Home
/

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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: April 07, 2025 to April 13, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

17 April 2025 9:25 AM IST

Reports/Judgments

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 398

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 399

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

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Amritpal Jagmohan Sethi v. Haribhau Pundlik Ingole

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 400

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 401

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 402

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 403

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 404

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 405

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 406

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 407

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 408

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 409

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 410

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 411

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 412

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 413

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 414

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 415

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 416

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 418

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 419

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

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

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

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

Also from the judgment –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 420

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

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

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

Orders

'Breakdown Of Rule Of Law': Supreme Court Slams UP Police Trend Of Converting Civil Disputes Into Criminal Cases

Case Details: Debu Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 3620/2025

The Supreme Court (April 7) expressed displeasure at the recurrent instances of civil disputes being turned into criminal cases by the Uttar Pradesh Police and termed it a 'complete breakdown of the Rule of Law'. It also warned that costs may be imposed on the State of UP if such a practice continued

The Court also directed the Director General of Police, UP, to file an affidavit on the steps taken to comply with the directions of the Court in Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Court held it mandatory for the Investigating Officer to ensure that the chargesheet contains clear and complete entries.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner accused of criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking 100% Manual Counting Of EVM-VVPAT Slips In Elections

Case Details: Hans Raj Jain v. Election Commission of India | Diary No. 1865-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to conduct 100% manual counting of VVPAT slips apart from the electronic counting done through the control unit.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by the petitioner-in-person , Hans Raj Jain.

Does The Term 'Regulate' In S. 79(1) Electricity Act Cover Regulation Of Trade In Electricity Industry? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Details: PTC India Limited v. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, SLP(C) No. 5276/2023

In the context of certain clauses of Section 79(1), Electricity Act 2003, the Supreme Court is set to consider the issue as to whether the word "regulate" used therein is limited to framing of regulations or subordinate legislation, or can it extend to regulation of trade in the electricity industry.

"Our attention is drawn to paragraphs 53 to 55 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in “PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, through Secretary” and it is submitted that clauses (b), (c) and (f) to Section 79(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which use the expression, “regulate”, is not only restricted to framing or making of regulations or subordinate legislation, but to regulate trade in the electricity industry itself. The present matter requires consideration", a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted in its order.

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

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

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

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

The Court held it is not the function of the courts to do moral policing and disapproved of the High Court's comment comparing the contribution made by the priest with Dadlani and Poonawala's contribution.

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

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

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

Notably, the Apex Court on April 3 had upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court, which invalidated nearly 25000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission (SSC) in 2016. However, it had clarified that it would separately hear the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of West Bengal against the High Court's direction for CBI investigation into the supernumerary posts.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain TN Govt Plea To Transfer TASMAC-ED Matter From Madras High Court

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Directorate of Enforcement T.P.(Crl.) No. 309/2025 & TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement T.P.(Crl.) No. 306-307/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) seeking to transfer from the Madras High Court the petitions filed by them against the searches of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the TASMAC offices.

When the matter was taken, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna expressed the view that the matters should be decided by the Madras High Court itself. "Let it be decided there," CJI Khanna said. The State and the TASMAC had sought the transfer to the Supreme Court stating that certain petitions seeking guidelines against search of devices and gadgets were pending in the Supreme Court. Regarding this argument, CJI Khanna said that those petitions pertained to the seizure of devices from journalists, where the claim of privacy stands on a higher threshold.

Supreme Court Directs Delhi Municipal Corporation To Launch Awareness Campaign On Duties of Waste Generators

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to start a massive awareness campaign to inform the public about the duties of waste generators under Rule 4 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.

Rule 4 of the 2016 Rules outlines the duties of waste generators, including residents, street vendors, gated communities, market associations, and institutions with areas exceeding 5,000 square meters. It mandates segregation of waste into biodegradable, non-biodegradable, and domestic hazardous waste; proper disposal of construction and horticultural waste; and prevention of illegal dumping, burning, or burying of solid waste. It also requires waste generators to pay user fees and follow other specified obligations.

"We direct MCD to start massive awareness campaigns about the duties of various stakeholders under Rule 4 of 2016 Rules by making advertisements in media both traditional, electronic and social media platforms", the Court directed.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka HC Order Which Directed Personal Presence Of BCI Secretary, Jt. Secretary

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. S. Basavaraj and Ors., SLP(C) No. 20647/2024

The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court directing personal presence of the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Bar Council of India before it.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, stating,

"In the circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have graciously accepted the apology and affidavit of the Secretary of the Bar Council, rather than summoning his presence from Delhi to Bangalore. In that view of the matter, the impugned order, insofar as it directs the presence of the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the BCI shall stand quashed and set aside."

