Reports/ Judgements

Passing Of Any Law By Parliament Or State Legislature Can't Be Held To Be Contempt Of Court : Supreme Court

Case Title: NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF CHATTISGARH, WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 662

While closing the 2007 Salwa Judum case, the Supreme Court recently observed that any law made by the Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of Court.

"We also observe that the passing of an enactment subsequent to the order of this Court by the legislature of the State of Chhattisgarh cannot, in our view, be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by this Court...The promulgation simpliciter of an enactment is only an expression of the legislative function and cannot be said to be an act in contempt of a Court unless it is first established that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally or otherwise", said a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma.

While rejecting a plea that State of Chhattisgarh's enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 amounted to contempt of Court, the Court opined that every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and such an enactment continues to have the force of law unless it is declared ultra vires of the Constitution by a constitutional Court.

While Courts can address interpretative doubts and questions regarding validity of such enactments, "the interpretative power of a Constitutional Court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a Court", it said.

Supreme Court Closes Salwa Judum Case After 18 Yrs; Rejects Plea That Chhattisgarh's New Law On Auxiliary Security Force Was Contempt Of Court

Case Title: NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF CHATTISGARH, WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 662

After 18 long years, the Supreme Court has disposed of the petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar (and others) highlighting human rights violations by security forces and Salwa Judum activists in Chhattisgarh.

In 2011, taking note of the human rights violations, the top Court delivered a landmark judgment directing that the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs - engaged either as 'Koya Commandos', Salwa Judum or any other force - to tackle the insurgency problem in the state.

However, two writ petitions and one contempt petition relating to the matter remained pending before the Supreme Court. Recently, the Court disposed of all three cases. While the writ petitions were disposed of based on a view that the prayers sought therein stood crystallized in the Court's judgment of 2011, the contempt prayers were seen as seeking writs of mandamus, which could not be granted under contempt jurisdiction.

The Court reiterated that a state enactment continues to have the force of law unless it is declared ultra vires of the Constitution by a constitutional Court. While Courts can address interpretative doubts and questions regarding validity of such enactments, "the interpretative power of a Constitutional Court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a Court", it said.

The Court also noted, "We must remember that central to the legislative function is the power of the legislative organ to enact as well as amend laws. Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a Court, including this Court, for simply making the law."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Son's Plea Against Mother's Detention By Assam Police For 'Push Back' To Bangladesh

Case Title: IUNUCH ALI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 234/2025

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a habeas corpus petition assailing Assam Police's "illegal detention" of a woman amidst reports of widescale deportation to Bangladesh.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of the woman's 26-year-old son (the petitioner).

'Go To HC': Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging Assam Govt's 'Pushback Policy' To Tackle Infiltration From Bangladesh

Case Title: ALL B.T.C. MINORITY STUDENTS UNION (ABMSU) Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 562/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging Assam government's 'push-back policy' for tackling infiltration from Bangladesh.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.

During the brief hearing, Justice Sharma told Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde (for petitioner), "69 people are being deported, please go to the Guwahati High Court". When the bench expressed an inclination to dismiss the case, Hegde sought permission to withdraw it with liberty to approach the High Court. Ultimately, the case was dismissed as withdrawn.

Two Journalists Move Supreme Court Against Alleged Beating By Madhya Pradesh Police Over Reports On 'Sand Mafia'

Case Title: Shashikant Jatav and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Two journalists have moved the Supreme Court against alleged beating by Madhya Pradesh police officials over their reports on a 'sand mafia'.

It may be recalled that in May this year, journalists Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan from Bhind, MP alleged that they were manhandled inside the office of the Superintendent of Police. They have now approached the Supreme Court seeking protection from coercive action as well as action against the concerned police officials.

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Standard Chartered Bank Over Share Escrow Agreement Dispute

Case : Standard Chartered Bank v State of Karnataka and others, Starship Equity Holding Ltd v State of Karnataka and othes

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 661

The Supreme Court recently quashed a First Information Report registered against the Standard Chartered Bank and Starship Equity Holding Ltd in relation to a share escrow agreement between two entities.

The Court observed that the criminal case against the bank was a "gross abuse of the process of law."

The Escrow and Settlement Transaction Agreement was entered into in 2007 between Corsair and Katra, and Standard Chartered Bank, Mauritius. The Respondent-Victor Program Pvt Ltd agreed to sell 13455 shares of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank unconditionally and irrevocably to the entities identified by Corsair for Rs. 32,53,68,810/-

Supreme Court Allows Disabled Rape Survivor To Seek Medical Care From AIIMS

Case Details: XYZ v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.| Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 224/2025

The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Union Government and directed that the petitioner, who is a physically challenged woman and who was brutally gangraped, to seek immediate medical treatment at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, or any suitable hospital.

