Home
/

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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: May 05, 2025 To May 11, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

13 May 2025 1:08 PM IST

Reports/Judgments

Electricity Act | Cross-Subsidy Surcharge Based On Prevailing Tariff Rates Valid Even If Decided Separately : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Ors. v. Rajasthan Textile Mills Association & Anr. Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 529

In a major development concerning the discoms, the Supreme Court noted that while the determination of the Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) should be consistent with the applicable tariff rates for the relevant financial year, it is not essential for the CSS to be determined alongside the tariff rates determination.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih set aside the decision of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which had interfered with the Rajasthan State Regulatory Commission's (the Commission) determination of the Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS), solely on the ground that it was not fixed simultaneously with the tariff rates, despite being based on the prevailing tariff rates.

Relying on the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 90 of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 ('the Rajasthan Tariff Regulations, 2014'), the judgment authored by Justice Oka stated that the law does not require CSS to be set at the same time as tariffs, and the only requirement for determining the CSS is that it must align with the current tariff rates prevailing the fiscal year.

Indian Military Nursing Service Personnel Eligible For Civil Posts Under Ex-Servicemen Quota In Punjab: Supreme Court

Case Details: Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 530

The Supreme Court held that the personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) qualify as "ex-servicemen" under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (“1982 Rules”) for reservation in Punjab Civil Services.

The Court noted that the 1982 Rules aim to resettle veterans, given the fact that 7.7% of Army personnel are from Punjab and excluding IMNS would undermine this objective. Therefore “effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of the serving members of the defence forces. If the resettlement of veterans is neglected, the talented youth of the nation may not be motivated to join armed forces.”

Interpreting the objective of the 1982 Rules, the Court observed in support of granting “ex-serviceman” status to the IMNS Personnel:

“The State Government recognises the contribution of a resident of the State of Punjab by joining the armed forces of the Union. Serving the nation as part of the armed forces of the Union requires physical fitness and that has everything to do with age. As they serve and exit the armed forces, they may be spent force for military, but continue to be young and capable for civil life. Their engagement in civil society is not merely a matter of employment opportunity for ex-servicemen but also subserves the larger interest of the nation and also in building a fair and a healthy society.”

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra refused to interfere with the Punjab & Haryana High Court's Division Bench ruling, which held in favor of the IMNS personnel, who were released from IMNS, recognizing them as “ex-serviceman” under the 1982 Rules.

S.362 CrPC Can Be Used Only To Correct Clerical Errors : Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC For Modifying Murder Conviction

Case Details: Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Etc

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 531

The Supreme Court disapproved of the Allahabad High Court invoking Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to modify the High Court's judgment in a criminal appeal by converting the conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

The Court underscored that as per Section 362 of the CrPC, only clerical errors in a judgment can be corrected, and this provision cannot be used to make substantive changes.

The provision reads as follows : Court not to alter judgment.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

'Reasonable Accommodation Not Charity But Fundamental Right' : Supreme Allows AIIMS Admission For Candidate With Disability

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 532

The Supreme Court passed an order directing an allotment of a seat in the MBBS UG Course 2025-26 against the 'Scheduled Castes Persons with Benchmark Disability' quota in the All-India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, for a candidate suffering from congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands as well as the involvement of left foot.

"Manifestly, in view of the observations made by us in the order dated 2nd April, 2025 and the consequent successful assessment of the appellant by the Medical Board, AIIMS, New Delhi vide report dated 24th April, 2025, the denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant's fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such action not only reflects institutional bias and systemic discrimination but also undermines the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination enshrined in our constitutional framework. The constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities (for short 'PwD') and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities."

Motor Accident Claim | Tractor's Insurer Liable For Death Of Passenger In Trailer Due To Tractor's Negligence : Supreme Court

Case Details: Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Honnamma & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 533

The Supreme Court (May 5) ruled that if an insured tractor causes an accident involving an uninsured trailer, the insurer remains liable. The Court said that if the accident was not due to any independent fault of the trailer but occurred during its movement with the tractor, then the insurer cannot shy away from its liability towards the third-party liability.

Holding thus, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed the insurer's appeal against the MACT's order directing it to compensate the claimants for the death of a woman who was travelling on a trailer that overturned due to the rash driving of the insured tractor.

S. 17 Limitation Act | To Get Over Limitation, Plaintiff Should Show Fraud Prevented Knowledge Of Right To Sue : Supreme Court

Case Details: Santosh Devi v. Sunder

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 534

The Supreme Court clarified that to seek an exemption from the limitation period under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a plaintiff must demonstrate that fraud actively prevented them from knowing their right to sue, instead of merely claiming that the sale deed was fraudulently executed. Section 17 of the Limitation Act says that limitation period in respect of a fraudulent action will not commence until the fraud is known.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing the case where the dispute arose from a 2008 sale deed. The petitioner filed a suit in 2012 seeking cancellation of the deed, but the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court all dismissed her plea, holding it was barred by limitation (filed beyond the 3-year limit under Article 59 of the Limitation Act).

'Replacement Of Damaged Transformers Operational Cost', Supreme Court Dismisses PowerGrid's Plea To Recover ₹24 Crore Through Tariff Hike

Case Details: Powergrid Corporation of India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 535

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (May 5) dismissed Power Grid Corporation of India's appeal seeking to recover ₹24 crores in replacement costs for damaged transformers through electricity tariffs. The Court held that replacing Inter-Connecting Transformers due to operational failure constitutes an operational expense, not 'additional work', and therefore does not justify a tariff revision to pass the cost onto consumers.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case arising from a 2006 incident when three critical Inter-Connecting Transformers (ICTs) in PowerGrid's Rihand transmission systems failed during peak summer demand. The company hastily diverted transformers from other substations to maintain Delhi's power supply, later seeking to recover costs through additional capitalization claims under CERC tariff regulations, revised tariff determinations, and insurance recoveries.

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC | Power To Recall Witness Vests With Court, Parties Cannot Do Without Court's Leave : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 536

The Supreme Court held that Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC empowers the court to recall a witness at any stage solely for the purpose of seeking clarification, but it does not grant any right to the parties to recall witnesses for further examination or cross-examination.

The Court further clarified that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be exercised strictly to remove ambiguities or clarify a witness's statement, not to allow a party to fill gaps in its case. Additionally, a party cannot cross-examine a witness on responses given to the Court's questions unless expressly permitted by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the MP High Court's decision which had refused to interfere with the trial court's decision dismissing the Appellant's application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of a witness.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC Judgment Which Anulled Election Of CPI(M) MLA A Raja

Case Details: A. Raja v. D. Kumar | C.A. No. 2758/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 537

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment, which set aside the election of CPI(M) MLA A Raja in the 2021 Legislative Assembly elections.

A bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed the appeal filed by Raja against the March 23, 2023 order of the Kerala High Court which annulled his elections on ground that he was not a member of the 'Hindu Parayan' within the State of Kerala and therefore, he was not qualified to contest elections from Devikulam Assembly constituency that had been reserved for Scheduled Caste among Hindus.

Also from the judgment – Mere Performance Of Another Religious Ritual Doesn't Mean Giving Up Of One's Own Religion : Supreme Court

Suits Can Be Dismissed Suo Motu Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC Based On Plaintiff's Admissions : Supreme Court

Case Details: Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 538

The Supreme Court (May 6) ruled that under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, a court may not only pass a decree in the plaintiff's favour based on the defendant's admissions but may also dismiss a suit where the plaintiff's admissions undermine the claim.

Relying on the case of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan affirmed that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC may be exercised by courts at any stage of the trial, including suo motu, without the need for a formal application.

Dispute Over Full & Final Settlement Is Arbitrable Despite Parties Discharging Contract : Supreme Court

Case Details: Arabian Exports Private Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 539

The Supreme Court (May 6) observed that if the insured alleges coercion in arriving at a settlement with the insurer, then the dispute over the validity of the settlement remains arbitrable.

“Any dispute pertaining to the full and final settlement itself by necessary implication being a dispute arising out of or in relation to or under the substantive contract would not be precluded from reference to arbitration as the arbitration agreement contained in the original contract continues to be in existence even after the parties have discharged the original contract by 'accord and satisfaction'.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case where the Appellant-Insured, who was engaged in the meat processing business, had suffered loss due to flooding. The Appellant alleged that a voucher was signed with the insurer out of coercion to arrive at a settlement, however, immediately after signing of the settlement voucher, the Appellant invoked Arbitration clause.

Long Cohabitation Implies Couple's Consent To Continue Live-in Relationship Without Marriage : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 540

While quashing a case against a man accused of raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, the Supreme Court observed that when a couple continues their live-in relationship for a long period, there is a presumption that they did not want marriage. When two adults reside together as a live-in couple for many years, an allegation that the relationship was entered into on the basis of a false promise of marriage is untenable, the Court added.

In this case, the couple lived together for over two years. On November 19, 2023, they also executed a settlement deed, affirming their love for each other and stating that they will get married. The FIR was lodged on November 23, 2023, alleging that the man had forcible sex with the woman on November 18, 2023.

After the Uttarakhand High Court refused to quash the FIR, the man approached the Supreme Court. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra noted that there was no allegation in the FIR that physical relationship was established only because there was a promise of marriage.

PMLA Accused Entitled To Receive List Of Materials Not Relied Upon By ED : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541

In an important judgment relating to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court held that an accused is entitled to a list of the documents and statements, which were collected by the Directorate of Enforcement during the investigation but were later given up by them while filing the prosecution complaint.

The Court held that the accused must have knowledge about the unrelied upon documents, so that he can apply at the defence stage for their production.

When an accused makes such an application, the Courts should be liberal in allowing them, and should deny only in exceptional circumstances, given the reverse burden imposed by the PMLA, the Court added.

At the stage of entering defence, the accused can apply for the issuance of process for production of documents or anything recorded under Section 233 CrPC (Section 256(b) BNSS). At this stage, the accused can also apply for the production of a document or thing that is in the custody of the prosecution but is not produced, the Court said.

"At the time of hearing of an application for bail governed by Section 45 in connection with offences under PMLA, an accused is entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC seeking production of unrelied upon documents. If investigation or further investigation is in progress, the ED is entitled to raise objections to the production of documents sought by the accused on the ground that if the documents are disclosed, it may prejudice the investigation. Only if the Court, after perusing the documents is satisfied that the disclosure of the documents at this stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation, it may deny the production of such documents," the Court added.

S. 61(2) IBC | Appeal Filed Beyond 45 Days Not Condonable By NCLAT : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tata Steel Ltd v. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 542

The Supreme Court (May 7) ruled that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), acting as the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), has no power to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the prescribed limit of 45 (30+15) days under Section 61(2) of the Code.

Accordingly, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan set aside the decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had improperly condoned the delay in filing an appeal beyond the mandated 45-day period.

S.319 CrPC Summoning Order Can't Be Quashed Based On Alibi Evidence Of Additional Accused : Supreme Court

Case Details: Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 543

The Supreme Court held that to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; a person may be summoned if there is prima facie evidence indicating their involvement in the offence.

“Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of what stronger material could be demanded at the summoning stage short of a confession. The threshold is not proof beyond reasonable doubt; it is the appearance of involvement which is apparent from evidence adduced in the proceeding.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan was hearing the case where the complainant was aggrieved by the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision to interdict the trial court's decision to summon Respondent No.2 (“proposed accused”) as an additional accused in the pending abetment to suicide case.

High Court May Grant Article 227 Interim Relief In Arbitration Proceedings In Exceptional Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 544

The Supreme Court (May 7) held that while the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) mandates minimal judicial interference, a High Court may, in exceptional cases, exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to grant interim relief, particularly where denial of such protection would result in irreparable harm.

“We are aware of the established legal principle that the Courts should refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank guarantee except in cases of fraud of an egregious nature or in cases where allowing encashment would result in irretrievable injustice.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan refused to interfere with the High Court's order granting interim protection from encashing the bank guarantees furnished by the Appellant for the construction of the residential units by the Respondent-Real Estate Company.

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Guilt Of Ex-TN Minister's Wife In Whose Name Disproportionate Assets Were Registered

Case Details: P. Nallammal v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 545

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the culpability of P. Nallammal, the wife of former Tamil Nadu Minister, for her alleged role in abetting her husband in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered a split verdict in a case where A.M. Paramasivam, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and state minister during the 1991–1996 term, was accused of accumulating wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. His wife, Appellant-P. Nallammal was implicated for allegedly abetting this offence by holding benami properties in her name and their children's names.

Army's Burden To Prove Illness Which Arose During Service Wasn't Service-Related : Supreme Court Allows Disability Pension

Case Details: Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 546

The Supreme Court directed that disability pension be granted to the veteran army personnel who was discharged after being diagnosed with schizophrenia (a form of mental illness) while in service.

Observing that disability pension is a beneficial provision under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, and must be interpreted liberally, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh allowed the army personnel's appeal against the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

The Court held that since the Army discharged the appellant on the grounds of schizophrenia, the burden of proving the nature and extent of his disability rested with the Army. It further stated that denying disability pension without providing reasons is impermissible.

