Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 6, 2025 To October 12, 2025
Amisha Shrivastava
15 Oct 2025 9:05 AM IST
Reports/JudgmentsEither Grant Or Deny Relief; Avoid Passing Adverse Orders Against Litigants On Issues Beyond Pleadings: Supreme Court To High CourtsCause Title: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 970The Supreme Court set aside certain directions issued by the Kerala High Court that had ordered the Cochin Devaswom Board to re-fix...
Reports/Judgments
Either Grant Or Deny Relief; Avoid Passing Adverse Orders Against Litigants On Issues Beyond Pleadings: Supreme Court To High Courts
Cause Title: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 970
The Supreme Court set aside certain directions issued by the Kerala High Court that had ordered the Cochin Devaswom Board to re-fix license fees and initiate a vigilance inquiry against Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the High Court's additional directions went beyond the scope of the writ petition filed by the appellants and were passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by P. Radhakrishnan and another, trustees of the Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust, challenging portions of a Kerala High Court judgment dated August 9, 2023, in W.P.(C) No. 29089/2020.
Tender Condition Requiring Past Supply Within One State Irrational, Violates Article 19(1)(g): Supreme Court
Cause Title: Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 971
The Supreme Court (October 6) struck down a Chhattisgarh Government tender condition that mandated bidders to show prior supply experience of at least ₹6 crores to state government agencies in the past three years, as a prerequisite for participating in bids to supply sports kits to government schools in the state.
The Court observed that to confine eligibility for participation in a tender to entities operating within a single State is not only irrational but also disproportionate to the stated goal of ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of sports kits.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe rejected the State's contention that prior experience with the government was necessary since the supply of sports kits was to be made in Maoist-affected areas. The Court held that such a tender condition imposed an unreasonable restriction on trade and violated the doctrine of a level playing field, as it created an artificial barrier that excluded bidders lacking prior government supply experience
Supreme Court Grants Relief To Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd; Directs Essar Power To Reimburse Fixed Charges For Electricity Diverted
Cause Title: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 972
The Supreme Court has granted relief to Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) by setting aside the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's (APTEL) March 2025 judgment and restoring the 2009 order of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) in its long-pending dispute with Essar Power Limited (EPL) over diversion of electricity in breach of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).
The Court held that EPL was bound by the PPA to maintain the stipulated proportion of supply, 58% to GUVNL and 42% to Essar Steel Limited (ESL),and that the company's failure to do so amounted to a breach entitling GUVNL to restitution and compensation.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe partly allowed the GUVNL's appeal, holding that “the finding of GERC and the APTEL that GUVNL is not entitled to reimbursement of fixed charges is, therefore, unsustainable.” It said that “once GUVNL did not receive the electricity for which such fixed charges had been computed and paid on a monthly basis, it was entitled to reimbursement thereof, not as compensation, but on the principle of restitution as such payment was not at all due from it.”
For Valid Oral Gift (Hiba) Under Mohammedan Law, Public Possession Must Be Proved; Absence Of Mutation Raises Doubt: Supreme Court
Cause Title: Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa Parveen
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 973
The Supreme Court observed that an oral gift (hiba) under the Muslim law cannot be projected as a "surprise instrument" to stake claims over a property. To constitute a valid hiba, the Court said, all its necessary ingredients- declaration by donor, acceptance by donee and taking possession of land - are done publicly rather than secretly.
Although oral gift (hiba) is permissible in Mohammedan law, the evidence of acting under the gift - such as collecting rent, holding title, or effecting mutation- is essential to substantiate the claim of possession. Lack of effecting mutation in revenue records can be a crucial factor invalidating such a claim of gift, in the absence of other evidence of possession, the Court said.
It stressed that those claiming rights under a hiba must assert their ownership openly and without delay by mutating land records to reflect possession, an essential requirement for the validity of such a gift.
Order XLI Rule 5 CPC | Deposit Not Mandatory For Stay Of Money Decree, Unconditional Stay Can Be Granted In Exceptional Cases : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies Inc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 974
The Supreme Court (October 7) resolved the long-standing debate on whether deposit or security is an absolute precondition for staying a money decree. It clarified that it is not mandatory for the Appellate Court to impose a condition for deposit of the amount in dispute for grant of stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
Affirming the Delhi High Court's division bench decision, the Court held that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 1(3) and Rule 5(5) of CPC, which require an appellant to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security, are directory, not mandatory. While non-compliance may normally lead to rejection of a stay application, appellate courts retain discretion to grant stay in “exceptional cases” even without such a deposit. Importantly, the Court stressed that failure to deposit cannot result in dismissal of the appeal itself.
“Although, Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, uses the word “shall”, yet a combined reading of the sum and substance of Rule(s) 1(3) and 5(5) would reveal, that for the grant of stay of execution, it is not mandatory for the appellate court to impose a condition for deposit of the amount in dispute. The aforesaid provisions make it abundantly clear that the appellate court, for the grant of stay of execution, has a discretion to impose a condition of deposit of the amount depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.”, the court said.
Supreme Court Upholds Tax On Ink & Chemicals Used To Print Lottery Ticket; Says Their 'Deemed Sale' Occurs With Lottery Sale
Cause Title: M/S. Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow, U.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 975
The Supreme Court (October 7) held that the ink and chemicals used in printing the lottery tickets is a taxable item under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (“Act”).
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan dismissed the appeal filed by an assessee, who is engaged in the business of printing lottery tickets and had been taxed on the value of ink and chemicals used in the printing process. While the Appellate Authority and Tribunal set aside the levy holding these materials were consumed rather than a transferrable good, the High Court restored the tax leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The appellant's primary argument before the Supreme Court was that the ink and chemicals were consumed in the printing process. Since they ceased to exist in their original form and were not delivered to the customer as separate items, there was no "transfer of property," and thus, no tax could be levied. Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala noted that the moment the lottery ticket is transferred to the consumer, the ink and chemicals used in printing of the lottery ticket also gets transferred, making it taxable not as a consumer goods but as a transferred goods classifying it as a 'deemed sale' under Article 366(29-A) (b) of the Constitution incorporated via 46th Constitutional Amendment.
Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce Helmet Use, Curb Wrong-Lane Driving & Use Of Dazzling Headlights
Case Details: S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 295/2012
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 976
The Supreme Court (October 7) issued a slew of significant directions aimed at strengthening road safety measures across the country. In a writ petition filed in 2012 by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, a leading orthopaedic surgeon, the Court directed strict enforcement of helmet use, and measures to curb wrong-lane driving, unsafe overtaking, use of dazzling LED lights, and the unauthorised sale and misuse of red–blue strobe lights and hooters.
The Court further ordered that the complete ban on unauthorised red–blue flashing lights and illegal hooters must be implemented through seizures, market crackdowns, and imposition of penalties.
These directions have been issued by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, considering the recent official figures of the Government of India, which show that more than 35,000 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in 2023, and more than 54,000 riders/passengers of two-wheelers died due to non-wearing of helmets.
Supreme Court Flags Lack Of Pedestrian Crossing Near Delhi High Court; Orders Nationwide Survey To Identify Road Crossing Needs
Case Details: S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 295/2012
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 976
The Supreme Court (October 7) expressed concern over the absence of a pedestrian crossing near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road, Delhi, terming it a serious safety lapse that endangers thousands of people who cross the busy stretch every day without traffic signals, foot overbridges, or other safety measures.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and other road-owning agencies to prepare an action plan and conduct a phase-wise survey across major Indian cities to identify locations where additional pedestrian crossings are required.
“One can give the example of the road crossing at the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road where every day thousands of employees, litigants, lawyers, children, and families cross the road, without any red light or foot overbridge or any traffic calming measure, putting their lives at risk,” the Court observed.
Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce Helmet Use, Curb Wrong-Lane Driving & Use Of Dazzling Headlights
Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 295/2012
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 976
The Supreme Court (October 7) issued a slew of significant directions aimed at strengthening road safety measures across the country. In a writ petition filed in 2012 by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, a leading orthopaedic surgeon, the Court directed strict enforcement of helmet use, and measures to curb wrong-lane driving, unsafe overtaking, use of dazzling LED lights, and the unauthorized sale and misuse of red–blue strobe lights and hooters.
The Court further ordered that the complete ban on unauthorised red–blue flashing lights and illegal hooters must be implemented through seizures, market crackdowns, and imposition of penalties.
These directions have been issued by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, considering the recent official figures of the Government of India, which show that more than 35,000 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in 2023, and more than 54,000 riders/passengers of two-wheelers died due to non-wearing of helmets.
Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Money Laundering Case Against JSW Steel Over Dealings With Obulapuram Mining Company
Case Title – Jsw Steel Limited v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 977
The Supreme Court refused to quash PMLA proceedings against JSW Steel Limited in relation to alleged illegal mining by mining companies owned by former Karnataka minister G. Janardhana Reddy.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that JSW steel is no more an accused in the predicate offence investigated by the CBI, and the ECIR also doesn't name JSW Steel as an accused. The Court noted that ED's money laundering complaint was based only on alleged withdrawals of attached amount of ₹33.80 crore and not on any broader charge of criminal liability.
Since JSW's appeal against the attachment orders was already pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the Court declined to intervene at this stage.
Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Money Laundering Case Against JSW Steel Over Dealings With Obulapuram Mining Company
Case Title – JSW Steel Limited v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 977
The Supreme Court refused to quash PMLA proceedings against JSW Steel Limited in relation to alleged illegal mining by mining companies owned by former Karnataka minister G. Janardhana Reddy.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that JSW steel is no more an accused in the predicate offence investigated by the CBI, and the ECIR also doesn't name JSW Steel as an accused. The Court noted that ED's money laundering complaint was based only on alleged withdrawals of attached amount of ₹33.80 crore and not on any broader charge of criminal liability.
Since JSW's appeal against the attachment orders was already pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the Court declined to intervene at this stage.
Nagpur's Futala Lake Not Wetland : Supreme Court Allows Constructions Near It
Cause Title: Swacch Association, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 978
The Supreme Court (October 7) upheld the Bombay High Court's decision declining to classify Nagpur's Futala Lake as a 'wetland' under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, thereby permitting the State authorities to proceed with temporary constructions such as a floating restaurant, banquet hall, musical fountain, and viewing gallery around the lake.
"In view of this Court, the Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody and it does not fall within the meaning of the statutory definition and is not a 'wetland' as defined in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. The definition excludes human-made waterbodies and those constructed inter alia for irrigation purposes. The High Court was justified in recording finding in the interim order dated 05.07.2023 and confirming the same while passing the impugned final judgment and order.”, the court said.
A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria dismissed the petition filed by Nagpur based NGO-Swachh Association, who filed a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court raising concerns about the breach of environmental safeguards under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and argued that the raising temporary structures risked ecological damage.
