Supreme Court Monthly Round-up: July 2025

Reports/Judgments

No Illegality In Awarding Interest On Future Prospects In Motor Accident Claims : Supreme Court

Case Details: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 693

The Supreme Court (July 14) observed that there's no illegality in awarding interest on future prospects in motor accident compensation claim cases.

The Court advised the insurance companies to settle the claim on a computation proactively, on receipt of intimation of the accident, at least provisionally, to avoid interest on future prospects and driving into protracted litigation.

"When the matter is pending before the Tribunal or in appeal before the higher forums, the claimants are deprived of the compensation for future prospects. If they are paid in time, it could be utilized by the claimants and on failure, the loss of dependency would force the claimants to source their livelihood from elsewhere. This is sought to be compensated at least minimally by award of interest, which oftener them ever is nominal also since only simple interest is awarded. If the amounts were disbursed to the claimants on a rough calculation, on intimation of the accident to the Insurance Company, subject to the award of the Tribunal, necessarily there would not have been any interest liability atleast to the extent of the disbursement made.", the court observed.

Secretly Recorded Telephonic Conversation Of Spouse Admissible Evidence In Matrimonial Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: Vibhor Garg v. Neha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 694

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 14) set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment that held that recording a wife's telephonic conversation without her knowledge amounts to a "clear breach" of her fundamental right of privacy and cannot be admitted in evidence before a Family Court.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma thus held that a secretly recorded telephonic conversation of the spouse is admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings.

Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act bars disclosure of marital communications without consent, except in legal proceedings between the spouses or where one is prosecuted for a crime against the other.

The Court stated that the spousal privilege under the first part of the section cannot be absolute and must be read in light of the exception provided in the same provision. “Exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of the right to a fair trial, which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Court said.

'High Courts Can Suo Motu Confer Senior Designation' : Supreme Court Upholds Orissa HC's Sr Advocate Designations

Case Details: Orissa High Court and Ors. v. Banshidhar Baug and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 11605-11606/2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 695

The Supreme Court (July 14) set aside the decision of the Orissa High Court, which struck down Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. R

Rule 6(9) gave suo moto powers to the full court of the High Court to designate an advocate as 'Senior Advocate'. The Court relied upon its recent decision in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr (2025) in the matter of senior advocates' designation to uphold the suo moto designation.

In Jitendra Kalla, the Supreme Court, recognising the suo motu powers of the High Courts, had observed, "the Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case."

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the suo moto designation of five advocates as Senior Advocates, which was under challenge in the present case. The judgment was passed in an appeal filed by the Orissa High Court (on its administrative side) against the 2021 decision delivered by the Orissa High Court itself.

Aided School Teacher's Post Akin To Post Under State Govt; Gratuity Governed By State Rules : Supreme Court

Case Details: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The Headmistress Girls High School And Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tah. and Distt. Wardha & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Observing that a teacher working in a government-aided school is holding a post similar to a post under the State Government, the Supreme Court held that the gratuity of an aided-school teacher would not be governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“1972 Act”), but by the State service rules relating to pay and allowances.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Appellant's mother (now deceased) was a teacher in the Maharashtra government's aided school. Upon her death, being her nominee, the Appellant claimed gratuity under the 1972 Act, but his claim was rejected till the High Court. Following this, he moved to the Supreme Court.

Company Which Suffered Loss Due To Offence Can File Appeal As 'Victim' Against Acquittal Under S.372 CrPC : Supreme Court

Case Details: Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 697

Reiterating that the victim need not necessarily be a complainant/informant for filing an appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, the Supreme Court (July 14) ruled that a company that suffers loss/damages due to acts of the accused can filed appeal against acquittal as a 'victim' under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the Appellant-Asian Paints Ltd. suffered loss due to the acts of the accused selling counterfeit paints. The complaint was filed by the Appellant's authorized agent under Sections 420 IPC and 63/65 Copyright Act.

Res Judicata Can't Be Ground To Reject Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC : Supreme Court

Case Details: Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 698

The Supreme Court held that a plea of 'res judicata' cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of a plaint.

The Court held that res judicata is an issue to be decided in trial and cannot be summarily decided in an application to reject the plaint.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a challenge to the Madras High Court's order which approved the rejection of the plaint on the ground of res judicata. Allowing the appeal against the High Court's order, the bench held that "the objection of res judicata cannot be taken to bar the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC."

Lawyer Has Duty To Inform About Party's Death; Plea Of Suit Abatement Can't Be Accepted If Defendant's Lawyer Suppressed Death : Supreme Court

Case Details: Binod Pathak & Ors. v. Shankar Choudhary & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 699

The Supreme Court held that defendants cannot seek abatement of a suit on account of the death of some co-defendants when their counsel has knowingly suppressed the fact of their death.

The Court held that such non-disclosure, despite the lawyer's obligation under Order XXII Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code cannot later be used to claim the benefit of abatement.

“Under Rule 10A of Order XXII, the duty of a pleader to apprise the court as well as the other parties to the suit or appeal of the death of his client is a duty of candour and propriety as a responsible officer of the court. The failure of a party to perform the duty under Rule 10A constitutes a wrongful act and such party must not be allowed to avail the benefit arising therefrom in the form of abatement of suit.”, the court observed.

S.39 Specific Relief Act | Principles On Grant Of Mandatory Injunction : Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 700

The Supreme Court observed that a grant of mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”) is discretionary, and can be granted only upon the breach of an enforceable legal obligation.

The Court said that a mandatory injunction cannot be granted unless there exists a legal right and there's a breach of that legal right.

The Court also observed that rehabilitation of landowners, beyond monetary compensation for government-acquired land, is not mandatory, though the government may offer additional benefits guided by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity.

However, the Court clarified that rehabilitation should be provided in cases where acquisition destroys livelihoods (e.g., land-dependent communities).

'UGC Regulations Binding On State Once Adopted' : Supreme Court Quashes Appointments Of 1091 Asst Professors In Punjab

Case Details: Mandeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Reiterating that the regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC) are binding on a State which has adopted them, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 14) set aside the appointments of 1,091 assistant professors and 67 librarians made by the Punjab Government in October 2021.

The Court observed that there was "total arbitrariness" in the entire process, which was carried out for "narrow political gains" ahead of the assembly elections in February 2022.

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the judgment of the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had reversed a single judge judgment quashing the entire selection.

'State Must Uphold Rights Of Prisoners With Disabilities' : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Prisons In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: L. Muruganantham v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Others | SLP (C) No. 1785 Of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 702

The Supreme Court issued guidelines for prisoners with disabilities across all prisons in Tamil Nadu, including that all prisons must be equipped with disability-friendly infrastructure such as accessible toilets, ramps, and there must be dedicated spaces for physiotherapy etc.

The directions, issued in the larger public interest to uphold the dignity and the healthcare rights of the prisoners with disabilities, also direct the State to amend the State Prison Manual within 6 months to make it in compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan issued these guidelines in a special leave petition filed by an advocate, a person with disability, who was arrested in connection with a civil dispute, but during incarceration, suffered due to the lack of proper and essential food, medical care and infrastructure and facilities such as accessible sanitation facilities, ramps, a law sensory environment for rest available in the prison for persons with disabilities.

The Supreme Court observed that while the State has moral and constitutional obligations to ensure that prison facilities are as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016, the right to reasonable accommodation does not extend to creating an obligation on authorities to ensure personalised or costly food items to prisoners with disabilities.

'Faulty Investigation' : Supreme Court Acquits Man On Death Row, Issues Nationwide Guidelines On DNA Evidence Handling

Case Details: Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State Of Tamilnadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 703

The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was sentenced to death for the murders of a couple and the rape of the woman victim, citing grave procedural lapses in the handling of DNA evidence.

In doing so, the Court issued binding nationwide guidelines to ensure proper collection, preservation, and processing of DNA and other biological materials in criminal investigations.

"A common thread that can be seen to be running through the entire process that has culminated by way of this judgment, is that of faulty investigation," the Court observed.

The Court expressed the need to enact a law for awarding compensation in cases of wrongful incarceration. However, the Court stated that it is in the Parliament's domain to decide on this aspect.

Rejecting Plea To Quash Corruption Case, Supreme Court Directs Demolition Of Illegal Construction

Case Details: G. Mohandas v. State Of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 704

The Supreme Court refused to quash criminal case against the Kerala based builder for raising a commercial building in a prohibited zone under the guise of “internal renovation”, upon obtaining permit from the municipal officials by paying bribery.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld the Kerala High Court's decision, which had dismissed the Appellant's quashing petition seeking to quash proceedings for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and corruption under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court further directed the officials to take appropriate steps against the illegal construction built by the Appellant under the guise of fradulant permit.

Electricity Regulatory Commissions Can't Entertain Cases Solely On Public Interest; Don't Have Direct Regulatory Oversight Over Franchisees: Supreme Court

Case Details: Torrent Power Limited v. UP Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 23514 of 2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 705

In an electricity distribution dispute, the Supreme Court held that Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) cannot entertain a matter solely on the ground of public interest.

An ERC must consider matters in public interest wherever mandated by the Electricity Act, i.e., in matters relating to tariff determination, procurement of power processes, and utility/licensee management, "which requires safeguarding of consumer interest alongside the commercial principles".

"A perusal of the Regulation compels us to conclude that the UPERC had jurisdiction to entertain a petition praying for investigation under Section 128...In the same breath, we also clarify that as a principle of law, the ERCs are not competent to entertain a matter on the singular ground of public interest", observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.

The Court further observed that the Electricity Act does not provide for direct regulatory oversight over distribution franchisees. Any regulation thereof can only be through the distribution licensees.

Supreme Court Doubts View That Power Of Attorney Holder Can Present Sale Deed For Registration As 'Executant' Without Further Authentication

Case Details: G. Kalawathi Bai (Died), per LRs. v. G. Shashikala (Died), per LRs., and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 706

The Supreme Court referred to a larger bench a question of whether the Power of Attorney (“PoA”) holder will become an 'executant' of a sale deed and can present the deed for registration without fulfilling further authentication requirements under the Registration Act, 1908 (“Act”).

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan disagreed with the previous ruling of Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, (2009) 14 SCC 782 which held that the PoA becomes an executant of the sale deed, and therefore need not comply with the authentication requirements under the Act.

Stem Cell Banking Services Qualify As "Healthcare Services" In Service Tax Exemption Notification : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ahmedabad - III

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 707

The Supreme Court held that stem cell banking services, including enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, constitute “Healthcare Services” which were exempted from service tax as per the notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance in 2012 and 2014 under the Finance Act, 1994.

Holding so, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan set aside the assessment orders issued against M/s Stemcyte India Therapeutics Ltd for over Rs 2 crores as service tax for the period from 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014.

S. 138 NI Act | Cheque Dishonour Complaint Maintainable Against Partners Without Arraigning Parnership Firm : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 708

The Supreme Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) for the dishonour of a cheque issued in the name of a partnership firm is maintainable against individual partners of a firm, even when the partnership firm is not arrayed as an accused.

The Court reasoned that “when the offence has been proved against a partnership firm, the firm per se would not be liable, but liability would inevitably extend to the partners of the firm inasmuch as they would be personally, jointly and severally liable with the firm even when the offence is committed in the name of the partnership firm.”

Partnership Firm With More Than Two Partners Doesn't Dissolve On Death Of One Partner If Deed Provides Continuity : Supreme Court

Case Details: Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. v. M/S Shree Niwas Ramgopal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 709

The Supreme Court observed that a partnership firm with more than two partners does not dissolve upon the death of one partner, provided the partnership deed contains a clause allowing the firm's continuity. The Court observed that though it is correct that a partnership firm ceases to function upon the death of a partner, this rule would not apply when there exist more than two partners.

Rape Case Can Be Quashed Based On Settlement Between Parties In Exceptional Circumstances : Supreme Court

Case Details: Madhukar & Ors. v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710

The Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings related to rape offences can be quashed based on settlement in exceptional circumstances, subject to the facts of the case.

“At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.”, the court observed.

Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death, Slams Trial Court's 'Hasty Enthusiasm' In Sending Accused To Gallows On Meagre Evidence

Case Details: Baljinder Kumar@Kala v. State of Punjab | Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 711

The Supreme Court acquitted a death penalty convict, who has suffered more than eleven years of incarceration, on the grounds that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted of killing four members of the family, including his wife, sister-in-law and his two children below the age of five, in his village home in 2013, owing to nursing a grudge against his family due to some financial dispute.

He was convicted to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in 2020, for falling under the 'rarest of rare' category, which was then upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in 2024.

Observing that the case of the prosecution has major contradictions in the testimonies, accompanied by glaring investigative defects, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta reiterated that the standard of proof is absolutely strict and it cannot be compromised with.

Criminal Proceedings Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Of Pending Civil Cases On Same Subject Matter : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712

The Supreme Court reiterated that the existence of civil disputes between parties does not warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings where a prima facie case is made out.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision which quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the Respondents under Sections 120B, 415, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegation of fraudulently excluding the Appellant and her sisters from the family tree and partition deed, and thereby misappropriating Rs. 33 crore compensation for ancestral land acquired by Bengaluru Metro.

Pension A Constitutional Right, Can't Be Reduced Without Proper Procedure : Supreme Court

Case Details: Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 713

The Supreme Court provided relief to the ex-Central Bank Of India employee whose pension was reduced by one-third without consulting board of directors, as mandated under Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (“Regulation”).

The Court reiterated that pension is an employee's right to property, which is a constitutional right, that cannot be denied without the authority of law, even if an employee was compulsorily retired on account of misconduct.

Supreme Court Reviews Order Granting Custody To Father After Child Developed Stress Due To Separation From Mother

Case Details: N v. R

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 714

The Supreme Court set aside its previous order affirming a Kerala High Court judgment granting permanent custody of a minor child to his biological father.

Allowing the mother's review petition, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale restored custody to the mother, citing serious concerns over the child's psychological health following the earlier custody decision.

The Court reiterated that its review jurisdiction is limited and can only be invoked on grounds such as discovery of new and important evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

However, in custody matters, courts must adopt a flexible approach in line with the child's best interests, the court said.

Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Of Woman For Fiance's Murder; Allows Her & Aides To Seek Governor's Pardon

Case Details: Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr | Criminal Appeal No. 1029 of 2011

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 715

The Supreme Court on July 14, while upholding the life sentence of a female convict guilty of murdering her fiancé, granted her an opportunity to seek pardon before the Karnataka State Governor.

The Court also held that the powers of the Governor under Article 161 to grant pardon reflect the wider "constitutional ethos, goal and culture" towards reformation. The Court stressed that the convict, who was being forced to marry the deceased against her will, adopted "the wrong course of action in order to address her problem."

Supreme Court Upholds HP Govt Right To 18% Free Power From JSW, Says CERC Cap Doesn't Override Contractual Terms

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. JSW Hydro Energy Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 716

Observing that regulations cannot override freely negotiated contracts, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Himachal Pradesh Government, holding that JSW Hydro Energy Ltd. must supply 18% free electricity as per the 1999 agreement, despite the CERC regulations capping free power at 13% for tariff determination.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision which upheld the JSW's action of limiting free power to 13% despite the Regulation not prohibiting supply of free power beyond 13% limit. The Court said that the 13% cap applies only to tariff calculations, not to contractual obligations.

'Excluding Female Heirs From Inheritance Discriminatory' : Supreme Court Allows Tribal Women Equal Succession Rights As Men

Case Details: Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 717

Exclusion of females from inheritance is unreasonable and discriminatory, observed the Supreme Court, while allowing the women in a tribal family equal rights as the men in a dispute relating to succession.

The Court said that though the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the Scheduled Tribes, it doesn't mean that tribal women are automatically excluded from inheritance. It needs to be seen whether there exists any prevailing custom restricting the female tribal right to share in the ancestral property, the court added.

Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Without Reasons Raises Doubt About Genuineness Of Will : Supreme Court

Case Details: Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 718

The Supreme Court reiterated that exclusion of natural heirs from a Will can be a circumstance raising suspicion against its valid execution, though that factor alone will not invalidate it.

The Court observed that the existence of such a suspicious circumstance would require a closer scrutiny of the execution of the Will.

"We are conscious that deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind the execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession," the Court observed.

However, referring to the precedent in Ram Piari vs. Bhagwant & Ors (1993) 3 SCC 364, the Court stated that "prudence requires reason for denying the benefit of inheritance to natural heirs and an absence of it, though not invalidating the Will in all cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicion as it does not give inkling to the mind of the testator to enable the court to judge that the disposition was a voluntary act."

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Allahabad HC's Requirement Of Personal Appearance For Photo Affidavits

Case Details: Biswajit Chowdhury v. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 719

The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the administrative requirement of the Allahabad High Court that mandates personal appearance of litigants at the High Court for issuance of photo affidavits.

The petitioner, appearing in person, had alleged that this requirement was arbitrary, lacked statutory backing, and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan refused to interfere with the High Court's administrative decision. The Court observed that such matters, being within the administrative domain of the High Court, are not appropriate for adjudication under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Chief Justice of the High Court in accordance with law.

Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Rape-Murder Of 10 Yr Old Girl To Life Term Without Remission

Case Details: Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand | Criminal Appeal Nos. 331-332 of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 720

The Supreme Court converted the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission, extending to the natural life of the Appellant convicted for sexually assaulting and strangling to death a 10-year-old girl.

Although conscious of the brutality of crime, the Court reasoned that the death penalty cannot be sustained because the trial court and the High Court both considered the brutality of the crime as the sole criterion for awarding such punishment and did not consider factors like mitigating circumstances for determing that the case fell in the 'rarest of rare' category.

Limitation Act Won't Apply To Conciliation Process Under MSMED Act, But Applies To Arbitration : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 721

The Supreme Court settled an important legal issue regarding the recovery of time-barred payment claims by Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) suppliers from large buyers under the MSMED Act.

The Court held that while MSME suppliers may pursue time-barred debts through conciliation proceedings under the Act, such claims cannot be enforced through arbitration, as the Limitation Act applies to arbitration proceedings initiated under the MSMED framework.

The Court reasoned that the limitation act doesn't apply to the conciliation proceedings as Conciliation is a voluntary and settlement-driven process, not adjudicatory in nature. Whereas, arbitration is an adjudicatory proceeding initiated upon filing of the application, making the limitation act applicable on it.

Supreme Court Criticises High Courts For Staying SARFAESI Proceedings In Writ Petitions

Case Details: LIC Housing Finance Ltd v. Nagson and Company & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 722

The Supreme Court criticised the Karnataka High Court for restraining LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (secured creditor) from proceeding under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), without recording any reasons, despite repeated warnings from the apex court against such interference.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih reiterated that High Courts must exercise writ jurisdiction cautiously in matters involving secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act, considering the object and purpose of the statute.

The Court observed that some High Courts still grant interim relief without just and sufficient reasons, and that such interference causes “great disservice to institutional credibility.”

SARFAESI Act | Tenant Cannot Resist Eviction Without Establishing Tenancy Was Created Before Mortgage : Supreme Court

Case Details: PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Sh. Manoj Saha & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 723

In a key ruling favouring secured creditors, the Supreme Court held that a tenant cannot resist eviction under the SARFAESI Act unless the tenancy is established before the mortgage creation.

The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi allowed the appeal filed by PNB Housing Finance Ltd., overturning a Calcutta High Court decision that had restored possession of a mortgaged property to a tenant.

The Court ruled that lease agreements made after the property has been mortgaged do not confer enforceable tenancy rights against a secured creditor exercising powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).

Supreme Court Expunges Rajasthan HC's Critical Remarks Against Magistrate Over Bail Order

Case Details: Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 724

The Supreme Court granted relief to a Judicial Officer from Rajasthan, by expunging the adverse commens passed against him by the High Court in an order.

The High Court, while rejecting a bail application, passed strictures against the Officer, a Judicial Magistrate, criticising the manner in which bail was granted to a co-accused in the case. The High Court observed that bail was granted in a "grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record of the said accused."

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta referred to the settled law that the "High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against the judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial side."

Also from the judgment - Make Rule Mandating Disclosure Of Antecedents & Earlier Pleas In Bail Applications : Supreme Court To High Courts

Supreme Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Costs On Builder's Agent Who Lodged Frivolous FIR To Force Property Sale

Case Details: Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. The State Of Telangana & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 725

Taking a strong stand against the misuse of criminal law, the Supreme Court on July 18 came down heavily on a complainant for filing a false and baseless FIR in what was essentially a civil dispute. The Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000 (Ten Lakh Rupees) on the complainant, directing that the amount be deposited into the appellants' bank account.

The Court was shocked to know that the Appellant, a lady, was arrested and humiliated in police custody for eight days "for allegations which had no elements of any offence whatsoever what to talk of a cognizable offence."

“We feel that rather than awarding interest to the complainant, it is a fit case wherein the complainant should be penalized with exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature.”, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said.

'How Many Times High Courts Are To Be Reminded?' : Supreme Court Anguished At HC Not Quashing FIR Over Civil Dispute

Case Details: Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 726

The Supreme Court criticised the Allahabad High Court for directing a film producer to pay Rs. 25 lakh to a complainant as a precondition for referring a dispute to mediation while dealing with a plea for quashing of a cheating FIR, despite the dispute being civil in nature.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that the High Court seems to have forgotten well-settled principles in the case of State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others on quashing of criminal proceedings.

MP Entry Tax Act | Manufacturers Liable For Entry Tax As They “Cause Entry” Of Liquor Into Local Areas : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S United Spirits Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 727

The Supreme Court upheld the MP High Court's decision to levy the 'entry tax' on the beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (“IMFL”) manufacturers for transporting goods into local areas for sale.

The Court reasoned that the liquor manufacturers "cause entry" of goods into local areas, making them liable for tax under Section 2(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (“M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976”), even if sales occur through state-controlled warehouses.

'Appeal Fully Abates If LRs Of Deceased Party In Joint Decree Not Substituted', Supreme Court Summarises Law On Suit Abatement

Case Details: Suresh Chandra (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Parasram & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 728

The Supreme Court held that when a joint and indivisible 'decree' is passed involving multiple plaintiffs or defendants, the entire appeal will abate as per Order XII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) if the legal representatives of any deceased party are not substituted in time.

The Court reasoned that failure to bring the legal heirs on record in such cases may result in conflicting or inconsistent decrees, warranting complete abatement of the appeal. Otherwise, it will lead to a conflicting or inconsistent decree, which is impermissible in cases involving joint and indivisible decrees.

NDPS Act | S.32B Doesn't Restrict Trial Court's Power To Impose Sentence Higher Than Statutory Minimum: Supreme Court

Case Details: Narayan Das v. State Of Chhattisgarh | Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. Of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 729

The Supreme Court, on 17 July, clarified that Section 32B(factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act") does not restrict the trial court's power in awarding a sentence higher than the minimum of ten years.

SEBI Act | Interest On Unpaid Penalty Applicable Retrospectively, Liability Accrues From Adjudication Order : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jaykishor Chaturvedi & Etc. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, Civil Appeal No. 1551 – 1553 of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 730

In a case involving SEBI's imposition of interest on unpaid penalties, the Supreme Court held that interest on unpaid penalty amounts can be applied retrospectively and the defaulter's liability to pay interest shall accrue from the date of expiry of the period specified in the assessment order.

No separate demand notice, after the liability is crystallized in the assessment order, is required to be issued by SEBI, the Court said.

"Under section 220(1) read with section 28A of the SEBI Act, interest becomes payable upon failure to meet the demand within the prescribed time. The appellants' failure to comply within the specified time rendered them 'defaulters' under Section 220(4) of the Income Tax Act, justifying the accrual of interest from the expiry of the 45-day compliance period", a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed.

On the aspect whether a separate demand notice is required to be issued, it said,

"Where the original adjudication order under the SEBI Act does not specify any time for payment, the period of 30 days under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act should be deemed to apply for making the payment, failure of which would trigger the liability to pay interest. Thus, the adjudication officer's order which specified payment within 45 days, effectively operates as a notice of demand, rendering any separate demand notice redundant."

The Court further held that under the SEBI Act, the adjudication officer is well within his rights to fix a period for payment.

Clause Saying Arbitration "May Be Sought" Doesn't Constitute A Binding Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court

Case Details: BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 731

The Supreme Court held that a clause in an agreement that arbitration "may be sought" to resolve disputes between the parties will not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.

Approving the refusal of the High Court to refer the parties to arbitartion, the Supreme Court observed that the phraseology of the clause did not indicate that the parties were bound to go for arbitration.

"...clause 13 does not bind parties to use arbitration for settlement of the disputes. Use of the words “may be sought”, imply that there is no subsisting agreement between parties that they, or any one of them, would have to seek settlement of dispute(s) through arbitration. It is just an enabling clause whereunder, if parties agree, they could resolve their dispute(s) through arbitration. In our view, the phraseology of clause 13 is not indicative of a binding agreement that any of the parties on its own could seek redressal of inter se dispute(s) through arbitration," the Court observed.

Supreme Court Orders Rs 50 Lakh Compensation To J&K Police Officer Who Suffered Custodial Torture, Directs CBI Probe

Case Details: Khursheed Ahmad Chohan V. Union Of Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 732

Reinforcing constitutional safeguards against custodial violence, the Supreme Court (July 21) ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged custodial torture of a police constable at the Joint Interrogation Centre (“JIC”) in Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir.

The Court directed immediate arrest of the police officers of the J&K police who were responsible for the abuse and ordered the Union Territory of J&K to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the appellant-victim Khursheed Ahmed Chauhan as restitution for the gross violation of his fundamental rights.

"Considering the gravity and magnitude of the custodial torture established through medical records and the institutional apathy that followed, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for awarding compensation to the victim of the violence," the Court said.

"where the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are violated by State machinery, appropriate monetary compensation may be an effective remedy", the Court said, referencing DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1SCC 416 and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746.

'Savior Turned Devil': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Woman In-Charge Of Bihar Shelter Home Accused Of Trafficking Inmates

Case Details: X V. State Of Bihar And Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 4335/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 733

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to woman in-charge of a Bihar shelter home, accused of trafficking the shelter home residents and facilitating immoral activities.

"we are of the firm opinion that the present case is an exceptional one, wherein the grant of bail by the High Court to respondent No.2-accused by a cryptic order dated 18th January, 2024 has resulted into travesty of justice. Grant of bail to the person accused of such grave offences without assigning reasons shakes the conscience of the Court and would have an adverse impact on the society", a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed.

Registered Will Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Burden Of Proof On Party Disputing Its Validity : Supreme Court

Case Details: Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others V. Metapalli Muthaih(D) By Lrs.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 734

The Supreme Court reiterated that a registered 'Will' carries a presumption of due execution and genuineness, and the burden of proof lies heavily on the party challenging the Will.

Holding so, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision judgment that had reduced the Appellant/Lasum Bai's share in the contested land, and upheld her absolute ownership based on a registered Will and an oral family arrangement.

The Court held that the High Court erred in its reasoning, emphasizing that a registered Will carries a strong presumption of genuineness and this presumption stood reinforced in the present case, as the respondent, having admitted that the Will bore his father's signature, did not dispute its authenticity especially when the Will benefitted not only the appellant but also the respondent himself and his sister.

No Arrest In 498A FIRs For 2 Months; Refer Cases To Family Welfare Committees : Supreme Court Endorses Allahabad HC Guidelines

Case Details: Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 735

The Supreme Court endorsed the safeguards laid down by the Allahabad High Court regarding the establishment of the Family Welfare Committee (“FWC”) to prevent the misuse of Section 498A IPC(cruelty offence) in matrimonial disputes.

The Court directed that the guidelines framed by the High Court will remain in effect and should be implemented by the authorities.

Also from the judgment - Supreme Court Orders IPS Wife & Her Parents To Issue Public Apology To Husband & In-Laws For False Criminal Cases

'Fraud Unravels Everything': Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Obtained By Fraud Back In 2022

Case Details: Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 736

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that any judgment or order obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged even in collateral proceedings, without necessarily being assailed in appeal, revision, or writ proceedings.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan applied this principle to set aside its own 2022 judgment delivered in Reddy Veerana v. State of U.P., (2022) , observing that the decision had been fraudulently obtained and was therefore void.

The Court held that if a High Court's decision, later upheld by the Supreme Court, was obtained by fraud, the aggrieved party may challenge it by filing an appeal against the High Court's order before the Supreme Court, rather than seeking a review of the Supreme Court's judgment.

The Court held that the doctrine of merger (where the lower court's decision merges with the Superior court's order) would not apply to the situation where the impugned judgment/order was obtained by fraud.

S.482 CrPC | Second Quashing Petition On Grounds Available Earlier Not Maintainable : Supreme Court

Case Details: M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Observing that the principle of constructive res judicata applies to quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court yesterday (July 23) ruled that a second quashing petition cannot be filed on grounds available but not argued in the earlier petition.

The Court reiterated that the second petition would be maintainable only when it is shown that a change arose in circumstances warranting the filing of a subsequent quashing petition.

Foreign Entity Doing Business Through Temporary Premises In India Liable To Tax : Supreme Court Rejects Hyatt International's Appeal

Case Details: Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd. v. Additional Director of Income Tax

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 738

The Supreme Court ruled that the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) is sufficient to attract tax liability for a foreign entity in India, even in the absence of exclusive possession of a fixed place of business. The Court clarified that temporary or shared use of premises, when combined with administrative or operational control, is adequate to establish a PE, thereby triggering income tax liability in India.

Holding so, the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed Hyatt International's appeal against the Delhi High Court's order, which had held the company liable to pay income tax in India on income earned through its Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) with Asian Hotels Ltd. for 20 years, the operator of Hyatt's hotel business in India.

S.129 CGST Act | Assessee Doesn't Waive Right To Challenge Levy By Mere Payment Of Penalty To Release Goods : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/s. ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 739

The Supreme Court observed that by mere payment of penalty for the release of the goods detained under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the assessee cannot be held to have waived the right to file a statutory appeal.

The Court ruled that mere payment of penalty for the release of goods detained during transit under the GST regime does not conclude proceedings unless a formal, reasoned order is passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act.

In NEET Aspirant's Death Case, Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To Protect Mental Health Of Students In Colleges & Coaching Centres

Case Details: Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 740

Addressing the issue of students' suicides in India, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to protect the mental health of students in schools, colleges, and coaching centres.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued fifteen binding directions, while deciding a case a 17-year-old NEET aspirant who died under suspicious circumstances after falling from her hostel terrace in Visakhapatnam.

While issuing the set of guidelines for ensuring psychological well-being of students, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to mental health is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and dignity (Article 21).

The bench held that mental well-being is inseparable from the right to life, while criticizing the coaching centres and educational institutions for fostering a toxic rank and result culture.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Delimitation In AP & Telangana To Increase Assembly Seats, Says Comparison With J&K Baseless

Case Details: K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 488/2022

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 741

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking directions for the Union to set in motion the delimitation process for increasing the number of assembly seats in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment, after having reserved orders on April 30 in the writ petition filed by Professor (Dr.) K. Purushottam Reddy.

S. 156(3) CrPC| Magistrate's Order For FIR Not Vitiated Merely Because Complainant Didn't Avail Remedy Under S.154(3) : Supreme Court

Case Details: Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 742

The Supreme Court refused to quash the magistrate's order directing a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., despite the complainant not availing alternative remedies under Section 154(3).

