- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: June...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: June 9, 2025 To June 15, 2025
Debby Jain
16 Jun 2025 11:14 AM IST
Reports/Judgements♦ Supreme Court Refuses To Urgently List Tamil Nadu's Suit Against Centre For Education FundsCase Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India | Diary No. 28793/2025 The Supreme Court on June 9 refused to urgently list the suit filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Centre for the release of over Rs 2291 crores under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). A...
Reports/Judgements
♦ Supreme Court Refuses To Urgently List Tamil Nadu's Suit Against Centre For Education Funds
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India | Diary No. 28793/2025
The Supreme Court on June 9 refused to urgently list the suit filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Centre for the release of over Rs 2291 crores under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan refused to list the State's suit during the partial working days, saying that there was no urgency in the matter.
Case Title: The General Manager (T) National Highways Authority of India v. V.Balakrishnan | SLP(C) No. 16474/2025
The Supreme Court on June 9 stayed the Madras High Court's order which prohibited the collection of toll on the Madurai-Tuticorin Highway till the road was relaid & maintained in a good condition. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan passed the interim order while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) challenging the High Court's order.
Case Title: Sri M Mahesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Ors
A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the "unconstitutional extra-judicial ban" faced by the Central Board of Film Certification-certified Tamil feature film Thug Life, starring Kamal Haasan and directed by Mani Ratnam, in Karnataka. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan agreed to list the matter on Friday (June 13), after an urgent mentioning was made.
The film was released on June 5, 2025, worldwide except in the State of Karnataka. Reportedly, protests were made against the backdrop of the alleged remarks made by Kamal Haasan on the Kannada language, wherein he said that Kannada was "born out of Tamil".
Case Details : Komalpreet Kaur Dhillon v. Union of India| SLP(C) No. 016457/2025
The Supreme Court on June 9 refused to entertain a petition challenging the non-grant of OBC reservations by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan was hearing the SLP filed challenging the CLAT UG admissions in RGNLU, which excluded reservations for Other Backwards Category candidates. The bench declined to interfere as the matter was already pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Case Title: Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 672
The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional powers to enhance the sentence while considering an appeal filed by a convict/accused against conviction.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stated that the High Court cannot invoke its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) when the party who could have filed the revision petition, such as the State or the complainant, has chosen not to do so.
The Court affirmed that the power to enhance the sentence can be exercised by the appellate court only in an appeal filed by the State, victim or complainant, provided the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement.
Case Title: Shashikant Jatav @ Shashikant Goyal @ Shashi Kapoor v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 237/2025
The Supreme Court granted interim protection of two weeks to 2 journalists from Bhind, Madhya Pradesh in FIRs lodged against them by the state police and asked them to approach the High Court for relief.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan was dealing with the plea filed by journalists Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan, claiming that they were physically assaulted by state police officials over their reporting of a 'sand mafia' exploiting the Chambal River.
Case Title: Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 673
The Supreme Court, in a judgment by the two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, clarified that the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on any trade or business includes the right to shut down that business. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions aimed at protecting workers and ensuring compliance with statutory procedures.
Case Title: Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 672
The Supreme Court observed in a recent judgment that the right of an accused to file appeal against conviction is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right. A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said,
"That a right of appeal is an invaluable right, particularly for an accused who cannot be condemned eternally by a trial judge, without having a right to seek a re-look of the Trial Court's judgment by a superior or appellate court. The right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused. This is because an accused has a right to not only challenge a judgment on its merits, namely, with respect to the conviction and sentence being imposed on him, but also on the procedural aspects of the trial."
Case Title: Sravya Sindhuri v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and Ors.| W.P.(C) No. 570/2025
A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the exclusion of persons with blindness and locomotor disability, and also persons who are not domiciled in Uttarakhand, from being eligible for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) quota in the Uttarakhand Judicial Exams.
A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice PB Varale, on June 9, directed that the matter be placed before the CJI, as only after the instructions of the CJI, it could be tagged with a pending Suo Motu case.
