Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: December 15, 2025 To December 21, 2025

Judgments

S. 389 CrPC | Gravity Of Offence And Role Of Accused Must Guide Suspension Of Sentence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajesh Upadhayay v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1127

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's order suspending sentence of a murder convict, holding that the relief was wrongly granted in ignorance of the gravity of the offence and the accused's active role.

“…having regard to the relevant considerations such as nature of accusation, events in the crime and even the attribution of role of the appellant, it has to be held that the High Court should not have suspended the sentence, and releases respondent No.2. A clear error was committed by the High Court. The participation and role played by respondent No.2 in the entire commission of offence has to be viewed as grave and could not have been discounted for its seriousness to suspend his sentence imposed upon conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC.”, observed a bench of Justices Manmohan and NV Anjaria, while allowing the complainant's appeal.

The Court reiterated that suspension of sentence after conviction for an offence punishable with life imprisonment requires careful and cautious consideration, particularly where the allegations disclose a direct and active role in the crime. The power cannot be exercised mechanically or merely on the ground that the appeal is pending.

Art. 136 | Second SLP Barred After Dismissal Of Earlier SLP & Failed High Court Review, Unless Liberty Was Reserved: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1205

The Supreme Court held that a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) is not maintainable once an earlier SLP has been dismissed and a subsequent review before the High Court has also failed, unless the Court has expressly granted liberty to approach it again.

“there is no doubt that a party does not require any liberty to move in review before the High Court after dismissal simpliciter of an SLP by a non-speaking Order of this Court. However, if the High Court refuses to exercise review jurisdiction, to our mind, it would not be just and proper to permit the same party to approach this Court again, in the absence of specific liberty having been granted by this Court.”, observed a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while dismissing a second SLP filed against the High Court's order dismissing the review petition, filed after the first SLP was dismissed in a non-speaking order.

The dispute dates back to 2010, when retired employees of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court claiming pensionary benefits. A Single Judge allowed their claims in 2012, but the judgment was overturned by a Division Bench in 2014 on the ground of maintainability.

Income Tax | Foreign Companies' Head Office Expenses For Indian Business Subject To Deduction Limit Under S. 44C: Supreme Court

Case Details: Director of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai. v. M/S. American Express Bank Ltd. (And Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1206

In a set-back to foreign companies doing business operations in India, the Supreme Court (December 15) held that all head office expenditure incurred by them outside India, whether common or exclusively for their Indian business operations, must be subjected to the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby ruling out any claim for full deduction.

A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the grant of full deduction for “head office expenditure” incurred by the respondent non-resident assessees outside India in relation to their business operations in India.

The Respondents-non resident banks operating in India through branches, had claimed deductions under Section 37(1) for expenses incurred by their foreign head offices. These included travel, certification, and administrative costs stated to be exclusively incurred for Indian branch operations. The Assessing Officers applied the Section 44C cap, limiting deductions to the lower of 5% of adjusted total income or the amount attributable to Indian business.

Buyer Not At Fault: Supreme Court Orders Seller to Refund Buyer for Hiding Bank Encumbrance

Case Details: Moideenkutty v. Abraham George

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1207

The Supreme Court (December 15) observed that the fraudulent suppression of encumbrances on the property in an agreement to sell constitutes a valid ground for refund of advance payment.

Holding thus, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled in favour of the property purchaser, whom the seller had misled by suppressing the existence of a pending loan on the suit property at the time of entering into the agreement to sell, and such liability not being disclosed in the agreement.

The appeal arises from a dispute over a contract for the sale of land. The respondent (seller) entered into an agreement to sell approximately 77 acres and 26 cents of land to the appellant (buyer) for ₹4,45,00,000. The appellant paid ₹50,00,000 as part of the advance under the agreement dated 10 September 2008.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Trial Courts On Cataloguing Witnesses & Evidence In Criminal Case Judgments

Case Details: Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1208

The Supreme Court (December 15) issued directions to all the trial courts aiming to institutionalize a standardized format for cataloguing witnesses, documentary evidence, and material objects.

“we are of the considered view that a more structured and uniform practice must be adopted to enhance the legibility of criminal judgments. Accordingly, to ensure a systematic presentation of evidence that enables efficient appreciation of the record, we issue the following directions to all trial Courts across the country. These directions aim to institutionalize a standardized format for cataloguing witnesses, documentary evidence, and material objects. This will serve to facilitate better comprehension and immediate reference for all stakeholders, including the Appellate Courts. Hence, we are passing the following directions, which shall be adhered to by all trial Courts across the country.”, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, said while acquitting a man accused for sexually assaulting a 4 year old girl under the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a credible case due to serious lapses in the cataloguing, custody, and handling of evidence.

The following directions were issued:

'Sensitise Future Generation About Equality In Marriage': Supreme Court Issues Directions To Tackle Dowry Evil

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg Etc. | Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-133 of 2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1209

While quashing an acquittal of a husband and her mother convicted for dowry death and cruelty, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to issue general directions to tackle the issue of dowry deaths in society.

In passing the order, the Court termed dowry as a social evil because of which a 20 year old had to give up on her life: "In this case, a young girl, barely of twenty, when she was sent away from the world of the living by way of a most heinous and painful death, met this unfortunate end simply because her parents did not have the material means and resources to satisfy the wants or the greed of her family by matrimony. A coloured television, a motorcycle and Rs. 15,000/- is all she was apparently worth of."

The Court lamented that when it comes to the giving and taking of dowry, this practice, unfortunately, has deep roots in society, and hence, a social change is needed for the effective implementation of the law.

When Marriage Survives Only On Paper Due To Prolonged Litigation, Better To Separate Parties: Supreme Court

Case Details: N v. A

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1210

Observing that courts should not perpetuate a marriage that survives only on paper, the Supreme Court (December 15) dissolved the marriage of a couple who had been living separately for the past 24 years, holding that their fundamentally different approaches to matrimonial life and prolonged refusal to accommodate each other amounted to mutual cruelty and resulted in an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

Referring to precedents such as Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita(2023), the Court observed that "long period of separation without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both the parties."

“This Court is also of the view that pendency of matrimonial litigation for a long duration only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper. It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the matrimonial litigation pending in Court without granting relief to the parties.”, observed a bench of Justices Manmohan and Joymlaya Bagchi, while allowing the husband's plea and restoring the divorce decree passed by the trial court.

CPC | Separate Suit Against Confirmed Auction Sale Barred Under Order XXI Rule 92(3), Remedy Lies Under Section 47: Supreme Court

Case Details: Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1211

The Supreme Court (December 15) ruled that once an auction sale is confirmed and the aggrieved party has not sought to set it aside, a separate suit challenging the order confirming the sale is expressly barred under Order XXI Rule 92(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court clarified that the appropriate remedy in such cases is to move an application under Section 47 CPC, limited to grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or nullity of the order.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard the case originated from a 1970 mortgage by one Duli Chand in favour of New Bank of India (now Respondent No. 6) for a tractor loan. Upon default, the bank obtained an ex parte decree in 1984. During the pendency of the suit and after the decree, two purchasers (Respondents 1 & 2) bought parcels of the mortgaged land from one of the judgment debtors in 1985.

In execution proceedings, the entire mortgaged property was auctioned in 1988. The appellants, sons of a judgment debtor, were declared the highest bidders for a sum of ₹35,000. The sale was confirmed in August 1988, and possession was delivered in June 1989.

Lis Pendens Applies To Money Suits Involving Mortgaged Property; Ex Parte Proceedings Also Covered Under S 52 TP Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1211

The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies even to a money recovery suit where the debt is secured by a mortgage over immovable property, and that the bar on transfer operates irrespective of whether the proceedings are contested or ex parte.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ruled that once a suit is instituted by a bank seeking recovery of dues backed by a mortgage, the mortgaged property becomes “directly and specifically in question” for the purposes of Section 52. Any transfer of such property during the pendency of the suit, or till complete satisfaction of the decree, would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.

Rejecting the contention that Section 52 would not apply since the original decree was only a simple money decree, the Court clarified that the nature of the decree is not determinative. What is relevant is whether the plaint discloses that the immovable property answers the debt. Where the plaint seeks recovery of money along with a prayer that the mortgaged property be proceeded against in the event of default, the Court said the property is clearly in issue.

'Deviation From 'Bail Is The Rule' Principle Constitutionally Suspect': Supreme Court Grants Bail To Wadhawan Bros In DHFL Scam

Case Details – Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1212

The Supreme Court recently granted bail to Kapil Wadhawan, former Chairman and Managing Director of Dewan Housing Finance Limited, and his brother Dheeraj Wadhawan, former Director of DHFL, in the Rs 34,000 crore bank fraud case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on a complaint by Union Bank of India.

