Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: December 01, 2025 To December 07, 2025

Judgments

Property Transferred Prior To Filing Of Suit Cannot Be Attached Under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC: Supreme Court

Case Details: L.K. Prabhu @ L. Krishna Prabhu (Died) Through Lrs v. K.T. Mathew @ Thampan Thomas & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1154

The Supreme Court held that a property transferred through a registered sale deed prior to the filing of a suit cannot be subjected to attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

“It is well settled that attachment before judgment cannot extend to properties which have already been alienated prior to the institution of the suit…the property sought to be attached must belong to the defendant on the date of institution of the suit; property already transferred prior to the suit cannot be attached under this provision (Order 38 Rule 5 CPC).”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan while overturning the concurrent findings of the Kerala High Court and the Trial Court, which had entertained an application for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC despite the fact that the property no longer belonged to the defendant on the date of the application, having already been sold to a bona fide purchaser through a registered sale deed.

The case arose from a transaction between the Appellant-purchaser and the debtor, who executed an agreement for sale in 2002 and a registered sale deed in June 2004. The Appellant-purchaser took possession and began operating a guesthouse on the property. Months later, in December 2004, the Respondent-creditor filed a money suit against the debtor and obtained an attachment before judgment over the same property in February 2005. Contesting the attachment, the Appellant-purchaser filed a claim petition under Order 38 Rule 8 CPC read with Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, which was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the sale was a fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA). The High Court substantially upheld the trial court's reasoning but remanded the matter on the limited question of consideration.

Bail Cannot Be Granted Solely On Parity Without Assessing Accused's Specific Role : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sagar v. State of Up & Anr. (And Connected Case)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1155

The Supreme Court has set aside an Allahabad High Court order granting bail on the ground of parity, holding that the High Court failed to consider the specific role attributed to the accused in the alleged offence.

“while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be utilized solely because another accused person was granted bail in connection with the same offence, and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter of right.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh while hearing the complainant's plea against the grant of bail to the accused on the ground of parity.

The prosecution alleged that an altercation escalated into fatal violence when a group of accused persons blocked the complainant's family's way. During the confrontation, Respondent no.2-Rajveer, is said to have instigated co-accused Aditya to shoot the deceased. While Aditya's bail was rejected, the High Court had earlier granted bail to Suresh Pal (Aditya's father), a decision the Supreme Court subsequently overturned for lack of proper reasoning.

Selection Criteria Cannot Be Changed After Interview : Supreme Court

Case Details: J and K Service Selection Board & Anr. v. Sudesh Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1156

Reaffirming that selection criteria cannot be altered once the final stage of evaluation is complete, the Supreme Court dismissed the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board's appeal against the High Court's direction to create an additional post for candidates adversely affected by the post-interview change in criteria for the Forester recruitment.

The Court held that modifying the evaluation scheme after the interviews had concluded unlawfully undermined the eligibility of certain candidates.

“Therefore, a change in the selection criteria, after interviews were held, in our view, was rightly not countenanced by the Division Bench of the High Court.”, held a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale.

'Statements Carbon Copies, Generic' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Sentence For Non-Compliance With S. 313 CrPC; Orders Re-Trial

Case Details: Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1157

The Supreme Court (December 1) set aside the life sentences of three individuals in a murder case and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., noting that the accused had not been given a proper opportunity to respond to each allegation against them.

“One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. This ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate representation through counsel or the opportunity to call witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on their own, in their own words. The last one happens under Section 313 CrPC.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh while setting aside the Patna High Court's decision which upheld the trial court's decision of convicting the Appellants in gross non-compliance with statutory requirements of Section 313 CrPC, which the Court held amounted to a serious violation of fair-trial guarantees.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold their conviction, the three convicts approached the Supreme Court, primarily arguing non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC.

Prosecutor Cannot Abandon Duty To Assist Court In Desire To Secure Conviction : Supreme Court

Case Details: Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1157

The Supreme Court (December 1), while overturningthe convictions of three individuals in a murder case, raised concerns about the conduct of public prosecutors, observing that they are expected to act independently and not function merely as a defence lawyer each time to secure convictions at all costs.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh heard the matter, where the appellants had been convicted in a murder trial despite not having been confronted with all allegations against them during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Holding that this non-compliance amounted to a serious procedural defect that undermined the fairness of the trial, the Court set aside the convictions and remanded the case to the trial court to resume proceedings from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Court also criticised the prosecution for its lax approach, observing that it failed to bring the procedural lapses to the trial court's notice, including that the accused's statements were generic, mechanical, and virtually identical, indicating that they had not been confronted with the full spectrum of allegations against them.

The Court said that it was the prosecution's solemn duty to keep a check over this procedural defect during the trial and assist the court in conducting the examination of the accused.

Maharashtra Slum Areas Act | State's Power To Acquire Land Subject To Owner's Preferential Right : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1158

The Supreme Court (December 2) dismissed a plea seeking compulsory acquisition of a 2,005-square-metre plot reserved as a Recreational Ground (RG) in Malad, Mumbai. The Court emphasized that the state's power of compulsory acquisition cannot be invoked to override a landowner's preferential statutory right to redevelop slum-affected property as per the Maharashtra Slum Areas(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act).

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard the matter in which the appellant, Jyoti Builders, had approached the Bombay High Court to direct the State Government to acquire land for a redevelopment project on the strength of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) order which had ordered acquisition of the land in 2015 for the scheme proposed by the appellant.

The case involved Jyoti Builders (the appellant), which sought a mandamus to compel the State to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The builder relied on a 2015 SRA order that concluded the land should be acquired for Jyoti's larger slum rehabilitation scheme, under which 498 dwellers had already been rehabilitated.

Police, Courts Must Act As 'Initial Filters' To Avoid Prosecutions With No Reasonable Prospect Of Conviction: Supreme Court

Case Details: Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. State of West Bengal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1159

The Supreme Court (December 2) expressed dismay over the practice of filing of the charge sheets by the police and framing of charges by the trial courts in cases where there are bleak chances of conviction.

“The tendency of filing charge sheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. It forces Judges, court staff, and prosecutors to spend time on trials that are likely to result in an acquittal. This diverts limited judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases, contributing to massive case backlogs.", observed a bench of Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan while discharging an accused in a property dispute, noting that no criminal offence was made out and that ongoing civil proceedings between the parties suggested an attempt to give the matter a criminal colour.

The judgment authored by Justice Manmohan held that “where there is a pending civil dispute between the parties, the Police and the Criminal Courts must be circumspect in filing a chargesheet and framing charges respectively. In a society governed by rule of law, the decision to file a chargesheet should be based on the Investigating Officer's determination of whether the evidence collected provides a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Police at the stage of filing of Chargesheet and the Criminal Court at the stage of framing of Charge must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to the formal trial stage to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system.”

S. 354C IPC | Taking Photos Or Videos Of Woman When She's Not Engaged In Private Acts Won't Amount To Voyeurism : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. State of West Bengal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1159

The Supreme Court observed that an act of clicking a woman's pictures and making her videos on a mobile phone without her consent, when is not indulging in a "private act", would not attract an offence of voyeurism under Section 354C IPC.

Holding thus, a bench of Justices N Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan discharged a man, accused of intimidating the complainant by clicking her photos and making videos on his mobile phone, which she claimed that his act intruded upon her privacy and outraged her modesty.

On March 19, 2020, the complainant, filed an FIR against the appellant-accused. The complaint was registered under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on March 18, 2020, when she, along with her friend and some workmen, attempted to enter the property, the appellant-accused restrained them from entering and intimidated them. It was further alleged that the accused took photographs and videos of her without consent, thereby intruding upon her privacy and outraging her modesty. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet on August 16, 2020, against the appellant for the said offences.

Divorced Muslim Woman Entitled To Recover Gifts Given To Husband At Marriage : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rousanara Begum v. S.K. Salahuddin @ Sk Salauddin & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1160

The Supreme Court (December 2) affirmed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to recover the cash and gold ornaments received by her husband from her father at the time of marriage under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (“Act”).

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh overturned a Calcutta High Court decision that had rejected a divorced Muslim woman's claim for Rs. 7 lakh and gold ornaments mentioned in the marriage register (qabilnama) as gifts from her father to her ex-husband.

The Appellant was married to the respondent in 2005. After separation in 2009 and divorce in 2011, she initiated proceedings under Section 3 of the 1986 Act seeking recovery of Rs. 17.67 lakh, including Rs. 7 lakhs in cash and 30 bhories of gold recorded in the marriage register as having been given to the bridegroom by her father.

Central Excise Exemption For Cotton Fabrics Not Available If Any Interlinked Process Uses Power : Supreme Court

Case Details: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot v. Narsibhai Karamsibhai Gajera & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1161

The Supreme Court has held that manufacturers cannot claim central excise duty exemption for processed cotton fabrics if power is used at any stage of the manufacturing chain, even when the work is carried out through separate units. The Court restored a duty and penalty demand that had been set aside by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

To claim excise duty exemption for 'cotton fabrics' processed without the aid of power or steam, the manufacturing stages must be completely independent; if the final product cannot emerge without each interlinked process, including those involving power, the exemption cannot be availed.

