Bhushan took a dig at Salve, saying that he had the "audacity" to make such a claim while sitting in London. The counsel highlighted that the Forum is headed by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice AP Shah, and has Professor Aruna Roy, former navy personnel, secretaries of Government of India, etc. as its trustees.

In retort, Salve said that if Bhushan is "jealous", he could also shift to London. In response to Bhushan's comment that the senior counsel was not aware of the contents of affidavits filed in the matter as he was sitting in London, Salve said, "one can read an affidavit written in simple English sitting in any city".

Supreme Court To Hear On October 13 Plea Seeking SIT Probe Into Rahul Gandhi's 'Vote Chori' Allegations

Case: Rohit Pandey v. Union of India and Others | Diary No.46726/2025

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on October 13, a Public Interest Litigation petition seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team(SIT) headed by a former Judge to inquire into the allegations raised by the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, regarding large-scale voters list manipulation in the Bengaluru Central constituency during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

The petition filed by Advocate Rohit Pandey also sought a direction that no further revision or finalisation of electoral rolls be undertaken until compliance with the Court's directions and completion of an independent audit of the rolls.

The petitioner further sought the framing and issuance of binding guidelines by the Election Commission of India to ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in the preparation, maintenance, and publication of electoral rolls, including mechanisms for detecting and preventing duplicate or fictitious entries.

Supreme Court To Frame Standard For Conduct Of Public Hearings Before Electricity Regulatory Commissions

Case Title – Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Domestic On Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala & Ors.

The Supreme Court recently indicated that it will examine and declare a standard by which public hearings could be conducted by Electricity Regulatory Commissions across the country.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation in an appeal by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission against the Kerala High Court's direction to hold hybrid public hearings instead of online hearings alone while revising the Renewable Energy Regulations.

The Court issued notice in the matter and directed that the Forum of Regulators constituted under Section 166(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 be impleaded as a party and appointed Advocate Anand Ganesan to assist as Amicus Curiae.

2020 Bengaluru Riots : Supreme Court Grants Bail To 2 UAPA Accused Noting Custody Of Over 5 Years & Delay In Trial

Case: Kareem @ Sadam v. State By National Investigation Agency and Connected Matter

The Supreme Court recently granted bail to two persons - Kadeem @ Sadam and Zia Ur Rahma @ Ziya- who are accused in the 2020 Bengaluru riots case, taking note of their incarceration of over five years  and the fact that 254 witnesses are yet to be examined in the trial involving 138 accused persons.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Karnataka High Court's order, which denied them bail.

The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 333, 332, 436, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgment On Judicial Officers' Eligibility For Direct Appointment As District Judges Tomorrow

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

Update - judgment delivered on October 9 - Judicial Officers With 7 Years Combined Experience On Date Of Application Eligible For Direct Recruitment As District Judges : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will tomorrow(October 9) pronounce 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.

A Constitution Bench comprising  five judges - Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran - had reserved the Judgment on September 25 after a 3-day hearing.

Supreme Court Stays MP High Court Order For Vigilance Enquiry Into Trial Judge's Work Of 5 Years

Case Details: Vivek Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(S). 51903/2025

The Supreme Court recently stayed the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which made adverse remarks against a  POCSO Special Judge, calling his conduct 'intellectual dishonesty' and directing an enquiry into 5 years of his judicial work.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a challenge against the adverse remarks of the Madhya Pradesh High Court against a judicial officer in a criminal case.

While issuing notice in the matter, the bench proceeded to stay the directions for investigation against the judicial officer/ petitioner by the High Court.

CJI BR Gavai Calls For Reforms In ITAT Appointments, Members' Tenure; Flags Problem Of Conflicting Judgments

At a symposium on “Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) – Role, Challenges and Way Forward” held in New Delhi on October 8, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai underscored the vital role of the ITAT in ensuring fairness and consistency in tax adjudication, while stressing the need for structural reforms to enhance its functioning, independence, and public credibility.

The event was attended by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice C.V. Bhadang (President, ITAT), Law Secretary Dr. Anju Rathi Rana, and members of the ITAT Bar Association.

“Tax adjudication touches people's lives”

Appointment Of Senior Practitioners At ITAT Should Be Timely, Not At Very End Of Their Professions: CJI BR Gavai

CJI BR Gavai said that the eligibility criteria for appointment of senior practitioners at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should be timely, where their experience can be applied effectively and not at the very end of their careers.

Underscoring that the appointment procedures at ITAT must remain transparent, CJI said:

“Eligibility criteria should be adapted to attract senior practitioners at a point in their careers where their experience can be effectively applied, rather than deferring appointments to the very end of their professional lives.”

Supreme Court Bar Association Terminates Membership Of Lawyer Who Tried To Attack CJI BR Gavai

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has terminated the temporary membership with immediate effect of Advocate Rakesh Kishore who attempted to throw a sport shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on October 6.

"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT the membership of Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kishore, being a temporary member bearing No.K-01029/RES dated 27.07.2011, of the Supreme Court Bar Association, is terminated with immediate effect, and his name shall stand removed from the rolls of the Association.

It is further resolved that his SCBA Membership Card issued if any, stands cancelled and forfeited forthwith, and that a communication be sent to the Secretary- General, Supreme Court of India, requesting that the proximity access card issued to him be cancelled immediately."

Lakhimpur Kheri Case: UP Police Register FIR For Witness Intimidation; Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra To Visit Hometown For Diwali

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

In the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case involving former Union Minister's son Ashish Mishra, the Supreme Court was informed that a witness has confirmed that he was threatened against testifying and wants to pursue legal action.

Counsel for the State apprised the Court that the statement of the witness was recorded and an FIR has been registered under Sections 195A, 506 and 120B of IPC. "We deputed a Deputy Secretary, who recorded his (witness) statement and he verified that there was some kind of pressure on him", he said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Baghchi directed that since the preliminary exercise was conducted by an officer of the rank of DSP, it would be prudent for the FIR to be investigated by the same officer and/or an officer of that rank.

MP Asaduddin Owaisi Moves Supreme Court Seeking Extension Of Time For Registration Of Waqfs

Member of Lok Sabha, Asaduddin Owaisi, has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking clarification in the decision on the challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025. Owaisi has sought an extension of time for the registration of waqfs on the Government Portal.

The matter was mentioned by Advocate Nizam Pasha before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran.

He said, "6 months time was given in the Act, 5 months went by during the passing of judgment, we now only have 1 month."

CJI BR Gavai Breaks Silence On Attempted Shoe Attack: "For Us, It's A Forgotten Chapter"

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai briefly addressed the incident in which an advocate tried to hurl a shoe at him in the Supreme Court earlier this week, describing it as a "forgotten chapter".

Speaking during a courtroom exchange, the CJI said, “My learned brother and I were very shocked with what happened on Monday… for us it is a forgotten chapter.”

The remarks came amid a discussion that also involved Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who recalled a similar incident from a decade ago. “I also wrote an article on this.. something similar happened 10 years ago in the neighbouring court. The two judges there had taken a different view on what procedure should be followed while invoking contempt powers,” he said.

Supreme Court To Hear Tomorrow MLA Irfan Hafiz Lone's Plea Seeking Restoration Of Statehood To Jammu & Kashmir

Case Details: Irfan Hafiz Lone v. Union of India Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 49230 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2024

The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow the plea by MLA Irfan Hafiz Lone seeking restoration of statehood to Jammu & Kashmir.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran will be hearing the application filed by Lone.

Notably, a similar applicationwas filed by college teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik is also listed tomorrow. The application are filed in the disposed of matter "In Re : Article 370 of the Constitution" in which the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.

Bihar SIR : Supreme Court Directs Free Legal Aid To File Appeals Against Exclusion From Electoral List

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 SIR matter, the Supreme Court (October 9) passed an interim order to ensure free legal aid for persons excluded from the final voters' list so they can file appeals against their exclusion.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi requested the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to issue necessary communication to the District Legal Services Authorities for ensuring the availability of paralegal volunteers and legal aid counsels who can assist the excluded persons in filing appeals.

"Since the time to file appeals is running short, we deem it appropriate, as an interim measure, to request the Executive Chairman, Bihar State Legal Services Authority, to send communication preferably itself to all secretaries of DLSAs to provide services of paralegal volunteers, free legal aid counsels to assist excluded persons to file statutory appeals. Secretaries to immediately re-notify mobile numbers and full description of paralegal volunteers in each village, who in turn will contact the Booth Level Officers. They will collect information with respect to persons who have been excluded from the final list. Para Legal Volunteers would reach out to persons, informing them of their right to appeal. They will offer services to draft appeals and provide free legal aid counsel", the bench observed.

