Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: November 2025

Reports/Judgments

Arbitration | Objections To Arbitral Award Execution Maintainable Only If Decree Is Void Or Without Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Cause Title: MMTC Limited v. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt. Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1060

The Supreme Court (November 3) ruled against the stalling of the enforcement of an arbitral award at the execution stage, reiterating that the objections against the execution of an award lie in a narrow compass, such as only when a decree is inherently void or passed without jurisdiction.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan upheld the Delhi High Court's decision dismissing Appellant-MMTC's objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its application under Order XXI Rule 29 seeking a stay on enforcement of a multi-million-dollar arbitral award in favour of Respondent-Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt. Ltd.

Relying on Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/s ESL Steel Limited) vs. ISPAT Carrier Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 491, the Court held that belated allegations of fraud and collusion cannot be invoked to reopen or obstruct the enforcement of an arbitral award that has already been upheld up to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order To Remove Unauthorised Constructions In Gurugram; Remands For Fresh Decision After Hearing Owners

Cause Title: Gaurav Kohli & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1061

The Supreme Court set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which directed the removal of unauthorized and illegal constructions in Gurugram's DLF City, noting that such a sweeping direction without affording an opportunity of hearing to the owners who were not impleaded in the suits can't be issued.

Instead, the Court restored the Writ Petition before the High Court with a direction to all the affected owners to seek impledment in the proceedings within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order, i.e, up to November 11. The Court said that the State authorities are at liberty to give wide publicity to this order for impleading the affected persons in the PIL.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the appeal filed against the High Court's order passed in Februaryin a PIL giving sweeping directions for the removal of the illegal and commercial use of residential premises in Gurugram. The High Court directed the authorities to take action within two months under Section 15 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (HDRUA Act).

MV Act | Private Bus Operators Cannot Ply On Inter-State Routes Overlapping With Notified State Transport Routes: Supreme Court

Cause Title: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1062

The Supreme Court has held that private operators cannot be granted stage-carriage permits on inter-State routes under reciprocal transport agreements if any portion of those routes overlaps a notified intra-State route reserved for State transport undertakings under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the order of the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed recognition of permits granted to Madhya Pradesh's private bus operators under the Inter-State Reciprocal Transport (IS-RT) Agreement between the Transport Departments of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, for the routes which overlaps with routes exclusively operated by UP State Road Transport Corporation.

The legal battle stemmed from an IS-RT Agreement from 2006 between Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. The agreement allowed private operators to ply on certain routes (Schedule A), while others (Schedule B) were reserved for the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC).

'Surfaces Of Highways Smoother Than Ever Before': Supreme Court Hails India's Progress In Road Transport Infrastructure

Cause Title: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1062

The Supreme Court has lauded the remarkable transformation of India's road transport network, observing that the country has made “sincere and serious attempts to revolutionise travel” and achieved a “quantum leap” in infrastructure development over the years.

It cannot be disputed that the nation has made substantial progress in road transport, the Court remarked.

While reflecting on the evolution of road transport, the Court noted that India has moved far beyond its “humble beginnings” and now boasts an intricate network of highways that connect even the remotest villages to nearby cities and towns, ensuring genuine “last-mile connectivity.”

Biometric Attendance System Not Illegal Merely Because Employees Weren't Consulted Before Its Introduction: Supreme Court

Case: Union of India v. Dilip Kumar Rout and Others | Civil Appeal No. 13572/2015

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1063

The Supreme Court upheld the Union Government's move to introduce the Biometric Attendance System (“BAS”) in the Office of Principal Accountant General(A&E), Odisha, rejecting the employee's argument that they were not consulted before implementing the BAS.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale set aside the Odisha High Court judgment that had quashed the introduction of a Biometric Attendance System (BAS).

The Court said that “Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,when the introduction of the Biometric Attendance System is for the benefit of all the stakeholders, merely for the reason that the employees were not consulted before implementing the same does not render the introduction of the system to be illegal.”

S. 156(3) CrPC | Once Complaint Discloses Cognizable Offence, Magistrate Can Direct Police To Register FIR: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1064

The Supreme Court (November 4) observed that once the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence, then the magistrates are empowered to direct police to register FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C (now Section 175(3) of BNSS).

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision which quashed the FIR, that was registered upon magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Since, the facts alleged in the complaint to the magistrate discloses a commission of a cognizable offence, the Court justified the magistrate's order to direct police investigation, stating that at the pre-cognizance stage the Magistrate only needs to assess whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offense, not whether the allegations are true or substantiated.

In support, the Court referred to the case of Madhao v State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615, where it was observed: -

No Compassionate Appointment Claim Over Missing Employee Who Retired Before 7-Year Period For Presumption Of Death: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Lalita & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1065

Observing that the presumption of death arises only after seven years from the date a person goes missing, the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench which had directed the Municipal Corporation to grant compassionate appointment to the son of a missing employee who had retired from service before completion of the seven-year period required to presume civil death.

The Court held that since the employee's family had already accepted retirement and pensionary benefits, they could not subsequently claim compassionate appointment.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale heard the case, which involved one Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, a Nagpur Municipal Corporation employee who went missing on September 1, 2012 but was deemed in service until his retirement on January 31, 2015. His family received ₹6.49 lakh in retiral benefits and a ₹12,000-monthly pension. In 2022, a civil court declared him dead without specifying the date. His son then sought compassionate appointment, which the High Court granted, treating his father as dead from the date of disappearance(2012).

If Written Grounds Of Arrest Not Furnished At Least Two Hrs Before Production Of Accused Before Magistrate, Arrest & Remand Illegal: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (November 6) extended the requirement of providing the grounds of arrest in writing to apply to all offences under the IPC/BNS, and not just to cases arising under special statutes like the PMLA or UAPA.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, in the language he/she understands, would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

“The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in part III of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal.”, the court said.

Written Grounds Of Arrest Must Be Furnished In Language Arrestee Understands; Otherwise Arrest & Remand Illegal: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066

The Supreme Court observed that failure to supply the written grounds of arrest to an arrestee in the language in which he/she understands renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

“mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The objective of the constitutional mandate is to place the person in a position to comprehend the basis of the allegations levelled against him and it can only be realised when the grounds are furnished in a language understood by the person, thereby enabling him to exercise his rights effectively.”, the court observed.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih made this observation while delivering an important ruling, extending the mandate of furnishing written grounds of arrest to an arrestee for all offences committed under IPC/BNS, as was earlier limited to UAPA/PMLA offences.

Judgment Passed In Favor Of Party Who Died Before Hearing Is Nullity If Legal Heir Wasn't Brought On Record: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1067

The Supreme Court (November 6) held that a judgment rendered in favour of a party who had died before their case was heard is legally inapplicable and has no effect in law.

In other words, the appeal abates if the appellant dies before the appeal is heard.

A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar heard the matter in which two defendants had filed a first appeal challenging the Trial Court's decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. However, both defendants died before the appeal was taken up for hearing. Despite the absence of any substitution of their legal heirs, the First Appellate Court proceeded to deliver judgment in favour of the deceased defendants, and the same was later affirmed by the High Court.

Suppression Of Candidate's Conviction Renders Election Void; Irrelevant Whether Non-Disclosure Affected Results: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Poonam v. Dule Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1068

Observing that 'non-disclosure of a conviction' constitutes a suppression of material information violating the electorate's fundamental right to make an informed choice, the Supreme Court (November 6) upheld the disqualification of a former councillor, who had not disclosed her criminal antecedent in an election affidavit that she was convicted in a cheque dishonor matter and suffered one-year incarceration.

Dismissing the former councillor's appeal, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar underscored the importance of electoral transparency, stating that “non-furnishing information pertaining to criminal antecedents has the effect of causing undue influence which creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter.”

The Court added that the election would be deemed illegal, regardless of whether the non-disclosure of the criminal antecedent materially affected the election or not.

Can State File Appeal In CBI Cases When Investigation Was Partly Done By State Police? Supreme Court Leaves Question Open

Cause Title: Cbi v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi, SLP(Crl.) No. 3037 of 2012

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1069

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its judgment in Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 1 which held that a State Government cannot file appeal against a judgment in a criminal case which was prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The Court chose not to go into the question whether a State Government can file appeal when the investigation was initially handled by the State Police before being transferred to the CBI.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta observed that this issue may be examined in future cases arising from certain specified situations.

Supreme Court Revives CBI's Appeal In Chhattisgarh High Court Against Acquittal Of Ex-CM Ajit Jogi's Son In Murder Case

Cause Title: Cbi v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi, SLP(Crl.) No. 3037 of 2012

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1069

In a significant development, the Supreme Court revived the CBI's appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court against the acquittal of Amit Jogi, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Ajit Jogi, in a high-profile murder case of political leader Ramavatar Jaggi.

Against the acquittal of Amit Jogi, three appeals were filed. One was filed by the CBI, and the other two were filed by the state government and the complainant. The High Court had dismissed CBI's appeal on the ground of delay and other appeals as non-maintainable.

Allowing the CBI's appeal, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta directed the High Court to consider the CBI's application for leave to appeal afresh. However, it dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Chhattisgarh and the complainant.

Mere Use Of Word 'Arbitration' Does Not Create Arbitration Agreement Unless Parties Clearly Intend So: Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S Alchemist Hospitals Ltd. v. M/S Ict Health Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1070

The Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision refusing to refer the dispute to arbitration, observing that the mere use of the term “arbitration” in a clause is not sufficient to mandate reference to arbitration unless the parties clearly intended to resolve their disputes through arbitration.

“mere use of the word 'arbitration” is not sufficient to treat the clause as an arbitration agreement when the corresponding mandatory intent to refer the disputes to arbitration and the consequent intent to be bound by the decision of the arbitral tribunal is missing.”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih heard the case where the Appellant-Alchemist Hospitals entered into a Software Implementation Agreement with ICT Health for a hospital management system. After disputes arose over alleged software defects, the controversy focused on Clause 8.28, titled “Arbitration,” which required dispute resolution by the companies' chairman, with recourse to civil courts if unresolved. The High Court dismissed Alchemist's Section 11(6) petition, holding the clause was not a valid arbitration agreement, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Registration Act | Supreme Court Strikes Down Bihar Rule Requiring Vendor To Show Proof Of Mutation For Sale Registration

Case Title: Samiullah v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1071

The Supreme Court (November 7) struck down sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, which had empowered registering authorities to refuse registration of sale or gift deeds unless proof of mutation in favour of the seller was produced.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the impugned provisions, introduced through a 2019 amendment,were ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, and imposed arbitrary restrictions on the constitutional right to acquire and dispose of property.

"We have also come to the conclusion that, as the said sub-rules tilt the balance and empower the registering authorities to produce collateral evidence of title to the property as a pre-condition for registration, such a measure, through subordinate legislation, is also against the purpose and object of the Act. Further, the requirement under the impugned sub-rules is arbitrary as the process of mutation and its certification is uncertain and virtually unavailable in near future, as the Bihar Mutation Act, 2011 and the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011 are said to be nowhere near implementation," the Court observed.

'Property Purchase Traumatic': Supreme Court Suggests Use Of Blockchain Technology To Make Land Registrations Easy & Reliable

Case Title: Samiullah v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1071

In a set of observations with far-reaching implications for property law in India, the Supreme Court has called for a fundamental reform of the country's land registration and titling system, noting that the existing legal framework, based on colonial-era statutes, has perpetuated confusion, inefficiency and massive litigation.

A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi examined the “dichotomy between registration and title” and urged the Government of India to take the lead in modernizing the real estate transaction system using emerging technologies such as blockchain.

The Court also requested the Law Commission of India to conduct a comprehensive study and submit a report after consulting the Union and State Governments, experts and stakeholders.

Supreme Court Orders Removal Of All Stray Animals From Highways Across India; Directs Their Relocation To Shelters

Case Title: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1072

The Supreme Court ordered national and state authorities to immediately remove all stray animals, including cattle, from highways and expressways falling in their jurisdiction.

The Court directed the authorities to promptly identify highways and other public areas frequently visited by stray animals and ensure their relocation to designated shelters in accordance with law. It further ordered that helpline numbers be displayed at regular intervals along highways and similar locations to enable commuters to report the presence of strays or accidents involving them.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the directions, while partly affirming a Rajasthan High Court order, as follows:

'Persistence Of Stray Dogs Imperils Public Safety': Supreme Court Flags "Dog Bite Menace", Says Children & Poor Worst Affected

Case Title: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1072

The Supreme Court has expressed grave concern over the rising number of stray dog attacks across India, observing that the persistence of the stray dog population has continued to imperil public safety. The Court noted that repeated incidents of dog bites, particularly in educational institutions, hospitals, transport hubs, and other public spaces, highlight serious administrative lapses and a systemic failure to secure citizens' right to safety under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Referring to multiple media reports, the Bench said it had been apprised of an “alarming increase” in dog-bite incidents in schools, hospitals, railway stations, and sports complexes. The Court mentioned instances of children being attacked in school campuses, patients and attendants bitten within hospital compounds, and even athletes and officials attacked inside sports stadiums.

“The recurrence of such incidents, particularly within institutional spaces meant for learning, healing, and recreation, reflects not only administrative apathy but also a systemic failure to secure these premises from preventable hazards,” the Court observed, adding that the situation warranted “immediate judicial intervention” to safeguard citizens' right to life and safety.

'Alarming Rise In Dog Bite Cases': Supreme Court Orders Removal Of Stray Dogs From Premises Of Schools, Hospitals, Bus Stands Etc

Case Title: In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1072

Having regard to the "alarming rise of dog-bite incidents", the Supreme Court ordered that every educational institution, hospital, public sports complexes, bus stand and depots, railway stations, etc must be fenced properly to prevent the entry of stray dogs.

It will be the responsibility of the concerned local self-government institutions to pick up stray dogs from such institutions/areas, and shift them to designated dog shelters after vaccination and sterilisation in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules. The Court further ordered that stray dogs picked up from these areas must not be released to the same spot from which they were picked up. "Permitting the same would frustrate the very purpose of liberating such institutions from the presence of stray dogs," the Court observed.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria passed the order in the suo motu Stray Dogs matter. The Court directed that the local bodies must carry out periodic inspections to ensure that no stray dog habitat exists in such premises.

Supreme Court Prohibits Use Of 'Split Multiplier' In Motor Accident Claims, Holds That Income At Time Of Death Must Be Considered

Cause Title: Preetha Krishnan & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1073

The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling on the computation of compensation in motor accident claim cases, holding that the 'split multiplier' method should not be applied. The Court clarified that compensation must be calculated solely on the basis of the deceased's income at the time of death.

“we hold that the income as on the date of death is to be taken to calculate the compensation…. In other words, split multiplier is a concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is not to be used by the Tribunal and/or Courts in calculation of the compensation.”, the court held.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the Kerala High Court's decision, which applied the split multiplier method, resulting in a significant reduction in the compensation amount awarded to the Appellants-deceased's dependents.

Coparcener's Release Deed Immediately Divests Rights In Joint Family Property; Unregistered Family Settlement Admissible To Prove Severance: Supreme Court

Cause Title: P. Anjanappa (D) By Lrs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1074

The Supreme Court (November 6) observed that a registered relinquishment deed releasing share of a coparcener in the joint family property, operates immediately regardless of its implementation.

“A release by a coparcener for consideration operates immediately to divest his subsisting coparcenary interest; it does not depend for its efficacy on any further act of implementation.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria set aside the concurrent findings of the Karnataka High Court and trial court, which refused to consider the Appellant's exclusive share in the suit property, despite there being a registered relinquishment deeds by Appellant's two brothers releasing their respective shares in Appellant's favor, and a subsequent family settlement (palupatti) in 1972, which formally recorded the separation of the remaining coparceners and delineated their respective shares, which had been independently managed ever since.

Supreme Court Constitutes Committee Headed By Former Allahabad HC Judge To Resolve 20-Year Old Stalled Housing Project In Greater Noida

Case Title: Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1075

The Supreme Court has directed the constitution of a one-member committee headed by Justice Pankaj Naqvi (Retd.), former Judge of the Allahabad High Court, to conduct an independent inquiry into the long-pending housing dispute involving the Shiv Kala Charms Project in Greater Noida. The case, pending for nearly two decades, involves hundreds of defrauded homebuyers who had invested in the project developed under the Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti (GCSAS), in collaboration with M/s Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order while deciding appeals arising out of the Allahabad High Court's 2016 decision that had refused to grant substantive relief to the aggrieved allottees.

Background

'Arbitrator Interpreted Contract Contrary To Railway Policies': Supreme Court Sets Aside Award Against IRCTC

Cause Title: Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. M/S. Brandavan Food Products (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1076

The Supreme Court (November 7) set aside the multi-crore arbitral award passed against the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (“IRCTC”), holding that the arbitrator had impermissibly "rewritten the contract" between the parties.

“Rewriting a contract for the parties would be a breach of the fundamental principles of justice, entitling a Court to interfere as it would shock its conscience and would fall within the exceptional category.”, the Court observed. [Referred to Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited vs. National Highway Authority of India, (2019) 15 SCC 131]

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case where the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction by granting claims that directly contradicted the explicit terms of the Master Licence Agreements (MLAs) and Railway Board circulars.

'Public Tender Is Not Private Bargain': Supreme Court Quashes Odisha Govt's Award Of Sand Mining Lease For Excluding Highest Bidder

Cause Title: M/S Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1077

The Supreme Court set aside the Odisha High Court's order that had upheld the State Government's decision to award a five-year sand extraction lease for the Mahanadi Sand Quarry to a lower bidder. The Court held that the exclusion of the highest bidder was based on a misinterpretation of the tender conditions and resulted in an unfair decision that caused substantial loss to the state exchequer.

“A public tender is not a private bargain. It is instrument of governance, a mechanism through which the State discharges its solemn duty as trustee of public wealth”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe while allowing the appeal filed by the highest bidder who was aggrieved by the arbitrary rejection of its bid.

The legal dispute centered on a 2022 auction for a five-year sand quarry lease in Cuttack. M/S Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. emerged as the highest bidder, quoting ₹2,127.27 per cubic meter. However, its bid was rejected by the Tender Committee for submitting its Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Financial Year (FY) 2020-21 instead of FY 2021-22, as required under the tender rules.

Teachers Who Cleared TET Within Extended Time Under RTE Act Can't Be Terminated For Lacking It At Appointment: Supreme Court

Case: Uma Kant and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1078

The Supreme Court has held that teachers who obtained the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification within the extended time prescribed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) cannot be terminated merely because they did not possess the qualification at the time of their initial appointment.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by two assistant teachers, Uma Kant and another, who had been terminated by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Kanpur Nagar, in July 2018 for lacking TET certification when appointed in 2012.

Background

No Right To Job In Lieu Of Acquired Land Under Land Acquisition Act: Supreme Court

Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1079

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea seeking employment in lieu of land acquired nearly three decades ago, holding that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not provide for any such right and that payment of compensation fully satisfies the State's obligation.

A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale was hearing a special leave petition filed by an individual whose family land had been acquired in 1998 under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner, who was not even born at the time of acquisition, had in 2025 sought appointment in government service on compassionate grounds, claiming it as a right flowing from the acquisition.

Rejecting the plea, the Court observed that the family had already received compensation as per law, and the Act envisages no provision for providing employment in lieu of acquired land. “Under the provisions of the Act, on the land being acquired, the petitioner or his family is entitled only to the compensation which has already been paid. There is no provision for grant of job in lieu of the acquired land,” the Bench stated.

S. 482 CrPC/S. 528 BNSS | In Quashing Plea, Court Cannot Inquire Into Credibility Of Allegations In FIR/Complaint: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1080

The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore bench order that had quashed an FIR under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, filed by a woman against her husband and his family.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra criticized the High Court for holding a 'mini-trial' at the quashing stage, going into the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

The Court referred to the judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401, which held that “while examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.”

Tenant Who Entered Premises Under Landlord's Rent Deed Cannot Later Dispute His Ownership: Supreme Court

Case: Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1081

The Supreme Court has held that a tenant who came into possession of rented premises through a rent deed executed by a landlord cannot subsequently challenge the landlord's ownership, especially after having paid rent for decades.

Deciding a seven-decade-old landlord-tenant dispute that began in 1953, the Court observed that the defendants'(tenants) predecessors had taken the shop on rent from one Ramji Das, and continued to pay rent to him and his son even after his death. Hence, the Court ruled, the tenants were estopped from questioning the title of the landlord or his legal successor.

“The tenant having come into possession of the tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by the earlier landlord cannot turn around and challenge his ownership,” the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice K Vinod Chandran stated, while setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court.

'Courts Must Apply Binding Precedents, Can't Sidestep Them By Distinguishing In Name': Supreme Court Emphasises Judicial Discipline

Case: Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1082

The Supreme Court has reminded courts across the country that “the judiciary draws its strength from discipline and not dominion,” underscoring that obedience to binding precedent is a constitutional duty.

"We restate the simple duty of Courts: apply precedent as it stands and give effect to appellate directions as they are framed. In that discipline lies the confidence of litigants and the credibility of courts," the Court observed.

The Court said that it was unlawful for a Court to ignore a binding precedent by distinguishing it only superficially, ignoring the essence.

S. 45/73 Evidence Act Can Be Invoked Only For Admitted Document To Compare Signature Or Handwriting : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Hussain Bin Awaz v. Mittapally Venkataramulu & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1083

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act can be invoked only in relation to an admitted document for the purpose of comparison of signatures or handwriting.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while setting aside a Telangana High Court order that had permitted a defendant to seek forensic examination of a document forming the basis of the plaintiff's case in a long-standing land dispute.

The case arose out of a 50-year-old ownership conflict concerning a parcel of land. The respondent had filed a civil suit in 2015 seeking a declaration of ownership, relying on the outcome of an earlier suit from 1975. The appellant's family disputed the genuineness of a written statement filed in the 1975 suit proceeding, alleging that their grandfather's signature had been forged.

Unilateral Termination Of Agreement To Sell Invalid If Contract Doesn't Allow It : Supreme Court

Cause Title: K. S. Manjunath and Ors. v. Moorasavirappa @ Muttanna Chennappa Batil Since Deceased By His Lrs and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1084

The Supreme Court (November 10) delivered a significant ruling interpreting the Specific Relief Act, 1963, holding that a party cannot unilaterally terminate a non-determinable agreement to sell, except where the contract itself is expressly determinable in nature under Section 14 of the Act. The Court further clarified that such invalid termination does not oblige the aggrieved party to first seek a separate declaration challenging the termination before pursuing a claim for specific performance.

“Unilateral termination of the agreement to sell by one party is impermissible in law, except in cases where the agreement itself is determinable in nature...If such unilateral termination of a non-determinable agreement to sell is permitted as a defence, then virtually every suit for specific performance can be frustrated by the defendant by placing an unfair burden on the plaintiff... who, despite performing his part of the obligations and having showcased readiness and willingness, would require to also seek a separate declaration that the termination was bad in law.", the court said.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard the case, which relates to an Agreement to Sell dated April 28, 2000, for 354 acres of agricultural land in Basavanakoppa village, Karnataka. The landowners had agreed to sell the property to a consortium led by the Patadia family and Muttanna for ₹26.95 lakh, receiving an advance of ₹9.45 lakh.

Subsequent Purchaser Who Acted Merely On Vendor's Claims Without Verification Not Protected From Enforcement Of Prior Agreement To Sell: Supreme Court

Cause Title: K. S. Manjunath and Ors. v. Moorasavirappa @ Muttanna Chennappa Batil Since Deceased By His Lrs and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1084

In a significant ruling interpreting Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Supreme Court has held that a subsequent purchaser who relies unquestioningly on the assertions of the vendor, without exercising due diligence or making reasonable inquiries, cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, rejected the claim of subsequent purchasers who contended that they were entitled to protection under Section 19(b) against a prior agreement to sell. The Court found that the subsequent purchasers were aware of a previous agreement to sell, which was unilaterally cancelled by the vendor. Since the cancellation was unilateral, it was illegal and hence the original vendees had the right to seek specific performance , the Court held.

Background Of The Case

Commercial Courts Act | Rejection Of Plaint Appealable; No Appeal Against Order Refusing To Reject Plaint : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mitc Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr. v. M/S. Renuka Realtors and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1085

Clarifying procedural law under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Act”), the Supreme Court (November 10) held that an order allowing an application for rejection of a plaint amounts to a decree and is therefore appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Act. However, an order rejecting such an application is not appealable under the same provision and can instead be challenged through a revision or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the case may be.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Bombay High Court's ruling, which had held that the appellant–plaintiff's appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, challenging the order allowing the respondent–defendant's application for rejection of the plaint, was not maintainable.

The appellant had filed a commercial suit for recovery of over ₹2.5 crore against the Respondent. The Respondent sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation was not undertaken. The Trial Court agreed and rejected the plaint.

Ordering DNA Test When Paternity Question Has No Nexus With Offence Is Unwarranted: Supreme Court

Cause Title: R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1086

In a significant ruling reiterating the sanctity of the presumption of legitimacy attached to children born within wedlock, the Supreme Court has held that a DNA test cannot be directed as a matter of course to determine paternity, especially when it risks illegitimising a child and intrudes upon individual privacy.

The Court underscored that scientific tools like DNA profiling cannot be used for “fishing inquiries” and must be resorted to only in cases of eminent need, where the investigation cannot proceed without it.

Observing that the presumption of a child's legitimacy during a wedlock under Section 112 of Evidence operates as a 'conclusive proof', the Supreme Court on set aside the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) order that compelled a doctor to undergo a DNA test in a paternity dispute.

Supreme Court Raps Jharkhand High Court For Casually Suspending Murder Convicts' Sentence; Slams State For Not Challenging Order

Cause Title: Chhotelal Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1087

The Supreme Court (November 10) strongly criticized the Jharkhand High Court for granting bail to three individuals convicted of murder, noting that the High Court had passed a vague and unreasoned order merely stating that the allegations against them were “general and omnibus in nature."

The Court also took serious note of the Jharkhand government's absence from the proceedings, despite being served a notice. Further, the Court recorded surprise that the State did not challenge the suspension of sentence.

Transfer Of Title In Immovable Property Doesn't Attract Service Tax : Supreme Court

Case: Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/S Elegant Developers

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1088

The Supreme Court has clarified that an activity which merely involves the transfer of title in immovable property by way of sale cannot be treated as a “service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, such transactions lie outside the ambit of service tax.

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict while dismissing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi against M/s Elegant Developers, a partnership firm based in Allahabad. The Revenue had challenged a 2019 decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had set aside a tax demand of over Rs 10 crore against the firm.

The Department had alleged that Elegant Developers had provided taxable services as a “real estate agent” to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd (SICCL) in connection with the acquisition and development of large parcels of land in different states. The firm, however, maintained that its dealings with SICCL were in the nature of purchase and sale of land, not consultancy or brokerage services, and hence outside the scope of service tax.

S.304 IPC | How 'Intention' & 'Knowledge' Determine If Offence Is Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder? Supreme Court Explains

Cause Title: Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1089

The Supreme Court (November 10) converted the conviction of a man from that of murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of Section 304, noting that the convict had no intention to kill the deceased, though had knowledge that the injury would likely cause death.

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria heard the case relating to a 1998 incident in Ahmedabad where the appellant, following an altercation, went to the house of the deceased, Louis Williams, hurled abuses, and inflicted stab injuries with a knife. The victim was treated in a hospital but succumbed to septicemia 13 days later.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice NV Anjaria reasoned that since the incident occurred out of an altercation, where the appellant did not have a premeditated intention to kill the deceased.

'Ridge Acts As Delhi's Green Lungs In Present Pollution' : Supreme Court Directs Giving Statutory Status To Ridge Management Board

Cause Title: In Re: Delhi Ridge

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1090

Amid worsening air pollution in the National Capital, the Supreme Court (November 11) delivered a crucial verdict aimed at protecting the 'Delhi Ridge', a vital ecological zone in Delhi. Observing that little progress had been made over the past three decades to restore the ridge's natural integrity, the Court directed the Union Government(MoEF & CC) to confer statutory status on the Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) to ensure greater accountability, transparency, and effective governance.

A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and comprising Justice KV Chandran expressed deep dissatisfaction with the progress made since it first intervened in 1995, noting that despite continuous judicial oversight, the protection of the ecologically critical Aravali extension remains woefully inadequate.

" We are, therefore, of the view that without proper statutory protection, it would not be possible to properly preserve the integrity of the Ridge. We find that the GNCTD has not acted with swiftness in protecting the Ridge. Though this court observed as early as in May, 1996 that the Government has not taken proper steps for conservation of the Ridge, not much has been done even after a lapse of almost three decades therefrom.", the court said adding that of the total identified Ridge area measuring 7,784 hectares, a final notification declaring it as a Reserved Forest under the Indian Forest Act has been issued for only 103.48 hectares, just 1.33%, leaving the remaining area unprotected and vulnerable to rampant encroachments and unauthorized constructions.

Nithari Killings | Letting Surendra Koli's Conviction Stand On Subsequently Rejected Evidence Would Breach Articles 14 And 21: Supreme Court

Case Title – Surendra Koli v. State of Up

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1091

The Supreme Court, while setting aside the last remaining conviction of Surendra Koli in the Nithari killings case, held that allowing it to stand when all companion cases based on the same evidence have been found unsustainable would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai observed that the evidentiary foundation of Koli's conviction had already been declared inadmissible in the related cases, and that maintaining a different outcome on an identical record would amount to arbitrary disparity.

“Article 21 of the Constitution insists on a fair, just and reasonable procedure. That insistence is at its acutest where capital punishment is imposed…To allow a conviction to stand on evidentiary basis that this Court has since rejected as involuntary or inadmissible in the very same fact matrix offends Article 21 of the Constitution. It also violates Article 14 of the Constitution, since like cases must be treated alike. Arbitrary disparity in outcomes on an identical record is inimical to equality before the law. The curative jurisdiction exists to prevent precisely such anomalies from hardening into precedent” the Court said.

Nithari Killings : Supreme Court Slams Botched Probe, Expresses Regret That Real Perpetrator Not Caught

Case Title – Surendra Koli v. State of Up

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1091

In a stinging indictment of the police investigation into the Nithari killings, the Supreme Court said that negligence, procedural lapses, and delay had “corroded the fact-finding process” and foreclosed avenues that might have led to the real perpetrator. The Court expressed “deep regret” that despite a prolonged probe, the actual identity of the offender had not been established in a manner that met legal standards.

Delivering itsjudgment setting aside Surendra Koli's last remaining conviction, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath observed that the criminal justice system cannot convict a person on the basis of conjecture or suspicion, however grave the crime may be.

“The offences in Nithari were heinous, and the suffering of the families is beyond measure,” the Court said. “It is a matter of deep regret that despite prolonged investigation, the identity of the actual perpetrator has not been established in a manner that meets the legal standards. Criminal law does not permit conviction on conjecture or on a hunch. Suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

Nithari Killings : Surendra Koli To Walk Free As Supreme Court Sets Aside His Only Remaining Conviction

Case Title – Surendra Koli v. State of Up

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1091

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Surendra Koli in the last remaining case related to Nithari killings.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath allowed the curative petition filed by Koli against the 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court, which had confirmed his conviction in one of the cases. Koli sought curative on the basis of his subsequent acquittal in twelve other cases.

Justice Nath, who pronounced the order, stated that Koli is acquitted of the charges.

Externally Procured Parts Supplied To Customer For Assembly, But Not Used By Manufacturer, Aren't Liable To Excise Duty : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Lipi Boilers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1092

The Supreme Court (November 10) dismissed the Revenue Department's excise duty demand against a company that had manufactured and erected a large boiler at a customer's site, holding that the full contract value could not be subjected to central excise duty. The Court clarified that parts bought out externally and supplied to the customer for assembly, but not actually used by the manufacturer, would not attract excise duty.

“we arrive at the finding that the final product that emerges as a result of performing the obligations under the contract, does not constitute excisable goods under the Act, 1944. Consequently, the base value of the boiler on which excise duty is to be levied, cannot be equated with the total contract price. Therefore, the price of the bought out parts cannot be included in the value of the boiler for the purpose of computing central excise duty under the Act, 1944.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta while allowing the company's appeal against the CESTAT order which upheld the Revenue's demand for additional excise duty on bought out item.

The dispute arose from a 2001 contract between Lipi Boilers and Shri Maroli Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. for designing and supplying a 50 TPH steam plant. Because the massive boiler couldn't be transported as a single unit, Lipi Boilers manufactured key components at its factory, paying excise duty on them, and procured other essential items like pumps, valves, and instruments from vendors, which were sent directly to the customer's site.

In Execution Petition, Onus On Decree-Holder To Show Violation By Judgment Debtor : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1093

The Supreme Court (November 12) observed that the decree can't be executed based on the presumption. The onus is on the decree-holder to prove that there's a violation of the terms of the decree by the judgment debtor.

“It is a trite law that in execution petition, the primary onus lies on the decree-holder to show that the judgment debtor has willfully disobeyed the conditions of the decree.”, observed a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi while hearing a case where the executing court had enforced a 1933 compromise decree entered between the appellants and respondents regarding the worship rights and management of the Lord Sangalappa Swamy Temple in Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh in favour of the appellants, on the assumption that the respondents had failed to comply with the decree's stipulation to rotate worship rights in the appellants' favour.

The dispute dates back to the year 1927, when the Kamatam sect of Yerrayapalli village filed a suit against the Kapadam sect of Gungulakunta village seeking possession of certain idols, bronze horses and other ritual items. The matter was eventually resolved through a compromise in O.S. No. 15 of 1933, under which both sects agreed to jointly worship the deity and share responsibilities in a rotating manner.

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation For 77% Disabled Accident Victim, Cites 'Loss of Marriage Prospects' & Future Medical Treatment Cost

Cause Title: Riyas v. P. N. Shinosh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1094

The Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation for a victim who suffered around 77% permanent disability as a teenager in a 2002 motor vehicle accident, awarding special attention to his "loss of marriage prospects".

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria modified the Kerala High Court's award, increasing the total compensation from approximately ₹7.5 lakh to ₹15.13 lakh, taking into account the future medical expenditure to be borne by the Appellant-victim for his treatment.