“What is to be seen is whether the distinct processes undertaken by the two Units formed part of a continuous chain that culminated into the final product or not? If the various processes were so interlinked with each other that the end product in the form of cotton fabrics could not be brought about without undertaking each individual process to which the final product was subjected to, it would be clear that the entire activity of undertaking the various processes amounted to “manufacture” for the purposes of Section 2(f) of the Act of 1944.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, while allowing the Commissioner of Custom's appeal, and restoring the excise duty liability upon the Respondents-companies, who processed grey cotton fabric into finished fabric through a sequential chain, where Bleaching and Mercerizing of cotton was claimed to be done without power, and Squeezing and Stentering of the cotton was admittedly done with the use of the power.

Supreme Court Directs Kerala Govt To Establish Primary Schools In Areas Lacking Them

Case Details: State of Kerala v. T. Muhammed Faisi and Anr. | SLP(C) 12939-12940/2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1162

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.

Disability Rights: Supreme Court Directs UPSC To Allow Scribe Change Upto 7 Days Before Exam, Seeks Proposal On Screen Reader Software Use

Case Details: Mission Accessibility v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 206/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1163

The Supreme Court delivered a judgment facilitating ease in change of scribe name for UPSC candidates with disabilities as well as implementation of screen reader software for those suffering visual impairment.

As per the Court's directions, candidates appearing in UPSC exams, who are eligible for a scribe, shall be permitted to request change of scribe name upto atleast 7 days before the exam. Further, UPSC shall formulate and place before the Court within 2 months a plan for use of screen reader software for visually impaired candidates in its exams.

Interestingly, the decision coincides with the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

'High Court's Sanction Not Obtained To Withdraw Prosecution' : Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Ex-MP Bal Kumar Patel

Case Details: Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar v. State of U.P (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1164

The Supreme Court (December 3) refused to quash the Arms Act case pending against former Lok Sabha MP Bal Kumar Patel.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh upheld the Allahabad High Court's decision, declining to quash the proceedings, as the mandatory prior permission from the High Court for withdrawal of cases involving MPs/MLAs, as per the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India judgment, had not been sought or obtained by the State.

The core legal issue stemmed from a Government Order (GO) dated August 6, 2014, by the Uttar Pradesh government, which decided to withdraw three Arms Act cases against the appellant "in public interest as well as in the interest of justice." The Governor granted permission to file the withdrawal application.

Parent's Work-From-Home Status Alone Cannot Determine Child Custody : Supreme Court

Case Details: Poonam Wadhwa v. Ajay Wadhwa & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1165

The Supreme Court observed that merely because a parent is working from home would not entitle him/her a custody of a child. The Court stressed that a parent can't always be available with the child, and has to go out to earn a livelihood, which shouldn't deprive the parent to avail the custody of a child.

“We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home and the other not (i.e., has to visit his office for work) then it has to be inferred that child's interest would be better served if he is placed in the custody of one who does not go to office for work.”, observed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while hearing the mother's appeal challenging the grant of custody to the father.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court had awarded custody to the father on the premise that his work-from-home arrangement better served the child's interests.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Rajasthan Minister Mahesh Joshi In Jal Jeevan Mission Money Laundering Case

Case Details: Sh Mahesh Joshi v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 13737/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1166

The Supreme Court granted bail to Congress leader and former Rajasthan minister Mahesh Joshi in a money laundering case linked to alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Central government's Jal Jeevan Mission in the State.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih passed the order in a Special Leave Petition filed by Joshi challenging the Rajasthan High Court's order passed in August denying him bail.

Joshi, who served as the Public Health and Development Department minister during the previous Congress government, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in April this year.  The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that Joshi was "prima facie" involved in money laundering of the proceeds acquired through the illegal grant of tenders to co-accused Mahesh Mittal and Padam Chand, amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs, and siphoning off approximately Rs. 2 crores.

GST Exemption For Residential Lease Applies When Lessee Sub-Leases Building For Hostel/PG Use : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1167

In a significant judgment that will have wide ramifications for hostel and paying guest (PG) accommodation sectors, the Supreme Court held that the exemption from Goods and Services Tax (GST) available for renting residential dwellings continues to apply even when the lessee sub-leases the premises to provide hostel or PG accommodation. The Court ruled that the exemption under Entry 13 of the GST Exemption Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.06.2017 does not require the lessee to personally use the property as a residence, so long as the ultimate use of the premises is residential in nature.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan delivered the ruling while deciding a dispute concerning a four-storeyed residential building with 42 rooms in Karnataka. The building's owner had leased it to M/s DTwelve Spaces Private Limited, a company operating as an aggregator providing long-term hostel accommodation to students and working women. The tax authorities took the view that GST at 18 percent was payable on the rental transaction because the lessee was a commercial entity and did not itself occupy the premises as a residence. Both the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) upheld this interpretation. However, the Karnataka High Court set aside the rulings of AAAR and AAR, holding that the GST exemption will apply. Challenging the High Court's judgment ,the revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

The core issue before the Court was whether leasing a residential building to an aggregator, who then sub-leases the rooms to multiple residents for long-term stay, qualifies as “renting of residential dwelling for use as residence” under Entry 13. The bench undertook a detailed interpretation of the expression “residential dwelling,” noting that neither the Central Goods and Services Tax Act nor the notification defines the term.

2021 Delhi Principal Recruitment: Supreme Court Directs UPSC To Accept Experience Between Original & Revised Application Deadlines

Case Details – Kailash Prasad v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1168

The Supreme Court directed the Union Public Service Commission to declare the results of candidates who completed ten years of teaching experience before July 29, 2021 for recruitment process of 2021 for 363 posts of Principals in the Directorate of Education, Delhi Government.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi said that if such candidates are found in merit, they must be appointed to the posts that were kept vacant for them.

The Court set aside Delhi High Court's judgment that had approved UPSC's stand of counting ten years of teaching experience only up to May 13, 2021, even though a subsequent advertisement had revised the application deadline July 29, 2021.

Arbitration | Agreed Interest Rate Can't Be Later Challenged As Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Overrride Contractual Rate : Supreme Court

Case Details – Bpl Limited v. Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1169

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals filed by BPL Limited against an arbitral award, upholding the enforcement of a 36% annual interest rate on outstanding dues owed to Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited. The Court ruled that corporate entities cannot claim contractual terms are "unconscionable" after voluntarily agreeing to them ..

“Once the parties by mutual consent agreed to a particular rate of interest to be charged and the same is included in the terms of the contract there is no escape thereafter. The party concerned would be bound by the rate of interest as prescribed in the agreement. The rate of interest once agreed and forms part of a written contract between the parties the borrower after availing the finance cannot turn around and question the rate on the ground of being unconscionable or opposed to Public policy”, the Court held.

A bench Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta added, “The arbitral tribunal and the High Court rightly rejected the contention of the appellant that interest could not have been added to the principal amount. It was rightly held that since the compounding of interest on monthly rest was provided in the mutually agreed terms of the contract entered into between the parties, the respondent herein was entitled to claim interest as per the terms of the contract, i.e., at the rate of 36% p.a. with monthly rest.”

High Court Should Not Grant Pre-Arrest Bail While Refusing To Quash FIR; Accused Must First Apply For Such Bail To Sessions Court: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors. Etc., SLP (Crl.) No.17464-17465 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1170

The Supreme Court reiterated that High Courts cannot grant pre-arrest bail to the accused while refusing to quash the FIR registered against them. It also observed that at the first instance, the relief of pre-arrest bail must be sought by the accused from the Sessions Court.

"It cannot be denied that provisions of pre-arrest bail are applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, any person accused of an offence if desirous of seeking such protection would be required to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the competent Sessions Court at the first instance. To grant the relief of pre-arrest bail in a criminal writ petition while refusing to exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings is totally unacceptable and impermissible", observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

In a challenge to orders passed by the Allahabad High Court, preferred by the complainant, the bench noted that the High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR. Yet, it granted a blanket protection from arrest to the accused persons (respondents) till after filing of the charge sheet. This, in the top Court's opinion, caused grave prejudice to the investigation of the case. Besides, there was "neither any logic nor any rationale behind such direction".

While Deciding S.319 CrPC Application, Court Not Required To Test Credibility Of Evidence : Supreme Court

Case Details: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1171

The Supreme Court (December 4) set aside the Allahabad High Court's refusal to summon the deceased's in-laws as additional accused, stressing that courts cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess witness credibility while deciding an application under Section 319 CrPC.

“At the stage of deciding the application under Section 319 CrPC, the Court is not required to test the credibility or weigh the probative value of the evidence as would be done at the end of the trial for determining the conviction or otherwise of the accused. What the Court has to consider at this stage is whether the material on record reasonably indicates involvement of the proposed accused so as to exercise the extraordinary power.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh while allowing the deceased victim's brother's appeal against the refusal to summon her in-laws as additional accused, besides her husband who allegedly shot her dead at their matrimonial home following harassment over giving birth to daughters.

The appellant had lodged an FIR after his deceased sister was shot by her husband. Although the victim initially named only her husband in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, she later gave another Section 161 Cr.P.C statement implicating her mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, alleging they had instigated her husband to shoot her.

