Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 10, 2025 To November 16, 2025

Judgments

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1083

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1084

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1084

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

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

Background Of The Case

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1085

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1086

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1087

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1088

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1089

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: In Re: Delhi Ridge

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1090

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Surendra Koli v. State of Up

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1091

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Surendra Koli v. State of Up

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1091

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

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

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

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

Case Title – Surendra Koli v. State of Up

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1091

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1092

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1093

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1094

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1095

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Savita v. Satyabhan Dixit

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1096

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1097

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1098

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

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

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

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

Case: In Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1099

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

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

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

Case: In Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1099

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1100

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

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

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

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

Case: Union of India v. Vigin K Varghese

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1101

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

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

Background

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1102

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1103

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1104

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

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

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

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

Cause Title: Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1105

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

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

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

Cause Title: Govind v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1106

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1107

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1108

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

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

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

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

Case: Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1109

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

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

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

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

Case: Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1109

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

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

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

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

Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1110

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1111

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

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

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

Orders and Other Developments

Contempt Plea In Supreme Court Against Telangana Speaker For Not Deciding Disqualification Petitions Against Defected BRS MLAs

A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly alleging that he has not decided the disqualification petitions against the BRS MLAs who defected to Congress within the three month time limit set by the judgment delivered by the Court on July 31.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai agreed to list the matter next Monday after a counsel mentioned the matter for urgent listing.

"The Speaker has not touched the matter, has not conducted any proceedings. The MLAs are still continuing. Your lordships held if any MLA was trying to protract the proceedings, adverse inference would be drawn. Two petitions there. Speaker has not touched them. Others are in evidence stage," the counsel submitted, seeking listing tomorrow.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Issue Identity Cards To Those Included In Assam NRC

Case Details: All Assam Minorities Students Union Aamsu v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1030/2025

The Supreme Court (November 10) issued notice in a writ petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and All Assam Minorities Student Union (AAMSU) seeking directions to the Union of India and the Registrar General of Citizen Registration to complete the process of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam by taking the statutory steps that remain pending since the publication of the Final NRC on 31 August 2019.

The petitioners seek directions to issue National Identity Cards to those included in the final NRC. They also seek directions for issuance of rejection slips/orders and commencement of appeals for those excluded, enabling lawful adjudication before the Foreigners' Tribunals.

The petitioners have mainly sought that despite the publication of Final NRC more than 6 years ago, the authorities have failed to take the mandatory steps under the law, which is the issuance of National Identity Cards to the 3.11 crore citizens found eligible, as required under Rule 13 of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003; and issuance of rejection slips and initiation of appeals under Paragraph 8 of the Schedule to Rule 4A of the said Rules for the 19 lakh persons excluded from the NRC.

Have Seen Morphed Video Of Us, Aware Of Perils Of AI : CJI BR Gavai

Case Details : Rawal v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 001041 / 2025

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai remarked that he was aware of a morphed video circulating on social media that falsely depicted the shoe-throwing attempt in his courtroom.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition seeking directions for framing guidelines or a policy to regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Indian judiciary.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that AI tools were increasingly being used in court processes, though they came with potential risks and drawbacks.

'Arbitrary, Impractical' : CPI(M) Moves Supreme Court Challenging SIR Of Tamil Nadu Electoral Rolls

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] has approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, alleging that the Election Commission of India's (ECI) move is “arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.”

The petition, filed by P. Shanmugam, Secretary of the CPI(M) Tamil Nadu State Committee, seeks to quash the ECI's order dated 27 October 2025, which mandated completion of the SIR exercise within a month.

Shanmugam, a senior leader and the first Dalit to head the CPI(M) in Tamil Nadu, contends that while the objective of ensuring purity and inclusiveness in electoral rolls is not disputed, the SIR process as notified is “manifestly impractical, humanly impossible, and contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.”

West Bengal Congress Committee Moves Supreme Court Against Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision Of Electoral Rolls

The West Bengal Congress Committee has approached the Supreme Court seeking reliefs with respect to Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in the state.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, seeking listing tomorrow on the ground that pleas challenging SIR are already due to come up tomorrow.

Initially, Justice Kant said that the bench is only seized of Bihar SIR matter and the prerogative to list matter pertaining to West Bengal SIR before any bench lies with CJI BR Gavai. However, when the counsel pointed out that a petition related to Tamil Nadu is also listed before the bench tomorrow, Justice Kant said, "alright, we will find out".

'Vehicles Parked At Unauthorised Dhabas Causing Accidents': Supreme Court Seeks Reports From NHAI & Centre After Phalodi Accident

Case Title – In Re: Phalodi Accident

The Supreme Court directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to submit reports on roadside dhabas and road maintenance conditions, after taking suo motu cognizance of fatal highway accidents in Rajasthan and Telangana.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi directed that a survey be carried out within two weeks to identify how many dhabas are located along the highways on land not notified for such facilities.

“Dhabas have been opened by the general public on areas which are not available for them to open dhabas. In consequence, the vehicles go and park there. The other vehicles are not in a position to see the standing vehicles on the road, colliding with such vehicles. In such circumstances, it is essential to ask the NHAI and Ministry of road transport to submit a report in particular with respect to two highways where the accidents took place”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Asks Punjab MP Amritpal Singh To Approach High Court Challenging His Detention Under National Security Act

Case Details: Amritpal Singh v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 445/2025

The Supreme Court (November 10) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by the Punjab MP Amritpal Singh challenging his third detention under the National Security Act, 1980. The Court gave given liberty to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court and requested it to dispose of the matter preferably within 6 weeks.

Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves mentioned Singh's plea. At the outset, Justice Kumar asked him to go before the High Court.

Gonsalves submitted that Singh has been in detention for the last 2 and a half years, and the entire detention is based on one FIR in which a chargesheet has already been filed. He stated that the bench had entertained another detention petition filed by Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk's wife Dr.Gitanjali Angmo, seeking to declare the detention of her husband illegalunder the NSA. Justice Kumar responded that Wangchuk's case was different because he was transferred to another State.

Supreme Court Deprecates Trend Of Litigants Making Scandalous Allegations Against Judges After Unfavourable Orders

Case Details: In Re N Peddi Raju and Ors | Smc(C) No. 3/2025

The Supreme Court , while accepting the unconditional apology tendered by advocates who signed a maligning petition against a High Court Judge, expressed the need for advocates to be careful while accepting pleas containing objectionable remarks against judges.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against lawyers who agreed to file a transfer petition with 'scurrilous and scandalous' remarks against a sitting Telangana High Court Judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.