The Appellant, who was 14 years old and studying in 7th standard, suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident when the auto-rickshaw he was traveling in collided with a lorry on April 19, 2002. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, initially awarded ₹1,73,000 in 2009, which the High Court enhanced to approximately ₹7.5 lakh in 2020.

Motor Accident Claim | Insurers Must Compensate Victims Despite Policy Breach, Can Recover From Vehicle Owner : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Akula Narayana v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1095

The Supreme Court reiterated that insurance companies cannot evade their obligation to compensate victims in motor accident cases, even when there is a breach of a policy condition. The Court clarified that insurers retain the right to recover the compensation amount from the vehicle owner thereafter.

“Where the contract of insurance is not disputed, even on breach of insurance conditions, this Court had allowed recovery of compensation from the insurer by giving right to the insurer to recover the same from the vehicle owner”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra while allowing a claimant's appeal and setting aside the Telangana High Court's order that had denied compensation solely because the deceased was travelling in a five-seater vehicle carrying nine passengers, which was held to be a violation of the insurance policy terms.

The Court said that indeed there was a breach of policy conditions, as the vehicle was carrying more than five persons; however, relying on its consistent jurisprudence, the bench emphasized the "pay and recover" principle, stating that the insurance company can recover the compensation paid by it from the vehicle owner.

Statement Recorded By High Courts Can't Be Later Contradicted By Counsel : Supreme Court

Case Title: Savita v. Satyabhan Dixit

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1096

The Supreme Court has reiterated that High Courts are Courts of Record and that whatever is recorded in their proceedings is presumed to be correct and cannot be contradicted later by parties or counsel.

A Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice N.V. Anjaria made this observation while disposing of a Special Leave Petition filed against an order of the Allahabad High Court dated September 15, 2025.

The petitioner had challenged the High Court's order, which had set aside an order of the First Appellate Court and granted a temporary injunction based on a statement allegedly made by her counsel. The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the concession made by her counsel was unauthorised and contrary to her instructions.

Order 8 Rule 6A CPC | Counterclaim Can Be Filed Only Against Plaintiff, Not Against Co-Defendant : Supreme Court Reiterates

Cause Title: Sanjay Tiwari v. Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1097

The Supreme Court reiterated that a counterclaim can't be filed by a defendant against co-defendants. The Court clarified that a counterclaim can only be filed against the plaintiff on a cause of action incidental or connected with the cause of action on which the plaintiff's suit was filed.

"a counter claim though can be based on different cause of action than that are put forth in the suit, it should be one incidental or connected with that cause of action and it has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be directed against the co-defendant.", observed a bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria while setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision which allowed the filing of a counter claim by a defendant against the co-defendant.

The High Court's reasoning that the counterclaim would avoid multiplicity of proceedings was rejected by the Supreme Court, noting that it is impermissible under Order VIII CPC to file a counterclaim against the co-defendant.

Tenant Can't Evade Rent Payment Citing Pendency Of Appeal Against Rent Fixation Order When There's No Stay : Supreme Court

Cause Title: K. Subramaniam (Died) Through Lrs K.S. Balakrishnan & Ors. v. M/S Krishna Mills Pvt.Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1098

A tenant who challenges a “fair rent” order but does not obtain a stay on it cannot rely on the pending case to avoid eviction, the Supreme Court has held. The Court upheld the eviction of a tenant for “wilful default” in rent payment, noting that although the tenant appealed against the enhanced rent, he never sought a stay on the fair rent fixed by the Court.

“Mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree/order under appeal is the statutory ordainment in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order XLI, CPC.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan referring to Order XLI Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”), reiterating a legal principle laid down in Girdharilal Chandak and Bros. v. Mehdi Ispahani 2011 (5) CTC 252, that “If a person does not seek stay of an order passed by a Court below, it would only indicate either of the two things viz., (i) that he is willing to comply with the order, or (ii) that he has no objection to the orders of the Court below being put into execution.”

Since the appellant-tenant continued to pay only a fraction of the fair rent even after the High Court had upheld it, the Supreme Court rejected the tenant's plea of rent uncertainty as a valid defence against the charge of wilful default leading to eviction.

Supreme Court Prohibits Mining Within National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries & Within 1 Kilometer Around Them

Case: In Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1099

The Supreme Court (November 13) directed that no mining activities shall take place within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and within an area of 1 kilometer from such national park or wildlife sanctuary.

The Court reiterated its order passed on April 26, 2023, which observed that though such a restriction on mining was imposed with respect to Goa in the Goa Foundation case, there was a need to extend the restriction on a pan-India basis.

Supreme Court Directs Jharkhand Govt To Notify Saranda As Wildlife Sanctuary, Says Rights Of Forest Dwellers & Tribals Won't Be Affected

Case: In Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1099

The Supreme Court directed the State of Jharkhand to declare the Saranda/Sasangdaburu forests as a wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve. The Court also assured that issuing such a declaration would not impinge on the forest rights of the tribals or forest dwellers in the region.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran considered the issue of repeated non-compliance by the State of Jharkhand with its previous assurances given to issue the notification.

The Court, in its order, frowned upon the changing stance of the State Government over the proposed area to be notified as a conservation reserve. The State of Jharkhand had sought the permission of the Court to remove 126 'compartments' where mining was taking place from the total proposed area of 31,000 sqm.

Insurer Cannot Repudiate Claim Saying Damage In Equipment Was Discovered Only After Policy Was Issued : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Kopargaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd (Now Known As Karmaveer Shankarrao Kale Shahkari Shakhar Karkhana Ltd.) v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1100

The Supreme Court (November 13) allowed the insurance claim of a company whose boiler had exploded, rejecting the insurer's contention that it was not liable to indemnify the loss since the defect in the boiler was discovered only after the insurance policy had been issued.

“A subsequent discovery of damage or corrosion cannot be a ground to repudiate an insurance claim, as it would defeat the very purpose of the insurance contract,” observed a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra while hearing a case in which the insurer-National Insurance Co., had denied liability based on defects discovered in the boiler after the accident.

Rejecting this approach, the Court held that an insurer cannot escape its obligation to compensate the insured by relying on its own failure to conduct due diligence before issuing the policy. If such defects went unnoticed prior to policy issuance, the insurer cannot later benefit from its own lapse.

NDPS Act - Long Custody & Trial Delay Not Ground For Bail In Commercial Quantity Narcotic Cases If S.37 Conditions Not Met : Supreme Court

Case: Union of India v. Vigin K Varghese

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1101

The Supreme Court held that delay in trial or prolonged incarceration cannot, by itself, justify the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs when the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act remain unmet. The Court set aside two orders of the Bombay High Court that had granted bail to Vigin K Varghese, accused in major cocaine and methamphetamine seizures investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjaria remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Background

Company Purchasing Software To Enhance Efficiency & Profit Is Not A “Consumer” Within Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/S Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1102

The Supreme Court (November 13) ruled that a person purchasing a product for a 'commercial purpose' having nexus with the generation of a profit can't be categorized as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra upheld the dismissal of the consumer complaint filed by the Appellant-software company against the Respondent-seller for selling a defective software license to be used by the Appellant for automation of its business processes.

“In the instant case, not only the complainant is a commercial entity, the purchase of goods/ services (i.e., software) from the respondent was with a view to automate the processes of the company which were linked to generation of profit inasmuch as automation of business processes is undertaken not just for better management of the business but to reduce costs and maximise profits. Thus, in our view, the transaction of purchase of goods/ services (i.e., software) had a nexus with generation of profits and, therefore, qua that transaction the appellant cannot be considered a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.”, the court held.

S.138 NI Act | Guidelines In 'Damodar Prabhu Judgment' On Costs For Compounding Cheque Bounce Cases Not Binding: Supreme Court

Case Title – Rajeev Khandelwal v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1103

The Supreme Court set aside the cost imposed by the Bombay High Court on a man convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after noting that the complainant had no objection to the settlement and that the appellant was unable to pay the amount.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H judgment, which provide for imposition of costs in NI Act depending on at which stage the case was compounded, could not be treated as binding.

“The law laid down in the aforementioned judgment cannot be regarded as a binding precedent, as every case must be considered on its own facts”, the Court observed.

'Customer-Banker Relationship Is Of Mutual Trust' : Supreme Court Quashes Reinstatement Of Post Master Who Embezzled Deposits

Cause Title: Union of India and Ors. v. Indraj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1104

The Supreme Court (November 13) set aside the reinstatement of the Post Master who was removed from the service for embezzling the depositors amount for its personal use. The Court said mere deposit of the embezzled money will not absolve an employee of the misconduct.

“Relationship of a customer with a banker is of mutual trust. Any account holder will be satisfied once an entry is made in his passbook regarding deposit of any amount by him in the post office where he had maintained the account.”, observed a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan while allowing the Union Government's appeal against the Rajasthan High Court's decision to reinstate the Respondent-employee who was removed from service in 2014 after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of embezzling depositors' funds.

During the June 2011 annual inspection, officials found that the Respondent had taken money from several account holders for their Recurring Deposit and Postal Life Insurance accounts, made entries and stamps in their passbooks to show valid deposits, but failed to record these in the post office's official ledgers. He misappropriated Rs. 5,266 for personal use, later depositing the amount after the fraud came to light.

'Consistent Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Evidence', Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Act Conviction

Cause Title: Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1105

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of aggravated sexual assault on a 4-year-old girl, rejecting his plea for acquittal based on the absence of medical evidence and eyewitness testimony, holding that the consistent and credible evidence of the child's parents was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

“It may be true that Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-6) did not find external injury marks on the victim's body and stated that there was no bleeding of any kind... It is well settled that the medical evidence will take a backseat and even if do not corroborate with the ocular evidence, where the ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, the later would be allowed to prevail.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria adding that the trauma-filled behaviour of the victim upon seeing the Appellant coupled with her mother's consistent evidence established the commission of an offence with her, despite the absence of an external injury marks on the victim's body as suggested in the medical examination.

Mere Weapon Recovery & FSL Report Not Enough In Absence Of Other Corroborative Evidence : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict

Cause Title: Govind v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1106

The Supreme Court (November 14) observed that mere recovery of a weapon, even with a supporting FSL report, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of other corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the crime.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the life sentence of a man convicted of murder, holding that the High Court had wrongly upheld the conviction solely based on the recovery of the pistol allegedly used in the crime and an FSL report linking the recovered cartridges to the bullets taken from the deceased's body.

The Court noted that the recovery of the weapon, which was also accessible to the Appellants' family members, was unsupported by any independent witness and that there was an unexplained delay in sending the seized firearm for forensic examination.

SC's 2024 Order Allowing Union To Seek Review Of Benami Act Cases Decided Relying On 'Ganpati Dealcom' Wrong : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Virendra Amrutbhai Patel

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1107

Observing that a subsequent overruling of a precedent is not a ground to seek review, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Union Government seeking review of an order passed on the basis of the 2022 judgment inGanpati Dealcom which struck down certain provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988.

The 2022 judgment was later recalled in review by a 3-judge bench in October 2024 in the case Union of India v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.(R.P.(C) No. 359/2023). While allowing the review in 2024, a bench led by the then Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, had also granted liberty to the Union to seek review of the earlier cases decided on the basis of the 2022 precedent.

On the strength of this liberty, the Union filed a petition to review an order passed in April 2024 which had dismissed the Union's petition against a Gujarat High Court's judgment quashing the attachment under the Benami Act against the respondent. The High Court had relied on the 2022 judgment in Ganpati Dealcom.

Pendency Of Writ Proceedings No Ground To Not Avail Alternative Statutory Remedies : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. v. Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1108

The Supreme Court observed that mere pendency of a writ petition does not relieve litigants of their obligation to exhaust alternative time-bound remedies provided under special laws.

A Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by a litigant who, despite having an alternative statutory remedy under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (“the Act”) to challenge the auction of her property, chose instead to approach the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition. The appellant had argued that filing a separate application under the Act was unnecessary because the High Court, in the writ proceedings, had already granted an interim order staying the 'confirmation of the sale'.

Affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss the Appellant's Writ Petition, the judgment authored by Justice Pancholi observed that “the appellant's failure to avail herself of the specific statutory mechanism cannot be excused merely because parallel proceedings were pending before the High Court.”

Concerning Increase In Drug Abuse Among India's Youth : Supreme Court Sounds Warning

Case: Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1109

The Supreme Court sounded a strong warning about the deepening drug crisis in India, observing that substance abuse has become a grave public health challenge threatening the country's youth and social fabric. Referring to the 2025 World Drug Report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the Court noted that drug use globally has surged to 316 million people and that India too is witnessing a disturbing rise in addiction among young persons. The bench stressed that the State has a constitutional responsibility under Article 47 to combat the crisis and protect vulnerable populations.

"This Court is of the view that the issue of substance abuse has emerged as a global public health crisis in the twenty-first century, affecting every country worldwide, as drug trafficking and addiction have become pervasive...In India, there has been a concerning increase in drug abuse among the youth. Substance abuse not only affects individuals, families, and communities but also undermines various aspects of health including physical, social, political, cultural foundations, and mental well-being," the Court said.

"According to many news reports, India faces a clear dilemma between tackling the narcotics crisis systematically or sacrificing its most valuable resource i.e. its young people," the Court added. It referred to an article titled "The lingering menace of drug abuse among the Indian youth – it's time for action" written by Bhattacharya S, Menon GS, Garg S, Grover A, Saleem SM, Kushwaha P and published in the Indian J Community Med on 17th April, 2025

Sins Of Accused Can't Be Visited On Family Members : Supreme Court

Case: Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1109

While rejecting the undertaking offered by the brother of an accused, the Supreme Court observed in a order that the sins of an accused cannot be visited on the family members.

A bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice NV Anjaria made this observation while setting aside the bail granted to a person accused of possessing 731.075 kilograms of ganja worth about ₹2.91 crore.

Before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the brother of the accused, who is a Sepoy in the Indian Army, had given an undertaking that the accused would not abscond.

Habeas Corpus Writ Can't Be Issued To Release Accused Taken Into Custody After Dismissal Of Bail Pleas : Supreme Court

Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1110

The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had directed the release of an accused through a habeas corpus petition after his four successive bail applications were rejected. Calling the High Court's approach “totally unknown to law” and “shocking to the conscience of this Court”, a Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan allowed the State's appeal.

The case concerns Jibrakhan Lal Sahu, accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case registered in 2021 in Bhopal. Following his arrest in December 2023 and filing of a chargesheet in February 2024, Sahu unsuccessfully approached the High Court four times for regular bail. All applications were dismissed between January and May 2024.

After these rejections, his daughter Kusum Sahu filed a habeas corpus petition claiming unlawful detention. On October 3, 2024, the High Court accepted the plea and ordered his release on a personal bond of ₹5,000, holding that Sahu's continued custody amounted to illegal detention, particularly considering the family's financial inability to approach the Supreme Court.

Income Tax Act | Rejection Of Settlement Application Does Not Affect Assessee's Right To Contest Assessment Order On Merits : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Surat v. M. D. Industries Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1111

Rejection of an assessee's settlement application by the Income Tax Settlement Commission without offering settlement terms does not bar the assessee's right to challenge the assessment order on merits under the Income Tax Act, observed the Supreme Court.

"The stand of the Revenue that the assessee must give up his right to contest the assessment order on merits, if the settlement application is rejected without providing for terms of settlement, is misconceived and must be rejected.", a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said, dismissing the department's appeal.

The dispute was centered on the legal consequences of the Respondent's application filed before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Revenue had argued that the respondent company should be compelled to give up its right to contest the original assessment order on merits since its settlement application was rejected.

Supreme Court Directs Uttarakhand To Restore Ecological Damage In Corbett Tiger Reserve, Demolish Illegal Constructions

Case Details: In Re: Corbett

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112

The Supreme Court has issued a detailed set of directions to restore the Corbett Tiger Reserve following large-scale illegal constructions, roadworks and tree felling that took place during the establishment of the Pakhrau Tiger Safari. Accepting the recommendations of the Expert Committee constituted in March 2024, the Court ordered the State of Uttarakhand to begin demolition of all unauthorised structures within three months and to file a compliance affidavit within one year.

The judgment forms the latest chapter in the continuing proceedings stemming from theCourt's March 2024 decision in the T N Godavarman case, where the Bench had flagged serious ecological damage inside Corbett and called for expert evaluation, CBI investigation and disciplinary action against the officials involved.

Supreme Court Issues Directions On Tiger Safaris, Directs States To Notify ESZs Around Tiger Reserves

Case Details: In Re: Corbett

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112

The Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions regarding Tiger Safaris, the management of Tiger Reserves and the protection of sensitive tiger landscapes.

Accepting the findings of the Expert Committee constituted after the Corbett Tiger Reserve violations came to light, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar has issued mandatory directives that all States must now implement within strict timelines.

Supreme Court Directs States To Consider Treating Human-Wildlife Conflict As 'Natural Disaster', Orders Rs 10 Lakh Ex Gratia To Victims

Case Details: In Re: Corbett

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112

The Supreme Court has directed all States to actively consider classifying human-wildlife conflict as a "natural disaster" and to ensure payment of Rs 10 lakh ex gratia for every human death caused in such incidents. The Court said this uniform compensation is mandatory, as fixed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the CSS Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats scheme.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar passed the directions while considering the issues related to the Jim Corbett tiger park in Uttarakhand.

When Witnesses Examined Virtually, Their Prior Statements Must Be Electronically Transmitted To Them : Supreme Court To Trial Courts

Case Details: Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1113

Delivering a significant judgment (November 17), the Supreme Court issued a binding directive to rectify a critical procedural gap in virtual trials. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta mandated that in all proceedings where a witness is examined via video conferencing, the trial court must facilitate the electronic transmission of the witness's prior statements to them.

This measure, the Court said addresses the "procedural irregularity" that disadvantaged the defence, which was often unable to effectively cross-examine a witness because the document containing their prior inconsistent statement could not be physically presented in the virtual setting.

Thus, recognizing the accused's right to fair cross-examination of a witness, the Court directed that “in every case where, it is proposed to record the statement of a witness over video conferencing and any previous written statement of such witness or a matter in writing is available and the party concerned is desirous of confronting the witness with such previous statement/matter in writing, the trial Court shall ensure that a copy of the statement/document is transmitted to the witness through electronic transmission mode and the procedure provided under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (corresponding Section 144 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act) is followed in the letter and spirit, so as to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the trial.”

If Witness Had Opportunity To See Accused Before TIP, Test Identification Proceedings Not Reliable : Supreme Court

Case Details: Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1113

The Supreme Court (November 17) acquitted a man accused of murdering an elderly man during a robbery. The Court discarded the sole eyewitness's identification of the accused, made nearly eight years after the incident, noting that it could not inspire confidence because of her weak eyesight and subsequent improvements in testimony.

“Once her identification of the accused-appellant in Court is discarded, no substantive evidence remains on record to connect the accused with the crime.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, pointing out that the dock identification was unreliable as it was undertaken years after the incident, having substantial improvements and material contradictions in the eyewitness's testimony.

“We may note that the possibility of identification of the accused-appellant by Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) in Court, after a lapse of nearly eight and a half years from the incident, is extremely unlikely. In her testimony, the witness candidly admitted that her distance vision was weak and that she could not see objects at a distance without spectacles. It is also borne out from the record that even at the time of the incident, she was aged about 73 years and was infirm. She was not wearing spectacles at the time of her deposition via video conferencing. In this background, her purported identification of the assailant after such a long lapse of time, that too over video conferencing, does not inspire confidence.”, the court observed.

If Some Offences Are Quashed On Compromise, FIR Can't Be Sustained For Other Offences From Same Transaction: Supreme Court

Case Details: Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1114

The Supreme Court (November 17) set aside the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench order that had partially quashed an FIR by dropping some charges while allowing the dacoity charge to stand, even though all the alleged offences arose from a single transaction forming one continuous incident.

“Once the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 of the BNS [Sections 326, 506 and 504 of the IPC], on the basis of the voluntary affidavit of respondent No.2-complainant, there was no justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC]. The factual matrix forming the basis of all the offences is inseparable and arises from a single transaction. The compromise that was accepted as genuine and sufficient to quash the other offences equally dilutes the foundation of the charge of dacoity, which rests on the same set of allegations and circumstances.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said founding the High Court's approach to be erroneous splitting the offences.

The case involved an FIR lodged by a complainant alleging that 6-7 unknown persons entered the school premises, assaulted staff, and took away files, a cheque book, blank letterheads, stamps, and cash. The High Court had partially allowed a quashing petition, settling offences like assault and criminal intimidation, but allowed the dacoity case to continue, treating it as a distinct offence against the school institution.

Railways Can't Deny Compensation Saying Accident Victim Boarded Wrong Train : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shrikumar Gupta & Anr. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1115

The Supreme Court ordered a payment of compensation worth Rs. 8 Lakhs, with 9% to the parents of the deceased who died in a railway accident after mistakenly boarding a wrong train.

The Railways built its entire defence on an allegation of negligence to discredit the deceased's parents' plea for compensation under Section 16G of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (“Act”). It contends that although the deceased held a valid ticket from Satna to Maihar in Madhya Pradesh, he had mistakenly boarded a train that did not halt at Maihar. According to the Railways, upon realising this, the deceased attempted to deboard the moving train at Maihar Station, sustained fatal injuries, and therefore the resulting death was attributable to his own act

Rejecting the Railway's defence, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said “merely because the deceased had boarded a wrong train, it cannot be construed that he was not a bona fide passenger so as to absolve the railway authorities from contending that deceased not being a bona fide passenger.”

Supreme Court Recalls 'Vanashakti' Judgment Which Barred Grant Of Post-Facto Environmental Clearances; Justice Bhuyan Dissents

Case Details: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India CREDAI v. Vanashakti | Diary No. 41929/2025, Vanashakti v. Union of India | Diary No. - 32452/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1116

The Supreme Court (November 18), by 2:1 majority, recalled its judgment in Vanashakti judgment, which barred the Union from granting post-facto environmental clearances.

InVanashakti v. Union of India, the bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, by judgment delivered on May 15, restrained the Central Government from granting "ex-post facto" Environmental Clearances (EC) in future and set aside the previous Office Memoranda and notifications which allowed for the grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance for mining projects.

The applications seeking review/recall of the judgment were considered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran. While CJI Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran were in the majority, Justice Bhuyan (who was part of the original judgment) dissented.

Citing Delhi's Smog, Justice Bhuyan's Dissent Warns Against Allowing Post-Facto EC; Says Court Shouldn't Backtrack

Case Details: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India CREDAI v. Vanashakti | Diary No. 41929/2025, Vanashakti v. Union of India | Diary No. - 32452/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1116

In his dissent opposing the move to reconsider the Court's 2024 Vanashakti judgment, Justice Bhuyan of the Supreme Court made a pointed reference to Delhi's air quality crisis, saying that the situation is a reminder that environmental regulations should not be diluted.

The Vanashakti ruling (by bench of Justices AS Oka (since retired) and Justice Bhuyan) had barred the grant of ex post facto environmental clearances, holding that ECs must always be obtained before starting construction or expansion.

"Before parting with the record, I would like to painfully observe that the deadly Delhi smog reminds us everyday about the hazards of environmental pollution. Supreme Court as the highest constitutional court of the country has the duty and obligation under the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder to safeguard the environment," Justice Bhuyan wrote.

Getting Appointment Based On Forged Degree Certificate Is Uncondonable: Supreme Court

Case Details: Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Ex. Ct. Vinod Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1117

The Supreme Court held that when a candidate's appointment is secured on the basis of a forged educational certificate, the act is “uncondonable” and the dismissal will not be vitiated merely because a full departmental inquiry was not conducted.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra restored the dismissal of a Delhi Police constable, observing that once the core allegation of forgery stands unrebutted, the absence of a formal inquiry does not invalidate the termination order.

“The further fact which is admitted is that there is absolutely, no rebuttal by the respondent (candidate) that the certificate/degree presented by him before the appellants at the time of his appointment and on the basis of which, he was appointed as a Constable, is genuine.”, observed the Court.

Arbitration | Dispute On Interest Rate Doesn't Fall Under Public Policy Ground To Set Aside Award Ordinarily: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sri Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Limited & Anr. v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1118

The Supreme Court (November 18) upheld the charging of a 24% interest rate in an arbitral award, stating that an interest rate agreed upon in a commercial loan agreement did not violate the fundamental policy of Indian law.

“It is well-settled that fundamental policy of Indian law does not refer to violation of any Statue but fundamental principles on which Indian law is founded. Any difference or controversy as to rate of interest clearly falls outside the scope of challenge on the ground of conflict with the public policy of India unless it is evident that the rate of interest awarded is so perverse and so unreasonable so as to shock the conscience of the Court sans which no interference is warranted in the award, whereby interest is awarded by the Arbitrator.” observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan pointing that the imposition of a high interest in the background of contemporary commercial practices wouldn't be per se against the fundamental policy of Indian Law, or against the basic notions of morality or justice as per clauses (ii) and (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The case arose from two loan agreements from 2006, under which the appellants borrowed a total of ₹1.57 crore from the respondent, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC). The agreements stipulated an interest rate of 24% per annum. After the appellants defaulted on repayment, arbitration was initiated, resulting in an award in favour of the NBFC.

No Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge Posts : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Seniority In Higher Judicial Service

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1119

The Supreme Court ruled out any special quota/weightage for promotee judges in the posts of District Judges, observing that there is no nationwide pattern of disproportionate representation of direct recruits in the Higher Judicial Service.

The Court observed that a perceived feeling of "heartburn" among judicial officers cannot justify the creation of any artificial classification within the cadre Higher Judicial Service(HJS). On the entry into a common cadre from different sources (Regular Promotion, Limited Departmental Competitive Exam and Direct Recruitment) and assignment of seniority as per the annual roster, the incumbents lose their 'birthmark' of the source from which they are recruited.

The Court observed that fixation in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within the HJS is based on the merit-cum-seniority within the cadre and cannot depend upon the length of service or performance in the lower rungs of the Judiciary. The service as Civil Judges loses its significance after Regular Promotees and LDCEs advance into the HJS. "The length and performance as a Civil Judge does not constitute an intelligible differentia to classify incumbents in the common cadre of District Judge," observed the 5-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India.

Supreme Court Allows Chartered Accountants To Be Tribunal Technical Members Without Meeting 25 Year Experience Requirement

Case Details: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India | Wp(C) 1018 of 2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120

Clarifying its decision in the Madras Bar Association, which struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the Supreme Court held that Chartered Accountants do not have to hold a minimum of 25 years of experience to be considered as a technical member in the Tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunals.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued the clarification after a mentioning by the counsel for the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

The counsel pointed out that the judgment has struck down the condition that an advocate should have a minimum age of 50 years for appointment as Tribunal members. He sought parity for CAs as well on similar grounds.

Re-enactment Of Struck Down Provisions Shows Form Of Administration Is Inconsistent With Spirit Of Constitution : Supreme Court On Tribunal Reforms Act

Case Details: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India | Wp(C) 1018 of 2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120

Whilestriking down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the Supreme Court made a scathing criticism of the re-enactment of the very same provisions, which were earlier struck down by the Court. This, the Court said, showed that the "form of the administration” was inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution.

The judgment authored by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai referred to the famous quote of Dr BR Ambedkar that it was possible to pervert the Constitution by making the administration inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution even while maintaining its form.

Noting that the provisions of the 2021 Act were a literal re-enactment of the previous rules relating to Tribunals which were struck down in 2019 (Rojer Mathew), 2020(Madras Bar Association -IV), and 2021 (Madras Bar Association-V) cases, the Court said:

Supreme Court Directs Union Government To Establish National Tribunals Commission Within 4 Months

Case Details: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India | Wp(C) 1018 of 2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120

In a significant push for institutional reform, the Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to constitute a National Tribunals Commission (NTC) within four months, underscoring that the executive has a constitutional obligation to set up the body as repeatedly mandated in earlier judgments.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the direction in the Madras Bar Association case, in which it struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

It may be noted that in 2020, in the earlier Madras Bar Association case, in which the Tribunal Rules of 2020were struck down, the Court had directed the Centre to set up a National Tribunal Commission. The Commission was supposed to act as an independent body to supervise the appointments and functioning of Tribunals, as well as to conduct disciplinary proceedings against members of Tribunals and to take care of the administrative and infrastructural needs of the Tribunals, in an appropriate manner.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, Says It Violated Judicial Independence

Case Details: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India | Wp(C) 1018 of 2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120

The Supreme Court (November 19) struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, relating to the appointments, tenure, and service conditions of the members of various Tribunals.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed displeasure at the Union Government for not giving effect to the directions given by the Court in its earlier judgments regarding Tribunal appointments. The bench disapproved of the Tribunal Reforms Act for re-enacting the same provisions which were earlier struck down in previous judgments.

The Court held that the Act cannot be sustained as it violates the principles relating to "separation of powers and judicial independence." The Act amounts to "legislative overruling" of binding judgments without curing any defects.

'Municipality Can't Compel Commercial Use Of Floor To Permit Reconstruction' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Cost On Delhi Civic Body

Case Details: South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner v. Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1121

The Supreme Court ordered South Delhi's Municipal Body (now Municipal Corporation of Delhi) to grant Rs. 10 Lakh compensation for harassing a family for over 15 years by refusing permission to rebuild their 85-year-old dilapidated house.

The respondents sought to demolish an eighty-five-year-old dilapidated house at Darya Ganj, New Delhi and construct a new residential house. Plans were submitted to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation in 2010, but no decision was taken. The respondents then applied to the Tribunal under Section 347A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,1957, which granted deemed sanction. The SDMC's appeal and subsequent writ petition in the Delhi High Court were dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

The SDMC argued that under the relevant Master Plan (MPD-2021) and mixed-use regulations, new construction on an old residential plot abutting a notified street must provide commercial use on the ground floor and residential use above. Thus, simply putting up a purely residential structure was impermissible.

Assignment Of Decree For Specific Performance Of Agreement To Sell Doesn't Require Registration : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajeswari & Ors. v. Shanmugam & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1122

The Supreme Court (November 19) held that a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell can be validly assigned without registration, emphasising that such decrees do not themselves create any proprietary interest that would trigger the requirement of compulsory registration.

“when the decree itself which is for specific performance does not create or purport to create any right, title or interest in any immovable property, the question of registering an instrument assigning such a decree cannot arise.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan while addressing a question “should a deed assigning a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property, be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.”

The dispute arose from a 1993 ex parte decree for specific performance. The decree-holder assigned the decree in 1995 to the respondent, Shanmugam, through an unregistered deed.

Limitation Period To Challenge Environmental Clearance Commences From Earliest Date Of Its Public Communication: Supreme Court

Case Details: Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1123

The Supreme Court ruled that the limitation period for filing an appeal against the grant of Environmental Clearance ("EC") would be reckoned from the earliest date of communication of the EC to the public at large.

The Court endorsed the NGT's decision of Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. vs. Union of India, 2013(1) All India NGT Reporter 1 which stated that the "obligations of MoEF&CC, the project proponent and others to communicate the grant of EC to any person aggrieved and hold that where different stake holders are to communicate the order, the earliest date on which the communication is carried out, shall be the date for reckoning limitation to file appeal against the grant of EC."

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar made this observation while deciding a case where the Appellant-Tally Gram Panchayat contested the grant of EC (05.01.2017) to Ultratech Cement before the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) for a limestone mining project covering an extent of 193.3269 hectares at Talli and Bambor villages in Gujarat. The Appellant's appeal against the grant of EC by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) was dismissed by the NGT on the ground of limitation, holding that the appeal was filed belatedly on April 19, 2017, i.e., beyond the statutory prescribed time period of 30 days, extendable up to 60 days.

No Requirement To Publish Entire Environmental Clearance In Newspaper : Supreme Court

Case Details: Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1123

The Supreme Court (November 19) observed that there's no requirement to publish entire Environmental Clearance (“EC”) in the local daily newspaper, and “it will be sufficient compliance, if the project proponent publishes the grant of the EC, and indicates therein the substance of the conditions and safeguards.”

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar made this observation while deciding a case where the Appellant-Tally Gram Panchayat contested the grant of EC (05.01.2017) to Ultratech Cement before the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) for a limestone mining project covering an extent of 193.3269 hectares at Talli and Bambor villages in Gujarat. The Appellant's appeal against the grant of EC by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) was dismissed by the NGT on the ground of limitation, holding that the appeal was filed belatedly on April 19, 2017, i.e., beyond the statutory prescribed time period of 30 days, extendable up to 60 days.

Challenging the NGT's order, the Appellant moved the Supreme Court, arguing that since the grant of EC was known to them only on 14.02.2017 via RTI query, the period of limitation should be reckoned from 14.02.2017, not 05.01.2017. It was also argued on behalf of the Appellant that there was no publication of the entire EC in the local daily newspaper as per Clause 10 of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 (“EIA Notification, 2006”).

Governor Can't Simply Withhold Bill Without Returning It To Assembly; Allowing It Against Federalism : Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

Case Details: In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation of Bills By The Governor and The President of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124

In its opinion in thePresidential Reference, the Supreme Court has held that a Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to a Bill without returning it to the State Legislature. The Court ruled that such a “simpliciter” power to withhold assent does not exist under Article 200 and that any interpretation enabling a Governor to stall legislation through inaction would run contrary to constitutional principles.

The Court examined the structure of Article 200 and concluded that the Governor is constitutionally permitted only three options when a Bill is presented: to assent, to reserve it for the President, or to withhold assent by returning the Bill to the Legislature with comments(except in the case of a Money Bill, which he cannot return). A reading that treats “withholding assent” as an independent power allowing the Governor to let a Bill fall through was expressly rejected.

If it is held that the Governor can simply withhold a Bill, then it would mean that even a Money Bill can be stalled, the Court noted.

Timelines Can't Be Fixed For Governors/President For Bills' Assent; No Concept Of 'Deemed Assent' : Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

Case Details: In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation of Bills By The Governor and The President of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124

Answering the reference made by the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, under Article 143 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court (November 20) held that the Court cannot impose any timelines for decisions of the President and the Governor on granting assent to Bills under Articles 200/201 of the Constitution.