"In case, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks immediate medical attention for the petitioner herein, then the respondent(s) will assist the petitioner/petitioner's counsel in seeking immediate medical treatment, if necessary, by getting the petitioner admitted in AIIMS, New Delhi or any other suitable hospital.”

In this case, a petition has been filed seeking immediate access to adequate and free medical care and treatment for the petitioner, who is a physically disabled person. As per the brief facts, during her treatment involving a burn incident, she sought shelter and medical aid from the Khambra Church in Jalandhar. She booked an online cab to shift from the civil hospital, where she was being treated for the burn injuries, to the Church.

NEET-PG 2025 Postponed, To Be Conducted In One Shift As Per Supreme Court's Order

Postponing the NEET-PG 2025 Exam, the National Board of Education has today clarified that the exam will be held in a single shift after the Supreme Court directed NBE not to hold the exam in two shifts as it will create arbitrariness.

The official statement of NBE states :

"Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. No. 456/2025 (Aditi & Ors Versus National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences & Ors) has ordered that:

"We, accordingly, direct the respondents to make necessary arrangements for holding the NEET-PG 2025, examination in one shift, duly ensuring that complete transparency is maintained and secure centres are identified and commissioned,"

Accordingly, NBEMS will conduct NEET-PG 2025 in a Single Shift."

The exam was earlier to be held on June 15; however, due to the Court's directions, it has been shifted to a later date. NBE has said the new exam date will be notified soon.

" NEET-PG 2025 scheduled to be held on 15.06.2025 has been postponed to arrange for more Test Centres and required infrastructure. The revised date for conduct of NEET-PG 2025 shall be notified shortly."

TN Govt Approaches Supreme Court Against Stay On Amendment Which Took Away Governor's Power To Appoint VCs

The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court order which stayed its recent Amendment taking away the Governor's power to appoint Vice Chancellors to State-run Universities.

The State amendments were made pursuant to the recent Supreme Court judgment defining the powers of the Governor.

'We're Not Authorised': Supreme Court Vacation Bench Declines Urgent Hearing Of Plea Against Felling 875 Trees In Himachal Pradesh

The Supreme Court on June 4 refused to entertain the urgent mentioning of an application relating to the alleged cutting of 875 trees in Himachal Pradesh.

The counsel for the applicant mentioned before the bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice AG Masih that an intervention application has been filed in the pending TN Godavarman Case on the issue of the cutting of 875 trees in the State.

The Counsel stressed that "trees are being cut down today itself."

The bench however, declined to entertain any mention. Justice Mishra explained that none of the junior benches have been given authorisation to allow any mention. The matter should be informed to the Registry, which would then take instructions from the CJI.

How Dare You File This? Supreme Court Slams Murder Convict Over Second Plea Seeking Extension Of Time To Surrender

Case Details : VINOD @ GANJA v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) | Miscellaneous Application No.1051/2025 in SLP(Crl) No.7285/2025

The Supreme Court took a stern view of a 'glaring' case where the petitioner sought an extension of time to surrender to jail authorities despite a previous order of the Court that dealt with the same issue filed by him earlier.

The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing an application seeking extension of time by 3 weeks to surrender in a murder conviction case.

Sr Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for the petitioner, informed that the present application was moved considering that the Delhi High Court is scheduled to decide the petitioner's plea for pre-mature release on July 10.

However, Justice Amanullah took a stern view of the fact that another bench led by Justice AS Oka had already granted 3 weeks time to surrender. Justice Amanullah said, "How dare you file this? The coordinate bench headed by Justice Oka (inaudible) and you have the guts to file it during vacations?"

Rejecting the application for extension, the Court directed that the petitioner surrender today itself.

Supreme Court Constitutes Committee To Control Crowding At Ranthambore Tiger Reserve, Balance Interests Of Trinetra Temple Devotees

Case details: IA in IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 202/199

The Supreme Court on May 30 constituted a three-member committee to propose solutions to the issues of crowded gatherings and vehicular traffic within the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve.

The Court also directed the State of Rajasthan to immediately ban any illegal mining activities occurring within the core area of the Reserve.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai , Justices AG Masih and AS Chandurkar was hearing an application seeking a slew of directions to improve the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH)/core zone of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve.