A bench of Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that charges have not yet been framed and that even with day-to-day hearings, the trial is unlikely to conclude within two to three years.

“There is no gainsaying that under Indian law “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is etched in the ethos of criminal jurisprudence. This rule stems from the fact that criminal law presumes a person to be innocent unless proven otherwise. Meaning that generally an under-trial prisoner ought not be placed behind bars indefinitely unless there is clear threat to society, influencing witnesses/inquiry or he is a flight risk etc. This rule also ensures that process is also not made punishment, wherein a person is jailed for very many years pending trial. Bail under the Code is a qualified right of an accused before conviction, wherein the accused is not guaranteed bail, rather it puts onus on the prosecution to establish as to why the under-trial prisoner should not be enlarged on bail. Any deviation in the above proposition is constitutionally circumspect”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Holds TANGEDCO Liable To Pay Fixed Charges To DisCom For Power Supplied Before Full Commissioning

Case Details: Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Penna Electricity Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1213

In a relief for the power generators, the Supreme Court (December 16) held that the electricity supplied by them from the date of synchronization of their power generation to the grid is entitled to receive fixed charges, even if the entire project is not fully commissioned.

Holding thus, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan affirmed the concurrent findings of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) and Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC), while dismissing the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.'s (TANGEDCO) appeal, which claimed that the Respondent-Power Generator is not entitled to 'fixed charges' for the intervening period between the synchronization of their power generation to the grid and its official full commission.

The core legal dispute revolved around the classification of 153 million units of electricity supplied by the Respondent from its open-cycle gas turbine between October 29, 2005, and June 30, 2006. TANGEDCO had treated this as “infirm power,” warranting only variable (fuel) charges. The respondent argued that it was “firm power,” attracting fixed charges as well. Respondent's gas turbine was synchronized and supplied power continuously from October 2005, while the full combined-cycle plant was commissioned later in July 2006.

'Politically Motivated': Supreme Court Quashes Land Allotment Corruption Case Against Karnataka BJP Leader R Ashoka

Case Details: R. Ashoka v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1214

The Supreme Court (December 16) quashed the corruption case against Karnataka's Leader of Opposition & BJP MLA R. Ashoka in an alleged irregularity made in the land allotment during his tenure as the Chairman of the Committee for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation.

An FIR was registered by the State's Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate the allegations made regarding illegalities in land allotments during Mr. Ashoka's committee tenure, where it was complained that during his tenure, illegal allotment of government land meant for SC/ST and poor was made to his family members, political followers, and corporators.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIR, Ashoka moved to the Supreme Court.

Once Loss Is Caused By Fire, Cause Of Fire Becomes Immaterial, Supreme Court Allows Insurance Claim

Case Details: Cement Corporation of India v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1215

Reiterating that the cause of fire is immaterial, when the loss is occurred to the insured from the fire, the Supreme Court (December 16) allowed a fire insurance claim, noting that the insurer can't deny claim saying that the proximate cause of fire was not provided in the specified peril.

“Once it is not disputed that the loss is caused by fire, then the cause igniting the fire becomes immaterial. The insurer cannot refuse to indemnify the damage caused by fire, which is a specified peril, on the ground that the proximate cause of fire was burglary/theft (which is excluded under the RSMD clause), particularly when no such exclusion is provided in the specified peril “Fire”.”, observed a bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, where the Appellant suffered a loss due to the fire caused in an attempt to burglary/theft.

In November 2006, thieves entered CCI's Mandhar cement factory in Chhattisgarh. While attempting to steal copper windings from a transformer using a blow torch, they inadvertently started a fire, causing extensive damage. CCI lodged a claim of approximately ₹2.20 crores under its Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy.

SARFAESI Act Inapplicable In Nagaland Before Its Adoption In 2021: Supreme Court Dismisses Secured Creditor's Plea

Case Details: North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (Nedfi) v. M/S L. Doulo Builders and Suppliers Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1216

The Supreme Court (December 16) dismissed a secured creditor's plea to initiate recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against a borrower in Nagaland, holding that such action was impermissible at a time when the Central legislation was not operational within the State.

Noting that the Appellant–secured creditor had initiated recovery proceedings in 2011 by issuing a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, while the SARFAESI Act was formally adopted in Nagaland only in 2021 after the Governor notified its applicability, a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar held that the proceedings commenced prior to such adoption were invalid.

The dispute arose from a loan sanctioned in 2001 by the Appellant to the Respondent (Nagaland-based entity) for establishing a cold storage unit in Dimapur. Due to restrictions on the transfer of tribal land under Article 371A of the Constitution, the parties adopted a tripartite arrangement. While the borrower mortgaged its assets to the Village Council, the Council, in turn, executed a Deed of Guarantee in favour of the Appellant to secure repayment.

Issues About Party's Capacity To Invoke Arbitration And Maintainability Issues Fall Within Tribunal's Domain: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (Apgenco) v. M/S Tecpro Systems Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1217

The Supreme Court (December 17) reiterated that the questions related to whether an individual is a veritable party to an arbitration agreement, eligible to invoke the arbitration clause, shall be referred for the Arbitral Tribunal's consideration.

A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar declined to interfere with the Telangana High Court's decision referring the dispute to arbitration and rejected the appellant's objection that Respondent No. 1 was ineligible to invoke the arbitration clause despite not being a party to the consortium with which the arbitration agreement existed.

“Once the High Court was satisfied that an arbitration agreement prima facie existed, an aspect neither seriously disputed nor refutable at this stage, its decision to constitute the AT cannot be faulted.”, the court said, pointing out that Courts at the referral stage are confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and must refrain from conducting a detailed inquiry into contentious issues such as authority, capacity, maintainability, or merits of claims.

Omission In Chief Examination Can Be Cured In Cross-Examination: Supreme Court

Case Details: K. S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1218

The Supreme Court (December 17) ruled that the omissions made in the examination-in-chief can be cured in the witness's cross-examination.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the case relating to the dispute over the attestation of the Will, where the genuineness of the Will was disputed by the testator's one of the daughter who was left out from the Will. She contended that the omission of one of the attesting witness (DW-2), in his examination-in-chief, not specifying whether he had seen other attesting witnesses signing the Will, became the incurable defect, making the Will unauthentic.

Accepting this contention, the Trial Court and Kerala High Court ruled in favour of the Respondent-daughter, holding that the will was not properly proved since the sole surviving attesting witness (DW-2) did not, in his examination-in-chief, explicitly speak about the attestation by the other witness, who had died before the trial.

Evidence Act | Materials Handed Over By Accused During Police Check Can't Be Termed Section 27 Recoveries: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shaik Shabuddin v. State of Telangana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1218

The Supreme Court held that the recovery of incriminating articles from the custody of the accused cannot be treated as a discovery pursuant to a disclosure statement to attract Section 27 of the Evidence Act. To bring a disclosure statement within the ambit of Section 27, there must be prior concealment of the relevant fact or object by the accused, and its subsequent discovery by the police must be a direct consequence of the information furnished by the accused.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran made this observation, while deciding a criminal appeal on the quantum of sentence imposed on the Appellant-convict, for the offences committed under Sections 302(murder) & 376D(gangrape) read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, along with Section 404 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The case stemmed from the killing of a woman, after being dropped near a Village by her husband one morning, she went missing and could not be contacted. Her body was found the next day in bushes along a nearby road. The prosecution alleged that three accused followed her, raped her in an isolated area, and slit her throat to eliminate evidence. They were charged under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC, along with provisions of the SC/ST Act. The trial court awarded the death penalty, later commuted by the High Court to life imprisonment without remission, relying inter alia on alleged confessions and Section 27 recoveries.

'State Can't Dilute NEET Eligibility For Dental Courses': Supreme Court In Rajasthan BDS Case; Imposes ₹10 Crores On Erring Colleges

Case Details: Siddhant Mahajan v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1220

The Supreme Court held that the State of Rajasthan had no authority to lower the minimum qualifying percentile in the NEET-UG examination for admissions to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course for the academic year 2016–17, and that the decision to do so was manifestly illegal. At the same time, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court protected the degrees of students who have already completed the BDS course, while imposing severe financial penalties on erring private dental colleges and the State Government for undermining statutory norms governing dental education.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi in a batch of civil appeals filed by affected students, private dental colleges in Rajasthan and the Dental Council of India (DCI), challenging a 2023 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. The appeals arose out of a prolonged dispute relating to BDS admissions made after the State Government unilaterally relaxed NEET eligibility criteria in 2016, allegedly to fill a large number of vacant seats.

