Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: August 25, 2025 to August 31, 2025

Reports/Judgments

Maharashtra Slum Areas Act | Land Can't Be Acquired Without Extinguishing Owner's Preferential Right To Propose Rehabilitation Scheme : Supreme Court

Case Title: Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others, SLP(C) No.19774/2018

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 832

While dealing with acquisition of a parcel of land in Mumbai's Kurla for slum rehabilitation purposes, the Supreme Court held that Chapter I-A of the Slums Act gives preferential right to a landowner, vis-a-vis the State, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), occupiers, and other stakeholders, to redevelop land.

The SRA shall mandatorily issue notice to the landowner inviting its proposal for an SR Scheme and the landowner must submit the Slum Rehabilitation (SR) Scheme "within a reasonable period" , the Court said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh also held that acquisition by the State in terms of Section 14 of the Slums Act [that is, the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971] shall await extinguishment of the landowner's preferential right.

No UAPA Offence Over Attending Meetings Of Organisation Which Isn't Banned : Supreme Court Affirms Bail

Case: Union Of India v. Saleem Khan

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 833

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency challenging the bail granted by the Karnataka High Courtto one Saleem Khan under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act over alleged links with 'Al-Hind' organisation.

The Court, noting that 'Al-Hind' was not an organisation banned as per the UAPA, observed that no prima facie offence under the UAPA is attracted if a person is having meetings with it.

"While dealing with the prayer for bail of accused no.11, Saleem Khan, the High Court noticed that the allegations found in the charge-sheet related to his connections with an organisation by the name of ALHind, which admittedly is not a banned organisation under the schedule to UAPA. Therefore, to say that he was attending meetings of the said organisation, AL-Hind and others would not amount to any prima facie offence," observed the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice KV Viswanathan.

If High Court Bench Doesn't Deliver Judgment In 3 Months After Reserving, Registrar Must Place Matter Before Chief Justice : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State Of U.P.|Slp(Crl) No. 4509-4510/2025

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 834

The Supreme Court expressed shock at the manner in which judgments are not being delivered for long period by the High Courts, depriving the litigant to seek appropriate remedy. It reiterated that the guidelines passed by the Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2002), wherein the Court directed that the parties are free to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court for withdrawal of case and to be assigned to a different bench if the judgment is not pronounced within six months after being reserved, must be adhered to properly.

"It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard. This Court is repeatedly confronted with similar matters wherein proceedings are kept pending in the High Court for more than three months, in some cases for more than six months or years wherein judgments are not delivered after hearing the matter. In most of the High Courts, there is no mechanism where the litigant can approach the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice bringing to its notice the delay in delivery of judgment. In such situation, the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice."

Remarking that the principles laid down in Anil Rai must be followed, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said: "We reiterate the directions and direct the Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the Chief Justice of the High Court a list of cases where the judgment reserved is not pronounced within the remaining period of that month and keep on repeating the same for three months. If the judgment is not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing the order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter be assigned to another Bench."

Supreme Court Orders SIT Inquiry Into Affairs Of Vantara Wildlife Centre & Acquisition Of Animals

Case: C R Jaya Sukin V Union Of India

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 835

The Supreme Court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to inquire into the affairs of Vantara (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre) run by the Reliance Foundation at Jamnagar, Gujarat.

The SIT has to inquiry into, among other things, the compliance with the provisions of the Wildlfie Protection Act and other relevant statutes in the acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particulary elephants.

The SIT will be headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice J Chelameswar.

NGT Has No Power To Direct ED Probe Under PMLA : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S C.L. Gupta Export Ltd v. Adil Ansari & Ors. |Civil Appeal No. 2864 Of 2022

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 836

The Supreme Court held that the National Green Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the Enforcement Directorate to launch investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against an entity.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the direction of the NGT to the Enforcement Directorate to examine and take appropriate action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In this regard, it cited Waris Chemicals (P) Ltd(2025) and stated that Section 3 of the PMLA is dependent on illegal gains of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Here, there is neither a FIR for any scheduled offence nor any complaint filed alleging such offences under various environmental protection statutes scheduled under PMLA.

Non-Discovery Of Incriminating Material Does Not Mean Non-Cooperation By Accused: Supreme Court

Case Title: Jugraj Singh v. State Of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 3640/2025

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 837

While granting anticipatory bail to an accused, the Supreme Court observed that mere non-discovery of incriminating material is not an indicator of non-cooperation on the part of the accused.

"Merely because nothing incriminating could be discovered would not mean that there is non-co-operation on the part of accused," said a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The Court was dealing with a case where the appellant-accused was roped in based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, from whom recovery was made. Interestingly, the appellant was booked in a case earlier as well based on statement of co-accused, where he was granted anticipatory bail.

Refusal To Enter Witness Box By Party Having Special Knowledge Of Facts Invites Adverse Inference : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Chowdamma (D) By LR And Another v. Venkatappa (D) By Lrs And Another

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 838

The Supreme Court (Aug. 25) observed that when certain facts lie exclusively within a party's personal knowledge, the failure to enter the witness box to testify on those facts can lead to serious consequences for that party.

“In civil proceedings, particularly where the facts lie exclusively within the personal knowledge of the party, the refusal to enter the witness box carries grave evidentiary consequences.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the dispute was regarding ascertaining the validity of the first marriage of the plaintiff's mother with one Dasabovi to claim inheritance rights in ancestral property. The Plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to the right in ancestral property as their mother was a legally wedded wife of deceased Dasabovi. However, the defendant no.1-second wife denied the same, stating that she was the only wife of the deceased Dasabovi, hence plaintiffs entitlements towards ancestral property cannot be sustained.

