Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 17, 2025 To November 23, 2025

Judgments

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

Case Details: In Re: Corbett

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112

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

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

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

Case Details: In Re: Corbett

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112

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

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

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

Case Details: In Re: Corbett

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1113

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1113

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1114

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1115

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1116

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1116

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1117

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1118

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1119

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1121

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1122

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1123

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1123

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1125

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1126

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1127

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1128

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1128

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1129

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1130

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1131

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1132

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1133

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

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

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

Orders and Other Developments

Accessibility Facilities For Visually Impaired Candidates In AIBE, CLAT Expected Soon, Supreme Court Told

Case Details: Yash Dodani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No.785/2024

The Supreme Court was informed that its directions to provide facilities for visually impaired students, including the use of JAWS (Job Access With Speech) screen reader, and permission to use customized keyboards and mouse to answer questions on a Word document on the computer, with the additional option of using a scribe as per government guidelines, for the All India Bar Exam(AIBE), and future editions of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) are likely to be implemented from next year.

On August 13, a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directedthat the interim directions issued earlier on December 5, 2024, and December 11, 2024, regarding facilities for visually impaired candidates for the AIBE, shall apply to future editions of the CLAT. The order was passed in a writ petition by visually impaired law students who sought to appear for the CLAT – Postgraduate exam 2024-25 and AIBE.

Pursuant to the interim orders, fresh guidelines were issued by the Government on August 1. On November 13, the same bench was informed by the Additional Solicitor General Archana Dave Pathak that the guidelines were kept in abeyance vide an OM dated September 10 till December 31. This is because of the lack of facilities to implement the same. She assured that the fresh guidelines are likely to be issued along with the requisite facilities from the upcoming year.

Supreme Court Adjourns Sahara's Plea To Sell Assets To Adani Properties Ltd As Union Seeks Time To Respond

Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Subrata Roy Sahara and Ors. and Ors. | Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1820-1822/2017 In Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 413/2012 In C.A. No. 9833/2011

The Central Government sought more time to respond to the applications filed by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd seeking permission to sell its 88 properties, including Amby Valley in Maharashtra and Sahara Seher in Lucknow, to Adani Properties Pvt Ltd.

Accepting the request for four weeks' time made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice MM Sundresh posted the matters after six weeks.

The Court also adjourned the applications filed by employees seeking payment of their pending salaries from the Sahara Group companies. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Sahara. SG also requested that the Ministry of Cooperation be also impleaded in the matter, as many co-operative societies are involved. Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, the amicus curiae in the matter, submitted that he is receiving claims over many properties which the Sahara group has not disclosed. He therefore requested that the company be directed to publish the details of the properties on the website. The Court however did not pass any directions.

IUML Moves Supreme Court To Halt SIR Process in Kerala, Cites Local Body Elections & BLO's Death

Case Details: PK Kunhalikutty v. Election Commission of India and Another

The Indian Union Muslim League has approached the Supreme Court by way of a writ petition seeking an immediate halt to the Special Interim Revision process currently underway in Kerala, arguing that the exercise cannot be conducted simultaneously with the ongoing Local Body elections.

The writ petition seeks the quashing of the October 27 notification of the Election Commission of India which announced the SIR process for the electoral rolls in Kerala.

The IUML, in the petition filed through its General Secretary PK Kunhalikutty, informed the Court that the State Election Commission has already notified the Local Body polls, which are scheduled to be held in two phases on December 9 and 11, whereas the draft roll after SIR is to be published on December 9.

NEET-UG : Tamil Nadu Girl Approaches Supreme Court Over Losing MBBS Seat After Missing Fee Payment Deadline

Case Details: Shilpa Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on November 19 a challenge to the order of the Madras High Court, which refused to allow medical admission of a candidate who could not complete the fee payment in time. According to the candidate, she could not make the payment due to financial difficulties.