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Plea To Review 'Vanashakti' Judgment That Barred Grant Of Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearances

Case Details: Vanashakti v. Union of India | Diary No. - 32452/2025

The Supreme Court (October 9) reserved its decision on the pleas to recall/review the Vanashakti judgment, which barred the Union from granting post-facto environmental clearances.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran considered the matter.

In Vanashakti v. Union of India, the bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, by judgment delivered on May 15, restrained the Central Government from granting "ex-post facto" Environmental Clearances (EC) in future and set aside the previous Office Memoranda and notifications which allowed for the grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance for mining projects.

Bihar SIR | ECI Must Disclose How Many Foreigners Were Deleted From Final Voters' List : Yogendra Yadav In Supreme Court

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

During the hearing on Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls, activist Yogendra Yadav urged the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose how many persons were found to be foreigners after the exercise.

He said that the Supreme Court would be doing a "great service to the nation" by directing the ECI to disclose the number of persons whose names have been deleted on ground that they were not citizens.

For context, while announcing the decision to conduct the SIR in June, the ECI had raised concerns about the possible presence of illegal migrants and non-citizens in the electoral rolls. Yadav submitted that very few deletions were in the districts in the Seemanchal region, which were perceived to be having the presence of illegal migrants due to the proximity to international borders.

Simultaneous Voting With Delhi Bar Elections, Use EVM, Increase Term : Suggestions Before Supreme Court On SCBA Electoral Reforms

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Bd Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023

In the matter pertaining to electoral reforms in the Supreme Court Bar Association, the SCBA recently filed suggestions recommending that its elections should be held simultaneously with the Delhi High Court Bar Association and District Bar Associations.

The SCBA also recommended that the term of the Executive Committee should be increased from 1 year to 2 years. It further suggested minimum appearances requirement for candidates wishing to contest in the elections.

The recommendations made by SCBA included the following:

Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Extends Interim Bail Of Mahesh Raut Till November 26

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

The Supreme Court today(October 9) extended the interim bail granted to Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case accused Mahesh Sitaram Raut, arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, over alleged Maoist links, till November 26.

Raut was granted bail on September 16 for a period of six weeks by a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Kumar Sharma on medical grounds. The same bench extended his interim medical bail. Raut has been in custody since his arrest in June 2018.

On earlier occasion, Senior Advocate CU Singh(for Raut) had submitted that he suffers from Rheumatoid Arthritis, which is an autoimmune disorder which attacks the bones and muscles.

Telangana PSC Group-1 Exam 2025 : Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Fresh Test & Re-Evaluation Of Answer Sheets

Case Title: Chinthalapati Upender and Anr. v. Telangana Public Service Commission and Ors., SLP(C) No. 27931/2025 (And Connected Case)

The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the suspension of a Telangana High Court order which directed re-evaluation of answer sheets of Group-I mains examination conducted by the Public Service Commission or conduct of a fresh exam as an alternative.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the challenge to the order of a Division Bench of the High Court, which suspended the order for re-evaluation/fresh exam passed by a Single Bench.

The Supreme Court was not inclined to entertain the petitions, considering that the main matter was coming up for final hearing before the High Court. However, it clarified,

Supreme Court Allows Goa MBBS Seat In Sports Quota To International Sailor Pearl Milind Colvalcar

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

The Supreme Court recently directed the State of Goa to grant one medical seat under the Sports Quota to India's international sports sailor, Pearl Milind Colvalcar, for admission to NEET (UG) 2025.

Colvalcar had challengedthe 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 AS Chandurkar, however, refused to interfere with the High Court's order on merits but granted relief to the petitioner considering the special circumstances.

CJI BR Gavai Announces Free Public Wi-Fi Across Entire Supreme Court Main Building

In a move aimed at strengthening the Supreme Court's digital infrastructure and improving accessibility for all court users, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai announced the expansion of free public Wi-Fi across the entire main building of the Supreme Court of India. Until now, the Wi-Fi facility was available only within the courtrooms and few adjoining areas.

“I wish to inform the Bar that with the aim of strengthening the digital infrastructure and to provide Wi-Fi connectivity to lawyers, law officers, litigants and court officers within the Court premises, the facility of free public Wi-Fi, which was earlier limited to courtrooms and a few adjoining areas, has now been extended to cover the entire precincts of the main building of the Supreme Court of India,” the Chief Justice said.

He further added that lawyers and visitors can now seamlessly access free internet from any part of the main building through a simple authentication process. “I am hopeful that this simple measure will benefit the learned members of the Bar as well as the litigants who come to the Court,” the CJI remarked.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Voting Rights For Undertrials

Case: Sunita Sharma v. Union of India | Wp(C) 909/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking to extend voting rights to undertrial and pre-trial prisoners across the country.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice on the PIL filed by Sunita Sharma. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner.

Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 imposes a blanket ban on voting by individuals confined in prisons, regardless of whether they have been convicted or are merely awaiting trial.

Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking CBI Investigation Into Deaths Of Children Due To Cough Syrups

Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 971/2025

The Supreme Court (October 10) dismissed a PIL seeking an investigation by the CBI into the deaths of children in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan due to contaminated cough syrups.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed the PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta opposed the petition, saying that the States are competent to investigate the matter and they are taking action. SG further said that the petitioner was in the habit of filing PILs only on the basis of newspaper reports.

"How many PILs have you filed?" CJI asked. Tiwari replied, "Eight or nine."

Supreme Court Stays Defamation Trial Against Ex-Kerala Minister TM Thomas Issac Over 'Lottery Mafia' Remark Against Santiago Martin

Case Title: T.M Thomas Issac v. Santiago Martin, SLP(Crl) No. 15095/2025

The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in the defamation case filed against former Kerala Finance Minister TM Thomas Issac for calling 'lottery king' Santiago Martin a "lottery mafia" during a press statement.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, staying trial pending against Thomas Issac before a Judicial Magistrate in Sikkim. The bench also issued notice on the petition to Santiago Martin.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for Thomas Issac.

'Jammu & Kashmir Has Progressed; People Are Happy' : Union Tells Supreme Court; Gets 4 Weeks To Respond To Plea For Statehood

Case Details: Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and Anr. v. Union of India | MA 2259/2024

The Supreme Court granted four weeks' time to the Union Government to file its reply to applications seeking restoration of the statehood of Jammu & Kashmir.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran recorded the submission of Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that while peaceful elections were conducted last year in the region, more time was required to consider the issue of restoring statehood in light of security concerns and the recent Pahalgam terror attacks.

"SG states that the elections were done in a peaceful manner and a government was elected. It is submitted that during the period of the last 6 years, there has been substantial progress in J&K. He however submits that certain events had taken place in the recent past, like the Pahalgam incident, which will have to be taken into consideration while taking a final call on this hearing."

Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order Quashing TN Police Chargesheet In Armstrong Murder Case; No Stay On CBI Probe

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

The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court's order which quashed the chargesheet filed by the Tamil Nadu Police in the case concerning the murder of BSP leader Armstrong. However, the Court did not stay the High Court's direction transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria passed the interim order after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu. The bench issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the Madras High Court's order.

It was on September 24 that the High Court bench of Justice P Velmurugan passed the order in a petition filed by Armstrong's brother, Keynos, who had sought a CBI probe, alleging that there were major shortcomings in the investigation being carried out by the state police. The High Court held that there were procedural lapses in the investigation and material contradictions in the chargesheet.

Karur Stampede | 'Unable To Understand How Madras High Court Passed SIT Order' : Supreme Court Reserves Order On Pleas Of TVK & Others

Case Details: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh | Diary No. - 58048/2025 and Connected Cases.

The Supreme Court (October 10) reserved orders on a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the stampede which occurred in Karur in Tamil Nadu during a rally by actor Vijay's political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam(TVK) on September 27, claiming 41 lives.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matters for over two hours.

One of the petitions was filed by TVK , challenging the October 3 order of the Madras High Court that constituted a Special Investigation team(SIT) to investigate the Karur stampede. The party's petition, filed through its General Secretary Aadhav Arjuna, objected to the High Court forming the SIT only with the officers of the Tamil Nadu Police. They also took exception to the adverse remarks made by the High Court against TVK and Vijay.

