Reports/JudgmentsProsecution Can Be Allowed To Produce Documents Which Were Omitted To Be Submitted Along With Chargesheet : Supreme CourtCase Details: Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of InvestigationCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 627The Supreme Court held that a bona fide omission by the prosecution to submit relied-upon documents to the magistrate does not prevent it from producing...
Reports/Judgments
Prosecution Can Be Allowed To Produce Documents Which Were Omitted To Be Submitted Along With Chargesheet : Supreme Court
Case Details: Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 627
The Supreme Court held that a bona fide omission by the prosecution to submit relied-upon documents to the magistrate does not prevent it from producing those documents after the charge sheet is filed, regardless of whether they were gathered before or after the investigation.
The court said that procedural lapses in submitting evidence can be remedied post-chargesheet, provided there is no prejudice to the accused.
if there is an omission on the part of the prosecution in forwarding the relied upon documents to the learned Magistrate, even after the chargesheet is submitted, the prosecution can be permitted to produce the additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation.”, the court observed.
If Arrest Is Made On Warrant, No Separate Grounds Of Arrest Need To Be Given : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 628
The Supreme Court held that when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant, the obligation to separately communicate the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution does not arise, as the warrant itself constitutes the grounds for the arrest to be supplied to the arrestee under Article 22(1).
“If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest.”, the court observed.
The Court clarified that when an arrest warrant is issued, it presupposes judicial scrutiny of the grounds for arrest as it contains the details about the offence charged, the reason for arrest (e.g., evasion of trial, threat to evidence/witnesses), and the identity of the accused. Therefore, a separate "grounds" document isn't required as the act of reading the warrant aloud fulfills the constitutional obligation to inform the arrestee of the reasons.
Air Force School Not A 'State' Under Article 12; Teachers' Writ Petitions Against Dismissals Not Maintainable: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 629
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against Allahabad High Court judgments holding that the Air Force School in Bamrauli, Allahabad, is not a “State” or “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution, and writ petitions against it by its employees are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanatullah(dissenting) and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the judgment in two civil appeals filed by teachers challenging adverse employment decisions.
“A finding of fact was recorded that there is no material to show that the Government or the IAF has any control over the management of the school. It is not possible for us to take a contrary view. 24. In the circumstances, we are unable to find any fault with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. The relationship between the appellants and the said school is in the realm of private contract. Assuming that there was a breach of private contract, the same does not involve any public law element”, the Court held.
While Justice Oka authored the majority opinion dismissing the appeals, Justice Amanullah dissented, holding that the school was amenable to writ jurisdiction and the Indian Air Force (IAF) has deep and pervasive control on it.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Just Because One Relief Is Barred If There's Another Cause Of Action : Supreme Court
Case Details: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 630
The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be dismissed in its entirety merely because one of the reliefs sought is legally untenable, provided that other reliefs are maintainable and arise from independent causes of action.
The Court clarified that when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), it is not permissible to selectively sever prayers where distinct causes of action are pleaded and backed by separate sets of facts. This is because a plaintiff may raise multiple grievances, and even if one claim is unsustainable, the presence of another triable claim means that rejecting the entire plaint would unjustly deny the plaintiff access to justice.
Supreme Court Affirms Adani Power's Entitlement For Compensation Due To Change In Law; Dismisses JVVNL Appeal
Case Details: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 631
The Supreme Court has affirmed that power generators are entitled to claim compensation and Late Payment Surcharge (LPS)-based carrying costs under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for cost escalations resulting from regulatory changes.
Holding thus, the bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal heard the case where the dispute centred around a Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) between the appellants (JVVNL) and Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. (APRL) for the supply of 1200 MW of power at a fixed tariff. APRL sought compensation under the PPA's “Change in Law” clause following Coal India Limited's (CIL) Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) notification dated 19 December 2017, which imposed an additional ₹50/tonne levy on coal, thereby increasing APRL's operational costs.
Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Recognise Kakiho Village, Directs Nagaland Govt To Hear Public Objections Again
Case Details: Old Jalukai Village Council V. Kakiho Village And Ors. | SLP(C) No. 9897/2016
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 632
The Supreme Court on May 23 ordered a fresh issuance of the process for the initiation of recognition of the Kakiho Village by the Nagaland State Government. In this case, the Court set aside the Gauhati High Court's order which had directed the State Government to recognise Kakiho Village within 3 months on the ground that the requirements laid down in the two official memoranda of the State Government were not fulfilled.
"The State authorities are directed to re-issue a public notice regarding the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village and exhaustively consider all the objections which may be raised from every quarter, including that of the appellant herein. A period of six months is provided to the State to complete the said process and take a call on whether recognition must be granted to the respondent no. 1 village or not. Non-adherence to this timeline would be viewed strictly."
S. 239 CrPC | Discharge Must Be Based On Prosecution's Materials, Not On Defence Materials : Supreme Court
Case Details: State v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi And Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 633
The Supreme Court set aside an order discharging the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C., noting that the discharge was based on materials submitted by the defense instead of relying on the prosecution's evidence.
Holding that it is impermissible under the law to rely on the defence materials at the stage of deciding the plea for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision which had affirmed the trial court's order discharging the accused based on the evidence submitted by him to contradict prosecution's case.
S.27 Customs Act Or Doctrine Of Unjust Enrichment Won't Apply To Refund Of Bank Guarantee : Supreme Court Allows Patanjali Plea
Case Details: M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 634
The Supreme Court has held that Section 27 of the Customs Act, which requires a person seeking refund of duty to show that the burden was not passed on to the customer, is not applicable when refund is sought of a wrongly invoked bank guarantee.
This is because encashment of bank guarantees by the Customs Department cannot be treated as payment of customs duty. Hence, neither Section 27 nor the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable.
Holding so, the Supreme Court allowed the Patanjali Food Ltd.'s appeal against coercive encashment of the bank guarantee by the customs department, directing the department to refund the encashed amount within four months with 6% interest.
Circular Clarifying Previous Notifications On Fiscal Duty Has Retrospective Effect : Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 OF 2016
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 635
The Supreme Court held that a circular/notification issued by the revenue department, clarifying or explaining a fiscal regulation, has to be given retrospective effect. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma rendered the decision, while dealing with the issue as to whether the 2010 Customs Circular, pertaining to All Industry Rate (AIR) Duty drawbacks, was retrospective in nature.