The petition, filed by a person with 100% visual impairment, challenges advertisement dated 16.05.2025 issued for recruitment to the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Case Title: Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 674
The Supreme Court on June 9 held that an accused person has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test, but at the appropriate stage of the trial, that is, when the accused is exercising his right to lead the evidence. Having said that, there is no indefeasible right of the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test as the right is dependent on many factors to be considered by the Court concerned.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice PB Varale observed: "The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narcoanalysis test at an appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to add, that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in a trial. However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narcoanalysis test, for upon receipt of such an application the concerned Court, must consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the matter, such as free consent, appropriate safeguards etc., authorizing a person to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test."
Case Title: Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar & Ors| SLP (Crl.) No. 480/2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 675
The Supreme Court recently revived criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR against an official of the Bank of India over alleged misappropriation of pledged gold.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court which quashed the FIR. According to the top Court, it was premature on the part of the High Court to conclude at that stage that there was no ill-intention on the part of the bank official. Whether there was fraud or misappropriation was a matter of evidence to be considered at the stage of trial, the Court said.
The Court noted that the Appellant repaid the loan amount, but with substantial delay. Therefore, the loan was settled and there was no reason for the bank to revalue the gold.
Case Title: Vaidya Jayant Yashwant Deopujari v. Ved Prakash Tyagi | Diary No. - 32061/2025 and National Commission for Indian System of Medicine v. Ved Prakash Tyagi, Diary No. - 32087/2025
The Supreme Court on June 10 stayed the judgment of the Delhi High Court which quashed the appointment of Vaidya Jayant Yeshwant Deopujari as the Chairperson of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM).
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan passed the interim order while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petitions filed by Deopujari and the NCISM challenging the High Court's judgment pronounced on June 6.
The Supreme Court observed during the hearing that it will consider the question whether Deopujari's Ph.D qualification can be treated as equivalent to the statutorily prescribed qualification of post graduate degree.
♦ Supreme Court Refuses To Reduce Sentence Of Lawyer For Abusing Woman Judge During Proceedings
Case Title: Sanjay Rathore v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Anr.| SLP(Crl) No. 8930/2025
The Supreme Court on June 10 refused to take a lenient approach in a matter where a lawyer was convicted for abusing a lady judicial officer in Court.
A bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Manmohan refused to reduce the imprisonment sentence to 6 months and said "Today, majority of our officers in Delhi are women. They will not be able to function like this- if somebody can get away like this. Think of their state".
The Court was hearing a plea against the order of the Delhi High Court which upheld the conviction of a lawyer who used abusive language towards a female judge in a challan matter. The lawyer had said “aise kar dia adjourn matter, aise kese date de di, main keh rha hun, abhi lo matter, order karo abhi” and used abusive and vulgar expletives.
The lawyer was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to 18 months simple imprisonment under S.509 IPC (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 3 months each under S.189 (threatening public servant) and S.353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty).
♦ Supreme Court Quashes S.498A IPC Case Against Husband & In-Laws, Cautions Against Misuse Of Law
Case Title: Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 676
The Supreme Court recently quashed an FIR and chargesheet filed against a husband and his family members for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code(domestic cruelty towards wife), emphasizing that generic allegations lacking specificity cannot sustain a criminal trial.
A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling, cautioning against the misuse of legal provisions while reiterating the need to protect genuine victims of cruelty.
The Court emphasized that although the complaint was filed within the limitation period, the allegations were too vague and unsupported to justify a criminal trial. It concluded that a balance must be maintained between protecting genuine victims and preventing harassment of the accused through baseless prosecutions.
Case Title: Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) v. Anupam Garg & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 677
In a notable ruling shaping the rights of homebuyers and the liabilities of real estate developers, the Supreme Court has clarified that while developers must refund the principal amount with interest to aggrieved homebuyers in cases of delay or non-delivery, they cannot be held liable for paying interest on the personal loans taken by buyers to finance their homes.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale delivered the decision in a case arising from a dispute over delayed possession of flats in GMADA's 'Purab Premium Apartments' scheme launched in 2011 in Mohali, Punjab.
