Home
/

Top Stories
/
Supreme Court Monthly Round-up:...

Supreme Court Monthly Round-up: April 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

12 May 2025 7:04 PM IST

Reports/Judgments

S.256 CrPC/S.279 BNSS | Absence Of Complainant Will Not Always Lead To Acquittal Of Accused: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 369

The Supreme Court held that the non-appearance of a complainant will not always result in the acquittal of the accused as per Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

The Court interpreted Section 256 Cr.P.C. to mean that acquittal under this section is warranted only when the complainant is absent on the date which was set for the appearance of the accused. If the date was set for a purpose other than the appearance of the accused, the absence of the complainant on such a date will not warrant the acquittal of the accused.

Supreme Court Sets Aside 'Moratorium' Of 1 Year Imposed By High Court To Apply For Bail Afresh

Case Details: Md Gulzar v. State of Bihar | SLP(Crl) No. 805/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 370

The Supreme Court set aside a condition imposed by the Patna High Court wherein, while denying bail to a petitioner, the High Court stated that the accused can only seek bail afresh after one year of the framing of the charges.

The Court observed that the High Court could not have imposed a "moratorium of one year" for moving fresh bail application.

Modifying the High Court's order, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti allowed the accused-petitioner to seek bail afresh irrespective of the condition imposed by the High Court.

PMLA Accused Can't Be Kept In Custody If Order Taking Cognizance Of ED Complaint Has Been Quashed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Arun Pati Tripathi v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 16219/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 371

The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after noting that the order taking cognizance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been quashed.

The Court questioned the ED for continuing the custody of the accused, who has been in custody since August 2024, after the order taking cognizance was quashed on February 7, 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case concerning Arun Kumar Tripathi, an Indian Telecommunications Service Officer, who was arrested by the ED on August 8, 2024 in a money laundering case connected with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Register FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma Over Cash Row

Case Details: Mathews J Nedumpara and Ors. v. Supreme Court of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 372

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma, Delhi High Court Judge(since transferred to Allahabad HC), over the alleged discovery of illicit cash at official premises.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that the petition, which also challenged the in-house inquiry being conducted by a committee of three judges as per the directions of the Chief Justice of India, was premature.

Can Assistant Professors In Engineering Colleges Be Re-designated As Associate Professors Without PhD? Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Details: Secretary All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 7058-7061/2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 373

The Supreme Court held that Assistant Professors in Engineering institutes(appointed after March 15, 2000), who did not have Ph.D. qualification at the time of appointment or failed to acquire Ph.D. within seven years of their appointment, cannot claim re-designation as Associate Professors in terms of the 2010 notification issued by the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

At the same time, the Court also held that teachers who were appointed in various Engineering institutes prior to March 15, 2000, when PhD was not an essential requirement for the post of Assistant Professor, will receive the benefit and redesignation to the post of Associate Professor as per 6th Pay Commission.

"As far as such teachers are concerned who were appointed prior to 15.03.2000, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the High Court regarding their entitlements under the 6th Pay Commission, etc...The appellant shall release the higher pay scale to those respondents who are appointed prior to 15.03.2000 with an interest of 7.5% per annum on the arrears within a period of four weeks from today failing which the interest shall be calculated at the rate of 15% per annum," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran held.

Supreme Court Upholds Piramal's Resolution Plan For DHFL, Sets Aside NCLAT Order

Case Details: Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited (Formerly Known As Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited) v. 63 Moons Technologies Limited & Ors. | Civil Appeal Nos. 1632-1634 of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 374

The Supreme Court (April 1) approved the Resolution Plan proposed by Piramal Capita and Housing Finance for the erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd(DHFL).

The Court held that funds recovered from the fraudulent transactions at Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) will go to Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd.

The Court set aside the NCLAT order, which directed the creditors of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) to reconsider the resolution plan proposed by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance.

The Supreme Court explained the key difference between how the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 deals with avoidance transactions and transactions relating to fraudulent or wrongful trading.

Notably, under the IBC 2016, 'avoidance transactions' are specific transactions conducted by a corporate debtor prior to insolvency proceedings that are deemed detrimental to the interests of creditors. These include (1) Preferential transactions, (2) Undervalued transactions, (3) Extortionate Credit transactions; (4) Fraudulent transactions.

The bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma noted that there was a fundamental distinction between Avoidance Applications under Chapter III and the Applications in respect of Fraudulent Trading or Wrongful Trading under Chapter VI.

S.319 CrPC | Additional Accused Can Be Summoned Based On Witness's Statement Without Cross-Examination: Supreme Court

Case Details: Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 375

The Supreme Court (April 1) reaffirmed that a plea to summon an additional accused can rely on pre-trial evidence such as the unrebutted examination-in-chief of the witness without waiting for cross-examination to conclude.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard the case where the trial court, citing prima facie involvement of the proposed accused persons based on the unrebutted testimony (examination-in-chief) of the Appellant-complainant, had allowed the Appellant's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

No Disciplinary Proceedings Against Quasi-Judicial Officer Merely For Passing Wrong Order: Supreme Court

Case Details: Amresh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 376

The Supreme Court quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a former Tehsildar, ruling that incorrect quasi-judicial orders alone, without allegations of malafides or extraneous influence, cannot justify disciplinary action.

The Court stated that when the order was passed in good faith (though incorrect), it would not warrant initiating disciplinary proceedings against the quasi-judicial officer unless the order was influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice A.G. Masih heard the case where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Appellant (when he was Tehsildar) for passing an alleged incorrect order after 14 years of passing an order.

S.34 CPC | In Commercial Transactions, Courts May Award Interest Higher Than 6%: Supreme Court

Case Details: I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 377

The Supreme Court held that the Courts have the authority to determine the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded for decree amounts. The Court also have the discretion to decide from which date the interest is payable- whether from the date of the filing of the suit, from any date prior to it, or the date of decree.

The Court observed that in the absence of an agreement between the parties regarding the rate of interest on delayed payment of amount in a commercial transaction, the interest may exceed 6% p.a. as per Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) after taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances in accordance with law.

Specific Performance Suit Not Maintainable For Cancelled Sale Agreement Without Seeking Declaration Against Cancellation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sangita Sinha v. Bhawana Bhardwaj and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 378

The Supreme Court held that a suit for the specific performance of an agreement to sell, filed after its cancellation, is not maintainable unless it includes a prayer for declaratory relief (under Section 34 Specific Relief Act) challenging the validity of the cancellation.

The Court reasoned that declaratory relief challenging the validity of the cancellation was essential when seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell, as the suit could not be sustained without a valid and subsisting agreement.

“this Court is of the opinion that absent a prayer for declaratory relief that termination/cancellation of the agreement is bad in law, a suit for specific performance is not maintainable.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan heard the case where the seller had cancelled the agreement to sell entered with the buyer and had returned the earnest money deposit to the buyer in the form of four demand drafts.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies Bound By Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: M/S Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies (3), Mumbai & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 379

Observing that the quasi-judicial bodies are also bound by the principles of res-judicata to prevent re-litigation on the same issue, the Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court's order which had upheld the second order passed by the quasi-judicial body despite the first order passed by the quasi-judicial body was not followed and remained unchallenged.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale heard the case where the quasi-judicial body had relitigated the same issue which was decided in an earlier application filed before it. The quasi-judicial authority had reviewed an earlier order passed by it while adjudicating a second application.

'Police Can't Exceed Limits': Supreme Court Sends Its Judgments On Arrest Guidelines To DGPs Of All States/UTs, Warns Of Strict Action

Case Details: Vijay Pal Yadav v. Mamta Singh and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 380

The Supreme Court issued a stern warning to the police personnel of all States and Union Territories against the violation of the norms regarding arrest. The Court warned that officers who flout the arrest guidelines will face strict action.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made these observations while dealing with a case, where the petitioner alleged that he was arrested by the Haryana police in violation of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and was subjected to physical abuse both at the spot as well as later in the Police Station.

No Universal Rule That Candidate With Qualification Higher Than Basic Eligibility For Post Must Be Preferred: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jomon KK v. Shajimon P and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Though over-qualification by itself is not a disqualification, there is no general rule that candidates with qualifications higher than the basic qualification required for a post must be preferred, observed the Supreme Court in a judgment.

The Court observed that there is no straight-jacket rule that candidates with higher qualifications must be selected over those with possessing the basic qualification. Each case will depend on its facts, the rules governing the selection process, the nature of duty to be performed etc.

"It has to be remembered that, at times, the employer's need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be conceded," the Court observed.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan made these observations while affirming a judgment of the Kerala High Court which upheld the exclusion of the appellant from the post of "Boat Lascar” under the Kerala State Water Transport Department.

The Supreme Court observed that if the initial appointment is illegal, then the candidate cannot claim equitable relief to secure the post invoking the special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. If a candidate gained entry through a process which was not legal and valid, then the Court cannot come to his rescue in the exercise of powers under Article 142.

Party Interested In Property Deemed To Know About Sale Deed From Registration Date: Supreme Court Rejects Partition Suit Filed After 45 Yrs

Case Details: Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. v. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Noting that the limitation period begins from the date of registration of the sale deed, which constitutes constructive notice, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision upholding a decree in a partition suit filed 45 years after the sale deed was registered.

Citing Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Court noted that the registration of the sale deed constitutes a public notice, and any suit for partition filed after 12 years (Art. 65 of Limitation Act, 1963) would be barred by law liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

S. 138 NI Act | Complainant Has No Onus To Prove Financial Capacity At The Threshold: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 383

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that once the drawer admits to signing the cheque, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) cannot be rebutted merely by questioning the complainant's debt-giving capacity, especially when such a defence was not raised in the reply notice by the accused.

“The onus is not on the complainant at the threshold to prove his capacity/financial wherewithal to make the payment in discharge of which the cheque is alleged to have been issued in his favour. Only if an objection is raised that the complainant was not in a financial position to pay the amount so claimed by him to have been given as a loan to the accused, only then the complainant would have to bring before the Court cogent material to indicate that he had the financial capacity and had actually advanced the amount in question by way of loan.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case where the Appellant/complainant challenged the Allahabad High Court's decision which had overturned the trial court's order convicting the Respondent/accused for an offence of cheque dishonour punishable under Section 138 NI Act.

Electricity Act, 2003 | State Commissions Retain Oversight Over Inter-State Power Supply Affecting Grids Within State: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ramayana Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 384

In a key development under the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act of 2003), the Supreme Court observed that the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (“SERC”) can regulate open access even for inter-state power supply if it affects their grid.

The Court ruled that while the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) holds jurisdiction over inter-state electricity transmission, this does not preclude State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) from regulating inter-state power supply when such transactions affect the state grid. The judgment clarified that even when electricity is sourced from another state, the State Commission maintains regulatory oversight if the power supply has consequential impacts on the state's electricity network.

'Selection Process Tainted: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of 25K Staff Appointments By West Bengal SSC In 2016

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) SLP(C) No. 009586 - / 2024 and connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 385

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court, which invalidated nearly 25000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission (SSC) in 2016.

The Court approved the finding of the High Court that the selection process was vitiated by fraud and was tainted beyond repair. The Court upheld the High Court's judgment cancelling the appointments en-block.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was considering the batch of petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court's order setting aside the appointments in government schools.

The Supreme Court laid down key principles to be considered by the Court when dealing with challenges to appointments in government employment.

Payment Of Bonus Act | Workers Can't Be Denied Bonus Saying Factories Are Run By Charitable Trust: Supreme Court

Case Details: Management of Worth Trust v. Secretary, Worth Trust Workers Union

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 386

The Supreme Court held that an entity running factories cannot deny bonus to workers on the ground that the factories are being run by a charitable trust.

Observing that entitlement to bonus is a statutory right under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (“Bonus Act”), the Supreme Court dismissed the plea of the factory management who resisted payment of bonus to its workmen citing its dependence on the Red Cross Society, which is exempted under the Bonus Act from payment of Bonus.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard the case involving a charitable trust that worked for rehabilitation of the leprosy patients. Over time, the trust expanded into commercial activities, including manufacturing and selling automobile parts, leading to the employment of rehabilitated patients as factory workers.

'Tapentadol Hydrochloride Not Scheduled Psychotropic Substance': Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In NDPS Case

Case Details: Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 387

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused who was accused of possessing a Tapentadol Hydrochloride tablet (a pain reliever used to treat moderate to severe acute pain).

Since Tapentadol Hydrochloride is not included in the Schedule of the NDPS Act, the Court said that it is not a psychotropic substance.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard the bail plea where the key allegation against the appellant was that there was a recovery of 550 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride from a car in which the appellant was traveling with the co-accused (the car owner).

Land Acquisition Act | Supreme Court Explains Principle Of De-Escalation, Says Highest Of Sale Exemplars Must Be Taken

Case Details: Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 388

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the highest bona fide sale exemplar must be considered when determining land acquisition compensation to ensure a fair market value for the acquired land.

Holding so, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan allowed the landowner's plea seeking enhancement of compensation fixed by the High Court and enhanced the compensation from ₹55.71 lakh to ₹1.18 crore per acre for lands acquired in Dharuhera village (Haryana) in 2008 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by applying the principle of de-escalation.

The Court set aside the High Court's decision to selectively rely on lower-value exemplars while ignoring comparable higher-value transactions.

Supreme Court Directs Petitioners Seeking Bail To Mandatorily Disclose Criminal Antecedents In Petitions

Case Details: Munnesh v. State of UP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 389

The Supreme Court has directed that the petitioners seeking regular bail or anticipatory bail must mandatorily disclose their criminal antecedents.

The synopsis of the petitions must specify if the petitioners have clean antecedents. Their involvement in any criminal case must be disclosed, with specific details about the stage of the proceedings. If false disclosures are made, then the petition will be dismissed, the Court warned.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan passed the order after noting that in many cases, the criminal antecedents of the petitioners are not disclosed, resulting in the Court "being taken on a ride." The Court noted that in many such cases, notices are issued, and it is only when the State/Respondents appear that the criminal antecedents of the petitioners are revealed.

"This Court has shown leniency in the past but we think it is time that such state of affairs is not allowed to continue further," the Court said.

Supreme Court Rejects UCO Bank's Plea That Employee Dismissed For Misconduct Wasn't Entitled To Pension Despite 10 Yrs Service

Case Details: Uco Bank & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Handa

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 390

The Supreme Court rejected UCO Bank's plea that a bank employee who has completed over ten years of service was not entitled to superannuation benefits when he was dismissed on grounds of misconduct.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision directing the Appellant-UCO Bank to grant pensionary benefits to the Respondent-employee removed from service for misconduct after completing 10 plus years in the service.

S. 34(3) Arbitration Act | Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S R. K. Transport Company v. M/S Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. (BALCO)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 391

The Supreme Court held that the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for challenging an arbitral award should not be rigidly interpreted as exactly 90 days, rather it should be interpreted as three calendar months.

The Court upheld the filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on 11.07.2022 to set aside an arbitral award passed on 09.04.2022, despite it being beyond the 90-day period. It noted that the limitation period ended on 09.07.2022, which was a court holiday (second Saturday), followed by Sunday. Therefore, the application filed on the next working day, Monday (11.07.2022), was held to be within limitation.

Relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers, (2010) 12 SCC 210 and applying Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court reiterated that for calculating limitation under Section 34(3), the date on which the arbitral award is passed must be excluded. Accordingly, the limitation period begins from the day following the date of the award.

S.61 IBC | When Judgment Is Pronounced In Open Court, Limitation Period Runs From That Day: Supreme Court

Case Details: A Rajendra v. Gonuganta Madhusudhan Rao and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 392

The Supreme Court held that the incident which triggers the running of the limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 is the date of pronouncement of the Order and in case of non-pronouncement of the Order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the Order is pronounced or uploaded on the website.

The Court also clarified that where the judgment was pronounced in open Court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day. However, the party is entitled to exclude the period, as per Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act 1963, during which the certified copy of the order was under preparation on an application filed by that party

A bench comprising Justice AS Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice AG Masih made these observations while rejecting appeals against the orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissing two appeals filed against the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal as time-barred.

Teacher In-Service As On Aug 10, 2017 With 18-Month D.El.Ed. From NIOS Before Apr 1, 2019 'At Par' With 2-Yr Diploma Holder: SC

Case Details: Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., SLP(C) No. 19139 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 393

Dealing with the issue of eligibility for teacher recruitment process in West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that any teacher who was in-service as on 10.08.2017 and who acquired the Diploma In Elementary Education (D. El. Ed.) qualification through National Institute of Open Schooling's (NIOS) 18-months programme prior to 01.04.2019 is a valid diploma holder and at par with a teacher who completed the 2 years D. El. Ed. programme.

"such of the teachers who were in employment as on 10th August 2017 and who completed the 18 months D. El. Ed. (ODL) programme through NIOS before 1st April 2019 shall be considered as valid diploma holders for the purpose of applying in other institutions and/or for promotional avenues", observed a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih.

Even As We Near 80 Yrs Of Independence, Not Enough Public Jobs Generated For Eligible Candidates: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 394

The Supreme Court highlighted the scarcity of government jobs and the hardships faced by deserving candidates unable to secure employment due to limited opportunities.

“Even as we near 80 (eighty) years of independence, generating enough jobs in the public sector to absorb those eager to enter public service remains an elusive goal. While there is no dearth of eligible candidates in the country waiting in the queue, the quest for public employment is thwarted by a lack of sufficient employment opportunities.”, the Court observed.

The aforesaid observation came by a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan while upholding the Patna High Court's decision which had struck down a State Government's Rule permitting hereditary public appointments on the post of chaukidars as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court held that Writ Courts have the authority to exercise suo motu powers to strike down subordinate legislation if it violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, rendering it void and unconstitutional.

The Court observed that it saw no reason to not concede the power to suo motu declare a subordinate legislation invalid, on the ground of its being manifestly contrary to a Fundamental Right within the vast reserve of powers of the Constitutional Courts.

The Supreme Court ruled against the hereditary appointments in the public service. The Court said that the appointment to the public posts cannot be done on hereditary basis, and such an appointment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Directs CEC To Probe Violations Of Forest & Wildlife Laws In Tamil Nadu's Agasthyamalai Landscape

Case Details: A. John Kennedy Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Concerned over encroachments and depleting forest cover in Tamil Nadu's Agasthyamalai landscape, the Supreme Court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to survey the area and report violations of laws like the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

"Needless to say, that the forests form the lungs of the ecosystem, and any depletion/destruction of forest areas has a direct impact on the entire environment. The world at large is facing the calamities caused by the climate change, and the primary culprit behind this is the depleting forest cover owing to a myriad of issues including rapid urbanization, unchecked industrialization, encroachments, etc.", the Court observed while directing a survey of encroachment on forest land.

Excess Payments To Employee Can't Be Recovered When There Was No Fraud Or Misrepresentation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jogeswar Sahoo and Ors. v. District Judge Cuttack and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 396

The Supreme Court has reiterated that excess payment made to an employee cannot be recovered if such payment was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. Also, excess payment to the employee due to any wrong application of the rule or incorrect calculation on the part of the employer is not recoverable.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was deciding the appeals filed by persons, who were working as Stenographers and Personal Assistants in the Orissa District Judiciary, against the recoveries of excess payments. Amounts in the range of Rs.20,000 to 40,000 were sought to be recovered from the appellants. The recoveries were ordered nearly three years after their retirement and six years after the payment.