Supreme Court Hints At Relaxing Absolute Ban On Firecrackers In Delhi-NCR; May Allow Green Crackers On Diwali

Case Title – Mc Mehta v. Union of India Wp (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court (October 10) reserved its verdict on whether the absolute ban on firecrackers in the Delhi–National Capital Region should be relaxed during Diwali to allow the use of green crackers.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the issue in the long-pending MC Mehta case concerning air quality in the NCR. Earlier, on April 3, a two-judge Benchhad imposed a year-long blanket banon firecrackers, including green crackers, in the region. Several applications have since been filed seeking recall of that order.

While reserving the order, the CJI verbally remarked on the possibility of lifting the firecracker ban only for the period of Diwali. "For the time being, we will permit on the ban lifting during Diwali".

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Probe Into US Based Short Seller Viceroy's Allegations Against Vedanta Group

Case Title – Shakti Bhatia v. Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a probe into allegations made by US-based short-seller Viceroy Research LLC against Vedanta Limited, Hindustan Zinc Limited, Vedanta Resources Limited and related entities.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar allowed the petitioner, one Shakti Bhatia, to withdraw the petition after expressing that it was not inclined to entertain the matter.

In the petition, Bhatia had sought a thorough investigation by SEBI, RBI and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs into the affairs of Vedanta Limited, Hindustan Zinc Limited and Vedanta Resources Limited along with their sister concerns.

Karur Stampede: Why TVK Rally Was Permitted? Post-Mortems Completed In 4 Hours At Night? Supreme Court Asks Tamil Nadu Government

Case Details: S Prabakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 412/2025

The Supreme Court (October 10) questioned the Tamil Nadu Government over the permission granted to actor-politician Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) for holding a roadshow rally in Karur on September 27 - which led to a stampede killing 41 persons- even as permission for a similar event at the same spot by the AIADMK was denied on the ground that the State was still in the process of finalising the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for political meetings.

The Court also asked how the post-mortem examinations of the victims of the Karur stampede were conducted at midnight and completed within four hours.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the petitions filed by TVK and others seeking an independent investigation into the stampede. While TVK seeks an investigation under the monitoring of a retired Supreme Court judge - instead of the SIT composed of only TN officers - other petitioners seek CBI investigation.

'No Fundamental Right To Use WhatsApp': Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Restore Blocked Account; Suggests Use Of 'Arattai'

Case Title: Dr. Raman Kundra and Anr. v. WhatsApp LLC/ Meta Platform and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 932/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking restoration of access to a person's blocked WhatsApp account as well as guidelines on the suspension/blocking of accounts by social media intermediaries.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the matter as withdrawn, after hearing Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani (for petitioners). The bench however gave the petitioners liberty to avail all such remedies as may be available under law.

During the hearing, the bench questioned Pavani about the maintainability of an Article 32 petition for the reliefs sought and suggested that the petitioner may rather file a civil suit.

Asian Paints Moves Supreme Court Against CCI Probe

Asian Paints has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court decision that upheld the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order to investigate the company for alleged abuse of dominant position in the decorative paints market.

The investigation was initiated following a complaint filed by Aditya Birla Group's Grasim Industries on July 1.

This follows the Bombay High Court's ruling on September 11, which dismissed a writ petition filed by Asian Paints. The court held that a party has no inherent right to an oral or written hearing at the stage where the CCI forms a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. It stated that the order at this stage is administrative in nature and it is up to the CCI to decide whether a hearing should be granted.

Plea In Supreme Court To Stop Sale Of “Liposomal Amphotericin B” Medicine Made Using Emergency Approval Granted During Covid Time

Case Title: Rajendra Prasad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 953/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking quashing of approvals or licenses granted for manufacturing of 'Liposomal Amphotericin B' for emergency use during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The PIL, filed by one Rajendra Prasad, also seeks stoppage of distribution and destruction of existing stock of the said medication, in accordance with appropriate safety protocols.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, calling for the response of the Union of India, the Drug Controller General of India and pharmaceutical companies including Bharat Serum and Vaccines Ltd., Cipla, Sun Pharma, Emcure, NATCO Pharma, etc.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Suspended Ranchi Deputy Commissioner Chhavi Ranjan In Army Land Scam Case

Case Title: Chhavi Ranjan v. Union of India, SLP(Crl) No. 12137/2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to suspended Ranchi Deputy Commissioner Chhavi Ranjan in the Jharkhand Army Land Scam case involving money laundering allegations.

It may be recalled that Ranjan is accused of having conspired with and assisted the main accused to get records of certain land holdings fabricated with a view to avail loan facilities, etc. He was arrested on 4 May 2023 and is in custody since then.

Today, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh granted him bail, subject to certain conditions, including that he shall not leave State of Jharkhand without prior permission.

Can One District Have More Than One Bar Association? Supreme Court To Consider Nilgiris District Bar Association's Plea

Case Details: Nilgiris District Bar Association v. Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 27691/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Nilgiris District Bar Association challenging the order of the Madras High Court directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to consider an application filed by Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris seeking recognition.

Senior Advocate V Mohana, appearing for the petitioner, told a bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that a separate bar association exclusively for women lawyers was not necessary in the same district.

She contended that the district is a small one and the present Association has just 250 members to fragment it further and create more Associations for smaller groups. She stressed that this demand is raised only by 4 women lawyers who are disgruntled over some issues, amongst whom one of them was already facing a disciplinary proceeding in the High Court.

Attorney General Assures Supreme Court To Look Into Problem Of Students Of Derecognized College Of Physicians & Surgeons Mumbai

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

The Supreme Court on October 9 was informed by the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, that some viable solution would be arrived at to secure the future of students after the Bombay High Court recently upheld the derecognition all postgraduate medical courses offered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mumbai ("CPS").

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan had sought intervention of the Attorney General in this matter. The AG informed the bench that some progress has been made in order to register the students so that they can give their examinations. He said that 932 students have been identified who are awaiting the conduct of examination.

However, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh pointed out that 932 students are only those who are concerned with the National Medical Council. There are students who are registered with the State Medical Commission but they have not been identified. In this regard, the AG said that he will try to find the best modality to identify all such students whose future is in limbo.

Supreme Court Allows Maharashtra To Fill 50% Teacher Posts In Tribal Areas From Reserved Category Pending Challenge To 100% ST Quota

Case Details: Samajik Vikas Prabodhini v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. | Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 22109/2023

The Supreme Court recently clarified that, pending the issue of whether the reservation for the Scheduled Tribes community for the posts of Talathis can exceed 50% or not, the Maharashtra State Government would be entitled to fill in 50% of the total strength available from the reserved category for the recruitment of teachers in Zila Parishad Schools in tribal areas.

A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted that by an order of the Court dated October 13, 2023, a statement was made before the Bombay High Court that although the recruitment has been initiated pursuant to the August 2019 notification reserving 100% posts for the Scheduled Tribes community for the Talathis (revenue posts), it is not likely to be concluded. The then Supreme Court bench was informed that this position would continue to the next hearing, where the Court had kept the matter for disposal. However, this position has continued to date, making the recruitment process in limbo.

Stating that the issue of reservation requires detailed consideration, the Court noted: "However, the immediate concern of the State Government is that in view of the order passed by this Court on 13th October, 2023 the entire process of recruitment of teachers in Zila Parishad Schools in tribal areas has come to a standstill and they are not able to fill facancies from reserved category even to the extent of 50%."

Supreme Court Bench Places Suo Motu Case On Jojari River Contamination Before CJI BR Gavai

Case Title: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan Versus, SMW(C) No. 8/2025

A Supreme Court Bench recently placed the suo motu case regarding contamination of Rajasthan's Jojari River before CJI BR Gavai.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order on October 9, noting that there were commonalities in the issues sought to be dealt in the suo motu case and other appeals pending before the Court. Accordingly, it was deemed fit that the cases be clubbed and heard together, for which purpose appropriate orders have been sought from the CJI.

Tracing the history of the cases involving these issues, the bench observed that writ petitions were initially filed before the Rajasthan High Court. These were transferred to NGT, Delhi, which found that there were 3 rivers involved in the "environmental disaster" - River Luni, River Bandi and River Jojari.