'Highly Irresponsible' : Supreme Court Slams BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's Comments Against Judiciary & CJI

Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 547

The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the comments made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey attacking the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India, terming them "highly irresponsible" and attention-seeking. The Court said that the comments showed his ignorance about the functioning of the Constitutional Courts.

At the same time, the Court refrained from taking any action against him, saying that the public's confidence in the judiciary cannot be shaken by "such absurd comments."

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey and to register FIRs against hate speeches made by political leaders in the context of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

Also from the order –

Constitution Is Higher Than All; Judicial Review A Constitutional Function : Supreme Court Debunks Parliamentary Supremacy Claim

Attempts To Spread Communal Hatred & Indulge In Hate Speech Must Be Dealt With Iron Hand : Supreme Court

Valid District Survey Report Essential For Environment Clearance; Draft Or Lapsed DSR Can't Be Basis For EC : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Gaurav Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 548

The Supreme Court struck down the Uttar Pradesh government's e-auction notice for sand mining leases which cited reliance on an expired 2017 District Survey Report (DSR), which lapsed in 2022, and a draft 2023 DSR that had not yet been finalized.

The Court held that, under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notifications, a valid and up-to-date DSR is a mandatory prerequisite for granting Environmental Clearance (EC) for Category B2 minor mineral projects, such as sand mining, as per the 2016 amendment to the EIA Notification.

The dispute centred on the Uttar Pradesh government's attempt to auction sand mining rights based on a DSR from 2017, whose five-year validity had expired, and a 2023 draft DSR that was still undergoing finalization. The NGT ruled that this reliance violated key environmental regulations, rendering the auction process unlawful.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra affirmed the National Green Tribunal's decision, which invalidated the e-auction of sand mining leases by the UP Govt. after noting that the notification was based on outdated DSR.

Unregistered Agreement To Sell Admissible As Evidence To Prove Contract In Specific Performance Suit : Supreme Court

Case Details: Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 549

The Supreme Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell may be admitted as evidence to establish the existence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance.

The Court said that this arrangement is made possible under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which allows an unregistered document to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or of a collateral transaction.

“we are of the opinion that the prayer of the appellant in the interlocutory application falls under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act which provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The proviso also enables the said document to be received in evidence of a collateral transaction.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an appeal arising from Tamil Nadu, where, by virtue of a State amendment to the Registration Act, it is mandatory to register an agreement to sell.

'Not Court's Duty To Tell Media To Delete' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page About ANI's Case

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 550

The Supreme Court (May 9) set aside the Delhi High Court order, which directed the deletion of a Wikipedia page on defamation proceedings initiated by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia on the ground that the page was prima facie contemptuous and amounted to interference in court proceedings

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated the principle that Courts are open institutions to the public and the media reporting about judicial proceedings cannot be curbed lightly.

Courts as a public institution should always be open to the public, and the issues which are even sub judice can be debated by the public and the press, the bench held. "It is not the duty of the Court to tell the media to delete this and take that down... Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both should supplement each other," Justice Bhuyan read out from the judgment.

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of public discourse and media scrutiny, stating that courts, as open and public institutions, must remain receptive to observations, debates, and constructive criticism.

The Court observed that even when a matter is sub judice, it is vital for important issues to be vigorously debated by the public and the press.

Cognizance Of Offence Under S.186 IPC Can't Be Taken On Police Report/Chargesheet: Supreme Court

Case Details: Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 551

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against members of the anti-trafficking NGO Guria, accused of obstructing officials (S. 186 IPC) and using criminal force (S. 353 IPC) during a 2014 rescue of bonded and child labourers from a Varanasi brick kiln.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi quashed the case, holding that the prosecution was "vexatious," legally unsustainable, and borne out of "malice”.

The Court said that Section 353 IPC requires assault/criminal force against a public servant; however, no allegation of force or threat was found on the part of the Appellants. Regarding the allegations of obstructing a public servant from duty, the Court found that the appellants' actions (insisting on interrogation at the police station) were deemed a bona fide disagreement, not obstruction with malicious intent.

NDPS Act | In-Charge SHO Competent To Conduct Search In Absence Of Station House Officer : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Rajasthan v. Gopal & Ors. | Diary No. 28242/2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 552

The Supreme Court held that a search under the NDPS Act can be carried out by the In-Charge Station House Officer in the absence of the designated SHO of the Police Station.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing the challenge against the order of the Rajasthan High Court, which quashed an FIR for offences under Sections 8/18, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

S. 19 PC Act | Sanction Not Vitiated Due To Minor Edits In Draft Sanction Order Without Affecting Substance : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 553

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a retired public servant who had sought acquittal on the basis of alleged irregularities in the sanction order, noting that the minor edits made to the sanction report merely ensured that its form aligned with its substance, without altering its actual content.

Observing that no failure of justice had occurred, the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that the sanctioning authority had properly applied its mind and issued the sanction order after concluding that a prima facie case existed. Therefore, the Court ruled that minor alterations in the report, in the absence of any prejudice to substantial justice, did not render the sanction order invalid or justify acquittal on that basis.

“Even otherwise, merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of granting sanction, that does not affect the validity of the proceedings unless the court records its own satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice.”, the court observed.

Orders

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Woman Seeking Red Fort's Possession Claiming To Be Heir Of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar

Case Details: Sultana Begum v. Union of India. | SLP(C) No. 12032/2025

The Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by a woman, seeking possession of the Red Fort, claiming herself to be the widow of the great-grandson of the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar II.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed the petition filed by one Sultana Begum challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment rejecting her plea.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From All High Courts On Pending Judgments In Cases Reserved Before January 31, 2025

Case Details: Pila Pahan@ Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025

Expressing concerns over the delay in pronouncing judgments, the Supreme Court (May 5) directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit a report on cases where judgments are still not pronounced despite reserving them on or before January 31, 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed the order as follows : "The Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit a report with respect to all those cases where judgments were reserved on or before 31.01.2025 and where pronouncement is still awaited. Information must contain criminal and civil matters separately, with specification whether it's a single or division bench matter."

Supreme Court Seeks Fresh Forensic Report On Audio Clips Against Ex-Manipur CM Biren Singh

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

After examining the report submitted by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) on the authenticity of audio clips allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the State's ethnic violence, the Supreme Court (May 5) called for a fresh Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.

The Court asked the Solicitor General of India to get instructions from the Union Government on submitting a fresh FSL report.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a petition filed by Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust seeking a Court-monitored investigation into certain leaked audio clips, allegedly in the voice of Biren Singh.