UAPA | Blanket Order Barring Disclosure Of Witnesses' Statements Can't Be Passed Without Individual Threat Assessment : Supreme Court
Case Details: Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 636
The Supreme Court held that a blanket restriction on the disclosure of witness statements in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) is impermissible. It emphasized that any order limiting the defence's access to such statements must be based on an individualised assessment, specifically whether a real threat exists to the life or safety of each witness.
The Court clarified that any such restriction must be supported by a well-reasoned judicial order, demonstrating careful application of mind and consideration of the protective measures adopted for each witness; and without these elements being fulfilled, withholding disclosure of statements cannot be justified, the court said.
The normal rule is that the accused is entitled to the copies of the statements of witnesses recorded by the police during the investigation, the Court said.
Supreme Court Raps DDA Officials For Unauthorised Tree-Felling In Delhi Ridge, Imposes ₹25K Cost On Each
Case Details: In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA, SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 637
The Supreme Court in the Delhi Ridge Tree Felling contempt case against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) rapped DDA officials for felling trees in the Delhi Ridge area without the Court's permission for a road widening project intended to facilitate access to the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital.
"As a nation routed in rule of law, there is immense faith placed in judiciary...when there is willful disregard, court ought to take strict view. We have divided the conduct into 2 parts - simpliciter non-compliance with requirement to seek permission and deliberate concealing from court that tree-felling had already [occurred]. Conscious non-disclosure strikes at heart of judicial process, may cause prejudice and carried potential to...respondents' conduct has been contemptuous. Their acts fall in scope of criminal contempt."
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh further directed that from now on, every notification or order regarding afforestation, road construction, tree felling or any activity with potential ecological effect must explicitly mention the pendency of the relevant proceedings before this Court.
Supreme Court Asks Assam Human Rights Commission To Enquire Into Alleged Fake Encounters In State
Case Details: Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v. The State Of Assam And Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 7929/2023
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 638
The Supreme Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (Assam HRC) to conduct an independent and expeditious enquiry into allegations of fake police encounters in the State of Assam.
The directions were passed in a petition alleging rampant "fake" encounters in the State as well as non-compliance by state authorities with the directions issued in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra pertaining to investigation of police encounters. The petitioner, an advocate, had brought as many as 171 instances to the notice of the Court.
A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh observed that the role of human rights commissions as protectors of civil liberties was paramount and expressed confidence that the Assam HRC would perform its duties effectively.
No Violation Of UNESCO Guidelines: Supreme Court Upholds P&H HC's Directions For Verandah Construction In Court Premises
Case Details: Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 639
The Supreme Court upheld the directions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No.1 and to develop the kutcha parking area within the High Court premises with green pavers and tree plantation.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the challenge raised by the Chandigarh Administration and held that the construction of the verandah does not violate UNESCO guidelines related to world heritage sites.
“We are of the view that the decision of the High Court in directing construction of the veranda in front of courtroom no. 1 in alignment with the design of the 3 existing verandas in front of courtroom nos. 2 to 9 is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines”, the Court held.
However, the Court added that the administration would not be precluded from seeking ex post facto approval for the construction if required, calling it a minimal protective measure which is necessary.
The Court also upheld the High Court's orders dated 7 February 2025 and 21 February 2025 directing the placement of green paver blocks in the open kutcha parking area. The Court said that the development should be done in such a way that it facilitates the parking of maximum vehicles, create shade and shelter for the vehicles, and increase the green cover.
'Bank Had To Consider CVC Advice Once It Was Called' : Supreme Court Quashes Disciplinary Action Against Ex-Union Bank Officer
Case Details: A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 640
The Supreme Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings against an ex-bank employee because the bank (Union Bank of India) initiated the proceedings and issued the charge sheet, bypassing its own regulations, which mandated the need for CVC's advice before taking disciplinary actions in vigilance-related cases.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih heard the case involving an ex-bank employee who was suspended following disciplinary proceedings initiated by Union Bank of India just a few days before his retirement. The Bank itself acknowledged that the case had a vigilance angle and sought the CVC's first-stage advice (as per its Regulation 19 and CVC circulars). However, the Bank proceeded to issue the charge sheet without waiting for the CVC's input.
Can't Believe Married Woman Had Physical Relationship On Promise Of Marriage : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Young Man
Case Details: Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 641
The Supreme Court quashed a rape case against a 25-year old student, accused of building sexual relationship with a woman on the pretext of false promise of marriage, stating that the relationship was purely consensual.
In this case, the complainant-woman was already married when the parties had begun their relationship. The Court therefore noted that this cannot be treated as a case of false promise to marry. In such circumstances, the Court observed that "such promise, to begin with, was illegal and unenforceable."
The Court reiterated that mere breach of marriage promise doesn't amount to rape on false promise of marriage unless there was fraudulent intent on the accused's part from the beginning of the relationship.
PMLA Accused Entitled To Hearing Before Cognizance Is Taken Of ED Complaint Filed After BNSS Came Into Effect : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 642
The Supreme Court held that before taking cognizance of a money laundering complaint under section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the special court has to give opportunity to the accused to be heard as per the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the cognizance order passed by the Special Court dated November 20, 2024, after noting that the BNSS, which came effect from July 1, 2024, mandated pre-cognizance hearing of the accused as per Section 223(1). Such a provision was not present in the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure.
Right To Have Unobstructed & Disabled-Friendly Footpaths Part Of Article 21 : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Govts
Case Details: S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 643
In a significant order affirming the constitutional rights of pedestrians, the Supreme Court held that the right to use footpaths and footways is an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court was hearing an application raising the issue of pedestrian safety, with a specific emphasis on the lack of proper footpaths and their encroachments.
"Right to have unobstructed and disabled friendly footpaths is guaranteed under Article 21," the Court said, directing all states and Union Territories to frame guidelines to ensure that proper footpaths are available to pedestrians.
Recognising the seriousness of the issue, the Court observed that in the absence of proper footpaths, pedestrians are forced to walk on roads, exposing them to grave risks and causing numerous accidents. The Bench held that the safety of pedestrians is of utmost importance, and that footpaths must be constructed and maintained in a manner that ensures accessibility for persons with disabilities.
'Minors Are Prone To Tutoring' : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Finding Child Witness's Competency Wasn't Assessed
Case Details: Agniraj & Ors. v. State
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 644
The Supreme Court acquitted 11 individuals convicted of murder, observing that the conviction was based in part on the testimony of a child witness who had not undergone the mandatory preliminary assessment under Section 118 of the Evidence Act to determine her competency.