S.149 IPC | Supreme Court Explains Tests To Determine If Bystander Was Member Of Unlawful Assembly With Common Object
Cause Title: Zainul v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 979
The Supreme Court (October 7) observed that mere presence at the crime scene would not ipso facto render a person a member of the unlawful assembly to book him under Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that the liability would shift to the bystander only when he shared the common object with the unlawful assembly.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan acquitted 10 individuals who were convicted for the 1988 violent community clash in Bihar's Katihar District, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove that they shared a common object with the unlawful assembly. An FIR under Sections 148, 149, 307, and 302 of the IPC was lodged against them.
“At the same time, mere presence at the scene does not ipso facto render a person a member of the unlawful assembly, unless it is established that such an accused also shared its common object. A mere bystander, to whom no specific role is attributed, would not fall within the ambit of Section 149 of the IPC. The prosecution has to establish, through reasonably direct or indirect circumstances, that the accused persons shared a common object of the unlawful assembly. The test to determine whether a person is a passive onlooker or an innocent bystander is the same as that applied to ascertain the existence of a common object.”, the court said.
S. 27 Evidence Act | Only Disclosure Leading To Recovery Of Weapon Admissible; Statement About Its Use Not Admissible : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal Etc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 980
The Supreme Court (October 7) acquitted three individuals for the offence of murder (Section 302 IPC) after noting that the prosecution had relied on their disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (“Act”), where they confessed that the weapon recovered was the weapon of crime.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that only that part of the disclosure statements under Section 27 would be admissible which supports the recovery of an object, and not that part which supports the maker's statement about the use of the object in the crime, as it would amount to a confession being inadmissible under the Act.
“We are afraid that the submission of the State counsel, that as the appellants themselves stated that they took the police to the place where they hid the weapons, by which they committed the offence indicates that the appellants admitted to have committed the offence with the above weapons, cannot be accepted. The statement of the appellants that the weapons recovered were the weapons of crime cannot be read against them in view of Sections 25 and 26 read with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Only that part of the statement which leads the police to the recovery of the weapons is admissible, and not the part which alleges that the weapons recovered were actually the weapons of crime.”, the court said.
Right To Seek Arbitration Not Lost Just Because Arbitration Clause Became Inoperable Due To Statutory Amendment: Supreme Court
Cause Title: Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 982
The Supreme Court held that the invalidity or inoperability of an arbitration clause, such as one naming an ineligible arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not nullify the underlying arbitration agreement between the parties. The Court clarified that in such cases, the Court is empowered to step in and appoint a neutral arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act to preserve the efficacy of the arbitration mechanism.
The Court emphasised that the statutory disqualification of a named arbitrator under Section 12(5), read with the Seventh Schedule, does not render the arbitration clause itself void or non-existent. Rather, the clause remains enforceable, and the power to appoint an independent arbitrator shifts to the Court.
In this case, the arbitration clause specified that the Managing Director of the respondent-company will act as the arbitrator. However, as per Section 12(5) of the Act, post the 2015 amendment, the Managing Director was disqualified from being an arbitrator.
Supreme Court Acquits Chennai Man Dashwanth, Who Was Sentenced To Death For Rape-Murder Of 7-Year-Old Girl
Case Title: Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 3633-3634/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 983
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence of one Dashwanth, who was accused of the rape and murder of a 7-year old minor girl at Mugalivakkam, Chennai in 2017.
Acquitting Dashwanth, the Court ordered his immediate release, if he is not wanted in any other case. The Court held that the prosecution has "miserably faield to prove the vital circumstances."
Allowing the appeal filed by Daswhant against his conviction and sentence, the Court pronounced:
Supreme Court Acquits Chennai Man Dashwanth, Who Was Sentenced To Death For Rape-Murder Of 7-Year-Old Girl
Case Title: Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 3633-3634/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 983
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence of one Dashwanth, who was accused of the rape and murder of a 7-year old minor girl at Mugalivakkam, Chennai in 2017.
Acquitting Dashwanth, the Court ordered his immediate release, if he is not wanted in any other case. The Court held that the prosecution has "miserably faield to prove the vital circumstances."
Allowing the appeal filed by Daswhant against his conviction and sentence, the Court pronounced:
Criminal Court Cannot Review Or Recall Its Judgment Except To Correct Clerical Errors : Supreme Court
Case: State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 984
The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court exercising criminal jurisdiction cannot recall or review its own judicial order under the guise of inherent powers, except to correct a purely clerical or accidental error. Setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's direction transferring investigation to the CBI in a mining-related dispute, the Court held that the recall of an earlier order by invoking Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) was beyond jurisdiction.
"Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment. The only permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC]," the Court observed.
Background
Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted For Murdering Mother, Says Suicide Can't Be Ruled Out
Cause Title: Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 985
The Supreme Court (October 8) acquitted a man who was convicted for a murder of his mother (matricide), after noting that the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and K Vinod Chandran found that the appellant-accused was falsely implicated as the prosecution failed to prove that the death of the deceased was at all homicidal in nature, as the medical evidence showed that the deceased was suffering from schizophrenia and may have died by suicide, a fact not disproved by the prosecution.
The case related to an incident in Maharashtra (Taloni Village, Ambajogai) in 2010. The police received an anonymous tip about a "doubtful death." Upon arriving, they found a crowd attempting to hurriedly cremate the body of deceased. When police announced it was a murder, the crowd dispersed. The investigation that followed led to the conviction of Sunanda's son, Nilesh-Appellant.
Railway Accident Claims Not Criminal Trial For Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Avoid Hypertechnical Approach : Supreme Court
Case: Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986
The Supreme Court cautioned against adopting a hypertechnical approach in claims under Section 124A of the Railways Act seeking compensation for deaths or injuries - "untoward incidents"- during train journeys.
The Court said that once foundational facts - (i) the possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) the occurrence of an accidental fall from train - are established through credible material, it must be statutorily presumed that the victim was a bona fide passenger.
Reaffirming that proceedings under Section 124A of the Railways Act are not "criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities", the Court asked the Railways not to reject genuine claims citing technicalities.
Railway Accident Claims Not Criminal Trial For Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Avoid Hypertechnical Approach : Supreme Court
Case: Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986
The Supreme Court cautioned against adopting a hypertechnical approach in claims under Section 124A of the Railways Act seeking compensation for deaths or injuries - "untoward incidents"- during train journeys.
The Court said that once foundational facts - (i) the possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) the occurrence of an accidental fall from train - are established through credible material, it must be statutorily presumed that the victim was a bona fide passenger.
Reaffirming that proceedings under Section 124A of the Railways Act are not "criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities", the Court asked the Railways not to reject genuine claims citing technicalities.
Motor Accident Claims | Fake License By Driver Doesn't Absolve Insurer Unless Vehicle Owner Knowingly Allowed Breach : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 987
In a relief to a vehicle owner, the Supreme Court (October 8) observed that the insurance company cannot recover the compensation amount from the vehicle owner merely because the driver was found to be using a fake license.
A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria said that a vehicle owner is not expected to verify the credentials of the driver's license from the issuing authority whether it is fake or not. Only when the insurance company proves that there was an absence of due diligence in the employment of the driver or the entrustment of the vehicle, the liability would shift to the insured-vehicle owner.
“As has been rightly held by the precedents above noticed, the owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether the licence is fake or not.”, the court said.
Written Statement Filed In Commercial Suit During COVID Limitation Extension Period Cannot Be Rejected For Delay : Supreme Court
Cause Title: M/S Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Aroush Motors & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 988
The Supreme Court (October 8) reiterated that the Written Statement filed belatedly in a commercial suit after the mandatory period of 120 days cannot be rejected when it was filed during COVID-19, as the delay fell entirely within the COVID-19 limitation extension ordered by the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which affirmed the Commercial Court's decision rejecting the Appellant's application to file a Written Statement (filed on 07.01.2022) as the 120-day period ended on 14.11.2021. The High Court also justified that the Appellant lacked the right to cross-examine the witnesses, as its statutory right to file a written statement had been forfeited.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court.
District Judge Direct Appointment | 7 Year Practice Mandate Not Fulfilled If There's Break In Practice : Supreme Court
Case Details: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [Civil Appeal No(S). 3947/2020]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
The Supreme Court held that a break in practice cannot be ignored while considering the mandate of 7-year practice as an advocate, prescribed under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, for direct appointment as a District Judge.
The Court clarified that 7-year practice must be "continuous" as on the date of application.
The observation was made by a 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran.
Advocates Cannot Claim Exclusive Quota In District Judge Direct Recruitment : Supreme Court
Case Details: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [Civil Appeal No(S). 3947/2020]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that the 25% quota set for direct recruitment for the post of district judges is not exclusively for the candidates from the bar.
The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran held that :
"We are also not inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the respondents that 25% quota of direct recruitment is reserved only for practising advocates. We are of the view that if the contention in this respect is accepted, it will amount to providing a “quota” for the advocates having seven years' practice. A plain and literal reading of Article 233(2) does not contemplate such a situation. Therefore, the contention as canvassed in that regard does not hold water."
Sex Education Should Be Included In School Curriculum From Younger Age, Not Limited To Classes IX To XII : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Juvenile X v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
The Supreme Court (October 8) opined that Sex Education should be incorporated in the school curriculum from a younger age, and not be restricted to Classes IX to XII.
“we are of the opinion that sex education should be provided to the children from a younger age and not class IX onwards.”, the court said.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made this observation while hearing the bail plea filed by the juvenile, who committed offences under Sections 376 (Rape) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 2012 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault).
Judicial Officers With 7 Years Combined Experience On Date Of Application Eligible For Direct Recruitment As District Judges : Supreme Court
Case: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [Civil Appeal No(S). 3947/2020]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that a judicial officer, who has a combined experience of seven years as a judicial officer and an advocate, is eligible to apply for direct appointment as a District Judge. The eligibility will be seen as on the date of the application.
To ensure a level playing field, the Court held that the minimum age of the in-service candidates applying for District Judges' direct recruitment must be 35 years.
The Court held that the state governments will have to frame rules providing eligibility for in-service candidates. The rules should provide that in-service candidates should be eligible if they have a combined experience of 7 years as a judicial officer and advocate.
Sex Education Should Be Included In School Curriculum From Younger Age, Not Limited To Classes IX To XII : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Juvenile X v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
The Supreme Court (October 8) opined that Sex Education should be incorporated in the school curriculum from a younger age, and not be restricted to Classes IX to XII.
“we are of the opinion that sex education should be provided to the children from a younger age and not class IX onwards.”, the court said.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made this observation while hearing the bail plea filed by the juvenile, who committed offences under Sections 376 (Rape) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 2012 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault).
