Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: September 1, 2025 To September 7, 2025

Reports/Judgments

S. 86 Electricity Act | Power Generators, Discoms Cannot Fix Tariffs Privately, Need Regulatory Commissions' Approval: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. KKK Hydro Power Limited v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 856

The Supreme Court held that a generating company and a distribution licensee cannot unilaterally fix tariffs through a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), ruling that tariff determination requires the prior approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission

Citing Section 86 of the Electricity Act of 2003, the court observed:

“...fixing of the price for the purchase of electricity is not a matter of private negotiation and agreement between a generating company and a distribution licensee. The price as well as the agreement, i.e., PPA, incorporating such price and providing for purchase of electricity at that price necessarily have to be reviewed and approved by the State Commission under this provision.”

“We, however, clarify and affirm that a generating company and a distribution licensee cannot, by private agreement, execute a PPA on their own or stipulate tariff therein as per their choice, for supply of electricity within a State, without seeking the review and approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1) (b) of the Act of 2003.”, the court added.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and NV Anjaria dismissed the appeal filed by a power-generating company, which sought a higher tariff for its hydroelectric power supplied to the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB) based on the unilateral revision in the tariff rates in the PPA without the approval of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (“HPERC”).

Past Misconduct Can Add Weight To Dismissal, Even If Not Mentioned In Show Cause Notice : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 857

The Supreme Court set aside the reinstatement of the ex-Punjab Armed Forces Constable for his repeated unauthorized absence from the service, stating that past records of indiscipline though not specifically referred to in the show cause notice, cannot save the delinquent officer from dismissal as the same can be used to adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order directing the reinstatement of a constable, holding that the High Court erred in treating the disciplinary authority's reliance on his past conduct, though not mentioned in the show cause notice, as a violation of natural justice.

Ensure Every Unauthorised Construction In Kolkata Is Dealt With As Per Law : Supreme Court To Calcutta High Court

Case Details: M/S. T.S Construction v. Howrah Zilla Parishad, SLP(C) No. 23989/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 858

The Supreme Court asked the Calcutta High Court to take up the issue of unauthorized constructions in the city and deal with each of them appropriately in the interest of the general public.

"It is high time that the High Court in larger public interest takes up this issue and ensures that each and every unauthorized construction across the city of Calcutta is dealt with appropriately in accordance with law" observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.

The case pertained to some construction carried out by the petitioner, deviating from the sanction plan, in relation to which the Howrah Zilla Parishad had passed a resolution directing that it be removed. This Resolution noted that the petitioner was aware of government norms and the deviations were made "knowingly and deliberately".

Supreme Court Upholds Telangana Domicile Rule Mandating 4 Year Continuous Study In State With Relaxation To Children Of Govt Servants

Case Details: State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 859

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Telangana against the order of the Telangana High Court, which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran upheld the 2017 Rules, which mandated that a candidate must study for four consecutive years in the State of Telangana to qualify for the "local candidate" quota in MBBS and BDS courses.

To address the difficulties faced by children of parents who work in All India Services or PSUs, who get transferred outside the State, the State Government suggested an amendment, which the Court accepted. With this amendment, the Court upheld the 2017 Rules as amended in 2024.

Customs Act | Electronic Evidence Admissible Without S.138C(4) Certificate If Assessee's S.108 Statement Admits Contents : Supreme Court

Case Details: Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh Kumar and Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 859

The Supreme Court held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“DRI”) can be admissible even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, if the assessees has acknowledged these the documents in the devices in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

Section 138C (4) of the Customs Act requires the production of a certificate, similar to the mandate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act for proving electronic evidence.

Here, the Court clarified that where obtaining such a certificate is impossible, and the Record of Proceedings has been duly acknowledged by the assessee, the evidence collected cannot be treated as inadmissible merely for want of the formal certificate. If there is due compliance otherwise, the electronic evidence can be admitted.

Supreme Court Mandates TET Qualification For Teachers In Non-Minority Schools; Allows Time For In-Service Teachers To Clear Test

Case Details: Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors | C.A. No. 1385/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 861

The Supreme Court held that qualifying the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for those aspiring for appointment as teachers and also in-service teachers aspiring for promotions..

Regarding those teachers appointed prior to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ("RTE Act"), who have more than five years of service remaining, the Court granted a two-year extension to pass the Teachers' Eligibility Test ("TET").

At the same time, the Court held that the TET requirement under the RTE Act wouldn't apply to minority educational institutions, till the larger bench decides the issue regarding the applicability of the RTE Act to minority schools.

Supreme Court Doubts Correctness Of Judgment Exempting Minority Schools From RTE Act; Refers To CJI

Case Details: Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors | C.A. No. 1385/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 861

The Supreme Court (September 1) expressed doubt over the correctness of the 2014 Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust judgment delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench insofar as it held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 ("RTE Act") exempts minority schools, whether aid or unaided, under the purview of the RTE Act.

"In view of the foregoing discussions, we respectfully express our doubt as to whether Pramati insofar as it exempts application of the RTE Act to minority schools, whether aided or unaided, falling under clause 1 has been correctly decided," observed a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.

The bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to decide whether a larger bench reference is warranted.

Agreement To Sell, General Power Of Attorney Won't Confer Title In Property : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 862

The Supreme Court (Sep.1) reaffirmed that the title of the immovable property cannot be transferred without a registered sale deed.

The bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which affirmed the trial court's order decreeing the suit for possession, mandatory injunction, and declaration despite there being no registered sale deed executed validating conveyance in the plaintiff's favour.

The Plaintiff-Respondent claimed that he had purchased the property from his father in 1996 through an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, receipt, and a registered Will. He alleged that his brother, Ramesh Chand (defendant), was initially a licensee who later sold half the property to a third party (Respondent No. 2) illegally.

NGT Cannot Outsource Its Adjudicatory Functions To Expert Committees : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 863

The Supreme Court (Sep 1) criticized the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for functioning like a mere rubber stamp by outsourcing its responsibilities to external committees.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a case alleging that the Appellant-company was polluting water bodies by discharging untreated effluents. The NGT, blindly relying on a Joint Committee report by the CPCB, UPPCB, and the District Magistrate, found multiple violations illegal disposal of effluents, dilution of discharge, and failure to maintain records. In February 2022, the NGT held the company guilty and, in September 2022, imposed ₹18 crore compensation (2% of turnover). However, the proceedings were challenged as violating natural justice and the Water Act, as samples were improperly collected and tested.

Setting aside the NGT's order, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan observed:

'Every Acquittal Of Actual Culprit A Blot On System' : Supreme Court Warns Against Misapplying 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt'

Case Details: Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 864

The Supreme Court (Sep. 1) cautioned against granting acquittals by loosely invoking the principle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', emphasizing that minor contradictions in evidence cannot be elevated to the level of reasonable doubt to justify an acquittal.

The Court emphasized that the application of the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' to acquit the accused should not be used in every case where there were minor inconsistencies, contradictions and deficiencies in the prosecution's case; otherwise the misapplication of this principle results into culprits walking free by taking benefit of doubt.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Patna High Court's decision, which had acquitted the Respondents who were convicted for the rape of a minor under the POCSO Act, based on the minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, which had not made the prosecution's case highly improbable.

Conviction Under S.138 NI Act Can't Be Sustained After Complainant & Accused Enter Into Settlement : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 865

The Supreme Court has held once a complainant signs a compromise deed acknowledging receipt of the full settlement amount, the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained.

The Court set aside an order of the High Court which dismissed an application filed by the accused seeking alteration of his conviction based on the settlement arrived at with the complainant after the dismissal of his revision petition.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said, “Once the complainant has signed the compromise deed accepting the amount in full and final settlement of the default sum the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot hold water, therefore, the concurrent conviction rendered by the Courts below has to be set-aside.”

Company Law | NCLT Can Examine Allegations Of Fraud & Validity Of Documents In Oppression & Mismanagement Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: Mrs. Shailja Krishna v. Satori Global Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 866

The Supreme Court (Sep.2) observed that the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has jurisdiction to examine allegations of fraud and validity of documents in oppression and mismanagement cases.

The Court said that when “a member who holds the majority of shares in a company is reduced to the position of minority shareholder in the company by an act of the company or by its Board of Directors in a mala fide manner, the said act must ordinarily be considered to be an act of oppression against the said member.”

The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Appellant being an Executive Director and holding 98% of the shares in the company was ousted from the company based on fraudulent activities carried out by her husband and in-laws upon producing a gift deed allegedly transferring her shares to her mother-in-law, board resolutions approving her removal passed in meetings without proper notice to her or quorum, and records showing her resignation.

Arbitration | Delivery Of Award To Govt Official Not Connected With Case Doesn't Amount To Valid Service On State : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Motilal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 867

The Supreme Court has clarified that when the government or one of its departments is a party to arbitration, delivery of an arbitral award to an official who is not connected with or aware of the proceedings cannot be treated as valid service for commencing the limitation period to challenge the award.

Citing its ruling of Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors (2005), the Court said that the delivery of the copy of the arbitral award should be made to the “party to the proceedings”, and if government is part to the proceedings than the delivery should be made to an individual who has the knowledge and is the best person to understand and appreciate an award and more particularly, to take decision for its challenge.

“This Court has held that the award should be received in the context of huge organisations by the person who has knowledge of the proceedings and who would be the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral award as also to take a decision in the matter of moving appropriate applications.”, the court said.

S. 37(1)(a) Arbitration Act | Clause Restricting Interest On Delayed Payments By Itself Won't Bar Pendente Lite Interest : Supreme Court

Case Details: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. M/S G & T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 868

The Supreme Court (Sep.2) observed that an Arbitral Tribunal can grant pendente lite interest unless expressly or impliedly barred in the contract. It added that a contractual clause barring interest on delayed payments does not prevent an arbitral tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest, i.e., the interest for the period during which the arbitration is pending.