Section 18 Of Limitation Act Applies To Public Premises Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. v. Clifford D Souza Etc. Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 1796-1828 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 397

In a case involving liability for demand raised under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the Supreme Court applied Section 18 of the Limitation Act and granted benefit of extension of limitation to the lessor noting that there was acknowledgement of liability by the licensee within the limitation period of 3 years.

"The respondents cannot argue that only section 3 of the Limitation Act along with the limitation provided under Article 52 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act will apply and not section 18 of the same Act. Once the Limitation Act applies, all its provisions will be applicable to the proceedings under the PP Act", observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale.

Death Penalty In Child Rape-Murder Case Set Aside; Supreme Court Flags Illegal Admission Of Confession, Lapses In DNA Evidence

Case Details: Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 398

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man accused of raping and causing the death of a minor, observing that the trial was conducted in a flawed and irregular manner. The Court noted that the trial judge had improperly allowed the investigating officer to narrate the accused's confessional statements during his examination-in-chief and admitted those statements as evidence.

The appellant-accused was sentenced to suffer the death penalty in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 376A (rape causing death), 302 (murder), 366 (kidnapping), 363 (kidnapping a minor), 201 (destruction of evidence) IPC, and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

However, during the trial, aside from other discrepancies, the trial court permitted the investigating officer to narrate the accused's confessions during his examination-in-chief, recorded by him during the investigation. Furthermore, the court admitted these confessions as evidence through the prosecution witness.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta questioned the conduct of the trial, noting that the trial judge's decision to admit the accused's confessional statements, narrated by the investigating officer, into evidence was in violation of the law of evidence because under Section 164 of the CrPC, only those confessional statements which is recorded by a magistrate, even if in the presence of the police, are legally admissible.

S.197 CrPC | Prior Sanction Mandatory To Prosecute Police Officers For Acts In Excess Of Duty If Reasonably Connected To Official Functions: Supreme Court

Case Details: G.C. Manjunath & Ors. v. Seetaram

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 399

The Supreme Court reiterated that that prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act is required to prosecute police officers even for acts exceeding their authority, as long as a reasonable nexus with their official duties existed.

Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act bars the institution of suits or prosecutions against certain public officials, including police officers, for acts done under the colour of or in excess of official duty, unless the prior sanction of the Government is obtained.

Similarly, Section 197 CrPC provides that courts cannot take cognisance of offences alleged to have been committed by public servants while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, unless there is prior sanction from the appropriate Government.

“This Court, while adjudicating on instances of alleged police excess, has consistently held in Virupaxappa and D. Devaraja, that where a police officer, in the course of performing official duties, exceeds the bounds of such duty, the protective shield under the relevant statutory provisions continues to apply, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the impugned act and the discharge of official functions. It has been categorically held that transgression or overstepping of authority does not, by itself, suffice to displace the statutory safeguard of requiring prior government sanction before prosecuting the public servant concerned”, the Court observed.

Landlord-Tenant Relationship Ends Only With Eviction Decree; Mesne Profits To Be Calculated From Decree Date: Supreme Court

Case Details: Amritpal Jagmohan Sethi v. Haribhau Pundlik Ingole

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 400

The Supreme Court observed that under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, it is the settled law that the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end only upon the passing of the decree of eviction.

“As the decree of eviction was passed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the settled position of law is that only on the decree of eviction being passed, the relationship of the landlord and the tenant comes to an end”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan accordingly modified a trial court order for inquiry into mesne profits from date of eviction suit to an order for inquiry into mesne profits from date of eviction decree.

SEBI Can't Pass Multiple Orders On Same Cause Of Action; Res Judicata Principle Applies: Supreme Court

Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Ram Kishori Gupta & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Reiterating that the principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court (April 7) upheld the Securities Appellate Tribunal's decision, which held that SEBI's subsequent disgorgement order was barred by res judicata, as its earlier order had not directed disgorgement.

The Court invoked the principle of constructive res judicata (as per Explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC), holding that since SEBI could have ordered disgorgement in its earlier proceedings, it was not permissible to do so in a subsequent order.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan considered whether the principle of res judicata applies to proceedings under the SEBI Act, 1992, particularly in cases where SEBI seeks to issue multiple orders on the same cause of action.

Registration Act - Registering Authority Can't Ascertain If Vendor Has Title: Supreme Court

Case Details: K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 402

The Supreme Court observed that the Registration Act, 1908 does not authorize the Registering Authority to deny registration of a transfer document on the ground that the vendor's title documents are not produced or that their title is unproven.

Therefore, the Court struck down as unconstitutional Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules as inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

As per Rule 55A(i), the person seeking registration of a document was mandated to produce the previous original deed as per which he acquired title and encumbrance certificate. Unless this Rule is complied with, the document will not be registered.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan struck down this rule saying that it was not within the mandate of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority under the 1908 Act to verify whether the vendor has valid title. Even if a person executing a sale deed or lease does not have title to the property, the registering authority cannot refuse to register the document, provided all procedural requirements are met and applicable stamp duty and registration fees are paid.

Insurance Claim Cannot Be Denied For Breach Of Impossible Condition: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 403

The Supreme Court held that an insurance company cannot reject a claim on the grounds of breach of a condition in the contract that was impossible to fulfil.

A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the insured's marine claim, which New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had rejected on the grounds that the insured breached a condition requiring the voyage to start and finish before the monsoon despite it being evident that the entire voyage was scheduled during the monsoon season.

Supreme Court Flags Misuse Of Rape Laws After Break-Ups, Quashes Case Against Ex-Judge Over Alleged Marriage Promise

Case Details: Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Reiterating that a breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it is proven that consent was obtained through fraud from the outset, the Supreme Court quashed a rape case against a former judicial officer accused of raping a woman under the false promise of marriage.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the complainant was a mature woman (36 years old) and had knowingly entered into a consensual sexual relationship (continuing thereafter for more than one year) with the accused-judicial officer.

Terming the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the Appellant as abuse of process of law, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings repeating its stance on the growing trend of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour.

“We find that there is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out. It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law, and it is under such circumstances, that we deem fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage of charge itself.”, the court observed.

After Split Verdict, Supreme Court Rejects Rajasthan Civil Judge Candidates' Plea To Submit Caste Certificates Beyond Cut-Off Date

Case Details: Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors., C.A. No. 3957/2023 (and connected cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 405

After a split verdict in the matter, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed appeals filed by certain candidates to the post of Civil Judge, who were denied appointment by Rajasthan High Court on the ground that they submitted category certificates beyond the cut-off date.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih delivered the decision, upholding the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. It observed:

"The Subsequent Notice, which was issued by the Rajasthan High Court on 04.08.2022, cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any basis. It specified that the certificate belonging to the concerned reserved category should have been issued prior or upto 31.08.2021 i.e. the last date of receipt of the application in pursuance to the Advertisement. This was because the Advertisement required a candidate to possess eligibility upto the cut-off date.

MBBS Admission: Supreme Court Asks AIIMS Medical Board To Assess Disability Of Candidate Who Performed 'Exceedingly Well' In NEET

Case Details: Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29275 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 406

The Supreme Court directed the AII India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) to constitute a medical board comprising of five doctors including a specialist in locomotor disabilities and a neuro-physician for the assessment of an MBBS aspirant's disability in terms of the Court's judgment in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences (2024) and Anmol v. Union of India & Ors (2025).

In Om Rathod, it was held that the mere existence of benchmark disability will not lead to disqualification in the MBBS course. It was held that the medical board must assess if the disabilities prevented the candidate from undergoing medical education. Whereas, in Anmol, the National Medical Commission's guidelines which stated that candidates with disabilities must have "both hands intact, with intact sensation and sufficient strength" for admission to MBBS course was held to be arbitrary and antithetical to the Constitution.

S.28 Contract Act Doesn't Bar Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses In Contracts: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd, HDFC Bank v. Deepti Bhatia

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 407

The Supreme Court held that exclusive jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of a particular location to decides disputes relating to the contract, are not barred by Section 28 of the Contract Act.

Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, declares void any agreement that restricts a party from enforcing their rights under a contract through legal proceedings, or limits the time within which they can do so, except in cases of arbitration agreements.

However, the Court explained that for an exclusive jurisdiction clause to be valid, it should be :

(a) in consonance with Section 28 of the Contract Act, i.e., it should not absolutely restrict any party from initiating legal proceedings pertaining to the contract,

(b) the Court that has been given exclusive jurisdiction must be competent to have such jurisdiction in the first place, i.e., a Court not having jurisdiction as per the statutory regime cannot be bestowed jurisdiction by means of a contract and, finally,

Insurer Can 'Pay & Recover' If Driver Of Vehicle Meant To Carry Hazardous Substance Didn't Have Endorsement U/R 9 CMV Rules: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 408

The Supreme Court ruled that an endorsement under Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is mandatory in the driving license for driving a vehicle carrying any dangerous or hazardous goods.

Rule 9 mandates specialized training (including defensive driving, emergency handling, and product safety) and an endorsement for drivers of vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

The Court emphasized that this training is integral to safe operation, rejecting arguments that the endorsement is a mere formality. The absence of such training directly relates to driving competence, especially for vehicles designed for hazardous cargo.

“We have to also emphasise that in the present case, the tanker was carrying oil; for which it is intended, while the accident occurred. We hasten to add that we may not be misunderstood as agreeing to the corollary to the argument that a licence holder without the endorsement under Rule 9, could drive an empty goods vehicle intended to carry hazardous goods, designed specifically for that purpose. The breach of noncompliance of the statutory requirement to undergo a training course to upskill the driving efficiency and product safety cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not contributing to the accident.”, the Court observed.

Prosecution Must Disprove Accused's Plea Of Alibi Before Convicting Based On 'Last Seen' Theory: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 409

The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the husband and wife were last seen together in their shared home does not, by itself, justify convicting the husband for the alleged murder if he raises a plea of alibi and the prosecution fails to effectively disprove it.

Holding thus, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the husband's conviction for his wife's alleged murder, observing that the High Court wrongly placed the burden on the accused to prove his alibi, despite his early claim of absence in an intimation to the police and the police's failure to investigate the same.

The Court held that while a husband's failure to explain his wife's death in their shared home can be a strong incriminating circumstance, it cannot alone establish guilt, especially when he has raised a plausible plea of alibi offering an explanation about his absence at the place of incident.

Misleading Medical Ads | Supreme Court Directs States To Appoint Officers To Enforce Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act

Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 410

The Supreme Court passed a slew of directions to state governments for the effective implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act), which prohibits the publication of misleading advertisements regarding medical cures.

The Court lamented the poor implementation of the Act, which was enacted seventy years ago.

"The 1954 act is more than 70 years old. Unfortunately, there is no implementation in its letter and spirit. It is necessary for the state governments to create machinery for implementation of the 1954 Act."

The State Governments were directed to appoint gazetted officers who are authorised to exercise powers under Section 8 of the DMR Act for search, seizure etc. Directions were also issued to set up grievance redressal mechanisms where the general public can lodge complaints against such advertisements.

Supreme Court Flags Lengthy Pleadings & Use Of AI-Generated Statements, Asks Courts To Strike Out Unnecessary Pleadings In Civil Suits

Case Details: Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) Through Lrs v. Laxmibai Narayan Satose Since Deceased Through Lrs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 411

The Supreme Court expressed dismay over the use of long and bulky pleadings in a civil trial which led to the passing of lengthy judgments by the trial court and appellate court, that could have been summed up concisely.

The Court also flagged the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), saying that the Courts are also confronted with AI-generated or computer-generated statements.

Thus, the court advocated the use of Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC, which empowers the court to strike out or amend any pleadings finding it to be unnecessary, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process of law. Pleadings be made brief and concise, the Court stated.

The Supreme Court observed that when the language of a deed is clear and unambiguous, there is no justification for judicial intervention to interpret it differently. It added that applying the literal rule of construction, the words must be given their plain and natural meaning, as they are presumed to convey the true intent of the parties.

“the court must look at the words used in the contract unless they are such that one may suspect that they do not covey the intention correctly. If the words are clear, there is very little the court can do about it. In constructing a deed, looking at the surrounding circumstances and subject matter is legitimate only if the words used are doubtful.”, the court observed upon placing reliance on the case of Provash Chandra Dalui and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another, (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 487.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti laid down the guiding tools for the construction of contracts and deeds.

PC Act | Preliminary Enquiry Can Be Dispensed With If FIR Is Based On Detailed Source Report Submitted To SP: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 412

The Supreme Court reiterated that a preliminary inquiry is not a mandatory prerequisite under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) for initiating a corruption case against a public servant.

It added that a case against the public servant cannot be quashed solely on the ground that no preliminary inquiry had been conducted before the registration of the FIR.

“To sum up, this Court has held that in matters of corruption a preliminary enquiry although desirable, but is not mandatory. In a case where a superior officer, based on a detailed source report disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, passes an order for registration of FIR, the requirement of preliminary enquiry can be relaxed.”, the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the State of Karnataka's appeal challenging the High Court's decision to quash the corruption case against the Respondent-accused. The High Court quashed the case solely because no preliminary enquiry was ordered by the Superintendent of Police before FIR registration against the public servant.

Supreme Court Asks Petitioners Challenging Hindu Religious Endowments Acts Of TN, AP & Telangana To Approach HCs

Case Details: Sh. Dayanand Saraswati Swamiji (Dead) and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. and connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 413

The Supreme Court disposed of petitions challenging the validity of the laws relating to Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments of the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana by asking the petitioners to approach the respective High Courts.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the High Courts would be in a better position to understand the dimensions of the State laws.

"We find that a more effective manner of ventilating the grievances by the petitioners herein is to assail the provisions of the respective Acts before the respective jurisdictional High Courts so as to enable the High Courts to better appreciate the dimensions of challenge of the provisions of the respective Acts," observed the bench reserving the right of the petitioners to approach the High Courts.

Accused Who's Absconding Or Obstructing Warrant Executions Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court

Case Details: Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13956

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 414

The Supreme Court held that an accused person, who is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is absconding from trial proceedings, is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail.

"When after the investigation, a chargesheet is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or warrant is issued to the accused, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious economic offences or heinous offences," the Court observed.

Holding so, the Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Aditya Sarda and others, who went absconding after a Special Court had initially issued a bailable warrant and, subsequently issued non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings against them for having committed various alleged offences under the Companies Act, including Section 447 and under the Indian Penal Code.

The Supreme Court held that bail, including anticipatory bail, cannot be granted for an offence under Section 447 (punishment for fraud) of the Companies Act 2013 unless twin conditions are satisfied.

Section 212(6) (investigation into affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office) of the Companies Act states that the offences covered under Section 447 are cognisable in nature and no person can be released on bail unless he satisfies the twin conditions, that are: (1)that a Public Prosecutor should be given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; (2)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment On Admission Can Be Passed Even Dehors Pleadings: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 415

The Supreme Court clarified the legal position under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), holding that a 'judgment on admission' may be delivered at any stage of the suit, relying on oral or written admissions even those made outside the pleadings and without the need for a separate application to invoke the provision.

Order XII Rule 6(1) CPC empowers the court to pronounce a judgment upon admissions made by parties without waiting for the determination of other questions, and Rule 6(2) states that a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment.

It is worthwhile to mention that Rule 6, as originally enacted i.e., before 1976 Amendment Act, it used the words “or otherwise” without using the words “in writing” showing that a judgment could be given upon oral or verbal admission but cannot be given based on admissions made in writing.

The Amendment Act of 1976, however, made the position clear stating that such admissions may be “in the pleading or otherwise” and “whether orally or in writing”. Thus, after the amendment in Rule 6, the admissions are not confined to Rule 1 or Rule 4 of Order 6, but are of general application. Such admissions may be express or implied (constructive); may be in writing or oral; or may be before the institution of the suit, after the suit is brought or during the pendency of proceedings, the Court explained.

Suit Can Be Dismissed As Time-Barred Even If No Specific Issue Regarding Limitation Was Framed: Supreme Court

Case Details: R. Nagaraj (Dead) Through Lrs. and Anr. v. Rajmani and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 416

The Supreme Court observed that a Court can dismiss a suit as time-barred, even if no specific issue regarding limitation was framed.

This is because of the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, as per which a Court must dismiss any suit, appeal, or application that is time-barred, even if the defendant has not specifically raised the issue in the pleadings.

“The object of framing an issue is to determine the material point of disputes between the parties, for the purpose of adjudication. Issues can be framed on a question of law or fact or a mixed question of law and fact. The decision on the issue settles the lis in favour of either of the parties. A distinct issue is to be formed when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by another. Also, there is no necessity to frame an issue, when the parties are not at dispute on a particular fact or law. At times, despite pleadings, when a specific issue is not framed, but when both the parties to the lis have let in evidence and rendered their arguments on a point, the decision on which is intrinsically connected to the main issue, then the Court is bound to render a finding on the point of dispute before deciding the connected issue, one way or another. In that case, it becomes the duty of the Court to analyze the evidence before it and render a decision on all disputed questions of fact or law, directly or indirectly in issue, so as to put an end to the lis. The Limitation Act,1963 restricts the right of a litigant by prescribing a time limit within which action must be initiated. Its object is to provide a time or period, within which, the action has to be initiated. The object of the Act is not to destroy a vested right available in law but to prevent indefinite litigation and therefore, only prescribes a period for initiation of the litigation.”, the court observed.

High Courts Shouldn't Order CBI Investigation In A Routine Manner Or On Basis Of Vague Allegations: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417

The Supreme Court reiterated that mere bald allegations against the incompetence of the local police to investigate the case without any kind of substantiation would not justify the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”).

Relying on the constitution bench decision of State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision which had transferred the investigation from local police to CBI based on bald allegations of the complainant that the local police was incompetent to investigate the case.

Senior Citizens Act | Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order Passed Against Son & Daughter-in-Law From Elderly Man's Property

Case Details: Rajeswar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors., SLP(C) No. 7675/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Confirming the order of eviction passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against a son and daughter-in-law, the Supreme Court held in favour of a 75-yr old man whose self-acquired property was encroached upon by the couple.

"It shall be a defeat of the purpose of the Act if Appellant is not granted the benefit of eviction against his son and daughter-in-law who have not only encroached his self-acquired property but also threatened him of false criminal complaints, abusing and creating hurdles in running of the Rest House and thereby causing mental and physical harassments to old parents", observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

Supreme Court Sets Aside TN Governor's Reservation Of 10 Bills For President; Says Governor Acted Without Bona Fides

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 419

The Supreme Court held that the action of the Tamil Nadu Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for 10 bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020, and reserving them to the President after they were re-enacted by the State Legislature is "illegal and erroneous" in law and liable to be set aside.

Any consequential steps which might have been taken by the President on the said ten bills were also declared non-est in law.

The Court declared that the ten Bills would be deemed to have received the assent of the Governor when they were presented in the second round after they were passed again by the State Assembly.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor did not act with bona fides, as the bills were sent to the President, after the Governor himself sat over them over a long time, and were reserved for the President soon after the Supreme Court's judgment in the Punjab Governor's case, which held that the Governors cannot veto the bills by sitting over them.