Mere Non-Signing Won't Invalidate Arbitration Agreement If Parties Otherwise Consented To Arbitration : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Glencore International AG v. M/S. Shree Ganesh Metals And Another

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 839

The Supreme Court observed that merely because an arbitration agreement was not signed, there is no bar to refer the dispute to arbitration, if the parties have otherwise consented to arbitration.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Delhi High Court's decision which declined reference to arbitration merely because Respondent No.1 didn't sign the arbitration agreement. Since the Respondent No.1 consented to the contractual terms via email, the Court held that the High Court's refusal to refer to an arbitration on the ground of non-signing of the arbitration agreement cannot be sustained.

“Noting the fact that the requirement of the arbitration agreement being in writing has been continued in Section 7(3) of the Act of 1996, it was observed that Section 7(4) only added that an arbitration agreement could be found in the circumstances mentioned in the three sub-clauses that make up Section 7(4) but that did not mean that, in all cases, an arbitration agreement needs to be signed. It was held that the only pre-requisite is that it should be in writing, as pointed out in Section 7(3). This legal principle would hold good equally for an arbitration agreement covered by Sections 44 and 45 of the Act of 1996.”, the Court said.

Regulators Cannot Rewrite Power Purchase Agreements Under Guise Of Equity; Sanctity Of Contract Must Prevail : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Cesc) v. Saisudhir Energy (Chitradurga) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 840

The Supreme Court observed that under the guise of equity fairness, the regulatory or adjudicatory fora cannot override the explicit terms of a commercial contract. It added that the Power Purchasing Agreements (“PPAs”) must be enforced strictly as written, without regulators superimposing obligations not contemplated by the parties.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity's (“APTEL”) decision which directed the Appellant to restore to the Developer i.e. Respondent No. 1 herein, the amount realised from the encashment of the performance bank guarantee; extend the timelines for fulfilment of contractual obligations; and to undertake renegotiation of the tariff under the Power Purchase Agreement (the “PPA”) for a solar power project.

“This Court has, in a consistent line of judgements, reiterated that regulatory or adjudicatory fora cannot, under the guise of equity or fairness, rewrite the contractual framework or superimpose obligations alien to the agreement. The PPA, being the product of a competitive bidding process and having received regulatory approval, must be construed and enforced strictly in accordance with its express stipulations. To permit otherwise would be to allow the State Commission or the APTEL to override the parties own allocation of risk under the contract.”, the court said.

'Shabby Investigation, Laconic Trial': Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death In Child Rape-Murder Case

Cause Title: Putai v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 841

The Supreme Court (Aug. 26) set aside the conviction of two men in a case involving the rape and murder of a minor in Uttar Pradesh, noting that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, was marred by inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and serious investigative flaws.

“We feel that the present case is yet another classic example of lackluster and shabby investigation and so also laconic trial procedure which has led to the failure of a case involving brutal rape and murder of an innocent girl child.”, the court said.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set aside the conviction of the Appellants, who were sentenced to death and rigorous life imprisonment, respectively, based on the supplementary DNA Report, which was admitted in evidence via affidavit without examining the scientific expert to verify its credibility.

Supreme Court Directs DGFT & CBIC To Update Tech Systems To Ensure Genuine Exporters Don't Lose Benefits Over Clerical Errors

Cause Title: M/S Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Ors.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 842

The Supreme Court observed that an exporter cannot be denied legitimate entitlements under the government's incentive schemes merely because of an inadvertent clerical error that was later corrected through statutory processes.

Holding thus, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria ruled in favour of an exporter who was denied a claim for benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) just because the column declaring “intent to claim MEIS” in the shipping bills was incorrectly marked “No” instead of “Yes due to oversight of the customs broker.

Though Customs authorities subsequently amended the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) refused to process the claim, citing “system limitations.” The Policy Relaxation Committee rejected the application through a cryptic email, without granting a hearing.

Death Sentence Can Be Challenged In Article 32 Petition For Breach Of Procedural Safeguards: Supreme Court

Case Title: Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union Of India And Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 371/2023

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 843

The Supreme Court allowed an Article 32 petition filed by Vasanta Sampat Dupare, a man convicted and sentenced for the rape and murder of a 4-year old girl, challenging his sentence of death penalty.

"The writ petition is allowed. Therefore, we hold that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers this Court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty without ensuring that the guidelines mandated in Manoj was followed. This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the safeguards laid down in Manoj judgment in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person.

We however add a word of caution. Article 32 of the Constitution is the bedrock of constitutional remedies but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters. Reopening will be reserved for only those cases where there is a clear, specific breach of the new procedural safeguards, as these breaches are so serious that if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused person's basic rights like dignity and fair process" observed the Court.

Criminal Courts Cannot Recall Or Review Their Own Judgments Except For Clerical Or Arithmetical Errors: Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Title – Vikram Bakshi And Ors. v. R.P. Khosla And Anr.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 844

The Supreme Court ruled that criminal courts cannot review or recall their judgments except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, while setting aside a Delhi High Court order that had reopened perjury proceedings in a corporate dispute.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the HC order that had recalled its earlier decision dismissing a petition for initiating perjury proceedings in a long-running dispute.

“the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or review their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable, this, despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar”, the Court observed.

Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Bar Not Applicable To Party Who Purchased Suit Property Not From Judgment-Debtor : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Tahir v. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar, (Since Deceased) Now Through His Legal Representatives & Ors

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 845

The Supreme Court clarified that the bar under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, which prevents a pendente lite transferee from the judgment-debtor from resisting execution of a decree, does not apply where the objection is raised by a transferee from a third party, who was not a party to the suit.

The Court observed that the bar under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC doesn't apply to objection raised by the transferee from third parties, who were not party to the original suit. The Court added that the transferees from third parties, are entitled to protection under Sections 97-98 CPC, and can raise objection against the execution of decrees subject to the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein.

“However, Rule 102 of Order XXI applies only to a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the immovable property which was subject matter of that suit pendente lite. If the person who is resisting or obstructing the execution of the decree for possession of such property, is not the transferee of judgment debtor, i.e. he does not trace his title from judgment-debtor, bar of Rule 102 does not apply to him. That is to say that if the person who is resisting or obstructing the decree for possession has received the property from person other than the judgment-debtor, such person is competent to gain the benefit of Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI. In fact, he is entitled to such benefit even if he had been transferred the immovable property pendente lite, i.e. during the pendency of the suit, in which the decree was passed.”, the court said.