The Court constituted a three member committee comprising :

(I) The Collector, Sawai Madhopur

(II) The Field Director, Ranthambore Tiger Reserve; and

(III) A member of the CEC

The Court clarified that the function of the committee would be to "take into consideration the interest of the devotees of the Trinetra Ganesha temple and give suggestions which would balance the interest of the Tiger Reserve as well as the devotees."

"Very Easy To Accuse Behind Back": Supreme Court Tells Journalists Allegedly Beaten By MP Police, Calls For SP To Be Made Party

Case Title: SHASHIKANT JATAV @ SHASHIKANT GOYAL @ SHASHI KAPOOR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, W.P.(Crl.) No. 237/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea filed by journalists Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan from Bhind, Madhya Pradesh claiming that they were physically assaulted by state police officials over their reporting of a 'sand mafia' exploiting the Chambal River.

During the hearing, Justice Karol noted that the petitioners have already approached the Delhi High Court. In response, Advocate Warisha Farasat (for petitioners) informed that in the present case, the petitioners are seeking stay on arrest and protection from coercive action, which prayers were not made before the Delhi High Court.

'Fighting This Waste Since Many Yrs': Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Incineration Of Chemical Waste From Bhopal Gas Tragedy At Pithampur

The Supreme Court refused to halt the incineration of toxic chemical waste from Bhopal Gas Tragedy site at the Pithampur facility.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma by one of the intervenors, seeking urgent listing on the basis that the 72-day period for disposal of the waste would end before the Supreme Court fully reopens. The bench however declined urgent listing of the case.

"You have made this attempt before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and it was rejected. You made an attempt to stop this before this Court also, no interim order has been granted. Now during vacation, you want us to stay all this?" exclaimed Justice Sharma (who hails from the State of MP).

The judge also deprecated the attempts made from time to time to prevent disposal of the toxic waste. "For how many years we are fighting with that waste? [I know because] it's from my state...no, no, rejected! This particular case, list after vacations. Very sorry. You have made all attempts...all these NGOs, all these so-called social activists...High Court is monitoring it...I know it for certain", remarked Justice Sharma.

Supreme Court Rejects Delhi Waqf Board's Claim Over A Property In Shahdara, Notes Existence Of Gurudwara At Site

Case Title: DELHI WAKF BOARD Versus HIRA SINGH (D) THR.LR. AMARJIT SINGH, C.A. No. 2985/2012

The Supreme Court declined to entertain Delhi Waqf Board's claim over a property in Shahdara as "waqf property", noting that a Gurudwara exists at the site.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter. The Court was dealing with the Waqf Board's challenge to a Delhi High Court order of 2010, whereby appeal of the respondent was allowed and the Waqf Board's suit laying claim over the property was dismissed.

Yogesh Gowda Murder Case: Karnataka Govt Alleges Witness-Tampering By Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni; SC Stays Examination Till Tomorrow

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI, SLP(Crl) No. 7865/2025

The Supreme Court today restrained the Trial Court hearing the murder case of BJP worker Yogesh Gowda from examining any witnesses until tomorrow.

"List tomorrow. Meanwhile, we direct the Trial Court not to examine any one of the witnesses till further orders", the Court ordered.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order on Karnataka government's plea alleging witness-tampering by State MLA and former Minister Vinay Kulkarni, who was arrested in 2020 in relation to the murder but enlarged on bail in 2021.

For context, Kulkarni's bail plea was allowed by the Supreme Court in 2021, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. Following this order, the trial Court enlarged the Congress leader on bail, noting that if there was a violation of any bail condition, the same would attract cancellation of the relief granted. Subsequently, the Karnataka government moved the trial Court for cancellation of bail, however, its application was declined on the ground that Kulkarni was granted bail by the Supreme Court. As such, the matter again came before the top Court.

Supreme Court Asks Bombay HC Chief Justice To Look Into Pendency Of Landlord-Tenant Disputes

Case Title: MOHIT SURESH HARCHANDRAI v. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED, C.A. No. 007188/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 663

The Supreme Court has called on the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court to look into the pendency of landlord-tenant disputes across different courts and take appropriate action for timely disposal if many cases of inordinate delay are found.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra recently ordered,

"we request the learned Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, to take up this issue and call for a report from the concerned courts regarding the period of pendency in landlord-tenant disputes. Should it be found that there are many such instances as the present case, then appropriate steps should be taken or directions issued to further the cause of expeditious disposal of these cases."