“…arbitral tribunal can be denuded of its power to award pendente lite interest only if the agreement/ contract between the parties is so worded that the award of pendente lite interest is either explicitly or by necessary implication (such as in the case of Sayeed & Co. (supra) and THDC First (supra)) barred. A clause merely barring award of interest on delayed payment by itself will not be readily inferred as a bar to award pendente-lite interest by the arbitral tribunal.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra dismissed the ONGC's appeal, affirming the Gauhati High Court's decision, which justified the grant of pendente lite interest as there was no clause barring the award of pendente lite interest.

Anticipatory Bail Is Permissible Under SC/ST Act Only If Prima Facie Offence Isn't Made Out : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 869

The Supreme Court observed that a grant of anticipatory bail is impermissible under the SC/ST Act unless is prima facie shown that no offence under the Act is made out.

"where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code.”, the court observed.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria, allowed the complainant's appeal and set aside the Bombay High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1, who had allegedly abused and humiliated the appellant in public by referring to his caste name.

S.100 CPC | High Court Must Assign Reasons For Framing Additional Question Of Law In Second Appeals : Supreme Court Lays Down Principles

Case Details: C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 870

The Supreme Court (Sep.3) observed that it is mandatory for the High Courts to record reasons while framing an additional question of law which was not originally raised in a second appeal in a civil case.

Proviso to Section 100(5) CPC grants power to the High Courts to frame an additional question of law, but this power cannot be routinely exercised, but only in exceptional circumstances, for which a reason needs to be recorded by the High Court, the court said.

“High Court is competent and endowed with discretionary jurisdiction to formulate a substantial question of law not stated when the second appeal was admitted. The High Court is entitled to formulate an additional substantial question of law for reasons to be recorded if the High Court is of the view that the case involves such a question of law. The proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 100 of the CPC comes into operation in exceptional cases, albeit for strong and convincing reasons to be specifically recorded by the High Court.”, the court said.

Motor Accident Claims | If Claimant Doesn't Produce Income Proof, Insurer Must Furnish Applicable Minimum Wages Notification : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 871

The Supreme Court increased the compensation awarded to a minor, who sustained permanent disability in a road accident, from ₹8.65 lakh to ₹35.90 lakhs, holding that a minor cannot be classified as a non-earning individual for determining income. Instead, the Court ruled that the minor's income should be treated as equivalent to the minimum wage for a skilled worker notified in the State where the cause of action arose.

“It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises.”, the court observed.

Also, a direction is issued by the Court that in cases where the income of the claimant/deceased has not been properly established, it shall be the obligation of the insurance company to furnish the schedule of minimum wages prevalent in the respective state where the cause of action arose. The Court asked circulation of a copy of the order to the High Courts, who in turn, will circulate one copy each to the respective Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in their State.

'Witness Protection Scheme Not Substitute For Bail Cancellation' : Supreme Court Deprecates Allahabad High Court's 'Cyclostyled' Orders

Case Details: Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 872

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Allahabad High Court for issuing cyclostyled template orders in bail cancellation matters, where, instead of examining allegations that the accused had threatened witnesses, the High Court directed complainants to seek recourse under the Witness Protection Scheme.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that in the last year alone, it had come across forty such orders of the High Court where, instead of deciding applications seeking cancellation of bail on the ground of threats by the accused, the court treated the Witness Protection Scheme as an alternative remedy and directed complainants to apply under it.

“We have come across a catena of orders from the Allahabad High Court proceeding on an incorrect assumption of the law, more particularly that the Witness Protection Scheme is a substitute for cancellation of bail. According to the High Court it is an alternative remedy. We are at pains to note that we came across at least forty recent orders, that have been passed in the last one year alone… All of the above orders are a verbatim copy of each other. We are dismayed to note that the aforesaid practice of passing cyclostyled template orders has been in vogue past more than two years.”, the court said.

Supreme Court Criticises High Court For Asking Why Accused Was Not Arrested Instead Of Deciding Anticipatory Bail Plea

Case Title – Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 873

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to a man facing corruption charges while criticising the Punjab and Haryana High Court for passing a “cryptic and unusual” order in the matter.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta criticised the High Court for seeking an explanation from the police for not arresting the man, instead of treating the non-arrest as a factor supporting the anticipatory bail plea.

“we do not approve the manner in which the High Court has dealt with the plea of the anticipatory bail. Either the High Court should have allowed the application granting anticipatory bail or should have declined it on its own merits”, the Court observed.

Orders and Other Developments

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On PIL Transgender-Inclusive Sexuality Education In School Textbooks

Case Title – Kaavya Mukherjee Saha v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court (September 1) issued notice to the Union and the State Governments on a PIL by a Class XII student seeking directions for the inclusion of transgender-inclusive Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) in school curricula and textbooks prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs).

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the matter.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging E20 Petrol Policy & Seeking Ethanol-Free Fuel Option For Older Vehicles

Case Details: Akshay Malhotra v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000813 / 2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) dismissed a PIL challenging the Union Government's Ethanol Blending Programme mandating the sale of petrol blended with 20% ethanol (E20).