The Court said that a magistrate's order directing a police investigation can be irregular but cannot be termed illegal if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and the magistrate applied his mind before ordering the investigation; therefore, the order cannot be faulted.

“To sum up, the Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) CrPC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count”, the Court observed.

Complaint Can Be Amended At Post-Cognizance Stage If No Prejudice Is Caused To Accused : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 743

The Supreme Court ruled that an amendment to a complaint can be made at the post-cognizance stage, provided that no 'prejudice' is caused to the accused and the complainant's cross-examination is awaited.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan allowed the complainant's request to amend the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, noting that no cross-examination had been concluded and the correction changing “Desi Ghee (milk products)” to “milk” was a typographical error appearing in both the legal notice and the complaint, which did not prejudice the accused.

'Retrospective Application Of Enhanced Punishment Violates Art 20(1)' : Supreme Court Modifies Sentence In POCSO Act Case

Case Details: Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. | SLP (Crl) No. 13834 of 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 744

The Supreme Court set aside the sentence of life imprisonment till the remainder of natural life imposed by the Trial Court retrospectively in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act where the convict was held guilty of raping a 5-year-old minor.

While upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentence only to life imprisonment as per S.6 POCSO before it was amended in 2019.

S. 18 Limitation Act| Acknowledgment Of Partial Debt Doesn't Extend Limitation For Entire Claim : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Airen And Associates v. M/S. Sanmar Engineering Services Limited

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 745

The Supreme Court observed that the acknowledgment of partial debt would not extend the limitation period for the entire debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and SC Sharma upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision, which denied the benefit of Section 18 (extension of limitation on acknowledgement of debt) to the Appellant, upon noting that only part of the debt due to the Appellant was acknowledged by the debtor.

Land Acquisition Compensation | Highest Bona Fide Sale Exemplar To Be Considered To Fix Market Value : Supreme Court

Case Details: Manohar And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 746

Reinforcing the landowners' right in acquisition proceedings, the Supreme Court enhanced the land acquisition compensation for compulsorily acquired agricultural land by 82%, holding that lower courts erred in ignoring the highest bona fide sale transaction without adequate reasoning.

“It can thus be seen that it is a settled position of law that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar land, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona-fide transaction, will be considered.”, the court said.

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Badminton Players Lakshya Sen & Chirag Sen Over Alleged Age Fabrication

Case Details: Chirag Sen And Another Etc. v. State of Karnataka And Another

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 747

The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case against Olympian Badminton players Lakshya Sen and Chirag Sen, booked for allegedly fabricating age records to gain unfair advantage in junior-level tournaments.

The Court said that the allegations labelled against the Sens were false and baseless, manifestly intended to malign the appellants.

“The appellants, particularly Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, are sportspersons of national standing, having represented India in international badminton tournaments and having earned multiple accolades, including medals at the Commonwealth Games and BWF international events. To compel such individuals who have maintained an unblemished record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence,to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material would not subserve the ends of justice. The invocation of criminal law in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of process, which this Court cannot countenance.”, the Court said.

Fatal Accident During Work Commute Covered Under Employee Compensation Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Daivshala & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 748

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 29) held that fatal accidents during an employee's commute to work can qualify for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (“EC Act”).

The bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan decided in favor of the deceased watchman, who was commuting at midnight to his workplace, when he met with an accident 5 km away from his workplace, leading to his death. The Court said that employment duties can extend to reasonable travel circumstances if a nexus exists between the commute and work.

'Driver Must Give Signal Before Stopping On Highway' : Supreme Court Awards 91 Lakh Compensation To Youth Who Lost Leg In Accident

Case Details: S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Sudden braking of a vehicle in a highway, where vehicles are expected to go fast, can amount to negligence, obseved the Supreme Court, while enhancing the compensation of a young man, who lost his leg in a motor accident.

CCS Rules | Authority Empowered To Impose Minor Penalties Can Issue Chargesheet For Major Penalties : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union Of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 750

The Supreme Court ruled that the authority competent to impose minor penalties under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (“CCS Rules”), can issue a chargesheet for violations involving major penalties.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision which had quashed the charge sheet issued against the Respondent for major penalty, by the authority competent to impose minor penalties.

Police Summons Under Section 35 BNSS Can't Be Served Electronically : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Satinder Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation | IA No. 63691 Of 2025 In SLP (Crl). 5191 Of 2021

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 751

The Supreme Court reiterated that the summons issued by the police/investigating agency to an accused for appearance as per Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) cannot be served electronically.

The Court rejected an application filed by the State of Haryana to modify its earlier direction issued in January 2025 that summons for appearance under Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS cannot be served through WhatsApp or other electronic means.

Right To Safe & Motorable Roads Part Of Fundamental Right To Life Under Article 21 : Supreme Court

Case Details: Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. MP Road Development Corporation And Another

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 752

Observing that the right to safe, well-maintained, and motorable roads is recognised as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court (July 30) reminded that, instead of contracting out the construction of the road to a private player, the state should take the responsibility for the development maintenance of the roads directly under its control.

IBC | Naming Creditor In Balance Sheet Not Mandatory, Acknowledgment Extends Limitation: Supreme Court Allows IL&FS Plea

Case Details: IL & FS Financial Services Limited v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Private Limited

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Reaffirming that an entry in a company's balance sheet amounts to a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 irrespective of the name of the creditor, the Supreme Court (July 30) revived the dismissed insolvency plea filed by IL&FS against Adhunik Meghalaya Steels for a default of ₹55.45 crore, citing an acknowledgment of debt in the corporate debtor's balance sheet.

Excluding Outside State Experience To Consider Retirement Age Extension Arbitrary : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Bengal Professor

Case Details: Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v. State Of West Bengal Service & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 754

The Supreme Court granted relief to a Professor who was denied the benefit of an extended retirement age from 60 to 65 years due to the State of West Bengal's misinterpretation of its own policy, which unfairly excluded teaching experience acquired outside the State from the eligibility criteria.

“To insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within the State of West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when the employee has already worked for fourteen years is arbitrary and illegal.”, the court observed.

“Extension of the retirement date, dependent on past experience of teaching in a university or a college located in West Bengal alone has no object to sub serve and as such classification of employers into those who have acquired teaching experience in West Bengal and those who acquired such experience outside West Bengal is artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary. The stand taken by the state and the university is illegal and violative of the equality norm as enunciated by this Court.”, the Court added.

Supreme Court Directs Telangana Speaker To Decide On Disqualification Of BRS MLAs Who Defected To INC Within 3 Months

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 755

In the matter relating to the defection of ten BRS MLAs in Telangana to the Congress party, the Supreme Court on Thursday (July 31) directed the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide the petitions seeking their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution within a period of three months from today.

The Court observed that it cannot allow a situation of "operation successful, but patient died" by allowing the disqualification petitions to remain pending during the term of the assembly, allowing the defectors to reap the benefits of the delay.

Noting that the Speaker had not even issued notice on the disqualification petitions for nearly seven months, the Supreme Court observed :

"The question therefore we ask ourselves is whether the Speaker has acted in an expeditious manner. Expeditiousness was one of the reasons why the Parliament has entrusted the important task of adjudicating disqualification petitions to the Speaker/Chairman. Non-issuance of notice for a period of seven months and issuing notice only after either the proceedings were filed before this Court or after this Court has heard the matter for the first time can be, by any stretch of imagination, envisaged as acting in an expeditious manner."

The Court recommended to the Parliament to reconsider the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution which entrust the Speaker of the House with the task of deciding a legislator's disqualification on the ground of defection.

Bail Shouldn't Be Granted Solely Based On Any Undertaking Given By Accused : Supreme Court To High Courts & Trial Courts

Case Details: Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 756

The Supreme Court disapproved of an order granting bail based on the accused's undertaking to deposit ₹25 lakhs, emphasizing that bail should be granted based on the case's merit, not on the assurances given by the accused.

The Court passed a general direction to the High Courts and Trial Courts to decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case, rather than exercising their discretion to allow bail based an undertaking by the applicant or their family member to deposit a particular amount.

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Telugu Actor-Producer Mohan Babu Over 2019 Protest For Student Fee Reimbursement

Case Details: Manchu Mohan Babu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 757

The Supreme Court (July 31) quashed the FIR registered against Telugu actor and film producer Mohan Manchu Babu and his son Vishnu Vardhan Babu, in connection with a protest rally held in 2019 over the issue of student fee reimbursements in Andhra Pradesh.

"The appellants were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution.", the court said.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan allowed Mohan Babu and his son's plea, setting aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against them.

Criminal Case Should Be Quashed When Civil Case Is Pending On Same Issue & Criminality Element Is Absent : Supreme Court

Case Details: S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State Of Karnataka & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 758

The Supreme Court reiterated that in the absence of criminality, a civil and criminal case cannot be allowed to continue with respect to the same issue, as it would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting the Court's interference to quash the criminal proceedings.

“In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case where a complainant had simultaneously pursued a civil suit for specific performance of a property agreement while lodging an FIR alleging cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) against the landowners.

Orders

Supreme Court Dismisses SP Leader Azam Khan's Plea To Transfer Trial From UP Over Allegation Of Tampering Court Records

Case Details: Mohammad Azam Khan v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, T.P.(Crl.) No. 653/2023

The Supreme Court dismissed a transfer petition filed by Samajwadi Party leader Mohammad Azam Khan seeking the transfer of the trial in the 2007 hate speech case pending before Uttar Pradesh to Delhi on the grounds that the evidence had been tampered.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Extension Of Ban On SIMI

Case Details: Humam Ahmad Siddiqui v. Union Of India And Anr., Diary No. 24110-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging extension of the 5-year ban imposed on the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), an organization declared as an "unlawful association" under Section 3(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Notably, the ban on SIMI has been continuing since September, 2001.

'Go Approach RBI' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Investigation Into Fraudulent Loan Transactions

Case Details: Justeen Barwa v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 583/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking constitution of an Expert Committee to investigate fraudulent loan transfers and directions for a national framework to regulate loan transactions.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the case as withdrawn after the petitioner sought liberty to make a representation before the Reserve Bank of India.

Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Accused In Gujarat Mob Lynching Case

Case Details: Kiran @ Holo Mafatbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, Diary No. 32284-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the bail plea of one of the men accused in the murder case of Salman Vohra, who was allegedly beaten to death by a mob during a cricket match in Gujarat.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Noting that the bail plea of a co-accused was earlier dismissed, the bench refused to entertain the petitioner's plea at this stage.

Andhra Candidate Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Regarding Telangana Judicial Service Mandate For Enrollment In Telangana

Case Details: Pasupuleti Bhavya Sree v. State of Telangana and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 17628/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a special leave petition filed by a judicial aspirant challenging the Telangana High Court's judgment whereby her appointment as a judicial officer was subjected to the outcome of a matter challenging April 2024 notification of the Telangana High Court for post of civil judge, which restricted appointment only to those candidates enrolled with Bar Council of Telangana.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and AG Masih dismissed the SLP, stating that the matter is already pending before the Supreme Court.

CSR Funds Scam : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging Exclusion Of Ex-Kerala HC Judge From FIRs

Case Details: Joint Voluntary Action For Legal Alternatives (JVALA) And Ors. v. State Of Kerala And Ors., Diary No. 27747-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the exclusion of retired Kerala High Court judge-Justice CN Ramachandran Nair's name from the list of accused in the CSR Funds scam case.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a petition filed by an organisation named Joint Voluntary Action for Legal Alternatives (JVALA) challenging Kerala High Court's order, which directed the concerned Investigating Officer to take steps for exclusion of Justice Nair's name from the list of accused.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Ban AIMIM; Allows Petitioner To File Fresh Plea On Larger Issues

Case Details: Tirupati Narashima Murari v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 15147/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking cancellation of the registration of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party. At the same time, the Court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition raising larger issues regarding the validity of political parties with religious objectives.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had rejected the plea against registration of AIMIM as a political party under the Representation of the People Act.

Following the bench's reluctance to entertain the matter, the petitioner chose to withdraw the Special Leave Petition. However, the bench allowed the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition raising the larger issues regarding reforms in the election laws.

Supreme Court Allows Convict To Challenge J&K Policy Disallowing Remission In Terrorism-Related Offences

Case Details: Ghulam Mohammad Bhat v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir | W.P. (Crl.) No. 66/2024

The Supreme Court (July 15) allowed the petitioner, a life convict, to challenge a rule in the Jammu & Kashmir Prison Manual, 2022, which disallows premature release to those convicted in relation to a terrorism offence. The allegations against the petitioner are that he illegally obtained weapons and killed certain surrendered militants who were working as a local source to the Indian Army.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, allowed the petitioner to file an interlocutory application, since the main petition was only limited to premature release and not a challenge to the policy.

'Article 19 Can't Prevail Over Art 21' : Supreme Court Says As Samay Raina & 4 Others Personally Appear In Case Over Jokes On Disabled

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

Pursuant to the last order, 5 comedians, including Samay Raina, entered appearance before the Supreme Court in a plea accusing them of making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities.

While giving them time to file reply, the Court ordered that the comedians, except Sonali Thakkar, shall continue to appear in-person before the Court, while Sonali Thakkar was allowed to appear online.

Justice Kant also notably stressed that Article 19, which provides freedom of speech and expression, cannot overpower Article 21 of the Constitution, which provides right to life and liberty (a facet of which is one's right to dignity). "Individual misconducts, which are under scrutiny, will continue to be examined. Foundation has raised serious issue. Something very disturbing. Right to dignity also emanates from right which someone else is claiming...Article 19 can't overpower Article 21...Article 21 must prevail if any competition takes place", the judge said.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To MP Cartoonist After His Apology For Objectionable Post On Prime Minister

Case Details: Hemant Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court granted interim protection to Indore based cartoonist Hemant Malviya, who has been booked over a cartoon shared on Facebook that allegedly contains derogatory references to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the RSS. The court listed the matter after August 15th for further hearing.

The order was passed after Malviya submitted an apology. The Court directed him to file the apology in Hindi in the form of an affidavit and directed the parties to complete the pleading till the next date.

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a special leave petition filed by cartoonist Hemant Malviya challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which denied him anticipatory bail in a case related to a cartoon he had posted on Facebook.

MBBS : Supreme Court Directs AMU To Disburse Stipend Arrears To Foreign Medical Graduates At Par With Indian Graduates

Case Details: Zabihullah v. Aligarh Muslim University | W.P.(C) No. 000232 / 2025

The Supreme Court (July 15) directed the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) to give internship stipend arrears to 11 Foreign Medical Graduates (FMGs) within 2 weeks.

The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar was hearing the plea filed by 11 medical students who completed their primary medical education from foreign institutions and qualify as FMGs. They are now completing their internship at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh- a constituent college of AMU.

Consider Revising Disability Pension Policy For Ex-Army Men To Prevent Misuse Through Belated Claims : Supreme Court Tells Union

Case Details: Union Of India v. Gawas Anil Madso | Diary No. - 28845/2025

Expressing concerns over delayed claims for disability pensions by ex-army men, the Supreme Court (July 15) asked the Union to consider revising its Policy to ensure there is no misuse of the law.

The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing a plea by the Union challenging the Delhi High Court's order, which, in a batch of petitions, upheld the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which granted disability pensions to two ex-army men.

'Why SIT Misdirecting Itself?' : Supreme Court Asks SIT To Focus Only On Mahmudabad's 2 Posts; Restrains Further Summons To Him

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

The Supreme Court asked why the Haryana Police Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted to investigate the two FIRs lodged against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his two social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor', was "misdirecting itself."

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that the SIT was formed specifically to investigate the two social media posts and asked why it was expanding the scope.

The bench raised these comments after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Mahmudabad) submitted that the SIT had seized his devices and was asking about foreign trips for the last ten years.