The Court further held that the concept of Courts declaring "deemed assent" to the Bills if the timelines are breached was antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution and against the doctrine of separation of powers. The concept of Courts declaring "deemed assent" is virtually a take over of the functions reserved for the Governor.

"We have no hesitation in concluding that deemed consent of the Governor, or President, under Article 200 or 201 at the expiry of a judicially set timeline, is virtually a takeover, and substitution, of the executive functions by the Judiciary, through judicial pronouncement, which is impermissible within the contours of our written Constitution," the Court held.

Tamil Nadu Judgment Wrong For Prescribing Timelines For Governor & President : Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

Case Details: In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation of Bills By The Governor and The President of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124

While rendering its opinion on 14 questions of law sought by the President of India, the Supreme Court has clarified that certain paragraphs of the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment prescribing timelines for the President and Governor to act under Article 200/201 are erroneous.

The Tamil Nadu judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench on April 8, in which the Court held that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted mala fide in reserving the Bills for the President after they were re-enacted by the State Assembly. It therefore held that those Bills were "deemed assented" using Article 142 and consequently laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to follow.

A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar opined that prescribing timelines were wrong. The bench also held that there was no occasion for the two-judge bench to having down down timelines for the President.

Governor Can Reserve Bill Passed Again By Assembly For President's Assent : Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

Case Details: In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation of Bills By The Governor and The President of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124

In the opinion given in thePresidential Reference, the Supreme Court held that the Governor has the option of reserving a Bill, which has been re-enacted by the Legislature after being returned by the Governor in the first instance, for the President's assent.

The Court said that the restriction as per the first proviso of Article 200 of the Constitution is on the Governor withholding the assent for a re-passed Bill. However, the option of reserving the Bill for the President's assent is not closed even after the Bill is returned by the Assembly.

The 5-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai observed :

Provident Fund Dues Take Precedence Over Bank's Claim Under SARFAESI Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jalgaon District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1125

The Supreme Court (November 20) held that employees' provident fund dues take precedence over the 'priority' rights claimed by banks in the sale of a company's assets under the SARFAESI Act.

The Court held that dues under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act enjoy priority over the claims of secured creditors proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, reaffirming that the statutory first charge created under the EPF law overrides the “priority” granted to secured creditors in Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act.

Holding that a statutory first charge is superior, the bench ruled that EPF dues must be discharged first from the auction proceeds of the secured assets. Only the remaining amount, if any, can be applied towards clearing the bank's debt. The Court permitted the bank to proceed with auction but directed that the provident fund authorities' claims be satisfied before the bank receives any share.

Landowners Who Agree To Compensation Settlement Can't Later Claim Statutory Benefits : Supreme Court

Case Details: Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its Secretary, Transport Department & Ors. v. P.R. Jaganathan & Ors Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1126

Landowners who voluntarily enter into a compensation agreement under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (“Act”) cannot later invoke statutory provisions to claim additional benefits such as interest, observed the Supreme Court.

“a contract voluntarily entered into between the parties, shall not be disturbed by taking recourse to the statutory provisions, which are sought to be excluded by such contract. A party to a contract cannot be permitted to have recourse to two different modes, especially after having accepted the compensation under the contract without any demur or protest. It is not open to either of the parties to resile from the terms of the agreement arrived at.”, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh observed.

The acquisition proceedings began in 2011. In 2018, landowners participated in a negotiation meeting under Section 7(2) and agreed to a significantly enhanced compensation ₹1500/sq.ft for residential and ₹900/sq.ft for agricultural land, over 250% above the guideline value. Many withdrew their legal challenges after this agreement. The State formally approved the negotiated sum in 2019.

'No New Mining Leases In Aravalis Until Scientific Mapping Is Done', Supreme Court Directs Centre To Prepare Sustainable Mining Plan

Case Details: In Re: Issue Relating To Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1127

The Supreme Court (November 20) directed the Centre to prepare a comprehensive Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) before any new mining activity is permitted in the ecologically fragile region of “Aravali Hills and Ranges” spread across the states of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.

“it may not be in the interest of ecology and environment if further mining activities are permitted to be carried out without a body of experts, such as ICFRE, examining the issue of protection of the conservation areas. The MPSM will provide adequate data on the basis of geo-referenced ecological assessment and identify the areas which have wildlife and other high eco-sensitive areas, which are required to be conserved. The MPSM will also provide data as to how sustainable mining is to be conducted.” observed a bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria.

The Court was hearing a decades-old plea in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (1995), which deals with forest conservation.

S. 197 CrPC | Order Granting Or Denying Sanction Must Show Clear Application of Mind : Supreme Court

Case Details: Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1128

The Supreme Court held that a sanction under Section 197 CrPC to prosecute a public servant cannot rest on vague or mechanical assertions and must reflect a clear application of mind by the competent authority.

“Application of mind by the authorities granting or denying sanction must be easily visible including consideration of the evidence placed before it in arriving at the conclusion.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh while allowing an IAS officer's appeal, noting that the supplementary chargesheet was filed after an inordinate delay and that the sanction order was vitiated for being passed without proper application of mind.

Setting aside the Patna High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIR on the grounds of a vitiated sanction order, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed:

Investigation Cannot Go Endlessly; Long Delay In Filing Chargesheet Can Be A Ground To Quash Proceedings : Supreme Court

Case Details: Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1128

The Supreme Court (November 20) held that trial courts do not become functus officio after permitting further investigation and are obligated to seek explanations from investigating agencies for significant delay in filing supplementary charge sheets.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh quashed the criminal proceedings against an IAS officer against whom further investigation had remained pending for 11 years, ruling that such unexplained and inordinate delay is sufficient to vitiate the entire prosecution.

Holding that inordinate delay in completing the investigation can be a ground to quash the proceedings, the Court observed, "The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence."

Art 226 | Writ Petition Shouldn't Be Normally Entertained If Alternative Remedy Available Under HC's Different Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1129

The Supreme Court held that when an effective alternate statutory remedy exists before the High Court under a different jurisdiction, a writ petition becomes non-maintainable.

“The principle, plainly, is that, if a remedy is available to a party before the high court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226…”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar while refusing to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court's decision which dismissed the Appellant's Writ petition as non-maintainable as there was an alternate remedy to seek reference before the High Court against the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Act, 1962 (“Act”).

Dismissing the Appeal, the Court clarified that “while deciding whether to entertain a petition under Article 226 bearing in mind the precedents in the field, a writ court ought to additionally notice the forum designated by the statute for the litigant to approach. This is necessary because the alternative forum that is provided by the statute has to be one which can dispense speedy and efficacious relief.”

Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act | Landlord Need Not File S. 12(1) Application Again In Tenant's Appeal : Supreme Court

Case Details: P.U. Sidhique & Ors. v. Zakariya

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1130

The Supreme Court (November 21) ruled that there's no requirement for the landlord to file a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 when tenants challenge an eviction order for non-payment of rent before the Appellate Authority.

“the Rent Control Appellate Authority is not the Court of first instance, it only tests the exercise of jurisdiction and power by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority is not required to re-determine the issue of default or the outstanding amount of rent. It has only to examine as to whether the Rent Control Court has erred in law or in facts and/or has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law.”, observed a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan while ordering eviction of two prime commercial shops in Kochi for more than five years without paying rent.

The Court held that as the Rent Control Appellate Authority has full power to examine the legality and validity of the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965, to insist upon the Appellant-landlord to repeat the procedure under Section 12 of the Act, 1965 would be a superfluous and unnecessary exercise.

Supreme Court Forms High-Level Panel To Restore Jojari–Bandi–Luni Rivers, Slams Rajasthan Govt's Neglect

Case Details: In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1131

Criticizing State of Rajasthan for its inaction to act for decades to restore the Jojari–Bandi–Luni river system in Western Rajasthan, the Supreme Court (November 21) constituted a High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee headed by a former High Court Judge to prepare a comprehensive, time-bound River Restoration and Rejuvenation Blueprint for the entire river system that includes Rivers Jojari, Luni and Bandi and ensure its phased implementation.

“We are pained to observe that…the State should have acted spontaneously years ago, for ensuring around the clock compliances which is the constitutional obligation of the State Government and the concerned authorities.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta while hearing a suo moto case registered based on the documentary title documentary titled “2 Million Lives at Risk | India's Deadliest River.” that exposed alarming levels of industrial pollution, governance failures, and severe public health consequences affecting nearly two million residents across several districts of Rajasthan significantly impacting the right to clean and pollution free environment under Art. 32 of the Constitution.

Although the State had taken some steps, the court questioned the timing of such steps, as they were taken only after a suo moto case was registered by the Court.

Indian Courts Have No Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator For Foreign-Seated Arbitration : Supreme Court

Case Details: Balaji Steel Trade v. Fludor Benin S.A. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1132

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking the appointment of an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration, holding that once the principal contract is governed by foreign law and provides for a foreign-seated arbitration, Indian courts lose jurisdiction, irrespective of the Indian nationality of any party.

“Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration, irrespective of the nationality or domicile of the parties.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar while deciding a case where at the heart was the dispute pertaining to the Buyer–Seller Agreement (BSA) of 06.06.2019, which clearly provided that arbitration “will take place in Benin” and that the agreement would be governed by Beninese law. The petitioner, Balaji Steel, had relied on later ancillary contracts containing Indian-seated arbitration clauses to invoke the Group of Companies (“GoC”) doctrine to argue for a domestic arbitration.

'Medical Education Would Go Waste' : Supreme Court Protects MBBS Degree Of Candidate Whose ST Certificate Was Cancelled

Case Details: Vedkumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 26461/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1133

The Supreme Court allowed a medical student to complete his MBBS education despite his ST (Scheduled Tribe) Certificate being considered invalid, as he had already completed the course during the pendency of proceedings.

However, the Court clarified that he will not be entitled to get any further benefits under the ST category.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a challenge to the Bombay High Court order, which upheld the Scrutiny Committee's order confiscating and invalidating his tribe certificate of the scheduled tribe 'Mannervarlu'.

Anyone Can Lodge Complaint Under Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1134

The Supreme Court held that a complaint for offences punishable under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (“1984 Act”) can be initiated by any person, as the Act imposes no restrictions on who may set the criminal law in motion.

“it is a well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set out or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary.”, observed a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order that had quashed the magistrate's summoning of the accused after taking cognizance of the Gram Pradhan's complaint under various IPC provisions read with the 1984 Act.

The High Court set aside the magistrate's order, holding that only a Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, could initiate action against the damage made to the public property. Since the Gram Pradhan was not a competent authority, the High Court held the complaint to be not maintainable.

IBC | Section 7 Application Can't Be Rejected For Curable Defects In Affidavit : Supreme Court

Case Details: Livein Aqua Solutions Private Limited v. HDFC Bank Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1135

The Supreme Court (November 24) observed that procedural defects in a Section 7 insolvency application under IBC, such as a defective affidavit, are curable and cannot be used as a basis for summary dismissal.

“Mere filing of a 'defective' affidavit in support of an application would, however, not render the very application non est and liable to be rejected on that ground as it is neither an incurable nor a fundamental defect.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe while restoring the secured creditor's Section 7 IBC application, which the NCLT had rejected solely on the ground of a mismatch between the verification date and the date of swearing of the supporting affidavit.

The application under Section 7 had been verified on 26 July 2023, but the supporting affidavit was sworn nine days earlier, creating a mismatch that the NCLT treated as fatal. The NCLT's scrutiny section conveyed the defects/objections in the filing of petitions/applications, including the application of the respondent-bank, but as the same were not removed/rectified. When the respondent failed to remove the defects, the registry refused to register the case, prompting the Respondent to file an appeal before the NCLAT.

Supreme Court Directs Registry To Not Clear Petitions Filed With Black & White Photographs; AoRs Must Produce Colour Photos

Case Details: Dinamati Gomes v. State of Goa, SLP(C) No. 7944/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1136

By way of a judicial order, the Supreme Court has directed its Registry to not accept any paperbook for listing if it contains photographs in black-and-white.

Until properly coloured photographs are filed, duly appended with dimensions and conceptual plan, the matter will remain in the category of "defects not cured", the Court has said. Moreover, if the photographs have been filed electronically, Advocates-on-Record must also file hard copies of the same.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant (now CJI), Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed directions to the above effect, stating,

To Convert Every Sour Relationship Into Rape Trivialises Seriousness Of Offence : Supreme Court

Case Details: Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1137

The Supreme Court (November 24) quashed a rape case against an advocate who was accused of committing repeated rape on a woman on a false pretext of marriage. Noting that the sexual intercourse was consensual, not influenced by any false promise of marriage, the Court found the woman's allegations to be untrue and a classic instance of a consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious.

“The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan while setting aside the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) order which refused to quash the case against the Petitioner.

The Court observed that in a society where marriage carries deep social and cultural importance, it is common for a woman to consent to a sexual relationship based on the belief that it will lead to a lawful and socially accepted marriage. In such situations, her consent is conditional and rooted in the promise of marriage. The Court held that if it is proved that the promise was false, made in bad faith, and with no real intention to marry but only to exploit the woman, such consent may be considered vitiated, attracting the protection of Section 376 IPC. At the same time, the Court cautioned that this principle can be applied only when supported by credible evidence and concrete facts, and not on mere allegations or assumptions.

Appellate Courts Can Grant Interim Relief Even If Suit Is Dismissed By Trial Court : Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohammadhanif Mohammadibrahim Patel & Ors. v. Pallaviben Rajendra Kumar Patel & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1138

The Supreme Court observed that an interim relief can be granted by an Appellate Court even when the original suit has been dismissed.

“Just because the original suit came to be dismissed, that does not mean that in the pending appeal, the appellate court cannot grant appropriate relief as prayed for.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan while setting aside the Gujarat High Court's decision which refused the plaintiff's request for a status quo order on the ground that the suit had already been dismissed.

“An appeal is considered a continuation of the original suit, and the appellate court has co-extensive power to grant appropriate interim relief to prevent irreparable injury and preserve the status quo pending the final disposal of the appeal.”, observed the Court adding that “in a suit for specific performance concerning an immovable property, if the relief sought is not granted and the aggrieved party appeals, then an application seeking to maintain the status quo filed before the appellate court cannot be dismissed solely because the suit for specific performance stood dismissed.”

Sandesara–Sterling Group Loan Fraud | Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Cases After Accused Agree To Pay Rs 5,100 Crore To Banks

Case Details – Hemant S. Hathi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. With Connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1139

The Supreme Court quashed all criminal and civil proceedings against Hemant S. Hathi and Chetan Jayantilal, accused in the Sandesara–Sterling Group bank fraud case, after they agreed to deposit Rs 5,100 crore as full and final settlement with lender banks.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, however, clarified that the directions were issued in the peculiar facts of the case with the purpose of protecting public money, and will not operate as a precedent.

“it is apparent that since inception, this Court was of the view that if the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount as settled in OTS and public money comes back to lender banks, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose. The tenor of the proceedings apparently indicate peculiarity, with intent to protect the public money and interest and to get deposited the defalcated amount. In furtherance, the consensus has been arrived at as indicated above. In this view, in the peculiar facts and situation of the present case, discretion as prayed, deserves to be exercised for granting the relief, as prayed and to direct for quashment of all the proceedings”, the Court observed.

Bombay HC Appellate Side Rules | 7-Day Notice To Client Not Required When Advocate Files 'No Instructions' Pursis: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shri Digant v. M/S. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1140

The Supreme Court has clarified that the requirement of giving a seven-day advance notice to the client before withdrawing a vakalatnama, as mandated under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, and the Civil Manual, does not apply when an advocate merely files a pursis stating that he has 'no instructions' from the client.

Holding so, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interference under Article 227, observing that it cannot reappreciate facts or substitute a plausible, well-reasoned order of the First Appellate Court.

“The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi.

Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Auction Sale Can't Be Challenged On Grounds Which Could Have Been Raised Before Proclamation : Supreme Court

Case Details: G.R. Selvaraj (Dead), Through Lrs. v. K.J. Prakash Kumar and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1141

The Supreme Court (November 25) held that a judgment-debtor cannot, at a belated stage, assail an auction sale in execution proceedings, particularly once the sale has been completed. The Court observed that such a challenge is impermissible under Order XXI Rule 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure when the judgment-debtor had a prior opportunity to raise objections before the proclamation of sale was issued

“if the judgment debtor had been put on notice by the executing Court but had acquiesced, by taking no action before the date of the sale, he would be precluded from assailing its legality or correctness thereafter.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe while setting aside the Madras High Court's decision which set aside the auction sale (made in the Appellant's favour) upon accepting the Respondent judgment-debtor's belated objection against the auction sale.

The judgment debtor raised an objection that the executing court hadn't considered the aspect of whether the part sale of the judgment debtor property could satisfy the decree. This objection was raised belatedly even when he had an opportunity to raise before the proclamation of sale.

Letter Of Intent A 'Promise In Embryo'; Doesn't Create Vested Rights Until Preconditions Are Met : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. M/S Oasys Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1142

Holding that a Letter of Interest (LoI) does not confer any enforceable or vested rights until all stipulated pre-conditions are fulfilled, the Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh government's decision to cancel an LoI issued to a private company for the supply of electronic Point-of-Sale (ePoS) devices for its Public Distribution System (PDS).

“an LoI (Letter of Interest) creates no vested right until it passes the threshold of final and unconditional acceptance. It is but a “promise in embryo,” capable of maturing into a contract only upon the satisfaction of stipulated preconditions or upon the issue of an LoA (Letter of Acceptance).”, observed a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh.

The dispute stemmed from the cancellation of an LoI in June 2023, after it had been in effect for eight months. The company had challenged the cancellation as arbitrary, citing its substantial investments in preparing for the contract before the High Court, which subsequently interfered with the State of Himachal Pradesh's decision to cancel the LoI issued in the Respondent's favour, and restored the contractual obligations of the Respondent company.

Administrative Orders Must Be Justified On Reasons Stated There; Can't Add Fresh Grounds Later : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. M/S Oasys Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1142

The Supreme Court reiterated that a government order can be defended only on the basis of the reasons which are stated there. The reasons in the order cannot be improved through grounds subsequently raised in the affidavits filed in Courts.

“This Court has, however, cautioned against the practice of post-facto rationalisation, whereby authorities attempt to supplement or fabricate reasons after the decision has already been taken. Such afterthoughts cannot cure an inherently arbitrary action. The legitimacy of administrative reasoning must be tested with reference to the material that existed at the time the decision was made, not by subsequent embellishment.”, observed a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, adding that “what is permissible is elucidation of contemporaneous reasoning already traceable on record; what is impermissible is the invention of fresh grounds to retrospectively justify an otherwise unreasoned order.”

The bench made this observation while considering a case in which the State of Himachal Pradesh challenged a High Court order that had quashed its decision to cancel a contract for supplying ePoS machines for the Public Distribution System. The State had issued an unreasoned cancellation order, prompting the private contractor to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to challenge the termination.

Marriage Should Not Be Taken As Broken Down Just Because Spouses Live Separately; Courts Must Identify Who Broke Ties : Supreme Court

Case Details: A v. I

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1143

The Supreme Court has cautioned High Courts and Trial Courts against dissolving marriages solely on the basis of couples living apart and labelling it an irretrievable breakdown. The Court emphasised that judges must undertake a thorough examination of the reasons behind the separation and determine the real cause of the spouses living separately.

“we may hasten to add that Courts, in recent times, often observe that since the parties are living separately, the marriage should be taken to have broken irretrievably. However, before jumping to such a conclusion, it is imperative upon the Family Court or the High Court to determine as to who out of the two is responsible for breaking the marital tie and forcing the other to live separately. Unless there is cogent evidence for wilful desertion or refusal to cohabit and/or look after the other spouse, the finding of marriage having been broken irretrievably is likely to have devastating effects, especially on the children. The arrival of such a conclusion puts the Courts under an onerous duty to deeply analyse the entire evidence on record, consider the social circumstances and the background of the parties, and various other factors.” observed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi while setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court order which interfered with the trial court's order refusing to grant divorce to the Respondent-man against whom an allegation was labelled that he had thrown away the Appellant-wife from the matrimonial home making her to live separately forcefully.

The High Court allowed the husband's first appeal, and granted a divorce, treating the marriage to be an irretrievable breakdown of marriage merely because the couple were living separately. Being Aggrieved, the wife appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arbitration | Unconditional Stay On Execution Of Award Only In Exceptional Cases: Supreme Court

Case Details: Popular Caterers v. Ameet Mehta & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1144

The Supreme Court declined to grant an unconditional stay on the execution of the arbitral award, holding that the requirement to deposit the security amount was justified since the award was not shown to have been induced or tainted by fraud or corruption.

Referring to its latest ruling in Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Another v. Amazon Technologies Inc., a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan reiterated that for the grant of an unconditional stay on the execution of an arbitral award, the following requirements need to be fulfilled, i.e.,

(i) The decree is egregiously perverse,

Supreme Court Stops Deer Translocation From Delhi's AN Jha Deer Park, Orders Probe Into Negligence By DDA

Case Details: New Delhi Nature Society Through Verhaen Khanna v. Director Horticulture DDA & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1145

The Supreme Court (November 26) stopped the translocation of spotted deer from Delhi's A.N. Jha Deer Park to Rajasthan, after finding a 'distressing pattern of negligence' on the Delhi Development Authority's (“DDA”) part while translocating deer.

“It is evident from the record that the translocation protocol and best practices incorporated in the guidelines issued by the Central Zoo Authority and IUCN Guidelines were not adhered to during the translocation of deer from Deer Park to Ramgarh Vishdhari Tiger Reserve and Mukundra Hills Tiger Reserve in the State of Rajasthan. There is no documentary evidence of pre-translocation genetic screening, tagging, tranquilisation protocols, veterinary fitness certification, or behavioural acclimatisation, all of which are internationally recognised preconditions for release.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta flagging the concern of the survival of the deer's during the translocation process as “no tracking mechanisms such as telemetry collars, radio chips, or post-release surveys were done to monitor the well-being or survival of the released animals.”

The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's ruling which refused to interfere with the DDA's chronic mismanagement in the functioning of the AN Jha Deer Park, appointing Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to conduct an independent, on-ground assessment covering, actual population at Deer Park, its ecological carrying capacity, survival status of deer already shifted to Rajasthan, and a scientific, welfare-compliant roadmap for any future relocation.

Recent Trend Of Overturning Judgments By Succeeding Benches Painful : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1146

The Supreme Court (November 26) voiced strong disapproval of attempts at bench hunting, noting growing trends amongst litigants to seek reversal of a prior bench's ruling by approaching a subsequent bench. The Court warned that permitting such practices would undermine the very purpose of Article 141, as no judgment could have finality if it could be reopened merely because a later bench believes its own view to be a 'better' view.

“In the recent past, we have rather painfully observed a growing trend in this Court (of which we too are an indispensable part) of verdicts pronounced by Judges, whether still in office or not and irrespective of the time lapse since pronounced, being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of some party aggrieved by the verdicts prior in point of time.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih. The bench added that “a matter that is res integra may not be reopened or revisited or else consistency in legal interpretation could be compromised and the special authority that is invested in decisions of this Court, under Article 141, lost.”

Recently, judgments such as Vanashakti, Delhi firecracker ban, TN Governor judgment, Bhushan Steel Insolvency etc were revisited.

PC Act | Sections 19(3) & (4) Irrelevant When Sanction Is Quashed By Trial Court Itself : Supreme Court

Case Details: T. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1147

The Supreme Court clarified that the safeguards under Sections 19(3) and 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which prevent a conviction from being set aside due to defects in sanction unless they result in a “failure of justice”, do not apply when the validity of the sanction is questioned at the trial stage. These protections operate only at the appellate or revisional stage, once the trial court has already taken cognizance based on the sanction, the court clarified.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case, which involved a former RTO official who was discharged by the trial court on the grounds that the sanction to prosecute him was granted by the Transport Commissioner, who lacked the jurisdiction to do so as the appellant was appointed by the State Government.

Challenging the trial court's decision, the State moved to the Karnataka High Court, arguing that without proving a "failure of justice”, the sanction could not be invalidated because of the lack of competence of the sanctioning authority to grant the sanction. This position was based on Sections 19(3) and 19(4) of the PC Act, which saves the validity of a sanction from technical defects such as errors, omissions, or irregularity.

PC Act | Witnesses Turning Hostile In Departmental Proceedings No Ground To Seek Discharge In Criminal Trial : Supreme Court

Case Details: T. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1147

Reiterating that a discharge in departmental proceedings does not automatically absolve a public servant in a criminal case, the Supreme Court has observed that exoneration is comparatively easier in disciplinary inquiries because witnesses often turn hostile, whereas in criminal trials witnesses depose on oath and risk prosecution for perjury if they make false statements.

“when a witness deposing on oath in a criminal trial resiles from the original version and does not support the prosecution case, he would be liable to face prosecution for perjury. Under this pressure, the witness may choose to speak the truth. Thus, the mere fact that some of the witnesses did not support the department's case in the disciplinary proceedings would, by itself, not give any assurance that they would behave in the same manner at the criminal trial.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta while hearing an appeal filed by an public servant in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) who challenged the legal validity of the order granting sanction to prosecute him, arguing that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority as per Section 19(1) of the PC Act.

While accepting his contentions regarding the validity of the sanction, it was also submitted by the Appellant before the Court that his exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings would also entitle him to seek exoneration in a separate criminal case pending against him. Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed that exoneration if disciplinary proceedings is quite common based on hostile testimonies of the witnesses as no risk of offence of perjury is associated there, however in criminal cases it wouldn't be easy for the same witness or witnesses to make hostile statements (not supporting the prosecution's case) as a risk of commission of an offence of perjury is associated in the criminal trial because the statements are given on oath.

Second Complaint After Closure Report In 1st Complaint Can't Be Maintained By Adding New Offence For Same Incident : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ranimol & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1148

The Supreme Court held that simply adding a new offence in a subsequent complaint concerning the same alleged incident after a closure report has already been filed in the original complaint, does not render the later complaint maintainable.

“By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of Section 200 of the Code is certainly not maintainable.”, observed a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma while setting aside the Kerala High Court's decision, which had declined to quash a second complaint that merely added a new offence despite arising from the same alleged incident for which the original complaint had already led to a closure report.

It was the case where the Appellants had been named in an FIR but were subsequently dropped from the charge sheet after police filed a closure (negative) report. The de facto complainant never filed a protest petition before the Magistrate. The trial proceeded only against the remaining accused.

For Account Payee Cheque's Dishonour, Complaint Must Be Filed At Place Of Payee's Home Branch : Supreme Court Explains S.142(2)(a) NI Act

Case Details: Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. M/S Heg Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1149

The Supreme Court (November 28) held that complaints arising from the dishonour of account payee cheques must be instituted only before the court that has jurisdiction over the branch of the bank where the payee maintains their account.

The Court clarified that even if the cheque is deposited at a branch different from the payee's home branch, for the purposes of jurisdiction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must still be filed before the court governing the home branch of the payee's bank account.

Interpreting Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed :

'Marriage Reduced To Commercial Transaction Due To Evil Of Dowry': Supreme Refuses Bail In Dowry Death Case

Case Details: Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh Alias Prince and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1150

The Supreme Court (November 28) cancelled the bail of a man accused of poisoning his wife for dowry just four months after their marriage. While doing so, the Court criticized the menace of dowry, still existing in society, reducing the sacred bond of marriage to a mere commercial transaction.

“This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that marriage, in its true essence, is a sacred and noble institution founded on mutual trust, companionship, and respect. However, in recent times, this pious bond has regrettably been reduced to a mere commercial transaction. The evil of dowry, though often sought to be camouflaged as gifts or voluntary offerings, has in reality become a means to display social status and to satiate material greed.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan while allowing the appeal filed by the father of the deceased, and setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order that had granted bail to the accused-husband.

“The phenomenon of dowry deaths represents one of the most abhorrent manifestations of this social malaise, where the life of a young woman is extinguished within her matrimonial home – not for any fault of her own, but solely to satisfy the insatiable greed of others. Such heinous offences strike at the very root of human dignity and violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and life with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They corrode the moral fibre of the community, normalize violence against women, and erode the foundations of a civilized society.”, the court added.

IBC | Terminated Contract Not Corporate Debtor's Asset; Moratorium Won't Revive Extinguished Contractual Rights : Supreme Court

Case Details: A Estates Private Limited v. Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1151

The Supreme Court has held that a contract which has been lawfully terminated before the initiation of insolvency proceedings cannot be treated as an “asset” or “property” of the corporate debtor, and therefore does not enjoy the protection of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Bench observed that “once a contract stands lawfully terminated, it ceases to exist and cannot be treated as an 'asset' or 'property' of the corporate debtor. The moratorium under Section 14 does not have the effect of reviving or re-creating contractual rights that have been extinguished before insolvency.”

The Court further observed that a defaulting developer cannot take refuge under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to stall the redevelopment of a housing project, especially when the agreement was lawfully terminated prior to the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

PC-PNDT Act | Supreme Court Asks Central Board To Examine Challenge To Provision Barring Women Under 35 From Pre-Natal Diagnostic Tests

Case Details: Meera Kaura Patel v. Union of India, WP(C) 1327/2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1152

The Supreme Court disposed of a 2019 case challenging the age restriction of 35 years in Section 4(3)(i) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 as an arbitrary restriction on the reproductive rights of women.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed that the entire pleadings in the matter be treated as a representation before the Central Supervisory Board (constituted under the 1994 Act) for its expert consideration.

Arbitration | No Review Or Appeal Lies Against Order Appointing Arbitrator : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1153

The Supreme Court observed that a review or appeal from an order of appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible.

“Once an arbitrator is appointed, the arbitral process must proceed unhindered. There is no statutory provision for review or appeal from an order under Section 11, which reflects a conscious legislative choice.”, the Court held, while setting aside the Patna High Court's order allowing the review petition and recalling its earlier appointment of an arbitrator, despite the party having actively participated in the proceedings and seeking review nearly three years later.

The Court said that “the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to reopen or review its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act. Once the appointment was made, the court became functus officio and could not sit in judgment over the very issue it had already settled. The review order cuts against the grain of the Act, undermines the principle of minimal judicial interference, and effectively converts the review into an appeal in disguise.”

Orders and Other Developments

Manipur Audio Tapes Tampered, Can't Say If Voice Matches With Ex-CM Biren Singh : NFSL To Supreme Court

Case Title – Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India

The National Forensic Science Laboratory (NFSL), Gandhinagar, has informed the Supreme Court that the audio exhibits in the case relating to recordings allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in the ethnic violence which took place in 2023 were tampered with and not scientifically fit for voice comparison, and therefore, no opinion on similarity or dissimilarity of the speakers could be offered.

The finding came during the hearing of a plea seeking a court-monitored investigation into the audio clips, which purportedly relate to the ethnic violence that erupted in Manipur last year.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe was considering the matter. The Court, after perusing the sealed cover report submitted by NFSL, directed that its final report be furnished to the parties and listed the case for further hearing on December 8.

'Mockery Of System' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Petitioner Who Filed Petition Seeking His Appointment As High Court Judge

Case Details : G.V. Sarvan Kumar v. Registrar, Telangana High Court | W.P.(C) No. 001002 / 2025

Terming it a 'mockery of the system', the Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition seeking directions to appoint the petitioner as a Telangana High Court Judge.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition filed by GV Sarvan Kumar seeking directions to appoint him as the judge of the Telangana High Court.

The CJI, disinclined to entertain the petition, pointed out that such a prayer was an attempt to mock the collegium system and the Constitution itself.

Communist Party Of India Approaches Supreme Court Against Madras HC Direction For Removal Of Flagpoles From Public Lands

Case : Communist Party of India v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others |

The Communist Party of India approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's direction for the removal of permanent flag poles of political parties from public places of Tamil Nadu.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that petition be considered by a bench led by Justice Vikram Nath which had heard a connected petition earlier. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned.

The Special Leave Petition is filed against the order passed by a Full Bench of the High Court (Madurai Bench) comprising Justices SM Subramaniam, R Vijayakumar and S Sounthar on August 13, confirming the earlier directions passed by a single bench in January for the removal of flagpoles.

Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Direction To Multiplexes To Keep Auditable Records Of Tickets Sold

Case Title: Multiplex Association of India and Anr. v. Karnataka State Film Chamber of Commerce and Ors., SLP(C) No. 31267/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court stayed the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court directing the cinema multiplexes in the State to maintain auditable accounts of every ticket sold during the pendency of the challenge to the State Government fixing the ticket price at Rs 200.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petitions filed by Multiplex Association of India and other petitioners against the High Court's order.

The bench also clarified that the single bench of the High Court may proceed to decide the challenge to the price-cap imposed by the State. It may be recalled that the single bench had stayed the price-cap. The division bench, in State's appeal, did not lift the stay; however, it issued certain directions to the multiplexes, such as keeping of accounts and records, filing of these records, verification of the records by a CA etc. The stay on the price-cap was made subject to compliance with these directions. Aggrieved by these directions, the multiplexes approached the Supreme Court.

Delhi Air Pollution | 'Many Air Monitoring Stations Not Working,' Says Amicus; Supreme Court Seeks CAQM Report

Case Title – Mc Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985

In relation to the air pollution crisis faced in Delhi-NCR, the Supreme Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to file an affidavit stating the steps taken to prevent the pollution from worsening further.

The Court was also informed that various news reports have emerged flagging the non-functioning of air monitoring stations across the National Capital.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the issue of air pollution in Delhi-NCR in the batch of environmental pleas in the MC Mehta Case.

'You Deserve Jail' : Supreme Court Slams Man Accused Of Threatening Woman Lawyer With Pistol During Commission Visit

Case Title: Nitin Bansal v. State of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 17468/2025

The Supreme Court came down on a man who allegedly threatened a woman lawyer appointed as Court Commissioner with a pistol during execution of the commission.

It asked him to surrender before jail authorities on November 6, before entertaining his prayer against the one month jail sentence imposed by the Delhi High Court.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. It has been next listed on November 11.

Bengaluru Municipal Corporation Elections : Supreme Court Extends Time For Delimitation & Ward Reservation

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. M. Shivaraju and Ors., SLP(C) No. 15181-15183/2020

The Supreme Court granted an extension to the Karnataka State for holding the electionsof the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

The State, which earlier told the Court that BBMP elections (which were last held in 2015) would be conducted by November, sought time till December 15 for completing the ward reservation, etc.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi granted the extension, after hearing Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for the State).

