Home
/

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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: April 14, 2025 To April 20, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

23 April 2025 1:45 PM IST

Reports/Judgments

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 421

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 422

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 423

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 424

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 425

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 427

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 428

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 429

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 430

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 431

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 432

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 433

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 435

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 436

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC 437

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 438

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 439

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 440

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

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

Orders

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Rejects Plea That S.498A IPC/S.84 BNS Violates Article 14, Says Allegations Of Misuse Vague

Case Details: Janshruti v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 2152-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inter-alia balanced protection for all parties in matrimonial cases, mandatory preliminary investigation before filing of S.498A IPC/domestic violence cases and legal protection against false complaints.

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

Dismissing the PIL, the bench observed, "we see no reason to interfere with the legislative policy/mandate behind Section 498A IPC, now read as Section 84 of the BNS. The plea that such provision is violative of Art.14 is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Art.15 of the Constitution explicitly empowers to enact a special law for protection of women, children...The allegation that the provision is being misused is vague and evasive, as no opinion with respect thereto can be formed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Suffice it to observe that such an allegation can be examined on case-to-case basis."

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

Case Details: Anil Tuteja v. Directorate of Enforcement

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

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

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Slashing Toll To 20% On NH-44 Stretch; NHAI To Levy Toll At 75% Rate

Case Details: National Highway Authority of India v. Sugandha Sawhney and Ors.

The Supreme Court stayed Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's order directing an 80 percent reduction in toll-fee at the Lakhanpur and Bann Toll Plazas on National Highway–44, until the completion of construction on the Lakhanpur–Udhampur stretch. The High Court had observed that it was unfair to collect toll if the road was in a bad shape.

NH–44 is part of the North–South Corridor and stretches from Srinagar to Kanyakumari.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the interim order while issuing notice returnable on May 19, 2025 in an SLP filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the High Court order reducing toll charges.

Cascading Impact Of Royalty On Royalty: Supreme Court Grants Last Chance To Union To Furnish Proposal As Per 'Kirloskar' Decision

Case Details: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 715 of 2024

The Supreme Court granted one final opportunity to the Cabinet Secretariat to prepare a proposal in terms of its directions in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Union of India and place it before the Union Cabinet.

In the said decision, the Court had asked the Union to consider the cascading impact of royalty on royalty in the calculation of “average sale price” by virtue of Explanation(s) to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (MCR, 2016) and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 (MCDR, 2017).

"We propose to grant one last opportunity to the Cabinet Secretariat to prepare the appropriate proposal and place it before the Union Cabinet...We direct the Cabinet Secretariat to prepare the proposal within a period of four weeks from today and place it before the Union Cabinet to enable it to take an appropriate decision on the same", a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered.

Kerala RSS Member's Murder: Supreme Court Asks NIA To Approach Special Court/HC For Cancellation Of PFI Members' Bail

Case Details: Union of India and Anr. v. Sulaiman CT and Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to cancel the bail granted by the Kerala High Court to 18 members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) in the case for the murder of Rashtriya Swayamsewavak Sangh (RSS) member Srinivasan in Palakkad in April 2022.

The NIA sought the cancellation of the bail on the grounds that the accused persons had violated the bail conditions. A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice NK Singh observed that the Special Court or the High Court would be the more appropriate forum to consider the plea to cancel the bail. Therefore, while declining to entertain the Special Leave Petitions filed by the NIA, the bench granted the Agency the liberty to approach the Special Court or the High Court seeking cancellation of bail.

The bench noted that the High Court itself had reserved the liberty of NIA to apply for cancellation of bail if there was a violation of bail conditions.

Kancha Gachibowli | 'Come With Plan To Restore Those 100 Acres, Otherwise Officers Will Go To Prison': Supreme Court To Telangana Govt

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

In the matter pertaining to large-scale felling of trees in the Kancha Gachibowli area of Telangana, the Supreme Court expressed that restoration of status quo at the site will be the Court's first priority and the Wildlife Warden of the State shall take immediate steps to protect wildlife affected by the deforestation.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and posted it to May 15, following a submission by the state of Telangana that the latest CEC report was voluminous and the state would need some time to file reply.