Sibal pointed out that the Court, by its May 28 order, had directed the SIT to confine its probe to the contents of the social media posts.

The bench took notice of the interim report submitted by the SIT, which acknowledged that the petitioner's electronic devices were seized during the investigation and sent for forensic examination.

Noting that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and surrendered his devices, the Court directed that he should not be summoned again.

The Court further clarified that the conditions imposed while granting interim bail only restrained the petitioner from commenting on the sub-judice issues and the he was free to write or express opinions on other topics.

Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Allows Hany Babu To Approach Trial Court Or HC, Or Revive Withdrawn SLP For Bail

Case Details: Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency and Anr. | MA 1208/2025 in SLP (Crl) No. 1596/2024

The Supreme Court granted liberty to former Delhi University Professor Hany Babu to approach either the trial court or the High Court seeking bail in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad conspiracy case under the UAPA over alleged Maoist links.

The Court also said that Babu could seek revival of his earlier Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale, granted this liberty to the petitioner while dismissing a Miscellaneous Application filed by him seeking a clarification that his earlier withdrawal of the SLP did not prevent the High Court from hearing his bail matter.

Gujarat TRP Game Zone Fire: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Ex-Rajkot District Chief Fire Officer

Case Details: Ileshkumar Valabhai Kher v. State of Gujarat | D No. 26198/2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to Ileshkumar Valabhai Kher, who was the district Chief Fire Officer, when the TRP Game Zone Fire incident took place wherein twenty-seven individuals, including four children, perished in the massive fire that engulfed the game zone in Rajkot's Nana-Mava locality on May 25, 2024.

The Court orally said that the responsibility of the Chief Fire Officer in this case was “extremely remote” and observed in its order that the Appellant has been granted bail, considering that he has suffered one year of incarceration and that there is no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the January 30 order of the Gujarat High Court denying bail to Kher.

Motor Accident Claims : Can Passenger In Vehicle Claim Compensation Under Third Party Policy? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: Divisional Manager v. Radha Santhosh & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17630/2025

The Supreme Court on July 14 referred to a larger bench the issue whether a passenger sitting in a car is covered under a third-party policy in insurance claims.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale was hearing a challenge by New India Insurance to the Kerala High Court Order, which upheld the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal to a passenger in an auto-rickshaw.

Supreme Court Extends Time To FSSAI Expert Committee For Report On Warning Labels On Packaged Foods

Case Details: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No.437/2024

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 15) extended the time for an expert committee under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to give its recommendations within three months on the proposed amendments for nutrition warning labels on the front of packaged food items.

On April 9, the Court had granted three months' time to the committee for its recommendations on the amendments proposed by the FSSAI on Front-of-Package Warning Labels (FOPL) on packaged foods so that the customers can know about the sugar, salt and fat contents.

On July 15, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan allowed the extension application filed by the FSSAI, granting further time of three months as a last opportunity.

Supreme Court Grants Last Chance To HCs For Compliance Report On Directions For Toilets For Women, Disabled & Transgender Persons

Case Details: Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 538/2023

The Supreme Court on July 16 gave one last opportunity to the high courts to file a compliance report in the January 15 judgment, wherein it issued a set of directions for the construction of toilet facilities especially for women, specially-abled persons and transgender persons in Court premises and tribunals across the country.

Are Bar Councils Following Judgment On Enrollment Fee Cap? Supreme Court Seeks BCI Chairperson's Response

Case Details: K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council Represented By Ramesh S Naik (FDA) | Diary No. 16629-2025 PIL-W

The Supreme Court on July 15 passed an order seeking the presence of the Chairman of the Bar Council of India and Senior Advocate, Manan Mishra, to assist the Court on whether the directions issued by the Court in its July 30, 2024, order directing State Bar Councils to not charge extraorbitant fees for enrollment have been complied with or not.

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

The present case is a contempt petition moved by petitioner-in-person K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu, who has argued that the Bar Councils are in contempt of the 2024 judgment as they have failed to comply with the directions issued.

'Scandalous, Publicity Stunt' : Supreme Court Rebukes Advocate For Plea Seeking FIR Against Delhi HC Judges, Tribunal Members

Case Details: Ravi Kumar v. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Ors., Diary No. 57941-2024

The Supreme Court rebuked an advocate for filing a plea seeking registration of FIR against 6 sitting/former judges of High Courts and/or Members of Tribunals.

On the petitioner's asking however, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi appointed Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar (former Judge, Delhi High Court) as Amicus Curiae.

Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Order Impleading Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy In Contempt Case

Case Details: HD Kumaraswamy v. Samaj Parivartana Samudaya | SLP(C) No. 14420 / 2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a special leave petition filed by JD(S) MP HD Kumaraswamy (now a Union Minister) against the Karnataka High Court's order wherein the high court issued notice in the ongoing contempt proceedings against the Union Minister. The high court's order of April 17, which impleaded him as a party, has also been kept in abeyance.

The issue arises out of a writ petition filed by Samaj Parivartana before the High Court alleging large-scale encroachment of land by the Union Minister and his family.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Trial Against Lalu Prasad Yadav In Land-for-Jobs Scam Case

Case Details: Lalu Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation

The Supreme Court refused to stay the trial proceedings in the case related to the land-for-jobs scam against former Bihar Chief Minister and RJD founder Lalu Prasad Yadav.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing Yadav's petition challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to stay the trial. On being told that the petition is only challenging an interim order of the High Court and the main matter is pending there, the bench observed that it will not interfere.

The bench however observed that he need not be personally present during the trial. The bench also requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of Yadav's petition challenging the cognizance taken by the trial court. With these observations, the bench disposed of his petition challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to stay the trial.

'Trace Her Immediately & Return Custody To Father' : Supreme Court Passes Rare Order To Prevent Russian Wife From Fleeing With Indian Man's Child

Case Details: Viktoriia Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 129/2023

In a child custody matter, the Supreme Court passed a one-of-a-kind order to trace the child who was last in custody of his Russian mother. The Court directed the Union and Delhi authorities to ensure that the Russian woman does not leave the country as well as to find her and handover the child to his Indian father.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was informed that “the Russian mother and the child have vanished into wilderness”.

Ultimately, to trace the 5-yr old child involved in the “ferocious” custody dispute, the Court passed the following stringent directions:

(i) Delhi police authorities, including the Commissioner, to trace the minor child without any loss of time and handover the unconditional custody of the child to the father;

(ii) Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Home Affairs to issue look-out notices and ensure that the (Russian) mother is not permitted to leave the country;

(iii) The (Russian) mother's passport be seized forthwith; and

(iv) Officers of MEA to talk to officials in Russian embassy to seek permission to enter into residence of the diplomat who was lastly seen in the company of the (Russian) mother.

Notably, the bench asked the petitioner-wife's counsels about her whereabouts, but they claimed that they were not aware. This led the Court to prima facie doubt their bonafides as well. It was observed that the counsels' replies were evasive and vague. In no uncertain terms, Justice Kant warned of a strong order in future against the counsels.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Actor-Politician S Ve Shekar's Plea Against Conviction For Derogatory Comments On Woman Journalist

Case Details: S. Ve. Shekar v. State Of Tamil Nadu, SLP(Crl) No. 4548-4549/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on actor-politician S Ve Shekar's plea challenging his conviction in case lodged over derogatory comments against a woman journalist.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, extending the interim protection against surrender that was granted earlier in Shekar's favor.

The Court was dealing with Shekar's petition against a Madras High Court order of January, whereby the Court refused to interfere with his conviction.

Nimisha Priya Execution : Negotiators Seek To Travel To Yemen; Supreme Court Asks Them To Approach Centre For Permission

Case Details: Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 649/2025

The Supreme Court allowed the private organisation which is taking efforts for the release of Malayali woman Nimisha Priya, to approach the Central Government seeking permission to travel to Yemen for negotiations to stall her execution for the murder of a Yemeni national.

The organisation is seeking permission to allow a few of its members and a representative of Kerala Sunni Islamic leader Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musaliyar - whose interventions reportedly led to the stay of the execution - to travel to Yemen to meet the victim's family to further the negotiations. Efforts are underway to negotiate with the victim's family to persuade them to pardon her after accepting 'blood money' as per the Shariat Law.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a writ petition filed by Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council.

Supreme Court Flags Delay in NIA Trials Due To Absence Of Special Courts, Warns Undertrials Will Have To Be Given Bail

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

The Supreme Court warned the Union of India that if Special Courts with requisite infrastructure for expeditious trial in NIA cases are not set-up, Courts will be left with no option but to release undertrials on bail.

"If authorities fail to establish special courts with requisite infrastructure for purpose of conducting time-bound/expeditious trial under NIA Act, the Courts would invariably be left with no option but to release undertrials on bail", said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.

Supreme Court Transfers To Itself PILs In HCs To Ban Opinion Trading Platforms

Case Details: Probo Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sumit Kapurbhai Prajapati | T.P.(C) No. 1527-1529/2025

The Supreme Court transferred four public interest litigation petitions to itself seeking a ban on opinion trading platforms for promoting illegal activity of betting and gambling. These petitions are transferred from the High Court of Bombay, the High Court of Chhattisgarh and the High Court of Gujarat.

S. 18 Limitation Act| Acknowledgment Of Partial Debt Doesn't Extend Limitation For Entire Claim : Supreme Court

Case Details: P V Midhun Reddy Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 10272/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Andhra Pradesh multi-crore liquor scam accused and a member of Parliament from Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party, PV Midhun Reddy, after the Andhra Pradesh High Court denied him bail.

Appearing for Reddy, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, tried to convince a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan. Appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, reminded the Court that this bench had refused to grant anticipatory bail to other co-accused P Krishna Mohan Reddy and K. Dhananjaya, who served as secretary and OSD, respectively, in the office of ex-CM Jagan Mohan Reddy during the previous YSRCP regime, in May this year.

The bail to the two accused was denied on submission of the State of Andhra Pradesh as the investigation is at the critical juncture, and granting anticipatory bail might cause prejudice to the State's case.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging BPSC Chairman's Appointment, Rebukes Petitioner For Inaccurate Facts

Case Details: Brajesh Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 62/2025

The Supreme Court (July 18) took a stern view over a lawyer who challenged the appointment of the Bihar Public Service Commission Chairperson, without mentioning accurate facts in the plea.

While the court initially imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- on the lawyer, it was subsequently removed. The bench remarked that one has to work towards Public Interest Litigation with sincerity and not go behind publicity.

The bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandukar was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate and petitioner-in-person Brajesh Singh for declaring the appointment of Bihar Public Service Commission Chairperson, Parmar Ravi Manubhai, as "completely illegal" and "arbitrary" on grounds that the appointment has taken place defying the mandate of Article 316(Appointment and term of office of members) of the Constitution of India.

The bench proceeded to dismiss the petition. Upon the apology of the petitioner and assistance by the amicus, the court waived the costs imposed.

Supreme Court Orders Sealing Of Illegal Chandni Chowk Properties

Case Details: Dr. S. Jaitley and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 35312-2024

Again deprecating rampant illegal and unauthorized constructions stated to be going on in Delhi's Chandni Chowk, the Supreme Court directed that police authorities shall arrest any person who is found laying even a single unauthorized brick in the area.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and further directed sealing of all properties in the area where unauthorized or illegal construction is found to be going on.

Russian Woman Seems To Be In India; Russian Embassy Assisting In Search: Centre Tells Supreme Court In Indian Man's Child Custody Case

Case Details: VIKTORIIA BASU v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 129/2023

In the case where the Supreme Court ordered authorities to immediately trace a Russian woman who has seemingly gone missing with her child during pendency of a custody battle with her Indian husband, Union government informed the Court that the woman does not seem to have left the country, at least through legal channels.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was given the update by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who stated that lookout circular, hue and cry notices, wireless messages, etc. have been issued and circulated across the country to trace the missing child and the Russian mother.

Ultimately, finding it strange how the woman is travelling and taking care of the child with limited means, the Court told the authorities that they need to find the two immediately, in which search the next 2 days would be most crucial. The Court asked the authorities to see if the petitioner is still in national capital region, or has left it, by reaching out to authorities in railways and other modes of transport.

Insofar as the Indian man's family submitted that they can provide authorities names of some persons who were close to the petitioner, the Court ordered, "The husband and his family have some information that may facilitate the police to reach logical conclusion. They may be associated in the entire exercise of tracing the petitioner and the child."

The Court also directed the Delhi police along with the Ministry of External Affairs to continue an effective dialogue with the Russian embassy.

Campus Suicides : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Smoothen NTF's Functioning

Case Details: Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Criminal Appeal No. 1425/2025

The Supreme Court on July 14 passed certain directions for the National Task Force ("NTF"), instituted by the Court to investigate the increasing suicide rates in college students, to carry out its work efficiently. It has also passed orders seeking an update on the investigations in connection with the suicide of two IIT Delhi students, one IIT Kharagpur student, and one case in Kota, Rajasthan.

Formed by the order dated March 24, the NTF, chaired by former Supreme Court Judge, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, is meant to address mental health concerns of students and to prevent the rising suicides in higher educational institutions. Directions passed in a petition filed by parents of two IIT Delhi students, who allegedly committed suicide due to caste-based discrimination and academic pressure, require an institution to promptly register a first information report in the event of a suicide on campus.

Supreme Court Directs Personal Appearance Of Investigating Officer With CCTV Footage In Uttarakhand Murder Case

Case Details: Aman Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand | Diary No.31655/2025

While considering a plea to cancel the bail granted to an accused in the case related to the murder of a young man in Uttarakhand last year, the Supreme Court directed the Investigating Officer to remain personally present on the next date of hearing, along with the case documents and the CCTV footage of the crime.

The case relates to the murder of a youth in Raipur in Dehradun District in November 2024, allegedly by seven persons. The FIR was lodged at the instance of the victim's brother.

'Why ED Being Used For Political Battles?' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Karnataka CM's Wife In MUDA Case

Case Details: Directorate Of Enforcement v. Parvathi | SLP(Crl) No. 9384/2025

The Supreme Court on July 21 asked the Enforcement Directorate why it was being used for "political battles", while refusing to entertain the ED's appeal against the Karnataka High Court quashing the summons against Karnataka CM Siddaramiah's wife BM Parvati and State Minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with alleged illegal allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

'Fight Your Battles Before Electorate' : Supreme Court Rejects Karnataka Govt's Plea For FIR Against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya

Case Details: State Of Karnataka Vs. L.S. Tejasvi Surya| Diary No. - 26570/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a challenge to the quashing of a criminal case filed against Karnataka BJP MP Tejasvi Surya for allegedly spreading fake news about a farmer's suicide.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinodchandran was hearing the State Government's challenge to the order of the Karnataka High Court which quashed a case registered against BJP Member of Parliament Tejasvi Surya for allegedly spreading 'fake news' regarding the suicide of a farmer in Haveri district.

Byju's Insolvency : Supreme Court Dismisses BCCI, Riju Ravindran Appeals Against NCLT Mandating CoC Nod To Withdraw CIRP

Case Details: Board Of Control For Cricket In India Vs Pankaj Srivastava |C.A. No. 6959-6960/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed civil appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Riju Ravindran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment holding that the application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (the company running Byju's) needed approval from 90 percent of the Committee of Creditors.

TN Idol Theft Cases: Ex-IPS Officer Pon Manickavel Undertakes Not To Give Media Interviews; Supreme Court Restrains CBI Also

Case Details: Central Bureau Of Investigation V. A.G. Ponn Manickavel, SLP(Crl) No. 7200/2025

Retired IPS officer Pon Manickavel, who is accused of falsely implicating police officials in Tamil Nadu's Idol Theft cases, undertook before the Supreme Court that he would not give any interviews to the media about the subject case(s).