The Court observed that there is a monetary angle involved in landlord-tenant disputes and the courts are dutybound to ensure that no party suffers.

"When it comes to landlord-tenant disputes, there is an angle of being deprived of the enjoyment of the property and also the monetary benefits that accrue from owning such property. The courts, being the courts of law and justice, are duty-bound to ensure that on their account, no party is made to suffer. In these kinds of disputes delayed adjudication means that both parties bear the brunt."

Pakistani National Stated To Be Residing In Goa Since 2016 On Long Term Visa Approaches Supreme Court

A Pakistani national stated to be residing in Goa on long term visa since 2016 has approached the Supreme Court.

The matter was mentioned today before a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner referred to the notification issued by the Union government after the Pahalgam terror attack, as per which visas issued to Pakistani nationals stood revoked with effect from April 27.

Ultimately, the bench agreed to list the matter.

'We're Going To Be Very Harsh': Supreme Court Tells Karnataka MLA, Grants One Day To File Material Against Bail Cancellation

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI, SLP(Crl) No. 7865/2025

The Supreme Court declined to grant a week's time to Karnataka MLA and former Minister Vinay Kulkarni to bring on record certain documents against Karnataka government's plea for cancellation of his bail in BJP worker Yogesh Gowda's murder case over allegations of witness-tampering.

"It shall be open for the respondents to place on record any document either during the course of the day or handover the same during the course of the hearing tomorrow", the Court ordered.

The Karnataka government has sought cancellation of Kulkarni's bail on the ground of witness-tampering. He was arrested in 2020 in relation to Yogesh Gowda's murder but enlarged on bail in 2021. For more details about the case, click here.

Woman Lawyer Approaches Supreme Court Alleging Sexual Assault & Harassment By Gurugram Police Officials; Hearing Tomorrow

Case Title: AS v. STATE OF HARYANA, W.P.(Crl.) No. 235/2025

A woman advocate has approached the Supreme Court claiming that she was sexually assaulted and beaten by officials of a Gurugram police station when she went there alongwith her client in connection with a matrimonial case.

The matter was listed on June 5 before a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and AG Masih, which asked Senior Advocate Priya Hingorani (appearing for the woman advocate) to produce a copy of the FIR lodged against the woman advocate by the Gurugram police officials.

Trial Court Can Cancel Bail Granted By HC/SC : Supreme Court Cancels Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni's Bail In BJP Worker's Murder Case

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA through the CBI Versus VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI, SLP(Crl) No. 7865/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 669

A trial court can cancel the bail granted by a Constitutional Court if there is any violation of conditions, observed the Supreme Court, while cancelling the bail granted to Karnataka MLA and former Minister Vinay Kulkarni in BJP worker Yogesh Gowda's murder case, pursuant to witness-tampering allegations, the Supreme Court has cancelled

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order yesterday, after hearing at length Senior Advocate Maninder Singh (for Kulkarni) and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for CBI).

"it would be suffice to state that there is sufficient material on record to suggest that the attempt(s) have been made by the Respondent to either contact witnesses or alternatively, influence such witnesses", the Court noted.

As per directions issued, Kulkarni shall surrender before the trial Court/jail authority within 1 week from the date of the order and the trial Court shall endeavor to complete the trial expeditiously, uninfluenced by the top Court's observations.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Haryana Govt On Woman Lawyer's Plea Alleging Sexual Assault By Gurugram Police Officials

Case Title: AS v. STATE OF HARYANA, W.P.(Crl.) No. 235/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea of a woman advocate alleging that she was sexually assaulted and beaten by officials of a Gurugram police station when she went there alongwith her client in connection with a matrimonial case.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and AG Masih passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Priya Hingorani (for the petitioner-woman advocate).

The State of Haryana, Haryana Police and the State House Officer of the concerned police station are the respondents to whom notice has been issued.

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act | Alienation Of Charged Property Not Void u/s 48(e) Unless Society Challenges Transaction : Supreme Court

Case Title: MACHHINDRANATH S/O KUNDLIK TARADE DECEASED THROUGH LRS v. RAMCHANDRA GANGADHAR DHAMNE & ORS.,

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 667

The Supreme Court held that an alienation of property, on which a charge is created in favour of a Co-operative Society, would be void as per Section 48(e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, only if the concerned Society seeks nullification of the transaction. In other words, such a transaction is not void abinitio and is only voidable at the instance of the society.