S. 32(1) Evidence Act | Imminent Death Not A Precondition For Treating Statement As Dying Declaration : Supreme Court

Case Details: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1171

The Supreme Court (December 4), while restoring the summons to the deceased's in-laws in the shooting case, held that the mere fact that death was not imminent at the time of recording the statement does not render a dying declaration irrelevant.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh heard the case where the appellant lodged an FIR after his deceased sister was shot by her husband. Although the victim initially named only her husband in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, she later gave another Section 161 Cr.P.C statement implicating her mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, alleging they had instigated her husband to shoot her.

Despite these allegations, the police framed charges only against her husband. During the trial, the prosecution sought to summon the in-laws as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C, relying on the evidence emerging from the witnesses.

Supreme Court Doubts Verdict Which Held Mere Inconvenience Of Parties As No Ground To Transfer Criminal Case

Case Details: Golla Naraesh Kumar Yadav Etc. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1172

The Supreme Court has cast doubt on its judgment in Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd which held that "mere convenience or inconvenience of the parties may not by itself be sufficient enough to pray for transfer" of a criminal case from one state to another as per Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant(as he was then) and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in the order passed on November 18 (but uploaded today), referred the Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries case to a larger bench for an authoritative and binding clarification.

The development came in a transfer petition filed by Golla Naraesh Kumar Yadav, a trader from Adoni in Andhra Pradesh, who sought the transfer of two cheque bounce cases initiated by Kotak Mahindra Bank in Chandigarh. The cheques, worth ₹3 crore and ₹6 crore,were issued as part of business dealings between the borrower and the bank's Adoni branch. However, the bank presented them for collection in Chandigarh, where the criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed upon the dishonour of the cheques.

Supreme Court Refers 'Bharat Drilling' Judgment' To Larger Bench For Clarity Whether Prohibited Claims Bind Arbitral Tribunals

Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Indian Builders Jamshedpur

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1173

The Supreme Court referred its 2009 judgment in Bharat Drilling and Foundation Treatment Private Limited versus State of Jharkhand (2009) 16 SCC 705. to a larger bench, observing that the ruling has been repeatedly and incorrectly relied upon to dilute prohibitory clauses in government contracts.

A bench of Justice P S Narasimha and Justice A S Chandurkar said the earlier decision is not an authority for the proposition that excepted or prohibited claim clauses bind only the employer and do not restrict the arbitral tribunal. The Court said that Bharat Drilling requires reconsideration to ensure clarity and consistency in arbitration law.

The case before the Court concerned a challenge by the State of Jharkhand to a High Court judgment that restored arbitral awards on three claims which had been expressly barred under the contract. The relevant clauses stated that no claim for idle labour or machinery would be entertained and that no claim would be allowed for business loss or similar loss. While the Civil Court had set aside these claims under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the High Court allowed them solely on the strength of Bharat Drilling without undertaking any analysis of the contractual provisions.

Candidate Can't Be Disqualified Merely For Not Having Degree Title If Core Subject Was Studied : Supreme Court

Case Details: Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1174

The Supreme Court held that when a candidate has studied the requisite principal subject as part of their curriculum, their candidature cannot be rejected solely on the ground that their degree is in a different specialisation.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi reinstated the appointment of an M. Com (Commerce) graduate as a Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant, a post requiring a postgraduate degree in Statistics, whose services were terminated solely because he did not possess a formal PG degree in Statistics, despite having studied Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects during his M.Com.

Holding that the formal degree is not necessary, when the candidate had studied the requisite subjects of statistics, the Court observed, “we are of the opinion that insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance. The law does not compel such an interpretation. In our view, considering the facts of the present case, the expression “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” must be understood contextually and purposively."

Stamp Duty Relief For Co-operative Societies Cannot Be Conditioned On Extra Verification Not Mandated By Law : Supreme Court

Case Details: Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Swawlambi Society Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1175

The Supreme Court (December 5) struck down a Jharkhand Government Memo that required cooperative societies to obtain an Assistant Registrar's recommendation before claiming stamp duty exemption under Section 9A of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act for registering property transfers to their members.

“The requirement of recommendation by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society as a pre-condition for registering an instrument transferring premises of a cooperative society in favour of its members without stamp duty to prevent fake cooperative societies from claiming benefit of Section 9A is, in our opinion, an irrelevant consideration leading to illegality in action. Such a pre-condition is clearly superfluous and in fact, unnecessary.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, adding that the Principal Secretary had acted without statutory authority in imposing the extra condition, terming it ultra vires, superfluous, and based on irrelevant considerations when Section 9A of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988 doesn't prescribes such a requirement.

“Once a cooperative society is registered and a certificate is issued, Section 5(7) of the Act declares it to be a conclusive proof of its existence and continuation as a body corporate. We have held that when the certificate serves the purpose, the additional requirement is unnecessary. We have also noted that the Memo requiring recommendation from Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society is based on irrelevant considerations and it does not offer any value addition to the integrity of the transaction as alleged.”, the court noted.

Supreme Court Issues Pan-India Directions To Protect Rights Of Disabled Prisoners; Seeks Reports From States/UTs On Assistive Aids

Case Details: Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No. 182/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1176

In a significant step toward strengthening the rights and dignity of prisoners with disabilities, the Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories to implement a comprehensive, disability-inclusive framework across their prison systems. A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the directions while hearing a PIL filed by Sathyan Naravoor seeking adequate facilities and a proper legal regime for inmates with disabilities.

The Court noted that many of the concerns raised in the petition had already been addressed in L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu, where extensive guidelines were framed for Tamil Nadu prisons. Observing that these safeguards must apply nationwide, the Bench formally extended the Muruganantham directives to all States and UTs.

Nationwide Compliance With Disability-Rights Standards

General Provident Fund Nomination Made By Employee In Favour Of Parent Becomes Invalid After Marriage : Supreme Court

Case Details: Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1177

The Supreme Court observed that once an employee gets married, the nomination made in favor of a parent would cease to exist, and the General Provident Fund (“GPF”) amount will be equally distributed between the deceased employee's wife and parents.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh set aside the Bombay High Court's decision, while restoring the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision to direct the distribution of the GPF amount to the deceased's wife and mother.

“The nomination in favour of the respondent no.1 (deceased's mother) would become invalid upon him (deceased employee) acquiring a family (marriage or otherwise) …”, the bench said.

Orders and Other Developments

Tamil Nadu SIR| Teachers Appointed As BLOs Shouldn't Face Coercive Action For Not Meeting Targets : TVK Party Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. Election Commission of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court will hear on December 4 the plea by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the matter.

During the hearing, Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for the TVK Party, highlighted the mental health effects on the school teachers who are allegedly compelled to complete targets as Booth Level Officers (BLOs). He explained :

Supreme Court Asks Waqfs To Approach Tribunals To Extend Time To Upload Details On UMEED Portal

Case Details – In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (1)

The Supreme Court (December 1) refused to pass orders to extend the time limit for the uploading of the Waqf property details in the UMEED portal, noting that Section 3B of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act has given powers to the Waqf Tribunals to extend the time in appropriate cases.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih disposed of the applications, allowing the applicants to approach the respective Tribunals before the deadline.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the applicants, submitted, "The amendment came into effect on 8th of April. The portal was created only on 6th of June, and the Rules were framed only on 3rd of July and the judgment(on plea to stay the Waqf Amendment Act) on the 15th of September. The 6 month time is very less, because we don't know the details. We don't know who the waqif is for waqfs of 100, 125 years old. Without these details, the portal won't accept."

'Can't Delay Maharashtra Local Body Elections Further' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Delimitation Process

Case Details: Nikhil Kisan Kolekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 34388/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the validity of the delimitation process for local bodies in Maharashtra, saying that it cannot cause any further impediment to the elections in the State, which have been stalled since 2022.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed a petition filed by Nikhil K Kolekar, who challenged the delegation of powers by the State Election Commission to divisional commissioners for approving final delimitation proposals. Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Choudhary, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the power to approve the division of constituencies is vested exclusively in the State Election Commission and that allowing government officers to exercise such authority amounted to abdication of the Commission's constitutional responsibility.

The bench however refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's judgment, which refused to entertain the petitioner's challenge. However, the bench left the question of law open.

99% Voters In West Bengal Given SIR Forms; Claims Of Mass Disenfranchisement Baseless : ECI Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Dola Sen v. Election Commission of India and Others | Wp(C) 1074/2025

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that allegations of large-scale disenfranchisement of voters in West Bengal due to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls are “highly exaggerated” and being amplified to serve “vested political interests.”

In a counter-affidavit filed by the Commission in response to a PIL by MP Dola Sen challenging the legality of SIR orders issued on 24 June and 27 October 2025, it asserted that the process is constitutionally mandated, well-established, and regularly conducted. The ECI argues that the exercise is essential for ensuring purity and integrity of electoral rolls, a constitutional requirement recognised by the Supreme Court in T.N. Seshan, CEC v. Union of India (1995).