Age Bar In Surrogacy Act Won't Apply To Couples Who Froze Embryos Before Law Came Into Force: Supreme Court
Case Title – Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India and Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 990
The Supreme Court held that couples who had begun the surrogacy process before the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 law can proceed with surrogacy despite being over the statutory age limit under section 4(iii)(c)(I). The law mandates that the woman must be between 23 and 50 years of age and the man between 26 and 55 years.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan said that the right to surrogacy of such couples crystallised when they had their empbryos frozen under the law prevailing at the time (before commencement of the Surrogacy Act when there was no age limit) as a part of reproductive autonomy and parenthood, and the age restriction under the Act cannot apply retrospectively to such couples.
"In the result, we hold that section 4(iii)(c)(I) does not have retrospective operation, and therefore will not apply to the petitioners and applicants who are intending couples", the Court held.
Surrogacy Act Does Not Affect Rights Vested In Couples Who Froze Embryos Before Law Took Effect : Justice Viswanathan's Concurring Judgment
Case Title – Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India and Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 990
The Supreme Court held that couples who had frozen embryos for surrogacy before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into effect on January 25, 2022, had acquired vested rights to surrogacy which the Act could not retrospectively take away.
Justice KV Viswanathan, in his concurring opinion, said that by completing the fertilisation process before the statutory cut-off date, the couples had already crossed a legally recognised threshold, and the later introduction of age limits under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Act could not invalidate their position.
“by the fertilization of the embryo prior to 25.01.2022, certain rights inhered in the intending couple and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (for short 'the Act') does not divest them of those rights”, he said.
Age Bar In Surrogacy Act Won't Apply To Couples Who Froze Embryos Before Law Came Into Force: Supreme Court
Case Title – Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India and Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 990
The Supreme Court held that couples who had begun the surrogacy process before the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 law can proceed with surrogacy despite being over the statutory age limit under section 4(iii)(c)(I). The law mandates that the woman must be between 23 and 50 years of age and the man between 26 and 55 years.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan said that the right to surrogacy of such couples crystallised when they had their empbryos frozen under the law prevailing at the time (before commencement of the Surrogacy Act when there was no age limit) as a part of reproductive autonomy and parenthood, and the age restriction under the Act cannot apply retrospectively to such couples.
"In the result, we hold that section 4(iii)(c)(I) does not have retrospective operation, and therefore will not apply to the petitioners and applicants who are intending couples", the Court held.
S.138 NI Act | Cheque Dishonour Complaint Maintainable Against Trustee Without Arraying Trust As Accused : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 991
The Supreme Court (October 9) observed that a cheque dishonor complaint would be maintainable against a trustee, who has signed a cheque on the Trust's behalf, without arraying the Trust as an accused. The Court reasoned that since a Trust is not a juristic person, and neither sues nor is sued, therefore, trustees responsible for day to day affairs of the Trust would be held liable, particularly the one who signed the cheque.
“When a cause of action arises due to an alleged dishonour of cheque and a complaint is initiated under the NI Act, the same is maintainable against the Trustee who has signed the cheque, without the requirement to array the Trust also as an accused.”, the court held.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case that arose out of a ₹5 crore cheque issued by Orion Education Trust, signed by its Chairman, Respondent, in favour of the Appellant for liaisoning services. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The appellant filed a complaint under Sections 138/142 NI Act against the Respondent personally.
Stamp Act | Stamp Duty Determined By Instruments' Legal Character, Not Its Nomenclature: Supreme Court
Cause Title: M/S Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 992
The Supreme Court held that while determining the chargeability of the Stamp Duty, the decisive factor is to ascertain the true legal character of the instrument, not the nomenclature assigned to the instrument.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed an appeal filed by a company that attempted to color a mortgage deed like a security bond to attract lesser stamp duty, affirming the higher demand for stamp duty on the deed.
The appellant executed a “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” in favour of the Meerut Development Authority (MDA) to secure obligations for colony development, including payment of external development charges and provision of amenities. Under the deed, the appellant mortgaged specified properties to the MDA, empowering it to sell them in case of default to recover ₹1,00,44,000/-. An advance deposit of ₹15,00,000/- was also made, with the bond becoming void upon full compliance. A stamp duty of ₹100/- was paid under Article 57, Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act.
Juvenile Justice Act 2000 Applies Retrospectively : Supreme Court Orders Release Of Convict Who Was Juvenile When Crime Was Committed In 1981
Cause Title: Hansraj v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 993
The Supreme Court (October 9) ordered the release of the murder convict under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, after finding he was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence in 1981. The Court held that the JJ Act is retrospective in operation, and applies to offences pre-dated the enforcement of the JJ Act, 2000.
The Court rejected the State's argument that since the offence was committed in 1981, the provision of the JJ Act, 2000 would not be applicable, and the law prevailing at the time of the offence would be applicable. Instead, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih relying on the Constitution bench judgment of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 and two judge bench judgment of Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 5 SCC 344 observed that “all persons who were below the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1st April, 2001 would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the date of commencement of the JJ Act, 2000 and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted.”
The Petitioner, who was twelve years old at the time of the commission of the offence (murder), moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 claiming that his detention exceeded the three-year limit under Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, thereby violating his fundamental right to life and liberty.
Armed Forces Tribunal Empowered To Modify Court-Martial Convictions And Impose Lesser Penalties : Supreme Court
Cause Title: S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 994
The Supreme Court (October 10) observed that the Armed Forces Tribunal (“AFT”) under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (“Act”) is empowered to substitute the findings of the Court Martial if its findings were excessive, illegal or unjust.
“Thus, under Section 15(6) (a) & (b) of the 2007 Act, the Tribunal is empowered to substitute the finding of Court Martial which includes the disciplinary proceedings under the Act and also to interfere with the sentence if the same is found to be excessive, illegal or unjust and to mitigate the punishment awarded.”, the court held.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe upheld the AFT's decision to set aside the court-martial's order of dismissal and replace it with compulsory retirement, granting the appellant pensionary benefits.
Supreme Court Notes Conflict Between Forest Rights Act & Forest Conservation Act On Allowing Houses For Tribes; Seeks Union's Stance
Cause Title: Sugra Adiwasi & Ors. v. Pathranand & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 995
The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to file an affidavit within four weeks clarifying the scope, method, and manner of permitting construction of dwelling houses under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (“FRA”), in a manner consistent with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (“FCA”). While the FRA guarantees forest dwellers a 'pucca house,' the FCA imposes restrictions on such permanent constructions within forest areas.
Opining that the Forest Conservation Act should not prohibit the construction of a pucca house for forest dwellers, the Court asked the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to hold detailed consultations.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar heard an appeal where the issue for consideration was of great importance, as the court ought to balance two important legislation; where, to provide minimum basic housing even to those who are forest dwellers under FRA, and on the other side, an obligation of State and its citizenry to protect the national forest resource under FCA.
Supreme Court Notes Conflict Between Forest Rights Act & Forest Conservation Act On Allowing Houses For Tribes; Seeks Union's Stance
Cause Title: Sugra Adiwasi & Ors. v. Pathranand & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 995
The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to file an affidavit within four weeks clarifying the scope, method, and manner of permitting construction of dwelling houses under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (“FRA”), in a manner consistent with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (“FCA”). While the FRA guarantees forest dwellers a 'pucca house,' the FCA imposes restrictions on such permanent constructions within forest areas.
Opining that the Forest Conservation Act should not prohibit the construction of a pucca house for forest dwellers, the Court asked the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to hold detailed consultations.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar heard an appeal where the issue for consideration was of great importance, as the court ought to balance two important legislation; where, to provide minimum basic housing even to those who are forest dwellers under FRA, and on the other side, an obligation of State and its citizenry to protect the national forest resource under FCA.
Supreme Court Raps Plaintiff For Withholding Possession After Receiving ₹2 Crore In Lieu Of Specific Performance, Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Costs
Cause Title: Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 996
The Supreme Court recently came down heavily on a plaintiff in a specific performance suit who refused to vacate the property even after being awarded ₹2 crore as compensation in lieu of specific performance of a sale agreement.
The Court strongly disapproved of the litigant's attempt to exploit the omission in the earlier order,which had not expressly directed the handing over of possession,to continue occupying the property.
The dispute arose from a sale agreement executed in 1989, under which the appellant paid an earnest money of ₹25,000 and obtained possession of part of the property. Over the years, litigation ensued, and in a judgment on April 1, 2025, this Court had set aside the decree granted by lower courts (in favor of specific performance) but awarded an equitable compensation of ₹2 crores to the appellant in lieu of that earnest money
DRT Must Decide Securitisation Applications Within Statutorily Mandated Timeline : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S Radhey Infra Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 997
The Supreme Court recently criticized the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, for failing to decide a securitisation application preferred by a Bank within the statutory timeline mandated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act").
After noting that the DRT failed to abide by the strict timelines prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe directed the DRT to dispose of the matter “without further delay” and strictly in line with Section 17(5) SARFAESI Act which requires a disposal of a securitization application within 60 days of filing the application, extendable up to four months.
“Once the statute itself mandates that the DRT should dispose of the matter within the stipulated time, it is incumbent upon the DRT, Dehradun, to abide thereby. Further, in the event it fails to do so, the proviso to Section 17(5) ordains that reasons need to be recorded. We find from the orders passed by the DRT, Dehradun, that this statutory direction has also not been respected.”, the court said.
For Lawyers To Double Up As Mediators, They Need To Acquire Different Skills; Listen Than Speak : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Raksha Devi v. Parkash Chand
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 998
The Supreme Court recently commended a Court-appointed mediator for successfully resolving a 40-year-old civil dispute, observing that it is “inevitable” for lawyers to transition into the role of mediators, which demands a shift in approach from adversarial litigation to constructive problem-solving.
"If lawyers are to double-up and evolve as mediators, a development which we consider is inevitable, they must cultivate a distinct set of skills and adopt a new attitude towards dispute resolution, one that diverges from adversarial litigation. The acquisition of these skills and mind set begins with revisiting certain traditional techniques and practices developed for argumentation," the Court observed.
The Court said that the fundamental principle of mediation is "to listen, rather than speak."
Supreme Court Orders CBI Investigation Into Karur Stampede; Retired SC Judge To Monitor Probe
Case Details: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh and Ors. | Diary No. 58048-2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 999
The Supreme Court ordered an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the Karur stampede, which took place on September 27, during the rally of actor Vijay's political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), claiming 41 lives.
"Looking to the fact that the issue involved certainly has a bearing on the fundamental rights of the citizens and the incident which has shaken the national conscience, deserves fair and impartial investigation. As such, by way of interim measure, direction deserves to be issued to handover the investigation to the CBI which would lead to fair administration of justice. There cannot be any doubt that fair investigation is the right of a citizen.," pronounced the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria.