Previously, the bench directed the contemnors to place an apology before the High Court Judge for her consideration.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Making 33% Women's Reservation In Legislatures Contingent On Future Delimitation

Case Title – Jaya Thakur v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition challenging the provision in the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam), which makes the implementation of 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies contingent upon the completion of delimitation after the next census.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan heard the matter.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no rational nexus in making the implementation of the reservation contingent on a future exercise, which has not even begun. “No exercise has even begun. There is no rational nexus. When the exercise will commence is not mentioned anywhere. They have yet to even start the census,” she submitted.

Supreme Court Declines Kashmiri Separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah's Plea To Direct Supply Of Past Detention Orders Passed Against Him

Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 13399/2025

The Supreme Court declined Kashmiri separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah's plea to pass a direction for supply of detention orders against him, saying that he could approach the J&K government for the same.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined the request, which was made by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves on Shah's behalf. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG KM Nataraj appeared for NIA.

The Court was dealing with Shah's bail plea in a terror funding case. The matter was adjourned on the SG's request for time to respond to some new facts stated in Shah's rejoinder, which were not pleaded before the High Court.

AIADMK Moves Supreme Court Supporting Election Commission's SIR Of Tamil Nadu Electoral Rolls

The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) has filed an application in the Supreme Court supporting the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, calling it a legitimate and necessary exercise to uphold the sanctity of elections and prevent voter fraud.

The AIADMK is the first political party to move the Supreme Court in support of the SIR, which is under challenge by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the ruling party in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the DMK's petitionagainst the SIR tomorrow.

In its application, the AIADMK submitted that Tamil Nadu has 234 Assembly constituencies, each of which reportedly contains thousands of duplicate or ineligible entries in the voter lists. In such circumstances, the SIR ordered by the ECI, it said, is “a legitimate and necessary exercise to uphold the sanctity of elections, prevent voter fraud, and ensure that the rule of law is upheld in the electoral process.”

'Go To HC': Supreme Court Rejects PIL Against Public-Private Partnership Model For Development Of Govt Medical Colleges

Case Title: Dr. K.A. Paul @ Kilari Anand v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1035/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation assailing adoption of a public-private partnership model for development of government medical colleges in Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in the petition filed by evangelist Dr KA Paul, who appeared in person.

During the hearing, Justice Kant called the PIL "luxury litigation" and questioned why people are going "so crazy" about approaching the Supreme Court. The judge noted that the averments made essentially related to Andhra Pradesh, but the petitioner impleaded other states only to justify invocation of Article 32 of the Constitution.

'Accused Wearing Lawyers' Robes, Murders In Broad Daylight': Supreme Court Mulls Guidelines To Curb Violence In Court Premises

Case Title: Kerala Police Officers Association v. State of Kerala and Ors., SLP(C) No. 31008/2025

Underlining a need for strict action, the Supreme Court expressed an inclination to lay down guidelines to tackle incidents of violence within Court premises.

"If some hardened criminals are allowed to come inside the court premises wearing lawyers' dress or not, but if they are indulging in this kind of thing, we need to have very harsh action against them. Firm, swift action is required against them. Individual liberty can be effectively protected by issuing other suitable directions", said Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the Kerala Police Officers Association's challenge to a Kerala High Court order, which clarified guidelines to be followed by police personnel for arresting persons within court premises, along with a grievance redressal mechanism to be followed at the state and district levels.

Supreme Court Proposes To Hold Bar Council Elections Under Supervision Of Retired High Court Judges

The Supreme Court indicated that all State Bar Council elections across the country will be held under the supervision of retired High Court judges.

The Court said it intends to constitute independent election panels headed by retired judges in each state to oversee the polls and ensure they are conducted in a transparent, fair and credible manner.

A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed this view when the matter releating to the Bar Council elections were mentioned before it.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Patanjali Foods' Rs 2.97 Crore Excise Duty Refund Appeal

Case Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

Case Number: Civil Appeal Diary No(S). 57088/2025

The Supreme Court has issued notice in an appeal filed by Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) seeking a refund of Rs 2.97 crore charged by the tax department in connection with an excise duty dispute.

A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar issued notice on both the main appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay.

The appeal challenges the Karnataka High Court's judgment dated September 30, 2024, and its subsequent order dated July 4, 2025, dismissing Patanjali's review petition.

SCAORA Seeks Intervention In Suo Motu Case Over 'Digital Arrest' Scams Before Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has filed an application seeking intervention in the suo motu case taken up by the Supreme Court in relation to "digital arrest" scams.

SCAORA says that "digital arrest" scams affect the entire country, including legal professionals, and gravely undermine citizens' right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Giving statistics, the advocates' body pleads that the incidents have escalated and continue to rise daily. "The Ministry of Home Affairs on 25.03.2025 issued a Press Release which revealed a shocking figure of 3,962 Skype IDs and 83,668 WhatsApp accounts, used for digital arrest, were identified and blocked by I4C (Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs). Imperatively, till 28.02.2025, more than 7.81 lakhs SIM cards and 2,08,469 IMEIs, as reported by the Police authorities, have been blocked by the Government of India."

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Include 'Haemophilia' Under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act

Case Details: Haemophilia Federation India & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(S).47246/2025

The Supreme Court (November 10) issued notice in a writ petition filed by Haemophilia Federation of India, seeking either the inclusion of Haemophilia under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) or striking down of Section 34 to the extent that it excludes Haemophilia for the purpose of reservation.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria issued notice in this matter and sought a response from the Union Government.

As per Section 34 of the RPwD Act, it provides for 4% job reservation for specific disabilities. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite being a benchmark disability, it has been excluded for purpose of reservation.

'Can Parliament Reintroduce Provisions Struck Down By Court?' Supreme Court Questions Centre On Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

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

The Supreme Court, yesterday asked the Union what was the thought process behind giving shape to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021which was presently challenged before it.

The Court also asked if the Parliament could reintroduce the very same provisions in the Tribunal Reforms Act which were earlier set aside in previous judgments.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the Madras Bar Association case concerning the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. The Association has challenged the Act as contrary to the previous judgments of the Supreme Court which held that Tribunal members should have at least 5 years tenure, lawyers with minimum 10 years of experience must be considered eligible etc.

Delhi Car Blast: Supreme Court Expresses Condolences, Says 'Standing In Solidarity With Bereaved'

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai expressed deep sorrow over the tragic loss of lives in the car explosion that occurred in Delhi on the evening of November 10, 2025, describing it as a “devastating tragedy”.

On behalf of the Supreme Court of India and the entire judicial and legal fraternity, the Chief Justice conveyed heartfelt condolences to the families who lost their loved ones and expressed solidarity with all those affected by the incident.