"Pursuant to our order, the CEC has inspected the spot and submitted report. Dr Singhvi, appearing on behalf of respondent-state, states that report is voluminous and State would take some time to respond. Four weeks' time is granted to the state to file its reply. In the meantime, we direct the Wildlife Warden of Telangana to examine and put into effect immediate steps that are required to be undertaken to protect the wildlife which has been affected on account of the deforestation in the 100 acres", noted the order.

The Court further made it clear that in the meantime, not even a single tree should be fell in the subject area. It also warned Telangana authorities about sending its officers to a "temporary prison" if the state chooses to oppose restoration.

Does S.223 BNSS (Hearing Of Accused Pre-Cognizance) Apply To PMLA Cases If Investigation Began Before July 1, 2024? Supreme Court To Decide

Case Details: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court remarked that Section 223 (Examination of complainant) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides that the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint, is a beneficial provision to prevent unnecessary prosecutions.

Section 223 of the BNSS mandates that the Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses on oath. The first proviso states that no cognizance shall be taken without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.

Section 223 of BNSS replaces Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which did not mandate giving the accused an opportunity to be heard before cognizance was taken.

“This is actually a very salutary provision to avoid unnecessary prosecutions”, Justice Abhay Oka said.

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

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

The Supreme Court issued significant directions to all states and union territories, mandating them to take effective steps towards developing swift response protocols to ensure that victims of road accidents receive immediate assistance.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the growing concern of delayed medical help and rescue efforts for accident victims, calling it a matter of serious public interest.

The Court acknowledged that in many instances, accident victims may not be injured but remain trapped inside vehicles, highlighting the broader need for a comprehensive state response mechanism. While the applicant had suggested six heads of protocol, the Court refrained from issuing a writ of mandamus at this stage. However, it underscored the urgent need for action.

“We are of the view that the state governments and union territories must work on having swift response protocols, as in every state at grassroots level the situation may be different,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court directed all states and union territories to initiate steps within the next six months to create and implement such protocols, with the objective of ensuring that help reaches accident victims without delay. The respective governments have been asked to place their responses on record within the stipulated time.

In a related direction aimed at improving road safety, the Supreme Court also turned its attention to the working conditions of drivers of transport vehicles. Invoking provisions under Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Transport Workers Rules, 1961, which restrict drivers to 8 working hours per day and 48 hours per week, the Bench raised concerns about the implementation of these safeguards.

The Court directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to convene meetings with all state and union territory departments to formulate effective implementation strategies. The Ministry has also been tasked with collecting reports from the states and union territories on the implementation status of the working hour provisions.

Supreme Court To Consider Practising Muslim Man's Plea To Be Governed By Indian Succession Act Instead Of Shariat Law

Case Details: Naushad K K v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000205 / 2025

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court by a Muslim man seeking a declaration that he should be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of the Shariat law of inheritance.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea filed by the Petitioner-in-person Naushad KK.

Supreme Court Asks HC Committees To Examine Grievances Regarding VC Access To Lawyers & Litigants

Case Details: All India Association of Jurists v. High Court of Uttarakhand | W.P.(C) No. 941/2021

The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of petitions, originally filed during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking access to courtroom proceedings through virtual court links. The Court disposed of the petitions, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts and the various E-Committees constituted to deal with the issue.

The petitioner particularly pressed the issue that advocates and litigants, whose matter are not listed on a particular day, are unable to join the VC links provided in the causelist. He argued that the right to access virtual court hearings is a fundamental right.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta disposed of the petition, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts and the e-Committee of the various High Courts for this issue.