Supreme Court Allows Dog Bite Victims To Intervene In Suo Motu Case Without Monetary Deposit; Adds Animal Welfare Board As Respondent

Case Title: In Re : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025

In the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court allowed all victims of dog bite incidents to intervene in the matter without having to make a monetary deposit as a pre-condition.

Notably, individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) espousing the cause of dogs were earlier directedto deposit Rs.25000 and Rs.2 lakhs respectively with the Registry of the Court as a pre-condition for intervention in the suo motu case. The amount deposited was to be utilized for the creation of infrastructure and facilities for stray dogs under the aegis of the respective municipal bodies.

Today, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria permitted intervention in the case by the victims, without any such condition. The order was dictated thus,

Byju's Insolvency | Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With NCLAT Order Allowing Byju's Subsidiary Aakash To Proceed With Rights Issue

Case No. – C.A. No. 13149/2025

Case Title – Glas Trust Company Llc v. Shailendra Ajmera

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had allowed Aakash Educational Services Ltd., a subsidiary of Byju's (Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd.), to proceed with its proposed rights issue.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar dismissed two appeals filed by US-based lender GLAS Trust Company LLC – representing Byju's US creditors, and Shailendra Ajmera – the Insolvency Resolution Professional, against the NCLAT's order dated October 28, 2025.

“We are not inclined to admit the appeal as the NCLAT passed the order only for the purpose of disposing of an interlocutory application”, the Court held.

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Supreme Court Hears Bail Pleas Of Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman & Md Saleem

In the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the Supreme Court (November 3) heard the arguments in the petitions filed by Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman and Mohd Saleem Khan who are booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria posted the matter for further hearing on November 6.

The bench completed hearing the arguments of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima.

'You Know What Happened In Nepal After They Tried To Ban?' : Supreme Court On Plea To Block Access To Porn For Minors

Case Details: B.L. Jain v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000722 / 2025

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the issue of banning access to pornography for individuals below the age of 18 years and watching porn.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran verbally observed that the matter fell under the government's policy domain.

The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Varun Thakur, stressed that the onset of digital accessibility to youngsters, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, has exposed the children in the age bracket of 14-18 years to pornography in just a click's time.

'Shocking That Rs 3000 Crores Collected Through Digital Arrest Scams' : Supreme Court To Pass Stringent Directions

The Supreme Court expressed shock over the fact that victims across India have collectively lost nearly ₹3000 crore to the digital arrests scam.

Hearing a suo motu case initiated to curb the surge in online scams and impersonation rackets, a Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the situation as “shocking” and stressed the need for urgent and stringent judicial intervention.

“It's shocking that almost ₹3000 crores have been collected from victims in our country alone. If we ignore it right now and are not able to pass harsh and stringent orders, the problem will magnify. We are determined to deal with it with iron hands,” Justice Kant observed after pursuing the sealed cover notes submitted by investigating agencies.

'Rs 100 For Water Bottle, 700 For Coffee' : Supreme Court Says If Multiplex Rates Aren't Fixed, Cinema Halls Will Be Empty

Case Title: Multiplex Association of India and Anr. v. Karnataka State Film Chamber of Commerce and Ors., SLP(C) No. 31267/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court orally raised concerns at the exorbitant rates charged in multiplexes for cinema tickets as well as for food and beverages. The Court opined that the rates should be reasonably fixed so that people will come. "Otherwise the cinema halls will be empty," the Court warned.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the petitions filed by the Multiplex Association of India and others challenging the conditions imposed by the Karnataka High Court division bench for staying the Karnataka Government's decision to cap the multiplex ticket prices at Rs 200. The division bench had ordered that multiplexes should maintain auditable records of every ticket sold, enable the tracking of the persons who purchased tickets both online and offline, so that refunds can be ordered if the multiplexes lose the case, verification of the audit reports by a CA on a periodic basis, etc.

When the matter was taken, referring to the exorbitant rates in multiplexes, Justice Nath commented, "You charge 100 Rupees for water bottle, 700 Rupees for coffee...."

Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Challenging Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Law; Petitioners Flag Provisions Allowing Confiscation & Demolition

Case Title: M Huzaifa and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1047/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging provisions of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025 as unconstitutional.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, calling for the response of the Rajasthan government. Senior Advocate Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay appeared for the petitioners.

Notably, a similar PIL (Dashrath Kumar Hinunia v. State of Rajasthan) was listed before the Court, which was argued by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi. Notice was issued in this petition as well, alongwith a stay application.

DMK Moves Supreme Court Against SIR Of Tamil Nadu Electoral Rolls, Calls It Unconstitutional & "De Facto NRC" Exercise

Case : Rs Bharati v. Election Commission of India | Diary Number 63055/2025 .

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the ruling party in Tamil Nadu, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, terming it a case of “constitutional overreach” and a move that could lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of voters.

The petition, filed under Article 32, challenges the ECI's orders dated June 24, 2025 and October 27, 2025, which directed the conduct of SIR.

According to the petition, a Special Summary Revision (SSR) had already been conducted in Tamil Nadu between October 2024 and January 6, 2025, during which the electoral roll was updated to reflect changes such as migration, deaths and deletion of ineligible voters. The revised roll was published on January 6, 2025, and has been continuously updated since then.

Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported Trampolines

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs v. Lulu International Shoppling Malls Pvt. Ltd

Case Number: Diary No. 47976/2025for Appellant:Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman With Advocates Gurmeet Singh Makker, Annirudh Sharma Neelakshi Bhaduria, Shantanu Verma and Pallav Mongia

The Supreme Court (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement equipment, including trampolines, by Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mittal and Prasanna B Varale held that there was no error in the classification of the trampolines and other equipment under the category of gymnastics equipment.

The bench observed, “we do not find any infirmity in the classification of the Trampoline and other items, as has been done by the Central Excise Tribunal('CESTAT').Accordingly, the civil appeal stands dismissed.”

Supreme Court Refuses To Reserve Posts For Specially-Abled Advocates In UP Bar Council; Directs BCI To Consider Plea

Case Title: Amit Kumar Yadav v. Bar Council of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1045/2025

The Supreme Court refused to issue a direction to the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to reserve posts in Bar bodies for specially-abled advocates.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in an advocate's PIL seeking inter-alia a direction to BCI and Bar Council of UP to reserve some positions in the Bar Council and Bar Associations for persons with disabilities, who are practicing as advocates.

The Court expressed difficulty in issuing any such direction, noting that elections for UP Bar Council have already been notified (though nominations are yet to be filed). Considering it to be a "policy matter", it disposed of the petition, directing BCI to consider the cause espoused by the petitioner.

Direct Recruit District Judge Challenges Tamil Nadu Rule Fixing Seniority Of Promotees & Direct Recruits At 3:1 Ratio In Judicial Service

Case : S Sameena v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others | WP(C) 1027/2025

A District Judge from Tamil Nadu has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Government Order that retrospectively alters the seniority structure in the State's higher judicial service, alleging violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran yesterday issued notice to the respondents in the petition,

The petition, filed by S. Sameena, currently serving as Principal District Judge, Erode, seeks to quash G.O. (Ms) No. 518 dated October 7, 2025, issued by the Tamil Nadu Government, which amends Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 with retrospective effect from January 1, 2012.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Seeking Ban On Online Gambling Platforms Operating As Social And E-Sports Games

Case Title – Centre For Accountability Systemic Change (CASC) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India and sought its response in a petition filed by an NGO seeking a nationwide ban on online gambling and betting platforms allegedly operating under the guise of social and e-sports games.

“According to the petitioner, there are about two thousand apps as on date operating online relating to betting and gambling. The petitioner want the government to take immediate action in this regard in larger public interest affecting the youth more particularly of the nation. Issue notice. Let an appropriate reply be filed to the petition”, the Court ordered.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan directed that the plea be tagged with the batch of petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (Online Gaming Act).

Supreme Court Issues Notice On NHAI's Review Plea Against Judgment Allowing Solatium & Interest To Pre-2019 Land Acquisitions

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh and Ors., Diary No. 44096-2025

The Supreme Court yesterday issued notice on National Highway Authority of India's review petition against the judgmentwhich rejected a plea for prospective application of the 2019 Union of India v. Tarsem Singh ruling on grant of solatium and interest for national highway land acquisitions.

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

To recap, in Tarsem Singh, a bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Kant declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act 1956, to the extent it excluded solatium and interest as per Land Acquisition Act 1894 to acquisitions done under the NH Act, to be unconstitutional. It was said that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act.

'Tactic To Avoid?' : Supreme Court Questions Union's Plea To Refer Tribunal Reforms Act Challenge To 5-Judge Bench

Case Title: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the Union Government filing application seeking reference of the petitions challenging the validity of theTribunals Reforms Act, 2021, to a five-judge Bench. Questioning the timing of the application, filed after the present two-judge Bench had heard the petitioners at length, the Court asked whether it was a “tactic” to avoid the Bench.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing theMadras Bar Association caseconcerning the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

Yesterday, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Union, informed the Bench that the Government had filed an application seeking reference of the present matter to a five-judge Bench instead of the current one.

Plea For Reservation In Organisations Getting Govt Aid : Supreme Court Allows Petitioners To Approach Govt With Representation

Case Title: Saurav Narayan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2025

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking reservation in voluntary agencies, organizations and autonomous bodies receiving grants-in-aid from the Union government.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi however gave the petitioners liberty to make a comprehensive representation to the government. "We have no reason to doubt that the authorities concerned shall consider the representation in accordance with government policy, if any", it said.

Briefly put, the PIL was filed for implementation of reservation in services of institutions/autonomous bodies/organizations receiving grant-in-aid from the government. The petitioners' grievance was that as far back as on 30.09.1974 and 07.10.1974, executive instructions were issued for suitable action to provide reservation in autonomous organizations/bodies receiving grant-in-aid from the government. Subsequent instructions provided that all Ministries/departments shall include a clause requiring all monetary organizations seeking grant-in-aid to follow the reservation policy in voluntary agencies, cooperative societies and such other organizations. However, the benefit was not being provided.

Delhi Ridge Tree Felling | Afforestation Across Multiple Sites Preferable To A Single Contiguous Tract, Says Supreme Court

Case Title: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda and Ors., Ma 1652/2025

In the Delhi Ridge Tree Felling contempt case, the Supreme Court yesterday expressed that tree plantation across 18 different sites in Delhi would be a better choice compared to plantation on one contiguous stretch of land.

"Contiguous land of 185 acres in an area like Delhi may not be advisable...if rather we have scattered pockets where we can develop forests, that will be beneficial. That will also reflect kind of equality. Different parts of the city can have green coverage...even people living in remote areas will have advantage of some forest, green pockets in their surrounding...for environmental purposes, particularly in a city like Delhi, where you want to fight out with this grave air pollution conditions, it is always ideal if you develop more than one pocket", expressed Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and called for location data of the 18 sites decided to be allocated to Delhi Forest Department for plantation purposes.

2007 Ajmer Blasts : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Dargah Khadim's Plea Against Acquittal of 7 Persons

Case Details: Syed Sarwar Chishty v. State of Rajasthan | Diary No. 51829-2025

The Supreme Court on October 3 issued notice to the State of Rajasthan in a plea filed by complainant Syed Sarwar Chishty, Khadim of Dargah Sharif, Ajmer, challenging the dismissal of the appeal by the Rajasthan High Court against the acquittal of 7 persons by the NIA Special Court in the 2007 Ajmer Dargah bomb blast.

The notice was issued by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The present special leave petition is filed against the Rajasthan High Court's order dated May 4, 2022, whereby it dismissed an appeal against theacquittal of seven persons, who were accused of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

POCSO Act Misused In Matrimonial & Elopement Cases: Supreme Court Raises Concern

Case Title: Aabad Harshad Ponda v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 382/2024

The Supreme Court expressed concern about misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) in cases of matrimonial disputes and those filed by a girl's family against a boy with whom she elopes.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan was dealing with a writ petition seeking directions to the Union and Ministry of Education to compulsorily incorporate sex education in school syllabus and sensitize children about anti-rape laws and POCSO Act in India.

In the context of need for public awareness around anti-rape laws, the bench indicated that it will be issuing certain directions. "How to implement sections of the Act with regard to awareness? On the verge of minority, teenagers running away...that is another thing...and POCSO being thrust on the boy by parents of the girl...that's another difficulty" noted Justice Nagarathna.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Madhya Pradesh Police For Filing False Affidavit On Criminal Antecedents; Summons Officers

Case : Anwar Hussain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Madhya Pradesh Police for submitting a false affidavit, opposing a bail plea, attributing multiple criminal cases to an accused who was not involved in them.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sandeep Mehta noted that the State's first affidavit had claimed that the petitioner had “eight other criminal antecedents.” However, the petitioner's counsel pointed out that in four of those cases, including one under Section 376 IPC, the petitioner was not even an accused.

When the matter was taken up, the State admitted to the error, claiming that the mix-up occurred because the petitioner's and his father's names were identical, and the information had been “computer-generated.”

District Judge Appointments | Not Comparing Promotees With Direct Recruits, Says Supreme Court Reserving Judgment On Seniority Norms

Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the issue whether there should be a quota for the promotion of serving judicial officers as District Judge posts.

The 5-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi is considering whether to lay down uniform pan-India guidelines to determine the inter-se seniority in the judicial service. The Court is examining the issue of whether there should be a quota in the District Judge posts for the promotion of judicial officers who joined the service at the entry level. This is to address the problem of career stagnation faced by officers who join the judicial service at entry-level posts. Another suggestion before the bench is that serving officers can be given weightage in tune with their experience.

During the hearing today, Sr Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan appearing for few intervenors(Direct recruits) submitted that there was no empirical data on whether judges from the promotees category or direct recruits serve better in the position of district judge.

Is Personal Hearing Of Borrower Mandatory Before Closing Bank Account As Fraud? Supreme Court Seeks RBI's Stand

Case : State Bank of India v. Amit Iron Private Limited & Anr. | SLP(C) 20618-20619/2025

The Supreme Court examined the issue whether banks are legally bound to give a personal hearing to account holders before classifying or closing their accounts as “fraud”, and sought the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) response in the matter.

The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) challenging a Calcutta High Court decision that relied on the 2023 judgment in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243, which recognised the borrower's right to be heard before the account was closed as fraudulent.

SBI's Argument: Personal Hearing Not Always Feasible

Income Tax Act | Supreme Court To Examine If S.12AA Registration Alone Entitles Trusts To 80G Benefits To Donors

Cause Title: Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal v. Sadhumargi Shantkranti Jain

The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the registration of a trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which recognizes it as a charitable institution for income tax exemption purposes, is sufficient to entitle its donors to claim tax deduction benefits under Section 80G of the Act.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has issued notice on a petition filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's ruling that once a charitable organization is registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be denied approval under Section 80G(5) for providing tax deduction benefits to its donors, merely on the ground that it also undertakes religious activities.

The respondent society, Shri Sadhumargi Shantkranti Jain CG Orissa, sought Section 80G(5) approval to enable donors to claim tax deductions. The CIT (Exemption) rejected the request, citing the society's partly religious character. On appeal, the ITAT, Raipur allowed the claim, holding that its Section 12AA registration already recognized its charitable status. The Revenue then challenged this before the High Court under Section 260A, arguing that 12AA registration alone does not guarantee 80G approval.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Reply On Petitions Challenging Online Gaming Act

The Supreme Court on November 6 postponed the batch of petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 ("Online Gaming Act"), which seeks to prohibit 'online money games' and the offering of bank services, advertisements, etc. related thereto. It has asked the Union Government to file a comprehensive reply.

Before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, Senior Advocate CA Sundaram briefly mentioned that he was under the impression that the Union had filed a reply. He submitted that their business has been shut for a month now and the Court needs to hear these petitions with some urgency. The bench, noting that the Union is yet to file a comprehensive reply, asked Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman to do the needful.

One counsel mentioned another petition filed by a chess player, who has filed a petition against the Online Gaming Act. As per the counsel, the chess player earns his livelihood through these platforms, and the ban would impact his career. He said: "We have filed a fresh writ petition but it's not listed today. I am a chessplayer who plays the game, and it's a source of livelihood, and I was also about to launch an app."

Supreme Court To Examine If NCLAT Can Refer Matter To Third Member When Two-Member Bench Delivers Split Verdict

Cause Title: R Narayanasamy v. Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether, in the case of a split verdict by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), the reference of the case to a third member would be legally justifiable or should the matter be referred to a larger bench of three members for fresh adjudication.

Observing that there is no clear procedure to address situations where a two-member bench of the NCLAT delivers a split verdict, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan sought the assistance of the Solicitor General in a case challenging the NCLAT's decision to refer such a matter to a third Member for adjudication.

The Appellant's company name was struck off by the Registrar Of Companies (“RoC”). Challenging the RoC's decision, the company appealed to the NCLT, which upheld the RoC's decision. On further appeal, the NCLAT delivered a split verdict, one Member holding that the ROC's action was illegal, and the other upholding it as valid. The matter was then referred to a third Member, who sided with the view that the ROC's action was justified, resulting in the dismissal of the company's appeal.

'Very Unfair To Court' : CJI BR Gavai Expresses Displeasure At Attorney General's Request To Adjourn Madras Bar Association Case

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai expressed displeasure at a request made on behalf of the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani to adjourn the Madras Bar Association case, which is listed tomorrow.

"Very unfair to the Court," CJI Gavai told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who made the adjournment request for the Attorney General. ASG submitted that the AG has an international arbitration scheduled tomorrow and hence sought an accommodation.

"We have accommodated him for so much time. We have accommodated him twice. This is not fair to the Court," CJI Gavai said. "If you want to keep it after (November) 24th, you tell us frankly," CJI said (CJI Gavai is retiring on November 23).

Supreme Court Dismisses SP Leader Abdullah Azam Khan's Plea To Quash FIR Over Alleged Use Of Forged Documents For Passport

Case Title – Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan v. State of U.P.

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by former Uttar Pradesh MLA Abdullah Azam Khan, son of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, seeking quashing of an FIR against him for allegedly using forged documents to obtain a passport.

“We are not inclined to interfere. However, we make it clear that the trial court is at liberty to decide all the issues without being influenced by the order of the High Court”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash the FIR after noting that the trial was over.

'Declare National Public Health Emergency': Plea Filed In Supreme Court To Curb Rising Air Pollution Across India

Case Title: Luke Christopher Countinho v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1059/2025

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking to curb rising air pollution levels across India.

The PIL, filed by one Luke Christopher Countinho (wellness champion for Prime Minister of India's, Fit India Movement), says that air pollution levels in the country have assumed proportions of a “public health emergency”, severely impacting citizens in both rural and urban areas.

The petitioner avers that despite a thorough policy framework, the ambient air quality in large parts of rural and urban India remains consistently poor and, in many instances, has worsened. He seeks directions to the respondent-authorities to control and reduce air pollution, invoking right to life and health under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Restrains Calcutta High Court From Hearing West Bengal OBC Classification Matter

Case Details : State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Amal Chandra Das Diary No. - 27287/2024

The Supreme Court stayed the further proceedings in the Calcutta High Court in the matter concerning the classification of Other Backward Classes.

The Court was hearing the petition filed by the State of West Bengal against the 2024 High Court orderquashing the classification of 77 communities as Other Backward Classes (OBC) given under the WB Backward Classes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 2012.

Today, Sr Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state of West Bengal, informed the bench that the proceedings are ongoing in the High Court. It may be noted that the State had published a fresh OBC list, which the High Court stayed in June this year. In July, in another SLP filed by the State, the Supreme Courthad stayed the second decision of the High Court.

Attorney General Clarifies Absence In Madras Bar Association Case: Says Engaged In High-Stakes Arbitration For India Govt

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani has clarified that his request for adjournment in the Madras Bar Association case before the Supreme Court was not intended to delay the hearing, but was necessitated by his ongoing engagement in an important arbitration matter for the Government of India in a dispute with Reliance Ltd.

The Attorney General said that he is presently leading the Government's case in an arbitration proceeding arising out of a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) under which Reliance was required to produce hydrocarbons for the benefit of the Government.

Considering the importance of the matter and its direct bearing on a national asset, the Government of India entrusted the matter to the Attorney General. Hence, the AG is leading the case on behalf of the Government at its request. The arbitral tribunal consists of Justice Michael Kirby (Presiding arbitrator), former Chief Justice of India VN Khare and Sir Bernard Rix.

Air India Crash At Ahmedabad | 'Nobody Can Blame The Pilot', Says Supreme Court; Slams 'Nasty Reporting' By Foreign Media

Case Title: Pushkar Raj Sabharwal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1031/2025

The Supreme Court orally observed that no blame could be attributed to the pilot of the Air India flight to London that crashed in Ahmedabad in June this year, claiming 260 lives.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Pushkar Raj Sabharwal, the father of Commander Sumeet Sabharwal, one of the pilots of the ill-fated flight, seeking an independent judicial probe into the tragedy.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, contended that the current investigation being conducted by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) was not independent.

No Motor Accident Claim Should Be Dismissed As Time-Barred : Supreme Court's Interim Order In Plea Challenging S.166(3) MV Act

Case Details: Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 166/2024

The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and High Courts to not dismiss any motor accident compensation petition as time-barred.

The Court passed this order while hearing a petition challenging Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes a 6-month limitaiton period from the date of the accident to file a claim petition. This provision was added by the 2019 amendment.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria noted that several petitions have been filed challenging this amendment. In view of the fact that any order passed by this bench would have bearing on all such petitions, the Court directed that the hearings may be expedited. The Court has now asked the parties to complete the pleadings and re-listed the matter on November 25. Till then, no such petitions should be dismissed as time-barred claims.

Delhi NCR Air Pollution | Supreme Court Turns Down Request For Urgent Hearing On Monday

Case DetailsMC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court refused an urgent hearing on the worsening air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR.

The counsel appearing in the air pollution matter requested an urgent hearing of the case.

She mentioned the matter before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran. Stressing the worsening air pollution crisis in the National Capital, she submitted :

NEET-PG 2025 | 'Disclose Your Policy On Publishing Answer Keys': Supreme Court Asks NBE

While remarking that transparency is an important factor, the Supreme Court stated that it will examine whether publishing answer keys for the NEET-PG exam would compromise the integrity of the examination. At the same time, the Court made it clear that it will not go into individual allegations that the NEET-PG 2025 has discrepancies.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard a batch of petitions raising various issues in regards to the NEET-PG exams, including disclosure of answer keys as a matter of transparency, etc.

At the outset, the Court asked why these matters are before this bench since these matters had been heard by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, which hadissued notice on September 26 in three petitions seeking publication of the answer keys in the NEET-PG exam and raising issues of discrepancies.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Demolition Of Ujjain's Takiya Masjid

Case Title: Mohammed Taiyab and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 31842/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking reliefs with respect to Ujjain's Takiya Masjid, which was demolished by Madhya Pradesh authorities after acquiring the Masjid land and awarding compensation.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, while dealing with the petitioners' challenge to a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which rejected a similar plea noting that right to practice religion has no nexus with a particular place and this right is not infringed by acquisition of a land having a mosque.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad appeared for the petitioners and submitted that the Masjid was 200 years old and it was demolished to expand parking for another religious place (the Mahakal Temple). The bench however noted that a plea challenging acquisition of the Masjid land was dismissed as 'withdrawn'.

'Don't Destroy Our Trust In Bar, We Trust You As Our Own Children' : Supreme Court Reprimands Lawyers For Suppression Of Facts

Remarking that the trust of the Court should not be destroyed by the Bar, the Supreme Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 10,000 on each appellant in a matter for suppression of facts.

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, an advocate made a mention for the listing of an Interlocutory Application(IA), which the Court said it would list. However, later, the Court was informed that a review petition is pending in this matter.

When a Senior Advocate appeared in this matter, Justice Narasimha asked why the fact that the IA was filed in a matter where a review was pending was suppressed from the Court. The judge remarked that the Court, as an institution, puts a lot of blind trust in the Bar that such practices would not be followed.

'Crazy For Media Attention': Supreme Court Slams Law Student For Filing PIL Against Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950

Case Title: Harry Joseph v. Union of India, Diary No. 30747-2025

While dismissing his plea, the Supreme Court slammed a third-year law student for filing a public interest litigation challenging the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which is a Presidential Order that specifies the castes recognized as Scheduled Castes for the purposes of constitutional benefits.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. During the hearing, Justice Kant came down on the petitioner (appearing in person), commenting that instead of focusing on his studies, he had filed a frivolous petition.

At the outset, the judge asked the petitioner about his occupation. When the petitioner informed that he is a third-year law student, the judge questioned how he was suddenly moved to challenge a 1950 order without even completing his law.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Cricketer Mohammad Shami On Wife's Plea To Enhance Monthly Maintenance

Case : XXX v. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl) No. 016549 - 016552 / 2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to Indian cricketer Mohammad Shami on a petition filed by his wife seeking enhancement of maintenance ordered for herself and their daughter.

The wife has challenged the Calcutta High Court's orders dated July 1, 2025 and August 25, 2025, which enhanced her interim maintenance to ₹1.5 lakh per month and ₹2.5 lakh for their minor daughter. Contending that the amount is grossly inadequate considering Shami's financial status and lifestyle, Jahan has sought an increase of maintenance to ₹7 lakh per month for herself and ₹3 lakh per month for their daughter.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to Shami and the State of West Bengal on the petition.

BREAKING| Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Review Against Order Forming SIT With Hindu & Muslim Officers To Probe Akola Riots Case

Case Title: State of Maharashtra & Others v. Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, Review Petition (Crl.) No. 447/2025

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on Maharashtra government's plea seeking review of the order directing constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe allegations regarding the State failure to probe an assault during the 2023 Akola Riots.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order on the State's plea seeking review of its September 11 order which, while criticizing the Maharashtra police for failing to probe the assault, directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team to investigate the allegations. The SIT was ordered to comprise senior officers from both the Hindu and Muslim communities.

The State filed the instant petition seeking review of the order, claiming that the direction to constitute an SIT comprising officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities, though well-intentioned, directly impinged upon the principle of institutional secularism, which has been repeatedly affirmed by the Court as a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. It further contended that the direction amounted to prejudging communal bias on the part of public servants.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking One-Third Reservation For Women In State Bar Councils

Case Title – Shehla Chaudhary v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by advocate Shehla Chaudhary seeking reservation of one-third of seats for women in all State Bar Councils across India, including at least one office-bearer post on a rotational basis.

“In the Constitution of India, the principle of gender equality has been enshrined in its preamble, fundamental rights, fundamental duties and the directive principles of state policy. In absence of women advocates not being members of the State Bar Councils, women Advocate continues to be deprived of opportunities to contribute to f the legal profession in a meaningful way”, the plea states.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice and kept the matter on November 17, 2025.

Supreme Court Directs Trial Courts To Pass Orders For Victim Compensation In Criminal Cases To Ensure Timely Disbursal

Case Title: Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole v. Union of India & Others

Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 989 of 2025

In a significant step to strengthen the victim compensation framework, the Supreme Court has directed all Special and Sessions Courts across the country to issue appropriate directions for the payment of victim compensation in eligible cases. The Court observed that the absence of such directions from trial courts has become a major impediment to victims receiving compensation under statutory schemes.

The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan passed the order while hearing a public interest petition filed by Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole seeking effective implementation of victim compensation schemes.

During the hearing, the Court noted that victims of crime are often left to fend for themselves in claiming compensation from State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs), largely because trial courts fail to specifically direct such payment at the time of conviction or sentencing. “One of the impediments in disbursement of victim compensation is the absence of a direction being issued by the Special Courts or Session Courts to pay compensation to the victims of a crime,” the order stated. It further noted that there is also a “lack of awareness in this regard.”

Bihar Assembly Elections : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain RJD Candidate Shweta Suman's Plea Against Rejection Of Nomination

Case Details : Sweta Suman v. Election Commission of India | SLP(C) No. 032046 - / 2025

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to entertain the plea by RJD (reserved category) candidate Sweta Suman challenging her rejection of nomination for the Bihar State Assembly elections.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the challenge to the Patna High Court order.

The Patna High Court on November 4refused to entertainthe writ petition filed by Suman. The High Court Judge, Justice A Abhishek Reddy cited the specific bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and the availability of alternate remedies to the candidates.

Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act | Appointments Being Made From Wait List Ignoring Merit List, Lawyers Tell Supreme Court

Case Title: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

The Supreme Court yesterday, while hearing the challenge to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, was informed of the issue of appointments to the tribunals being made from the wait list candidates over those in the merit list.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the Madras Bar Association case concerning the validity of theTribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

Sr Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioners, mainly expanded upon his previous arguments that the impugned Act's provisions were contrary to the previous judgments of the Court. He flagged the following provisions - (1) minimum age requirement of 50 years to be Tribunal members; (2) search-cum selection committee mandating the recommendation of two persons for the post of Chairperson; (3) 4 years tenure for a tribunal's member/ chairperson. According to him, these provisions are contrary the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association cases.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI/SIT Probe Into Bridge Collapses, Challenging Amendments To Disaster Management Act

Case Title: Nitish Kumar v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 394/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking CBI/SIT probe into bridge collapses across India and effective implementation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. The bench acknowledged the petitioner's efforts in preparing and arguing his case, but observed that the Supreme Court was not the right platform for the reliefs he was seeking.

During the hearing, the petitioner, one Nitish Kumar, raised contentions regarding poor implementation of the Disaster Management Act as well as holding of elections/voting in disaster-struck states. He submitted that there was no accountability regarding bridge collapse incidents.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Rajasthan Highway Accident In Phalodi Which Left Atleast 15 Dead

Case Title: In Re: Phalodi Accident v. SMW(C) No. 9/2025

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the tragic highway accident in Rajasthan's Phalodi which left atleast 15 people dead after a tempo traveler slammed into a stationary truck on November 2.

The matter is listed before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi for hearing on November 10. It has been registered as a public interest litigation.

Reportedly, at the time of the accident, the tempo was carrying women and children from Jodhpur, who had gone on a pilgrimage to Bikaner. On its way back to Jodhpur in the evening, the tempo rammed into a stationary truck parked infront of an eatery at the Bharatmala highway. This truck was carrying construction material. As such, the collision had a very severe impact.

Supreme Court Transfers Pleas For Protection Of Mentally Ill Persons In Faith-Based Asylums To NHRC For Monitoring

Case Title – Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court transferred to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) three pleas filed by an advocate seeking directions for the protection and welfare of persons with mental illness kept in faith-based mental asylums and for implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan passed the order after noting that the Central and Union Territory mental health authorities were functioning.

“In view of the fact that the Central Mental Health Authority as well as the authorities constituted by the Union Territories have been functioning, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be subserved if we direct the NHRC to monitor and pass necessary directions after hearing the statutory authorities. In view of above, the writ petitions are transferred to the National Human Rights Commission”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Dismisses Rs 244 Crore Service Tax Plea Against Bharti Airtel Over Employee Scheme

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram, Haryana v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.

Case Number:Diary No. 49079/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a nearly Rs 244 crore service tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram, against telecom giant Bharti Airtel Ltd. The dispute concerned the company's Airtel Employees Services Scheme (AESS), which offered free or discounted telecom services to its employees.

The appeal challenged a January 27, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, which had set aside the entire tax demand.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan upheld the tribunal's order.

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On ISKCON Mumbai's Review Plea Against ISKCON Bangalore

Case : International Society For Krishna Consciousness, Mumbai v. International Society For Krishna Consciousness, Bangalore & Ors. | Diary No. 37957 of 2025

The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict in a review petition filed by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) Society Mumbai against the Court'sjudgment delivered in May this year, which held that the ISKCON temple in Bengaluru belonged to ISKCON Society Bangalore.

In view of the divergence of opinion in the two-judge bench, the matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice of India for further action.

In May, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka (since retired) and Justice AG Masih set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that the Bengaluru temple belonged to ISKCON Society, Mumbai. Consequently, ISKCON Society Bangalore got the rights over the Bengaluru temple.

Contempt Plea In Supreme Court Against Telangana Speaker For Not Deciding Disqualification Petitions Against Defected BRS MLAs

A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly alleging that he has not decided the disqualification petitions against the BRS MLAs who defected to Congress within the three month time limit set by the judgment delivered by the Court on July 31.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai agreed to list the matter next Monday after a counsel mentioned the matter for urgent listing.

"The Speaker has not touched the matter, has not conducted any proceedings. The MLAs are still continuing. Your lordships held if any MLA was trying to protract the proceedings, adverse inference would be drawn. Two petitions there. Speaker has not touched them. Others are in evidence stage," the counsel submitted, seeking listing tomorrow.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Issue Identity Cards To Those Included In Assam NRC

Case Details: All Assam Minorities Students Union Aamsu v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1030/2025

The Supreme Court (November 10) issued notice in a writ petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and All Assam Minorities Student Union (AAMSU) seeking directions to the Union of India and the Registrar General of Citizen Registration to complete the process of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam by taking the statutory steps that remain pending since the publication of the Final NRC on 31 August 2019.

The petitioners seek directions to issue National Identity Cards to those included in the final NRC. They also seek directions for issuance of rejection slips/orders and commencement of appeals for those excluded, enabling lawful adjudication before the Foreigners' Tribunals.

The petitioners have mainly sought that despite the publication of Final NRC more than 6 years ago, the authorities have failed to take the mandatory steps under the law, which is the issuance of National Identity Cards to the 3.11 crore citizens found eligible, as required under Rule 13 of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003; and issuance of rejection slips and initiation of appeals under Paragraph 8 of the Schedule to Rule 4A of the said Rules for the 19 lakh persons excluded from the NRC.

Have Seen Morphed Video Of Us, Aware Of Perils Of AI : CJI BR Gavai

Case Details : Rawal v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 001041 / 2025

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai remarked that he was aware of a morphed video circulating on social media that falsely depicted the shoe-throwing attempt in his courtroom.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition seeking directions for framing guidelines or a policy to regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Indian judiciary.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that AI tools were increasingly being used in court processes, though they came with potential risks and drawbacks.