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the matter.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, for the petitioner, referred to a 2021 NITI Ayog Report, which he said, expressed concerns about the impact on older vehicles which are not compliant with E20. He clarified that the petitioner was not against Ethanol-blending, but was only seeking an option of Ethanol-free petrol for vehicles manufactured before 2023, which are not compatible with E20.

Bihar SIR : Claims/Objections Can Be Filed Even After Sept 1 Deadline, Says ECI; Supreme Court Deputes Paralegals To Assist Voters

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

In the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, the Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court that claims/objections can be filed with respect to the draft electoral rolls even after the September 1 deadline and that all such claims/objections filed before the last date of nominations will be considered.

Taking note of this submission, the Court did not pass any order to extend the September 1 deadline. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering the applications filed by political parties seeking to extend the deadline by two weeks.

The bench recorded the submission of the Election Commission of India that claims/objections can be submitted even after the deadline (September 1) and that they will be considered after the roll has been finalized. The process will continue until the last date of nominations and all inclusions/exclusions will be integrated in the final roll, the ECI stated, which the Court recorded.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Alleging Discrimination Against Dalits In Andhra Village; Asks To Approach HC

Case Details: Dasari Chenna Kesavulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 265/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking reliefs in respect of alleged caste-discrimination and social boycott of Dalits in a village in Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court and/or avail other available remedies.

The petition was filed by one Dasari Chenna Kesavulu, who appeared in person, and argued that there was caste-discrimination and social boycott in this village, which falls within Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan's Pithapuram constituency. He submitted that till date, no FIR has been registered or compensation paid to the family of one person who died. Praying for justice, he sought directions to the concerned officers as well as to Pawan Kalyan.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On TN Govt's Plea Against HC Order To Reimburse Private Schools Even If Centre Doesn't Release RTE Funds

Case Details: Government of Tamil Nadu v. V. Eswaran| Diary No.- 44034/2025

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the challenge to the Madras High Court order, which held that the State Government cannot cite non-receipt of funds from the Union Government as a reason to wriggle out of its statutory liability under Section 12(2) of the Right to Education Act to reimburse private schools admitting students from economically weaker sections.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Union Government and the private respondent in the matter.

Appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, Sr Advocate P Wilson stressed that the impugned order would lead to excessive financial burden upon the state.

Supreme Court Extends Status Quo Order In Sambhal Jama Masjid Case

Case Details: Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 and Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) 21599/2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) continued the status quo with respect to the Hindu plaintiffs' suit against the Sambhal Mosque in Uttar Pradesh, as was ordered on August 22.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing the Sambhal Mosque Committee's plea against the May 19, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court that held that the suit against the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.

On last occasion, Advocate Shashank Shri Tripathi had informed the Court that against the May order, he has filed the special leave petition for the Mosque Committee ( SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 through) AoR Anil Kumar. However, another SLP (C) 21599/2025 has been filed by the Mosque Committee through AoR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi in which Senior Advocate Huzefa A Ahmadi appeared. Considering that the two SLPs challenging the same order has been filed by the same petitioner, the Court directed the Registry to file a report as to which SLP has been correctly filed within two weeks.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On International Sailor's Plea Against HC Quashing Goa Govt Order On Sports Quota In MBBS Admissions

Case Details: Pearl Milind Colvalcar v. State of Goa and Ors Diary No. 49037-2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) issued notice in a plea filed by India's international sports sailor Pearl Milind Colvalcar against the 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 Alok Aradhe issued notice.

By an order dated August 25, the High Court set against a government decision dated August 1 whereby the said allotment to eligible meritorious sports persons was made. The petitioner seeks admission in an MBBS course under the sports quota in the NEET(UG) 2025. However, the decision was set aside on the grounds that it was arbitrary and amounted to changing the rules midway through the admission process.

Supreme Court Affirms Bombay HC's Dismissal Of Plea Against Colaba Jetty Project Near Gateway Of India

Case Title – Clean Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court (September 1) dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Colaba residents challenging the Bombay High Court's decision to uphold the construction of a jetty facility near the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and Gateway of India in South Mumbai.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard arguments from Senior Advocates CU Singh and Shiraz Rustomjee for the petitioners and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State.

Singh submitted that the residents were not opposed to decongestion of the area but objected to shifting the jetty by merely 250 metres. He contended that the appropriate environmental authorities had not been consulted, and that the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority or the Central authority should to have been involved.

Supreme Court Expresses Reluctance To Club Cases Against Udhayanidhi Stalin Over Remarks On 'Sanatana Dharma'

Case Details: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 104/2024

The Supreme Court (September 1) orally remarked that it will not entertain a plea by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's plea for clubbing of criminal cases registered against him across multiple states over his controversial 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks.

Before a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi briefly mentioned the plea. However, at the outset, Justice Nath said: "Mr Rohatgi, you know this Court will not do that[clubbing of FIRs]. If you want to argue somewhere else..."

On this, Rohatgi requested that the matter be adjourned to 2026, which the Court allowed.

'Go To HC': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Rehabilitation For 1983 Nellie Massacre Victims

Case Details: Rumi Begum and Ors. v. State of Assam and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 833/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking a comprehensive scheme for rehabilitation of victims and survivors of the 1983 Nellie massacre in Assam's Nagaon district, as well as reassessment of compensation amounts already awarded.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and asked the petitioners to approach the High Court, considering the wider scope of Article 226 vis-a-vis Article 32 of the Constitution.