At his request, the Court restrained CBI officials/Investigating Officer as well from making any statement against Manickavel in the meantime.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with CBI's plea seeking surrender of Manickavel's passport and restrain on his giving any interviews to the media.

Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Actor Shreyas Talpade In Cheating Cases

Case Details: Shreyas Talpade v. State Of Haryana

The Supreme Court granted interim protection to actor Shreyas Talpade from arrest in cases registered in various states in connection with alleged financial crime committed by a cooperative society accused of defrauding investors.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan issued notice to respondents to file their response/counter affidavit and directed that in the meantime no coercive steps shall be taken against him. The matter has been listed on August 29 for further consideration.

'Misuse Of Political Power' : Supreme Court Asks How Samajwadi Party Got Municipal Building For Pilibhit Office At Cheap Rate

Case Details: Samajwadi Party V. State Of U.P. And Anr., SLP(C) No. 18269/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain Samajwadi Party's plea challenging its eviction from Pilibhit district office, asking the party to approach the Civil Court, where it has already filed a civil suit, seeking ad-interim injunction.

During the hearing, the Court made certain oral remarks, disapproving of the manner in which the Party got the office in the municipal plot at a throwaway price, and opined that it was an allotment based on misuse of political power when the Party was in power.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi however clarified in its order that no observation on the merits of the matter has been made, leaving open the civil remedies.

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 21) refused to entertain Samajwadi Party's plea challenging its eviction from Pilibhit district office, asking the party to approach the Civil Court, where it has already filed a civil suit, seeking ad-interim injunction.

During the hearing, the Court made certain oral remarks, disapproving of the manner in which the Party got the office in the municipal plot at a throwaway price, and opined that it was an allotment based on misuse of political power when the Party was in power.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi however clarified in its order that no observation on the merits of the matter has been made, leaving open the civil remedies.

Isha Foundation v Nakkheeran Publications : Supreme Court Asks Parties To Work Out Remedies In Delhi High Court

Case Details: Nakkheeran Publications V. Google Llc, T.P.(C) No. 1403/2025

The Supreme Court asked Sadhguru's Isha Foundation to agitate before the Delhi High Court its plea seeking to injunct Tamil media outlet Nakkheeran Publications from publishing 'defamatory' content against the Foundation.

The Court also allowed Nakkheeran to raise its contentions in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (for rejection of the plaint filed by Isha Foundation). The High Court was requested to take up the applications filed by the parties at the earliest.

With these observations, the Supreme Court disposed of the transfer petition filed by Nakkheeran, as well as the interlocutory application filed by the Foundation in the transfer petition.

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Order Restraining Probe Into Alleged Misappropriation Of ₹1243 Crore At Mumbai's Lilavati Trust

Case Details: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court stayed an ex-parte interim order of the Bombay High Court that had restrained investigation into alleged cheating and misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 1243 Crores at the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs Mumbai's Lilavati Hospital.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar issued notice to in a special leave petition filed by the Trust against the Bombay High Court's 4 July 2025 stay order.

'CBI Has Guts To Not Appear Before Us?' : Supreme Court Questions CBI's Absence In Plea For Probe Against Indiabulls Housing Finance

Case Details: Citizens Whistle Blower Forum Vs Union Of India | SLP(C) No. 2993/2025 Diary No. 50365 / 2024

The Supreme Court made strong critical oral remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for not entering appearance in a case concerning allegations of serious illegalities, including round-tripping of funds, violations of provisions of the Companies Act, and siphoning of funds committed by the promoters of Indiabulls House Finance Limited (renamed as Sammaan Capital ltd) and its subsidiaries and their promoters.

The Special Leave Petition is filed against the February 2, 2024, order passed by Delhi High Court rejecting the writ petition filed by Citizens Whistle Blower Forum seeking time-bound and in-depth investigation by a Special Investigation Team into the allegations.

Keeping the matter to be heard on July 30, the Court ordered: "This Court by an order dated 13 May 1995 issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation and as per the notice report, the said agency has been duly served. Suprisingly, no one has entered appearance. SV Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General for India, seeks time and is granted one week time to have instructions..."

'A Cow Is A Cow' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Use Only Indigenous Cow Milk For Worship At Tirumala Temple

Case Details: Yuga Thulasi Foundation v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD)

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking a direction to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) that the milk used for the worship of Lord Venkatesh at the Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala should be sourced only from indigenous cows.

After a bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh expressed disinclination to hear the matter, the counsel appearing for the petitioner withdrew the petition.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Reject Ex-TN CM O Panneerselvam's Election Petition Against MP Navas Kani's Win In 2024 LS Polls

Case Details: Navaskani K V. O. Panneerselvam And Ors. | SLP(C) No. 18726/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by MP K Navas Kani, of the Indian Union Muslim League, challenging the Madras High Court's order dismissing his pleat to reject the petition filed by former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam challenging MP Kani's victory in the June 2024 Lok Sabha polls on grounds of suppression of facts.

By an order dated April 21, the Madras High Court dismissed an application filed by MP Kani under Order VII Rule 11 CPC against the election petition filed by the former CM against Kani's victory from Ramanathapuram Lok Sabha constituency.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Action Against Alleged Hate Speech Towards Christians In Andhra Pradesh

Case Details: Ashok Babu Chegudi @ Joshua Daniel And Ors. V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors., Diary No. 17352-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking action against Shivashakthi Foundation members, and others, for allegedly spreading hate towards the Christian community and instigating people towards desecration of the Holy Bible.

The Court asked the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional magistrate. In case of inaction, they may approach the High Court for orders in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court added.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the petitioners' grievance against certain objectionable remarks made by a group of persons last year during an event of the Shivashakthi Foundation in Andhra Pradesh.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Political Parties Using Tricolour Flags With Election Symbols

Case Details: Sanjay Bhimashankar Thobde V. Union Of India And Ors. | Diary No. 56966-2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation against political parties using flags with the tricolour along with party symbols.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a PIL filed by a petitioner in person against using the tricolour of the National Flag as part of their political campaign, replacing the Ashoka Chakra with their symbols.

Kanwar Yatra : Supreme Court Refuses To Examine Legality Of QR Code Directives, Says Hotels Need Only Display Licences As Per Law

Case Details: Apoorvanand Jha And Anr. V. Union Of India W.P.(Crl.) No. 328/2024

Considering the end of the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage of this year, the Supreme Court on refused to go into the legality of the directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand authorities to the eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes which would enable the pilgrims to know the details of the owners.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh disposed of the interlocutory applications filed challenging the mandate issued by the authorities. The bench also clarified that the sellers need only display their licenses and registration certificates as required by the law.

'One Shouldn't Hold On To Govt Accommodation Endlessly' : Supreme Court

Case Details: Avanish Kumar Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar | SLP(C) No. 016257 - / 2025

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the withholding of Government accommodation by former Bihar MLA Avinash Kumar Singh.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a challenge to the Patna High Court order, which upheld a government order against the former Bihar MLA for paying 20 Lakhs of house rent for the government residence, which he overstayed. The bench refused to entertain the plea and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition.

During the hearing, CJI expressed displeasure over the conduct of the petitioner : "One should not hold on to Government accommodation endlessly."

Supreme Court Allows Ex-Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel To Contest Maintainability Of Petition Challenging His Election

Case Details: Bhupesh Baghel V. Vijay Baghel And Ors., SLP(C) No. 17768/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel's plea against an election petition filed by his nephew Vijay Baghel alleging violation of silence period norms during the state's 2023 Assembly elections.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition as withdrawn, while giving liberty to Bhupesh Baghel to approach the High Court-cum-Election Tribunal "to raise issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue".

Need To Regulate Transfers & Postings In NCLT, There's A Deep Problem : Supreme Court Tells Union

Case Details: Madras Bar Association V. Union Of India And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

The Supreme Court asked the Union government to look into the manner of posting of Judicial/Technical members for the National Company Law Tribunal benches across the country.

"There's an application filed by High Court Bar Association, Indore...it's disturbing...it says no full time judicial/technical member is posted in the NCLT Indore bench...[we] don't want to make it part of judicial order today. Something needs to be done to regulate transfers and postings in NCLT, there's a very deep problem", the Court orally told Attorney General R Venkataramani, while calling for a comprehensive plan to streamline postings in NCLT.

The Court was hearing a batch of matters where it earlier asked Union of India to collate and furnish data on the status of appointments and selection process of judicial/technical/accounting/administrative members of Tribunals across the country. One of the petitions is a public interest litigation initiated by the Madras Bar Association.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Transfer Petition Challenging Waqf Act 1995 From Delhi HC

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay V. Union Of India And Ors. | T.P.(C) No. 1652/2025

While refusing to transfer a writ petition challenging the Waqf Act 1995 pending before Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court (July 22) expressed concerns over the trend of filing petitions for getting sheer newspaper publicity.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a transfer petition seeking the transfer of the writ petition challenging the Waqf Act, 1995 from the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court.

Hasdeo Forest | 'Where Exactly Are Trees Being Planted?' Supreme Court Questions Coal Block Allottees And Chhattisgarh Govt

Case Details: Dinesh Kumar Soni V. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 371/2019

During the hearing of pleas challenging coal mining in the Hasdeo Aranya forest area, the Supreme Court questioned the coal block allottees and the state government about where trees are being planted as part of compensatory measures.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with 2 public interest litigations – one, filed by Sudiep Shrivastava (Chhattisgarh-based advocate and activist), seeking a direction to the Union of India to cancel all non-forest use and mining permissions granted for PEKB (Parsa East and Kente Basan) and Parsa Coal Block, Chhattisgarh, and second, filed by Dinesh Kumar Soni, which raises similar issues and relates to the Coalgate case, where a three Judge bench headed by Chief Justice RM Lodha declared coal allocation between 1993-2009 illegal.

Ultimately, the matter was adjourned to enable the parties to file convenience compilations and replies. After urgency was shown by Bhushan, saying that tree-felling will likely resume once monsoon season is over, the bench listed the matter on August 19.

Builder-Bank Nexus In NCR: Supreme Court Allows CBI To Register 22 Cases; Asks Gurugram Judge To Enquire Into Coercive Orders Against Homebuyers

Case Details: Himanshu Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7649/2023

Considering's Central Bureau of Investigation's interim report on a "builder-bank nexus" in the national capital region, the Supreme Court yesterday allowed the agency to register 22 regular cases for further investigation.

Taking note of "problems" with Gurugram Courts, the top Court directed District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into passing of coercive orders against homebuyers despite a stay order restraining any such action. The Sessions Judge was asked to file a report within 10 days. “This is a serious matter”, commented Justice Surya Kant.

Supreme Court Rejects Kal Airways & Kalanithi Maran's Appeals In A Dispute Against SpiceJet

Case Details: Kalanithi Maran v. Spicejet Limited and Anr. | SLP(C) No. 17306/2025

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's order, which rejected the plea of Kal Airways and former promoter of Spicejet, Kalanithi Maran, to seek damages of Rs. 1323 crores from Spicejet.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar passed the order in a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court's order dated May 23, wherein the division bench dismissed their plea on grounds of delay.

Dharmasthala Burial Case: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Media Gag Order, Asks Party To Approach High Court

Case Details: Third Eye YouTube Channel v. Sri Harshendra Kumar D & Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a challenge to an ex-parte gag order restraining media from publishing any "defamatory content" against the family running the Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala (Karnataka) and also the temple in relation to the "Dharmasthala Burial" case

The counsel for the petitioner Third Eye YouTube channel mentioned the matter before the bench led by CJI BR Gavai.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi refused to consider the matter directly at the Apex Court. The CJI asked the counsel to first approach the High Court as "we cannot discourage the High Courts".

BCI's Power To Inspect Law Colleges: Supreme Court Seeks 'Independent, Transparent' Mechanism For Periodical Inspection

Case Details: Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Womens University Law School v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(C) No. 17029/2025

The Supreme Court called on the Bar Council of India to suggest an independent mechanism for annual/ periodical inspection of law colleges/ universities.

While issuing notice on a petition challenging Bombay HC judgment which upheld a notice of inspection issued by BCI to petitioner-Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said,

“Meanwhile, the Bar Council of India shall suggest an independent, impartial and transparent mechanism for annual/periodical inspection of the Law Colleges/Law Universities.”

7/11 Mumbai Blasts :Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC's Acquittal Judgment; But Says Accused Not Required To Go Back To Prison

Case Details: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh and Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 10780-10791/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in the criminal appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the Bombay High Court's judgment which acquitted all 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case of 2006.

The bench observed in the order :

"We have been informed that all the respondents have been released and there is no question of bringing them back to the prison. However, taking note of the submission made by the SG on the question of law, we are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. To that extent, there is a stay of the impugned judgment."

'288 Gangster Case Trials Pending In NCT': Supreme Court Asks Union & Delhi Govt To Introduce Fast-Track Courts

Case Details: Mahesh Khatri @ Bholi V. State NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 1422/2025

Highlighting the need for expeditious trials in gangster-related cases, the Supreme Court called on the Union of India and Delhi government to consider establishment of fast-track courts which can deal with such cases on a day-to-day basis.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made the suggestion to Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay, after it was informed that there are 288 trials pending in the national capital courts pertaining to gangster-related cases, out of which charges have been framed in 108 cases and there is a gap of 3-4 years between framing of charges and commencement of prosecution evidence.

The Court reflected that if the proposed decision is taken by the governments, all pending trials can be brought to an end.

'Castigating Lawyers Over Small Mistake May Affect Their Career': Supreme Court On Action Against AoR & Advocate For Filing Misconduct

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

The Supreme Court held that lawyers should not be castigated for small mistakes as that may affect their career detrimentally.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the issue arising from a split verdict by another bench of the Supreme Court.

"We are also of a considered view that for a small mistake, lawyers shouldn't be castigated, it may have serious ramifications affecting their career."

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had 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.

Supreme Court Allows Kerala Govt To Withdraw Petitions Challenging Governor's Inaction On Bills; Rejects Centre's Objection

Case Details: State of Kerala and Anr. v. Hon'ble Governor for State of Kerala and Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the State of Kerala to withdraw the two petitions filed by it n 2023 against the Kerala Governor over the delay in granting assent to the bills passed by the legislative assembly.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar passed the order rejecting the objections raised by the Centre to the State's bid to withdraw the matters.

'Udaipur Files' Row : Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Decide On Monday Pleas To Stay Movie's Release

Case Details: Mohammed Javed v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 647/2025

The Supreme Court asked the parties objecting to the release of the controversial movie "Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder" to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the Centre's revisional order which approved the movie's exhibition with 6 edits.

The Supreme Court clarified in its order that it has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter and all contentions are open to be raised before the High Court, which shall decide in accordance with law.

NEET UG 2025: Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Seeking Reexamination For Candidates Who Faced Power Outage At Centres

Case Details: Navya Nayak v. National Testing Agency | SLP(C) No. 19807/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed two petitions filed by NEET-UG 2025 candidates, who suffered a power outage in centres in Madhya Pradesh, seeking a re-examination.

The Court refused to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench's judgment which refused the plea for re-test. The Court opined that the High Court has examined the issue from all possible aspects, including the report of an independent Expert Committee.

However, the bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar directed that those students who are eligible for counselling should be allowed to register for the same and participate in the ongoing process.

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots : Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC For Staying Trial Of 3 Cases, Directs To Expedite Hearing

Case Details: Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (Petitioner No. 01) and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., W.P. (Crl.) No. 45/2017

The Supreme Court expressed dismay over Allahabad High Court staying trial proceedings in 3 out of 11 cases pertaining to the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, where proceedings commenced pursuant to re-investigation and filing of chargesheets by a Special Investigation Team.

While calling on the UP Advocate General to deploy "best of the state law officers" to pursue the cases, the Court requested the High Court to take up the matters out of turn and expeditiously.