Karur Stampede : Two Petitioners Have Denied Filing Petitions Seeking CBI Probe, TN Govt Tells Supreme Court

In the Karur stampede matter, the State of Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that the petitioners in two petitions, which sought an investigation by the Central Bureau into the tragedy, have denied filing the petitions. The State's lawyers told the Court that they have written to the Supreme Court Registry denying knowledge about the filing of the petitions.

Along with the petition filed by actor Vijay's political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), there were few other petitions filed before the Supreme Court seeking an independent investigation into the stampede, which occured during TVK's political rally on September 27, claiming 41 lives.

Two petitions, filed by Paneerselvam Pitchaimuthu and Selvaraj P, respectively, sought CBI investigation. Today, after the bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari passed an interim orderto transfer the investigation to the CBI from the SIT of TN Police Officers formed by the Madras High Court, the State's lawyers told the bench that the petitioners have denied filing the petitions.

'In Judicial Service, Majority Are Women Without Reservation; So Do Women Lawyers Need Preference In Chamber Allotment?' Asks Supreme Court

Case Title: Bhakti Pasrija and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 921/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking framing of a uniform and gender-sensitive policy for allotment of professional chambers/cabins to women advocates in different Courts and bar associations across the country.

The petition seeks directions for reservation or prioritization of chambers/cabins for women lawyers in future allotments. It also seeks construction and priority allotment of chambers/cabins to women advocates who have over 25 years practice at Supreme Court and are currently on Supreme Court Bar Association's waiting list.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order.

'Pursue Before ECI' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking SIT Probe Into Rahul Gandhi's Voters' List Fraud Allegations

Case Title: Rohit Pandey v. Union of India and Others | Diary No. 46726/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the allegations raised by Leader of Opposition-Rahul Gandhi, regarding large-scale voters list manipulation in the Bengaluru Central constituency during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

At the outset, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Election Commission of India. The petitioner's counsel replied that representation has already been submitted before the Election Commission of India, which has not yet take any action.

The bench however refused to entertain the matter and disposed it of, observing that the petitioner 'may' pursue the matter before the ECI. Though the counsel sought for fixing a timelimit for the ECI to decide, the bench declined to pass any such direction.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On NGO's Plea To Decommission 130-Year-Old Mullaperiyar Dam In Kerala, Construct New One

Case Details: Save Kerala Brigade v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000964 / 2025

The Supreme Court sought responses from the Union Government and the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in a writ petition seeking the decommissioning of the 130-year-old Mullaperiyar Dam in Kerala.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice on a writ petition filed by an NGO 'Save Kerala Brigade', which has sought directions for the creation of a new dam in place of the Mullaperiyar Dam in Kerala. The petitioner seeks a holistic evaluation of the dam by experts and the Court's directions for decommissioning its operation/reconstruction of it.

Notably, the present dam at the place is 130 years old, situated on the Periyar River, Kerala, near Tamil Nadu border. The dam, although located in Kerala, is maintained and operated by the State of Tamil Nadu for irrigation purposes, based on a pre-independence lease executed between the erstwhile princely kingdom of Travancore and the former Madras Presidency during British rule.

Supreme Court Rejects Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore's Plea To Quash FIR Over Social Media Post On Pahalgam Terror Attack

Case Details: Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 16250/2025 Diary No. 55953 / 2025

The Supreme Court refused to quash the FIR lodged by the Uttar Pradesh Police against folk singer Neha Singh Rathore under multiple offences, including "endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India" over her allegedly 'provocative' social media posts on the Pahalgam Terror Attack.

The Court refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's order, which observed that the case needs to be investigated.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi said that the petitioner can raise the issue of quashing certain charges, including "waging war against India", at the time of framing of charges. The Court said that it has not expressed any merit on the case but has simply refused to entertain the plea, stating that the petitioner will have to face the trial.

Supreme Court Rejects Asian Paints' Plea Against CCI Probe On Complaint By Grasim Industries

Case Details: Asian Paints Limited v. Competition Commission of India | SLP(C) No. 028923 - / 2025

The Supreme Court today(October 13) refused to entertain a plea by Asian Paints Ltd challenging the Bombay High Court decision that upheld the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order to investigate the company for alleged abuse of dominant position in the decorative paints market. Consequently, the Asian Paints Ltd sought permission to withdraw its plea.

Before a bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and NK Kaul, appearing for Asian Paints Ltd, argued that it was not allowed an oral or written hearing at the time when CCI formed a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, that it had allegedly abused its dominant position in the market.

As per the September 11 order of the Bombay High Court, it stated that the CCI's order was administrative in nature at this stage, and therefore, there is no inherent right for a party to see an oral or written hearing under Section 26(1).

'He Didn't Play Single Day': Supreme Court Stays NCDRC Order Directing Insurer To Compensate Rajasthan Royals For Sreesanth's Injury

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

The Supreme Court stayed the NCDRC order which directed United India Insurance Company to pay the owner of 'Rajasthan Royals' a sum of over Rs.82 lakhs on account of S. Sreesanth's injury during 2012 IPL cricket tournament.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order in a petition filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the respondent(Rajasthan Royals), had earlier argued that a pre-existing toe injury, on account of which the claim was repudiated by the appellant, did not render Sreesanth incapable to play. Rather, it was the knee injury, suffered during the insurance period, which rendered him unfit. Today, the senior counsel pointed out that BCCI had taken another insurance for the same loss of fee (stated to be covered by the insurance in the present case) and the same was paid.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Status Of Implementation Of 2017 Palliative Care Guidelines

Case Title: Dr. Rajshree Nagaraju v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 138/2024

The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file within 3 weeks its response on implementation of Palliative Care guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 2017.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order in a PIL seeking directions for provision of palliative care to terminally-ill persons as part of the national health programme.

The Union government shall file the affidavit after collecting and collating data from the States/Union Territories on the implementation of the 2017 guidelines, the Court said.

Supreme Court Asks YouTuber To Apologise & Donate Money For Disclosing Identity Of Child In POCSO Act Case

Case Title: Suraj v. Sukumar @ Suraj Palakaran v. State of Kerala, Diary No. 9256-2025

The Supreme Court asked Kerala-based YouTuber Suraj Palakaran to consider tendering unconditional apology for disclosure of identity of a child in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the YouTuber's plea to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him over the aforesaid disclosure. Besides an apology, it further asked him to consider making some monetary donation, since he made money out of the video which led to disclosure of the victim's identity.

"Identity of the child got disclosed, we are not saying that you disclosed...so maybe inadvertently, not deliberately...we are giving benefit of doubt to you. But mistake was committed. For mistake, you can think of tendering an unconditional apology...and you have minted money on the channel, donate something out of that...there's no compulsion, but you [can think of this]", said Justice Kant.

Should Some District Judge Posts Be Reserved For Entry-Level Judicial Officers Promotion: Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear On Oct 28-29

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

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear on October 28 and 29 the issue regarding the career stagnation faced by young judicial officers, who join entry-level posts due to limited promotional avenues in judicial service.

The 5-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi will determine what should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of higher judicial service. The bench will also consider the ancillary and related issues.

The parties who support the proposition that a certain percentage of seats in the cadre of Principal District Judges must be reserved for Judges who joined service as Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates will make the arguments on October 28. The parties opposing the proposition will argue on October 29. Advocates Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Manu Krishnan have been appointed as the nodal counsel for the respective sides to prepare the compilations.

Pharma Company Roche Approaches Supreme Court Against Delhi High Court Allowing Natco To Make Generic Drug For Spinal Muscular Atrophy

Swiss pharmaceutical giant F Hoffmann-La Roche AG has approached the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's order allowing Natco Pharma to manufacture and sell a generic drug of Risdiplam, a drug used to treat Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).

The counsel for Roche mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. CJI agreed to list the matter.

On October 9, a division bench of the Delhi High Court had refusedto pass an injunction against Natco Pharma in a patent dispute. A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed Roche's appeal against a Single Judge's decision, which had allowed Natco to continue manufacturing and selling the drug in India. Roche had argued that Natco's product infringed its suit patent IN'397, valid until 2035, which claimed compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy.

Telangana Phone-Tapping Case | Supreme Court Asks Ex-Intelligence Chief T Prabhakar Rao To Reset & Share iCloud Password With Police

Case Details: T. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Telangana | SLP(Crl) No. 7354/2025

The Supreme Court directed former Telangana intelligence chief T Prabhakar Rao, the prime accused in the alleged phone-tapping case, to reset and furnish the password to his iCloud account in the presence of forensic experts with the State Police.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan passed the direction while hearing Rao's anticipatory bail plea, in which the State of Telangana has filed an interlocutory application (IA) seeking to vacate the interim protection from arrestgranted to him earlier.