Badlapur 'Fake' Encounter : Supreme Court Modifies Bombay HC Order On Probe Against Policemen, Directs DGP To Form SIT

Case Details: State of Maharashtra v. Anna Maruti Shinde | SLP(Crl) No. 6334/2025

The Supreme Court modified the order passed by the Bombay High Court directing the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of Lakhmi Gautam, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to probe into the allegations against five policemen in the Badlapur 'fake' encounter case. The order was modified to the extent that the SIT will now be constituted under the aegis of the Director General of Police, Mumbai.

Before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that the State has no issue with the constitution of the SIT but stated that it should be under the supervision of the DGP. SG Mehta also pressed for staying subsequent orders of the High Court directing second FIR to be registered and directing the handing over the papers to the SIT by the State CID.

Pahalgam Terror Attack | 'Petitioner Aiming For Publicity' : Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Security Measures In Hilly Tourist Areas

Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 458/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking guidelines and directions for the security and safety of tourists in hilly areas prone to terrorists attacks.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating,

"Petitioner is engaging in one or the other purported PILs which are primarily aimed to gain publicity, with no intent to serve public cause. Dismissed."

'High-Handedness': Supreme Court Slams Punjab Govt For De-notifying Land Acquired For SYL Canal; Clarifies Status Quo Order

Case Details: State of Haryana Department of Irrigation Secretary v. State of Punjab and Anr. | Original Suit No. 6/1996

In the dispute pending between the states of Punjab and Haryana over the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, the Supreme Court called out the Punjab government for de-notifying land which was acquired for the construction of the canal in furtherance of the Court's decree.

Labelling the action "high-handedness", Justice BR Gavai said to Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, appearing for the State, "Mr Advocate General, was it not an act of high-handedness that once a decree was passed, land which was acquired for construction of the canal was de-notified? It is trying to defeat the decree of the Court. Clear case of high-handedness."

Ultimately, the bench of Justices Gavai and AG Masih directed both the States to cooperate with the Union in arriving at an amicable solution. If the issue is not resolved amicably, the matter would be taken up on 13 August, the Court said.

Supreme Court Directs Holding Of Maharashtra Local Body Elections With OBC Reservation Before Banthia Commission Report

Case Details: Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021

The Supreme Court (May 6) passed an interim order to hold the local body elections in the State of Maharashtra, which were stalled since 2022 due to litigation relating to the implementation of the reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The Court directed that the elections to the local bodies be held as per the OBC reservation which existed prior to the submission of the Banthia Commission report in July 2022.

"The reservation shall be provided to the OBC communities as per the law as it existed in the State of Maharashtra before the 2022 report of the JK Banthia Commission," the Court observed.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and NK Singh directed the State Election Commission to notify the local body elections within four weeks. Efforts should be made to complete the election process within a period of four months, the bench directed. The Election Commission has been given liberty to seek extension of time if needed.

The bench also clarified that the elections will be subject to the outcome of the petitions challenging the Banthia Commission and that the order will not prejudice the contentions raised by the parties.

Supreme Court Fixes SCBA Elections On May 20; Secretary & 1/3rd EC Posts Reserved For Women

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik., Diary No. 13992-2023

The Supreme Court (May 6) directed that the elections of the office-bearer posts of the Supreme Court Bar Association be held on May 20. The Court also directed that the election shall be held on the basis of the voter list as was finalized in the elections for the year 2024.

Apart from those who are included in the voter list for 2024, all those members who acquired eligibility up to 28.02.2025 shall also be entitled to be included in voter list, the Court said.

It was further directed that for the 2025 elections, the post of Secretary shall be exclusively reserved for a woman candidate. In addition, 1/3rd posts in the Executive Committee (ie 3 out of 9) and 1/3rd posts of senior executive members (ie 2 out of 6) shall be exclusively reserved for women candidates.

Supreme Court Takes Cognizance Of Recent Suicides In IIT & Kota Coaching Centre, Asks If FIR Registered

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

The Supreme Court directed the Union to comply in two days with its earlier directions of depositing Rs. 20 Lakhs for setting up a National Task Force dealing with students' mental health and suicide prevention.

The Court also sought a status report on two recent instances of student suicides in IIT Kharagpur and a coaching centre in Kota, Rajasthan and whether the administrative authorities have filed an FIR regarding it.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the matter in which it had earlier issued a slew of directions to address suicides of students in higher eductional institutions.

Appeals To Restore Death Penalty Don't Require 3-Judge Bench Hearing : Supreme Court Rejects Godhra Case Convicts' Objections

Case Details: Abdul Raheman Dhantiya @ Kankatto @Jamburo v. State of Gujarat., Criminal Appeal 517/2018

The Supreme Court today(May 6) began the final hearing of the 2018 appeals pending in the 2002 Godhra train burning case.

The criminal appeals, filed by the convicts challenging their conviction and the State of Gujarat seeking death sentence for the convicts, were listed before a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar. At the outset, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, for the convicts, pointed out that the State was seeking death penalty for some of the convicts. He stated that as per the judgment in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs The Reg. Supreme Court Of India & Ors (2014), death penalty matters are required to be heard by a three-judge bench.

However, the Court felt that Mohd Arif's judgment does not apply to the present case. It therefore signalled for the parties to begin their arguments

Mullaperiyar Dam : Supreme Court Directs States Of Kerala & Tamil Nadu To Implement Supervisory Committee Recommendations

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala and Anr., Original Suit No. 3/2006

The Supreme Court directed the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to act upon recommendations made by the Supervisory Committee in relation to the Mullaperiyar Dam.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating,

"Some urgent issues with regard to maintenance of the Mullaperiyar Dam were identified in order dated...Thereafter, Supervisory Committee...was directed to convene a meeting by associating representative of the states and find out a solution...Ld. ASG has handed over minutes of the meeting of the Committee. The report acknowledges the issues which are required to be addressed urgently and the decision taken in consultation with representatives of the state govts. No follow up steps have been taken...We see no justification for inaction on part of the state authorities. Keeping in view mandate given by this Court to the Committee, we direct states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala to act upon the recommendations made by the Supervisory Committee. However, in case the states find any impediment in giving effect, liberty is granted to raise such issue before us on the next date."

Supreme Court Directs NCR States To Issue Directions Under S.5 Environment Protection Act To Enforce Firecrackers' Ban

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana to issue directions under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, enforcing a complete ban on firecrackers in the National Capital Region (NCR).

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the MC Mehta matter concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR from various sources such as firecrackers and stubble burning.

Section 5 empowers the central government to issue written directions to any person, officer, or authority for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act. The centre has delegated the power under section 5 to states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana in 1988.

Only Goods Vehicles Which Are BS-VI CNG, LNG Or EVs Allowed To Enter Delhi From Nov 2025 : CAQM Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court was informed that starting 1st November 2025, only BS-VI compliant CNG, LNG, and electric Goods Vehicles (Light, Medium, and Heavy), except those registered in Delhi, will be allowed entry into the city.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati also informed the Court about measures to phase out end-of-life vehicles and steps being taken by the Union to transition to cleaner fuel technologies.