The Commission emphasised that the SIR is firmly rooted in Article 324 of the Constitution and Sections 15, 21 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which empower the ECI to undertake special revisions of the electoral rolls whenever necessary. The affidavit notes that similar revisions have been periodically conducted since the 1950s, including nationwide revisions in years such as 1962-66, 1983-87, 1992, 1993, 2002 and 2004.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Cheating By Impersonating Union Minister Amit Shah's Nephew

Case Details: Ajay Kumar Nayyar v. State of Nct of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 15356/2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man accused of cheating a businessman of Rs. 3.90 crores by impersonating as the nephew of Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed the order, noting that the accused has undergone over 4 years in custody (while the maximum possible sentence is 7 yrs) and that the charges were framed in 2022 yet only the first witness (out of 34) is facing examination as on date.

Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Delhi government and opposed the bail plea. He highlighted that the prosecution's application to include the offense of forgery is pending and there are other cases pending against the petitioner. The ASG claimed that there was an entire scam being run, where names of high constitutional functionaries was used.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Of CAA-Protected Refugees Fearing Disenfranchisement In West Bengal SIR Process

Case Details: Aatmadeep v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 034474 - / 2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed on behalf of refugees from Bangladesh who fear disenfranchisement due to delays in issuing citizenship certificates under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a special leave petition filed by NGO Aatmadeep. The petition challenges a Calcutta High Court order that declined to entertain a PIL seeking protection for Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Jain refugees who entered India before 2014 but have not yet been granted citizenship.

Senior Advocate Karuna Nandy, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the refugees belong to Buddhist, Sikh, Jain and Christian communities who fled religious persecution in Bangladesh and settled in West Bengal prior to the statutory cut-off date. She said their applications under the CAA have remained unprocessed. "Even though we came prior to 2014, our applications have not been processed."

Supreme Court Directs CBI To Investigate Digital Arrest Scam Cases, Asks States To Give Consent

Case Details – In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents

The Supreme Court ordered the CBI to investigate the instances of digital arrest scams.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the orderin the suo motu case taken by it on the issue of digital arrest. The bench said the scams demand the “immediate attention” of the nation's premier investigating agency. The court directed that the CBI shall first investigate cases directly reporting digital arrest scams, while other forms of cybercrime may be taken up in subsequent phases.

To strengthen the agency's hand, the bench granted the CBI full freedom to probe the role of bankers under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where bank accounts are opened for the purposes of digital arrest scams. It also impleaded the Reserve Bank of India and sought its assistance in explaining the AI and machine learning tools used to identify fraudulent accounts.

Samajwadi Party's Arvind Kumar Singh Moves Supreme Court Against SIR In Uttar Pradesh; Seeks 3-Month Extension Of Timelines

Case Details: Arvind Kumar Singh v. Election Commission of India

Samajwadi Party leader Arvind Kumar Singh has moved the Supreme Court challenging special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh.

Besides seeking quashing of the Election Commission's notification, Singh prays for a 3-month extension of the timelines prescribed for Enumeration, Updation of Control Table and Draft Roll and Final Publication of Electoral Roll.

It may be recalled that a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is dealing with the SIR cases. Besides the Samajwadi Party leader, other political parties like DMK, actor Vijay's TVK, CPI(M), UP Congress Committee, TMC and/or their leaders are also before the Court challenging SIR in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, etc.

Stubble Burning Occurred During Covid Too, Yet We Had Blue Skies; Farmers Alone Cannot Be Blamed For Delhi's Pollution : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court questioned the tendency to single out farmers for Delhi's persistent air pollution, observing that stubble burning existed even during the Covid lockdown when the Capital experienced unprecedented clear skies.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the MC Mehta case pertaining to the air pollution in the National Capital Region. The court said the narrative around stubble burning must not become “a political issue or an issue of ego” and stressed that the causes of Delhi's toxic air are multifactorial.

"As per the scientific analyses, which is contributing the most? We do not want to comment on stubble burning, incorrect to burden the people who are hardly represented in the Court. Stubble burning was there during the Covid, but why could the people still see clear blue sky? The issue of stubble burning should not unnecessarily become a political issue or issue of ego. If at all a farmer is burning, it is also for an asset, it's a commodity.." CJI Surya Kant said.

Ensure Proper VC Facilities In Trial Of 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case : Supreme Court To Maharashtra

Case Details: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

The Supreme Court told Maharashtra authorities to ensure that virtual conferencing facilities function properly during hearings in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case, after Surendra Gadling's counsel complained that the VC system routinely fails when the lawyer-activist is produced before the trial court.

The bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing Gadling's bail plea. Gadling, who has spent 6 years and 10 months in custody, told the Court that he has been unfairly “branded” only because he appeared as counsel in certain Naxalite cases. The Court re-listed the matter for January, granting time to file a reply to an application that is pending before the trial court and asking the trial court to decide it expeditiously.

At the outset, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju informed the bench that the State's affidavit had been filed. Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, disputed the contents of the affidavit, describing several assertions as “misleading” and “false”. He argued that, according to the trial court's own records, the State was responsible for the delay in commencing trial.

Consider Bringing Back Pregnant Woman & Son Deported To Bangladesh On Humanitarian Grounds : Supreme Court To Centre

Case Details: Union of India v. Bhodu Sekh and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 18658/2025

The Supreme Court asked the Union government to take instructions on the possibility of bringing back a pregnant woman and her eight-year-old son who were deported to Bangladesh, stressing that their case should be considered “purely on humanitarian grounds.”

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and posted it for December 3.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the respondents, informed the Court that Sonali Khatoon, daughter of Respondent Bhodu Sekh, was heavily pregnant at the time of deportation and is among those sent to Bangladesh. He also pointed out that her eight-year-old son, Sabil, was deported with her.

Supreme Court Issues Show Cause Notice For Contempt To Odisha DGP For 'Casual' Compliance

Case Details: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tuni Pati & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued a show cause notice of contempt to the Odisha DGP for non-compliance with its earlier order in a motor accident claim dispute.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prasanna B. Varale was hearing an appeal concerning the identification of a Bolero pickup van allegedly involved in a 2017 fatal road accident. The Court had, on March 6, 2025, specifically ordered the DGP to constitute and supervise a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to verify the vehicle's involvement in the accident.

Upon learning that the DGP, despite being specifically tasked with ensuring compliance, had simply passed on the responsibility to the Deputy SP without demonstrating any supervisory oversight, the Court criticized him for adopting a casual attitude towards its directions.

Father Who Lost Daughter In Fire Incident Files PIL In Supreme Court For Adequate Disaster Response

Case Details: Dinesh Kevdiya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 935/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking directions for adequate disaster preparedness and safeguarding of the "right to emergency protection" as a right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing the petitioner-in-person, who informed that he lost his daughter in a fire incident back in 2019. He contended that the National Disaster Management Act and the National Building Code are not being effectively implemented, due to which thousands of lives are being lost, and there must be thousands of grieving families like his.

Briefly put, the PIL seeks direction to the Union and State governments to immediately assess and fill critical infrastructure and manpower gaps in fire services, road emergency response, and disaster preparedness.

'Only Bihar Case Remaining' : Baba Ramdev Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court To Club FIRs Over Anti-Allopathy Remarks

Case Details – Swami Ram Dev v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed Patanjali Ayurved founder Ramdev to withdraw his petition seeking clubbing of FIRs filed in Chhattisgarh and Bihar over his remarks against “allopathic” medicines during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

When the case was taken up, counsel appearing for Ramdev submitted that Chhattisgarh authorities had stated in a status report that a closure report had been filed and was pending before the, while the status of the FIR in Bihar was not known.

Supreme Court Asks TN Govt & Union To Have Talks On Establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha and Others | SLP(C) 33459/2017

The Supreme Court orally urged the Union Government and the Tamil Nadu Government to have talks on the issue of establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in the State.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu in 2017 against a judgment of the Madras High Court directing the Tamil Nadu government to establish a Navodaya Vidyalaya in every district of the State. The State challenged the order before the Supreme Court, which granted an interim stay on 11 December 2017. The matter had not been taken up substantively since then.

At today's hearing, the Supreme Court orally asked the Tamil Nadu government and the Union to explore a resolution after having consultations with each other. The Court gave both sides two weeks to complete this exercise and posted the matter for 15 December 2025.

Karur Stampede Case: Tamil Nadu Govt Urges Supreme Court To Vacate Interim Order Transferring Probe To CBI

Case Details: Gs Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu SLP(Crl) 16081/2025

The Tamil Nadu Government has urged the Supreme Court to vacate its interim order thattransferred the investigation into the Karur TVK rally stampede to the CBI, arguing that the direction amounts to granting the petitioner's final relief at an interim stage. In its counter-affidavit filed in response to the Special Leave Petition, the State said the order has effectively suspended the ongoing police investigation without giving the State an opportunity to respond.