The State, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the investigation was not progressing due to Rao's “non-cooperation”. “I will present some facts that will shock the court,” the SG submitted, alleging that Rao had formatted electronic devices and destroyed vital evidence while under the court's protective order.

Ex-MCD Mayor Shelly Oberoi Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Challenging Standing Committee Election

Case Details: Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 649/2024

The Supreme Court allowed a withdrawal of a petition filed by Shelly Oberoi, former Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), challenging the election of the 6th member of the MCD standing committee held on September 27, 2024, which was won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar passed order in this regard on October 9.

Shelly Oberoi's term had ended in November 2024. Raja Iqbal Singh of the BJP took charge as the new Mayor in April this year.

Supreme Court To Hear On Nov 11 Pleas Challenging Law Dropping CJI From Panel Appointing Election Commissioners

Case Title: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court will hear the pleas challenging Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act 2023, which dropped the CJI from panel appointing Election Commissioners, on November 11.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which could not take it up at its turn due to paucity of time. When it was mentioned by Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioner), the matter got listed on November 11.

While mentioning, Bhushan submitted that the matter has been listed from time to time, but not been heard. He beseeched the Court to spare 3-4 hours on a day, of which the petitioners will take 2 hours to complete their submissions. Hearing him, Justice Kant said that the matter may be mentioned on the morning of November 11, so that the bench can adjourn non-urgent matters on the said day.

Supreme Court Seeks Union & SEBI Responses On Sahara Company's Plea To Sell Assets To Adani Properties Ltd

Case: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Subrata Roy Sahara and Ors. and Ors. | Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1820-1822/2017 In Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 413/2012 In C.A. No. 9833/2011

The Supreme Court (October 14) sought the response of the Union Government and SEBI on the applications filed by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd seeking permission to sell its 88 properties, including Amby Valley in Maharashtra and Sahara Seher in Lucknow, to Adani Properties Pvt Ltd.

The Court directed Sahara to implead the Ministries of Finance and Corporate Affairs in its application.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice MM Sundresh also directed the parties, who have claims over the properties sought to be sold by Sahara, to submit them before amicus curiae Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade. The amicus was requested to prepare a chart identifying which properties were disputed, which were free from claims, and where ownership rights remained unclear. The Court also directed Sahara to examine the claims of its workers on the next date of hearing and asked the Union of India, SEBI, and the amicus to file their responses to Sahara's application.

Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Order Setting Aside Election Of Congress MLA KY Nanjegowda

Case Title: K.Y.Nanje Gowda v. K.S Manjunath Gowda and Ors., C.A. No. 12371/2025

Partly staying a Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court allowed Congress leader KY Nanjegowda to continue as a Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly. The Court however maintained the direction for recounting of votes of Malur assembly constituency and called for the results in a sealed cover.

The result of recounting shall not be disclosed without prior permission of the Court, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi ordered.

"Issue notice. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court, to the extent it set aside election of appellant, shall remain stayed. Resultantly, the appellant shall continue to be an elected member of Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. However, ECI is directed to comply with directions to extent of recounting of votes and submit the result in a sealed cover before this Court. The recounting result shall not be declared without prior permission of this Court" the bench directed.

'Won't It Encroach Upon State's Right?' : Supreme Court Extends Stay Of ED Investigation Against Tamil Nadu's TASMAC

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 7958/2025 and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, (Tasmac) v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 8048-8049/2025

The Supreme Court (October 14) extended the interim orderrestraining the Enforcement Directorate from taking coercive action, including search, seizure or investigation, against the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) in connection with the liquor retail scam in Tamil Nadu.

Granting leave to appeal in the Special Leave Petitions filed by TASMAC and the State of Tamil Nadu, the Court posted the matter after the review petitions against the 2022 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment - which upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act relating to arrest, search, ECIR, etc.,- is decided. This was because TASMAC raised arguments regarding the non-supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report, which the Vijay Madanlal decision held that need not be supplied to the parties.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC challenging Madras High Court's rejection of its plea against searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notices To States/UTs For Defying Orders On Formulating ICU/CCU Healthcare Standards

Cause Title: Asit Baran Mondal & Anr. v. Dr. Rita Sinha Mbbs Ms (Obst. Gynae) & Ors.

The Supreme Court (October 13) issued contempt notices and summoned the concerned Additional Chief Secretary or the senior-most health officials of 28 States and Union Territories for their "casual" failure to comply with the Court's directives on formulating nationwide standards for Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and Critical Care Units (CCUs).

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N Kotiswar Singh asked all the concerned officers to appear on Nov. 20, 2025, before the Court, along with an affidavit showcasing why an action should not be taken against them for their casual approach towards the Court's orders. It added that no excuse of officer's prior engagement or meetings shall be taken into account to postpone the hearing.

“notice is issued to the concerned Additional Chief Secretary/Senior-most Official of the Department of Health of all the concerned States/Union Territories (UTs), as to why action be not taken against them for such casual approach shown towards the Court. The said officers shall remain personally present before this Court, along with their personally affirmed show cause affidavits, on the next date of hearing, i.e., 20.11.2025.”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Appreciates UPSC Decision To Publish Answer Keys After Civil Service Preliminary Exams

Case Details:Himanshu Kumar v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 118/2024 Diary No. 5468 / 2024

The Supreme Court today(October 14) recorded its satisfaction with the decision taken by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to publish the answer keys of the Civil Services Preliminary Examination soon after the test is conducted.

The policy shift was revealed in an affidavit filed by the UPSC in response to a writ petition seeking measures to improve transparency in the Civil Services Examination process. As for the relief of the petitioners, the Court disposed of the matter, giving them liberty to approach the concerned High Court.

At the outset, a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar appreciated the UPSC for its decision. The bench also appreciated Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, who put forth the proposal that the UPSC should publish the answer keys soon after the preliminary exams.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For SIT Probe Into BJP MP Dhullu Mahto's Alleged Disproportionate Assets

Case Title: Somnath Chatterjee v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., Diary No. 50594-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of criminal activities and possession of disproportionate assets/benami properties by BJP MP Dhullu Mahto.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan for petitioner-Somnath Chatterjee (a social worker).

The petitioner had initially moved the Jharkhand High Court with a petition in 2018, seeking directions to statutory authorities to file inquiry reports in terms of a 2016 order passed by the Court in a PIL against Mahto. The same was dismissed as a "wagering attempt".

'Why No CCTVs In Interrogation Rooms Of Police Stations?': Supreme Court Asks Rajasthan Govt; Seeks Response On 11 Custody Deaths

Case Title: In Re Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations SMW(C) No. 7/2025

The Supreme Court questioned the Rajasthan government as to why there are no CCTV cameras in the interrogation rooms of its police stations.

Taking note of an affidavit filed by the state in a suo motu case initiated over lack of functional CCTVs in its police stations, Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, "one very interesting feature in this affidavit - there is no camera in the interrogation room. Any of the police stations. There's no camera in the interrogation room which is the main place where camera has to be there. What you're doing in the interrogation room is the most relevant!".

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Mehta asked the State of Rajasthan to come back with a proposal for maintaining oversight on CCTV surveillance of police stations. It was orally observed that the same may entail monetary burden, but that should not be a problem, as it is a matter of human rights.

Sonam Wangchuk Hasn't Made Representation Against Detention; Wife, Brother & Lawyers Met Him In Jail : Authorities Tell Supreme Court

The Leh District Magistrate has informed the Supreme Court that climate activist Sonam Wangchuk has not yet made any representation challenging his preventive detention under the National Safety Act (PSA).

In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the District Magistrate stated that the detention order was passed on September 26 after due consideration, and that it was based on credible inputs indicating that Wangchuk was “indulging in activities prejudicial to national security.”

He was kept under detention following the violent protests in Ladakh over demands for statehood.

Supreme Court Summons Allahabad High Court Registrar To Explain Delay In Listing Of Criminal Appeals

Cause Title: Chatra Pal v. State of U.P.