Advocate Warisha Farasat appeared for the petitioners and submitted that a small amount of compensation was awarded to the victims/survivors. "This is one of those cases which we come across as lawyers where we have the ability to help a large section of people. Rarely do we come across such cases" she said.

NDPS Act | Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Against Judgment That Total Weight Of Mixture Determines Contraband Quantity

Case Details: Mayank Girishbhai Shah v. UoI, Writ Petition 816/2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) issued notice in a writ petition challenging the correctness of its 2020 judgment in Hira Singh v. Union of India, which upheld the Central Government Notification dated 18.11.2009 issued under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act"), which says small, intermediate and commercial quantities under the NDPS Act will be determined with reference to the total weight of the mixture seized, rather than the price weight of the offending drug within the mixture.

The 2009 notification says: "The quantities shown in Column 5 and Column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in Column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers, and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its Pure drug content ."

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh issued notice.

Supreme Court Asks NGT To Decide Pleas Relating To Delhi Airport Noise Pollution

Case Details: Society For Protection of Culture, Heritage, Environment, Traditions and Promotion of National Awareness (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors.| C.A. No. 11051/2025

The Supreme Court (September 1) directed the NGT to expeditiously decide any applications that may be filed before it relating to the issue of compliance of its 2024 directions to Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) to take steps to monitor noise levels at its runways.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a challenge to the NGT's order, which refused to issue specific directions on the issue of noise pollution created by the use of runway no. 29/11 at IGI Airport, affecting nearby residents of Vasant Kunj. Notably, more than 50% flights use the specific runway for arriving/ departing.

The NGT bench of Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava and expert member A Senthil Vel passed the impugned order, observing that the Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) has complied with its previous directions of March 21, 2024.

Insurer Moves Supreme Court Against NCDRC Order To Pay 'Rajasthan Royals' Rs 82 Lakhs Over Sreesanth's Injury In 2012 IPL

Case Details: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Royal Multisport Private Limited, Diary No. 33872-2025

The Insurance Company which insured 'Rajasthan Royals' owner for the IPL Cricket Tournament of 2012 has approached the Supreme Court challenging NCDRC's order which directed it to pay a sum of over Rs.82 lakhs to the franchise owner on account of S. Sreesanth's injury at the time, which rendered him incapable of playing in the tournament.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter to enable the appellant to file additional documents, including the application submitted by the respondent for obtaining insurance, along with the necessary documents (such as Sreesanth's fitness certificate).

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the appellant-United Insurance Company and submitted that the impugned order dealt with the issue from the angle Sreesanth's pre-existing toe injury, which had no connection with the knee injury (suffered during the insurance period). However, the appellant was on the non-disclosure of the toe injury, rather than the connection between the two injuries.

'Can A Person Shoot Himself On Chest With Rifle?' : Supreme Court Asks MP Police In Death Case Treated As Suicide

Case Details: Arun Kumar Raghuwanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., SLP(Crl) No.9053/2025

Questioning whether it is possible for a person to shoot himself in the chest with a rifle, the Supreme Court called on the Madhya Pradesh Police in a death case treated as a suicide whether all relevant aspects had been probed - including possibility of a murder.

"To our understanding whether a person would be able to use a rifle to shoot himself on the chest needs examination. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to require the State to file an affidavit whether the investigating agency has investigated all aspects of the matter including possibility of a murder", a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan observed.

From the case of the prosecution, it seemed as though the deceased died by suicide by using a rifle to shoot himself on the chest. In that view of the matter, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2-accused under Section 306 of IPC.

Instances Of Delay In Bills Assent Can't Justify Imposing Fixed Timelines For Governors & President : Supreme Court During Hearing

On the 6th day of the hearing of the Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court orally observed that certain instances of delay in granting assent to Bills cannot justify the laying down of a blanket timeline for the Governors and President to act as per Articles 200 and 201of the Constitution respectively.

If there are individual cases of delay, the aggrieved parties can approach the Court to seek relief, and the Court may direct that the decision should be taken within a time limit; however, it cannot mean that the Court should lay down a general timeline for the actions of the Governor and the President, the Court verbally said.

The Court pointed out that the Constitution has specifically provided for "flexibility" by saying that the Bills be returned "as soon as possible" without specifying any time limits.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against ₹3,500 Fee For All India Bar Examination

Case Title – Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr.

The Supreme Court on September 2 dismissed a petition challenging the Rs. 3,500 fee and other incidental charges levied by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE).

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta agreed with BCI's contention that the judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, which held that Bar Councils cannot charge more than the statutorily prescribed Rs. 750 for enrolment, does not apply to the AIBE fees.

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala asked the petitioner why he was not following the Gaurav Kumar judgment.