Order XXX Rule 10 CPC | Absence Of Proprietorship In Suit Not A Defect If Proprietor Is A Defendant: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Dogiparthi Venkata Satish And Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 846

The Supreme Court observed there is no distinction between suing a proprietorship in its trade name or in the proprietor's name, since the firm has no independent legal status and is inseparable from its owner.

“Whether proprietorship concern is sued in its name or through its proprietor representing the concerned is one of the same thing.”, the court said.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision which held that the suit against the proprietorship firm would be maintained against its trade name, and not in the name of the proprietor concern.

Delay In Compliance Without Wilful Intent Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court : Supreme Court

Cause Title: A.K. JAYAPRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH Lrs v. S.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 847

The Supreme Court held that the delay in complying with the Court's direction without any willful or contumacious intent doesn't invite contempt of court.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the contempt petition filed by an ex-bank manager, against the non-compliance of the Court's order which directed the Bank to disburse the outstanding amount to the bank manager within a period of three months. The bank failed to make the payment within three months' time limit, arguing that the delay in compliance was unintentional and pleaded administrative hurdles post-merger of the bank with Punjab National Bank.

Observing that the breach was not deliberate and intentional, the judgment authored by Justice Masih held against the invocation of the contempt jurisdiction in the present case.

Supreme Court Asks HC To Decide If Bank Or EPFO Gets First Charge Over Defaulter's Assets

Cause Title: M/S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Limited v. Regional Pf Commissioner Ii And Recovery Officer, Ro Bengaluru (Koramangala) & Anr.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 848

The Supreme Court has directed the Karnataka High Court to adjudicate the critical question of who holds priority over the proceeds from the sale of a defaulter's assets, the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), claiming provident fund dues under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (PF Act), or secured financial creditors enforcing recovery under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a case involving M/s Acropetal Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which had defaulted on provident fund contributions amounting to ₹1.29 crore. Invoking Section 11(2) of the PF Act, the EPFO asserted a statutory first charge over the company's assets. While so, Axis Bank and Edelweiss ARC auctioned the company's secured properties under the SARFAESI framework, realising approximately ₹12 crores and ₹7 crores, respectively.

EPFO insisted that its statutory dues be paid in priority from these proceeds, while Axis Bank resisted, relying on Section 35 of SARFAESI, which gives overriding effect to the Act.

Supreme Court Exonerates Arunachal Pradesh PSC Member Mepung Tadar Bage In 2022 Paper Leak Case

Cause Title: In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 849

The Supreme Court (Aug. 28) exonerated Mepung Tadar Bage, a Member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), of all allegations of “misbehaviour” in connection with the 2022 Assistant Engineer (Civil) mains examination paper leak.

Answering the Presidential reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, the Court conducted a fact-finding inquiry into six charges framed against her and found that none of the allegations were proved against her. The Court added that the charges levelled against her were not in her personal capacity, but general allegations which were not substantiated by cogent evidence.

Highlighting the minimal judicial interference in inquiry proceedings, the court said that when the inquiry results in removal from the constitutional office than the inquiry must be treated with abundant caution.

Recruitment Process Carried Out As Per Statute Can't Be Arbitrarily Scrapped Midway Through Govt Order : Supreme Court

Cause Title: PARTHA DAS & ORS. v. THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. (And Connected Case)

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 850

Setting aside the Tripura Government's decision to scrap ongoing recruitments midway and replace them with a fresh process under the New Recruitment Policy, 2018 (“NRP”), the Supreme Court (Aug. 28) ruled that executive instructions cannot override statutory recruitment processes and the rules governing them.

The Court said that “executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder. The Executive instructions can only supplement the act and rules through which recruitment process was carried out, but it cannot supplant the specific provisions which already occupy the field.”

“It is not the case of the government that to fill the gaps and to supplement the TSR Act and TSR Rules, the NRP is relevant, therefore, Abeyance Memorandum or Cancellation Memorandum may be upheld. In absence of the same, in our view, the action of the government in cancelling the process of recruitment for the post of Enrolled Followers is not justified and would amount to arbitrary exercise of power.”, the court added.

Vehicles Plying Only Within Enclosed Premises Of Factory/Plant Not Liable To Pay Motor Vehicle Tax : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Vijay Krishnaswami @ Krishnaswami Vijayakumar v. The Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Investigation)

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 851

The Supreme Court imposed Rs. 2 Lakhs cost on Income Tax Department for 'grossly abusing its position' to continue a prosecution against an assessee alleging willful tax evasion.

The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's decision, which refused to quash the prosecution case initiated by the department. The Court criticized the department's action of launching the prosecution against the assessee in contrast to its own circulars, which allow launching the prosecution for tax evasion under Section 276C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) only after the penalty for concealment is confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

Supreme Court Pulls Up Income Tax Dept For Launching Prosecution For Tax Evasion Without ITAT Confirmation, Imposes Rs 2 Lakh Cost

Cause Title: M/S. Tarachand Logistic Solutions Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 852

The Supreme Court ruled that the vehicles operating exclusively within the enclosed premises of a factory or plant are not liable to pay motor vehicle tax, as such areas do not constitute a "public place."

“Motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature. It has a direct nexus with the end use. The rationale for levy of motor vehicle tax is that a person who is using public infrastructure, such as, roads, highways etc. has to pay for such usage. Legislature has consciously used the expression 'public place' in Section 3 (“AP Motor Vehicle Taxation Act”). If a motor vehicle is not used in a 'public place' or not kept for use in a 'public place' then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure; therefore, he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period.”, the court said.