The CJI stated :

Delhi Air Pollution : Supreme Court Refuses To List Application Seeking Implementation Of WHO Air Quality Guidelines

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

The Supreme Court refused to list an application seeking immediate phased implementation of the WHO Air Quality Guidelines (AQG) to tackle the worsening Delhi Air Pollution Crisis.

The counsel made an urgent mentioning before the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran, Justice NV Anjaria. 

The counsel stated that an interim application was sought to be filed in the ongoing Delhi NCR Air Pollution matter  seeking for " immediate adoption and phased implementation of the WHO (measures)"

Advocate Moves Supreme Court Against His Arrest By Haryana Police

The Supreme Court agreed to hear tomorrow a writ petition filed challenging the arrest of an advocate by the Haryana police in connection with a murder case.

The matter relates to the arrest of Advocate Vikram Singh by the Gurugram Police.

Advocate Menees Dubey mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai for urgent listing. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, supporting the plea, said that the matter related to the independence of the legal profession.

Supreme Court 'Shocked' That Judgments In 47 Civil Cases Reserved Before Jan 31 Remain To Be Pronounced By Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/S Mivaan Steels Limited v. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Diary No.48094/2025

The Supreme Court was shocked to learn that out of 61 civil cases where decisions were reserved by the Jharkhand High Court prior to January 31, 2025, judgments remain to be pronounced in 47 cases.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma was apprised of the pendency by the Registrar General of the High Court. Perusing the affidavit of the High Court, and subject to the orders of CJI Gavai, it placed the matter before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant, as the judge is seized of a similar case pertaining to long pendency of judgments before the Jharkhand High Court.

"We have perused the affidavit filed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand. The information furnished therein is shocking the judicial conscience. As the larger issue is pending before the Second Bench of this Court in case bearing W.P. (C) No.489/2025, which is likely to be taken up on 14.11.2025, the Registry is directed to post this matter along with W.P.(C) No.489/2025 after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India", the bench ordered.

'We Are One Country': Supreme Court Voices Concern Over Targeting Of People For Cultural Differences

Case Details: Alana Golmei v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 53/2015

The Supreme Court orally remarked that it is pained that people in this country are targeted because of cultural and racial differences. Remembering an incident where a person wearing a lungi was targeted in New Delhi, it said that the Union must be bothered about the cultural and racial discrimination faced by people, especially Northeasterners.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a 2015 writ petition under Article 32 seeking intervention of the Union Government for the protection of persons from the Northeast residing in various parts of the country, who have been subjected to racial attacks and insults. It sought the framing of guidelines for the safety and security of the Northeast community. The hearing was in regards to the status report which has been filed by the Union.

During the hearing, Advocate Gaichangpou Gangmei informed the Court that the incidents of racial discrimination and exclusion of Northeast people continue to occur. While Additional Solicitor General, KM Nataraj(for Union) submitted that nothing remains in the petition as a Monitoring Committee is in place, considering all the issues raised in the petition.

Supreme Court Stays Order To Form SIT With Hindu & Muslim Officers To Probe Akola Riots Case

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

The Supreme Court stayed a previous direction passed by a two-judge bench to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities to investigate an assault case related to the 2023 Akola communal riots in Maharashtra.

The Court passed the stay order while issuing notice to the respondents on the review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra.

The matter came before a bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria after the two-judge bench delivered a split verdict in the review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra against the order for SIT probe with officers of both communities.

'Best Morning To Send A Message': Day After Delhi Blasts, Supreme Court Refuses Bail To Man Accused Of Spreading ISIS Ideology

Case Title – Syed Mamoor Ali @ Mamoor Bhai v. Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to grant bail to and man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for allegedly being part of a conspiracy to promote ISIS ideology and carry out terror activities.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta rejected the SLP filed by the petitioner, who has been incarcerated for over 2 years, against Madhya Pradesh High Court order that refused to grant him bail.

“We are not inclined to interfere. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has been incarcerated for more than 2 years and further that 19 out of 64 proposed witnesses have already been examined although 94 are mentioned in the chargesheet, we direct the trial court to conclude the trial within 2 years. Prosecution and defence shall extend all cooperation in the trial. If the trial is not concluded within 2 years for no fault attributed to the petitioner, it will be open for him to revise his prayer for bail”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Seeks ECI's Response On Pleas Challenging SIR In Tamil Nadu & West Bengal; Asks HCs To Not Hear Same Issue

Case Title:

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India on the petitions filed challenging the poll body's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and West Bengal.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also directed the High Courts to keep in abeyance the petitions filed in relation to the SIR of these states and Bihar. The Court will hear the matter on November 26.

"Since this Court is seized of the matter pertaining to legality of SIR of electoral rolls in various states including Bihar, WB, TN, Pondicherry, etc., we request jurisdictional HCs to keep in abeyance/defer the writ proceedings if any filed in those HCs touching the validity of SIR in their states," the bench observed in the order.

'Good Suggestion' : Supreme Court On Plea To Use De-Duplication Software To Detect Multiple Entries In Voters' List

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

The Supreme Court (November 11) orally endorsed the suggestion to use de-duplication software for identifying multiple entries of the same person in the voters' list.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms seeking certain directions to the Election Commission of India while it is conducting the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in many States.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the NGO, told the bench that there is a de-duplication software which the ECI can use to weed out multiple entries.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Gujarat Govt & HC Over Vacancies In Labour Courts

Case Title: Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Varanasi Srinivas and Ors., Ma 1340/2025 In C.A. No. 7119/2025

After being apprised of about 40% vacancy in its Labour and Industrial Courts, the Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Gujarat and its High Court.

"It seems to us that prima facie, State of Gujarat, in consultation with the High Court, is required to provide adequate secretarial assistance and other infrastructural facilities to a variety of courts. Let notice be issued", the Court ordered.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after noting issues flagged by Amicus Curiae Astha Sharma in suo motu proceedings initiated earlier.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act; AG Says Previous Verdicts Not Inflexible Directions Binding On Govt

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

The Supreme Court reserved its decision in the challenge to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the Madras Bar Association case concerning the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

The Association has challenged the Act as contrary to the previous judgments of the Supreme Court which held that Tribunal members should have at least 5 years tenure, lawyers with minimum 10 years of experience must be considered eligible etc.

RP Act Accepts Aadhaar Card As Identity Proof For Electoral Roll Inclusion; UIDAI's Notification Can't Stop It, Says Supreme Court During Hearing

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 634/2025

The Supreme Court (November 11) orally remarked that a notification issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) cannot be the basis to stop the use of the Aadhaar card as a proof of identity for the purpose of inclusion in the electoral roll, since the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 specifically allows such use.