The court noted that Directions 88 and 89 issued by CAQM on 23rd April 2025 are a welcome step in the right and positive direction. The court said it would issue directions for their implementation. In the meantime, it directed all state governments and public authorities represented before the court to place on record the data on EVs hired or purchased by them during the last five years.

CLAT-UG 2025 : Supreme Court Flags Mistakes; Directs To Give Marks For Certain Answers, Deletes Some Questions

Case Details: Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Anr. | Diary No. 22324-2025

The Supreme Court flagged several mistakes in the CLAT-UG 2025 questions and directed the revision of the merit list, after setting aside some of the directions issued by the Delhi High Court.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to award marks for certain questions and to delete certain other questions.

The Supreme Court decided to suo motu take up a writ petition filed by late Professor Shamnad Basheer in 2015 seeking the formation of a permanent body to conduct the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for admission to National Law Universities.

Since Professor Basheer passed away in 2019, the Court decided to suo motu proceed with the writ petition and notice was issued to the respondents( Union, BCI and the NLUs).

Review Petitions Against PMLA Judgment Can't Go Beyond 2 Issues : Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement

In the review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgement, which upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Union Government told the Supreme Court that the review hearing cannot go beyond the two specific issues which were orally flagged by the bench which issued notice in August 2022.

At the outset, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted the bench which considered the review petitions for admission in August 2022 issued notice only on two limited aspects - regarding the supply of the ECIR to the accused and the reversal of burden of proof (S.24 PMLA). However, the bench did not expressly state so in its order. Therefore, to avoid any future controversy, the SG said that the Union filed an affidavit the next day after the issuance of notice stating the issues identified by the Court for review.

The bench directed the listing on 16 July at 2.30 PM for the purpose of formulation of issues.

Supreme Court Specifies Procedure For EVM Verification & Mock Poll; ECI Says Won't Erase Data Of EVMs If Verification Sought

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and Anr. | MA 40/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 434/2023

The Supreme Court (May 7) set out the procedure to be followed for conducting the verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and mock polls by the Election Commission of India (ECI) at the request of a contesting candidate. The ECI informed the Court that it will not resort to deleting the data on EVM units which are subject to verification.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing the application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), contending that the Standard Operating Procedure framed by the ECI for verification of the EVMs was not in accordance with the April 2024 judgment in the EVM-VVPAT case.

Supreme Court Directs Demolition Of Illegal Structures On Public Land In Okhla Village, Delhi

The Supreme Court ordered the Delhi Development Authority and Delhi government to demolish unauthorised structures spread over more than 4 bighas of public land in Khasra No. 279 in Okhla Village, Delhi within 3 months in accordance with law.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing a contempt plea regarding the violation of its 2018 directions on unauthorised construction and encroachment on public lands in Delhi.

The Court added that concerned persons must be served a 15-day notice before any demolition is carried out, and persons who receive demolition notices are free to take legal steps in accordance with law.

Lakhimpur Kheri Case : Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra To Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend To Meet Family

Case Details: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

The Supreme Court allowed Ashish Mishra, son of BJP leader and former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri killings case, to visit Lakhimpur Kheri every Saturday evening to spend time with family, subject to the condition that he should return to Lucknow Sunday evening.

The Court added that while in Lakhimpur Kher, Mishra should not participate in any public meeting or political activities and that the visit shall be private only for the family members.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh modified Mishra's bail conditions while allowing his applications. As per the earlier bail condition, he could not enter Lakhimpur Kheri except for attending the trial.

WB School Jobs Scam : Supreme Court Asks Bengal Govt To Decide On Sanction To Prosecute Partha Chatterjee's Co-Accused

Case Details: Partha Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 2471-2472/2025

The Supreme Court directed the State of West Bengal to take a decision on granting sanction to prosecute the co-accused of former Education Minister Partha Chatterjee in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act over alleged bribery for offering school jobs.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed this order while adjourning Chatterjee's bail application in the CBI case till July 17 to be listed along with the bail petitions of the co-accused.

"Meanwhile, in order to facilitate trial, the State of West Bengal is directed to take a decision regarding granting sanction in the cases of the petitioner's co-accused within 2 weeks. We are conscious of the fact that State and abovenamed accused are not before us. We have not expressed opinion on merits," the bench ordered.

Supreme Court Directs States To Identify Laws Discriminating Against Leprosy-Affected Persons

Case Details: Federation of Lepy. Organ. (Folo) v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 83/2010

The Supreme Court on May 8 directed the States to form a Committee to identify the provisions in their laws, rules, regulations, by-laws etc., which discriminate against leprosy-affected or cured persons. The States were directed to take steps to remove such discriminatory provisions and make them conform with the Constitutional obligations.

As per the brief background of the petition, 'Leprosy' was considered a dreaded disease because it was incurable, highly contagious, and infectious. During that time, there was a need to segregate the leprosy patients from society at large, and therefore, the Indian Lepers Act, 1898, was enacted to provide segregation of leprosy-affected persons.

Supreme Court Says Centre Must Clear Collegium Recommendations Soon, Raises Alarm Over High Court Vacancies

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail | SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021

Expressing concerns about the unfilled vacancies in the High Court, the Supreme Court observed that the Central Government must clear the recommendations made by the Collegium for Judges' appointments without delay.

"The Central Government needs to act and ensure that the recommendations made by the Supreme Court collegium for judge appointments are cleared expeditiously," observed the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in its order.

The Court passed this observation raising alarm at the fact that over 7 lakh criminal appeals are pending in the High Court.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Chief Secretaries Of Delhi, UP, Haryana, Rajasthan Over Non- Filling Of PCB Vacancies

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., In Re: Number of Vacant Posts in Statutory Pollution Control Boards of Various States

The Supreme Court has issued contempt notices to the Chief Secretaries of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan for breach of its order to fill all vacancies in their respective Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) and Pollution Control Committees by April 30, 2025.

The Court observed that these states had committed a wilful breach of its earlier order dated August 27, 2024 directing that all vacancies in PCBs of NCR states be filled by April 30, 2025.

'Court Can't Compel Any State To Adopt National Education Policy' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Implement NEP In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 260/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a person seeking to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to implement the National Education Policy (2020) including its 'three-language formula'.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that the Court cannot issue any direction under Article 32 of the Constitution to compel any State to adopt the NEP.