If the Society does not come forward to enforce the charge and seek the nullification of the alienation, a third party cannot argue that the transaction is void.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed,

"Section 48(e) of the Act which says that any alienation made in contravention of the provisions of clause (d) shall be void has to be read as directory to the extent that the same can be acted upon only at the instance of the party aggrieved (viz. the society concerned) upon whom the right has been created under the statute. In other words, with regard to a transaction, unless the society comes forward to seek its nullification/setting aside, the same would at best be a voidable action and not void ab initio."

'Guardian Became Looter' : Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of ITBP Constable For Robbing Cash Box

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. NO. 900224364 CONST/G.D. JAGESHWAR SINGH, C.A. No. 7029/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 668

The Supreme Court recently upheld a Para Military Force sentry's dismissal from service as a punishment for robbing a cash box that he was supposed to guard while on duty.

"The respondent, was obligated to perform his duties and guard the cash boxes with utmost dedication, honesty, commitment, and discipline. However, contrary to the faith and trust reposed in him by his superiors, he broke open the cash box. He has, therefore, committed robbery of the cash amount, which he was designated to protect...All members of the force must note that there is zero tolerance for such brazen misconduct, where the guardian of the cash box became its looter...In fact, the misconduct proved against the respondent is so grave and alarming that any punishment less than dismissal from service would prove inadequate and insufficient", a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh observed.

The Court was dealing with a challenge by the Union to Uttarakhand High Court's order asking the Union and Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) to reconsider if the respondent-officer's dismissal could be substituted with a lesser punishment.

Can Courts Hear Disputes Arising Out Of Properties Which Are Covered By Pre-Constitutional Agreements Between Princely States And The Union? SC To Consider

Case details: RAJMATA PADMINI DEVI AND ORS. Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.| SLP(C) No. 16066/2025

The Supreme Court is set to consider the issue of whether disputes relating to the properties of erstwhile princely states mentioned under preconstitutional covenants are barred from the Courts' jurisdiction under Article 363.

The bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea by Jaipur's royal family members, namely, Rajmata Padmini Devi, Diya Kumari and Sawai Padmanabh Singh.

The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which held that suits seeking possession or mesne profit of the 'Town Hall', which is mentioned in the covenant between the erstwhile princely state and the Union, cannot be entertained by civil courts under Article 363.

President Of India Promulgates Ordinance Amending J&K Reservation Act For Implementing 85% Reservations In UT of Ladakh

The President of India, Droupadi Murmu, on June 2, promulgated the amendment ordinance for the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act 2004 to implement 85% reservation in the Union Territory of Ladakh, excluding 10% EWS quota.

The Ordinance, namely the Union Territory of Ladakh Reservation (Amendment) Regulation 2025, specifically extend to the Union Territory of Ladakh.

The amendment substitutes S.3 (1) of the Reservation Act 2004 with the following :

"Provided that the total percentage of reservation shall in no case exceed 85%, excluding reservation for Economically Weaker Sections".

Notably, S.3 of the Act lays down the list of persons/categories entitled to reservation in appointments and admissions under the Act.

CJI BR Gavai Expresses Concern Over Judge's "Fragile Ego" Remark Being Reported Out Of Context By Media

CJI BR Gavai recently expressed concerns over the issue of out-of-context reporting by the media of courtroom proceedings.

Speaking at a round table discussion at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, CJI Gavai observed that a recent comment made by a sitting Supreme Court judge was reported incorrectly. This in turn can create a negative impact on the public when it comes to their confidence in the judiciary, he said.

The CJI expressed : "To enhance public transparency, the Supreme Court of India also initiated live-streaming of its Constitution-bench cases. However, as with any powerful tool, live streaming must be wielded with care, as fake news or out-of-context court proceedings can negatively shape public perception"

He further recalled how the remark by the Judge, which was said in a lighter vein, was portrayed wrongly. He said :

"Only last week, one of my colleagues in a lighter vein counselled a junior counsel on the art of court craft and soft skills. Instead, his statement was taken out of context and reported in the media as, “Our ego is very fragile; if you offend it, your case will go out."

SCAORA Acting Beyond Mandate By Addressing General Bar Issues Like Biometric Entry For Lawyers: SCBA President Writes To CJI

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh has written to CJI BR Gavai, addressing the issue of overstepping of mandate by the Supreme Court AOR Association (SCAORA)

The letter states that the intention behind the concerns raised by SCBA is to ensure that there remains a 'unified voice within the bar' when it comes to issues relating to Supreme Court lawyers.

Singh has stressed recent incidents where SCAORA was going beyond the scope of its defined role and functions. Singh asserted that it is the SCBA which represents the Supreme Court lawyers in totality, and the sole responsibility of raising issues relating to the lawyers should lie with the SCBA only.