“The law is well settled that before proceeding to record the evidence of a minor witness, preliminary questions must be asked by the Court to ascertain whether the witness is able to understand the questions and answer the same. The Court must be satisfied about the capacity of the minor to understand the questions and answer the same.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where one of the significant factors contributing to the Appellants/accused's conviction was the testimony of a 10-year-old girl whose competence to become a witness was not assessed while recording her testimony as a child witness. She was administered an oath by the magistrate without satisfying himself that the witness understood the importance of an oath.
'Her Chats Show Manipulative & Vindictive Tendency' : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Man Who Backed Out Of Marriage
Case Details: Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State Of Telangana & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 645
The Supreme Court quashed a rape case against a man accused of forcible sexual intercourse on the pretext of a false promise of marriage, noting that the complainant's past conduct was questionable, as her behaviour appeared manipulative and vindictive, including threats of criminal action against the accused and other persons if they refused to marry her.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the complainant-Respondent no.2 being well-educated and a major had omitted crucial details in the first FIR and then later filed a second FIR alleging multiple incidents of forcible sexual intercourse and caste-based refusal to marry. The offences under the SC/ST Act were also added in the FIR.
Retirement Age Extension Given To One Disabled Category Can't Be Denied To Persons With Other Disabilities : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 646
The Supreme Court held that prescribing different retirement ages for employees based on the nature of their disabilities amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14. The Court granted relief to a locomotor-disabled electrician, who was forced to retire at 58 years, while visually impaired employees were allowed to serve until 60 years.
The bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan emphasized that such distinctions between differently-abled employees are arbitrary, reinforcing the principle of equal treatment under disability laws, and thereby mandating uniform retirement benefits for all benchmark disabilities.
The Court ruled that an employee does not possess an inherent right to determine their retirement age. This authority lies with the State, which must exercise it reasonably, adhering to the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14.
'Playing Cards Not Act Of Moral Turpitude': Supreme Court Sets Aside Disqualification Over 'Gambling In Public'
Case Details: Hanumantharayappa Y.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 3969/2023
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 647
While restoring the election of a man to a Cooperative Society's Board of Directors, who was disqualified over his conviction for "gambling in public", the Supreme Court observed that playing cards is not an act of moral turpitude under all circumstances.
Recusal A Matter Of Judges' Discretion, Article 142 Cannot Be Used To Frame Guidelines On Judicial Recusal: Supreme Court
Case Details: Chandraprabha v. Union of India
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 648
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking guidelines to govern the recusal of judges.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “The recusal is a matter of discretion of the judge. Jurisdiction under Article 142 cannot be exercised for laying down guidelines for the recusal of judges. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.”.
'First Approach President & PM' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea For FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma Over Cash Row
Case Details: Mathews J Nedumpara and Ors. v. Supreme Court of India and Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 649
The Supreme Court (May 21) dismissed a writ petition filed by a few advocates seeking registration of FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma pursuant to the in-house inquiry into the allegations of recovery of illicit cash currencies from his official residence.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the Chief Justice of India has already forwarded the report of the in-house inquiry committee, along with the response of Justice Varma, to the President and the Prime Minister.
Since the petitioners have not filed a representation before the President and the Prime Minister seeking action, the writ petition seeking mandamus is not maintainable, the bench said.
Supreme Court Issues Directions To Make Pay & Allowances Of Consumer Commission Members Uniform Across All States/UTs
Case Details: In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 650
The Supreme Court has framed a uniform pattern of pay and allowances to be given to Presidents and Members of District and State Consumer Commissions across all States and Union Territories.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the directions in a suo motu case concerning disparities in salaries and service conditions of Consumer Forum members.
West Bengal Post-Poll Violence | Complainant Attacked For Supporting Saffron Party
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sekh Jamir Hossain and Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 651
The Supreme Court on Thursday(May 29) set aside the orders of the Calcutta High Court granting bail to five accused in a rioting and attempt to rape case relating to post-poll violence in West Bengal.
The respondents Sekh Jamir, Sekh Nurai, Sekh Asraf @ Sk Rahul @ Asraf, Jayanta Dome and Sekh Kabirul are accused of vandalizing the complainant's house, assaulting him, and attempting to rape his wife in relatiation of the accused campaigning for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The case pertains to an incident that allegedly took place on 2 May 2021, the date of announcement of the Assembly election results in West Bengal.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta considering CBI's appeal, observed that the allegations in the case were serious and had the effect of shaking the conscience of the Court.
Essential Elements Of Valid Legal Notice : Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust & Anr v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 652
The Supreme Court (May 30) outlined the essential components of a valid legal notice, ruling that a notice does not necessarily have to be explicitly labeled as "legal" to be considered valid. The court held that if a communication sent to the recipient (noticee) effectively conveys the details of the default, potential consequences, and the sender's intent, it will qualify as a legal notice.
Also from the judgment- '125 Acres Allotted In 2 Months Without Bids' : Supreme Court Criticises UPSIDC, Orders Reform In UP Industrial Land Allocations
Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay HC Direction To Restore Khajuria Lake; Directs Preservation Of Municipal Park Built Over It For Perpetuity
Case Details: Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And Ors. v. Pankaj Babulal Kotecha And Anr., SLP(C) No. 29048/2018
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 653
The Supreme Court set aside Bombay High Court's direction given in 2018 to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) to restore the 100-year-old Khajuria Lake - a natural lake that was filled by the corporation and a municipal garden built over it.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment, directing that the park shall be maintained and preserved through perpetuity as a green space exclusively for public use without any predominant commercial activity.
Supreme Court Quashes ₹25 Lakh Bank Fraud Case After Settlement, Cites No Continuing Public Interest
Case Details: N.S. Gnaneshwaran & Others v. The Inspector of Police & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 654
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the matter of N.S. Gnaneshwaran & Others vs. The Inspector of Police & Another, holding that the dispute had been fully settled through a One-Time Settlement (OTS) and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.
The case arose from allegations that the appellants caused wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of ₹25.89 lakh by fraudulently diverting funds sanctioned to M/s Vinayaka Corporation. Based on a complaint from the Bank, the CBI registered an FIR and filed a chargesheet against nine accused, including the appellants, for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Disciplinary Action Can't Be Challenged On Ground Of Non-Supply Of Particular Document Unless Grave Prejudice Shown : Supreme Court
Case Details: S. Janaki Iyer v. Union of India & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 10858 of 2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 655
The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-supply of a particular document, unless it is shown that grave prejudice was caused to the employee.
In this case, the employee challenged the dismissal on the ground of non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report. The Court rejected the contention noting that no grave prejudice was shown to have been caused.