Also from the judgment –

Governors Must Not Create Roadblocks For Elected Governments, Must Respect People's Will: Supreme Court

"Pocket Veto Impermissible": Supreme Court Lays Down Timelines For Governor's Actions On Bills Under Article 200

Governor Can't Reserve Bill For President's Assent After It Was Re-Enacted By Assembly: Supreme Court

President Must Decide On Bills Reserved By Governor Within 3 Months: Supreme Court

Governors Must Act As Per Advice Of State Govt On Assent For Bills: Supreme Court

President Ought To Seek Supreme Court's Opinion When Governor Reserves Bill On Ground Of Unconstitutionality: SC

Rule Of Law Has Responsibility To Protect Investment Of Foreign Investor: Supreme Court

Case Details: Hyeoksoo Son Authorized Representative For Daechang Seat Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Moon June Seok & Anr., SLP(Crl.) No.6917 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 420

While reviving criminal proceedings against a person accused of defrauding subsidiary of a foreign company, the Supreme Court remarked that rule of law has a responsibility to protect investments of foreign investors.

"The rule of law has a responsibility to protect the investments of foreign investors, while at the same time ensuring that any person accused of mishandling such funds is really and fully protected by the power of the phrase 'innocent till proven guilty'...", said a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

The Court was dealing with the case of one Moon June Seok (respondent), who allegedly committed fraud while in the employment of Daechang Seat Automotive Ltd. (the Company), i.e. a subsidiary of a South Korean company.

'Shocks Our Conscience': Supreme Court Asks UP Authority To Pay Rs 60 Lakh Compensation For Illegal Demolition Of Houses

Case Details: Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 421

The Supreme Court directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay Rs. 10 lakh each in compensation to six individuals whose houses were illegally demolished, calling the action “inhumane and illegal.”

“The authorities and especially the development authority must remember that the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India…Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants.”

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the demolition was carried out in violation of due process and the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Holds Chandigarh Authorities Liable For Delay In Film City Project, Directs Refund Of 47.75 Crores To Successful Bidder

Case Details: M/S. Parsvnath Film City Ltd. v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6162 of 2016 (and connected case)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 422

The Supreme Court largely upheld an arbitral award passed in favor of a company engaged by the Chandigarh Administration to establish a Multimedia-cum-Film City in the Union Territory, holding the authorities liable to refund a forfeited bid amount of Rs.47.75 crores.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict, being of the view that the Punjab and Haryana High Court wrongly set aside the arbitral award.

It opined that though time was of the essence to the project sought to be developed, there was a clear and unreasonable delay (of over 16 months) attributable to the authorities in handing over encumbrance-free land to the appellant-Company.

Dealers Cannot Claim Input Tax Credit For Purchases Linked To Exempt Sales Under UPVAT Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Neha Enterprises v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Emphasizing that tax statutes must be strictly construed with statutory language taking precedence over policy intent, the Supreme Court, in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (“VAT Act”), held that a dealer is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) on the purchase of goods where the subsequent sale of those goods is exempt from tax.

“Section 13(7) outlines the circumstances under which such a benefit cannot be allowed. Section 13(7) also sets out that no facility for input tax credit shall be allowed to a dealer with respect to the purchase of any goods where the sale of such goods by the dealer is exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the Act.”, the Court observed.

The bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti heard the case where the Appellant had sold raw materials worth ₹1.89 crore to a manufacturer-exporter during the 2010-11 assessment year. These sales were exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the UPVAT Act, facilitated by notifications dated February 24 and March 25, 2010, which aimed to boost exports by exempting direct sales to exporters. However, the dealer sought to claim an ITC of ₹6.42 lakh for taxes paid on purchases linked to these exempt sales.

Supreme Court Questions UP Govt For Not Challenging Bail Granted In Child Trafficking Cases, Criticises Allahabad HC's Casual Approach

Case Details: Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. | Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 424

While cancelling the bail granted to thirteen accused persons in several cases involving inter-State trafficking of minors, the Supreme Court criticised and expressed its disappointment with how the State of Uttar Pradesh did not challenge the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court despite the matter involving crimes of a serious nature.

We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the State handled the situation. Why did the State not do anything for all this period of time? Why did the State not deem fit to challenge the orders of bail passed by the High Court? The State unfortunately has exhibited no seriousness worth the name.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan also called out the Allahabad High Court for being “callous” in exercising discretion while granting them bail, after which the accused persons absconded and did not attend the court proceedings.

The Court also issued general directions to all States and High Courts regarding the expedition of trial in child trafficking cases. The Court directed all High Courts to call for necessary information on the status of pending trials relating to child trafficking and subsequently issue a circular for the completion of trial within 6 months and submit a report to the Court.

In a stern directive aimed at curbing the trafficking of newborns, the Supreme Court ruled that hospitals must face immediate licence suspension if found complicit in such heinous acts. The Court emphasized that any instance of newborn trafficking from a hospital must trigger not only penal consequences but also regulatory action, including the suspension of the hospital's operational licence.

Reservation Notified In Advertisement Cannot Be Cancelled By Subsequent Roster Change: Supreme Court

Case Details: Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Reiterating that the 'rules of the game' cannot be changed midway, the Supreme Court allowed the plea of a woman whose selection to the post of f Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), being reserved for SC Sports (Women), was changed under a roster which came in to effect after releasing of the recruitment advertisement.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Appellant-candidate had applied for the post of DSP based on the original advertisement dated 11.12.2020 which reserved one DSP post for "SC Sports (Women)”.

Supreme Court Lays Down Twin Test To Resolve Copyright–Design Conflict Under S15(2) Of Copyright Act

Case Details: Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426

The Supreme Court (April 15) resolved an ambiguity under the intellectual property (IP) law, by resolving the overlap between 'design' and 'copyright' protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.

Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act specifically deals with designs capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, and the limit of copyright protection in such cases. The copyright protection to such design ceases if the design remains unregistered and is industrially reproduced more than 50 times.

The Court noted that an 'artistic work' does not automatically lose copyright protection simply because a design based on it has been used in industrial production. It stated that under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, copyright protection for such an artistic work would cease if the resulting design is capable of registration under the Designs Act, remains unregistered, and is applied industrially more than 50 times.

'Let Us Make Friends With Urdu & Every Language': Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Urdu Signboard In Maharashtra Municipality

Case Details: Mrs. Varshatai W/O. Sh. Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Etc. | Diary No. 24812 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 427

In a significant judgment advocating respect for the linguistic diversity of the country, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the use of Urdu in the signboard of a Municipality in Maharashtra.

The Court dismissed a petition challenging the Bombay High Court's judgment which allowed the use of Urdu on the signboard of the new building of the Municipal Council, Patur in district Akola, Maharashtra.

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that the display of an additional language was not a violation of the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 and that there was no prohibition in the said Act on the use of Urdu.

The Court held that the purpose of the use of Urdu is merely "effective communication" and diversity in language must be respected.

The judgment authored by Justice Dhulia contains many notable observations on the need to cherish the diversity in our languages. Language must not become a cause for division amongst people, the judgment appealed.

Art. 58 Limitation Act | Limitation Period Begins When Cause Of Action First Arises, Not On Full Knowledge Of Dispute: Supreme Court

Case Details: Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 428

The Supreme Court observed that the limitation period starts from the date when the cause of action first accrued to the plaintiff, and not when he acquired 'full knowledge' about the same.

It is a settled law that time-barred suits must be dismissed even if the limitation is not pleaded as a defence. An argument was made that the limitation period begins not from the date the first cause of action arises but from the date he acquired complete knowledge of the dispute.

Rejecting such an argument, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti clarified that limitation begins when the plaintiff first becomes aware of the grievance, not when they fully investigate it.

“It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge”. First of all, the limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued and not any subsequent date for the cause of action. According to the plaintiff himself, the cause of action for the suit had arisen much earlier. Secondly, the plaintiff has not pleaded any date on which he acquired complete knowledge and that such argument is only an afterthought and appears to be a simple creation of the first appellate Court.”

The Supreme Court observed that when the primary relief in the suit becomes time-barred then the ancillary relief claimed therein also becomes unenforceable.

Courts & SROs Must Report To Income Tax Authorities If Suits/Deeds Mention Cash Transactions Above ₹2 Lakh: Supreme Court

Case Details: Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 429

In a significant ruling aimed at combating black money and tax evasion, the Supreme Court (April 16) directed courts and registration authorities to report cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakhs to the Income Tax Department.

The Court ruled that whenever any suit is filed claiming that a consideration of Rs. 2 Lacs or above is paid towards a transaction, then it becomes obligatory upon the Court to intimate the jurisdictional Income Tax Department for verification whether there's a violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).

Further, the Court directed the Registering authorities that if any document is presented for registration (like a sale agreement) mentions a cash payment of Rs. 2,00,000 or more, the Sub-Registrar must inform the Income Tax Department to prevent unreported cash transactions in real estate deals.

Also, the Court held that failure of officials to report such transactions will lead to disciplinary action by the Chief Secretary of the State/UT.

The Supreme Court held that a proposed purchaser under an agreement to sell cannot file a suit for a permanent injunction seeking the protection of the vendor's interest in the property against a third party with whom there exists no privity of contract.

The Court clarified that only the vendor has the right to seek protection of their interest in the property, as an agreement to sell does not confer any proprietary rights on the proposed purchaser. Since no legal interest in the property is transferred through such an agreement, the purchaser lacks the locus to initiate action to protect the property.

Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Police To Vacate Bombay Flats Held Since 1940s; Criticises HC For Rejecting Owners' Writ Petition

Case Details: Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 430

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had refused to entertain a writ petition seeking the recovery of possession of flats unlawfully occupied by the Maharashtra Police Department since 1940, a period spanning 84 years, without rent payment and in violation of property rights, solely on the ground that an alternative remedy in the form of a civil suit was available.

The Court termed the High Court's approach to be erroneous forcing the litigant to knock on the doors of the civil court to file a civil suit after 84 years of illegal occupation by the Respondent/Police Department. Instead, the Court noted that the High Court would have been justified to exercise its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct dispossession of the Respondents without asking the Appellants to institute a suit.

Writ Petition Under Article 32 Cannot Be Used To Challenge Our Own Judgments : Supreme Court

Case Details: Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 431

The Supreme Court (April 16) ruled that Article 32 of the Constitution, being a remedial provision for the enforcement of fundamental rights, cannot be invoked as a means to challenge the Court's own judgment.

The Court noted that allowing writ petitions under Article 32 to challenge final judgments would undermine judicial hierarchy and lead to endless litigation, undermining the principle of res judicata.

A litigant who is aggrieved by a decision rendered by this Court in a special leave petition or in a civil appeal arising therefrom can seek its review by invoking the review jurisdiction and thereafter through a curative petition. But such a decision cannot be assailed in a writ proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice, the Court said.

“Thus, law is well settled that a decision rendered by this Court, be it at the stage of special leave petition or post grant of leave while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32. Remedy of an aggrieved litigant is to file for review. If the grievance persists even thereafter, he may invoke the curative jurisdiction subject to compliance of the requirements of such jurisdiction. But certainly it is not open for him to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the same relief.”, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan added.

State Rules Can't Be Inconsistent With Central Rules Under CST Act: Supreme Court Rejects Rajasthan's Appeal

Case Details: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Combined Traders

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 432

The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision striking down Rule 17(20) of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 (Rajasthan CST Rules) as ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, noting that the State Government cannot exceed its delegated powers by authorizing cancellation of Form C, which the Central Rules do not permit.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the State of Rajasthan's appeal, which challenged the High Court's decision of declaring Rule 17(2) as ultra vires due to inconsistency between the Central and State Laws. The reason being that the Rajasthan CST Rules allowed the cancellation of Form C if obtained fraudulently, however, the Central Rules (Registration and Turnover Rules, 1957) prescribe Form C but do not provide for its cancellation.

The Court observed that if the Central Rules do not provide for the cancellation of Form C, a State cannot exceed its delegated authority by framing rules allowing such cancellation, even in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or legal contravention. The Court clarified that the State can frame Rules, but it should not be in derogation of the Central Rules.

'Peaceful Protests By Consumers Not Defamation': Supreme Court Quashes Builder's Criminal Complaint Against Homebuyers

Case Details: Shahed Kamal & Ors. v. M/S. A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 433

Noting that peaceful protest and consumer grievance expression are protected free speech, the Supreme Court (April 17) quashed criminal defamation proceedings against homebuyers for displaying a non-abusive banner outside the developer's building complaining about its work quality.

The Court said that peaceful protests by consumers, ventilating their grievances against service providers in temperate language, cannot be criminalised.

"A right to protest peacefully without falling foul of the law is a corresponding right, which the consumers ought to possess just as the seller enjoys his right to commercial speech. Any attempt to portray them as criminal offences, when the necessary ingredients are not made out, would be a clear abuse of process and should be nipped in the bud," observed the bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh.

“At the very outset, what strikes us is that there is no foul or intemperate language employed against the respondent(developer)…There is no reference to any expression like fraud, cheating, misappropriation, etc. In mild and temperate language, certain issues which the appellant perceived as their grievances have been aired.”, the bench noted.

“We find that the manner of protest resorted to by the appellant was peaceful and orderly and without any manner of using offensive or abusive language.”, the Court added.

Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS: Supreme Court

Case Details: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434

The Supreme Court (April 17) held that the power under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot be invoked to delete charges already framed against an accused, as it can only be used to add or alter the existing charges.

The analogous provision to Section 216 CrPC in the BNSS is Section 239.

“We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 228 CrPC, the accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers under Sections 227 or 216 CrPC. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 CrPC provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed.”, the Court observed.

The Court approved the Allahabad High Court's decision Dev Narain v. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3216, where it was held that a power to delete charges is not conferred on the Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court observed that when a previous judgment is overruled by a subsequent one, the later judgment operates retrospectively, as it clarifies the correct legal position that may have been misunderstood due to the earlier ruling.

Further, the Court clarified that the later judgment could be a prospectively overruling judgment if it is expressly mentioned in the judgment otherwise, the judgment would operate retrospectively.

The Supreme Court observed that activities involving a psychotropic substance listed in the NDPS Act's Schedule, but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, constitute an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.

Income Tax Commissioners Must Not Routinely Remand Matters Just Because Assessing Officer Could Not Find Additions: Supreme Court

Case Details: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Chandigarh v. V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 435

The Supreme Court advised that the Commissioners of Income Tax should not randomly remand matters in exercise of their revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely by saying that the Assessing Officer was required to do more inquiries.

The Court said that to remand matters on the ground of inadequate inquiry by the AO, the Commissioner must record “abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and prejudice caused to revenue” is necessary.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Chandigarh against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which upheld the ITAT's decision quashing the remand order.

The Court observed that if the Assessing Officer could not find additions to income, then it can be taken that the assessee's stand was correct.

Res Judicata Principle Applies In Criminal Proceedings; Findings In One Case Bind Parties In Subsequent Case: Supreme Court

Case Details: S.C. Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 436

The Supreme Court explained that the principle of res judicata is applicable to criminal proceedings, and hence, the findings of fact recorded by a criminal court would be binding on both parties in any subsequent proceedings involving the same issue.

Supreme Court Judges Differ On Action Against AoR & Advocate For Misconduct In Filing Petition

Case Details: N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police | Diary No. 55057-2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC 437

The Supreme Court (April 17) delivered a split verdict on the disciplinary action to be taken against an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) and his assisting Advocate for filing a petition that involved serious suppression of facts.

Although the lawyers tendered an unconditional apology, the judges were divided on whether they should be let off without further consequences.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma agreed that the Advocates failed to discharge their duties and did not uphold the honour and dignity of the institution (Supreme Court). However, the judges disagreed on the further course of action to be taken.

While Justice Trivedi's judgment sought to suspend the AoR's name from the Register of AoRs for a period of 1 month, and directed that the Advocate who assisted him deposit Rs.1 lakh with SCAORA to be used for welfare of advocates, Justice Sharma differed.

Keeping in view the fervent pleas of members of the Supreme Court Bar (to forgive the AoR and the assisting Advocate), the concerned Advocates' background, as well as the unconditional apology affidavits placed on record by them expressing remorse and undertaking that the misconduct would not be repeated in future, Justice Sharma opined that the punishment would be too harsh. Accepting the apologies, the judge warned the Advocates to not repeat their conduct in future.

Supreme Court Imposes Costs On UP Police For Filing FIR Over Civil Dispute

Case Details: Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 008592 - / 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 438

The Supreme Court on April 16 imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the State of Uttar Pradesh for the police action of converting a civil dispute into a criminal case.

The Court said that the State can recover the cost from the errant cops. "It will be open to the State of Uttar Pradesh to conduct internal enquiries and collect this amount from the delinquent and responsible officers."

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under sections 420, 406, 354, 504, 506 IPC. It was the case of the complainant that the petitioners allegedly cheated him of Rs.19 Lakhs over the false promise to execute a sale deed of certain house property.

The Supreme Court expressed grave concern over the police allowing civil disputes to be wrongly converted into criminal proceedings.

The Court also stressed that a breach of contract could attract the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust only when there is an element of dishonest intention from the very beginning of the contractual agreement.

The Court noted that it was noticing this trend in several cases coming from the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Arbitral Tribunal Can Proceed Against Party Though They Weren't Served With S.21 Notice Or Made Party In S.11 Application: Supreme Court

Case Details: Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5297 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 439

The Supreme Court observed that not being served with the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and not being made a party in the Section 11 application (for appointment of arbitrator), are not sufficient grounds to hold that a person cannot be made party to arbitral proceedings.

"A notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the ACA is mandatory...and it is a prerequisite to filing an application under Section 11. However, merely because such a notice was not issued to certain persons who are parties to the arbitration agreement does not denude the arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead them as parties during the arbitral proceedings.

...merely because a court does not refer a certain party to arbitration in its order does not denude the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal from impleading them during the arbitral proceedings as the referral court's view does not finally determine this issue. The relevant consideration to determine whether a person can be made a party before the arbitral tribunal is if such a person is a party to the arbitration agreement", said a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra.

'Few Taunts Here & There Part Of Everybody Life': Supreme Court Quashes S.498A IPC Case Against In-Laws

Case Details: Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., SLP(Crl.) No.9167/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 440

While quashing a case under Section 498A IPC against a father-in-law and a mother-in-law, the Supreme Court observed that High Courts, while dealing with prayers of relatives of husband under Section 482 CrPC, must examine possibility of malafides behind the complaint.

"in matters arising from matrimonial disputes, particularly where the allegations are levelled after many years of marriage and, that too, after one party initiates divorce proceeding against the other, the Court must be circumspect in taking the allegations at their face value. Rather, it must examine, where allegations of mala fides are there, whether those allegations have been levelled with an oblique purpose. More so, while considering the prayer of the relatives of the husband", said a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan.

