Home
/

Round Ups
/

Weekly
/
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up:...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: April 21, 2025 To April 27, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

30 April 2025 9:05 AM IST

Reports/Judgments

Defective Investigation Does Not Automatically Vitiate Prosecution's Case, If Other Relevant Evidence Exists: Supreme Court

Case Details: R. Baiju v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 441

The Supreme Court observed that the flaws in the investigation would not automatically be fatal to the prosecution's case when other credible evidence exists.

The Court, affirming this position, upheld the conviction of the Appellant, who had sought acquittal on the ground of a faulty investigation. However, upon carefully examining the record and finding other reliable and credible evidence that clearly established the Appellant's guilt, the Court refused to extend the benefit of doubt.

In support, the Court referred to State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715, wherein it was held that even if the integrity of the investigation is questionable, the remaining evidence must be meticulously scrutinised to ensure that the course of criminal justice is not derailed.

The Court further observed that mere defects or irregularities in the investigation do not automatically vitiate the prosecution's case; rather, if sufficient crucial material is found upon careful examination, a conviction may still be sustained.

ESI Act | Person In Supervisory Role Liable For Non-Remittance Of Contributions Regardless Of Designation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ajay Raj Shetty v. Director and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 442

The Supreme Court observed that a person, irrespective of their official designation, may be deemed a 'principal employer' under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (“ESI Act”), if they act as an agent of the owner or occupier of a factory, or if they supervise and control the establishment in question.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah upheld the conviction of the General Manager of a company, who was accused of not remitting the Employees' State Insurance contribution to ESIC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs.5000/-

Absence Of Motive No Ground For Acquittal When There Exists Strong Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 443

The Supreme Court observed that the absence of motive will not be fatal to the prosecution's case if there exists strong circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond a cavil of doubt.

The Court said that “when the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis; the total absence of a motive will be of no consequence.”

In other words, motive loses importance when there's direct evidence proving guilt, the Court said.

“Motive is a very important link in the circumstances which could prove the guilt of the accused, and it loses its importance only when there is direct evidence of eyewitnesses, which is convincing and conclusive as to the guilt of the accused. However, it was also noticed that even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused to commit a particular crime, it does not lead to a conviction by itself, if the eyewitnesses are not convincing or the chain of circumstances is not complete.”

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran upheld the conviction of a father, who murdered his son with a licensed revolver in the intervening night, when all other family members were sleeping.

'Eligibility Cut-Off Is Application Deadline When Not Specified': Supreme Court Grants Relief To D.El.Ed Candidates Of 2020-22 In WB

Case Details: Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 444

The Supreme Court granted relief to several candidates who pursued the Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) course in the 2020-2022 batch in West Bengal by overturning a Calcutta High Court judgment which held them ineligible to apply for the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools.

The High Court had held that since these candidates had not obtained the course completion certificates when the notification for the posts was issued on 29.09.2022, they were ineligible.

Terming the High Court's interpretation to be erroneous, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra placing reliance on the constitution bench decision of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1 observed that in the absence of cut-off date provided in the Rules, the eligibility would be determined based on the date appointed in the advertisement inviting applications.

Senior Citizens Act Doesn't Mandate Eviction Of Children From Parents' Home In Every Case: Supreme Court Rejects Mother's Plea To Evict Son

Case Details: Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Noting that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“2007 Act”), ensures maintenance for elderly parents but does not explicitly permit eviction, the Supreme Court (March 27) dismissed an elderly mother's plea to evict her son from their ancestral home following a strained relationship.

The Court clarified that the 2007 Act does not mandate the automatic eviction of children from parental property; eviction orders can only be passed in exceptional cases to safeguard the senior citizen's well-being.

“The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person”, observed the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti. The Court noted that as per the Act, the Tribunal can provide for the monthly maintenance and expenses, and in case of default, it can issue a warrant to levy fines and even sentence the defaulter to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month.

Legal Heirs' Suit Against Compromise Decree Not Maintainable When Original Party Didn't File Recall: Supreme Court

Case Details: Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi and Anr. v. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi (Dead Through Lrs)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 446

The Supreme Court reiterated that the only option to assail the correctness of the compromise decree passed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is to file a recall application.

“The only remedy against a compromise decree is to file a recall application.”, the court said.

Holding thus, the Court dismissed an appeal where the Appellants were aggrieved by the impugned decision dismissing their suit to declare the compromise deed as null and void. The Court relied upon Order 23 Rule 3A CPC, which states that “no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.”

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a case in which the Appellant challenged a compromise decree related to the partition of joint family property registered in the name of the Appellant's father.

Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act | Writ Court Shouldn't Interfere With Deemed Conveyance Order Unless Manifestly Illegal: Supreme Court

Case Details: Arunkumar H Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-Operative Society Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 447

In a significant judgment related to the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (“MOFA”), the Supreme Court held that the competent authority under MOFA has the power to grant an order of deemed conveyance. It further emphasized that High Courts should not interfere with such orders unless they are found to be illegal.

The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court's refusal to intervene in an order passed by the competent authority under Section 11(4) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). The appellant (developer) was aggrieved by the decision, which upheld the grant of deemed conveyance to a co-operative housing society formed by flat owners who had purchased units from the developer but had not received a formal conveyance in the society's favor.

RFCTLARR Act | Market Value Of Acquired Land Must Be Determined Based On Date Of Section 11 Notification: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sumitraben Singabhai Gamit v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 448

The Supreme Court ruled that the market value of the land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) should be determined from the date on which the acquisition notification is issued under Section 11.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision, which determined the valuation date as January 1, 2014, i.e., the enforcement date of the Act, instead of the date of the Notification issued in 2023 for acquisition.

Supreme Court Flags Long Submissions In S.34/37 Arbitration Act Proceedings, Says Timelimit Needs To Be Imposed

Case Details: Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 449

On April 21, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over the prolonged arguments and submissions made by members of the Bar in arbitration proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court noted that excessively long oral submissions force judges to invest significant time in reviewing extended arguments, often supported by a large volume of case law, regardless of their relevance. This practice, particularly in high-stakes matters, leads to unnecessarily lengthy judgments and ultimately undermines the efficiency and growth of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism in India.

“We have noticed that there is a tendency on the part of senior members of the bar to argue as if these proceedings were regular appeals under Section 96 of CPC. In this case, while making submissions, we learned counsels for both the parties have gone into minute and factual details…”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.

Is 17A PC Act Sanction Necessary When Probe Was Ordered Under 156(3) CrPC? Supreme Court Tags Yediyurappa's Case With Pending Reference

Case Details: B.S Yeddiyurappa v. A Alam Pasha & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 520/2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 450

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Monday, in the case concerning former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa, stated that it was refraining from deciding the issue regarding the need for a sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act when a Magistrate has ordered investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, since the said issue is already a subject matter of a pending reference.

Therefore, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, directed that Yediyurappa's matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for being tagged along with the pending reference.

Yasin Malik Can't Be Physically Produced In Jammu Court: Supreme Court Allows Him To Examine Witnesses Via VC From Tihar Jail

Case Details: CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 451

The Supreme Court ruled against the physical production of Kashmiri separatist Yasin Malik before a Jammu Court for the trial of the cases related to the assassination of four Indian Air Force officials and the kidnapping of Rubayya Sayid in 1989. Instead, the Court directed that Malik (who has chosen not to engage an advocate to represent him) be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses in the case through Video Conferencing facilities from Tihar jail.