'Courts Are There To Convict Or Acquit; YouTube Cannot Substitute Courts' : SC While Hearing Crime Reporter's Plea

Case Details: Nandakumar T.P. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that YouTube presentations cannot replace the judicial process and criticised a Kerala based journalist for his video allegedly targeting a prominent woman politician. The journalist has claimed that the video was meant to encourage public discussion and fight corruption.

A bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the anticipatory bail plea of Nandakumar TP, who is facing prosecution over a video uploaded on his YouTube channel “Crime Online”.

At the end of the hearing, the counsel for the State of Kerala sought time to take instructions and file a counter affidavit, if necessary. The Court adjourned the matter by three weeks and extended the interim protection from arrest granted earlier.

Supreme Court Stays PMLA Trial In Case Where Chargesheet In Predicate Offence Not Filed For 7 Yrs

Case Details: S. Srividhya and Ors. v. Assistant Director and Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 10113-10115/2025

The Supreme Court stayed trial against 4 accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act where chargesheet had not been filed in the predicate offense since 7 years.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate PB Suresh (on behalf of the petitioners), who argued that the petitioners were not named in the predicate offense and questioned how trial could proceed in the PMLA case when chargesheet had not been filed in the predicate offense.

Staying the trial qua the petitioners, the bench issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate and Indian Bank.

'Every Day Hundreds Of Dog Bites': Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Report On Stray Dogs Attacking Kids In Delhi

Case Details: In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a news item titled "City hounded by strays and kids pay price" published in today's Delhi edition of Times of India. It has registered a writ petition taking cognisance of how infants, children and the aged are falling prey to rabies disease because of unvaccinated stray dogs.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Ilaiyaraaja's Music Company To Transfer Sony's Suit From Bombay HC To Madras HC

Case Details: Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt Ltd And Ors. 

The Supreme Court dismissed a transfer petition filed by music maestro Ilaiyaraaja's 'Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd' (IMMA) seeking to transfer the copyright infringement suit filed against it by Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt Ltd from the Bombay High Court to the Madras High Court.

IIT Kharagpur Student Suicides: Supreme Court Directs Expedited Investigation

Case Details: Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Criminal Appeal No. 1425/2025

The Supreme Court directed an expedited investigation into the suicide of two students from IIT Kharagpur and Sharda University, Greater Noida, respectively, after it took suo motu cognisance on July 21 into this unfortunate incident.

'Surprising, Erroneous' : Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Order Which Stayed New OBC List In West Bengal

Case Details: The State Of West Bengal Vs Purabi Das | SLP(C) No. 17422/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the Calcutta High Court's order which stayed notifications regarding the new list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the State of West Bengal.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed the interim order while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of West Bengal.

The bench expressed surprise at the reasoning adopted by the High Court that only the legislature has the power to approve the OBC list.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To J&K Civil Judge Notification Without 3-Year Practice Rule; Notes It Was Issued Before Judgment

Case Details: Naveed Bukhtiyar And Ors. v. The High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh And Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 633/2025

The Supreme Court reiterated that its direction mandating 3 years' practice as an advocate to enter judicial service will apply prospectively, and that the notifications issued before May 20(the date of judgment) can proceed without this condition.

Holding so, the Court refused to entertain a challenge to a recruitment notification issued by the Jammu and Kashmir PSC, which did not mandate the 3-year practice rule. The Court allowed the counsel to withdraw the petition.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Remove Vijay Shah As Minister For Comments On Col Sofiya Qureshi; Asks SIT To Examine Alleged Incidents

Case Details: Jaya Thakur v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 697/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain Congress Leader Dr Jaya Thakur's plea seeking removal of BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah from ministerial position over his 'sister of terrorists' remark on Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.

The Court however asked the Special Investigation Team constituted in terms of its orders to look into the incidents highlighted by Thakur in her petition and submit a comprehensive report.

Supreme Court Stays Himachal Pradesh HC's Order To Cut Apple Orchards In Forest Lands

Case Details: Tikender Singh Panwar & Anr v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors | Diary No. 40056/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directing the felling of Apple Orchards grown on forest lands. The Court has also allowed the State Government to auction the apples.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a challenge to the Himachal Pradesh High Court order, which suo motu directed the Forest Department to remove fruit-bearing apple orchards from forest lands previously encroached upon and to replant indigenous forest species.

The High Court had also directed that the cost of the removal of the present apple trees be recovered from the encroachers as arrears of land revenue.

The bench agreed to issue notice in the matter and stayed the application of the impugned order. The Court also allowed the State Government to auction the apples

Vadodara Boat Capsize | Supreme Court Directs Disbursal Of ₹1.2 Crore Compensation, Stays HC Order Holding Contractor Fully Liable

Case Details: M/S. Kotia Projects v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court directed that the compensation amount of over ₹1.2 crore, deposited by M/s Kotia Projects, the contractor firm operating at Harni Lake in Vadodara, be disbursed to the families of the twelve children and two teachers who died in a boat capsize incident at the lake on January 18, 2024.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan directed the Deputy Collector, Vadodara to complete the disbursal is to be completed within six weeks. The Court also issued notice and stayed the Gujarat High Court's order that had imposed the liability for entire compensation of about ₹4 crores on the firm.

Supreme Court To Commence Hearing Of Presidential Reference On Bills' Timelines From August 19

Case Details: In Re : Assent, Withholding Or Reservation Of Bills By The Governor And The President Of India | Spl.Ref. No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court fixed August 19 as the date on which hearings will commence on the Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu concerning the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200(assent to Bills) and 201(bills reserved for consideration) of the Constitution.

The Court also agreed to grant one hour first to the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to raise their preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Reference. After that, the Court will start hearing Attorney General and Union supporting the reference on 19, 20, 21, 26 of August. The parties opposing the reference are to be heard on 28, 2, 3 September and 9 September. Rejoinder, if any, would be heard on September 10.

'In Matters Of Personal Liberty, Courts Should Be Sensitive' : Supreme Court Criticises P&H HC For 2-Year Delay In Bail Hearing

Case Details: Jagtar Singh v. State Of Punjab

The Supreme Court criticized the Punjab & Haryana High Court for delaying the hearing of a bail petition for nearly two years.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the accused was aggrieved by the non-listing of hi bail plea before the High Court, as his plea was last listed in August, 2023, and since then the case was keeping adjourned on more than a dozen occasion either at the instance of the complainant or the State.

The Supreme Court was surprised to note about the repeated adjournment of the case at the request of complainant or the state's counsel, which it termed a severe blow to the personal liberty of an individual stating that “in the matter of personal liberty, the Courts should be sensitive and should not delay such matters nor grant frivolous adjournments.”

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Litigant & Advocates For Scandalous Remarks Against HC Judge In Transfer Petition

Case Details: N. Peddi Raju v. Anumula Revanth Reddy | T.P.(Crl.) No. 613/2025

Taking a stern view over 'scurrilous and scandalous' remarks against a sitting Telangana High Court Judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya in a transfer petition, the Supreme Court issued show cause notices to the petitioner, the AOR and lawyers who agreed to file the petition.

The Court observed that it cannot permit litigants and lawyers to malign the image of sitting judges while judges make efforts to protect the lawyers from summons issued by investigating agencies

Supreme Court Stays Uttarakhand HC Order Asking If ADM Who Can't Speak English Was Fit To Be Electoral Officer

Case Details: Chief Election Commissioner v. Akash Bora | SLP(C) No. 020376 - / 2025

The Supreme Court stayed the direction of the Uttarakhand High Court, which ordered an inquiry as to whether an Additional District Magistrate who is able to understand English but not speak it would be suitable for holding the office of Election Registration Officer (ERO).

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran was hearing the challenge to the Uttarakhand High Court order, which directed the State Election Commissioner to inquire whether the ADM would be fit to hold the position as ERO.

Supreme Court Stays Trial Against SP Leader Azam Khan & Son In Fake PAN, Forgery Cases Of 2019

Case Details: Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan v. State of UP | SLP(Crl) No. 011129 / 32025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government in two Special Leave Petitions filed by Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Mohd Azam Khan and his son Abdullah Azam Khan against two different orders of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash two 2019 case, wherein the allegations are that he forged documents for obtaining Passport and Pan Card, respectively.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh also granted stay in both orders.

Supreme Court Slams Rajasthan Court Staff For Taking Mass Leave As Protest; Approves Disciplinary Action

Case Details: Rajasthan Judicial Employees Association Vs. State Of Rajasthan | W.P.(C) No. 000713 / 2025

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the directions by the Rajasthan High Court for initiating disciplinary proceedings against district court staff members who went on mass leave across the state as part of a strike.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a plea by the Rajasthan Judicial Employees Association (RJEA) seeking waiver of disciplinary proceedings directed by the Rajasthan High Court against District Court Staff that went on a mass strike.

When CJI inquired if the Court Staff rejoined from the date specified by the High Court - July 25, the Counsel informed that rejoining did not happen on the said date but only afterwards.

Considering the same, the bench refused to entertain the petition and ordered its dismissal.

Supreme Court Urges Kerala Govt, Governor To Harmoniously Work For Regular VC Appointments In 2 Universities

Case Details: The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State of Kerala & Ors., Diary No. 40761/2025

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 30) called on the Kerala Governor and the state government to harmoniously work towards the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to two universities [APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology], without indulging in politics and keeping in mind the interest of students.

The Court observed that it expected the Chancellor also to extend cooperation and consider the recommendations from the state government.

The Court also clarified that until regular VC appointments are completed, it would be open for the Kerala Governor (ex-officio Chancellor) to issue notifications for continuing the present temporary VCs on their posts, or to appoint any new person to occupy the offices on a temporary basis.

Supreme Court Refuses To Defer Framing Of Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav; Says Charges Will Be Subject To Quash Petition In HC

Case Details: Lalu Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation

The Supreme Court refused to defer the ongoing hearing on the framing of charges by the trial court in the “land for jobs” case against former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav.

The Court disposed of Yadav's application filed through Advocate-on-Record Mudit Gupta seeking deferment of the trial court proceedings until August 12, when his quashing petition is listed for hearing before the Delhi High Court.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh remarked that the framing of charges by the trial court will be subject to the outcome of the petition pending before the High Court. The bench observed that the framing of charges will not render the pending High Court petition infructuous.

Inclusion Of Leprosy As Ground For Divorce 'Embarrassing', Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Federation Of Lepy.Organ.(FOLO) . And Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 83/2010

The Supreme Court urged the Union of India as well as States/Union Territories to take urgent remedial action against laws, rules, regulations, etc. which are discriminatory and/or derogatory towards leprosy-affected or cured persons.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with a public interest litigation initiated in 2010, where it earlier directed the States to form a Committee to identify provisions in various laws, etc. which discriminate against leprosy-affected or cured persons, and take steps for their removal so that they conform with constitutional obligations.

The Court noted that some states had filed their compliance affidavits regarding constitution of the Committees, but some remained to do the needful. As such, 2 weeks' further time was given to the non-compliant states to comply with the Court's earlier direction.

Further, Chief Secretaries of the State governments were asked to file status reports on the follow-up action taken by them pursuant to recommendations of their respective Committees.

Insofar as the National Human Rights Commission was found to have independently examined the issue, the Court ordered that the Secretary of NHRC shall furnish the details to the Court after getting approval from NHRC Chairman.

The bench also advised that the states need not wait for particular Assembly sessions to carry out necessary changes in their laws, etc. "For this purpose, a one-day session can be [called]...to eliminate these provisions...it will send a very good signal...rules and regulations, Cabinet can sit and resolve", said Justice Kant.

Nithari Killings : Supreme Court Rejects CBI Appeals Against Acquittals Of Koli & Pandher, Lauds HC For Withstanding Media Pressure

Case Details: State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surender Koli Etc. 

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher, the accused in the 2005-2006 Noida serial murder cases, commonly referred to as the Nithari killings.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed a total of 14 appeals by the CBI as well as victims' families challenging the Allahabad High Court order setting aside their conviction and death sentence. 

Supreme Court Recalls Judgment Which Rejected JSW's Resolution Plan For Bhushan Power & Steel

Case Details: Punjab National Bank and Anr. v. Kalyani Transco and Ors.

The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation that its May 2 judgment, which rejected the resolution plan of JSW Steel for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) and directed the liquidation of BPSL, required a review as it was contrary to the law laid down in various precedents.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma therefore recalled the judgment and decided to hear the matter (appeal challenging the resolution plan) afresh. 

Mullaperiyar Dam: Kerala Gives NOC For Tree-Felling By TN; Supreme Court Asks Union To Verify & Grant Environmental Clearance

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala and Anr., Orgnl. Suit No. 3/2006

In the Mullaperiyar dam safety dispute pending between the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the Supreme Court was informed that the Kerala government has granted its no-objection for tree-felling by the Tamil Nadu government. Therefore, the Court asked the Union of India to verify and grant the requisite environmental clearance to the state within 4 weeks.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade (for Tamil Nadu), Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta (for Kerala) and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

Are Rohingyas Refugees Or Illegal Immigrants? Can They Be Detained Indefinitely? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Jaffar Ullah and Anr. v. U.O.I and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 859/2013

In cases relating to deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees, the Supreme Court illustrated the broad issues that arise for consideration.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh recorded the issues in its order thus:

(i) whether Rohingyas are entitled to be declared as refugees; if so, what protection emanates from right they are entitled to?

(ii) if Rohingyas are illegal entrants, whether Govt of India and states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law?

(iii) even if Rohingyas have been held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions? and

(iv) whether Rohingyas who are not detained but living in refugee camps have been provided basic amenities like sanitation, drinking water, education, etc. (in conformity with Article 21)?

Supreme Court Seeks Bar Council Of India's Response On Plea Challenging Rule Allowing Extension Of State Bar Councils' Tenure

Case Details: M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1319/2023

The Supreme Court on July 30 asked the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils to file an affidavit within 3 weeks in a writ petition seeking to quash Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, which empowers Bar Council of India ("BCI") to extend the term of State Bar Council members beyond the statutory limits prescribed under the Advocates Act 1961. Notice on this petition was issued in 2023.

Supreme Court Directs Chandigarh Admin To Provide 3% OBC Reservation In Education For 2025-26

Case Details: Dhruvi Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 20072/2019

The Supreme Court directed the Chandigarh Administration to provide for 3% OBC reservation in educational seats for the Academic Year 2025-26.

This was after the Union Government told the Court that the enactment for providing OBC reservation in the Union Territory of Chandigarh would be notified within a period of one week.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a special leave petition challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's refusal to quash the admission prospectus of the Government Medical College, Chandigarh, for not providing reservations to OBCs in admission to MBBS.

Other Developments

Centre Opposes Kerala's Plea To Withdraw Petitions Filed In Supreme Court Against Governor Over Delay In Assent To Bills

Case Details: State of Kerala and Anr. v. Hon'ble Governor for State of Kerala and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 1264/2023

The State of Kerala told the Supreme Court that it wanted to withdraw the two petitions filed in 2023 against the Kerala Governor over the delay in granting assent to the bills passed by the legislative assembly.

Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the State, made the submission before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, saying that the matter has now become infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.

However, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta opposed the State's plea for withdrawal. They requested the bench to await the Court's decision on the reference made by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution on questions related to granting assent to bills.

Justice Narasimha wondered if the Court can prevent a litigant from withdrawing a petition, being the "dominus litigant."

Supreme Court To Hear Shiv Sena Election Symbol Dispute In August

Case Details: Uddhav Thackeray v. Eknathrao Sambhaji Shinde And Anr., SLP(C) No. 3997/2023

The Supreme Court will be hearing in August Uddhav Thackeray's plea challenging Election Commission of India's decision to allot the official name and symbol ('bow and arrow') of Shiv Sena to Eknath Shinde group.