The controversy dates back to the introduction of NEET as the sole eligibility-cum-entrance examination for admissions to medical and dental courses across the country. Under the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, candidates belonging to the general category are required to secure at least the 50th percentile in NEET to be eligible for admission, while the threshold is 40th percentile for SC, ST and OBC candidates, and 45th percentile for candidates with locomotory disability of the lower limbs. The regulations permit lowering of this minimum percentile only by the Central Government, and that too in consultation with the DCI, and only when sufficient candidates are not available.

Individual Firms Can Claim Proportionate JV Experience For Future Work Contracts When Applying Solo: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Surguja Bricks Industries Company v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1221

The Supreme Court (December 18) observed that an experience gained as a partner in a Joint Venture contractual works can be claimed proportionately by an individual entity bidding separately in future tenders.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision which refused to consider the Appellant's proportionate work experience, it gained while partnering in a joint venture with 49 percent stake, for its future work contracts.

“we find that there was no justification at all on the part of the respondents in not considering the proportionate experience certificate of the appellant as a member of the joint venture. Such decision of the respondents is arbitrary and unreasonable rendering the decision-making process in breach of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”, the court held.

'Facilitates Access To Justice': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Formation Of Bombay High Court's Kolhapur Bench

Case Details: Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra | W.P.(C) No. 914/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1222

The Supreme Court (December 18) dismissed a writ petition filed by advocate Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar, challenging the August 1 notification of the Bombay High Court issued under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, for the creation of the recent Kolhapur Circuit Bench, whichbecameeffective from August 18.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria observed that the "establishment of the Kolhapur bench was in consonance with the Constitutional vision of bringing justice to all."

The bench observed that Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 preserves the power of the Chief Justice of India to take a decision.

Cheque Dishonour | Supreme Court Doubts Precedent Exempting Convicted Company Directors From S.148 NI Act Deposit

Case Details: Bharat Mittal v. State of Rajasthan | SLP(Crl) No. 12327/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1223

In an important legal development, the Supreme Court doubted two of its earlier judgments which held that the director or the authorised signatory of a company convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be directed to make the deposit before the appellate Court as per Section 148 of the Act for suspension of sentence.

Disagreeing with the precedents, a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria observed that a blanket exemption cannot be given to the company's convicted director/authorised signatory from making the deposit under Section 148 of the NI Act. Such an exemption should be decided based on the factual circumstances of each case, the bench observed.

However, in view of the fact that the earlier precedents were delivered by benches of equal strength, the present bench, as a matter of judicial discipline, refrained from overruling them and instead chose to refer them to a larger bench for an authoritative reconsideration.

Contradictions In Sole Eyewitness Testimony Fatal To Prosecution Case, Supreme Court Acquits Four In Murder Case

Case Details: Punimati & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors (And Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1224

The Supreme Court (December 18) acquitted four persons convicted of murder, holding that discrepancies in the testimony of the sole interested eyewitness rendered it unreliable, and that a conviction could not be sustained solely on such evidence in the absence of corroboration.

A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard a criminal appeal in which the appellants-convicts assailed their conviction, contending that the sole eyewitness, the deceased's mother (PW-4), had given contradictory testimony about how the incident occurred and about the source of the information allegedly conveyed to her by her granddaughter.

“It is a well-settled law that merely because the witness is an interested or related witness, his/her deposition cannot be discarded. Further, deposition of such witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely. As such, we have closely scrutinized the deposition given by PW-4, who is the mother of the deceased. As observed hereinabove, there are material contradictions in her deposition regarding the manner in which the incident took place and with regard to which the information about the incident was given by her granddaughter.”, the court observed.

CUSAT Act | When Selected Candidate Resigns, Vacancy To Be Filled By Communal Rotation & Not From Rank List: Supreme Court

Case Details: Radhika T v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1225

The Supreme Court has held that the rule of communal rotation in university appointments continues to operate even during the validity period of a rank list, and that a waitlisted candidate does not acquire an automatic right to appointment merely because a selected candidate resigns.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria dismissed appeals filed by Radhika T., a Scheduled Caste candidate, challenging the refusal of the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) to appoint her as Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Chemistry after the resignation of the initially selected candidate.

The Court affirmed the Kerala High Court's decisions which had upheld the University's stand that the vacancy arising after the resignation had to be filled in accordance with the communal rotation prescribed under the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, and not necessarily from the existing rank list based solely on merit position.

S. 37 Arbitration | Arbitral Awards Not Liable To Set Aside On Mere Error In Law Or Misappreciation Of Evidence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1226

The Supreme Court (December 18) overturned the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment, holding that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by effectively acting as an appellate court, re-appreciating the evidence, and substituting its own interpretation in place of the arbitral award.

“High Court, in exercise of limited jurisdiction under Section 37, impermissibly re-appreciated facts and substituted its own interpretation, contrary to settled law.”, held a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, while observing that “arbitral awards are not liable to be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous in law or alleged misappreciation of evidence and there is a threshold that the party seeking for the award to be set aside has to satisfy, before the judicial body could enter into the realm of exercising its power under section(s) 34 & 37. It is also apt and appropriate to note that re-assessment or re-appreciation of evidence lies outside the contours of judicial review under section(s) 34 and 37.”

“Even an award which is based on little or no evidence would not be held to be invalid on this score. At times, the decisions are taken by the arbitrator acting on equity and such decisions can be just and fair therefore award should not be overridden under section 34 and 37 of the A&C Act on the ground that the approach of the arbitrator was arbitrary or capricious.”, the court added.

Forest Land Cannot Be Leased Or Used For Agriculture Without Centre's Prior Approval Under Forest Conservation Act: Supreme Court

Case Details – State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Gandhi Jeevan Collective Farming Co-Operative Society Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1228

The Supreme Court held that forest land cannot be leased or used for agricultural purposes without the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and that any such lease granted in violation of the law is illegal and cannot be continued.

“This Court in a catena of decisions has passed numerous mandatory directions prohibiting de reservation of forest. Granting permission to cultivate the forest land would essentially require clearing of forest and such a course of action is in the teeth of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which precludes de-reservation or use of forest land for non-forestry purposes without prior approval of the Central Government… Thus, no permission could have been granted to perpetuate the illegality committed while granting the lease of the forest land to the respondent-Cooperative Society”, the Court observed.

On this basis, a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Karnataka High Court order which had allowed a cooperative society to seek continuation of a lease over forest land by way of a representation.

'Last Seen' Theory Alone Can't Sustain Conviction Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

Case Details: Manoj @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1230

The Supreme Court set aside an individual's conviction for murder, holding that a prosecution case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained solely on the “last seen” theory in the absence of other corroborative evidence.

“The present is a case where except for the evidence of last seen together, there is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be sustained.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while allowing the convicts' appeal.

The case pertained to the brutal murder, where the deceased body was found with multiple injuries, including ligature marks and severe burns. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence—specifically, the alleged motive (theft of a tractor for money) and the "last seen" theory.

In Murder Cases, Sessions Court Can't Pass 'Life Imprisonment Without Remission' Sentence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kiran v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1231

Clarifying the scope of sentencing powers in murder cases, the Supreme Court held that a Sessions Court cannot impose a sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life without remission, as such sentencing powers are exclusively vested in the Constitutional Courts.

“The power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission was conferred only on the Constitutional Courts and not on the Sessions Courts.”, observed a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran, while partly allowing the convicts appeal, modifying his sentence of life imprisonment till his natural life without remission as imposed by the Sessions Court to a standard life imprisonment entitling him to claim statutory right of remission.

The case pertained to a gruesome crime, where the convict, a relative by marriage, entered the hut of a widow (mother of five) who had repeatedly resisted his sexual advances. After she spurned him once more, he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She suffered 60% burns and died ten days later.

ESI Act | Best Judgment Assessment Under S.45A Can't Be Invoked Saying Records Produced Are Inadequate: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. Esi Corporation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1232

In the context of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that if an employer has produced records such as ledgers, cash books, vouchers, and statutory returns and cooperated with the ESI Corporation, the Corporation cannot invoke Section 45A to raise demands for contribution periods older than five years.

The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where the dispute arose from a demand raised by the ESI Corporation in 1996 relating to alleged unpaid contributions for the period August 1988 to March 1992. Following a show-cause notice proposing a demand of over ₹26 lakhs, the employer participated in the proceedings, appeared at personal hearings, and produced ledgers, cash books, vouchers and statutory returns.

Despite this, in 2000, the Corporation invoked Section 45A, which permits “best judgment” assessment, and determined liability at ₹5.42 lakh, alleging that certain supporting bills and vouchers had not been furnished to enable segregation of wage components.