'Can't Mandate Public Libraries In Villages When They Lack Basic Amenities': Supreme Court Urges States to Explore Solutions

Case Details: Mundona Rural Development Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 1428/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 452

The Supreme Court declined to pass directions to State Governments to establish public libraries in rural areas, observing that fundamental issues like clean water, food quality education, and sanitation remain more pressing concerns in rural development and that the Court cannot dictate how resources should be allocated.

However, the Court urged State Governments to explore potential solutions for the lack of public libraries in rural areas and suggested that Corporate Social Responsibility funds be availed.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was hearing a plea seeking directions to the Union and State Governments to establish public libraries at the village panchayat level.

Supreme Court Upholds Hospital's Vicarious Liability For Doctor's Negligence

Case Details: Managing Director, Kamineni Hospitals v. Peddi Narayana Swami & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 453

The Supreme Court (April 22) upheld the NCDRC's finding of the hospital being vicariously liable for the medical negligence of the doctor, which caused the death of a patient.

The NCDRC imposed a total compensation of ₹20 lakhs (₹15 lakhs on the hospital and ₹5 lakhs on the doctor), leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the Hospital.

Affirming the NCDRC's findings, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih held in favor of the claimants, whose son was operated in the Appellant's hospital by a Doctor, resulting in his death due to medical negligence.

Muslim Member Of State Bar Council Can't Continue In Waqf Board After End Of Term In Bar Council: Supreme Court

Case Details: Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid v. State of Manipur & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No.2138/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 454

The Supreme Court held that a person appointed as a member of the State Waqf Board by virtue of being a Muslim member of a State Bar Council can no longer continue to be a member of the State Waqf Board after he ceased to be a member of the Bar Council.

As per Section 14 of the Waqf Act(before the 2025 amendment), a Muslim member of the Bar Council of a State/UT can be appointed as a member of the Waqf Board of the said State/UT

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Direct Bank Transfer Of Compensation To Road Accident Victims & Workmen

Case Details: In Re Compensation Amounts Deposited With Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and Labour Courts

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 455

The Supreme Court has passed a set of directions to ensure that the compensation paid to claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are directly credited to their bank accounts.

The Court passed these directions after noticing that huge amounts of compensation passed under these laws are lying unclaimed before Courts. Based on a letter received from BB Pathak, a retired District Judge from Gujarat, the Court had initiated a suo motu case last year title "In Re: Compensation Amounts Deposited With Motor Accident Claims Tribunals & Labour Courts."

High Courts Must Check S. 313 CrPC/S.351 BNSS Compliance At Earliest To Avoid Acquittals: Supreme Court

Case Details: Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 456

The Supreme Court (April 22) flagged concern about the acquittal of the accused in cases where the prosecution's vital evidence is not presented to the accused to afford him an opportunity to explain the allegations labelled against him.

To address this legal defect, the Court recommended that High Courts must adopt a proactive approach by checking compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. at the outset of the criminal appeals and remanding the matter to the trial court for complying with the provision if there is a lapse.

Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Killing Wife, Four Children; Cites Mental Health & Good Conduct In Jail

Case Details: Reji Kumar Alias Reji v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 457

The Supreme Court (April 22) commuted the death sentence of a man to life imprisonment who was convicted for killing his wife and four children.

“considering the facts that the convict-appellant had no prior antecedents; good conduct for the past 16-17 years of incarceration; difficulties in mental health and consistent efforts at being a model prisoner, we find that the imposition of death penalty would be unjustified.”, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta said.

The Court relied on the findings made in the Probation Officer's report, mitigating investigator's report and the report of psychological assessment submitted to it in compliance of the principles laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353.

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC | Appellate Court Not Bound To Frame Points Of Determination When Not Raised In Appeal: Supreme Court

Case Details: Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 458

The Supreme Court held that an Appellate Court's failure to frame points of determination under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) does not invalidate its judgment, provided there is substantial compliance with the rule and the appellant has not raised any specific issues from the trial court's judgment that require reconsideration.

“It is in the discretion of the Appellate Court to refer to the (trial court) proceedings. It is competent to pronounce judgment after hearing what the parties or their pleaders submit to it for consideration. It follows therefore that if the appellant submits nothing for its consideration, the Appellate Court can decide the appeal without any reference to any proceedings of the courts below and, in doing so, it can simply say that the appellants have not urged anything which would tend to show that the judgment and decree under appeal were wrong.”, the Court said.

"Non-compliance with the provisions, by itself, may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void and may be ignored if there has been a substantial compliance with it," the Court said.

SARFAESI Act | Appeal Against Every DRT Order Doesn't Require Pre-Deposit: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Sunshine Builders and Developers v. HDFC Bank Limited Through The Branch Manager & Ors. | Civil Appeal No.5290/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 459

The Supreme Court expressed a prima facie view that appeals filed against procedural orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) do not require pre-deposit as per Section 18 (appeal to the appellate tribunal) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

Defendant Set Ex-Parte Can't Produce Evidence; Has Only Limited Right Of Cross-Examining Plaintiff: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kanchhu v. Prakash Chand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 460

The Supreme Court held that once a defendant is set ex parte, they are not entitled to present evidence in their defence; their only available recourse is to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness in an attempt to disprove the plaintiff's case.

While reiterating that a defendant set ex-parte cannot lead evidence in their defence, the Court clarified that if a legal issue is raised in the written statement such as one relating to limitation or jurisdiction, the court may frame and decide that issue based on the pleadings alone, without requiring the defendant to present evidence. However, this exception does not apply when the defendant fails to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, as the absence of cross-examination undermines the basis for setting aside the ex parte decree.

Probation Of Offenders Act | No Discretion To Deny Release Of Convict On Probation When Conditions Are Met: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chellammal and Anr. v. State Represented By The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 461

The Supreme Court noted that when the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (“Act”) apply to a convict's release, the court has no discretion to disregard the possibility of granting probation.

“Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of the stated circumstances. The question of grant of probation could be decided either way. In the event, the court in its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may upon considering the report of the probation officer impose such conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for the court to record the reasons therefor.”, the Court observed.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan set aside the impugned judgment, where the High Court failed to examine whether probation could be granted to the Appellant-convict, despite the Appellants being found eligible to seek benefit under the Act.

Supreme Court Rejects Kerala IAS Officer Raju Narayana Swamy's Plea For Promotion To Chief Secretary Grade

Case Details: Raju Narayana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3215/2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 462

The Supreme Court (April 23) dismissed the plea of Kerala cadre IAS Officer Dr. Raju Narayana Swamy for promotion equivalent to the Chief Secretary Post.

The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Kerala High Court's decision, which denied Dr. Swamy's promotion on the ground that he did not meet the requirement of having 90% of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) completed, an essential criterion for promotion, thus rendering him ineligible.

Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Be Continued Beyond Time Limit Set By Courts Without Seeking Extension: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 463

The Supreme Court (April 23) held that when a fixed time is stipulated by a Tribunal or Court to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, continuation of such proceedings beyond that time could be illegal if no bona fide attempt is made to seek extension of time.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra also stated that if the Tribunal/Court fixes a time with a rider that, in default, the enquiry will lapse, the disciplinary authority in such a case would cease to have jurisdiction.

"We also hold that continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond the time stipulated by a tribunal/court could invite interdiction if no bona fide attempt is shown to have been made to seek an extension of time. However, much would depend on the facts of each case and it may not be possible to lay down a common formula applicable to each case. In an exceptional case, the tribunal/court would have the discretion to overlook the laxity and make such direction as it deems fit in the circumstances."

For Every Instance Of S.498A IPC Misuse, There Are Hundreds Of Genuine Domestic Cruelty Cases: Supreme Court

Case Details: Janshruti (People's Voice) v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 2152-2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 464

While rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the Supreme Court said that mere potential of misuse of a provision cannot be a ground to strike it down.

The Court, acknowledging that there are instances of misuse of the provision, however, added that for every instance of misuse, there are hundreds of genuine cases where the provision acted as a safeguard against domestic violence.

"We are cognizant of the growing discourse highlighting instances where the provision may have been misused. However, it must be borne in mind that for every such instance, there are likely hundreds of genuine cases where Section 498A has served as a crucial safeguard for victims of domestic cruelty. We are also aware that certain unconscionable individuals, emboldened by the rising fervor to dismantle such protective provisions, have gone so far as to publicly share videos depicting the exchange of dowry—an act not only unlawful but also indicative of the entrenched nature of the very evil this provision seeks to combat," the Court said.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order To Remove 'Defamatory' Content In Wikipedia Page About ANI

Case Details: Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. ANI Media Private Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 465

The Supreme Court set aside the injunction orders passed by the Delhi High Court for the removal of the "defamatory and false" content in the Wikipedia page about news agency ANI Media Pvt Ltd.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the High Court's direction "to remove all false, misleading and defamatory content" was "very broadly worded" and not capable of being implemented. The bench however allowed the ANI to make a fresh application before the single judge of the High Court for the grant of an injunction in respect of specific contents in the Wikipedia page

Plaintiff Can Seek Declaration Of Title Without Seeking Cancellation Of Sale Deed Executed By Another Party: Supreme Court

Case Details: Hussain Ahmed Choudhury & Ors. v. Habibur Rahman (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 466

The Supreme Court observed that a plaintiff seeking a declaration of title over a property is not required to specifically seek the cancellation of a sale deed executed by another party over the same property as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”).

The Court said that a declaration sought by a plaintiff as per Section 34 of the SRA would not become non-maintainable merely because he did not seek the "further relief" of cancellation of the sale deed executed by another party with whom the plaintiff has no privity of contract. In other words, the Court said that a declaration of title is as good as relief seeking cancellation of the sale deed.

Magistrate's Cognizance Order Can't Be Faulted Only Because It Wasn't A Reasoned Order: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pramila Devi & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 467

The Supreme Court reiterated that a Magistrate's order taking cognizance of a police report cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order. If the cognizance is taken after recording a finding regarding the existence of a prima facie case based on a reading of the case records, explicit reasons are not required.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision which interfered with the trial court's cognizance order which was passed based on the prima facie materials against the accused, like case diary, etc, and was not a reasoned order.

“In the present case, we find that the Additional Judicial Commissioner has taken cognizance while recording a finding that - from a perusal of the case diary and case record, a prima facie case was made out against the accused, including the Appellants. In Bhushan Kumar v State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, this Court held that an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order.”, the court observed.

Prospective Accused Cannot Challenge Order For CBI Investigation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 468

The Supreme Court observed that it is not open for the prospective accused to challenge the underway investigation.

Holding thus, the Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision to order an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”).

“Therefore, we are of the considered view that once an FIR is registered and investigation has taken place, direction for an investigation by the CBI is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or accused. The matter for entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically at the discretion of the Court.”, the court observed.

When One Judge Has Held Party Guilty Of Contempt, Another Judge Of Same HC Can't Take Contrary View: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 469

The Supreme Court has held that once a Judge of a High Court has held a party guilty of contempt, another Single Judge of the same Court cannot re-examine whether contempt was actually committed.

"When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view holding the Respondent to be guilty of contempt, another Judge could not have come to afinding that the Respondent was not guilty of contempt," a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed.

Doing so, the Court said, violates judicial propriety and exceeds jurisdiction. Also, it amounts to a single bench exercising appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a coordinate bench, which is impermissible.

The Supreme Court emphasized that once contempt is found by a Judge, the only questions left are whether the contempt has been purged and what punishment, if any, should follow.

Retired Judges' Medical Reimbursement To Be Borne By State Of First Appointment Or Retirement: Supreme Court

Case Details: Justice V.S. Dave President, Association of Retd. Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts v. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC0 470

The Supreme Court cautioned State Governments that non-compliance with its orders on medical facilities for retired High Court Judges, their spouses, and other dependants could invite action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981.

“We are putting the State to the notice that if we find non-compliance, action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981 will be initiated”, the Court stated.

The facilities include medical benefits at par with sitting Judges, reimbursement for treatment in private hospitals without prior State approval, sanctioning authority vested in the Registrar General of the High Court, reimbursement for treatment taken in another State, and a cashless treatment facility.

Paragraph 9 of its previous order dated February 18, 2025 stated that all reimbursements regarding retirement benefits as directed under court orders in the present case shall be made by the concerned State Governments, meaning the State where the seat of the High Court is located from which the Judge has retired.

In the latest order, the Court addressed inconsistencies regarding which State Government bears the responsibility for reimbursement. It clarified that it could be either the State where the High Court from which the Judge retired is situated or the State of the Judge's first appointment, in cases involving transfer.

In Suit For Cancellation Of Deed & Recovery Of Possession, Limitation Of 3 Years Applies As Cancellation Is Main Relief: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajeev Gupta & Ors. v. Prashant Garg & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 471

The Supreme Court has reiterated that where a composite suit had been filed for cancellation of the sale deed and of possession, the limitation period would have to be adjudged from the primary relief of cancellation which is 3 (three) years, and not the ancillary relief of possession which is 12 (twelve) years.

Reference was made to Rajpal Singh v. Saroj (2022) 15 SCC 260, which observed: "When a composite suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deed as well as for recovery of the possession, the limitation period is required to be considered with respect to the substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed, which would be three years from the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be cancelled. "

The Court also held that the contrary view held in Sopanrao v. Syed Mehmood (2019) 7 SCC 76 was taken without considering earlier precedents. In Soapnrao, it was held that merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost.

'Leave Encashment Rules Must Be Strictly Interpreted': Supreme Court Denies Leave Encashment To Govt Servant Re-employed After Retirement

Case Details: State of Sikkim and Ors. v. Dr. Mool Raj Kotwal | Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 23709-23710 of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 472

In a case concerning Sikkim Government Service, the Supreme Court held that a Government Servant who has been re-employed after retirement cannot take the benefit of leave encashments if he had availed the maximum of 300 days of leave encashment before his retirement.

