Supreme Court Monthly Round-up: May 2025

Reports/Judgments

Motor Accident Claims | Unemployed Husband Can Be Presumed To Be Partially Dependent On Deceased Wife's Income: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sri Malakappa & Ors. v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 511

The Supreme Court held that in determining insurance compensation, the deceased's husband cannot be excluded as a dependent merely because he is an able-bodied man.

The Court emphasized that in the absence of proof of the husband's employment status, his dependency on the deceased's income cannot be disregarded and would be treated as partially dependent on his wife's income.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran treated the deceased's husband, whose employment status was unproven, along with her children, as dependents, thereby entitling them to claim insurance compensation.

“we are of the opinion that since there was no employment specified of the husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on the income of the deceased.”, the court said.

Mere Use Of Insulting Remarks Like 'Impotent' Doesn't Constitute Abetment Of Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Husband's In-Laws

Case Details: Shenbagavalli and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 512

The Supreme Court quashed an abetment to suicide case under Section 306 of the IPC against the husband's in-laws, ruling that merely calling him "impotent" in offensive language while taking their daughter (the deceased's wife) to her parental home after a marital dispute did not amount to abetment.

An FIR was registered against the husband's in-laws after a husband's suicide note was found alleging his in-laws for harassment, and calling him impotent, while taking his wife to her parental home.

The Madras High Court refused to quash the FIR against the in-laws, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih observed that the suicide note did not indicate direct inducement or persistent cruelty. Hurtful remarks (e.g., "impotent") alone do not establish abetment, the Court said.

GST | Bail Should Be Normally Granted For Offences Under S 132 CGST Act Unless Extraordinary Circumstances Exists: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vineet Jain v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 513

The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the High Court and the Magistrate Court denying bail to a person accused of committing offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court observed that in cases like this, bail should normally be granted. The offences alleged against the appellant were under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine.

In this case, the chargesheet was filed and the accused was under custody for nearly seven months. He approached the Supreme Court after the Rajasthan High Court denied him bail.

Saying that bail should be the normal in such cases, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed:

"We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances."

'Unauthorised Construction Has To Be Demolished; Judicial Regularisation Impermissible': Supreme Court

Case Details: Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 514

Reaffirming its zero-tolerance stance on illegal and unauthorized construction, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the regularization of an unlawful building in Kolkata, emphasizing that no leniency should be shown towards such violations and that the structure must be demolished.

The Court noted that illegal structures must face demolition without exception, closing all avenues for regularization after the fact.

“The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society”, the Court observed.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan affirmed the Calcutta High Court's ruling, which had refused to allow regularization of the unauthorized construction and ordered demolition.

High Court Cannot Reject A Plaint While Exercising Article 227 Power: Supreme Court

Case Details: K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 515

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot reject a plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition challenging the Madras High Court's decision to reject a plaint as barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.

Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court said that since the power under Article 227 is supervisory, it cannot be used by the High Court to usurp the functions of the Trial Court.

S. 482 CrPC | Not Open For High Court To Rely On Investigation Report In Plea To Quash FIR: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 516

The Supreme Court (May 1) observed that High Courts cannot assess or call for the submission of an investigation report while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, as this authority rests exclusively with the Magistrate. Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision, which had relied upon the investigation report while deciding the Appellant's quashing petition, and refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellant.

Customs Act | Engineering Services Fees Having Direct Nexus With Import Of Goods Fall Within Assessable Customs Value: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Coal India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Customs House, Kolkata

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 517

The Supreme Court (May 1) ruled that engineering and technical service fees paid by the importer must be included in the assessable value of imported spare parts under the Customs Act, 1962.

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld that the 8% technical and engineering fee charged to the appellant(Coal India) should be included in the assessable value for determining customs duty.

Gang Rape | Penetrative Act By One Can Implicate All If There's Common Intention; Need Not Prove Rape By All: Supreme Court

Case Details: Raju @ Umakant v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 518

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the accused individuals found guilty of gang rape, rejecting their argument that they had not personally committed any act of penetration. The Court clarified that under Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, if a penetrative act is carried out by even one person, all others sharing a common intention can also be held liable for gang rape.

Relying on the precedent set in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2003) 2 SCC 143, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and KV Viswanathan said: “it is very clear that in a case of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g), an act by one is enough to render all in the gang for punishment as long as they have acted in furtherance of the common intention. Further, common intention is implicit in the charge of Section 376(2)(g) itself, and all that is needed is evidence to show the existence of common intention.”

Subsequent Purchaser, Though Not 'Necessary Party' In Specific Performance Suit, Can Be Impleaded As 'Proper Party': Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 519

The Supreme Court ruled that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, a subsequent purchaser may not be a 'necessary party' but can be a 'proper party' if their rights are affected by the adjudication of the dispute.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing the case where the Appellant (who was stranger to the suit) sought impleadment to the specific performance suit stating that his claim on the suit property based on the registered sale deed warranted his inclusion in the trial as it may affect his title over the property.

Stamp Vendors Are 'Public Servants' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act; Liable For Bribery Over Stamp Paper Sale: Supreme Court

Case Details: Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 520

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court (May 2) held that stamp vendors fall within the definition of "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and hence, can be proceeded under the PC Act for the corrupt practices.

The Court held that it was the nature of the duty being discharged by a person which assumes paramount importance when determining whether such a person falls within the ambit of the definition of public servant as defined under the PC Act.

"Stamp vendors across the country, by virtue of performing an important public duty and receiving remuneration from the Government for the discharge of such duty, are undoubtedly public servants within the ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act," held the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

The Court said that mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by the bribe-giver and demand by the public servant would not make an offence under the PC Act.

Supreme Court Criticises Arbitration Bill 2024 For Not Recognising Power To Implead Non-Signatories, Urges Union To Make Changes

Case Details: ASF Buildtech Private Limited v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 521

The Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the continued absence of explicit statutory recognition for the power of arbitral tribunals to implead or join non-signatory parties.

The Court noted with concern that, despite earlier omissions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the newly proposed Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, which seeks to overhaul the legislation, also failed to address this critical issue.

“The Department of Legal Affairs has now, once again proposed to replace the existing legislation on arbitration with the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024. Unfortunately, even the new Bill has taken no steps whatsoever, for ameliorating the position of law as regards the power of impleadment or joinder of an arbitral tribunal. What is expressly missing in the Act, 1996 is still missing in the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, despite a catena of decisions of this Court as-well as the various High Courts, highlighting the need for statutory recognition of such power in order to obviate all possibilities of confusion.”, the court observed.

“We urge, the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice to take a serious look at the arbitration regime that is prevailing in India and bring about necessary changes while the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024 is still being considered.”, the bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added.

Forfeiture Of 'Earnest Money' Is Not Penal In Ordinary Sense So As To Apply Section 74 Contract Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 522

The Supreme Court (May 2) upheld the forfeiture of earnest money deposited as part of the Advance Sale Agreement by the purchaser with the seller upon the purchaser's failure to pay the balance consideration amount.

The Court rejected the purchaser's argument that there cannot be a forfeiture of the earnest money deposited with the seller. Instead, it said that Rs. 20 lakhs paid by the appellant under the Advance Sale Agreement (ATS) constituted "earnest money," intended as a security deposit to bind the contract.

The Supreme Court clarified that a relief of refund for an 'advance payment' as part of the sale consideration cannot be allowed unless a prayer seeking such a relief was included in the plaint.

'Where Did Mahatma Gandhi Start Salt Satyagraha?': Supreme Court Slams UP PSC For Giving Ambiguous Answers

Case Details: Reetesh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 12069-12076, 5503 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 523

The Supreme Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) to re-evaluate the answer sheets for the 2021–2022 Revenue Lekhpal examination, citing ambiguity in certain questions and answer keys that affected the outcomes for over 8,000 candidates competing for 8,085 vacancies.

In doing so, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran also resolved ambiguities in three critical questions from Booklet Series “B” which were:

1. Question 58 (Salt Satyagraha Location): The options given for the question "Where did Mahatma Gandhi start the Salt Satyagrah?" were: (A) Dandi, (B) Surat, (C) Sabarmati and (D) Pawnar.

In this context, the Court observed: "Although the march commenced from Sabarmati, the actual act of defiance, the violation of the salt law, took place at Dandi. Thus, from a purely technical perspective, (A) Dandi should be treated as correct, as was the official position. All the same, (C) Sabarmati may be correct as well, as Dandi march started from Sabarmati, may not be technically correct but it is close. We also have to consider that it is an examination for Lekhpal. We therefore direct that candidates who opted for either of these two options be awarded full marks."

Supreme Court Rejects JSW's Resolution Plan For Bhushan Steel As Illegal, Orders Liquidation

Case Details: Kalyani Transco v. M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd | C.A. No. 1808/2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 524

The Supreme Court rejected the Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel for Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd.

Holding that the Resolution Plan of JSW was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC), a bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stated that the Committee of Creditors(CoC) should not have accepted it. The bench also faulted the National Company Law Tribunal for approving the Resolution Plan.

Since JSW's resolution plan was rejected, the Court ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd.

The Supreme Court disapproved of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal staying with the provisional attachment order passed against the assets of Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Church Of South India Dispute: Supreme Court Holds Election Of Dharmaraj Rasalam As CSI Moderator Illegal, Freezes Amendments

Case Details: Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D Lawrence and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 9079-9081/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 525

In relation to the dispute concerning the Church of South India (CSI), the Supreme Court (May 2) held that the election of Bishop Dharmaraj Rasalam as the Moderator of the CSI Church in the elections held in 2020 was illegal.

The Court also ordered that the resolution passed by the Synod in its Special Meeting held on 07.03.2022 approving the amendments related to the age of Bishops and the tenure of the elected members should not be given effect to till the final disposal of the suits pending in the Madras High Court in relation to the administration of CSI church.

However, the Supreme Court set aside the findings of the Madras High Court against the validity of the Synod meeting convened in March 2022.

'Creating Fake Order Is Contempt Of Court': Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Litigant Who Forged HC Order

Case Details: Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 526

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a litigant for criminal contempt for forging an order of the High Court to secure a stay on the execution of a decree in a suit related to the recovery of possession and rent from the litigant.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the appellant forged three interim orders and presented them as orders passed by the Madras High Court. The numbers of the Civil Revision Petitions were fictitious.

Initiating Second Foreigners Tribunal Case Against Person Already Declared Indian Is Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court

Case Details: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24703 of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 527

The Supreme Court set aside a Gauhati High Court order which had refused to quash a case before the Foreigners Tribunal, holding that the subsequent proceeding against the appellant was barred by the principle of res judicata, as she had already been declared not to be a foreigner in an earlier case.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held –

“Once it is not in dispute that on a previous reference the Tribunal after giving opportunity to both sides, on appraisal of evidence, found the appellant not a foreigner, the only course available for the respondent was either to challenge the order before the High Court or seek for its recall on grounds permissible for recall. As no provision for review exists, at least not shown to us, so long the earlier order stands, it is not open to initiate fresh proceedings as the same would be hit by principles of res judicata as held by this Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra). In our view, therefore, the subsequent proceedings were nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and therefore, the High Court ought to have interdicted the same.”

In Direct Recruitment Through Exam, Seniority Must Be Based On Marks & Not Past Service: Supreme Court

Case Details: R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 528

The Supreme Court invalidated a Tamil Nadu government order that gave in-service candidates seniority over open market recruits, despite the latter scoring higher marks in the selection exams. The Court emphasized that seniority should be based on performance in the exams rather than unrelated factors such as prior in-service experience.

The Court reiterated that once an appointment to service is made based upon a competitive examination, the seniority has to be maintained on the basis of performance in the examination and not by taking into account the past service alone.

Electricity Act | Cross-Subsidy Surcharge Based On Prevailing Tariff Rates Valid Even If Decided Separately: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Ors. v. Rajasthan Textile Mills Association & Anr. Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 529

In a major development concerning the discoms, the Supreme Court noted that while the determination of the Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) should be consistent with the applicable tariff rates for the relevant financial year, it is not essential for the CSS to be determined alongside the tariff rates determination.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih set aside the decision of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which had interfered with the Rajasthan State Regulatory Commission's (the Commission) determination of the Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS), solely on the ground that it was not fixed simultaneously with the tariff rates, despite being based on the prevailing tariff rates.

Relying on the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 90 of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 ('the Rajasthan Tariff Regulations, 2014'), the judgment authored by Justice Oka stated that the law does not require CSS to be set at the same time as tariffs, and the only requirement for determining the CSS is that it must align with the current tariff rates prevailing the fiscal year.

Indian Military Nursing Service Personnel Eligible For Civil Posts Under Ex-Servicemen Quota In Punjab: Supreme Court

Case Details: Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 530

The Supreme Court held that the personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) qualify as "ex-servicemen" under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (“1982 Rules”) for reservation in Punjab Civil Services.

The Court noted that the 1982 Rules aim to resettle veterans, given the fact that 7.7% of Army personnel are from Punjab and excluding IMNS would undermine this objective. Therefore “effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of the serving members of the defence forces. If the resettlement of veterans is neglected, the talented youth of the nation may not be motivated to join armed forces.”

Interpreting the objective of the 1982 Rules, the Court observed in support of granting “ex-serviceman” status to the IMNS Personnel:

“The State Government recognises the contribution of a resident of the State of Punjab by joining the armed forces of the Union. Serving the nation as part of the armed forces of the Union requires physical fitness and that has everything to do with age. As they serve and exit the armed forces, they may be spent force for military, but continue to be young and capable for civil life. Their engagement in civil society is not merely a matter of employment opportunity for ex-servicemen but also subserves the larger interest of the nation and also in building a fair and a healthy society.”

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra refused to interfere with the Punjab & Haryana High Court's Division Bench ruling, which held in favor of the IMNS personnel, who were released from IMNS, recognizing them as “ex-serviceman” under the 1982 Rules.

S.362 CrPC Can Be Used Only To Correct Clerical Errors: Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC For Modifying Murder Conviction

Case Details: Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Etc

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 531

The Supreme Court disapproved of the Allahabad High Court invoking Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to modify the High Court's judgment in a criminal appeal by converting the conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

The Court underscored that as per Section 362 of the CrPC, only clerical errors in a judgment can be corrected, and this provision cannot be used to make substantive changes.

The provision reads as follows: Court not to alter judgment.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

'Reasonable Accommodation Not Charity But Fundamental Right': Supreme Allows AIIMS Admission For Candidate With Disability

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 532

The Supreme Court passed an order directing an allotment of a seat in the MBBS UG Course 2025-26 against the 'Scheduled Castes Persons with Benchmark Disability' quota in the All-India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, for a candidate suffering from congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands as well as the involvement of left foot.

"Manifestly, in view of the observations made by us in the order dated 2nd April, 2025 and the consequent successful assessment of the appellant by the Medical Board, AIIMS, New Delhi vide report dated 24th April, 2025, the denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant's fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such action not only reflects institutional bias and systemic discrimination but also undermines the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination enshrined in our constitutional framework. The constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities (for short 'PwD') and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities."

Motor Accident Claim | Tractor's Insurer Liable For Death Of Passenger In Trailer Due To Tractor's Negligence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Honnamma & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 533

The Supreme Court (May 5) ruled that if an insured tractor causes an accident involving an uninsured trailer, the insurer remains liable. The Court said that if the accident was not due to any independent fault of the trailer but occurred during its movement with the tractor, then the insurer cannot shy away from its liability towards the third-party liability.

Holding thus, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed the insurer's appeal against the MACT's order directing it to compensate the claimants for the death of a woman who was travelling on a trailer that overturned due to the rash driving of the insured tractor.

S. 17 Limitation Act | To Get Over Limitation, Plaintiff Should Show Fraud Prevented Knowledge Of Right To Sue: Supreme Court

Case Details: Santosh Devi v. Sunder

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 534

The Supreme Court clarified that to seek an exemption from the limitation period under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a plaintiff must demonstrate that fraud actively prevented them from knowing their right to sue, instead of merely claiming that the sale deed was fraudulently executed. Section 17 of the Limitation Act says that limitation period in respect of a fraudulent action will not commence until the fraud is known.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing the case where the dispute arose from a 2008 sale deed. The petitioner filed a suit in 2012 seeking cancellation of the deed, but the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court all dismissed her plea, holding it was barred by limitation (filed beyond the 3-year limit under Article 59 of the Limitation Act).

'Replacement Of Damaged Transformers Operational Cost', Supreme Court Dismisses PowerGrid's Plea To Recover ₹24 Crore Through Tariff Hike

Case Details: Powergrid Corporation of India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 535

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (May 5) dismissed Power Grid Corporation of India's appeal seeking to recover ₹24 crores in replacement costs for damaged transformers through electricity tariffs. The Court held that replacing Inter-Connecting Transformers due to operational failure constitutes an operational expense, not 'additional work', and therefore does not justify a tariff revision to pass the cost onto consumers.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case arising from a 2006 incident when three critical Inter-Connecting Transformers (ICTs) in PowerGrid's Rihand transmission systems failed during peak summer demand. The company hastily diverted transformers from other substations to maintain Delhi's power supply, later seeking to recover costs through additional capitalization claims under CERC tariff regulations, revised tariff determinations, and insurance recoveries.

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC | Power To Recall Witness Vests With Court, Parties Cannot Do Without Court's Leave: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 536

The Supreme Court held that Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC empowers the court to recall a witness at any stage solely for the purpose of seeking clarification, but it does not grant any right to the parties to recall witnesses for further examination or cross-examination.

The Court further clarified that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be exercised strictly to remove ambiguities or clarify a witness's statement, not to allow a party to fill gaps in its case. Additionally, a party cannot cross-examine a witness on responses given to the Court's questions unless expressly permitted by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the MP High Court's decision which had refused to interfere with the trial court's decision dismissing the Appellant's application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of a witness.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC Judgment Which Anulled Election Of CPI(M) MLA A Raja

Case Details: A. Raja v. D. Kumar | C.A. No. 2758/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 537

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment, which set aside the election of CPI(M) MLA A Raja in the 2021 Legislative Assembly elections.

A bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed the appeal filed by Raja against the March 23, 2023 order of the Kerala High Court which annulled his elections on ground that he was not a member of the 'Hindu Parayan' within the State of Kerala and therefore, he was not qualified to contest elections from Devikulam Assembly constituency that had been reserved for Scheduled Caste among Hindus.

Also from the judgment – Mere Performance Of Another Religious Ritual Doesn't Mean Giving Up Of One's Own Religion: Supreme Court

Suits Can Be Dismissed Suo Motu Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC Based On Plaintiff's Admissions: Supreme Court

Case Details: Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 538

The Supreme Court (May 6) ruled that under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, a court may not only pass a decree in the plaintiff's favour based on the defendant's admissions but may also dismiss a suit where the plaintiff's admissions undermine the claim.

Relying on the case of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan affirmed that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC may be exercised by courts at any stage of the trial, including suo motu, without the need for a formal application.

Dispute Over Full & Final Settlement Is Arbitrable Despite Parties Discharging Contract: Supreme Court

Case Details: Arabian Exports Private Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 539

The Supreme Court (May 6) observed that if the insured alleges coercion in arriving at a settlement with the insurer, then the dispute over the validity of the settlement remains arbitrable.

“Any dispute pertaining to the full and final settlement itself by necessary implication being a dispute arising out of or in relation to or under the substantive contract would not be precluded from reference to arbitration as the arbitration agreement contained in the original contract continues to be in existence even after the parties have discharged the original contract by 'accord and satisfaction'.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case where the Appellant-Insured, who was engaged in the meat processing business, had suffered loss due to flooding. The Appellant alleged that a voucher was signed with the insurer out of coercion to arrive at a settlement, however, immediately after signing of the settlement voucher, the Appellant invoked Arbitration clause.

Long Cohabitation Implies Couple's Consent To Continue Live-in Relationship Without Marriage: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 540

While quashing a case against a man accused of raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, the Supreme Court observed that when a couple continues their live-in relationship for a long period, there is a presumption that they did not want marriage. When two adults reside together as a live-in couple for many years, an allegation that the relationship was entered into on the basis of a false promise of marriage is untenable, the Court added.

In this case, the couple lived together for over two years. On November 19, 2023, they also executed a settlement deed, affirming their love for each other and stating that they will get married. The FIR was lodged on November 23, 2023, alleging that the man had forcible sex with the woman on November 18, 2023.

After the Uttarakhand High Court refused to quash the FIR, the man approached the Supreme Court. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra noted that there was no allegation in the FIR that physical relationship was established only because there was a promise of marriage.

PMLA Accused Entitled To Receive List Of Materials Not Relied Upon By ED: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541

In an important judgment relating to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court held that an accused is entitled to a list of the documents and statements, which were collected by the Directorate of Enforcement during the investigation but were later given up by them while filing the prosecution complaint.

The Court held that the accused must have knowledge about the unrelied upon documents, so that he can apply at the defence stage for their production.

When an accused makes such an application, the Courts should be liberal in allowing them, and should deny only in exceptional circumstances, given the reverse burden imposed by the PMLA, the Court added.

At the stage of entering defence, the accused can apply for the issuance of process for production of documents or anything recorded under Section 233 CrPC (Section 256(b) BNSS). At this stage, the accused can also apply for the production of a document or thing that is in the custody of the prosecution but is not produced, the Court said.

"At the time of hearing of an application for bail governed by Section 45 in connection with offences under PMLA, an accused is entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC seeking production of unrelied upon documents. If investigation or further investigation is in progress, the ED is entitled to raise objections to the production of documents sought by the accused on the ground that if the documents are disclosed, it may prejudice the investigation. Only if the Court, after perusing the documents is satisfied that the disclosure of the documents at this stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation, it may deny the production of such documents," the Court added.

S. 61(2) IBC | Appeal Filed Beyond 45 Days Not Condonable By NCLAT: Supreme Court

Case Details: Tata Steel Ltd v. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 542

The Supreme Court (May 7) ruled that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), acting as the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), has no power to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the prescribed limit of 45 (30+15) days under Section 61(2) of the Code.

Accordingly, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan set aside the decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had improperly condoned the delay in filing an appeal beyond the mandated 45-day period.

S.319 CrPC Summoning Order Can't Be Quashed Based On Alibi Evidence Of Additional Accused: Supreme Court

Case Details: Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 543

The Supreme Court held that to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; a person may be summoned if there is prima facie evidence indicating their involvement in the offence.

“Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of what stronger material could be demanded at the summoning stage short of a confession. The threshold is not proof beyond reasonable doubt; it is the appearance of involvement which is apparent from evidence adduced in the proceeding.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan was hearing the case where the complainant was aggrieved by the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision to interdict the trial court's decision to summon Respondent No.2 (“proposed accused”) as an additional accused in the pending abetment to suicide case.

High Court May Grant Article 227 Interim Relief In Arbitration Proceedings In Exceptional Cases: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 544

The Supreme Court (May 7) held that while the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) mandates minimal judicial interference, a High Court may, in exceptional cases, exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to grant interim relief, particularly where denial of such protection would result in irreparable harm.

“We are aware of the established legal principle that the Courts should refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank guarantee except in cases of fraud of an egregious nature or in cases where allowing encashment would result in irretrievable injustice.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan refused to interfere with the High Court's order granting interim protection from encashing the bank guarantees furnished by the Appellant for the construction of the residential units by the Respondent-Real Estate Company.

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Guilt Of Ex-TN Minister's Wife In Whose Name Disproportionate Assets Were Registered

Case Details: P. Nallammal v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 545

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the culpability of P. Nallammal, the wife of former Tamil Nadu Minister, for her alleged role in abetting her husband in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered a split verdict in a case where A.M. Paramasivam, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and state minister during the 1991–1996 term, was accused of accumulating wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. His wife, Appellant-P. Nallammal was implicated for allegedly abetting this offence by holding benami properties in her name and their children's names.

Army's Burden To Prove Illness Which Arose During Service Wasn't Service-Related: Supreme Court Allows Disability Pension

Case Details: Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 546

The Supreme Court directed that disability pension be granted to the veteran army personnel who was discharged after being diagnosed with schizophrenia (a form of mental illness) while in service.

Observing that disability pension is a beneficial provision under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, and must be interpreted liberally, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh allowed the army personnel's appeal against the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

The Court held that since the Army discharged the appellant on the grounds of schizophrenia, the burden of proving the nature and extent of his disability rested with the Army. It further stated that denying disability pension without providing reasons is impermissible.

'Highly Irresponsible': Supreme Court Slams BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's Comments Against Judiciary & CJI

Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 547

The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the comments made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey attacking the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India, terming them "highly irresponsible" and attention-seeking. The Court said that the comments showed his ignorance about the functioning of the Constitutional Courts.

At the same time, the Court refrained from taking any action against him, saying that the public's confidence in the judiciary cannot be shaken by "such absurd comments."

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey and to register FIRs against hate speeches made by political leaders in the context of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

Also from the order –

Constitution Is Higher Than All; Judicial Review A Constitutional Function: Supreme Court Debunks Parliamentary Supremacy Claim

Attempts To Spread Communal Hatred & Indulge In Hate Speech Must Be Dealt With Iron Hand: Supreme Court

Valid District Survey Report Essential For Environment Clearance; Draft Or Lapsed DSR Can't Be Basis For EC: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Gaurav Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 548

The Supreme Court struck down the Uttar Pradesh government's e-auction notice for sand mining leases which cited reliance on an expired 2017 District Survey Report (DSR), which lapsed in 2022, and a draft 2023 DSR that had not yet been finalized.

The Court held that, under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notifications, a valid and up-to-date DSR is a mandatory prerequisite for granting Environmental Clearance (EC) for Category B2 minor mineral projects, such as sand mining, as per the 2016 amendment to the EIA Notification.

The dispute centred on the Uttar Pradesh government's attempt to auction sand mining rights based on a DSR from 2017, whose five-year validity had expired, and a 2023 draft DSR that was still undergoing finalization. The NGT ruled that this reliance violated key environmental regulations, rendering the auction process unlawful.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra affirmed the National Green Tribunal's decision, which invalidated the e-auction of sand mining leases by the UP Govt. after noting that the notification was based on outdated DSR.

Unregistered Agreement To Sell Admissible As Evidence To Prove Contract In Specific Performance Suit: Supreme Court

Case Details: Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 549

The Supreme Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell may be admitted as evidence to establish the existence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance.

The Court said that this arrangement is made possible under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which allows an unregistered document to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or of a collateral transaction.

“we are of the opinion that the prayer of the appellant in the interlocutory application falls under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act which provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The proviso also enables the said document to be received in evidence of a collateral transaction.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an appeal arising from Tamil Nadu, where, by virtue of a State amendment to the Registration Act, it is mandatory to register an agreement to sell.

'Not Court's Duty To Tell Media To Delete': Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page About ANI's Case

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 550

The Supreme Court (May 9) set aside the Delhi High Court order, which directed the deletion of a Wikipedia page on defamation proceedings initiated by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia on the ground that the page was prima facie contemptuous and amounted to interference in court proceedings

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated the principle that Courts are open institutions to the public and the media reporting about judicial proceedings cannot be curbed lightly.

Courts as a public institution should always be open to the public, and the issues which are even sub judice can be debated by the public and the press, the bench held. "It is not the duty of the Court to tell the media to delete this and take that down... Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both should supplement each other," Justice Bhuyan read out from the judgment.

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of public discourse and media scrutiny, stating that courts, as open and public institutions, must remain receptive to observations, debates, and constructive criticism.

The Court observed that even when a matter is sub judice, it is vital for important issues to be vigorously debated by the public and the press.

Cognizance Of Offence Under S.186 IPC Can't Be Taken On Police Report/Chargesheet: Supreme Court

Case Details: Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 551

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against members of the anti-trafficking NGO Guria, accused of obstructing officials (S. 186 IPC) and using criminal force (S. 353 IPC) during a 2014 rescue of bonded and child labourers from a Varanasi brick kiln.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi quashed the case, holding that the prosecution was "vexatious," legally unsustainable, and borne out of "malice”.

The Court said that Section 353 IPC requires assault/criminal force against a public servant; however, no allegation of force or threat was found on the part of the Appellants. Regarding the allegations of obstructing a public servant from duty, the Court found that the appellants' actions (insisting on interrogation at the police station) were deemed a bona fide disagreement, not obstruction with malicious intent.