Case Title: Aman Siddiqui Alias Aman Chaudhary Alias Raja v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 678
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to the man who was arrested by the Uttarakhand police under the anti-conversion law following his marriage to a woman belonging to another religion.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma was hearing a petition filed by a man named Aman Siddiqui. Soon after the appellant's interfaith marriage, an allegation under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 was made by certain persons and organizations stating that the appellant may have induced or carried out a religious conversion unlawfully.
The Court observed that given the marriage was consensual with the approval of their respective families, the State's objection to granting bail to the appellant was untenable.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 676
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the relevant date for computing the limitation period under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the date of filing of the complaint or the institution of prosecution, not the date when the Magistrate takes cognizance.
"It is a settled position of law that for the computation of the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance," observed a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Quoting Bharat Damodar Kale, the Court emphasized that once the complainant has filed the complaint within the statutory period, they have complied with the procedural requirements under the CrPC. The delay in the court's taking cognizance, often due to administrative or scheduling reasons, is not attributable to the complainant and therefore cannot be held against them.
Case Title: Kashika M Prasad v. State of Jharkhand|W.P.(C) No. 554/2025
The Supreme Court on June 11 issued notice on an interlocutory application filed by a lady Additional District Judge alleging that after she filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her childcare leave, some remarks have been made in her Annual Confidential Report (ACR) suggesting performance counselling to her.
The petitioner is a judicial officer from the Scheduled Caste Category and a single parent, who had sought a child care leave from June-December for 194 days, which was rejected without giving her any valid reasons as claimed. As per the Child Care Rules, the petitioner is entitled to 730 days of leave; presently, she is seeking a leave of 6 months.
In May, a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand High Court on the petitioner's original writ petition.
♦ Homebuyer's Right To Compensation For Delayed Flat Delivery : Supreme Court Explains Principles
Case Title: Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) v. Anupam Garg & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 677
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that while developers must refund the principal amount with interest to aggrieved homebuyers in cases of delay or non-delivery, they cannot be held liable for paying interest on the personal loans taken by buyers to finance their homes.
Drawing from earlier landmark decisions, the Supreme Court set out clear principles for deciding when an allottee is entitled to relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and what form that relief should take.
The Court also revisited Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, where it had laid down a comprehensive set of principles governing the rights of allottees when faced with delays or non-delivery of plots, flats, or houses by development authorities.
Case Title: Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 679
Observing that an unregistered sale agreement does not confer valid title upon the person, the Supreme Court recently refused to grant protection from dispossession to a person who sought title and possession based on an unregistered sale agreement.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran was dealing with a case where the respondents (purchasers) claimed ownership based on a 1982 sale agreement executed by a General Power of Attorney holder of the original landowners. However, the sale agreement was not registered despite being a compulsorily registrable document under the Registration Act, 1908.
Since the 1982 agreement was not registered, the Respondent cannot be said to have conferred with a good title over the suit property, barring him from claiming protection from dispossession, the court said.
Case Title: Sandeep v. The State of Maharashtra | SLP(Crl) No. 8753/2025
The Supreme Court on June 11 refused to quash a case under the POCSO Act against a suspended judicial officer, who has been accused of sexually abusing his daughter. The Court orally passed serious remarks stating that this is a "shocking" case which is certainly not meant for quashing by any standard.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan was dealing with a special leave petition filed against the Bombay High Court's order refusing to quash allegations against the accused. When the Court refused to entertain it, the petitioner requested for the expedition of trial, which was allowed.
Case Title: Jude Mendes v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 569/2025
The Supreme Court on June 11 refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Pakistani-Christian national seeking Indian citizenship or long term visa.
The petitioner, belonging to the Roman Catholic Christian community, had challenged the cut-off of December 31, 2014, prescribed by the Citizenship Amendment Act(CAA), 2019 for the grant of citizenship to migrants belonging to minority communities in Pakistan.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Bombay High Court.
Case Title: Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 679
The Supreme Court recently ruled that when the original sale agreement remained unregistered, then it cannot result in a valid title merely on the ground that a subsequent transaction based on the said unregistered sale deed was registered.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the High Court's decision which granted protection to the respondent from dispossession based on a 1982 sale agreement, noted that the defect of non-registration of the 1982 sale agreement could not be cured upon its validation in 2006 without taking into fresh transaction.