The Court also held that while the policy of leave encashment is made for the welfare of the deserving employees, it cannot be allowed excessively at the behest of the Public Exchequer.

"Interpreting leave encashment provisions goes beyond financial compensation and connects to broader legal principles of dignity and welfare during service. However, such interpretations must carefully balance the interests of both employees and the financial stability of the organization, especially when public exchequer is involved. Courts must tread carefully to prevent employees from claiming leave encashment multiple times for the same accrual, which could lead to unjust enrichment and may go against the public interest of largesse."

The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was considering the issue of whether a retired government servant who has been re-employed by the State can be allowed to avail leave encashments meant for those employees who initially retire at 58 years of age.

Land Acquisition | Delay In Filing Appeal No Reason To Deny Land Losers Fair Compensation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 473

The Supreme Court observed that a delay in filing an appeal against a land acquisition compensation award would not be a reason to deny just, fair, and reasonable compensation to the landowners.

“Delay is not a reason to deny the land losers their compensation, which is just, fair and reasonable for the land they have lost.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan was hearing the case where the Appellant had filed an appeal after a delay of 4908 days (13.5 years) before the High Court seeking higher compensation than the compensation determined by the Reference Court. However, the High Court refused to condone the delay, and dismissed the appeal. The appeal was allowed.

Disciplinary Action Can't Be Upheld When Employee Was Acquitted In Criminal Case Over Similar Evidence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 474

The Supreme Court held that when charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in criminal proceedings and a disciplinary proceeding are identical or substantially similar and when an accused is acquitted of all charges in a criminal proceeding, upholding the findings in disciplinary proceedings would be "unjust, unfair, and oppressive".

"While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan," the Court observed..

High Courts Should Not Repeatedly Grant Interim Bail To Same Accused; Either Grant Regular Bail Or Deny: Supreme Court

Case Details: Asim Mallik v. State of Odisha, Diary No. 57403-2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 475

While granting bail to an accused, the Supreme Court observed that High Courts should not routinely grant interim bail to the same applicant again and again. Either the Court should grant regular bail or deny the same, but insofar as interim bail, the relief shall be granted only in specific exigencies as an exception.

"Though, it may be necessary in some cases to grant interim bail to take care of specific contingencies, but as a routine, interim bail should not be granted. Either the Court should grant regular bail or should refuse to grant bail. Granting interim bail should be an exception, and should not be granted in a routine manner and repeatedly", observed a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran.

Landlord's Family's Needs Also Count As 'Bona Fide Requirement' For Tenant's Eviction: Supreme Court

Case Details: Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His Lr. Atul Kumar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. Lrs. and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 476

The Supreme Court observed that the eviction is not restricted to the bona fide need of the landlord, even the landlord's family requirement would qualify as bona fide need for eviction of the tenant.

“It is well settled that the bona fide requirement for occupation of the landlord has to be liberally construed and, as such, even the requirement of the family members would be covered.”, the court observed.

Invalided Soldier Presumed To Be Disabled Due To Military Service; Entitled To Disability Pension: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bijender Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 477

While ordering the grant of 50% disability pension to an army personnel who was discharged from service 36 years ago, the Supreme Court reiterated that a soldier, who is invalided out of service, is presumed to have incurred the disease/disability due to military service.

It is the burden of the Army to prove that the disability was not on account of military service, the Court said, since only a medically fit person is enrolled into the service.

"A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests, the member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise to a presumption that he was disease free at the time of his entry into service. For the employer to say that such a disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, the least that is required to be done is to furnish reasons for taking such a view," observed a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against HDFC Bank Official Over Auction Sale

Case Details: Sivakumar v. Inspector of Police & Anr. SLP(CRL) Nos.5815-5816 of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 478

The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case against an official of the HDFC Bank, after noting that he was not the "authorised officer" when the auction sale in question was held.

The criminal case, alleging the offences of cheating and forgery, was filed in Tamil Nadu over the allegation that the Bank had sold in auction a property which was previously acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

Time-Barred Service Dispute Can't Be Revived By Making A Belated Representation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chief Executive Officer & Ors. v. S. Lalitha & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 479

The Supreme Court held that a time-barred service dispute cannot be brought within the limitation period as per the Administrative Tribunals Act by filing a belated representation.

When a government servant is aggrieved by a denial of a benefit, which is not based on a formal order, then a representation must be filed within a reasonable time. The cause of action to approach the Administrative Tribunal arises when an order is passed on such representation or no order is passed after the lapse of six months from the submission of the representation.

There may be situations such as denial of promotion or increment, which are not based on formal orders. In such cases, filing of a representation may be necessary, the Court said, even if the service rules do not provide specifically for such a remedy.

Misguiding Court To Pass An Order With No Intention To Comply Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Chithra Woods ManOrs. Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 480

The Supreme Court held a man guilty of civil contempt after observing that he had misled the court to obtain an order that he never intended to comply with.

“A party, misguiding the Court to pass an order which was never intended to be complied with, would constitute an act of overawing the due process of law and, thus, commit contempt of Court.”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih observed.

FIRs Can Continue Against Borrowers Despite Setting Aside Of Their Loans' Classification As Fraudulent: Supreme Court

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Patwa & Connected Matters | SLP(Crl) No. 007735 - / 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 481

The Supreme Court held that merely because the classification of bank accounts as fraudulent was set aside on technical grounds, the criminal proceedings and FIRs initiated against the account holders for the offence of fraud cannot be quashed.

Observing so, the Court restored various criminal proceedings initiated by the Banks against borrowers.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing the appeals filed by the CBI challenging various High Courts' orders, which had quashed criminal action taken against defaulting borrowers for alleged fraud under the Master Directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

Govt Has Every Right To Cancel & Call Fresh Tender; Scope Of Judicial Review Limited: Supreme Court

Case Details: Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Ors. v. Suresh Mathew & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 482

The Supreme Court (April 25) reiterated that the judicial interference in tender matters should be minimal and only permitted in cases of mala fide or blatant arbitrariness.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale set aside the Kerala High Court's decision which had interfered with the tendering process.

'Moral Policing Not Court's Function': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Imposing Costs For Tweets Against Jain Priest

Case Details: Tehseen Poonawalla v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 483

The Supreme Court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that imposed cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs each on musician Vishal Dadlani and activist Tehseen Poonawala for allegedly insulting Jain Saint Tarun Sagar on Twitter, despite quashing the FIR registered against them.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the High Court should not have imposed costs on Dadlani and Poonawala after holding that no offence was made out against them and upholding their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

WB SSC Scam | Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Direction For CBI Investigation Into Govt Decision For Supernumerary Posts

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Ors. | C.A. No. 4800/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 484

The Supreme Court (April 8) set aside the Calcutta High Court's direction for CBI investigation into the supernumerary posts created by the West Bengal Government during the pending challenge to the 2016 WB SSC Appointments in the High Court.

Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Reconsider Deferred & Rejected Applications For Senior Designation

Case Details: Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 485

The Supreme Court directed the Delhi High Court to consider afresh the applications for senior designations, which were deferred or rejected in November last year, in accordance with the existing rules (The High Court of Delhi Designations of Senior Advocates Rules 2024).