The affidavit argues that the October 13, 2025 interim order, ordering CBI investigation under the monitoring of a supervisory committee headed by Justice Ajay Rastogi,has “virtually allowed the writ petition” even before notice on maintainability could be decided. The State maintains that the order has the effect of taking the probe away from the Karur police and placing it under an external supervisory mechanism, which, it says, is a final relief that courts cannot grant at the interim stage

The affidavit has been sworn to by MD Manuraj, the Additional Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,

Supreme Court Stays Madhya Pradesh HC Order Questioning Legal Proficiency Of Sessions Judge

Case Details: Pankaj Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Diary No. 65670/2025

The Supreme Court stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had passed adverse remarks against a Sessions Judge and directed that the issue be placed before the High Court Chief Justice to consider whether the judicial officer should be sent for training.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while issuing notice, after hearing Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde (for the petitioner-judge).

To briefly put facts of the case, in May 2023, one Sanju Vadiva was booked for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 of IPC and Section 5 l, 5 j(ii), 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner-judge, after examining the material and hearing the case, delivered a judgment of conviction against him.

Supreme Court Dismisses Reliance Industries Ltd's Appeal Against SAT Penalty For Delayed Disclosure Of Jio-Facebook Deal

Case Details: Reliance Industries Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India | C.A. No. 9511/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Reliance Industries Ltd against thepenalty of the Securities Appellate Tribunalfor the delayed disclosure of the investment by Facebook in RIL's subsidiary Jio Platforms in 2020.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the appeal jointly filed by RIL and its compliance officers Savithri Parekh, and K Sethuraman, challenging theSAT's order passed in May. The SAT dismissed their appeals against the order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India in June 2022 imposing a monetary penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs under Section 15I of the SEBI Act upon the appellants for violation of principle No. 4 of Regulation 8(1) of SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 2015 read with Regulation 30(11) of SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015.

As per Principle 4 of the PIT Regulation, listed companies have the obligation to make "Prompt dissemination of unpublished price sensitive information that gets disclosed selectively, inadvertently or otherwise to make such information generally available”.

Supreme Court Stays Trial Against Ex-Karnataka CM BS Yediyurappa In POCSO Act Case

Case Details: BS Yediyurappa v. Criminal Investigating Department | SLP(Crl) No. 19287/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the trial proceedings against former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa in a case for 'sexual assault' of a child under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya was considering the Special Leave Petition filed by Yediyurappa against the November 13 order of the Karnataka High Court which refused to quash the case lodged against him.

The bench issued notice on the petition to the State CID and the private respondent for the limited purpose of examining if the matter should be remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

'Has Indian Govt Declared Rohingyas As Refugees?Should Intruders Be Given Red Carpet Welcome?' Supreme Court Asks

Case Details: Rita Manchanda v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 505/2025

Sharply reacting to a petition filed in relation to Rohingyas, the Supreme Court asked if there is any order issued by the Government of India declaring Rohingyas as 'refugees'.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a habeas corpus petition alleging custodial disappearance of Rohingya persons and seeking that any deportation be carried out only through due process.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain Rohingyas were picked up by the Delhi police in May and there was no information about their whereabouts.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Statutory Rules For Criminal Prosecution Of Doctors In Medical Negligence Cases

Case Details: Sameeksha Foundation-A Crusade Against Medical Negligence v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1080/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking statutory rules or executive instructions for criminal prosecution of medical practitioners in medical negligence cases.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat (for petitioner).

The PIL, filed by Sameeksha Foundation, avers that in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1], the Supreme Court highlighted a need for the Union and State governments to issue statutory rules/executive instructions regarding medical negligence cases. However, even after two decades, the same have not been framed and notified.

'Just & Fair Request': Supreme Court Asks ECI To Consider Further Extending Kerala SIR Deadline

Case Details:

The Supreme Court recommended to the Election Commission of India to further extend the deadline for the submission of enumeration forms in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of the electoral rolls in Kerala, in view of the ongoing process for local body elections.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by the Election Commission of India that the original deadline of December 4 has been extended till December 11. The local body elections in the State are happening on December 9 and 11, and the counting is happening on December 13.

The bench opined that the officers who are engaged in the local body election duties should also get sufficient time to upload their forms as well.  "You extend it more so anyone missed out they will also get an opportunity," CJI told Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi who represented the ECI.

'Remarkable Coincidence': Supreme Court On Data Regarding Public Contracts Awarded To Arunachal CM's Relatives

Case Details: Save Mon Region Federation and Anr v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 54/2024

In a plea seeking CBI probe into work contracts awarded to Arunachal Pradesh CM Pema Khandu and/or his relatives' companies, the Supreme Court expressed that the difference between the competing tenders for the works appeared to be miniscule and hinted at cartelization.

The Court clarified that there was no inclination to order a CBI enquiry as on date and it would first like the State to furnish additional information.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter till February, giving time to the State to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing any work contracts awarded to Khandu, his relatives, or their firms between 2015-2025 across all districts in the state.

Can We Accept Your Speeches Won't Constitute 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA? Supreme Court Asks Sharjeel Imam

Case Details:

During the hearing of the bail pleas in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the Supreme Court questioned some of the speeches made by Sharjeel Imam, one of the accused in the case.

The bench asked whether it can be said that those speeches will not constitute incitement and terrorist acts as per the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd.Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed challenging the September 2 judgmentof the Delhi High Court which denied them bail.

Supreme Court Allows Kerala Govt To Allot Open Prisons' Land For BrahMos Aerospace

Case Details: Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) No. 1082/2020

In a PIL pertaining to overcrowding of prisons across India, the Supreme Court expressed that it will pass directions to ensure that the existing open correctional institutions (OCIs) are adequately utilized by states.

The Court also allowed an application filed by the State of Kerala for allotment of 257 acres open prisons land, out of 457 acres, to BrahMos (180 acres), Sashastra Seema Bal (45 acres) and for establishment of National Forensic Science Laboratory (32 acres). "200 acres [for open prisons] is more than sufficient", noted Justice Mehta. The bench directed the State to take steps as per its proposal.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a petition filed by human rights activist Suhas Chakma flagging the issues of congestion of prisons, rehabilitation of prisoners and regarding legal aid to prisoners.

TVK's Negligence, Vijay's Delay & Unruly Cadres Led To Karur Stampede : Tamil Nadu Govt Tells Supreme Court

The Tamil Nadu Government, in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, has attributed the Karur stampede tragedy to a series of “reckless, negligent and uncoordinated actions” by the organisers and cadres of the TVK party, led by actor-politician Vijay. The State maintained that the police acted with “exemplary courage and discipline”, and that the tragedy was caused not by any policing lapse but by the conduct of the organisers and the behaviour of the crowd.

The affidavit was filed by the Additional Home Secretary in response to the petitions seeking a CBI/SIT investigation into the incident. On October 13, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi had passed an interim order directing the CBI to investigate the matter.

Police Acted With Heroic Discipline, Says State

Umar Khalid's Speech Played During Bail Hearing; 'These Are Students Who Agitated On Certain Issues', Sibal Tells Supreme Court

Case Details:

Playing accused Umar Khalid's Amravati speech in the open Court today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal remarked that advocating for the Gandhian way of civil disobedience can't amount to conspiracy, and no public interest would be served in keeping an academic incarcerated for years for an agitation, which may have raised certain issues, rightly or wrongly.

"I ask myself the question. An academician in an institution, what can he do to overthrow a country or state? Even in the High Court, they relied on this speech and there is a finding of the High Court "prima facie delivered inflammatory speech on communal lines to instigate". Entire speech may be read, there is nothing stated on lines of communal riots and how does the High Court come to this conclusion?.. There are allegations of inflammatory speech against the co-accused who are out on bail..."

If a person is charged with UAPA over such a speech, then many of us would be "liable to go to jail", Sibal said. In the video clip, Khalid was heard saying that the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act will follow the methods followed by Gandhiji during the freedom struggle. He was heard saying, "we will not answer violence with violence. We will not answer hate with hate. We will meet violence with non-violence, and hate with love."

Supreme Court Directs Reservation Of Five Posts For Women In Upcoming HCBA Nagpur Elections

Case Details – Preeti Dilip Rane v. High Court Bar Association, Nagpur

The Supreme Court directed reservation of one post of Vice President, the post of Treasurer and three posts of Executive Members in the upcoming elections of the High Court Bar Association, Nagpur will for women members.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the office bearers of the Association had agreed to earmark these five posts for women members in the ensuing election on December 12, 2025.

“Consequently, it is directed that in the ensuing election of the High Court Bar Association, Nagpur, one post of Vice President, the post of Treasurer and three posts of Executive Members shall remain exclusively earmarked for the women members of the Bar”, the Court stated.

ECI Cannot Conduct Citizenship Test Under The Guise Of SIR: Petitioners Tell Supreme Court

Case Details: Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Connected Matters

The petitioners challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process argued before the Supreme Court that the Election Commission of India has no authority to determine a person's citizenship under the guise of the SIR exercise.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of pleas assailing the SIR initiated across several states. Last week, the petitioners had argued that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 does not empower the ECI to conduct the SIR in its present form.

Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for various petitioners, submitted that the SIR indirectly requires voters to prove their citizenship before the ECI. “The ECI has no power under Article 324 to conduct a citizenship test,” he argued. He explained that the process creates a list of persons presumed to be voters and then places the burden on them to prove their citizenship.