Corporate Social Responsibility Must Include Environmental Responsibility, Says Supreme Court In Great Indian Bustard Case

Case Details: MK Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1233

In a significant pronouncement expanding the scope of corporate accountability, the Supreme Court has held that Corporate Social Responsibility cannot be divorced from Corporate Environmental Responsibility, observing that companies cannot claim to be socially responsible while disregarding the protection of wildlife and fragile ecosystems affected by their operations.

Delivering a detailed judgment in the long-running litigation concerning the conservation of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard, the Court underlined that corporations, as legal persons and key organs of society, share the constitutional duty under Article 51A(g) to protect and improve the natural environment and to show compassion for living creatures.

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the statutory CSR framework under the Companies Act, 2013 reflects a shift from voluntary charity to enforceable obligation and that environmental protection lies at the heart of this mandate. The Court stressed that CSR funds are not acts of philanthropy but instruments to discharge constitutional and fiduciary duties, particularly where corporate activities threaten endangered species and their habitats.

'Child Trafficking A Disturbing Reality': Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines To Evaluate Evidence Of Victims

Case Details Background and Findings

Case Details: Kp Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State By Peenya Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1234

Calling child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation a “deeply disturbing reality” in India, the Supreme Court (December 19) laid down detailed guidelines on how courts must sensitively and realistically appreciate the evidence of minor victims of trafficking and prostitution, cautioning against discarding their testimony over minor inconsistencies or stereotypical notions of conduct.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi issued the guidelines while upholding the conviction of a Bengaluru man and his wife for trafficking and sexually exploiting a minor girl, affirming judgments of the Trial Court and the Karnataka High Court under the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Writing for the Bench, Justice Bagchi observed that cases of child trafficking are not isolated aberrations but part of an entrenched pattern of organised exploitation that continues despite legislative safeguards. The Court said that judicial assessment of such cases must be informed by sensitivity to the lived realities of minor victims rather than rigid or hyper-technical standards of proof.

Renewal Of Driving Licence After A Gap Will Not Operate Back From Date Of Its Expiry: Supreme Court

Case Details: Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors. Etc. (And Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1235

The Supreme Court has upheld the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board's interpretation of eligibility conditions for driver posts, ruling that candidates whose driving licences had expired and were renewed after a gap cannot be treated as having held a licence “continuously” for the prescribed period, even if the renewal was within one year of expiry.

The Court ruled that a candidate must possess a driving licence “continuously for a period of full two years” for the recruitment to police and fire service driver posts, holding that any gap between expiry and renewal of a licence breaks continuity, even if the licence is later renewed within the permissible statutory window.

“going by the plain words of the statute, as is the first rule of interpretation, it would mean that Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Act, as it stands today, does not provide for the licence to continue after its expiry even for a single day…”, observed a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti, while setting aside the Telangana High Court's decision which allowed the candidates to participate in the selection process, despite their license being expired, though they were renewed subsequently.

S. 482 CrPC | High Court Cannot Quash Cheque Bounce Cases By Conducting Pre-Trial Enquiry Into Debt Or Liability: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Sri Om Sales v. Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Patel & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1236

The Supreme Court (December 19) held that it is impermissible for the High Courts to quash cheque dishonour proceedings by undertaking a pre-trial enquiry into disputed facts, particularly when a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the complainant.

“we are of the considered view that the High Court committed an error by conducting a roving enquiry, at the pre-trial stage, as regards the cheque being issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Such an exercise, in our view, was not merited in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code more so when the complaint allegations disclosed that the cheque was issued for discharge of liability. As fulfillment of the necessary ingredients of Section 138 N.I. Act are prima facie made out from the complaint allegations, in our view, neither the summoning order nor the complaint could have been quashed by the High Court at the pre-trial stage.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Patna High Court's decision which quashed the cheque dishonor complaint in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court found the High Court failed to apply the settled position of law that when a prima facie case is made out from a complaint, it is impermissible to quash the case, by taking a roving inquiry into the disputed facts, that needs adjudication in a trial.

High Courts Must Be Fair In Their Administration: Supreme Court Flays Allahabad HC For Discrimination In Staff Regularisation

Case Details: Ratnank Mishra & Others v. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad Through Registrar General (And Connected Case Details)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1237

The Supreme Court (December 19) set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which, while regularizing services of a few of its employees, did not regularise services of similarly situated employees. The Court reminded the High Court of its duty to uphold constitutional morality within their own administration.

“High Courts, being Constitutional Courts entrusted to uphold equality and fairness, are expected to encompass such principles within their own administrative functioning as well, and must exemplify the standards of a model employer. Such principles are at the risk of being undermined when discriminatory treatment is meted out to employees similarly situated within the same establishment. Such actions pose grave threat to the sacrosanct principles of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness as enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”, observed a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, while ruling in favour of the employees, and directing their immediate regularization and the grant of full service benefits, ending a two-decade-long denial of permanent status.

“The Appellants have rendered over a decade of service. Numerous similarly placed employees who were employed through same channel of appointment have been regularized. Therefore, with a view to render complete justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, this is a fit case for exercising our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to issue final operative directions.”, the court said.

Passport Renewal Can't Be Denied Due To Pendency Of Criminal Case When Trial Court Has Permitted Renewal: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1238

The Supreme Court of India has held that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be used to impose an indefinite bar on renewal of a passport, particularly where competent criminal courts have permitted such renewal while retaining control over any foreign travel.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by businessman Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, and directed the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, to re issue his ordinary passport for the normal period of ten years.

“This Court has repeatedly held in a catena of judgements that the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any restriction on that right must be fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose.”, observed the bench, while setting aside the Calcutta High Court's decision which denied renewal of the Appellant's passport, merely on account of a criminal proceedings under NIA Act and UAPA being pending against him.

Husband Sending Money To Parents, Asking Wife To Track Expenses Not 'Cruelty': Supreme Court Quashes 498A Case

Case Details: Belide Swagath Kumar v. State of Telangana & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1239

The Supreme Court (December 19) set aside a cruelty and dowry harassment case filed by a wife against her husband, holding that allegations based on his remitting money to his parents and brother and requiring her to maintain Excel sheets of household expenses did not constitute cruelty or dowry demands.

“The act of the accused-appellant of sending money back to his family members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a criminal prosecution. The allegation that the accused-appellant forced the complainant-respondent No.2 to maintain an excel sheet of all the expenses, even if taken on the face value, cannot come under the definition of cruelty. The monetary and financial dominance of the accused-appellant, as alleged by the complainant-respondent No.2, cannot qualify as an instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental or physical harm caused. The said situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society where men of the households often try to dominate and take charge of the finances of the women but criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue personal vendettas.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while allowing the husband's appeal.

The case stemmed from an FIR registered by Appellant's wife. She accused her husband and five of his family members of subjecting her to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and of offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act).

Mere Delay By Plaintiff In Depositing Balance Sale Consideration Won't Render Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Amit Arya v. Kamlesh Kumari

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1240

The Supreme Court held that some delay in depositing the balance sale consideration by the buyer, beyond the timeline prescribed in the decree, would not render the decree for specific performance inexecutable if the buyer remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra referred to the recent case ofRam Lal v. Jarnail Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 283, where it was held:

“The non-payment of the balance sale consideration within the time period fixed by the Trial Court does not amount to abandonment of the contract and consequent rescinding of the same. The real test must be to see if the conduct of the plaintiff will amount to a positive refusal to complete his part of the contract.”

Non-Compete Fee Can Be Deducted As Revenue Expenditure Under Section 37(1) Income Tax Act: Supreme Court

Case Details – Sharp Business System Thr. Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno v. Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii N.D.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1241

The Supreme Court has held that payment of non-compete fee does not result in acquisition of a capital asset or alteration of the profit-making structure of the business, and is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

“Thus non-compete fee only seeks to protect or enhance the profitability of the business, thereby facilitating the carrying on of the business more efficiently and profitably. Such payment neither results in creation of any new asset nor accretion to the profit earning apparatus of the payer. The enduring advantage, if any, by restricting a competitor in business, is not in the capital field”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed assessee Sharp Business Systems to claim deduction of Rs. 3 crores paid as non-compete fee to Larsen and Toubro Limited, holding the expenditure to be revenue in nature.

S. 311 CrPC Power To Be Invoked Sparingly Only When Evidence Is Indispensable To Find Truth: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1242

The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's order allowing the prosecution to recall an 11-year-old girl under Section 311 CrPC, holding that the provision must be invoked sparingly and only where the evidence is indispensable for discovering the truth.

Noting that the application was moved after the examination of 21 witnesses and at the fag end of the trial, without any explanation for the delay, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and A.G. Masih found that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate why the witness became essential only at such a belated stage, making it an unfit case for permitting further examination.