The Counsel mentioned the need for an urgent hearing in the case before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria. He stressed :

"The urgency is that the stray counselling is happening, they will occupy the seat, poor girl- 15 lakhs was supposed to be paid, and on the last day, she couldn't."

'Telangana Speaker In Gross Contempt Of Court' : Supreme Court Gives Ultimatum To Decide Disqualification Pleas

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (And Connected Case Detailss)

The Supreme Court (November 17) issued notice returnable in four weeks to the Speaker of Telangana in a contempt petition filed over his failure to decide the disqualification petitions against 10 MLAs of BRS who defected to the Congress within the time limit set by the Court.

While considering the contempt petitions, the bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai expressed displeasure with the Speaker's conduct.

"It is for him (speaker) whether he wants to decide the matter or face contempt by the court....this is gross contempt of the court," CJI Gavai said, noting that the Speaker was supposed to decide by October 31.

PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Court-Monitored Probe Into Alleged Multi-Crore Bank Fraud By Reliance Communications & Anil Ambani

Case Details: Eas Sarma v. Union of India and Others |

A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored investigation into what is described as one of the country's largest banking frauds allegedly involving Reliance Communications Ltd., its group entities and their promoter Anil Ambani. The petition, filed under Article 32 by former Union secretary E A S Sarma, alleges large-scale diversion of funds, forgery, fabrication of accounts, use of shell companies and coordinated financial misconduct across the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group.

Advcoate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, saying, "There is bank fraud worth Rs 20,000 crores. We are seeking an independent court-monitored probe. This is about a large corporate group." CJI Gavai agreed to list the matter urgently.

The petitioner contends that the present investigation being conducted by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate is narrow, incomplete, and deliberately excludes the role of bank officials and public servants, despite detailed material indicating their complicity. He submits that judicial supervision is essential to ensure a coordinated, transparent and comprehensive probe covering all offences revealed in multiple forensic audit reports, technical analyses and investigative publications.

'Should This Be Permitted?' : Supreme Court Questions Selling Liquor In Tetra-Packs, Says School Kids Can Easily Access

Case Details: M/S. John Distilleries Pvt Limited v. M/S. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd., SLP(C) No. 33238-33239/2025

The Supreme Court criticized State governments for prioritizing revenue over public health, while voicing concern about the sale of liquor in tetra packs.

The Court noted that the sale of liquor in tetra packs may provide easy access to school-going children and, being deceptive in looks, it may go unnoticed by parents as well. The development came after the Court was shown tetra-packs containing whiskey for sale during the hearing of a trademark dispute.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with John Distilleries' plea against the Madras High Court orderwhich ruled in favour of Allied Blenders and Distillers, the maker of Officer's Choice whisky, and ordered the removal of John Distilleries' 'Original Choice' trademark from the register of trademarks.

Delhi NCR Air Pollution | Supreme Court Rules Out Year-Long Construction Ban To Improve Air Quality

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court, while hearing the Delhi–NCR air pollution matter, said it was not inclined to impose extreme measures such as a year-round construction ban to improve the Air Quality Index. The Court observed that such an order would have far-reaching consequences and jeopardise the livelihoods of millions.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for some advocates who have intervened in the MC Mehta case, said that the situation was akin to an "emergency", as the air quality has deteriorated to alarming levels, causing irreversible damage to the health of the people, particularly children. Sankaranarayanan called for critical measures, such as a complete ban on construction and private cars. "We all have to make sacrifices," he urged, citing reports that three in ten deaths in the NCR are caused by air pollution and lung cancer cases are exponentially increasing.

However, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria ruled out imposing a complete ban on constructions.

Digital Arrest Scam | In Rare Move, Supreme Court Restrains Grant Of Bail To Persons Accused Of Duping 73-Yr Old Woman AoR

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

In the suo motu case taken up over "digital arrest" scams, the Supreme Court restrained the release from jail of persons accused of duping a 73-year old woman Advocate-on-Record.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, taking a strict view, after AoR Vipin Nair mentioned SCAORA's intervention application in the matter, highlighting the experience of the woman AoR.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought an accommodation in the matter due to his engagement in a special bench. However, the SG supported SCAORA's intervention, saying he personally interacted with the woman AoR when she faced the ordeal.

Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society Moves Supreme Court Against Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Law

Case Details – Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan

The Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2025, asserting that the statute violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 25 and 300A of the Constitution.

“the structure of the Rajasthan Act is only to create fear in the minds of people and dissuade people from conversions. Further, it is only a tool for harassment of the minority communities and create a chilling effect”, the plea states.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice returnable within four weeks in the writ petition filed though advocate Amit Pai.

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Communist Party's Flagpoles In Tamil Nadu Public Lands

Case Details – Communist Party of India v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court issued notice and ordered status quo on the Communist Party of India's challenge to the Madras High Court's directions for the removal of permanent political flagpoles from public places across Tamil Nadu.

The matter was heard by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

“Issue notice and status quo”, Justice Vikram Nath said.

Supreme Court To Hear Tamil Nadu's Challenge To HC Stay On University Law Amendments On December 2

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. K Venkatachalapthy @ Kutty and Ors., SLP(C) No. 17220/2025 and T.P.(C) No. 1511/2025

The Supreme Court posted to December 2 the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the Madras High Court's order which stayed the operation of State amendments taking away the Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors of State-run Universities.

A matter was before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The State has also filed a petition seeking to transfer to the Supreme Court the public interest litigation pending before the Madras High Court.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the case will have to await the outcome of the Presidential Reference relating to the timelines fixed for Governor to grant assent to Bills. Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi, for the State, submitted that the case has nothing to do with the Presidential Reference (The amendments in question came into operationon the basis of the "deemed assent"declared by the Supreme Court in the TN Governor case).

CSI Medical College Bribery Case : Supreme Court Stays Money Laundering Trial Against Former Church Of South India Bishop

Case Details – A Dharmaraj Rasalam v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition filed by former Church of South India (CSI) Bishop A Dharmaraj Rasalam seeking quashing of the money laundering case against him in the Karakonam CSI Medical College corruption case.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the notice returnable in four weeks and directed that trial court proceedings shall remain stayed in the meantime.

“Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meantime trial court proceedings shall remain stayed”, the court ordered.

'Officer's Choice' v. 'Original Choice' Whiskey Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao As Mediator

Case Details: M/S. John Distilleries Pvt Limited v. M/S. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd., SLP(C) No. 33238-33239/2025

Former Supreme Court judge Justice L Nageswara Rao is set to mediate a trademark disputebetween India's leading whiskey-selling brands John Distilleries and Allied Blenders.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi requested the former judge to facilitate the process of amicable settlement between the companies on a priority basis.

The development came in John Distilleries' plea against the Madras High Court order which ruled in favour of Allied Blenders, the maker of Officer's Choice whisky, and ordered the removal of John Distilleries' 'Original Choice' trademark from the register of trademarks. In this order of November 7, the High Court held that Original Choice was deceptively similar to Officer's Choice and that its registration violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also confirmed that Allied Blenders' registration for Officer's Choice remains valid.

'Bogus Officers, Incompetent' : Supreme Court Tears Into CBI Investigation In Vimal Negi Death Case

Case Details: Desh Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 4889/2025

The Supreme Court (November 17) made certain oral scathing remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), questioning the competence of some of its officers to lead the investigation properly.

The Court questioned the stand of the CBI team in claiming that the accused did not cooperate with the investigation, when he was only trying to deny the allegations made against him.

These oral remarks were made by a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra while hearing a case for anticipatory bail by accused Desh Raj. He was denied anticipatory bail by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Maharashtra Local Body Elections |'Reservation Can't Exceed 50 Percent, Our Order Misconstrued By Officers': Supreme Court

Case Details: Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19756/2021 (And Connected Case Detailss)

In the Maharashtra local body elections matter, the Supreme Court orally expressed that total reservation was not permitted by it to exceed 50 percent and that the state authorities seemingly misconstrued its order.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.