'Arbitrary, Impractical' : CPI(M) Moves Supreme Court Challenging SIR Of Tamil Nadu Electoral Rolls

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] has approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, alleging that the Election Commission of India's (ECI) move is “arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.”

The petition, filed by P. Shanmugam, Secretary of the CPI(M) Tamil Nadu State Committee, seeks to quash the ECI's order dated 27 October 2025, which mandated completion of the SIR exercise within a month.

Shanmugam, a senior leader and the first Dalit to head the CPI(M) in Tamil Nadu, contends that while the objective of ensuring purity and inclusiveness in electoral rolls is not disputed, the SIR process as notified is “manifestly impractical, humanly impossible, and contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.”

West Bengal Congress Committee Moves Supreme Court Against Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision Of Electoral Rolls

The West Bengal Congress Committee has approached the Supreme Court seeking reliefs with respect to Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in the state.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, seeking listing tomorrow on the ground that pleas challenging SIR are already due to come up tomorrow.

Initially, Justice Kant said that the bench is only seized of Bihar SIR matter and the prerogative to list matter pertaining to West Bengal SIR before any bench lies with CJI BR Gavai. However, when the counsel pointed out that a petition related to Tamil Nadu is also listed before the bench tomorrow, Justice Kant said, "alright, we will find out".

'Vehicles Parked At Unauthorised Dhabas Causing Accidents': Supreme Court Seeks Reports From NHAI & Centre After Phalodi Accident

Case Title – In Re: Phalodi Accident

The Supreme Court directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to submit reports on roadside dhabas and road maintenance conditions, after taking suo motu cognizance of fatal highway accidents in Rajasthan and Telangana.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi directed that a survey be carried out within two weeks to identify how many dhabas are located along the highways on land not notified for such facilities.

“Dhabas have been opened by the general public on areas which are not available for them to open dhabas. In consequence, the vehicles go and park there. The other vehicles are not in a position to see the standing vehicles on the road, colliding with such vehicles. In such circumstances, it is essential to ask the NHAI and Ministry of road transport to submit a report in particular with respect to two highways where the accidents took place”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Asks Punjab MP Amritpal Singh To Approach High Court Challenging His Detention Under National Security Act

Case Details: Amritpal Singh v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 445/2025

The Supreme Court (November 10) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by the Punjab MP Amritpal Singh challenging his third detention under the National Security Act, 1980. The Court gave given liberty to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court and requested it to dispose of the matter preferably within 6 weeks.

Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves mentioned Singh's plea. At the outset, Justice Kumar asked him to go before the High Court.

Gonsalves submitted that Singh has been in detention for the last 2 and a half years, and the entire detention is based on one FIR in which a chargesheet has already been filed. He stated that the bench had entertained another detention petition filed by Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk's wife Dr.Gitanjali Angmo, seeking to declare the detention of her husband illegalunder the NSA. Justice Kumar responded that Wangchuk's case was different because he was transferred to another State.

Supreme Court Deprecates Trend Of Litigants Making Scandalous Allegations Against Judges After Unfavourable Orders

Case Details: In Re N Peddi Raju and Ors | Smc(C) No. 3/2025

The Supreme Court , while accepting the unconditional apology tendered by advocates who signed a maligning petition against a High Court Judge, expressed the need for advocates to be careful while accepting pleas containing objectionable remarks against judges.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against lawyers who agreed to file a transfer petition with 'scurrilous and scandalous' remarks against a sitting Telangana High Court Judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.

Previously, the bench directed the contemnors to place an apology before the High Court Judge for her consideration.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Making 33% Women's Reservation In Legislatures Contingent On Future Delimitation

Case Title – Jaya Thakur v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition challenging the provision in the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam), which makes the implementation of 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies contingent upon the completion of delimitation after the next census.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan heard the matter.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no rational nexus in making the implementation of the reservation contingent on a future exercise, which has not even begun. “No exercise has even begun. There is no rational nexus. When the exercise will commence is not mentioned anywhere. They have yet to even start the census,” she submitted.

Supreme Court Declines Kashmiri Separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah's Plea To Direct Supply Of Past Detention Orders Passed Against Him

Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 13399/2025

The Supreme Court declined Kashmiri separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah's plea to pass a direction for supply of detention orders against him, saying that he could approach the J&K government for the same.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined the request, which was made by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves on Shah's behalf. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG KM Nataraj appeared for NIA.

The Court was dealing with Shah's bail plea in a terror funding case. The matter was adjourned on the SG's request for time to respond to some new facts stated in Shah's rejoinder, which were not pleaded before the High Court.

AIADMK Moves Supreme Court Supporting Election Commission's SIR Of Tamil Nadu Electoral Rolls

The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) has filed an application in the Supreme Court supporting the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, calling it a legitimate and necessary exercise to uphold the sanctity of elections and prevent voter fraud.

The AIADMK is the first political party to move the Supreme Court in support of the SIR, which is under challenge by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the ruling party in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the DMK's petitionagainst the SIR tomorrow.

In its application, the AIADMK submitted that Tamil Nadu has 234 Assembly constituencies, each of which reportedly contains thousands of duplicate or ineligible entries in the voter lists. In such circumstances, the SIR ordered by the ECI, it said, is “a legitimate and necessary exercise to uphold the sanctity of elections, prevent voter fraud, and ensure that the rule of law is upheld in the electoral process.”

'Go To HC': Supreme Court Rejects PIL Against Public-Private Partnership Model For Development Of Govt Medical Colleges

Case Title: Dr. K.A. Paul @ Kilari Anand v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1035/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation assailing adoption of a public-private partnership model for development of government medical colleges in Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in the petition filed by evangelist Dr KA Paul, who appeared in person.

During the hearing, Justice Kant called the PIL "luxury litigation" and questioned why people are going "so crazy" about approaching the Supreme Court. The judge noted that the averments made essentially related to Andhra Pradesh, but the petitioner impleaded other states only to justify invocation of Article 32 of the Constitution.

'Accused Wearing Lawyers' Robes, Murders In Broad Daylight': Supreme Court Mulls Guidelines To Curb Violence In Court Premises

Case Title: Kerala Police Officers Association v. State of Kerala and Ors., SLP(C) No. 31008/2025

Underlining a need for strict action, the Supreme Court expressed an inclination to lay down guidelines to tackle incidents of violence within Court premises.

"If some hardened criminals are allowed to come inside the court premises wearing lawyers' dress or not, but if they are indulging in this kind of thing, we need to have very harsh action against them. Firm, swift action is required against them. Individual liberty can be effectively protected by issuing other suitable directions", said Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the Kerala Police Officers Association's challenge to a Kerala High Court order, which clarified guidelines to be followed by police personnel for arresting persons within court premises, along with a grievance redressal mechanism to be followed at the state and district levels.

Supreme Court Proposes To Hold Bar Council Elections Under Supervision Of Retired High Court Judges

The Supreme Court indicated that all State Bar Council elections across the country will be held under the supervision of retired High Court judges.

The Court said it intends to constitute independent election panels headed by retired judges in each state to oversee the polls and ensure they are conducted in a transparent, fair and credible manner.

A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed this view when the matter releating to the Bar Council elections were mentioned before it.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Patanjali Foods' Rs 2.97 Crore Excise Duty Refund Appeal

Case Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

Case Number: Civil Appeal Diary No(S). 57088/2025

The Supreme Court has issued notice in an appeal filed by Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) seeking a refund of Rs 2.97 crore charged by the tax department in connection with an excise duty dispute.

A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar issued notice on both the main appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay.

The appeal challenges the Karnataka High Court's judgment dated September 30, 2024, and its subsequent order dated July 4, 2025, dismissing Patanjali's review petition.

SCAORA Seeks Intervention In Suo Motu Case Over 'Digital Arrest' Scams Before Supreme Court

Case Title: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents, SMW (Crl.) 3/2025

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has filed an application seeking intervention in the suo motu case taken up by the Supreme Court in relation to "digital arrest" scams.

SCAORA says that "digital arrest" scams affect the entire country, including legal professionals, and gravely undermine citizens' right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Giving statistics, the advocates' body pleads that the incidents have escalated and continue to rise daily. "The Ministry of Home Affairs on 25.03.2025 issued a Press Release which revealed a shocking figure of 3,962 Skype IDs and 83,668 WhatsApp accounts, used for digital arrest, were identified and blocked by I4C (Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs). Imperatively, till 28.02.2025, more than 7.81 lakhs SIM cards and 2,08,469 IMEIs, as reported by the Police authorities, have been blocked by the Government of India."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Include 'Haemophilia' Under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act

Case Details: Haemophilia Federation India & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(S).47246/2025

The Supreme Court (November 10) issued notice in a writ petition filed by Haemophilia Federation of India, seeking either the inclusion of Haemophilia under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) or striking down of Section 34 to the extent that it excludes Haemophilia for the purpose of reservation.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria issued notice in this matter and sought a response from the Union Government.

As per Section 34 of the RPwD Act, it provides for 4% job reservation for specific disabilities. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite being a benchmark disability, it has been excluded for purpose of reservation.

'Can Parliament Reintroduce Provisions Struck Down By Court?' Supreme Court Questions Centre On Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

Case Details : Case Title: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

The Supreme Court, yesterday asked the Union what was the thought process behind giving shape to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021which was presently challenged before it.

The Court also asked if the Parliament could reintroduce the very same provisions in the Tribunal Reforms Act which were earlier set aside in previous judgments.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the Madras Bar Association case concerning the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. The Association has challenged the Act as contrary to the previous judgments of the Supreme Court which held that Tribunal members should have at least 5 years tenure, lawyers with minimum 10 years of experience must be considered eligible etc.

Delhi Car Blast: Supreme Court Expresses Condolences, Says 'Standing In Solidarity With Bereaved'

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai expressed deep sorrow over the tragic loss of lives in the car explosion that occurred in Delhi on the evening of November 10, 2025, describing it as a “devastating tragedy”.

On behalf of the Supreme Court of India and the entire judicial and legal fraternity, the Chief Justice conveyed heartfelt condolences to the families who lost their loved ones and expressed solidarity with all those affected by the incident.

The CJI stated :

Delhi Air Pollution : Supreme Court Refuses To List Application Seeking Implementation Of WHO Air Quality Guidelines

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court refused to list an application seeking immediate phased implementation of the WHO Air Quality Guidelines (AQG) to tackle the worsening Delhi Air Pollution Crisis.

The counsel made an urgent mentioning before the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran, Justice NV Anjaria. 

The counsel stated that an interim application was sought to be filed in the ongoing Delhi NCR Air Pollution matter  seeking for " immediate adoption and phased implementation of the WHO (measures)"

Advocate Moves Supreme Court Against His Arrest By Haryana Police

The Supreme Court agreed to hear tomorrow a writ petition filed challenging the arrest of an advocate by the Haryana police in connection with a murder case.

The matter relates to the arrest of Advocate Vikram Singh by the Gurugram Police.

Advocate Menees Dubey mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai for urgent listing. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, supporting the plea, said that the matter related to the independence of the legal profession.

Supreme Court 'Shocked' That Judgments In 47 Civil Cases Reserved Before Jan 31 Remain To Be Pronounced By Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/S Mivaan Steels Limited v. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Diary No.48094/2025

The Supreme Court was shocked to learn that out of 61 civil cases where decisions were reserved by the Jharkhand High Court prior to January 31, 2025, judgments remain to be pronounced in 47 cases.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma was apprised of the pendency by the Registrar General of the High Court. Perusing the affidavit of the High Court, and subject to the orders of CJI Gavai, it placed the matter before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant, as the judge is seized of a similar case pertaining to long pendency of judgments before the Jharkhand High Court.

"We have perused the affidavit filed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand. The information furnished therein is shocking the judicial conscience. As the larger issue is pending before the Second Bench of this Court in case bearing W.P. (C) No.489/2025, which is likely to be taken up on 14.11.2025, the Registry is directed to post this matter along with W.P.(C) No.489/2025 after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India", the bench ordered.

'We Are One Country': Supreme Court Voices Concern Over Targeting Of People For Cultural Differences

Case Details: Alana Golmei v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 53/2015

The Supreme Court orally remarked that it is pained that people in this country are targeted because of cultural and racial differences. Remembering an incident where a person wearing a lungi was targeted in New Delhi, it said that the Union must be bothered about the cultural and racial discrimination faced by people, especially Northeasterners.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a 2015 writ petition under Article 32 seeking intervention of the Union Government for the protection of persons from the Northeast residing in various parts of the country, who have been subjected to racial attacks and insults. It sought the framing of guidelines for the safety and security of the Northeast community. The hearing was in regards to the status report which has been filed by the Union.

During the hearing, Advocate Gaichangpou Gangmei informed the Court that the incidents of racial discrimination and exclusion of Northeast people continue to occur. While Additional Solicitor General, KM Nataraj(for Union) submitted that nothing remains in the petition as a Monitoring Committee is in place, considering all the issues raised in the petition.

Supreme Court Stays Order To Form SIT With Hindu & Muslim Officers To Probe Akola Riots Case

Case Title: State of Maharashtra & Others v. Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, Review Petition (Crl.) No. 447/2025

The Supreme Court stayed a previous direction passed by a two-judge bench to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities to investigate an assault case related to the 2023 Akola communal riots in Maharashtra.

The Court passed the stay order while issuing notice to the respondents on the review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra.

The matter came before a bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria after the two-judge bench delivered a split verdict in the review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra against the order for SIT probe with officers of both communities.

'Best Morning To Send A Message': Day After Delhi Blasts, Supreme Court Refuses Bail To Man Accused Of Spreading ISIS Ideology

Case Title – Syed Mamoor Ali @ Mamoor Bhai v. Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to grant bail to and man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for allegedly being part of a conspiracy to promote ISIS ideology and carry out terror activities.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta rejected the SLP filed by the petitioner, who has been incarcerated for over 2 years, against Madhya Pradesh High Court order that refused to grant him bail.

“We are not inclined to interfere. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has been incarcerated for more than 2 years and further that 19 out of 64 proposed witnesses have already been examined although 94 are mentioned in the chargesheet, we direct the trial court to conclude the trial within 2 years. Prosecution and defence shall extend all cooperation in the trial. If the trial is not concluded within 2 years for no fault attributed to the petitioner, it will be open for him to revise his prayer for bail”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Seeks ECI's Response On Pleas Challenging SIR In Tamil Nadu & West Bengal; Asks HCs To Not Hear Same Issue

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India on the petitions filed challenging the poll body's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and West Bengal.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also directed the High Courts to keep in abeyance the petitions filed in relation to the SIR of these states and Bihar. The Court will hear the matter on November 26.

"Since this Court is seized of the matter pertaining to legality of SIR of electoral rolls in various states including Bihar, WB, TN, Pondicherry, etc., we request jurisdictional HCs to keep in abeyance/defer the writ proceedings if any filed in those HCs touching the validity of SIR in their states," the bench observed in the order.

'Good Suggestion' : Supreme Court On Plea To Use De-Duplication Software To Detect Multiple Entries In Voters' List

Case : Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025

The Supreme Court (November 11) orally endorsed the suggestion to use de-duplication software for identifying multiple entries of the same person in the voters' list.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms seeking certain directions to the Election Commission of India while it is conducting the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in many States.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the NGO, told the bench that there is a de-duplication software which the ECI can use to weed out multiple entries.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Gujarat Govt & HC Over Vacancies In Labour Courts

Case Title: Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Varanasi Srinivas and Ors., Ma 1340/2025 In C.A. No. 7119/2025

After being apprised of about 40% vacancy in its Labour and Industrial Courts, the Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Gujarat and its High Court.

"It seems to us that prima facie, State of Gujarat, in consultation with the High Court, is required to provide adequate secretarial assistance and other infrastructural facilities to a variety of courts. Let notice be issued", the Court ordered.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after noting issues flagged by Amicus Curiae Astha Sharma in suo motu proceedings initiated earlier.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act; AG Says Previous Verdicts Not Inflexible Directions Binding On Govt

Case Title: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

The Supreme Court reserved its decision in the challenge to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the Madras Bar Association case concerning the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

The Association has challenged the Act as contrary to the previous judgments of the Supreme Court which held that Tribunal members should have at least 5 years tenure, lawyers with minimum 10 years of experience must be considered eligible etc.

RP Act Accepts Aadhaar Card As Identity Proof For Electoral Roll Inclusion; UIDAI's Notification Can't Stop It, Says Supreme Court During Hearing

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 634/2025

The Supreme Court (November 11) orally remarked that a notification issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) cannot be the basis to stop the use of the Aadhaar card as a proof of identity for the purpose of inclusion in the electoral roll, since the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 specifically allows such use.

The Court remarked that an executive notification cannot override a statutory provision.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petitions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls of various states. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, a petitioner seeking to conduct a pan-India SIR, has filed an application seeking to recall the Supreme Court's earlier orderwhich allowed the use of the Aadhaar card as a document of identity for the Bihar SIR. He referred to a notification issued by the UIDAI that Aadhaar card is not a proof of citizenship. He challenged Form 6 (the form for inclusion of first-time voters) allowing persons to mention their Aadhaar number as identity proof.

High Courts Not Inferior To Supreme Court, But Shouldn't Take Up Matters Which SC Is Seized Of : Supreme Court

Cause Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court reiterated the need for High Courts to refrain from entertaining cases which are already seized by the Apex Court.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing the issue of officers involved in the alleged illegal tree felling at the Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve.

The apex court, which has been monitoring the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged illegal constructions in Corbett, noted that it had earlier questioned the Uttarakhand Government for not granting sanction for prosecution. Following the Court's oral observations on September 8, 2025, the State granted a sanction for prosecution against one officer on September 16, 2025.

Executing Courts Shouldn't Allow Withdrawal & Refiling Of Execution Petitions Without Valid Reason : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court directed executing courts not to permit withdrawal and refiling of execution petitions without valid justification, observing that such practices contribute to unnecessary delays in the enforcement of decrees.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal made the observation while dealing with applications arising from its earlier judgment in Periyammal (Dead Through LRs) & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr., where the Court has been monitoring the disposal of execution petitions across the country.

“The executing court should ensure that without any valid reason, it should not permit the learned advocates to withdraw the execution petitions and then refile them again. It is only for a very valid reason that the executing court may permit withdrawal of the execution petition already filed with permission to file a fresh petition,” the bench directed.

'ECI Holds Voters' Data In Trust, Entitled To Protect Privacy' : Supreme Court On Plea For Machine-Readable Electoral Rolls

Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025

In yesterday's SIR hearing, the Supreme Court orally expressed reservations about making the voters list available in machine-readable format, saying that it might compromise voters' privacy.

The Court observed that the Election Commission of India holds voters' data in trust and is entitled to adopt layers of privacy to ensure that the data remains protected. The Court suggested to the ECI if the data can be password-protected so that an individual can easily access it while preventing unauthorised access by other parties.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Bagchi was considering a bunch of petitions challenging ECI's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, West Bengal, etc.

Supreme Court Orders Release Of Advocate Arrested By Haryana Police

Case Details : Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 471/2025

The Supreme Court (November 12) ordered the release of Advocate Vikram Singh, who was arrested by the Haryana Police in connection with a murder case.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria passed the interim order while issuing notice to the Police on a writ petition filed by Singh challenging his arrest and remand in the case.

The bench directed that Singh be released forthwith on a bail bond of Rs 10,000. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, for the petitioner, submitted that the police were pressuring the advocate to reveal the details of the clients. He also contended that the arrest was illegal as no written grounds were furnished as mandated by the judgment in Mihir Shah v. State of Maharashtra.

Can High Courts Hear Anticipatory Bail Pleas Bypassing Sessions Courts? Supreme Court Refers Issue To 3-Judge Bench

Case Title: Mohammed Rasal.C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025

The Supreme Court referred to a three-judge bench the issue of whether High Courts can directly entertain anticipatory bail applications filed without first approaching the Sessions Courts.

A 2-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered that the matter be placed before a 3-judge bench.

It was in September that the present bench took up this issue in the case Mohammed Rasal C v State of Kerala after expressing disapproval of the practice of the Kerala High Court to directly entertain anticipatory bail matters. The Court expressed the view that though Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Courts and Sessions Courts, applications for anticipatory bail should ordinarily be moved first before the Sessions Court, and that direct recourse to the High Court should be reserved for exceptional cases.

SCBA Moves Supreme Court Over 'Period Checks' On Women Workers, Seeks Guidelines To Safeguard Menstrual Dignity

Case Details: Scba v. Uoi & Anr | Writ Petition(Crl) No___2025

The Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court over thereports that women workers at the Maharashi Dayanand University, Haryana, were allegedly subjected to degrading checks to verify whether they were menstruating. It seeks directions to the Union Government and the State of Haryana to conduct a detailed inquiry into this incident.

The SCBA has also prayed for the guidelines to be laid to ensure that the right to health, dignity, bodily autonomy and privacy of women and girls are not violated when they are menstruating and related gynaecological issues at the workplace and at educational institutions

According to the petition, on October 26, the three sanitation workers were called to duty on Sunday due to the visit of the Haryana Governor. SCBA refers to the written complaint lodged by the workers with the Registrar of the University, which states that they were instructed to work faster by their supervisors even though they were menstruating and were not feeling well. They were also asked for proof that these women were menstruating.

Supreme Court Proposes High Courts Publish Information On Judgments Reserved For Over 6 Months

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

With a view to ensure transparency and accountability in the judiciary, the Supreme Court proposed that all High Courts have a dashboard on their websites which indicates dates when judgments were reserved, pronounced and uploaded by their respective judges.

The Court emphasized on bringing in public domain number of judgments reserved but not pronounced for over 6 months, as well as those which are pronounced after 6 months.

"Let everybody know that in this High Court, how many judgments have been reserved by any xyz and how many of them have been pronounced, and within how many days those have been pronounced. This information should be automated, available in public domain. How many pronounced after 6 months and how many are awaiting pronouncement after 6 months, and most importantly how many days it took in uploading the judgments. Is the judgment, after pronouncement, readily available on the website?" said Justice Surya Kant.

'High Court's Discretion To Directly Hear Anticipatory Bail Pleas Can't Be Curtailed' : Kerala HC Advocates Association To Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohammed Rasal.C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025

The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) has submitted before the Supreme Court that the discretion of the High Courts in entertaining anticipatory bail petitions in the first instance cannot be curtailed.

Opposing the view that Sessions Courts must be approached first for anticipatory bail, the KHCAA filed an application to get itself impleaded in the case where the Supreme Court is considering this issue. The Association argued that any attempt to curtail the High Court's jurisdiction would amount to "judicial overreach, undermining the legislative intent and encroaching upon the fundamental right to personal liberty."

It was in September that the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta took up this issue in the case Mohammed Rasal C v State of Kerala after expressing disapproval of the practice of the Kerala High Court to directly entertain anticipatory bail matters. The Court expressed the view that though Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Courts and Sessions Courts, applications for anticipatory bail should ordinarily be moved first before the Sessions Court, and that direct recourse to the High Court should be reserved for exceptional cases.

Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam : Supreme Court Makes Absolute Interim Protection From Arrest Granted To Excise Department Officials

Case Title: Vikas Kumar Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh, SLP(Crl) No. 12801/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court made absolute the interim protection from arrest granted to certain excise department officials accused in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after hearing Senior Advocates S Nagamuthu & Siddharth Aggarwal (for petitioners) and Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethamalani & ASG SD Sanjay (for respondent-State/ED).

While granting the relief, the bench imposed stringent conditions on the petitioner-accused, including:

Supreme Court Adjourns Delhi Air Pollution Matter Till Nov 17; Seeks Report From Punjab & Haryana On Stubble Burning

Case Title – Mc Mehta v. Union of India Wp (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court directed the State of Punjab and Haryana to file a status report on the measures taken to curb stubble burning, contributing to the air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the issue of air pollution in Delhi-NCR in the batch of environmental pleas in the MC Mehta Case.

Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnaryanan, appearing for one of the applicants, informed the Court that the AQI has crossed 450 in some areas and constructions were being carried out, including within the Supreme Court premises.

Supreme Court Posts Shiv Sena, NCP Symbol Disputes For Final Hearing On January 21, 2026

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

The Supreme Court posted the Shiv Sena and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) symbol disputes to January 21, 2026, for final hearing.

The petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) challenging the Election Commission's decision to recognize the Eknath Shinde group as the official Shiv Sena and grant them the 'bow and arrow' election symbol was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi .

The bench also agreed to consider the petition filed by NCP (Sharad Pawar) against the ECI's decision to allot the official symbol to NCP (Ajit Pawar). Observing that the legal issues in these cases are similar and overlapping, the Court agreed to hear the matters together.

'Give Suggestions To Prevent Such Incidents': Supreme Court Adjourns SCBA's Contempt Plea Over Shoe-Hurling Bid At CJI

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Rakesh Kishore | Conmt.Pet.(Crl.) No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court adjourned the contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at CJI BR Gavai on October 6 over his remarks in the Vishnu Idol case.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi had earlier expressed reluctance to initiate criminal contempt proceedings, observing that it would instead focus on framing guidelines to prevent such incidents in the future

Justice Kant asked the lawyers to give their suggestions for guidelines. "Just think of how to prevent such incidents in court premises, bar room, etc. All of you please give suggestions. Whatever requires to be resolved, we will...on the next date, we will request Attorney General also," Justice Kant said.

After 6 Days In Custody, Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Man Accused Of Threatening Woman Lawyer During Commission Visit

Case Title: Nitin Bansal v. State of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 17468/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to a man who allegedlythreatened a woman lawyer appointed as Court Commissioner with an 'air gun' during execution of the commission.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat for the accused (petitioner-Nitin Bansal).

It may be recalled that a one month jail sentence was imposedon the petitioner by the Delhi High Court, against which he approached the Supreme Court. On the last date, the top Court askedhim to surrender before jail authorities on November 6, before entertaining his prayer against the High Court order. It expressed serious displeasure at his conduct and opined that he deserved to be in jail.

Waqf Act | Supreme Court To Consider If Preliminary Survey Under Section 4 Is Necessary Before Notifying Properties As Waqfs

Case Details: Syed Gouse Alias Nawab Pasha Kazi v. Karnataka State Board of Wakfs & Anr. | Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No.14417/2025

The Supreme Court decided to examine the issue whether conducting a preliminary survey of waqf properties as per Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1995 is necessary before issuing a gazette notification under Section 5 of the said Act declaring a property as waqf.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria is considering this matter. The issue arose in a special leave petition pertaining to certain Waqf properties of the Karnataka Waqf State Board, in which it is alleged that no preliminary survey was conducted as contemplated under Section 4 of the 1995 Act.

The Waqf Tribunal did not go into the issue, though the plaintiff had taken a specific plea that no preliminary survey was conducted before the notification of the property as waqf. The Karnataka High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, observing that notification under Section 5 has to be issued in compliance with Section 4 of Act.

'Progress In Gender Justice Not Due To Courts Alone': CJI BR Gavai Acknowledges Role Of Civil Societies, Women's Movements

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai (November 12) said that India's progress toward gender equality has not been achieved by the judiciary alone but through the constant vigilance of civil society, the persistence of women's movements, and the courage of ordinary citizens who have held institutions accountable to the Constitution's vision of justice.

Delivering the 30th Justice Sunanda Bhandare Memorial Lecture in New Delhi on the theme “Justice for All: Building a Gender Equal and Inclusive India”, the Chief Justice said that the relationship between the courts and the people has been central to keeping the idea of equality alive.

“There have been moments when judicial interpretations failed to capture the lived realities of women or fell short of the transformative spirit of the Constitution. However, the vigilance of civil society, the persistence of women's movements, and the courage of ordinary citizens have together kept the judiciary accountable to the constitutional promise of equality," CJI said.

Existing NGT Members Will Continue Till New Appointments Are Made : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case : Madras Bar Association v. Union of India Wp(C) No. 1018/2021 and Connected Case.

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that the existing Members of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) will continue to hold office and discharge their duties until new appointments are made and the appointees assume charge.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing applications seeking a direction to the Union of India to fill up vacancies in the NGT. The applicants had expressed concern that two Members of the Principal Bench, New Delhi, are due to retire on November 13, 2025, and January 14, 2026, respectively, which could render the Bench non-functional.

Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani assured the Court that there would be no disruption in the functioning of the Tribunal. He stated that the current Members will continue in office until the newly appointed Members take charge.

Supreme Court Directs Action Against YouTube Channels For Publishing Identities Of Women Who Alleged Sexual Offences

The Supreme Court asked the State of Rajasthan to take appropriate steps under Section 72(Disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences, etc) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS), after it was informed that the identities of the victims, their names, along with the court's proceedings, have been published on YouTube channels by the petitioner, who is accused under Section 69(Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc) BNS.

As perSection 69 BNS, if a person, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without the intention to fulfil it, has sexual intercourse with her, the offence does not amount to rape but is punishable with a term that may exceed 10 years imprisonment. Section 72 says revealing the identity of the victim in sexual offences is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of 2 years and a fine.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria passed an order in this regard.

'Perverted Mind, Threat To Girls': Supreme Court Slams Assam Professor Booked Over Pakistan Supporting & Obscene Social Media Posts

Case Title: Md Joynal Abedin v. State of Assam, SLP(Crl) No. 12160/2025

While dealing with his bail plea, the Supreme Court yesterday expressed displeasure with an Assam professor named Md Joynal Abdein booked over a social media post in support of Pakistan as well as obscene posts against women, saying he has a "perverted mind" and is misusing the internet.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. It was dealing with the man's challenge to a Gauhati High Court order which denied him bail in July in the case involving anti-national charge (Section 152 BNS).

Allegedly, the man (petitioner) uploaded a post on Facebook stating "we are with the brother of Pakistani citizens". The post further stated "we will be with them in future also". It also supported the President of Turkey, who reportedly said that they will be with Pakistani citizens.

Supreme Court Grants Final Chance To Five States To Frame Remission Policies, Asks High Courts To Monitor Progress

Cause Title: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail

Expressing displeasure over the failure to implement remission and premature release policies in the States of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, the Supreme Court directed the respective High Courts to register a suo motu writ petition to monitor and ensure effective enforcement of these policies in their jurisdictions.

The Court advised the State governments to initiate the premature release process of the eligible convict “at least six months prior to the eligibility of a convict so that unwanted time by way of incarceration even after a convict becomes eligible for premature release can very well be avoided.”

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a batch of applications in a suo moto writ petition concerning bail policies and related issues. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the progress made by the state governments in establishing clear and fair remission policies in compliance with the Court's earlier directives.

'Shocking' : Supreme Court On Maharashtra Court Not Framing Charge Against Undertrial For 4 Yrs Citing Absence Of Co-Accused

Case Title: Shashi Alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra, SLP(Crl) No. 12690/2025

In the case of an accused who has been in jail since 4 years without framing of charges, the Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure with Maharashtra authorities for taking a stand that the delay in trial was on account of co-accused's dilatory tactics.

The Court called out the authorities for not being able to secure presence of the co-accused before the trial court, despite citing their dilatory tactics as the reason for delay. It noted that these co-accused were out on bail, while the petitioner-accused continues to remain in jail, allegedly due to their absence from trial.

Noting that the chargesheet in the case was filed in the year 2022, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and PK Mishra called for an explanation from the concerned Superintendent of Police as to why such a situation arose and why the prosecution did not move any application for cancellation of bail of the co-accused in order to ensure that the trial proceeded expeditiously.

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Raushan Sinha In Case Over Social Media Post About Rahul Gandhi

Case Details: Raushan Sinha V.State of Telangana | SLP (Crl.) No. 9925 of 2025

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to social media influencer Raushan Singh, against whom a case was registered for allegedly misquoting Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi's parliamentary speech.

On the day Rahul Gandhi delivered his maiden Lok Sabha speech after the 2024 elections, Sinha allegedly posted on Twitter that Gandhi had called Hindus violent. The case agaisnt him was registered over this post on a complaint by a Congress worker in Telangana.

He was accused of offences related to public mischief, intentional insult to provoke public peace, forgery harming reputation under Section(s) 352, 353(2), 353(1)(c) and 336(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Supreme Court Rejects Tamil Nadu's Plea Against Mekedatu Dam Proposal In Karnataka As Premature

Case : State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu | Ma 3127/2018 In C.A. No. 2453/2007

The Supreme Court (November 13) refused to entertain the applications filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the State of Karnataka's plan for the construction of the Mekedatu dam on the Cauvery River.

The first application challenged the permission granted by the Central Water Commission by letter dated 22.11.2018 for the preparation of a Detailed Project Report of the Mekedatu project. The second application was against the execution of the Mekedatu Project, seeking directions against the Central Water Commission to return the DPR submitted by the State of Karnataka.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria observed that Tamil Nadu's challenge to the order passed by the Central Water Commission (CWC) for the preparation of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the Mekadatu dam was "premature", as the plan would be approved only after considering the objections of the State as well as the opinion of the expert bodies, Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) and the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA).

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against BCI Rules Restraining Bar Association Office Bearers From Contesting State Bar Council Elections

Case Title: District Bar Association Bulandshahar and Anr. v. Bar Concil of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1097/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Election Rules, 2016 for restraining office bearers of District and High Court Bar Associations from contesting State Bar Council elections.

The plea points out that the Rules prohibit office bearers of District and High Court Bar Associations from contesting State Bar Council elections, but allow office bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association to contest the same.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, with Justice Kant observing that the "issue requires consideration". It however denied interim relief of stay at this stage, pointing out that the petitioners chose to challenge the 2016 Rules in 2025 only because Bar elections are near (a reference to UP State Bar Council elections in January).

Air India Plane Crash | 'AAIB Enquiry Not For Assigning Blame', Says Supreme Court; Union Clarifies No Blame Attributed To Pilot

In the Air India Plane Crash matter, the Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of an enquiry by the AAIB is not to assign blame to anyone, but rather to find the cause of the incident so it can be prevented in future.

The Union, on its part, clarified that there is a statutory and international regime in place to conduct the enquiry and blame has not been attributed to anyone by the AAIB. It further stated that as there was some misconception (about pilot error) after release of an interim report, the Ministry of Civil Aviation issued a press note saying that blame was not attributable to anyone.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions seeking an independent, Court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight, which took place shortly after its take off from Ahmedabad airport, killing 260 people, on June 12, 2025.