Supreme Court Grants Relief To CAPF Aspirant Rejected Twice Citing Visual Disability, Asks Authority To Observe Him During Probation

Case details : DIVYANSHU SINGH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.| CIVIL APPEAL No.7254 OF 2025

The Supreme Court recently directed the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) to consider a candidate for recruitment as Assistant Commandant after he was rejected twice due to defective vision.

The Court examined the expert medical reports from AIIMs, which held that he did not suffer from any visual defects/ glaucoma in both eyes and can be considered a fit candidate.

The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing a challenge to the Allahabad High Court's order, which dismissed a writ petition seeking further opportunities to undergo a medical test for recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF).

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Panel Formed To Decide Schedule For Tiruchendur Temple Consecration

Case Details : R.Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal & Etc v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.| SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16297-98 OF 2025

The Supreme Court declined to interfere in a plea challenging the order of the Madras High Court, which constituted a committee to decide the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur.

The Court however, granted liberty to file a review petition against the impugned order. The bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea by the Vidhayahar of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur.

The plea challenged the order of the Madras High Court, which constituted a committee of 5 members to decide the date and timing for the Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony).

Four Things CJI BR Gavai Would Change In The Indian Arbitration Regime If He Were Given A Magical Wand

CJI BR Gavai recently expressed how he would make 4 major changes in the present Arbitration Regime in India, if he were given a magical 'wand'.

The CJI was speaking at the LCIA International Arbitration Symposium in London. On being asked, "If you could wave a wand and change one thing about arbitration practice in India today, what would it be?"

The CJI focused his reply on 4 major aspects : (1) finality of arbitral awards, without prolonged litigation; (2) Institutional Arbitration as the compulsory option; (3) elimination of tactical delays in the arbitral proceedings and (4) increased diversity and inclusivity of arbitrators.

Protection Officers, Free Legal Aid: Supreme Court Issues Directions To States, UTs For Effective Implementation Of Domestic Violence Act

Case Details : WE THE WOMEN OF INDIA v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,W.P.(C) No. 1156/2021

The Supreme Court has recently issued directions to all States and Union Territories to appoint Protection Officers, publicise the scheme of the Domestic Violence Act 2005, create shelter homes and legal aid for distressed women at the grassroots level.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a plea by 'We The Women of India', a non-governmental organisation, for the effective implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA).

The bench issued a slew of directions such as (1) designation of protection officers under S.9 of the Act at District and Taluka Levels; (2) completion of the designation of such officers within 6 weeks where the process is not complete yet; (3) wide publicity of the Act's Provisions under S.11; (4) NALSA to direct Legal Services Authorities at all levels that distressed women under the Act are entitled to free legal aid; (5) District Level Authorities shall publicise the availability of legal aid to distressed women; (6) Departments must empanel service providers and ensure accessible shelter homes (Nari Niketan, one-stop centres, etc.) for victims of domestic violence within ten weeks.

Ten People Look At Us And Shout, Which Voice Do We Catch? Supreme Court Expresses Discontent Over Out Of Turn Submissions By Lawyers

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the trend of out-of-turn submissions made by counsels during the hearing of matters.

The Court verbally opined that such a practice does more damage to the client's case than any good.

During the hearing, multiple counsels representing the petitioner attempted to make submissions. Considering the chaotic conduct, Justice Bhatti expressed : "One counsel please...somehow in Supreme Court I am unable to assimilate that - straight away 10 people look at us and shout, which voice we have to catch? I have seen damages more in that fashion than it is helping (the argument style) the claimant."

Breaking Barriers : Blind Woman Advocate Makes Appearance In Supreme Court

In a landmark moment for disability representation in the legal field, a visually impaired lawyer appeared in a case before the Supreme Court on June 6.

In what is believed to be the first instance of a blind woman advocate appearing before the Supreme Court, Anchal Bhatheja, who was born with low vision due to birth complications and later lost her eyesight completely due to retinopathy of prematurity, represented a petitioner in a case. She lost her vision entirely just before her board examinations.

She, however, completed her schooling with the help of audiobooks and became the first blind CLAT aspirant to get admission into the National Law School of India, Bengaluru. She completed her law degree in 2023.

In her first appearance before the Supreme Court, Batheja represented a petitioner challenging the constitutionality of the Advertisement dated 16.05.2025 issued for recruitment to the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner is a person with 100% visual impairment.