Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: July 14, 2025 to July 20, 2025

Reports/Judgments

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 693

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Vibhor Garg v. Neha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 694

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 695

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 696

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 697

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 698

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 699

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 700

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 701

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 702

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

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State Of Tamilnadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 703

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 704

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 705

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 706

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 707

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

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

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

Case Details: Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 708

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 709

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 711

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 713

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

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

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

Case Details: N v. R

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 714

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 715

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 716

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 717

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

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

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

Case Details: Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 718

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 719

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 720

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 721

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 722

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 723

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 724

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 725

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 726

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 727

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 728

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 729

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 730

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 731

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

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

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

Orders

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

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

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

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Extension Of Ban On SIMI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Details: Hemant Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Orders Sealing Of Illegal Chandni Chowk Properties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Developments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court To Hear Shiv Sena Election Symbol Dispute In August

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by 10 convicts alleging that judgments on their criminal appeals, though reserved, have not been pronounced by the Jharkhand High Court despite lapse of 2-3 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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