The Court observed that the political undertones of the case, as well as the comments made by the top officials of the State Police to the media, may create doubt in the minds of the citizenry on impartiality and fair investigation
Land Acquisition Can't Be Challenged After Accepting Compensation: Supreme Court Rejects Company's Plea To Restore Singur Land
Cause Title: State of West Bengal and Others v. M/S Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1000
The Supreme Court has overturned the Calcutta High Court's decision to restore land to a private company based on the 2016 Kedar Nath Yadav v State of West Bengal precedent. The Court stated that its 2016 ruling, which quashed the Tata Nano plant acquisition in Singur, provided a targeted remedy for farmers and was not a general right for commercial entities that had accepted the acquisition for a decade.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi while allowing the State of West Bengal's appeal, held that the High Court erred in granting land restoration to the respondent-private entity, which had accepted the acquisition and full compensation but challenged it belatedly.
“Once the proceedings conclude in the award and possession is taken without challenge, the Court would not entertain any belated grievance from the interested person.”, the court said.
Orders and Other Developments
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre On Plea Against Sonam Wangchuk's Detention; Wife Seeks Grounds
Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025
The Supreme Court today(October 6) issued notice to the Central Government in a writ petition filed by Ladakh social activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, following the recent violent clashes in Ladakh .
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria stated that the matter will be heard on next Tuesday (October 14).
The writ petition filed under Article 32 is a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of Wangchuk, reportedly lodged in a jail in Jodhpur. As per the writ petition, Angmo has challenged the detention as illegal under Article 22, as no grounds of arrest have been supplied to either of them. The Union Government, Ladakh Administration and the Superintendent of the Jodhpur Central Jail are the respondents in the petition.
'Fight Political Battles Before Electorate' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Probe Against Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan In CMRL Case
Case Details: Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v. Pinarayi Vijayan and Ors. | Diary No. 33761-2025
The Supreme Court (October 6) dismissed a petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan seeking probe against Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena with respect to the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) scam.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court's judgmentwhich dismissed the revision petitions challenging the Vigilance Court orders refusing to order probes into corruption allegations.
As soon as the matter was taken, CJI BR Gavai told Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, the petitioner's lawyer, "We have been consistently saying, fight your political battles before the electorate and not in the Court."
Advocate Tries To Hurl Shoe At CJI BR Gavai During Supreme Court Proceedings
In an unusual incident at the Supreme Court, a person attempted to throw an object at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during the morning session.
The man, who was heard shouting slogans, was quickly escorted out of the courtroom by security personnel. The incident caused a brief interruption for a few minutes in proceedings before the session resumed.
According to lawyers present, the individual shouted, “Sanatan Dharam ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan” (“India will not tolerate disrespect towards Sanatan Dharma”) while being removed from the courtroom. Some witnesses claimed he tried to throw a shoe, while others said he appeared to be hurling a roll of paper. The man was reportedly dressed in a lawyer's robe.
'What Were You Doing When Your Children Lived In Cave?': Supreme Court Pulls Up 'Father' Of Russian Kids Found In Gokarna
Case Title: Dror Shlomo Goldstein v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 28198/2025
The Supreme Court pulled up a man claiming to be the father of two minor Russian girls who, along with their mother, were found living in a cave near Gokarna, Karnataka, earlier this year.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the man's plea challenging a Karnataka High Court order that had permitted the Union government to issue travel documents for their repatriation to Russia.
As the matter came up, Justice Surya Kant asked the petitioner's counsel, “What is your right? Who are you?” The counsel responded that the petitioner was the father of the children and sought time to serve a copy of the petition on the Union of India.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Telangana Govt Raising Backward Classes Quota In Local Bodies To 42%; Allows To Move HC
Case Title – Vanga Gopal Reddy v. State of Telangana
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the Telangana government's order raising the quota for Backward Classes in municipalities and panchayats to 42%, which pushed the total reservations in local bodies to 67%.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed agriculturist Vanga Gopal Reddy to withdraw his plea seeking to declare G.O.Ms. No. 09 dated September 26, 2025, as unconstitutional, illegal and void for violating Articles 14, 243D and 243T of the Constitution.
The petition contended that the order violated the 50% ceiling on reservations laid down by the Court in various judgments. It submitted that together with the existing 15% reservation for Scheduled Castes and 10% for Scheduled Tribes, the aggregate reservation exceeded 67%.
'Misconceived' : Supreme Court Rejects Senthil Balaji's Plea Against Order Which Forced His Resignation As Minister
Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji v. K. Vidhya Kumar and Ors., MA 1185/2025 In MA 2454/2024 In Crl.A. No. 4011/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain ex-Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji's plea seeking expunction of the remarks made by the Court which forced him to resign as a Minister.
In April, a bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih had strongly criticised Balaji for assuming charge as Minister soon after he was granted bailin the money laundering case. The bench led by Justice Oka orally warned that Balaji's bail will be cancelled if he did not resign. Choose between "post" and "freedom", Justice Oka orally said, following which Balaji resigned. Taking note of the resignation, the Court disposed of the applications seeking recall of the bail.
Later, the present miscellaneous application seeking expunction of remarks made by the Court was filed.
SCBA Contemplates Disciplinary Action Against Advocate Who Attempted Attack On CJI BR Gavai
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) issued a statement condemning the recent attack on the Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, by its temporary member advocate. The SCBA has also clarified that it is contemplating appropriate disciplinary actions against the offending advocate, Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to hurl a shoe at the CJI.
The statement expressed that the attack was an aftermath of the wrongly portrayed remarks of CJIin the Vishnu Idol Case, where his bench dismissed a petition seeking directions for the reconstruction of a dilapidated 7 feet tall Vishnu Idol at the Javari Temple in Khajuraho Temple Series, Madhya Pradesh.
Bar Council Of India Suspends Advocate Who Attempted Attack On CJI BR Gavai
In the wake of the attempted attack on Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, morning, the Bar Council of India has suspended the offending advocate's license with immediate effect.
Solicitor General Condemns Advocate's Attempt To Attack CJI BR Gavai In Court; Says Social Media Misinformation Resulted In It
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, has condemned the unfortunate incident of an advocate, Rakesh Kishore, attempting to throw an object at the Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, early today.
In a statement, he said that this incident is a result of misinformation on social media and appreciated the calm manner in which the CJI reacted.
"Today's incident in the Chief Justice's court is unfortunate and deserves condemnation. This is the result of misinformation on social media. It is really heartening that the Chief Justice of India reacted with magnanimity and majesty of the highest court of the country. I only hope that this magnanimity is not treated by others as the weakness of the institution," SG Mehta said.
NEET-PG : Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Centre, States On Reservation For Transgender Persons
Case Details: Kiran A.R and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 461/2025
The Supreme Court today(October 6) heard a petition writfiled by two transgender persons seeking reservation in the NEET-PG exam as per the 2014 NALSA judgment, which had directed that transgender persons should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes and extend all kinds of reservation in educational institutions. It has asked States who are yet to file affidavit to file the same indicating in what time they are going to implement the horizonmental reservation for transgender persons.
Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising(for petitioners) sought an interim order for the horizontal reservation of two seats in the All India quota and one each in the Tamil Nadu and the Andhra Pradesh State quota, where the petitioners reportedly belong. As per them, the counselling is yet to begin, and they have challenged the NEET PG notification to the extent that it did not provide counselling for transgender person candidates.
On interim relief, the Court was informed by Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, for the Union, that another contempt petition (Mx Kamlesh & Ors. v. Niten Chandra) is before the bench of Chief Justice of India, who was earlier hearing the present matter. She said that all States and Union Territories are a party to that matter. Initially, the present bench said that the matter should ideally be placed before the CJI bench, but then directed Dave to find out the scope of that petition, clarifying that it does not want to run parallel proceedings.
Supreme Court Dismisses Lawyer's Plea To Preserve Video Recordings Of Court Proceedings
Case Details: Mathews J Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India | W.P.(C) No. 828/2025
The Supreme Court (October 6) dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking directions to ensure the preservation of video recordings of court proceedings and to make them accessible to lawyers and litigants as a matter of right. The petition was premised on the contention that such a measure would help end the “ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants” and guarantee an equal opportunity of hearing, irrespective of the counsel's status
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan heard Advocate Nedumpara briefly before dismissing the plea. Arguing in person, Nedumpara submitted that despite virtual hearings being held in most courts and tribunals across the country, there is still no mechanism for preserving such records for a reasonable period or for providing access to litigants and advocates as a matter of right.
He further contended that instances of ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants in courts continue unabated, and that preservation and accessibility of video recordings would be the only effective remedy to ensure transparency and accountability in court proceedings
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Constitutionality Of Securities Transaction Tax
Case Title – Aseem Juneja v. Union of India
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), a tax on buying and selling stocks and other securities on Indian stock exchanges, imposed under the Finance Act, 2004.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan issued notice returnable in four weeks.
“The principal argument canvassed before us is that the Securities Transaction Tax is the only tax levied in the country on the mere act of carrying out a profession and is sought to be levied irrespective whether there is a profit derived or not. This, according to the petitioner, renders the levy almost punitive or deterrent in nature. Otherwise, according to the petitioner, all other taxes in India are levied on the profit at the year-end but the STT is levied even if the stock market trader is operating in a loss. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks”, the Court recorded.
Delhi Police Releases Advocate Who Tried To Throw Shoe At CJI BR Gavai As Supreme Court Refrains From Pressing Charges
The Delhi Police has released 71-year-old Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted tothrow a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in open Court, as the Supreme Court Registrar declined to pursue legal action against him, reported The Indian Express.
As per The Indian Express, the advocate has now been released, as the Court's Registrar General refused to press any charges against him.
The newspaper has reported that the police recovered a white paper note from his possession, which read: "Mera sandesh har sanatani ke liye hai...Sanatan Dharma ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan (My message is for all followers of Hinduism, this country will not tolerate any disrespect to Hinduism."
West Bengal Govt, Governor Agree To 6 More Vice Chancellor Appointments; Remaining To Be Resolved By Supreme Court
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023
In the matter pertaining to the appointment of Vice Chancellors for West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court was informed that the State government and the Governor are in agreement over the recommendation of 6 more candidates as VCs.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and indicated that for appointment of VCs to the remaining universities, the matter will be taken up in-chamber.
"It is clear that there is no impediment in appointment of VCs to following universities...Calcutta University, Biswa Bangla Biswabidyalaya, Sadhu Ram Chand Murmu University of Jhargram, Gour Banga University, Kazi Nazrul University, Jadavpur University...As regards to remaining universities, matter shall be taken up in chamber", the bench recorded.
Supreme Court Proposes Transfer Of Corruption Cases' Trial Against Senthil Balaji From TN To Delhi
Case Title:
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking clubbing of charge sheets in the 'cash-for-jobs' cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act involving former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, calling for the State's reply on aspects including maintainability of the petition.