10 Convicts, Including 6 On Death Row, Move Supreme Court Against Jharkhand HC's Delay In Pronouncing Judgments On Appeals

Case Details: Amit Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 252/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by 10 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 are facing death sentence or rigorous imprisonment for life. Six out of 10 were sentenced to death and their appeals are pending before the High Court since 2018-19. One convict has been in jail for over 16 years, while the others have also undergone actual custody period of 6 to 16+ years.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Advocate Fauzia Shakil (for petitioners). The bench also issued notice on the convicts' applications for suspension of sentence.

If There Is Fraternity Among Citizens, Hatred Will Come Down; Divisive Social Media Tendencies Must Be Curbed : Supreme Court

Case Details: Wazahat Khan v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court orally remarked that greater fraternity among citizens would reduce hatred and stressed the need for self-restraint in the exercise of freedom of speech, especially on social media.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by Kolkata-resident Wazahat Khan seeking the consolidation of the FIRs registered in different states over his offensive social media posts.

The Court stressed the need for citizen self-regulation and restraint, saying that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right but is increasingly being abused.

NEET-PG 2025| Supreme Court To Hear Pleas To Disclose Answer Papers & Answer Key After August 3

Case Details: Case Details: Dr. Aditi & Ors v. National Board Of Examination In Medical Sciences & Ors. | Diary No. – 22918/2025

The Supreme Court clarified that it will hear the issue of non-disclosure of answer papers and answer keys for the NEET-PG 2025 Exams after August 3.

Whether Discharge In Predicate Offence Automatically Invalidates PMLA Proceedings? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Niket Kansal v. Union Of India, SLP(Crl) No. 8814/2025

The Supreme Court is set to consider the issue as to whether discharge in the predicate/scheduled offence would automatically invalidate proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi is dealing with the challenge to a Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court order, which held that discharge in the predicate offence does not automatically invalidate PMLA proceedings.

'Won't Interfere With KEAM Results On Facts; Will Consider Principle Of Law For Future' : Supreme Court

Case Details: Mufeeda P and others v. State of Kerala and others | Diary No. 37302-2025

The Supreme Court orally remarked that it is not going to interfere with the Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical (KEAM) exam results, but will consider for future the question of law whether the formula to standardise the marks of different boards can be changed after the exam.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by students challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment which set aside the KEAM exam results on the ground that the standardisation formula as provided in the original prospectus was changed midway.

NEET-UG 2025 : Candidates Who Suffered Power Outage In MP Centres Approach Supreme Court For Re-test

The NEET-UG 2025 candidates who suffered power outage in centres in Madhya Pradesh have approached the Supreme Court, challenging the refusal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to order a re-test for them.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With KEAM Admission Process For Kerala Engineering, Architecture, Medicine Seats

Case Details: Mufeeda P and others v. State of Kerala and others | Diary No. 37302-2025

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 16) clarified that it will not interfere with this year's admission process based on the revised mark list of the Kerala Engineering Architecture Medical (KEAM) entrance exam. At the same time, the Court agreed to hear the question of law raised regarding the power to change the formula to standardise the marks of different boards. The bench posted the matter after four weeks, asking the State to file its counter.

Sadhguru's Isha Foundation Moves Supreme Court To Restrain Media Outlet Nakkheeran Publications From Publishing 'Defamatory' Content

Case Details: Nakkheeran Publications v. Google LLC, T.P.(C) No. 1403/2025

Sadhguru's Isha Foundation has moved the Supreme Court seeking to restrain Tamil media outlet Nakkheeran Publications from "continuing" to publish allegedly defamatory content against it.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Grievance Redressal Mechanism For Breach Of Advocates' Privileges

Case Details: Aaditya Gore v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 632/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking a grievance redressal mechanism for breach of advocates' privileges.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and tagged it with the suo motu case initiated in connection with summoning of lawyers by investigation agencies over legal advice given to clients (Ref: In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues).

TN Idol Theft Cases : CBI Seeks To Restrain Retd. IPS Officer Pon Manickavel From Giving Media Interviews, Supreme Court To Hear On July 21

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. A.G. Ponn Manickavel, SLP(Crl) No. 7200/2025

The Supreme Court will hear on July 21 a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation seeking to restrain retired IPS officer Pon Manickavel, who is accused of falsely implicating police officials in Idol Theft cases, from giving any interviews to the media.

'Not Convinced' : Supreme Court Questions HC Order Granting Bail To Kannada Actor Darshan In Renukaswamy Murder Case

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. | SLP (Crl) No. 516-522/2025

The Supreme Court on July 17 orally remarked that it is not at all convinced in the manner the Karnataka High Court exercised its discretion in granting bail to actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy Murder Case. It also orally asked Darshan's lawyers to give good reasons as to why the court should not interfere with the High Court's decision.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a special leave petition filed by the State of Karnataka against the December 13, 2024, judgment of the High Court granting bail to the actor who is allegedly involved in the killing of his 33-year-old 'fan' over sending obscene messages to actress Pavithra Gowda.

Keeping the matter for next Tuesday, Justice Pardiwala said: "You need to convince us that there is no good reason for this court to interfere."

Justice Yashwant Varma Approaches Supreme Court Challenging In-House Inquiry Report On Cash-at-Home Row

Case Details: XXX v. Union of India | Diary No.38664/2025

Justice Yashwant Varma has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the in-house inquiry committee's report which indicted him in the cash-at-residence row. He has also challenged the recommendation made by the former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

This is an unprecedented development where a sitting judge has approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash an inquiry report against him. The writ petition was filed on July 17 afternoon. The Union of India and the Supreme Court of India are the respondents.

'Mere Cash Discovery Doesn't Establish Guilt': Justice Yashwant Varma In Supreme Court Petition

Case Details: XXX v. Union of India | Diary No.38664/2025

In his writ petition before the Supreme Court, Justice Yashwant Varma has contended that the mere recovery of cash from the outhouse of his official residence does not establish his culpability, as the in-house inquiry committee has not determined the ownership of the cash or how it was removed from the premises.

He questioned the in-house committee's findings by contending that they were entered not on the basis of any concrete evidence but on the basis of certain inferences and speculations, which, according to him, are not untenable. As per Justice Varma, the committee adopted a hasty procedure to achieve a predetermined result, without affording him adequate opportunity.

Claiming that he did not dispute the discovery of cash notes at the outhouse, Justice Varma said that its mere discovery is not sufficient to link him to any wrongdoing, without any clear evidence regarding its ownership and control.

Supreme Court Asks BCI If AIBE Registration Fees Can Be Relaxed For Poor Law Graduates

Case Details: Kuldeep Mishra v. Bar Council of India | W.P.(C) No. 000767 / 2024

The Supreme Court on July 18 asked the Bar Council of India to consider having a policy for fee exemption for those candidates who cannot pay the All India Bar Examination fees.

The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandukar was hearing a writ petition over the exorbitant fees of Rs. 3500/- charged for All India Bar Examinations which is contrary to the Court's earlier decision on July 30, 2024.

'Fight Your Political Battles Elsewhere' : Supreme Court On Plea For Contempt Action Against WB CM Mamata Banerjee

Case Details: Aatmadeep (A Public Charitable Trust) Vs. Mamata Banerjee

The Supreme Court while hearing a plea seeking criminal contempt against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, cautioned against politicising matters before the Court.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran, NV Anjaria was hearing a petition which sought the initiation of criminal contempt against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over her remarks on the Apex Court's ruling in the teachers' recruitment scam case.

The bench ultimately agreed to list the matter after 4 weeks.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL To Display Names & Contact Details Of Owners At Entrances Of All Shops

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay V. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 667/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents on a public interest litigation seeking mandatory disclosure of shop owner/seller details as part of consumer's 'right to know' about products they purchase.

The Union Government, all State Governments, and the Law Commission of India are respondents in the case.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Advocate Eklavya Dwivedi on behalf of petitioner-Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

'How Can ED Summon Lawyers For Privileged Communications With Clients?There Should Be Guidelines' : Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025

The Supreme Court stressed the need to have guidelines to address the issue of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and other investigating agencies summoning lawyers over the legal advice given to clients in criminal cases.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the Suo Motu case titled "In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues".

Russian Woman Fled Through Nepal With Indian Child, Says Centre; 'Unacceptable', Remarks Supreme Court

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

In the case where a Russian woman has seemingly gone missing with her child during pendency of a custody battle with her Indian husband, the Supreme Court was informed by the Centre that the woman appears to have left the country and gone to Russia.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was apprised by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that based on the woman's IP address, it has been found that she was in Bihar on July 8 and thereafter in Nepal. Subsequently, she went to UAE and took a flight from there to Russia, where she reached on July 16.

Calling on the authorities to file an updated status report, the Court re-listed the matter after 1 week.

'You Cannot Say Media Narratives Influence Our Judgments' : Supreme Court To Solicitor General

Case Details: In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025

The Supreme Court stated that its judgments and actions are not influenced by any "media narrative." The Court's statement came in response to a submission made by the Solicitor General that there was a media narrative being made against the Enforcement Directorate.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the Suo Motu case taken to address the issue of investigating agencies like the ED summoning advocates over the legal opinion given by them to their clients.

When the hearing started, CJI Gavai said that he was shocked after reading the reports in LiveLaw and Bar & Bench about the ED's summons to Senior Advocates.

Dharmasthala Burial Case : YouTube Channel Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Order To Delete 'Defamatory' Content Against Temple Family

Case Details: Third Eye YouTube Channel v. Sri Harshendra Kumar D & Ors.

A special leave petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Bengaluru Court ex-parte interim order which restrained various media houses and YouTube channels from publishing any "defamatory content" against the family running the Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala(Karnataka) and also the temple in relation to the "Dharmasthala Burial" case

To recap, the case arises out of registration of an FIR based on the complaint of a sanitation worker, who claimed that he was instructed to bury the bodies of women and children between 1995 and 2014 in Dharmasthala village.

'Election Commission Has Power To Verify Citizenship' : ECI Tells Supreme Court In Bihar SIR Matter

Case Details: Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has defended its authority to seek proof of citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, in a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in the batch of petitions challenging the SIR process.

Responding to the petitioner's argument that the ECI was overstepping its jurisdiction by calling upon individuals to prove citizenship, the Commission submitted that it is statutorily bound to ensure that only citizens of India are registered as voters.

It asserted that this obligation flows from Article 326 of the Constitution and Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & All States On President's Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent

Case Details: In Re : Assent, Withholding Or Reservation Of Bills By The Governor And The President Of India | SPL.REF. No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and all the State Governments on the Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu concerning the powers of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, concerning power to assent on Bills.

A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar posted the matter for next Tuesday for the appearances of the respondents. CJI BR Gavai said that the Court was proposing to hear the matter in August.

'Aadhaar, Voter ID & Ration Cards Not Reliable Documents' : ECI Tells Supreme Court In Bihar Electoral Roll Revision Matter

Case Details: Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India

In the counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has stated that the Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) cannot be accepted as a document for inclusion in the electoral roll during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar, since the process is a fresh revision of the electoral rolls.

The Commission said that the SIR is a de novo revision process under Rule 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that EPICs are based on entries in the existing electoral roll, which is itself under revision.

On Aadhaar, the ECI reiterated that it is not recognised as a valid document for inclusion in the electoral roll because it does not establish citizenship, and is merely proof of identity. It cited both statutory provisions and case law to support this position.

The Commission addressed the exclusion of ration cards from the list of acceptable documents during the Bihar SIR by pointing to the prevalence of fraudulent cards. It relied on a press release dated March 7, 2025 from the central government stating that it has removed 5 Crore fake ration cards.

'Ashamed To Hear Frequent Cases Of Sexual Violence Against Women' : Supreme Court

Case Details: Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 526/2024

The Supreme Court on July 21 orally remarked that it feels "ashamed" to hear frequent cases of assault on women, including the recent incidents where women have been burnt alive. The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking a strict time-bound implementation of the laws protecting and safeguarding women from sexual offences.

The writ petition, filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association, seeks the issuance of 'Pan-India Safety Guidelines, Reforms and Measures for Protection of Women'. It also asks for a change in the laws by allowing all sexual offenders to mandatorily undergo chemical castration immediately upon arrest and then be subjected to an immediate polygraph or lie detector test.

Hasdeo Forest | 'Where Exactly Are Trees Being Planted?' Supreme Court Questions Coal Block Allottees And Chhattisgarh Govt

Case Details: Dinesh Kumar Soni v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 371/2019

During the hearing of pleas challenging coal mining in the Hasdeo Aranya forest area, the Supreme Court questioned the coal block allottees and the state government about where trees are being planted as part of compensatory measures.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with 2 public interest litigations – one, filed by Sudiep Shrivastava (Chhattisgarh-based advocate and activist), seeking a direction to the Union of India to cancel all non-forest use and mining permissions granted for PEKB (Parsa East and Kente Basan) and Parsa Coal Block, Chhattisgarh, and second, filed by Dinesh Kumar Soni, which raises similar issues and relates to the Coalgate case, where a three Judge bench headed by Chief Justice RM Lodha declared coal allocation between 1993-2009 illegal.

Ultimately, the matter was adjourned to enable the parties to file convenience compilations and replies. After urgency was shown by Bhushan, saying that tree-felling will likely resume once monsoon season is over, the bench listed the matter on August 19.

GST Can't Be Based On Bet Value, Casinos Argue In Supreme Court

Case Details: Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Hqs v. Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited | SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023

The Supreme Court continued to hear arguments in a batch of petitions raising the question of law as to whether online gaming platforms could be classified as gambling and therefore, be charged 28% Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Court is also considering the issue whether the GST can be charged on casinos and the platforms on the entire bet amount.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan is hearing a challenge against a 2023 Karnataka High Court order, which ruled in favour of online gaming platform, Gameskraft, against the GST demand notice. It held that an online gaming platform can't be charged with GST applicable on gambling/betting. Against this, the GST Department approached the Supreme Court.

'I Advocate Sustainable Development, But Forests Can't Be Cleared Overnight By Bulldozers': CJI BR Gavai In Kancha Gachibowli Case

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

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai while hearing the suo motu case of deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli forest area in Telangana, expressed that employing bulldozers to clear a forest overnight cannot be justified as sustainable development.

The CJI verbally remarked that while he supported the cause of sustainable development, the overnight bulldozing incident at Kancha Gachibowli area could not be condoned.

Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing as the amicus in the matter, informed that certain private intervenors wanted to file a response to the State's affidavit on the issue.

The bench then agreed to re-list the matter for August 13.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Removal Of Vijay Shah From Ministerial Post Over Col Sofia Qureshi Remarks

Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. State of MP and Ors.

Congress Leader Dr Jaya Thakur has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking removal of BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah from the ministerial position over his remarks on Colonel Sofia Qureshi during 'Operation Sindoor'.

Supreme Court Seeks Response Of Centre, States On Plea To Curb Heatwave Deaths, Protect Workers In Unorganised Sectors

Case Details: Adil Sharfuddin v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000653 / 2025

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Union and State Governments in a plea seeking comprehensive measures to protect workers in unorganised sectors from heat wave effects and prevent deaths due to the rising temperature.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to consider the matter and issued notice on the petition.

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On TN Health Minister's Plea In Land Grab Case, To Decide If Sanction Needed To Prosecute For Offence In Past Office

Case Details: Ma. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu | SLP(Crl) No. 007659/2025

The Supreme Court reserved judgment in a plea moved by Tamil Nadu Health Minister Ma. Subramanian and his wife, challenging the Madras High Court's order refusing to quash the chargesheet against them in an illegal government land grabbing case in Guindy, Chennai.

The Court dealt with an interesting issue of law as to whether a sanction to prosecute Subramanian, who is now a State Minister, would be required for an offence allegedly committed while holding the post of Chennia Mayor but, cognizance for which was taken filed after he had vacated the office.