Collegium Recommends 26 New Judges To Allahabad HC Including SC Advs Garima Prashad, Abdhesh Chaudhary & Swarupama Chaturvedi

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of 12 lawyers and 14 judicial officers as judges of the Allahabad High Court

Out of the 26 persons recommended, three of them, Senior Advocates Garima Prashad, Swarupama Chaturvedi and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, practice at the Supreme Court.

Garima Prashad is also the Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh.

Presidential Reference | Sibal Disagrees With Singhvi's Argument That Governor Has No Discretion While Acting On Bills [Day 6]

The Supreme Court orally remarked that the arguments made by those opposing the Presidential Reference are self-contradictory in terms of the different approaches offered by them in reading Article 200.

Justice Vikram Nath orally said this in the context of an argument made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal(for the State of West Bengal) that the Governor is not a mere post office and there is inherent evidence in Article 200 to suggest that he acts independently in sending the Bill for the President's reconsideration. Justice Nath then asked if the Governor does not consider the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers at this stage, to which Sibal said he disagrees with the argument made by Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for the State of Tamil Nadu) in this regard.

Singhvi had argued that the Governor has no discretion, and he must take the aid and advice of the State cabinet. He had submitted that when the Governor sends the Bill for the President's consideration, the Governor is acting on aid and advice because there may be a situation where either the State Government wants the President to reconsider, or where the bill deals with a matter which requires Presidential assent.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Digital Verification Of Bail Sureties To Avoid Delay In Release Of Prisoners

Case Details: Rocky Abraham v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking directions to the police authorities for the use of digital technology to verify bail sureties to obviate delay in the release of prisoners who have secured bail.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the matter. The bench also impleaded the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) through its member secretary.

The petitioner is a senior citizen who has been settled in Italy for the last 23 years and was arrested in January at the Delhi Domestic Airport under Sections 39/49/51 of the Wild Animal Protection Act,1972, on the allegation that he was transporting a "deer horn" from Italy, valued at approximately 20 Euros. Due to the delay in the verification of his sureties, who came from Kerala to Delhi, the petitioner had to undergo eight more days in jail after the grant of bail.

After Nigerian National Absconds, Supreme Court Says Govt May Frame Policy To Prevent Foreign Accused From Fleeing

Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Alex David @ M.U. Henry & Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 8629/2022

Unable to secure presence of a foreign national who jumped bail in a cyber fraud case and fled to Nigeria, the Supreme Court disposed of a bail cancellation matter while leaving it open for the Union to formulate a policy to ensure that foreign nationals do not flee the process after committing crimes.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih closed the proceedings after it was highlighted that there is no bilateral treaty between India and Nigeria and therefore extradition of the accused was unlikely.

Briefly put, an FIR was registered in 2019 and the accused (respondent no.1) was charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He was granted bail by the Jharkhand High Court on 13.05.2022. The State approached the Supreme Court against the grant of bail, however, respondent No.1 flouted the bail conditions and absconded.

Couple Approaches Supreme Court Seeking FIR Against Pvt Hospital Over Alleged Baby Swapping

Case Details: Usha Singh & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 27076/2025

The Supreme Court is set to consider a plea by parents seeking criminal action against a hospital for allegedly swapping their boy child with a girl child soon after delivery.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the challenge to the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which refused to direct registration of an FIR against the director of a private hospital in Raipur and his wife (who is the gynaecologist at the hospital) for the alleged offence of kidnapping an infant right after delivery.

The petitioner's case is that she delivered a boy and a girl at the private hospital, but soon discovered that instead of a boy and a girl, there were two girls. She made a complaint and, thereafter, a DNA test was carried out, which revealed that the DNA of one girl matched that of her biological parents. However, the DNA of the other girl did not match that of the parents/ petitioners.

Supreme Court Directs AIFF To Conduct ISL 2025-26; Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao To Oversee Selection Of Commercial Partner

Case Details: All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra and Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 30748-30749 of 2017

The Supreme Court accepted a proposal offered by the All-India Football Federation (AIFF) and its commercial partner for the football season 2025-26 and ordered the AIFF to take steps for timely commencement of the football competitions under its control.

"we direct AIFF to take such measures as may be necessary for timely commencement of football calendar and to maintain competitive continuity for the 2025-2026 season with respect to Super Cup and other competitions under its control", said a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi.

Resolving an embargo put in place by it, which led to some uncertainties after introduction of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the Court directed the AIFF to issue tenders inviting bids for open, competitive and transparent process for selection of its commercial partner to conduct Indian Super League.

Supreme Court Seeks IIT Roorkee Report On Preservation Of Mysuru's Devaraja Market And Lansdowne Heritage Buildings

Case Title: G. Satyanarayana Gouri Satya v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court has directed the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee to examine whether the 19th-century Devaraja Market Building and Lansdowne Buildings in Mysuru can be preserved through repairs or renovation. The report is to be filed in a sealed cover.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing a plea challenging the Karnataka authorities' decision to demolish the heritage structures and reconstruct them with the same façade.

Taking note of the report by the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) that preservation is possible with renovation and repairs, the Court observed, “Prima facie, if it is possible to preserve the two structures as they are with some repairs/renovation then they should be preserved.” The Bench added, “Although there is one report of INTACH as an expert body, we would still like to call for one other report from IIT Roorkee.”