WB SSC Scam : Supreme Court Allows Untainted Class 9-12 Teachers To Continue Till Fresh Appointments; Sets Dec 31 Deadline

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

The Supreme Court allowed the Assistant Teachers of Classes 9 to 12 in West Bengal, whose appointments were cancelled due to the irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process but were specifically found to be untainted, till fresh appointments are made to the posts.

The consideration that students should not suffer prompted the Court to pass this order. At the same time, the Court declined to grant such relief to Group C and Group D employees, whose appointments were cancelled, as the number of tainted candidates in the said classes is substantially high.

However, this order is subject to the condition that the State of West Bengal and the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) complete the fresh recruitment process for the posts of Assistant Teachers of Classes 9 & 10, and 11 & 12 by December 31, 2025.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed the State and the SSC to publish the advertisements for the fresh recruitment process by May 31, 2025.

As Supreme Court Hints Stay, Centre Concedes On Waqf Amendments: Won't Appoint Non-Muslims, Status Quo On Declared Waqfs

Case Details: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 269/2025

In response to the petitions challenging the Waqf(Amendment) Act 2025, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta made the following statements before the Supreme Court :

1. Non-Muslims won't be appointed to Central Waqf Councils and State Waqf Boards in terms of the amended provisions during the hearing.

2. Waqfs, including waqf-by-user, whether declared by way of notification or registration, will not be de-notified till the next date of hearing.

The Court recorded the statement in its order as follows :

During the course of the hearing, Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General, stated that the respondents would like to file a reply/response within a period of seven days from today. He assures this Court that till the next date of hearing, no appointments would be made to the Central Waqf Council and the Waqf Boards in the States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, under Sections 9 and 14 respectively of the principal Act, that is, the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995,1 as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. He further states that if the Government of any State or the National Capital Territory of Delhi makes any such appointment(s), the same may be declared void.

It is also stated that till the next date of hearing, no Waqf, including a Waqf by user, whether declared by way of notification or by way of registration, shall be de-notified, nor will their character or status be changed."

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan posted the matter to May 5 at 2 PM for the next hearing. The Court also changed the cause title of the case as "In Re: Waqf Amendment Act."

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Filed By Kerala ADM Naveen Babu's Wife Seeking CBI Probe Into His Death

Case Details: Manjusha K v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 5548/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea filed by the wife of Naveen Babu, who was an Additional District Magistrate in Kerala, seeking a CBI probe into his death.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court order, which refused to order a CBI investigation.

'Clear Case Of Honour Killing': Supreme Court Applies Murder Charge, Criticises UP Courts For Invoking Lesser Offence

Case Details: Ayyub Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 13433/2024

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the Allahabad High Court and Trial Court for wrongly charging the case of an honour killing with the offence of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" instead of "murder".

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea by a petitioner named Ayyub Ali, whose 26-year-old son was killed by stick-beatings allegedly by his lover's family members.

The petitioner had challenged the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which allowed the police to apply the lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S. 304 IPC.

Supreme Court Asks Bombay HC If Plea Against Demolition Of Dargah Was Refused Urgent Listing

Case Details: Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Anr.

In an extraordinary move, the Supreme Court sought an explanation from the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court on an allegation that a petition, which was filed challenging the demolition notice issued by the Nashik Municipal Corporation against Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah, was refused urgent listing.

The Dargah management had filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court on April 7 against the demolition notice issued on April 1. The request for urgent listing was allegedly refused on April 9. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court claiming that the High Court was not listing the matter.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which considered the matter on April 16, expressed surprise at the situation.

“We are unable to understand what transpired from April 9 till today. Learned counsel submits that they have been trying every day to get the matter listed,” the bench remarked.

Noting the urgency of the matter, where a religious structure was at the risk of demolition, the bench passed an interim order staying the demolition notice.