160 Criminal Appeals Being Listed Daily : Allahabad High Court To Supreme Court On Steps To Reduce Backlog

Case Details: Chatra Pal v. State of U.P. & Anr. | Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 13955/2025

The Supreme Court was informed that the Allahabad High Court is listing a substantial number of pending criminal appeals each day in an effort to address its backlog. At the High Court's Prayagraj bench, at least 100 criminal appeals are being listed daily from a pending stock of 2,036 cases. At the Lucknow bench, a minimum of 60 criminal appeals are being taken up every day from the 261 cases awaiting hearing.

This information was placed before the Court by Mayur Jain, Registrar (Judicial), Listing, and Hitendra Hari, Registrar (Judicial), Listing, of the Allahabad High Court, during a hearing before a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

The officers were personally present before the Court pursuant to the order in which the bench noted with concern that there are criminal appeals as old as 10 to 15 years pending adjudication before the High Court.

Supreme Court Issues Notice on BCI Appeal Against Kerala HC Ruling That State Bar Council Lacked Power To Continue Disciplinary Action After March 2024

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy

The Supreme Court issued notice on an appeal filed by the Bar Council of India challenging the Kerala High Court judgment which held that the Kerala Bar Council cannot continue disciplinary proceedings after May 6, 2024 during its extended term. The High Court had concluded that, in the absence of a duly constituted council, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Kerala High Court Advocates' Association President Yeshwanth Shenoy could not be sustained in law.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice.

Shenoy is currently the President of Kerala High Court Advocates Association. The dispute stems from allegations made by former Kerala High Court judge Mary Joseph, who complained that Shenoy shouted at and harassed her during court proceedings and stated that he would see that the Judge was expelled from the seat.

Will Bring Back Pregnant Woman & Son Deported To Bangladesh : Centre Undertakes In Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. Bhodu Sekh and Ors SLP(Crl) No. 18658/2025 and Union of India v. Amir Khan and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 18891/2025

The Central Government undertook before the Supreme Court to bring back Sunali Khatoon, a pregnant woman who was deported to Bangladesh, and her 8-year-old son (Sabir) to India on humanitarian grounds.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta made this statement before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

"On humanitarian grounds, Sunali Khatun and her son Sabir will be brought here following the procedure without prejudice to our contentions on merits and our right to put them under surveillance," SG said.

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks PwD Reservation In Government Pleader Post

Case Details: Shinu K R v. State of Kerala and Ors., Diary No. 63432-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking reservation for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor and Additional Government Pleader in terms of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order.

Briefly put, the petitioner is a practicing advocate with 19 years of experience. She, being a person with benchmark disability in terms of the RPwD Act, applied for the post of District Govt Pleader/Additional Public Prosecutor under the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978. She also made a representation in 2022, however, the same was rejected on the ground that the posts were not cadre posts and therefore Section 34 of the RPwD Act was inapplicable.

Supreme Court Expresses Shock At Maharashtra Authorities Not Producing Accused Before Court On 55 Dates; Orders Inquiry

Case Details: Shashi Alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court criticised the Maharashtra Prison authorities for repeatedly failing to produce an undertrial accused before the trial court on a majority of hearing dates.

The Court was dealing with a case where the accused, in custody for more than four years, was not presented before the Trial Court on 55 out of a total of 85 trial dates.

While granting bail to the accused, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra expressed shock at the failure of the prison authorities to ensure the petitioner's production before the court, terming it a serious violation of fundamental safeguards. The bench directed the designated Head of Department of Prisons of the State of Maharashtra to conduct an inquiry and take action against the officers concerned.

Supreme Court Restores Property Of Corporate Debtor Attached Under PMLA To Successful Resolution Applicant

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. v. Hotels Limited & Ors. | Criminal Appeal No. 2925/2025

The Supreme Court reiterated that the objective of Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act(PMLA) is to ultimately restore any attached properties to the bonafide successful resolution application(SRA) who have a legitimate interest in it.

Section 8(8) allows the Special Court to direct the Central Government to restore property that has been confiscated under the Act to a person or claimant who has a legitimate interest in it, upon conclusion of the trial. However, second proviso allows restoration during the trial.

Involving second proviso to Section 8(8) of PMLA, the Court allowed that the property of V Hotels Limited(corporate debtor), confiscated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), be restored to Macrotech Developers Limited(SRA), considering the peculiar circumstances, consent of the parties, and without going into the merits. However, it stated that the same shall not be treated as precedent.

Lawyer Creates Ruckus In Supreme Court; Escorted Out

In an unusual development, a woman lawyer was escorted out of the Chief Justice of India's courtroom after she refused to leave despite repeated requests from the bench.

The incident occurred when the lawyer made an out-of-list oral mention before the bench led by CJI Surya Kant, claiming that her close friend, whom she referred to as a brother, had been murdered in a guest house in Delhi while she was in Mumbai. She further alleged that the police officer who initially refused to register her FIR had now been appointed as the investigating officer in the same murder case.

Interrupting her narration, the CJI advised her to draft an appropriate petition so the court could examine the matter through proper procedure. The lawyer replied: " Im in depression, I will do that ....". The Chief Justice then suggested that another member of the bar could assist her in taking necessary legal steps.

Delhi Riots UAPA Case Bail Pleas : Supreme Court Asks Umar Khalid, Sharjeel, Gulfisha & Others To Furnish Permanent Addresses

While adjourning the bail pleas in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the Supreme Court asked the counsels to submit the permanent address of all petitioners by the next date of hearing.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria has been hearing petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd.Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. They have challenged the September 2 judgmentof the Delhi High Court denying them bail. They have been under custody for over five years in a case in which they are facing serious allegations of committing offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The bench was supposed to continue hearing the petitioners on rejoinder; however, due to the paucity of time, the matter was postponed. While listing the matter for next Tuesday, Justice Kumar passed a brief order stating that the petitioners' arguments on rejoinder should be restricted to 15 minutes each and the Delhi Police's reply must be restricted to half an hour. It remarked that in rejoinder, the matter should not be argued as if arguing a fresh matter.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Seeking GST Concession For Car Purchase By Persons With Disabilities

Case Details: Kuldipak Rajesh Prashad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1140/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by a person suffering visual impairment seeking that the government revive its GST Concession scheme for the purchase of cars by persons with orthopaedic disability and extend it to all Persons with Disabilities, irrespective of the nature of their disability.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, who argued that the Union has taken different stands before different High Courts, which has resulted in conflicting opinions on the government's now-discontinued scheme. The counsel also informed the Court that the scheme existed in one form or another since 1999 but came to be withdrawn in 2025.

Initially, the bench asked the petitioner to obtain a view from the Bombay High Court, as he resides in Maharashtra. However, when he cited urgency, highlighting that his wife is pregnant and they have been trying to get a car for a year, the bench issued notice. Notably, the counsel also apprised the Court that when the Bombay High Court was approached against rejection of the concession, the Union first came up with a stand that concession was applicable to all but later withdrew the same and came out with a policy denying the concession.

Need To Examine If Adversarial Litigation Has Been Beneficial : Justice Narasimha Bats For Mediation

Supreme Court judge Justice P S Narasimha questioned the long-held belief that the adversarial system of litigation has served India well, calling for a deeper and more honest evaluation of its actual contribution to the justice delivery system.

Expressing his views in the open court after the hearings for the day were over, the judge expressed “great disbelief” at the assumption that adversarial litigation has been a great service to society.

“We are in a great disbelief as if this adversarial litigation has done a great service to us. Very honestly, we need to very sincerely and seriously examine how much good the adversarial litigation has done. I have my own doubts. I think the system must change,” Justice Narasimha said.

Ex-IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt Moves Supreme Court For Suspension Of 20-Year Jail Sentence In 1996 Drug Planting Case

Case Details: Sanjeevkumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt (Ips) v. State of Gujarat, SLP(Crl) No. 15846/2025

Ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt has approached the Supreme Court seeking suspension of the 20-year jail sentence imposedon him in the 1996 drug planting case.

The case was listed before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi. It got adjourned at the request of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Bhatt).

Initially, Bhatt approached the Gujarat High Court for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. But his plea was rejected. "having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, presumption of innocence being reversed post conviction, societal impact, antecedents and position of the applicant at the time of incident, we are not inclined to consider the prayer seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail", the High Court said.

PSU Objects To International Arbitration Being Moved From Delhi To London; Supreme Court Questions Change Of Venue For Convenience

The Supreme Court heard a dispute between NMDC Steel Ltd, a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and Italian company Danieli & C. Officine, regarding the shifting of the place of hearing of the international arbitration between them from Delhi to London.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice NK Singh was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by NDMC Steel Ltd against the order of the Telangana High Court which refused to interfere in the procedural order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, which shifted the Closing Hearing in the Arbitration from Delhi to London, UK.

The Tribunal, while passing the said order, noted that the costs of the three proposed five-star hotels in Delhi, including the Taj Mansingh, are way higher than the quotation given by IDRC, London, UK. As per the contract between the parties, Hyderabad is the designated venue of the Arbitration.