Supreme Court Demotes Deputy Collector Who Demolished Slum-Dwellers' Huts Defying HC Order, Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Fine

Case Details: Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu and Ors., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025

As a punishment, the Supreme Court directed demotion of a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, thereby displacing them.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih ordered that the State of Andhra Pradesh demote the petitioner-Deputy Collector to the post of Tahsildar. It was further directed that the petitioner shall deposit a fine of Rs.1 lakh within 4 weeks.

While demoting the Deputy Collector, the Supreme Court sent a strongly worded message through its order that howsoever high an authority may be, it cannot disobey orders passed by any Court in the country.

Operation Sindoor | 'Time To Utilize Their Services' : Supreme Court Stays Release Of In-Service Indian Women Army Officers

Case Details: Lt. Col. Pooja Pal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., C.A. No. 9747-9757/2024

The Supreme Court stayed the release of Women Officers of the Indian Army, who are currently in service, till the next date of hearing.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and ordered: "Without creating any equity in their favor, it is directed that all officers-in-service be not relieved till the next date".

The hearing witnessed Justice Kant lauding the efforts of the Indian Army, while underlining that the present situation (reference to India-Pak tensions following the Pahalgam Terror Attack) calls for each citizen to stand by the Army and uplift its morale.

Supreme Court Reserves Treasurer & 30% EC Posts For Women Lawyers In Gujarat HC & District Bar Associations

Case Details: Meena A. Jagtap v. Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) No. 819/2024

The Supreme Court directed that the post of Treasurer, as well as 30% of the Executive Committee posts, shall be reserved for women lawyers in the Gujarat High Court and District Bar Associations.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating that there was no reason to take a view different from the ones taken in the cases of Supreme Court Bar Association, Delhi High Court Bar Association and Advocates' Association Bengaluru, where also posts were similarly reserved for women lawyers.

PMLA Accused Entitled To Hearing Before Cognizance Is Taken Of ED Complaint Filed After BNSS Came Into Effect : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court held that before taking cognizance of a money laundering complaint under section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the special court has to give opportunity to the accused to be heard as per the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the cognizance order passed by the Special Court dated November 20, 2024, after noting that the BNSS, which came effect from July 1, 2024, mandated pre-cognizance hearing of the accused as per Section 223(1). Such a provision was not present in the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Allahabad HC's Senior Designations Conferred In 2019

Case Details: Vishnu Behari Tiwari v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad | Diary No. 10144-2025

The Supreme Court (May 9) issued notice in a plea challenging senior advocate designations conferred by the Allahabad High Court in 2019.

While issuing notice, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the permanent committee of the High Court departed from the law laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court by reducing the total marks to 75 from 100.

The Special Leave Petition was filed against the September 2024 judgment of the Allahabad High Court which rejected the petition filed by Advocate Vishnu Bihari Tiwari against the 2019 designations. While dismissing the petition, the High Court had also noted that no senior designations have taken place since 2019.

In 2019, when after the applications for Senior Designation were sought, the Permanent Committee, headed by the then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court resolved to forego interviews and decided that only advocates who obtain 45 points or more out of 75 points shall be considered to be eligible as such for their nomination for designation as Senior Advocate.

Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From MP Sessions Judge For Ignoring Its Bail Order, Asks HC To Send Him For Training

Case Details:

The Supreme Court frowned upon the conduct of a judicial officer who overlooked the directions passed by the Apex Court in a bail matter. Terming the case to be 'shocking', it issued a show cause notice to the judicial officer as to why no strict view should be taken against him.

The Court also requested the Chief Justice of the MP High Court to send the judicial officer, an Additional Sessions Judge, for a week-long training.

The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a matter related to compliance with its previous bail order, dated January 24, where it granted bail to the accused/petitioner.

Supreme Court Calls On All High Courts To Furnish Report On Dates Of Pronouncement And Uploading Of Judgments

Case Details: M/S Marion Biotech Pvt Ltd v. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad, W.P. (C) No. 490/2025

In continuation of an order passed earlier, the Supreme Court called on all High Courts to submit a report regarding dates of pronouncement and uploading of judgments.

"the Registrar Generals of all High Courts are directed to submit a further report giving full description of the dates of pronouncement of judgments and the dates when such judgments are uploaded", a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh ordered.

For context, the earlier order called on the High Courts to furnish information regarding cases where judgments have still not been pronounced despite having been reserved on or before January 31, 2025.

'You've Already Minted Enough': Supreme Court Rejects Noida Toll Company's Review Plea Against Judgment Refusing Toll On DND Flyway

Case Details: Pradeep Puri v. Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited and Ors., Diary No. 1373-2025

The Supreme Court has dismissed Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd.'s petition seeking review of the judgment whereby its plea to impose tolls on the commuters of Delhi-Noida Direct (DND) flyway was rejected.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order.

TN Cash-for-Jobs Scam | Supreme Court Raps Lawyer For Filing Plea On Victims' Cause While Representing Accused In Trial

Case Details: Anti-Corruption Movement v. State Represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police

The Supreme Court pulled up an advocate, who represents an accused in the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam, for filing a plea purportedly on behalf of the victims of the same scam in which former minister Senthil Balaji is the prime accused.

The SLP, filed by an association called the Anti-Corruption Movement, challenged the orders of the Special Court for trial of cases related to MPs and MLAs in Tamil Nadu, which had clubbed multiple supplementary charge sheets with the main charge sheet in one of the corruption cases (predicate offence) related to the scam.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the plea and asked the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate action against the lawyer.

Supreme Court Affirms Calcutta HC View That CCTV Can't Be Installed In Home Without Consent Of All Occupants

Case Details: Indranil Mullick & Ors. v. Shuvendra Mullick | SLP(C) 12384/2025

The Supreme Court (May 9) refused to interfere with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which held that CCTV cameras cannot be installed in a house without the consent of all occupants.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the High Court's judgment.

Other Developments

Trust Following Sree Narayana Guru's Teachings Opposes Waqf Amendment Act 2025 In Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | W.P.(C) No. 276/2025

Sree Narayana Manava Dharmam Trust, an organisation established to study and disseminate the values and teachings of Sree Narayana Guru, has sought intervention in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) 2025. The intervention application, filed in the Supreme Court on April 3, 2025, supports the challenge against the constitutionality of the 2025 amendments.

A key figure in India's reformist tradition, Sree Narayana Guru's contributions spanned the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly in challenging caste hierarchies in Kerala. Since Sree Narayana Guru supported religious harmony and the well-being of all people, the Trust said it cannot remain an "idle spectator to the devastating impact of the Waqf Amendment Act on the Muslim community of India and to social justice in our country".