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the direction "in the peculiar facts of the case and to avoid injustice to any of the applicants." During the hearing, Justice Oka orally said that the documents revealed that the marks given by one of the members of the Permanent Committee was not considered.

'Order Taking Cognizance Of PMLA Complaint Quashed': Supreme Court Grants Bail To Ex-IAS Officer In Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam

Case Details: Anil Tuteja v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 486

The Supreme Court (April 15) granted bail to former IAS officer Anil Tuteja in a money laundering case arising out of the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, noting that the order of trial court taking cognizance of the money laundering case has been set aside.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the principles laid down in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director would apply to the present case, as Tuteja has been under incarceration for about a year and no cognizance order existed.

Form Swift Response Protocols For Road Accident Victims; Enforce Drivers' 8-Hour Daily Work: Supreme Court To States/UTs

Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 487

The Supreme Court issued significant directions to all states and union territories, mandating them to take effective steps towards developing swift response protocols to ensure that victims of road accidents receive immediate assistance. A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the growing concern of delayed medical help and rescue efforts for accident victims, calling it a matter of serious public interest.

Dismissal Of Suit For Default Doesn't Bar Fresh Suit On Same Cause Of Action: Supreme Court

Case Details: Amruddin Ansari (Dead)Through LRs & Ors. v. Afajal Ali & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 488

The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of a suit or application for default under Rules 2 or 3 of Order IX of the CPC does not prevent the filing of a fresh suit, as such dismissal does not constitute a judgment or decree, and therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply.

“It is, therefore, clear that an order of dismissal of a suit or application in default under Rule 2 or Rule 3 of Order IX of the C.P.C. is neither an adjudication or a decree nor it is an appealable order. If that is so, such order of dismissal of a suit under Rule 2 or Rule 3 of Order IX of the C.P.C. does not fulfill the requirement of the term “judgment” or “decree”, inasmuch as there is no adjudication. In our considered opinion, therefore, if a fresh suit is filed, then such an order of dismissal cannot and shall not operate a res judicata.”, the court observed.

Order 43 Rule 1A Doesn't Create Independent Appeal; Party To Suit Cannot Directly Appeal Against Compromise Decree: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) v. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 489

The Supreme Court ruled that a party to a compromise decree cannot directly challenge the compromise before the Appellate Court without first approaching the trial court.

“If a person was already a party to the suit, and denies that any lawful compromise ever took place, the CPC requires that person to go back to the Trial Court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 and ask that Court to decide whether the compromise is valid.”, the court said.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale clarified the legal position while hearing an appeal in which the appellant, claiming lack of knowledge of the compromise, directly challenged the recorded compromise before the Appellate Court (before the High Court under Section 96 CPC) by invoking Order XLIII Rule 1-A of the CPC.

Order XLIII Rule 1-A of the CPC permits a party, while appealing a decree, to challenge a non-appealable order if that order contributed to the judgment resulting in the decree, which formed the basis for the appellant's appeal.

Supreme Court Asks Allahabad HC To Prioritise Disposal Of Matters Where Trial Is Stayed, Especially Landlord-Tenant Disputes

Case Details: Rajat Gaera v. Tarun Rawat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 490

The Supreme Court urged the Allahabad High Court to prioritise the disposal of appeals/revisions/original petitions, where the trial has been stayed, particularly of landlord-tenant disputes.

The Court asked the High Court to give out of turn hearing to such matters where the trial has been stayed.

Arbitral Award For Claims Not Included In IBC Resolution Plan Can't Be Enforced: Supreme Court

Case Details: Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S ESL Steel Limited) v. Ispat Carrier Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 491

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal challenging the enforcement of an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) against Electrosteel Steels Ltd., holding that the award was non-executable in view of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

“we have no hesitation to hold that upon approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the claim of the respondent being outside the purview of the resolution plan stood extinguished. Therefore, the award dated 06.07.2018 is incapable of being executed”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated that once a resolution plan is approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 31(1) of the IBC, any claim that is not part of the plan stands extinguished and cannot be pursued further.

Orders

'In Policy Domain': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Guidelines Against Fraudulent Cryptocurrency Transactions

Case Details: Hajarimal Bathra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 161/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking guidelines from the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to prevent and penalize fraudulent transactions involving cryptocurrencies.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, being of the view that the prayers made were within the domain of the legislature and the executive. Be that as it may, the bench left it open for the petitioners to make a representation before the appropriate authority, if they wish to do so, to be decided in accordance with law.

Murshidabad Violence: Supreme Court Rebukes Petitioner Over Irresponsible Averments, Allows Filing Of Fresh Plea

Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 377/2025

The Supreme Court objected to some of the averments made in a petition seeking a Court-monitored investigation into the violence which took place at Murshidabad, West Bengal, during the protests against the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh told Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, the petitioner who appeared in person, that one has to be careful and responsible with the averments made in a petition filed in the Supreme Court.

"We should always maintain the integrity and decorum of the institution...Think about what averments are to be made, and what are required to be struck off. Don't seek publicity. Think with a cool mind," Justice Kant told Jha. Justice Kant said that since the Supreme Court is a Court of record, the pleadings filed in the Court will be there for posterity, and hence, there was a need to maintain decency in the pleadings and avoid offensive statements.

Copyright Claim Over Songs In Restaurants: Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Direction In Phonographic Performance Ltd's Plea

Case Details: Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited

The Supreme Court has stayed Delhi High Court's direction to Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. to pay Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) as per the tariff of Recorded Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL), as if PPL were a member of RMPL, for playing songs from PPL's catalogue.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice in PPL's special leave petition challenging the judgment of the division bench of the High Court that modified a temporary injunction granted by a single judge restraining Azure from using PPL's copyrighted songs.

“Deeper Probe Is Required”: Supreme Court Pulls Up Delhi Government Over Its Handling Of Remission Cases

Case Details: Mohd. Arif v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

The Supreme Court (April 21) slammed the Delhi Government for its handling of a prisoner's case seeking permanent remission.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that a “sorry state of affairs” prevails in the manner in which Delhi government is dealing with issue of premature release of the prisoners.

“Perhaps a deeper probe is required in this case about the manner in which the court proceedings were handled by Delhi government, and manner in which prayers for premature release are being dealt with by the Delhi government”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Dy Collector Who Demolished Slums In Violation Of HC Order

Case Details: Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu and Ors., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025

The Supreme Court came down heavily on a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, thereby displacing them.

For context, the petitioner-Tahsildar was found guilty of contempt of Court by the High Court and sentenced to 2 months' simple imprisonment. Challenging the said order, he approached the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and ordered:

"In ordinary circumstances, we would not have entertained the present SLP inasmuch as the petitioner had the audacity to disobey the directions of the High Court dated 11.12.2013. However, taking a lenient view, we are inclined to issue notice, returnable on...till then, [there shall be] stay of the order."

Orally, the bench indicated that the petitioner would have to do prison-time, pay heavy costs to all the persons who suffered due to his actions, and suffer demotion.

“Completely Misconceived”: Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Confer Article 142 Powers On High Courts

Case Details: Abhinav Bharat Congress v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking that High Courts be granted powers similar to those of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass any order necessary to do complete justice.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the prayer made in the petition was misconceived and the power under Article 142 is conferred only on the Supreme Court, not the High Courts.