NDPS Act | In-Charge SHO Competent To Conduct Search In Absence Of Station House Officer: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Rajasthan v. Gopal & Ors. | Diary No. 28242/2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 552

The Supreme Court held that a search under the NDPS Act can be carried out by the In-Charge Station House Officer in the absence of the designated SHO of the Police Station.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing the challenge against the order of the Rajasthan High Court, which quashed an FIR for offences under Sections 8/18, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

S. 19 PC Act | Sanction Not Vitiated Due To Minor Edits In Draft Sanction Order Without Affecting Substance: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 553

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a retired public servant who had sought acquittal on the basis of alleged irregularities in the sanction order, noting that the minor edits made to the sanction report merely ensured that its form aligned with its substance, without altering its actual content.

Observing that no failure of justice had occurred, the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that the sanctioning authority had properly applied its mind and issued the sanction order after concluding that a prima facie case existed. Therefore, the Court ruled that minor alterations in the report, in the absence of any prejudice to substantial justice, did not render the sanction order invalid or justify acquittal on that basis.

“Even otherwise, merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of granting sanction, that does not affect the validity of the proceedings unless the court records its own satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice.”, the court observed.

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of S.5A, Kerala General Sales Tax Act and S.7A, Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act

Case Details: C.T. Kochouseph v. State Of Kerala And Another Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 941 – 945 of 2004 (and connected cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 554

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

"The challenge to the constitutional validity must be rejected on the basis of the ratio elucidated by this Court in Kandaswami (supra), Hotel Balaji (supra) and Devi Dass (supra)...Hotel Balaji (supra) specifically upholds the constitutionality of the impugned provisions, disagreeing with the opinion/ratio expressed in Goodyear (supra)", said a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar, R Mahadevan.

Supreme Court Discards Point-Based Assessment For Senior Designations, Asks HCs To Amend Rules

Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 555

In a major revisit of the senior designation process, the Supreme Court directed that the point-based assessment by the Permanent Committee, which was evolved as per the judgments in Indira Jaising cases in 2017 and 2023, be discontinued.

As per the point-based process, a Permanent Committee comprising the Chief Justice and two senior most judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court, along with the Attorney General or the Advocate General of the State, as the case may be, has to award points to each applicant based on the criteria such as 20 points based on the number of practice years, 50 points for reported judgments, 5 points for publications and 25 points based on the interview.

Today, a three-judge bench, which was formed to revisit the Indira Jaising guidelines, directed that the point-based assessment for senior designation shall not be implemented by the Supreme Court or the High Courts.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and SVN Bhatti said that diversity and representation for lawyers practising in the trial courts must be ensured.

Premature To Link 2,988 kg Heroin Seizure At Mundra Port To LeT Terror-Financing: Supreme Court On NIA Allegation

Case Details: Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. State of Gujarat, SLP (Crl) No. 8878/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 556

Even though the Supreme Court refused to grant bail to the accused in the case related to the seizure of a 2,988-kg heroin consignment in Mundra port in September 2021, it discarded the allegations of the National Investigation Agency that the proceeds of the crime were used for terror financing as "premature and speculative."

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh observed that there was "no compelling reason to currently link the appellant to prescribed terrorist organizations." The seizure was made by the the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in 2021. The accused approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court denied him relief.

'Volume-Based Discounts Not Anti-Competitive': Supreme Court Rejects CCI's Appeal

Case Details: Competition Commission Of India v. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 557

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) challenging a glass manufacturing company's use of volume-based (target) rebates, holding that such rebates do not constitute an abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002 ("Act").

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale heard the matter, where it was alleged that the Respondent- Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (Schott India), a dominant player in the market for neutral borosilicate glass tubing used in pharmaceutical packaging, had violated Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by using exclusionary pricing, discriminatory rebates, and restrictive agreements to foreclose competition by introducing four slabs, especially to the benefit of its joint venture, Schott Kaisha.

The Supreme Court has cautioned against rigid enforcement of rules without understanding their impact on market realities, as it can discourage long-term capital and efforts. The Court advocated for an "effects- based standard" than a rigid insistence on procedural compliance in matters related to economic regulations.

Non-Public Servant Can Be Convicted For Abetting Offences Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 558

The Supreme Court (May 13) ruled that even a non-public servant can be found guilty of abetting a public servant in committing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), particularly when assisting the public servant in accumulating disproportionate assets in his/her name.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran upheld the conviction of a former public servant's wife for abetting his husband to accumulate disproportionate assets in her name under the PC Act.

Investigation Officer's Testimony Based Only On S.161 CrPC Statements Of Witnesses Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Renuka Prasad v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 559

The Supreme Court clarified that while police officers may be considered reliable witnesses for recoveries of physical evidence, such as weapons or narcotics, based on voluntary disclosures by an accused, this reliability does not extend to their testimony regarding witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the High Court's decision, which had overturned the accused's acquittal, relying on the investigation officer's statements proving the witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.

Delay Shouldn't Be Condoned Merely As Generosity; Bona Fides Of Explanation Necessary: Supreme Court

Case Details: Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 560

On Tuesday (May 13), the Supreme Court overturned the Madras High Court's decision that had condoned the 1,116-day delay in filing an appeal against an ex-parte decree, which had become final after being dismissed by the Supreme Court in a different proceeding.

The Court stated that it would be impermissible for a litigant, against whom an ex-parte order was passed, to file an appeal challenging the ex-parte order by re-agitating issues that were previously raised and dismissed in separate proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC (application to set aside the ex-parte decree).

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma heard the case where the Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court with a delay of 1,116 days, seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree, despite previously exhausting the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC (application to set aside an ex-parte decree/order), which had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in a separate proceeding.

'After Marriage, Daughter Presumed To Be Supported By Husband': Supreme Court Rejects Compensation Claim Over Mother's Death

Case Details: Deep Shikha & Anr v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Observing that a married daughter is presumed not to be dependent on the parents, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea of a married daughter who sought motor accident claim compensation in the capacity of a dependent of her deceased mother.

“Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise.”, the Court said.

A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased, the Court held relying on Manjuri Bera & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, (2007) 10 SCC 634

Citizens Who Approach Police Station To Report Crime Entitled To Be Treated With Dignity: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. The Registrar State Human Rights Commission Of Tamil Nadu | SLP(C) No. 20028/2022 Diary No. 33406 / 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 562

The Supreme Court has observed that every person who approaches a police station to report the commission of an offence is entitled to be treated with dignity. "That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court stated.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while upholding an order of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) imposing a cost of ₹2 lakh on the state government, to be recovered from the police inspector who had refused to register a First Information Report (FIR) and misbehaved with individuals who had approached the station to lodge a complaint regarding alleged cheating and embezzlement amounting to ₹13 lakh.

"Every citizen of India who goes to the police station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with dignity. That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court observed.

'Cruel Misuse' Of S.498A IPC: Supreme Court Acquits Husband In 26 Yrs Old Cruelty And Dowry Case Citing Lack Of Credible Evidence

Case Details: Rajesh Chaddha v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 563

The Supreme Court has cautioned against the 'cruel misuse' of Section 498A IPC (cruelty cases) against husband and in-laws by the wife and her relatives, without concrete evidence.

“The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma made these observations while acquitting the Appellant-husband of the charges under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty and dowry demands. The FIR was lodged back in the year 1999.

Section 10 Transfer Of Property Act Doesn't Hit Restrictive Conditions In Government Land Allotments: Supreme Court

Case Details: The State Of Telangana & Ors. v. Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 564

The Supreme Court (May 14) clarified that Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), which invalidates absolute restraints on alienation, does not apply to government allotments, as such transactions are neither inter vivos nor commercial in nature but are in the public interest.

Holding thus, the Court justified the Telangana government's right to impose conditions on land use and to seek resumption of the land in cases of misuse, while setting aside the High Court's decision which considered the allotment of land to the Respondent as a sale made under TPA.

In essence, the Court stated that Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to inter vivos transfers, but not to conditional transfers made through government allotments.

Standard Form Employment Contracts: Supreme Court Lays Down Principles Of Interpretation

Case Details: Vijaya Bank & Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 565

The Supreme Court outlined the legal principles applicable to interpreting standard form contracts often viewed as weaker contracts from the employee's perspective typically drafted unilaterally by employers (such as corporations or institutions) and offered to employees on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi laid down legal principles relating to the interpretation of standard form employment contracts were summarized as follows:

"(i) Standard form employment contracts prima facie evidence unequal bargaining power.

(ii) Whenever the weaker party to such a contract pleads undue influence/coercion or alleges that the contract or any term thereof is opposed to public policy, the Court shall examine such plea keeping in mind the unequal status of the parties and the context in which the contractual obligations were created.

(iii) The onus to prove that a restrictive covenant in an employment contract is not in restraint of lawful employment or is not opposed to public policy, is on the covenantee i.e. the employer and not on the employee."

The Court said that although the standard form of contract creates an unequal bargaining power to the employee, it cannot be invalidated solely on that ground unless it is shown that the contract's term is oppressive, unconscionable, or against public policy.

The Court upheld the validity of a bond clause in an employment contract, allowing a Public Sector Bank to recover ₹2 lakhs from an employee who resigned before completing the mandatory three-year service period.

The Court held that exclusivity clauses in employment contracts (requiring minimum service period) are legally permissible and do not fall within the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, which prohibits agreements in restraint of trade. Since these clauses operate during the term of employment rather than post-termination, they are not considered restrictive under the law, the court said.

The Court emphasized that in today's competitive environment, public sector undertakings must continuously revise their policies to enhance operational efficiency and streamline administrative costs. One critical aspect of this strategy is retaining skilled and experienced staff who contribute to the development of managerial capacity, an interest that the Court deemed essential to such organizations.

'Witnesses Must Identify Accused In Court When Previously Known', Supreme Court Overturns Conviction In 2001 Murder Case

Case Details: Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 566

The Supreme Court observed that if a witness was familiar with the accused before the commission of the crime, it becomes essential for the witness to identify the accused in court, and failure to do so would undermine the prosecution's case.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the convictions of the accused, who had been found guilty under Sections 302 (murder) and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code by both the Trial Court and the High Court. The acquittal was primarily based on the fact that the five injured eyewitnesses, whose testimonies formed the basis of the conviction, failed to identify the accused persons in court.

It observed, "In a case where there are eyewitnesses, one situation can be that the eyewitness knew the accused before the incident. The eyewitnesses must identify the accused sitting in the dock as the same accused whom they had seen committing the crime."

Private Arbitration Clauses Cannot Override Statutory Mandates Under MSMED Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Harcharan Dass Gupta v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 567

Reaffirming that the MSMED Act prevails over the Arbitration Act, as held in Gujarat State Civil Supplies v. Mahakali Foods, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's interference with MSMED proceedings in Delhi, despite the contract naming Bengaluru as the arbitration seat.

The Court clarified that private contractual clauses cannot override the statutory mandate of the MSMED Act. Since the appellant-supplier was registered in Delhi, the Court noted that the Delhi Arbitration Centre had jurisdiction under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act, regardless of the contract's designation of Bengaluru as the seat of arbitration due to the overriding nature of the MSMED Act.

Supreme Court Deprecates 'Deliberate, Ambiguous' Drafting Of Arbitration Clauses; Calls For Suo Motu Action In Malafide Cases

Case Details: South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. SMS Limited, SLP (C) No. 16913/2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 568

Delivering a significant judgment on arbitration law, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of arbitration clauses being deliberately phrased "ambiguously" by members of legal fraternity and urged judicial forums across the country to throw out cases involving "shoddily drafted arbitration clauses" at the threshold.

The Court said that such "malafide cases" are a "criminal wastage of judicial time" and have been allowed to go on for long. It called on the judicial forums to take stringent actions in this regard by invoking their suo motu powers.

'Can There Be A Better Cover-Up': Supreme Court Pulls Up State Of MP, Orders CBI Investigation In To Alleged Custodial Death Of 25-Year-Old

Case Details: Hansura Bai And Anr. V The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr | SLP(Crl) No. 3450/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 569

The Supreme Court transferred the investigation into the alleged custodial torture and murder of a 25-year-old Deva Pardhi to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The Court found that the police are continuously trying to cover up and influence the investigation into the alleged custodial death. First, when the victim's family immediately lodged an FIR after the incident, the local police prevented them from doing so. After the magisterial inquiry, an FIR was registered, but the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder was omitted. Thereafter, eight months have passed, and no single arrest has taken place.

"These circumstances give rise to a clear inference that the investigation by the local police is not being carried out in a fair and transparent manner and there is an imminent possibility of the prosecution being subjugated by the accused if the investigation is left in the hands of the State police, who are apparently shielding their own fellow policemen owing to the camaraderie. Therefore, we deem it fit and essential to direct that the investigation of FIR No. 341 of 2024 shall forthwith be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation."

Crude Soybean Oil Is Not Agricultural Produce But Manufactured Product, Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: Supreme Court

Case Details: Noble Resources And Trading India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Andagro Services Pvt. Ltd.) v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 570

Supreme Court Demotes Deputy Collector Who Demolished Slum-Dwellers' Huts Defying HC Order, Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Fine

Case Details: Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu And Ors., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 571

As a punishment, the Supreme Court directed demotion of a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, thereby displacing them.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih ordered that the State of Andhra Pradesh demote the petitioner-Deputy Collector to the post of Tahsildar. It was further directed that the petitioner shall deposit a fine of Rs.1 lakh within 4 weeks.

'Court Can't Compel Any State To Adopt National Education Policy': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Implement NEP In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 260/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 572

The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a person seeking to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to implement the National Education Policy (2020) including its 'three-language formula'.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that the Court cannot issue any direction under Article 32 of the Constitution to compel any State to adopt the NEP.

Dismissing the petition filed by one GS Mani, the Court said:

"Whether the States should adopt the National Education Policy 2020 or not is a vexed issue. The Supreme Court, through Article 32 of the Constitution, can issue directives to ensure that the rights of the citizens are protected. It cannot directly compel a State to adopt a policy like the National Education Policy 2020. The Court may, however, intervene if a State's action or inaction related to the National Education Policy violates any fundamental rights. We do not propose to examine this issue in this writ petition. We believe that the petitioner has nothing to do with the cause he proposes to espouse. Although he may be from the State of Tamil Nadu, yet on his own admission, he is residing in New Delhi. In such circumstances, this petition stands dismissed."

Supreme Court Refuses To Suspend Life Sentence Of Sanjiv Bhatt In 1990 Custodial Death Case

Case Details: Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt V. The State Of Gujarat And Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 11736/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 573

The Supreme Court rejected the application filed by expelled Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking to suspend the life sentence imposed on him in a custodial death case of 1990.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to release Sanjiv Bhatt on bail. However, the bench directed that the hearing of his criminal appeal be expedited.

"We are not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. Our observations made herein above are restricted to bail only and will have no bearing on the appeals of the Appellant and co-accused. The prayers sought by the Appellant is dismissed, however, the hearing of the appeal is directed to be expedited," Justice Mehta pronounced the order.

Supreme Court Directs CBI To Conduct Preliminary Enquiries Into NCR's 'Builder-Banks Nexus'; Probe To Start With Supertech Ltd

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 574

Following grievances raised by homebuyers/borrowers, the Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct preliminary enquiries into an "unholy" nexus of builders and banks in the National Capital Region.

To recap, this is the matter where the Court earlier hinted at a CBI probe, noting that certain real estate companies, and banks which sanctioned loans to them for their projects in NCR, had taken poor homebuyers to ransom.

Today, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, after perusing a response filed by CBI as well as a note placed on record by Amicus Curiae Rajeev Jain, ordered that the preliminary enquiries be conducted by CBI in the manner proposed, with priority being given to Supertech Ltd.

Appeals To Restore Death Penalty Don't Require 3-Judge Bench Hearing: Supreme Court Rejects Godhra Case Convicts' Objections

Case Details: Abdul Raheman Dhantiya @ Kankatto @Jamburo v. State of Gujarat., Criminal Appeal 517/2018 and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 575

The Supreme Court began the final hearing of the 2018 appeals pending in the 2002 Godhra train burning case.

The criminal appeals, filed by the convicts challenging their conviction and the State of Gujarat seeking death sentence for the convicts, were listed before a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar.

The Court felt that Mohd Arif's judgment does not apply to the present case. It therefore signalled for the parties to begin their arguments and passed an order as follows:

"We have perused the judgment of Mohd Arif, in particular to Supreme Court Rules, Order VI, Rule III. This Court said that in all cases in which death sentence is awarded by the High Court and appeals are pending before the Supreme Court, only a bench of three hon'ble judges will hear. In the present case, the situation is not as indicated in the judgment of Mohd Arif. In the case at hand, the 11 accused persons were convicted and directed to undergo capital sentence by the Court of Sessions and said sentence was commuted by the High Court. Therefore, the present case is by the State to restore death sentence so far as for 11 petitioners and others are concerned. We have perused Rule III, which is specific whereby the appeal or other proceedings arising out of death sentence has been confirmed or awarded by the High Court shall be heard by a bench consisting of not less than three judges. In view of the said provisions and the Rules, we are not inclined to entertain the objections as raised...The objections are repelled...We are inclined to hear the appeal of the State before us."

Supreme Court Clears ₹500 Crore Shri Banke Bihari Temple Corridor Plan, Permits Land Purchase Using Temple Deposits

Case Details: Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 576

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (May 15) permitted the Uttar Pradesh Government to use funds from the Shri Banke Bihari Temple (Vrindavan) for acquiring 5 acres of land around the temple for corridor development, on the condition that the acquired land shall be registered in the name of the deity.

Modifying the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had prohibited the purchase of land around the temple using its funds, the bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma allowed the use of Banke Bihari Ji Temple's fixed deposits after examining the state government's Rs. 500 crore development plan for the corridor.

NSEL Scam | IBC Moratorium Doesn't Bar Property Attachments Under Maharashtra Protection Of Interest Of Depositors Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: National Spot Exchange Limited v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 577

The Supreme Court (May 15) ruled that the moratorium under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (“IBC”) doesn't prohibit attachment of properties under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (“MPID Act”).

The Court rejected the contention that the moratorium imposed under the IBC bars the attachment of properties under the MPID Act. It held that the primary purpose of the MPID Act is to facilitate recovery for victims of financial fraud through the attachment of assets. Consequently, once a property vests with the State Competent Authority under the MPID Act, such vesting cannot be impeded by invoking the IBC moratorium.

Further, the Court dismissed the argument of inconsistency or overlapping between the provisions contained under the MPID Act and IBC to give primacy to central law IBC under Article 254 of the Constitution, stating that both the Acts operate within their field drawing legislative support from their respective lists under the Schedule VII of the Constitution. The Court added that the MPID Act was enacted by the Maharashtra Government under the State List, therefore, the moratorium declared under IBC would not preclude the State Competent Authority from attaching the defaulter's property to facilitate recovery for victims of financial fraud.

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside Solely For Lack Of Jurisdiction If No Timely Objection Raised Before Tribunal: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Gayatri Project Limited v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 578

The Supreme Court on May 15 reiterated that arbitral awards made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be set aside merely because the disputes should have been adjudicated under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (“MP Act”), and no jurisdictional objections were raised at the proper stage of the proceedings.

The Court held that any challenge to the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction over disputes arising under the MP Act must be raised before the tribunal itself. If a party fails to do so, it may still invoke Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to raise a jurisdictional objection after the award is issued, but the award cannot be set aside solely on that ground, the court clarified.

“Once an arbitral award is passed and no objection as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal had been taken at the relevant stage, then the award could not have been annulled only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.”, the court observed.

Commercial Suits Filed Before 20.08.2022 Without Pre-Institution Mediation Be Kept In Abeyance To Explore Mediation: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 579

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (May 15) reaffirmed that pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory, as held in Patil Automation's case (2022), but clarified that this requirement applies prospectively from 20.08.2022 to avoid disrupting pending cases.

In Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 1, it was held that Section 12A is mandatory and non-compliance must result in rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. However, the decision was given prospective effect from 20.08.2022.

Given that the suit was filed in 2019, i.e., before 20.08.2022 and at a time when mediation infrastructure was lacking, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the law's strict application should be relaxed. It directed that the suit be kept in abeyance for time-bound mediation, and only if mediation fails will the suit proceed.

No Probation For Food Adulteration Offences Committed Between 1976 & 2006: Supreme Court

Case Details: Nagarajan & Anr. v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 580

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 15) clarified that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked for offences committed under the now-repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PoFA), during the period between 1976 and its repeal in 2006 by the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act).

“The benefit that the Probation Act envisages is inapplicable to an offence committed under the PoFA Act, if the offence has been committed between introduction of Section 20AA in 1976 and its repeal in 2006 by the FSS Act...”, the court said.

Supreme Court Asks Union & States To Create Special POSCO Courts On Top Priority, Mandates Timeline Compliances

Case Details: In Re Alarming Rise In The Number Of Reported Child Rape Incidents| SMW (Crl) No. 1/2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 581

The Supreme Court on May 15 closed the 2019 suo moto proceedings initiated in relation to addressing the systematic flaws under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. It has directed the Union and States Government to set up Special POCSO Courts on top priority basis.

A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale closed the proceedings, asking the Union and the State Government to take appropriate steps to sensitise the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also to create dedicated Courts to try POCSO cases on a top priority basis.They also have to ensure that the chargesheets are filed within the period stipulated in the Act and that the Trials are completed within the time frame as stipulated in the Act.

Supreme Court Directs Regularisation Of Court Managers, Directs High Courts To Frame Rules On Their Recruitment

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 582

The Supreme Court expressed concerns at the fact that Court Managers in many states are working on a contractual basis and that some states have even discontinued their services, citing a shortage of funds.

Deploring this situation, the Court directed that all States should regularise the existing Court Managers, subject to their passing the suitability test. The regularisation shall be with effect from the beginning of their services. However, they will not be entitled to salary arrears.

The Court further directed the High Courts to frame or amend rules regarding the recruitment of court managers and submit the same to the State Government. The State Government should approve them within three months. The Court Managers should be given the scale of Class II officers.

Electricity Act | Broad Powers Under Section 79 Allow CERC To Act Without Pre-Existing Regulations: Supreme Court

Case Details: Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited v. Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 583

In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission's (CERC) authority under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to award compensation for delays in inter-state transmission projects.

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified that CERC's power is regulatory, not adjudicatory, and extends to issuing case-specific orders even in the absence of general regulations under Section 178, to ensure effective transmission planning and execution

CLAT-UG 2025: Supreme Court Flags Mistakes; Directs To Give Marks For Certain Answers, Deletes Some Questions

Case Details: Siddhi Sandeep Ladda V. Consortium Of National Law Universities And Anr | Diary No. 22324-2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 584

The Supreme Court flagged several mistakes in the CLAT-UG 2025 questions and directed the revision of the merit list, after setting aside some of the directions issued by the Delhi High Court.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to award marks for certain questions and to delete certain other questions (details given below).

The bench, hearing petitions challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment, expressed its disappointment with the Consortium for its shoddy conduct of the exam.

S. 31(7) Arbitration | Arbitral Tribunal Has Power To Award Different Rates Of Interest For Pre-Reference & Pendente Lite Period: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Interstate Construction v. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 585

The Supreme Court held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an Arbitral Tribunal has the power to award different rates of interest for different phases.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan overturned the Delhi High Court's ruling, which had invalidated the tribunal's grant of interest on interest, deeming it impermissible under Section 31(7) of the Act.

The bench heard the case where the dispute originated from a 1984 contract for the Thermal Power Project in Andhra Pradesh. After the completion of work in 1987, the Appellant-Interstate Construction claimed unpaid dues from NPCC, leading to arbitration proceedings that began in 1993 and continued for nearly three decades through multiple arbitrators.

Fee Regulatory Committee Can't Transfer NRI Quota Fee To State Corpus Fund; Self-Financing Colleges Can Retain It: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Principal KMCT Medical College and Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 9885-9888/2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 566

The Supreme Court held that an Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee in a State does not have the power to direct that the fee collected from NRI medical students be kept in a corpus fund maintained by the State to subsidise the education of Below Poverty Line students.

The Court directed the State of Kerala to return the amounts collected from self-financing medical colleges for the creation of the corpus fund. The Court held that the self-financing colleges are entitled to retain the amounts.

The Court held that the direction issued by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee to transfer the NRI fees to the State Corpus fund was beyond the role assigned to it as per the judgments in P. A. Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537 and Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka. Without the backing of a legislation, the Committee cannot issue such a direction.

The Supreme Court held that fees collected from NRI (Non-Resident Indian) students can be utilized for diverse purposes and such students cannot insist on utilization of their fees only for subsidizing fees of students belonging to Below Poverty Line (BPL) category.

Satisfaction Recorded In Execution Petition Over Injunction Decree Doesn't Bar Subsequent EPs For Future Breaches: Supreme Court

Case Details: Saraswati Devi & Ors. v. Santosh Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 587

The Supreme Court (May 16) observed that satisfaction recorded in one Execution Petition (“EP”) for past breach of permanent injunction would not preclude the filing of a subsequent EP for fresh breaches of permanent injunction.

The Court reasoned that because a permanent injunction is perpetual and enforceable against future interferences, the filing of a subsequent EP against later breaches would not be barred by Res Judicata.

“The decree was one of permanent prohibitory injunction from interference to the peaceful possession of the scheduled property. A satisfaction recorded in one EP would not result in the dismissal of a further EP filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused.”, the court said.

Don't Grant Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearances In Future: Supreme Court To Centre; Quashes Previous Notifications

Case Details: Vanashakti v. Union of India and connected matters.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 588

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 16) restrained the Central Government from granting "ex-post facto" Environmental Clearances (EC) in future and set aside the previous Office Memoranda and notifications which allowed for the grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance for mining projects.

This means that the projects which commenced without obtaining the mandatory prior Environmental Clearance cannot be later regularised by granting them EC in future.

The Court however did not interfere with the ECs already granted.

ISKCON Temple In Bengaluru Belongs To ISKCON Society Bangalore, Not Mumbai: Supreme Court

Case Details: International Society For Krishna Consciousness Bangalore v. International Society For Krishna Consciousness Mumbai And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Deciding a 24-year-old property dispute between the International Society for Krishna Consciousness Mumbai and International Society for Krishna Consciousness Bangalore, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 16) held that the ISKCON temple in Bengaluru belongs to ISKCON Society Bangalore registered under the Karnataka Societies Act.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the judgement of the Karnataka High Court which held that the property belongs to ISKCON Society, Mumbai. The trial court's decree was restored.

Supreme Court Flags 'Politicians-Bureaucrats-Builders Nexus', Asks States/UTs To Form SITs To Probe Illegal Conversion Of Forest Land

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. (In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 590

The Supreme Court declared illegal the allotment and subsequent sale of 11.89 hectares of Reserved Forest land in Kondhwa Budruk, Pune, originally granted to a private family and later transferred to a housing society.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran not only quashed this specific allotment and associated environmental clearance but also issued pan-India directions for the constitution of Special Investigation Teams to crackdown on the misuse of forest land.

“The present matter is a classic example as to how the nexus between the Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Builders can result in the conversion of precious Forest Land for commercial purposes under the garb of resettlement”, the Court observed.

Candidate Can't Claim Reservation If Caste Certificate Isn't Submitted In Prescribed Format: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohit Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 591

The Supreme Court observed that to apply under the recruitment advertisement, the caste certificate must be submitted in the specific format prescribed therein, and a candidate cannot claim exemption from this requirement merely on the basis of belonging to that category.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan declined to grant relief to the candidate who had applied for posts advertised by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (“UPPRPB”) using OBC caste certificates issued in the format valid for central government jobs, rather than the specific format required by the recruitment advertisement. As per the advertisement, certificates not submitted in State Format would result in the candidates being treated under the unreserved category.

Appellate Court Cannot Direct Enhancement Of Sentence In Convict's Appeal: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sachin v. State Of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 592

The Supreme Court held that in an appeal against conviction, an Appellate Court cannot invoke its powers to enhance the sentence when neither the state, the victim, nor the complainant has filed an appeal or revision seeking such enhancement.

The Court said that an appellate court cannot enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the convict, as it violates the principle of fairness and the statutory scheme under Section 386(b)(iii) Cr.P.C., which prohibits enhancement in such appeals. For enhancement, a separate appeal needs to be filed by the State/victim, the court clarified.