Supreme Court Summons Jharkhand Home Secretary Over Repeated Instances Of Non-Apperance By State

Case Details: Md Imran @D.C. Guddu v. State of Jharkhand | SLP(Crl) No. 12110/2025

The Supreme Court reiterated its various concerns regarding the State of Jharkhand's failure to appear in the matters despite receiving notice of service. The Court has now directed the Home Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand to be present online tomorrow and give an explanation in this regard. It has also expressed surprise over the manner the Jharkhand High Court granted bail to the two co-accused persons charged with the allegations of murder, without any discussion as to its merit.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea for bail of the petitioner accused under 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act in connection with a 2018 case for having shot dead a person at the Daily Market Main Road Taxi stand.

The petitioner, along with the two co-accused persons, were added as accused persons under Section 319 CrPC based on the deposition of the witnesses.

Time To Revisit Centre's Electric Vehicles Policy Of 2020, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 228/2019

The Supreme Court (November 13) continued to hear a public interest litigation seeking promotion and implementation of electric vehicle policies. It orally remarked that it's high time for the Government to revisit the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan (NEMMP), 2020, on promotion and adoption of electric vehicles and maybe initiate a pilot project in metropolitan cities.

Appearing before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that they are trying to seek directions in terms of the Government's declared policy, NEMMP, in which some rebate is given on the purchase of electric vehicles, considering that their cost is higher than that of a regular vehicle.

"Therefore, the proposal of the NITI Aayog was that you give some incentives so that the upfront cost gets reduced. Second, you give various tax exemptions so that road tax and others are exempted from the electric vehicles, which are non-polluting. Then you mandate all government vehicles to be electric vehicles. Then there was a recommendation that there should be mandatory charging points. Today, this is also a bottleneck, the need for charging points," he said.

Justice PS Narasimha Advises Lawyers To Opt For Virtual Hearings Amid Delhi's Air Pollution

Justice PS Narasimha of the Supreme Court advised advocates to appear virtually in light of the rapidly worsening air quality in Delhi.

The observation was made during the mentioning round. Lawyers present in the courtroom said Justice Narasimha advised members of the Bar to make use of the virtual hearing facility rather than appear physically, given the health risks posed by the current pollution levels.

When Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that many lawyers were already wearing masks, Justice Narasimha responded that masks may not be sufficient, cautioning that the toxic air could cause permanent damage.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Seeking Govt Compensation For Covid Vaccine Deaths

Case Title : Rachana Gangu & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. – Wp (C) No. 1220/2021, Union of India V.Sayeeda K.A. & Ors | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 16452/2023 and Connected Matters.

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on petitions seeking compensation from the Union Government for the deaths allegedly caused due to Covid-19 vaccines. The petitioners also sought constitution of an expert committee to inquire into the adverse effects of Covid vaccination.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the writ petition filed by Rachna Gangu and Venugopalan Govindan who alleged that their daughters died due to adverse effects caused by the Covid vaccine. The other petition was filed by the Union Government against an interim order passed by the Kerala High Court in a petition filed by Sayeeda KA (who alleged that her husband died due to vaccination) to formulate a policy for compensation.

In 2022, the Union Government had filed a counter-affidavit in the matter, arguing that it was not liable to compensate as vaccination was a voluntary act undertaken by persons who took an informed decision on the basis of the risks notified.

Delhi-NCR Air Pollution| Declare AQI Above 250 As 'Disaster' Under Disaster Management Act : Plea In Supreme Court

Case Title – Mc Mehta v. Union of India Wp (C) 13029/1985

In the ongoing air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR matter before the Supreme Court, a plea has been filed seeking to declare situations where the Air Quality Index(AQI) crosses 250 as a 'disaster' under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Notably, the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran is seized of the matter. Earlier, the bench directed the State of Punjab and Haryana to file a status report on the measures taken to curb stubble burning, contributing to the air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR

The application is filed by Vikrant Tongad, the Founder of the trust organization 'Social Action for Forest & Environment (SAFE)' and seeks a slew of measures after the Court allowed them to give their suggestions to curb the air pollution crisis in Delhi- NCR.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Christian Mission's Possession Of Land In Bilaspur

Case Details: Christians Woman's Board of Mission & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 64657/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim relief to the Christian Women's Board of Mission(CWBM) by ordering status quo on its possession of a leasehold property in Bilaspur. The Mission approached the Supreme Court apprehending dispossession by the State of Chhattisgarh, which is seeking repossession of the land.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed an interim order while issuing notice on the CWBM's plea against the Chhattisgarh High Court's order, which denied it relief.

"In the meantime, status quo, as it exists today, be maintained with respect to construction and possession. A copy of this order be communicated/ forwarded to the Collector Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, by the Registry today forthwith," the Supreme Court's order stated.

Can Telecom Spectrum License Be Subjected To Insolvency Proceedings? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title – State Bank of India v. Union of India & Ors. With Connected Cases

The Supreme Court reserved judgment in a batch of appeals challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's decision in the insolvency proceedings of Aircel and Reliance Communications holding that spectrum can be subjected to insolvency/liquidation proceedings being an intangible asset of the Corporate Debtor.

The NCLAT further held that the right to use the spectrum can only be transferred in the CIRP only after clearing the spectrum-related dues to the Government.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar reserved judgment after hearing arguments from Attorney General R Venkatramani for Union of India along with Senior Advocates Shyam Divan for erstwhile RP of Aircel, Rakesh Dwivedi for Committee of Creditors through SBI and Gopal Jain for erstwhile RP of Reliance.

Plea Seeks Probe Into NCLAT Member's Disclosure Of Higher Judge Trying To Influence Decision; Supreme Court To Deal On Administrative Side

Case : Ms A.S. Met Corp Private Limited v. Registrar | W.P.(Crl.) No. 440/2025

The Supreme Court decided to deal with on its administrative side a writ petition which has been filed seeking a court-monitored investigation into an unprecedented disclosure made by NCLAT Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma that he was approached by “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary” to pass a favourable order in a pending insolvency appeal.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation bringing material on record to be considered by the Chief Justice of India. The bench also ordered that the insolvency petition, where the controversial revelation occurred, be transferred from the Chennai Bench to the Principal Bench in Delhi.

"As regards the other issues, all such issues are of vital importance. We believe that the competent authority must have examined the matter and taken necessary steps. All these issues can be effectively dealt with on the administrative side," the bench observed while disposing of the petition with a direction to treat it as a representation to the Chief Justice of India.

Supreme Court Seeks ED's Response On Ex-Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's Plea To Relax Bail Conditions In Money Laundering Case

Case Title: v. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Diary No. - 63441/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on an application filed by ex-Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji seeking relaxation of his bail conditions in the money laundering case arising out of the cash-for-jobs 'scam'.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Narendra Hooda. Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for ED and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented complainant-Y Balaji.

During the hearing, Sibal informed that modification of the September bail order is being sought qua 2 conditions, that is:

Bata v. Crocs : Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Of Footwear Makers Against Maintainability Of Crocs' Passing Off Suits Over Design Infringement

Case : Bata India Ltd. v. Ms Crocs Inc. Usa | SLP(C) No. 29920-29924/2025, Liberty Shoes Ltd V.Ms Crocs Inc. Usa | SLP(C) No. 32834/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Bata India Ltd and five other footwear manufacturers challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment which held that the suits filed by Crocs Inc.USA alleging passing off over the infringement of the latter's footwear designs registered under the Designs Act were maintainable.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court Division Bench's ruling of July 1 that a passing off action is maintainable with respect to a trade dress which is registered as a design under the Designs Act. The bench also dismissed a connected petition filed by Liberty Shoes Ltd against the High Court's judgment.

The bench observed that the single bench of the High Court should proceed with the suits without being influenced by any observations in the Division Bench's Judgment. The bench also clarified that the question of law is kept open.

'Ensure State's Lawyers Appear' : Supreme Court Tells Jharkhand Home Secretary

Case Details: Md Imran D.C. Guddu v. State of Jharkhand | SLP(Crl) No. 12110/2025

The Home Secretary of Jharkhand, Ms Vandana Dadel, appeared online before the Supreme Court in compliance with yesterday's order summoning her over repeated lapses by the State in appearing in matters where service of notice had been completed. The Court asked her to ensure that Jharkhand's legal representatives remain duly present in such cases.

As for the main matter, the Court directed the State to challenge the anticipatory bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to two murder accused, noting that the High Court had issued the order without examining the merits.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan briefly interacted with Ms Dalel and requested her to ensure that the State's counsels appear whenever the notice is issued.

Supreme Court Upholds View That Eden Gardens Not A 'Public Place' For Levy Of Advertisement Tax

Case Title: Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 28566/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Calcutta High Court orderwhich held that Eden Gardens stadium was not a "public place" for the purpose of levying advertisement tax under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for petitioner-Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared for respondents.

Gupta argued that every bit of the Eden Gardens stadium can be seen from outside. Besides, the events are televised and most revenue generation happens because of that. Therefore, he contended, Eden Gardens stadium is a public place in public view.

Trial Judges Shouldn't Write Directly To Supreme Court Seeking Time Extension : SC Reiterates

The Supreme Court once again expressed disapproval of the practice of Trial Courts sending letters directly to the Supreme Court seeking extension of time set for completion of trial, and added that such communications should be routed through the High Court.

The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice K Vinod Chandran was informed that the judge of the Trial Court has filed an application seeking an extension of the time. However, the affidavit was devoid of particulars.

This made Justice Maheshwari ask: "How do we entertain all these letters? We are issuing directions. We already issued it for the Bombay High Court, and they formulated a policy. When there is a direction of the High Court and the Supreme Court, and in that situation, if the judge is asking [for extension of time], then he should have advised the District judge, and the District judge should have sent it to the Portfolio judge, and there is a Committee constituted which should recommend if it's appropriate. Otherwise, how is this appropriate? The Supreme Court said something, and they are coming to us, asking. Can you see what is written?"

Aadhaar Used Only As Proof Of Identity, Not Proof Of Citizenship For Electoral Roll Inclusion : Election Commission Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 634/2025

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has reiterated before the Supreme Court that Aadhaar card is being used only to verify the identity of applicants seeking inclusion in electoral rolls, and not as proof of citizenship.

The ECI made this statement in its reply filed to an interlocutory application moved by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who is seeking a direction against the use of Aadhaar as proof of date of birth in Form 6 used for the registration of new voters. The ECI responded that Aadhaar is only being used as a proof of identity in terms of Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950

In its affidavit, sworn by Santosh Kumar Dubey, Secretary of the ECI, the Commission said that by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, Section 23 of the RP Act was amended to enable the linking of electoral roll data with the Aadhaar ecosystem, with the objective of curbing multiple enrolments of the same individual in different places. Based on this amendment, Form 6 was also amended with effect from June 17, 2022.

High Courts Must Function Like Emergency Wards Of Hospitals With Swift & Precise Response: Justice Surya Kant

High Courts must evolve into institutions that respond to injustice with the immediacy and efficiency of a hospital emergency ward, said Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant on Friday. Speaking at the Silver Jubilee celebrations of the Jharkhand High Court in Ranchi, Justice Surya Kant stressed that courts should be equipped to deliver rapid, precise, and coordinated relief the very moment a crisis arises, just as emergency departments cannot afford delays when lives are at stake.

"I believe that High Courts must begin to envision their institutional growth much like a modern hospital designs its emergency services—with structures that are equipped to respond swiftly, decisively, and with precision at the very moment a crisis arises. In the same way that an emergency ward cannot afford delay, our Courts too must aspire to that level of preparedness, efficiency, and coordinated response. This means strengthening technological capacity, streamlining procedures, building specialised expertise, and ensuring that judicial processes can adapt instantly to emerging situations. Only with such foresight can the Judiciary continue to deliver timely and effective remedies, rising to every challenge with the speed and clarity that a constitutional democracy demands. These are not mere administrative ideas; they are the next step in the evolution of access to justice," he said.

Justice Surya Kant underlined that High Courts have the power to act as engines of social reforms. He said their constitutional position, wide jurisdiction, and closeness to the people uniquely place them to shape legal development and drive social transformation. High Courts, he noted, are where the highest principles of justice meet the lived realities of ordinary citizens. Therefore, High Courts can be "vital engines for legal development and social reform."

Supreme Court To Decide Validity Of J&K Policy Denying Remission To Terror-Offence Convicts

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

The Supreme Court will consider the validity the rule in Jammu and Kashmir which bars remission for terror convicts.

The Court decided to har a life convict's petition challenging Rule 54(1) of the Jammu & Kashmir Jail Manual, 2000 and Para 20.10(Chapter XX titled Commutation and Remission of Sentence) of J&K Prison Manual 2022, which disallows premature release to those convicted in relation to a terrorism offence, along other similar pending petitions.

Pursuant to the November 22, 2024, order of the Court, his remission plea was considered, but was rejected in January by the J&K authorities on the grounds that he was convicted for terror-related crimes. On July 15, a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed him to file an interlocutory application challenging the remission policy.

Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Against President Withholding Assent To NEET Exemption Bill

The State of Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court challenging the President of India's decision to withhold assent to the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021. The Bill seeks to exempt the State from the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and restore admissions based on Class XII marks with a scientific system of normalization.

The decision withholding assent was conveyed by the Governor's Secretariat on March 4, 2025. The State has termed the action patently unconstitutional and a serious violation of the constitutional framework that regulates Centre State relations in legislative matters.

According to the suit filed under Article 131, the President withheld assent mechanically on the aid and advice of the Union Government without offering any reasons. Tamil Nadu states that this was done despite the State providing detailed replies to every objection raised by the Ministries of Health, Education and AYUSH. The plaint argues that unexplained withholding of assent frustrates Article 201 and destroys the working of Article 254(2), which allows State laws on concurrent subjects to prevail within the State after receiving Presidential assent. The State contends that if such withholding is upheld, the constitutional avenue available to States to enact laws that differ from Union legislation will become meaningless.

'Show Us Any Single Judicial Complex Constructed' : Supreme Court Slams Punjab Govt For Poor Investment On Judicial Infrastructure

Case Title: State of Punjab and Ors. v. District Bar Association Malerkotla, SLP(C) No. 32888/2025

The Supreme Court (November 14) refused to entertain the Punjab government's challenge to the High Court order, which directed that its guest houses currently occupied by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in Malerkotla, be vacated and allotted to the District Judge for official and residential use.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioners to show their bonafide before the High Court and allowed them to make a prayer for extension of time.

During the hearing, Justice Kant expressed strong displeasure at the fact that the State government has not spent anything in the last 15 years towards judicial infrastructure.

Accessibility Facilities For Visually Impaired Candidates In AIBE, CLAT Expected Soon, Supreme Court Told

Case Details: Yash Dodani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 785/2024

The Supreme Court was informed that its directions to provide facilities for visually impaired students, including the use of JAWS (Job Access With Speech) screen reader, and permission to use customized keyboards and mouse to answer questions on a Word document on the computer, with the additional option of using a scribe as per government guidelines, for the All India Bar Exam(AIBE), and future editions of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) are likely to be implemented from next year.

On August 13, a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directedthat the interim directions issued earlier on December 5, 2024, and December 11, 2024, regarding facilities for visually impaired candidates for the AIBE, shall apply to future editions of the CLAT. The order was passed in a writ petition by visually impaired law students who sought to appear for the CLAT – Postgraduate exam 2024-25 and AIBE.

Pursuant to the interim orders, fresh guidelines were issued by the Government on August 1. On November 13, the same bench was informed by the Additional Solicitor General Archana Dave Pathak that the guidelines were kept in abeyance vide an OM dated September 10 till December 31. This is because of the lack of facilities to implement the same. She assured that the fresh guidelines are likely to be issued along with the requisite facilities from the upcoming year.

Supreme Court Adjourns Sahara's Plea To Sell Assets To Adani Properties Ltd As Union Seeks Time To Respond

Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Subrata Roy Sahara and Ors. and Ors. | Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1820-1822/2017 In Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 413/2012 In C.A. No. 9833/2011

The Central Government sought more time to respond to the applications filed by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd seeking permission to sell its 88 properties, including Amby Valley in Maharashtra and Sahara Seher in Lucknow, to Adani Properties Pvt Ltd.

Accepting the request for four weeks' time made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice MM Sundresh posted the matters after six weeks.

The Court also adjourned the applications filed by employees seeking payment of their pending salaries from the Sahara Group companies. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Sahara. SG also requested that the Ministry of Cooperation be also impleaded in the matter, as many co-operative societies are involved. Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, the amicus curiae in the matter, submitted that he is receiving claims over many properties which the Sahara group has not disclosed. He therefore requested that the company be directed to publish the details of the properties on the website. The Court however did not pass any directions.

IUML Moves Supreme Court To Halt SIR Process in Kerala, Cites Local Body Elections & BLO's Death

Case Details: PK Kunhalikutty v. Election Commission of India and Another

The Indian Union Muslim League has approached the Supreme Court by way of a writ petition seeking an immediate halt to the Special Interim Revision process currently underway in Kerala, arguing that the exercise cannot be conducted simultaneously with the ongoing Local Body elections.

The writ petition seeks the quashing of the October 27 notification of the Election Commission of India which announced the SIR process for the electoral rolls in Kerala.

The IUML, in the petition filed through its General Secretary PK Kunhalikutty, informed the Court that the State Election Commission has already notified the Local Body polls, which are scheduled to be held in two phases on December 9 and 11, whereas the draft roll after SIR is to be published on December 9.

NEET-UG : Tamil Nadu Girl Approaches Supreme Court Over Losing MBBS Seat After Missing Fee Payment Deadline

Case Details: Shilpa Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on November 19 a challenge to the order of the Madras High Court, which refused to allow medical admission of a candidate who could not complete the fee payment in time. According to the candidate, she could not make the payment due to financial difficulties.

The Counsel mentioned the need for an urgent hearing in the case before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria. He stressed :

"The urgency is that the stray counselling is happening, they will occupy the seat, poor girl- 15 lakhs was supposed to be paid, and on the last day, she couldn't."

'Telangana Speaker In Gross Contempt Of Court' : Supreme Court Gives Ultimatum To Decide Disqualification Pleas

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (And Connected Case Detailss)

The Supreme Court (November 17) issued notice returnable in four weeks to the Speaker of Telangana in a contempt petition filed over his failure to decide the disqualification petitions against 10 MLAs of BRS who defected to the Congress within the time limit set by the Court.

While considering the contempt petitions, the bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai expressed displeasure with the Speaker's conduct.

"It is for him (speaker) whether he wants to decide the matter or face contempt by the court....this is gross contempt of the court," CJI Gavai said, noting that the Speaker was supposed to decide by October 31.

PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Court-Monitored Probe Into Alleged Multi-Crore Bank Fraud By Reliance Communications & Anil Ambani

Case Details: Eas Sarma v. Union of India and Others |

A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored investigation into what is described as one of the country's largest banking frauds allegedly involving Reliance Communications Ltd., its group entities and their promoter Anil Ambani. The petition, filed under Article 32 by former Union secretary E A S Sarma, alleges large-scale diversion of funds, forgery, fabrication of accounts, use of shell companies and coordinated financial misconduct across the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group.

Advcoate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, saying, "There is bank fraud worth Rs 20,000 crores. We are seeking an independent court-monitored probe. This is about a large corporate group." CJI Gavai agreed to list the matter urgently.

The petitioner contends that the present investigation being conducted by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate is narrow, incomplete, and deliberately excludes the role of bank officials and public servants, despite detailed material indicating their complicity. He submits that judicial supervision is essential to ensure a coordinated, transparent and comprehensive probe covering all offences revealed in multiple forensic audit reports, technical analyses and investigative publications.

'Should This Be Permitted?' : Supreme Court Questions Selling Liquor In Tetra-Packs, Says School Kids Can Easily Access

Case Details: M/S. John Distilleries Pvt Limited v. M/S. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd., SLP(C) No. 33238-33239/2025

The Supreme Court criticized State governments for prioritizing revenue over public health, while voicing concern about the sale of liquor in tetra packs.

The Court noted that the sale of liquor in tetra packs may provide easy access to school-going children and, being deceptive in looks, it may go unnoticed by parents as well. The development came after the Court was shown tetra-packs containing whiskey for sale during the hearing of a trademark dispute.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with John Distilleries' plea against the Madras High Court orderwhich ruled in favour of Allied Blenders and Distillers, the maker of Officer's Choice whisky, and ordered the removal of John Distilleries' 'Original Choice' trademark from the register of trademarks.

Delhi NCR Air Pollution | Supreme Court Rules Out Year-Long Construction Ban To Improve Air Quality

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court, while hearing the Delhi–NCR air pollution matter, said it was not inclined to impose extreme measures such as a year-round construction ban to improve the Air Quality Index. The Court observed that such an order would have far-reaching consequences and jeopardise the livelihoods of millions.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for some advocates who have intervened in the MC Mehta case, said that the situation was akin to an "emergency", as the air quality has deteriorated to alarming levels, causing irreversible damage to the health of the people, particularly children. Sankaranarayanan called for critical measures, such as a complete ban on construction and private cars. "We all have to make sacrifices," he urged, citing reports that three in ten deaths in the NCR are caused by air pollution and lung cancer cases are exponentially increasing.

However, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria ruled out imposing a complete ban on constructions.

Digital Arrest Scam | In Rare Move, Supreme Court Restrains Grant Of Bail To Persons Accused Of Duping 73-Yr Old Woman AoR

Case Details: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents, SMW (Crl.) 3/2025

In the suo motu case taken up over "digital arrest" scams, the Supreme Court restrained the release from jail of persons accused of duping a 73-year old woman Advocate-on-Record.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, taking a strict view, after AoR Vipin Nair mentioned SCAORA's intervention application in the matter, highlighting the experience of the woman AoR.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought an accommodation in the matter due to his engagement in a special bench. However, the SG supported SCAORA's intervention, saying he personally interacted with the woman AoR when she faced the ordeal.

Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society Moves Supreme Court Against Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Law

Case Details – Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan

The Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2025, asserting that the statute violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 25 and 300A of the Constitution.

“the structure of the Rajasthan Act is only to create fear in the minds of people and dissuade people from conversions. Further, it is only a tool for harassment of the minority communities and create a chilling effect”, the plea states.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice returnable within four weeks in the writ petition filed though advocate Amit Pai.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Communist Party's Flagpoles In Tamil Nadu Public Lands

Case Details – Communist Party of India v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court issued notice and ordered status quo on the Communist Party of India's challenge to the Madras High Court's directions for the removal of permanent political flagpoles from public places across Tamil Nadu.

The matter was heard by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

“Issue notice and status quo”, Justice Vikram Nath said.

Supreme Court To Hear Tamil Nadu's Challenge To HC Stay On University Law Amendments On December 2

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. K Venkatachalapthy @ Kutty and Ors., SLP(C) No. 17220/2025 and T.P.(C) No. 1511/2025

The Supreme Court posted to December 2 the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the Madras High Court's order which stayed the operation of State amendments taking away the Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors of State-run Universities.

A matter was before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The State has also filed a petition seeking to transfer to the Supreme Court the public interest litigation pending before the Madras High Court.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the case will have to await the outcome of the Presidential Reference relating to the timelines fixed for Governor to grant assent to Bills. Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi, for the State, submitted that the case has nothing to do with the Presidential Reference (The amendments in question came into operationon the basis of the "deemed assent"declared by the Supreme Court in the TN Governor case).

CSI Medical College Bribery Case : Supreme Court Stays Money Laundering Trial Against Former Church Of South India Bishop

Case Details – A Dharmaraj Rasalam v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition filed by former Church of South India (CSI) Bishop A Dharmaraj Rasalam seeking quashing of the money laundering case against him in the Karakonam CSI Medical College corruption case.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the notice returnable in four weeks and directed that trial court proceedings shall remain stayed in the meantime.

“Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meantime trial court proceedings shall remain stayed”, the court ordered.

'Officer's Choice' v. 'Original Choice' Whiskey Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao As Mediator

Case Details: M/S. John Distilleries Pvt Limited v. M/S. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd., SLP(C) No. 33238-33239/2025

Former Supreme Court judge Justice L Nageswara Rao is set to mediate a trademark disputebetween India's leading whiskey-selling brands John Distilleries and Allied Blenders.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi requested the former judge to facilitate the process of amicable settlement between the companies on a priority basis.

The development came in John Distilleries' plea against the Madras High Court order which ruled in favour of Allied Blenders, the maker of Officer's Choice whisky, and ordered the removal of John Distilleries' 'Original Choice' trademark from the register of trademarks. In this order of November 7, the High Court held that Original Choice was deceptively similar to Officer's Choice and that its registration violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also confirmed that Allied Blenders' registration for Officer's Choice remains valid.

'Bogus Officers, Incompetent' : Supreme Court Tears Into CBI Investigation In Vimal Negi Death Case

Case Details: Desh Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 4889/2025

The Supreme Court (November 17) made certain oral scathing remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), questioning the competence of some of its officers to lead the investigation properly.

The Court questioned the stand of the CBI team in claiming that the accused did not cooperate with the investigation, when he was only trying to deny the allegations made against him.

These oral remarks were made by a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra while hearing a case for anticipatory bail by accused Desh Raj. He was denied anticipatory bail by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Maharashtra Local Body Elections |'Reservation Can't Exceed 50 Percent, Our Order Misconstrued By Officers': Supreme Court

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

In the Maharashtra local body elections matter, the Supreme Court orally expressed that total reservation was not permitted by it to exceed 50 percent and that the state authorities seemingly misconstrued its order.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.

Underlining that the Court did not pass an order permitting reservation to exceed 50%, Justice Kant said during the hearing,

Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Calls For Report On Efficiency Of AQI Monitoring Stations

Case Details: Mc Mehta v. Union of India Wp (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court granted a day's time to the Union to explore the possible long-term solutions for curbing the issue of air pollution in Delhi NCR.

On the issue of correct AQI readings by Air Quality Monitoring Stations across the city, the bench also directed the Union to file a report detailing the nature and efficiency of the equipments used for recording readings.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria passed the directions.

Plea In Supreme Court Against Algorithm-Based Dynamic Pricing Of Airfares, Seeks Free Baggage Allowance Upto 25 Kg

Case Details – S. Laxminarayanan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea seeking regulatory control over airfare practices and ancillary charges in India's civil aviation sector. The petition challenges algorithm-driven dynamic pricing, day-of-travel surcharges, and the reduction of complimentary check-in baggage allowance from 25 kg to 15 kg.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the notice returnable in four weeks.

The plea asserts that ticket prices can double or triple within hours due to algorithm-driven dynamic pricing, citing fare spikes during the Maha Kumbh pilgrimage and after the Pahalgam terror incident. It states that such volatility affects passengers who lack the ability to plan in advance. It says that in circumstances like medical emergencies, natural calamities or urgent family crises, citizens are left with no choice but to fly.

Kerala Moves Supreme Court Seeking Deferment Of Electoral Rolls' SIR Till Local Body Elections

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Others

The Kerala Government has approached the Supreme Court seeking the deferment of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India in the State, until the ongoing process for elections to the Local Self-government Institutions (LSGIs) is completed.

In its writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, Kerala argues that conducting the SIR simultaneously with local body elections will create significant administrative complications and potentially disrupt the smooth conduct of the polls.

While reserving its right to challenge the SIR process itself at a later stage, the State has clarified that the present plea is limited to seeking postponement of the revision exercise in Kerala.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To ED Officer In Bribery Case

Case Details: Vishal Deep v. CBI | Criminal Appeal No. 4885 /2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to Enforcement Directorate (ED) Assistant Director Vishal Deep, who was arrested by the CBI in a case for allegedly demanding bribes from two college administrators during an investigation into Himachal Pradesh scholarship scam.

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on August 1 that had refused him bail.

Taking note of the fact that chargesheet has already been filed, and considering the period of incarceration, the Court chose to grant relief to the officer. The Court ordered that the officer be released on bail on conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

'Then We Should Monitor Handkerchief Use!' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Eco-Friendly Disposal Of Lawyers' Bands

Case Details: Sakshi Vijay v. Union of India and Others | Wp(C) 1058/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking a uniform and eco-friendly system for the collection, segregation, disposal and recycling of used Advocate Bands in all Courts across the country.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and described herself as the wife of a lawyer. She submitted that during the Diwali break, she found several discarded lawyer bands which, she claimed, were made of non-biodegradable material. She argued that the continued use of such cloth bands contributed to environmental waste and required regulation.

The CJI, however, was unimpressed. Responding to her submissions, he remarked that if such logic were to be followed, the Court would also have to monitor everyday items like handkerchiefs. "Then Court should monitor the use of handkerchiefs," CJI said.

Supreme Court Seeks CBI, ED Response On Plea For Independent Probe Into Alleged Bank Fraud By Anil Dhirubai Ambani Group Companies

Case Details: Eas Sarma v. Union of India and Others | Diary No. 65397-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking a court-monitored investigation into what is described as one of the country's largest banking frauds allegedly involving Reliance Communications Ltd., its group entities and their promoter Anil Ambani.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice to the Union Government, CBI, ED, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group and Anil Ambani on the writ petition filed under Article 32 by former Union Secretary E A S Sarma.

The petitioner alleges large-scale diversion of funds, forgery, fabrication of accounts, use of shell companies and coordinated financial misconduct across the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group.

Disclosure Of Candidates Shortlisted For CIC Appointments Might Be Counter-Productive : Supreme Court

Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., MA 1979/2019 In W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

The Supreme Court again declined to direct the Union Government to publicly disclose the names of candidates shortlisted for appointments to the Central Information Commission (CIC), saying that the same may be counter-productive to the appointment process.

Though the petitioners emphasized that the issue was settled by the Court in 2018 itself and a mandamus be issued for disclosure of candidates' names, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was inclined to leave the issue open. Earlier, on November 17 as well, the Court had turned downthe plea of the petitioners to divulge the names of shortlisted candidates.

It also refused to summon at this stage the Secretary of the Department of Personnel & Training to explain the delay in the appointment process. "If need be, we will do that", said the bench.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union On Plea Against Decision To Stop Patient Care Allowance To Disabled Hospital Staff

Case Details: AIIMS Divyang Federation v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1051/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in an Article 32 writ petition preferred by the AIIMS Divyang Federation espousing the cause of persons with disability, working in different hospitals/healthcare established recognised and funded by the Central Government, whose Patient Care Allowance(PCA) has been stopped by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

As per the writ petition, the PCA has been stopped by respective hospitals in compliance with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's notification dated May 7, read with another notification dated April 21, 2023. It is submitted that this is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution read with concerned provisions of the Rights Of Persons With Disability Act, 2016 and National Trust Act, 1999.

It is stated that the PCA also known as Hospital Patient Care Allowance(HPCA) is a critical security allowance, provided by the Central Government to the non-ministerial employees and ministerial employees who are working as a Group C and D of any Central Government hospital/healthcare establishment with those with 30 or more beds in general hospital and more than 10 beds in super speciality hospitals.

'Why Use Your Machinery For Political Battles?' : Supreme Court Asks CBI In Jharkhand Assembly Appointments Case

Case Details: Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, SLP(C) No. 26367/2024

The Supreme Court, while hearing the issue of a probe into appointments to the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) why it was being used to fight political battles.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the challenge by the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha to the Jharkhand High Court's order of September 2024, which directed a CBI inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the appointments and promotions to the Jharkhand State Assembly (Vidhan Sabha). In November 2024, the Court had stayed the High Court's order. The State of Jharkhand has also filed a separate SLP against the High Court's order.

An interlocutory application filed by the CBI seeking permission to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter was listed.

Supreme Court Lays Down Revised Schedule For Various State Bar Council Elections; Forms Committees To Monitor

Case Details: M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Anr., Wp(C) No. 1319/2023 (And Connected Case Detailss)

The Supreme Court revised the time schedule for holding of State Bar Council elections across 16 States/UTs and ordered that the same be held in 5 phases between January 31, 2026 and April 30, 2026.

To facilitate the elections, the Court further constituted High Powered Election Monitoring Committees (HPEMCs) at regional levels as well as a High Powered Supervisory Committee (to be headed by a former Supreme Court judge). The members of the Committees will be notified by the Court in its uploaded order.

It further permitted advocates registered with State Bar Councils, whose verification of law degrees is still pending, to cast votes on a provisional basis. Their voting is subject to "necessary consequences", as the case may be.

Supreme Court Seeks MP Authorities' Response On Plea Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Accused's Home

Case Details: Imroz Khan v. Sudhir Kumar | SLP(C) No. 033404 - / 2025

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Madhya Pradesh authorities in a plea seeking contempt proceedings for the alleged illegal demolition of the petitioner's house in violation of the Supreme Court's directions.

The petitioner named Imroz Khan, a resident of Sehore District, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's refusal to initiate contempt proceedings. According to the petitioner, his house was demolished following the registration of a false case against him alleging unlwaful religious conversion.

Sr Advocate Dr S Murlidhar, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that the case was a stark example of 'state lawlessness'. He said :

PC-PNDT Act | Supreme Court Asks Central Board To Examine Challenge To Provision Barring Women Under 35 From Pre-Natal Diagnostic Tests

Case Details: Meera Kaura Patel v. Union of India, Wp(C) 1327/2019

The Supreme Court disposed of a 2019 casechallenging the age restriction of 35 years in Section 4(3)(i) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 as an arbitrary restriction on the reproductive rights of women.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed that the entire pleadings in the matter be treated as a representation before the Central Supervisory Board (constituted under the 1994 Act) for its expert consideration.

The order was dictated thus:

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Umar Khalid Can't Claim Parity With Other Accused Who Got Bail : Police To Supreme Court

Case Details: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

The Delhi Police (November 18) argued before the Supreme Court that Umar Khalid cannot claim parity with Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, the co-accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, as the 2021 order of the Delhi High Court giving them bail was passed on an incorrect interpretation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Appearing for the Police, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that the Delhi High Court's 2021 bail judgment in favour of the three correctly held incorrectly that the UAPA applied only to offences concerning the “defence of India”, and therefore the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) was inapplicable.