During the hearing, Justice Kant posed to Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi & Amit Anand Tiwari (for State) and Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for petitioner) if the trial can be transferred from Tamil Nadu to another "neutral" jurisdiction like Delhi.
Supreme Court Seeks Union, RBI Responses On PIL Seeking Portal To Access Unclaimed Financial Assets & Dormant Bank Accounts
Case Title: Aakash Goel v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 812/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking a centralized portal for enabling individuals to access a comprehensive list of all financial assets held across entities regulated by the Reserve Bank of India and other financial regulators.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order on a petition filed by one Aakash Goel.
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta appeared for the petitioner and submitted that the matter pertains to small investors/depositors. "First it's made inoperative. Range is 1-3 years. And then 7-8 years, it's unclaimed. As of today, it is Rs.3.5 lakh crores of money - it is not being given back to those people, beneficiaries, investors, etc...I made a representation [as well]...SEBI is at a better stage", she said, urging that the amounts had not been returned to the rightful owners.
Supreme Court Dismisses Congress MP Adoor Prakash's Challenge To Kerala HC Condoning Delay In State's Revision Against His Discharge
Case Title: Adoor Prakash and Anr. v. State of Kerala, SLP(Crl) No. 14677/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed Lok Sabha MP and former Kerala Minister Adoor Prakash's challenge to a Kerala High Court order which condoned the delay of 225 days in state's filing of a criminal revision petition against the order discharging him in a corruption case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for petitioners). Without expressing anything on the merits, the bench said that it found no reason to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The plea, filed by Adoor Prakash and his former Private Secretary, averred that the High Court condoned a delay of 467 days in filing of the appeal by the state without assigning any reasons. It was the petitioners' contention that since the "inordinate delay" had not been sufficiently explained by the state, the High Court ought not to have condoned the delay taking a liberal view.
Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Sealing Of Advocates' Office In Basement Of Delhi Building
Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | I.A. No. 182567 and 182573 of 2019 In W.P. No. 4677 of 1985
The Supreme Court heard a matter relating to the sealing of a basement office run by lawyers.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the application filed by lawyers who purchased a basement office in Greater Kailash-I for setting up their chambers. Their office was subsequently sealed in 2019 by the orders of the Monitoring Committee.
Sr Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appeared for the aggrieved lawyers.
Karur Stampede : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Madras High Court's Refusal To Order CBI Investigation
Case: Panneerselvam Pitchaimuthu v. Union of India | Diary No.57588/2025
The Supreme Court will hear a plea challenging the Madras High Court's order, which declined to order a CBI investigation into the stampede which occurred in Karur in Tamil Nadu on September 27 during a political rally by actor Vijay's political party TVK.
The petition was filed by P Panneerselvan, father of a child who died in the incident.
Supreme Court Refers To Constitution Bench Issue Regarding Lack Of Promotion Chances For Judicial Officers
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India
The Supreme Court (October 7) referred to a Constitution Bench the issues relating to the career stagnation faced by young judicial officers, who join entry-level posts, due to limited promotional avenues in judicial service.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the reference order in the All India Judges Association case.
Earlier, the bench had soughtthe responses of the High Courts and the State Governments, expressing concerns over the issue. Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in case, had highlighted an "anomalous situation" in many States, where Judicial Officers recruited as Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) often do not reach even the level of the Principal District Judge, leave alone reaching the position of the High Court Judge. The amicus stated that this situation often discouraged bright youngsters from joining the judiciary.
Cough Syrup Deaths: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe, Review Of Drug Controls & Seizure Of Contaminated Medicines
Following the recent spate of child deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan caused by the consumption of toxic cough syrups, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an independent, court-monitored probe into the incident and a nationwide review of drug safety mechanisms.
The petition, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, calls for the constitution of a National Judicial Commission or Expert Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the manufacture, testing, and distribution of contaminated cough syrups containing Diethylene Glycol (DEG) and Ethylene Glycol (EG), the same toxic compounds that have previously caused fatalities.
The PIL comes amid alarming reports from Shivpuri in Madhya Pradesh and Barmer in Rajasthan, where several children reportedly died after consuming Coldrif Cough Syrup, a formulation manufactured by M/s Sresan Pharma Pvt. Ltd., a Tamil Nadu-based pharmaceutical company. Preliminary investigations by local authorities and drug control departments have pointed to suspected contamination in the syrup, reigniting concerns over recurring lapses in India's drug quality control and export monitoring systems.
Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Frame Rules Under Motor Vehicles Act For Pedestrian Safety, Footpaths & Road Designs
Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 295/2012
The Supreme Court (October 7) issued a series of final directions relating to the safety of pedestrians on roads and footpaths, including the wearing of helmets, wrong lane driving, and the use of unauthorised hooters on cars in a long-standing writ petition.
It has directed the States and Union Territories to formulate Rules under Section 138(1A) the Motor Vehicles Act in the interest of road safety for the purpose of regulating the activities and access of non-mechanically propelled vehicles and pedestrians to public places and national highways.
The States/UTs were also directed to make Rules under Section 210D for the design, construction and maintenance standards for roads other than national highways. All these Rules have to be formulated within six months.
Supreme Court Transfers Trial Against Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti From MP To Delhi After He Alleges Intimidation Of Defence Witnesses
Case Title: Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, T.P.(Crl.) No. 1120/2024
The Supreme Court transferred to Delhi the trial in a cheating case against Congress Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti after taking note of his allegation that the defense witnesses were pressurized.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Bharti), Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for State) and Senior Advocate Saurabh Mishra (for complainant), on Bharti's plea seeking transfer of the trial outside Madhya Pradesh.
In February this year, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had stayed the trial in the case, expressing dissatisfaction with the State's evasive replies on whether it enquired into allegations that witnesses were intimidated. During the hearing, the bench was told that the defence witnesses were taken to a hotel and pressurized to give evidence against the petitioner. The State, however, flatly denied the allegation.
Unnao Rape Survivor's Mother Seeks Restoration Of CRPF Security; Supreme Court Asks Delhi Govt Report On Threat Perception
Case Details: In Re Alarming Rise In The Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents v. | MA 1415/2025 In SMW(Crl.) No. 1/2019
The Supreme Court (October 7) heard a miscellaneous application filed by the mother of the 2017 Unnao rape survivor, alleging grave threat to the life and liberty of herself and her immediate family members. She has sought recall of the Court's recent order allowing the withdrawal of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) security to her family.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to file an affidavit within two weeks stating whether there exists any threat perception to the life of the applicant and her family members, and whether they have approached the competent authority seeking security cover.
The development follows the Court's March 25 order allowing an intervention application filed by the Union of India seeking modification of the Supreme Court's August 1, 2019 direction that had mandated CRPF protection to the survivor, her lawyer, mother, siblings, uncle, and the uncle's immediate family. The Union sought withdrawal of security from all except the survivor herself.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Take-Down BJP Assam Unit's AI-Video Showing Muslim Domination If Party Loses Election
Case Title: Qurban Ali v. Union of India and Others., W.P.(C) No. 24/2022 (And Connected Case)
The Supreme Court issued notice on an application seeking the take-down of an AI-generated video posted on 'X' by Bhartiya Janata Party's Assam unit which statedly showed apprehension of a takeover of the state by Muslims if the party loses elections.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Advocate Nizam Pasha (for applicants), who argued:
"A video has just been posted as part of upcoming election...it shows that in case a certain political party does not come to power, a certain community will take over...it shows people with skullcaps and beards...[as per Court's directions] FIR should be suo motu lodged...if FIR is not lodged, contempt action is to be undertaken."
Supreme Court Issues Notice To IndiGo On Plea Of Customs Dept & GST Council Against Ruling On IGST Exemption For Imported Parts
Case: Principal Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) and Others v. InterGlobe Aviation Ltd | Diary No. 49140-2025
The Supreme Court sought a response from IndiGo's parent company, InterGlobe Aviation, on a petition filed by the Customs Department challenging a Delhi High Court ruling that exempted the airline from paying Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on imported aircraft parts that were repaired and serviced abroad.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice to InterGlobe Aviation while hearing the department's plea against the March 2024 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had quashed a portion of a customs notification that mandated IGST payment on the import of repaired aircraft engines and components.
Along with the Customs Department, Union Government, GST Council and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs are the other petitioners.
Bihar SIR | There's Confusion If Additions In Final Voters' List Are From Names Deleted Earlier : Supreme Court Tells Election Commission
Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)
In the pleas challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar,the Supreme Court (October 7) orally said that there was some confusion as to whether the voters added in the final electoral list were from the list of voters who were previously deleted from the draft list or totally new names.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was responding to the petitioners' demand that the Election Commission of India must publish the list of names of 3.66 lakh voters who were additionally deleted from the final list, and the names of the 21 lakh voters who were included in it.
“Told My Brother Judge To Keep It To My Ears”: CJI BR Gavai In Lighter Vein On Social Media Misreporting Of Judges' Remarks
Case Details: All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai made a lighter vein comment on how the remarks made by Judges are wrongly portrayed on social media.
Because of the chances of misinterpretation, CJI Gavai said that he once refrained his brother Judge, Justice K Vinod Chandran, from making certain open observations in a case concerning judicial service, and instead advised him to share the comments privately with him.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the All-India Judges Association case. When arguments were being made about the lack of promotion chances for judicial officers, CJI said in a lighter vein :
Criminal Contempt Action Sought Against Aniruddhacharya & Ajeet Bharti For Provocative Comments Against CJI BR Gavai
Founder of Mission Ambedkar, Suraj Kumar Bauddh, has written a letter to the Attorney General of India seeking permission to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against two individuals allegedly involved in inciting the attempted attack against Chief Justice of India BR Gavai.
In the letter addressed to AG R Venkataramani, Baudhh highlighted that prior to the attack on October 6, a religious orator named Aniruddhacharya aka Aniruddh Ram Tiwari made a video threatening the CJI over hisremarks in the Vishnu Idol Case.
"On September 21, 2025, a video featuring religious orator Aniruddhacharya alias Aniruddh Ram Tiwari went viral on social media, in which he issued a direct threat against the Chief Justice of India, stating, "If you want to get your chest ripped open, then let me know." This statement, made in response to remarks attributed to the Chief Justice concerning the deity Vishnu, was widely interpreted as an incitement to violence against the highest judicial authority of the country."
Supreme Court Issues Bailable Warrant Against Advocate Who Made 'Scandalous' Police Complaint Against SCBA Election Committee, Judges
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Bd Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
The Supreme Court issued bailable warrants against an advocate who made a police complaint against members of the Election Committee constituted to hold Supreme Court Bar Association elections.
The Court noted that the advocate did not refrain from levelling allegations even against judges of the Court and failed to enter physical appearance despite previous directions.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan passed the order in the SCBA v. BD Kaushik case, observing that the advocate's conduct prima facie amounted to criminal contempt of Court.