Supreme Court Questions MP Police Over Lack Of Arrests In Custodial Death Case, Flags Prejudice Against Pardhi Tribe Members

Case Details: Hansura Bai and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 3450/2025

The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the practice of misusing the social stigma against Pardhi Community persons and wrongly roping them in criminal cases in several districts of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court also questioned the State over the lack of arrests in a case related to the alleged custodial death of a Pardhi community member.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a challenge to the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which refused to grant bail to a sole eyewitness in a custodial death case of a Pardhi man. The eyewitness who has been charged with various offences after the incident was allegedly being tortured by police to turn hostile.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stall BPSC Main Exams, Dismisses Petitions Alleging Paper Leak

Case Details: Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust v. Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors., SLP(C) No. 11363/2025

The Supreme Court refused to stall the Bihar Public Services Commission's (BPSC) Main Exam, which is scheduled to take place on April 25, over allegations of paper leak during the Preliminary Examinations.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the 70th Combined Competitive Exams (preliminary) conducted by the Bihar Public Services Commission (BPSC) on December 13, 2024 on the grounds of an alleged paper leak.

Is Match-Fixing A Criminal Offence? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Abrar Kazi and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 9408-9411/2022

The Supreme Court is set to consider the issue as to whether match-fixing constitutes a criminal offense.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh heard a matter involving the issue and considering the ramifications of betting as well as match-fixing, appointed Advocate Shivam Singh as an Amicus Curiae.

The case has been fixed for hearing on July 27.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On 4 Convicts' Plea Against Jharkhand HC's Failure To Pronounce Judgments On Criminal Appeals For Over 3 Yrs

Case Details: Pila Pahan@ Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by 4 convicts alleging that judgments on their criminal appeals, though reserved, have not been pronounced by the Jharkhand High Court despite lapse of 2-3 years.

Notably, the convicts belong to the Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes communities and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. While three were convicted for murder, one faced conviction for the charge of rape.

Out of the four, one convict has been in jail for over 16 years, while the others have also undergone actual custody period of 11-14 years.

Taking serious note of the matter, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh called on the Registrar General of the High Court to submit a status report regarding the reserved judgments in a sealed cover.

Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakhs Costs On Lawyer For Filing Frivolous Petition

Case Details: Sandeep Todi v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 240/2025

The Supreme Court on April 22 came down heavily on a lawyer who continuously filed a frivolous petition and imposed costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs on him as a penalty.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed displeasure at the constant misuse of the legal process by the petitioner in person, who also happened to be a lawyer and filed an Article 32 writ petition before the bench.

Justice AM Sapre Declines Rs 20 Lakh Fee, Supreme Court Directs Payment Of That Amount To Tea-Estate Workers' Widows

Case Details: International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors. v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed the States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Assam to identify cases where the widows of deceased tea workers are facing grave difficulties and disburse to them the amount which was to be paid to retired Supreme Court judge Justice AM Sapre.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed this direction after being informed that Justice Sapre has refused to accept the Rs. 20 lakh remuneration for his work in ensuring the disbursement of pending dues to tea estate workers.

The Court stated in its order, “Justice AM Sapre, retired judge of this court has expressed inability to accept the amount as directed by this court considering the cause involved. We really appreciate this gesture on the part of hon'ble retired judge. We honour his sentiments. We direct the state governments concerned to identify certain cases where the worker has died and his widow is facing grave difficulties. With the assistance of the amicus curiae, the States of Tamil Nadu, Assam and Kerala will identify deserving cases and pay the amount which was to be paid to Hon'ble Justice Sapre in terms of our order.”

Supreme Court Seeks Data From Centre On Sanctions Under S.17A PC Act To Investigate Corruption Cases

Case Details: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India WP(C) No. 1373/2018

The Supreme Court sought details from the Union Government as to in how many cases sanction has been granted or refused under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) to launch an investigation against a public servant.

"...we direct the Union of India to place a Statement vis-a-vis the operation of Section 17A of the said Act by detailing as to in how many cases, permission has been granted for carrying on the inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the provisions of the Act where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties and in how many other cases the permission has been refused," the order states.

Further, the details of the total number of cases which are pending for permission may have also been sought. The details are to be filed before May 5, and the matter is listed to be heard on May 6.

The order was passed by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma in a PIL challenging the constitutionality of Section 17A inserted as per the 2018 amendment in the PC Act, 1988 (Act) on the ground that they violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Article 14 (Equality before law) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

Supreme Court Directs NCR States And MCD To Appoint Nodal Officers For 100% Waste Collection and Segregation

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court has directed Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi governments along with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to appoint high-ranking nodal officers to oversee the compliance of achieving 100 percent segregation of waste and 100 percent collection of solid waste in NCR.

The Court observed that the amicus curiae Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh had rightly emphasized the need to achieve 100 percent segregation of waste within fixed timelines and 100 percent collection of solid waste by 31 December 2025.

'Is This How You Treat Freedom Fighters?': Supreme Court Slams Rahul Gandhi For Comments Against Savarkar, Stays Defamation Case

Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. and Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 6196/2025

The Supreme Court orally expressed disapproval of the comments made by the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi against VD Savarkar.

Though the Court stayed the criminal defamation proceedings pending against Rahul Gandhi in a Lucknow Court over his comments against Savarkar, it orally warned that if he made any such comments in the future, "suo motu" action will be taken against him.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard the matter. As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Datta took objection to Rahul Gandhi's statement that Savarkar was a servant of the British. Justice Datta asked if Mahatma Gandhi could be called the servant of the Britishers merely because he used the term "your faithful servant" in his letters to the Viceroy.

Supreme Court Dismisses Punjab Govt's Plea Against Bail Of Akali Leader Bikram Singh Majithia In NDPS Case

Case Details: State of Punjab v. Bikram Singh Majithia | SLP(Crl) No. 3650/2023

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the State of Punjab challenging the bail granted to Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia in a drug case.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar, while refusing to interfere with the regular bail granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, directed that neither the Special Investigation Team nor Majithia should make any statements related to the investigation to the media.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Demolition In Ahmedabad Slum Area

Case Details: Jadeja Bhanuben v. State of Gujarat, Diary No. 20660/2025

Considering a litigant's plea that demolition action was being carried out in a slum area of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, despite a Court protection being in place, the Supreme Court ordered that status quo shall be maintained at the site till the next date of hearing.

Supreme Court Seeks Report On States/UTs' Implementation Of Organ Transplant Act; Enquires Steps Taken To Remove Gender Disparity In Transplants

Case Details: Indian Society of Organ Transplantation v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 39/2025

In a public interest litigation pertaining to organ transplants, the Supreme Court has asked the Union to convene a meeting of Chief Secretaries and Secretaries, Public Health of all States/Union Territories to seek data and submit a report.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, asking the Union to collect information from the states/UTs

Oran Identification In Rajasthan: Supreme Court Summons MoEFCC Secretary Over 'Callous Approach' In Constitution of Expert Committee

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.202/1995

Displeased by a "callous approach" taken with regard to the constitution of an Expert Committee for Oran (sacred groves) identification in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court on April 16 summoned the Secretary of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).