“the application under Section 311 CrPC was filed after examination of 21 prosecution witnesses and at an advanced stage of trial. Though the power under Section 311 is wide, it is to be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence sought is indispensable for arriving at the truth. The present case does not satisfy this requirement. Allowing the examination of the child witness would only protract the trial and cause prejudice to the accused”, the court observed.

Orders and Other Developments

Delhi Schools Holding Sports Activities Amid Air Pollution Bypassing Court Order: Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, the amicus curiae in the Delhi air pollution matter, informed the Supreme Court that many schools in Delhi-National Capital Region are finding ways to circumvent the Court's direction that open sports activities must not be held during November-December.

"In spite of that direction, during this severe pollution, they found ways and means to have these sporting activities. So now children are also not being spared. What has been prohibited by your lordships, those very activities are taking place," she told a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

She added that the Commission for Air Quality Management has also issued a notification barring sporting activities during this period. "CAQM has taken out a notificaiton saying that the Supreme Court has ordered that children cannot play outdoors. But they have found ways and means to bypass the orders," she said.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL On Indigo Crisis, Allows Petitioner To Join Delhi High Court Proceedings

Case Details: Narendra Mishra v. Union of India and Anr | W.P.(C) No. 1232/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation petition filed in respect of the Indigo Flight crisis, noting that the Delhi High Court is already hearing a similar matter.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi gave liberty to the petitioner to join the proceedings in the Delhi High Court. The bench requested the Delhi High Court to permit the petitioner to intervene in the ongoing proceedings.

As soon as the matter was taken, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi informed the bench about the pending matterin the Delhi High Court. He also submitted that the Director General of Civil Aviation has constituted a committee to look into the matter.

Supreme Court Criticises 'Special Pujas' In Temples By Rich Devotees During Deity's Resting Time

Case Details: Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple and Anr. v. Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Mandir High Powered Management Committee and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 1228/2025

The Supreme Court (December 15) criticised the practice of allowing rich people to do 'special pujas' in temples after paying money, disrupting the resting time of the deity.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition concerning the Banke Bihari temple. The challenge in the plea was mainly related to the change in Darshan timing of the temple and also the stopping of certain essential religious practices, including Dehri Pooja in the temple. In August, the temple administration was placed under the supervision of a High-Powered Committee constituted by the Court.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for the petitioners (temple sewayats), raised objections to the change in the darshan timings. "These darshan timings are part of tradition and rituals. The timings during which the temple is open to the public are a part of a long tradition."

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Journalist Mahesh Langa In Money Laundering Case

Case Details: Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa v. State of Gujarat and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13743/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Journalist Mahesh Langa, formerly working in The Hindu, in a money laundering case lodged in connection with two FIRs relating to the offence of cheating.

Langa was first arrested on October 7, 2024, in connection with a GST fraud case and was arrested in the money laundering case on February 20, 2025.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the bail plea by the journalist.

Supreme Court Orders FSL Examination Of Mobile Device Containing Alleged Hate Speech Voice Clip Of UP Police Officer

Case Details: Islamuddin Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl) No. 14997 of 2025.

The Supreme Court has ordered the forensic examination of the mobile phone containing an alleged audio clip in which Uttar Pradesh DIG Sanjeev Tyagi, then Superintendent of Police of Bijnor, is purportedly heard making anti-Muslim remarks.

The bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, to ensure the safe delivery of the seized device to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Hyderabad.

The direction was passed while considering an application seeking modification of the Court's earlier orderthat had required DIG Tyagi to submit his voice sample for comparison. The matter arises from a petition filed by Islamuddin Ansari seeking quashing of a criminal case registered against him.

'We Wonder If High Court Is Aware Of Our Decisions': Supreme Court Dismayed At MP HC Condoning 5 Year Delay In State's Appeal

Case Details: Shankargir v. State of M P & Anr. | Civil Appeal No.14613/2025

While expressing dismay over the manner in which the Madhya Pradesh High Court condoned the delay of 1612 days on the mere request of the State Government, the Supreme Court reminded that the law is well-settled in terms of limitation and condoning delay that sufficient cause has to be looked into.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice PB Varale was dealing with a civil appeal preferred by an appellant against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's September 1 judgment, whereby it condoned the delay of 1617 days in preferring the first appeal, which was allowed. The appellant's grievance is that no reason to condone the delay was assigned.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, informed that the delay occurred because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Court noted that no such word was mentioned in the High Court's order.

Supreme Court Asks Tamil Nadu Govt To Ascertain Land Needed To Establish Navodaya Vidyalayas, Directs Consultations With Centre

Case Details – State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government and the Tamil Nadu Government to hold a joint consultation on the issue of establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNV) in the State and to submit a report to the Court.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan also directed the authorities to ascertain the extent of land required for establishing JNVs in each district of Tamil Nadu.

Justice Nagarathna said that a “my State, my State” attitude must be avoided and called for a federal discussion. She further said that during the consultation, the state can put conditions such as having a two-language policy, instead of the three-language policy followed by JNVs.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran In 2024 Lok Sabha Elections

Case Details: M L Ravi v. Dayanithi Maran P | D No. 32470/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed challenging the election of DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran from the Chennai Central constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi dismissed a petition filed by ML Ravi, who approached the Supreme Court against the Madras High Court dismissinghis election petition.

According to the petitioner, Maran indulged in corrupt election practices by publishing newspaper advertisements and distributing pamphlets during the 48-hour silent period before the voting date and thereby violated the Model Code of Conduct.

Banke Bihari Temple: Supreme Court Issues Notice To High-Powered Committee On Plea Challenging Change Of Darshan Timings

Case Details: Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple and Anr. v. Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Mandir High Powered Management Committee and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1228/2025

The Supreme Court sought a response from the State of UP and the Court-constituted High Powered Committee on a plea challenging the changed temple darshan timings and discontinuation of Dehri Pooja at the Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple, Mathura.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing the writ petition filed by the Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple. Notice has been issued to the respondents returnable on January 7, 2026.

The petitioners in the writ petition are the Management Committee of the temple through Gopesh Goswami from Shayan Bhog seva, and Rajat Goswami.

PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Action Against Persons Spreading Defamatory Remarks Against Justice GR Swaminathan

Case Details: G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors

A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking actions against the protestors who allegedly spread defamatory remarks against Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Judge of the Madras High Court, subsequent to his order to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepa Thoon (lamp pillar) at the Thiruparankundram Subramaniya Swamy Hill Temple, Madurai.

The PIL has been filed by Advocate G.S. Mani, belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party, alleging that caste- and religion-based defamatory remarks have been made against Justice Swaminathan, with an intention to disturb social harmony and provoke law and order and communal unrest.

It is alleged that individuals affiliated with ruling DMK-supported parties, including the Communist parties, along with certain lawyers, have carried out illegal and unauthorised protests in public places and have repeatedly staged demonstrations outside the Madras and Madurai Benches of the High Court and other court premises. The protesters are said to have demanded the resignation of a sitting judge and attributed improper motives to his judicial decisions. It is further alleged that the State Government and police authorities remained passive and failed to take action against those involved.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Regulation Of Care Homes For Persons With Autism And Developmental Disabilities

Case Details – Hrdya Sara's Foundation v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation highlighting abuse, neglect and commercial exploitation in residential and institutional care homes for persons with autism and other developmental and intellectual disabilities, and seeking regulation of such care homes.

“multiple reports from across India have exposed shocking instances of mistreatment within these institutions. These include incidents of physical assault, verbal abuse, emotional harassment, prolonged neglect, and in some cases, even sexual exploitation of residents who are unable to defend themselves or raise their voice. Such cases highlight the dangerous situation that arises when institutions are allowed to function without strong regulation and monitoring, reducing vulnerable persons to conditions of exploitation rather than care”, the plea states.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice to the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, the National Trust under the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, the Delhi Government. and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India.

'Union Cannot Have Its Own Limitation Period': Supreme Court Flags Delay In Govt Appeals

The Supreme Court yesterday (December 15) dismissed three matters simultaneously and refused to condone the delay after orally remarking that the Union Government officers are not diligent enough to file within the permissible time.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the matters in which Additional Solicitor General Archana Dave Pathak appeared for the Union. These were matters in which the Union Government had preferred the special leave petitions challenging the orders of the High Court.

Without going into the merits, Justice Misra asked what justification the Union Government officers have in not filing the SLP on time. He remarked that the Court has noted the lack of diligence on the part of the Union to pursue the matter within the permissible limitation period in quite a few matters recently.