Supreme Court Objects To Trial Judges Corresponding Directly With Registry For Time Extension; Directs High Courts To Frame SOPs
Case Details: Durgawati @ Priya v. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 656
The Supreme Court disapproved the practice of trial court judges writing directly to the Registry of the apex court seeking extension of time in matters where directions have been issued to expedite trials.
“It has been our persistent experience that in cases where this Court has issued directions for the expeditious conclusions of trials, the concerned judges have been corresponding with the Registry of this Court and subsequently, those letters are placed before the Court for orders. We deem such practice to be wholly unacceptable”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar clarified that it is the duty of the Registry of the concerned High Court to supervise the progress of such cases. If any extension is required, the request must be examined by the immediate supervisory officer and forwarded to the Supreme Court by either the Registrar General or the Registrar Judicial of the High Court.
Failure To Prove Motive Not Fatal To Prosecution Case Based On Circumstantial Evidence : Supreme Court
Case Details: Chetan v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 30) upheld the conviction of an individual accused of committing murder, noting that the prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, where proof of motive need not be strictly proved, and the prosecution case cannot be discarded just because motive was not established.
The Court added that when the case rested on circumstantial evidence, then the prosecution need not prove the fact bereft of all doubts; rather what law contemplates is that for a fact to be considered proven, it must eliminate any reasonable doubt. In essence, the prosecution must dispel reasonable doubt, while proving the complete chain of events without any breakage leading to the conviction.
No Temporary Injunction Can Be Granted In Appeal Against Rejection Of Plaint : Supreme Court
Case Details: IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association v. Global IEEE Institute For Engineers
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 658
The Supreme Court observed that there ought to be a subsisting plaint to seek an injunction order. The Court added that an injunction order loses its validity upon rejection of the plaint and would be back in operation only when the plaint is restored/revived.
The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma heard the case where the Respondent, along with an appeal against the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, had also filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against the Appellant.
Though the appeal was pending for the High Court's consideration, by the order impugned, a temporary injunction was granted to the Respondent, prompting the Appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Court observed that the High Court erred in granting the injunction, despite the plaint was rejected. Once the plaint was rejected, it became non-existent, and therefore, no injunction order could survive unless the plaint is revived.
Mere Scolding Of Student Not Abetment Of Suicide : Supreme Court Discharges Teacher In S.306 IPC Case
Case Details: Thangavel v. The State
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 659
The Supreme Court discharged a teacher who had been accused of abetment to suicide after a student died by suicide following a scolding by the teacher.
The Court said that no mens rea can be attributed to the accused as “no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life.”
Divorced Wife Remaining Unmarried Entitled To Maintenance Reflective Of Standard Of Life She Had During Marriage: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs Raja Sadhukhan
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 660
The Supreme Court, in a ruling has enhanced the permanent alimony payable to the wife to ₹50,000 per month, nearly doubling the amount previously awarded by the Calcutta High Court, to ensure that she can live with the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future.
The Court observed that the appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, "is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future."
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment in Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan while deciding an appeal challenging the quantum of alimony awarded following the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The couple, married in 1997, separated in 2008, with a son born in 1998.
Orders
Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal's Quashing Of Penalty? Supreme Court Leaves Question Of Law Open
Case Details: The Honble Lokayukta And Ors. v. Mohan Doddamani And Ors., Diary No. 17688-2025
The Supreme Court left open the legal question - whether Lokayukta has locus to challenge an Administrative Tribunal's decision setting aside punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on a person for alleged corruption.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta was dealing with the Lokayukta's plea against a Karnataka High Court order, which dismissed its challenge to Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's quashing of an order of compulsory retirement (as punishment) passed against the respondent.
The bench noted that the disciplinary authority itself had not challenged the respondent's "exoneration" and the Lokayukta, a quasi-judicial authority, brought a challenge only because it was made party to the proceedings.
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Liquidation Of Bhushan Steel & Power Ltd To Allow JSW To File Review Petition
Case Details: JSW Steel Limited V Sanjay Singhal And Ors. | Diary No. 29406-2025
The Supreme Court ordered status quo on the liquidation proceedings for Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), after hearing a petition filed by JSW Steel, whose resolution plan for BPSL was rejected by the Supreme Court on May 2.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Sharma passed the order considering the fact that JSW's limitation period for filing a review against the Supreme Court's judgment is not yet over.
The bench observed that the liquidation of the company might jeopardise the review petition to be filed by the JSW and ordered status quo in the interest of justice.
Lawyers Need To Be Disciplined, Can't Spoil Profession's Image: Supreme Court Affirms BCI's 7-Year Suspension Of Advocate
Case Details: R. Karmegam v. Hariharasudan
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 26) dismissed an appeal filed by an advocate challenging a disciplinary action taken by the Bar Council of India (BCI), which had suspended him from legal practice for seven years.
The punishment was imposed after the lawyer drove his car into a hotel in Madurai owned by the complainant.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed the appeal.
Justice Nath remarked, “See your conduct. As a lawyer you dashed your car into the hotel of the complainant. Lawyers need to be disciplined and not spoil the image of the entire profession.”
Supreme Court Flags Delay In Trial Of UAPA, MCOCA Cases; Says Additional Courts Needed To Exclusively Handle Special Act Offences
Case Details: Kailash Ramchandani V. State Of Maharashtra, SLP(Crl) No. 4276/2025
The Supreme Court emphasised the need to have dedicated courts to deal with trial of special cases under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).
The Court made this observation after noticing the delay in "hundreds of cases" under such special statutes.
"The most effective recourse [to address delay in trials] can be the establishment of dedicated courts to whom the trials under the special statutes can be entrusted, without giving them any other civil or criminal cases. Ideally, the trial should take place on a day-to-day basis", the Court said.
Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Prevent Improper Use Of Savarkar's Name
Case Details: Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis Vs Leader Of Opposition In The Lok Sabha & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 552/2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 27) rejected a petition which sought to include the name of VD Savarkar in the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use )Act, 1956.
The petitioner, Pankaj Phadnis, who appeared in person, also contended that the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, was violating fundamental duties by making comments against Savarkar.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih dismissed the writ petition, saying that no fundamental right of the petitioner is shown to have been violated.
Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Passenger Jetty At Gateway Of India; Asks Bombay HC To Decide Before Monsoon End
Case Details: Dr. Laura D Souza Vs. The State Of Maharashtra | Diary No. - 28592/2025
The Supreme Court (May 27) refused to entertain a plea challenging the Maharashtra Government's decision to construct a passenger jetty and terminal near the Gateway of India, Mumbai, considering the fact that the Bombay High Court is already considering the issue.