The Secretary shall appear before the Court on April 29 and show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, while dealing with applications filed in the TN Godavarman case (an omnibus forest protection matter).

Supreme Court Seeks Affidavits From States/UTs On Compliance With Directions To Enforce POSH Act

Case Details: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Ors., Diary No. 22553-2023

The Supreme Court passed an order seeking follow-up affidavits from the Union, States and the Union Territories in regards to its comprehensive directions for effective compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) passed last year on December 3.

The directions, passed by a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh, included the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee at workplaces in consonance with provisions of the POSH Act, appointment of District officers, constitution of Local Committee by the concerned District Officer, to name a few. Since then, a bench of Justices Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma has followed up on the matter and imposed costs on States and Union Territories for failing to file a compliance affidavit.

Supreme Court Asks Union To File Status Report On Policy To Promote Electric Vehicles & Provide Charging Infrastructure

Case Details: Centre For Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 228/2019

In a PIL seeking promotion and implementation of electric vehicle policies, the Supreme Court asked the Union to file a status report regarding policy decisions taken by it to promote electric vehicles and provide infrastructure to facilitate their use.

"Learned Attorney General for India seeks and is granted four weeks' time to place on record the policy decision taken by the Union of India from time to time for promoting the electric vehicles and also for setting-up of the requisite infrastructure to facilitate the consumers of electric vehicles," the Court stated in its order. The matter will be next heard on May 14.

Manual Sewer Cleaner's Death: Supreme Court Summons Haryana Chief Secretary Over Failure To Consider Claim For Compensation

Case Details: Asha v. State of Haryana, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 368/2025

The Supreme Court passed an order summoning the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, to remain personally present in the Court after it found that the Government of Haryana failed to comply with the Court's order directing them to decide the representation of a petitioner for compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs after her husband died on account of inhaling poisonous gas while cleaning sewer tanks.

Other Developments

'We're Already Facing Allegations Of Intruding On Executive': Supreme Court On Plea For Union's Article 355 Action In West Bengal

When a petition seeking the Central Government's action in the State of West Bengal as per Article 355 of the Constitution was mentioned, the Supreme Court impliedly referred to the controversy over its direction to the President.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer Of 7 High Court Judges; 4 From Karnataka HC

The Supreme Collegium has recommended that transfer of seven High Court Judges - four of them from the Karnataka High Court- with a view to "infuse inclusivity and diversity" and "to strengthen the quality of administration of justice."

'The Indian Express' Moves Supreme Court Against Gujarat HC Calling For Fresh Apology Over Incorrect Reporting Of Proceedings

Case Details: Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar High Court of Gujarat, Diary No. 42992/2024

"The Indian Express" has filed a plea before the Supreme Court challenging a Gujarat High Court order which refused to accept its apology affidavit over wrong reporting of Court proceedings and directed that a fresh apology affidavit be filed.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih granted leave in the matter and tagged it along with a special leave petition filed by Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd (the company which owns and publishes the Times of India) against the same High Court order.

On September 4 last year, while granting leave on Bennett Coleman's petition, the top Court had directed that the impugned Gujarat High Court order of September 2 shall remain stayed. It was however clarified that the main proceedings before the High Court, which related to amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, shall continue.

'File Suit For Damages': Supreme Court Advises Man Seeking Compensation For Disability Allegedly Caused By Covid Vaccine

Case Details: Praveen Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 263/2025

The Supreme Court told a man, who was seeking medical cover by the Union government and Serum Institute of India for a physical disability developed allegedly after the administration of the Covishield vaccine, that filing a suit for damages would be a better option for him.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter. Being of the view that a writ petition before the Court may take years, Justice Gavai suggested to the petitioner's counsel that a suit for damages can provide quicker relief.

'Disturbing': Supreme Court On Comedian Samay Raina's Remarks Against Persons With Disabilities

Case Details: Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025

M/s Cure SMA Foundation has approached the Supreme Court assailing certain insensitive remarks made by comedian Samay Raina in relation to persons with disabilities.

Briefly put, the allegation is that during a show, Raina ridiculed a high-cost treatment option for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) in case of a 2-month old child. In another instance, it is alleged that he ridiculed a blind and cross-eyed person. Besides Raina, the Foundation alleges that certain cricketers have also reportedly made insensitive videos mocking persons with disabilities.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the plea and told Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh (appearing for the Foundation) to file a comprehensive petition, impleading all concerned individuals who made such remarks and suggesting measures.

"This is very very serious issue. We are really disturbed to see that. We would like [you] to place on record the instances also. If you have video-clippings alongwith transcript, bring them. Implead the concerned persons. Also suggest measures which according to you...Then we will see", said Justice Kant.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Contempt Plea Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Property By Rajasthan Authorities; Orders Status Quo

Case Details: Pukh Raj v. Pratap Singh and Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 112/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 295/2022

The Supreme Court issued notice and ordered status quo in a contempt petition alleging illegal demolition of property by Rajasthan authorities, in violation of the Court's November 13 judgment in the 'bulldozer matter'.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde on behalf of the petitioner.

'Unfortunate Fight In God's Name': Supreme Court On Legal Fight Between Factions In Himachal Temple Committee

Case Details: Arpit Khoda v. State of H.P. | SLP(Crl) No. 000838 - / 2025

The Supreme Court will consider the issue whether High Courts under the jurisdiction of S. 482 CrPC can pass directions in relation to the management of temple affairs and the placement of idols.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge to the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order, which gave directions for shifting centuries-old Durga Idol to the newly constructed temple complex while hearing a matter under S. 482 petition.

S. 482 CrPC states, "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

'We're Criticised Of Interfering With Executive & Legislative Functions': Supreme Court On Plea For OTT Regulation

Case Details: Uday Mahurkar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 313/2025

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court against OTT platforms Netflix, Amazon Prime, Altt Balaji (and others) assailing distribution of "obscene" content through their means.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, which appeared disinclined to entertain it, being of the view that the issue lies in policy domain. "How can we...? It's in policy domain. It's for Union to frame regulations...as it is, we are criticized that we are interfering with the Executive functions, Legislative functions...", remarked Justice Gavai.

Be that as it may, when Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain (for petitioners) contended that the issue is a serious one and he may be able to satisfy the Court, the bench asked him to serve a copy of the petition on the Union. "We will dismiss it on the next date after hearing", Justice Gavai smiled and said.

Nishikant Dubey's Remarks: Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Removal Of Social Media Content Derogatory To Judiciary

The Supreme Court agreed to consider next week a plea seeking directions to remove social media posts/videos doing rounds on the internet since BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's remarks against the Court and CJI Sanjiv Khanna, which were "derogatory and contemptuous" towards the judiciary.

The petitioner's counsel, Advocate Narender Mishra, mentioned the matter before a Justice BR Gavai-led bench, seeking an urgent listing. He referred to the statements made by Nishikant Dubey against the Supreme Court and CJI Khanna following the Court's direction to the President/Governors regarding Bills and the intervention in the Waqf Amendment Act matter.