Supreme Court Directs Centre To Examine Amicus Suggestions For Rehabilitation Of Cadets Injured During Military Training
Case Title – In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to consider suggestions made by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Rekha Palli to recognise and rehabilitate officer cadets who suffer disabilities during military training and are discharged before commissioning.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan observed that the out-boarded cadets have not been given any status or recognition and consequently lack appropriate facilities.
“In this regard we would also observe that these out-boarded officers would have entered into their post as Commissioned officers at the entry level but as of now they have not acquired or given any status or recognition in regard to the injury sustained during training and consequently there has been lack of appropriate facilities and amenities that are being provided to such out-boarded cadets”, the Court observed.
Actor Vijay's Party TVK Approaches Supreme Court Against Madras High Court Order In Karur Stampede Case
Case: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. Ph Dinesh Diary No. 58048/2025
Tamil Actor Vijay's political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's order which constituted a Special Investigation team to investigate the Karur stampede.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai for urgent listing. CJI agreed to list the petition, when another connected petition - challenging the High Court's refusal to transfer the investigation to the CBI - is also listed.
The petition has been filed through the party's secretary Aadhav Arjuna, TVK. They have sought an independent investigation under the monitoring of the Supreme Court. The party took objection to the Madras High Court constituting an SIT only with officers of the Tamil Nadu police.
Criminal Contempt Action Sought Against Advocate Rakesh Kishore Who Tried To Hurl Shoe At CJI BR Gavai
A Supreme Court lawyer has written to the Attorney General for India seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai inside the Supreme Court.
In the letter, Advocate Subhash Chandran KR urged the Attorney General R Venkataramani to grant consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, stating that Kishore's conduct of hurling shoe at the dias and shouting slogans against the CJI amounts to gross interference with the administration of justice and undermines the dignity of the Supreme Court.
The lawyer pointed out that, even after the incident, Kishore made contemptuous remarks against the Chief Justice in media interactions, expressing no remorse and instead justifying his actions. The petitioner contends that such behaviour reflects a deliberate attempt to scandalise the court and erode public confidence in the judiciary.
'We Had To Almost Frame Contempt Charges For You To Act' : Supreme Court Slams CBI's Delay In Arrest Of Cops In MP Custodial Death Case
Case No. – Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 594/2025
Case Title – Hansura Bai v. Hanuman Prasad Meena
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for their delay in arresting two Madhya Pradesh police officers accused in the custodial death of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi, observing that the arrests took place only after the Court issued stern warnings of contempt.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the Court's earlier direction, passed on May 15, to arrest the officers.
The Court noted that the CBI had now filed an affidavit stating that both absconding officers have been arrested - one on September 27 and the other on October 5.
Supreme Court To Hear Shiv Sena Symbol Dispute On November 12; Uddhav Seeks Hearing Before Maharashtra Local Polls
Case Title: Uddhav Thackeray v. Eknathrao Sambhaji Shinde and Anr., SLP(C) No. 3997/2023
The Supreme Court agreed to hear on November 12 the plea filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to recognize the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and allot it the party's traditional symbol, the bow and arrow.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh took note of the submission made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Thackeray, who sought urgent listing of the matter.
“There's urgency. Local elections are scheduled for January. Please hear it at the earliest,” Sibal urged.
'They Have Opened A Showroom Here': Justice Surya Kant On United Nations Agency Issuing Refugee Cards To Immigrants In India
Case Title: Yousif Haroun Yagoub Mohamed v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 931/2025
Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court recently deprecated a United Nations agency's issuance of Refugee Cards to immigrants in India. "They have opened a showroom here and are issuing certificates", the judge said.
A bench of Justices Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the petition of a man who hails from Sudan but has been in India since 2013. As per claims, he has two children, including a 40-day old infant, and his wife as well as child have been issued Refugee Cards. He is seeking asylum in Australia and prayed the Supreme Court for interim protection.
Arguing for the man, Senior Advocate S Muralidhar contended that persons who have been issued Refugee Cards by the United Nations agency (United Nations High Commission for Refugees) are on a different footing. They are also treated differently by the Ministry of Human Affairs and the Foreigners' Registration Office.
Supreme Court Quashes Rape On False Marriage Promise Case Against Tamil Director-Politician Seeman After Parties Settle Dispute
Case Title – Seeman v. State
The Supreme Court quashed the rape-on-false-promise-of-marriage case filed by an actress against Tamil film director and politician Seeman, after both parties filed affidavits agreeing to end all litigation between them.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan noted that Seeman had, in his affidavit, tendered an unconditional apology, withdrawn allegations made against the actress, and undertaken not to contact her in any manner. The actress, in turn, filed an affidavit withdrawing her complaint and FIR against Seeman.
Recording the settlement, the bench observed, “the object and purpose of filing these affidavits by the parties is in order to give a quietus to all controversies and litigations between the parties. The affidavits have been filed in a spirit of bringing to an end all litigations and court proceedings between the parties.”
Karur Stampede : BJP Leader Approaches Supreme Court Seeking CBI Investigation, Alleges Lapses By State Machinery In Crowd Control
Tamil Nadu BJP Leader and State Legal Cell Vice President G.S. Mani has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a CBI investigation into the Karur stampede that occurred during a rally organised by actor Vijay's political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), on September 27, claiming 41 lives.
He has sought an investigation by either the CBI or an independent Special Investigation Team headed by a retired or sitting Supreme Court judge.
Mani, who is also a practising advocate, has challenged the October 3 order of the Madras High Court, which rejecteda bunch of PILs seeking a CBI probe, including one writ petition filed by him seeking transfer of investigation from the State police to CBI and for the payment of adequate compensation.
Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Plea To Modify 'Shatrughan Chauhan' Judgment On Death Row Convicts' Mercy Petitions
Case Details: Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India | MA 265/2020 In W.P.(Crl.) No. 55/2013
The Supreme Court today(October 8) dismissed a modification application filed by the Union seeking further guidelines in the 2014 Shatrughan Chauhan judgmentto make it more victim-centric.
It may be recalled that the Union's modification application dates back to 2020 filed in the context of the pending execution of death warrants of the four convicts in the 2012 Delhi gangrape-murder case. The death warrants were only executedin 2020 after the Supreme Court rejectedtheir final plea in a special sitting at midnight.
In 2014, a three-judge bench laid downvarious guidelines for the protection of the rights of death row convicts and declared that long pendency in the disposal of a mercy petition is a ground to commute the death penalty to a life sentence. It also said that a 14-day period should be there between the intimation of the rejection of the mercy petition and the final execution, so that the death row convict can not just seek a remedy but also mentally prepare himself for the execution.
'Sitting In London', 'Blackmailers': Sharp Exchange Between Harish Salve & Prashant Bhushan; Supreme Court Seeks ED's Stand On Indiabulls
Case Title: Citizens Whistle Blower Forum v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 2993/2025
During the hearing of Citizens Whistle Blower Forum's plea for SIT probe against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (now Sammaan Capital), Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Advocate Prashant Bhushan exchanged sharp words before the Supreme Court.
Taking objection to Salve's use of the word 'blackmailer' for the petitioner-Forum, Bhushan took a dig at Salve, saying that he had the "audacity" to make such a claim while sitting in London. The counsel highlighted that the Forum is headed by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice AP Shah, and has Professor Aruna Roy, former navy personnel, secretaries of Government of India, etc. as its trustees.
In retort, Salve said that if Bhushan is "jealous", he could also shift to London. In response to Bhushan's comment that the senior counsel was not aware of the contents of affidavits filed in the matter as he was sitting in London, Salve said, "one can read an affidavit written in simple English sitting in any city".
Supreme Court To Hear On October 13 Plea Seeking SIT Probe Into Rahul Gandhi's 'Vote Chori' Allegations
Case: Rohit Pandey v. Union of India and Others | Diary No.46726/2025
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on October 13, a Public Interest Litigation petition seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team(SIT) headed by a former Judge to inquire into the allegations raised by the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, regarding large-scale voters list manipulation in the Bengaluru Central constituency during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
The petition filed by Advocate Rohit Pandey also sought a direction that no further revision or finalisation of electoral rolls be undertaken until compliance with the Court's directions and completion of an independent audit of the rolls.
The petitioner further sought the framing and issuance of binding guidelines by the Election Commission of India to ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in the preparation, maintenance, and publication of electoral rolls, including mechanisms for detecting and preventing duplicate or fictitious entries.
Supreme Court To Frame Standard For Conduct Of Public Hearings Before Electricity Regulatory Commissions
Case Title – Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Domestic On Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala & Ors.
The Supreme Court recently indicated that it will examine and declare a standard by which public hearings could be conducted by Electricity Regulatory Commissions across the country.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation in an appeal by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission against the Kerala High Court's direction to hold hybrid public hearings instead of online hearings alone while revising the Renewable Energy Regulations.
The Court issued notice in the matter and directed that the Forum of Regulators constituted under Section 166(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 be impleaded as a party and appointed Advocate Anand Ganesan to assist as Amicus Curiae.
2020 Bengaluru Riots : Supreme Court Grants Bail To 2 UAPA Accused Noting Custody Of Over 5 Years & Delay In Trial
Case: Kareem @ Sadam v. State By National Investigation Agency and Connected Matter
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to two persons - Kadeem @ Sadam and Zia Ur Rahma @ Ziya- who are accused in the 2020 Bengaluru riots case, taking note of their incarceration of over five years and the fact that 254 witnesses are yet to be examined in the trial involving 138 accused persons.
A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Karnataka High Court's order, which denied them bail.
The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 333, 332, 436, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.
Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgment On Judicial Officers' Eligibility For Direct Appointment As District Judges Tomorrow
Case: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [Civil Appeal No(S). 3947/2020]
Update - judgment delivered on October 9 - Judicial Officers With 7 Years Combined Experience On Date Of Application Eligible For Direct Recruitment As District Judges : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will tomorrow(October 9) pronounce its decision on the issue of whether a judicial officer, who has already completed 7 years in the Bar, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against the Bar vacancy.
A Constitution Bench comprising five judges - Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran - had reserved the Judgment on September 25 after a 3-day hearing.
Supreme Court Stays MP High Court Order For Vigilance Enquiry Into Trial Judge's Work Of 5 Years
Case Details: Vivek Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(S). 51903/2025
The Supreme Court recently stayed the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which made adverse remarks against a POCSO Special Judge, calling his conduct 'intellectual dishonesty' and directing an enquiry into 5 years of his judicial work.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a challenge against the adverse remarks of the Madhya Pradesh High Court against a judicial officer in a criminal case.
While issuing notice in the matter, the bench proceeded to stay the directions for investigation against the judicial officer/ petitioner by the High Court.