Case Title: Vaibhav v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 680
The Supreme Court recently acquitted a student previously convicted of the murder of his friend, observing that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and convincing chain of circumstantial evidence to support the conviction.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma discarded the prosecution case, which rested on the circumstantial evidence and the alleged post-crime commission conduct of the appellant-accused to hide the deceased's body and clean up the blood-stained floor shortly after the deceased's death from his father's licensed pistol.
The Court noted that the inability of the accused to explain certain circumstances could not be made the basis to relieve the prosecution from discharging its primary burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
♦ Preventive Detention Can't Be A Substitute For Bail Cancellation : Supreme Court
Case Title: Dhanya M v. State of Kerala
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 681
The Supreme Court recently set aside the preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA). It emphasizing that the extraordinary power of preventive detention must be exercised sparingly and strictly in line with constitutional safeguards, reaffirming the principle that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed lightly.
The judgment by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan underscored the difference between 'public order' and 'law and order' and clarified that preventive detention cannot be used merely as a substitute for criminal prosecution or to circumvent bail orders.
"The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the State to approach the competent Courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention," the Court observed.
Case Title: M/s. Balaji Traders v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 682
The Supreme Court recently observed that the offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code doesn't require actual delivery of property; instead, putting a person in fear of death/grievous hurt for the purpose of extortion is sufficient.
Holding thus, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the Allahabad High Court's decision, which had quashed the summons issued to the accused in connection with a complaint registered under Section 387 IPC (Putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to commit Extortion).
The Court rejected the High Court's view that an offence under Section 387 IPC requires actual delivery of property. It clarified that extortion under Section 387 is complete as soon as the victim is put in fear of death or grievous hurt. Unlike Section 383, which defines extortion and necessitates the delivery of property, Section 387 does not require any transfer of valuable property for the offence to be established.
♦ Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Andhra Pradesh Mega DSC Teacher Recruitment Exam
Case Title: Posina Anand Sai v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 576/2025
The Supreme Court on June 12 refused to entertain a petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Mega District Selection Committee Examination, 2025 (AP DSC-2025) for teachers' recruitment, the process for which has already commenced.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan directed the petitioner to approach the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which is re-opening after the summer recess on June 16. Justice Manmohan remarked that the examination has already commenced and the Courts are not supposed to grant any stay in such cases.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Etc.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 683
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the penalty for misdeclared goods can be imposed by the Railways post-delivery of consignments/goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and PK Mishra set aside Gauhati High Court's ruling which held that penal charges cannot be levied after delivery of goods. Instead, the Supreme Court said that Section 66 of the Act allows imposition of charges at any stage as it does not specify a timing for demands.
♦ Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka's Response On Plea Against 'Thug Life' Film Ban
Case Title: Sri M Mahesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Ors
The Supreme Court on June 13 issued notice to the State of Karnataka on the PIL challenging the "extra-judicial ban" on the screening of Tamil feature film Thug Life, starring Kamal Haasan and directed by Mani Ratnam, in Karnataka.
"It is argued that a duly CBFC-certified Tamil feature film "Thug Life" is not allowed to be screened in the theatres in the State of Karnataka. The so-called ban under threat of violence stems not from any lawful process but from a deliberate campaign of terror, including explicit threat of arson against cinema halls, incitement of large-scale violence targeting linguistic minorities. Considering the urgency shown and the issue brought before this court, we issue notice to the respondent," a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan observed in the order.
Case Title: Kommineni Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh | W.P.(Crl.) No. 244/2025
The Supreme Court granted bail to Telugu journalist Kommineni Srinivas Rao (KSR) who was arrested by the Andhra Pradesh Police in relation to offensive remarks made by a panellist in a television show hosted by him.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan passed the order in a writ petition filed by the journalist challenging his arrest and remand. Rao was arrested from Hyderabad on June 9 and was remanded to judicial custody in relation to comments made by a guest in a show hosted by him in Sakshi TV.