Inconsistent Decisions From Different Benches Shake Public Trust In Judiciary, Make Litigation A Punter's Game: Supreme Court

Case Details: Renuka v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Noting that inconsistency in judicial decisions undermines the clear stream of justice, the Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court's order quashing a domestic violence case against the husband, emphasizing that the decision was rendered in disregard of an earlier ruling which had allowed proceedings to continue against similarly placed in-laws.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the appeal filed by the victim/complainant who alleged domestic violence by her husband and in-laws. While one bench of the High Court refused to quash the case against her in-laws, later on, a co-ordinate bench quashed a case against her husband without reference to the previous ruling of the co-ordinate bench.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the complainant approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Disposes Petitions Against 1982 J&K Law On Return Of Pre-1954 Migrants To Pakistan, Cites Non-Enforcement & 2019 Repeal

Case Details: Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 578/2001

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 594

The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of petitions, pending since 1982, challenging the constitutionality of the Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return) to the State Act, 1982.

The Court noted that the provisions of this Act never came into force, and that its operation was stayed by the Court by an order passed in 2002. Subsequently, it was repealed after the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

All Retired HC Judges Entitled To Equal & Full Pension Based On 'One Rank One Pension' Principle: Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re Refixation Of Pension Considering Service Period In District Judiciary And High Court SMW (C) No. 4/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 595

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) held that all retired judges are entitled to full and equal pension, regardless of their date of retirement and source of entry, following the principle of "one rank one pension."

The Court held that there cannot be discrimination in the pension of High Court judges based on when they entered service and whether they are appointed from judicial service or from the bar.

"We hold that all the retired judges of the High Court, irrespective of the date on which they were appointed, will be entitled to receive full pension," the Court held.

'Flawed Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict In Case Over Rape-Murder Of 3 Year Old Girl

Case Details: Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State Of Maharashtra Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 596

The Supreme Court acquitted a man, who was sentenced to death by the trial court, in a case relating to the rape and murder of a three year old girl. The Court cited grave loopholes in the prosecution's case and the flawed investigation.

The Court noted that his statement after alleged commission of crime about he being “tensed up” was wrongly treated as an extra-judicial confession.

The Court held that such confessions are inherently weak and must be corroborated, yet the witness, to whom the confession was made, failed to mention it in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the magistrate and only offered an improved version during the trial.

The Court emphasized that if an extra-judicial confession was truly made to a witness, the witness should have promptly disclosed it to the police and would not have omitted mentioning it during the recording of their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, rather than presenting an improved version during trial.

All Trademark Disputes Aren't Outside Arbitration; In Personam Issues Relating To License Agreement Arbitrable: Supreme Court

Case Details: K. Mangayarkarasi & Anr. v. N.J. Sundaresan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 597

The Supreme Court held that a mere allegation of fraud or misconduct does not divest an arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to adjudicate in personam disputes stemming from contractual relationships governed by an arbitration agreement.

“The law is well settled that allegations of fraud or criminal wrongdoing or of statutory violation would not detract from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve a dispute arising out of a civil or contractual relationship on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by the arbitration agreement.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made these observations while dismissing a plea challenging the referral of a trademark dispute to arbitration, reaffirming that contractual disagreements involving intellectual property rights (IPRs) can be resolved through arbitration unless they involve sovereign or public (in rem) rights.

S.161 Statement Of Accused Implicating Co-Accused Cannot Be Considered At Bail Stage: Supreme Court

Case Details: P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598

The Supreme Court observed that the statements of accused recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (police interrogation) cannot be used against co-accused at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail.

“The fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence is that a statement of one accused person cannot be used against another co-accused person. The limited exception to this aforesaid general principle are inculpatory confessions, where the accused person in his confessional statement not only admits his own guilt but also implicates another co-accused.”, the Court observed.

The Court observed that when statements are recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the accused may make either exculpatory or inculpatory statements. If the statement is exculpatory, it has limited evidentiary value and can be used only for the purpose of contradicting or re-examining the witness who made it under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

Domestic Violence Act Complaints Can Be Quashed By HCs Under S.482 CrPC/528 BNSS: Supreme Courth

Case Details: Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 599

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) held that High Courts can quash complaints filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now S.528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2003).

"The view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate," the Court observed.

"There are decisions of the High Courts taking a view that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is not available to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005. The decisions are primarily based on the premise that proceedings under Section 12(1) are predominantly of a civil nature. The said view is not correct," the Court added.

Inclusion In Draft NRC Cannot Annul Foreigners Tribunal's Declaration As Non-Citizen: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rofiqul Hoque v. The Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 600

The Supreme Court (May 19) ruled that mere inclusion of the name in the draft National Register of Citizenship (“NRC”) cannot invalidate a previous declaration given by a Foreigners Tribunal that the person was a 'foreigner' under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (“Act”).

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra affirmed the Gauhati High Court's decision, which had refused to interfere with the Tribunal's decision to declare the Appellant as a foreigner despite his name appearing in the draft NRC.

Supreme Court Mandates Minimum Practice As Advocate To Enter Judicial Service

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 20) restored the condition that a minimum practice of three years as an advocate is necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service.

The period of practice could be reckoned from the date of provisional enrolment. The said condition will, however, not apply to recruitment process already initiated by the High Courts before the judgment. In other words, this condition will apply only to future recruitments.

The Supreme Court directed that the quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion as District Judges from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) be increased from 10% to 25%. The Court directed all High Courts and State Governments to amend their service rules to this effect.

Other stories about the judgment can be read here.

Juvenile Justice Board Has No Power To Review Its Orders: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajni v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 602

The Supreme Court (May 20) ruled that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has no authority to review its own decisions or adopt a contradictory stance in later proceedings, as the JJB is not vested with any review jurisdiction under the law.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the judgment while deciding a case where the JJB took into account date of birth while deciding a plea of juvenility (to find out age), however in subsequent proceeding the JJB proceeded to have the opinion of the medical board.

Consider Permanent Forum For Consumer Disputes With Sitting Judges; Frame New Rules On Appointments: Supreme Court To Union

Case Details: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Others v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9982/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 603

In a significant development, the Supreme Court (May 21) issued directions to reform the appointment and functioning of Consumer Commissions, while granting interim relief to existing members and ordering the Union of India to explore the possibility of setting up a permanent tribunal system for consumer disputes.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and MM Sundresh directed the Union of India to submit an affidavit within three months regarding the feasibility of establishing a permanent forum for consumer dispute resolution either as a Consumer Tribunal or Consumer Court, which shall comprise permanent judicial and non-judicial members, headed by sitting or retired judges, and equipped with adequate infrastructure and financial resources to ensure its efficiency and independence.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Partition Suit Can't Be Dismissed At Preliminary Stage If Benami Exception Is Pleaded: Supreme Court

Case Details: Smt. Shaifali Gupta v. Smt. Vidya Devi Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 604

The Supreme Court held that a suit filed seeking partition of joint family property cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when a plea was taken that such property is saved by the exception to the benami transaction.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) if it is "ex facie barred by law" without requiring evidence, but the determination of whether the properties are benami or joint family assets involves factual inquiries (e.g., source of funds, family arrangements) that cannot be decided at the pleading stage, necessitating a trial to resolve factual disputes.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case where the Respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, declaration, and injunction against the elder son, his wife, and others, alleging that the properties in question were joint family assets and saved by an exception to the benami transaction.

IAS Officers Can't Write ACRs Of Indian Forest Service Officers Up To APCCF Rank: Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re Performance Appraisal Reports Of The Officers Of The Indian Forest Service

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 605

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) ruled that officers in the Indian Administrative Service cannot write the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of Indian Forest Service(IFS) officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF).

The Court quashed a Government Order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh on June 29, 2024, as per which the comments of the District Collector were regarded as relevant for the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) of Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) and the comments of the Divisional Commissioner were relevant for the PAR of Conservator of Forests and Chief Forest Conservator (Territorial), the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator (Development).

Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Clarifies Restriction Under S.80-IA(9) On Claiming Cumulative Deductions Under S.80IA & 80-HHC

Case Details: Shital Fibers Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 606

Answering a reference, the Supreme Court held that deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB of the Income Tax Act need not reduce the gross total income before computing deductions under other provisions like Section 80-HH for export profits.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih delivered the verdict while answering a reference after a matter was referred to the larger bench due to split verdict in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Micro Labs Limited (2015) on the issue of whether deductions claimed under Section 80-IA/80-IB (for industrial profits in certain categories) and Section 80-HHC (for export profits) could be cumulatively allowed.

NEET-PG: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Prevent Seat-Blocking; Mandates Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure By Colleges

Case Details: State of UP v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 607

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions regarding the conduct of counselling for NEET-PG (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test- Post Graduate) to tackle the malpractices of seat-blocking for admissions to post-graduate medical courses.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was considering the issue of large-scale blocking of seats during the Medical Admissions/ counselling procedure for NEET PG exams.

Duty Of Central Government To Keep Highways Free Of Encroachment: Supreme Court Issues Directions

Case Details: Gyan Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC ) 608

The Supreme Court has issued various directions to the Union Government and Highway Administration for the removal of encroachments on National Highways, while expressing dissatisfaction over ineffective implementation of statutory provisions under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002.

The directions include – The Union of India and Highway Administration must widely publicize the Rajmargyatra app (to register encroachment complaints), issue SOP for highway inspection teams, and form surveillance teams with State Police for highway patrolling.

The authorities also have to consider and implement the suggestions by Amicus Curiae Swati Ghildiyal which included issuing circulars on inspection teams, creating surveillance teams, installing CCTV cameras, and improving the Rajmargyatra app and grievance portal.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih issued the directions in a writ petition raising issues relating to the safety of National Highways and the implementation of the 2002 Act and Highway Administration Rules, 2004.

“In fact, under the 2002 Act, there is a provision in the form of Section 23, which stipulates that highway land shall be deemed to be the property of the Central Government. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Central Government to maintain the National Highways. The maintenance of highways includes the obligation to keep them in good condition. It also includes keeping them free of encroachments and, most importantly, providing adequate safety measures to reduce the possibility of accidents”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Declares Maharashtra's Zudpi Jungles As Protected Forests, Directs Scrutiny Of Post-1996 Allotments

Case Details: In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 609

The Supreme Court (May 22) held that Zudpi jungle lands in Maharashtra are forest lands, bringing them under the purview of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (“FC Act”) and stalling their conversion without prior approval from the Central Government.

The judgment delivered by a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih held that all Zudpi Jungle land allotments made before 12 December 1996 when the T.N. Godavarman judgment (1996) extended the applicability of the FC Act's scope, will be regularized without compensatory afforestation or NPV payments, as they predated the settled legal position. However, post-1996 allotments will face strict scrutiny, requiring Central Government approval, compliance with forest laws, and possible action against officials responsible for illegal allotment, the court said.

Supreme Court Reinstates Rajasthan Judicial Officer Dismissed Over Alleged Concealment Of Govt Job

Case Details: Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr., SLP(C) No. 23529/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 610

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by a former judicial magistrate from Rajasthan, who was dismissed from service over allegations of concealment of employment and academic impropriety.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma set aside the High Court's Full Court decision to terminate the Appellant from the judicial service in 2020, ordering her reinstatement to the service with the notional fixation of pay, except the backwages.

"It is further clarified that the respondent(High Court) shall take the appellant as to have successfully completed her probation period, and the appellant shall be treated as a confirmed employee.", the court directed.

Also from the judgment- Greater Representation Of Women In Judiciary Will Improve Overall Quality Of Judicial Decision Making: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Kerala's Luxury Tax On Cable TV As Constitutionally Valid

Case Details: The State Of Kerala And Anr. v. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 611

The Supreme Court (May 22) upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala luxury tax and allowed Kerala's appeal, affirming the state's power to tax cable TV services under Entry 62 of List II (State List) as “luxury.”

The Court clarified that the service tax imposed by the Finance Act on broadcasting services under Entry 97 of List I (Union List) does not conflict with state taxes on entertainment, and therefore, no constitutional overlap exists between central and state levies.

“in the instant case, the Parliament under the Finance Act is not imposing a tax on entertainment. Such a tax is being imposed by the state legislatures as entertainment is a luxury within the meaning of entry 62 list 2. In the same way, the Finance Act along with its amendments seeks to impose a tax on the service record by the broadcasting agency which is imposed under Entry 97 List 1. In the same way, under Entry 62 List 2, the state governments are not imposing any service tax on the assesses.”, the court observed.

The Supreme Court held that both the Centre and the State are empowered to levy service tax and entertainment tax, respectively, on assessees such as cable operators and entertainment service providers.

The bench held that broadcasting constitutes a form of communication, while entertainment falls under the category of luxuries as outlined in Entry 62 of List II. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, it reasoned that entertainment can be delivered through means of communication, making broadcasting merely incidental to it. As such, it does not directly encroach upon matters within the Union List. Consequently, both taxes function within their respective constitutional spheres, allowing the Centre and the State to concurrently impose service tax and entertainment tax on the activities undertaken by an assessee.

'In Matters Of Personal Liberty, High Courts Can't Keep Matter Pending For Long': Supreme Court Grants Bail After 27 Adjournments By HC

Case Details: Lakshya Tawar v. Central Bureau Of Investigation | SLP(Crl) No. 5480/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 612

The Supreme Court (May 22) granted bail in a special leave petition specifically on the ground that the Allahabad High Court, which was dealing with the bail application of the present petitioner, adjourned the matter 27 times. The Court observed that in matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep adjourning the matter. Consequently, the Court, while disposing of the matter, stated that the application for bail pending before the High Court is rendered infructuous.

"In the matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time. The petitioner has been incarcerated for a period of more than four years. The complainant's evidence has also been recorded. In that view of the matter, and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner."

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih on April 21 had issued notice on the ground that the petitioner has been incarcerated for a period of more than 4 years, and further that the application for bail was adjourned on 27 occasions.

'Last Seen' Alone Insufficient For Conviction Without Corroboration, Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case

Case Details: Padman Bibhar v. State Of Odisha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Observing that the "last seen together" theory alone is not enough to sustain a conviction unless supported by other compelling evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted a man who was convicted just because the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the time gap between the last sighting and the death was unclear.

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, citing significant flaws in the prosecution's case. As the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Court found that the complete chain of circumstances had not been established, ultimately leading to the accused's acquittal.

“It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and none else. Further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.”, the court observed.

Maternity Leave Part Of Reproductive Rights: Supreme Court Sets Aside Denial Of Maternity Leave For Third Child

Case Details: K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 614

The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which had denied maternity leave to a government teacher for the birth of her third child, citing State policy restricting benefits to two children.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that maternity benefits are part of reproductive rights and that maternity leave is integral to those benefits.

“We have delved into the concept of reproductive rights and have held that maternity benefits are a part of reproductive rights and maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Therefore, the impugned order has been set aside. The division bench order has been set aside,” the Supreme Court observed.

"Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Reproductive rights are now recognized as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law viz. the right to health, right to privacy, right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to dignity."

The Court set aside the impugned judgment which provided that maternity leave was not a fundamental right but a statutory right or a right flowing from service conditions.

'Abuse Of Process': Supreme Court Quashes UP Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS University Director

Case Details: Vinod Bihari Lal v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr., Crl.A. No. 000777 - 000778 / 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 615

The Supreme Court (May 23) quashed the two first information reports registered against Vinod Bihari Lal, the Director of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS), Prayagraj, under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It stated that the said FIRs were nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

"It cannot be gainsaid that the materials garnered during the investigation only ignite conjectures and surmises, and do not make out a prima facie case to be proceeded against the appellant under the Act of 1986. At the stage of forwarding and approving the gang-chart, the competent authorities are under the obligation to record their satisfaction that a case for action under the Act of 1986 is made out, and the gang-chart and other records should reflect such satisfaction. The impugned judgment and consequently, the impugned order clearly bring about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court which makes the interference of this Court necessary. We are of a firm view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law."

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra also thereby set aside the orders and judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court whereby the latter had refused to quash the criminal proceedings, including non-bailable warrants issued against the Appellant under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act.

The Supreme Court adopted the guidelines framed by the State of UP regarding the invocation of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

These guidelines were framed by the State following the nudge by the Court in the case Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

S. 11 SARFAESI Act | DRT Can't Decide Disputes Between Banks Over Secured Assets; Must Be Referred To Arbitration: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bank Of India v. M/S Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 616

In a significant ruling under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (“Act”), the Supreme Court (May 23) held that inter-creditor disputes (between secured creditors) must be resolved through arbitration under Section 11 of the Act read with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).

Unlike the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which requires a written agreement for reference, Section 11 of the Act creates a statutory mandate for arbitration, eliminating the need for any such agreement, the court said.

“Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, provides for a statutory arbitration for any dispute mentioned therein between any of the parties enumerated thereunder. There is no need for an explicit written agreement to arbitrate between such parties in order to attract Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The said provision creates a legal fiction as regards the existence of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding whether such agreement exists or not in actuality.”, the court added.

Supreme Court Refrains From Sentencing POCSO Convict After Noting That Victim Is Now Married To Him & Didn't See It As Crime

Case Details: In Re: Right To Privacy Of Adolescents

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 617

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 23) decided not to impose a sentence on a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), after noting that the victim did not perceive the incident as a crime and that she had suffered more due to the legal and social consequences that followed.

"The final report concludes that though the incident is seen as crime in law the victim did not accept it as one. The committee records that it was not the legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim but rather it was the consequence that followed which took a toll on her. What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system, and constant battle to save the accused from punishment", the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution (power to do complete justice) and decided not to impose any sentence.

The Court sought the view of the Central Government on the suggestions made by amici curiae on reforms in the sex education policy and real-time tracking and data collection of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

No Lunatic Can Be Convicted As He Can't Exercise Right To Defend Under Article 21: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dashrath Patra Appellant v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 618

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man who was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, on the ground that there was more than a reasonable doubt regarding his mental condition at the time of the offence.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that a lunatic cannot be held criminally liable as he is not in a position to defend himself, and the right to defend oneself is part of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The law lays down that no act done by a lunatic is an offence. The reason is that a lunatic is not in a position to defend himself. Right to defend a charge for an offence is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, the Court observed.

AP Land Grabbing Act | Peaceful Possession Without Legal Right Still Constitutes 'Land Grabbing': Supreme Court

Case Details: V. S. R. Mohan Rao v. K. S. R. Murthy & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 619

In a significant ruling interpreting the scope of land grabbing under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (“the Act”), the Supreme Court clarified that violence is not a prerequisite for an act to amount to land grabbing. The Court held that even peaceful or “non-violent” unauthorized possession of land falls within the ambit of the Act.

Affirming the decision of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran upheld the finding that the appellant was a "land grabber" under the Act due to his unauthorized and non-violent occupation of the land.

PC Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough For Conviction Without Proof Of Bribe Demand: Supreme Court

Case Details: State Of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C B Nagaraj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 620

The Supreme Court held that the mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless the entire chain of events i.e., the demand, acceptance, and recovery is established.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah acquitted a public servant accused of demanding a ₹1,500 bribe from a school teacher for forwarding a caste certificate, finding that the element of demand was not established, irrespective of the fact that the other two components acceptance and recovery of tainted money was proven.

“The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain – beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components – of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete.”, the court observed.

Pharmacy Council Of India Must Act Responsibly: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Rejection Of Pharma Colleges' Approvals

Case Details: Shree Ram College Of Pharmacy v. Pharmacy Council Of India, W.P. (C) No. 24/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 621

In the backdrop of multiple litigations being initiated against it by pharma colleges, the Supreme Court slammed the Pharmacy Council of India and said that expert bodies like it should act in a responsible manner.

"Looking at the facts in all these matters...we are of the considered opinion that it is high time that such bodies like Pharmacy Council of India, which is supposed to be expert in the field of specialized education, acts with due diligence. It is only on account of total lack of application of mind and exercise of powers in an arbitrary manner that this Court is flooded with petitions after petitions challenging the orders of the Pharmacy Council of India", observed a bench of Justice BR Gavai (now CJI) and Justice AG Masih.

While setting aside the Pharmacy Council's rejections of certain institutions' approvals, the Court directed the concerned Registrar to forward a copy of the order to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to take suitable action so that "such unwarranted litigation" can be avoided in future.

After Rejection Of Objection To Impleadment, Subsequent Application To Delete Party Barred By Res Judicata: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 622

The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata applies to impleadment proceedings under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. This means that if a party had the opportunity to raise objections regarding their impleadment or non-impleadment at the appropriate stage but failed to do so, they cannot raise the same issue later, as it would be barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata.

'Cheap Publicity': Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Action Against Maharashtra Officials For Protocol Lapse During CJI's Visit

Case Details: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union Of India | Diary No. – 28817/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 623

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 23) came down heavily on a petitioner who filed a PIL seeking action against Maharashtra officials for their protocol lapse during the visit of the Chief Justice of India to Mumbai last week.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih dismissed the petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, observing that it was a "publicity interest litigation" filed for "cheap publicity"

"We highly deprecate such a practice. We are of the considered view that everybody concerned should not make a mountain out of a molehill," the bench observed in the order. Since the petitioner was a young lawyer with 7 years of practice, the bench refrained from imposing heavy costs. The petitioner was asked to pay a cost of Rs 7000.

CJI BR Gavai said that when he himself had appealed to everyone not to blow the trivial issue out of proportion, as the officials had expressed apologies, there was no reason for the petitioner to file the petition.

S.141 NI Act | Cheque Dishonour Complaint Need Not State Specific Administrative Role Of Company Directors: Supreme Court

Case Details: HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 624

The Supreme Court held that to make directors of a company liable for the offence of dishonour of cheque, it is not necessary that the complaint should state their specific role within the company.

The Court noted that while Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires a specific averment that the person was “in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business”, there is no necessity to adopt word for word the language of the statute. Rather, material compliance is enough provided the complaint specifies the role of the director.

"What is important to note is that the repetition of the exact words of the Section in the same order, like a mantra or a magic incantation is not the mandate of the law."aq

CAPFs Entitled To All Benefits Of Organised Group-A Services, Gradually Reduce Deputation Of IPS Officers To CAPFs: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 625

The Supreme Court held the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) must be treated as part of Organised Group-A Services (OGAS) not only for the purpose of granting Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) but also for all cadre-related matters, including cadre review.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Central Government to complete the cadre review of all CAPFs and to amend the recruitment rules of each CAPF in line with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 12 July 2019 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) recognizing CAPFs OGAS within six months.

Therefore, the Court directed that the number of posts filled through deputation in each CAPF up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level should be gradually reduced over a period of time, say two years. This is to ensure that CAPF officers have better chances of promotion and can take part in the internal functioning of their own forces, the Court said.

Describing Any Court "Lower Court" Against Constitution's Ethos; Don't Call Trial Court Record "Lower Court Record": Supreme Court

Case Details: Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 626

The Supreme Court observed that the records of the Trial Court should not be called "Lower Court Records" as describing any Court as a Lower Court was against the ethos of the Constitution.

"The record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as “Lower Court Record”. Describing any Court as a “Lower Court” is against the ethos of our Constitution," observed the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih while deciding a criminal appeal.

In this regard, the bench reiterated its direction given on February 8, 2024 to the Registry. “The record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as Lower Court Record (LCR). Instead, it should be referred as the Trial Court Record (TCR),” the Court had observed in its order passed on February 8, 2024. Following that, the Registry issued a circular on February 28, 2024.

The Court made these observations while setting aside the life sentence imposed on two appellants for the offences under Section 302 and 307 of the eIPC.

Prosecution Can Be Allowed To Produce Documents Which Were Omitted To Be Submitted Along With Chargesheet: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 627

The Supreme Court held that a bona fide omission by the prosecution to submit relied-upon documents to the magistrate does not prevent it from producing those documents after the charge sheet is filed, regardless of whether they were gathered before or after the investigation.

The court said that procedural lapses in submitting evidence can be remedied post-chargesheet, provided there is no prejudice to the accused.

if there is an omission on the part of the prosecution in forwarding the relied upon documents to the learned Magistrate, even after the chargesheet is submitted, the prosecution can be permitted to produce the additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation.”, the court observed.

If Arrest Is Made On Warrant, No Separate Grounds Of Arrest Need To Be Given: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 628

The Supreme Court held that when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant, the obligation to separately communicate the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution does not arise, as the warrant itself constitutes the grounds for the arrest to be supplied to the arrestee under Article 22(1).

“If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest.”, the court observed.

The Court clarified that when an arrest warrant is issued, it presupposes judicial scrutiny of the grounds for arrest as it contains the details about the offence charged, the reason for arrest (e.g., evasion of trial, threat to evidence/witnesses), and the identity of the accused. Therefore, a separate "grounds" document isn't required as the act of reading the warrant aloud fulfills the constitutional obligation to inform the arrestee of the reasons.

Air Force School Not A 'State' Under Article 12; Teachers' Writ Petitions Against Dismissals Not Maintainable: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 629

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against Allahabad High Court judgments holding that the Air Force School in Bamrauli, Allahabad, is not a “State” or “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution, and writ petitions against it by its employees are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanatullah(dissenting) and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the judgment in two civil appeals filed by teachers challenging adverse employment decisions.

“A finding of fact was recorded that there is no material to show that the Government or the IAF has any control over the management of the school. It is not possible for us to take a contrary view. 24. In the circumstances, we are unable to find any fault with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. The relationship between the appellants and the said school is in the realm of private contract. Assuming that there was a breach of private contract, the same does not involve any public law element”, the Court held.

While Justice Oka authored the majority opinion dismissing the appeals, Justice Amanullah dissented, holding that the school was amenable to writ jurisdiction and the Indian Air Force (IAF) has deep and pervasive control on it.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Just Because One Relief Is Barred If There's Another Cause Of Action: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 630

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be dismissed in its entirety merely because one of the reliefs sought is legally untenable, provided that other reliefs are maintainable and arise from independent causes of action.

The Court clarified that when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), it is not permissible to selectively sever prayers where distinct causes of action are pleaded and backed by separate sets of facts. This is because a plaintiff may raise multiple grievances, and even if one claim is unsustainable, the presence of another triable claim means that rejecting the entire plaint would unjustly deny the plaintiff access to justice.

Supreme Court Affirms Adani Power's Entitlement For Compensation Due To Change In Law; Dismisses JVVNL Appeal

Case Details: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 631

The Supreme Court has affirmed that power generators are entitled to claim compensation and Late Payment Surcharge (LPS)-based carrying costs under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for cost escalations resulting from regulatory changes.

Holding thus, the bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal heard the case where the dispute centred around a Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) between the appellants (JVVNL) and Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. (APRL) for the supply of 1200 MW of power at a fixed tariff. APRL sought compensation under the PPA's “Change in Law” clause following Coal India Limited's (CIL) Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) notification dated 19 December 2017, which imposed an additional ₹50/tonne levy on coal, thereby increasing APRL's operational costs.

Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Recognise Kakiho Village, Directs Nagaland Govt To Hear Public Objections Again

Case Details: Old Jalukai Village Council V. Kakiho Village And Ors. | SLP(C) No. 9897/2016

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 632

The Supreme Court on May 23 ordered a fresh issuance of the process for the initiation of recognition of the Kakiho Village by the Nagaland State Government. In this case, the Court set aside the Gauhati High Court's order which had directed the State Government to recognise Kakiho Village within 3 months on the ground that the requirements laid down in the two official memoranda of the State Government were not fulfilled.

"The State authorities are directed to re-issue a public notice regarding the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village and exhaustively consider all the objections which may be raised from every quarter, including that of the appellant herein. A period of six months is provided to the State to complete the said process and take a call on whether recognition must be granted to the respondent no. 1 village or not. Non-adherence to this timeline would be viewed strictly."

S. 239 CrPC | Discharge Must Be Based On Prosecution's Materials, Not On Defence Materials: Supreme Court

Case Details: State v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 633

The Supreme Court set aside an order discharging the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C., noting that the discharge was based on materials submitted by the defense instead of relying on the prosecution's evidence.

Holding that it is impermissible under the law to rely on the defence materials at the stage of deciding the plea for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision which had affirmed the trial court's order discharging the accused based on the evidence submitted by him to contradict prosecution's case.

S.27 Customs Act Or Doctrine Of Unjust Enrichment Won't Apply To Refund Of Bank Guarantee: Supreme Court Allows Patanjali Plea

Case Details: M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 634

The Supreme Court has held that Section 27 of the Customs Act, which requires a person seeking refund of duty to show that the burden was not passed on to the customer, is not applicable when refund is sought of a wrongly invoked bank guarantee.