At the same time, the Court requested the Bombay High Court to decide the matter before the end of the monsoons.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea challenging the proposed construction of a passenger jetty and terminal facilities near the Gateway of India.
'No Hanky-Panky In SCBA President Election, Only Bona Fide Counting Error' : Supreme Court; Adish Aggarwala Withdraws Complaint
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
The Supreme Court orally observed that there appeared to be “no hanky-panky” in the conduct of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections for the post of President and that the discrepancy in vote count seemed to be a bona fide error.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan was hearing applications challenging the SCBA election results. Senior Advocates Dr Adish Aggarwala and Pradeep Rai, who lost the elections to the President post to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, had filed applications questioning the results.
The bench also took on record an unconditional apology by Senior Advocate Dr Adish Aggarwala, after rebuking him for making baseless allegations against the Election Committee appointed to oversee the elections. The Court also requested the Election Committee to hold a recount for the nine Junior Executive Member posts to address concerns of aggrieved members.
The Court deprecated a police complaint filed against the members of the Election Committee constituted to conduct the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections.
The Court said that the police complaint was "absolutely unwarranted" and ruled out any sort of criminal prosecution against the EC members, saying that they were "extended arms" of the Court and acted bonafide without doubt.
Supreme Court Says P&H Bar Council Should Take Firm Stand To Ensure Proper Bar Elections In Haryana
Case Details: Sandeep Chaudhry v. Jagmal Singh Jatain And Ors., SLP(C) No. 7868-7869/2025
In the Haryana Bar Elections dispute, the Supreme Court criticised the Punjab and Haryana State Bar Council for not taking a firm stand with regard to the alleged irregularities.
"You never take a firm stand because you need their votes. That is the whole problem. You are a statutory body! You should be very clear that if procedure has not been followed, you should firmly say procedure has not been followed and we would like that elections be held afresh in a transparent manner...if you are satisfied that everything has been minutely followed, there has been faithful compliance with the rule book, you take a stand and we will examine", remarked Justice Surya Kant.
A bench of Justices Kant and Dipankar Datta was dealing with two petitions: one, involving an advocate's challenge to his disqualification from contesting Karnal Bar Association elections, and second, involving issues (such as electoral roll manipulation) pertaining to the Rohtak Bar Association.
Ultimately, the Karnal Bar matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh adjudication, while the date of hearing in the Rohtak Bar matter was preponed.
Supreme Court Asks Karnataka Govt To Not Remove Head Priest Of Sri Anjaneya Temple At Koppal
Case Details: Vidyadas Babaji v. V. Rashmi Mahesh And Ors., SLP(C) No. 14917/2025
The Supreme Court ordered the Karnataka government to allow Sri Anjaneya Temple head priest-Vidyadas Babaji to continue religious duties as well as reside in a single room situated at the site in terms of a 2023 interim order passed by the Karnataka High Court.
If there is any defiance or non-compliance with the order, the same shall be viewed seriously, the Court warned.
"Issue notice. Authorities are directed to comply with the 2023 interim order passed by High Court in pending writ petition and allow petitioner to continue duties as priest of temple and stay in the single room...Any defiance or non-compliance will be viewed seriously", dictated Justice Surya Kant.
A bench of Justices Kant and Dipankar Datta passed the order, after hearing Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain (for petitioner-priest), who submitted that the petitioner's Sampradaya had been worshipping the temple since 120 years but in 2018, it was illegally acquired.
Can't Give Less Than 20 Years Sentence For Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act : Supreme Court
Case Details: Sachin Vs State Of Maharashtra | D No. 24169/2025
The Supreme Court on May 26 dismissed a Special Leave Petition seeking a reduction of a 20-year rigorous imprisonment granted to 23-year-old under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) on grounds of "extraordinary circumstances".
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the SLP on the grounds that the convict was granted 20 years of punishment, which is the minimum statutorily mandated punishment under Section 6 (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court does not find any reason to interfere.
'Don't Try To Expand The Scope' : Supreme Court Tells SIT Investigating Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Case
Case Details: Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State Of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025
The Supreme Court restricted the scope of Special Investigation Team Probe into the case lodged against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'.
The probe should be limited to the 2 FIRs lodged against Mahmudabad, the Court said.
"We direct that investigation of SIT shall be confined to contents of the 2 FIRs subject matter of these proceedings. The investigation report, before it is filed before jurisdictional court, be produced before this Court. The interim protection to continue till further orders" a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta said.
During the hearing of Ali Khan Mahmudabad's case, the Supreme Court questioned Haryana government about the National Human Rights Commission taking cognizance of the manner of registration of FIR against the Ashoka University Professor.
Vijay Shah Remarks On Colonel Qureshi: Supreme Court Continues Stay On Arrest; Closes Proceedings Before MP High Court
Case Details: Kunwar Vijay Shah v. The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., Diary No. 27093-2025
The Supreme Court continued its interim directions staying arrest of BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in the case lodged by Madhya Pradesh police over his "sister of terrorists" remark against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.
Insofar as it has itself taken cognizance of the case, the Court further asked the MP High Court to close the proceedings pending before it.
Supreme Court Bars Fresh UP Police FIR Against Couple Who Alleged Harassment By Multiple FIRs
Case Details: Rameez Nemat And Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors., W.P. (Crl.) No. 225/2025
The Supreme Court restrained Uttar Pradesh authorities from registering any fresh FIR against a couple from a politically influential family who accused the state of lodging multiple false cases against them with oblique motives.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising on behalf of the petitioner-couple.
Bangalore Palace Acquisition: Supreme Court Orders To Keep TDR Certificates In Registry, Bars Their Use If Already Released
Case Details: Sri Srikanta D N Wadiyar (D) By Lr. v. State Of Karnataka And Ors., C.A. No. 3303/1997
The Supreme Court as an interim measure, directed that the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates issued in respect of acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds shall remain with the Registry of the Court.
In case the TDRs have been released to the non-applicants, the same shall not be utilized or sold, the Court said.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Chhattisgarh Coal Scam Accused-Suryakant Tiwari, Ranu Sahu, Saumya Chaurasia & Others
Case Details: Ranu Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh, SLP(Crl) No. 15941/2024
The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Chhattisgarh Coal Levy scam accused-Suryakant Tiwari, Ranu Sahu, Saumya Chaurasia, Sameer Vishnoi and others.