While a connected transfer petition was dismissed, the Court further observed that the writ petition pending before the High Court shall proceed in accordance with law.

The proceedings arose out of a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate S Basavaraj before the Karnataka High Court seeking inter-alia a direction to Karnataka State Bar Council and the concerned Returning Officer to forthwith conduct elections for the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Supreme Court Calls Fresh Report From Union, Bihar Govts On Steps Taken To Remove Illegal Encroachments From Ganga River Banks

Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sinha v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3367/2020

In a matter pertaining to illegal encroachments on Ganga River banks, the Supreme Court called for a report from the Union government and the Bihar government detailing the current position of encroachments as well as the steps taken to remove them.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed the order, stating,

"We would like to know what steps have been taken by the authorities to remove all such encroachments over the banks of river Ganga...We would also like to know how many such encroachments are still there as on date on the banks of the river and in what manner authorities propose to remove all such encroachments & within what period of time."

At the same time, the order also gave liberty to appellant-Ashok Kumar Sinha, a resident of Patna, to apprise about the current position.

Only Bombay HC Should Hear Cases Related To New Bombay HC Land: Supreme Court Transfers Cases From Other Courts

Case Details: In Re: Heritage Building of The Bombay High Court and Allotment of Additional Lands For The High Court, SMW (C) No. 5/2024

In the suo moto case involving the issue of additional land allotment for Bombay High Court's new complex, the Supreme Court was informed that out of an area of 4.09 acres, which was to be handed over by March 31, 1.94 acres has been handed over and the remaining (2.15 acres) shall be transferred by April 30.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and posted it to July, while appreciating the efforts made by the state government towards expediting handing over of the possession of the land for construction of the new building.

Considering that there may be multiple proceedings over the remaining tranche of land, thus protracting transfer of its possession, the bench further directed consolidation of all proceedings related to the subject matter before the Bombay High Court.

Supreme Court Slams Centre For Not Framing Scheme For Cashless Treatment Of Road Accident Victims, Summons MoRTH Secretary

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

The Supreme Court (April 9) pulled up the Central Government for failing to frame a scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims during the “golden hour” – the one-hour period immediately after an accident, as mandated under Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court said, “According to us this is a very serious breach and violation of not only orders of this court, but it is a case of failure to implement a very beneficial provision in the statute.”

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan summoned the Secretary of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to appear before it on April 28, 2025, to explain the default.

Is Sanction u/s 17A PC Act Needed When Magistrate Has Ordered Investigation u/s 156(3) CrPC? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

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

While reserving judgment in one of the cases against former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), the Supreme Court identified certain questions of law, including whether after a Magistrate has ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would a prior sanction of the Government be still required under Section 17A of the PC Act.

In the last few hearings, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra has contemplated the submissions made by the petitioners, including by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, that a prior sanction would still be required under Section 17A to proceed with the order of investigation.

FSSAI Proposes Star Rating System For Nutrition Content In Food Products; Supreme Court Asks Expert Committee To Submit Its Report

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

The Supreme Court directed an Expert Committee constituted by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to submit its report on the amendments proposed by the FSSAI to introduce a star-rating labelling regarding the nutrition content of food products.

The Court was dealing with a PIL seeking the implementation of Front-of-Package Warning Labels (FOPL) on packaged foods so that the customers can know about the sugar, salt and fat contents.

The Union Government informed the Court about the proposal to amend the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2022.

Disposing of the PIL, while directing compliance with its directions within 3 months, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered,

"We dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Expert Committee to prepare its recommendation and submit a Report in that regard at the earliest so that relying on the report, the necessary amendments can be given effect to. Let this exercise be taken within a period of three months from today."

Other Developments

'Unconstitutional Assault On Religious Autonomy': IUML Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Joining the list of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Indian Union Muslim League, a political party, has filed an Article 32 writ petition challenging the Act on grounds of violating Article 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

The Act is challenged as an "unconstitutional assault on the religious autonomy and personal rights of the Muslim community in India."

It is contended that the Act imposes arbitrary restrictions and enhances state control on Islamic religious endowments, deviating from the religious essence of waqf.

Supreme Court Of India Signs MoU With Supreme Court Of Nepal On Judicial Cooperation

The Supreme Court of India has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Supreme Court of Nepal to develop, promote and strengthen the judicial cooperation between the two countries.

The MoU was signed in the presence of Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut, Chief Justice of Nepal and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Chief Justice of India.

DMK Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Says It Affects Rights Of About 20 Crore Muslims

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the political party in power in the State of Tamil Nadu, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.