This is because encashment of bank guarantees by the Customs Department cannot be treated as payment of customs duty. Hence, neither Section 27 nor the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable.

Holding so, the Supreme Court allowed the Patanjali Food Ltd.'s appeal against coercive encashment of the bank guarantee by the customs department, directing the department to refund the encashed amount within four months with 6% interest.

Circular Clarifying Previous Notifications On Fiscal Duty Has Retrospective Effect: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 OF 2016

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 635

The Supreme Court held that a circular/notification issued by the revenue department, clarifying or explaining a fiscal regulation, has to be given retrospective effect. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma rendered the decision, while dealing with the issue as to whether the 2010 Customs Circular, pertaining to All Industry Rate (AIR) Duty drawbacks, was retrospective in nature.

UAPA | Blanket Order Barring Disclosure Of Witnesses' Statements Can't Be Passed Without Individual Threat Assessment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 636

The Supreme Court held that a blanket restriction on the disclosure of witness statements in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) is impermissible. It emphasized that any order limiting the defence's access to such statements must be based on an individualised assessment, specifically whether a real threat exists to the life or safety of each witness.

The Court clarified that any such restriction must be supported by a well-reasoned judicial order, demonstrating careful application of mind and consideration of the protective measures adopted for each witness; and without these elements being fulfilled, withholding disclosure of statements cannot be justified, the court said.

The normal rule is that the accused is entitled to the copies of the statements of witnesses recorded by the police during the investigation, the Court said.

Supreme Court Raps DDA Officials For Unauthorised Tree-Felling In Delhi Ridge, Imposes ₹25K Cost On Each

Case Details: In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA, SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 637

The Supreme Court in the Delhi Ridge Tree Felling contempt case against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) rapped DDA officials for felling trees in the Delhi Ridge area without the Court's permission for a road widening project intended to facilitate access to the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital.

"As a nation routed in rule of law, there is immense faith placed in judiciary...when there is willful disregard, court ought to take strict view. We have divided the conduct into 2 parts - simpliciter non-compliance with requirement to seek permission and deliberate concealing from court that tree-felling had already [occurred]. Conscious non-disclosure strikes at heart of judicial process, may cause prejudice and carried potential to...respondents' conduct has been contemptuous. Their acts fall in scope of criminal contempt."

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh further directed that from now on, every notification or order regarding afforestation, road construction, tree felling or any activity with potential ecological effect must explicitly mention the pendency of the relevant proceedings before this Court.

Supreme Court Asks Assam Human Rights Commission To Enquire Into Alleged Fake Encounters In State

Case Details: Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v. The State Of Assam And Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 7929/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 638

The Supreme Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (Assam HRC) to conduct an independent and expeditious enquiry into allegations of fake police encounters in the State of Assam.

The directions were passed in a petition alleging rampant "fake" encounters in the State as well as non-compliance by state authorities with the directions issued in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra pertaining to investigation of police encounters. The petitioner, an advocate, had brought as many as 171 instances to the notice of the Court.

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh observed that the role of human rights commissions as protectors of civil liberties was paramount and expressed confidence that the Assam HRC would perform its duties effectively.

No Violation Of UNESCO Guidelines: Supreme Court Upholds P&H HC's Directions For Verandah Construction In Court Premises

Case Details: Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 639

The Supreme Court upheld the directions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No.1 and to develop the kutcha parking area within the High Court premises with green pavers and tree plantation.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the challenge raised by the Chandigarh Administration and held that the construction of the verandah does not violate UNESCO guidelines related to world heritage sites.

“We are of the view that the decision of the High Court in directing construction of the veranda in front of courtroom no. 1 in alignment with the design of the 3 existing verandas in front of courtroom nos. 2 to 9 is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines”, the Court held.

However, the Court added that the administration would not be precluded from seeking ex post facto approval for the construction if required, calling it a minimal protective measure which is necessary.

The Court also upheld the High Court's orders dated 7 February 2025 and 21 February 2025 directing the placement of green paver blocks in the open kutcha parking area. The Court said that the development should be done in such a way that it facilitates the parking of maximum vehicles, create shade and shelter for the vehicles, and increase the green cover.

'Bank Had To Consider CVC Advice Once It Was Called': Supreme Court Quashes Disciplinary Action Against Ex-Union Bank Officer

Case Details: A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 640

The Supreme Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings against an ex-bank employee because the bank (Union Bank of India) initiated the proceedings and issued the charge sheet, bypassing its own regulations, which mandated the need for CVC's advice before taking disciplinary actions in vigilance-related cases.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih heard the case involving an ex-bank employee who was suspended following disciplinary proceedings initiated by Union Bank of India just a few days before his retirement. The Bank itself acknowledged that the case had a vigilance angle and sought the CVC's first-stage advice (as per its Regulation 19 and CVC circulars). However, the Bank proceeded to issue the charge sheet without waiting for the CVC's input.

Can't Believe Married Woman Had Physical Relationship On Promise Of Marriage: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Young Man

Case Details: Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 641

The Supreme Court quashed a rape case against a 25-year old student, accused of building sexual relationship with a woman on the pretext of false promise of marriage, stating that the relationship was purely consensual.

In this case, the complainant-woman was already married when the parties had begun their relationship. The Court therefore noted that this cannot be treated as a case of false promise to marry. In such circumstances, the Court observed that "such promise, to begin with, was illegal and unenforceable."

The Court reiterated that mere breach of marriage promise doesn't amount to rape on false promise of marriage unless there was fraudulent intent on the accused's part from the beginning of the relationship.

PMLA Accused Entitled To Hearing Before Cognizance Is Taken Of ED Complaint Filed After BNSS Came Into Effect: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 642

The Supreme Court held that before taking cognizance of a money laundering complaint under section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the special court has to give opportunity to the accused to be heard as per the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the cognizance order passed by the Special Court dated November 20, 2024, after noting that the BNSS, which came effect from July 1, 2024, mandated pre-cognizance hearing of the accused as per Section 223(1). Such a provision was not present in the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure.

Right To Have Unobstructed & Disabled-Friendly Footpaths Part Of Article 21: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Govts

Case Details: S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 643

In a significant order affirming the constitutional rights of pedestrians, the Supreme Court held that the right to use footpaths and footways is an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court was hearing an application raising the issue of pedestrian safety, with a specific emphasis on the lack of proper footpaths and their encroachments.

"Right to have unobstructed and disabled friendly footpaths is guaranteed under Article 21," the Court said, directing all states and Union Territories to frame guidelines to ensure that proper footpaths are available to pedestrians.

Recognising the seriousness of the issue, the Court observed that in the absence of proper footpaths, pedestrians are forced to walk on roads, exposing them to grave risks and causing numerous accidents. The Bench held that the safety of pedestrians is of utmost importance, and that footpaths must be constructed and maintained in a manner that ensures accessibility for persons with disabilities.

'Minors Are Prone To Tutoring': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Finding Child Witness's Competency Wasn't Assessed

Case Details: Agniraj & Ors. v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 644

The Supreme Court acquitted 11 individuals convicted of murder, observing that the conviction was based in part on the testimony of a child witness who had not undergone the mandatory preliminary assessment under Section 118 of the Evidence Act to determine her competency.

“The law is well settled that before proceeding to record the evidence of a minor witness, preliminary questions must be asked by the Court to ascertain whether the witness is able to understand the questions and answer the same. The Court must be satisfied about the capacity of the minor to understand the questions and answer the same.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where one of the significant factors contributing to the Appellants/accused's conviction was the testimony of a 10-year-old girl whose competence to become a witness was not assessed while recording her testimony as a child witness. She was administered an oath by the magistrate without satisfying himself that the witness understood the importance of an oath.

'Her Chats Show Manipulative & Vindictive Tendency': Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Man Who Backed Out Of Marriage

Case Details: Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State Of Telangana & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 645

The Supreme Court quashed a rape case against a man accused of forcible sexual intercourse on the pretext of a false promise of marriage, noting that the complainant's past conduct was questionable, as her behaviour appeared manipulative and vindictive, including threats of criminal action against the accused and other persons if they refused to marry her.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the complainant-Respondent no.2 being well-educated and a major had omitted crucial details in the first FIR and then later filed a second FIR alleging multiple incidents of forcible sexual intercourse and caste-based refusal to marry. The offences under the SC/ST Act were also added in the FIR.

Retirement Age Extension Given To One Disabled Category Can't Be Denied To Persons With Other Disabilities: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 646

The Supreme Court held that prescribing different retirement ages for employees based on the nature of their disabilities amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14. The Court granted relief to a locomotor-disabled electrician, who was forced to retire at 58 years, while visually impaired employees were allowed to serve until 60 years.

The bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan emphasized that such distinctions between differently-abled employees are arbitrary, reinforcing the principle of equal treatment under disability laws, and thereby mandating uniform retirement benefits for all benchmark disabilities.

The Court ruled that an employee does not possess an inherent right to determine their retirement age. This authority lies with the State, which must exercise it reasonably, adhering to the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14.

'Playing Cards Not Act Of Moral Turpitude': Supreme Court Sets Aside Disqualification Over 'Gambling In Public'

Case Details: Hanumantharayappa Y.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 3969/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 647

While restoring the election of a man to a Cooperative Society's Board of Directors, who was disqualified over his conviction for "gambling in public", the Supreme Court observed that playing cards is not an act of moral turpitude under all circumstances.

Recusal A Matter Of Judges' Discretion, Article 142 Cannot Be Used To Frame Guidelines On Judicial Recusal: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chandraprabha v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 648

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking guidelines to govern the recusal of judges.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “The recusal is a matter of discretion of the judge. Jurisdiction under Article 142 cannot be exercised for laying down guidelines for the recusal of judges. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.”.

'First Approach President & PM': Supreme Court Rejects Plea For FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma Over Cash Row

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 649

The Supreme Court (May 21) dismissed a writ petition filed by a few advocates seeking registration of FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma pursuant to the in-house inquiry into the allegations of recovery of illicit cash currencies from his official residence.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the Chief Justice of India has already forwarded the report of the in-house inquiry committee, along with the response of Justice Varma, to the President and the Prime Minister.

Since the petitioners have not filed a representation before the President and the Prime Minister seeking action, the writ petition seeking mandamus is not maintainable, the bench said.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Make Pay & Allowances Of Consumer Commission Members Uniform Across All States/UTs

Case Details: In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 650

The Supreme Court has framed a uniform pattern of pay and allowances to be given to Presidents and Members of District and State Consumer Commissions across all States and Union Territories.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the directions in a suo motu case concerning disparities in salaries and service conditions of Consumer Forum members.

West Bengal Post-Poll Violence | Complainant Attacked For Supporting Saffron Party

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sekh Jamir Hossain and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 651

The Supreme Court on Thursday(May 29) set aside the orders of the Calcutta High Court granting bail to five accused in a rioting and attempt to rape case relating to post-poll violence in West Bengal.

The respondents Sekh Jamir, Sekh Nurai, Sekh Asraf @ Sk Rahul @ Asraf, Jayanta Dome and Sekh Kabirul are accused of vandalizing the complainant's house, assaulting him, and attempting to rape his wife in relatiation of the accused campaigning for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The case pertains to an incident that allegedly took place on 2 May 2021, the date of announcement of the Assembly election results in West Bengal.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta considering CBI's appeal, observed that the allegations in the case were serious and had the effect of shaking the conscience of the Court.

Essential Elements Of Valid Legal Notice: Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust & Anr v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 652

The Supreme Court (May 30) outlined the essential components of a valid legal notice, ruling that a notice does not necessarily have to be explicitly labeled as "legal" to be considered valid. The court held that if a communication sent to the recipient (noticee) effectively conveys the details of the default, potential consequences, and the sender's intent, it will qualify as a legal notice.

Also from the judgment- '125 Acres Allotted In 2 Months Without Bids': Supreme Court Criticises UPSIDC, Orders Reform In UP Industrial Land Allocations

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay HC Direction To Restore Khajuria Lake; Directs Preservation Of Municipal Park Built Over It For Perpetuity

Case Details: Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And Ors. v. Pankaj Babulal Kotecha And Anr., SLP(C) No. 29048/2018

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 653

The Supreme Court set aside Bombay High Court's direction given in 2018 to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) to restore the 100-year-old Khajuria Lake - a natural lake that was filled by the corporation and a municipal garden built over it.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment, directing that the park shall be maintained and preserved through perpetuity as a green space exclusively for public use without any predominant commercial activity.

Supreme Court Quashes ₹25 Lakh Bank Fraud Case After Settlement, Cites No Continuing Public Interest

Case Details: N.S. Gnaneshwaran & Others v. The Inspector of Police & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 654

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the matter of N.S. Gnaneshwaran & Others v. The Inspector of Police & Another, holding that the dispute had been fully settled through a One-Time Settlement (OTS) and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

The case arose from allegations that the appellants caused wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of ₹25.89 lakh by fraudulently diverting funds sanctioned to M/s Vinayaka Corporation. Based on a complaint from the Bank, the CBI registered an FIR and filed a chargesheet against nine accused, including the appellants, for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Disciplinary Action Can't Be Challenged On Ground Of Non-Supply Of Particular Document Unless Grave Prejudice Shown: Supreme Court

Case Details: S. Janaki Iyer v. Union of India & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 10858 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 655

The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-supply of a particular document, unless it is shown that grave prejudice was caused to the employee.

In this case, the employee challenged the dismissal on the ground of non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report. The Court rejected the contention noting that no grave prejudice was shown to have been caused.

Supreme Court Objects To Trial Judges Corresponding Directly With Registry For Time Extension; Directs High Courts To Frame SOPs

Case Details: Durgawati @ Priya v. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 656

The Supreme Court disapproved the practice of trial court judges writing directly to the Registry of the apex court seeking extension of time in matters where directions have been issued to expedite trials.

“It has been our persistent experience that in cases where this Court has issued directions for the expeditious conclusions of trials, the concerned judges have been corresponding with the Registry of this Court and subsequently, those letters are placed before the Court for orders. We deem such practice to be wholly unacceptable”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar clarified that it is the duty of the Registry of the concerned High Court to supervise the progress of such cases. If any extension is required, the request must be examined by the immediate supervisory officer and forwarded to the Supreme Court by either the Registrar General or the Registrar Judicial of the High Court.

Failure To Prove Motive Not Fatal To Prosecution Case Based On Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chetan v. The State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 30) upheld the conviction of an individual accused of committing murder, noting that the prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, where proof of motive need not be strictly proved, and the prosecution case cannot be discarded just because motive was not established.

The Court added that when the case rested on circumstantial evidence, then the prosecution need not prove the fact bereft of all doubts; rather what law contemplates is that for a fact to be considered proven, it must eliminate any reasonable doubt. In essence, the prosecution must dispel reasonable doubt, while proving the complete chain of events without any breakage leading to the conviction.

No Temporary Injunction Can Be Granted In Appeal Against Rejection Of Plaint: Supreme Court

Case Details: IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association v. Global IEEE Institute For Engineers

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 658

The Supreme Court observed that there ought to be a subsisting plaint to seek an injunction order. The Court added that an injunction order loses its validity upon rejection of the plaint and would be back in operation only when the plaint is restored/revived.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma heard the case where the Respondent, along with an appeal against the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, had also filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against the Appellant.

Though the appeal was pending for the High Court's consideration, by the order impugned, a temporary injunction was granted to the Respondent, prompting the Appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the Court observed that the High Court erred in granting the injunction, despite the plaint was rejected. Once the plaint was rejected, it became non-existent, and therefore, no injunction order could survive unless the plaint is revived.

Mere Scolding Of Student Not Abetment Of Suicide: Supreme Court Discharges Teacher In S.306 IPC Case

Case Details: Thangavel v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 659

The Supreme Court discharged a teacher who had been accused of abetment to suicide after a student died by suicide following a scolding by the teacher.

The Court said that no mens rea can be attributed to the accused as “no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life.”

Divorced Wife Remaining Unmarried Entitled To Maintenance Reflective Of Standard Of Life She Had During Marriage: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 660

The Supreme Court, in a ruling has enhanced the permanent alimony payable to the wife to ₹50,000 per month, nearly doubling the amount previously awarded by the Calcutta High Court, to ensure that she can live with the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future.

The Court observed that the appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, "is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future."

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment in Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan while deciding an appeal challenging the quantum of alimony awarded following the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The couple, married in 1997, separated in 2008, with a son born in 1998.

Orders

Supreme Court Directs States, UTs To Comply With Directions On Remission Policy And Procedures Withing Two Months

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail

The Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to submit affidavits within two months reporting compliance with its directions to adopt or implement an exhaustive policy on premature release, ensure automatic consideration of eligible convicts under such policy, impose reasonable conditions for remission, record reasons for grant or rejection, and not cancel remission without hearing the convict.

The Court issued these directions in its judgment dated February 18, 2025, on the grant of premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC, 1973 and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan further clarified that ongoing efforts by States to comply with these directions should not delay the processing of remission cases.

'Don't Try To Demoralize Security Forces': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Judicial Probe Into Pahalgam Terror Attack

Case Details: Fatesh Kumar Sahu and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 22548-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking directions for constitution of a judicial commission to probe the Pahalgam Terror Attack, which left 27 people (mostly tourists) dead.

While doing so, the Court berated the petitioners for filing an "irresponsible petition" despite the sensitivity of the situation, and underlined the "demoralizing" impact it could have on the security forces.

'Wholly Unwarranted': Supreme Court Expunges P&H High Court's Adverse Comments Against Haryana Addl Advocate General

Case Details: State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Dutt (Dead) Through Lrindra Dutt | SLP(Crl) No. 2182/2025

The Supreme Court expunged the adverse observations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Additional Advocate General of Haryana in a case where an undertrial prisoner died during the pendency of a bail application.

The High Court made its observations against Additional Advocate General of Haryana, Deepak Sabharwal, in a regular bail application, saying that certain incorrect and misleading submissions were made.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the High Court's observations against the AAG were "were wholly unwarranted".

The bench observed that the High Court should have disposed of the bail application as infructuous when the petitioner died. The bench took a critical view of the High Court passing a lengthy order, despite the demise of the petitioner.

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Order That Sentenced Woman For Contempt Over 'Dog Mafia' Comment Against Judges

Case Details: Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay On Its Own Motion, Crl.A. No. 2267/2025

The Supreme Court has stayed the Bombay High Court order which convicted a woman for contempt of Court, and sentenced her to 1-week simple imprisonment, over her “dog mafia” remark against the Supreme Court and the High Court/their judges.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan passed the order, issuing notice on the woman's plea against the High Court decision.

Supreme Court Disposes Plea Against Pragya Singh Thakur's Bail, Notes NIA Court Has Reserved Judgment In 2008 Malegaon Blasts Case

Case Details: Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayed Bilal v. State of Maharashtra | SLP(Crl) No. 5668/2017

The Supreme Court (May 2) disposed of a Special Leave Petition filed in 2017 by Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayed Bilal, father of one of the blast victims, challenging the Bombay High Court Judgment granting bail to Pragya Singh Chandrapal Singh Thakur alias Sadhvi alias Swami Purnchet Anand Giri, an accused in the 2008 Malegaon Blasts.

Before a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, Senior Advocate Ejaz Majbool (for Nisar) submitted that the SLP was filed seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Sadhvi on April 25, 2017 by the High Court which said "no prima facie" case was made out against her in the case.

Pahalgam Terror Attack: Supreme Court Bars Deportation Of A Family To Pakistan Till Centre Verifies Their Indian Citizenship Claims

Case Details: Ahmed Tarek Butt v. Union of India, Diary No. 23301/2025

The Supreme Court (May 2) asked the authorities of the Central Government to verify the Indian citizenship claims of six persons, who are facing deportation of Pakistan following the directives issued by the Centre in the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack.

The petitioners claimed that they have Indian passports and Aadhaar cards. The Court asked the authorities "to verify all the documents and any other relevant facts that may be brought to their notice."

The Court directed that a decision be taken at the earliest, though no time limit was fixed. Till such a decision is taken, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners, the Court added. The Court clarified that its order shall not be treated as a precedent.

With these observations, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioners apprehending deportation. The bench also granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh if they are aggrieved with the final decision taken by the Central authorities.

Supreme Court Mandates Its Prior Permission For Tree Felling Within 5 Kms Of Taj Mahal, No Blanket Exemption For Private Land

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court has held that its 2015 direction requiring prior permission of the Court for tree felling in Taj Trapezium Zone will continue to apply for felling of any tree within aerial distance of 5 kms of Taj Mahal.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in the MC Mehta case concerning tree cutting and other environment issues in the protected Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

Reiterating its earlier direction dated May 15, 2015, the Court stated that any request to fell trees—even if the number of trees is fewer than 50—within the 5 km radius of the Taj Mahal must be placed before the Supreme Court.

The Court also dismissed an application filed by a trust claiming to promote Agra's development as a modern city with cultural and historical sensitivity. The trust had sought relaxation of the requirement for prior permission to cut trees on private/non-forest land.

RP Act | Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With HC View That S.81 Limitation Can't Be Satisfied By Presenting Defective Election Petition

Case Details: Pankajkumar Bachubhai Velani (Jain) v. Kiritkumar Chimanlal Patel and Ors., SLP(C) No. 11279-11280/2025

In an election dispute, the Supreme Court upheld a view taken by the Gujarat High Court that mere "presentation" of a defective election petition, without removal of defects within the limitation period of 45 days, is not satisfactory compliance of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order in a matter pertaining to 2022 Gujarat Assembly elections. Though no reason for interference with the High Court was found in the case at hand, the Court left the question of law open.

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Order Upholding Applicability Of TDS On Salaries Of Christian Nuns & Priests

Case Details: Institute of the Fransican Missionaries of Mary and Ors. v. Union of India Review Petition (Civil) No. 496/2025

The Supreme Court has rejected the review petitions filed against its earlier order upholding application of the Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on the salaries given to nuns and priests of the Catholic Church who are working as teachers in aided institutions.

Bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna ,Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed the review petitions

Supreme Court Expresses Shock Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires In Gurugram, Asks CAQM To Issue Preventive Directions

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court expressed shock at the fire at the Bandhwari landfill site in Gurugram and observed that the lingering smoke, even after the fire was extinguished, posed a major health hazard to citizens.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the fire had taken four days to be doused and emphasised the serious pollution caused by such incidents.

“In April 2025 there were at least two fires and the last fire took four days for fire brigade to douse the fire. We have seen the video. We are shocked to see the video. One can imagine what is the extent of pollution created by such fires. And even if the fire has been extinguished, smoke still exists. This will cause major health hazard to the citizens”, the Court said.

The Court directed the Municipal Commissioner of Gurugram to file an affidavit by May 15 stating the outer limit by which the 9 lakh metric tons of legacy waste at the Bandhwari landfill will be removed.

Supreme Court Grants Relief To TISS Dalit Scholar Suspended Over Protest March, Allows Him To Continue PhD

Case Details: Ramadas Ks v. Tata Institute of Social Sciences | Diary No. - 21360/2025

The Supreme Court (May 2 ) directed the Tata Institute of Social Sciences to reinstate Dalit Ph.D. scholar and Left student leader Ramadas K.S, who was earlier suspended for alleged "misconduct" and "anti-national activities."

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan did not invalidate the suspension. However, it directed that the suspension need not be continued. The bench expressed the view that Ramadas should be allowed to conclude his PhD.

"Without examining the claims and counter-claims on merits, we feel that TISS having suspended the petitioner on 18th April, 2024 and lapsing of more than a year since then, interest of justice would be best served if the order of suspension is not continued further and he be permitted to pursue the PhD course in TISS. Ordered accordingly," the bench observed.

'Why No Demolitions In Affluent Colonies?': Supreme Court Questions Delhi Authorities For Shielding Unauthorised Structures Of Rich

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court sought an explanation from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and the Delhi Government for trying to protect affluent unauthorised colonies.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the DDA, MCD, and Delhi Government to file affidavits within two months explaining their actions. The Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has also been asked to respond.

Byju's RP Withdraws From Supreme Court Plea Challenging Karnataka HC's Order On Aakash Shareholding

Case Details: Think and Learn Pvt Ltd v. Aakash Educational Services Pvt Ltd | SLP(c) 12268- 12269/2025

The Supreme Court (May 2) refused to entertain a petition filed by the Resolution Professional of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (the company running the ed-tech platform Byju's) challenging the Karnataka High Court's order which set aside NCLT's direction to maintain status quo on the shareholding of Aakash Educational Services Ltd (a subsidiary of Byju's).

Although the Supreme Court did not approve of the High Court interfering with the National Company Law Tribunal's order when there was an appeal remedy, it chose not to interfere with the High Court's order, in view of the fact that Aakash has undertaken before the NCLT to not dilute the shares of Think and Learn. Also Read –

In this backdrop, Think & Learn chose to withdraw the petition from the Supreme Court.

Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam: After Sharp Exchange, Justice Oka's Bench Allows State To Seek Transfer Of Case To Another Bench

Case Details: Anil Tuteja v. Union of India and connected cases

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recused itself from hearing pleas by former IAS officer Anil Tuteja's and two others seeking quashing of corruption case against him related to the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam.

The bench took this decision, after a sharp exchange of words with Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, for the State of Chhattisgarh, who opposed adjournment and sought the vacation of the interim order granting Tuteja and others protection from arrest.

“Considering the submissions made by Mr. Jethmalani, we permit Mr. Jethmalani to move the court of the Chief Justice for transfer of these matters to appropriate bench”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Woman Seeking Red Fort's Possession Claiming To Be Heir Of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar

Case Details: Sultana Begum v. Union of India. | SLP(C) No. 12032/2025

The Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by a woman, seeking possession of the Red Fort, claiming herself to be the widow of the great-grandson of the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar II.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed the petition filed by one Sultana Begum challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment rejecting her plea.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From All High Courts On Pending Judgments In Cases Reserved Before January 31, 2025

Case Details: Pila Pahan@ Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025

Expressing concerns over the delay in pronouncing judgments, the Supreme Court (May 5) directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit a report on cases where judgments are still not pronounced despite reserving them on or before January 31, 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed the order as follows: "The Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit a report with respect to all those cases where judgments were reserved on or before 31.01.2025 and where pronouncement is still awaited. Information must contain criminal and civil matters separately, with specification whether it's a single or division bench matter."

Supreme Court Seeks Fresh Forensic Report On Audio Clips Against Ex-Manipur CM Biren Singh

Case Details: Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

After examining the report submitted by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) on the authenticity of audio clips allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the State's ethnic violence, the Supreme Court (May 5) called for a fresh Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.

The Court asked the Solicitor General of India to get instructions from the Union Government on submitting a fresh FSL report.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a petition filed by Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust seeking a Court-monitored investigation into certain leaked audio clips, allegedly in the voice of Biren Singh.

Badlapur 'Fake' Encounter: Supreme Court Modifies Bombay HC Order On Probe Against Policemen, Directs DGP To Form SIT

Case Details: State of Maharashtra v. Anna Maruti Shinde | SLP(Crl) No. 6334/2025

The Supreme Court modified the order passed by the Bombay High Court directing the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of Lakhmi Gautam, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to probe into the allegations against five policemen in the Badlapur 'fake' encounter case. The order was modified to the extent that the SIT will now be constituted under the aegis of the Director General of Police, Mumbai.

Before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that the State has no issue with the constitution of the SIT but stated that it should be under the supervision of the DGP. SG Mehta also pressed for staying subsequent orders of the High Court directing second FIR to be registered and directing the handing over the papers to the SIT by the State CID.

Pahalgam Terror Attack | 'Petitioner Aiming For Publicity': Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Security Measures In Hilly Tourist Areas

Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 458/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking guidelines and directions for the security and safety of tourists in hilly areas prone to terrorists attacks.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating,

"Petitioner is engaging in one or the other purported PILs which are primarily aimed to gain publicity, with no intent to serve public cause. Dismissed."

'High-Handedness': Supreme Court Slams Punjab Govt For De-notifying Land Acquired For SYL Canal; Clarifies Status Quo Order

Case Details: State of Haryana Department of Irrigation Secretary v. State of Punjab and Anr. | Original Suit No. 6/1996

In the dispute pending between the states of Punjab and Haryana over the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, the Supreme Court called out the Punjab government for de-notifying land which was acquired for the construction of the canal in furtherance of the Court's decree.

