Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: June 16, 2025 To June 22, 2025

Reports/Judgments

Mere Involvement In Communal Clash Not Enough To Attract UP Gangsters Act Without Proof of Habitual Criminality : Supreme Court

Case Details: Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 685

The Supreme Court held that stringent state laws such as the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”) cannot be applied to individuals solely for their involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity, in the absence of evidence indicating prior or ongoing coordinated criminal conduct.

“The mere listing of multiple accused persons without demonstrating their organizational roles, command structure, or evidence of prior or continued coordinated criminal activities fails to meet the stringent requirements for establishing gang membership.”, the court said.

The Court further observed that, unless there is evidence establishing that the accused was part of an organized gang engaged in continuous criminal activity, mere involvement in communal violence, regardless of its gravity, would not justify the invocation of the Gangsters Act.

The Court cautioned against the routine invocation of stringent extraordinary legislation like the UP Gangsters Act, stating that such laws must be invoked judiciously based on relevant considerations without acting as a tool for harassment.

Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Dunki Agent In Cheating Case Filed By Man Deported From US

Case Details: Om Parkash v. State of Haryana | SLP(Crl) No. 008965 - / 2025

The Supreme Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of being a dunki facilitator and duping the complainant of an amount of Rs. 65 lakhs on the promise of sending him to the United States of America.

The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea for anticipatory bail by a person accused of offences under Sections 120-B, 370, 406, 420 and 506 of IPC (Sections 316(2), 318(4), 143, 61(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioner, Om Prakash, approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied him anticipatory bail in the FIR registered by the Haryana police.

Considering the gravity of the offences involved, the present bench refused to interfere in the impugned order. While dismissing the plea, it observed, "very serious allegations" were against the petitioner.

Supreme Court Allows Samajwadi Party To Approach Allahabad HC Against Eviction of Pilibhit District Office

Case Details: Samajwadi Party v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Diary No. 7440 / 2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition preferred by the Samajwadi Party against the Allahabad High Court's order restraining the District Party President, District Pilibhit, from filing further writ petitions in regards to the dispute over eviction of the Party from its district office in Pilibhit.

The Court, however, clarified that SP can approach the High Court.

As per the SLP, the District Party President, Anand Singh Yadav, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court alleging eviction by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit, from the Party's district office. However, the High Court refused to entertain the writ petition and refrained Yadav from filing writ petitions before the high court on the same cause of action.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Amtek Group Promoter's Plea For Interim Bail In Money Laundering Case

Case Details: Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 8997/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea of Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham, seeking interim relief in a money laundering case against him.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice PB Varale questioned how the second plea was filed during vacation when a three-judge bench of the Court had refused to entertain the plea at the first instance.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioner. Ultimately, Rohatgi decided to withdraw the SLP.

Person Working In Society Which Is 'State' As Per Article 12 Not Government Servant: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pintu Chowdhury v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 016733 / 2025

The Supreme Court observed that a person who works in a registered society which is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 cannot be held to be a government servant.

The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea challenging the order of the Tripura High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from a government post as 'junior weaver'.

The petitioner, to be eligible, had misrepresented that he was earlier a government employee. The petitioner, before applying as a junior weaver, was working as a crafts teacher at Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TTWRES), an autonomous body supported by the Government.

The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that TTWRES was not a government department but a society and the petitioner could not be considered as a government employee in order to be eligible for the post of Junior Weaver.

Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC's Contempt Proceedings Against Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Court Violence

Case Details: Vishal Garg and Ors. v. Registrar General and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 16422/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Calcutta High Court which initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against against police officials allegedly involved in the 2019 Howrah District Court assault against lawyers

The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing the petitions filed by the officials against the High Court's order. The bench agreed to consider the matter and issued notice in the plea.

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ex-Nagaland Judge Accused of Misappropriating Bail Surety Amounts

Case Details: Inalo Zhimomi v. State of Nagaland

The Supreme Court on June 16 granted anticipatory bail to Inalo Zhimomi, former Principal District and Session Judge of the Dimapur District & Session Court, in a case over allegations of misappropriating the bond surety amount.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan granted anticipatory bail subject to the petitioner cooperating with the investigation till the matter is finally decided by the Gauhati High Court.

'Can't Allow Mobs To Take Over; State Must Ensure Film Release' : Supreme Court To Karnataka Govt On 'Thug Life' Ban

Case Details: M Mahesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Ors | W.P.(C) No. 575/2025

The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the "extra-judicial ban" on the screening of Tamil feature film Thug Life, starring Kamal Haasan and directed by Mani Ratnam, in Karnataka.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing a PIL filed by one Mahesh Reddy seeking directions to allow the screening of 'Thug Life', which was not released in Karnataka after certain groups issued threats against its exhibition following the remarks of Kamal Haasan, the lead actor and one of the producers of the film, that Kannada was born out of Tamil.