Case Title: Union of India v. Bikash Saha | MA 1080-1081/2025 in SLP(C) No. 11164-11165/2022
The Supreme Court on June 13 pulled up a litigant who filed an application seeking to revoke the Z+ security cover given to Reliance Industries Ltd Chairman and billionaire businessman Mukesh Ambani and his family.
Reiterating that the security cover to Mukesh Ambani, his wife Neeta Ambani and children Anant, Aakash and Isha should continue to be given, a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan warned the applicant against filing applications in future, given that his previous applications were also not entertained.
The Court remarked that the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the security provided by the State after duly evaluating the threat inputs, and warned that any further proceedings will lead to the Court imposing exemplary costs on him.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka through the CBI v. Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni, SLP(Crl) No. 7865/2025
The Supreme Court on June 13 refused to extend the time given to Karnataka Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni to surrender in a case related to the murder of a BJP worker.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan refused to entertain the request.
On June 6, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma cancelled MLA Kulkarni's bail after it observed that there was a violation of the bail conditions imposed by the Trial Court. It noted that there was sufficient material on record to suggest that attempt(s) had been made by Kulkarni to either contact witnesses or influence such witnesses.
Case Title: Najiya Nasre v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 578/2025
The Supreme Court on June 13 dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition challenging the practice followed by the National Testing Agency conducting the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-2025 (Undergraduate), whereby the final answer keys of the exam are published after the final result is announced.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan heard the matter. Justice Mishra suggested that the petitioner can approach the concerned High Court. Justice Manmohan also stated that the Court wants to benefit from the High Court's judgment.
Two doctors have written a letter to the Chief Justice of India seeking a suo motu action by the Supreme Court with respect to the crash of the Air India Flight AI171 at Ahmedabad.
They urged that the Supreme Court, after taking suo motu cognizance of the incident, give directions to the Central Government to disburse compensation to the victims at the earliest. They also sought a thorough investigation to ascertain the cause of the plane crash.
Dr. Saurav Kumar and Dr. Dhruv Chauhan, in their letter, referred to the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Triveni Kodkany v. Air India Ltd and others, a case dealing with the 2010 Mangalore plane crash, which laid down principles to ascertain compensation.
Case Title: Head Constable Raj Kumar Etc. v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 684
The Supreme Court recently refused to exonerate Punjab police officials in the alleged fake encounter killing of a civilian, whom the police officials shot while they were in plain clothes.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected the accused police officials' argument that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary for prosecuting them. Instead, the Court said that the accused officials have targeted the deceased using their official arms while they were not in uniform, which bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting a lawful arrest.
Case Title: Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 622
The Supreme Court recently clarified that while the power to add or remove parties under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, this does not entitle a party to raise objections to impleadment of a legal heir at a later stage if the parry had sufficient opportunity to raise objections at the stage of Order XXII Rule 4.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan reasoned that this is because the principle of res judicata applies to impleadment proceedings under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
♦ Res Judicata Principle Applies To Different Stages Of Same Proceedings As Well : Supreme Court
Case Title: Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 622
The Supreme Court recently observed that the principle of res judicata not only applies to different sets of proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceedings.
Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the Kerala High Court's finding which had dismissed the Appellant's Order I Rule 10 CPC application objecting impleadment of a legal heir at the later stage of the proceedings when it had an opportunity to object the impleadment at the earlier stage of the proceedings.
The court said that when after due enquiry under Order XII Rule 4 CPC (application to bring on record legal heirs of the defendants after his death), an order for impleadment was passed then it would be impermissible to object the impleadment at the later stage as the same would be barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata enshrined under Explanation IV, Section 11 CPC.
Other Developments
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai recently underscored the need for cautious integration of technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the judicial system, asserting that while technology can be a valuable tool, it must not undermine the core tenets of judicial reasoning.
CJI Gavai said that around the world, the rise of automated decision- making systems raises questions about the nature of justice and the role of human judges.