Labelling the action "high-handedness", Justice BR Gavai said to Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, appearing for the State, "Mr Advocate General, was it not an act of high-handedness that once a decree was passed, land which was acquired for construction of the canal was de-notified? It is trying to defeat the decree of the Court. Clear case of high-handedness."

Ultimately, the bench of Justices Gavai and AG Masih directed both the States to cooperate with the Union in arriving at an amicable solution. If the issue is not resolved amicably, the matter would be taken up on 13 August, the Court said.

Supreme Court Directs Holding Of Maharashtra Local Body Elections With OBC Reservation Before Banthia Commission Report

Case Details: Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021

The Supreme Court (May 6) passed an interim order to hold the local body elections in the State of Maharashtra, which were stalled since 2022 due to litigation relating to the implementation of the reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The Court directed that the elections to the local bodies be held as per the OBC reservation which existed prior to the submission of the Banthia Commission report in July 2022.

"The reservation shall be provided to the OBC communities as per the law as it existed in the State of Maharashtra before the 2022 report of the JK Banthia Commission," the Court observed.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and NK Singh directed the State Election Commission to notify the local body elections within four weeks. Efforts should be made to complete the election process within a period of four months, the bench directed. The Election Commission has been given liberty to seek extension of time if needed.

The bench also clarified that the elections will be subject to the outcome of the petitions challenging the Banthia Commission and that the order will not prejudice the contentions raised by the parties.

Supreme Court Fixes SCBA Elections On May 20; Secretary & 1/3rd EC Posts Reserved For Women

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik., Diary No. 13992-2023

The Supreme Court (May 6) directed that the elections of the office-bearer posts of the Supreme Court Bar Association be held on May 20. The Court also directed that the election shall be held on the basis of the voter list as was finalized in the elections for the year 2024.

Apart from those who are included in the voter list for 2024, all those members who acquired eligibility up to 28.02.2025 shall also be entitled to be included in voter list, the Court said.

It was further directed that for the 2025 elections, the post of Secretary shall be exclusively reserved for a woman candidate. In addition, 1/3rd posts in the Executive Committee (ie 3 out of 9) and 1/3rd posts of senior executive members (ie 2 out of 6) shall be exclusively reserved for women candidates.

Supreme Court Takes Cognizance Of Recent Suicides In IIT & Kota Coaching Centre, Asks If FIR Registered

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

The Supreme Court directed the Union to comply in two days with its earlier directions of depositing Rs. 20 Lakhs for setting up a National Task Force dealing with students' mental health and suicide prevention.

The Court also sought a status report on two recent instances of student suicides in IIT Kharagpur and a coaching centre in Kota, Rajasthan and whether the administrative authorities have filed an FIR regarding it.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the matter in which it had earlier issued a slew of directions to address suicides of students in higher eductional institutions.

Appeals To Restore Death Penalty Don't Require 3-Judge Bench Hearing: Supreme Court Rejects Godhra Case Convicts' Objections

Case Details: Abdul Raheman Dhantiya @ Kankatto @Jamburo v. State of Gujarat., Criminal Appeal 517/2018

The Supreme Court today(May 6) began the final hearing of the 2018 appeals pending in the 2002 Godhra train burning case.

The criminal appeals, filed by the convicts challenging their conviction and the State of Gujarat seeking death sentence for the convicts, were listed before a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar. At the outset, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, for the convicts, pointed out that the State was seeking death penalty for some of the convicts. He stated that as per the judgment in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Reg. Supreme Court Of India & Ors (2014), death penalty matters are required to be heard by a three-judge bench.

However, the Court felt that Mohd Arif's judgment does not apply to the present case. It therefore signalled for the parties to begin their arguments

Mullaperiyar Dam: Supreme Court Directs States Of Kerala & Tamil Nadu To Implement Supervisory Committee Recommendations

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

The Supreme Court directed the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to act upon recommendations made by the Supervisory Committee in relation to the Mullaperiyar Dam.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating,

"Some urgent issues with regard to maintenance of the Mullaperiyar Dam were identified in order dated...Thereafter, Supervisory Committee...was directed to convene a meeting by associating representative of the states and find out a solution...Ld. ASG has handed over minutes of the meeting of the Committee. The report acknowledges the issues which are required to be addressed urgently and the decision taken in consultation with representatives of the state govts. No follow up steps have been taken...We see no justification for inaction on part of the state authorities. Keeping in view mandate given by this Court to the Committee, we direct states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala to act upon the recommendations made by the Supervisory Committee. However, in case the states find any impediment in giving effect, liberty is granted to raise such issue before us on the next date."

Supreme Court Directs NCR States To Issue Directions Under S.5 Environment Protection Act To Enforce Firecrackers' Ban

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana to issue directions under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, enforcing a complete ban on firecrackers in the National Capital Region (NCR).

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the MC Mehta matter concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR from various sources such as firecrackers and stubble burning.

Section 5 empowers the central government to issue written directions to any person, officer, or authority for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act. The centre has delegated the power under section 5 to states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana in 1988.

Only Goods Vehicles Which Are BS-VI CNG, LNG Or EVs Allowed To Enter Delhi From Nov 2025: CAQM Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court was informed that starting 1st November 2025, only BS-VI compliant CNG, LNG, and electric Goods Vehicles (Light, Medium, and Heavy), except those registered in Delhi, will be allowed entry into the city.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati also informed the Court about measures to phase out end-of-life vehicles and steps being taken by the Union to transition to cleaner fuel technologies.

The court noted that Directions 88 and 89 issued by CAQM on 23rd April 2025 are a welcome step in the right and positive direction. The court said it would issue directions for their implementation. In the meantime, it directed all state governments and public authorities represented before the court to place on record the data on EVs hired or purchased by them during the last five years.

CLAT-UG 2025: Supreme Court Flags Mistakes; Directs To Give Marks For Certain Answers, Deletes Some Questions

Case Details: Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Anr. | Diary No. 22324-2025

The Supreme Court flagged several mistakes in the CLAT-UG 2025 questions and directed the revision of the merit list, after setting aside some of the directions issued by the Delhi High Court.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to award marks for certain questions and to delete certain other questions.

The Supreme Court decided to suo motu take up a writ petition filed by late Professor Shamnad Basheer in 2015 seeking the formation of a permanent body to conduct the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for admission to National Law Universities.

Since Professor Basheer passed away in 2019, the Court decided to suo motu proceed with the writ petition and notice was issued to the respondents( Union, BCI and the NLUs).

Review Petitions Against PMLA Judgment Can't Go Beyond 2 Issues: Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement

In the review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgement, which upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Union Government told the Supreme Court that the review hearing cannot go beyond the two specific issues which were orally flagged by the bench which issued notice in August 2022.

At the outset, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted the bench which considered the review petitions for admission in August 2022 issued notice only on two limited aspects - regarding the supply of the ECIR to the accused and the reversal of burden of proof (S.24 PMLA). However, the bench did not expressly state so in its order. Therefore, to avoid any future controversy, the SG said that the Union filed an affidavit the next day after the issuance of notice stating the issues identified by the Court for review.

The bench directed the listing on 16 July at 2.30 PM for the purpose of formulation of issues.

Supreme Court Specifies Procedure For EVM Verification & Mock Poll; ECI Says Won't Erase Data Of EVMs If Verification Sought

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and Anr. | MA 40/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 434/2023

The Supreme Court (May 7) set out the procedure to be followed for conducting the verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and mock polls by the Election Commission of India (ECI) at the request of a contesting candidate. The ECI informed the Court that it will not resort to deleting the data on EVM units which are subject to verification.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing the application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), contending that the Standard Operating Procedure framed by the ECI for verification of the EVMs was not in accordance with the April 2024 judgment in the EVM-VVPAT case.

Supreme Court Directs Demolition Of Illegal Structures On Public Land In Okhla Village, Delhi

The Supreme Court ordered the Delhi Development Authority and Delhi government to demolish unauthorised structures spread over more than 4 bighas of public land in Khasra No. 279 in Okhla Village, Delhi within 3 months in accordance with law.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing a contempt plea regarding the violation of its 2018 directions on unauthorised construction and encroachment on public lands in Delhi.

The Court added that concerned persons must be served a 15-day notice before any demolition is carried out, and persons who receive demolition notices are free to take legal steps in accordance with law.

Lakhimpur Kheri Case: Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra To Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend To Meet Family

Case Details: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Supreme Court allowed Ashish Mishra, son of BJP leader and former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri killings case, to visit Lakhimpur Kheri every Saturday evening to spend time with family, subject to the condition that he should return to Lucknow Sunday evening.

The Court added that while in Lakhimpur Kher, Mishra should not participate in any public meeting or political activities and that the visit shall be private only for the family members.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh modified Mishra's bail conditions while allowing his applications. As per the earlier bail condition, he could not enter Lakhimpur Kheri except for attending the trial.

WB School Jobs Scam: Supreme Court Asks Bengal Govt To Decide On Sanction To Prosecute Partha Chatterjee's Co-Accused

Case Details: PARTHA CHATTERJEE v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SLP(Crl) No. 2471-2472/2025

The Supreme Court directed the State of West Bengal to take a decision on granting sanction to prosecute the co-accused of former Education Minister Partha Chatterjee in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act over alleged bribery for offering school jobs.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed this order while adjourning Chatterjee's bail application in the CBI case till July 17 to be listed along with the bail petitions of the co-accused.

"Meanwhile, in order to facilitate trial, the State of West Bengal is directed to take a decision regarding granting sanction in the cases of the petitioner's co-accused within 2 weeks. We are conscious of the fact that State and abovenamed accused are not before us. We have not expressed opinion on merits," the bench ordered.

Supreme Court Directs States To Identify Laws Discriminating Against Leprosy-Affected Persons

Case Details: Federation of Lepy. Organ. (Folo) v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 83/2010

The Supreme Court on May 8 directed the States to form a Committee to identify the provisions in their laws, rules, regulations, by-laws etc., which discriminate against leprosy-affected or cured persons. The States were directed to take steps to remove such discriminatory provisions and make them conform with the Constitutional obligations.

As per the brief background of the petition, 'Leprosy' was considered a dreaded disease because it was incurable, highly contagious, and infectious. During that time, there was a need to segregate the leprosy patients from society at large, and therefore, the Indian Lepers Act, 1898, was enacted to provide segregation of leprosy-affected persons.

Supreme Court Says Centre Must Clear Collegium Recommendations Soon, Raises Alarm Over High Court Vacancies

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail | SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021

Expressing concerns about the unfilled vacancies in the High Court, the Supreme Court observed that the Central Government must clear the recommendations made by the Collegium for Judges' appointments without delay.

"The Central Government needs to act and ensure that the recommendations made by the Supreme Court collegium for judge appointments are cleared expeditiously," observed the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in its order.

The Court passed this observation raising alarm at the fact that over 7 lakh criminal appeals are pending in the High Court.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Chief Secretaries Of Delhi, UP, Haryana, Rajasthan Over Non- Filling Of PCB Vacancies

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., In Re: Number of Vacant Posts in Statutory Pollution Control Boards of Various States

The Supreme Court has issued contempt notices to the Chief Secretaries of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan for breach of its order to fill all vacancies in their respective Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) and Pollution Control Committees by April 30, 2025.

The Court observed that these states had committed a wilful breach of its earlier order dated August 27, 2024 directing that all vacancies in PCBs of NCR states be filled by April 30, 2025.

'Court Can't Compel Any State To Adopt National Education Policy': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Implement NEP In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 260/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a person seeking to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to implement the National Education Policy (2020) including its 'three-language formula'.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that the Court cannot issue any direction under Article 32 of the Constitution to compel any State to adopt the NEP.

Supreme Court Demotes Deputy Collector Who Demolished Slum-Dwellers' Huts Defying HC Order, Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Fine

Case Details: Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu and Ors., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025

As a punishment, the Supreme Court directed demotion of a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, thereby displacing them.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih ordered that the State of Andhra Pradesh demote the petitioner-Deputy Collector to the post of Tahsildar. It was further directed that the petitioner shall deposit a fine of Rs.1 lakh within 4 weeks.

While demoting the Deputy Collector, the Supreme Court sent a strongly worded message through its order that howsoever high an authority may be, it cannot disobey orders passed by any Court in the country.

Operation Sindoor | 'Time To Utilize Their Services': Supreme Court Stays Release Of In-Service Indian Women Army Officers

Case Details: Lt. Col. Pooja Pal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., C.A. No. 9747-9757/2024

The Supreme Court stayed the release of Women Officers of the Indian Army, who are currently in service, till the next date of hearing.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and ordered: "Without creating any equity in their favor, it is directed that all officers-in-service be not relieved till the next date".

The hearing witnessed Justice Kant lauding the efforts of the Indian Army, while underlining that the present situation (reference to India-Pak tensions following the Pahalgam Terror Attack) calls for each citizen to stand by the Army and uplift its morale.

Supreme Court Reserves Treasurer & 30% EC Posts For Women Lawyers In Gujarat HC & District Bar Associations

Case Details: Meena A. Jagtap v. Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) No. 819/2024

The Supreme Court directed that the post of Treasurer, as well as 30% of the Executive Committee posts, shall be reserved for women lawyers in the Gujarat High Court and District Bar Associations.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating that there was no reason to take a view different from the ones taken in the cases of Supreme Court Bar Association, Delhi High Court Bar Association and Advocates' Association Bengaluru, where also posts were similarly reserved for women lawyers.

PMLA Accused Entitled To Hearing Before Cognizance Is Taken Of ED Complaint Filed After BNSS Came Into Effect: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court held that before taking cognizance of a money laundering complaint under section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the special court has to give opportunity to the accused to be heard as per the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the cognizance order passed by the Special Court dated November 20, 2024, after noting that the BNSS, which came effect from July 1, 2024, mandated pre-cognizance hearing of the accused as per Section 223(1). Such a provision was not present in the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Allahabad HC's Senior Designations Conferred In 2019

Case Details: Vishnu Behari Tiwari v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad | Diary No. 10144-2025

The Supreme Court (May 9) issued notice in a plea challenging senior advocate designations conferred by the Allahabad High Court in 2019.

While issuing notice, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the permanent committee of the High Court departed from the law laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court by reducing the total marks to 75 from 100.

The Special Leave Petition was filed against the September 2024 judgment of the Allahabad High Court which rejected the petition filed by Advocate Vishnu Bihari Tiwari against the 2019 designations. While dismissing the petition, the High Court had also noted that no senior designations have taken place since 2019.

In 2019, when after the applications for Senior Designation were sought, the Permanent Committee, headed by the then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court resolved to forego interviews and decided that only advocates who obtain 45 points or more out of 75 points shall be considered to be eligible as such for their nomination for designation as Senior Advocate.

Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From MP Sessions Judge For Ignoring Its Bail Order, Asks HC To Send Him For Training

Case Details:

The Supreme Court frowned upon the conduct of a judicial officer who overlooked the directions passed by the Apex Court in a bail matter. Terming the case to be 'shocking', it issued a show cause notice to the judicial officer as to why no strict view should be taken against him.

The Court also requested the Chief Justice of the MP High Court to send the judicial officer, an Additional Sessions Judge, for a week-long training.

The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a matter related to compliance with its previous bail order, dated January 24, where it granted bail to the accused/petitioner.

Supreme Court Calls On All High Courts To Furnish Report On Dates Of Pronouncement And Uploading Of Judgments

Case Details: M/S Marion Biotech Pvt Ltd v. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad, W.P. (C) No. 490/2025

In continuation of an order passed earlier, the Supreme Court called on all High Courts to submit a report regarding dates of pronouncement and uploading of judgments.

"the Registrar Generals of all High Courts are directed to submit a further report giving full description of the dates of pronouncement of judgments and the dates when such judgments are uploaded", a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh ordered.

For context, the earlier order called on the High Courts to furnish information regarding cases where judgments have still not been pronounced despite having been reserved on or before January 31, 2025.

'You've Already Minted Enough': Supreme Court Rejects Noida Toll Company's Review Plea Against Judgment Refusing Toll On DND Flyway

Case Details: Pradeep Puri v. Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited and Ors., Diary No. 1373-2025

The Supreme Court has dismissed Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd.'s petition seeking review of the judgment whereby its plea to impose tolls on the commuters of Delhi-Noida Direct (DND) flyway was rejected.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order.

TN Cash-for-Jobs Scam | Supreme Court Raps Lawyer For Filing Plea On Victims' Cause While Representing Accused In Trial

Case Details: Anti-Corruption Movement v. State Represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police

The Supreme Court pulled up an advocate, who represents an accused in the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam, for filing a plea purportedly on behalf of the victims of the same scam in which former minister Senthil Balaji is the prime accused.

The SLP, filed by an association called the Anti-Corruption Movement, challenged the orders of the Special Court for trial of cases related to MPs and MLAs in Tamil Nadu, which had clubbed multiple supplementary charge sheets with the main charge sheet in one of the corruption cases (predicate offence) related to the scam.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the plea and asked the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate action against the lawyer.

Supreme Court Affirms Calcutta HC View That CCTV Can't Be Installed In Home Without Consent Of All Occupants

Case Details: Indranil Mullick & Ors. v. Shuvendra Mullick | SLP(C) 12384/2025

The Supreme Court (May 9) refused to interfere with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which held that CCTV cameras cannot be installed in a house without the consent of all occupants.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the High Court's judgment.

UPSC Civil Services Exam: Supreme Court Allows Candidates With Disabilities To Apply For Change Of Scribe Till May 18

Case Details: Mission Accessibility v. Union of India And Anr. | Diary No. 8097-2025

The Supreme Court allowed persons with disabilities candidates, appearing for the Preliminary Examination of the Civil Service Examination 2025, to change their scribe in the registration form till May 18 (4 pm). The exam was scheduled to take place on May 25.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed an order in a writ petition filed by Mission Accessibility seeking an option to change the scribe's name in the registration form for persons with disabilities. It is their case that the registration form required them to give details of the scribe by 18th February, months before the examination which meant that the candidates have to request their scribes for a long-term commitment. It is extraordinarily difficult for candidates because the scribes are usually doing this as voluntary service.

After Supreme Court's Intervention, Jharkhand HC Delivers Judgments In 4 Criminal Appeals Reserved For Nearly 3 Years

Case Details: Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., W.P. (Crl.) No. 169/2025

After the Supreme Court took notice of the issue, the Jharkhand High Court delivered verdicts on four criminal appeals, which were reserved for nearly three years. The High Court acquitted the four convicts, who were lodged at Birsa Munda Central Jail for over a decade.

The appeals of the convicts were heard and reserved by the High Court about 2-3 years back, but the orders remained to be pronounced. The convicts therefore filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court issued notice on the present writ petition and called for a report from the Registrar General of the High Court, the High Court acquitted 3 convicts and gave a split verdict in the case of the 4th. Albeit, all 4 convicts were directed to be released forthwith.

Considering that the issues raised are of paramount importance and would require a deeper analysis, the Court indicated an inclination to lay down mandatory guidelines so that trust and faith in the legal justice system is maintained.

Murshidabad Violence: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For SIT/CBI Probe, Allows Petitioner To Approach HC Online Due To Threat Perception

Case Details: Satish Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 455/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking probe by CBI or a Special Investigation Team into the recent incidents of violence at Murshidabad, West Bengal which allegedly targeted Hindu locals.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and asked the petitioner to approach the Calcutta High Court for appropriate reliefs. Insofar as it was alleged that the petitioner and counsels in earlier cases pertaining to Sandeshkhali and Rampurhat violence were "terrorized", the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file and argue the case before the High Court online.

'Some Judges Taking Unnecessary Coffee Breaks': Supreme Court Proposes To Examine 'Performance Output' Of HC Judges

Case Details: Pila Pahan@ Peela Pahan And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025

In a matter pertaining to the delay of nearly 3 years by the Jharkhand High Court in pronouncing verdict in reserved criminal appeals, the Supreme Court expressed inclination to examine the "performance outputs" of High Courts across the country.

The Court also questioned certain High Court judges' practice of rising for tea/coffee breaks, while commenting that if the judges only take lunch breaks, there would be better performance and results.

Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of Man Facing UAPA Trial Over Alleged Radicalisation Towards ISIS

Case Details: National Investigation Agency v. Ammar Abdul Rahiman, SLP(Crl) No. 12883/2024

The Supreme Court refused to cancel bail granted to a man booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 over alleged radicalization towards banned terrorist organization-ISIS.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, considering that the trial was likely to take "reasonable" time to conclude and there was no instance of misuse of the bail concession granted by the High Court.

"Prosecution proposes to examine more than 160 witnesses, out of whom 44 have been examined. Conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time. Respondent was released on bail after spending about 3 yrs in custody as undertrial...There is no instance to infer misuse of concession of bail so far, as he is regularly appearing before Trial Court and has not made any attempt to obstruct ongoing trial. We see no reason to cancel the bail granted to respondent", Justice Kant dictated.

Be that as it may, finding force in certain submissions made by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (for NIA), the Court directed that the accused Ammar Abdul Rahiman shall not travel abroad without prior permission of the High Court.

Muzaffarnagar Student Slapping Case | Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Bear Educational Expenses Of Victim Boy Till He Completes School

Case Details: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Uttar Pradesh government bears the primary responsibility for the educational expenses of the minor boy who was the victim of the 2023 Muzaffarnagar student slapping incident.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that the state must cover tuition fees, the cost of uniforms, books, and transport charges until the child completes his school education.

“We make it clear that as indicated in our earlier orders, it is the obligation of the state government to pay for the tuition fees, cost of uniform, books etc. and transport charges of the child till he completes school education”, said the Court.

After SC Intervention, UP Govt Frames Guidelines For Invocation Of Gangsters Act; Finds Provisions Not Attracted Against A Man Booked Under It

Case Details: Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Diary No. 2673/2023

After Supreme Court's nudge, the Uttar Pradesh government laid down parameters/guidelines in relation to invocation of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

In April 2024, the top Court, while considering the case of a person booked under the Act, had asked the government to consider desirability of laying down some guidelines. Coming through, the State government not only laid down the guidelines but also found that in the case before the Court, invocation of provisions of the Act was not made out.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which passed an order stating,

"in light of the guidelines, respondents have considered case of the petitioner and it has been found that provisions of the Act are not attracted. That being so, impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the instant appeal stands disposed of in terms of the decision taken by the competent authority following the guidelines. It goes without saying that enforcement agencies will be obligated to follow the guidelines strictly to prevent misuse of UP Gangsters Act and shall abide by all checkpoints prescribed."

Supreme Court Directs Delhi Municipal Corporation To Vacate Office In Lodhi-Era Tomb Immediately

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12213/2019

Pursuant to Supreme Court's January 21 order by which the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), Delhi, handed over the peaceful possession of Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance, to the Land & Development Office, Ministry of Urban Affairs, Government of India (L&DO), the Court on May 14 passed an order directing Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to immediately vacate its unauthorised office and hand its possession to the L&DO immediately.

While DCWA has been accused of illegal encroachment of the Gomti for 60 years for which the Court has imposed 40 lacs as compensation, MCD has been operating illegal parking and its office in the peripheral land surrounding the monument. On April 8, a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had ordered that all encroachments, including the office of the MCD, should be handed over within 2 weeks.

However, on May 14, it was informed that the MCD has yet to hand over the possession. Therefore, the Court ordered handing over the possession by May 15. Subsequent to this, the Court has directed that the same shall be handed over to the Department of Archaeology, Government of NCT of Delhi, for the purpose of restoration and conservation.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Sammaan Capital MD For Continuing Loan Recovery Proceedings Against Homebuyer Despite Stay Order

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

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Managing Director of Sammaan Capital (erstwhile Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.) to show cause as to why contempt proceedings not be initiated against him for continuing recovery proceedings against a homebuyer despite a stay order passed by the Court.

"The Managing Director of the Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (now Sammaan Capital Ltd.) is directed to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing to show-cause as to why contempt of court proceedings, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, be not initiated against him", a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh ordered.

Chandni Chowk Illegal Constructions | Supreme Court Stays Conversion Of Residential Houses Into Commercial Complexes; Warns MCD Of Contempt

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

While dealing with allegations of illegal constructions taking place in Delhi's Chandni Chowk, the Supreme Court passed an order staying the conversion of residential houses into commercial complexes in the area.

"Construction of residential premises to commercial complexes shall remain stayed in the relevant areas...no further construction to convert the residential houses into commercial complexes shall be allowed at the site", ordered a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.

Insofar as some parties, opposing the stance of Delhi Municipal Corporation, claimed that illegal constructions were continuing even as on date, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners and intervenors (if any) to take videos/photographs of sites where the illegal actions are allegedly taking place and place the same on record.

The Court further cautioned the MCD that any non-compliance would not only be viewed as contempt of Court, but also warrant drawing of an adverse inference regarding collusion between the municipal authorities and the concerned builders.

Student Suicide: Supreme Court Directs Personal Presence Of IIT Kharagpur Officer, Police Officer-In-Charge To Explain Delay In Filing FIR

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

Taking serious note of the delay in filing an FIR by IIT Kharagpur authorities in the incident of a student's suicide, the Supreme Court on May 13 directed the officer concerned of the IIT and the Officer in Charge of the area Police station to be present at the next hearing to explain the reasons for such lapse.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the matter in which it had earlier issued a slew of directions to address suicides of students in higher educational institutions.

Previously, the Court directed the Union to comply in two days with its directions of depositing Rs. 20 Lakhs for setting up a National Task Force dealing with students' mental health and suicide prevention.

The Court also sought a status report on two recent instances of student suicides in IIT Kharagpur and a coaching centre in Kota, Rajasthan and whether the administrative authorities have filed an FIR regarding it.

NEET 2025: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Maratha Reservation, Asks Aspirants To Approach High Court

Case Details: Diya Ramesh Rathi v. State of Maharashtra | Diary No. - 24755/2025

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea challenging the 10% Maratha reservation quota in Maharashtra's government jobs and educational admissions.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the candidates preparing for NEET UG and NEET PG 2025 Exams.

Considering the nearing date of examinations (June 15 for NEET PG, NEET UG was held on May 4), the Court asked the High Court to consider the possibility of an interim relief.

Madras HC Should've Followed Principles Of Natural Justice If It Intended To Recall Order Quashing ED Case Against Former DGP: Supreme Court

Case Details: MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court quashed an ECIR against former DGP MS Jaffar Sait in a money laundering case, holding that the Madras High Court erred by rehearing the matter after having already allowed his quashing petition, without issuing notice to the parties.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed Sait's appeal against the Madras High Court's decision to relist for hearing his petition that had been allowed earlier. The Court also disposed of Criminal OP No. 17762 of 2024, which was the quashing petition filed by Sait before the High Court.

“If the division bench intended to recall the order, elementary principles of natural justice required the division bench to issue notice to the parties and especially the appellant calling upon him to show cause why the final order should not be recalled. It was inappropriate on the part of the division bench to have straightaway listed the petition for fresh hearing”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Imposes Fine Up To Rs. 25,000 Per Tree For Illegal Felling In Taj Trapezium Zone

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court mposed penalties up to Rs. 25,000 per tree for illegal tree felling within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Farmers who illegally fell private trees of exempted species to be fined Rs. 5,000 per tree as a compounding fee, with the timber returned to them. In cases involving restricted species or exempted species felled by non-farmers, a Rs. 10,000 per tree fee is to be imposed, the timber seized, and the offender required to fund block plantation of ten times the number of trees felled, with five years of maintenance.

For illegal tree felling offence under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, a Rs. 25,000 per tree fee is to be levied, with timber seized and a requirement to finance tree-guard protected plantation of ten times the trees felled, along with five years of maintenance.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih passed this order after noting that the Uttar Pradesh government has not yet taken a decision on its earlier direction to consider enhancing penalties under the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Man Convicted For Rape On False Marriage Promise After Parties Agree To Marry

Case Details: SLP (Crl) 4951/2025

The Supreme Court suspended the sentence of a man, who was convicted for rape on the false pretext of marriage, after he and the complainant-woman agreed to marry each other.

The Court granted interim bail to the man to enable him to marry the woman.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma was hearing the case where the petitioner was convicted by a trial court under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for allegedly engaging in a long-term physical relationship with the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage. His conviction was later affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed his application for suspension of sentence.