Constitution Can't Be Interpreted In A Manner Making Governors Unaccountable: Sibal To Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

On the seventh day of the Presidential reference hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for the State of West Bengal) urged that the Constitution must not be read in a way giving powers to the Governor which makes him unaccountable, as it is contrary to the constitutional scheme envisaged.

He made this argument in the context of the submission of the Solicitor General on Article 361, that the Governor's actions are not justiciable and that he has discretion to withhold a Bill permanently under Article 200.

Remarking that such exercise of powers will make Article 200 the only provision where the Governor's actions are not accountable, Sibal submitted:

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case On Lack Of CCTV Cameras In Police Stations

The Supreme Court (September 4) registered a suo motu case on the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across the country.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta took the suo motu action based on a report published by Dainik Bhaskar. As per the report, around 11 people have died in police custody in the last seven to eight months this year.

In December 2020, the Supreme Court, in the case  Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, had mandated that all State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning under them. However,  compliance remains patchy, with many cameras either not installed or lying defunct.

Centre Moves Supreme Court Seeking Transfer Of Pleas In High Court Challenging Online Gaming Act 2025

The Union of India has filed a plea before the Supreme Court seeking that various writ petitions in 3 High Courts that challenge the Online Gaming Act 2025be transferred to the Apex Court.

The counsel for the Union mentioned before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, urging that the present transfer petition be listed on coming Monday.

He said : "The new act has been challenged. I am seeking a listing on Monday, because the interim order is listed in the Karnataka High Court."

Videos Of Timber Logs Floating In Himachal Flood Waters Show Illegal Tree Felling Up Hills : Supreme Court Takes Serious View

The Supreme Court (September 4), referring to videos of timber logs floating in floodwaters in Himachal Pradesh, observed that rampant illegal tree felling appeared to be taking place in the Himalayan region.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran stressed that it was a serious matter.

"We have seen unprecedented landslides and floods in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. From the media reports, it is also noticed that in the flood, huge number of wooden logs were flowing around. Prima facie, it appears that there has been illegal felling of the trees which has been going on up hills," the bench observed while considering a Public Interest Litigation raising the issue of environmental degradation in the Himalayan region.

NEET-UG 2025 | Supreme Court Dismisses Candidate's Plea Alleging OMR Sheet Tampering

Case Details: Dudekula Shameera v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 23025/2025 Diary No. 44714 / 2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea alleging OMR tampering in the NEET(UG) 2025.

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar,  Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara submitted that a NEET(UG) aspirant had approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a writ petition against the National Testing Agency, claiming that the OMR answer sheet given to her after the examination was not the one she had submitted as she had answered  171 questions correctly out of 180, whereas the OMR sheet showed she answered only 11 questions. She also claimed that the signature and the thumb impression on the disputed OMR sheet did not belong to her.

Against this, the NTA submitted that she answered 11 questions, out of which only two were correct. It was also pointed out that the OMR sheets were sealed in a pink envelope in the presence of students in the exam room itself and procuring signatures of two students as witnesses for due observance, a process the candidate did not dispute. Considering this, and also the fact that the High Court found general inconsistencies in the candidate's signature, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed her plea against which she approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Denies Interim Bail To Kashmiri Separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah; Issues Notice On Plea For Bail

Case Details: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 13399/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah's bail plea in a terror funding case, but declined to grant the relief of interim bail at this stage.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for Shah and beseeched the Court to grant interim bail as Shah is "very sick", subject to a condition that he would remain at home. "His days of speeches are over", Gonsalves said. But the Court was not inclined to pass an order for release today itself.

Shah was arrested in June 2019 and arrayed as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA on October 04, 2019. The allegations against him are that he played a key role in building a separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, paying tribute to the families of slain terrorists, receiving money through hawala transactions and raising funds through LOC trade used to “fuel subversive and militant activities.”

BREAKING: 'Is There Ego Issue'? Supreme Court Summons MCD Commissioner For Failing To Remove Debris In Lodhi-Era Gumti

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 12213/2019

The Supreme Court took a serious view of the consistent violations of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD"), failing to remove debris for the restoration of the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance, which was illegally occupied by the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), Delhi, and where the MCD operated an unauthorised office and parking. In the morning, it had directed the MCD Commissioner's physical presence in the Court at 3 pm.

When the Commissioner appeared after lunch, the Court expressed its anguish with the repeated failure of the MCD to comply with its orders. The Court said that it is "pained" and is "very unhappy" with the manner MCD has cooperated in this matter. It was orally said that it appears to be an ego clash between the MCD and the Archaeological Survey of India ("ASI") and warned of a suo moto contempt if, on next occasion, the orders are not complied with.

Court's appointed Commissioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan, before lunch had informed the Court that he had visited and the debris from the demolition two months ago, which took place pursuant to the Court's order of the illegal construction, is still lying there. The Court also questioned the failure of the MCD's Counsel, Senior Advocate Garima Prasad, in complying with the order.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Smooth & Transparent Conduct Of SSC Exams

Case Details: Nikhil Kumar v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 848/2025 Diary No. 48355 / 2025

The Supreme Court (September 4) issued notice in a writ petition seeking the streamlining of the national recruitment examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Commission ("SSC"). Directions have been sought to ensure that the exam is conducted fairly and transparently.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar issued notice.