Supreme Court Regularises MBBS Degree Of Student Whose ST Certificate Was Cancelled After Her Course, Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Father

Cause Title: X v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 853

The Supreme Court safeguarded the academic career of a medical student by regularizing her MBBS degree, even though it had been obtained on the basis of a Scheduled Tribe certificate submitted by her father, which was later invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The Court also imposed Rs. 5 Lakhs cost on the father for his fraudulent actions of concealing the invalidation of his community certificate on earlier occasions.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan granted a relief to a student saying that her academic career could not be irreversibly damaged for a fault committed by her father.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Eviction Drive In Assam's Golaghat

Case Title: Abdul Khalek And Ors. v. The State Of Assam And Ors., Slp(C) No. 23647-23648/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday ordered status quo with respect to eviction and demolition actions initiated in Uriamghat and adjoining villages of Golaghat District, Assam.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, while issuing notice on a petition challenging the Gauhati High Court's judgment which rejected the petitioners' writ appeals and upheld the eviction action initiated by the respondent-authorities.

Briefly put, the petitioners have approached the Court aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to protect "long-settled residents" from forcible eviction, many of whom are stated to have been in uninterrupted occupation for over seven decades. It is claimed that the eviction action is without due process, rehabilitation, or settlement inquiry as mandated under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

Russia Obligated To Legally Assist India In Locating Woman Who Fled With Child During Custody Case: Supreme Court

Case Title: Viktoriia Basu v. The State Of West Bengal And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 129/2023

In the case where a Russian woman has fled the country with her child, despite pendency of a custody battle with her Indian husband, the Supreme Court observed that in terms of the Treaty entered by it, Russia has obligation to legally assist India in its criminal investigation.

The Court urged the Ministry of External Affairs to make a fresh request to the Russian authorities for assistance, despite their initial failure to help.

"In terms of the obligations contained in the Treaty, we direct MEA to submit a fresh request to Embassy of Russian Federation alongwith copy of FIR and other relevant documents to impress upon the requested party to provide the requisite assistance in terms of the mutual obligations. In addition, ld. ASG is requested to contact the Indian embassy in Russia and to see that the Indian embassy uses its diplomatic channels in finding out the whereabouts of the petitioner and the minor child" ordered the Court.

Supreme Court Asks Samay Raina & 4 Other Comedians To Post Apologies On Social Media For Making Fun Of Disabled

Case Title:

The Supreme Court asked 5 comedians, including Samay Raina, to publish apologies on their YouTube channels and other social media handles for making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities (PwDs).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by M/s SMA Cure Foundation (represented by Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh) flagging the jokes made by Samay Raina, Vipun Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar a.k.a. Sonali Aditya Desai and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar. The organization also sought guidelines to ensure that the PwDs are not lampooned.

The bench stated that it will decide on the penalty/cost to be paid by the comedians at an appropriate stage. "The degree of repentance should be higher than the degree of offending, it's like purging contempt", said Justice Kant. The bench also allowed an impleadment application filed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

Supreme Court Stays FIRs Against Prof Sanjay Kumar Of CSDS Over Erroneous Analysis Of Maharashtra Elections

Case Details: Sanjay Kumar v. State Of Maharashtra And Others | W.P.(Crl.) No. 330/2025

The Supreme Court (August 25) stayed the proceedings in the FIRs registered by the Maharashtra police against Professor Sanjay Kumar, psephologist and the Co-Director of Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) over a tweet carrying a mistaken analysis of the Maharashtra assembly elections of 2024.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice NV Anjaria passed the interim order while issuing notice on the writ petition filed by Kumar seeking the quashing of the FIRs.

During the brief hearing, the counsel for the petitioner said, "This person has impeccable integrity. 30 years of conscientious service to the nation and to the world. He is highly respected. It was a mistake. He apologized."

Supreme Court Stops Magistrate From Taking Cognizance Of Haryana Police Chargesheet Against Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad

Case Title: Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State Of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025

The Haryana Police informed the Supreme Court that it has filed closure report in one FIR against Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who teaches political science at the Ashok University, and has filed chargesheet in another FIR against him over his social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'.

Taking note of this development, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi quashed the FIR in which the closure report was filed; as regards the other FIR, the Court passed an interim order barring the Magistrate from taking cognizance of it. Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju appeared for the Haryana Police.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, told the bench that it was "most unfortunate" that the police invoked Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with offences attacking the sovereignty of the nation, for the social media comments. Sibal added that the Supreme Court is now examining the constitutionality of Section 152 BNS.

UP Bar Council's Demand Of Rs 14K At Advocates' Enrolment Prima Facie Violates Judgment : Supreme Court

Case Details:  Deepak Yadav v. Bar Council Of India|W.P.(C) No. 774/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 25) issued notice in a writ petition claiming that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is charging Rs. 14,000 in the name of a certificate of practice in violation of the Court's Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024).

In Gaurav Kumar, the Supreme Court held that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Therefore, it stated that as stipulated in Section 24, the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs. 750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs. 125 for advocates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories.

Initially, when the matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, the Court asked why such petitions are being continuously filed when a judgment has already been given.

SC Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Justices Alok Aradhe, Vipul Pancholi As Supreme Court Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, as Supreme Court Judges.

Justice Aradhe originally belongs to the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Justice Pancholi to the Gujarat High Court. The recommendation was made by the SC Collegium in its meeting held today.

The Supreme Court presently has two vacancies out of its strength of 34 judges due to the recent retirements of Justices Bela Trivedi and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Public Comments On Nimisha Priya Case

Case Title: Dr. K. A. Paul @ Kilari Anand Paul v. Union Of India, W.P.(C) No. 803/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a petition filed by evangelist Dr KA Paul seeking to restrain public comments and media reporting in relation to the case of Keralite nurse Nimisha Priya, who is on death row in Yemen for the murder of Yemeni national Talal Abdo Mahdi.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. During the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed that the Union holds periodic press briefings on the case and assured that it would take care of the media reporting issue until final resolution of Priya's impending sentence.