West Bengal Govt Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Calcutta HC Staying New OBC List Notification

The State of West Bengal has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's order staying the new list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). While staying the new list, the High Court prima facie observed that State was attempting to reintroduce to the same OBC classes which were earlier struck down.

Pursuing Judges' Appointment Issue With Govt On Administrative Side : CJI BR Gavai

Case Details: Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra & Anr. | Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 867 of 2021

Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai said that the Supreme Court was pursuing on its administrative side the issue of pending judicial appointments with the Union Government.

CJI made this statement when Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and Advocate Prashant Bhushan jointly mentioned the petitions seeking directions to the Union Government to act on Collegium recommendations in a time-bound manner.

Agreeing to list the matter after two weeks, the CJI stated that there is an ongoing effort to resolve the pendency of appointments on the administrative side.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea To Allow BS-VI Compliant End-of-Life Vehicles To Ply In Delhi-NCR

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an application seeking to allow vehicles meeting the BS VI emission standards to operate in the National Capital Region regardless of their end-of-life period (10 years for diesel vehicles and 15 years for petrol vehicles).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran agreed to list the matter, after a counsel mentioned the application for urgent listing.

'Muslim Community Demonised' : Jamiat Files Petition In Supreme Court Against Centre Approving 'Udaipur Files' Movie With 6 Cuts

Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging Centre's order clearing release of the movie 'Udaipur Files' subject to 6 changes.

Madani has also filed objections to Centre's order in the batch of pleas arising out of Delhi High Court's order, which stayed release of the film till Centre's order on the objectors' revision petitions.

In his objections, Madani claims that the movie producer-Amit Jani is a self-styled activist and founder of the Uttar Pradesh Navnirman Sena who has historically indulged in communally colored propaganda.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Chief Secretary In Contempt Petition Over Demolitions In Goalpara District

Case Details: Nur Nabi and Ors. v. Ravi Kota and Ors. Diary No. – 37759/2025

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a contempt petition against the Chief Secretary of Assam Government and Goalpara district authorities for alleged illegal eviction and demolition of structures in violation of the Court's guidelines in In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice in the Civil Contempt Petition seeking action against Assam Government for alleged illegal demolition of houses, schools and shops in a village in Goalpara District.

The contempt petition has been filed by residents of Hasila Beel Village, Goalpara, in Assam against the alleged illegal demolitions of houses, shops and structures within the area.

'Very Bad' : Supreme Court On Exclusion Of Blind Persons From Uttarakhand Judicial Service Exam; Seeks PSC's Response

Case Details: Sravya Sindhuri v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on a writ petition filed by a blind candidate seeking to appear for the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Exams. She has challenged the exclusion of persons with blindness and locomotor disability, and also persons who are not domiciled in Uttarakhand, from being eligible for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) quota in the Uttarakhand Judicial Exams.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To IMA On Union's Plea Against HC Judgment Quashing Provision To Levy GST On Supplies By Clubs To Members

Case Details: Union of India v. Indian Medical Association | SLP(C) No. 18349-18350/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on the Union Government's petition challenging the recent Kerala High Court judgment striking down the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CSGT Act"), which allowed the levy of GST on supply by clubs and associations to their members.

However, the Court ordered that there shall not be any recovery steps against the Indian Medical Association, the respondent in the matter.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar passed the order.

'Very Serious & Sensitive Issue' : Supreme Court Asks Union To Urgently Consider Rehabilitation Measures For Homeless, Mentally Ill Persons

Case Details: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 198/2025

While dealing with a public interest litigation seeking rehabilitation measures for homeless, mentally ill persons, the Supreme Court orally observed that the issue raised is "very serious and sensitive".

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta probed the Union of India about steps taken and on the asking of Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, adjourned the matter for 8 weeks.

Age Of Consent Should Remain 18; Judicial Discretion May Be Exercised In Adolescent Relationship Cases : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Nipun Saxena v. Union of India

In written submissions filed before the Supreme Court in a PIL regarding improving response of Indian criminal justice system to sexual offences, the Union of India has opposed any move to reduce the statutory age of consent under Indian law from 18 years.

The Centre also opposed Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Indira Jaising's suggestion for the Court to read in an exception excluding sexual activity between consenting adolescents between the age of 16 and 18 from the scope of the POCSO Act and relevant laws, in order to decriminalise voluntary adolescent relationships.

Delhi Govt Seeks Review Of Supreme Court Order Banning 10 Yr Old Diesel & 15 Yr Old Petrol Vehicles In NCR

The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking to review a 2018 order passed by the Court, banning 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles in the National Capital Region.

The plea states that such a ban on vehicles would not be necessary as, after 2018, stricter standards of monitoring of emissions and increased coverage of pollution testing have been made applicable. It has also asked in its plea for directing the Union Central Government and the Commission for Air Quality Management to conduct a comprehensive scientific study, evaluating the actual environmental benefits of the age-based ban.

According to the review plea, there should be a ban based on emissions, rather than the vehicle's age.

Bihar SIR | BLOs Mass-Uploading Enumeration Forms Without Voters' Knowledge Or Consent : ADR Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India | W.P.(C) No. 640/2025

The Association for Democratic Reforms ("ADR") has filed a rejoinder in the batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India ("ECI") order of Special Intensive Revision ("SIR") in Bihar. As per the rejoinder, ADR claims that the enumeration forms of voters, which are used to update the electoral rolls, are being mass-uploaded by the Electoral Registration Officers ("EROs") without the consent of the voters.

'Gross Misconduct' : Supreme Court Upholds Advocate's Suspension For Claiming Fees Based On MACT Compensation

Case Details: X V. Bar Council Of India And Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to show leniency in the case of an advocate whose license was suspended for 3 years over issuance of a fee notice of Rs.2.3 lakhs to a client who got motor accident compensation claim of Rs. 5 lakhs.

The Court underlined the risk of poor people, seeking motor accident compensation claims, getting exploited by advocates' 'giroh' and opined that the petitioner's conduct of demanding fees depending on the MACT outcome amounted to 'gross misconduct'.

'Queries Covered By TN Governor Case Judgment' : Kerala Objects To Maintainability Of President's Reference In Supreme Court

The State of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court questioning the maintainability of the reference made by the President under Article 143 over the timelines for grant of assent to bill. The State has asked for the Presidential Reference be returned unanswered.

On July 22, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and all state governments regarding the Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu concerning the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, regarding the power to assent to bills.

'Testing Our Patience': Supreme Court Slams BJP Minister Vijay Shah For 'Online' Apology Over Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Remarks

Case Details: Kunwar Vijay Shah v. The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., Diary No. 27093-2025

The Supreme Court rebuked BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for failing to tender proper apology following his "sister of terrorists" remark against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.

"What do you mean by apology like this? This man has been testing our patience...this was the statement he made on the first date...where is it on record? That (online apology) shows his intentions, that makes us more suspicious of his bonafides..." said Justice Surya Kant to Shah's counsel.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Tamil YouTuber Savukku Shankar's Plea For CBI Probe Into Alleged Misappropriation Of 'Annal Ambedkar' Funds

Case Details: A. Shankar Alias Savukku Shankar v. The Director and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 10476/2025

Tamil YouTuber Savukku Shankar told the Supreme Court that his house was vandalised after he filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking a CBI probe into the alleged fund misappropriation in the Annal Ambedkar Scheme.

The Court issued notice in his Special Leave Petition challenging the refusal of the Madras High Court to probe into alleged misappropriation in the Annal Ambedkar Scheme.

Additionally, the court agreed to consider the SLP filed by Shankar's mother, A Kamala, who has challenged the decision of the single bench of the High Court refusing to transfer the criminal investigation of the house vandalisation incident to the CBI.

'BBMP Elections Will Be Held By November, 50% Steps Taken Under New Act': Karnataka Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: The State Of Karnataka v. M. Shivaraju And Ors., SLP(C) No. 15181-15183/2020

In a matter pertaining to elections of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), State of Karnataka told the Supreme Court that the BBMP elections, which were last held in 2015, will be held by coming November.

"There's a delay, no doubt. But an Act of the Legislature was passed. It was held back by the Governor for a few months. And now by November, all the elections as per the new Act will be done with all the reservations. 50% steps are done. The Cabinet sat, they passed a legislation in Karnataka. We will make sure elections are done by November", State of Karnataka urged before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.

Supreme Court To Consider Legality Of HC Acquitting POCSO Accused Interpreting Girl's 'Samband Banaya' Statement As Not Sexual Relation

Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance v. Sahjan Ali And Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 4286/2025

The Supreme Court issued fresh notice to the accused in a Special Leave Petition against the Delhi High Court's order acquitting a 22-year-old man convicted for raping a 14-year-old minor on the grounds that the survivor's testimony that there was 'samband' cannot be interpreted to mean 'sexual intercourse'.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih issued notice in a petition filed by NGO 'Just Rights for Children Alliance', returnable in four weeks.

Proposal Submitted In Supreme Court To Have DGPs Selected By Panel Of CM, Opposition Leader & HC CJ

Case Details: Prakash Singh And Ors. v. Union Of India W.P.(C) No. 310/1996

The Supreme Court (July 28) was informed of the repeated flouting of its directions for the appointment of DGPs given in the Prakash Singh Case.

The original writ petitioner, Prakash Singh, has also submitted an application seeking a revised selection procedure for DGPs on similar lines to how the CBI Director is appointed by a 3 member committee at a central level.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a batch of contempt petitions for effective implementation of the directions given in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 1

Issuing notice in the fresh contempt petitions, the bench has listed the matter for August 18.

'Appeal In Disguise' : Tamil Nadu Objects To President's Reference In Supreme Court On Bills' Assent Timelines

The Tamil Nadu Government has filed an application objecting to the maintainability of the Reference made by the President, Droupadi Murmu, seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on certain queries relating to the timelines for granting assent to Bills by the Governors.

The State argued that the queries raised by the President in the Reference under Article 143 are "directly answered" by the judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case, where timelines were laid down for the President and the Governor to act on Bills.

Bihar SIR | 'If There's Mass Exclusion, We'll Step In' : Supreme Court To Commence Hearing On August 12

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

Responding to the apprehensions that 65 lakh voters are going to be excluded from the draft list to be published by the Election Commission of India in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally said that if there is any mass exclusion, then the Court will step in.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi listed the petitions challenging the Bihar SIR for hearing on August 12 and 13.

Summons To Lawyers Only After Magistrate's Approval; Fees Shouldn't Be Presumed As Crime Proceeds : Bar Bodies To Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025

The Supreme Court heard the suo motu case "In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues", which was initiated after the instances of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issuing summons to two senior lawyers.

After a brief hearing of the concerns raised by various bar bodies, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran posted the matter to August 12 for hearing the Union's response.

Supreme Court Slams TN Govt Over Attempt To Delay Trial Against Senthil Balaji; Asks Why 2000 Persons Made Accused As Bribe-Givers

Case Details: Y. Balaji v. State Represented By Assistant Commissioner Of Police And Anr., Diary No. 39380-2025

The Supreme Court remarked that the State of Tamil Nadu was trying to delay the trial against ex-State Minister V Senthil Balaji in the 'cash-for-jobs' scam cases by adding about 2000 persons, who allegedly gave bribes to get jobs, as accused. The Court observed that the State's attempt appeared to be to ensure that the trials wouldn't be completed during the Minister's lifetime.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the clubbing of chargesheets.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union On Punjab Govt's Plea Against Governor Reserving Bills For President's Assent

Case Details: State of Punjab v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 685/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government in the writ petition by the State of Punjab challenging the action of the Governor in reserving two Bills for the President's assent. The bills in issue are the Sikh Gurudwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023 and the Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023.

The State seeks a declaration of "deemed assent" for these Bills due to the inaction of the President. The Union Government, Principal Secretary to the Governor and the Secretary to the Punjab Legislative Assembly are the respondents.

AAP MP Sanjay Singh Moves Supreme Court Against UP Govt Decision To Close 105 Primary Schools

Case Details: Sanjay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others | Diary No. 41583/2025

Rajya Sabha MP belonging to the Aam Aadmi Party, Sanjay Singh, has moved the Supreme Court against the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government to shut down 105 government-run primary schools.

By a decision dated June 16 and the subsequent order dated June 24, the Uttar Pradesh Government announced the closure of 105 such schools. The said decision was reportedly taken after the government found these schools to have zero to very few enrolments. Therefore, it decided to "pair" these schools with other proximate schools.

In the writ petition filed by Singh, under Article 32 of the Constitution, he terms this decision of the government as "arbitrary, unconstitutional, and legally impermissible action," adversely impacting the educational access of numerous children across the State.

'Judges Wasting Time In Advocates' Parties; Wrong Message To Public': Senior Adv To Supreme Court

Case Details: Re: Strengthening And Enhancing The Institutional Strength Of Bar Associations v. The Registrar General And Ors., SLP(C) No. 3950/2024

During the hearing of cases where the Supreme Court is considering steps for the strengthening of Bar Associations across the country, a senior advocate flagged the issue of "excessive interactions" between advocates and judges at informal events, saying that the same amount to waste of judicial time and send a wrong message to the public.

"Judges [are] being invited to birthday parties [by Bar members]! Atleast 2 parties every week...unnecessary interaction, judges wasting their time...sends a wrong message to the public that those who are close to judges can...", submitted Senior Advocate Sirajudeen before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta. BCI Vice Chairman Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran however objected to this submission, calling it scandalous.

Supreme Court Reserves Order On Whether Couple Who Froze Embryos Prior To Surrogacy Act Can Continue Surrogacy Despite Age Bar

Case Details: Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India and connected cases

The Supreme Court reserved its order on the issue of whether a couple, who had frozen embryos before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into force on January 25, 2022, can continue the surrogacy process despite being over the upper age limit prescribed under the Act.

The 2021 Act prescribes that the woman must be between 23 and 50 years of age and the man between 26 and 55 years.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan reserved the order in three matters relating to the eligibility certificate under the Surrogacy Act, where the intending couples had initiated the process before the Act was enacted.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea

Case Details: XXX v. Union of India And Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 699/2025

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the writ petition filed by Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house inquiry report, which indicted him in the case-at-home scandal, as well as the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation made to the President and the Prime Minister for Justice Varma's removal.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih heard the matter. The bench also heard a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of FIR against Justice Varma.

'Most Populated Trial In India With 2000 Accused' : Supreme Court Criticises Tamil Nadu's Prosecution Of Senthil Balaji Cash-for-Jobs Case

Case Details: Y. Balaji v. Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch (Job Racketing)

The Supreme Court asked the Tamil Nadu government to submit a complete list of accused and witnesses in the corruption cases arising out of the cash-for-jobs corruption cases involving former Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi criticised the prosecution being conducted by the state of Tamil Nadu in the cases. The Court described the prosecution as a “rudderless ship,” asking why suggestions to filter accused based on marginal or prime culpability had not come from the prosecution.

Supreme Court Suggests Use Of JAG Officers To Evict Private Encroachments On Defence Lands

Case Details: Common Cause v. Union Of India, W.P.(C) No. 204/2014

In a PIL raising the issue of encroachment upon and unauthorized use of defence lands by private entities, the Supreme Court noted that mutation of defence lands in state revenue records can be an effective step.

The Court also suggested that instead of relying on state officers, the Union may engage its own Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch officers, who are legally trained, for helping evict unauthorized occupiers of defence lands.

Supreme Court Bars Entry Of Law Interns On Mondays, Tuesdays & Fridays After SCBA Raised Concerns

Pursuant to a request by the Supreme Court Bar Association ("SCBA"), the Supreme Court, through the Assistant Registrar, has restricted the entry of law students on miscellaneous days, that is, Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays. However, interns will have access to the Court on regular hearing days (Wednesdays and Thursdays).