Supreme Court Modifies UP MLA Abbas Ansari's Bail Condition In Gangsters Act Case, Allows Stay At Ghazipur House While Visiting Constituency

Case Details: Abbas Ansari V. State Of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 1091/2025

While hearing his bail plea in a UP Gangsters Act case, the Supreme Court modified Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari's interim bail conditions and allowed him to stay at his Ghazipur residence for 3 nights whenever he travels from his official residence in Lucknow to his constituency (ie Mau).

"Having regard to difficulties being experienced by petitioner (Ansari) while visiting his constituency, clause 2, para 6 of order dt. 7 March is modified to the limited extent that when petitioner visits his constituency, he may stay in the night at his residence in Ghazipur. But such stay will not be for the purpose of any public meeting at the residence. Such stay of the petitioner at Ghazipur shall not exceed 3 nights (initially)", the Court ordered.

For context, while granting interim bail to Ansari in March, the Court had directed that he shall stay at his official residence in Lucknow. Only travel to the MLA's constituency, ie Mau, was permitted subject to prior intimation to the Trial Court and district police.

'Beautifully Crafted Story': Supreme Court Questions Claim That Rohingyas Were Thrown Into Sea; Refuses Stay On Deportation

Case Details: Mohammad Ismail v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No.204/2025

The Supreme Court questioned and expressed disbelief at a writ petition which alleged that 43 Rohingyas, including children, women and elderly, and individuals with serious health conditions such as cancer, were forcibly deported by the Indian Government to Myanmar after throwing them into international waters.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh refused to pass interim orders halting the future deportation of Rohingyas from India, saying that a three-judge bench(also headed by Justice Kant) had on May 8 declined similar relief in another petition.

The bench observed that the scant materials in the petition cannot persuade it to differ from the view taken by the 3-judge bench last week.

Andhra Pradesh Liquor Scam: Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused P Krishna Mohan Reddy & K Dhananjaya

Case Details: P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 7532/2025

The Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail to accused persons P Krishna Mohan Reddy and K. Dhananjaya in the multi-crore AP liquor scam case. It reasoned that the investigation is at a crucial juncture and granting anticipatory bail might prejudice the case of the Respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh.

They served as secretary and OSD, respectively, in the office of ex-CM Jagan Mohan Reddy during the previous YSRCP regime.

Supreme Court Directs Central Zoo Authority To Inspect Translocated Deer From Hauz Khas Deer Park

Case Details: New Delhi Nature Society v. Director Horticulture

The Supreme Court directed officers of the Central Zoo Authority to visit the places in Rajasthan where 261 deer have been translocated from the Deer Park at Hauz Khas in Delhi, and to assess the condition of the deer.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was informed that 261 out of the 600 deer have already been shifted from the park in a case concerning the proposed translocation of 600 deer from the Hauz Khas Deer Park.

“We direct the officers of the Central Zoo Authority to immediately visit the place or places where 261 deer have transferred and ascertain the present condition of the said deer”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Rejects PIL To Regulate AI-Generated Deepfakes; Asks Petitioner To Approach Delhi HC

Case Details: Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 300/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation assailing authorities' failure to tackle Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated deepfakes and seeking constitution of a Court-monitored Expert Committee to draft model AI regulation law.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and relegated the petitioner, a lawyer, to the Delhi High Court, which is dealing with the issues and has been passing orders from time to time.

Supreme Court Allows Bail For Illegal Foreign Migrants Detained In West Bengal Prisons Despite Completion Of Sentence

Case Details: Ms Maja Daruwala . And Anr. V. Union Of India |T.C.(Crl.) No. 1/2013

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (May 16) transferred the matter relating to the indefinite detention of illegal foreign migrants in the State of West Bengal to the 3-judge bench hearing the Rohingya refugees case as a matter of judicial propriety.

The Court also ordered that the State of West Bengal should identify all such illegal immigrants who are confined in prisons after having served their sentence, within a period of 4 weeks, and they should then be released on bail.

After Litigant Denies Engaging Advocates Who Settled Matter, Supreme Court Directs Inquiry; Recalls Settlement

Case Details: Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh v. Harish Jaiswal | Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 7144/2025 in C.A. No. 14414/2024

The Supreme Court recalled an earlier order which recorded a settlement in a civil appeal, after the litigant subsequently told the Court that he had never engaged any advocate to settle the matter.

The Court also directed its Registry to conduct an inquiry into how the advocates could claim to have entered an appearance on behalf of the litigant. Based on the preliminary inquiry report by the Registry, the Court will decide on the further course of action, including the registration of an FIR.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Bhopal Municipal Corporation Over Adampur Dump Site Fire, Seeks CPCB Report On Measures To Prevent Such Fires

Case Details: Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr Subhash C. Pandey

The Supreme Court pulled up the Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) for its failure to implement the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, in connection with a five-day-long fire at the Adampur dumping site that started on April 22, 2025.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an application filed by environmental activist Dr. Subhash Pandey, in an appeal filed by the BMC against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order imposing environmental compensation of Rs. 1.80 crores on the corporation over a fire on the dumping site in 2023 and other violations from December 2021 to July 2023.

The Court noted that untreated solid waste was being dumped at the site and that photographs showing the extent of the fire had been placed on record.

The Court granted liberty to the BMC to implead the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as a respondent and directed the CPCB to depute senior officers to visit the site and ascertain the causes of the fire. It ordered the CPCB officers to submit a report outlining immediate measures to avoid repetition of such incidents within a period of six weeks.

Meanwhile, the Court directed the BMC to take all possible steps to extinguish the fire, if it had not already been extinguished, and to ensure that such incidents do not recur. The Court listed the matter for further consideration on July 25, 2024.

Supreme Court Rejects BJP Minister Vijay Shah's Apology For Remarks Against Col Sofiya Qureshi; Orders Formation Of SIT

Case Details: Kunwar Vijay Shah v. The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., Diary No. 27093-2025

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) said that a Special Investigation Team comprising three senior IPS officers, who do not belong to the State of Madhya Pradesh, must investigate the FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. One of the officers should be a woman, it added.

The Court ordered the Madhya Pradesh DGP to constitute the SIT by 10 AM tomorrow. It should be headed by an Inspector General of Police and the other two members shall also be of rank SP or above.

The Court also stayed the arrest of Vijay Shah in the FIR, which was registered following a suo motu direction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, subject to the condition that he should join and cooperate with the investigation fully.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Bale Shah Peer Dargah Demolition

Case Details: Balepeer Shah Charitable Trust v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors. | W.P. (C) No. 517/2025

The Supreme Court (May 19) ordered status quo on the Maharashtra Government's demolition order against constructions at Bale Shah Peer Darga, Uttan.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a challenge to the order of the Bombay High Court, which refused to interfere in the demolition orders as it found that 'no urgency is made out'.

The bench granted stay of 4 weeks on the demolition orders.

'Shocking That Multinational Companies Filed This': Supreme Court Rejects Vodafone, Airtel & Tata Petitions Against AGR Dues

Case Details: Vodafone Idea Ltd. And Anr v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court dismissed petitions filed by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Telecom seeking waiver of interest, penalty, and interest on penalty components on their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed the petitions as "misconceived".

Boxing Federation Of India Elections: Supreme Court Relegates Ex-Sports Minister Anurag Thakur & Others To Delhi HC

Case Details: Anurag Singh Thakur v. Ajay Singh And Ors., Diary No. 25229-2025

With consent of the parties, the Supreme Court consolidated before the Delhi High Court cases pertaining to elections of the Boxing Federation of India.

"We have discussed the matter in open Court. Parties agree that Delhi High Court can be the appropriate forum to agitate all issues. We dispose of case numbers [...] pending before Himachal Pradesh High Court with liberty to the writ petitioners before the High Court to file either a fresh writ before Delhi High Court or join the pending proceedings. Respondents undertake not to raise issue of territorial jurisdiction", the Court ordered.

A stay order of the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court, which effectively paused the election process, was permitted to continue to operate for 6 weeks. Meanwhile, parties may seek continuation/modification thereof before the Delhi High Court, the Court said.

Supreme Court Stays Trial Against BJP MLC CT Ravi Over Comments Against Congress Member In Legislative Council

Case Details: Shri CT Ravi v. State of Karnataka & Ors | SLP(Crl) 7859/2025

The Supreme Court (May 19) stayed the trial proceedings against CT Ravi, Karnataka's Member of Legislative Council, who was facing criminal charges for his speech delivered on the floor of the Council last year.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing a challenge to the Karnataka High Court's order, which refused to quash a case registered against BJP Legislator CT Ravi, booked for allegedly using derogatory words against Congress Legislator Laxmi Hebbalkar inside the State Council at Belagavi.

Ravi is facing trial for offences under S. 75 (sexual harassment) and 79 ( outraging the modesty of a woman) of the BNS 2023.

'Frivolous': Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Make 'Karwa Chauth' Celebration Compulsory For All Women Including Widows & Divorcees

Case Details: Narender Kumar Malhotra v. Union Of India And Anr., SLP(C) No. 13556/2025

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which dismissed with cost a public interest litigation seeking to make Karwa Chauth festival compulsory for all women, including widows, divorcees and those in live-in relationships.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh declined the petitioner's prayers, noting that the PIL before the High Court was "frivolous" and "motivated". "These are funded by actors who don't come forward", remarked Justice Kant.

The bench noted that the petitioner failed to disclose any law which provided for observation of the festival by sections of women allegedly deprived of the privilege to celebrate. "The High Court, taking a lenient view, has imposed cost of Rs.1000 only. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. If the petitioner attempts to file any such petition directly or indirectly, we hope the High Court will take exemplary action", it said.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Make Pay & Allowances Of Consumer Commission Members Uniform Across All States/UTs

Case Details: In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The Supreme Court has framed a uniform pattern of pay and allowances to be given to Presidents and Members of District and State Consumer Commissions across all States and Union Territories.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the directions in a suo motu case concerning disparities in salaries and service conditions of Consumer Forum members.

The Court noted that many States had framed their own rules under Section 102 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, after the Central Government notified the Consumer Protection (Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Model Rules, 2020, which has caused a lot of variance in pay among the states.

“There is a lot of variance when it comes to the pay and allowance admissible to the members of the State Commissions and the Presidents and Members of the District Commissions. As a result, in some States they are receiving bare minimum amount.”

After Apology, Supreme Court Recalls Direction For Action Against Lawyer Who Filed Plea For Victims' Cause While Representing Accused

Case Details: Anti-Corruption Movement v. State Represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police

The Supreme Court recalled a portion of its May 9 order that had directed the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate action against Advocate N Subramaniam for professional misconduct in connection with the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam case.

On May 9, the Court had pulled up Advocate Subramaniam for filing the SLP on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Movement while representing accused no. 18 in the trial related to the same case.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that it had received an affidavit from Advocate N Subramaniam, in which he admitted to his mistake and gave an undertaking that he will not appear in any case related to the scam.

Unfortunate That Accused In Such Cases Have To Approach Supreme Court: SC Grants Bail To 65-Year-Old Visually Disabled Accused

Case Details: Radheyshyam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

The Supreme Court granted bail to a 65-year-old cheating and forgery accused who suffers from 50 percent visual disability and has been in custody for 7 months.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that it is unfortunate that accused persons in such cases are compelled to approach the Supreme Court to seek bail.

Order Staying Release Of In-Service Indian Women Army Officers Applicable To Officers Whose Cases Are Pending Before SC/HC/AFT: Supreme Court

Case Details: Lt. Col. Pooja Pal And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors., C.A. No. 9747-9757/2024

The Supreme Court clarified its interim order staying release of in-service women officers of the Indian Army, saying that it would cover all such officers whose cases are pending before the Supreme Court, High Courts or the Armed Forces Tribunals.

Supreme Court Calls On P&H Bar Council Chairman To Submit Proposal On Nomination Of Ex-HC Judge To Conduct Haryana Bar Elections

Case Details: Sandeep Chaudhry v. Jagmal Singh Jatain And Ors., SLP(C) No. 7868 - 7869/2025

The Supreme Court called on the Chairman of Punjab and Haryana Bar Council to submit within 2 days a proposal regarding nomination of a former High Court judge to conduct Bar elections in Haryana.

The ex-judge so nominated should preferably be well-conversant with the functioning of the Bar Associations/Bar Council, the Court said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order after a counsel appearing for the P&H Bar Council failed to convey necessary instructions in the above regard, despite the Court having sought the parties' opinion, including that of the Bar Council, on an earlier date. "Enough is enough", remarked Justice Kant.

Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam | 'No Possibility Of Trial Commencing In Near Future': Supreme Court Grants Bail To PMLA Accused

Case Details: Anwar Dhebar v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) granted bail to Anwar Dhebar, businessman and brother of former Raipur Mayor Aijaz Dhebar, accused in a money laundering case arising out of the alleged Rs. 2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence is seven years and that there is no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future.

“Following the law laid down in the case of Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail”, the Court held.

Can Third Party Invoke Order XXI Rule 97 CPC ? Supreme Court To Settle Conflicting Views

Case Details: P. Sumathi v. K. Krishna Gounder & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued a notice in a plea highlighting the judicial inconsistency between two decisions concerning the interpretation of Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, which deals with resistance or obstruction to the execution of a decree.

At the outset, the Court highlighted a conflict between two of its prior rulings. In Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal (1997) 3 SCC 694, the Court had held that any person facing dispossession, not just decree-holders or auction purchasers, could seek relief under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. However, in Sriram Housing Finance v. Omesh Misra Memorial Charitable Trust 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565, the Court had taken a more literal approach, limiting the provision's applicability strictly to decree-holders or auction purchasers.

The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard a plea challenging the Madras High Court's decision, which had affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's execution application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad; Forms SIT To Probe Posts On Operation Sindoor

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

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) granted interim bail to Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in the Haryana Police FIR over his social media posts about 'Operation Sindoor.' He was arrested on May 18 and has been under custody ever since.

At the same time, the Court refused to stay the investigation. The Court also directed the Haryana DGP to constitute within 24 hours a Special Investigation Team comprising senior IPS officers, who do not belong to Haryana or Delhi, to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts.”

One officer of the SIT should be a woman. The SIT should be headed by an IG rank officer and the other two members must be of SP rank.

As a condition of interim bail, the Court restrained Ali Khan Mahmudabad from writing any posts or articles in relation to the social media posts which are subject matter of the case or from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter-response given by India. The Court also directed him to join and fully cooperate with the investigation. He has been directed to surrender his passport.

'First Approach President & PM': Supreme Court Rejects Plea For FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma Over Cash Row

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

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) dismissed a writ petition filed by a few advocates seeking registration of FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma pursuant to the in-house inquiry into the allegations of recovery of illicit cash currencies from his official residence.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the Chief Justice of India has already forwarded the report of the in-house inquiry committee, along with the response of Justice Varma, to the President and the Prime Minister.

Since the petitioners have not filed a representation before the President and the Prime Minister seeking action, the writ petiton seeking mandamus is not maintainable, the bench said.

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ex-IAS Probationary Officer Puja Khedkar In Fake Certificate Case

Case Details: Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 000357 - / 2025

The Supreme Court (May 21) granted anticipatory bail to ex-IAS probationer Puja Khedkar, who has been accused of submitting fake OBC & PwD certificates in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination.

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by Khedkar. In January, the Court had granted her interim protection from arrest.

Today, the court made the interim bail absolute.

'Can't Put Someone In Jail For Ideology: Supreme Court Grants Bail To PFI Member In RSS Worker's Murder Case

Case Details: Abdul Sathar v. Union of India and Yahiya Koya Thangal v. Union of India

The Supreme Court granted bail to Abdul Sathar, then Secretary General of the Kerala unit of Popular Front of India (PFI), in the conspiracy case related to the murder of RSS worker Srinivasan in Palakkad, Kerala in September 2022.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing Sathar's special leave petition against the denial of bail by the Kerala High Court.

During the hearing, Justice Oka remarked, “For ideology you cannot put someone in jail.” He further remarked, “This is the trend we find. It is because they have adopted a particular ideology (they are put in jail).”

Supreme Court Asks Committee To Identify Agama Temples In TN, Allows State To Appoint Priests In Non-Agama Temples

Case Details: Srirangam Koil Miras Kainkaryaparagal Matrum Athanai Sarntha Koilgalin Miraskainkaryaparargalin Nalasangam v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 7692/2023

The Supreme Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to fill up the vacancies of priests in 'Non-Agama' Temples within a period of 3 months.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal on May 14 directed the committee appointed by the Madras High Court to identify he number of Agama Temples as against the number of non-Agama Temples in the State of Tamil Nadu.

The entire exercise of identification is to be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of its order. After which the State Government is required to fill up vacancies in non Agama Temples, while keeping due regard to the customs of the temple.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notices To Chief Secretaries Of Six States Over Non-Compliance With Orders On Retired Judges' Benefits

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

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) issued contempt notice to Chief Secretaries of six states over non-compliance with its directions concerning the entitlement of retired High Court Judges to medical facilities, domestic help, and telephone allowances.

The notices have been issued for non-compliance with six directions, including parity of facilities with sitting Judges, reimbursement without prior State approval, sanctioning authority of Registrar Generals, reimbursement for treatment in other States, cashless facilities, and benefits relating to domestic help and telephone allowances

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Telangana, West Bengal, and Delhi had not complied with the directions issued earlier.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Denial Of Chamber Allotment To Allahabad HC Advocate Convicted For Contempt

Case Details: Chandra Bhushan Pandey v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Ors. SLP(C) No. 017588 - / 2024

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) refused to interfere with the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which held that an advocate convicted of contempt cannot be eligible for allotment of a chamber under the High Court guidelines.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea by an advocate who was denied a chamber allotment at the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court by the Allahabad Bar Association.

Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme For Accident Victims in True Spirit: Supreme Court To Centre

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

The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to ensure that the Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Scheme, 2025, which was notified on May 5, 2025, is implemented in its true letter and spirit.

The scheme has been framed under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates the government to provide cashless treatment to road accident victims during the “golden hour” – the first hour following a traumatic injury.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also directed the government to file an affidavit by the end of August 2025, detailing the implementation of the scheme and to give wide publicity to the scheme.

“Delhi Worst Affected By Air Pollution, Laxity Can't Be Tolerated”: Supreme Court Directs To Fill 204 Vacancies In Pollution Control Committee

Case Details: In Re: Filling Of Vacant Posts In The State Pollution Control Boards And Pollution Control Committees

The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Government to fill all vacancies in its Pollution Control Committee by September 30, 2025, warning that failure to do so would amount to aggravated contempt.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed this direction while hearing a suo moto contempt case concerning the non-fulfilment of vacancies in the pollution control boards and committees of Delhi and other NCR states.

“We cannot tolerate laxity being shown by the government especially when Delhi is worst affected in terms of air pollution at least three months in every year”, the Court said in its order, referring to the issue of severe air pollution every year in Delhi during winter.

It directed the state to fill all 204 vacancies by September 30, 2025. The court warned, “We make it clear that if all the vacancies are not filled in, it will be a case of aggravated contempt.”

'ED Is Crossing All Limits, Violating Federal Structure': Supreme Court Stays ED Investigation Against Tamil Nadu's TASMAC

Case Details: The State Of Tamil Nadu V. Directorate Of Enforcement And Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 7958/2025 and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, (TASMAC) V. Directorate Of Enforcement| SLP(Crl) No. 8048-8049/2025

The Supreme Court (May 22) stayed the investigation and raid of the Enforcement Directorate against the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC).

"Your ED is crossing all limits. How can there be the offence against the corporation?", Chief Justice of India BR Gavai asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju.

"ED is crossing all limits. You are totally violating the federal structure of the country," CJI Gavai said.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC challenging Madras High Court's rejection of its plea against searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters.

SCBA Elections 2025 | No Further Women's Reservation Needed In Senior Executive As 3 Out Of 6 Members Are Women: Supreme Court

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 22) observed that its direction for minimum representation of women in the posts of Senior Executive Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association has been fulfilled, as three out of six elected candidates are women.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan said that no further reservation is required in the Senior Executive and clarified that the object of the earlier order was to ensure representation, not to enforce strict reservation.

'Waqf Registration Required Since 1923': Supreme Court Reserves Order On Stay Of Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (1) | W.P.(C) No. 276/2025

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 22) reserved interim order on the plea to stay the operation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the matter on the point of interim order across three days. During the arguments, CJI Gavai orally said that the requirement of registration of Waqfs has been there under the previous laws of 1923 and 1954.

Supreme Court Allows Bar Members To Raise Grievances On SCBA Elections, Orders Preservation Of CCTV Footage

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 22) said that any member of the Bar who has a grievance regarding irregularities in the recently held Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections can approach the Court with proper material.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan said it would examine any allegation of gross illegality, including impersonation of voters, if substantiated with evidence. The Court also ordered the preservation of CCTV footage in light of allegations of voter impersonation.

“Election Committee is directed to preserve the video cameras/CCTV recordings till further orders. Recording of the video cameras shall be kept in the custody of Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, Chairman of Committee”, the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union On Plea To Tackle Effects Of Heat Wave

Case Details: Vikrant Tongad v. Union Of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 523/2025

The Supreme Court sought response from Union in a PIL seeking efficient implementation of the National Guidelines for Heat Wave Management 2019 issued by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) in tackling the issue of heat waves across the country.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking a slew of measures to curb the drastically increasing heat wave across the country.

While using notice, the bench sought a response within 2 weeks from the Home Ministry, the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, the Ministry of Earth Sciences, the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs and the National Disaster Management Authority.

S. 215B MV Act | Supreme Court Directs Centre To Constitute National Road Safety Board Within Six Months

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

The Supreme Court questioned the Central Government for failing to implement Section 215B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and constitute the National Road Safety Board.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted six months to the Government to ensure that the National Road Safety Board is constituted. The Court clarified that no further time would be granted.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Punjab & Haryana Civil Judge Recruitment Of 2010

Case Details: Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V/S State Of Haryana Through Chief Secretary & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 5482 Of 2024

The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the challenge to the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Punjab & Haryana for the year 2010, considering the lapse of 15 years.

The Court declined to interfere in the issue as it held that "now in the year 2025, the clock cannot be turned back by appointing judicial officer after 15 years or grant consequential reliefs at this point of time."

The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar was considering the issue of the interpretation of Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Haryana Amendment Rules, 2010 in the context of recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) of the year 2010.

'Even God Of Cricket Endorsing Such Apps': Plea In Supreme Court To Ban Betting Apps & Their Celebrity Endorsements

Case Details: Dr. K.A. Paul @ Kilari Anand v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 299/2025

The Supreme Court called for the Union government's response on a public interest litigation seeking banning/regulation of online and offline betting apps on the ground that they amount to 'gambling'.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, after hearing evangelist Dr KA Paul (petitioner), who contended that betting on online/offline platforms has resulted in a number of suicides. Pointing out that multiple FIRs have been registered against celebrities and influencers over endorsement of such apps, the petitioner beseeched that the Court take notice of the ill-effects of celebrity endorsements on young, innocent individuals.

Supreme Court Allows Delhi Govt To Withdraw Petitions Filed By AAP-Govt Against Centre & LG, Including Challenge To Services Act

Case Details: Government Of NCT Of Delhi v. Office Of Lieutenant Governor Of NCT Of Delhi | W.P.(C) No. 452/2023

The Supreme Court on May 23 allowed the Delhi Government to withdraw seven pleas filed during the term of the previous AAP-led Government against the Union Government and the Lieutenant Governor over several administrative issues.

A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih permitted the withdrawal of pleas.

Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal's Quashing Of Penalty? Supreme Court Leaves Question Of Law Open

Case Details: The Honble Lokayukta And Ors. v. Mohan Doddamani And Ors., Diary No. 17688-2025

The Supreme Court left open the legal question - whether Lokayukta has locus to challenge an Administrative Tribunal's decision setting aside punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on a person for alleged corruption.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta was dealing with the Lokayukta's plea against a Karnataka High Court order, which dismissed its challenge to Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's quashing of an order of compulsory retirement (as punishment) passed against the respondent.

The bench noted that the disciplinary authority itself had not challenged the respondent's "exoneration" and the Lokayukta, a quasi-judicial authority, brought a challenge only because it was made party to the proceedings.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Liquidation Of Bhushan Steel & Power Ltd To Allow JSW To File Review Petition

Case Details: JSW Steel Limited V Sanjay Singhal And Ors. | Diary No. 29406-2025

The Supreme Court ordered status quo on the liquidation proceedings for Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), after hearing a petition filed by JSW Steel, whose resolution plan for BPSL was rejected by the Supreme Court on May 2.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Sharma passed the order considering the fact that JSW's limitation period for filing a review against the Supreme Court's judgment is not yet over.

The bench observed that the liquidation of the company might jeopardise the review petition to be filed by the JSW and ordered status quo in the interest of justice.

Lawyers Need To Be Disciplined, Can't Spoil Profession's Image: Supreme Court Affirms BCI's 7-Year Suspension Of Advocate

Case Details: R. Karmegam v. Hariharasudan

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 26) dismissed an appeal filed by an advocate challenging a disciplinary action taken by the Bar Council of India (BCI), which had suspended him from legal practice for seven years.

The punishment was imposed after the lawyer drove his car into a hotel in Madurai owned by the complainant.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed the appeal.

Justice Nath remarked, “See your conduct. As a lawyer you dashed your car into the hotel of the complainant. Lawyers need to be disciplined and not spoil the image of the entire profession.”

Supreme Court Flags Delay In Trial Of UAPA, MCOCA Cases; Says Additional Courts Needed To Exclusively Handle Special Act Offences

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

The Supreme Court emphasised the need to have dedicated courts to deal with trial of special cases under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

The Court made this observation after noticing the delay in "hundreds of cases" under such special statutes.

"The most effective recourse [to address delay in trials] can be the establishment of dedicated courts to whom the trials under the special statutes can be entrusted, without giving them any other civil or criminal cases. Ideally, the trial should take place on a day-to-day basis", the Court said.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Prevent Improper Use Of Savarkar's Name

Case Details: Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis v. Leader Of Opposition In The Lok Sabha & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 552/2025

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 27) rejected a petition which sought to include the name of VD Savarkar in the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use )Act, 1956.

The petitioner, Pankaj Phadnis, who appeared in person, also contended that the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, was violating fundamental duties by making comments against Savarkar.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih dismissed the writ petition, saying that no fundamental right of the petitioner is shown to have been violated.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Passenger Jetty At Gateway Of India; Asks Bombay HC To Decide Before Monsoon End

Case Details: Dr. Laura D Souza v. The State Of Maharashtra | Diary No. - 28592/2025

The Supreme Court (May 27) refused to entertain a plea challenging the Maharashtra Government's decision to construct a passenger jetty and terminal near the Gateway of India, Mumbai, considering the fact that the Bombay High Court is already considering the issue.

At the same time, the Court requested the Bombay High Court to decide the matter before the end of the monsoons.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea challenging the proposed construction of a passenger jetty and terminal facilities near the Gateway of India.

'No Hanky-Panky In SCBA President Election, Only Bona Fide Counting Error': Supreme Court; Adish Aggarwala Withdraws Complaint

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023

The Supreme Court orally observed that there appeared to be “no hanky-panky” in the conduct of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections for the post of President and that the discrepancy in vote count seemed to be a bona fide error.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan was hearing applications challenging the SCBA election results. Senior Advocates Dr Adish Aggarwala and Pradeep Rai, who lost the elections to the President post to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, had filed applications questioning the results.

The bench also took on record an unconditional apology by Senior Advocate Dr Adish Aggarwala, after rebuking him for making baseless allegations against the Election Committee appointed to oversee the elections. The Court also requested the Election Committee to hold a recount for the nine Junior Executive Member posts to address concerns of aggrieved members.

The Court deprecated a police complaint filed against the members of the Election Committee constituted to conduct the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections.

The Court said that the police complaint was "absolutely unwarranted" and ruled out any sort of criminal prosecution against the EC members, saying that they were "extended arms" of the Court and acted bonafide without doubt.

Supreme Court Says P&H Bar Council Should Take Firm Stand To Ensure Proper Bar Elections In Haryana

Case Details: Sandeep Chaudhry v. Jagmal Singh Jatain And Ors., SLP(C) No. 7868-7869/2025

In the Haryana Bar Elections dispute, the Supreme Court criticised the Punjab and Haryana State Bar Council for not taking a firm stand with regard to the alleged irregularities.