During the hearing, the Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council (comprising former judges, MPs, MLA, etc. who have come together to save Priya) also orally conveyed to the Court that they would refrain from addressing the media.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For Conducting Elections To Village Committees In Tripura Tribal Areas

Case Title – Pradyot Deb Burman v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court (August 25) issued notice in a writ petition alleging failure of authorities to conduct elections to the Village Committees under the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC).

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a plea filed by Pradyot Deb Burman seeking directions to the ECI and Tripura Election Commission to immediately conduct overdue Village Committee elections under the Tripura Tribal Areas Automatic District Council Act, 1994.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan submitted that the Village Committees are equivalent to Municipal Corporations. He said that the elections have not been conducted despite orders of the High Court.

Supreme Court Stays Kerala HC Order Which Held Cochin International Airport Ltd To Be A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act

Case Title: M/S.Cochin International Airport Limited v. The State Information Commission And Anr., Slp(C) No. 23330-23345/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday stayed a Kerala High Court order which held that the Cochin International Airport (CIAL) is a 'public authority' coming within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for CIAL). Granting leave, the bench listed the matter in January, 2026.

To briefly put facts of the case, in 2019, the State Information Commission held CIAL to be a 'public authority' under the RTI Act and directed it to disclose certain information. The decision was challenged by CIAL before the High Court, contending that Kerala government had no control over the decisions taken by the Board, and the ultimate decision maker as per the Articles of Association was CIAL's Board of Directors.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends New Chief Justice For Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 25th August, 2025 recommended appointment of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, presently a Judge of the Bombay High Court as the Chief Justice of that HC.

Born in May 1965, Justice Chandrashekhar is the senior most judge of the Bombay High Court after present CJ Alok Aradhe, who will demit office upon superannuation in April next year.

Justice Chandrashekhar completed his LL.B. course from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi in the year 1993 and was enrolled as an Advocate with the Delhi State Bar Council in December that year.

Justice MM Sundresh Recuses From Hearing Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case

Case Title – Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State Of Maharashtra

Justice MM Sundresh of the Supreme Court recused himself from hearing the bail plea of Dalit rights activist and advocate Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case. The matter was listed before a bench of Justice Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh.

The bail plea arises from a challenge to a Bombay High Court order that declined to release Gadling on bail in connection with the December 2016 incident in Maharashtra's Gadchiroli district.

Gadling is booked under Sections 307, 341, 342, 435, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120(B) of the IPC, Sections 5 and 28 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

If Governors Can Veto Bills By Withholding Assent, Even Money Bills Could Be Blocked : Supreme Court In Presidential Reference Hearing

During the hearing of thePresidential Reference on the issue of assent to bills, the Supreme Court expressed concerns at the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution that Governors have an independent power to withhold a Bill, without returning it to the State Legislative Assembly.

If such an interpretation is accepted, it would mean that Governors can even withhold money bills, which they are otherwise bound to approve, the Court orally remarked. The Court remarked that such a situation is "problematic".

The hearing is before a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vilkram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.

As FSL Didn't Make Clear Finding On Biren Singh's Voice, Supreme Court Refers Manipur Tapes To National Forensic Laboratory

Case Details: Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union Of India|W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

The Supreme Court (August 25) directed that the audio recordings allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the state's ethnic violence be sent for forensic examination to the National Forensic Science Laboratory (NFSL), Gandhinagar, after noting that the earlier report by the Guwahati Forensic Sciences laboratory did not return a clear finding on whether the voice matched with that of Singh's.

A Bench comprising Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar was considering a petition filed by Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust  seeking an independent probe into the tapes. The bench observed that the Guwahati Forensic Science Laboratory had been asked to match the voices in the admitted and disputed audio exhibits but “no clear finding was returned.”

In view of this, the Court held that a fresh examination by the NFSL, Gandhinagar, was necessary to clarify two critical aspects:

Journalist Abhisar Sharma Moves Supreme Court Challenging Assam Police FIR Over Video Against Govt; Challenges S.152 BNS

Case Title: Abhisar Sharma v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 338/2025

Journalist and YouTuber Abhisar Sharma has approached the Supreme Court against an FIR registered by Assam police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

He says that the FIR was registered after he published a video criticizing Assam government's 'communal politics' and questioning its allotment of 3000 bighas of land to a private entity.

He also challenges the vires of Section 152 BNS (which is stated to have replaced the erstwhile sedition law under the IPC). The matter is listed for hearing on August 28 before a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh.

Supreme Court To Examine Validity Of Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act Provision On District Collector's Powers To Confiscate Property

Case Title: The State Of Bihar & Ors. v. Shankar Baranwal, Slp(C) No. 20640/2025

The Supreme Court will soon examine the validity of Section 58 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which deals with a District Collector's powers of confiscation of property related to offenses under the Act.

A bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran, NV Anjaria issued notice on a petition filed by the State of Bihar challenging a Patna High Court decision which held that seizure of the respondent's vehicle and its auctioning at "throwaway prices" was harsh and directed payment of Rs.1,65,000 to him by the state.

Vide the impugned order, the High Court further deprecated the practice of "wholesale" valuation of vehicles by Motor Vehicle Inspectors in Bihar, without there being any individualized and thorough assessment.

Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Transfer Of 14 High Court Judges

In a significant reshuffle of the higher judiciary, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of 14 judges across various High Courts. The move involves judges from Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madras, Rajasthan, Delhi, Allahabad, Gujarat, Kerala, Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh, and Patna High Courts.

According to the collegium statement, published after the meetings held on Augsut 25 and 26, the following transfers have been proposed:

Last month, 17 High Court Judges and4 HC Chief Justices were transferred.

Is It Sufficient To Apply PwD Reservation Only In Open Category? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Dawood Ahmad Bhat v. Jammu And Kashmir Public Service Commission & Ors|Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 9330/2025

The Supreme Court will hear a special leave petition in November, where the issue arises as to whether 4%  reservation provided for physically challenged persons is a compartmentalised horizontal reservation to the different categories, such as open competition/Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Economically Weaker Section etc or an overall horizontal reservation for the posts of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Examination.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar will hear the matter.