Other Developments

Communist Party Of India Files Writ Petition In Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Communist Party of India, through its General Secretary D. Raja has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and the provisions inserted and omitted by it in the Waqf Act, 1995. The petition was filed on April 9 through advocate Ram Sankar.

It is contended that the Waqf Amendment Act violates the fundamental rights of about 50 lakh Muslims in Tamil Nadu and 20 crore Muslims in other parts of the country. Earlier, the CPI, in alliance with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), had supported a resolution dated 27 March, 2025 moved by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M.K. Stalin in the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu urging the Union Government to withdraw the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

Six States Approach Supreme Court Supporting Waqf Amendment Act 2025

In the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, the States of Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana and Maharashtra filed intervention applications in the Supreme Court supporting the legislation.

YSR Congress Party Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act

Case Details: Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party and Anr. v. Unioin of India

The Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on the ground that its provisions violate Articles 13, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

According to the party led by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, the amendment fundamentally weakens administration of waqfs, erodes the original legislative intent of the 1995 Act, and facilitates large-scale government interference in Muslim religious endowments.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Cancellation Of BPSC-Main 2025 Exam Over Alleged Paper Leak

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bihar Public Services Commission (BPSC) Exams 2025 over alleged paper leak.

Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC For Blaming Victim In Rape Case

Case Details: Case Title: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By High Court of Judicature At Allahabad In Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court took objection to an Allahabad High Court order which granted bail to a man accused of committing rape against a college student while observing that the victim had "herself invited trouble" and was "responsible" for the alleged act of rape.

For context, the victim alleged before the High Court that the accused, whom she met at a bar, raped her twice in his relative's apartment after she had agreed to go to his place to rest, as she was heavily intoxicated and needed support after consuming alcohol.

Supreme Court Slams Haryana Bar Associations Over Mismanagement, Considers Appointing Ex-Judge To Oversee Elections

Case Details: Sandeep Chaudhry v. Jagmal Singh Jatain and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7868-7869/2025

Taking into account certain "extremely disturbing allegations", the Supreme Court proposed setting up of an independent Tribunal to conduct Bar Elections in the State of Haryana.

Calling on the parties to suggest names for composition of the Tribunal, the Court gave time to the Haryana Bar to resolve its issues amicably. It also expressed that it will pass necessary orders on the judicial side if need be, and warned that in case cognizance is taken, a deeper investigation into the allegations would be directed.

"We are not reluctant and we will not hesitate in delivering the judgment on judicial side. If need be, we will do that. But as we said, as of now, we would like to avoid it. If something can happen amicably, in the sense that there can be an independent, impartial, neutral Tribunal to conduct the elections who can certify that everything has taken place in fair and transparent manner...the allegations which are coming are very disturbing. the allegations which are coming to us on administrative side are extremely disturbing. And if we take cognizance, there will be very serious ramifications. I never shut my eyes. I will bring everything on record, direct deeper investigation", said Justice Surya Kant.

'Exclude Non-Muslims From Waqf Act': Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Constitutionality Of Waqf Act 1995

Case Details: Hari Shankar Jain and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. WP (C)No. 269/2025

Amidst a slew of petitions against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the parent statute—the Waqf Act, 1995—on the ground that it confers undue benefits on Muslims and discriminates against non-Muslims.

Advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Mani Munjal, through AOR Parth Yadav, filed the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of Sections 3(r), 4, 5, 6(1), 7(1), 8, 28, 29, 33, 36,41,52,83,85,89,101 of the Waqf Act 1995. It is contended that these provisions violate the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 27 and 300A of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Proposes To Amend Its 2013 Rules, Invites Suggestions

Proposing to carry out amendments in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Supreme Court has issued a circular inviting suggestions/views from stakeholders in the justice delivery system.