As per the writ petition, the SSC is responsible for conducting recruitment examinations for several gazetted and non-gazetted posts in various Ministries. For this purpose, it had issued a tender to Tata Consultancy Services for the past several years, which had been conducting examinations smoothly and transparently.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To YSRCP Leader Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy, Brother In TDP Activists' Double Murder Case

Case Details: Pinnelli Rama Krishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13622/2025 (And Connected Case)

The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to YSRCP leader and former MLA Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy, as well as his brother Pinnelli Venkatarami Reddy, in the double murder case of two Telegu Desam Party (TDP) activists.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, while issuing notice on the Pinnelli brothers' pleas for anticipatory bail. Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave and Shoeb Alam appeared for the petitioners.

To recap, the Pinnelli brothers are accused in the double murder case of TDP activists Javishetti Venkateshwarlu and his brother Javisetti Koteswara Rao, who were killed while travelling on a motorbike in an Andhra Pradesh district.

Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Against Bombay High Court Orders Allowing Plaster Of Paris Idol Immersion

Case Title – Rohit Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging two interim orders of the Bombay High Court dated June 9, 2025, and July 24, 2025 that permitted the use of Plaster of Paris (PoP) for idol manufacture and immersion during religious festivities.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice returnable in 4 weeks.

By its June 9 order, the High Court modified its earlier January 30, 2025 direction that had prohibited PoP, and allowed its use for making idols. The Court, however, said that such idols could not be immersed in natural water bodies without prior leave of the Court.

'Timebound Trials In Heinous Cases Necessary, Otherwise Hardened Criminals Will Hijack System': Supreme Court

Case Details: Kailash Ramchandani v. State of Maharashtra, SLP(Crl) No. 4276/2025

The National Investigation Agency informed the Supreme Court that it is holding consultations with States on constitution of dedicated NIA Courts and a positive decision may likely be reached soon.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the case where it earlier flagged a need for dedicated courts to deal with trial of special cases under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

During the hearing, the Court underlined the importance of timebound completion of trials. "It's an opportunity for you to incentivize...if you can have timebound trials, particularly in these heinous offenses, it would send a very good message to society...to all hardened criminals also, they think they can hijack the entire system...for 10 years, they will not allow the trial to be concluded, courts will under compulsion grant bail", said Justice Kant to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

'Approach HC' : Supreme Court To SHUATS University On Plea Against Alleged Forceful Installation Of Idols

Case Details: Sam Higginbottom Educational and Charitable Society v. State of U.P| W.P.(Crl.) No. 000354 / 2025

The Supreme Court (September 4) refused to entertain a writ petition seeking directions to the State of UP to protect the minority character of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Science (SHUATS) after miscreants allegedly forcefully installed idols in the Dean's office.

The Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court under Article 226 Jurisdiction.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition filed by Sam Higginbotham Charitable Society under Article 32 seeking directions to the state authorities to take cognisance of the representation made by the University regarding the forceful installation of idols in the Dean's office and celebration of Ganesh Chaturthi as opposed to the minority character of the University.

Supreme Court Urges Union To Enhance Monetary & Insurance Aid For Cadets Injured During Military Training

Case Details: In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle | SMW(C) No. 6/2025

The Supreme Court requested the Union of India to enhance monetary and insurance benefits given to military cadets boarded out due to disabilities suffered during training and come up with a scheme for medical reassessment and resettlement of such cadets.

“As far as monetary benefit is concerned, we have perused the amounts that are provided ex gratia with effect from 2017. Having regard to the lapse of time since 2017 we find that endeavour could be made to enhance the said figures accordingly particularly bearing in mind the current inflation and the price rise”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra appointed Senior Advocate and former Delhi High Court judge Rekha Palli to assist the Court in the suo moto case concerning the plight of invalidated and out boarded military cadets.

Sharjeel Imam Moves Supreme Court Against Bail Denial In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Sharjeel Imam has moved the Supreme Court seeking bail in the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Imam has challenged the Delhi High Court ruling passed on September 02 by a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur denying bail to him.

The matter is yet to be listed for hearing before the Apex Court. Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020.

Gulfisha Fatima Approaches Supreme Court Against Delhi High Court's Bail Denial In Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State of NCT of Delhi | Diary No. 50992/2025

Student activist Gulfisha Fatima has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Delhi High Court denying her bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Fatima, who was in the forefront of organising protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act,  was arrested on April 9, 2020, and has been under custody ever since over allegations under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The Delhi police chargesheet has accused her, along with several other individuals, of orchestrating a "larger conspiracy" behind the communal riots which rocked the national capital in the last week of February 2020.

On September 2, a division bench of the Delhi High Court passed a common order dismissing the bail applications of Fatima and eight co-accused. Sharjeel Imam has also filed a petition challenging the High Court's order.