While ex-civil servants Saumya Chaurasia, Ranu Sahu and others were granted interim bail in the Chhattisgarh Coal Levy scam case in March this year, and accused-Laxmikant Tiwari, Manish Upadhyay and Parekh Kurre in early May, some fresh bail pleas were filed by the accused seeking bail in other cases, such as one registered over the DMF scam.
Supreme Court Allows Interim Bail To Odisha IAS Officer Manish Agarwal On Surrender Before Trial Court In Case Over PA's Death
Case Details: Manish Agarwal V. The State Of Orissa & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7877/2025
The Supreme Court directed Manish Agarwal, IAS & former Collector of Malkangiri district (Odisha), in a case accused in a case relating to the suspicious death of his Personal Assistant (PA) in the year 2019, to surrender before the trial court and furnish bail bonds to its satisfaction, upon which he shall be released on interim bail.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta passed the order. This comes after the Orissa High Court on April 28 rejected anticipatory bail to him and some of his staff members.
AgustaWestland Scam | Supreme Court Dismisses Christian Michel's Plea Against Bail Condition To Furnish Local Address
Case Details: Christian James Michel v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by British national Christian Michel challenging a bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court in a money laundering case related to the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected Michel's objection to the High Court's direction that requires him to provide the address where he intends to reside after his release.
Supreme Court Directs Return Of Passport To Ex-Telangana Intelligence Chief, Stays His Arrest In Phone-Tapping Case
Case Details: T. Prabhakar Rao Vs The State Of Telangana | SLP(Crl) No. 7354/2025
The Supreme Court directed the return of the passport to former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao, accused of phone tapping of politicians and high court judges in the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi-led Government in Telangana, to come to India. Till the next order, the Court ordered no coercive steps against Rao. He is also asked to give an affidavit of undertaking before this Court that, within 3 days of the receipt of the passport/travel document, he will return to India.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed this order, remarking that the Court is required to balance the interests of the parties.
Supreme Court Seeks Jharkhand Govt & HC Response On Woman District Judge's Plea For Child Care Leave
Case Details: Kashika M Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 554/2025
The Supreme Court (May 29) issued notice to the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand High Court in a plea by a lady Additional District Judge challenging the rejection of her childcare leave.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, while issuing notice in the petition, inquired why the petitioner did not move directly to the High Court first.
To which, the Counsel for the petitioner replied that during the vacation period of the High Court, the present matter may not be treated as urgent.
No Observation Made On Merits Of Mumbai Gateway Of India Jetty Project : Supreme Court Clarifies
Case Details: Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) v. The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. SLP(C) No. 15709/2025
The Supreme Court clarified that while rejecting the challenge to the Maharashtra Government's decision to construct a passenger jetty and terminal near the Gateway of India, it had not made any observations on the merits of the case.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih clarified that any observations made by it during the proceedings on May 27 regarding the challenge to the jetty projects at the Gateway of India would not have any bearing on the merits of the case.
The clarification stated, "We clarify that we have not observed anything on the merits of the case.
'There Shouldn't Be Even A Single Day's Delay In Liberty Matters' : Supreme Court Expresses Concern At HC Delaying Bail Hearing
Case Details: Vedpal Singh Tanwar v. Directorate Of Enforcement | W.P.(Crl.) No. 231/2025
The Supreme Court (May 29) expressed concerns over the delay by the Delhi High Court in deciding a bail plea despite repeated observations of the Apex Court on the need to expeditiously hear matters relating to civil liberties of citizens.
The Court considered the fact that the bench before which the bail plea is pending was to sit during the vacation bench and asked the bench to decide the matter on June 9. The order said :
"This Court has time and again emphasised the importance of the liberty of citizens. Time and again, it is said that there should not be even a single day's delay in deciding the matter pertaining to the liberty of citizens.
"We see no reason as to why the matter should have taken such a long time to decide it either way."
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing the bail plea by Vedpal Singh Tanwar, who is a key person belonging to Goverdhan Mines and Minerals.
'Mining Mafia Strong Enough' : Supreme Court Slams Haryana Chief Secretary For Not Stopping Illegal Mining In Aravalli Hills
Case Details: In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the State of Haryana over non-action against illegal mining in the Aravallis in Nuh District.
The Court also noted that the mining mafia in the region was also protecting the erring officials involved. The CJI said :
"It appears that the mafia is strong enough to protect not only its members but also the officers of the state government who have acted in collusion with them."
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana to file a fresh affidavit after taking action against all the erring officials involved by July 16.
Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Contempt Against Journalist Ajay Shukla For 'Scandalous' Remarks On Judge
Case Details: In Re: Scandalous Remarks Made By Mr. Ajay Shukla, Editor-In-Chief, Varprad Media Pvt. Ltd., A Digital Channel v. SMC(Crl) No. 000001 / 2025
The Supreme Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against a digital journalist named Ajay Shukla for making "scathing and scandalous" observations about a senior judge of the Supreme Court.
The Court also directed YouTube to take down the video of Ajay Shukla, who is the Editor-in-Chief of Varprad Media.
Taking suo motu cognisance of Shukla's video, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar observed :
"Such scandalous allegations widely published are likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of the judiciary. No doubt the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions. A person cannot be permitted to make allegations which are in the nature of defaming a judge of this Court and also contemptuous in nature, which attempts to bring disrepute to the institution of the judiciary."
The Court asked the Registry to register the matter as a suo motu contempt case and issue notice to Shukla.
NEET-PG 2025 Can't Be Held In Two Shifts : Supreme Court Directs NBE To Hold Single Shift Exam
Case Details: Dr. Aditi & Ors V. National Board Of Examination In Medical Sciences & Ors. | Diary No. - 22918/2025
The Supreme Court directed the National Board of Examination not to hold NEET-PG 2025 in two shifts, observing that such an exam will create arbitrariness.
The Court directed the NBE to make arrangements to hold NEET-PG 2025 in a single shift ensuring transparency. The Court observed that there was still time left to make necessary arrangements for the exam scheduled to be held on June 15.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court remarked that when a legitimate grievance is raised, it is not relevant that only a few persons are seeking relief.
Supreme Court Rebukes Advocate For Police Complaint Against SCBA Election Committee; Asks Him To Physically Appear
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
While hearing the Supreme Court Bar Association election dispute, the Supreme Court rapped an advocate over his police complaint against members of the Court-constituted Election Committee which conducted SCBA elections.