The Supreme Court has directed the Registrar Judicial (Listing) of the Allahabad High Court to appear before it on October 16, 2025, to explain the procedure for listing criminal appeals. The Court noted with concern that as many as 2,297 appeals in the High Court involve accused persons who have been incarcerated for over ten years, and in 52 appeals, the period of incarceration exceeds fifteen years.

The Court said that the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court must be apprised of this development.

“we direct the Registrar Judicial (Listing) who submitted the Report dated 27.09.2025, or the incumbent officer, to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing with complete working plan concerning listing and/or hearing of these appeals. Learned Chief Justice of the High Court be apprised of the passing of this order.”, the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Appreciates ED For Efforts To Restore Flats To Innocent Homebuyers Defrauded In Real Estate Scam

Case: Udaipur Entertainment World Private Ltd v. Union of India and Others | SLP(C) No. 10734/2025

The Supreme Court has appreciated the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for its efforts in restoring the properties attached in a money-laundering case to protect innocent homebuyers who had fallen victim to a real estate fraud.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe noted that the agency's initiative ensured the protection of innocent investors. “We record our appreciation for the efforts made by the Directorate of Enforcement in restoring the attached assets so as to protect the rights of genuine and innocent homebuyers,” the Court observed.

The case related to the Royal Rajvilas housing project in Udaipur, Rajasthan, which is under a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. A case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was also initiated, and several flats were provisionally attached by the ED.

No Objection To Sonam Wangchuk Sharing Notes Prepared Against Detention With Wife : Union Tells Supreme Court

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

The Union Government (October 15) told the Supreme Court that they have no objection to Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk sharing the notes he has prepared to challenge his detention with his wife Dr.Gitanjali Angmo.

Taking note of this submission, the Court adjourned the petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo challenging Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act till October 29, after the petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, expressed the desire to amend the petition to include certain additional grounds and reliefs.

Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, Sibal said that Wangchuk was not allowed to share the notes with his wife. "He has made certain notes on the detention which he wanted to pass to the lawyer for his wife. Whatever notes he prepares, he is entitled to the assistance of the lawyer. All that we want that is the notes be passed."

High Courts Should Directly Entertain Anticipatory Bail Pleas Only In 4 Circumstances : Amici Curiae Report In Supreme Court

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

Although the law confers concurrent jurisdiction both on the Sessions Court and the High Court to hear anticipatory bail applications, ordinarily the Sessions Court must be approached first, opined the amici curiae appointed by the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthara and Advocate G Arudhra Rao, the amici appointed by the Court in this issue, suggested that High Courts can be approached directly for anticipatory bail only in exceptional circumstances. They recommended that while both High Courts and Sessions Courts enjoy concurrent powers to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC (now Section 482 of the BNSS), the Sessions Courts should be treated as the primary forum for such applications.

According to their considered view, the only circumstances in which an individual apprehending arrest be permitted to approach a High Court under Section 438 CrPC/ S. 482 BNSS directly, could be as under:

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Allow Lawyer's Presence During Police Interrogation

Case Details: Shaffi Mather v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking directions to allow the presence of an individual's lawyer during the interrogation by police or other investigating agencies.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the petition filed by lawyer Shaffi Mather.

At the outset, the bench inquired whether the petition refers to any incidents of duress faced by individuals called for questioning.

AP Liquor Scam: Supreme Court Criticises High Court Order Deferring Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy's Bail Hearing

Case Details: Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh | D No. 58657/2025

The Supreme Court (October 15) disapproved of an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that restrained the trial court from hearing the bail plea of YSRCP leader and former MLA Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy in the liquor scam case, until the High Court decided the State's plea seeking cancellation of bail granted earlier to four co-accused.

The Court quashed the High Court's interim order and directed that Trial Court should decide the bail application on its own merit, without any influence of any observation made by the High Court.

"We are of the view that there was no good reason for the High Court directing the Special Judge to wait till the High Court takes a call on the cancellation application. Since the issue of someone's personal liberty is involved, top priority needs to be given to hearing the bail application," observed the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswathanan.

'Govt Not Ready To Evolve': Supreme Court On Union's Opposition To Alternatives To Hanging For Death Sentence

Case Title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017

In the PIL seeking abolishment of death-by-hanging, the Supreme Court lamented the Union's opposition to a suggestion that death row convicts be given an option to choose lethal injection as mode of execution.

It was orally expressed that the Union government is not ready to evolve alongwith changes that have taken place over a period of time.

A suggestion was placed before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that the old method of execution by hanging can be replaced with use of lethal injection. Or at least, an option can be given to a condemned prisoner to choose between hanging and lethal injection. However, when it was pointed out from the Union's counter affidavit that giving an option to a convict may not be "feasible", Justice Mehta remarked,

Telangana CM Revanth Reddy's Prosecution In 2015 'Cash-for-Votes' Case Unsustainable : Mukul Rohatgi To Supreme Court

Case: A Revanth Reddy v. State of Telangana | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5333 of 2021

The Supreme Court (October 15) heard Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy'spleaseeking to quash the 2015 "Cash for Votes" case, as per which he is alleged to have offered bribe to an MLA for securing votes in the Legislative Council election.

The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Revanth Reddy, told the Court that the trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in the 2015 cash-for-vote case was “completely illegal” as it was conducted before the registration of any First Information Report (FIR).

Advocates Move Supreme Court Challenging BCI Hiking Nomination Fee For Bar Council Elections To Rs 1.25 Lakhs

Two advocates approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to impose what they term an “excessive and exorbitant” nomination fee for candidates contesting in the upcoming State Bar Council elections.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenges the BCI's circular (No. BCI:D:6880/2025(Council-STBC's)) dated September 25, 2025, which fixed the non-refundable nomination fee for candidates at Rs 1,25,000. The petitioners, who are advocates enrolled with the Bar Councils of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, have alleged that the fee hike is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the democratic spirit of the Constitution.

"Imposition of condition precedent to deposit exorbitant amount of Rs,1,25,000/- in the name of nomination fee to be eligible to take part in the electoral process whereas poses threat to the fairness in the democratic process on the one hand; it abridges the rights of the citizens of equality and of fair opportunity. Imposition of such a huge sum to be eligible to take part in election not only deprives the voters of level playing field but also curtails the choices of the voters. Such curtailment of the choices of citizens/ voters tantamount to unfairness in the electoral process," stated the petiton filed by Advocates Manish Jain and Pradeep Kumar.

Supreme Court Bench Refers Plea To Bring Minority Schools Under RTE Act To CJI

Case Title – Nitin Upadhyay v. Union Of

India

After Centre's Request, Supreme Court Collegium Modifies Proposal To Transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan

The Supreme Court Collegium, in a meeting held on October 14, 2025, has recommended the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan, Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, to the Allahabad High Court.

This recommendation was made upon reconsideration sought by the Central Government. The Collegium had earlier proposed Justice Sreedharan's transfer to the High Court of Chhattisgarh. However, after reviewing the Government's request, the Collegium resolved to modify its earlier recommendation and instead transfer him to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

"The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 14th October, 2025, on reconsideration sought by the Government, resolved to recommend that Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan, Judge, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, be transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad instead of the High Court of Chhattisgarh," stated the Collegium's statement.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Ilaiyaraaja On Sony's Plea To Transfer Copyright Suit From Madras To Bombay HC

Case Details: Sony Entertainment India Private Limited v. Ilaiyaraaja

The Supreme Court sought a response from Music Composer Dr Ilaiyaraaja in a transfer petition filed by Sony Music Entertainment seeking the transfer of a copyright dispute from Madrasto the Bombay High Court.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran agreed to consider the matter and issued notice in the same.

Sr Adv AM Singhvi, appearing for Sony, stressed that the issue pertains to the copyrights over the music works of Ilaiyaraaj, and Sony was the first one to file a suit regarding this in 2022 before the Bombay High Court. Sighvi stressed for staying the proceedings before the Madras High Court.

Supreme Court Directs Centre To Upload Nodal Officer Details On Mission Vatsalya Portal For Missing Child Complaints

Case Title – Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to ensure that all states and Union Territories make available details of dedicated Nodal Officers to handle cases of missing children and to upload their details on the Mission Vatsalya portal.

“we direct the respondent(s) Union of India to communicate to each of the States and the Union Territories to make available details of a designated/dedicated Nodal Officer, who is in-charge of the missing children, along with the name, designation and telephone number so that the said details could be uploaded on the Mission Vatsalya portal”, the court stated.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan observed that once a complaint is received on the portal, information must be simultaneously disseminated to the Nodal Officers, who can then take steps to trace missing children, investigate perpetrators such as kidnappers, and register further complaints.