The SLP is filed against an order passedby the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, wherein it held that, as per the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, 4% reservation is provided to the physically challenged persons in the horizontal category. By horizontal, it means that the reservation would cut across the vertical reservation, and the persons selected against the physically challenged quota would be placed in the appropriate category. It held, therefore, that it is an overall horizontal reservation.

'Serious Lapse': Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From MP Govt For Convict Spending Additional Year In Jail After Sentence Period

Case Details: Sohan Singh @ Bablu V State Of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court sought a reply from the State of Madhya Pradesh as to why a person, convicted for the offence of rape, remained in jail for more than eight years after having undergone the entire sentence of seven years.

Remarking that it's a matter of "serious lapse," a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan has asked the State to file a reply within two weeks.

"We would like to know how such a serious lapse occurred and why the petitioner remained in jail for more than 8 years even after undergoing the entire sentence of seven years. We want the State to offer appropriate explanation in this regard."

Centre Notifies Elevation Of Justices Alok Aradhe & Vipul Pancholi As Supreme Court Judges

The Centre has notified the appointments of Justice Alok Aradhe (presently Chief Justice of Bombay High Court) and Justice Vipul Pancholi(CJ of Patna HC) as Supreme Court judges, two days after theSupreme Court Collegium's recommendation for their elevation.

Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal posted in X : "In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint (i) Shri Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice, Bombay High Court and (ii) Shri Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Chief Justice, Patna High Court as Judges of the Supreme Court of India."

The Collegium's recommendation for Justice Pancholi's elevation sparked a controversy after reports emerged that Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court had dissented in the Collegium meeting. Justice Nagarathna reportedly cited his relatively low rank in the All India Seniority and also raised concerns about the reasons behind his transfer from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court in 2023. Also, the fact that Gujarat High Court already has two judges in the Supreme Court is also understood to have been raised.

NEET-PG : After Two Claims Over Lone Radio Diagnosis Seat, Supreme Court Asks NMC If General Medicine Seat Can Be Converted

Case Title: Mutum Anilkumar Singh v. The State Of Manipur, Slp(C) No. 21750/2025

Given an "extraordinary" situation, the Supreme Court directed the National Medical Commission to consider if the General Medicine seat occupied by a NEET-PG candidate could be converted to one under Radio Diagnosis, as he had spent 6 months studying the said course before another candidate, who has a higher claim in the institutional reservation, became eligible for the Radio Diagnosis seat.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order thus:

"In view of a rather extraordinary situation, the National Medical Commission is directed to consider if the seat occupied by the petitioner in General Medicine can be converted as the seat for Radio Diagnosis. This direction, only to consider, is in view of the fact that the petitioner has spent six months pursuing Radio Diagnosis and also for the reason that he is meritorious."

Supreme Court Bars Arrest Without Permission In Fresh FIR By UP Police After Accused Assail Repeated FIRs As Means To Defeat Bail

Case Title: Wazid & Ors. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 450/2024

In a matter alleging registration of multiple FIRs by State of Uttar Pradesh in order to defeat grant of bail, the Supreme Court directed that the accused shall not be arrested in any subsequent FIR without leave of the Court.

"...the petitioners shall not be arrested by the respondents in any of the FIR(s) which will be lodged hereinafter, without the leave of this Court" a bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran ordered, while granting bail to the accused in an FIR already registered by the police under provisions of the SC/ST Act and IPC.

Briefly put, the petitioners approached the Court claiming that in order to ensure that they kept languishing in jail, the UP police was registering fresh FIRs whenever they secured relief of bail. Notice was issued on the petition in November, 2024. On a previous hearing date, the petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, expressed an apprehension that upon their release, fresh FIR may be registered against them and they may be arrested.

Supreme Court To Hear PIL On Rights Of Neurodivergent Persons

Case Title – Action For Autism v. Union Of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL seeking directions to address “persistent neglect, institutional apathy, and failure” in upholding constitutional, statutory, and international obligations towards individuals with neurodivergent conditions like Autism, Dyslexia, ADHD etc.

“Despite progressive legislation, critical gaps persist in India's mental health infrastructure, funding, accessibility, and public awareness. These include inadequate budgetary allocations, fewer numbers of rehabilitation centres and inadequate community-based rehabilitation services. Moreover, institutional apathy and stigma prevent effective care and social inclusion”, the petition highlights.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan issued notice on the PIL to Union of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Insurance Regulatory and Developmental Authority of India.

Supreme Court Mulls Standard Operating Procedure For Citizens' Right To Trauma Care; Seeks Attorney General's Assistance

Case Title: Savelife Foundation v. Union Of India, W.P.(C) No.726/2024

The Supreme Court proposed formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure to safeguard citizens' right to trauma care. In this regard, the Court requested Attorney General R Venkataramani to render assistance and submit a report on the stands taken by different states/Union Territories.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed the order, stating,

"it transpires that formulation of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in consultation with the State Governments may be appropriate...we deem it appropriate to request learned Attorney General for India to provide assistance of his good office in scrutinizing the stands of different State Governments and Union Territories and after an opportunity to the petitioners, he may submit a report."

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Journalist Abhisar Sharma's Challenge To Assam Police FIR U/s 152 BNS; Asks Him To Approach HC

Case Title: Abhisar Sharma v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 338/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain journalist and YouTuber Abhisar Sharma's challenge to an FIR registered by Assam police under Section 152 of BNS over his video criticising the state government for 'communal politics' and questioning its allotment of 3000 bighas of land to a private entity.

The Court, however, granted him interim protection for 4 weeks in order to approach the Gauhati High Court for appropriate relief. It also issued notice on Sharma's challenge to the vires of Section 152 of BNS and tagged the matter with a similar case.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Sharma), who claimed that S.152 BNS has become an "omnibus" provision which is being invoked just against anybody.