Supreme Court Modifies Deadline For Punjab & Haryana Bar Council Elections As April 30

Case Details: M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No. 1319/2023

The Supreme Court modified its earlier order on the election schedule for Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, and held that elections be concluded by April 30, 2026 instead of March 15, 2026.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and NK Singh was hearing the plea seeking modification of itsNovember 18 order which 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.

As per Paragraph 12(III) of the order, it was held that "In the third phase, the elections of the State Bar Councils of Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, and West Bengal shall be conducted. The entire election programme, including counting of votes and subsequent declaration of results shall, in any case, be concluded on or before 15.03.2026."

'Govt Already Addressing Misuse Of AI-Generated Content' : Supreme Court Disposes Of PIL Seeking Guidelines

Case Details: Aarati Sah v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1127/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition filed under Article 32 seeking directions to regulate the misuse of Artificial Intelligence, taking note of the fact the Government of India has already published draft rules on AI regulation for public consultation.

Noting that the Government is already engaging with the issue, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition.

As soon as the matter was taken, Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, for Meta Platforms, told the bench that the petition has become infructuous as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), in October, published adraft of the proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, seeking to regulate AI-generated content. The Government has invited public comments to the proposed amendment. Datar said that consultations are taking place on the amendments, with the last meeting held on November 13.

'Shame On System' : Supreme Court On 16 Year Delay In Acid Attack Case; Seeks Data From High Courts On Pending Trials

Case Details: Shaheen Malik v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025

The Supreme Court sought data from all High Courts regarding the pending trials in acid attack cases.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit the data regarding pending acid attack cases. The bench was hearing a plea concerning the condition of acid attack survivors.

The petitioner, an acid attack survivor who personally appeared before the Bench, said that she was attacked in 2009, yet the trial has still not concluded. “Mere saath 2009 mein attack hua tha, abhi tak trial chal raha hai,” she said in Hindi. She added that till 2013 nothing happened in the case and the trial, which is now taking place in Rohini in Delhi, is now in the final hearing stage.

'We Can't Take Up Every Demolition Matter' : Supreme Court Asks UP Man To Approach High Court Against Demolition

Case Details: Farhat Jahan and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1207/2025

The Supreme Court granted 1-week interim protection to a 75-year-old man from Uttar Pradesh facing demolition action allegedly without issuance of notice and opportunity of hearing.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, directing status quo for a week, after hearing Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim (for petitioners). The bench was not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and gave the petitioner liberty to approach the High Court to take benefit of the bulldozer judgment. However, noting that part demolition had already taken place, it directed status quo for a week.

Besides protection from the demolition action at his residential/marriage hall premises, the petitioner sought restoration of the portion demolished by the authorities, or compensation as an alternative. He also prayed for calling of the record of the demolition action and initiation of enquiry against officers for carrying out the action without due process.

Govt Staff Deputed To ECI Must Perform SIR Duties; Additional Staff Can Be Deployed If BLOs Face Hardships : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. Election Commission of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1157/2025

The Supreme Court issued certain directions which the State Governments can follow if the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) engaged in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duty for the Election Commission of India are facing hardships.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that "the employees who have been deputed by the State Governments/State Election Commissions at the disposal of the Election Commission of India for the purpose of performing statutory duties, including SIR, are obligated to perform such duties."

The bench further observed :

Supreme Court Seeks Details Of Govt Policies On Giving Gadgets To EWS Students To Access Virtual Classrooms

Case Details – Government of Nct of Delhi v. Justice For All & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to place on record its policies for providing gadgets to children from Economically Weaker Sections and Disadvantaged Groups to enable their access to virtual classes.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted two weeks' time to the government to furnish the details and kept the matter on February 03, 2026.

“Learned Additional Solicitor General of India seeks and is granted two weeks' time to place on record the Government Policies or the decision taken from time to time to ensure the uniform provision of certain facilities to the children belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections or the Disadvantage Group 4 Students who are entitled to free education in terms of the right guaranteed to them under Article 21A of the Constitution”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Judgment Barring NHAI From Selecting Legal Officers Based On CLAT-PG Score

Case Details: National Highways Authority of India v. Shannu Baghel | SLP(C) No. 33251/2025

The Supreme Court (December 4) stayed the operation of a judgment of the Delhi High Court which quashed a notification issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to appoint law officers [Young Professional-Legal] based on CLAT-PG scores.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while issuing notice to the respondents on NHAI's Special Leave Petition filed against the High Court's judgment.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the NHAI, submitted that the law officers are appointed for a two-year contractual period. "If we invite applications, it would be in thousands. For example, in the Delhi PP post, we received five thousand applications. Interviews are still going on. So we go by a rational formula. We go by the CLAT-PG score," SG said.

We Expect BCI To Ensure 30% Women's Reservation In Bar Councils : Supreme Court

Case Details: Yogamaya MG v. UoI | WP (C) No. 581/ 2024

The Supreme Court indicated that it expects the Bar Council of India (BCI) to ensure 30% reservation for women in the upcoming elections to State Bar Councils, as it heard petitions seeking mandatory women's representation in these bodies.

The Court took up the matter on a mentioning by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta for the petitioner Yogamaya.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gurukumar, appearing for the BCI, said that implementing such reservation would require amendments to the Advocates Act and that several State Bar Council election processes had already commenced, making immediate changes difficult.

Universities Must Follow University Grants Commission's Guidelines : Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Dharmendra Kumar v. Banaras Hindu University Thr. Its Vice Chancellor. & Ors.

The Supreme Court observed that universities are obligated to follow the University Grants Commission guidelines.

The Court made this observation while disposing of a case filed against the Banaras Hindu University(BHU).

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi was dealing with the case pertaining to 2013 appointments to the post of Assistant Professors.

Senior Advocate Designations : Contempt Petition Filed In Supreme Court Against Delhi High Court

Case Details: Sanjay Dubey v. The Full Reference of The Hon'ble Judges of The High Court of Delhi | Diary No. 60527/2025

A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court, alleging a delay in taking up applications for the designation as 'Senior Advocates' by the Delhi High Court.

The petition claims non-compliance of the Supreme Court's April 15 order, passed by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan which directed the Delhi High Court to consider afresh the applications for senior designations, which were deferred or rejected in November last year, in accordance with the existing rules (The High Court of Delhi Designations of Senior Advocates Rules 2024).

The order was passed while hearing writ petitions challenging the Delhi High Court's notification issued on November 29, 2024, designating 70 advocates as Senior Advocates and placing the remaining 67 on a “Deferred List” for future consideration on grounds of alleged irregularities.

Cyclostyled Notices Sent To 26 Lakh Persons During Bihar SIR : Prashant Bhushan Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India

In the challenge to the SIR Process, the petitioners told the Supreme Court that during the Bihar SIR, the ECI issued 'cyclostyled' notices to 26 lakh people on proving their eligibility without giving them any reasons for the same.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of pleas assailing the SIR initiated across several states.

Today, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the Association for Democratic Reforms, continued with his previous arguments on ECI not being transparent in its conduct.

Tamil Nadu Officers Move Supreme Court Against Madras HC Order To Allow Temple Devotees To Light Lamp Near Thiruparankundram Hill Dargah

Case Details: KJ Praveen Kumar v. Rama Ravikumar | Diary No. 70144/2025

Tamil Nadu authorities have filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) permitting devotees of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram hills, which is located close to a dargah.

The petition is filed challenging the order passed by a division bench of the High Court earlier which dismissed the State's appeal against an order passed by a single bench yesterday for the lighting of the lamp with the security protection by the CISF.  It may be noted that the orders are passed in contempt proceedings initiated over non-compliance of the order passed by the single bench on December 2.

After the dismissal of the contempt appeal, the single bench took up the matter later in the evening in contempt proceedings and directed theDistrict Administration and the Police to allow the lighting of the lamp itself. The single bench also quashed the prohibitory orders issued in the region.

Thiruparankundram Hill Row : CJI Declines TN Govt's Oral Mentioning For Urgent Listing Of Plea In Supreme Court

Case Details: KJ Praveen Kumar v. Rama Ravikumar | Diary No. 70144/2025

The petition filed by the Tamil Nadu authorities challenging the order of the Madras High Court regarding the lighting of the lamp in the Thiruparankundram hills was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing.

Another counsel opposed the mentioning, saying, "the state is only playing a drama. They want to mention only to tell the High Court that they have mentioned before the Supreme Court."

The State's counsel submitted that he was only praying for a listing.

'We Will Appoint VCs If CM & Governor Can't Reach Consensus' : Supreme Court In Kerala Universities' Matter

Case Details: Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State of Kerala and Ors | SLP(C) No. 20680-20681/2025

The Supreme Court (December 5) said that if the Kerala Government and the Kerala Governor cannot reach a consensus regarding the appointment of the Vice Chancellors of two State Universities, then the Court will make the appointment.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice PB Varale was hearing the matter related to the appointments of VCs of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, and the University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology.

Arundhati Roy's Memoir Doesn't Violate Law For Showing Cover Image Of Author Smoking: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea

Case Details: Rajasimhan v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 034002 - / 2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challengingthe Kerala High Court order, which dismissed a PIL against Arundhati Roy's book 'Mother Mary Comes To Me', where she is seen smoking a bidi on the book cover.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.