The circular, which was uploaded on the Supreme Court website, states,

"the Supreme Court Rules Amendment Committee is in the process of considering certain amendments to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. In order to make the exercise an exhaustive one and finetune the existing Practice & Procedure, all stakeholders in the justice delivery system are requested to submit their suggestions/views in this regard, i.e., either having a bearing on the said Rules and/or the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging P&H Order Setting Aside EWS List For Punjab ADO Selection

Case Details: Harpreet Singh & Ors. v. Sikander Singh & Ors. (SLP Diary No. 12413/2025)

The Supreme Court on April 7 issued notice in a plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's direction to quash and re-draw the merit lists for General and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates in recruitments for Agriculture Development Officers.

The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar agreed to consider the challenge against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court, which quashed the merit list of Open and EWS candidates dated 17.07.2020 and directed the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) to redraw the lists by treating top-ranking EWS candidates as General candidates.

The decision has been challenged by a group of General category candidates whose selection, based on superior marks, was annulled. The challenge has been filed mainly on the ground that the impugned decision arbitrarily displaces meritorious candidates in the General Category and violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Questioning Delhi Police's Cremation Of Man As 'Unidentified' Despite Pending Missing Complaint

Case Details: Chacko Karimbil v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 255/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Delhi Police on a writ petition seeking effective measures, including mandatory biometric identification methods, for ensuring intimation of unidentified dead bodies to their family members before cremation/burial.

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

Sikh Person Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Says It Violates Secular Ethos Of Constitution

Case Details: Daya Singh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 337/2025

Daya Singh, a practising Sikh and the President of Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Gurgaon, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.

The petitioner, who claimed to be an advocate of inter-faith harmony and supporter of charitable endeavours across communities, contended that the amendments infringe upon his fundamental right to make charitable endowments across religious lines, a practice rooted in Sikh values and protected by the Constitution. He took particular exception to the Amendment taking barring non-Muslims from dedicating properties as Waqfs.

Lakshadweep MP Challenges Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Says It Violates Rights Of Scheduled Tribe Members Practising Islam

Mohammad Hamdullah Sayeed, a Member of Parliament from Lakshadweep, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

The petitioner raises a specific challenge to Section 3E inserted in the Waqf Act, 1995 through the 2025 Amendment. The said provision bars the creation of Waqf over properties in tribal areas covered under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution.

Waqfs Declared By Courts Shouldn't Be Affected: Supreme Court Proposes To Pass Interim Order On Waqf Amendment Act Challenge

While hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, the Supreme Court proposed to pass an interim order with the following directions :

1. The properties declared by Courts as Waqfs should not be de-notified as Waqfs, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed, while the Court is hearing the matter.

2. The proviso of the Amendment Act, as per which a Waqf property will not be treated as a Waqf while the Collector is conducting an inquiry on whether the property is a Government land, will not be given effect to.

3. All Members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.

Disturbed With Violence During Protests Against Waqf Amendment Act: Supreme Court

In the hearing on the constitutionality of the Waqf(Amendment) Act, 2025, the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, appealed to the people against resorting to violence.

"One thing is very disturbing, the violence taking place. Once the matter is before the Court... this should not happen...we will decide," CJI said.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna Nominates Justice BR Gavai As Next Chief Justice Of India

Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna (April 16) officially recommended the Centre to consider Justice BR Gavai for appointment as the 52nd Chief Justice of India.

Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Challenging Election Commissioners' Law On May 14

Case Details: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024

The Supreme Court postponed to May 14 the hearing of pleas challenging constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel appointing Election Commissioners.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan at serial No.33. Perceiving that it was unlikely to come up, Advocate Prashant Bhushan (on behalf of petitioner-Association for Democratic Reforms) made a mentioning and requested that the pleas may be listed next week. He stressed that the matter is covered by a Constitution Bench judgment (in the Anoop Baranwal case) and the hearing will not take much time.

Ultimately, the bench decided to cancel a special bench matter scheduled for May 14, in order to list and take up the present pleas on that day.