President Wants Court's Opinion On Whether States Can File Article 32 Petitions Against Union : Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court (August 28) that the President of India wants to press the questions raised in the Presidential Reference relating to the maintainability of a writ petition filed by a State Government against the Union Government under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Earlier, the Constitution Bench had proposed to avoid answeringthis issue raised in the Reference, saying that the substantive issues are relating to the grant of assent to Bills by the Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India. Suggesting that the issue can be kept open for being decided in a future case, the Court had asked the Solicitor General to get instructions from the Union on whether this issue is pressed in the reference.

Today, SG Tushar Mehta told the Court that he has instructions to seek answers on this issue.

Governor Can't Be A Judicial Reviewer Of Repugnancy Or Illegality Of Bills : Singhvi Tells Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

During the hearing of the Presidential Reference on the issue of assent to Bill, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the State of Tamil Nadu, argued before the Supreme Court that the Governor cannot act like a judge and review a Bill, and that it was for the Courts to see if a Bill was violative of the Constitution or repugnant to any Central law.

He argued that withholding of assent and returning the bill to the Assembly were interwoven components and that the Governor cannot simply withhold a Bill without returning it to the Assembly.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar asked if the Governor can reserve the Bill for the President's assent, after it has been re-passed unmodified by the Assembly on being returned by the Governor in the first instance.

Justices Alok Aradhe & Vipul Pancholi Take Oath As Supreme Court Judges

Justice Alok Aradhe (former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court) and Justice Vipul Pancholi( former Chief Justice of Patna HC) took oath as Supreme Court Judges.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai administered the oath to the newly appointed Judges at a Full Court Ceremony held at 10.30 AM.

On August 27 the Union cleared the appointment of the two judges. This was after the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the elevation of the two judges to the Supreme Courton August 25.

Bihar SIR | Supreme Court Agrees To Hear On Monday Pleas To Extend September 1 Deadline For Claims & Objections

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

The Supreme Court agreed to hear on Monday (September 1) the petitions relating to the Bihar Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in order to consider applications seeking the extension of deadline to file claims and objections.

A bench led by Justice Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, agreed to list the matter on Monday after an urgent mentioning was made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan (representing Association for Democratic Reforms).

Bhushan informed that the leading opposition party in Bihar- the Rashtriya Janata Dal, and few other parties, have filed applications seeking extension of the September 1 deadline to file claims and objections with respect to the draft electoral rolls.

'You Don't Allow Lawyers To Argue' : Supreme Court Dismisses Former DRT Chandigarh Judge's Plea Against Extension Of Suspension

Case Title: M. M. Dhonchak v. Union Of India, Slp(C) No. 23602/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by MM Dhonchak, former Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Chandigarh, against an order extending his suspension.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

Counsel for Dhonchak argued that he was an efficient officer who served for 35 years and disposed of maximum cases. Unconvinced, Justice Mehta remarked, "On the face of the record, he does not want the advocates to present cases. He can just put them (cases) under a lawnmower and...? Where is the statutory right to stick onto the post? Inquiry is still underway".

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Dr Subramanian Swamy's Plea For Timely Decision By Centre On 'National Monument' Status For Ram Setu

Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union Of India And Others., W.P.(C) No. 584/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Dr Subramanian Swamy 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.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order. Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija appeared on behalf of Dr Swamy, as he had a medical issue.

To recap, 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.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Kerala SRTC's Plea Against HC Quashing Bar On Private Stage Carriages For Permits Beyond 140 KM

Case: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V.Rajesh K. Jacob And Ors.|Diary No. 36057-2025 And The State Of Kerala And Ors. V Baby Joseph And Ors. Diary No. 47784-2025

The Supreme Court (August 29) issued notice on a petition filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation challenging the Kerala High Court's verdict, which quashed the State Government's decision to deny permits to private stage carriers for routes beyond 140 kilometers.

The State of Kerala also filed a separate special leave petition against the High Court's judgment, on which also notice was issued to the private respondents.

A bench comprising Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also issued notice on the application filed by the KSRTC seeking interim stay of the High Court's judgment.

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner Challenging J&K Govt's Ban On 25 Books To Approach High Court

Case Title: Shakir Shabir v. Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 794/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging Jammu and Kashmir government's notification which declared 25 books, including some written by prominent figures like A.G. Noorani and Arundhati Roy, as 'forfeited' over their alleged propensity to excite secessionism and endanger sovereignty of India.

The Court however granted liberty to the petitioner to move the J&K&L High Court for appropriate relief. It requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to list the matter before a 3-judge bench (presided over by the CJ) and decide the same at the earliest.

The petition, moved by Kashmir-based Advocate Shakir Shabir, also challenged Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with the power of a state government to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for same. It was claimed that the provision is ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Allows YSRCP Member Pedda Reddy To Have Police Security At Own Expense

Case Details:  Kethireddy Pedda Reddy v. P. Jagadeesh|Slp(C) No. 24299/2025

The Supreme Court today(August 29) kept in abeyance an August 20 interim order passed by the Andhra High Court's division bench, which suspended a single judge's order providing necessary security for YSR Congress Party former MLA Kethireddy Pedda Reddy to visit his residence in Tadipatri.

Reportedly, clashes broke out after last year's election results in the backdrop of the rivalry between Pedda and another candidate, senior TDP leader J.C. Prabhakar Reddy. Pedda lost the 2024 elections against Reddy, and he was apparently forced to leave Tadipatri.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed an order in a special leave petition mentioned and argued by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & BCI On Plea To Bring Bar Councils Under POSH Act For Women Advocates

Case Title – Seema Joshi v. Bar Council Of India And Ors.

A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking declaration that the protections under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 extend to women advocates who are registered with State Bar Councils and practicing before courts.

The petition also seeks directions to Bar Councils and Bar Associations to constitute Internal Committees to hear the complaints of women advocates.

“The Preamble to the POSH Act itself states that sexual harassment violates a woman's fundamental rights to equality under Articles 14 and 15, life and dignity under Article 21, and freedom to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g), which includes the right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment. The very object and design of the statute is to give effect to these rights, and any interpretation that excludes women advocates from its protection is contrary to the constitutional purpose that the Act seeks to fulfil”, the petition states.