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

Case Details: R. Baiju v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 441

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 442

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 443

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 444

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 445

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 446

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 447

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 448

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 449

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 450

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

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

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

Case Details: CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 451

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 452

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 453

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 454

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 455

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 456

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 457

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 458

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 459

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

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

Case Details: Kanchhu v. Prakash Chand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 460

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 461

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 462

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 463

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 464

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 465

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 466

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 467

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

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

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

Prospective Accused Cannot Challenge Order For CBI Investigation: Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 468

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 469

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC0 470

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 471

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 472

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 473

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 474

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 475

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 476

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

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

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

Case Details: Bijender Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 477

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 478

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 479

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 480

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 481

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 482

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 483

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 484

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 485

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

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

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

Case Details: Anil Tuteja v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 486

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 487

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 488

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 489

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

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Rajat Gaera v. Tarun Rawat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 490

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 491

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

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

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

Economic Offences Stand On Different Footing, High Courts Should Be Cautious While Quashing Such FIRs At Early Stage: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dinesh Sharma v. Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 492

The Supreme Court refused to quash an FIR against a company's director for their alleged involvement in the economic offences, noting that the High Court erred in quashing the case despite being apprised with a factum aspect that the directors of the company, established certain dummy/shell companies and the monetary transaction were circulated to these shell/dummy companies.

The bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale was hearing the case in which the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent's director arising out of economic offences just because there had been long-standing business dealings between the appellant and respondent company and the dispute seemed purely civil (non-payment of dues).

'Honour Killing Ugly Reality Of Caste Structure, Must Get Strong Punishment': Supreme Court Upholds Convictions In Kannagi-Murugesan Case

Case Details: KP Tamilmaran v. State SLP(Crl) No. 1522/2023 and connected cases.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 493

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 28) confirmed the convictions in the 'Kannagi-Murugesan' honour killing case from Tamil Nadu.

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice PK Mishra dismissed the appeals filed by nine convicts challenging the Madras High Court's 2022 judgment, which upheld their life sentence. The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by two policemen for fabricating evidence. The Supreme Court held that just because a witness has supported some, though not all, aspects of a case, it would not automatically mean that the witness has to be declared as 'hostile'.

The Supreme Court stated that a "Court Witness" - a person summoned by the Court as a witness invoking its powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act - cannot be cross-examined by the prosecution using the witness's previous statements made to the police.

When Joint Hindu Family Property Is Partitioned, Shares Of Parties Become Their Self-Acquired Properties: Supreme Court

Case Details: Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 494

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that following the partition of a joint family property, the individual shares allotted to each co-parcener become their self-acquired property.

"After the joint family property has been distributed in accordance with law, it ceases to be joint family properties and the shares of the respective parties become their self-acquired properties," the Court stated.

Holding thus, the Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had invalidated the sale made by a co-parcener of his share in the ancestral property after the partition of the ancestral property.

'Sharia Court', 'Court Of Kazi' Etc Have No Legal Recognition; Their Directions Not Binding: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 495

The Supreme Court reiterated that a 'Court of Kazi', 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat','Sharia Court' etc., by whatever name styled, have no recognition in law and any direction given by them is not enforceable in law.

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah referred to the 2014 judgment in Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India, which held that Shariat Courts and fatwas do not have legal sanction.

The bench was deciding an appeal by a woman challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court upholding the Family Court's decision not to award her any maintenance on the ground that she was the cause for the dispute. The Family Court had relied upon a compromise deed filed before a Court of Kazi to make such findings.

Commercial Courts Act | Limitation Period Starts From Pronouncement Of Judgment & Not Receipt Of Copy: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 496

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, commences from the date of pronouncement of the judgment and that a party cannot insist that the limitation starts only from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment.

The Court clarified that while Order XX Rule 1 of the CPC places a duty on the court to provide a copy of the judgment to the litigant, the litigant is nonetheless expected to make reasonable efforts to apply for it.

The Court further held that a litigant cannot contend that the limitation period begins only upon receiving a copy of the judgment unless it is demonstrated that they made their best efforts to obtain the judgment copy in order to challenge it within the prescribed time.

In other words, procedural rules must be interpreted in accordance with legislative intent. Although Order XX Rule 1 CPC is designed to facilitate access to judgments, it does not displace the principle of diligence embedded in limitation law.

Consequently, the limitation period is to be computed from the date of pronouncement of the judgment, not from the date of receipt of its copy.

'Lack Of Motive May Support Insanity Plea': Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Of Mother Who Killed 2 Daughters Under 'Invisible Influence'

Case Details: Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh|(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13119 of 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 497

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a woman, who was convicted for killing her daughters, aged 3 and 5 years, by altering the conviction under Section 302(murder) of the Indian Penal Code to a lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC).

The appellant, who was sentenced to life, said that she committed the murders under an "invisible influence."

Since the woman had also undergone 9 years and 10 months in custody, the Court held that she was entitled to be released since Part II of Section 304 provides for a maximum punishment of 10 years

The Court held that since there was no plausible explanation for her conditions, given the circumstances, it would be inferred that the Appellant was under a certain impaired mental condition.

'Insensitive': Supreme Court Criticises Kerala HC For Quashing POCSO Case Against Teacher Accused Of Sexually Harassing Students

Case Details: X v. Rajesh Kumar and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 12563-12566/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Deprecating the Kerala High Court for adopting an "insensitive" approach and quashing the FIR, the Supreme Court restored criminal proceedings against a computer teacher of a government-aided school who was accused of sexually harassing students (mostly female).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh set aside the High Court order, while dealing with the plea of four victim-students, disappointed that the Court conducted a sort of mini-trial and pre-judged the issues.

Supreme Court Refuses To Quash FIRs Against TN Thowheed Jamath Members Over Objectionable Speech; Allows Clubbing Of Cases

Case Details: Rahamathulla v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 132 of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 499

The Supreme Court refused to quash the FIRs filed against two members of the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath over allegations of making objectionable statements and threatening judges following the Karnataka High Court's verdict in the hijab case.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed :

"At the outset, we must note that the language used by the petitioners in their speeches is highly objectionable and definitely discloses the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. Hence, there is no scope for the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the impugned FIRs."

However, the Court allowed the clubbing of the multiple FIRs filed against them at Bengaluru and Thanjavur to Madurai.

Central Excise Tariff Act | Test Reports Justifying Reclassification Must Be Disclosed to Manufacturer: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – II

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 500

The Supreme Court ruled that when a test report forms the basis for reclassification of the petrochemical products, necessitating a higher duty, than the copy of such test reports ought to be furnished to the manufacturer-taxpayer.

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the ₹2.15 crore central excise duty demand against M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd., holding that the revenue authorities had violated principles of natural justice by failing to share key evidence—such as the test report used to justify the reclassification of the petrochemicals, which led to the higher duty.

The disputes arose from the reclassification of two products, i.e., Benzene and Toluene, under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, leading to demands for differential excise duty.

S.34 Arbitration Act | Respect Arbitral Autonomy; Judicial Interference Should Be Minimal: Supreme Court

Case Details: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. Software Technology Parks Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 501

The Supreme Court reiterated that the courts cannot go beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) while deciding an application for setting aside of an award.

"the role of the court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is clearly demarcated. It is a restrictive jurisdiction and has to be invoked in a conservative manner. The reason is that arbitral autonomy must be respected and judicial interference should remain minimal otherwise it will defeat the very object of the 1996 Act.”, the court added.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the Madras High Court Division Bench's ruling, which had overturned the Single Judge's interference with the tribunal's decision based on a re-evaluation of the evidence.

Order XI Rule 14 CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Direct Production Of Document In Appeal Against Rejection Of Plaint: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sri Shrikanth NS & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 502

The Supreme Court clarified that the power to direct document production under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC is confined to the pendency of a suit and cannot be invoked after its dismissal. Therefore, if a suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11, no additional evidence can be introduced in the appeal concerning the merits of the case.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case stemming from the Karnataka High Court's decision, which upheld the First Appellate Court's directive to produce the mutation deed in regular appeal after the rejection of the suit.

The Court held that once a suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against such rejection, is not required to assess the merits of the case or order the production of evidence that was not part of the original trial proceedings. The Court clarified that the Appellate Court's role is limited to reviewing the correctness of the rejection order and should not extend beyond that scope.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 | Fixing Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based On Value Of Consideration Is Constitutional: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rutu Mihir Panchal and others v. Union of India and others, WP(C) 282/2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 503

The Supreme Court (April 29) upheld the constitutionality of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the district, state and national commissions on the basis of value of goods and services paid as consideration, instead of compensation claimed. The Court dismissed the constitutional challenge to Section 34, 47 and 58 of the 2019 Act and declared that the said provisions are constitutional and areneither violative of Article 14 nor manifestly arbitrary.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that "vesting jurisdiction in the district, state or national commission on the basis of value of goods or services paid as 'consideration' is neither illegal nor discriminatory." The judgment authored by Justice Narasimha held that the "value of consideration is and can be a valid basis for classifying claims for determining pecuniary jurisdiction."

In Cases Of Cross-FIRs, Unfair To Quash One FIR While Probing The Other; Both Be Investigated Together: Supreme Court

Case Details: Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 504

The Supreme Court (April 29) ruled that in cases involving cross-FIRs, it would be imprudent to quash one FIR and investigate another FIR. Instead, the investigative agency must examine both the FIRs, as truth-seeking requires examining both sides of the dispute comprehensively.

“this Court is of the opinion that in cases involving cross-FIRs, it would be prudent and fair if the investigation was carried out in a comprehensive manner. After all, the object of the investigation is the discovery of truth.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan was hearing the matter where the cross-FIRs were registered (two separate FIRs filed by opposing parties alleging criminal wrongdoing by the other). The Appellant was aggrieved by the Delhi High Court's decision to quash his FIR against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the mere institution of civil proceedings does not automatically justify the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR).

The Supreme Court clarified that a delay in registration of an FIR for offences punishable for more than three years is not a ground to quash the FIR if the same discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

S. 8 IBC | Service Of Demand Notice On Corporate Debtor's Key Managerial Personnel Is Valid To Trigger Insolvency Process: Supreme Court

Case Details: Visa Coke Limited v. M/S Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 505

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 29) upheld the delivery of a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to the corporate debtor's Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), stating that the delivery of the notice to the KMP substantially complies with the requirement of Section 8 of IBC.

Setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruling, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan allowed the Operational Creditor's appeal, stating that delivery of the demand notice to the corporate debtor's KMP constitutes deemed service of the notice.

The judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan observed that, since the Respondent-Corporate Debtor failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the notice being served on its Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), the Court held that a substantive right should not be defeated on a mere technicality. Accordingly, it treated the delivery of the notice as valid and constituted deemed service of the demand notice.

CCS Pension Rules | Contractual Service Must Count Towards Pension Once Employee Is Regularised: Supreme Court

Case Details: S.D. Jayaprakash and Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 506

The Supreme Court observed that a contract job period should be counted for pensionary benefits, once the government employee is regularized. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi ruled in favour of government employees who were initially appointed on a contractual basis and later regularized, holding that they are entitled to pensionary benefits for their entire service period.

The Court rejected the denial of benefits based on Rule 2(g) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“Pension Rules”), which excludes contractual employees, stating that once regularized, the entire service period must be counted for pension purposes.

'Right To Digital Access Part Of Article 21': Supreme Court Directs To Make eKYC Process Accessible To Persons With Disabilities

Case Details: Amar Jain v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 49/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 507

The Supreme Court directed to revise the digital Know-Your-Customer (KYC) norms to enable persons with facial disfiguration due to acid attacks or visual impairment to access banking and e-governance services.

In the judgment, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan also emphasised the obligation of the State to design an inclusive digital ecosystem which is accessible to all, including the marginalised and vulnerable persons. Since many welfare schemes and government services are provided through online platforms, the Court said that bridging the digital divide has become a necessity to ensure a dignified life.

In this context, the Court traced the right to access digital services to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed that all government portals, learning platforms, financial technology servies must be "universally accessible" to all vulnerable and marginalised sections.

Courts Have Limited Power To Modify Arbitral Awards In Certain Circumstances Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited | SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Answering a reference, a Constitution Bench (by 4:1) of the Supreme Court held that Appellate Courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under either Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The majority judgment by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna held that the Courts have a limited power under Section 34/37 to modify arbitral awards. This limited power can be exercised in the following circumstances:

1. When the award is severable by separating the invalid portion from the valid portion of the award.

2. To correct any clerical, computation or typographical errors which appear erroneous on the face of the record.

3. To modify post-award interest in some circumstances.

4. The special powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be applied to modify awards. But this power must be exercised with great caution within the limits of the Constitution.

Justice KV Viswanathan delivered a dissenting opinion on certain aspects. He held that Section 34 Court cannot modify the award unless expressly authorised by the law, since it is tantamount to exercising a merits review. Courts exercising Section 34 power cannot change, vary or modify arbitral awards as it strikes at the core and the root of the ethos of the arbitration exercise.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can't Be Rejected As Time Barred When Limitation Is Mixed Question Of Law & Facts: Supreme Court

Case Details: P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 509

The Supreme Court held that when the question of limitation involves disputed facts, such issues cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court reasoned that when the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, it cannot be decided summarily without allowing the parties to lead evidence on the arising of the cause of action.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan set aside the Madras High Court's decision, noting that it had wrongly interfered with the trial court's well-reasoned order dismissing an application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The Respondent/defendant had sought rejection of the suit, which contained disputed facts about the date of knowledge giving rise to the cause of action.

Courts Can Deviate From Schedule Of Employees Compensation Act To Determine Functional Disability: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kamal Dev Prasad v. Mahesh Forge | Special Leave Petition (C) NO.4974 OF 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 510

The Supreme Court held that in computing the compensation for functional disability, Courts don't need to confine themselves to the schedule under the Employees' Compensation Act 1923.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal against the order of the Bombay High Court, which reduced the disability percentage of 100% to 34% for calculating the compensation of an employee who lost four fingers of his right hand.

Orders

Supreme Court Dismisses Tushar Gandhi's Plea Against Gujarat Govt's Sabarmati Ashram Redevelopment Project

Case Details: Tushar Arun Gandhi v. State of Gujarat | Diary No. - 12965/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Tushar Gandhi, great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, challenging the Gujarat government's decision to revamp/redevelop the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad at the estimated cost of ₹1,200-crore.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Gandhi against the September 2022 decision of the Gujarat High Court which dismissed his challenge. The bench cited the long delay of nearly 2.5 years in filing the petition to dismiss it.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Another Petition Challenging Places Of Worship Act; Allows Petitioner To Intervene In Pending Proceedings

Case Details: Nitin Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 202/2025

The Supreme Court (April 1) refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the validity of S.4(2) of the Places of Worship Act 1991 which provides any legal proceedings on the religious character of a place of worship initiated before August 15, 1947 shall be terminated on the commencement of the Act.

The Court however granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application in the pending challenge to Act under the main title Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India.

After Opposition From Bar, Supreme Court Recalls Contempt Order Against Advocate & AoR

Case Details: N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Following the opposition from the members of the bar, the Supreme Court withdrew its order which held that two advocates prima facie committed contempt of court by filing a vexatious petition.

The development happened before a bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Supreme Court Asks Mahua Moitra To Approach SEBI With Demand For Public Disclosure Of Alternative Investment Funds & Foreign Portfolio Investors

Case Details: Mahua Moitra v. Union of India and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 239/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Mahua Moitra, Member of Parliament, seeking directions to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to mandate public disclosure norms for Foreign Portfolio Investors and Alternative Investment Funds.

The Court allowed the Trinamool Congress member to make a detailed representation to SEBI ventilating her grievances. Once such representation is made, it may be considered in accordance with law, the Court directed.

Supreme Court Declines To Interfere With Allahabad HC Order Directing ASI To Whitewash Sambhal Mosque Walls

Case Details: Satish Kumar Aggarwal v. Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal and Ors. | Diary No. 14755-2025

The Supreme Court (April 1) refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to whitewash the Sambhal Jama Mosque's exterior walls.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the order of the Allahabad High Court directing the ASI to whitewash the external walls of the Shahi Jama Masjid at Chandausi (Sambhal district), against which a suit has been filed contending that the mosque was built over a Hindu temple.

'Shocks Our Conscience': Supreme Court Asks UP Authority To Pay Rs 60 Lakh Compensation For Illegal Demolition Of Houses

Case Details: Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

The Supreme Court has directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay Rs. 10 lakh each in compensation to six individuals whose houses were illegally demolished, calling the action “inhumane and illegal.”

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the demolition was carried out in violation of due process and the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.

India's Got Latent Row | Investigation Likely To Be Over In 2 Weeks; Supreme Court Defers Ranveer Allahabadia's Plea For Passport Release

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

The Supreme Court deferred by 2 weeks YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia's plea for release of his passport, after it was informed that the ongoing investigation in the FIRs registered against Allahabadia (over his remarks during the "India's Got Latent" show) is likely to be completed in 2 weeks.

For context, Allahabadia had to deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer at Thane Police Station, as part of conditions imposed on him by the Supreme Court, while granting interim protection in the cases registered across different states over the subject remarks.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter. The order was dictated thus:

"Ld. Solicitor General informs that investigation in ongoing FIRs is likely to be completed in 2 weeks. Since petitioner might be required to join ongoing investigations, his prayer for release of passport/to travel abroad will be considered after the investigations are complete...Post these matters for further consideration on 21 April. Interim directions/protections to continue."

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Cheating Case Against Advocate Over Taking Money From Client Promising Favourable Outcome

Case Details: Chandrasekhar Ramesh Galande v. Satish Gajanan Mulik & Anr.

The Supreme Court validated the quashing of a criminal case involving a lawyer accused of professional misconduct, including false promises and financial fraud, which allegedly resulted in a client's suicide attempt.

'Lynching Is A Separate Offence Under BNS', Union Tells Supreme Court In PIL Against Mob Violence

Case Details: Anti-Corruption Council of India Trust v. Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 191/2019

In a 2019 public interest litigation assailing non-compliance with the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment, where comprehensive guidelines were issued to the Union and State governments regarding prevention of lynching and mob violence, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to file a short status report given Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (which replaced IPC) has a separate offence of mob lynching.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.

Supreme Court Affirms HC Order Setting Aside Disability Commissioner's Directions Against Bank Official

Case Details: Sagar Jawdekar v. Canara Bank and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 8352/2025

The Supreme Court (April 1) dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Bombay High Court's order, which set aside directions passed by the Goa State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in censuring a Canara Bank official for treating in a rude and discriminatory manner the caregiver of a person with an intellectual disability.

The Commissioner had directed the concerned official to undergo mandatory disability training for eight days and, all bank officials to be made to undergo disability sensitization and for a written public apology to be issued to the caregiver. The High Court quashed the Commission's order on the grounds that the State Commission for Persons with Disabilities does not possess the power to issue mandates and dictate how bank officials should behave.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran stated that it would not interfere with the High Court's order.

Supreme Court Stays Trial Against YouTuber Over Identity Disclosure Of POCSO Victim; Says Kerala Police Appears To Be 'Persecuting' Him

Case Details: Suraj V Sukumar @ Suraj Palakaran v. State of Kerala, Diary No. 9256-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on Kerala-based YouTuber Suraj Palakaran's plea for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him over the disclosure of identity of a victim in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and stayed the trial in the case, being of the view that the police authorities appeared to be "persecuting" Palakaran instead of "prosecuting".