The petition has been filed through the DMK's Deputy General Secretary A. Raja, Lok Sabha MP, who was also a Member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf Bill. The writ petition was settled by Senior Advocate P Wilson, who is also a Rajya Sabha MP belonging to the DMK.

The petitioner contended that the Amendment Act violates the fundamental rights of about 50 lakh Muslims in Tamil Nadu & 20 crore Muslims in other parts of the country. On March 27, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had passed a resolution urging the Union Government to withdraw the Waqf Amendment Bill.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks FIR, Derecognition Of MNS Over Raj Thackeray's Alleged Hate Speech Against Hindi-Speakers

Case Details: Sunil Shukla v. Union of India & Ors.

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking action against President of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena Raj Thackeray and other MNS members for multiple instances of alleged hate speech, targeted violence, and threats against North Indians in Maharashtra who don't speak Marathi.

The petition has been filed by one Sunil Shukla, a Mumbai resident and President of a registered political party in Maharashtra named Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena.

The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Sriram Parakkat, alleges multiple instances of hate speech against Shukla and other Hindi-speaking persons, and seeks registration of FIR against Thackeray as well as direction to Election Commission of India (ECI) to derecognise MNS.

NGO APCR Files Petition In Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act

Following several petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the NGO Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the law as violating Articles 14, 25, 26 and 300A of the Indian Constitution.

The petition terms the new Act as an "alarming interference" into the religious affairs of the Muslim community, thereby diluting the fundamental purpose of waqf, which is deeply rooted practice in Quranic references and the Hadith since the time of Prophet Mohammad.

'Peace Process Ongoing': Supreme Court Adjourns PIL Alleging Killing Of Innocents During Chhattisgarh Anti-Naxal Operations

Case Details: Civil Liberties Committee (Telangana State) Rep. By General Secretary v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 193/2018

In a public interest litigation accusing security forces in Chhattisgarh of killing 15 innocent Adivasis at Sukma (in 2018), the Supreme Court noted that attempts at peace are being made in the area and the Court's intervention at this point might unnecessarily come in the way of the same.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih briefly heard the matter and adjourned it to July, after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that the petitioner had made false claims.

Homebuyers File Review Petition Against Supreme Court Judgment Holding Greater Noida Industrial Authority A 'Secured Creditor' Under IBC

Case Details: Blossom Zest Flat Buyers Welfare Association v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Ors.

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its judgment dated February 12, 2024 which classified Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as a 'secured creditor' for the purposes of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Filed by a homebuyers' association, the plea states that the impugned judgment has led the National Company Law Tribunal to send back many resolution plans to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration on the ground that the same do not treat Noida/Greater Noida as 'secured creditor'.

'Singles Out Muslim Endowments For Govt Intrusion': RJD MP Manoj Jha Approaches Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Two Members of Parliament from Rashtriya Janta Dal, representing the State of Bihar, Dr Manoj Kumar Jha and Faiyaz Ahmad, have filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on grounds of violation of Articles 1, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A of the Constitution.

The Petitioners contend that these amendments fundamentally weaken the administration of waqfs, erode the original legislative intent of the 1995 Act, and facilitate largescale government interference in Muslim religious endowments.

The petitioners have challenged Clauses 2A, 3(v), 3(vii), 3(ix), 4, 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(f), 6(a), 6(c), 6(d), 7(a)(ii), 7(a)(iii), 7(a)(iv), 7(b), 8(ii), 8(iii), 8(iv), 9, 11, 12(i), 14, 15, 16, 17(a), 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21(b), 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28(a), 28(b), 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39(a), 40, 40A,41, 42, 43(a), 43(b), and 44 of the 2025 Act.

It has been stated that the most radical change is the elimination of "waqf by user" in Section 3(r).

If ED Claims To Have Fundamental Rights, It Should Worry About Fundamental Rights Of Others Too: Supreme Court

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

The Supreme Court questioned the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for filing a writ petition seeking transfer of the corruption case (predicate offence) arising out of the 2015 Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam out of Chhattisgarh.

Under Article 32, a writ petition can be filed before the Supreme Court by individuals for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

Justice Oka said to Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, “In lighter vein we are telling you, if you claim that ED has fundamental rights, you should be worried about fundamental rights of others also.”

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan disposed of the petition after Raju sought to withdraw it.

Minor Victim's Mother Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Allahabad HC's Controversial Ruling On Rape Attempt

Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance and Anr. v. Akash and Ors., Diary No. 15692-2025

The Allahabad High Court's controversial ruling - which held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of attempt to rape - has been challenged in the Supreme Court by the mother of the victim girl.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had suo motu stayed the High Court's decision - which caused a massive public outrage online - after observing that the HC depicted a total lack of sensitivity.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih considered the petition filed by the complainant (victim's mother) along with an organisation named "Just Rights For Children Alliance", challenging the Allahabad High Court order.