Underlining that the Court did not pass an order permitting reservation to exceed 50%, Justice Kant said during the hearing,

Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Calls For Report On Efficiency Of AQI Monitoring Stations

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

The Supreme Court granted a day's time to the Union to explore the possible long-term solutions for curbing the issue of air pollution in Delhi NCR.

On the issue of correct AQI readings by Air Quality Monitoring Stations across the city, the bench also directed the Union to file a report detailing the nature and efficiency of the equipments used for recording readings.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria passed the directions.

Plea In Supreme Court Against Algorithm-Based Dynamic Pricing Of Airfares, Seeks Free Baggage Allowance Upto 25 Kg

Case Details – S. Laxminarayanan v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea seeking regulatory control over airfare practices and ancillary charges in India's civil aviation sector. The petition challenges algorithm-driven dynamic pricing, day-of-travel surcharges, and the reduction of complimentary check-in baggage allowance from 25 kg to 15 kg.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the notice returnable in four weeks.

The plea asserts that ticket prices can double or triple within hours due to algorithm-driven dynamic pricing, citing fare spikes during the Maha Kumbh pilgrimage and after the Pahalgam terror incident. It states that such volatility affects passengers who lack the ability to plan in advance. It says that in circumstances like medical emergencies, natural calamities or urgent family crises, citizens are left with no choice but to fly.

Kerala Moves Supreme Court Seeking Deferment Of Electoral Rolls' SIR Till Local Body Elections

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Others

The Kerala Government has approached the Supreme Court seeking the deferment of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India in the State, until the ongoing process for elections to the Local Self-government Institutions (LSGIs) is completed.

In its writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, Kerala argues that conducting the SIR simultaneously with local body elections will create significant administrative complications and potentially disrupt the smooth conduct of the polls.

While reserving its right to challenge the SIR process itself at a later stage, the State has clarified that the present plea is limited to seeking postponement of the revision exercise in Kerala.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To ED Officer In Bribery Case

Case Details: Vishal Deep v. CBI | Criminal Appeal No. 4885 /2025

The Supreme Court granted bail to Enforcement Directorate (ED) Assistant Director Vishal Deep, who was arrested by the CBI in a case for allegedly demanding bribes from two college administrators during an investigation into Himachal Pradesh scholarship scam.

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on August 1 that had refused him bail.

Taking note of the fact that chargesheet has already been filed, and considering the period of incarceration, the Court chose to grant relief to the officer. The Court ordered that the officer be released on bail on conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

'Then We Should Monitor Handkerchief Use!' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Eco-Friendly Disposal Of Lawyers' Bands

Case Details: Sakshi Vijay v. Union of India and Others | Wp(C) 1058/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking a uniform and eco-friendly system for the collection, segregation, disposal and recycling of used Advocate Bands in all Courts across the country.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and described herself as the wife of a lawyer. She submitted that during the Diwali break, she found several discarded lawyer bands which, she claimed, were made of non-biodegradable material. She argued that the continued use of such cloth bands contributed to environmental waste and required regulation.

The CJI, however, was unimpressed. Responding to her submissions, he remarked that if such logic were to be followed, the Court would also have to monitor everyday items like handkerchiefs. "Then Court should monitor the use of handkerchiefs," CJI said.

Supreme Court Seeks CBI, ED Response On Plea For Independent Probe Into Alleged Bank Fraud By Anil Dhirubai Ambani Group Companies

Case Details: Eas Sarma v. Union of India and Others | Diary No. 65397-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking a court-monitored investigation into what is described as one of the country's largest banking frauds allegedly involving Reliance Communications Ltd., its group entities and their promoter Anil Ambani.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice to the Union Government, CBI, ED, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group and Anil Ambani on the writ petition filed under Article 32 by former Union Secretary E A S Sarma.