The Court remarked that an executive notification cannot override a statutory provision.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petitions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls of various states. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, a petitioner seeking to conduct a pan-India SIR, has filed an application seeking to recall the Supreme Court's earlier orderwhich allowed the use of the Aadhaar card as a document of identity for the Bihar SIR. He referred to a notification issued by the UIDAI that Aadhaar card is not a proof of citizenship. He challenged Form 6 (the form for inclusion of first-time voters) allowing persons to mention their Aadhaar number as identity proof.

High Courts Not Inferior To Supreme Court, But Shouldn't Take Up Matters Which SC Is Seized Of : Supreme Court

Cause Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court reiterated the need for High Courts to refrain from entertaining cases which are already seized by the Apex Court.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing the issue of officers involved in the alleged illegal tree felling at the Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve.

The apex court, which has been monitoring the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged illegal constructions in Corbett, noted that it had earlier questioned the Uttarakhand Government for not granting sanction for prosecution. Following the Court's oral observations on September 8, 2025, the State granted a sanction for prosecution against one officer on September 16, 2025.

Executing Courts Shouldn't Allow Withdrawal & Refiling Of Execution Petitions Without Valid Reason : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court directed executing courts not to permit withdrawal and refiling of execution petitions without valid justification, observing that such practices contribute to unnecessary delays in the enforcement of decrees.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal made the observation while dealing with applications arising from its earlier judgment in Periyammal (Dead Through LRs) & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr., where the Court has been monitoring the disposal of execution petitions across the country.

“The executing court should ensure that without any valid reason, it should not permit the learned advocates to withdraw the execution petitions and then refile them again. It is only for a very valid reason that the executing court may permit withdrawal of the execution petition already filed with permission to file a fresh petition,” the bench directed.

'ECI Holds Voters' Data In Trust, Entitled To Protect Privacy' : Supreme Court On Plea For Machine-Readable Electoral Rolls

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

In yesterday's SIR hearing, the Supreme Court orally expressed reservations about making the voters list available in machine-readable format, saying that it might compromise voters' privacy.

The Court observed that the Election Commission of India holds voters' data in trust and is entitled to adopt layers of privacy to ensure that the data remains protected. The Court suggested to the ECI if the data can be password-protected so that an individual can easily access it while preventing unauthorised access by other parties.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Bagchi was considering a bunch of petitions challenging ECI's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, West Bengal, etc.

Supreme Court Orders Release Of Advocate Arrested By Haryana Police

Case Details : Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 471/2025

The Supreme Court (November 12) ordered the release of Advocate Vikram Singh, who was arrested by the Haryana Police in connection with a murder case.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria passed the interim order while issuing notice to the Police on a writ petition filed by Singh challenging his arrest and remand in the case.

The bench directed that Singh be released forthwith on a bail bond of Rs 10,000. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, for the petitioner, submitted that the police were pressuring the advocate to reveal the details of the clients. He also contended that the arrest was illegal as no written grounds were furnished as mandated by the judgment in Mihir Shah v. State of Maharashtra.

Can High Courts Hear Anticipatory Bail Pleas Bypassing Sessions Courts? Supreme Court Refers Issue To 3-Judge Bench

Case Title: Mohammed Rasal.C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025

The Supreme Court referred to a three-judge bench the issue of whether High Courts can directly entertain anticipatory bail applications filed without first approaching the Sessions Courts.

A 2-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered that the matter be placed before a 3-judge bench.

It was in September that the present bench took up this issue in the case Mohammed Rasal C v State of Kerala after expressing disapproval of the practice of the Kerala High Court to directly entertain anticipatory bail matters. The Court expressed the view that though Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Courts and Sessions Courts, applications for anticipatory bail should ordinarily be moved first before the Sessions Court, and that direct recourse to the High Court should be reserved for exceptional cases.

SCBA Moves Supreme Court Over 'Period Checks' On Women Workers, Seeks Guidelines To Safeguard Menstrual Dignity

Case Details: Scba v. Uoi & Anr | Writ Petition(Crl) No___2025

The Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court over thereports that women workers at the Maharashi Dayanand University, Haryana, were allegedly subjected to degrading checks to verify whether they were menstruating. It seeks directions to the Union Government and the State of Haryana to conduct a detailed inquiry into this incident.

The SCBA has also prayed for the guidelines to be laid to ensure that the right to health, dignity, bodily autonomy and privacy of women and girls are not violated when they are menstruating and related gynaecological issues at the workplace and at educational institutions

According to the petition, on October 26, the three sanitation workers were called to duty on Sunday due to the visit of the Haryana Governor. SCBA refers to the written complaint lodged by the workers with the Registrar of the University, which states that they were instructed to work faster by their supervisors even though they were menstruating and were not feeling well. They were also asked for proof that these women were menstruating.

Supreme Court Proposes High Courts Publish Information On Judgments Reserved For Over 6 Months

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

With a view to ensure transparency and accountability in the judiciary, the Supreme Court proposed that all High Courts have a dashboard on their websites which indicates dates when judgments were reserved, pronounced and uploaded by their respective judges.

The Court emphasized on bringing in public domain number of judgments reserved but not pronounced for over 6 months, as well as those which are pronounced after 6 months.

"Let everybody know that in this High Court, how many judgments have been reserved by any xyz and how many of them have been pronounced, and within how many days those have been pronounced. This information should be automated, available in public domain. How many pronounced after 6 months and how many are awaiting pronouncement after 6 months, and most importantly how many days it took in uploading the judgments. Is the judgment, after pronouncement, readily available on the website?" said Justice Surya Kant.

'High Court's Discretion To Directly Hear Anticipatory Bail Pleas Can't Be Curtailed' : Kerala HC Advocates Association To Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohammed Rasal.C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025

The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) has submitted before the Supreme Court that the discretion of the High Courts in entertaining anticipatory bail petitions in the first instance cannot be curtailed.

Opposing the view that Sessions Courts must be approached first for anticipatory bail, the KHCAA filed an application to get itself impleaded in the case where the Supreme Court is considering this issue. The Association argued that any attempt to curtail the High Court's jurisdiction would amount to "judicial overreach, undermining the legislative intent and encroaching upon the fundamental right to personal liberty."

It was in September that the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta took up this issue in the case Mohammed Rasal C v State of Kerala after expressing disapproval of the practice of the Kerala High Court to directly entertain anticipatory bail matters. The Court expressed the view that though Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Courts and Sessions Courts, applications for anticipatory bail should ordinarily be moved first before the Sessions Court, and that direct recourse to the High Court should be reserved for exceptional cases.

Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam : Supreme Court Makes Absolute Interim Protection From Arrest Granted To Excise Department Officials

Case Title: Vikas Kumar Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh, SLP(Crl) No. 12801/2025 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court made absolute the interim protection from arrest granted to certain excise department officials accused in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after hearing Senior Advocates S Nagamuthu & Siddharth Aggarwal (for petitioners) and Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethamalani & ASG SD Sanjay (for respondent-State/ED).

While granting the relief, the bench imposed stringent conditions on the petitioner-accused, including:

Supreme Court Adjourns Delhi Air Pollution Matter Till Nov 17; Seeks Report From Punjab & Haryana On Stubble Burning

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

The Supreme Court directed the State of Punjab and Haryana to file a status report on the measures taken to curb stubble burning, contributing to the air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR.

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

Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnaryanan, appearing for one of the applicants, informed the Court that the AQI has crossed 450 in some areas and constructions were being carried out, including within the Supreme Court premises.

Supreme Court Posts Shiv Sena, NCP Symbol Disputes For Final Hearing On January 21, 2026

Case Title: Uddhav Thackeray v. Eknathrao Sambhaji Shinde and Anr., SLP(C) No. 3997/2023

The Supreme Court posted the Shiv Sena and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) symbol disputes to January 21, 2026, for final hearing.

The petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) challenging the Election Commission's decision to recognize the Eknath Shinde group as the official Shiv Sena and grant them the 'bow and arrow' election symbol was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi .

The bench also agreed to consider the petition filed by NCP (Sharad Pawar) against the ECI's decision to allot the official symbol to NCP (Ajit Pawar). Observing that the legal issues in these cases are similar and overlapping, the Court agreed to hear the matters together.

'Give Suggestions To Prevent Such Incidents': Supreme Court Adjourns SCBA's Contempt Plea Over Shoe-Hurling Bid At CJI

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

The Supreme Court adjourned the contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at CJI BR Gavai on October 6 over his remarks in the Vishnu Idol case.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi had earlier expressed reluctance to initiate criminal contempt proceedings, observing that it would instead focus on framing guidelines to prevent such incidents in the future

Justice Kant asked the lawyers to give their suggestions for guidelines. "Just think of how to prevent such incidents in court premises, bar room, etc. All of you please give suggestions. Whatever requires to be resolved, we will...on the next date, we will request Attorney General also," Justice Kant said.

After 6 Days In Custody, Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Man Accused Of Threatening Woman Lawyer During Commission Visit

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

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to a man who allegedlythreatened a woman lawyer appointed as Court Commissioner with an 'air gun' during execution of the commission.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat for the accused (petitioner-Nitin Bansal).

It may be recalled that a one month jail sentence was imposedon the petitioner by the Delhi High Court, against which he approached the Supreme Court. On the last date, the top Court askedhim to surrender before jail authorities on November 6, before entertaining his prayer against the High Court order. It expressed serious displeasure at his conduct and opined that he deserved to be in jail.

Waqf Act | Supreme Court To Consider If Preliminary Survey Under Section 4 Is Necessary Before Notifying Properties As Waqfs

Case Details: Syed Gouse Alias Nawab Pasha Kazi v. Karnataka State Board of Wakfs & Anr. | Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No.14417/2025

The Supreme Court decided to examine the issue whether conducting a preliminary survey of waqf properties as per Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1995 is necessary before issuing a gazette notification under Section 5 of the said Act declaring a property as waqf.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria is considering this matter. The issue arose in a special leave petition pertaining to certain Waqf properties of the Karnataka Waqf State Board, in which it is alleged that no preliminary survey was conducted as contemplated under Section 4 of the 1995 Act.

The Waqf Tribunal did not go into the issue, though the plaintiff had taken a specific plea that no preliminary survey was conducted before the notification of the property as waqf. The Karnataka High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, observing that notification under Section 5 has to be issued in compliance with Section 4 of Act.

'Progress In Gender Justice Not Due To Courts Alone': CJI BR Gavai Acknowledges Role Of Civil Societies, Women's Movements

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai (November 12) said that India's progress toward gender equality has not been achieved by the judiciary alone but through the constant vigilance of civil society, the persistence of women's movements, and the courage of ordinary citizens who have held institutions accountable to the Constitution's vision of justice.

Delivering the 30th Justice Sunanda Bhandare Memorial Lecture in New Delhi on the theme “Justice for All: Building a Gender Equal and Inclusive India”, the Chief Justice said that the relationship between the courts and the people has been central to keeping the idea of equality alive.

“There have been moments when judicial interpretations failed to capture the lived realities of women or fell short of the transformative spirit of the Constitution. However, the vigilance of civil society, the persistence of women's movements, and the courage of ordinary citizens have together kept the judiciary accountable to the constitutional promise of equality," CJI said.

Existing NGT Members Will Continue Till New Appointments Are Made : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Case : Madras Bar Association v. Union of India Wp(C) No. 1018/2021 and Connected Case.

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that the existing Members of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) will continue to hold office and discharge their duties until new appointments are made and the appointees assume charge.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing applications seeking a direction to the Union of India to fill up vacancies in the NGT. The applicants had expressed concern that two Members of the Principal Bench, New Delhi, are due to retire on November 13, 2025, and January 14, 2026, respectively, which could render the Bench non-functional.

Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani assured the Court that there would be no disruption in the functioning of the Tribunal. He stated that the current Members will continue in office until the newly appointed Members take charge.

Supreme Court Directs Action Against YouTube Channels For Publishing Identities Of Women Who Alleged Sexual Offences

The Supreme Court asked the State of Rajasthan to take appropriate steps under Section 72(Disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences, etc) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS), after it was informed that the identities of the victims, their names, along with the court's proceedings, have been published on YouTube channels by the petitioner, who is accused under Section 69(Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc) BNS.

As perSection 69 BNS, if a person, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without the intention to fulfil it, has sexual intercourse with her, the offence does not amount to rape but is punishable with a term that may exceed 10 years imprisonment. Section 72 says revealing the identity of the victim in sexual offences is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of 2 years and a fine.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria passed an order in this regard.

'Perverted Mind, Threat To Girls': Supreme Court Slams Assam Professor Booked Over Pakistan Supporting & Obscene Social Media Posts

Case Title: Md Joynal Abedin v. State of Assam, SLP(Crl) No. 12160/2025

While dealing with his bail plea, the Supreme Court yesterday expressed displeasure with an Assam professor named Md Joynal Abdein booked over a social media post in support of Pakistan as well as obscene posts against women, saying he has a "perverted mind" and is misusing the internet.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. It was dealing with the man's challenge to a Gauhati High Court order which denied him bail in July in the case involving anti-national charge (Section 152 BNS).