'When We Sit On Bench, We Lose Our Religion': CJI Refutes Argument That Non-Muslim Judges Can't Hear Waqf Amendment Act Challenge

While the Supreme Court was hearing on the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, a submission from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta related to the inclusion of non-Muslims in Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards drew a sharp response from the Court.

A bench comprising CJI, Justice Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the petitions challenging the 2025 Act.

During the hearing, the CJI questioned the provisions of the Amendment Act (Sections 9 and 14) allowing the nomination of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards. The CJI asked if Muslims could be included in the Boards governing Hindu religious endowments.

The SG also said that if the objection to the presence of non-Muslims in the statutory board is accepted, then the present Bench also would not be able to hear the matter.

"Then, your Lordships cannot hear this matter if we go by that logic," SG said.

This statement drew remarks from CJI Sanjiv Khanna: "No, sorry Mr. Mehta we are not talking just about adjudication. When we sit over here, we lose our religion, we are absolutely secular. For us, one side or the other side is the same. But then, when we are dealing with a Council looking after the religious affairs, issues may arise. Let's say, in a Hindu temple tomorrow, a receiver is to be appointed or there is an endowment trust ...all of them have Hindu are members of that Governing Board...How are you comparing it with judges, saying judges should be from different communities or background."

Various Instances Of Anti-Conversion Laws Being Weaponised By States: Citizens For Justice & Peace Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. WP(Crl) No. 428/2020

The Human Rights Organisation, Citizens for Justice and Peace has filed before the Supreme Court an application seeking interim relief with regards the 'weaponisation' of anti-conversion laws enacted various states in the Country.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of laws in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka dealing with religious conversions..

Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for the lead Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), submitted that an application has been made seeking interim relief in relation to the constant 'weaponisation' of the anti-conversion laws and sought notice to be issued in it.

Supreme Court To Consider Practising Muslim Man's Plea To Be Governed By Indian Succession Act Instead Of Shariat Law

Case Details: Naushad K K v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000205 / 2025

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court by a Muslim man seeking a declaration that he should be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of the Shariat law of inheritance.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea filed by the Petitioner-in-person Naushad KK.

Supreme Court Proposes Inquiry Into Sports Federations, Says 'They Have Everything Except Sportspersons & Activities'

Case Details: Priyanka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) 93/2025

Lamenting the state of affairs in Sports Federations across India, the Supreme Court expressed an intention to constitute a Commission to enquire into their activities.

"Unless, to our satisfaction, a deeper probe is held into affairs of this so-called Federation...we are inclined to appoint a Commission of Inquiry...and not only this Federation, we will expand the scope (to other national, international, state federations). Whatever is happening is most unfortunate thing. Other than sportsperson and sports activity, everything is there. This is not acceptable...if the Union will do, we will welcome that, otherwise we know our...", conveyed Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and NK Singh was dealing with a writ petition filed by 2 women players, Priyanka and Pooja, seeking permission to participate in the Senior Asian Kabbadi Championship 2025 (Women) held in Iran from February 20 to 25. Their participation was met with difficulty as the Amateur Kabbadi Federation of India (AKFI) was suspended by the International Kabbadi Federation on the ground that it was not being managed by an elected body.

Supreme Court Expresses Reluctance To Transfer From HCs Petitions Challenging Anti-Conversion Laws Of States

Case Details: Jamiat Ulama-E-Hind Gujarat and Ors. v. State of Gujarat | Diary No. – 3670/2023

While the CJI relisted the matter for consideration in the week commencing 21 July, he also verbally observed that since these laws are passed by different states, they may have different provisions and terminology used, and hence, it would not be appropriate to transfer them directly to the Apex Court.

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Challenging Telangana HC Order Which Upheld Law Officers' Termination From Service After Govt Change

Case Details: Yendala Pradeep and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7524/2025

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging Telangana High Court's order which upheld discontinuation of the services of certain law officers of the state after change in the government noting that the appointment of law officers shall be subject to pleasure of the government.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, which posted it to May 5, considering the state counsel's request for time to take fresh instructions.

