Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 03, 2025 To November 09, 2025

Reports/Judgments

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1060

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1061

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1062

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1062

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1063

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1064

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1065

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1067

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: Poonam v. Dule Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1068

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1069

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1069

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1070

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Samiullah v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1071

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Samiullah v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1071

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1072

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1072

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1072

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1073

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1074

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1075

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

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

Background

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1076

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1077

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1078

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

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

Background

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1079

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1080

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

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

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

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

Case: Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1081

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

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

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

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

Case: Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1082

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

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

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

Orders and Other Developments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case No. – C.A. No. 13149/2025

Case Title – Glas Trust Company Llc v. Shailendra Ajmera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SBI's Argument: Personal Hearing Not Always Feasible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Shehla Chaudhary v. Union of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the hearing, the petitioner, one Nitish Kumar, raised contentions regarding poor implementation of the Disaster Management Act as well as holding of elections/voting in disaster-struck states. He submitted that there was no accountability regarding bridge collapse incidents.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Rajasthan Highway Accident In Phalodi Which Left Atleast 15 Dead

Case Title: In Re: Phalodi Accident v. SMW(C) No. 9/2025

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the tragic highway accident in Rajasthan's Phalodi which left atleast 15 people dead after a tempo traveler slammed into a stationary truck on November 2.

The matter is listed before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi for hearing on November 10. It has been registered as a public interest litigation.

Reportedly, at the time of the accident, the tempo was carrying women and children from Jodhpur, who had gone on a pilgrimage to Bikaner. On its way back to Jodhpur in the evening, the tempo rammed into a stationary truck parked infront of an eatery at the Bharatmala highway. This truck was carrying construction material. As such, the collision had a very severe impact.

Supreme Court Transfers Pleas For Protection Of Mentally Ill Persons In Faith-Based Asylums To NHRC For Monitoring

Case Title – Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court transferred to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) three pleas filed by an advocate seeking directions for the protection and welfare of persons with mental illness kept in faith-based mental asylums and for implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan passed the order after noting that the Central and Union Territory mental health authorities were functioning.

“In view of the fact that the Central Mental Health Authority as well as the authorities constituted by the Union Territories have been functioning, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be subserved if we direct the NHRC to monitor and pass necessary directions after hearing the statutory authorities. In view of above, the writ petitions are transferred to the National Human Rights Commission”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Dismisses Rs 244 Crore Service Tax Plea Against Bharti Airtel Over Employee Scheme

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram, Haryana v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.

Case Number: Diary No. 49079/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a nearly Rs 244 crore service tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram, against telecom giant Bharti Airtel Ltd. The dispute concerned the company's Airtel Employees Services Scheme (AESS), which offered free or discounted telecom services to its employees.

The appeal challenged a January 27, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, which had set aside the entire tax demand.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan upheld the tribunal's order.

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On ISKCON Mumbai's Review Plea Against ISKCON Bangalore

Case: International Society For Krishna Consciousness, Mumbai v. International Society For Krishna Consciousness, Bangalore & Ors. | Diary No. 37957 of 2025

The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict in a review petition filed by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) Society Mumbai against the Court'sjudgment delivered in May this year, which held that the ISKCON temple in Bengaluru belonged to ISKCON Society Bangalore.

In view of the divergence of opinion in the two-judge bench, the matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice of India for further action.

In May, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka (since retired) and Justice AG Masih set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that the Bengaluru temple belonged to ISKCON Society, Mumbai. Consequently, ISKCON Society Bangalore got the rights over the Bengaluru temple.