Supreme Court Notifies Next AoR Exam In June 2025

The Supreme Court notified that the next examination for the Advocates-on-Record will be held at New Delhi on 16th, 17th and 21st June, 2025.

Applications can be submitted for the AoR exam-2025 till 5 PM, April 30, 2025.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Wikimedia's Plea Against Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page On ANI's Defamation Case

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

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a petition filed by Wikimedia Foundation against the High Court's take down order for the page titled “Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation”.

"Prima facie what we feel is, we are not saying that Court is powerless to direct that some content should be removed. But there has to be first a prima facie finding recorded with reasons that what is published in contemptuous. So condition precedent is a prima facie finding giving reasons why it amounts to contempt", Justice Abhay Oka observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the plea.

'Manifestly Arbitrary': SP MP Zia UR Rehman Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Samajwadi Party leader Zia Ur Rehman, member of Parliament from Sambhal in Lok Sabha, has filed a writ petition challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on the grounds that it is "manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires" of the Constitution. It is contended that the Act violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by introducing unreasonable and discriminatory classification without any intelligible differentia or rational nexus.

Furthermore, the petition states that the 2025 Amendment Act impinges upon the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution by interfering with the freedom of conscience and the right to manage religious affairs. It also deprives individuals of their property without the authority of law, hence violating Article 300A.

Supreme Court To Consider Plea To Review NAAC Gradings Of Colleges/Universities In Last 5 Years

Case Details: Nostro Destina Foundation v. National Assessment and Accreditation Council & Or | Writ Petition (Civil) No . 256 of 2025

The Supreme Court (April 9) issued notice in a PIL seeking measures to ensure fair and transparent grading by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council ("NAAC") of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by an NGO, Bistro Destino Foundation.

As per the plea, concerns have been raised over the transparency of the grading process by NAAC. It stated that "an audit done by GAG in March 2023 revealed glaring discrepancies in NAAC's assessment processes."

All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Bangalore Jama Masjid Imam Approach Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Mohamed Maqsoon Imran, chief imam of Jamia Masjid, Bengaluru City, has filed a writ petition challenging the Waqf(Amendment) Act, 2025 on the grounds that it violates Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution by completely altering the character and essence of the waqf, which is a form of permanent dedication of movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable.

It is stated that the amendments distort the religious character of waqfs while also irreversibly damaging the democratic process in the administration of waqfs and waqf Boards.

Manipur MLA From NDA Ally Challenges Waqf Amendment Act In Supreme Court; Says It Violates Fundamental Rights Of Scheduled Tribes

Case Details: Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Union of India & Ors.

Sheikh Noorul Hassan, Manipur MLA from Kshetrigao constituency and the leader of National People's Party India (NPP) party in Manipur Legislative Assembly approached the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.

Notably, NPP is an ally of the BJP as a member of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

The petitioner in the plea has raised a concern over the amendment depriving Scheduled Tribes(STs) practising Islam from giving their property in Waqf. This violates their fundamental right to practise their religion, he contends.

'JPC On Waqf Bill Violated Parliamentary Procedures': TMC MP Mahua Moitra's Plea In Supreme Court

Mahua Moitra, Member of Parliament from Krishnanagar in Lok Sabha, has challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on the grounds, inter alia, that the Parliamentary rules and practices were violated during the law-making process, contributing to the unconstitutionality of the 2025 Act.

This is the first petition out of the many filed so far where it has been contended that the Chairperson of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) flouted the parliamentary rules and practices both at the stage of consideration and adoption of the draft report of the JPC on the Bill and at the stage of presentation of the said report before the Parliament.

The petitioner states that the draft report of the JPC was circulated to the members of the Committee only on January 28, a day before it was to be considered final for adoption on January 29. It is averred that this made it "practically impossible to read [the report]".

J&K Apni Party Files Intervention Application Challenging Waqf Amendment Act In Supreme Courts

The Jammu and Kashmir Apni Party has approached the Supreme Court, by virtue of an intervention application, challenging the passed Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. The party under the leadership of Syed Mohammad Altaf Bukhari, has urged the court to examine the constitutional validity of the law.

The said application is filed under Order 1 Rule 8A of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which empowers the court to permit a person or body of persons to participate in proceedings when they have a direct and substantial interest in a question of law raised before the court.

It is submitted by the petitioners that the new amendments undermine the very spirit of Waqf institutions that have traditionally managed and protected the religious endowments within the Muslim community.

TVK President & Tamil Actor Vijay Approaches Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) President and actor Vijay has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.