Raju said that once the High Court concluded that UAPA didn't apply, it wrongly applied Section 439 CrPC instead of Section 437 CrPC, which governs offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to seven years.

'Avoid Bail Litigation': Supreme Court Asks Union To Establish Pan-India Mechanism For Completion Of Special Statute Trials Within 6 Months

Case Details: Mahesh Khatri @ Bholi v. State NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 1422/2025

The Supreme Court called on the Union of India to develop a pan-India mechanism for speedy disposal of special cases' trials within 6 months by establishing dedicated courts across India.

Justice Surya Kant conveyed to the counsels appearing for Union/NIA, "you please talk to the authorities at the highest level. We want a very committed system to be introduced immediately that in all these matters, the trial must be completed in all respects within 6 months...so that issue of consideration of bail, etc., those litigations can be avoided. Nobody will make a hue and cry on this side (petitioners' side) that why I am not being granted bail...unless there are exceptional circumstances (like a strong alibi plea), which can be examined on case-to-basis. But where somebody is found to be prima facie involved, in these kind of heinous crimes, which are against the nation, against the public at large, there, no question of bail for 6 months. But conclude the trial. They also have a right to speedy trial. Both things can be balanced. [Prepare] an infrastructure for this on pan-India basis. We will make sure that these courts exclusively work, maybe day and night."

A bench of Justices Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with two cases (click here and here), where it earlier flagged a need for dedicated courts to conduct exclusive trial of special cases under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

Freebies To Doctors | Supreme Court Calls For Giving Statutory Force To Code Of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices

Case Details: Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court (November 18) pressed the Union government on whether it intends to give statutory backing to the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024, observing that the voluntary regime places consumers at a disadvantage and offers no effective enforcement mechanism against misconduct by pharmaceutical companies.

While Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj stated that the 2024 UCPMP is a shift to a mandatory regime from the completely voluntary 2015 UCPMP, Justice Mehta observed that the Ethics Committee structure in the 2024 Code remained industry-controlled. “Ultimately, what is the control of the government?”, he asked, adding, “Simple solution would be to bring the control order (under Essential Commodities Act). Incorporating the UCPMP in form of a control order will give it teeth.”

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices to curb unethical interactions between pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Kerala High Court's Finding That Munambam Land Isn't Waqf

Challenging theKerala High Court's findingthat the Munambam property is not a Waqf land, an organisation from Kerala has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.

The petition filed by Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi questions the judgment delivered by a division bench of the Kerala High Court on October 10 that upheld the State Government's decision to appoint a one-member Commission of Inquiry to examine the status and extent of a 404.76-acre property in Munambam.

Background

Supreme Court Flags Fake Sureties Furnished By Foreign Nationals, Calls For Mechanism To Ensure Genuineness Of Bail Surety

Case Details: Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Anr.

Before the Supreme, a disturbing pattern of foreign nationals absconding after securing bail through fraudulent sureties in narcotics cases was exposed.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi came across a matter where the Nigerian man involved in drug crimes and arrested under the NDPS Act, was granted bail based on surety, who later turned out to be fictitious. The Court questioned whether the National Informatics Centre's (NIC) surety verification module for trial courts was functional and adequate, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive re-evaluation of surety verification mechanisms across the country.

“The problem of impersonation by sureties appears to be rampant in certain States. Whether the surety module prepared by the National Informatics Centre for Trial Courts in India is functional and operational, and what other mechanism exists for verification of the genuineness of sureties, are issues which, in our considered view, require a comprehensive examination.”, the court noted.

Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Asks CAQM To Consider Directing Postponement Of School Sports Activities In NCR

The Supreme Court (November 19) requested the Commission of Air Quality Management (CAQM) to consider issuing directions to the schools in the Delhi-National Capital Region to postpone the sports and game competitions scheduled in November-December to safer months after improvements in the air quality.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the direction after concerns were raised about the holding of sports competitions at a time when the Air Quality Index has plummeted to dangerous levels.

Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, the amicus curiae in the matter, informed the bench that several NCR schools are going to hold sports meet in November in the middle of severe air pollution. "Children are most vulnerable, holding sports now is like putting them in gas chambers," she submitted.

'Seeing Your Double Standards': Supreme Court Slams SEBI Over Reluctance In Indiabulls' Probe; Questions CBI's 'Cool Attitude'

Case Details: Citizens Whistle Blower Forum v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 2993/2025

During the hearing of Citizens Whistle Blower Forum's pleafor SIT probe against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (now Sammaan Capital), the Supreme Court slammed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) over reluctance to probe allegations against IHFL.

"When question of taking over properties and selling comes, then you say we are the only authority in the country with jurisdiction. But when question of investigation comes? Because your officers have some vested interest? When we are conferring you jurisdiction, [what's the problem?] When we want to give you some authority, why are you reluctant? Every day we see double standards of SEBI! In one of the matters where I constituted a High Powered Committee, your stand was only SEBI has the right to auction the properties. And what you have been auctioning, we know that! 30 crore property, you have sold in few lakhs. When Courts are instructing, you should perform your statutory duty. You say you don't have power. Why are your officers getting salary if you do not have power?" remarked Justice Surya Kant.

Notably, the judge also flagged CBI's "cool attitude" in IHFL's case and questioned Ministry of Corporate Affairs' alleged compounding of about 100 violations in the span of 2 days.

Supreme Court Urges Hindu Women To Make Wills; Mandates Pre-Litigation Mediation In Succession Of Childless Wives Dying Intestate

Case Details – Snidha Mehra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court urged all women, especially Hindu women who may leave behind property after their death, to make a will to ensure that their property is distributed according to their wishes and to avoid future litigation between their parents and in-laws.

“we appeal to all women and particularly all Hindu women irrespective of their age who are likely to be in position of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to take immediate steps to make a testament or will bequeathing their properties including their self-acquired properties in accordance with section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act read with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. We do so in order to safeguard the interest of not only women in this country in general but female Hindus in particular so as to avoid any further litigation”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan declined to decide a PIL challenging Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on merits, and left the question of validity open.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Jyoti Jagtap In Bhima Koregaon Case

Case Details: Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigating Agency and Anr | Crl.A. No. 2598/2023 And the National Investigation Agency v. Mahesh Sitaram Raut and Anr. | Crl.A. No. 3048/2023

The Supreme Court (November 19) granted interim bail to activist and member of cultural organisation Kala Kabir Manch, Jyoti Jagtap, in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad matter till the next date of hearing, which is in February 2026.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order. Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, for Jagtap, told the bench that she has been under custody for over five years.

The bench agreed to grant interim bail till the next date of hearing.

Supreme Court Stays CBI Investigation In Tamil Nadu BSP Leader Armstrong Murder Case

Case Details: Commissioner of Police v. K. Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong and Another | SLP(Crl) No. 15897/2025

The Supreme Court (November 11) stayed the direction for the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the murder case of the BSP leader and prominent Dalit activist Armstrong.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a special leave petition preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Madras High Court's order, which quashed the chargesheet filed by the State Police in the murder case and transferred the investigation to the CBI. Though the Supreme Court, on October 10, stayed the High Court's order quashing the chargesheet, it did not interdict the CBI investigation.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra(appearing for Tamil Nadu police) refuted the allegations that the State police refused to share the record of the case with the CBI. "Entire documentary record of this case that there are 7400 pages, every aspect of the investigation dealt with, every witness dealt with, and the High Court in six para rubbishes my chargesheet-which is what mylords stayed. Now, please see two things. The consequence of the order of the High Court, which mylords were kind to stay, and now accused have been granted bail, which CBI or I will take appropriate recourse because the trial court has taken a view that nothing will happen, every single witness, everything was there on record. This is 7400 pages and my friend says nothing has happened. Additional documents were also on record."

Pollution By Vehicles Not Dependent On Their Age Alone : CJI BR Gavai

Case Details – Mc Mehta v. Union of India Wp (C) 13029/1985

While hearing the Delhi-NCR Air Pollution case, the Chief Justice of Inida verbally remarked that pollution caused by cars/ vehicles may not depend upon their age alone. The distance they have travelled may also need to be factored in.

Some vehicles may cover over 30,000 kilometres in one year, but some others, like the official vehicles of the judges, may not even cross 15,000 km in five years, the CJI said.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran was hearing the issue of air pollution in Delhi-NCR in the MC Mehta Case.

Supreme Court Flags Lacuna In 'Talaq-e-Hasan', Questions Practice Of Husbands' Lawyers Sending Talaq Notices To Wives

Case Details: Benazeer Heena v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 348/2022 (And Connected Case Detailss)

The Supreme Court flagged certain issues in the practice of 'Talaq-e-Hasan', a form of divorce in Islamic law, and raised concerns over the practice of husbands' lawyers sending Talaq notices to wives. This enabled the husbands to later deny issuing Talaq and accuse wives of polyandry when they remarry, the Court observed.

The Court sought for inputs from the parties on the possibility of judicial interference.

Talaq-e-Hasan is a form of divorce in Islamic law where the husband pronounces talaq once a month over a period of three months. It is considered a revocable and staggered form of divorce, unlike instantaneous triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2017).

'Why Not Ask CBI To Investigate?' : Supreme Court Asks Haryana Police In Case Where Advocate Was Arrested

Case Details: Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 471/2025

The Supreme Court asked the State of Haryana why the murder case in which an advocate was arrested should not be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Vikram Singh challenging his arrest and remand in the case. The advocate alleged that he was arrested to extract information about his clients. Last week, the Court had ordered the interim release of the lawyer.

Sr Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that third-degree torture was meted out on the lawyer.

Supreme Court Deletes Direction To Ex-NUJS VC To Mention Dismissal Of Sexual Harassment Complaint In His Resume

Case Details: Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Others | (M.A. D. No. 54540 of 2025 Ors

The Supreme Court deleted a direction contained in its earlier judgment that Professor Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the former Vice Chancellor of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Science, should mention the dismissal of a sexual harassment complaint in his resume.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale deleted the direction in view of the fact that the sexual harassment complaint was dismissed as time-barred and that there was no finding on merits against him.

On September 12, the same bench had held thatthe sexual harassment complaint made by a faculty member of NUJS against the then VC was time-barred as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. While dismissing the complaint, the bench had observed in the concluding paragraph of the judgment - "In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1(Chakrabarti) may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever. Thus, it is directed that this judgment shall be made part of the resume of respondent no.1, compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally."

'TN Governor Judgment Caused Confusion, Authoritative Opinion Needed' : Supreme Court Holds Presidential Reference Maintainable

Case Details: In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation of Bills By The Governor and The President of India

While holding that the President's Referencemade on the issues relating to Bills' assent was maintainable, the Supreme Court observed that the judgment of a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governorcase - which laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act on Bills - had created doubts and confusions.

The 5-judge bench also observed that some of the conclusions in theTamil Nadu case were contrary to precedents.

States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Punjab had objected to the maintainability of the Reference, arguing that the questions raised were already answered by the judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu case. They also argued that the Reference was an "appeal in disguise" and that Article 143 of the Constitution cannot be used to overrule a judgment.

Advocates Should Not Disclose What Transpired In Mediation Between Parties : Supreme Court

While hearing a transfer petition relating to a matrimonial matter, the Supreme Court reprimanded an advocate for disclosing what transpired in mediation between the parties.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the matter. At the outset, he asked the advocate: "Have you not read CrPC, CPC? How can you disclose what happened in mediation?"

Justice Kumar remarked that advocates should be careful in drafting the pleadings, and asked for the advocate to unconditionally withdraw the averments made.

CJI BR Gavai Announces Launch Of New Version Of E-Filing Portal

The Supreme Court launched a new version of the e-filing portal for lawyers and litigants, which also allow online appearances of lawyers.

Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, in the morning session, announced the launch of the new version being floated on a pilot basis. He said that the platform offers e-filing, certified copy, physical hearing with hybrid option through a single login.

"We are trying to adopt Artificial Intelligence into the platform, where it is certainly a breakthrough. This feature will continue to evolve, and the support and cooperation of the members of the bar will be crucial in its capability."

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Police Plays Clips Of Sharjeel Imam's Speeches In Supreme Court; Says Accused Are 'Anti-Nationals'

Case Details: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

The Delhi Police continued its arguments opposing the the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Md Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case in which they are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Delhi Police, played in the Court certain video clips of the provocative speeches made by Sharjeel Imam. The clips showed Imam making statements such as chakka-jams must be held in all Indian cities, Muslims must unite to cut off the 'chicken neck' area connecting India to Assam and cut-off north-east from the mainland, must disrupt supplies of essentials to Delhi, must paralyse the Government, and that the Courts cannot be trusted.

Supreme Court Stays Haryana Police Investigation Against Advocate In Murder Case

Case Details: Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 471/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the investigation by the Haryana Police Special Task Force (STF) against an advocate in connection with a murder case. The Court also confirmed his interim bail.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Vikram Singh challenging his arrest and remand in the case. The advocate alleged that he was arrested to extract information about his clients. Last week, the Court had ordered the interim release of the lawyer.

Sr Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, urged the court to refer the matter to the CBI and call for the status report. He also said that the Court may consider discharging the petitioner from the FIR after the CBI report is filed. He stressed :

Supreme Court Allows Members Of MP Judges Association To Continue In Service Till 61 Years

Case Details: Case Details: Madhya Pradesh Judges Association v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 000986 / 2025

The Supreme Court, as an interim relief, allowed the members of the MP Judges Association to continue their service as district judges till they reach the age of 61 years, as opposed to the earlier superannuation age of 60 years.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and PB Varale was hearing the challenge to the administrative order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which refused to increase the retirement age of judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years. The Petition has been filed by the MP Judges Association.

The Association contends that this was in clear violation of the Supreme Court's directions on May 26. The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih had clarified that there was no impediment in raising the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years and asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take an administrative decision on enhancing the retirement age within 3 months.

'Don't Throw' : CJI BR Gavai Stops Lawyer From Showering Flowers On Him During Farewell

In an unusual moment during the ceremonial farewell for Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, a lawyer attempted to shower flower petals on the retiring CJI inside Courtroom No. 1, prompting a quick but light-hearted intervention from the bench.

A lawyer, while offering his farewell remarks, praised CJI Gavai and then announced that he had brought a packet of flower petals to “shower” on the Chief Justice as a mark of respect. He even opened the packet and took some petals into his hand, preparing for the gesture.

Before he could proceed, CJI Gavai immediately responded from the bench, saying, “No, no, don't throw… hand it over to someone,” drawing laughter across the packed courtroom.

Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association Approaches SC Against Bombay HC Ruling Excluding Bar Council From POSH Act

Case Details: Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order holding that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 does not apply to complaints of sexual harassment made by advocates against other advocates before Bar Councils.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice on the plea and tagged the matter with Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, for the petitioner, submitted that the High Court judgment went against the principles laid down in Aureliano Fernandes, where the Supreme Court had directed that every professional body must have an Internal Complaints Committee.

Supreme Court Dismisses ED's Challenge To Madras High Court's Order Summoning ED Officer In Contempt Matter

Case Details: Joint Director v. Akash Bhaskaran | SLP (Crl) 14728/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging an order of the Madras High Courtissuing notice to an ED officer in a contempt petition. The contempt petition was filed alleging that the ED was continuing the investigation ignoring the High Court's stay order.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi expressed that the bench is not inclined to entertain the ED's petition having regard to the fact that the contempt proceedings are pending in the High Court. Giving liberty to raise all contentions before the High Court, the bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

The case relates to the ED investigation against film producer Aakash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran in a TASMAC-related probe. On July 20, the High Court had stayed the proceedings against them in the money laundering case and directed the ED to return the seized materials to them after prima facie observing that there was no proper authorization for search as per Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To ECI On Pleas To Postpone SIR In Kerala; Hearing On Nov 26

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1136/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India on a petition filed by the Kerala Government seeking to defer the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Kerala till the completion of the local body elections.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, SVN Bhatti and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to post the matter on November 26. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State Government.

Along with the State's petition, the bench also issued notice on the petitions filed by Indian Union Muslim League General Secretary PK Kunhalikutty, KPCC President Sunny Joseph and CPI(M) Secretary MV Govindan Master. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the CPI(M) Secretary and Advocate Haris Beeran for IUML.

Delay In Framing Of Charges | Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Furnish Information Sought By Amicus Curiae

Case Details: Aman Kumar v. State of Bihar | SLP(Crl) No. 8437/2025

In the matter where the Supreme Court has proposed laying down guidelines to avoid delay in the framing of charges by the Trial Courts, the Supreme Court asked the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to furnish to the amici curiae the information sought by them.

The Court observed that the Chief Justices of High Courts can form committees to get the information from the districts and forward them to the amici.

Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Nagamuthu are the amici curiae in the matter.

Never Saw Position Of Judge As Office Of Power, But As Chance To Serve : CJI BR Gavai In Farewell Address

The Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, expressed that he never saw the office of a judge as a position of power but as a means to serve the nation.

Speaking at the ceremonial bench conducted by the Supreme Court to bid him farewell, the CJI expressed :

"As a lawyer and then as the judge of the High Court and then a Supreme Court judge, I have always believed that the office is not an office of power but an opportunity to serve the society, to serve the nation."

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Trial Can Be Completed In 2 Years If Accused Cooperate : Police Tell Supreme Court

Case Details: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

The Delhi police (November 21) told the Supreme Court that the trial in the riots larger conspiracy case - in which Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima etc., are booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act -can be completed within two years if the accused cooperate.

"I can finish the trial in 2 years, provided they cooperate," Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Delhi Police, told a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria.

The bench is hearing the bail petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

Manipur Police Sent Edited Clips For Forensic Analysis : Kuki Group To Supreme Court In Plea For Probe Against Ex-CM Biren Singh

Case Details – Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India

The Kuki Organization for Human Right Trust has told the Supreme Court that the Manipur Police forwarded only short, edited clips to the National Forensic Science University (NFSU), Gandhinagar, instead of the complete 48-minute recording that allegedly contains a conversation implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the 2023 ethnic violence.

“the Respondent forwarded only four short, cut-out clips of durations 0:30, 1:28, 0:36, and 1:47 minutes, recording, instead of the complete 48-minute and 46-second recording, thereby giving an incomplete and misleading representation of the evidence. misleading representation of the evidence. Such selective transmission of material raises serious concern regarding the bona fides of the Respondent's conduct and its impact on the fairness of the ongoing investigation”, the organization has said.

The allegation is made in a detailed affidavit responding to NFSU's report dated October 10, 2025, which found the audio files tampered with and unfit for scientific voice comparison. The affidavit has been filed in the organization's writ petition seeking an independent court-monitored probe into the role of state machinery in the ethnic violence.

Judicial Officers Who Joined Before May 20 Not Bound By 3-Year Practice Mandate To Apply For Services In Other States : Supreme Court

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India

The Supreme Court has clarified that Judicial Officers, who joined the service before the judgment delivered on May 20, 2025 - which reintroduced the mandate for three years' practice at the bar to enter Judicial Service- need not meet this practice condition in case they are applying for judicial services in any other state. However, this is subject to the condition that they have completed three years of service in the present state.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed this order while considering the application filed by a person who has been serving in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service as a Civil Judge Junior Division since 2019. She entered the judiciary within one year of enrollment with the Bar Council of Delhi, since at that time, there was no mandate of minimum practice to join the judicial service.

Now, the applicant is desirous of applying for the Judicial Services in other States. However, since she does not have three years of practice at the bar, she filed the application seeking a clarification.

Supreme Court Seeks ECI Response On Congress MP Tanuj Punia's Plea Against SIR In Uttar Pradesh

Case Details: Tanuj Punia v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1129/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by Congress MP Tanuj Punia challenging special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, SVN Bhatti and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order. It also issued notice on pleas challenging SIR in Kerala and seeking postponement thereof.

Tanuj Punia, a Lok Sabha MP from Barabanki and Chairman of Scheduled Caste Department of Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee, has challenged the notification dated October 27 issued by ECI notifying SIR for Uttar Pradesh.

Judicial Officer Moves Supreme Court Against Penalty Imposed By High Court For Summary Disposal Of Cases

Case Details: SLP(C) No. 32492/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a Judicial Officer's plea against the penalty imposed on her for disposing of 1926 criminal cases in 5 months by stopping proceedings as a Magistrate, without proper application of mind, at the summons stage itself.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate PB Suresh (for the petitioner). The senior counsel argued that the law is settled to the effect that unless there are extraneous considerations attributable to the Presiding Officer, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the judicial discretion exercised by them. He further highlighted that most of the cases disposed of by the petitioner were cases involving penalty of fine.

"[Discretion] exercised in 1926 cases. What kind of message goes?", remarked Justice Mehta.

Supreme Court Shocked By Rajasthan Police's 'Shielding' Of Maharashtra Police Officer In Criminal Case; Orders DGP To Form SIT

Case Details: Sitwat Qazi v. State (Govt. of Rajasthan), T.P.(C) No. 2623/2024

In a case seeking transfer of a contempt petition from Rajasthan to Delhi, the Supreme Court passed a strongly worded order against the Rajasthan police, being of the view that a police officer belonging to Maharashtra was being "shielded".

The Court ordered the Director General of Police, Rajasthan to constitute an impartial high-powered Special Investigation Team of "proven competence" to investigate the case and submit the final report.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra was dealing with the case of a woman-complainant who, in 2017, approached the Rajasthan High Court alleging that she was being stalked by respondent No.8, and respondent No.9 (a police officer in Maharashtra) was assisting respondent no.8. She sought protection against the two respondents.

Improper For Authorities To Pick Up Trivial Omissions In Supreme Court's Order & Defy It : Supreme Court

Case Details: Aftab v. State of Uttar Pradesh | MA 1086/2025 In Crl.A. No. 2295/2025

The Supreme Court observed that it is improper for authorities to defy an order of the Supreme Court citing certain trivial omissions. The Court's observation came in a matter where the Uttar Pradesh prison authorities delayed the release of an undertrial on the ground that the Supreme Court's order granting him bail had omitted to mention one sub-section, although all other particulars related to the crime were clear from the order.

In June, the Court had reprimanded the authorities for delaying the release of the prisoner named Aftab, who was booked under the UP Unlawful Religious Conversions Prohibition Act, over a clerical omission to mention sub-section (i) in the bail order [it mentioned only Section 5 instead of Section 5(i)], and directed the State to payhim an interim compensation of Rs 5 lakhs. The Court had also directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, to conduct an inquiry into the matter.

As a follow-up hearing, the matter was listed before Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan on November 17. The bench was surprised to note that the enquiry report of the District Judge put the blame on the Additional District & Sessions Judge (who passed the release order). The bench wondered how the Additional District and Sessions Judge could be blamed when he was acting in furtherance of the Supreme Court's order.

Supreme Court Bars Union From Disbanding CEC Formed For Forest Protection Without Court's Prior Approval

In a significant order aimed at preserving the functioning of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the Supreme Court directed that the Union of India shall not take any steps to disband the CEC without first obtaining the prior approval of the Court.

The direction was issued in the long-running forest matter, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, while the bench was considering issues relating to staffing and continuation of the CEC, which has been assisting the Court in environmental matters for over 28 years.

Noting that the Committee has now been granted statutory status through a 2023 notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, the Court emphasised that the CEC has played a crucial role in providing factual assessments, conducting inspections, and facilitating numerous orders on environmental protection and conservation.

Supreme Court Publishes Details Of Collegium Recommendations During CJI Gavai's Term

The Supreme Court released an official documentwith details of the recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium during the term of the present Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, who is retiring tomorrow.

As per the document, the Collegium made 93 recommendations for High Courts from May 14, the date on which Justice Gavai took over as the CJI.

Out of the 129 candidates, 93 were approved by the Supreme Court Collegium. Notifications for appointment have been issued by the Union Government in respect of 90 approved names, and three names are still pending with them.

Indian Super League Tender Crisis | Centre Assures Supreme Court ISL Will Be Held

Case Details: All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra and Ors.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the Union Government would step in to ensure that the delayed Indian Super League (ISL) is held without placing players at any disadvantage, in light of the failed tender for All India Football Federation's (AIFF) new commercial partner.

“The Minister is aware of the concern. He assured me the ISL must be held. How it is to be held, what sponsors, who will finance etc. can be left to the government. Government will intervene to ensure that ISL is held and our players are not put to any disadvantage”, he said.

Responding to the Court's concern over government interference, Mehta said the government would intervene only to ensure that players were not put at a disadvantage.

'Dalits, Adivasis, Working Class Face Risk Of Disenfranchisement' : Thol Thirumavalavan Moves Supreme Court Against Tamil Nadu SIR

Member of Parliament and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) president Thol Thirumavalavan has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections. He has sought the quashing of the Election Commission's 27 October 2025 notification initiating the exercise in the State.

In the petition filed under Article 32, the petitioner contends that the SIR is arbitrary, non-transparent, and unconstitutional, and violates multiple fundamental rights, including equality, dignity, and universal adult franchise. He argues that the rushed exercise, announced less than a year before the State goes to polls, poses a serious threat of large-scale voter deletions, particularly among marginalised communities.

According to the petition, the design and timing of the SIR disproportionately burden Dalits, Adivasis, migrant workers, women who relocate after marriage, the working class, disabled persons, and those lacking stable documentation or digital access. Structural barriers such as seasonal migration, informal housing, linguistic challenges and digital illiteracy could make compliance nearly impossible, resulting in wrongful deletions from the rolls.

Before The End Of CJI Gavai's Tenure, Supreme Court's In-House Research Centre Releases 10 Pathbreaking Reports

Before the Chief Justice of India, Justice B.R. Gavai demits office, the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP), the in-house research centre of the Supreme Court of India, has released 10 landmark reports. Collectively, these reports address some of the most pressing issues before the judiciary: including the reform of colonial and caste-coded administrative terminology in court documents, the evolution of judicial discourse on caste, global and national standards on indigenous rights, the strengthening of court research systems, child rights, prison reforms, menstrual leave policy, legal aid capacity-building, and the responsible integration of artificial intelligence in the justice system.

These are now available under the “Publications” tab of CRP: https://www.sci.gov.in/centre-for-research-and-planning/

These 10 reports, produced over months of collaborative legal research, reflect the outgoing Chief Justice's strong commitment to judicial reform, institutional strengthening, and the development of nuanced scholarship on issues affecting courts, legal practitioners, and marginalised communities.

Vijay's TVK Party Approaches Supreme Court Against SIR In Tamil Nadu

Actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam(TVK) party has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Special Intensive Revision(SIR) of the electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.

As per the petition, the SIR constitutes a gross violation of constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326, and is contrary to statutory provisions under Sections 21 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (ROPA).

The petition states that the SIR amounts to a "de novo" preparation of electoral rolls without any recorded reasons or justification, violating the statutory requirement under ROPA.

Justice Surya Kant Takes Oath As 53rd Chief Justice Of India

Justice Surya Kant took oath as the 53rd Chief Justice of India at a ceremony held at the Rashtrapati Bhavan.

President Droupadi Murmu administered the oath, which was taken in Hindi by Justice Kant.

As the CJI, Justice Kant will have a tenure till February 9, 2027.

'How Can Drunken-Driving Accused Go Scot-Free?' Supreme Court Questions UP Law Abating Trials Pending For MV Act Violations Till 2021

Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

While questioning the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Act, 2023, the Supreme Court expressed concern about how the state government could terminate in one go trials pending for Motor Vehicles Act violations for 2 or more years then.

Expressing concern at the UP Amendment Act, as per which the MV Act cases pending as on 31.12.2021 would stand abated, the Court said :

"In a country like India, traffic is a big problem...Citizens are not so disciplined insofar as abiding by the traffic Rules and Regulations is concerned...there has to be some deterrence so that a check remains on people indulging in offences relating to Motor Vehicles Act, more particularly, the youngsters. The consequences, in this regard, would be extremely grave. This is an age of highly powerful cars, and it is a matter of common experience how accidents are being caused because the drivers are unable to control these powerful cars."

'Seems Tax Department Has Not Trusted Even Its Lawyers' : Supreme Court Flags Procedural Delays In IT Dept's Petition Filings

Case Details: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Hyderabad Cricket Association, Hyderabad

The Supreme Court criticised the Income Tax Department for filing its Special Leave Petition after a delay of 524 days, observing that the Department, despite having an entire team of legal experts, failed to act on its own lawyers' advice and instead allowed time to be wasted in unnecessary and prolonged litigation.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Department's explanation for the massive delay, noting that "no one in the Department is taking care to shorten the process" for filing appeals within the statutory timeframe.

The Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), arose from a judgment of the Telangana High Court dated October 12, 2023. The Department's petition, however, only reached the Supreme Court after a delay of over one and a half years.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Income Tax Exemption For Political Parties For Cash Donations Upto Rs 2000

Case Details: Khem Singh Bhati v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1076/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking better transparency in political party-funding, while alleging 'huge discrepancy' between the income tax returns and contribution reports filed by political parties.

The petition challenges the Income Tax Act provision which allows political parties to receive cash donations up to Rs.2000. The petitioner claims that with the phenomenal increase in digital payments across India, there is no justification for allowing cash donations up to Rs.2000.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta called for the response of the respondents, including the Election Commission, after hearing Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria. Emphasizing on transparency in political party funding as a fundamental right recognized in the Electoral Bonds case, Hansaria submitted that tax exemption is available to political parties under the subject provision on the basis that they declare details of contributors with PAN details and bank details.

Except For Extraordinary Circumstances, Urgent Mentioning To Be Done Through Written Slips : CJI Surya Kant

Newly sworn-in Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, clarified that, barring 'extraordinary' situations, requests for urgent listing must be made in writing through a mentioning slip rather than by oral mentioning. He added that the registry would first assess the slip and the grounds of urgency, and the matter would be listed only thereafter.

A counsel made an urgent mention of a matter relating to the demolition of a canteen before the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Baghchi and AS Chandurkar.

Krishna Janmabhoomi Case | Dispute In Supreme Court Over Which Suit Represents Entire Devotees

Case Details – Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman v. Anjuman Islamia, Committee of Shahi Masjid Idgah

In the Krishna Janmabhoomi Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute, the plaintiffs in one suit (filed seeking the removal of the mosque from the contested site) have approached the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court allowing the plaintiffs in another suit to be treated as representatives of the entire devotees of Lord Krishna.

Altogether, there are 18 suits on the issue, which the Allahabad High Court has transferred to itself. 15 of them are consolidated and the remaining are listed separately. In July this year, the High Court allowed the plaintiffs in the suit no.17 to be treated as the representatives of the entire devotees. Suit number 17 was filed in the name of the deity Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman through next friend. The other plaintiffs in suit no.17 are Surendra Kumar Gupta, Mahabir Sharma and Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava.

Challenging this order of the Allahabad High Court, the plaintiffs in suit no.1, which is also filed in the name of the deity through next friend, approached the Supreme Court. The other plaintiffs in the suit no.1 are Ranjana Agnihotri, Pravesh Kumar, Rajesh Mani Tripathi, Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Shivaji Singh, and Tripurapuri Tiwari.

Supreme Court Seeks Status Of NIA Probe Into Deaths Of 10 Persons In Manipur CRPF Camp Encounter

Case Details: Vanrampani v. Union of India | Diary No. - 44574/2025

The Supreme Court sought responses from the Union and the State of Manipur in a plea seeking an investigation into the killings of 10 persons at a CRPF camp in Manipur last year.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Baghchi and AS Chandurkar agreed to consider the matter and issued notice to the Union and the State of Manipur.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner, Adv Vishwajeet Singh, stressed, "At least a status report may be called for, we ( family of the deceased) are entitled to know the status of the investigation."

'District Judge Stooped So Low To Take Vengeance Against His PSO' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Vigilance Enquiry

Case Details: Pa. U. Chemmal v. Lokeshwaran Ravi and Ors., Diary No. 65129-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a District Judge's plea against Vigilance Enquiry, after he was accused of misusing his position to seek vengeance against his own former Personal Security Officer (PSO).

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the petitioner-judge.

Briefly put, the petitioner challenged a Madras High Court order, whereby the Registrar (Vigilance) was directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled against him regarding misuse of power and bias.

'97 Laws Have Provisions Discriminatory Towards Leprosy-Affected Persons': NHRC Tells Supreme Court; Gives Recommendations

Case Details: Federaton of Lepy. Organ. (FOLO) . and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 83/2010 (And Connected case)

The National Human Rights Commission informed the Supreme Court that there are 97 existing laws at the Central/State level which contain provisions discriminatory towards leprosy-affected persons.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with a PIL initiated in 2010, where it had directed the States to form a Committee to identify provisions in various laws, etc. which discriminate against leprosy-affected or cured persons, and take steps for their removal so that they conform with constitutional obligations.

Insofar as the National Human Rights Commission was found to have independently examined the issue, the Court had ordered that the Secretary of NHRC shall furnish the details to the Court after getting approval from NHRC Chairman.

'Gross Indiscipline' : Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Christian Army Officer For Refusal To Participate In Religious Parades

Case Details: Samuel Kamalesan v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 25838/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a Christian officer named Samuel Kamalesan challenging his termination from the Indian Armed Forces over refusal to participate in regimental weekly religious parades.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order, which upheld his termination from service.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, told the bench that his client was dismissed only for one infraction, which was his refusal to enter the innermost sanctum sanctorum of a temple at the place of his posting. He added that the petitioner used to participate in places where there were "sarva dharma sthals"

Supreme Court Asks Petitioners Alleging Sexual Abuse In ISKCON-run Schools To Approach Child Rights Commissions

Case Details: Rajneesh Kapur v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 398/2025 Diary No. 51457 / 2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking an investigation into alleged instances of sexual abuse in schools run by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness(ISKCON), allowing the petitioners to approach the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the State Commissions in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal with a fresh representation.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan heard the plea, in which the petitioners alleged that internal records indicated serious cases of sexual abuse and that complaints made to authorities had not elicited any action. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the material placed before the Court was only a small part of what they believed to be a larger pattern of abuse, and that earlier representations to child rights bodies had gone unanswered.