The bench asked the State to file its counter. When the State's counsel said that the film's producer has already approached the High Court, the bench said that it will order the transfer of that matter to the Supreme Court. The bench ordered the transfer of the petition in the Karnataka High Court to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Stays Demolition of Thane Dargah For 7 Days, Allows It To Seek Recall of Bombay HC's Demolition Order

Case Details: Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole Alias Pardeshi Baba Trust v. New Shree Swami Samartha Borivade Housing Company Private Limited and Ors., SLP(C) No. 16699/2025

The Supreme Court intervened in a dispute over the demolition of an alleged illegal shrine (dargah) in Thane, directing a status quo for seven days while allowing the Pardeshi Baba Trust (“Trust”) to seek a recall of the Bombay High Court's demolition order.

The partial court working days bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale heard the case that stemmed from a 23-year-old legal battle over a religious structure that had allegedly expanded from 160 sq. ft. to over 17,610 sq. ft. without municipal approvals on private land in Thane, Maharashtra.

Supreme Court Questions Suspension of Tamil Nadu ADGP Jayaram, Says HC Order For His Arrest Is 'Shocking'

Case Details: HM Jayaram v. Inspector of Police and Anr. | Diary No. 33224-2025

The Supreme Court questioned the State of Tamil Nadu for the suspension of the Additional Director General of Police HM Jayaram in relation to his alleged involvement in an abduction case.

The Court also expressed shock at the Madras High Court's direction to arrest the ADGP, which was issued while hearing an anticipatory bail petition filed by an accused.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan, hearing a petition filed by Jayaram against the High Court's direction, asked the State of Tamil Nadu whether his suspension from service was necessary, given the fact that he has joined the investigation.

The bench observed in its order as follows:

"Mr Chaudhari, for the petitioner submits that yesterday petitioner was released on 5 pm, however, placed on suspension. The learned state counsel submits that petitioner was not arrested, he joined investigation. On query by the court, he seeks time to obtain instructions on whether the suspension order against the petitioner, in view of the high court's order, would be withdrawn. List tomorrow."

Supreme Court Stays Advocate's Arrest Under UP Gangsters Act In Case Over Sale Deed Executions

Case Details: Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. | D No. 32275/2025

The Supreme Court granted protection from arrest to Advocate Sandeep Kumar, who was allegedly arrested under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, for being a deed-writer for certain sale deeds.

A special leave petition has been filed in this case against the Allahabad High Court's order dated August 2, 2024, whereby the Court refused to quash a first information report under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act against the petitioner.

Before a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan, Advocate on Record Anurag Ojha, submitted that the petitioner is a practising advocate and he only rendered his assistance.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Kerala Journalist TP Nandakumar In Case Over Video Against Woman Politician

Case Details: Nandakumar T.P. v. State of Kerala & Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 9098/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in an anticipatory bail plea filed by Kerala-based journalist Nandakumar T.P. in connection with an offence of publishing a defamatory video on his YouTube channel “Crime Online”.

The partial court working days bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale also granted interim relief to Petitioner Nandakumar, stating that in the event of his arrest, he shall be enlarged on bail by the jurisdictional trial court upon furnishing bail and bonds to the satisfaction of the investigating officer with a further direction to cooperate in the investigation.

Nandakumar was accused of publishing a YouTube video on his channel “Crime Online” targeting a prominent woman politician. The prosecution alleged that the video contained derogatory, sexually coloured, and threatening remarks intended to insult the victim's modesty and damage her reputation.

'Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Stretched To Absurd Levels' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea of Man With 33 Acres & HIG House

Case Details: Ravi Kumar Jeph v. Joint Director and Anr. | Diary No. 25916-2025

The Supreme Court on June 17 dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Rajasthan High Court's order dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner to seek a compassionate appointment.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan rejected the plea of the petitioner and questioned how a compassionate appointment in such a case could be sought.

Justice Bhuyan questioned: "You can't stretch compassionate appointments to absurd limits. You are the son of the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise. Where is the question of a compassionate appointment?"

'Underworld Behind These Constructions': Supreme Court Approves Demolition Order Against Illegal Buildings In Thane

Case Details: Danish Zaheer Siddiqui v. State of Maharashtra | D No. 33024/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a special leave petition challenging the Bombay High Court's recent interim order directing the Thane Municipal Corporation to demolish 17 buildings in Thane, Maharashtra, which were constructed by builders illegally with links to the underworld.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan passed strong remarks stating that these builders built these without following due procedure and on the land of a third party. It appreciated the steps taken by the High Court through its interim order dated June 12 to demolish all these buildings.

Supreme Court Grants Protection To Minor Girl Forced Into Child Marriage To Settle Debts

Case Details: W.P.(C) No. 589/2025

The Supreme Court granted police protection to a minor girl from Bihar who escaped from a forcible marriage, and to her friend who helped her escape.