Supreme Court Appoints Amicus Curiae On Issues Relating To Muslim Woman's Right To Permanent Alimony On Divorce

Case Details: Tarif Rashidbhai Qureshi V.Asmabanu | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3357/2022

The Supreme Court appointed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave as amicus curiae (pro bono) to assist the Court on the question of law whether a Family Court can award permanent alimony to a Muslim woman whose marriage has been dissolved as per the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 and whether such permanent alimony could be modified on the re-marriage of the woman.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed an order "considering the importance of issues" which arise in the matter. The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the man against the Gujarat High Court's order dated March 19, 2020, which upheld the Family Court's order granting a decree of divorce to the Muslim woman along with Rs.10,00,000 by way of permanent lifetime lump sum maintenance.

Supreme Court Transfers PIL On Bihar Bridge Collapses To Patna High Court

Case Details: Brajesh Singh v. State of Bihar W.P.(C) No. 000462 / 2024

The Supreme Court (April 2) transferred to the Patna High Court a PIL seeking the constitution of a high-level committee to look into the issue of recurring collapses of bridges built in the State of Bihar.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a PIL seeking directions to the Bihar government for a thorough structural audit and constitution of a high-level expert committee to identify any weak bridges that might need to be demolished or strengthened.

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Sets Aside Punjab & Haryana High Court's Interim Stay on Chandigarh Liquor Vend Allotments

Case Details: Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. Etc. v. M/S. Kler Wines & Ors. Etc.

The Supreme Court set aside an interim order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court restraining the implementation of liquor vend allotments under the Chandigarh Excise Policy 2025-2026.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed that the High Court had not recorded any reasons while granting the interim relief.

“If indeed the High Court had found a prima facie case for grant of interim relief and the other conditions, viz. balance of convenience/inconvenience and sufferance of irreparable loss and injury, were also satisfied so as to call for grant of such relief, we would have expected the High Court to at least record some reason(s), howsoever brief, evincing application of mind to the contentions urged on behalf of the writ petitioners in support of their prayer. Unfortunately, the High Court has recorded no such satisfaction. It is only on this short ground that we feel inclined to set aside that part of the impugned order of the High Court restraining implementation of allotments made under the Excise Policy 2025-2026. Ordered accordingly.”

Supreme Court Imposes Year-Long Firecracker Ban In Delhi-NCR

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court passed an order imposing a year-long ban on the use, manufacture, sale and storage of firecrackers in the Delhi-National Capital Region.

The Court observed that imposing such a ban only for a period of 3-4 months every year is not effective given the worsening air quality of the national capital. Due to the extraordinary situation prevailing in Delhi-NCR, the Court said that no exception can be allowed, even for green crackers. Even online sales of firecrackers will remain banned.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the arguments raised by firecracker manufacturers that the ban would affect their right to trade and livelihood.

'Alarming': Supreme Court Stops Tree Felling In Kancha Gachibowli; Asks Telangana Chief Secretary To Explain 'Compelling Urgency'

Case Details: In Re Kancha Gachibowli Forest State of Telangana | SMW(C) No. 3/2025

Expressing shock at the large-scale felling of trees in hundreds of acres of land in the Kancha Gachibowli area in Hyderabad, the Supreme Court ordered to stop all sorts of developmental activities carried out there.

"Until further orders, no activity of any sort, except the protection of trees already existing, shall be undertaken by the State," ordered a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih registering a suo motu case on the issue.

"In case any of the directions issued by us are not complied with in true letter and spirit, the Chief Secretary of the State shall be held personally liable," the bench warned.

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

Case Details: CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik

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

The Court noted that the Central Government has passed an order in December 2024 under Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act restricting the movement of Malik from the National Capital Territory of Delhi for one year.

In view of this prohibitory order, the Court held that his physical production before the Jammu Court was not appropriate. The Court further noted from the reports of the Registrar General of the Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court as well as the Delhi Jail Superintendent that both the trial court and Tihar Jail have Video Conferencing facilities.

Plea To Prohibit Social Media Use By Children Below 13 Yrs: Supreme Court Allows Petitioner To Approach Union Govt

Case Details: Zep Foundation v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 8128-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a statutory prohibition on social media usage for children below 13 years of age in view of the severe physical, mental, and psychological impact of social media on young minds.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, saying that the issue lies in policy domain and therefore the petitioner, who was represented by Advocate-on-Record Mohini Priya, may approach the Union Government-authorities.

"Inasmuch as the relief sought is within the domain of policy, we therefore dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent-authorities...to be considered in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt."

It is pertinent to note that the draft of the Digital Data Protection Rules proposes to mandate that social media and gaming platforms must take parental consent before allowing children to open accounts.

After Sukhbir Badal & Bikram Majithia Express Remorse For Remarks On Justice Ranjit Singh, Supreme Court Disposes Appeal

Case Details: Justice (Retired) Ranjit Singh v. Sukhbir Singh Badal and Anr. | Crl.A. No. 1982/2019

The Supreme Court on Wednesday(April 2) disposed of a petition filed by Justice (Retd) Ranjit Singh against former Shiromani Akali Dal chief Sukhbir Singh Badal and former Punjab MLA Bikram Singh Majithia for allegedly making remarks against the Commission headed by Justice Singh to probe incidents of sacrilege in Punjab that happened in 2017.

The Court disposed of the petition noting that Badal and Majithia have expressed their remorse to Justice Singh.

Supreme Court Allows Jharkhand Govt To Cut Power Supply In Ram Navami Procession Routes To Avoid Electrocution Of People Carrying Poles

Case Details: State of Jharkhand & Anr. v. Court On Its Own Motion & Anr.

The Supreme Court (April 4) allowed the Jharkhand Government to cut the power supply during the upcoming Ram Navami processions to prevent unwarranted instances of electrocution due to people carrying long poles and flags.

The State of Jharkhand approached the Supreme Court against the Jharkhand High Court's suo moto order against shutting down the electric power supply during festivals.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan modified the order of the High Court and allowed the power cuts on routes where the Ram Navami processions would follow. It also ordered the State Government to limit the power cuts and keep it confined to the procession routes only.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Demolitions In Gurugram's DLF City

Case Details: Sahab Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors, Diary No. 15281-2025

In a relief to residents of Gurugram's DLF City (Phase 1-5), the Supreme Court ordered that status quo be maintained in respect of unauthorized constructions (more than 4000) with regard to which the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed authorities to take "prompt action" (within 2 months).

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar passed the order while issuing notice on a batch of petitions filed by aggrieved residents, who were apparently not party to the proceedings before the High Court and were at risk of losing their properties without having presented their case.

'Which Law Says Bank Accounts Can't Be Operated Without Aadhaar?' Supreme Court Questions Delhi Govt Over Denial Of Workers' Allowances

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court questioned the Delhi Government for not paying subsistence allowance to 5,907 eligible workers affected by Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) restrictions who do not have Aadhaar-linked bank accounts.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked the Delhi government to address the Court on whether verified workers can be denied payment on the ground that their bank accounts are not linked with Aadhaar.

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Dismissal Of Plea To Confiscate Electoral Bond Donations

Case Details: Khem Singh Bhati v. Union of India & Ors. | Review Petition (Civil No. /2025 Diary No. 4035/2025)

The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed by Advocate Dr. Khem Singh Bhati seeking a review of the Supreme Court's order dated August 2, 2024, whereby the plea to confiscate Rs.16,518 crores received by the political parties under the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme, which was held unconstitutional, was dismissed.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, while dismissing the review petition, observed that the Court found no good ground and reason to review its August 2 decision.

Wife Can Be Affected By Defamation Of Husband; Apart From Individual Reputations, Spouses Share Common Family Reputation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Spunklane Media Private Limited v. Nivedita Singh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7741/2025

In a civil matter, the Supreme Court observed orally that while a husband and wife have individual reputations, there is also something called "family reputation" and a wife is likely to be affected by anything that tends to lower her husband's reputation.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with an appeal filed by Spunklane Media Private Limited(which owns the news portal 'The News Minute) against an order of the Karnataka High Court. It involved an issue as to whether a wife, by way of subsequent impleadment of her husband (as co-plaintiff), can acquire better title in a suit to restrain media houses from publishing about a case against the husband.

The Court did not interfere with the High Court's order which affirmed the Trial Court's decision allowing the wife to join as a party in her husband's suit against the news portal.

'No Religion Permits Such Brutal Tree Felling, Pay Compensation From Festival Offerings': Supreme Court To Kerala Temple Committee

Case Details: K.K. Suresh & Anr. v. Jayakkuttan & Ors.

The Supreme Court pulled up the temple committee of the Thiru Keralapuram Sreekrishnaswamy Temple, located in Peroor Village, Kerala, over three cutting of three Wild Jack Trees, each having a diameter of about 1.5 to 2 meters, on the temple premises.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with an interlocutory application in a property dispute regarding the temple.

'Breakdown Of Rule Of Law': Supreme Court Slams UP Police Trend Of Converting Civil Disputes Into Criminal Cases

Case Details: Debu Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 3620/2025

The Supreme Court (April 7) expressed displeasure at the recurrent instances of civil disputes being turned into criminal cases by the Uttar Pradesh Police and termed it a 'complete breakdown of the Rule of Law'. It also warned that costs may be imposed on the State of UP if such a practice continued

The Court also directed the Director General of Police, UP, to file an affidavit on the steps taken to comply with the directions of the Court in Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Court held it mandatory for the Investigating Officer to ensure that the chargesheet contains clear and complete entries.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner accused of criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking 100% Manual Counting Of EVM-VVPAT Slips In Elections

Case Details: Hans Raj Jain v. Election Commission of India | Diary No. 1865-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to conduct 100% manual counting of VVPAT slips apart from the electronic counting done through the control unit.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by the petitioner-in-person , Hans Raj Jain.

Does The Term 'Regulate' In S. 79(1) Electricity Act Cover Regulation Of Trade In Electricity Industry? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Details: PTC India Limited v. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, SLP(C) No. 5276/2023

In the context of certain clauses of Section 79(1), Electricity Act 2003, the Supreme Court is set to consider the issue as to whether the word "regulate" used therein is limited to framing of regulations or subordinate legislation, or can it extend to regulation of trade in the electricity industry.

"Our attention is drawn to paragraphs 53 to 55 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in “PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, through Secretary” and it is submitted that clauses (b), (c) and (f) to Section 79(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which use the expression, “regulate”, is not only restricted to framing or making of regulations or subordinate legislation, but to regulate trade in the electricity industry itself. The present matter requires consideration", a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted in its order.

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

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

The Court held it is not the function of the courts to do moral policing and disapproved of the High Court's comment comparing the contribution made by the priest with Dadlani and Poonawala's contribution.

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

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

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

Notably, the Apex Court on April 3 had upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court, which invalidated nearly 25000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission (SSC) in 2016. However, it had clarified that it would separately hear the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of West Bengal against the High Court's direction for CBI investigation into the supernumerary posts.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain TN Govt Plea To Transfer TASMAC-ED Matter From Madras High Court

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Directorate of Enforcement T.P.(Crl.) No. 309/2025 & TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement T.P.(Crl.) No. 306-307/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) seeking to transfer from the Madras High Court the petitions filed by them against the searches of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the TASMAC offices.

When the matter was taken, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna expressed the view that the matters should be decided by the Madras High Court itself. "Let it be decided there," CJI Khanna said. The State and the TASMAC had sought the transfer to the Supreme Court stating that certain petitions seeking guidelines against search of devices and gadgets were pending in the Supreme Court. Regarding this argument, CJI Khanna said that those petitions pertained to the seizure of devices from journalists, where the claim of privacy stands on a higher threshold.

Supreme Court Directs Delhi Municipal Corporation To Launch Awareness Campaign On Duties of Waste Generators

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to start a massive awareness campaign to inform the public about the duties of waste generators under Rule 4 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.

Rule 4 of the 2016 Rules outlines the duties of waste generators, including residents, street vendors, gated communities, market associations, and institutions with areas exceeding 5,000 square meters. It mandates segregation of waste into biodegradable, non-biodegradable, and domestic hazardous waste; proper disposal of construction and horticultural waste; and prevention of illegal dumping, burning, or burying of solid waste. It also requires waste generators to pay user fees and follow other specified obligations.

"We direct MCD to start massive awareness campaigns about the duties of various stakeholders under Rule 4 of 2016 Rules by making advertisements in media both traditional, electronic and social media platforms", the Court directed.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka HC Order Which Directed Personal Presence Of BCI Secretary, Jt. Secretary

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. S. Basavaraj and Ors., SLP(C) No. 20647/2024

The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court directing personal presence of the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Bar Council of India before it.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, stating,

"In the circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have graciously accepted the apology and affidavit of the Secretary of the Bar Council, rather than summoning his presence from Delhi to Bangalore. In that view of the matter, the impugned order, insofar as it directs the presence of the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the BCI shall stand quashed and set aside."

While a connected transfer petition was dismissed, the Court further observed that the writ petition pending before the High Court shall proceed in accordance with law.

The proceedings arose out of a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate S Basavaraj before the Karnataka High Court seeking inter-alia a direction to Karnataka State Bar Council and the concerned Returning Officer to forthwith conduct elections for the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Supreme Court Calls Fresh Report From Union, Bihar Govts On Steps Taken To Remove Illegal Encroachments From Ganga River Banks

Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sinha v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3367/2020

In a matter pertaining to illegal encroachments on Ganga River banks, the Supreme Court called for a report from the Union government and the Bihar government detailing the current position of encroachments as well as the steps taken to remove them.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed the order, stating,

"We would like to know what steps have been taken by the authorities to remove all such encroachments over the banks of river Ganga...We would also like to know how many such encroachments are still there as on date on the banks of the river and in what manner authorities propose to remove all such encroachments & within what period of time."

At the same time, the order also gave liberty to appellant-Ashok Kumar Sinha, a resident of Patna, to apprise about the current position.

Only Bombay HC Should Hear Cases Related To New Bombay HC Land: Supreme Court Transfers Cases From Other Courts

Case Details: In Re: Heritage Building of Bombay High Court and Allotment of Additional Lands For High Court, SMW (C) No. 5/2024

In the suo moto case involving the issue of additional land allotment for Bombay High Court's new complex, the Supreme Court was informed that out of an area of 4.09 acres, which was to be handed over by March 31, 1.94 acres has been handed over and the remaining (2.15 acres) shall be transferred by April 30.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and posted it to July, while appreciating the efforts made by the state government towards expediting handing over of the possession of the land for construction of the new building.

Considering that there may be multiple proceedings over the remaining tranche of land, thus protracting transfer of its possession, the bench further directed consolidation of all proceedings related to the subject matter before the Bombay High Court.

Supreme Court Slams Centre For Not Framing Scheme For Cashless Treatment Of Road Accident Victims, Summons MoRTH Secretary

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

The Supreme Court (April 9) pulled up the Central Government for failing to frame a scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims during the “golden hour” – the one-hour period immediately after an accident, as mandated under Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court said, “According to us this is a very serious breach and violation of not only orders of this court, but it is a case of failure to implement a very beneficial provision in the statute.”

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan summoned the Secretary of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to appear before it on April 28, 2025, to explain the default.

Is Sanction u/s 17A PC Act Needed When Magistrate Has Ordered Investigation u/s 156(3) CrPC? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

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

While reserving judgment in one of the cases against former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), the Supreme Court identified certain questions of law, including whether after a Magistrate has ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would a prior sanction of the Government be still required under Section 17A of the PC Act.

In the last few hearings, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra has contemplated the submissions made by the petitioners, including by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, that a prior sanction would still be required under Section 17A to proceed with the order of investigation.

FSSAI Proposes Star Rating System For Nutrition Content In Food Products; Supreme Court Asks Expert Committee To Submit Its Report

Case Details: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No.437/2024

The Supreme Court directed an Expert Committee constituted by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to submit its report on the amendments proposed by the FSSAI to introduce a star-rating labelling regarding the nutrition content of food products.

The Court was dealing with a PIL seeking the implementation of Front-of-Package Warning Labels (FOPL) on packaged foods so that the customers can know about the sugar, salt and fat contents.

The Union Government informed the Court about the proposal to amend the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2022.

Disposing of the PIL, while directing compliance with its directions within 3 months, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered,

"We dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Expert Committee to prepare its recommendation and submit a Report in that regard at the earliest so that relying on the report, the necessary amendments can be given effect to. Let this exercise be taken within a period of three months from today."

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

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

Supreme Court Rejects Plea That S.498A IPC/S.84 BNS Violates Article 14, Says Allegations Of Misuse Vague

Case Details: Janshruti v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 2152-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inter-alia balanced protection for all parties in matrimonial cases, mandatory preliminary investigation before filing of S.498A IPC/domestic violence cases and legal protection against false complaints.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.

Dismissing the PIL, the bench observed, "we see no reason to interfere with the legislative policy/mandate behind Section 498A IPC, now read as Section 84 of the BNS. The plea that such provision is violative of Art.14 is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Art.15 of the Constitution explicitly empowers to enact a special law for protection of women, children...The allegation that the provision is being misused is vague and evasive, as no opinion with respect thereto can be formed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Suffice it to observe that such an allegation can be examined on case-to-case basis."

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

Case Details: Anil Tuteja v. Directorate of Enforcement

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

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

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Slashing Toll To 20% On NH-44 Stretch; NHAI To Levy Toll At 75% Rate

Case Details: National Highway Authority of India v. Sugandha Sawhney and Ors.

The Supreme Court stayed Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's order directing an 80 percent reduction in toll-fee at the Lakhanpur and Bann Toll Plazas on National Highway–44, until the completion of construction on the Lakhanpur–Udhampur stretch. The High Court had observed that it was unfair to collect toll if the road was in a bad shape.

NH–44 is part of the North–South Corridor and stretches from Srinagar to Kanyakumari.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the interim order while issuing notice returnable on May 19, 2025 in an SLP filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the High Court order reducing toll charges.

Cascading Impact Of Royalty On Royalty: Supreme Court Grants Last Chance To Union To Furnish Proposal As Per 'Kirloskar' Decision

Case Details: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 715 of 2024

The Supreme Court granted one final opportunity to the Cabinet Secretariat to prepare a proposal in terms of its directions in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Union of India and place it before the Union Cabinet.

In the said decision, the Court had asked the Union to consider the cascading impact of royalty on royalty in the calculation of “average sale price” by virtue of Explanation(s) to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (MCR, 2016) and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 (MCDR, 2017).

"We propose to grant one last opportunity to the Cabinet Secretariat to prepare the appropriate proposal and place it before the Union Cabinet...We direct the Cabinet Secretariat to prepare the proposal within a period of four weeks from today and place it before the Union Cabinet to enable it to take an appropriate decision on the same", a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered.

Kerala RSS Member's Murder: Supreme Court Asks NIA To Approach Special Court/HC For Cancellation Of PFI Members' Bail

Case Details: Union of India and Anr. v. Sulaiman CT and Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to cancel the bail granted by the Kerala High Court to 18 members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) in the case for the murder of Rashtriya Swayamsewavak Sangh (RSS) member Srinivasan in Palakkad in April 2022.