Allegedly, the man (petitioner) uploaded a post on Facebook stating "we are with the brother of Pakistani citizens". The post further stated "we will be with them in future also". It also supported the President of Turkey, who reportedly said that they will be with Pakistani citizens.

Supreme Court Grants Final Chance To Five States To Frame Remission Policies, Asks High Courts To Monitor Progress

Cause Title: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail

Expressing displeasure over the failure to implement remission and premature release policies in the States of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, the Supreme Court directed the respective High Courts to register a suo motu writ petition to monitor and ensure effective enforcement of these policies in their jurisdictions.

The Court advised the State governments to initiate the premature release process of the eligible convict “at least six months prior to the eligibility of a convict so that unwanted time by way of incarceration even after a convict becomes eligible for premature release can very well be avoided.”

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a batch of applications in a suo moto writ petition concerning bail policies and related issues. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the progress made by the state governments in establishing clear and fair remission policies in compliance with the Court's earlier directives.

'Shocking' : Supreme Court On Maharashtra Court Not Framing Charge Against Undertrial For 4 Yrs Citing Absence Of Co-Accused

Case Title: Shashi Alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra, SLP(Crl) No. 12690/2025

In the case of an accused who has been in jail since 4 years without framing of charges, the Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure with Maharashtra authorities for taking a stand that the delay in trial was on account of co-accused's dilatory tactics.

The Court called out the authorities for not being able to secure presence of the co-accused before the trial court, despite citing their dilatory tactics as the reason for delay. It noted that these co-accused were out on bail, while the petitioner-accused continues to remain in jail, allegedly due to their absence from trial.

Noting that the chargesheet in the case was filed in the year 2022, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and PK Mishra called for an explanation from the concerned Superintendent of Police as to why such a situation arose and why the prosecution did not move any application for cancellation of bail of the co-accused in order to ensure that the trial proceeded expeditiously.

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Raushan Sinha In Case Over Social Media Post About Rahul Gandhi

Case Details: Raushan Sinha V.State of Telangana | SLP (Crl.) No. 9925 of 2025

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to social media influencer Raushan Singh, against whom a case was registered for allegedly misquoting Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi's parliamentary speech.

On the day Rahul Gandhi delivered his maiden Lok Sabha speech after the 2024 elections, Sinha allegedly posted on Twitter that Gandhi had called Hindus violent. The case agaisnt him was registered over this post on a complaint by a Congress worker in Telangana.

He was accused of offences related to public mischief, intentional insult to provoke public peace, forgery harming reputation under Section(s) 352, 353(2), 353(1)(c) and 336(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Supreme Court Rejects Tamil Nadu's Plea Against Mekedatu Dam Proposal In Karnataka As Premature

Case : State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu | Ma 3127/2018 In C.A. No. 2453/2007

The Supreme Court (November 13) refused to entertain the applications filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the State of Karnataka's plan for the construction of the Mekedatu dam on the Cauvery River.

The first application challenged the permission granted by the Central Water Commission by letter dated 22.11.2018 for the preparation of a Detailed Project Report of the Mekedatu project. The second application was against the execution of the Mekedatu Project, seeking directions against the Central Water Commission to return the DPR submitted by the State of Karnataka.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria observed that Tamil Nadu's challenge to the order passed by the Central Water Commission (CWC) for the preparation of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the Mekadatu dam was "premature", as the plan would be approved only after considering the objections of the State as well as the opinion of the expert bodies, Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) and the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA).

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against BCI Rules Restraining Bar Association Office Bearers From Contesting State Bar Council Elections

Case Title: District Bar Association Bulandshahar and Anr. v. Bar Concil of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1097/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Election Rules, 2016 for restraining office bearers of District and High Court Bar Associations from contesting State Bar Council elections.

The plea points out that the Rules prohibit office bearers of District and High Court Bar Associations from contesting State Bar Council elections, but allow office bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association to contest the same.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, with Justice Kant observing that the "issue requires consideration". It however denied interim relief of stay at this stage, pointing out that the petitioners chose to challenge the 2016 Rules in 2025 only because Bar elections are near (a reference to UP State Bar Council elections in January).

Air India Plane Crash | 'AAIB Enquiry Not For Assigning Blame', Says Supreme Court; Union Clarifies No Blame Attributed To Pilot

Case Title:

In the Air India Plane Crash matter, the Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of an enquiry by the AAIB is not to assign blame to anyone, but rather to find the cause of the incident so it can be prevented in future.

The Union, on its part, clarified that there is a statutory and international regime in place to conduct the enquiry and blame has not been attributed to anyone by the AAIB. It further stated that as there was some misconception (about pilot error) after release of an interim report, the Ministry of Civil Aviation issued a press note saying that blame was not attributable to anyone.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions seeking an independent, Court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight, which took place shortly after its take off from Ahmedabad airport, killing 260 people, on June 12, 2025.

Supreme Court Summons Jharkhand Home Secretary Over Repeated Instances Of Non-Apperance By State

Case Details: Md Imran @D.C. Guddu v. State of Jharkhand | SLP(Crl) No. 12110/2025

The Supreme Court reiterated its various concerns regarding the State of Jharkhand's failure to appear in the matters despite receiving notice of service. The Court has now directed the Home Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand to be present online tomorrow and give an explanation in this regard. It has also expressed surprise over the manner the Jharkhand High Court granted bail to the two co-accused persons charged with the allegations of murder, without any discussion as to its merit.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea for bail of the petitioner accused under 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act in connection with a 2018 case for having shot dead a person at the Daily Market Main Road Taxi stand.

The petitioner, along with the two co-accused persons, were added as accused persons under Section 319 CrPC based on the deposition of the witnesses.

Time To Revisit Centre's Electric Vehicles Policy Of 2020, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 228/2019

The Supreme Court (November 13) continued to hear a public interest litigation seeking promotion and implementation of electric vehicle policies. It orally remarked that it's high time for the Government to revisit the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan (NEMMP), 2020, on promotion and adoption of electric vehicles and maybe initiate a pilot project in metropolitan cities.

Appearing before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that they are trying to seek directions in terms of the Government's declared policy, NEMMP, in which some rebate is given on the purchase of electric vehicles, considering that their cost is higher than that of a regular vehicle.

"Therefore, the proposal of the NITI Aayog was that you give some incentives so that the upfront cost gets reduced. Second, you give various tax exemptions so that road tax and others are exempted from the electric vehicles, which are non-polluting. Then you mandate all government vehicles to be electric vehicles. Then there was a recommendation that there should be mandatory charging points. Today, this is also a bottleneck, the need for charging points," he said.