The High Court, while dismissing the plea filed by a lawyer, observed that the publisher of the book had already mentioned a disclaimer on the back of the book cover that the cover image was not an endorsement of tobacco use.

'Appalling' : Supreme Court Expresses Shock At 2-Year Custody Of UAPA Accused Without Chargesheet; Grants Bail

Case Details: Tonlong Konyak v. State of Assam, SLP(Crl) No. 10579/2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act who was kept in custody for over 2 years without filing of a chargesheet.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. After going through the material, Justice Mehta rapped the Assam counsel over petitioner's detention for over 2 years without a chargesheet having been filed.

The bench noted that under Section 43D of the UAPA, time for filing chargesheet can be extended "by express order of the Court" to a maximum of 180 days. But in the present case, the petitioner had been subjected to over 2 years custody, without filing of chargesheet.

Judges Are Careful In Using AI; We Don't Want AI To Overpower Judicial Process : CJI Surya Kant

Case Details: Kartikeya Rawal v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1041/2025

While hearing a PIL seeking guidelines to check the misuse of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that the judges are very careful in using AI.

The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition seeking the regulation of the 'unregulated' use of generative AI in Court proceedings.

The CJI, objecting to the assumption that there is an 'unregulated use', expressed :

Temple Money Belongs To Deity, Can't Be Used For Survival Of Cooperative Banks : Supreme Court

Case Details: Thirunelly Service Cooperative Bank Ltd and Anr. v. Sree Thirunelly Devaswom and Ors. SLP(C) No. 34386/2025

The Supreme Court observed that temple money belonged to the deity and cannot be used to enrich cooperative banks. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petitions filed by some cooperative banks in Kerala challenging a direction issued by the Kerala High Court to return the deposits of the Thirunelly Temple Devaswom.

During the hearing, the bench asked what was wrong with the High Court's direction.

"You want to use the temple money to save the bank?What is wrong with directing that the temple money, instead of being in a cooperative bank which is breathing with great difficulty, should go to a healthy nationalised bank which can give maximum interest?" CJI Kant asked.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Life Convict Swami Shraddhanand's Plea For Expeditious Decision On Mercy Petition

Case Details: Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 5/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a pleafor expeditious decision on the mercy petition filed by Swami Shraddhanand, the 87-yr-old self-styled godman who has been in jail since 31 years following conviction for the murder of his wife Shakereh Khaleeli (granddaughter of Dewan of Mysore, Sir Mirza Ismail).

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the case as withdrawn, after hearing Advocate Varun Thakur. Notably, Justice Maheshwari wondered why 6 adjournments were given in the case and expressed that it would have been dismissed on the first date itself had it come before his bench.

Thakur pleaded before the Court that Shraddhanand is extremely sick and has been in jail since 31 years without a single day of parole. However, the bench was not convinced and pointed to the orders passed in the past dismissing the self-styled godman's pleas for review, etc.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Mumbai Civic Body's Proposal To Engage Reliance Industries For Landscaping Reclaimed Lands

Case Details: Jipnesh Narendra Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1166/2025

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the Expression of Interest (EoI) issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) inviting private agencies/voluntary organizations for landscaping work on reclaimed lands along the Mumbai Coastal Road.

The petitioner challenges assignment of any work to Reliance Industries in pursuance to the aforesaid EoI and seeks restraint thereon.

The case was listed before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, but was adjourned at the request of the petitioner.

NEET-UG : Supreme Court Grants Relief To TN Students Who Lost MBBS Seats After Missing Fee Payment Deadline

Case Details: T. Dhanya v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 1123/2025

The Supreme Court (December 5) granted relief to three NEET-UG candidates from Tamil Nadu who had lost their MBBS seats after failing to complete the fee payment within the stipulated time owing to technical glitches.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar permitted the students to make the payment by Wednesday (December 10), thereby restoring their chance to secure admission. Initially, the bench was not convinced and it stated that if the relief is allowed primarily because of financial difficulties, it would open Pandora's box. However, after the Court was informed that there was also the fact that the late date of payment fell on a holiday, noting the peculiar circumstances of the case, the bench clarified that the order shall not be treated as a precedent for future matters.

The Court directed the State to allot the candidates seats from the available vacant management quota seats, ensuring they are not deprived of admission due to circumstances beyond their control.

'Not A Single Litigation From Homebuyers In Gujarat': Justice Pardiwala Says Most Unauthorised Building Cases From Delhi & Mumbai

Case Details: Narendra N. Pagarani v. Mohamed Rafique Mohamed Nazir Shaikh | SLP(C) No. 25655-25659/2025

Justice JB Pardiwala of the Supreme Court observed that disputes arising from unauthorised constructions and building-plan violations are predominantly reported from Delhi and Mumbai, unlike other States. The remark came while the Court was hearing a real estate dispute involving a builder who had constructed additional floors near the Mumbai International Airport without obtaining a revised sanctioned plan.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice PB Varale was considering a plea arising out of objections raised by airport authorities regarding the unauthorised construction. Directing the parties to approach the High Court, the bench requested it to hear and decide the matter expeditiously. “Since the builder has constructed an additional four floors without getting the revised plan sanctioned, and there is a strong objection from the airport authorities, we request the High Court to take up the matter at the earliest and decide it after hearing all parties,” the order stated.

After dictating the order, Justice Pardiwala expressed concern over the recurring nature of such disputes in the two metropolitan cities.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Inquiry Into Fees Charged By MP Advocate General In Nursing Council Matter

Case Details: Kavita Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh | D No. 55167/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking inquiry into the alleged exorbitant fees charged by the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh and other State Law officers in a litigation related to the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council (MPNRC).

After a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed inclination to dismiss the matter, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition.

The petition was filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which dismissed the petition observing that the allegations were frivolous, unsubstantiated, and unsupported by any material showing what fees were actually paid or that any rule was violated.

Waqf Mutawalli Approaches Supreme Court Citing Defects In Umeed Portal; Seeks Directions To Rectify Technical Flaws

Case Details: Hashmat Ali v. Union of India and Ors | Diary No. 70413 / 2025

A Mutawalli from Madhya Pradesh has approached the Supreme Court challenging the enforceability of the digital uploading mandate under Section 3B of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, alleging that the Union government's Umeed Portal is structurally defective and technologically unfit for registering waqf properties. The writ petition, filed under Article 32, argues that the portal notified under the UMEED Rules, 2025 is incompatible with the statutory framework governing waqfs in several States and that its persistent technical glitches have made compliance impossible.

According to WAMSI data published by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, thirty States and Union Territories and thirty-two Waqf Boards have collectively reported 8.72 lakh waqf properties spread over more than thirty eight lakh acres. Of these, 4.02 lakh properties fall under the category of Waqf by User.

The petitioner cited news reports that States with the largest waqf holdings have struggled to complete uploads. Uttar Pradesh has uploaded only thirty five percent of its 1.4 lakh properties while West Bengal has uploaded twelve percent. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have managed around ten percent each and Punjab has uploaded eighty percent.

Supreme Court Seeks AICTE Clarification On Whether Regulations On Superannuation Age Will Apply To Private Unaided Institutions

Case Details: Dr. Mir Sadique Ali v. Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society & Ors | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 15958/2023

The Supreme Court has asked the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to clarify whether the age of retirement for teachers and faculty, including principals, set by the AICTE Regulations 2010 and 2019, mandatorily extends to private non-aided institutions.

It has specifically asked whether the age of retirement for teachers, which was increased to 65 years in technical institutions except for librarians as per the 2010 AICTE Regulation, also applies to non-aided institutions. Also, whether the age of retirement fixed for faculty and principal/directors to 65 years as per AICTE's 2019 Regulation would apply to private non-aided institutions as well.

"Following the promulgation of the 2019 Regulations dated 01.03.2019, wherein as per clause 2.12, the age of retirement of all 'faculty members and Principals/Directors' of 'Institutions' has been made 65 years. It is to be clarified that whether the said age would mandatorily be applicable to the private non-aided institutions running after approval of AICTE, having permission of the State Government."

Supreme Court Expresses Shock At Dismissal Of 2 Sweepers In Varanasi Corporation For Raising Child Trafficking Issue; Orders Reinstatement

Case Details: Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. | MA 729/2025 In Crl.A. No. 1927/2025

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval after learning that the services of a couple employed as sweepers had been terminated by a contractor solely because they had approached the Court challenging bail orders granted by the Allahabad High Court to persons accused of child trafficking.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan is currently hearing a batch of criminal appeals filed by the kin of children trafficked by an intra-state trafficking network. During the December 2 hearing, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Aparna Bhat informed the Court that Pinki and her husband, both engaged as sweepers with the Dashashwamedh Ward of the Varanasi Municipal Corporation through a contractor, had been abruptly removed from service. The couple had approached the Supreme Court after their one-year-old child was allegedly kidnapped in 2023, challenging the bail granted to the accused by the High Court.

It may be recalled that, during earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had pulled upthe State authorities for failing to challenge the bail orders despite the seriousness of the allegations. In this context, the Bench observed that the couple's termination appeared to be linked to official displeasure over their decision to pursue the matter before the Court.