'Tamil Nadu Governor Judgment Doesn't Apply To Kerala': Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Kerala and Anr. v. Hon'ble Governor For State of Kerala and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 1264/2023

The judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case, which laid down timelines for the grant of assent to Bills, will not cover the case of Kerala, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General told the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The Court posted Kerala's petition for hearing on May 6.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a writ petition filed by the State of Kerala in 2023 against the Governor's delay in deciding on the Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala Government, told the bench that the judgment delivered in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case covered the case of Kerala as well.

Should Grounds Of Arrest Be Mandatorily Supplied 'Prior' To Arrest In Every Case? Supreme Court Reserves Orders In Worli Hit & Run Case

Case Details: Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 17132/2024

The Supreme Court reserved orders on a plea filed by the prime accused in Worli Hit-and-Run case seeking his release. The plea raised inter-alia the issue as to whether furnishing grounds of arrest to the accused, in writing, is mandatory in all cases, including those arising out of the Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih came upon the issue pursuant to a challenge brought by Mihir Shah (the prime accused) to a Bombay High Court order, which denied his release on the ground of illegal arrest.

'Affront To Humanity': Supreme Court Condemns Pahalgam Terrorist Attack

The Supreme Court condemned the terrorist attack which took place in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, yesterday, which reportedly killed 26 persons, all tourists except one local native. The Court expressed its deep anguish at the "cowardly terrorist attack".

A resolution passed by the Full Court condemned the act as "an affront to the values of humanity."

Resign As Minister Or Bail Will Be Cancelled; Choose Between Post & Freedom: Supreme Court Tells Senthil Balaji

Case Details: K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.

The Supreme Court warned Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji that the bail granted to him in the money laundering case over the 'cash-for-jobs' scam would be cancelled if he did not resign from the Ministership.

The Court asked Balaji to make a choice between his Minister post and liberty, and gave him time till next Monday to decide. A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing the applications seeking to recall the bail granted to Balaji on the ground that he was influencing the witnesses.

Artificial Intelligence Has Very Serious Biases, We Must Remind Ourselves It's A Man-Made Machine: Justice Surya Kantds

Case Details: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1230/2023

During a hearing pertaining to the Krishna River water dispute, Supreme Court judge-Justice Surya Kant expressed that artificial intelligence has very serious biases.

The hearing witnessed Justice Kant strike conversation with Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta on a lighter note about the use of laptops. When the senior counsel suggested that with the aid of AI technology, the Court can now simple ask a question to basic AI apps like ChatGPT and Gemini as to what are the tributaries of the Krishna river, Justice Kant replied,

Kerala Waqf Board Opposes Waqf Amendment Act In Supreme Court, Says It Subverts Secularism & Violates Fundamental Rights

The Kerala State Waqf Board has filed a preliminary reply in the Supreme Court opposing the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, contending that the law was unconstitutional as it "subverts the principles of secularism and violates the fundamental rights of citizens."

The Board accused the Government of India of "following a pick and choose policy" against some religions to control their properties.

"It is respectfully submitted that all religions in the country are not having laws with regard to the management of properties dedicated for religious purpose and recently the Government of India is following a pick and choose policy against some religions and trying to control their properties," the Board said.

Godhra Train Burning Case: Supreme Court Posts Appeals For Final Hearing On May 6 & 7

Case Details: Abdul Raheman Dhantiya @ Kankatto @ Jamburo v. State of Gujarat., Criminal Appeal 517/2018 and Ors..

The Supreme Court (April 24) passed an order for the final hearing of the 2018 appeals pending in the 2002 Godhra train burning case on May 6 and May 7. The Court said that no other cases will be listed on these dates.

Kids Bullied After NIA Linked Drug Case To Pahalgam Attack, Says Accused; Supreme Court Says Family Must Not Suffer

Case Details: Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. State of Gujarat, SLP (Crl) No. 8878/2024

In connection with a bail matter where the NIA linked drug proceeds to funding of terrorism and cited the tragedy of Pahalgam Terror Attack, the Supreme Court was informed that the accused's children were bullied in school as "terrorists' children" because of the comment made and had to be brought back.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh by Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, who cited a Times of India report to say that Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati called the case an "National Investigation Agency case", even though it was not investigated by the NIA, and linked the alleged drug proceeds to terrorism-funding.

In response, Justice Kant opined that the ASG was arguing in a different context and assured that the Court would not be influenced by the media reports. The matter would be decided based on what has been argued and what is there on record, the judge added.

Later, ASG Bhati appeared and submitted, "Children should not suffer. If that is the issue, police will take care of it". The Court parted with the matter, with Justice Kant observing,

"No family member of any person, whosoever committed or did not commit anything, no family member should suffer due to it. Take care of that part. We really don't want to say anything. You know very well what is to be done."

Caste Discrimination In Colleges | Supreme Court Allows UGC To Notify Draft Regulations

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

In the PIL assailing caste discrimination in higher educational institutions (HEIs), the Supreme Court clarified that the University Grants Commission may proceed with finalization of the Draft (UGC) Regulations, 2025 dealing inter-alia with the issues raised in the matter and notify the same.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh noted that a coordinate bench of the Court, in Amit Kumar v. Union of India, has constituted a National Task Force to consider the issues related to suicides in higher educational institutions.

Consider Mandating Minimum Vote Share For Unopposed Candidates To Be Declared Winners: Supreme Court Tells Union

Case Details: Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 677/2024

The Supreme Court asked the Union of India to consider bringing in an enabling provision requiring unopposed candidates in elections to secure a minimum percentage of votes before they are declared the winner.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a public interest litigation challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act ("RP Act"), which provides for direct election of candidates in uncontested elections ie without conduct of a poll. The petitioner claims that the impugned provision(s) deprives voters of the rights to choose 'None of the Above' (NOTA). Notice was issued on the petition in October, 2024.

Waqf Registration Not A New Requirement; 2025 Amendments Only Regulatory, Won't Affect Religious Rights: Centre Tells Supreme Court

The Union Government, through its Ministry of Minority Affairs, has filed a preliminary affidavit in response to the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, refuting the arguments that the law was violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Centre maintained that the amendments are only for the regulation of the secular aspect regarding the management of the properties and hence, there was no violation of the religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It asserted that the 2025 Amendment Act squarely falls within the permissible regulatory power of the State

'Mother' A Very Wide Term: Supreme Court Questions IAF's Denial Of Family Pension To Stepmother Of Deceased Officer

Case Details: Jayashree Y Jogi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 53874-2023

The Supreme Court questioned the Indian Air Force as to why it was denying pension benefit to a stepmother who raised the deceased officer-son since the age of 6 years.

"Suppose, a baby child is born and within few days or months, the mother unfortunately passes away because of some complication. The father gets married and there is a stepmother who, right from the age the child requires breastfeeding till the day he becomes an officer of Air Force, Navy, etc., if she has really looked after that child, is she not a mother?" posed Justice Surya Kant to IAF's counsel.

Giving time to the parties to address the issue, the bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh adjourned the matter.

Supreme Court To Decide If Bar On Divorced & Single Men From Availing Surrogacy Is Constitutional

Case Details: Dr. Maheshwara M.V v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court is set to consider the issue of whether a divorced man should be allowed to have a child through surrogacy.

The writ petition filed by a 45-year-old divorced single man has challenged the constitutional validity of S.2(1)(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Vishwanathan agreed to consider the matter and issue notice in the same.