The minor with her friend ran off after the former was allegedly married to a 33-year-old contractor based in Bihar, Jai Shankar, as a repayment of the financial debts owed by her parents to him. The petitioner, a 16-year-old girl, also seeks annulment of her marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. She has alleged physical abuse at the hands of the Contractor, Respondent No. 4 and has approached the Supreme Court along with her friend, who now faces kidnapping charges.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan ordered the Director General of Police, Bihar and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to provide security to the petitioner and her friend and file a status report on the next date of hearing.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order For Arrest of TN ADGP In Abduction Case; Transfers Investigation To CB-CID

Case Details: H.M.Jayaram v. The Inspector of Police and Anr | Diary No. 33224-2025

The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's order, which directed the arrest of Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police HM Jayaram in relation to an abduction case.

The Court also transferred the investigation of the case to the CB-CID of the State Police. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for the State, did not object to the investigation by CB-CID. He also informed the Court that the ADGP's suspension was not due to the High Court's order.

The Court also requested the Madras High Court Chief Justice to transfer the matters related to the abduction case to another bench from the bench which is presently considering the matter.

'No End To Hurt Sentiments In India; Where Are We Heading?' : Supreme Court On 'Thug Life' Film Row

Case Details: Sri M Mahesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Ors | W.P.(C) No. 575/2025

The Supreme Court closed a PIL challenging the unofficial ban on the screening of Tamil feature film Thug Life in Karnataka, in view of the statement made by the State Government that it has not imposed any ban on the film and that it will provide "full protection and security" for the screening of the film if the producers decide to release it in the State.

However, during the hearing, the Court orally made several pertinent comments, expressing disappointment with the trend of artistic creations being stalled due to protests by groups who claim that their sentiments were hurt.

"We cannot allow this to happen. Just because of an opinion, should a movie be stopped? A stand-up comedy should be stopped? Recital of a poem should be stopped?," the bench asked during the hearing.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking E-Passes For Lord Murugan Conference At Madurai; Allows To Approach HC

Case Details: M. Arasupandi v. Commissioner of Police, SLP(Crl) No. 009176 - 009177 / 2025

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition challenging the condition imposed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, requiring vehicle passes to be obtained 24 hours in advance from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) for the upcoming Lord Murugan Conference (Muruga Bakthargal Aanmeega Maanadu) scheduled on June 22, 2025, in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the Madras High Court's order refusing to grant relief to the petitioner to apply for e-passes on the existing Tamil Nadu E-Pass portal for the upcoming Muruga Bakthargal Aanmeega Maanadu event.

Supreme Court Stays Demolition of Temple Built By Madurai Residents Welfare Association

Case Details: Visthara Welfare Association Viswa v. R. Mayilsamy | SLP(C) No. 16898/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the demolition of a temple constructed by some of the apartment residents of Visthara Residency, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.

The temple was alleged to have been illegally built without permission on the plot earmarked as Open Space Reservation (OSR) land of the apartment complex.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan passed the interim order while issuing notice in a petition filed by Visthara Welfre Association.

Supreme Court Stays Declaration of Results of Trained Graduate Teachers(Special Educators) Recruitment Exam In Delhi

Case Details: Brijesh Kumar Pal and Ors. v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 16838/2025

The Supreme Court on June 19 stayed the declaration results for the exam to recruit Trained Graduate Teachers (Special Educators) by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, set to begin from June 24.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan initially stated that even though the Court will issue notice, the process must continue.

"It is your case that they have not done the recruitment process for a long period of time? [But], now that they are doing it, please stall it?" Justice Manmohan asked Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, for the petitioner.

Other Developments

Review Petition Filed Against Supreme Court's Mandate For 3-Year Practice To Enter Judicial Service

Case Details: Om Parkash v. State of Haryana | SLP(Crl) No. 008965 - / 2025

A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging its recent judgment which mandated 3 year practice as an advocate for a candidate to apply for the entry posts in judicial service (post of Civil Judge-Junior Division).

The petitioner, while arguing that the judgment suffered from apparent errors on record warranting a review, also prayed that the mandatory three-year practice rule should be implemented only from 2027 onwards to avoid unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023–2025) who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria.

"Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution," the petition submitted.

Supreme Court Back To 'Original Avatar' : Glass Panels In Corridors Removed; Website Uses Old Logo

The Supreme Court has removed the glass panels installed in its corridors, following a decision taken by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to restore the Court to its "original avatar."

The glass panels were erected last year during the term of the then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for the purpose of centralised air-conditionining. However, in December last year, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, after the retirement of CJI Chandrachud, requested the next CJI Sanjiv Khanna to remove the glass panels, saying that it had reduced the space in the corridors, causing inconvenience to the lawyers and litigants.

Decision To Remove Glass Panels Taken By Full Court To Restore Original Grandeur : Supreme Court

The decision to remove the glass glazing installed in front of courtrooms 1 to 5 was taken by the Full Court of the Supreme Court based on the representations by the SCBA and the SCAORA after consideration of issues such as “original grandeur, visibility, aesthetics and court room accessibility”, said the Supreme Court in a press release.