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre On Plea Challenging Blocking Of YouTube Channel '4PM News'

Case Details: Sanjay Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 465/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on a plea filed by journalist Sanjay Sharma against the blocking of his YouTube channel '4PM News' on purported grounds of 'national security' and 'public order'.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Comedian Samay Raina & 4 Others In Plea Over Jokes On Persons With Disabilitie

Case Details: M/S. Cure SMA Foundation of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to comedians Samay Raina, Vipun Goyal and three others in a petition alleging that they had made insensitive jokes mocking persons with disabilities.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh directed the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to issue notice to them to ensure that they remain present in the Court on the next date. If they fail to appear, coercive steps will be taken, the Court warned.

CJI Khanna Sends Petitions Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025 To Justice BR Gavai's Bench; Hearing On May 15

Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | W.P. (C) No. 276/2025

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (May 5) said that the petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2024 will be listed before a bench led by Justice BR Gavai in view of the fact that he has only few days left before retirement(May 13).

Justice Yashwant Varma Cash Row : Judges' Committee Submits Report To CJI After In-House Inquiry

The committee of judges which held an in-house probe against Justice Yashwant Varma over allegations of cash discovery at his official residence submitted its report to Chief Justice of India Sanijv Khanna on May 4.

NEET-PG 2025 : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Horizontal Reservation For Transgender Persons

Case Details: Kiran A.R and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 461/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking horizontal reservation for transgender persons in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-PG 2025. The exam is scheduled to take place on June 15, 2025.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (for petitioners), who argued that despite the judgment in NALSA v. Union of India, the Union and the States have not provided reservation to transgender persons.

NEET PG 2025 : Supreme Court Seeks NBE's Response On Plea Against Conducting NEET-PG In Two Shifts

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

The Supreme Court (May 5) issued notice on a writ petition challenging the notification dated April 16, 2025, notifying the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Postgraduate) [NEET-PG 2025] examination to be conducted on May 15 in two shifts.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan sought the response of the National Board of Examinations, National Medical Council and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

ED Just Makes Allegations Without Specific Evidence In Many Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: Arvind Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court remarked that there is a pattern of the Directorate of Enforcement making allegations in the prosecution complaints without referring to specific material to support them.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the bail plea of Arvind Singh, an accused in the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre & States On NALSA's Petition For Release Of Elderly & Terminally Ill Prisoners

Case Details: National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 162/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and States and Union Territory in a Public Interest Litigation filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) seeking urgent intervention for the release of elderly and terminally ill convicted prisoners across the country.

The notice was issued by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. The petition highlights the dire conditions faced by such prisoners and calls for the implementation of compassionate release of the identified prisoners in line with constitutional and human rights obligations.

In A First, Supreme Court Publishes Declaration Of Judges' Assets On Website

In a significant step towards transparency and boosting public confidence in the judiciary, the Supreme Court has mandated the public disclosure of the assets of the Judges. After a Full Court meeting led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, it has been decided that "Placing the declaration of assets on the Supreme Court website will be mandatory."

Following this decision, the asset declarations of the twenty one Judges of the Supreme Court have been uploaded on the official website. Presently, the declarations of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, and twenty other judges, including the three judges who are next in line to be the CJI in the near future, have been uploaded.

Supreme Court Publishes Appointment Process Of Judges, Details Of Collegium Recommendations From Nov 2022

The Supreme Court on May 5 uploaded the complete process of appointments of Judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court on its website for the knowledge and awareness of the public.

The proposals approved by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointments as High Court Judges during the period 9th November 2022 to 5th May 2025, including the names, High Court, source – whether from Service or Bar, date of recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium, date of notification by Department of Justice, date of appointment, special category (SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Woman), and whether the candidate is related to any sitting or retired High Court/Supreme Court Judge, have also been uploaded on the Supreme Court website.

Reservation Business Has Become Like Train Journey, Those Already In Coach Don't Want Others To Enter : Justice Surya Kant

Case Details: Mangesh Shankar Sasane v. State of Maharashtra | W.P.(C) No. 471/2025

Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court, during a hearing, likened the reservation system in the country to a train journey, where people who have already secured the seats do not want others to enter the same compartment.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was hearing the case related to the OBC reservation in the local body elections in the State of Maharashtra.

Officer Facing Contempt Action Refuses To Accept Demotion As Punishment; Supreme Court Warns Of Jail

Case Details: Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu and Ors., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025

The Supreme Court expressed its displeasure at a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, when he said that he would not accept demotion as a punishment for contempt of court.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with a plea filed by the petitioner/Deputy Collector against a High Court order which found him guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to 2 months' simple imprisonment.

MBBS Internship : Supreme Court Seeks NMC Response On Plea Seeking Stipend For Foreign Medical Graduates

Case Details: Akash Udayakumar & Ors. v. National Medical Commission &Ors | W.P.(C) No. 000397 / 2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the non-payment of stipends to foreign medical graduates (FMGs) interning at Indian Hospitals/ Medical Institutions.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran agreed to consider the issue of non-payment of stipend to foreign medical graduates (FMGs) who were interning at Mahaveer Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal.

Why Can't Vakalatnamas Mention If Advocate Has Passed AIBE? Supreme Court Asks BCI

The Supreme Court suggested to the Bar Council of India that they bring a rule mandating that in the vakaltnamas filed by Advocates enrolled after 2010, it should be specified if the candidate has cleared the All India Bar Examination.

Supreme Court Will Have 3 Benches Every Week During Summer Break : Justice BR Gavai

During a hearing, Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court said that the Court will have 3 Vacation Benches every week during the upcoming summer break.

It may be recalled that the summer break this year will constitute "partial Court working days". The same will commence from 26 May, 2025 and the Full Court working days will resume from 14 July, 2025.

29 Supreme Court Collegium Recommendations From Nov 2022 For HC Judges Pending With Central Government

The data published by the Supreme Court regarding the judges' appointment process has revealed that 29 recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as High Court Judges during November 9, 2022 to May 5, 2025 are pending with the Central Government.

Supreme Court Issues Notice In Six Appeals Against Acquittals In 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Cases

Case Details: S Gurlad Singh Kahlon v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice in six Special Leave Petitions filed by the Delhi Police challenging the acquittals of 14 accused persons in cases related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

“Issue notice. Registrar to provide the soft copy of the record of the trial court to the counsel appearing for parties. Parties to place on record a compilation of notes of evidence. Notice is made returnable on 21st of July”, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered.

Union Defends Limit On Women JAG Appointments Citing Risk Of Being Taken As Prisoners Of War; Supreme Court Questions Logic

Case Details: Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 772/2023

The Supreme Court (May 7) again questioned the rationale of the Union Government to follow a 50-50 selection criterion for women in the post of Judge Advocate General (JAG) despite claiming that the posts are gender neutral.

Also, the Court questioned why the JAG female officers are not deployed in combat zones merely because there is a threat perception that women will be taken as Prisoners of War (PoW).