Dowry Has Diffused Into Muslim Marriages Hollowing Out Mehr's Protection: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg Etc. | Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-133 of 2017

The Supreme Court (December 15) issued general directions to contain the social evil of dowry death in society. It also quashed an order of the Allahabad High Court, which acquitted the accused husband and her mother contrary to the Trial Court's finding that they burnt a 20-year-old alive because she could not fulfil their demand of a coloured television, a motorcycle and Rs. 15,000.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh passed the order. In a judgment authored by Justice Karol, he traced the history of dowry, which originally began as a voluntary gift-giving practice to the daughter upon her marriage, for her own use and financial independence.

The judgment also explained it was morphed into an "institutionalised practice" which ended up becoming an essential aspect of hypergamy, which is a practice of marrying 'higher up' in terms of caste, etc, to maintain a lineage. Not just this, due to cross-fertilisation of cultural practices, how it has also penetrated the Muslim community leaving the protection of mehr hallow.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Private Hospitals' Plea Against Kerala Clinical Establishments Act; Grants Interim Protection

Case Details: Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala | SLP(C) No. 36014/2025 Diary No. 70111 / 2025

The Supreme Court (December 16) issued notice in a petition filed by the Kerala Private Hospitals Association challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 and the Rules framed under it. The Court also directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing.

The plea assails, among other provisions, Section 39 of the Act, which mandates every clinical establishment to display the fee rate and package rate of all services provided. The medical bodies have contended that the Act does not define expressions such as “fee rate” and “package rate”, making compliance arbitrary and exposing hospitals and clinics to subjective enforcement by authorities.

The petition has been filed against the Kerala High Court's judgment upholding the Act and issuing further directions, including that hospitals cannot deny life-saving treatment for non-payment of advance or lack of documents. It also directed every clinical establishment to file an undertaking of compliance within 30 days, followed by audits, clarifying that non-compliance would invite regulatory action.

Justice Yashwant Varma Moves Supreme Court Challenging Lok Sabha's Inquiry Committee In Impeachment Proceedings

Case Details: X v. O/O Speaker of The House of The People | W.P.(C) No. 1233/2025 Diary No. 71319 / 2025

The Supreme Court (December 16) issued notice in a plea challenging the legality of the Parliamentary Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma in the impeachment proceedings over the discovery of unaccountedcash currencies at his official residence.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Justice Yashwant Varma (who filed the petition anonymously as X), appeared before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih. Challenging the process adopted, Varma has argued that despite impeachment notices being moved in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla proceeded to constitute the committee on his own, without awaiting the Rajya Sabha Chairman's decision on admission of the motion or holding the mandatory joint consultation prescribed by law.

Rohatgi, reading the constitution of the Committee and the provisions of the 1968 Act, submitted: "Where the notices of the motion are 'given' to the Houses on the same date, that is the case here, no Committee will be constituted, this is peremptory mylords, unless the motion is being admitted in both Houses. And where such motion is admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman"

Supreme Court Refuses To Seek ECI's Response On Newspaper Report Claiming Centralised Sending Of Mass Notices During Bihar SIR

The Supreme Court declined to call for a response from the Election Commission of India on a newspaper report alleging that lakhs of pre-filled notices for deletion of voter names were centrally issued during the Special Intensive Revision exercise in Bihar, observing that Courts cannot be swayed by media reports unless the issue is formally brought on record through an affidavit.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions challenging the SIR process when Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms, referred to a report publishedin The Indian Express. As per the report, lakhs of pre-filled notices seeking deletion of names were sent to voters from the Central Election Commission, even though under the Representation of the People Act, only the local Electoral Registration Officer is empowered to issue such notices. He described the allegation as serious and contended that it indicated centralised interference in a process that must legally remain localised.

"There were lakhs of notices for deletion of names in the Bihar SIR. It appeared this morning on The Indian Express. The report says, lakhs of pre-filled notices were sent to voters from the Central EC. These notices were sent to over 10 lakh people...This is very serious and needs a response from the Election Commission. If lakhs of notices are being sent from a centralised place, whereas the RP Act says only the ERO can send, section 23 is clear. It is very serious...it shows something is happening from the centralised ECI," Bhushan submitted. He pointed out that the report also mentioned that the ECI did not respond to the reporter's queries.

Supreme Court Grants Six Weeks To Centre To Finalise Scheme For Rehabilitation Of Disabled Officer Cadets

Case Details – In Re: Cadets Disabled In Military Training Struggle

The Supreme Court granted six weeks to the Union Government to complete the process of considering recommendations for rehabilitating officer cadets who are discharged after suffering disabilities during military training.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan Court adjourned the suo motu matter to January 28, expecting sufficient progress by then on the consideration and approval of the recommendations of the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Airforce.

“Learned ASG also submitted that the recommendations of the three services are positive and therefore the consideration by the two Ministries is required. Hence we adjourn this matter to 28 January. It is expected that by then sufficient progress made with regard to the consideration and approval of the recommendations made by the respondents”, the Court stated

Supreme Court Supports Reservation For Advocates With Disabilities In State Bar Councils; Asks BCI To Submit Proposal

Case Details: S. M. Vetrivel v. Secretary, Bar Council of India | SLP(C) No. 036061 - / 2025

The Supreme Court underscored that inclusivity and a humane approach must guide institutional decision-making, as it issued notice in a plea seeking reservation for persons with disabilities in State Bar Council elections and asked the Bar Council of India to hold consultations and place a proposal before the Court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea seeking 4 per cent reservation for advocates with disabilities in the elections to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. During the hearing, the CJI repeatedly stressed that representation of persons with disabilities would strengthen the legal profession and enhance the humane character of its institutions.

At the outset, BCI Chairperson and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra opposed the plea, arguing that there was no reservation for persons with disabilities in Parliament or State Assemblies and cautioning against opening the door to multiple categories of claims. He submitted that the population of persons with disabilities among advocates was minimal, and reserving even a single seat in councils with limited strength would be impractical.

Supreme Court Seeks CBI's Report On Defence Company's Alleged Links To AgustaWestland

Case Details: Union of India v. Defsys Solutions Private Limited | SLP(C) No. 035565 - / 2025

The Supreme Court sought a response regarding the CBI investigation carried out on the alleged involvement of Defsys Solution Limited, a leading defence equipment manufacturer, in the AgustaWestland Chopper Scam.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the Union challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court, which set aside suspension orders against the respondent company, Defsys Solution Limited, a leading defence equipment manufacturer with which the government was involved in other contracts.

Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj, appearing for the Union, stressed that the suspension was done based on the ongoing CBI investigation. He added that the Courts should generally refrain from interfering in matters related to defence. He referred to the latest letter issued by the CBI.

Supreme Court Suggests Compensation For Victims Of Digital Arrest Scams, Asks Centre To Discuss With Stakeholders

Case Details: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents, SMW (Crl.) 3/2025

In the suo motu case taken up over "digital arrest" scams, the Union informed that it will be holding a stakeholder meeting to address the issue of ensuring victim compensation.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the suo motu case taken by it on the issue.

Senior Advocate NS Nappinai, the amicus curiae in the matter, submitted a suggestion of having a victim compensation scheme on the lines of the UK's model for Authorised Push Payment scams, which ensures mandatory reimbursement of victims through the intervention of the banking channel.

Supreme Court Closes Case On Delay In UP Undertrial's Release, Says Addl Sessions Judge Was Wrongly Blamed In Inquiry

Case Details: Aftab v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Ma 1086/2025 In Crl.A. No. 2295/2025

The Supreme Court (December 16) closed the matter in which it made some critical remarks against the Uttar Pradesh prison authorities for delaying the release of an undertrial on bail by 28 days just because one clause of a provision was missing from the bail order.

Before closing the matter, the Court expressed that it is pained to note that the whole blame for not releasing the undertrial was put on an Additional District and Sessions Judge when he was not at fault.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a matter in which the undertrial, Aftab, who has been booked under the UP Unlawful Religious Conversions Prohibition Act, approached the Court with a miscellaneous application praying that he may be released. It was then that the Court noticed that he was not released over a clerical omission, as the bail order mentioned Section 5 of the UP Act and not Section 5(i), which was the appropriate provision.

Intersex Persons Should Not Be Under Transgender Category: Plea In Supreme Court

Case Details – Gopi Shankar M v. Union of India

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court is set to hear a public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court seeking various directions and legal reforms concerning the rights of persons with diverse gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics, particularly intersex persons.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed that the plea be listed before a three-judge bench, with the CJI remarking that it is a “good petition”.

SC Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Two Judicial Officers To Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium on December 16, 2025 approved the proposal for appointment of two judicial officers as Judges of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

As per the decision taken in the Collegium meeting, Shri Ramesh Chander Dimri and Ms. Neerja Kulwant Kalson have been cleared for elevation to the High Court.

The statement can be read here.