The Court warned that if he fails to appear in-person on the next date, coercive action will be taken.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta was dealing with the issue as part of the SCBA v. BD Kaushik case, where a bench comprising Justices Kant and KV Viswanathan is considering issues pertaining to reforms in SCBA.
Methodist Church Of India Dispute : Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Order Allowing Two Persons To Be Active Bishops
Case Details: The Methodist Church In India Vs Bishop N.L. Karkare | SLP(C) No. 14696/2025
The Supreme Court (May 30) granted a stay against the Bombay High Court's interim order dated May 5, 2025, which allowed Bishop N.L. Karkare (Respondent No. 1) and Bishop Subodh C. Mondal (Respondent no. 2), who are admittedly at the age of 76 and 73 years, respectively, to continue as 'Active Bishops' of the Methodist Church of India.
It is the case of the petitioner, the Methodist Church, that the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed to continue contrary to the provisions and bylaws of the Constitution of the Methodist Church, which prescribes the age of retirement as 20 years.
Supreme Court Upholds Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Odisha PSC For Lapse In Evaluating Judicial Service Candidate's Paper
Case Details: The Chairman, Odisha Public Service Commission v. Jyotirmayee Dutta And Anr., SLP(C) No. 15360/2025
The Supreme Court pulled up the Odisha Public Service Commission (Odisha PSC) over laxity shown in evaluation of answer script of a judicial services' candidate.
Briefly put, the case pertained to the Odisha Judicial Service Examination-2022, wherein a candidate's answer to a question carrying 12.5 marks was not evaluated.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter and refused to set aside the cost of Rs.1 lakh imposed by Odisha High Court on the Commission.
Supreme Court Quashes ₹25 Lakh Bank Fraud Case After Settlement, Cites No Continuing Public Interest
Case Details: N.S. Gnaneshwaran & Others v. The Inspector of Police & Another
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the matter of N.S. Gnaneshwaran & Others vs. The Inspector of Police & Another, holding that the dispute had been fully settled through a One-Time Settlement (OTS) and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.
The case arose from allegations that the appellants caused wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of ₹25.89 lakh by fraudulently diverting funds sanctioned to M/s Vinayaka Corporation. Based on a complaint from the Bank, the CBI registered an FIR and filed a chargesheet against nine accused, including the appellants, for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
POSH Act : States/UTs File Affidavits In Supreme Court Regarding Compliance With Directions To Form LCC, District Officers Etc
Case Details: Aureliano Fernandes V. The State Of Goa And Ors. | Diary No. 22553-2023
Pursuant to a series of orders from the Supreme Court seeking compliance with its December 3, 2024, directions for effective compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), finally, all the States and Union Territories filed their affidavit of compliance.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has been passing orders in this matter.
Supreme Court Rejects Challenging Validity Of Rule 29(4) Copyright Rules Requiring Prior Notice For Statutory Broadcast Licence
Case Details: Next Radio Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court rejected a plea challenging Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which sets out the specific particulars that broadcasters must include in the prior notice required for invoking the statutory licence under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan found no merit in the constitutional validity challenge to Rule 29(4), and allowed the petitioner Next Radio Limited, which operates the radio network Radio One, to withdraw it.
Other Developments
Karnataka Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Direction To Release TDR To Royal Family Heirs Over Bangalore Palace Acquisition
A few days after the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka Government to release the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family in respect of the acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds, the State Government filed an application against the grant of TDR certificates.
The direction to release the TDR certificates was passed by a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar on May 22 in a batch of contempt petitions. Now, the State has filed an application against the release of such TDR certificates in a connected appeal, which has been pending since 1997.
Justice Yashwant Verma Issue : Supreme Court Rejects RTI Application For Inquiry Report & CJI's Letter To President & PM
The Supreme Court rejected an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, seeking a copy of the report submitted by the in-house inquiry committee in respect of the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma and also the letter written by the Chief Justice of India to the President and the Prime Minister while forwarding the said inquiry report to them.
The Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court rejected the application, submitted on May 9, by one Amritpal Singh Khalsa, saying that the information cannot be provided in view of the tests outlined in the Supreme Court's judgment in Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Reference was also made to Sections 8(1)(e) and 11(1) of the RTI Act.
Dr Subramanian Swamy Files PIL In Supreme Court Seeking Centre's Decision On National Monument Status For Ram Setu
Case Details: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union Of India And Others.
Former Rajya Sabha MP Dr Subramanian Swamy has moved the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Union government to timely decide his representation seeking National Monument status for Ram Setu bridge and a survey by the Geological Survey of India & the Archeological Survey of India in respect to Ram-Setu as an Ancient Monument of National Importance.
Filed in public interest, Dr Swamy's petition states that the Central Government is duty-bound to protect Ram-Setu from any form of misuse, pollution or desecration. "this archeological site is a matter of faith and shradha of people treating Ram-Setu as a pilgrimage", it says.
Notably, another petition filed by Dr Swamy, seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to find an alternative route for the Sethu Samundram Ship Channel project, so that the historic Ram Setu is not damaged due to dredging, etc., is pending before the Supreme Court. Under this project, an 83 km long channel was to be created linking Mannar and Palk Strait by extensive dredging. The project is alleged to have an impact on the Ram Setu.
Supreme Court Rejects Vidarbha Hockey Association's Challenge To Revocation Of Hockey India Membership; Reiterates 'One-State-One-Unit' Principle
Case Details: Vidarbha Hockey Association And Ors. v. Hockey India And Ors., Diary No. 24236-2025
"Hockey is an Olympic sport and under the Indian Olympic Association regulations, there can be only one association from one state," said the Supreme Court while refusing to entertain Vidarbha Hockey Association's plea for recognition as an associate-member of Hockey India and Indian Olympic Association.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta heard the matter and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the case, after hearing brief arguments.
The petitioner had invoked writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court praying that Hockey India and Indian Olympic Association associate it as an Associate-Member. Prior to this, the Bombay High Court had upheld Hockey India's decision revoking the petitioner's membership.
Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Seeking Compensation For Child Sex Abuse Victims Under POCSO Act
Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance & Ors. V. Union Of India & Ors. | WP (C) No. 516/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition for the implementation of the child victim compensation scheme for victims of crime, including victims of sexual abuse, addressing their distinct psychological, emotional, educational and financial needs under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
The notice has been issued to the Union, the Ministry of Law and Justice and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
The Court will hear the matter on August 18.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On Petition Challenging Waqf Act 1995
Case Details: Nikhil Upadhyay Vs Union Of India W.P.(C) No. 502/2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 27) issued notice to the Union and the State Governments on a writ petition challenging the provisions of the Waqf Act 1995 and tagged it with an earlier petition challenging the 1995 Act.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the petition filed by one Nikhil Upadhyay challenging the 1995 Act.