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Suo Motu Case Over Child Rape Cases; Amicus Flags Lack Of Special POCSO Courts In Many States

Case Details: In Re Alarming Rise In The Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2019

The Supreme Court (May 7) reserved judgment in a 2019 suo moto proceedings initiated in relation to addressing the systematic flaws under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice PB Varale was hearing the matter.

Today, amicus and Senior Advocate Uttara Babbar submitted that the Court has, from time to time, passed various directions in regard to and for establishing special POCSO courts for speedy justice, appointment of Special Prosecutors, training persons associated with the process etc.

The Court has been monitoring compliance with these directions. She particularly requested that the Court continue to monitor the issue of States failing to establish Special POCSO Courts as per the Court's 2019 order.

'Won't Permit Mudslinging On A Former CJI': Supreme Court Rejects Third Party's Plea For Justice Lalit's Report In WB VC Appointment Case

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

In the matter pertaining to the appointment of Vice Chancellors for certain West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a lawyer's request for making available a copy of former CJI UU Lalit's report.

"We will not allow anyone to comment on the report. Only 2 persons were permitted, Chief Minister and Chancellor...if you people think you will be allowed, there's no question. We will not provide any copy for the purpose of you people indulging in mudslinging on a former CJI who we selected with the consent of AG and senior counsels from state's side...only because of your vested interest", said Justice Surya Kant.

A Bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh adjourned the matter to tomorrow, to ascertain Justice Lalit's availability to consider the material placed before the Court by Attorney General R Venkataramani.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna Forwards In-House Inquiry Report On Justice Yashwant Varma To President

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has forwarded to the President of India and the Prime Minister the report submitted by the three-judge panel which held an in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma in relation to the alleged discovery of unauthorised cash currency notes at his official residence.

The response given by Justice Varma has also been forwarded to the President and the PM.

'Rohingyas Are Foreigners, Must Be Dealt Under Foreigners Act' : Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Deportation, Posts Case In July

Case Details: Jaffar Ullah and Anr. v. U.O.I and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 859/2013

In cases relating to deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees, the Supreme Court was informed that some refugees with United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) cards, including women and children, were arrested by police authorities late last night and deported, despite the matter being listed today.

The petitioners' counsels made the allegation based on media reports, which seem to suggest that some Rohingyas were taken from the place where they were being detained for "verification of papers", but perhaps deported to Myanmar.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and listed it for hearing on 31 July without directing any stay, when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta drew attention to an order dated April 8, 2021 saying it binds the government to take deportation action only in accordance with law.

Supreme Court Considers Plea To Replace 5-Year Law Degree Course With 4-Year LL.B

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. | WP (C) No. 453/2025

The Supreme Court considered a PIL seeking to replace the 5-year LL.B course with a 4-year LL.B course on the ground that the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) promotes four-year undergraduate courses for professional degrees.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, did not issue notice on the petition, and tagged it with another matter concerning 1-year LL.M course.

Justice Nagarathna Flags Apprehension That Population-Based Delimitation May Reduce Southern States' Representation

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court (May 9) orally spoke about the apprehensions that delimitation based on population would reduce the representation of the southern states in the Parliament, since the population growth in the south is declining in contrast to the northern states.

The bench comprising Justice Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a batch of petitions related to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act.

While dealing with petitions filed by couples seeking a second child through surrogacy, Justice Nagarathna said, "In South you see, the families are shrinking. Births are coming down in South India...There are so many people in the North who are going on and on having children... There is an apprehension now if they have Delimitation based on population, the number of representatives of the South will be reduced because of the population of North India."

Justice Nagarathna also questioned why the petitioners wanted to opt for surrogacy.

''Operation Sindoor' Can't Be Commercially Exploited' : Plea In Supreme Court To Bar Trademark Registration Of Operation Sindoor

Case Details: Dev Ashish Dubey v. Union of India & Ors.

A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court to bar the trademark registration of “Operation Sindoor”, the name given for India's military operations against the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan.

The petitioner Dev Ashish Dubey has filed the writ petition against 4 applicants who made an application being Application TM-1 under Class 41 for the registration of the Trademark under the name and style "Operation Sindoor" with the trademark registry. Class 41 covers education and entertainment services.

These applicants include (1) Mukesh Chetram Agrawal(Mumbai); (2) Group Captain Kamal Singh Obreh (Retd)(J&K); (3) Alok Kothari(Delhi); (4) Jayraj T (Kerala), and (4) Uttam(Gujarat). The applications were filed with the Trademark Registries at New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Ahmedabad.

To Tackle 7 Lakh Criminal Appeals, Supreme Court Advises HCs : Use AI Tools, Digitise Records, Appoint Case Management Registrars

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail

Noting that over 7.24 lakh criminal appeals are pending across the High Courts in the country, the Supreme Court has requested all High Courts to consider a series of suggestions to address the backlog.

“As of 22nd March, 2025, the total pendency of criminal appeals (appeals against conviction and acquittal) is 7,24,192…Therefore, there is a huge problem faced by all the High Courts”, the Court observed.

The Court expressly endorsed several of the suggestions including case record digitization, procedural rule amendments for automatic requisitioning of trial records once notice is issued in appeals, use of its AI translation tool SUAS for translating court documents, and creation of the post of Registrar (Court and Case Management) in all High Courts to streamline case readiness. It endorsed the amici curiae's suggestion that High Courts with multiple benches consider hearing appeals via video conferencing to help benches with lower pendency assist the principal seat.

'If A Lady Can Fly Rafale In Air Force, Why Fewer Women In JAG?' Supreme Court Asks Army, Reserves Judgment

Case Details: Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 772/2023

The Supreme Court on May 8 reserved judgment in a writ petition filed by two women seeking appointment to the post of Judge Advocate General (JAG) (Indian Army) Entry Scheme 31st Course, challenging the disproportionate vacancies for men and women. As per their petitioners, though they secured ranks 4 and 5, respectively, and are higher in merit than male candidates, still, due to the fewer vacancies earmarked for women (3 in number as compared to 6 for men), they could not be selected.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan heard the matter. The Court granted interim relief to Petitioner 1. Arshnoor Kaur, and directed the Union and the Army to induct her in the next available training course for appointment as a JAG officer.

During the hearings, the Court questioned the Union for earmarking fewer posts for women, despite claiming the posts to be gender neutral. Justice Datta mentioned that he read in the newspaper that a woman fighter pilot would be flying Rafale aircraft. He added that even in this case, she could be taken as a prisoner of war.

"If it's permissible in the Air Force for a lady to fly a Rafale, what is so very difficult for the Army? Of course, it's a possible decision. We are no one to say anything," Justice Datta said.