The NIA sought the cancellation of the bail on the grounds that the accused persons had violated the bail conditions. A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice NK Singh observed that the Special Court or the High Court would be the more appropriate forum to consider the plea to cancel the bail. Therefore, while declining to entertain the Special Leave Petitions filed by the NIA, the bench granted the Agency the liberty to approach the Special Court or the High Court seeking cancellation of bail.

The bench noted that the High Court itself had reserved the liberty of NIA to apply for cancellation of bail if there was a violation of bail conditions.

Kancha Gachibowli | 'Come With Plan To Restore Those 100 Acres, Otherwise Officers Will Go To Prison': Supreme Court To Telangana Govt

Case Details: In Re Kancha Gachibowli Forest, State of Telangana v. | SMW(C) No. 3/2025

In the matter pertaining to large-scale felling of trees in the Kancha Gachibowli area of Telangana, the Supreme Court expressed that restoration of status quo at the site will be the Court's first priority and the Wildlife Warden of the State shall take immediate steps to protect wildlife affected by the deforestation.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and posted it to May 15, following a submission by the state of Telangana that the latest CEC report was voluminous and the state would need some time to file reply.

"Pursuant to our order, the CEC has inspected the spot and submitted report. Dr Singhvi, appearing on behalf of respondent-state, states that report is voluminous and State would take some time to respond. Four weeks' time is granted to the state to file its reply. In the meantime, we direct the Wildlife Warden of Telangana to examine and put into effect immediate steps that are required to be undertaken to protect the wildlife which has been affected on account of the deforestation in the 100 acres", noted the order.

The Court further made it clear that in the meantime, not even a single tree should be fell in the subject area. It also warned Telangana authorities about sending its officers to a "temporary prison" if the state chooses to oppose restoration.

Does S.223 BNSS (Hearing Of Accused Pre-Cognizance) Apply To PMLA Cases If Investigation Began Before July 1, 2024? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Details: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court remarked that Section 223 (Examination of complainant) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides that the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint, is a beneficial provision to prevent unnecessary prosecutions.

Section 223 of the BNSS mandates that the Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses on oath. The first proviso states that no cognizance shall be taken without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.

Section 223 of BNSS replaces Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which did not mandate giving the accused an opportunity to be heard before cognizance was taken.

“This is actually a very salutary provision to avoid unnecessary prosecutions”, Justice Abhay Oka said.

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

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

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the growing concern of delayed medical help and rescue efforts for accident victims, calling it a matter of serious public interest.

The Court acknowledged that in many instances, accident victims may not be injured but remain trapped inside vehicles, highlighting the broader need for a comprehensive state response mechanism. While the applicant had suggested six heads of protocol, the Court refrained from issuing a writ of mandamus at this stage. However, it underscored the urgent need for action.

“We are of the view that the state governments and union territories must work on having swift response protocols, as in every state at grassroots level the situation may be different,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court directed all states and union territories to initiate steps within the next six months to create and implement such protocols, with the objective of ensuring that help reaches accident victims without delay. The respective governments have been asked to place their responses on record within the stipulated time.

In a related direction aimed at improving road safety, the Supreme Court also turned its attention to the working conditions of drivers of transport vehicles. Invoking provisions under Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Transport Workers Rules, 1961, which restrict drivers to 8 working hours per day and 48 hours per week, the Bench raised concerns about the implementation of these safeguards.

The Court directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to convene meetings with all state and union territory departments to formulate effective implementation strategies. The Ministry has also been tasked with collecting reports from the states and union territories on the implementation status of the working hour provisions.

Supreme Court To Consider Practising Muslim Man's Plea To Be Governed By Indian Succession Act Instead Of Shariat Law

Case Details: Naushad K K v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000205 / 2025

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court by a Muslim man seeking a declaration that he should be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of the Shariat law of inheritance.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea filed by the Petitioner-in-person Naushad KK.

Supreme Court Asks HC Committees To Examine Grievances Regarding VC Access To Lawyers & Litigants

Case Details: All India Association of Jurists v. High Court of Uttarakhand | W.P.(C) No. 941/2021

The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of petitions, originally filed during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking access to courtroom proceedings through virtual court links. The Court disposed of the petitions, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts and the various E-Committees constituted to deal with the issue.

The petitioner particularly pressed the issue that advocates and litigants, whose matter are not listed on a particular day, are unable to join the VC links provided in the causelist. He argued that the right to access virtual court hearings is a fundamental right.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta disposed of the petition, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts and the e-Committee of the various High Courts for this issue.

WB SSC Scam : Supreme Court Allows Untainted Class 9-12 Teachers To Continue Till Fresh Appointments; Sets Dec 31 Deadline

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) SLP(C) No. 009586 - / 2024

The Supreme Court allowed the Assistant Teachers of Classes 9 to 12 in West Bengal, whose appointments were cancelled due to the irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process but were specifically found to be untainted, till fresh appointments are made to the posts.

The consideration that students should not suffer prompted the Court to pass this order. At the same time, the Court declined to grant such relief to Group C and Group D employees, whose appointments were cancelled, as the number of tainted candidates in the said classes is substantially high.

However, this order is subject to the condition that the State of West Bengal and the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) complete the fresh recruitment process for the posts of Assistant Teachers of Classes 9 & 10, and 11 & 12 by December 31, 2025.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed the State and the SSC to publish the advertisements for the fresh recruitment process by May 31, 2025.

As Supreme Court Hints Stay, Centre Concedes On Waqf Amendments: Won't Appoint Non-Muslims, Status Quo On Declared Waqfs

Case Details: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 269/2025

In response to the petitions challenging the Waqf(Amendment) Act 2025, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta made the following statements before the Supreme Court :

1. Non-Muslims won't be appointed to Central Waqf Councils and State Waqf Boards in terms of the amended provisions during the hearing.

2. Waqfs, including waqf-by-user, whether declared by way of notification or registration, will not be de-notified till the next date of hearing.

The Court recorded the statement in its order as follows :

During the course of the hearing, Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General, stated that the respondents would like to file a reply/response within a period of seven days from today. He assures this Court that till the next date of hearing, no appointments would be made to the Central Waqf Council and the Waqf Boards in the States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, under Sections 9 and 14 respectively of the principal Act, that is, the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995,1 as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. He further states that if the Government of any State or the National Capital Territory of Delhi makes any such appointment(s), the same may be declared void.

It is also stated that till the next date of hearing, no Waqf, including a Waqf by user, whether declared by way of notification or by way of registration, shall be de-notified, nor will their character or status be changed."

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan posted the matter to May 5 at 2 PM for the next hearing. The Court also changed the cause title of the case as "In Re: Waqf Amendment Act."

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

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

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

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Filed By Kerala ADM Naveen Babu's Wife Seeking CBI Probe Into His Death

Case Details: Manjusha K v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 5548/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea filed by the wife of Naveen Babu, who was an Additional District Magistrate in Kerala, seeking a CBI probe into his death.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court order, which refused to order a CBI investigation.

'Clear Case Of Honour Killing': Supreme Court Applies Murder Charge, Criticises UP Courts For Invoking Lesser Offence

Case Details: Ayyub Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 13433/2024

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the Allahabad High Court and Trial Court for wrongly charging the case of an honour killing with the offence of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" instead of "murder".

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea by a petitioner named Ayyub Ali, whose 26-year-old son was killed by stick-beatings allegedly by his lover's family members.

The petitioner had challenged the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which allowed the police to apply the lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S. 304 IPC.

Supreme Court Asks Bombay HC If Plea Against Demolition Of Dargah Was Refused Urgent Listing

Case Details: Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Anr.

In an extraordinary move, the Supreme Court sought an explanation from the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court on an allegation that a petition, which was filed challenging the demolition notice issued by the Nashik Municipal Corporation against Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah, was refused urgent listing.

The Dargah management had filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court on April 7 against the demolition notice issued on April 1. The request for urgent listing was allegedly refused on April 9. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court claiming that the High Court was not listing the matter.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which considered the matter on April 16, expressed surprise at the situation.

“We are unable to understand what transpired from April 9 till today. Learned counsel submits that they have been trying every day to get the matter listed,” the bench remarked.

Noting the urgency of the matter, where a religious structure was at the risk of demolition, the bench passed an interim order staying the demolition notice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case has been fixed for hearing on July 27.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Demolition In Ahmedabad Slum Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Telangana Rule Mandating Telugu Proficiency For Civil Judge Posts Without Urdu Option

Case Details: Shujath Hussain v. State of Telangana and Others | Diary No. 15801-2025

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 28) dismissed a petition challenging a Telangana High Court order which upheld a State rule and government notification mandating proficiency in Telugu as a qualification for appointment as a Civil Judge.

The petitioner, Mohd Shujath Hussain, was aggrieved that the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2023 and the government notification did not provide for proficiency in Urdu language as an option, despite it being the state's second official language.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih refused to interfere with the High Court's decision, thus affirming the requirement of Telugu language proficiency for candidates aspiring to judicial posts in Telangana.

Obscenity On OTT Platforms & Social Media Serious Issue, Says Supreme Court; More Regulations In Contemplation, Informs Centre

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

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 28) agreed to consider a plea seeking regulation of obscene content on OTT platforms and social media, observing that the issue raised serious concerns. In response, the Union Government told the Court that some more regulations are in contemplation.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih observed that the Public Interest Litigation raised an issue of "important concern" and issued notice to the Union Government and OTT platforms Netflix, Amazon Prime, AltBalaji, Ullu Digital, Mubi, and social media platforms X Corp, Google, Meta Inc and Apple.

"Let Netflix etc. be also here, they also have social responsibility," Justice Gavai orally said.

The bench tagged the petition with other similar pending petitions.

India's Got Latent Row | Supreme Court Orders Release Of Ranveer Allahabadia's Passport

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

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 28) ordered the release of the passport of YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia, which was deposited as a condition for interim stay of his arrest in the cases registered for the offence of obscenity over his comment in the 'India's Got Latent Show'.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order after being informed that the investigation in the FIRs registered in Assam and Maharashtra with respect to Allahabadia was complete. The bench allowed him to apply to the Maharashtra Cyber Crime Bureau for the release of the passport.

Taking Note Of Senthil Balaji's Resignation As TN Minister, Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel His Bail

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

In view of the fact that Senthil Balaji resigned as a Minister, the Supreme Court disposed of applications seeking to cancel the bail granted to him in the money laundering case related to the 'cash-for-jobs' case.

Supreme Court Stays Gauhati HC's Contempt Proceedings Against Bar Association President

Case Details: Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. Advocate General Assam, D No. 20664/2025 and Shri Kamal Nayan Choudhury v. Advocate General, Assam and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 6225-6226/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim protection to the Gauhati High Court Bar Association President, KN Choudhary, against the contempt proceedings initiated by the Gauhati High Court.

The High Court had initiated the proceedings based on a complaint filed by the Advocate General against Choudhary and two other senior lawyers, alleging that Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya and another advocate, Pallavi Talukdar, have committed criminal contempt by making scandalous remarks against an individual Judge as well as the High Court while protesting the proposed shift of the Court to Rangmahal in North Guwahati.

In the Supreme Court, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order keeping the contempt proceedings against the Bar's President in abeyance. At the same time, the Court stated that the contempt proceedings against the two advocates can continue.

Coldplay Concert: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Guidelines To Regulate Ticket Scalping & Black Marketing

Case Details: Amit Vyas v. Union of India | D No. 9779/2025

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 28) refused to entertain a plea seeking guidelines to regulate 'ticket scalping' and black-marketing of the online tickets of concerts and other mega events.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to interfere with the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the Public Interest Litigation which was filed in the wake of the bookings for Coldplay's concert. However, the bench allowed the petitioner to make a representation to the Central Government and the State Government.

'What Use Of Highways If People Die There?': After Supreme Court Rebuke, Centre Agrees To Notify 'Golden Hour' Treatment Scheme

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

The Supreme Court was told by the Centre that a scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims during the "golden hour" would be brought into force within one week.

“Secretary of MoRTH, Government of India, appears. He states that the scheme for golden hour in accordance with Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will be brought into force within a period of one week from today…Learned Secretary states that the government tenders an apology for non-compliance with direction contained in paragraph 8 of order dated January 8, 2025”, the Court recorded.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case concerning the non-compliance of its earlier order directing the Centre to frame the scheme under Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court listed the matter of May 13, 2025 for compliance.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Demolition In Ahmedabad Slum Area For Redevelopment Purposes

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

The Supreme Court dismissed a litigant's plea against demolition action sought to be carried out in a slum area of Ahmedabad, Gujarat for redevelopment purposes. The Court, however, gave liberty to the litigant to make a representation before the competent authority for a "sympathetic" reconsideration of their requirement for larger alternative accommodation.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.

Supreme Court Refuses To Suspend Life Sentence Of Sanjiv Bhatt In 1990 Custodial Death Case

Case Details: Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 11736/2024

The Supreme Court rejected the application filed by expelled Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking to suspend the life sentence imposed on him in a custodial death case of 1990.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to release Sanjiv Bhatt on bail. However, the bench directed that the hearing of his criminal appeal be expedited.

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Fresh Writ Petitions Against Waqf Amendment Act, Allows Petitioners To Intervene In Ongoing Matter

Case Details: Firoz Iqbal Khan v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 341/2025

The Supreme Court (April 29) refused to entertain any further fresh writ petition challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

The Court, however, granted liberty to the petitioners to withdraw the pleas and file fresh contentions as impleaders/intervenors in the ongoing hearing of the main case.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a batch of around 11 fresh petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment. These included pleas filed by J&K MLA Arjun Singh Raju, All India Muslim Vikas Parishad, Malda Mutawallies Welfare Association, Rajya Sabha MP Derek O Brien, amongst others.

Why Should Bar Council Of India Interfere In Academics? Supreme Court

Case Details: Tamanna Chandan Chachlani v. Bar Council of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 70/2021 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court called on the Union of India and the University Grants Commission to submit their response on issues including the Bar Council of India's power to regulate academic affairs of law universities.

"on consideration of the issues involved and other allied issues with respect to powers of the BCI to regulate the academic affairs of law universities/schools/institutes, we would like to have the opinion of the Union of India and UGC. We therefore request the Attorney General for India to assist the Court on the next date of hearing. We also direct the UGC to submit its viewpoint. We also direct the Union of India to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit expressing its specific stand on the issues that arise for consideration", ordered the Court.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with pleas challenging Bar Council of India's decision (later rescinded) to scrap one-year LL.M. programme and derecognize foreign LL.M. degrees.

Supreme Court Asks Sambhal Masjid Committee's Response To UP Govt's Status Report On Well

Case Details: Committee of Management, Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 28500/2024

The Uttar Pradesh Government (April 29) told the Supreme Court that the well, which is claimed to be used by the Sambhal Jama Masjid, was situated outside the mosque near a police chowki. The Court has granted two weeks to the Sambhal Mosque Committee to file its reply on the submission made by the U.P. Government. The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the petition filed by the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid Committee challenging the trial court's order passed on November 19, 2024, directing an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque in a suit which claimed that the Mughal era structure was built after destroying an ancient temple.

Supreme Court Directs CBI To Conduct Preliminary Enquiries Into NCR's 'Builder-Banks Nexus'; Probe To Start With Supertech Ltd

Case Details: Himanshu Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7649/2023

Following grievances raised by homebuyers/borrowers, the Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct preliminary enquiries into an "unholy" nexus of builders and banks in the National Capital Region. To recap, this is the matter where the Court earlier hinted at a CBI probe, noting that certain real estate companies, and banks which sanctioned loans to them for their projects in NCR, had taken poor homebuyers to ransom.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, after perusing a response filed by CBI as well as a note placed on record by Amicus Curiae Rajeev Jain, ordered that the preliminary enquiries be conducted by CBI in the manner proposed, with priority being given to Supertech Ltd.

Presiding Officers Of Commercial Courts Should Be Provided Training: Supreme Court

Case Details: Indian Commercial and Arbitration Bar Association (ICABA) v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 900/2020

In a matter pertaining to implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Supreme Court underlined a need for compulsory training of Presiding Officers of Commercial Courts prior to their posting.

"...we expect that Presiding Officers of commercial courts should be imparted some training, orientation or refresher course to apprise them about the nature of commercial disputes pending in a particular [state or region] and the importance of adjudication of these disputes within a reasonable time, for the prolonged pendency of such disputes has a cascading effect on the nation's economy also", the Court observed.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a petition filed by Indian Commercial and Arbitration Bar Association seeking directions for time-bound implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Through the petition, the ICABA highlighted lack of infrastructure and inadequacy of commercial courts and commercial appellate benches to resolve commercial disputes.

Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Direction To Revise CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List

Case Details: Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Anr | Diary No. 22324-2025

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 30) stayed the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the merit list of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025 for Undergraduate (UG) admissions due to certain mistakes in the questions.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by a candidate against the judgment delivered by a division bench of the High Court on April 23.

Supreme Court Stays Kerala HC's Direction For CBI Probe Against CM's Chief Principal Secretary KM Abraham In DA Case

Case Details: K.M. Abraham v. Jomon Puthenpurackal | Diary No. - 22248/2025

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 30) stayed the Kerala High Court's direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR against K.M. Abraham, the Chief Principal Secretary to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, over allegations of amassing assets disproportionate to his income.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan passed the interim order while issuing notice to the CBI, the State and Jomon Puthenpurackal (petitioner before the High Court) on a Special Leave Petition filed by Abraham.

Supreme Court Affirms Bombay HC's Deletion Of Certain Allegations Made Against Union Minister Nitin Gadkari In 2019 Election Petition

Case Details: Md. Nafis v. Nitin Jairam Gadkari, SLP(C) No. 12480/2021

The Supreme Court dismissed petitions filed in 2021 against a Bombay High Court decision, which struck off certain allegations made against Union Minister Nitin Jairam Gadkari in an election petition challenging his election pursuant to the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with two special leave petitions - one, filed by Nafis Khan, a voter in the Nagpur constituency, and second, filed by candidates who contested against Gadkari in the 2019 polls.

To put briefly, the High Court, while refusing to quash the election petition disputing Gadkari's election to Lok Sabha from the Nagpur constituency in 2019, had partly allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC and struck down the pleadings raised in several paragraphs of the petition with respect to the income earned by the family members of the Minister and land owned by them. There were also allegations regarding the expenditure made during the 2019 General Elections.

Citizens Who Approach Police Station To Report Crime Entitled To Be Treated With Dignity: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. Registrar, State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu | SLP(C) No. 20028/2022 Diary No. 33406 / 2022

The Supreme Court has observed that every person who approaches a police station to report the commission of an offence is entitled to be treated with dignity. "That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court stated.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while upholding an order of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) imposing a cost of ₹2 lakh on the state government, to be recovered from the police inspector who had refused to register a First Information Report (FIR) and misbehaved with individuals who had approached the station to lodge a complaint regarding alleged cheating and embezzlement amounting to ₹13 lakh.