"You never take a firm stand because you need their votes. That is the whole problem. You are a statutory body! You should be very clear that if procedure has not been followed, you should firmly say procedure has not been followed and we would like that elections be held afresh in a transparent manner...if you are satisfied that everything has been minutely followed, there has been faithful compliance with the rule book, you take a stand and we will examine", remarked Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and Dipankar Datta was dealing with two petitions: one, involving an advocate's challenge to his disqualification from contesting Karnal Bar Association elections, and second, involving issues (such as electoral roll manipulation) pertaining to the Rohtak Bar Association.

Ultimately, the Karnal Bar matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh adjudication, while the date of hearing in the Rohtak Bar matter was preponed.

Supreme Court Asks Karnataka Govt To Not Remove Head Priest Of Sri Anjaneya Temple At Koppal

Case Details: Vidyadas Babaji v. V. Rashmi Mahesh And Ors., SLP(C) No. 14917/2025

The Supreme Court ordered the Karnataka government to allow Sri Anjaneya Temple head priest-Vidyadas Babaji to continue religious duties as well as reside in a single room situated at the site in terms of a 2023 interim order passed by the Karnataka High Court.

If there is any defiance or non-compliance with the order, the same shall be viewed seriously, the Court warned.

"Issue notice. Authorities are directed to comply with the 2023 interim order passed by High Court in pending writ petition and allow petitioner to continue duties as priest of temple and stay in the single room...Any defiance or non-compliance will be viewed seriously", dictated Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and Dipankar Datta passed the order, after hearing Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain (for petitioner-priest), who submitted that the petitioner's Sampradaya had been worshipping the temple since 120 years but in 2018, it was illegally acquired.

Can't Give Less Than 20 Years Sentence For Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sachin v. State Of Maharashtra | D No. 24169/2025

The Supreme Court on May 26 dismissed a Special Leave Petition seeking a reduction of a 20-year rigorous imprisonment granted to 23-year-old under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) on grounds of "extraordinary circumstances".

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the SLP on the grounds that the convict was granted 20 years of punishment, which is the minimum statutorily mandated punishment under Section 6 (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court does not find any reason to interfere.

'Don't Try To Expand The Scope': Supreme Court Tells SIT Investigating Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Case

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

The Supreme Court restricted the scope of Special Investigation Team Probe into the case lodged against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'.

The probe should be limited to the 2 FIRs lodged against Mahmudabad, the Court said.

"We direct that investigation of SIT shall be confined to contents of the 2 FIRs subject matter of these proceedings. The investigation report, before it is filed before jurisdictional court, be produced before this Court. The interim protection to continue till further orders" a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta said.

During the hearing of Ali Khan Mahmudabad's case, the Supreme Court questioned Haryana government about the National Human Rights Commission taking cognizance of the manner of registration of FIR against the Ashoka University Professor.

Vijay Shah Remarks On Colonel Qureshi: Supreme Court Continues Stay On Arrest; Closes Proceedings Before MP High Court

Case Details: Kunwar Vijay Shah v. The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., Diary No. 27093-2025

The Supreme Court continued its interim directions staying arrest of BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in the case lodged by Madhya Pradesh police over his "sister of terrorists" remark against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.

Insofar as it has itself taken cognizance of the case, the Court further asked the MP High Court to close the proceedings pending before it.

Supreme Court Bars Fresh UP Police FIR Against Couple Who Alleged Harassment By Multiple FIRs

Case Details: Rameez Nemat And Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors., W.P. (Crl.) No. 225/2025

The Supreme Court restrained Uttar Pradesh authorities from registering any fresh FIR against a couple from a politically influential family who accused the state of lodging multiple false cases against them with oblique motives.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising on behalf of the petitioner-couple.

Bangalore Palace Acquisition: Supreme Court Orders To Keep TDR Certificates In Registry, Bars Their Use If Already Released

Case Details: Sri Srikanta D N Wadiyar (D) By Lr. v. State Of Karnataka And Ors., C.A. No. 3303/1997

The Supreme Court as an interim measure, directed that the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates issued in respect of acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds shall remain with the Registry of the Court.

In case the TDRs have been released to the non-applicants, the same shall not be utilized or sold, the Court said.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Chhattisgarh Coal Scam Accused-Suryakant Tiwari, Ranu Sahu, Saumya Chaurasia & Others

Case Details: Ranu Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh, SLP(Crl) No. 15941/2024

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Chhattisgarh Coal Levy scam accused-Suryakant Tiwari, Ranu Sahu, Saumya Chaurasia, Sameer Vishnoi and others.

While ex-civil servants Saumya Chaurasia, Ranu Sahu and others were granted interim bail in the Chhattisgarh Coal Levy scam case in March this year, and accused-Laxmikant Tiwari, Manish Upadhyay and Parekh Kurre in early May, some fresh bail pleas were filed by the accused seeking bail in other cases, such as one registered over the DMF scam.

Supreme Court Allows Interim Bail To Odisha IAS Officer Manish Agarwal On Surrender Before Trial Court In Case Over PA's Death

Case Details: Manish Agarwal V. The State Of Orissa & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7877/2025

The Supreme Court directed Manish Agarwal, IAS & former Collector of Malkangiri district (Odisha), in a case accused in a case relating to the suspicious death of his Personal Assistant (PA) in the year 2019, to surrender before the trial court and furnish bail bonds to its satisfaction, upon which he shall be released on interim bail.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta passed the order. This comes after the Orissa High Court on April 28 rejected anticipatory bail to him and some of his staff members.

AgustaWestland Scam | Supreme Court Dismisses Christian Michel's Plea Against Bail Condition To Furnish Local Address

Case Details: Christian James Michel v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by British national Christian Michel challenging a bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court in a money laundering case related to the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected Michel's objection to the High Court's direction that requires him to provide the address where he intends to reside after his release.

Supreme Court Directs Return Of Passport To Ex-Telangana Intelligence Chief, Stays His Arrest In Phone-Tapping Case

Case Details: T. Prabhakar Rao v. The State Of Telangana | SLP(Crl) No. 7354/2025

The Supreme Court directed the return of the passport to former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao, accused of phone tapping of politicians and high court judges in the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi-led Government in Telangana, to come to India. Till the next order, the Court ordered no coercive steps against Rao. He is also asked to give an affidavit of undertaking before this Court that, within 3 days of the receipt of the passport/travel document, he will return to India.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed this order, remarking that the Court is required to balance the interests of the parties.

Supreme Court Seeks Jharkhand Govt & HC Response On Woman District Judge's Plea For Child Care Leave

Case Details: Kashika M Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 554/2025

The Supreme Court (May 29) issued notice to the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand High Court in a plea by a lady Additional District Judge challenging the rejection of her childcare leave.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, while issuing notice in the petition, inquired why the petitioner did not move directly to the High Court first.

To which, the Counsel for the petitioner replied that during the vacation period of the High Court, the present matter may not be treated as urgent.

No Observation Made On Merits Of Mumbai Gateway Of India Jetty Project: Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Details: Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) v. The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. SLP(C) No. 15709/2025

The Supreme Court clarified that while rejecting the challenge to the Maharashtra Government's decision to construct a passenger jetty and terminal near the Gateway of India, it had not made any observations on the merits of the case.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih clarified that any observations made by it during the proceedings on May 27 regarding the challenge to the jetty projects at the Gateway of India would not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

The clarification stated, "We clarify that we have not observed anything on the merits of the case.

'There Shouldn't Be Even A Single Day's Delay In Liberty Matters': Supreme Court Expresses Concern At HC Delaying Bail Hearing

Case Details: Vedpal Singh Tanwar v. Directorate Of Enforcement | W.P.(Crl.) No. 231/2025

The Supreme Court (May 29) expressed concerns over the delay by the Delhi High Court in deciding a bail plea despite repeated observations of the Apex Court on the need to expeditiously hear matters relating to civil liberties of citizens.

The Court considered the fact that the bench before which the bail plea is pending was to sit during the vacation bench and asked the bench to decide the matter on June 9. The order said:

"This Court has time and again emphasised the importance of the liberty of citizens. Time and again, it is said that there should not be even a single day's delay in deciding the matter pertaining to the liberty of citizens.

"We see no reason as to why the matter should have taken such a long time to decide it either way."

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing the bail plea by Vedpal Singh Tanwar, who is a key person belonging to Goverdhan Mines and Minerals.

'Mining Mafia Strong Enough': Supreme Court Slams Haryana Chief Secretary For Not Stopping Illegal Mining In Aravalli Hills

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 202/1995

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the State of Haryana over non-action against illegal mining in the Aravallis in Nuh District.

The Court also noted that the mining mafia in the region was also protecting the erring officials involved. The CJI said:

"It appears that the mafia is strong enough to protect not only its members but also the officers of the state government who have acted in collusion with them."

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana to file a fresh affidavit after taking action against all the erring officials involved by July 16.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Contempt Against Journalist Ajay Shukla For 'Scandalous' Remarks On Judge

Case Details: In Re: Scandalous Remarks Made By Mr. Ajay Shukla, Editor-In-Chief, Varprad Media Pvt. Ltd., A Digital Channel v. SMC(Crl) No. 000001 / 2025

The Supreme Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against a digital journalist named Ajay Shukla for making "scathing and scandalous" observations about a senior judge of the Supreme Court.

The Court also directed YouTube to take down the video of Ajay Shukla, who is the Editor-in-Chief of Varprad Media.

Taking suo motu cognisance of Shukla's video, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar observed:

"Such scandalous allegations widely published are likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of the judiciary. No doubt the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions. A person cannot be permitted to make allegations which are in the nature of defaming a judge of this Court and also contemptuous in nature, which attempts to bring disrepute to the institution of the judiciary."

The Court asked the Registry to register the matter as a suo motu contempt case and issue notice to Shukla.

NEET-PG 2025 Can't Be Held In Two Shifts: Supreme Court Directs NBE To Hold Single Shift Exam

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

The Supreme Court directed the National Board of Examination not to hold NEET-PG 2025 in two shifts, observing that such an exam will create arbitrariness.

The Court directed the NBE to make arrangements to hold NEET-PG 2025 in a single shift ensuring transparency. The Court observed that there was still time left to make necessary arrangements for the exam scheduled to be held on June 15.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court remarked that when a legitimate grievance is raised, it is not relevant that only a few persons are seeking relief.

Supreme Court Rebukes Advocate For Police Complaint Against SCBA Election Committee; Asks Him To Physically Appear

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023

While hearing the Supreme Court Bar Association election dispute, the Supreme Court rapped an advocate over his police complaint against members of the Court-constituted Election Committee which conducted SCBA elections.

The Court warned that if he fails to appear in-person on the next date, coercive action will be taken.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta was dealing with the issue as part of the SCBA v. BD Kaushik case, where a bench comprising Justices Kant and KV Viswanathan is considering issues pertaining to reforms in SCBA.

Methodist Church Of India Dispute: Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Order Allowing Two Persons To Be Active Bishops

Case Details: The Methodist Church In India v. Bishop N.L. Karkare | SLP(C) No. 14696/2025

The Supreme Court (May 30) granted a stay against the Bombay High Court's interim order dated May 5, 2025, which allowed Bishop N.L. Karkare (Respondent No. 1) and Bishop Subodh C. Mondal (Respondent no. 2), who are admittedly at the age of 76 and 73 years, respectively, to continue as 'Active Bishops' of the Methodist Church of India.

It is the case of the petitioner, the Methodist Church, that the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed to continue contrary to the provisions and bylaws of the Constitution of the Methodist Church, which prescribes the age of retirement as 20 years.

Supreme Court Upholds Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Odisha PSC For Lapse In Evaluating Judicial Service Candidate's Paper

Case Details: The Chairman, Odisha Public Service Commission v. Jyotirmayee Dutta And Anr., SLP(C) No. 15360/2025

The Supreme Court pulled up the Odisha Public Service Commission (Odisha PSC) over laxity shown in evaluation of answer script of a judicial services' candidate.

Briefly put, the case pertained to the Odisha Judicial Service Examination-2022, wherein a candidate's answer to a question carrying 12.5 marks was not evaluated.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter and refused to set aside the cost of Rs.1 lakh imposed by Odisha High Court on the Commission.

Supreme Court Quashes ₹25 Lakh Bank Fraud Case After Settlement, Cites No Continuing Public Interest

Case Details: N.S. Gnaneshwaran & Others v. The Inspector of Police & Another

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the matter of N.S. Gnaneshwaran & Others v. The Inspector of Police & Another, holding that the dispute had been fully settled through a One-Time Settlement (OTS) and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

The case arose from allegations that the appellants caused wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of ₹25.89 lakh by fraudulently diverting funds sanctioned to M/s Vinayaka Corporation. Based on a complaint from the Bank, the CBI registered an FIR and filed a chargesheet against nine accused, including the appellants, for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

POSH Act: States/UTs File Affidavits In Supreme Court Regarding Compliance With Directions To Form LCC, District Officers Etc

Case Details: Aureliano Fernandes V. The State Of Goa And Ors. | Diary No. 22553-2023

Pursuant to a series of orders from the Supreme Court seeking compliance with its December 3, 2024, directions for effective compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), finally, all the States and Union Territories filed their affidavit of compliance.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has been passing orders in this matter.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenging Validity Of Rule 29(4) Copyright Rules Requiring Prior Notice For Statutory Broadcast Licence

Case Details: Next Radio Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court rejected a plea challenging Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which sets out the specific particulars that broadcasters must include in the prior notice required for invoking the statutory licence under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan found no merit in the constitutional validity challenge to Rule 29(4), and allowed the petitioner Next Radio Limited, which operates the radio network Radio One, to withdraw it.

District Judges' Retirement Age Can Be Enhanced To 61 Years: Supreme Court To Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Details: Madhya Pradesh Judges Association v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh | W.P.(C) No. 000819 - / 2018

The Supreme Court clarified that there was no impediment in raising the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years and asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take an administrative decision on enhancing the retirement age within 3 months.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing the petition by the Madhya Pradesh Judges Association seeking enhancement of the retirement age of district judges in Madhya Pradesh to 62 years.

NEET-PG 2025 Can't Be Held In Two Shifts: Supreme Court Directs NBE To Hold Single Shift Exam

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

The Supreme Court directed the National Board of Examination not to hold NEET-PG 2025 in two shifts, observing that such an exam will create arbitrariness.

The Court directed the NBE to make arrangements to hold NEET-PG 2025 in a single shift ensuring transparency. The Court observed that there was still time left to make necessary arrangements for the exam scheduled to be held on June 15.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court remarked that when a legitimate grievance is raised, it is not relevant.

Other Developments

If Doctors Are Mandated To Prescribe Only Generic Drugs, Issue Of Pharma Companies Bribing Will Be Resolved, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 323/2021

The Supreme Court orally remarked that the issue of pharmaceutical companies allegedly bribing doctors to prescribe excessive or irrational drugs and push for high-cost overpriced brands would be resolved if there was a statutory mandate for doctors to prescribe generic medicines.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition which contends that pharmaceutical companies are bribing doctors to bring business and to prescribe excessive and/or irrational drugs and a push for high-cost and/or over-priced brands.

The plea seeks a direction that till the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing is given the colour of a legislation, the Court may lay down the guidelines to control and regulate unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Death Row Convict's Plea To Apply 'Manoj' Judgment

Case Details: Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India and Anr. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 371/2023

The Supreme Court reserved judgment in a writ petition seeking to determine whether the benefit of the 2022 Manoj judgment would apply to the present petitioner on the death row. The present petitioner is on death row for raping and murdering a 4 years old child.

A writ petition has been filed for the Court to determine if the subsequent judgment in Manoj, wherein practical guidelines on mitigating circumstances were issued, could be applied in giving relief to him.

The Manoj judgment was pronounced by a bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi on May 10, 2022. In the said judgment, the Court stated that mitigating circumstances must be considered at the trial stage and the state must produce the materials disclosing the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Against Blocking Of YouTube News Channel '4 PM'; Validity Of IT Blocking Rules Also Challenged

Journalist Sanjay Sharma has moved the Supreme Court against the blocking of his YouTube news channel '4PM' on purported grounds of 'national security' and 'public order'. Among other things, he has sought urgent restoration of access to his platform and challenged the vires of IT Blocking Rules, 2009.

Terming the blocking action "arbitrary and unconstitutional", Sharma, the Editor-in-Chief of the 4PM YouTube channel, claims that the blocking by YouTube (an intermediary) was without any prior notice or hearing and pursuant to an "undisclosed" order of the Union government under IT Blocking Rules. As such, there was violation of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Actor Sushant Singh's Plea For Transfer Of Petition Before Bombay HC Against IT Blocking Rules

Case Details: Sushant Singh v. Union of India and Ors., T.P.(C) No. 1109/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by actor and social activist Sushant Singh seeking transfer of his petition challenging the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 from the Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, listing the case with Software Freedom Law Center, India v. Union of India, wherein similar challenge to the Rules is pending.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On J&K UT's Plea Against HC Quashing Detention Of Alleged Overground Worker

Case Details: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Ghulam Mohammad Waza | D No. 16796/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice returnable 4 weeks in a Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh whereby the Court quashed the detention of the Respondent.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on a plea filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and represented by Advocate Parth Awasthi.

AIMPLB Says Centre Filed Misleading Affidavit In Supreme Court To Claim Rise In Waqf Properties After 2013

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has filed a rejoinder affidavit in the Supreme Court, taking serious objections to the statement made by the Central Government that there was a "shocking increase" in the Waqf properties uploaded in the Central portal after 2013.

The AIMPLB has contended that the Centre has placed incorrect data and sought action against the officer of the Ministry of Minority Affairs for filing a "false affidavit."

Waqf Registration Requirement Not Harmless As Claimed By Centre; Effectively Derecognises Waqfs-by-User, AIMPLB Tells Supreme Court

All India Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB) via the General Secretary, Mohammed Fazlurrahim filed a rejoinder countering the claims made by the Union Government in its counter affidavit in the case In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

the AIMPLB said that the "amendment to section 3 ( r ) in effect de-recognises the legal status of waqfs by user which may not be registered and thus goes to the root of their existence." By saying that waqf-by-user properties will only be recognised if they are registered, the Centre has made registration a condition for the creation of Waqfs, which is impermissible, it argued.

Trust Following Sree Narayana Guru's Teachings Opposes Waqf Amendment Act 2025 In Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | W.P.(C) No. 276/2025

Sree Narayana Manava Dharmam Trust, an organisation established to study and disseminate the values and teachings of Sree Narayana Guru, has sought intervention in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) 2025. The intervention application, filed in the Supreme Court on April 3, 2025, supports the challenge against the constitutionality of the 2025 amendments.

A key figure in India's reformist tradition, Sree Narayana Guru's contributions spanned the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly in challenging caste hierarchies in Kerala. Since Sree Narayana Guru supported religious harmony and the well-being of all people, the Trust said it cannot remain an "idle spectator to the devastating impact of the Waqf Amendment Act on the Muslim community of India and to social justice in our country".

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre On Plea Challenging Blocking Of YouTube Channel '4PM News'

Case Details: Sanjay Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 465/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on a plea filed by journalist Sanjay Sharma against the blocking of his YouTube channel '4PM News' on purported grounds of 'national security' and 'public order'.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Comedian Samay Raina & 4 Others In Plea Over Jokes On Persons With Disabilitie

Case Details: M/S. Cure SMA Foundation of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to comedians Samay Raina, Vipun Goyal and three others in a petition alleging that they had made insensitive jokes mocking persons with disabilities.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh directed the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to issue notice to them to ensure that they remain present in the Court on the next date. If they fail to appear, coercive steps will be taken, the Court warned.

CJI Khanna Sends Petitions Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025 To Justice BR Gavai's Bench; Hearing On May 15

Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | W.P. (C) No. 276/2025

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (May 5) said that the petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2024 will be listed before a bench led by Justice BR Gavai in view of the fact that he has only few days left before retirement(May 13).

Justice Yashwant Varma Cash Row: Judges' Committee Submits Report To CJI After In-House Inquiry

The committee of judges which held an in-house probe against Justice Yashwant Varma over allegations of cash discovery at his official residence submitted its report to Chief Justice of India Sanijv Khanna on May 4.

NEET-PG 2025: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Horizontal Reservation For Transgender Persons

Case Details: Kiran A.R and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 461/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking horizontal reservation for transgender persons in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-PG 2025. The exam is scheduled to take place on June 15, 2025.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (for petitioners), who argued that despite the judgment in NALSA v. Union of India, the Union and the States have not provided reservation to transgender persons.

NEET PG 2025: Supreme Court Seeks NBE's Response On Plea Against Conducting NEET-PG In Two Shifts

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

The Supreme Court (May 5) issued notice on a writ petition challenging the notification dated April 16, 2025, notifying the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Postgraduate) [NEET-PG 2025] examination to be conducted on May 15 in two shifts.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan sought the response of the National Board of Examinations, National Medical Council and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

ED Just Makes Allegations Without Specific Evidence In Many Cases: Supreme Court

Case Details: Arvind Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court remarked that there is a pattern of the Directorate of Enforcement making allegations in the prosecution complaints without referring to specific material to support them.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the bail plea of Arvind Singh, an accused in the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre & States On NALSA's Petition For Release Of Elderly & Terminally Ill Prisoners

Case Details: National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 162/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and States and Union Territory in a Public Interest Litigation filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) seeking urgent intervention for the release of elderly and terminally ill convicted prisoners across the country.

The notice was issued by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. The petition highlights the dire conditions faced by such prisoners and calls for the implementation of compassionate release of the identified prisoners in line with constitutional and human rights obligations.

In A First, Supreme Court Publishes Declaration Of Judges' Assets On Website

In a significant step towards transparency and boosting public confidence in the judiciary, the Supreme Court has mandated the public disclosure of the assets of the Judges. After a Full Court meeting led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, it has been decided that "Placing the declaration of assets on the Supreme Court website will be mandatory."

Following this decision, the asset declarations of the twenty one Judges of the Supreme Court have been uploaded on the official website. Presently, the declarations of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, and twenty other judges, including the three judges who are next in line to be the CJI in the near future, have been uploaded.

Supreme Court Publishes Appointment Process Of Judges, Details Of Collegium Recommendations From Nov 2022

The Supreme Court on May 5 uploaded the complete process of appointments of Judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court on its website for the knowledge and awareness of the public.

The proposals approved by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointments as High Court Judges during the period 9th November 2022 to 5th May 2025, including the names, High Court, source – whether from Service or Bar, date of recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium, date of notification by Department of Justice, date of appointment, special category (SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Woman), and whether the candidate is related to any sitting or retired High Court/Supreme Court Judge, have also been uploaded on the Supreme Court website.

Reservation Business Has Become Like Train Journey, Those Already In Coach Don't Want Others To Enter: Justice Surya Kant

Case Details: Mangesh Shankar Sasane v. State of Maharashtra | W.P.(C) No. 471/2025

Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court, during a hearing, likened the reservation system in the country to a train journey, where people who have already secured the seats do not want others to enter the same compartment.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was hearing the case related to the OBC reservation in the local body elections in the State of Maharashtra.

Officer Facing Contempt Action Refuses To Accept Demotion As Punishment; Supreme Court Warns Of Jail

Case Details: Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu and Ors., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025

The Supreme Court expressed its displeasure at a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, when he said that he would not accept demotion as a punishment for contempt of court.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with a plea filed by the petitioner/Deputy Collector against a High Court order which found him guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to 2 months' simple imprisonment.

MBBS Internship: Supreme Court Seeks NMC Response On Plea Seeking Stipend For Foreign Medical Graduates

Case Details: Akash Udayakumar & Ors. v. National Medical Commission &Ors | W.P.(C) No. 000397 / 2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the non-payment of stipends to foreign medical graduates (FMGs) interning at Indian Hospitals/ Medical Institutions.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran agreed to consider the issue of non-payment of stipend to foreign medical graduates (FMGs) who were interning at Mahaveer Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal.

Why Can't Vakalatnamas Mention If Advocate Has Passed AIBE? Supreme Court Asks BCI

The Supreme Court suggested to the Bar Council of India that they bring a rule mandating that in the vakaltnamas filed by Advocates enrolled after 2010, it should be specified if the candidate has cleared the All India Bar Examination.

Supreme Court Will Have 3 Benches Every Week During Summer Break: Justice BR Gavai

During a hearing, Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court said that the Court will have 3 Vacation Benches every week during the upcoming summer break.

It may be recalled that the summer break this year will constitute "partial Court working days". The same will commence from 26 May, 2025 and the Full Court working days will resume from 14 July, 2025.

29 Supreme Court Collegium Recommendations From Nov 2022 For HC Judges Pending With Central Government

The data published by the Supreme Court regarding the judges' appointment process has revealed that 29 recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as High Court Judges during November 9, 2022 to May 5, 2025 are pending with the Central Government.

Supreme Court Issues Notice In Six Appeals Against Acquittals In 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Cases

Case Details: S Gurlad Singh Kahlon v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice in six Special Leave Petitions filed by the Delhi Police challenging the acquittals of 14 accused persons in cases related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

“Issue notice. Registrar to provide the soft copy of the record of the trial court to the counsel appearing for parties. Parties to place on record a compilation of notes of evidence. Notice is made returnable on 21st of July”, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered.

Union Defends Limit On Women JAG Appointments Citing Risk Of Being Taken As Prisoners Of War; Supreme Court Questions Logic

Case Details: Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 772/2023

The Supreme Court (May 7) again questioned the rationale of the Union Government to follow a 50-50 selection criterion for women in the post of Judge Advocate General (JAG) despite claiming that the posts are gender neutral.

Also, the Court questioned why the JAG female officers are not deployed in combat zones merely because there is a threat perception that women will be taken as Prisoners of War (PoW).

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Suo Motu Case Over Child Rape Cases; Amicus Flags Lack Of Special POCSO Courts In Many States

Case Details: In Re Alarming Rise In The Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2019

The Supreme Court (May 7) reserved judgment in a 2019 suo moto proceedings initiated in relation to addressing the systematic flaws under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice PB Varale was hearing the matter.

Today, amicus and Senior Advocate Uttara Babbar submitted that the Court has, from time to time, passed various directions in regard to and for establishing special POCSO courts for speedy justice, appointment of Special Prosecutors, training persons associated with the process etc.

The Court has been monitoring compliance with these directions. She particularly requested that the Court continue to monitor the issue of States failing to establish Special POCSO Courts as per the Court's 2019 order.

'Won't Permit Mudslinging On A Former CJI': Supreme Court Rejects Third Party's Plea For Justice Lalit's Report In WB VC Appointment Case

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

In the matter pertaining to the appointment of Vice Chancellors for certain West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a lawyer's request for making available a copy of former CJI UU Lalit's report.

"We will not allow anyone to comment on the report. Only 2 persons were permitted, Chief Minister and Chancellor...if you people think you will be allowed, there's no question. We will not provide any copy for the purpose of you people indulging in mudslinging on a former CJI who we selected with the consent of AG and senior counsels from state's side...only because of your vested interest", said Justice Surya Kant.

A Bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh adjourned the matter to tomorrow, to ascertain Justice Lalit's availability to consider the material placed before the Court by Attorney General R Venkataramani.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna Forwards In-House Inquiry Report On Justice Yashwant Varma To President

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has forwarded to the President of India and the Prime Minister the report submitted by the three-judge panel which held an in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma in relation to the alleged discovery of unauthorised cash currency notes at his official residence.

The response given by Justice Varma has also been forwarded to the President and the PM.

'Rohingyas Are Foreigners, Must Be Dealt Under Foreigners Act': Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Deportation, Posts Case In July

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 was informed that some refugees with United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) cards, including women and children, were arrested by police authorities late last night and deported, despite the matter being listed today.

The petitioners' counsels made the allegation based on media reports, which seem to suggest that some Rohingyas were taken from the place where they were being detained for "verification of papers", but perhaps deported to Myanmar.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and listed it for hearing on 31 July without directing any stay, when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta drew attention to an order dated April 8, 2021 saying it binds the government to take deportation action only in accordance with law.

Supreme Court Considers Plea To Replace 5-Year Law Degree Course With 4-Year LL.B

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. | WP (C) No. 453/2025

The Supreme Court considered a PIL seeking to replace the 5-year LL.B course with a 4-year LL.B course on the ground that the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) promotes four-year undergraduate courses for professional degrees.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, did not issue notice on the petition, and tagged it with another matter concerning 1-year LL.M course.