Woman Judge Approaches Supreme Court Against Rejection Of Child Care Leave
A plea is filed by a lady Additional District Judge before the Supreme Court, challenging the rejection of her childcare leave.
MBBS Stipend | Supreme Court To Hear In July Plea Challenging Non-Payment Of Stipends To Medical Interns
The Supreme Court will hear in July the plea challenging the non-payment of stipends to doctors undergoing their MBBS internships.
Bangalore Palace Acquisition : Supreme Court Asks If It Can Hear Plea Against TDR Direction Of Another Bench; Places Matter Before CJI
Case Details: Sri Srikanta D N Wadiyar (D) By Lr. v. State Of Karnataka And Ors., C.A. No. 3303/1997
A 2-Judge bench of the Supreme Court placed before CJI BR Gavai Karnataka government's challenge to a direction for release of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates related to Bangalore Palace Grounds acquisition in favor of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family's heirs.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To IRDA On Plea Challenging Exclusion Of Epilepsy From Health Insurance
Case Details: Sanvedana Foundation Vs Union Of India|W.P.(C) No. 501/2025
The Supreme Court (May 27) issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation on behalf of those who suffer from epilepsy and lack access to adequate healthcare and insurance coverage. The notice has been issued to the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA), which, through the Master Circular dated July 22, 2020, permanently excludes Epilepsy from being covered by health insurance. The petitioner has challenged this exclusion to be set aside as unconstitutional for violation of the rights of the Persons with Epilepsy ('PWE') under Articles 14 and 21.
Banke Bihari Temple | 'If State Enters Into Private Dispute, Rule Of Law Will Breakdown' : Supreme Court Questions UP Govt
Case Details: Ishwar Chanda Sharma V The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors | Diary No. 28487-2025
The Supreme Court questioned the State of Uttar Pradesh how it could intervene in a private dispute related to the Shri Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan and "hijack" the litigation between private persons.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma orally remarked that if States start entering into the private disputes of the parties, the litigation would be "hijacked" and it would lead to the breakdown of rule of law.
The Court was hearing a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking to recall the Supreme Court's May 15 judgment which allowed Uttar Pradesh Government to utilise the temple funds for temple corridor redevelopment project. The judgment was passed in a civil appeal between private parties, in which the State intervened. Later, a temple devotee named Devendra Nath Goswami filed the present MA, seeking a recall of the judgment, contending that he was not heard.
Sometimes Bureaucrats Have Arrogance, Don't Want To Go Before HCs : Supreme Court On J&K Admn's Plea Against Show-Cause Notice
Case Details: Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir v. Kumar Nursery Qaimoh Kulgam And Ors., Diary No. 12875-2025
"Sometimes bureaucrats have arrogance, they don't want to go before High Courts", observed the Supreme Court while dealing with Jammu and Kashmir administration's grievance against J&K&L High Court's issuance of a show-cause notice against its officer(s) in a contempt case.
Briefly put, the plea was filed assailing two orders of the J&K&L High Court (one by a Single Bench and another by a Division Bench). The High Court had directed the authorities to consider paying within 2 months such amount as was admittedly payable to the respondents (contractors) for supply of plants.
When the payment was not made, the respondents had filed the contempt petition and a Single Judge issued show-cause notice to the UT administration.
'Grey Area Exists In Cryptocurrency Regulation; Existing Laws Obsolete' : Supreme Court In Bitcoin Extortion Case
Case Details: Shailesh Babulal Bhatt v. The State Of Gujarat And Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 4036/2025
"There exists a grey area in the field of bitcoin/cryptocurrency regulation and the existing laws are completely obsolete. They cannot address this issue," said the Supreme Court while dealing with a case involving allegations of bitcoin extortion.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi was dealing with the plea of Gujarat-based Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, who is accused of cryptocurrency fraud across multiple states.
Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Assam's “Push-Back Policy”, Alleges Individuals Being Illegally Deported
Case Details: All B.T.C. Minority Students' Union (ABMSU) Kokrajhar, B.T.C. (Assam) v. Union of India &Anr.
A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the 'push-back policy' of the Assam Government for tackling infiltration from Bangladesh.
As per the petition filed by All BTC Minority Students Association, the State Government is arbitrarily pushing genuine citizens to Bangladesh border without following due process under the guise of deporting illegal migrants.
Supreme Court To Hear Parents' Plea Against Fee Hike In Delhi Private Schools On Govt Lands
Case Details: Naya Samaj Parents Association v. Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools And Anr. | Diary No. 22050-2025
The Supreme Court on Thursday(May 29) issued notice to the Delhi Director of Education in a plea challenging the order of the Delhi High Court allowing the increase of fees by private unaided schools on government lands.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea by Naya Samaj Parents Association challenging two orders of the Delhi High Court, which have allowed private schools based on Government Lands to increase their fees without prior approval of the Director of Education, Delhi Govt.
The plea states that " Now private unaided Schools situated at Delhi have increased fees multifold mostly by up to 100% and taking penal actions against students, causing confusion and panic in the Delhi education."
Byju's Insolvency : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Riju Ravindran's Plea Against NCLAT Mandating CoC Nod For CIRP Withdrawal
Case Details: Riju Ravindran v. Pankaj Srivastava
The Supreme Court issued notice on an appeal challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment holding that the application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (trade name Byju's) needed approval from 90 percent of the Committee of Creditors.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar stated that the prayer for interim relief would be considered on the next date of hearing, 21 July 2025. The appeal has been filed by filed by Riju Ravindran, suspended director and promoter of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For Degrees To Fazil & Kamil Students Of Madarsas
Case Details: Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, U.P. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 503/2025
The Supreme Court sought responses from the Union and the State of Uttar Pradesh in a plea seeking directions to allow Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti Language University, Lucknow, to conduct exams, declare results and grant degrees for Kamil (graduate) and Fazil (post-graduate) students of recognized Madarsas.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandukar issued notice in the petition by Teachers Association Madaris Arabia and Haji Diwan Saheb Zama which sought directions to the State of UP to authorise Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti Language University, Lucknow to conduct exams and grant degrees for students pursuing graduation (Kamil) and Post-Graduation (Fazil) from recognised Madrasas courses in the State.