Suo Motu Case Over Lokpal Jurisdiction To Decide Complaint Against HC Judge Placed Before CJI

Case Details: In Re: Order Dated 27/01/2025 Passed By Lokpal of India and Ancilliary Issues, SMW(C) No. 2/2025

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court placed before CJI Sanjiv Khanna the suo motu case initiated against a Lokpal decision to entertain a complaint against a High Court Judge.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, before which the matter was listed on last few occasions, noted that in the subject order, the Lokpal sought guidance from the Chief Justice of India.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Inquire Mukhthar Ansari's Death, Disposes Of Son's Petition

Case Details: Umar Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 629/2023

The Supreme Court (April 30) disposed of the writ petition filed in 2023 by Umar Ansari, son of gangster-politician Mukhtar Ansari, seeking his father's transfer to any jail outside Uttar Pradesh, as he apprehended harm to the latter while in custody. The petition was disposed of after the Court was informed that the Ansari died in jail in March 2024 reportedly due to cardiac arrest.

Mukhtar Ansari was an accused in the case involving the murder of BJP leader Krishnanand Rai and various other cases. In 2021, the Supreme Court allowed a petition filed by the State of UP to transfer him to a jail in UP from a jail in Punjab. In January, the Court asked Uttar Pradesh authorities to furnish copies of medical and enquiry reports pertaining to his death to his son. After Mukhar Ansari's death, in July 2024, Umar Ansari alleged that his father was poisoned in jail and died due to the withholding of requisite medical treatment.

Other Developments

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas Challenging Gujarat Law Regulating Teacher & Principal Recruitment In Minority Schools

Case Details: St. Xaviers High School Loyola Hall and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., SLP(C) No. 8438/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on pleas challenging the Gujarat High Court order which upheld 2021 amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (GSHSE) Act allowing the state to make rules regarding recruitment of teachers and principals in linguistic and religious minority schools.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate CU Singh on behalf of the petitioners.

Senior Advocate Again Rebuked By Supreme Court For Making False Assertions

Case Details: SACHIN DILIP SAMBARE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA | MA 553/2025 in SLP(Crl) No. 935/2025

Months after the Supreme Court expressed its dismay against a Senior Advocate, Rishi Malhotra, over repeated instances of material suppression in remission petitions, another bench expressed a similar opinion after it came to light that he tried misleading the Court by falsely stating that the charges against an accused had not been framed on the basis of which a bail order was obtained.

District Bar Associations 'Pampered' By Haryana Govt, Chambers Have Become 'Addas' Of Property Dealers: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sandeep Chaudhry v. Jagmal Singh Jatain and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7868-7869/2025

In an advocate's challenge to his disqualification from contesting Karnal Bar Association elections, the Supreme Court expressed serious displeasure with the manner of functioning of Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Karnal Bar Association.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, issuing notice on the advocate' plea, asked Senior Advocate RS Cheema to suggest names of senior/respected members of Karnal Bar to whom affairs of the Bar Association could be handed over as an interim measure.

Supreme Court Rebukes Telangana CM Over Statement In House That No Bye-Polls Will Be Held If BRS MLAs Switch Sides

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025

The Supreme Court took strong exception to Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy's alleged statement on the Floor of the House that no bye-elections will take place even if BRS MLAs switch sides to the Congress party.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with pleas seeking the Telangana Assembly Speaker's timely decision on disqualification petitions filed in relation to the defection of certain MLAs from the BRS party to the ruling Congress party in Telangana.

In the matter pertaining to BRS MLAs' defection to the ruling Congress party in Telangana and the Assembly Speaker's delay in deciding consequent disqualification petitions, the Supreme Court orally observed that the Division Bench of the High Court had no reason to interfere with the Single Bench order which merely directed the Speaker to fix within 4 weeks a schedule for deciding the disqualification petitions.

Supreme Court Judges Decide To Make Their Assets' Declarations Public

In a significant step towards transparency and boosting public confidence in the judiciary, all Judges of the Supreme Court have agreed to make the declaration of their assets publicly available.

At a full-court meeting held on April 1, the judges decided to disclose their assets to the Chief Justice of India, with the declarations to be uploaded on the Supreme Court's official website, sources informed LiveLaw.

'Did We Make A Mistake By Letting You Go Earlier?': Supreme Court Again Censures Telangana CM For Unrestrained Remarks

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025

The Supreme Court again called out Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy over some of his statements on the Floor of the House and wondered if it made a mistake by not issuing a contempt notice to him earlier when he made remarks on the Court's grant of bail to BRS leader K Kavitha.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Challenging Centre's Notifications On Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance

Case Details: Vanashakti v. Union of India

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on pleas challenging two union government orders dated July 2021 and January 2022. The orders allowed ex-post facto clearance for mining projects that began without the prior environmental clearance required under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard a batch pleas filed by NGOs Vanashakti and others challenging the two Office Memoranda. The impugned government orders provided a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling cases where projects began operations without an environmental clearance.

Supreme Court Designates Six Former High Court Judges As Senior Advocates

The Supreme Court conferred senior designation on six former High Court Judges, who commenced practice after their retirement from judiciary.

BRS MLAs' Defection To Congress | Supreme Court Reserves Orders In Pleas Seeking Timely Decision By Speaker On Disqualification Petitions

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025

The Supreme Court reserved orders in the matter pertaining to BRS MLAs' defection to the ruling Congress party in Telangana and the Assembly Speaker's delay in deciding consequent disqualification petitions.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih reserved the verdict after hearing Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for respondents) and Aryama Sundaram (for petitioners).

Tamil Nadu Govt Approaches Supreme Court To Transfer Its Plea Against ED Raid Of TASMAC Offices From Madras High Court

The State of Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court seeking a transfer of the petition filed by it in the Madras High Court against the ED search of TASMAC offices to any other High Court.

Nithari Killings | 'Very Sorry Picture': Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At CBI's Unpreparedness In Appeal Against Acquittal

Case Details: State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Koli, Diary No. 15138-2024

Adjourning the pleas challenging the acquittal of Surendra Koli, one of the accused in Noida serial murder cases of 2005-2006 (Nithari Kand), the Supreme Court expressed serious displeasure with the CBI for turning up unprepared despite the matter being listed for final hearing.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was slated to hear a batch of 13 appeals, 12 of which were filed by State authorities. However, when the matter was called out, petitioners' counsels (including Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra) sought an adjournment, pleading inter-alia that the trial court records were voluminous and not available in entirety.

Subsequently, the bench noted from the office report that the trial court record was available. When the State counsels still pressed for an adjournment, Justice Gavai expressed that the request not only put the bench in difficulty, but also outstation counsels.

Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute | HC Order Adding ASI & Union In Suits Prima Facie Correct: Supreme Court Tells Masjid Committee

Case Details: Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8788 of 2025

In the Mathura Krishna Janambhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute, the Management Committee of Idgah Mosque approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Allahabad High Court's order allowing the impleadment of ASI and Union in the main suits filed on behalf of the deity.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna , Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the challenge to the Allahabad High Court Order of March 5, 2025, which allowed the plaintiff's amendment plea to implead the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Union of India as parties to the Suit.

Notably, these 18 suits have been filed by the deity and Hindu worshippers seeking the removal of the Shahi Idgah on the claim that the site was originally a temple situated at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

During the hearing, the CJI remarked that since the Masjid Committee was relying upon the provision of the Places of Worship Act 1991 in their defence, the original plaintiffs could seek the impleadment of ASI and Union as per the law. He added that the High Court order seemed prima facie correct.

Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC If Permanent Committee Can Reconsider Rejected & Deferred Applications For Senior Designations

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

The Supreme Court asked the Delhi High Court whether its Permanent Committee would conduct a fresh assessment of the advocates, whose applications for senior designations were either rejected or deferred.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to confer senior designations on 70 Advocates in November last year on the ground of alleged irregularities.

'Can We Be So Touchy About Criticism Of Courts?': Supreme Court On Delhi HC's Order To Remove Wikipedia Page About ANI's Case

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

The Supreme Court questioned the order of the Delhi High Court which directed the deletion of a Wikipedia page on defamation proceedings initiated by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia on the ground that the page was prima facie contemptuous and amounted to interference in court proceedings.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal was hearing a petition filed by Wikimedia Foundation against the High Court's take down order for the page titled “Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation”.

Justice Oka questioned how the High Court could have passed the order without contempt being proved. “We can understand if action for contempt is taken. But how can there be a direction to take down the offending pages and discussion unless the court comes to a conclusion that this is contempt?” he asked.

'Discriminates Against Muslim Community': Congress MP Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Bill 2025

Within hours of Parliament passing the Waqf(Amendment) Bill 2025, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bill, which makes several changes to the 1995 Act governing Waqfs.

The petition has been filed by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, contending that the law violates Constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 25 (freedom to practice religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 29 (minority rights) and 300A (right to property).

Owaisi Challenges Waqf Amendment Bill In Supreme Court; Says It Strips Muslims Of Right To Manage Their Own Religious Affairs

Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament representing the Hyderabad constituency in Lok Sabha, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 on the grounds that the Amendment takes way the protection accorded to the waqf under Article 26 of the Constitution while retaining such protection for religious and charitable endowments of other religions.

It is, therefore, in violation of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution of India and is manifestly arbitrary, the petition notes.

NALSA Files PIL In Supreme Court For Release Of Elderly & Terminally Ill Prisoners

The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court, seeking urgent intervention for the release of elderly and terminally ill convicted prisoners across the country.

The petition highlights the dire conditions faced by such prisoners and calls for the implementation of compassionate release of the identified prisoners in line with constitutional and human rights obligations.

Delhi MLA Amanatullah Khan Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Bill

A day after two writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, another petition was been filed by Amanatullah Khan, a Member of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, ˘belonging to the Aam Aadmi Party, contending that the 2025 Bill was curtaining the religious and cultural autonomy of Muslims and enabling arbitrary executive interference with the rights to manage their religious and charitable institutions.

Jamiat Ulema President Approaches Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act; Seeks Interim Direction To Defer Law's Notification

The President of Islamic cleric's body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Maulana Arshad Madani, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, which received the President's assent.

The petition, filed by Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, challenges various provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, terming them unconstitutional and destructive to the waqf administration and jurisprudence in India. It seeks an interim direction from the Court directing the Union of India to defer the issuance of notification under Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, which would operationalise the legislation. It is contended that once notified, several waqf properties would be vulnerable due to the mandatory timelines for uploading details on the Portal and Database envisaged under the amendment, threatening the very existence of a large number of historical waqfs—particularly those created by oral dedication or without formal deeds.

'Muslim Community Will Be Deprived Of Properties': Kerala Islamic Clerics' Body Approaches Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act

A prominent organization of Kerala-based Sunni Islamic scholars and clerics, Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, which received the Presidential assent.

The Act, which makes sweeping changes to the Waqf Act 1995 in relation to the nature and administration of Islamic charitable dedications, has been questioned as violating the fundamental rights to equality(Article, to practice religion (Article 25), the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs (Article 26) etc. It is also contended that the amendments are manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory.

The petitioner-organization voices an apprehension that the cumulative effect of the amendments will be to "deprive the Muslim community of large tract of waqf properties."

'Unconstitutional Assault On Religious Autonomy': IUML Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Joining the list of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Indian Union Muslim League, a political party, has filed an Article 32 writ petition challenging the Act on grounds of violating Article 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

The Act is challenged as an "unconstitutional assault on the religious autonomy and personal rights of the Muslim community in India."

It is contended that the Act imposes arbitrary restrictions and enhances state control on Islamic religious endowments, deviating from the religious essence of waqf.

Supreme Court Of India Signs MoU With Supreme Court Of Nepal On Judicial Cooperation

The Supreme Court of India has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Supreme Court of Nepal to develop, promote and strengthen the judicial cooperation between the two countries.

The MoU was signed in the presence of Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut, Chief Justice of Nepal and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Chief Justice of India.

DMK Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Says It Affects Rights Of About 20 Crore Muslims

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the political party in power in the State of Tamil Nadu, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.

The petition has been filed through the DMK's Deputy General Secretary A. Raja, Lok Sabha MP, who was also a Member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf Bill. The writ petition was settled by Senior Advocate P Wilson, who is also a Rajya Sabha MP belonging to the DMK.

The petitioner contended that the Amendment Act violates the fundamental rights of about 50 lakh Muslims in Tamil Nadu & 20 crore Muslims in other parts of the country. On March 27, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had passed a resolution urging the Union Government to withdraw the Waqf Amendment Bill.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks FIR, Derecognition Of MNS Over Raj Thackeray's Alleged Hate Speech Against Hindi-Speakers

Case Details: Sunil Shukla v. Union of India & Ors.

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking action against President of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena Raj Thackeray and other MNS members for multiple instances of alleged hate speech, targeted violence, and threats against North Indians in Maharashtra who don't speak Marathi.

The petition has been filed by one Sunil Shukla, a Mumbai resident and President of a registered political party in Maharashtra named Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena.

The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Sriram Parakkat, alleges multiple instances of hate speech against Shukla and other Hindi-speaking persons, and seeks registration of FIR against Thackeray as well as direction to Election Commission of India (ECI) to derecognise MNS.

NGO APCR Files Petition In Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act

Following several petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the NGO Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the law as violating Articles 14, 25, 26 and 300A of the Indian Constitution.

The petition terms the new Act as an "alarming interference" into the religious affairs of the Muslim community, thereby diluting the fundamental purpose of waqf, which is deeply rooted practice in Quranic references and the Hadith since the time of Prophet Mohammad.

'Peace Process Ongoing': Supreme Court Adjourns PIL Alleging Killing Of Innocents During Chhattisgarh Anti-Naxal Operations

Case Details: Civil Liberties Committee (Telangana State) Rep. By General Secretary v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 193/2018

In a public interest litigation accusing security forces in Chhattisgarh of killing 15 innocent Adivasis at Sukma (in 2018), the Supreme Court noted that attempts at peace are being made in the area and the Court's intervention at this point might unnecessarily come in the way of the same.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih briefly heard the matter and adjourned it to July, after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that the petitioner had made false claims.

Homebuyers File Review Petition Against Supreme Court Judgment Holding Greater Noida Industrial Authority A 'Secured Creditor' Under IBC

Case Details: Blossom Zest Flat Buyers Welfare Association v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Ors.

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its judgment dated February 12, 2024 which classified Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as a 'secured creditor' for the purposes of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Filed by a homebuyers' association, the plea states that the impugned judgment has led the National Company Law Tribunal to send back many resolution plans to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration on the ground that the same do not treat Noida/Greater Noida as 'secured creditor'.

'Singles Out Muslim Endowments For Govt Intrusion': RJD MP Manoj Jha Approaches Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Two Members of Parliament from Rashtriya Janta Dal, representing the State of Bihar, Dr Manoj Kumar Jha and Faiyaz Ahmad, have filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on grounds of violation of Articles 1, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A of the Constitution.

The Petitioners contend that these amendments fundamentally weaken the administration of waqfs, erode the original legislative intent of the 1995 Act, and facilitate largescale government interference in Muslim religious endowments.

The petitioners have challenged Clauses 2A, 3(v), 3(vii), 3(ix), 4, 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(f), 6(a), 6(c), 6(d), 7(a)(ii), 7(a)(iii), 7(a)(iv), 7(b), 8(ii), 8(iii), 8(iv), 9, 11, 12(i), 14, 15, 16, 17(a), 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21(b), 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28(a), 28(b), 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39(a), 40, 40A,41, 42, 43(a), 43(b), and 44 of the 2025 Act.

It has been stated that the most radical change is the elimination of "waqf by user" in Section 3(r).

If ED Claims To Have Fundamental Rights, It Should Worry About Fundamental Rights Of Others Too: Supreme Court

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

The Supreme Court questioned the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for filing a writ petition seeking transfer of the corruption case (predicate offence) arising out of the 2015 Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam out of Chhattisgarh.

Under Article 32, a writ petition can be filed before the Supreme Court by individuals for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

Justice Oka said to Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, “In lighter vein we are telling you, if you claim that ED has fundamental rights, you should be worried about fundamental rights of others also.”

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan disposed of the petition after Raju sought to withdraw it.

Minor Victim's Mother Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Allahabad HC's Controversial Ruling On Rape Attempt

Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance and Anr. v. Akash and Ors., Diary No. 15692-2025

The Allahabad High Court's controversial ruling - which held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of attempt to rape - has been challenged in the Supreme Court by the mother of the victim girl.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had suo motu stayed the High Court's decision - which caused a massive public outrage online - after observing that the HC depicted a total lack of sensitivity.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih considered the petition filed by the complainant (victim's mother) along with an organisation named "Just Rights For Children Alliance", challenging the Allahabad High Court order.

Supreme Court Notifies Next AoR Exam In June 2025

The Supreme Court notified that the next examination for the Advocates-on-Record will be held at New Delhi on 16th, 17th and 21st June, 2025.

Applications can be submitted for the AoR exam-2025 till 5 PM, April 30, 2025.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Wikimedia's Plea Against Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page On ANI's Defamation Case

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

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a petition filed by Wikimedia Foundation against the High Court's take down order for the page titled “Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation”.

"Prima facie what we feel is, we are not saying that Court is powerless to direct that some content should be removed. But there has to be first a prima facie finding recorded with reasons that what is published in contemptuous. So condition precedent is a prima facie finding giving reasons why it amounts to contempt", Justice Abhay Oka observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the plea.

'Manifestly Arbitrary': SP MP Zia UR Rehman Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Samajwadi Party leader Zia Ur Rehman, member of Parliament from Sambhal in Lok Sabha, has filed a writ petition challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on the grounds that it is "manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires" of the Constitution. It is contended that the Act violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by introducing unreasonable and discriminatory classification without any intelligible differentia or rational nexus.

Furthermore, the petition states that the 2025 Amendment Act impinges upon the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution by interfering with the freedom of conscience and the right to manage religious affairs. It also deprives individuals of their property without the authority of law, hence violating Article 300A.

Supreme Court To Consider Plea To Review NAAC Gradings Of Colleges/Universities In Last 5 Years

Case Details: Nostro Destina Foundation v. National Assessment and Accreditation Council & Or | Writ Petition (Civil) No . 256 of 2025

The Supreme Court (April 9) issued notice in a PIL seeking measures to ensure fair and transparent grading by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council ("NAAC") of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by an NGO, Bistro Destino Foundation.

As per the plea, concerns have been raised over the transparency of the grading process by NAAC. It stated that "an audit done by GAG in March 2023 revealed glaring discrepancies in NAAC's assessment processes."

All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Bangalore Jama Masjid Imam Approach Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Mohamed Maqsoon Imran, chief imam of Jamia Masjid, Bengaluru City, has filed a writ petition challenging the Waqf(Amendment) Act, 2025 on the grounds that it violates Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution by completely altering the character and essence of the waqf, which is a form of permanent dedication of movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable.

It is stated that the amendments distort the religious character of waqfs while also irreversibly damaging the democratic process in the administration of waqfs and waqf Boards.

Manipur MLA From NDA Ally Challenges Waqf Amendment Act In Supreme Court; Says It Violates Fundamental Rights Of Scheduled Tribes

Case Details: Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Union of India & Ors.

Sheikh Noorul Hassan, Manipur MLA from Kshetrigao constituency and the leader of National People's Party India (NPP) party in Manipur Legislative Assembly approached the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.