CJI BR Gavai Calls For Reforms In ITAT Appointments, Members' Tenure; Flags Problem Of Conflicting Judgments
At a symposium on “Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) – Role, Challenges and Way Forward” held in New Delhi on October 8, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai underscored the vital role of the ITAT in ensuring fairness and consistency in tax adjudication, while stressing the need for structural reforms to enhance its functioning, independence, and public credibility.
The event was attended by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice C.V. Bhadang (President, ITAT), Law Secretary Dr. Anju Rathi Rana, and members of the ITAT Bar Association.
“Tax adjudication touches people's lives”
Appointment Of Senior Practitioners At ITAT Should Be Timely, Not At Very End Of Their Professions: CJI BR Gavai
CJI BR Gavai said that the eligibility criteria for appointment of senior practitioners at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should be timely, where their experience can be applied effectively and not at the very end of their careers.
Underscoring that the appointment procedures at ITAT must remain transparent, CJI said:
“Eligibility criteria should be adapted to attract senior practitioners at a point in their careers where their experience can be effectively applied, rather than deferring appointments to the very end of their professional lives.”
Supreme Court Bar Association Terminates Membership Of Lawyer Who Tried To Attack CJI BR Gavai
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has terminated the temporary membership with immediate effect of Advocate Rakesh Kishore who attempted to throw a sport shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on October 6.
"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT the membership of Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kishore, being a temporary member bearing No.K-01029/RES dated 27.07.2011, of the Supreme Court Bar Association, is terminated with immediate effect, and his name shall stand removed from the rolls of the Association.
It is further resolved that his SCBA Membership Card issued if any, stands cancelled and forfeited forthwith, and that a communication be sent to the Secretary- General, Supreme Court of India, requesting that the proximity access card issued to him be cancelled immediately."
Lakhimpur Kheri Case: UP Police Register FIR For Witness Intimidation; Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra To Visit Hometown For Diwali
Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
In the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case involving former Union Minister's son Ashish Mishra, the Supreme Court was informed that a witness has confirmed that he was threatened against testifying and wants to pursue legal action.
Counsel for the State apprised the Court that the statement of the witness was recorded and an FIR has been registered under Sections 195A, 506 and 120B of IPC. "We deputed a Deputy Secretary, who recorded his (witness) statement and he verified that there was some kind of pressure on him", he said.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Baghchi directed that since the preliminary exercise was conducted by an officer of the rank of DSP, it would be prudent for the FIR to be investigated by the same officer and/or an officer of that rank.
MP Asaduddin Owaisi Moves Supreme Court Seeking Extension Of Time For Registration Of Waqfs
Member of Lok Sabha, Asaduddin Owaisi, has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking clarification in the decision on the challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025. Owaisi has sought an extension of time for the registration of waqfs on the Government Portal.
The matter was mentioned by Advocate Nizam Pasha before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran.
He said, "6 months time was given in the Act, 5 months went by during the passing of judgment, we now only have 1 month."
CJI BR Gavai Breaks Silence On Attempted Shoe Attack: "For Us, It's A Forgotten Chapter"
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai briefly addressed the incident in which an advocate tried to hurl a shoe at him in the Supreme Court earlier this week, describing it as a "forgotten chapter".
Speaking during a courtroom exchange, the CJI said, “My learned brother and I were very shocked with what happened on Monday… for us it is a forgotten chapter.”
The remarks came amid a discussion that also involved Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who recalled a similar incident from a decade ago. “I also wrote an article on this.. something similar happened 10 years ago in the neighbouring court. The two judges there had taken a different view on what procedure should be followed while invoking contempt powers,” he said.
Supreme Court To Hear Tomorrow MLA Irfan Hafiz Lone's Plea Seeking Restoration Of Statehood To Jammu & Kashmir
Case Details: Irfan Hafiz Lone v. Union of India Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 49230 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2024
The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow the plea by MLA Irfan Hafiz Lone seeking restoration of statehood to Jammu & Kashmir.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran will be hearing the application filed by Lone.
Notably, a similar applicationwas filed by college teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik is also listed tomorrow. The application are filed in the disposed of matter "In Re : Article 370 of the Constitution" in which the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
Bihar SIR : Supreme Court Directs Free Legal Aid To File Appeals Against Exclusion From Electoral List
Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)
In the Bihar SIR matter, the Supreme Court (October 9) passed an interim order to ensure free legal aid for persons excluded from the final voters' list so they can file appeals against their exclusion.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi requested the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to issue necessary communication to the District Legal Services Authorities for ensuring the availability of paralegal volunteers and legal aid counsels who can assist the excluded persons in filing appeals.
"Since the time to file appeals is running short, we deem it appropriate, as an interim measure, to request the Executive Chairman, Bihar State Legal Services Authority, to send communication preferably itself to all secretaries of DLSAs to provide services of paralegal volunteers, free legal aid counsels to assist excluded persons to file statutory appeals. Secretaries to immediately re-notify mobile numbers and full description of paralegal volunteers in each village, who in turn will contact the Booth Level Officers. They will collect information with respect to persons who have been excluded from the final list. Para Legal Volunteers would reach out to persons, informing them of their right to appeal. They will offer services to draft appeals and provide free legal aid counsel", the bench observed.
Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Plea To Review 'Vanashakti' Judgment That Barred Grant Of Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearances
Case Details: Vanashakti v. Union of India | Diary No. - 32452/2025
The Supreme Court (October 9) reserved its decision on the pleas to recall/review the Vanashakti judgment, which barred the Union from granting post-facto environmental clearances.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran considered the matter.
In Vanashakti v. Union of India, the bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, by judgment delivered on May 15, restrained the Central Government from granting "ex-post facto" Environmental Clearances (EC) in future and set aside the previous Office Memoranda and notifications which allowed for the grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance for mining projects.
Bihar SIR | ECI Must Disclose How Many Foreigners Were Deleted From Final Voters' List : Yogendra Yadav In Supreme Court
Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)
During the hearing on Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls, activist Yogendra Yadav urged the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose how many persons were found to be foreigners after the exercise.
He said that the Supreme Court would be doing a "great service to the nation" by directing the ECI to disclose the number of persons whose names have been deleted on ground that they were not citizens.
For context, while announcing the decision to conduct the SIR in June, the ECI had raised concerns about the possible presence of illegal migrants and non-citizens in the electoral rolls. Yadav submitted that very few deletions were in the districts in the Seemanchal region, which were perceived to be having the presence of illegal migrants due to the proximity to international borders.
Simultaneous Voting With Delhi Bar Elections, Use EVM, Increase Term : Suggestions Before Supreme Court On SCBA Electoral Reforms
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Bd Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
In the matter pertaining to electoral reforms in the Supreme Court Bar Association, the SCBA recently filed suggestions recommending that its elections should be held simultaneously with the Delhi High Court Bar Association and District Bar Associations.
The SCBA also recommended that the term of the Executive Committee should be increased from 1 year to 2 years. It further suggested minimum appearances requirement for candidates wishing to contest in the elections.
The recommendations made by SCBA included the following:
Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Extends Interim Bail Of Mahesh Raut Till November 26
Case Details: National Investigation Agency v. Mahesh Sitaram Raut and Anr. | Crl.A. No. 3048/2023
The Supreme Court today(October 9) extended the interim bail granted to Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case accused Mahesh Sitaram Raut, arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, over alleged Maoist links, till November 26.
Raut was granted bail on September 16 for a period of six weeks by a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Kumar Sharma on medical grounds. The same bench extended his interim medical bail. Raut has been in custody since his arrest in June 2018.
On earlier occasion, Senior Advocate CU Singh(for Raut) had submitted that he suffers from Rheumatoid Arthritis, which is an autoimmune disorder which attacks the bones and muscles.
Telangana PSC Group-1 Exam 2025 : Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Fresh Test & Re-Evaluation Of Answer Sheets
Case Title: Chinthalapati Upender and Anr. v. Telangana Public Service Commission and Ors., SLP(C) No. 27931/2025 (And Connected Case)
The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the suspension of a Telangana High Court order which directed re-evaluation of answer sheets of Group-I mains examination conducted by the Public Service Commission or conduct of a fresh exam as an alternative.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the challenge to the order of a Division Bench of the High Court, which suspended the order for re-evaluation/fresh exam passed by a Single Bench.
The Supreme Court was not inclined to entertain the petitions, considering that the main matter was coming up for final hearing before the High Court.
Supreme Court Allows Goa MBBS Seat In Sports Quota To International Sailor Pearl Milind Colvalcar
Case Details: Pearl Milind Colvalcar v. State of Goa and Ors | Diary No. 49037-2025
The Supreme Court recently directed the State of Goa to grant one medical seat under the Sports Quota to India's international sports sailor, Pearl Milind Colvalcar, for admission to NEET (UG) 2025.
Colvalcar had challengedthe August 25 order of the Bombay High Court(Goa Bench), whereby it quashed and set aside a decision of the Goa State Government allocating vacant seats under the Children of Freedom Fighter category to eligible meritorious sports persons under the sports quota.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, however, refused to interfere with the High Court's order on merits but granted relief to the petitioner considering the special circumstances.
CJI BR Gavai Announces Free Public Wi-Fi Across Entire Supreme Court Main Building
In a move aimed at strengthening the Supreme Court's digital infrastructure and improving accessibility for all court users, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai announced the expansion of free public Wi-Fi across the entire main building of the Supreme Court of India. Until now, the Wi-Fi facility was available only within the courtrooms and few adjoining areas.
“I wish to inform the Bar that with the aim of strengthening the digital infrastructure and to provide Wi-Fi connectivity to lawyers, law officers, litigants and court officers within the Court premises, the facility of free public Wi-Fi, which was earlier limited to courtrooms and a few adjoining areas, has now been extended to cover the entire precincts of the main building of the Supreme Court of India,” the Chief Justice said.
He further added that lawyers and visitors can now seamlessly access free internet from any part of the main building through a simple authentication process. “I am hopeful that this simple measure will benefit the learned members of the Bar as well as the litigants who come to the Court,” the CJI remarked.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Voting Rights For Undertrials
Case: Sunita Sharma v. Union of India | Wp(C) 909/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking to extend voting rights to undertrial and pre-trial prisoners across the country.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice on the PIL filed by Sunita Sharma. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner.
Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 imposes a blanket ban on voting by individuals confined in prisons, regardless of whether they have been convicted or are merely awaiting trial.
Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking CBI Investigation Into Deaths Of Children Due To Cough Syrups
Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 971/2025
The Supreme Court (October 10) dismissed a PIL seeking an investigation by the CBI into the deaths of children in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan due to contaminated cough syrups.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed the PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta opposed the petition, saying that the States are competent to investigate the matter and they are taking action. SG further said that the petitioner was in the habit of filing PILs only on the basis of newspaper reports.