Supreme Court Seeks Response Of MP, Union On Alleged Discriminatory Prison & Police Provisions

Case Details: In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India | Suo Moto No. 10/2024

The Supreme Court on December 15 considered an interlocutory application seeking to strike down allegedly discriminatory provisions in the Madhya Pradesh prison law and police regulations, in an ongoing suo motu case concerning discrimination inside prisons across India.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing Interlocutory Application filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPA Project) in the suo motu writ petition In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India.

The application has challenged several provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024, and the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, 1937, contending that they are unconstitutional and contrary to the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment inSukanya Shantha v. Union of India. The applicants have also sought directions to all other States to place on record similar provisions in their police regulations, standing orders, rules, or subordinate legislation.

Supreme Court Transfers Suo Motu Proceedings On RG Kar Doctor Rape-Murder Case To Calcutta High Court

Case Details – In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor In Rg Kar Medical College Hospital Kolkata and Related Issues

The Supreme Court transferred to the Calcutta High Court the suo motu case it had initiated in connection with the rape and murder of a woman doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, for monitoring the implementation of the orders passed by it in the case.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma directed that the High Court would henceforth oversee compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court while dealing with the matter.

“We deem it appropriate to refer matter to a Division bench of the Calcutta High Court with a request to the Chief Justice to place the matter before an appropriate bench. Registry to transmit all the matters to the Calcutta High Court”, the Court ordered.

SCBA, Union To Submit Joint Suggestions To Supreme Court On Preventing Attacks On Judges

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Rakesh Kishore | Conmt.Pet.(Crl.) No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) informed the Supreme Court that it proposes to submit joint suggestions along with the Union Government on framing guidelines to prevent incidents such as the shoe-throwing bid at the former CJI and to regulate media reporting of comments glorifying such incidents.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a contempt petition filed by the SCBA against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who had hurled a shoe at then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai while the latter was holding court.

At an earlier hearing, the Bench hadexpressed reluctance to initiate criminal contempt proceedings and indicated thatit would instead focus on laying down preventive guidelines to avoid such incidents in the future.

Supreme Court Refuses To Consider Pleas Against Suspension Of Physical Classes Upto Std 5 In Delhi Due To Air Pollution

Case Details – Mc Mehta v. Union of India Wp (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court refused to consider applications challenging the Delhi Government's order to suspend physical classes till the 5th standard from December 15, owing to the severely deteriorated air quality in the national capital.

The Court said that it was not inclined to intervene as the suspension of classes was only a temporary measure and that the winter break for the schools was commencing next week. However, the Court has left the matter for the consideration of the CAQM.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy told the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi that the closure of the schools was affecting the poor people the most, as their children would be deprived of midday meals. She also questioned the rationale behind the decision, asking how school children were contributing to pollution. Guruswamy said she was appearing for poor parents who continue to work outdoors despite the pollution, parking cars and working on the streets. She questioned whether the air inside their homes was any better than in classrooms and pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier indicated that a hybrid option should be made available to parents. According to her, the current arrangement benefited only wealthy parents who could afford to keep children at home.

Supreme Court Allows Ban Of 10-Year-Old Diesel & 15-Year-Old Petrol Vehicles Below BS-IV In Delhi NCR

Modifying its August 12 order -which barred coercive action against diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years in the National Capital Region - the Supreme Court (December 17) clarified that action can be taken against such vehicles that meet emission standards below BS-IV.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order at the request of the Delhi Government, which sought action against older cars in view of the air quality crisis in the national capital.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, for the Delhi Government, sought a modification of the order passed on August 12, 2025, to permit action against vehicles up to BS-III. "Older vehicles, their emission standards are very poor, and they are adding to the pollution," ASG said.

Air Pollution: Supreme Court Asks NHAI, MCD To Consider Shifting Or Closing 9 Toll Plazas At Delhi borders

Taking serious note of the worsening air pollution levels in Delhi NCR, the Supreme Court on December 17, 2025, issued a series of directions asking the National Highways Authority of India and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to urgently consider either temporarily closing or relocating toll plazas situated at the borders of the national capital to ease chronic traffic congestion.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagch and Justice Vipul Pancholi was informed during the hearing that toll collection points operated by the MCD, including one at the Gurgaon border, were causing hours-long traffic snarls and long queues of vehicles, significantly adding to vehicular emissions. Counsel submitted that congestion at the Gurgaon toll was spilling over towards Delhi, aggravating pollution levels on both sides.

Expressing strong displeasure, the CJI questioned why authorities could not take a policy decision to suspend toll collection at least till January. “Why can't the officials say that till January there will be no toll plaza?” the Chief Justice asked, adding sarcastically, "tomorrow you will start putting toll plazas inside the CP because you need money?"

If Judicial Order Is Based On Dishonest Or Extraneous Factors, Why Not Take Disciplinary Action Against Judge? Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajaram Bhartiya v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh | W.P.(C) No. 1230/2025

Though action cannot be taken against a judge for a judgment, if it is passed based on dishonest or extraneous factors, why cannot disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him, asked the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi raised this query while hearing a writ petition filed by a District Judge from Madhya Pradesh who challenged the High Court's order suspending him.

Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, for the petitioner, submitted that he was a highly reputed judicial officer with good ACRs, and the order of suspension was passed against him when he was days away from his retirement.

'Happy Ending To This Saga': Supreme Court Appreciates Consensus Between Kerala CM & Governor On University VC Appointments

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

The Supreme Court (December 18) expressed satisfaction that the Kerala Chief Minister and the Governor reached a consensus on the appointments of regular Vice Chancellors of the two prominent State universities.

Since the appointments had been stalled for months due to the disagreement between the State and the Governor, the Court had constituted a committee lead by Justice (retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia to resolve the deadlock. Since there was no resolution even after Justice Dhulia committee's intervention, the Court had indicated that it will make the appointments. After the Court gave that signal, the authorities agreed on the names.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was informed that the Kerala Governor and State Government have reached a consensus. Dr Saji Gopinathan was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, and Dr Ciza Thomas was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Digital Sciences, Innovation, and Technology.

When Most Indians Struggle For Drinking Water, Plea On Quality Of Packaged Water Is 'Luxury Litigation': Supreme Court

Case Details: Sarang Vaman Yadwadkar v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 1222/2025

Terming the issue as “luxury litigation”, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea raising concerns over the alleged failure to follow international standards for packaged drinking water in India, observing that large parts of the country still struggle to access basic drinking water.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by Sarang Vaman Yadwadkar, seeking directions on improving standards applicable to packaged drinking water.

At the outset, the CJI questioned the very premise of the petition, remarking, “Where is the drinking water in this country, madam? People do not have drinking water; the quality of bottled water will come later on.”

Supreme Court To Speak With Parents Before Deciding To Allow Passive Euthanasia For Their Son

Case Details: Harish Rana v. Union of India | Ma 2238/2025 In SLP(C) No. 18225/2024

The Supreme Court (December 18) went through the report of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) concerning the examination of a 32-year-old man, who has remained in a vegetative state for the past 12 years after falling from a building, for the purpose of administering passive euthanasia. The Court has now passed an order expressing its interest to speak the parents of the man on January 13 and for the counsels to study the report so that they can assist the Court in passing final orders.

It may be recalled that a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan is hearing a miscellaneous application of the father seeking to remove all life-sustaining treatment from his son. As per the guidelines laid down in the 2018 constitution bench judgment in Common Cause, as modified in the January 2023 order, the Court has to get the opinions of Primary and Secondary Medical Boards before allowing passive euthanasia.

Consequent to this, the Primary Medical Board was constituted, which reported that the man's chances of recovery were negligible. It was reported that he has been lying on the bed with a tracheostomy tube for respiration and a gastrostomy for feeding. The photographs showed that he has suffered huge bed sores.

Ad hoc Judges Can Sit In Single Benches Or In Division Benches With Sitting Judges Of High Court: Supreme Court Clarifies

The Supreme Court clarified that ad hoc judges appointed in High Courts can constitute single benches or can sit with sitting judges in division benches.

The Court also left it to the discretion of the Chief Justice of the High Court to decide who should be the presiding judge if a division bench is constituted with a sitting judge and an ad hoc judge.

Article 224A of the Constitution allows the appointment of retired High Court judges as ad hoc judges. As per the April 2021 judgment, in which the Supreme Court had issued directions for the appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A, ad hoc judges must sit in division benches consisting only of them. In January this year, the Courthad kept this condition in abeyance.

Supreme Court Asks ECI To Sympathetically Consider Pleas To Extend Deadlines Of Kerala & UP SIR

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 and Connected Matters

The Supreme Court (December 18) asked the Election Commission of India to "sympathetically consider" requests to extend the deadline for the submission of the enumeration forms in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of the electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh and Kerala.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the batch of pleas challenging the SIR process across several states in the country.