The petitioner alleges large-scale diversion of funds, forgery, fabrication of accounts, use of shell companies and coordinated financial misconduct across the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group.

Disclosure Of Candidates Shortlisted For CIC Appointments Might Be Counter-Productive : Supreme Court

Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., MA 1979/2019 In W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

The Supreme Court again declined to direct the Union Government to publicly disclose the names of candidates shortlisted for appointments to the Central Information Commission (CIC), saying that the same may be counter-productive to the appointment process.

Though the petitioners emphasized that the issue was settled by the Court in 2018 itself and a mandamus be issued for disclosure of candidates' names, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was inclined to leave the issue open. Earlier, on November 17 as well, the Court had turned downthe plea of the petitioners to divulge the names of shortlisted candidates.

It also refused to summon at this stage the Secretary of the Department of Personnel & Training to explain the delay in the appointment process. "If need be, we will do that", said the bench.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union On Plea Against Decision To Stop Patient Care Allowance To Disabled Hospital Staff

Case Details: AIIMS Divyang Federation v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1051/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in an Article 32 writ petition preferred by the AIIMS Divyang Federation espousing the cause of persons with disability, working in different hospitals/healthcare established recognised and funded by the Central Government, whose Patient Care Allowance(PCA) has been stopped by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

As per the writ petition, the PCA has been stopped by respective hospitals in compliance with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's notification dated May 7, read with another notification dated April 21, 2023. It is submitted that this is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution read with concerned provisions of the Rights Of Persons With Disability Act, 2016 and National Trust Act, 1999.

It is stated that the PCA also known as Hospital Patient Care Allowance(HPCA) is a critical security allowance, provided by the Central Government to the non-ministerial employees and ministerial employees who are working as a Group C and D of any Central Government hospital/healthcare establishment with those with 30 or more beds in general hospital and more than 10 beds in super speciality hospitals.

'Why Use Your Machinery For Political Battles?' : Supreme Court Asks CBI In Jharkhand Assembly Appointments Case

Case Details: Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, SLP(C) No. 26367/2024

The Supreme Court, while hearing the issue of a probe into appointments to the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) why it was being used to fight political battles.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the challenge by the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha to the Jharkhand High Court's order of September 2024, which directed a CBI inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the appointments and promotions to the Jharkhand State Assembly (Vidhan Sabha). In November 2024, the Court had stayed the High Court's order. The State of Jharkhand has also filed a separate SLP against the High Court's order.

An interlocutory application filed by the CBI seeking permission to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter was listed.

Supreme Court Lays Down Revised Schedule For Various State Bar Council Elections; Forms Committees To Monitor

Case Details: M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Anr., Wp(C) No. 1319/2023 (And Connected Case Detailss)

The Supreme Court revised the time schedule for holding of State Bar Council elections across 16 States/UTs and ordered that the same be held in 5 phases between January 31, 2026 and April 30, 2026.

To facilitate the elections, the Court further constituted High Powered Election Monitoring Committees (HPEMCs) at regional levels as well as a High Powered Supervisory Committee (to be headed by a former Supreme Court judge). The members of the Committees will be notified by the Court in its uploaded order.

It further permitted advocates registered with State Bar Councils, whose verification of law degrees is still pending, to cast votes on a provisional basis. Their voting is subject to "necessary consequences", as the case may be.

Supreme Court Seeks MP Authorities' Response On Plea Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Accused's Home

Case Details: Imroz Khan v. Sudhir Kumar | SLP(C) No. 033404 - / 2025

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Madhya Pradesh authorities in a plea seeking contempt proceedings for the alleged illegal demolition of the petitioner's house in violation of the Supreme Court's directions.

The petitioner named Imroz Khan, a resident of Sehore District, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's refusal to initiate contempt proceedings. According to the petitioner, his house was demolished following the registration of a false case against him alleging unlwaful religious conversion.