Supreme Court Dismisses TN Govt Plea Against HC Order For SIT Probe Into Organ Trading; Refuses To Direct CBI Investigation

Case Details: Chief Secretary To The Government of Tamil Nad v. S.N.Sathishwaran | SLP(C) No. 026990 - / 2025

The Supreme Court on October 10 dismissed a plea challenging the Madras High Court's order, which constituted a five-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the allegations of a human organ transplantation racket in the State, including kidney transplants.

The High Court in its August 28 order, noting that the State's response was "disappointing", stated that the SIT will be monitored by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court.

Rejecting the State's plea against the High Court's order, a bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria observed: "Having considered the submissions as made by learned counsel for the parties, we find that formation of the Special Investigating Team (SIT) by the High Court do not warrant any interference except to clarify that the observations as made in Paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment indicating proven integrity of the officers of the State be treated to be made only with respect to the appointment of the SIT and it has no bearing with respect to the functioning and conduct of the officers of the State."

Judgment Directing Gender Neutral JAG Appointments Doesn't Apply Retrospectively : Supreme Court

Case Details: Seerat Kaur v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S).928/2025

The Supreme Court clarified that its judgmentstriking down of reservation for men in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) post of the Indian Army should not apply retrospectively in the ongoing recruitment.

Pursuant to the August 11 judgment of the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Kaur v UOI, in which it held that the recruitment in JAG must be gender-neutral, petitioner Seerat Kaur had approached the Court seeking relief by way of appointment in the 35th recruitment cycle(October 2025).

As per her contention, in the merit list published on July 10, she scored an overall 6th rank, out of a total number of 8 recommended candidates, women and men combined. However, despite the merit, the petitioner has not been selected. She prayed that the notification for the 35th recruitment be applied in a manner that if 100% women candidates are eligible on merit, all seats should go to them, as said in the Arshnoor Kaur judgment.

Plea Against LTTE Ban : Supreme Court Refuses Intervention Of Person Claiming To Be Tamil Eelam Transnational Govt Leader

Case Title: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No. 44958-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, stated to be the Prime Minister of Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), for impleadment in UAPA Tribunal proceedings concerning the declaration of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as unlawful association.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and dismissed it as withdrawn, after hearing Advocate Payoshi Roy. The Court however gave Rudrakumaran liberty to avail any other remedy that may be available in law.

To recap, the LTTE was declared as an unlawful association way back in 1992 and this was renewed was by the Central Government every couple of years.

Supreme Court Halts ILS Hill Road Project In Pune Till Grant Of Environmental Clearance

Case Details :In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 202/1995

The Supreme Court directed that the ILS Hill road project which is part of the Balbharati - Paud Phata Link Road in Pune shall begin work only after the grant of an environment clearance (EC)

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a plea by environmentalist Dr. Sushma Date in the TN Godavarman Case.

The bench passed the following direction:

AG Grants Consent For Contempt Action Against Advocate Who Tried To Throw Shoe At CJI BR Gavai

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who tried to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in Court room last week.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, jointly mentioned the matter before the bench led by Justice Surya Kant, the second senior judge, seeking the listing of the criminal contempt matter.

Singh informed the bench about the AG granting the sanction and SG confirmed this fact. "I have taken the consent of the Attorney General and seeking a listing tomorrow," Singh said. "Learned AG has given consent, I would also join my learned friend and request your lordship to take up the contempt. It is constitutional integrity which is under question," SG said.

“Why Revive The Issue? Let It Die Naturally”: Supreme Court On Pursuing Contempt Action Against Lawyer Who Tried To Throw Shoe At CJI

The Supreme Court wondered whether it should reopen the controversy surrounding the lawyer who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai last week, observing that perhaps it was better to allow the matter to “have a natural death.”

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation after Senior Advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the issue, seeking urgent listing of criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani has already granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Kishore for his act in the Chief Justice's courtroom.

Supreme Court Dismisses Telangana Govt Plea Against HC Stay On 42% Backward Classes Reservation In Local Body Elections

Case: State of Telangana v. Buttemgari Madhava Reddy | SLP(C) No. 29820-29836/2025

The Supreme Court (October 16) dismissed the plea filed by the State of Telangana against the Telangana High Court's interim order staying the implementation of 42% reservation for Backward Classes in the local body polls.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified that the High Court should decide the main matter on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the State's Special Leave Petition.

At the outset, Justice Nath asked Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi why the reservation was not brought in before the elections were notified. Singhvi replied that the Governor had kept Bill pending without granting assent.

AG Refuses Consent; Plea For Contempt Action Against WB CM Mamata Banerjee Over Comments On SSC Judgment Withdrawn

Case Details: Aatmadeep (A Public Charitable Trust) v. Mamata Banerjee |

The Supreme Court was informed that the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani has not given consent to initiate criminal contempt against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over her remarks on the Apex Court's ruling in the teachers' recruitment scam case.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran, NV Anjaria was hearing a petition by Aatmadeep, a public charitable trust, seeking the initiation of criminal contempt against Banerjee.

Today, the counsel for Aatmadeep requested the bench to allow withdrawal as the Attorney General for India had not given consent to initiate criminal contempt.

Throwing Objects & Shouting At Judges Is Scandalous, Says Attorney General Sanctioning Contempt Action Against Lawyer

Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, granted permission for the initiation of the Contempt of Court proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on October 6.

AG, in his letter granting consent to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh to file criminal contempt petition against Kishore, said that throwing or attempting to throw any object aimed at the judges, or shouting at judges to find fault with the conduct of proceedings, will be scandalous.

"No person can have any reason whatsoever to scandalise the Court. Throwing or attempting to throw any object aimed at the Hon'ble Judges, or shouting at judges to find fault with the conduct of proceedings will be scandalous. The reason said to have been given by Mr. Rakesh Kishore, can never be in justification of such scandalous conduct. Such acts constitute a grave affront to the dignity of the Court and to the rule of law itself. From the materials placed on record, I find Mr. Rakesh Kishore, has not shown any repentance as regards the conduct in question as is evident from his subsequent utterances."

Bihar SIR | "Have No Doubt ECI Will Fulfil Their Responsibility", Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Till Nov 4

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 (October 16) adjourned the hearing of the petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar electoral rolls to November 4.

Bihar assembly elections are scheduled to take place on November 6 and November 11 in two phases.

During the hearing today, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the ADR, fervently urged the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi to direct the ECI to publish the list of names added/deleted in the final list.

Bihar SIR : ECI Denies Claim Of Disproportionate Exclusion Of Muslims From Voters' List, Calls Petitioners' Argument “Communal Approach"

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

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has strongly refuted the allegation that there was a “disproportionate exclusion of Muslims” from Bihar's electoral rolls following the State-wide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters.

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the ECI described the claim made by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) as baseless and communal, stating that such an approach “is to be deprecated.”

The poll body clarified that its electoral rolls database does not record or capture any information about an elector's religion. Hence, any allegation of religious bias in the voter deletion or inclusion process, it said, is unfounded.

Supreme Court Denies Bail To Lawyer In UAPA Case Over Alleged Attempts To Disrupt Communal Harmony

Case Details: Wasid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 11851/2025

The Supreme Court today(October 16) refused to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which upheld the Trial court's order denying bail to lawyer Wasid Khan, who faces various charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly attempting to disturb communal harmony in the society with the object of establishing 'Mughal Order' which existed prior to British rule.

Before a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam argued for Khan. He submitted that the High Court did not deal with various serious allegations, including the fact that Khan was not associated with the Popular Front of India after the organisation was banned in 2022, but came to the conclusion that there is incriminatory evidence against him.

For the National Investigating Agency, Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, opposed the plea. He stated that the evidence found with Khan included a "Vision 2047" document, which aims to transform India into an Islamic country with the application of Sharia law.

Advocate Moves Supreme Court Challenging BCI's Decision To Supervise State Bar Council Elections

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

An application has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to restrain the Bar Council of India (BCI) from interfering with or assuming control over the conduct of elections to various State Bar Councils.