MHADA Seeks Urgent Hearing Of Plea In Supreme Court On Demolition Of Dilapidated Buildings

Case Title: Maharashtra Housing Area v. Javed Abdul Raheem, Slp (C) No. 21699-705/25

The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) has sought urgent hearing before the Supreme Court of pleas challenging the Bombay High Court judgment which directed constitution of a high-level committee to examine issuance of 935 notices under Section 79-A of the MHAD Act.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The SG submitted,

"the finding of the High Court is that MHADA is not competent to demolish dilapidated buildings. The urgency is that because of heavy rains, some buildings have started collapsing, so we would be praying for stay of the order...it would need urgent hearing."

'Important Issue' : Supreme Court Urges Madras High Court To Expeditiously Hear Pleas Challenging BNS, BNSS & BSA

Case Title: Federation Of Bar Associations Of Tamil Nadu And Puducherry v. Union Of India And Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 690-692/2025

The Supreme Court requested the Madras High Court to give an expeditious hearing to writ petitions pending before it on the question of constitutional validity of 3 new criminal laws viz. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).

"Having regard to the importance of the issue and the fact that writ petitions are awaiting effective hearing, we request Chief Justice of the High Court to place all matters before a Division Bench, with further request for early/out-of-turn hearing in the matters", it ordered.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was dealing with a petition filed by a Federation of Bar Associations of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, seeking transfer of the cases from the High Court to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Stays Trial Against Telangana IAS Officer Y Srilakshmi In Obulapuram Mining Case

Case Details: Sri Lakshmi Y v. State Of Telangana | SLP(Crl) No. 12594/2025 Diary No. 45017 / 2025

The Supreme Court stayed trial against IAS officer Y. Srilakshmi in the Obulapuarm Mining scam. The Court passed the interim order while issuing notice on the officer's petition against the Telangana High Court's order dismissing her petition seeeking discharge.

Srilakshmi had approached the trial Court after a supplementary chargesheet was filed naming her. She prayed that there is a mere suspicion against her, which is not enough to frame charges, and in the absence of specific allegations, she is entitled to discharge. However, the trial Court in 2022 dismissed her plea.

Against this, she approached the High Court, which allowed the revision petition and discharged the petitioner on November 8, 2022. Against this, the CBI preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal on May 7 and remitted the matter to the High Court for passing a reasoned order and ultimately, her criminal revision was disallowed by the High Court.

Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan High Court's Strictures Against Sessions Judge

Case Details: Sonika Purohit V State Of Rajasthan|Diary No. 44069-2025

The Supreme Court today(August 29) granted a stay against the Rajasthan High Court's order wherein the High Court passed strictures and made adverse remarks against a judicial officer posted as Special Judge, POCSO Court.

A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the order on a special leave petition argued by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave.

As per the brief facts, a minor accused a juvenile of raping her and alleged that the act was facilitated by her father. After it was determined that the juvenile was to be tried as an adult, the case of the two came before the judicial officer under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Supreme Court Asks Union To Verify Allegations That Bengali Migrant Workers Were Detained As Foreigners Only Because Of Language

Case Title: West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board And Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 768/2025

In the PIL assailing detention of migrant Muslim workers from West Bengal, over suspicion of their being Bangladeshi citizens, the Supreme Court sought a clarification from the Union as to whether Bengali-speaking migrants were detained as foreigners only because of the use of a particular language.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi heard the matter and issued notice on an interim application filed by the petitioners seeking to restrain the respondent-authorities from deporting any person without first ascertaining their citizenship.

Calling for the Union's response within 1 week, the Court also impleaded State of Gujarat as a party-respondent, pursuant to an application seeking impleadment of the state, on the basis that persons were similarly being picked up and pushed out by Gujarat authorities.

Supreme Court Seeks NALSA's Report On Two Shelter Homes For Urban Poor In Delhi

Case Details: E.R. Kumar v. Union Of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 Of 2003

In the matter relating to relocation of temporary shelters for homeless person in Delhi's Anand Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan, the  Supreme Court (August 29) directed the NALSA to submit a report on capacity and quality of facilities provided by the State in the proposed new shelters.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices NV Anjaria and Alok Aradhe was hearing a PIL on the issue of setting up shelter homes for the urban homeless across the country.

Counsels for the Union submitted that the present temporary shelters located in Anand Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan needed to be relocated as they were coming in way of Metro development projects. The bench was informed that at present the Metro construction work was stopped. ASG Aishwarya Bhati also appeared for the Union.

Supreme Court To Hear PIL Seeking To Monitor If Hospitals Built On Govt Concessions Provide Free Aid To EWS/BPL Patients

Case Details: Sandeep Pandey v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000808 / 2025

The Supreme Court agreed to consider a PIL on the lack of free treatment for EWS and BPL patients in private hospitals built on government lands or with government concessions.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices NV Anjaria and Alok Aradhe issued notice to the Union of India, all States and Union Territories in the matter.

Review Petition Filed Against Supreme Court Direction That Only District Judges Can Head District Consumer Commissions

Case Details: Parivarthan v. Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar And Ors. | Diary No. 49239/2025

A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated May 21, 2025, in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Others vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors in which directions were issued regarding the appointment, eligibility, selection, and tenure of Presidents and Members of State and District Consumer Commissions.

One important direction issued in the judgment was that only serving or retired District Judges can be the President of District Consumer Commissions. The Union Government was directed to frame new rules under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in terms of the directions.

Can Live-In Partner Seek Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC? Supreme Court Issues Notice On Man's Appeal

Cause Title: KP Raveendran Nair v. Vasantha KV

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea filed by a man against the maintainability of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance application filed by his live-in-partner before the family court.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale heard the plea filed by the male partner against the Kerala High Court's decision that dismissed his plea questioning the maintainability of a Section 125 CrPC maintenance plea before the family court.