Justice PS Narasimha Advises Lawyers To Opt For Virtual Hearings Amid Delhi's Air Pollution

Justice PS Narasimha of the Supreme Court advised advocates to appear virtually in light of the rapidly worsening air quality in Delhi.

The observation was made during the mentioning round. Lawyers present in the courtroom said Justice Narasimha advised members of the Bar to make use of the virtual hearing facility rather than appear physically, given the health risks posed by the current pollution levels.

When Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that many lawyers were already wearing masks, Justice Narasimha responded that masks may not be sufficient, cautioning that the toxic air could cause permanent damage.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Seeking Govt Compensation For Covid Vaccine Deaths

Case Title : Rachana Gangu & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. – Wp (C) No. 1220/2021, Union of India V.Sayeeda K.A. & Ors | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 16452/2023 and Connected Matters.

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on petitions seeking compensation from the Union Government for the deaths allegedly caused due to Covid-19 vaccines. The petitioners also sought constitution of an expert committee to inquire into the adverse effects of Covid vaccination.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the writ petition filed by Rachna Gangu and Venugopalan Govindan who alleged that their daughters died due to adverse effects caused by the Covid vaccine. The other petition was filed by the Union Government against an interim order passed by the Kerala High Court in a petition filed by Sayeeda KA (who alleged that her husband died due to vaccination) to formulate a policy for compensation.

In 2022, the Union Government had filed a counter-affidavit in the matter, arguing that it was not liable to compensate as vaccination was a voluntary act undertaken by persons who took an informed decision on the basis of the risks notified.

Delhi-NCR Air Pollution| Declare AQI Above 250 As 'Disaster' Under Disaster Management Act : Plea In Supreme Court

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

In the ongoing air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR matter before the Supreme Court, a plea has been filed seeking to declare situations where the Air Quality Index(AQI) crosses 250 as a 'disaster' under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Notably, the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran is seized of the matter. Earlier, the bench directed the State of Punjab and Haryana to file a status report on the measures taken to curb stubble burning, contributing to the air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR

The application is filed by Vikrant Tongad, the Founder of the trust organization 'Social Action for Forest & Environment (SAFE)' and seeks a slew of measures after the Court allowed them to give their suggestions to curb the air pollution crisis in Delhi- NCR.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Christian Mission's Possession Of Land In Bilaspur

Case Details: Christians Woman's Board of Mission & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 64657/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim relief to the Christian Women's Board of Mission(CWBM) by ordering status quo on its possession of a leasehold property in Bilaspur. The Mission approached the Supreme Court apprehending dispossession by the State of Chhattisgarh, which is seeking repossession of the land.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed an interim order while issuing notice on the CWBM's plea against the Chhattisgarh High Court's order, which denied it relief.

"In the meantime, status quo, as it exists today, be maintained with respect to construction and possession. A copy of this order be communicated/ forwarded to the Collector Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, by the Registry today forthwith," the Supreme Court's order stated.

Can Telecom Spectrum License Be Subjected To Insolvency Proceedings? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Title – State Bank of India v. Union of India & Ors. With Connected Cases

The Supreme Court reserved judgment in a batch of appeals challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's decision in the insolvency proceedings of Aircel and Reliance Communications holding that spectrum can be subjected to insolvency/liquidation proceedings being an intangible asset of the Corporate Debtor.

The NCLAT further held that the right to use the spectrum can only be transferred in the CIRP only after clearing the spectrum-related dues to the Government.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar reserved judgment after hearing arguments from Attorney General R Venkatramani for Union of India along with Senior Advocates Shyam Divan for erstwhile RP of Aircel, Rakesh Dwivedi for Committee of Creditors through SBI and Gopal Jain for erstwhile RP of Reliance.

Plea Seeks Probe Into NCLAT Member's Disclosure Of Higher Judge Trying To Influence Decision; Supreme Court To Deal On Administrative Side

Case : Ms A.S. Met Corp Private Limited v. Registrar | W.P.(Crl.) No. 440/2025

The Supreme Court decided to deal with on its administrative side a writ petition which has been filed seeking a court-monitored investigation into an unprecedented disclosure made by NCLAT Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma that he was approached by “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary” to pass a favourable order in a pending insolvency appeal.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation bringing material on record to be considered by the Chief Justice of India. The bench also ordered that the insolvency petition, where the controversial revelation occurred, be transferred from the Chennai Bench to the Principal Bench in Delhi.

"As regards the other issues, all such issues are of vital importance. We believe that the competent authority must have examined the matter and taken necessary steps. All these issues can be effectively dealt with on the administrative side," the bench observed while disposing of the petition with a direction to treat it as a representation to the Chief Justice of India.

Supreme Court Seeks ED's Response On Ex-Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's Plea To Relax Bail Conditions In Money Laundering Case

Case Title: v. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Diary No. - 63441/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on an application filed by ex-Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji seeking relaxation of his bail conditions in the money laundering case arising out of the cash-for-jobs 'scam'.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Narendra Hooda. Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for ED and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented complainant-Y Balaji.

During the hearing, Sibal informed that modification of the September bail order is being sought qua 2 conditions, that is:

Bata v. Crocs : Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Of Footwear Makers Against Maintainability Of Crocs' Passing Off Suits Over Design Infringement

Case : Bata India Ltd. v. Ms Crocs Inc. Usa | SLP(C) No. 29920-29924/2025, Liberty Shoes Ltd V.Ms Crocs Inc. Usa | SLP(C) No. 32834/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Bata India Ltd and five other footwear manufacturers challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment which held that the suits filed by Crocs Inc.USA alleging passing off over the infringement of the latter's footwear designs registered under the Designs Act were maintainable.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court Division Bench's ruling of July 1 that a passing off action is maintainable with respect to a trade dress which is registered as a design under the Designs Act. The bench also dismissed a connected petition filed by Liberty Shoes Ltd against the High Court's judgment.

The bench observed that the single bench of the High Court should proceed with the suits without being influenced by any observations in the Division Bench's Judgment. The bench also clarified that the question of law is kept open.

'Ensure State's Lawyers Appear' : Supreme Court Tells Jharkhand Home Secretary

Case Details: Md Imran D.C. Guddu v. State of Jharkhand | SLP(Crl) No. 12110/2025

The Home Secretary of Jharkhand, Ms Vandana Dadel, appeared online before the Supreme Court in compliance with yesterday's order summoning her over repeated lapses by the State in appearing in matters where service of notice had been completed. The Court asked her to ensure that Jharkhand's legal representatives remain duly present in such cases.