“the conduct of Bar Council of India strikes at the very root of representative self-governance within the Bar and undermines the democratic character of the State Bar Councils envisaged under Sections 3 and 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961. If the ongoing interference of the Bar Council of India is not immediately restrained, the resultant delay will cause irreparable institutional damage by eroding public confidence in the Bar's self-regulatory framework and rendering the forthcoming elections a mere illusion”, the application states.

The application, filed in a writ petition, also seeks a direction to constitute a special committee under Section 8-A of the Advocates Act, 1961, and to authorize the respective Advocates General to oversee and complete the election process.

BCCI Supports Criminalization Of Match-Fixing; Seeks Intervention In Case Before Supreme Court

Case Title: State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Abrar Kazi and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 9408-9411/2022

In a matter flagging the consequences of betting and match-fixing, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has come out in support of constitution of match-fixing as a criminal offense.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was informed of the BCCI's stance by Advocate Shivam Singh, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter.

Singh apprised the Court that BCCI has filed an intervention application supporting criminalization of match-fixing. This application states that match-fixing constitutes an offense under the IPC (replaced by BNS), inasmuch as an accused can be charged with "cheating".

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Allowing Police Custody Of 2 Women Journalists In Case Over Video Against Telangana CM

Case Title: Pogadadabnda Revathi and Anr. v. State of Telangana, SLP(Crl) No. 16536/2025

The Supreme Court stayed a Telangana High Court order which allowed the state police to take into custody two women journalists despite grant of bail to them in a case over alleged objectionable video against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for petitioner-women journalists).

During the hearing, Dave argued that taking a person into police custody after grant of bail, without the bail having been cancelled, is not permissible. He submitted that an accused can be called by the police for the purpose of investigation, but not taken into custody while the bail is operating.

Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Measures To Prevent Overcrowding In Buses

The Supreme Court (October 16) refused to consider a PIL seeking directions against the excessive overcrowding of passengers in public and privately operated buses.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to entertain the PIL, considering that the matter lies in the domain of public policy.

The Counsel stressed that many people risk their lives and some even die due to the overcrowding in the public and private operated buses.

'Matter Of Grave Concern' : Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case On Digital Arrest Scams Using Forged Court Documents

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

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of rising cases of “digital arrest” scams, where fraudsters impersonate law enforcement agencies or judicial authorities to extort money from citizens, particularly senior citizens.

The action follows a complaint from a 73-year-old woman from Ambala, Haryana, who alleged that scammers used forged Supreme Court orders to confine her in a so-called “digital arrest” and extort more than ₹1 crore.

In her complaint addressed to Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai, the woman claimed that the fraudsters produced a fake order purportedly issued by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Bar Council Elections: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To BCI's Decision Fixing Nomination Fee At ₹1.25 Lakh

Case: Manish Jain v. Bar Council of India | W.P.(C) No. 1005/2025

The Supreme Court (October 17) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by two advocates challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to hike the nomination fee for contesting the State Bar Council Elections to Rs 1,25,000.

After a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed reluctance to entertain the matter, the petitioners withdrew the matter.

The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the BCI has exorbitantly increased the fee from Rs 9,000 to Rs 1,25,000. He submitted that blanketly fixing the nomination fee at an exorbitant level, without any connection with the standing of the candidate at the bar, was unreasonable. He suggested that the nomination fee should be in tune with the standing of the bar, as is done in the Supreme Court Bar Association elections.

Supreme Court Dismisses Roche's Plea To Restrain Natco From Making Generic Drug For SMA; Asks Delhi HC To Decide Patent Suit Soon

Case Details: F. Hoffmannla Roche Ag v. Natco Pharma Limited | SLP(C) No. 29664/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Swiss pharmaceutical giant F Hoffmann-La Roche AG against the Delhi High Court's order allowing Natco Pharma to manufacture and sell a generic drug of Risdiplam, a drug used to treat Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar declined to interfere with the High Court's order, observing that it was only an interim order. The bench also noted that both the single bench and the division bench of the High Court have entered concurrent findings.

The bench however urged the High Court to dispose of the suit filed by Roche against Natco expeditiously.

Supreme Court Stays ED Arrest Of Bihar Contractor Rishu Shree In PMLA Case

Case: Rishu Shree v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 411/2025

The Supreme Court (October 17) stayed the arrest of Bihar-based contractor Rishu Shree by the Enforcement Directorate in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while refusing to entertain the writ petition filed by Rishu Shree against the ED. The bench asked the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief and stayed coercive actions by the ED till November 10.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the writ petition was filed since certain provisions of the PMLA were challenged.

Four-Year Tenure For Tribunal Members Insufficient, Petitioners Tell Supreme Court In Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act

Case Title: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

The Supreme Court (October 16) heard the Madras Bar Association case concerning the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the issues pertaining to the reduction in tenures of members and Chairpersons of Tribunals across the country.

Previously, Sr Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioners, was asked to submit a comprehensive report on commercial Tribunals, as the Court was of the view that different superannuation norms were causing a lot of confusion.

Yesterday, Datar referred to several ordinances issued by the government with respect to the administration/ conditions of service for various kinds of Tribunal Members, which have been challenged in the batch of petitions as contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court.

'Wait For Decision On Presidential Reference' : Supreme Court Defers TN Govt Plea Against Governor Reserving Bills For President

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Secretary To His Excellency, The Honble Governor and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 978/2025

The Supreme Court deferred the hearing of the writ petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the Governor's decision to reserve the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025 and the Sports University Bill for the consideration of the President of India.

The Court suggested that the State wait for the decision on the Presidential Reference on timelines for granting assent to Bills by the President and the Governor under Articles 200/201 of the Constitution.

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

'Temple Too Dismantled' : Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Demolition Of Ahmedabad Mansa Masjid's Portion For Road Widening

Case :Mancha Masjid v. State of Gujarat | SLP(C) No. 30200/2025

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court's order declining to grant a four-week stay to the Mansa Masjid Trust against the proposed partial demolition near a 400-year-old mosque in Ahmedabad for a road-widening project.

The Court observed in its order, “In view of the categorical stand taken by the authorities in the pleadings before the High Court and also in light of the position recorded by the division bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment that a portion of the mosque comprising some open land is being demolished due to the widening of the road, and that “the main structure of the mosque is not being demolished”, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, especially when a temple, commercial properties and residential properties of persons affected have also been included for demolition for the purpose of road widening.”

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, kept open the question of whether the property is waqf property and if the Waqf Board is entitled to compensation.

'Is Magistrate Too Small For You To Go There?' : Supreme Court Dismisses Chhattisgarh Congress Leader's Plea Alleging ED Torture

Case Title – Hemant Chandrakar v. Union of India

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by businessman and Congress leader Hemant Chandrakar alleging custodial torture by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during interrogation in connection with a money laundering probe.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the plea, questioning why Chandrakar approached the High Court directly instead of filing a complaint before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

“Go to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. If there is a delay, somebody can monitor, the High Courts are there. Article 227 is meant for that. Article 226 is also there. Please go to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, respect that court. Only problem is, these people are obsessed with their status symbol. They feel that Chief Judicial Magistrate is too small for them. That is what is happening, instead of recognizing the majesty of law”, Justice Kant said.

8.8 Lakh Execution Petitions Pending Across Country : Supreme Court Expresses Alarm, Asks High Courts To Ensure Speedy Disposals

Case: Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. | Miscellaneous Application Nos.1889-1891/2025 In C.A. Nos. 3640- 3642/2025

The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the alarming pendency of execution petitions across the country, revealing that 8,82,578 execution petitions remain pending before district courts nationwide, despite earlier directions to High Courts to ensure their disposal within six months.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal was monitoring compliance with its March 6, 2025 order in Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr., which set a 6-month limit to dispose of execution petitions.

The Court described the statistics received from the High Courts as “highly disappointing" and "alarming."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court To Examine If Transfer Of Leasehold Rights Attracts GST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order Restricting Kirloskar Trademark Licensing

Case Title: Kirloskar Proprietary Limited v. Kirloskar Brothers Limited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Grants Bail To 3 Accused In Sambhal Violence Case

Case Details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Pradeep Arora v. Director, Health Department

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case: Common Cause v. Union of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Surya Kant Appointed As 53rd Chief Justice Of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case: S Prabhakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee

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

In Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024) judgment, the Supreme Court had said that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is stipulated in Section 24 that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs. 750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs. 125 for advocates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories.

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

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

Case Title – PC Hary v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Confers Senior Designations On Five Former High Court Judges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Service Of Notice Through WhatsApp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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