Notably, NPP is an ally of the BJP as a member of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

The petitioner in the plea has raised a concern over the amendment depriving Scheduled Tribes(STs) practising Islam from giving their property in Waqf. This violates their fundamental right to practise their religion, he contends.

'JPC On Waqf Bill Violated Parliamentary Procedures': TMC MP Mahua Moitra's Plea In Supreme Court

Mahua Moitra, Member of Parliament from Krishnanagar in Lok Sabha, has challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on the grounds, inter alia, that the Parliamentary rules and practices were violated during the law-making process, contributing to the unconstitutionality of the 2025 Act.

This is the first petition out of the many filed so far where it has been contended that the Chairperson of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) flouted the parliamentary rules and practices both at the stage of consideration and adoption of the draft report of the JPC on the Bill and at the stage of presentation of the said report before the Parliament.

The petitioner states that the draft report of the JPC was circulated to the members of the Committee only on January 28, a day before it was to be considered final for adoption on January 29. It is averred that this made it "practically impossible to read [the report]".

J&K Apni Party Files Intervention Application Challenging Waqf Amendment Act In Supreme Courts

The Jammu and Kashmir Apni Party has approached the Supreme Court, by virtue of an intervention application, challenging the passed Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. The party under the leadership of Syed Mohammad Altaf Bukhari, has urged the court to examine the constitutional validity of the law.

The said application is filed under Order 1 Rule 8A of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which empowers the court to permit a person or body of persons to participate in proceedings when they have a direct and substantial interest in a question of law raised before the court.

It is submitted by the petitioners that the new amendments undermine the very spirit of Waqf institutions that have traditionally managed and protected the religious endowments within the Muslim community.

TVK President & Tamil Actor Vijay Approaches Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) President and actor Vijay has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.

Communist Party Of India Files Writ Petition In Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Communist Party of India, through its General Secretary D. Raja has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and the provisions inserted and omitted by it in the Waqf Act, 1995. The petition was filed on April 9 through advocate Ram Sankar.

It is contended that the Waqf Amendment Act violates the fundamental rights of about 50 lakh Muslims in Tamil Nadu and 20 crore Muslims in other parts of the country. Earlier, the CPI, in alliance with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), had supported a resolution dated 27 March, 2025 moved by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M.K. Stalin in the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu urging the Union Government to withdraw the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

Six States Approach Supreme Court Supporting Waqf Amendment Act 2025

In the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, the States of Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana and Maharashtra filed intervention applications in the Supreme Court supporting the legislation.

YSR Congress Party Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act

Case Details: Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party and Anr. v. Unioin of India

The Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on the ground that its provisions violate Articles 13, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

According to the party led by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, the amendment fundamentally weakens administration of waqfs, erodes the original legislative intent of the 1995 Act, and facilitates large-scale government interference in Muslim religious endowments.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Cancellation Of BPSC-Main 2025 Exam Over Alleged Paper Leak

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bihar Public Services Commission (BPSC) Exams 2025 over alleged paper leak.

Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC For Blaming Victim In Rape Case

Case Details: Case Title: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By High Court of Judicature At Allahabad In Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court took objection to an Allahabad High Court order which granted bail to a man accused of committing rape against a college student while observing that the victim had "herself invited trouble" and was "responsible" for the alleged act of rape.

For context, the victim alleged before the High Court that the accused, whom she met at a bar, raped her twice in his relative's apartment after she had agreed to go to his place to rest, as she was heavily intoxicated and needed support after consuming alcohol.

Supreme Court Slams Haryana Bar Associations Over Mismanagement, Considers Appointing Ex-Judge To Oversee Elections

Case Details: Sandeep Chaudhry v. Jagmal Singh Jatain and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7868-7869/2025

Taking into account certain "extremely disturbing allegations", the Supreme Court proposed setting up of an independent Tribunal to conduct Bar Elections in the State of Haryana.

Calling on the parties to suggest names for composition of the Tribunal, the Court gave time to the Haryana Bar to resolve its issues amicably. It also expressed that it will pass necessary orders on the judicial side if need be, and warned that in case cognizance is taken, a deeper investigation into the allegations would be directed.

"We are not reluctant and we will not hesitate in delivering the judgment on judicial side. If need be, we will do that. But as we said, as of now, we would like to avoid it. If something can happen amicably, in the sense that there can be an independent, impartial, neutral Tribunal to conduct the elections who can certify that everything has taken place in fair and transparent manner...the allegations which are coming are very disturbing. the allegations which are coming to us on administrative side are extremely disturbing. And if we take cognizance, there will be very serious ramifications. I never shut my eyes. I will bring everything on record, direct deeper investigation", said Justice Surya Kant.

'Exclude Non-Muslims From Waqf Act': Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Constitutionality Of Waqf Act 1995

Case Details: Hari Shankar Jain and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. WP (C)No. 269/2025

Amidst a slew of petitions against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the parent statute—the Waqf Act, 1995—on the ground that it confers undue benefits on Muslims and discriminates against non-Muslims.

Advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Mani Munjal, through AOR Parth Yadav, filed the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of Sections 3(r), 4, 5, 6(1), 7(1), 8, 28, 29, 33, 36,41,52,83,85,89,101 of the Waqf Act 1995. It is contended that these provisions violate the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 27 and 300A of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Proposes To Amend Its 2013 Rules, Invites Suggestions

Proposing to carry out amendments in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Supreme Court has issued a circular inviting suggestions/views from stakeholders in the justice delivery system.

The circular, which was uploaded on the Supreme Court website, states,

"the Supreme Court Rules Amendment Committee is in the process of considering certain amendments to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. In order to make the exercise an exhaustive one and finetune the existing Practice & Procedure, all stakeholders in the justice delivery system are requested to submit their suggestions/views in this regard, i.e., either having a bearing on the said Rules and/or the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging P&H Order Setting Aside EWS List For Punjab ADO Selection

Case Details: Harpreet Singh & Ors. v. Sikander Singh & Ors. (SLP Diary No. 12413/2025)

The Supreme Court on April 7 issued notice in a plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's direction to quash and re-draw the merit lists for General and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates in recruitments for Agriculture Development Officers.

The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar agreed to consider the challenge against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court, which quashed the merit list of Open and EWS candidates dated 17.07.2020 and directed the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) to redraw the lists by treating top-ranking EWS candidates as General candidates.

The decision has been challenged by a group of General category candidates whose selection, based on superior marks, was annulled. The challenge has been filed mainly on the ground that the impugned decision arbitrarily displaces meritorious candidates in the General Category and violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Questioning Delhi Police's Cremation Of Man As 'Unidentified' Despite Pending Missing Complaint

Case Details: Chacko Karimbil v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 255/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Delhi Police on a writ petition seeking effective measures, including mandatory biometric identification methods, for ensuring intimation of unidentified dead bodies to their family members before cremation/burial.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.

Sikh Person Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Says It Violates Secular Ethos Of Constitution

Case Details: Daya Singh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 337/2025

Daya Singh, a practising Sikh and the President of Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Gurgaon, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.

The petitioner, who claimed to be an advocate of inter-faith harmony and supporter of charitable endeavours across communities, contended that the amendments infringe upon his fundamental right to make charitable endowments across religious lines, a practice rooted in Sikh values and protected by the Constitution. He took particular exception to the Amendment taking barring non-Muslims from dedicating properties as Waqfs.

Lakshadweep MP Challenges Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Says It Violates Rights Of Scheduled Tribe Members Practising Islam

Mohammad Hamdullah Sayeed, a Member of Parliament from Lakshadweep, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

The petitioner raises a specific challenge to Section 3E inserted in the Waqf Act, 1995 through the 2025 Amendment. The said provision bars the creation of Waqf over properties in tribal areas covered under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution.

Waqfs Declared By Courts Shouldn't Be Affected: Supreme Court Proposes To Pass Interim Order On Waqf Amendment Act Challenge

While hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, the Supreme Court proposed to pass an interim order with the following directions :

1. The properties declared by Courts as Waqfs should not be de-notified as Waqfs, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed, while the Court is hearing the matter.

2. The proviso of the Amendment Act, as per which a Waqf property will not be treated as a Waqf while the Collector is conducting an inquiry on whether the property is a Government land, will not be given effect to.

3. All Members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.

Disturbed With Violence During Protests Against Waqf Amendment Act: Supreme Court

In the hearing on the constitutionality of the Waqf(Amendment) Act, 2025, the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, appealed to the people against resorting to violence.

"One thing is very disturbing, the violence taking place. Once the matter is before the Court... this should not happen...we will decide," CJI said.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna Nominates Justice BR Gavai As Next Chief Justice Of India

Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna (April 16) officially recommended the Centre to consider Justice BR Gavai for appointment as the 52nd Chief Justice of India.

Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Challenging Election Commissioners' Law On May 14

Case Details: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024

The Supreme Court postponed to May 14 the hearing of pleas challenging constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel appointing Election Commissioners.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan at serial No.33. Perceiving that it was unlikely to come up, Advocate Prashant Bhushan (on behalf of petitioner-Association for Democratic Reforms) made a mentioning and requested that the pleas may be listed next week. He stressed that the matter is covered by a Constitution Bench judgment (in the Anoop Baranwal case) and the hearing will not take much time.

Ultimately, the bench decided to cancel a special bench matter scheduled for May 14, in order to list and take up the present pleas on that day.

'When We Sit On Bench, We Lose Our Religion': CJI Refutes Argument That Non-Muslim Judges Can't Hear Waqf Amendment Act Challenge

While the Supreme Court was hearing on the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, a submission from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta related to the inclusion of non-Muslims in Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards drew a sharp response from the Court.

A bench comprising CJI, Justice Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the petitions challenging the 2025 Act.

During the hearing, the CJI questioned the provisions of the Amendment Act (Sections 9 and 14) allowing the nomination of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards. The CJI asked if Muslims could be included in the Boards governing Hindu religious endowments.

The SG also said that if the objection to the presence of non-Muslims in the statutory board is accepted, then the present Bench also would not be able to hear the matter.

"Then, your Lordships cannot hear this matter if we go by that logic," SG said.

This statement drew remarks from CJI Sanjiv Khanna: "No, sorry Mr. Mehta we are not talking just about adjudication. When we sit over here, we lose our religion, we are absolutely secular. For us, one side or the other side is the same. But then, when we are dealing with a Council looking after the religious affairs, issues may arise. Let's say, in a Hindu temple tomorrow, a receiver is to be appointed or there is an endowment trust ...all of them have Hindu are members of that Governing Board...How are you comparing it with judges, saying judges should be from different communities or background."

Various Instances Of Anti-Conversion Laws Being Weaponised By States: Citizens For Justice & Peace Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. WP(Crl) No. 428/2020

The Human Rights Organisation, Citizens for Justice and Peace has filed before the Supreme Court an application seeking interim relief with regards the 'weaponisation' of anti-conversion laws enacted various states in the Country.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of laws in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka dealing with religious conversions..

Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for the lead Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), submitted that an application has been made seeking interim relief in relation to the constant 'weaponisation' of the anti-conversion laws and sought notice to be issued in it.

Supreme Court To Consider Practising Muslim Man's Plea To Be Governed By Indian Succession Act Instead Of Shariat Law

Case Details: Naushad K K v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000205 / 2025

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court by a Muslim man seeking a declaration that he should be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of the Shariat law of inheritance.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea filed by the Petitioner-in-person Naushad KK.

Supreme Court Proposes Inquiry Into Sports Federations, Says 'They Have Everything Except Sportspersons & Activities'

Case Details: Priyanka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) 93/2025

Lamenting the state of affairs in Sports Federations across India, the Supreme Court expressed an intention to constitute a Commission to enquire into their activities.

"Unless, to our satisfaction, a deeper probe is held into affairs of this so-called Federation...we are inclined to appoint a Commission of Inquiry...and not only this Federation, we will expand the scope (to other national, international, state federations). Whatever is happening is most unfortunate thing. Other than sportsperson and sports activity, everything is there. This is not acceptable...if the Union will do, we will welcome that, otherwise we know our...", conveyed Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and NK Singh was dealing with a writ petition filed by 2 women players, Priyanka and Pooja, seeking permission to participate in the Senior Asian Kabbadi Championship 2025 (Women) held in Iran from February 20 to 25. Their participation was met with difficulty as the Amateur Kabbadi Federation of India (AKFI) was suspended by the International Kabbadi Federation on the ground that it was not being managed by an elected body.

Supreme Court Expresses Reluctance To Transfer From HCs Petitions Challenging Anti-Conversion Laws Of States

Case Details: Jamiat Ulama-E-Hind Gujarat and Ors. v. State of Gujarat | Diary No. – 3670/2023

While the CJI relisted the matter for consideration in the week commencing 21 July, he also verbally observed that since these laws are passed by different states, they may have different provisions and terminology used, and hence, it would not be appropriate to transfer them directly to the Apex Court.

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Challenging Telangana HC Order Which Upheld Law Officers' Termination From Service After Govt Change

Case Details: Yendala Pradeep and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7524/2025

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging Telangana High Court's order which upheld discontinuation of the services of certain law officers of the state after change in the government noting that the appointment of law officers shall be subject to pleasure of the government.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, which posted it to May 5, considering the state counsel's request for time to take fresh instructions.

Supreme Court Gives Time To Union & ECI For Response On Challenge To Conduct Of Election Rules

Case Details: Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 18/2025

The Supreme Court (April 17) granted two-week extension to the Union and the Election Commission of India (ECI) for filling its response to the challenge to the amendment to the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961, which restricts public access to polling footage and records.

The Court also clarified that the present plea would not bar the High Courts from adjudicating any petitions filed there challenging the electoral amendments.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Rajya Sabha MP and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the amendment to the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 on the ground that it prohibits the public disclosure of the CCTV footage of polling and other relevant records.

'Atrocious, Violates Human Rights': Supreme Court Questions Foreign Court's Order Imposing Travel Ban On Minor Child

Case Details: X v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of a foreign Court order which imposed a travel ban on a child whose parents were involved in a matrimonial dispute, saying that such orders are "atrocious", violative of human rights and amount to house arrest.

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a habeas corpus matter, where the petitioner-father sought custody of his son, alleging that his ex-wife took the child from the family's Dubai residence without his knowledge. Statedly, he had obtained an order from a Dubai court imposing a travel ban on the son.

Forensic Report On Alleged Audio Tapes Of Ex-Manipur CM Biren Singh Ready, Centre Tells Supreme Court

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

The Central Government informed the Supreme Court that the forensic report on the authenticity of audio clips allegedly incriminating former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh for the role in the ethnic violence in the State was ready and would be filed before the Court in a sealed cover.

Taking note of the submission, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar adjourned the matter to the week commencing on May 5.

Criminal Contempt Action Sought Against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey For Remarks Against Supreme Court & CJI

A letter has been sent to the Attorney General for India seeking sanction to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his remarks against the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

As per the letter sent by an Advocate-on-Record, Dubey said that the "Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy" and that "Chief Justice of India Sanijv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country." The comments were made taking objection to the Supreme Court setting timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

It was also alleged that Dubey made communally polarising statements in the context of the Court's intervention in the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gir Somnath Demolitions: Why Have 12-Feet High Compound Wall? Make It Reasonable Height, Supreme Court Tells Gujarat Govt

Case Details: Summast Patni Musslim Jamat v. Rajesh Manjhu, State of Gujarat and Ors., Diary No. 45534-2024

In the contempt petitions filed with respect to Gir Somnath demolitions, the Supreme Court was informed by the petitioners that a 12-ft compound wall is being constructed by the authorities at the site. In response, the Court noted that compound walls are normally 5-6 ft high and asked State of Gujarat to issue appropriate instructions to its Collector.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde (for petitioners), who contended that despite pendency of the contempt proceedings, construction is being raised at the site by the state authorities.

District Judges' Recruitment: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Rajasthan High Court

Case Details: Narendra Mohan v. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court & Anr | W.P.(C) No. 000402 / 2025

The Supreme Court (April 28) issued notice to the Rajasthan High Court on a writ petition challenging the decision to commence a fresh recruitment process for District Judges without deciding a pending challenge to the 2020 recruitment process.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued notice to the Registrar General. Advocate-on-Record Namit Saxena, for the petitioners, submitted that in July 2024, the Supreme Court had directed the expeditious disposal of the pending challenge to the 2020 recruitments. However, without deciding the matter, the High Court has now proceeded to issue a new recruitment notification for 2025-26, he said.

'Don't Make A Political Speech In Court': CJI To Lawyer Seeking Listing Of Plea Against Collegium System

Case Details: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1005 of 2022

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna reprimanded Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, asking him to refrain from making a "political speech" in the Court when the latter mentioned his petition challenging the collegium system.

Nedumpara was mentioning a writ petition filed in 2022 seeking the abolition of the collegium system of appointing judges and to revive the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

"CJI Chandrachud said it 5 times (to list) ....NJAC is the need of the hour , it has to come. The Vice President has said it, and the people of this country demand it. Your lordship has promised to list it," Nedumpara said.

CJI in response said: "Do not put words in my mouth, that's all. Please... do not make a political speech in the court, that's it."

Can Multiple FIRs Arise Out Of Single Speech? Supreme Court Asks In Sharjeel Imam's Plea

Case Details: Sharjeel Imam v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Diary No. 4730-2020

While considering the plea by former JNU student Sharjeel Imam to club multiple FIRs against him, the Supreme Court (April 29) pondered on whether multiple cases can arise out of a single speech published online.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea by Sharjeel Imam seeking the clubbing FIRs for the alleged offences of sedition and under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) registered in the states of U.P., Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh.

During the hearing, the CJI inquired, since the FIRs are arising out of one speech, would it not amount to double jeopardy if Imam gets convicted in the trials occurring in multiple states.

The bench agreed to re-list the matter after two weeks to consider the issue.

'Man Dies In Custody & No Arrest For 10 Months! Shielding Your Own Officers': Supreme Court Slams Madhya Pradesh Police

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

The Supreme Court today(April 29) passed strong oral remarks against the State of Madhya Pradesh for not arresting the police officers allegedly involved in the custodial torture and murder of one 25-year-old Deva Pardhi. The Court remarked that the State was trying to shield the police officials.

As per the petition filed by Deva's mother, Deva was arrested in relation to a case of theft along with his uncle, Gangara, who remains in judicial custody. It is the case of the petitioner that his son was brutally tortured and killed by the police. Whereas, the police say the deceased died of a heart attack. Article 32 petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a full and fair investigation and handing over the case to CBI or SIT. Bail is also sought to Gangaram, who is said to be the sole eyewitness to the case.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta is hearing the plea, challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order refusing to grant bail to Gangaram. It reserved the matter for judgment.

'Nothing Wrong In Country Using Spyware For Security; Question Is Against Whom It's Used: Supreme Court In Pegasus Case

Case Details: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 314/2021

There is nothing inherently wrong with a country possessing spyware for security purposes; the real concern lies in against whom it is used, the Supreme Court observed orally on Tuesday (April 29) during the hearing of the Pegasus spyware matter.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was considering a batch of writ petitions filed in 2021 seeking an independent probe into the allegations of targeted surveillance of journalists, activists and politicians using the Israeli spyware Pegasus.