Supreme Court Gives Time To Union & ECI For Response On Challenge To Conduct Of Election Rules

Case Details: Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 18/2025

The Supreme Court (April 17) granted two-week extension to the Union and the Election Commission of India (ECI) for filling its response to the challenge to the recent amendment to the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961, which restricts public access to polling footage and records.

The Court also clarified that the present plea would not bar the High Courts from adjudicating any petitions filed there challenging the recent electoral amendments.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Rajya Sabha MP and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the recent amendment to the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 on the ground that it prohibits the public disclosure of the CCTV footage of polling and other relevant records.

'Atrocious, Violates Human Rights': Supreme Court Questions Foreign Court's Order Imposing Travel Ban On Minor Child

Case Details: X v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of a foreign Court order which imposed a travel ban on a child whose parents were involved in a matrimonial dispute, saying that such orders are "atrocious", violative of human rights and amount to house arrest.

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a habeas corpus matter, where the petitioner-father sought custody of his son, alleging that his ex-wife took the child from the family's Dubai residence without his knowledge. Statedly, he had obtained an order from a Dubai court imposing a travel ban on the son.

Forensic Report On Alleged Audio Tapes Of Ex-Manipur CM Biren Singh Ready, Centre Tells Supreme Court

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

The Central Government informed the Supreme Court that the forensic report on the authenticity of audio clips allegedly incriminating former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh for the role in the ethnic violence in the State was ready and would be filed before the Court in a sealed cover.

Taking note of the submission, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar adjourned the matter to the week commencing on May 5.

Criminal Contempt Action Sought Against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey For Remarks Against Supreme Court & CJI

A letter has been sent to the Attorney General for India seeking sanction to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his remarks against the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

As per the letter sent by an Advocate-on-Record, Dubey said that the "Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy" and that "Chief Justice of India Sanijv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country." The comments were made taking objection to the Supreme Court setting timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

It was also alleged that Dubey made communally polarising statements in the context of the Court's intervention in the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act.

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: April 14, 2025 To April 20, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Reports/Judgments

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 421

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 422

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 423

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 424

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 425

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 427

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 428

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 429

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 430

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 431

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 432

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 433

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 435

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 436

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC 437

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 438

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 439

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Orders

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

Case Details: Janshruti v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 2152-2025

Case Details: Anil Tuteja v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case Details: National Highway Authority of India v. Sugandha Sawhney and Ors.

Case Details: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 715 of 2024

Case Details: Union of India and Anr. v. Sulaiman CT and Ors.

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

Case Details: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

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

Case Details: Naushad K K v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000205 / 2025

Case Details: All India Association of Jurists v. High Court of Uttarakhand | W.P.(C) No. 941/2021

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

Case Details: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 269/2025

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

Case Details: Manjusha K v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 5548/2025

Case Details: Ayyub Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 13433/2024

Case Details: Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Other Developments

Case Details: Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party and Anr. v. Unioin of India

Case Details: Case Title: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By High Court of Judicature At Allahabad In Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

Case Details: Sandeep Chaudhry v. Jagmal Singh Jatain and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7868-7869/2025

Case Details: Hari Shankar Jain and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. WP (C)No. 269/2025

Case Details: Harpreet Singh & Ors. v. Sikander Singh & Ors. (SLP Diary No. 12413/2025)

Case Details: Chacko Karimbil v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 255/2025

Case Details: Daya Singh v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 337/2025

Case Details: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024

Case Details: Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. WP(Crl) No. 428/2020

Case Details: Naushad K K v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000205 / 2025

Case Details: Priyanka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) 93/2025

Case Details: Jamiat Ulama-E-Hind Gujarat and Ors. v. State of Gujarat | Diary No. – 3670/2023

Case Details: Yendala Pradeep and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7524/2025

Case Details: Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 18/2025

Case Details: X v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

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

Tags