Justice Nagarathna Flags Apprehension That Population-Based Delimitation May Reduce Southern States' Representation

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court (May 9) orally spoke about the apprehensions that delimitation based on population would reduce the representation of the southern states in the Parliament, since the population growth in the south is declining in contrast to the northern states.

The bench comprising Justice Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a batch of petitions related to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act.

While dealing with petitions filed by couples seeking a second child through surrogacy, Justice Nagarathna said, "In South you see, the families are shrinking. Births are coming down in South India...There are so many people in the North who are going on and on having children... There is an apprehension now if they have Delimitation based on population, the number of representatives of the South will be reduced because of the population of North India."

Justice Nagarathna also questioned why the petitioners wanted to opt for surrogacy.

''Operation Sindoor' Can't Be Commercially Exploited': Plea In Supreme Court To Bar Trademark Registration Of Operation Sindoor

Case Details: Dev Ashish Dubey v. Union of India & Ors.

A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court to bar the trademark registration of “Operation Sindoor”, the name given for India's military operations against the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan.

The petitioner Dev Ashish Dubey has filed the writ petition against 4 applicants who made an application being Application TM-1 under Class 41 for the registration of the Trademark under the name and style "Operation Sindoor" with the trademark registry. Class 41 covers education and entertainment services.

These applicants include (1) Mukesh Chetram Agrawal(Mumbai); (2) Group Captain Kamal Singh Obreh (Retd)(J&K); (3) Alok Kothari(Delhi); (4) Jayraj T (Kerala), and (4) Uttam(Gujarat). The applications were filed with the Trademark Registries at New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Ahmedabad.

To Tackle 7 Lakh Criminal Appeals, Supreme Court Advises HCs: Use AI Tools, Digitise Records, Appoint Case Management Registrars

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail

Noting that over 7.24 lakh criminal appeals are pending across the High Courts in the country, the Supreme Court has requested all High Courts to consider a series of suggestions to address the backlog.

“As of 22nd March, 2025, the total pendency of criminal appeals (appeals against conviction and acquittal) is 7,24,192…Therefore, there is a huge problem faced by all the High Courts”, the Court observed.

The Court expressly endorsed several of the suggestions including case record digitization, procedural rule amendments for automatic requisitioning of trial records once notice is issued in appeals, use of its AI translation tool SUAS for translating court documents, and creation of the post of Registrar (Court and Case Management) in all High Courts to streamline case readiness. It endorsed the amici curiae's suggestion that High Courts with multiple benches consider hearing appeals via video conferencing to help benches with lower pendency assist the principal seat.

'If A Lady Can Fly Rafale In Air Force, Why Fewer Women In JAG?' Supreme Court Asks Army, Reserves Judgment

Case Details: Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 772/2023

The Supreme Court on May 8 reserved judgment in a writ petition filed by two women seeking appointment to the post of Judge Advocate General (JAG) (Indian Army) Entry Scheme 31st Course, challenging the disproportionate vacancies for men and women. As per their petitioners, though they secured ranks 4 and 5, respectively, and are higher in merit than male candidates, still, due to the fewer vacancies earmarked for women (3 in number as compared to 6 for men), they could not be selected.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan heard the matter. The Court granted interim relief to Petitioner 1. Arshnoor Kaur, and directed the Union and the Army to induct her in the next available training course for appointment as a JAG officer.

During the hearings, the Court questioned the Union for earmarking fewer posts for women, despite claiming the posts to be gender neutral. Justice Datta mentioned that he read in the newspaper that a woman fighter pilot would be flying Rafale aircraft. He added that even in this case, she could be taken as a prisoner of war.

"If it's permissible in the Air Force for a lady to fly a Rafale, what is so very difficult for the Army? Of course, it's a possible decision. We are no one to say anything," Justice Datta said.

'4PM News' YouTube Channel Unblocked By Centre, Supreme Court Informed

Case Details: Sanjay Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 465/2025

The Supreme Court informed that the Central Government has withdrawn the blocking order passed against '4PM News' YouTube Channel.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the channel's editor Sanjay Sharma, informed the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih that the channel has been unblocked now.

However, the petition has been kept alive to consider the challenge against the blocking rules. The bench had issued notice to the Centre and YouTube on Sharma's petition challenging the blocking order.

Plea In Supreme Court Alleges Demolition Of Registered Waqf Violating Union's Undertaking In Waqf Amendment Act Challenge

Case Details: Mehfooz Ahmed v. Anand Bardhan And Ors., Diary No. 24261-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to Uttarakhand Government officials on a contempt petition alleging demolition of a registered Waqf property in violation of a statement given by the Union on April 17 that till the next hearing in the matter pertaining to Waqf Amendment Act, no Waqf's character or status will be changed.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for the petitioner), and listed the case along with the batch of pleas wherein the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 has been challenged. Notice has been issued to Anand Bardhan, Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand, Savin Bansal, District Magistrate, Dehradun, Pratyush Singh, City Magistrate, Dehradun and Namami Bansal, Dehradun Municipal Commissioner.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Direct Centre To Fix Limits Of Hospital Service Charges

Case Details: Voice Society v. Union Of India And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 409/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking enforcement of Rules 9(i) and 9(ii) of the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012.

For context, Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules mandates that hospitals and clinical establishments display rates for services provided and charge fees within the range determined by the Centre in consultation with state governments. This Rule has not been enforced since the Government is yet to specify the limits of service charge.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate CU Singh (for petitioner-Voice Society), and listed the case alongwith a similar pending matter.

Native Of Tamil Nadu Village Claimed As Waqf Land Approaches Supreme Court Supporting Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025

In the petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, a native of a Tamil Nadu village, which is being entirely claimed as a Waqf property, has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court supporting the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.

The application has been filed by one Sreeman Chandrasekar, a native of the village Thiruchendurai in Tamil Nadu, claiming that the entire village of Thiruchendurai, which is more than 300 acres, is being claimed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board as its property. The intervention application has been filed in the writ petition filed by Jamiat leader Maulana Arshad Madani, who is challenging the Act.

It is said in the application that the famous Chandrasekara Swamy Temple is also being claimed by the Waqf Board as its property, despite the fact that the temple is about 1500 years old, whereas Islam as a practice and religion is only 1400 years old.

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Against ED Arrest Of Haryana Congress Leader

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court accusing the Enforcement Directorate of illegally arresting and manhandling a political leader of Opposition in Haryana (Congress).

ED is reported to have arrested Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chhoker (Congress) from a 5-star hotel in Delhi. Chhoker and his sons are facing charges of duping hundreds of homebuyers and siphoning off over Rs.500 crores through their real-estate group - the Mahira Group.

'Are We Going To Brand Them All Risky?': Supreme Court Questions Ban On Blood Donation By Transgender Persons, Sex Workers, Etc

Case Details: Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P. (C) No. 275/2021

During the hearing of the pleas challenging the blanket ban on blood donations by transgender persons, gay men, sex workers, etc., the Supreme Court asked the Union to seek expert opinion on how to do away with the "discriminatory element" of National Blood Transfusion Council's guidelines without compromising medical safety and precautionary safeguards in place.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter. Conveying his concerns to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, J Singh said,

"What is worrying me is, are we going to brand all transgenders as risky and thus indirectly stigmatize these communities? Unless you can show with some medical evidence that there is some kind of link between transgenders and these diseases. You can't [say] all transgenders are involved in those kind of activities, even normal persons engage in such activities..."

Breaking: Can Supreme Court Fix Timelines For President To Decide Bills Reserved By Governor? President Refers 14 Questions To SC Under Article 143

Article 143 allows the President to seek an opinion on the question of law or fact, which has arisen or likely to arise, and are of such nature and of such public opinion that it is expedient to obtain an opinion from the Supreme Court.

BJP Minister Vijay Shah Approaches Supreme Court Against MP HC Order Directing FIR Over His Comments On Col Sofiya Qureshi

Case Details: Kunwar Vijay Shah V. The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Diary No. - 27093/2025

BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah has moved the Supreme Court against Madhya Pradesh High Court's suo motu direction for registration of FIR against him over his comment calling Colonel Sofiya Qureshi a "sister of terrorists".

'Minister Expected To Speak With Responsibility': Supreme Court To BJP's Vijay Shah Over Remarks On Colonel Sofiya Qureshi; Hearing Tomorrow

Case Details: Kunwar Vijay Shah V. The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Diary No. - 27093/2025

The Supreme Court on May 15 refused intervention for now in the FIR lodged against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah over his comment calling Colonel Sofiya Qureshi a "sister of terrorists".

While hearing an urgent mentioning of his plea by Sr Advocate Vibha Makhija against Madhya Pradesh High Court's suo motu direction to register the FIR, CJI BR Gavai orally said, "A Person holding such an office is expected to maintain such a decree...every sentence uttered by a minister has to be with responsibility."

Kancha Gachibowli Deforestation Prima Facie 'Pre-Planned', Take Steps For Restoration Or Face Contempt: Supreme Court Warns Telangana Govt

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

The Supreme Court came down heavily upon the Telangana Government over the prima facie 'pre-planned' cutting of over 1,000 trees in the Kancha Gachibowli area.

The Court warned the State officials of contempt proceedings and temporary imprisonment as it noted that a long weekend was misused to initiate the bulldozing of the region.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih had previously expressed that restoration of status quo at the site will be the Court's first priority and the Wildlife Warden of the State shall take immediate steps to protect wildlife affected by the deforestation. It had also granted time to the State to file its reply to CEC spot inspection report.

'Don't Want Publicity Litigation': Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Govt Action Against Vijay Shah For Remarks On Colonel Sofiya Qureshi

The Supreme Court (May 15) refused to entertain a plea which sought directions to the Union and Madhya Pradesh Governments to take adverse action against BJP Minister Vijay Shah for his comments on Col. Sophiya Qureshi

The advocate mentioned that he has filed a letter petition seeking directions " to be given to the state or union government to take action against this kind of person."

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih refused to entertain the letter petition, considering that the matter is already being heard by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

CJI BR Gavai Deprecates Supreme Court Bar Association's Refusal To Hold Farewell For Justice Bela Trivedi

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai criticised the stand taken by the Supreme Court Bar Association in not offering a farewell for Justice Bela M Trivedi.

Presiding over a ceremonial bench held to honour Justice Bela Trivedi, who chose today as her last working day (her official date of retirement is June 9, 2025), CJI Gavai said, "I believe in speaking straightly, the Association ought not to have taken such a stand."

CJI Gavai, however, appreciated the presence of the SCBA President Kapil Sibal and SCBA Vice President Rachna Srivastava in the ceremonial bench proceedings.

Plea Filed Before Supreme Court For Military Nursing Service Officers' Entitlement As 'Ex-Servicemen' Post Retirement

Case Details: Archana Kumari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 16816-2025

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking entitlement as "ex-servicemen" for military nursery service (MMS) officers post-retirement, along with all consequential benefits.

Plea In Supreme Court Against Internship Requirement For Foreign Medical Graduates Affected By COVID, Ukraine War

Case Details: Association Of Doctors And Medical Students (ADAMS) v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 473/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging the requirement of compulsory additional internship of 1 or 2 years for foreign medical graduates affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and/or the Russia-Ukraine war.

A bench of Justice BR Gavai (now CJI) and Justice AG Masih passed the order.

India Not A 'Dharamshala', Can't Host Refugees From All Over: Supreme Court Rejects Sri Lankan Tamil's Plea

Case Details: Subaskaran @ Jeevan @ Raja @ Prabha v. State | Diary No. 21310-2025

India is not a "dharamshala" that can entertain refugees from all over the world, the Supreme Court orally observed, while refusing to interfere with the detention of a Sri Lankan Tamil national.

"Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore. This is not a Dharmshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over," Justice Dipankar Datta, the presiding judge of the bench, observed.

The bench, also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, was hearing a petition challenging the Madras High Court's order, which directed that the petitioner should immediately leave India as soon as his 7-year sentence, imposed in a UAPA case, got over.

Telangana Domicile Quota In MBBS Seats: Supreme Court To Hear On June 2

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

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on June 2, the challenge to the Telangana Domicile Quota Rule for MBBS Admissions.

PIL In Supreme Court Challenges Notification Of Jamshedpur As 'Industrial Township'; Seeks Constitution Of Municipal Corporation

Case Details: Jawaharlal Sharma v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 483/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging Jharkhand government's 2023 notification which declared Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) as an 'Industrial Township' and seeking constitution of a Municipal Corporation for the city.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, tagging the PIL with another similar case pending since 2018.

In response to a submission made by counsel for Tata Steel, Justice Kant said, "This is in continuation of earlier proceedings...now 2023 notification is being challenged...even if notification is not challenged, in our opinion, consequence will remain the same. If provision is struck down, how will notification survive? We are issuing notice."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging BCI's Fee Structure For All India Bar Exam

Case Details: Sanyam Gandhi v. Union Of India And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 288/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging the fees and other incidental charges of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan passed the order after the petitioner informed that pursuant to the Court's order in an earlier round of litigation, a representation was made to the Bar Council of India but no reply was received.

The matter is next listed on July 15.

Supreme Court Relaxes Restrictions On Adjournment Letters After SCAORA Request To CJI BR Gavai

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) issued a circular modifying its earlier restrictions on the circulation of adjournment letters. The relaxation came after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association made a request before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai.

'Muslim Minority's Apprehensions Genuine': Kerala Govt Approaches Supreme Court Opposing Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Case Details: In Re the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | W.P.(C) No. 269/2025

The State of Kerala has sought intervention in the batch of cases involving challenge to the constitutionality of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.

The State contends that the 2025 amendment deviated from the scope of the parent Act ie the Waqf Act, 1995. It further states that its Muslim population, having waqf properties, has "genuine apprehension" that the amendment would affect their fundamental rights under the Constitution and negate/alter the nature of their waqf properties.

"The State feels that the apprehension of the Muslim minority in Kerala that they are discriminated against in the matter of right to manage religious affairs, the waqf and waqf properties is genuine. Many of the provisions of the amendment Act are highly unjust and the Constitutional validity is doubtful", the plea states.

'Need To Show Strong Case For Interim Order': Supreme Court Hears Petitioners' Arguments To Stay Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (1)|W.P.(C) No. 276/2025

The Supreme Court heard for over three hours the petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 on the question of passing interim orders.

During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih orally observed that for a stay of the statute, a strong case has to be shown.

"There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, presumption of constitutionality will be there," CJI Gavai said.

Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Approaches Supreme Court To Modify Order Allowing UP Govt's Redevelopment Scheme

Case Details: Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court to modify its earlier decision where it permitted the Uttar Pradesh Government to use funds from the Shri Banke Bihari Temple (Vrindavan) for acquiring 5 acres of land around the temple for corridor development, on the condition that the acquired land shall be registered in the name of the deity.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Validity Of S. 50 & 63 Of PMLA On ED's Summoning Powers

Case Details: NSDPAY Technology Private Limited v. The Union of India & Anr | WP (Crl) 132/2025

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutional validity of S.50 and S.63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The plea states that the impugned provisions are violative of Articles 14, 20,21 and 300A of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih issued notice to the Union on the petition and tagged it with a similar matter (WP(Crl) 65/2023).

Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Against Union Withholding Funds Over Not Implementing NEP; Seeks Release Of Rs 2291 Crores

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India | Diary No. 28793/2025

The State of Tamil Nadu filed an original suit in the Supreme Court against the Union Government, alleging that the Centre was withholding funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme(SSS) over the non-implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 & PM SHRI in the State.

In the suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, the State sought a direction to the Union Government to pay it a sum of over Rs 2291 crores, which is said to be due under the SSS, along with future interest.

'Waqf Not An Essential Practice Of Islam': Centre Tells Supreme Court, Opposes Stay Of Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (1)|W.P.(C) No. 276/2025

The Supreme Court on May 21 heard for over three hours the arguments made by the Union Government opposing any interim stay of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the arguments.

Union's arguments

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that the Amendment Act was passed after detailed deliberations by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, which took the views of various stakeholders across the country.

"Waqf is an Islamic concept. But it is not an essential part of Islam..Waqf is nothing but just charity in Islam," SG argued. Charity is recognised in every religion, and it cannot be regarded as an essential tenet of any religion. SG next stated that Waqf Boards are performing secular functions.

"Waqf Board discharges only secular function. Managing properties, register maintenance, and auditing accounts. Purely secular. There is a power to regulate secular practices in a religion. Administration of property has to be in accordance with law." SG said. Therefore, having two non-Muslims on the Board will not affect any religious practice.

Supreme Court Stays Release Of Woman Air Force Officer Part Of Operations Sindoor & Balakot Who Was Denied Permanent Commission

Case Details: WG CDR Sucheta EDN v. Union Of India And Ors., Diary No. 28412-2024

A woman Indian Air Force Wing Commander, who reportedly participated in Operation Sindoor and Operation Balakot, has approached the Supreme Court assailing denial of Permanent Commission to her.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and while issuing notice, stayed her release from service, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Among other things, it was clarified that the order shall not create any equities in the officer's favor.

'Shed Your Egos': Supreme Court Pulls Up Naval Authorities Over Failure To Grant Permission Commission To Woman SSC Officer In JAG Branch

Case Details: Seema Chaudhary v. Giridhar Aramane And Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 496/2024 in R.P.(C) No. 1036/2023 in C.A. No. 2216/2022

The Supreme Court deprecated the Indian Navy's failure to grant Permanent Commission to a 2007 batch Short Service Commission woman officer in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, despite earlier observations to that effect in the matter.

Calling on the Naval authorities to grant PC to the petitioner-officer, the Court remarked that its asking of authorities to "consider" granting PC to the petitioner did not mean that the observations could be ignored.

The matter pertained to a woman officer-Seema Chaudhary who, despite about 5 rounds of litigation, had not been granted Permanent Commission by the Navy.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh listed the matter in the first week of July on the request of Senior Advocate Dr R Balasubramanian to seek instructions from the respondent-authorities.

Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala Moves Supreme Court Challenging SCBA Election Results 2025

Senior Advocate Dr Adish C Aggarwala, who had contested for the post of President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has filed an application in the Supreme Court challenging the SCBA 2025 election results on the ground of alleged irregularities.

Aggarwala mentioned the matter before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant today, saying that about 200 additional votes were polled illegally.

'Will Set Aside SCBA Election If Satisfied Of Allegations': Supreme Court On Plea Alleging Irregularities

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023

In a plea alleging irregularities in the concluded elections of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Supreme Court indicated that it will set aside the elections if satisfied that the allegations have merit.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh by Senior Advocate Dr Adish Aggarwala.

The mentioning was pursuant to an application filed by the ex-SCBA president in SCBA v. BD Kaushik case, where a bench of Justices Kant and KV Viswanathan is considering issues pertaining to reforms in the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Release Of Report Unclogging The Docket By Supreme Court

The Report 'Unclogging the Docket: Tackling Short, Infructuous and Old Cases' has been released by the Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court that shares transparently the sum total of the pendency project carried out at the Court between November, 2024- May, 2025.

Karnataka Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Direction To Release TDR To Royal Family Heirs Over Bangalore Palace Acquisition

A few days after the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka Government to release the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family in respect of the acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds, the State Government filed an application against the grant of TDR certificates.

The direction to release the TDR certificates was passed by a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar on May 22 in a batch of contempt petitions. Now, the State has filed an application against the release of such TDR certificates in a connected appeal, which has been pending since 1997.

Justice Yashwant Verma Issue: Supreme Court Rejects RTI Application For Inquiry Report & CJI's Letter To President & PM

The Supreme Court rejected an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, seeking a copy of the report submitted by the in-house inquiry committee in respect of the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma and also the letter written by the Chief Justice of India to the President and the Prime Minister while forwarding the said inquiry report to them.

The Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court rejected the application, submitted on May 9, by one Amritpal Singh Khalsa, saying that the information cannot be provided in view of the tests outlined in the Supreme Court's judgment in Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Reference was also made to Sections 8(1)(e) and 11(1) of the RTI Act.

Dr Subramanian Swamy Files PIL In Supreme Court Seeking Centre's Decision On National Monument Status For Ram Setu

Case Details: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union Of India And Others.

Former Rajya Sabha MP Dr Subramanian Swamy has moved the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Union government to timely decide his representation seeking National Monument status for Ram Setu bridge and a survey by the Geological Survey of India & the Archeological Survey of India in respect to Ram-Setu as an Ancient Monument of National Importance.

Filed in public interest, Dr Swamy's petition states that the Central Government is duty-bound to protect Ram-Setu from any form of misuse, pollution or desecration. "this archeological site is a matter of faith and shradha of people treating Ram-Setu as a pilgrimage", it says.

Notably, another petition filed by Dr Swamy, seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to find an alternative route for the Sethu Samundram Ship Channel project, so that the historic Ram Setu is not damaged due to dredging, etc., is pending before the Supreme Court. Under this project, an 83 km long channel was to be created linking Mannar and Palk Strait by extensive dredging. The project is alleged to have an impact on the Ram Setu.

Supreme Court Rejects Vidarbha Hockey Association's Challenge To Revocation Of Hockey India Membership; Reiterates 'One-State-One-Unit' Principle

Case Details: Vidarbha Hockey Association And Ors. v. Hockey India And Ors., Diary No. 24236-2025

"Hockey is an Olympic sport and under the Indian Olympic Association regulations, there can be only one association from one state," said the Supreme Court while refusing to entertain Vidarbha Hockey Association's plea for recognition as an associate-member of Hockey India and Indian Olympic Association.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta heard the matter and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the case, after hearing brief arguments.

The petitioner had invoked writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court praying that Hockey India and Indian Olympic Association associate it as an Associate-Member. Prior to this, the Bombay High Court had upheld Hockey India's decision revoking the petitioner's membership.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Seeking Compensation For Child Sex Abuse Victims Under POCSO Act

Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance & Ors. V. Union Of India & Ors. | WP (C) No. 516/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition for the implementation of the child victim compensation scheme for victims of crime, including victims of sexual abuse, addressing their distinct psychological, emotional, educational and financial needs under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

The notice has been issued to the Union, the Ministry of Law and Justice and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

The Court will hear the matter on August 18.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On Petition Challenging Waqf Act 1995

Case Details: Nikhil Upadhyay v. Union Of India W.P.(C) No. 502/2025

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 27) issued notice to the Union and the State Governments on a writ petition challenging the provisions of the Waqf Act 1995 and tagged it with an earlier petition challenging the 1995 Act.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the petition filed by one Nikhil Upadhyay challenging the 1995 Act.

Woman Judge Approaches Supreme Court Against Rejection Of Child Care Leave

A plea is filed by a lady Additional District Judge before the Supreme Court, challenging the rejection of her childcare leave.

MBBS Stipend | Supreme Court To Hear In July Plea Challenging Non-Payment Of Stipends To Medical Interns

The Supreme Court will hear in July the plea challenging the non-payment of stipends to doctors undergoing their MBBS internships.

Bangalore Palace Acquisition: Supreme Court Asks If It Can Hear Plea Against TDR Direction Of Another Bench; Places Matter Before CJI

Case Details: Sri Srikanta D N Wadiyar (D) By Lr. v. State Of Karnataka And Ors., C.A. No. 3303/1997

A 2-Judge bench of the Supreme Court placed before CJI BR Gavai Karnataka government's challenge to a direction for release of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates related to Bangalore Palace Grounds acquisition in favor of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family's heirs.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To IRDA On Plea Challenging Exclusion Of Epilepsy From Health Insurance

Case Details: Sanvedana Foundation v. Union Of India|W.P.(C) No. 501/2025

The Supreme Court (May 27) issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation on behalf of those who suffer from epilepsy and lack access to adequate healthcare and insurance coverage. The notice has been issued to the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA), which, through the Master Circular dated July 22, 2020, permanently excludes Epilepsy from being covered by health insurance. The petitioner has challenged this exclusion to be set aside as unconstitutional for violation of the rights of the Persons with Epilepsy ('PWE') under Articles 14 and 21.

Banke Bihari Temple | 'If State Enters Into Private Dispute, Rule Of Law Will Breakdown': Supreme Court Questions UP Govt

Case Details: Ishwar Chanda Sharma V The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors | Diary No. 28487-2025

The Supreme Court questioned the State of Uttar Pradesh how it could intervene in a private dispute related to the Shri Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan and "hijack" the litigation between private persons.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma orally remarked that if States start entering into the private disputes of the parties, the litigation would be "hijacked" and it would lead to the breakdown of rule of law.

The Court was hearing a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking to recall the Supreme Court's May 15 judgment which allowed Uttar Pradesh Government to utilise the temple funds for temple corridor redevelopment project. The judgment was passed in a civil appeal between private parties, in which the State intervened. Later, a temple devotee named Devendra Nath Goswami filed the present MA, seeking a recall of the judgment, contending that he was not heard.

Sometimes Bureaucrats Have Arrogance, Don't Want To Go Before HCs: Supreme Court On J&K Admn's Plea Against Show-Cause Notice

Case Details: Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir v. Kumar Nursery Qaimoh Kulgam And Ors., Diary No. 12875-2025

"Sometimes bureaucrats have arrogance, they don't want to go before High Courts", observed the Supreme Court while dealing with Jammu and Kashmir administration's grievance against J&K&L High Court's issuance of a show-cause notice against its officer(s) in a contempt case.

Briefly put, the plea was filed assailing two orders of the J&K&L High Court (one by a Single Bench and another by a Division Bench). The High Court had directed the authorities to consider paying within 2 months such amount as was admittedly payable to the respondents (contractors) for supply of plants.

When the payment was not made, the respondents had filed the contempt petition and a Single Judge issued show-cause notice to the UT administration.

'Grey Area Exists In Cryptocurrency Regulation; Existing Laws Obsolete': Supreme Court In Bitcoin Extortion Case

Case Details: Shailesh Babulal Bhatt v. The State Of Gujarat And Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 4036/2025

"There exists a grey area in the field of bitcoin/cryptocurrency regulation and the existing laws are completely obsolete. They cannot address this issue," said the Supreme Court while dealing with a case involving allegations of bitcoin extortion.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi was dealing with the plea of Gujarat-based Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, who is accused of cryptocurrency fraud across multiple states.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Assam's “Push-Back Policy”, Alleges Individuals Being Illegally Deported

Case Details: All B.T.C. Minority Students' Union (ABMSU) Kokrajhar, B.T.C. (Assam) v. Union of India &Anr.

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the 'push-back policy' of the Assam Government for tackling infiltration from Bangladesh.

As per the petition filed by All BTC Minority Students Association, the State Government is arbitrarily pushing genuine citizens to Bangladesh border without following due process under the guise of deporting illegal migrants.

Supreme Court To Hear Parents' Plea Against Fee Hike In Delhi Private Schools On Govt Lands

Case Details: Naya Samaj Parents Association v. Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools And Anr. | Diary No. 22050-2025

The Supreme Court on Thursday(May 29) issued notice to the Delhi Director of Education in a plea challenging the order of the Delhi High Court allowing the increase of fees by private unaided schools on government lands.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea by Naya Samaj Parents Association challenging two orders of the Delhi High Court, which have allowed private schools based on Government Lands to increase their fees without prior approval of the Director of Education, Delhi Govt.

The plea states that " Now private unaided Schools situated at Delhi have increased fees multifold mostly by up to 100% and taking penal actions against students, causing confusion and panic in the Delhi education."

Byju's Insolvency: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Riju Ravindran's Plea Against NCLAT Mandating CoC Nod For CIRP Withdrawal

Case Details: Riju Ravindran v. Pankaj Srivastava

The Supreme Court issued notice on an appeal 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 (trade name Byju's) needed approval from 90 percent of the Committee of Creditors.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar stated that the prayer for interim relief would be considered on the next date of hearing, 21 July 2025. The appeal has been filed by filed by Riju Ravindran, suspended director and promoter of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For Degrees To Fazil & Kamil Students Of Madarsas

Case Details: Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, U.P. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 503/2025

The Supreme Court sought responses from the Union and the State of Uttar Pradesh in a plea seeking directions to allow Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti Language University, Lucknow, to conduct exams, declare results and grant degrees for Kamil (graduate) and Fazil (post-graduate) students of recognized Madarsas.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandukar issued notice in the petition by Teachers Association Madaris Arabia and Haji Diwan Saheb Zama which sought directions to the State of UP to authorise Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti Language University, Lucknow to conduct exams and grant degrees for students pursuing graduation (Kamil) and Post-Graduation (Fazil) from recognised Madrasas courses in the State.