Supreme Court Stays Defamation Trial Against Ex-Kerala Minister TM Thomas Issac Over 'Lottery Mafia' Remark Against Santiago Martin
Case Title: T.M Thomas Issac v. Santiago Martin, SLP(Crl) No. 15095/2025
The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in the defamation case filed against former Kerala Finance Minister TM Thomas Issac for calling 'lottery king' Santiago Martin a "lottery mafia" during a press statement.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, staying trial pending against Thomas Issac before a Judicial Magistrate in Sikkim. The bench also issued notice on the petition to Santiago Martin.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for Thomas Issac.
'Jammu & Kashmir Has Progressed; People Are Happy' : Union Tells Supreme Court; Gets 4 Weeks To Respond To Plea For Statehood
Case Details: Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and Anr. v. Union of India | MA 2259/2024
The Supreme Court granted four weeks' time to the Union Government to file its reply to applications seeking restoration of the statehood of Jammu & Kashmir.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran recorded the submission of Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that while peaceful elections were conducted last year in the region, more time was required to consider the issue of restoring statehood in light of security concerns and the recent Pahalgam terror attacks.
"SG states that the elections were done in a peaceful manner and a government was elected. It is submitted that during the period of the last 6 years, there has been substantial progress in J&K. He however submits that certain events had taken place in the recent past, like the Pahalgam incident, which will have to be taken into consideration while taking a final call on this hearing."
Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order Quashing TN Police Chargesheet In Armstrong Murder Case; No Stay On CBI Probe
Case: Commissioner of Police v. K. Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong and Another | SLP(Crl) No. 15897/2025
The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court's order which quashed the chargesheet filed by the Tamil Nadu Police in the case concerning the murder of BSP leader Armstrong. However, the Court did not stay the High Court's direction transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria passed the interim order after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu. The bench issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the Madras High Court's order.
It was on September 24 that the High Court bench of Justice P Velmurugan passed the order in a petition filed by Armstrong's brother, Keynos, who had sought a CBI probe, alleging that there were major shortcomings in the investigation being carried out by the state police. The High Court held that there were procedural lapses in the investigation and material contradictions in the chargesheet.
Karur Stampede | 'Unable To Understand How Madras High Court Passed SIT Order' : Supreme Court Reserves Order On Pleas Of TVK & Others
Case Details: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh | Diary No. - 58048/2025 and Connected Cases.
The Supreme Court (October 10) reserved orders on a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the stampede which occurred in Karur in Tamil Nadu during a rally by actor Vijay's political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam(TVK) on September 27, claiming 41 lives.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matters for over two hours.
One of the petitions was filed by TVK , challenging the October 3 order of the Madras High Court that constituted a Special Investigation team(SIT) to investigate the Karur stampede. The party's petition, filed through its General Secretary Aadhav Arjuna, objected to the High Court forming the SIT only with the officers of the Tamil Nadu Police. They also took exception to the adverse remarks made by the High Court against TVK and Vijay.
Supreme Court Hints At Relaxing Absolute Ban On Firecrackers In Delhi-NCR; May Allow Green Crackers On Diwali
Case Title – Mc Mehta v. Union of India Wp (C) 13029/1985
The Supreme Court (October 10) reserved its verdict on whether the absolute ban on firecrackers in the Delhi–National Capital Region should be relaxed during Diwali to allow the use of green crackers.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the issue in the long-pending MC Mehta case concerning air quality in the NCR. Earlier, on April 3, a two-judge Benchhad imposed a year-long blanket banon firecrackers, including green crackers, in the region. Several applications have since been filed seeking recall of that order.
While reserving the order, the CJI verbally remarked on the possibility of lifting the firecracker ban only for the period of Diwali. "For the time being, we will permit on the ban lifting during Diwali".
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Probe Into US Based Short Seller Viceroy's Allegations Against Vedanta Group
Case Title – Shakti Bhatia v. Union of India
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a probe into allegations made by US-based short-seller Viceroy Research LLC against Vedanta Limited, Hindustan Zinc Limited, Vedanta Resources Limited and related entities.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar allowed the petitioner, one Shakti Bhatia, to withdraw the petition after expressing that it was not inclined to entertain the matter.
In the petition, Bhatia had sought a thorough investigation by SEBI, RBI and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs into the affairs of Vedanta Limited, Hindustan Zinc Limited and Vedanta Resources Limited along with their sister concerns.
Karur Stampede: Why TVK Rally Was Permitted? Post-Mortems Completed In 4 Hours At Night? Supreme Court Asks Tamil Nadu Government
Case Details: S Prabakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 412/2025
The Supreme Court (October 10) questioned the Tamil Nadu Government over the permission granted to actor-politician Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) for holding a roadshow rally in Karur on September 27 - which led to a stampede killing 41 persons- even as permission for a similar event at the same spot by the AIADMK was denied on the ground that the State was still in the process of finalising the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for political meetings.
The Court also asked how the post-mortem examinations of the victims of the Karur stampede were conducted at midnight and completed within four hours.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the petitions filed by TVK and others seeking an independent investigation into the stampede. While TVK seeks an investigation under the monitoring of a retired Supreme Court judge - instead of the SIT composed of only TN officers - other petitioners seek CBI investigation.
'No Fundamental Right To Use WhatsApp': Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Restore Blocked Account; Suggests Use Of 'Arattai'
Case Title: Dr. Raman Kundra and Anr. v. WhatsApp LLC/ Meta Platform and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 932/2025
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking restoration of access to a person's blocked WhatsApp account as well as guidelines on the suspension/blocking of accounts by social media intermediaries.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the matter as withdrawn, after hearing Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani (for petitioners). The bench however gave the petitioners liberty to avail all such remedies as may be available under law.
During the hearing, the bench questioned Pavani about the maintainability of an Article 32 petition for the reliefs sought and suggested that the petitioner may rather file a civil suit.
Asian Paints Moves Supreme Court Against CCI Probe
Asian Paints has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court decision that upheld the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order to investigate the company for alleged abuse of dominant position in the decorative paints market.
The investigation was initiated following a complaint filed by Aditya Birla Group's Grasim Industries on July 1.
This follows the Bombay High Court's ruling on September 11, which dismissed a writ petition filed by Asian Paints. The court held that a party has no inherent right to an oral or written hearing at the stage where the CCI forms a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. It stated that the order at this stage is administrative in nature and it is up to the CCI to decide whether a hearing should be granted.
Plea In Supreme Court To Stop Sale Of “Liposomal Amphotericin B” Medicine Made Using Emergency Approval Granted During Covid Time
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 953/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking quashing of approvals or licenses granted for manufacturing of 'Liposomal Amphotericin B' for emergency use during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The PIL, filed by one Rajendra Prasad, also seeks stoppage of distribution and destruction of existing stock of the said medication, in accordance with appropriate safety protocols.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, calling for the response of the Union of India, the Drug Controller General of India and pharmaceutical companies including Bharat Serum and Vaccines Ltd., Cipla, Sun Pharma, Emcure, NATCO Pharma, etc.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Suspended Ranchi Deputy Commissioner Chhavi Ranjan In Army Land Scam Case
Case Title: Chhavi Ranjan v. Union of India, SLP(Crl) No. 12137/2025
The Supreme Court granted bail to suspended Ranchi Deputy Commissioner Chhavi Ranjan in the Jharkhand Army Land Scam case involving money laundering allegations.
It may be recalled that Ranjan is accused of having conspired with and assisted the main accused to get records of certain land holdings fabricated with a view to avail loan facilities, etc. He was arrested on 4 May 2023 and is in custody since then.
Today, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh granted him bail, subject to certain conditions, including that he shall not leave State of Jharkhand without prior permission.
Can One District Have More Than One Bar Association? Supreme Court To Consider Nilgiris District Bar Association's Plea
Case Details: Nilgiris District Bar Association v. Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 27691/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Nilgiris District Bar Association challenging the order of the Madras High Court directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to consider an application filed by Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris seeking recognition.
Senior Advocate V Mohana, appearing for the petitioner, told a bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that a separate bar association exclusively for women lawyers was not necessary in the same district.
She contended that the district is a small one and the present Association has just 250 members to fragment it further and create more Associations for smaller groups. She stressed that this demand is raised only by 4 women lawyers who are disgruntled over some issues, amongst whom one of them was already facing a disciplinary proceeding in the High Court.
Attorney General Assures Supreme Court To Look Into Problem Of Students Of Derecognized College Of Physicians & Surgeons Mumbai
Case Details: College of Physician and Surgeon CPS House v. Suhas Hari Pingle | SLP(C) No. S-13081/2025
The Supreme Court on October 9 was informed by the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, that some viable solution would be arrived at to secure the future of students after the Bombay High Court recently upheld the derecognition all postgraduate medical courses offered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mumbai ("CPS").
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan had sought intervention of the Attorney General in this matter. The AG informed the bench that some progress has been made in order to register the students so that they can give their examinations. He said that 932 students have been identified who are awaiting the conduct of examination.
However, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh pointed out that 932 students are only those who are concerned with the National Medical Council. There are students who are registered with the State Medical Commission but they have not been identified. In this regard, the AG said that he will try to find the best modality to identify all such students whose future is in limbo.
Supreme Court Allows Maharashtra To Fill 50% Teacher Posts In Tribal Areas From Reserved Category Pending Challenge To 100% ST Quota
Case Details: Samajik Vikas Prabodhini v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. | Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 22109/2023
The Supreme Court recently clarified that, pending the issue of whether the reservation for the Scheduled Tribes community for the posts of Talathis can exceed 50% or not, the Maharashtra State Government would be entitled to fill in 50% of the total strength available from the reserved category for the recruitment of teachers in Zila Parishad Schools in tribal areas.
A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted that by an order of the Court dated October 13, 2023, a statement was made before the Bombay High Court that although the recruitment has been initiated pursuant to the August 2019 notification reserving 100% posts for the Scheduled Tribes community for the Talathis (revenue posts), it is not likely to be concluded. The then Supreme Court bench was informed that this position would continue to the next hearing, where the Court had kept the matter for disposal. However, this position has continued to date, making the recruitment process in limbo.
Stating that the issue of reservation requires detailed consideration, the Court noted: "However, the immediate concern of the State Government is that in view of the order passed by this Court on 13th October, 2023 the entire process of recruitment of teachers in Zila Parishad Schools in tribal areas has come to a standstill and they are not able to fill facancies from reserved category even to the extent of 50%."
Supreme Court Bench Places Suo Motu Case On Jojari River Contamination Before CJI BR Gavai
Case Title: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan Versus, SMW(C) No. 8/2025
A Supreme Court Bench recently placed the suo motu case regarding contamination of Rajasthan's Jojari River before CJI BR Gavai.
The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order on October 9, noting that there were commonalities in the issues sought to be dealt in the suo motu case and other appeals pending before the Court. Accordingly, it was deemed fit that the cases be clubbed and heard together, for which purpose appropriate orders have been sought from the CJI.