As for the main matter, the Court directed the State to challenge the anticipatory bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to two murder accused, noting that the High Court had issued the order without examining the merits.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan briefly interacted with Ms Dalel and requested her to ensure that the State's counsels appear whenever the notice is issued.

Supreme Court Upholds View That Eden Gardens Not A 'Public Place' For Levy Of Advertisement Tax

Case Title: Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 28566/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Calcutta High Court orderwhich held that Eden Gardens stadium was not a "public place" for the purpose of levying advertisement tax under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for petitioner-Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared for respondents.

Gupta argued that every bit of the Eden Gardens stadium can be seen from outside. Besides, the events are televised and most revenue generation happens because of that. Therefore, he contended, Eden Gardens stadium is a public place in public view.

Trial Judges Shouldn't Write Directly To Supreme Court Seeking Time Extension : SC Reiterates

The Supreme Court once again expressed disapproval of the practice of Trial Courts sending letters directly to the Supreme Court seeking extension of time set for completion of trial, and added that such communications should be routed through the High Court.

The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice K Vinod Chandran was informed that the judge of the Trial Court has filed an application seeking an extension of the time. However, the affidavit was devoid of particulars.

This made Justice Maheshwari ask: "How do we entertain all these letters? We are issuing directions. We already issued it for the Bombay High Court, and they formulated a policy. When there is a direction of the High Court and the Supreme Court, and in that situation, if the judge is asking [for extension of time], then he should have advised the District judge, and the District judge should have sent it to the Portfolio judge, and there is a Committee constituted which should recommend if it's appropriate. Otherwise, how is this appropriate? The Supreme Court said something, and they are coming to us, asking. Can you see what is written?"

Aadhaar Used Only As Proof Of Identity, Not Proof Of Citizenship For Electoral Roll Inclusion : Election Commission Tells Supreme Court

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 634/2025

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has reiterated before the Supreme Court that Aadhaar card is being used only to verify the identity of applicants seeking inclusion in electoral rolls, and not as proof of citizenship.

The ECI made this statement in its reply filed to an interlocutory application moved by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who is seeking a direction against the use of Aadhaar as proof of date of birth in Form 6 used for the registration of new voters. The ECI responded that Aadhaar is only being used as a proof of identity in terms of Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950

In its affidavit, sworn by Santosh Kumar Dubey, Secretary of the ECI, the Commission said that by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, Section 23 of the RP Act was amended to enable the linking of electoral roll data with the Aadhaar ecosystem, with the objective of curbing multiple enrolments of the same individual in different places. Based on this amendment, Form 6 was also amended with effect from June 17, 2022.

High Courts Must Function Like Emergency Wards Of Hospitals With Swift & Precise Response: Justice Surya Kant

High Courts must evolve into institutions that respond to injustice with the immediacy and efficiency of a hospital emergency ward, said Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant on Friday. Speaking at the Silver Jubilee celebrations of the Jharkhand High Court in Ranchi, Justice Surya Kant stressed that courts should be equipped to deliver rapid, precise, and coordinated relief the very moment a crisis arises, just as emergency departments cannot afford delays when lives are at stake.

"I believe that High Courts must begin to envision their institutional growth much like a modern hospital designs its emergency services—with structures that are equipped to respond swiftly, decisively, and with precision at the very moment a crisis arises. In the same way that an emergency ward cannot afford delay, our Courts too must aspire to that level of preparedness, efficiency, and coordinated response. This means strengthening technological capacity, streamlining procedures, building specialised expertise, and ensuring that judicial processes can adapt instantly to emerging situations. Only with such foresight can the Judiciary continue to deliver timely and effective remedies, rising to every challenge with the speed and clarity that a constitutional democracy demands. These are not mere administrative ideas; they are the next step in the evolution of access to justice," he said.

Justice Surya Kant underlined that High Courts have the power to act as engines of social reforms. He said their constitutional position, wide jurisdiction, and closeness to the people uniquely place them to shape legal development and drive social transformation. High Courts, he noted, are where the highest principles of justice meet the lived realities of ordinary citizens. Therefore, High Courts can be "vital engines for legal development and social reform."

Supreme Court To Decide Validity Of J&K Policy Denying Remission To Terror-Offence Convicts

Case Title: Ghulam Mohammad Bhat v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir | W.P. (Crl.) No. 66/2024

The Supreme Court will consider the validity the rule in Jammu and Kashmir which bars remission for terror convicts.

The Court decided to har a life convict's petition challenging Rule 54(1) of the Jammu & Kashmir Jail Manual, 2000 and Para 20.10(Chapter XX titled Commutation and Remission of Sentence) of J&K Prison Manual 2022, which disallows premature release to those convicted in relation to a terrorism offence, along other similar pending petitions.

Pursuant to the November 22, 2024, order of the Court, his remission plea was considered, but was rejected in January by the J&K authorities on the grounds that he was convicted for terror-related crimes. On July 15, a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed him to file an interlocutory application challenging the remission policy.

Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Against President Withholding Assent To NEET Exemption Bill

The State of Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court challenging the President of India's decision to withhold assent to the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021. The Bill seeks to exempt the State from the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and restore admissions based on Class XII marks with a scientific system of normalization.

The decision withholding assent was conveyed by the Governor's Secretariat on March 4, 2025. The State has termed the action patently unconstitutional and a serious violation of the constitutional framework that regulates Centre State relations in legislative matters.

According to the suit filed under Article 131, the President withheld assent mechanically on the aid and advice of the Union Government without offering any reasons. Tamil Nadu states that this was done despite the State providing detailed replies to every objection raised by the Ministries of Health, Education and AYUSH. The plaint argues that unexplained withholding of assent frustrates Article 201 and destroys the working of Article 254(2), which allows State laws on concurrent subjects to prevail within the State after receiving Presidential assent. The State contends that if such withholding is upheld, the constitutional avenue available to States to enact laws that differ from Union legislation will become meaningless.

'Show Us Any Single Judicial Complex Constructed' : Supreme Court Slams Punjab Govt For Poor Investment On Judicial Infrastructure

Case Title: State of Punjab and Ors. v. District Bar Association Malerkotla, SLP(C) No. 32888/2025

The Supreme Court (November 14) refused to entertain the Punjab government's challenge to the High Court order, which directed that its guest houses currently occupied by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in Malerkotla, be vacated and allotted to the District Judge for official and residential use.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioners to show their bonafide before the High Court and allowed them to make a prayer for extension of time.

During the hearing, Justice Kant expressed strong displeasure at the fact that the State government has not spent anything in the last 15 years towards judicial infrastructure.