Justice Nagarathna asked the petitioners to send another reminder to NCPCR and the State Commissions, and sought clarity on whether any FIRs or investigations had been initiated. The counsel responded that their knowledge was limited but that complaints had been lodged with the police.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On MDMK Leader Vaiko's Plea Challenging SIR In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: Vaiko v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1099/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by MDMK founder and former Rajya Sabha MP Vaiko challenging Election Commission's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order. The matter is next listed for consideration on December 2.

Vaiko challenges Tamil Nadu SIR saying that the notification is violative of Articles 14, 19,21, 325, 326 of the Constitution of India and various provisions of Representation of People Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules,1960.

Maharashtra Local Body Polls | Further Elections You Notify Must Be Within 50% Reservation Limit, Supreme Court Tells SEC

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

The Supreme Court (November 25) adjourned the hearing of the Maharashtra local body elections matter till Friday, after the State of Maharashtra sought time, saying that they are in consultation with the State Election Commission on the issue regarding 50% ceiling limit for reservations in the local bodies.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, for the State Election Commission, informed the bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that elections to 242 Municipal Councils and 42 Nagar Panchayats have already been notified to be held on December 2. Out of these 288 local bodies, 50% reservation limit is crossed in 57 bodies, Singh added.

Singh further informed that elections to the Zila Parishads, Municipal Corporations, and Panchayat Samitis are yet to be notified.

'We Should Not Divide Society On Caste Lines': CJI Surya Kant In Maharashtra Local Body Elections Matter

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

"Whatever we do, we should not divide the society on caste lines," said Chief Justice of India Surya Kant during the hearing of the Maharashtra local body elections matter.

The remark came as parties expressed concern over the possible exclusion of Other Backward Classes from representation in grassroots democracy if the 50% ceiling on reservations is insisted in the local body elections. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, supporting the reservation, said that since many areas of Maharashtra have a substantial tribal population, the SC-ST reservation alone will constitute 50% in those regions, and hence, there will not be any space for OBC reservation. She also pointed out that no caste census has been conducted since 1931, but noted that a fresh census is now proposed, which would help determine the OBC population percentage.

Opining that OBCs cannot be completely excluded, CJI Kant remarked, "how can there be democracy by excluding OBCs?" Later, in passing, the judge voiced his belief that society must not be divided on caste lines.

CCTVs In Police Stations : Supreme Court Grants Final Deadline To States/UTs For Compliance Affidavits; Directs Secretary's Appearance On Default

Case Details: In Re Lack Of Functional CCTVs In Police Stations Versus, SMW(C) No. 7/2025

The Supreme Court granted 3 weeks to the States and UTs that have not filed their compliance affidavits in the matter relating to the lack of functional CCTV Cameras in police stations across the country.

The Court added that in case of non-compliance with the deadline, Chief Secretaries are to be present in the Court on the next hearing.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the Suo-motu case of the lack of functional CCTV Cameras in police stations across the country.

Supreme Court Leaves Open Question Whether Customs Can Seize Goods Which Left Port

Case Details: Commissioner of Customs, Airport Special Cargo v. Epsilon Eye Care Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) view that once goods are cleared from the port, customs authorities lose their power to confiscate them for violations such as non-compliance with license requirements.

However, the bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan left open the question whether the Customs Authorities would have a right to confiscate the goods after they had left the Port

The dispute arose when customs authorities intercepted postal parcels containing intraocular lenses (IOLs) imported by Respondent Epsilon Eye Care in 2022. The Department alleged undervaluation and a lack of a valid import license, leading to a demand of over ₹10 crores.

Supreme Court Directs Kerala Govt To Establish Primary Schools In Areas Lacking Them

Case Details: State of Kerala v. T. Muhammed Faisi and Another | SLP(C) 12939-12940/2021

The Supreme Court directed the Kerala government to take immediate steps to establish government lower primary and upper primary schools in all regions where none currently exist, emphasising that the right to education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act) 2009 cannot be denied due to geographical or financial constraints.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld a Kerala High Court direction requiring the State to set up a school in an area that had no educational facility within a 3-4 km radius. Calling the High Court's order “justified and valid,” the Court granted the State three months to ensure compliance.

The bench was dealing with the State's petition challenging the High Court's direction to establish a lower primary school in a remote village in Malappuram district. While refusing to entertain the State's challenge, the bench also issued a general direction for the establishment of schools in areas lacking educational facilities.

MV Act | Supreme Court Refers Issues Regarding Cashless Treatment To Justice Sapre Committee's Examination

Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

The Supreme Court referred to the Justice AS Sapre Committee (Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety) issues pertaining to cashless treatment and complete insurance coverage for road accident victims.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan was dealing with intervention applications filed by Advocate Kishan Chand Jain in the 2012 PIL of Dr. S Rajaseekaran (Chairman and Head of Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore) relating to road accident deaths.

One of these applications sought a direction to the Union of India to formulate a scheme under Section 162(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby requiring insurance companies to provide cashless treatment for road accident victims in hospitals, who are entitled to benefits under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Cover, and also to reimburse post-discharge medical expenses, time-to-time, within 2 weeks of submitting invoices and supporting documents for timely financial support and uninterrupted medical care for accident victims post discharge.

Supreme Court To Examine Private Universities' Functioning Across Country, Seeks Details From Govts & UGC

Case Details: Ayesha Jain v. Amity University, Noida & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No.531/2025

Expressing its intention to examine the functioning of private universities across the country, the Supreme Court sought details from the Union Government, the State/UT Governments to furnish comprehensive details on the creation, functioning and regulatory oversight of all private and deemed-to-be universities.

The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria passed the order while hearing a peculiar case, which started with a student filing a writ petition seeking a direction for the Amity University to accept her official name change. The Court has now converted it to a public interest litigation seeking information on how private universities are being regulated.

"This Court would like to have details from the Government(s) as to the background/circumstances and under which provisions of law all private/non-government/deemed-to-be Universities came into being and further, what benefits the Government has granted to them, including the stipulations and conditions under which such benefits, both in terms of allotment of land, preferential treatment of any kind and/or other ancillary benefits conferred upon them. The Government(s) shall also furnish details of the memorandum of articles and aims and objectives of the societies/organizations and persons who are actually running/managing/in-control of the said bodies/Universities, whether through an apex body/Managing Committee/Board of Governors, i.e., by whatever nomenclature the top decision-making body is known as also their composition and mode of selection to such bodies which run the institutions."

Supreme Court Suggests Union Bring Back Persons Deported To Bangladesh Over Nationality Suspicion For Hearing Opportunity

Case Details: Union of India v. Bhodu Sekh and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 18658/2025 (And Connected case)

The Supreme Court suggested to the Union government to bring back as a temporary measure certain West Bengal residents alleged to have been deported to Bangladesh on suspicion of being foreigners.

Commenting that the deportees, who claim to be Indian citizens, had a right to plead their case before the authorities with supporting documents, the Court suggested that the government bring them back as an interim measure and give them an opportunity of hearing. It also said that the government agencies can verify the genuineness of the deportees' documents.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and made the suggestion to a counsel appearing on behalf of the Union. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Sanjay Hegde appeared for the petitioners.

'Pendency Of This Court Is 90,000; Will Cross A Lakh; Who's Responsible?' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Lawyer For Adjournment

The Supreme Court criticised the practice of lawyers seeking adjournments to obtain instructions from clients, observing that such conduct contributes to the mounting pendency before the Court.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan pulled up the counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka after she sought time to obtain instructions in a criminal case concerning allegations of trespass and theft of coffee beans.

“Whenever we ask a question, learned counsel will say I have to seek instructions. That's how matters are getting adjourned. The pendency of this court is 90,000. Who is responsible for it? It will cross a lakh”, Justice Nagarathna said.

Andhra Pradesh Liquor Scam: Supreme Court Exempts Ex- CM's Secretary & OSD, Director Of Balaji Cements From Surrender

The Supreme Court (November 26) exempted three accused in the Andhra Pradesh liquor scam from surrendering in terms of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order which cancelled the default bail granted to them.

The interim relief is granted to retired IAS officer K. Dhanunjaya Reddy (former Secretary in the CMO), Krishna Mohan Reddy (former OSD to former Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy), and Balaji Govindappa (director of Bharati Cements). As per the High Court's order, they were supposed to surrender on November 26. The High Court, while setting aside the default bail, asked the accused to surrender before the trial court before November 26 and seek regular bail.

While issuing notice on their special leave petitions challenging the High Court's order, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi exempted the petitioners from surrender. Noting that there are several witnesses, nearly 200, the bench observed that the trial will take time.

Kerala SIR | 99% Of Voters Given Forms, No Need To Defer Process Citing Local Body Polls : ECI Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1136/2025 and Connected Matters.

Opposing the pleas to defer the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Kerala, the Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court that 99% of voters have been supplied with the enumeration forms, and 50% of the forms have been digitised.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that there was no need to defer the SIR due to the local body election process, saying that the ECI was acting in coordination with the State Election Commission.

"The State Election Commission and the Election Commission of India are collaborating with each other. There was a meeting with the officials of various districts. There's no problem; we just need a small section of BLOs. The Commissions are not finding any difficulty. The SEC also said our work is not hampered," Dwivedi submitted.

'We Can Direct ECI To Extend Date For Publication Of Draft Rolls If Case Made Out' : Supreme Court In Pleas Against SIR In WB, TN

While hearing the petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court (November 26) orally remarked that it can extend the deadline for the publication of the draft electoral rolls if found necessary.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made this oral comment when the parties appearing in the West Bengal matter raised concerns about the Court posting the case to December 9, which is the date for publication of the draft roll as per the SIR schedule.

"So what? If you make out a case, then we can direct them to extend the date. Can that date be a ground for the Court to say that we don't have any power now? Court can always say," CJI Kant said.

Supreme Court Seeks Medical Board's Report On Father's Plea Seeking Passive Euthanasia For Son In Vegetative State

Case Details: Harish Rana v. Union of India | Ma 2238/2025 In SLP(C) No. 18225/2024

Hearing a plea seeking passive euthanasia for a 32-year-old man who has remained in a vegetative state for the past 12 years after falling from a building, the Supreme Court directed the District Hospital in Noida to constitute a Permanent Medical Board in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Common Cause judgment of 2018.

The Court instructed the Board to evaluate the patient's medical condition and submit a report on whether life-sustaining treatment may be withdrawn.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order in terms of the2018 constitution bench judgment in Common Cause, in which the Supreme Court recognised passive euthanasia, and also in terms of the January 2023 modified order, in which the previous guidelines for Living Will/Advance Medical Directive were modified to make it workable. In the 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court recognised the fundamental right to die with dignity.

Foreign Chief Justices Witness Supreme Court Proceedings, Laud India's Judiciary & Jurisprudence

In a rare and historic moment, Chief Justices of Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Mauritius, along with a judge of the Supreme Court of Nepal, joined the bench of the Chief Justice of India to witness proceedings in the Supreme Court for a short while.

CJI Surya Kant welcomed the visiting dignitaries warmly, calling their presence a “historic occasion.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also extended greetings on behalf of the Government of India.

Those who joined CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on the bench included Chief Justice of Bhutan Lyonpo Norbu Tshering, Chief Justice of Kenya Martha Koome, Chief Justice of Mauritius Rehana Bibi Mungly-Gulbul, Chief Justice of Sri Lanka Padman Surasena and Justice Sapna Pradhan Malla of the Nepal Supreme Court. Tan Sri Datuk Nalini Pathmanathan from the Federal Court of Malaysia and Justices Thurairaja PC and A H M D Nawaz from the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka were present in the courtroom.

Can't Go For Walks Due To Delhi's Pollution, Says CJI Surya Kant; Agrees To Consider Request For Virtual Hearings

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that the air pollution in Delhi has made it difficult even to go for a walk outdoors. He said he experienced significant discomfort after taking a 55-minute walk the previous day.

CJI Surya Kant made the observation when Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi sought to be excused from the SIR hearing due to poor health. The CJI asked whether his condition was linked to Delhi's weather, and Dwivedi agreed.

“The only exercise I do is walking. But even that is difficult now. Yesterday I walked for 55 minutes, and till morning I had problems,” the CJI said.

Kerala Govt Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Permission To Use HMT Land For 'Judicial City' To Relocate High Court

Case Details: HMT (Machine Tools) Ltd v. Taluk Land Board Kanayannur & Ors | Civil Appeal No.271 of 2016

The Kerala Government has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to take possession of 27 acres of land currently held by Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT) at Kalamassery, for establishing a proposed “Judicial City” meant to house the Kerala High Court's judicial wing and associated infrastructure.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the HMT and other respondents on the application.

The State has sought permission to " take possession of 27 acres now under the possession of HMT subject to the state depositing the compensation for transfer of 27 acres, as per the `Basis Valuation Report, 2014' by way of an FDR, in the name of the Registrar General of the High Court, in a nationalized bank"

Will Soon Decide Case That Froze 'Ritu Chhabaria' Judgment On Incomplete Chargesheet- Default Bail : CJI

The Chief Justice of India said that it will soon decide the matter in which the 2023 judgment in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India And Ors has been kept in abeyance. In Ritu Chhabaria, a two-judge bench held that the filing of an incomplete chargesheet will not defeat the right of the accused to seek default bail.

However, the effect of the judgment was suspended by a 3-judge bench in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar by ordering that Courts should not consider applications seeking default bail relying on Ritu Chhabaria principle.

Let New UP Societies Bill Be Assented To & Notified On Passing By Assembly : Supreme Court

Case Details: Cm Zila Mahila Samiti v. State of U.P., C.A. No. 14257/2025

The Uttar Pradesh government told the Supreme Court that it will be soon bringing a law to repeal and replace the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the state. Hearing the submission, the Court directed that as and when the proposed Bill is passed by the State Assembly, the same be notified and assented to at the earliest.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.

The case pertained to a Bulandshahr-based Society working for destitute women, where the post of ex-officio President was occupied by the wife of a District Magistrate.

Supreme Court Hears Plea Challenging Formation Of Bombay High Court's Kolhapur Bench

Case Details: Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra | W.P.(C) No. 914/2025

The Supreme Court (November 26) heard a writ petition filed by advocate Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar, challenging the August 1 notification of the Bombay High Court issued under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, for the creation of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench, which became effective from August 18. Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai inaugurated the Kolhapur Bench.

As per the petition, he has challenged the notification for not fully appreciating the Jaswant Singh Commission's report on the 'General Question of having Benches of the High Courts at places away from their Principal Seats and Board Principles and Criteria to be followed in regard thereto'.

As per the 1985 Report, the establishment of such benches away from the Principal Seat was to be an exception rather than a norm. Apart from the distance consideration, these criteria included whether the litigation in the principal seat from the said area was at least 1/3rd of the total number of cases, the disposal rate at the High Court itself, and whether an increase in the strength of Judges would be an effective remedy.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Women's Reservation In Upcoming State Bar Council Elections

Case Details: Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 581/2024

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on December 1, the issue of adequate representation of women members in the State Bar Council elections across the country.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghchi issued notice in an interlocutory application seeking directions for ensuring that adequate women representation is there before the onset of State Bar Elections across the country in a phased format.

No Voter Came Forward To Challenge Exclusion Despite Apprehensions Of Mass Deletions After Bihar SIR : Supreme Court

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected case)

The Supreme Court heard extensive arguments on the legality and process of the Electoral Roll Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, during the hearing, observed that despite the widespread apprehension voiced earlier about mass exclusions in Bihar, not a single voter had come forward to challenge a deletion. This suggested that the deletions from the Bihar roll on grounds of death, migration and duplication were correctly done, the bench surmised.

The bench was hearing petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and other petitioners, including political leaders and civil society organisations, questioning the legality of the SIR process. It may be noted that the bench was not hearing any State-specific issue and was hearing the broader legal questions. The petitions related to Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have been posted to future dates, seeking the ECI's response.

Union Files Curative Petition Against 9-Judge Bench Judgment Upholding States' Power To Levy Tax On Minerals

The Union Government has filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court against the 9-judge bench judgment which upheld the power of the States to levy tax on mining rights and mineral-bearing lands.

In July 2024, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 8:1 majority, in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority Of India, held that Royalty is not within the nature of a tax and that the legislative power to tax mineral rights vests with the state legislatures. In August 2024, the 9-judge bench refused the Union's plea to give the judgment only a prospective effect and allowed the States to recover the past tax dues, but not for a period before April 1, 2005. The Court also allowed the assesses to pay those dues in a staggered manner in 12 instalments spread over 12 years from April 1, 2026. In October 2024, the Court had dismissed the Union's review petition filed against the judgment.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the Union has filed a curative against the judgment. The SG made this statement in response to a mentioning by another counsel who sought the listing of over 80 appeals which were sent to regular bench after the 9-judge bench's decision on the reference.

What Magic Wand Does Judiciary Have To Cure Delhi's Air Pollution Immediately? Supreme Court

While agreeing to list the Delhi air pollution matter (MC Mehta case) next Monday, the Supreme Court remarked that the judiciary cannot be expected to pass any miraculous orders to solve the issue instantly.

"What magic wand can a judicial forum exercise? I know this is hazardous for Delhi NCR... Tell me, what can we direct so that there is clean air immediately?" CJI Surya Kant asked when Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, the amicus curiae in the MC Mehta case, sought the urgent listing of the case. The amicus flagged the “alarming situation” in Delhi NCR and described the present conditions as a “health emergency”.

CJI Surya Kant responded by acknowledging the severity of the crisis but underlined the structural constraints of judicial intervention. “We all know the problem. We need to identify all the reasons. There is no one single reason; it would be a mistake to think so.”

Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Relating To Validity Of West Bengal Door Step Ration Scheme In January

Case Details: State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Sekh Abdul Majed and Ors. | C.A. No. 1444/2024

The Supreme Court adjourned till January 2026 the hearing of the petitions relating to the validity of the 2021 West Bengal Duare Ration scheme, under which the State government delivers foodgrains through the public distribution system at the doorsteps of beneficiaries.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter till January 15 based on the request made by the State's lawyers, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Rakesh Dwivedi. Sibal sought adjournments due to his prior engagement in the matter relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in various States, which is being heard by the Chief Justice's bench.

The West Bengal Government has challenged the September 28, 2022, order whereby a division bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Roy and Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash held the scheme to be illegal and ultra vires of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA, 2013). It was observed that the State Government has transgressed the limit of delegation by obliging the Fair Price Shop dealers to distribute the rations to the beneficiaries at their doorstep in the absence of any authority to that effect in the enabling Act, i.e. NFSA. (Sekh Abdul Majed v. State of West Bengal & Ors).

Self-Regulation For Online Media Ineffective; Need Independent & Autonomous Body For Effective Regulation, Says Supreme Court

Case Details:

The Supreme Court (November 27) stressed the need for a "neutral, independent and autonomous" body to regulate obscene, offensive or illegal content in online platforms, expressing dissatisfaction with the efficacy of the "self-regulation" model being followed by media entities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petitions filed by podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia and others challenging the FIRs related to the obscene content in the "India's Got Latent" show. Earlier, the bench had expanded the scope of the matter to consider guidelines against online obscenity.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and Solicitor General for India Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the Union Government has proposed some new guidelines and is in the process of consultation with the stakeholders.

Supreme Court Asks Samay Raina & 4 Other Comedians To Conduct Events To Raise Funds For Persons With Disabilities

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

The Supreme Court (November 27) directed comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagadish Tanwar to telecast programs in their shows about the success stories of persons with disabilities to generate funds for the treatment of disabled persons, especially those suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).

They have been asked to do so as a reparation for their insensitive jokes about the disabled.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that such programs be held at least twice a month. The bench said that they can invite specially abled persons on their platforms to promote the cause of generating funds to provide timely treatment to those suffering from rare diseases such as Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

Retired IPS Officers' Forum Moves Supreme Court Against Pension Rule Creating Pay Disparity For Pre-2006 Retirees

Case Details: Forum of Retired Indian Police Service Officers (FORIPSO) v. Union of India & Ors | Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 48588/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition filed by the Forum of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) for declaring the "Validation of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and Principles for Expenditure on Pension Liabilities from the Consolidated Fund of India” under Part IV of the Finance Act, 2025 as ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The association of retired IPS officers have come before the Court, stating that the said part of the Finance Act introduced with retrospective effect has been passed to nullify the effect of the Delhi High Court's judgment dated March 20, 2024, which was upheld by the Supreme Court on October 4, 2024. By the said orders, it was held that no distinction in pension can be made on the basis of date of retirement. To briefly put it, the petitioner had challenged the pay disparity created between pensioners who retired prior to January 1, 2006 and post January 1, 2006.

A bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Prasanna B. Varale issued notice to the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Finance, and the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare.

ECI Cannot Rely Upon Article 324 To Justify SIR When RP Act Does Not Recognise Present Process : Petitioners To Supreme Court

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Connected Matters

In the petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India, the petitioners told the Supreme Court that the ECI does not have the powers under the Representation of the People's Act, 1950, to carry out the SIR in the present manner.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the ECI cannot fall back upon its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India to justify the SIR, since there are precedents which hold that once the field is occupied by the Parliamentary law (RP Act), then the EC has to act as per the statute.

Singhvi pointed out that the enumeration forms for the SIR have no statutory recognition. The RP Act and the Rules do not recognise the enumeration form. He relied on the judgment in AC Jose v Sivan Pillai (1984) which held that "where there is an Act and there are express Rules made thereunder, it is not open to the Commission is over-ride the Act or the Rules and pass orders in direct disobedience to the mandate contained in the Act or the Rules. The Powers of the Commission are meant to supplement rather than supplant the law (both statute and Rules) in the matter of superintendence, direction and Control as provided by Article 324."

Why Railways Provide Accident Insurance Cover Only To Online Ticket Buyers? Supreme Court Asks

Case Details – Union of India v. Radha Yadav

The Supreme Court asked Indian Railways to explain why accident insurance cover is available only to passengers who purchase tickets online and not to those who buy tickets offline.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran also directed the Railways to focus on safety of railway tracks and railway crossings.

“we are of the considered opinion that, at the initial stage, the focus should be on the safety of the tracks and the railway crossings, from which other aspects would emerge”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Dismisses Byju Raveendran's Appeal Against NCLAT Order Mandating CoC Nod For BCCI's Plea To Withdraw CIRP

Case Details – Byju Raveendran v. Pankaj Srivastava and Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Byju Raveendran, suspended director and promoter of Think and Learn Private Ltd (which ran the Ed-Tech firm Byju's), challenging an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which held that the approval of the Committee of Creditors is necessary for the application filed by the BCCI to withdraw the insolvency proceedings against Byju's.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan dismissed the appeal. Earlier, in July, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeals filed by the BCCI and Riju Raveendran against the same NCLAT order.

The primary question raised in the appeal was whether the withdrawal of CIRP, through Form FA submitted by BCCI on 16 August 2024, was made before or after the constitution of CoC. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, particularly Paras 63(ii), 78 and 79, to assert that the case falls under the pre-CoC category.

Supreme Court Criticises Kerala Governor's Delay In VC Appointments; Asks Him To Decide Soon On Justice Dhulia's Report

Case Details: Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State of Kerala and Ors | SLP(C) No. 20680-20681/2025

The Supreme Court (November 28) criticised the Kerala Governor for delaying action on the report submitted by the Justice(retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia regarding the appointments of Vice Chancellors of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology in the State.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that the Governor is expected to take a decision soon on the recommendations of the Justice Dhulia committee.

It may be recalled that the Court had, in August, constituted a search committee headed by Justice Dhulia to shortlist names for VC appointments in view of the stalemate between the State Government and the Chancellor (Governor). The Court had also directed the Chancellor to make the appointments in the same order of preference as recommended by the Chief Minister.

'Unacceptable': Supreme Court Asks How Pinnelli Brothers Accessed Case Diary In TDP Workers' Murder Case; Refuses Anticipatory Bail

Case Details: Pinnelli Rama Krishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13622/2025 (And Connected case)

The Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail pleas filed by YSRCP leader and former MLA Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy, as well as his brother Pinnelli Venkatarami Reddy, in the double murder case of two Telegu Desam Party (TDP) activists.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Pinnelli brothers to surrender within 2 weeks, while expressing displeasure at their alleged obtaining of case diary material at ongoing stage through suspicious means, before filing of the chargesheet.

At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the complainant raised a preliminary objection, saying that the petitioners (Pinnelli brothers) have filed their S.161 statements (of the witnesses) recorded before the Investigating Officer. "I want to raise a question as to how they have a copy of the S.161 statements? They have filed it as well before this Court!"

Maharashtra Local Body Polls | Remaining Elections Be Notified But No Reservation Above 50%, Orders Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court (November 28) restrained the Maharashtra State Election Commission from notifying reservations in excess of 50% in the local bodies, where elections are yet to be notified. The elections of the local bodies where reservation in excess of 50% has already notified will be subject to the outcome of the result of the writ petitions, the Court stated.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing writ petitions challenging the OBC reservation in the Maharashtra local bodies.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, for the State Election Commission, told the bench that there are 246 Municipal Councils and 42 Nagar Panchayats where the election process has already commenced, and voting is scheduled on December 2. Out of these, there are 40 Municipal Councils and 17 Nagar Panchayats where reservation is exceeding 50%. However, elections to 29 Municipal Corporations, 32 Zilla Panchayats and 346 Panchayat Samitis are yet to be notified.

Supreme Court Appreciates SCBA For Raising Menstrual Dignity Matter, Issues Notice On Plea Against 'Period Checks' At Workplaces

Case Details – Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) plea seeking formulation of binding guidelines to ensure that the privacy, dignity, bodily autonomy and health of women are not violated when they are menstruating or facing related gynaecological issues at workplaces and educational institutions.

SCBA approached the Court after reports emerged that women sanitation workers at Maharshi Dayanand University in Haryana were allegedly subjected to degrading checks to verify whether they were menstruating.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan appreciated the SCBA for taking up this issue and remarked that if a worker on account of menstruation was unable to perform heavy tasks, another employee could have been assigned.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Stipend For Foreign Medical Graduates In Gujarat

Case Details: All India Parents Association Belarus Medical Students v. National Medical Commission | D No. 55061/2025

The Supreme Court (November 28) issued notice in a writ petition filed by the All-Indian Parents Association Belarus Medical Students raising the issue of non-payment of stipend to foreign medical graduates in the State of Gujarat.

The petition raises the issue of disparity in payment of stipend to Indian Medical Graduates and Foreign Medical Graduates. It is stated that despite many circulars from the National Medical Commission(NMC), the stipend is not paid to the Foreign Medical Graduates. It also focuses on the fact that the provision of a stipend is governed under Clause 3 (Schedule IV) of the National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021.

Clause 3, Schedule IV of the Regulation reads: "3. Stipend a) All interns shall be paid stipend as fixed by the appropriate authority applicable to the institution/ University or State. (b) Stipend may not be paid during any period of extension except in the case of maternity or paternity leave or medical leave, as may be recommended and approved by the Medical Board. Total stipend paid for the entire internship may be for fifty-two weeks (Twelve months) only."

Supreme Court Rejects Foreign LL.B. Holder's Plea Against BCI's Additional Qualifying Exam Condition Despite Bridge Course Completion

Case Details: Saanil Patnayak v. Bar Council of India W.P.(C) No. 1132/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging Bar Council of India's requirement of an additional qualifying exam for Indian nationals holding foreign law degrees, despite completion of the prescribed bridge course.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Advocates PB Sashaankh and Vipin Nair for the petitioner and Advocate Radhika Gautam for the BCI.

The petitioner, a 25-year-old Indian citizen holding a foreign LL.B. degree, pled that despite completing the Indian equivalent Bridge Course in a Goa University as prescribed by BCI in a 2016 notification, and passing its formal exam, he was being compelled to undergo an additional "qualifying examination" to be eligible for sitting in the AIBE and getting enrolled as an advocate in India.

'Alarming' : Supreme Court On Allegations Of Fabrication Of Evidence By MP Police; Seeks Response From Senior Officers

Case Details: Anwar Hussain v. State of Madhya Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 14087/2025

The Supreme Court has taken serious note of allegations of police misconduct in Madhya Pradesh, impleading senior police officers after finding that a false affidavit had been filed before it and that further claims of fabricated evidence had been raised against the same officials.

The proceedings arise out of a case in which the Madhya Pradesh Police admitted to submitting an incorrect affidavit attributing eight criminal antecedents to a petitioner accused of storing fortified rice meant for public distribution. When the matter came before a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sandeep Mehta on November 4, it emerged that in four of the cited cases, including one involving rape, the petitioner was not even an accused. The State sought to explain this as a “computer-generated” mix-up due to the petitioner and his father sharing the same name.

Disturbed by the submission of an erroneous affidavit, the Court had earlier summoned Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Officer in Charge) Dishesh Aggarwal and Station House Officer Indramani Patel, directing them to appear on November 25 and file their explanations.

'Frivolous Cases Waste Judicial Time' : Supreme Court Raps Income Tax Dept For Filing SLP On Settled Issue

The Supreme Court pulled up the Income Tax Department for filing yet another Special Leave Petition (SLP) in a matter already settled by the Court, calling it a frivolous exercise that contributes to mounting pendency.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an SLP challenging a Karnataka High Court order on tax deduction at source (TDS) liability, an issue the Supreme Court had already decided last year in a case involving Vodafone Idea, holding that payments made to non-resident telecom operators were not liable for TDS.

Supreme Court Refers Plea Seeking Separate Personal Law For Buddhists To Law Commission

Case Details: Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 1138/2025

The Supreme Court referred to the consideration of the Law Commission of India a plea seeking separate personal laws for the Buddhist Community.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghchi was hearing a PIL filed by the Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee.

The Committee sought to have separate personal laws for the Buddhist community.

West Bengal School Recruitment | Ensure Tainted Candidates Don't Slip Through Fresh Selection : Supreme Court To Calcutta High Court

Case Details: Bibek Paria and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others | Diary No. 46049/2025 and Connected case

The Supreme Court has declined to continue monitoring issues linked to the West Bengal school recruitment controversy and directed that all pending grievances be pursued before the Calcutta High Court, which is already examining the matter in detail.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a large batch of petitions filed by candidates and other stakeholders challenging various aspects of the teacher recruitment process. In April, the Supreme Court had upheld the Calcutta High Court's judgment to quash the entire recruitment process by the West Bengal School Service Commission in 2016 due to various irregularities. Later, in August, the Court issued a stern warning that no candidate, who has been specifically found to be tainted by the Court's earlier judgment, should be allowed to appear in the fresh recruitment exams. Following the Court's directions, the State also published a list of the tainted candidates.

Many petitioners sought to withdraw their appeals, saying they wished to approach the High Court instead. The bench allowed the withdrawals and dismissed those petitions with liberty to move the High Court.

Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of HLL Biotech CEO In SC/ST Act Case Over Alleged Denial Of Maternity Benefits

Case Details: Vijay Kumar Sistla v. State of Tamil Nadu | SLP(Crl) No. 018448 - / 2025

The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of Vijay Sistla, CEO of HLL Biotech Limited (PSU), in a case alleging discrimination under the SC/ST Act 1989 by an employee.

The bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti passed the interim order while issuing notice to the respondents on his Special Leave Petition.

The petitioner is challenging the order of the Madras High Court, which refused to grant him anticipatory bail for the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1988.

Do Special Educators Need TET? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity From NCTE; Bars Appointments Of New Spl Teachers Without TET

The Supreme Court asked the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to clarify the prevailing statutory position on whether clearing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for candidates seeking appointment as Special Educators. The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the directions while hearing a batch of petitions arising from Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India.

During the hearing, Senior advocate Rana Mukherjee, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, drew the Court's attention to the 2021 judgment in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey, arguing that TET had been acknowledged as the minimum educational qualification for educators from pre-school to Class V. The Bench noted that this was contrary to its existing impression that, as per a 7 March 2025 order of a coordinate Bench, Special Educators were required to possess the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) qualification.

Amicus curiae Rishi Malhotra also referred to an earlier Supreme Court order dated 21 July 2022 which discussed a 10 June 2022 circular of the Ministry of Education that recognised CTET/TET/NTA scores along with a classroom demonstration and interview as part of the recruitment process.

No Need For Oral Mentioning; Urgent Matters Will Be Automatically Listed In 2 Days : CJI Surya Kant Brings Reforms In Supreme Court

Days after Justice Surya Kant became the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court introduced major changes, restructuring the system of oral mentioning, urgent listing and adjournment of cases with effect from December 1, 2025. The changes aim to streamline filings, reduce unnecessary mentioning before benches, and ensure faster listing of matters involving personal liberty and urgent interim relief. Four circulars have been issued to this effect.

The circulars on listing and mentioning specify that litigants need not make oral mentioning before the CJI for the listing of matters. Matters requiring urgent relief (specified below) will be listed automatically within two working days.

Before His Retirement, Chief Justice BR Gavai Urged High Courts To Amend Caste-Coded, Colonial Job Titles

Before demitting office, Justice B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, wrote to all Chief Justices of High Courts urging immediate attention to the released report titled “Reforming Administrative Nomenclature in the Indian Judiciary: Embedding Dignity and Equity in Service Rules”, prepared by the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP), Supreme Court of India.

In his communication, the Chief Justice emphasised that several service rules across the judiciary continue to use caste-coded, colonial, and hierarchically loaded titles that are wholly incompatible with the values of the Constitution. Justice Gavai underscored that such terminology, some of which dates back to feudal and colonial regimes, cannot persist in an institution that is constitutionally mandated to uphold equality, dignity, and fraternity.

A Call for Urgent Reform

Petition In Supreme Court Challenges ECI's Decision To Hold Only Special Revision Of Assam Electoral Rolls Instead Of SIR

Case Details: Mrinal Kumar Choudhury v. Election Commission of India

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to conduct only a “Special Revision” of the electoral roll in Assam instead of a “Special Intensive Revision” ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections. The petition argues that this move is arbitrary, discriminatory, and inconsistent with the Commission's own policy for several other States and Union Territories.

The petition has been filed by Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, former President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association. It alleges that while States such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa and UTs including Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Puducherry are undergoing Special Intensive Revision, Assam has been singled out for a less rigorous process.

According to the plea, Special Revision does not require electors to submit documents proving citizenship, age or residence. In contrast, Special Intensive Revision mandates production of documents to justify inclusion in the voter list. The petitioner argues that given Assam's history of large-scale illegal immigration, the State requires stricter verification.