Speaking on the topic "Role of Technology to Improve Access to Justice" at Cambridge University, CJI Gavai stated, “The path forward demands adherence to fundamental principles. Technology must enhance rather than replace judicial functions, particularly reasoned decision-making and individual case assessment. We must ensure that automated systems support rather than supplant judicial judgment.”
The integration of technology also brings questions of privacy and data security, the Chief Justice said, pointing out that justice systems handle highly sensitive information, and digitization creates new vulnerabilities that necessitate cybersecurity and privacy protocols.
Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal recently questioned why Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has not taken any action on the impeachment motion moved against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court for allegedly making communal statements and hate speech.
Sibal convened a press conference in the wake of a report of the Hindustan Times which suggested that the Supreme Court refrained from initiating an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav - as it did in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma - because it got a letter from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat that it was seized of the issue.
Sibal questioned why VP Dhankhar, who holds a constitutional position, has failed to act on the application for impeachment for 6 months, despite that the number of signatories is 55 against the requirement of 50 MPs. He added that the government is trying to protect Justice Yadav, who is set to retire in early 2026.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai recently opined that the principle of sub-classification within the quotas for Scheduled Castes does not question the success or relevance of reservation and that it ensures that the marginalized within the backward classes get their due share.
Speaking at the Oxford Union on the topic “From Representation to Realization: Embodying the Constitution's Promise”, CJI Gavai on June 10 noted that last year, the Supreme Court of India had upheld the principle of sub-classification within quotas for Scheduled Castes.
The CJI further expressed that it was only due to the Constitution that a person like him, who belong to a group which was once considered untouchable, could rise to the high office.
"India's judiciary plays a unifying role in sustaining the diverse and democratic character of the nation,” Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant said at a recent event in Washington.
"The Indian judiciary plays a unifying role in sustaining the diverse and democratic character of the nation, anchoring its people—at home and abroad—in shared constitutional values. As the interpreter and guardian of the Constitution, it has upheld principles such as fraternity, equality, and human dignity, ensuring that the rule of law remains central to Indian democracy," the judge said.
Justice Kant was speaking at an event organised by the Washington Telangana Association in Redmond, Washington. Addressing the gathering, Justice Kant said that through its reasoned decisions and moral authority, the judiciary not only resolves legal conflicts but also affirms a vision of justice that binds the nation together. For the diaspora, this becomes a source of pride and reassurance, affirming that the values they hold dear are not only protected but continually reaffirmed within India's constitutional order.
Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant opined that the collegium system, despite its imperfections, is an important safeguard for the Judiciary against interference by the Executive and the Legislature.
Speaking at an event at the Seattle University, USA, Justice Kant said that the collegium system preserves Judiciary's autonomy.
The judge further said that the collegium system developed in India is a compelling model of the substantive application of the doctrine of Separation of Powers, which ensures that the judiciary retains control over judicial appointments. While acknowledging that the collegium system has been subject to sustained criticism, particularly due to the opacity of the process, Justice Kant said that recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency.
In his address, Justice Kant emphasized that independence was an important value for the judiciary. According to him, judicial independence encompasses the ability to have intellectual and moral independence, which stretches beyond mere institutional autonomy. The underlying purpose of the independence of the judiciary is that judges must be able to decide a dispute before them according to law, uninfluenced by any other factor.
♦ Supreme Court Judges & Advocates Associations Express Condolences Over Ahmedabad Flight Crash
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Supreme Court Judges, along with Registry officials, expressed deep condolences to the families affected by the crash of an Air India flight at Ahmedabad.
CJI also expressed concerns for the inmates of the BJ Medical College and Civil Hospital over which the flight to London crashed soon after it took off from the Ahmedabad airport. “During this difficult times our thoughts and prayers are with them. May they find strength and solace in the support of their loved ones”, said the CJI.
The Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association also expressed deep sorrow over the mishap. They expressed deep condolences to the families affected by the plane crash.
♦ Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 To Be Held From June 16-21
The Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Examination for 2025, conducted by the Supreme Court, is scheduled to take place on June 16, 17, 20, and 21. A notice regarding the exam dates and seating arrangements was released on the official website of the Supreme Court on June 13.