Sr Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the petitioners in the UP SIR matter, stressed the need for the extension of time for submitting the enumeration forms in Uttar Pradesh. Stating that the next elections in the State of UP are to be held in March-April of 2027, Dave said that there was no need for any haste in the SIR of UP Rolls.

Supreme Court Extends 30% Women Reservation To Bar Councils Of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh

Case Details: IAS Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 581/2024

The Supreme Court extended its order directing 30% reservations for women in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Bar Council Elections

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing applications seeking directions for extending its earlier order for earmarking 30% reservation for women in State Bar Council elections to the Bar Council of Telangana.

Previously, the Court directed that that 30% of the seats in the State Bar Councils - where elections are yet to be notified- must be represented by women advocates.

Stray Dog Case | 'We'll Play A Video & Ask What Is Humanity': Supreme Court On Claim That MCD's Treatment Of Dogs Was 'Inhuman'

Case Details – In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'

The Supreme Court said it would play a video in the next hearing in the stray dogs case and ask what constitutes “humanity”, after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal objected to implementation of rules framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, describing the treatment of dogs as per the MCD rules as inhuman.

The matter was scheduled before a three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria. However, the bench was cancelled, and the matter was adjourned to January 7.

Therefore, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter before the division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, requesting early hearing in light of the MCD Rules.

SC Collegium Recommends Appointment Of New Chief Justices To 5 High Courts & Transfer Of One CJ To Another HC

The Supreme Court Collegium, December 18, 2025, recommended the appointment of five High Court judges as Chief Justices of different High Courts, to fill vacancies arising from retirements and transfers.

The recommendations were made during a meeting of the Collegium held on December 18 and are subject to approval by the Union Government.

As per the Collegium's decision, Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta, presently serving as a Judge of the Allahabad High Court, has been recommended for appointment as the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. The vacancy will arise following the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice on January 9, 2026.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Judicial Officer's Plea Against High Court Calling Her Negligent

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a Rajasthan High Court order making adverse remarks against the conduct of a judicial officer who overlooked the fact that accused had not complied with earlier directions while seeking for bail.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition by the Judicial officer challenging the adverse observations made by the High Court of Rajasthan, of her dealing with a bail plea.

The High Court, in its order, made adverse remarks against the officer, calling the officer 'negligent'.

Permission To Cut Trees Must Follow Definition Of 'Forest' In Godavarman Decision Though Land Not Notified As Forest: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh Thr. Its Secretary & Ors. v. Jyoti Bhushan Mishra & Anr.

The Supreme Court has clarified that any permission to cut or remove trees has to be given by following the definition of forest given by the Court in its 1997 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, irrespective of whether the land in question has been formally notified as a reserve forest.

As per the 1997 judgment, the Court gave a wider meaning to forest land and said that it will also include any area recorded as forest in the Government record, irrespective of the ownership.

The land in question pertains to the wildlife sanctuary in Balrampur district, which was notified as a sanctuary in 1988. One of its ranges surrounds the Narainpur Jhingha village. Before it was notified, the farmers of the Narainpur village had sought an exchange of their agricultural land with the land on the outskirts of the forest, as their crops were being damaged by the wild animals.

Rajasthan Municipal Elections Will Be Completed By April 2026, State Assures Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanyam Lodha v. State of Rajasthan | SLP(C) No. 36874/2025

The Supreme Court recorded the Rajasthan government's assurance that elections to urban local bodies in the State will not be postponed beyond April 2026, while declining to interfere with a Rajasthan High Court order permitting the polls to be held within that timeline.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a plea filed by Congress leader and former MLA Sanyam Lodha, challenging the High Court's order which allowed the State to complete the municipal elections by April 2026. Lodha had sought immediate conduct of the elections, alleging undue delay in the electoral process.

During the hearing, the CJI noted that the delimitation exercise for municipal wards was nearing completion and that the High Court had already issued directions to complete the process by April 15, 2026. “It seems to us that the delimitation exercise is nearing completion and the High Court has issued directions to complete the exercise by April 15, 2026. We see no reason to entertain this SLP,” the Bench observed.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Of Former Punjab Minister Bikram Singh Majithia In Disproportionate Assets Case

Case Details – Bikram Singh Majithia v. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order which refused to grant him regular bail in a corruption case relating to alleged disproportionate assets.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice NV Anjaria issued notice on his SLP against Punjab and Haryana High Court order which dismissed Majithia's bail plea in FIR registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court also denied Majithia's prayer for interim bail.

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar, for Majithia, submitted that the Punjab Government had misused the criminal process by registering a fresh corruption case against him on the basis of the very same financial transactions that were earlier relied upon in an NDPS case in which he had already secured bail.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ex-Punjab DIG Bhullar's Plea Against CBI Investigation; Allows To Pursue Matter In HC

Case Details: Harcharan Singh Bhullar v. Union of India | SLP(Crl) No. 20917-20918/2025

The Supreme Court (December 19) refused to entertain the petition filed by suspended Punjab Police DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar seeking stay of the CBI investigation in two FIRs alleging disproportionate assets against him.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi noted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was already seized of Bhullar's petitions. He approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to grant him interim relief in the writ petitions challenging the CBI's jurisdiction to investigate the cases. The High Court, on December 4, adjourned the hearing to January, without passing any interim order.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, for Bhullar, told the Supreme Court that the High Court was wrong in granting a month-long adjournment in the matter without considering the prayer for interim relief. He argued that it was a case where the CBI has wrongfully assumed jurisdiction in violation of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, as the State's consent for CBI has already been withdrawn. "CBI is surreptitiously entering Punjab, circumventing Section 6 DSPE Act," the senior counsel submitted. He submitted that the Supreme Court is already considering the issue whether the CBI can investigate when the State's consent has been revoked in the West Bengal case.

Woman Advocate Approaches Supreme Court Alleging 14 Hour Illegal Detention & Custodial Sexual Assault By Noida Police

Case Details – X v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on a writ petition filed by a woman advocate alleging that she was illegally detained for fourteen hours overnight at a police station in Noida and subjected to custodial sexual assault, torture and coercion by police officials while discharging her professional duties.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice NV Anjaria issued notice returnable on January 7, 2026 on the plea alleging violation of fundamental rights of the petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

 "The Petitioner, a practicing female Advocate, was subjected to a sustained period of 14 hours of illegal detention, custodial sexual assault, torture, and coercion by uniformed police personnel at P.S. Noida Sector 126, U.P, commencing late on the night of 03.12.2025 while she was levying her professional duty towards her client”, the plea states.

'Brazenly Abused Freedom Of Speech': Supreme Court Refuses Plea To Quash FIR Over Post Against Prime Minister

Case Details: Gurudath Shetty K v. State of Gujarat | W.P.(Crl.) No. 515/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by BJP worker Gurudath Shetty, a resident of Bengaluru, seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him by the Gujarat Police over a social media post allegedly targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi was hearing Shetty's plea challenging the FIR lodged for a post attributed to him on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), under a parody account titled “Jawaharlal Nehru Satire”. The petitioner was booked for cognisable and bailable offences under Section 336(4) and Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

At the outset, counsel for Shetty submitted that the petitioner was only seeking protection for a few days to enable him to approach the jurisdictional High Court. “Need a 5–7 days' notice, so that I can protect myself, because these are bailable offences,” the counsel urged. It was further argued that Shetty had not authored the post in question and had merely reposted it with a question mark.

2007 Ajmer Blast Case: Supreme Court Asks Rajasthan HC To Decide Victim's Appeal Against Acquittals On Merits Regardless Of Delay

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

The Supreme Court recently requested the Rajasthan High Court to decide the appeals filed by the victim in the 2007 Ajmer Sharif Dargah blast case, challenging the acquittals of some accused, on merits, regardless of the delay in the filing of the appeals.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the interim direction while considering a petition filed by Syed Sarwar Chishty, a Khadim of the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, who is the complainant in the case.

The appeal before the High Court had challenged the acquittal of seven accused persons in connection with the blast that took place on October 11, 2007, shortly after iftar prayers during the month of Ramadan at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah. The explosion had resulted in the death of three persons and injuries to several others.

Hardcore Criminals Exploiting Jurisdictional Loopholes In NCR States: Supreme Court Flags Issue

Case Details: Mahesh Khatri @ Bholi v. State NCT of Delhi | Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 1422/2025

Raising serious concerns over jurisdictional gaps in the Delhi-NCR that allow organised criminals to game the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court of India flagged the urgent need for an effective legal mechanism to address inter-State complications that frequently derail trials in grave offences under Central Penal Laws.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a matter concerning the creation of exclusive special courts for trials under Central Penal Laws.