Sr Advocate Dr S Murlidhar, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that the case was a stark example of 'state lawlessness'. He said :

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

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

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

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

The order was dictated thus:

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Umar Khalid Can't Claim Parity With Other Accused Who Got Bail : Police To Supreme Court

Case Details: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

The Delhi Police (November 18) argued before the Supreme Court that Umar Khalid cannot claim parity with Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, the co-accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, as the 2021 order of the Delhi High Court giving them bail was passed on an incorrect interpretation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Appearing for the Police, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that the Delhi High Court's 2021 bail judgment in favour of the three correctly held incorrectly that the UAPA applied only to offences concerning the “defence of India”, and therefore the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) was inapplicable.

Raju said that once the High Court concluded that UAPA didn't apply, it wrongly applied Section 439 CrPC instead of Section 437 CrPC, which governs offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to seven years.

'Avoid Bail Litigation': Supreme Court Asks Union To Establish Pan-India Mechanism For Completion Of Special Statute Trials Within 6 Months

Case Details: Mahesh Khatri @ Bholi v. State NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 1422/2025

The Supreme Court called on the Union of India to develop a pan-India mechanism for speedy disposal of special cases' trials within 6 months by establishing dedicated courts across India.

Justice Surya Kant conveyed to the counsels appearing for Union/NIA, "you please talk to the authorities at the highest level. We want a very committed system to be introduced immediately that in all these matters, the trial must be completed in all respects within 6 months...so that issue of consideration of bail, etc., those litigations can be avoided. Nobody will make a hue and cry on this side (petitioners' side) that why I am not being granted bail...unless there are exceptional circumstances (like a strong alibi plea), which can be examined on case-to-basis. But where somebody is found to be prima facie involved, in these kind of heinous crimes, which are against the nation, against the public at large, there, no question of bail for 6 months. But conclude the trial. They also have a right to speedy trial. Both things can be balanced. [Prepare] an infrastructure for this on pan-India basis. We will make sure that these courts exclusively work, maybe day and night."

A bench of Justices Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with two cases (click here and here), where it earlier flagged a need for dedicated courts to conduct exclusive trial of special cases under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

Freebies To Doctors | Supreme Court Calls For Giving Statutory Force To Code Of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices

Case Details: Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court (November 18) pressed the Union government on whether it intends to give statutory backing to the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024, observing that the voluntary regime places consumers at a disadvantage and offers no effective enforcement mechanism against misconduct by pharmaceutical companies.

While Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj stated that the 2024 UCPMP is a shift to a mandatory regime from the completely voluntary 2015 UCPMP, Justice Mehta observed that the Ethics Committee structure in the 2024 Code remained industry-controlled. “Ultimately, what is the control of the government?”, he asked, adding, “Simple solution would be to bring the control order (under Essential Commodities Act). Incorporating the UCPMP in form of a control order will give it teeth.”

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices to curb unethical interactions between pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Kerala High Court's Finding That Munambam Land Isn't Waqf

Challenging theKerala High Court's findingthat the Munambam property is not a Waqf land, an organisation from Kerala has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.

The petition filed by Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi questions the judgment delivered by a division bench of the Kerala High Court on October 10 that upheld the State Government's decision to appoint a one-member Commission of Inquiry to examine the status and extent of a 404.76-acre property in Munambam.

Background

Supreme Court Flags Fake Sureties Furnished By Foreign Nationals, Calls For Mechanism To Ensure Genuineness Of Bail Surety

Case Details: Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Anr.

Before the Supreme, a disturbing pattern of foreign nationals absconding after securing bail through fraudulent sureties in narcotics cases was exposed.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi came across a matter where the Nigerian man involved in drug crimes and arrested under the NDPS Act, was granted bail based on surety, who later turned out to be fictitious. The Court questioned whether the National Informatics Centre's (NIC) surety verification module for trial courts was functional and adequate, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive re-evaluation of surety verification mechanisms across the country.

“The problem of impersonation by sureties appears to be rampant in certain States. Whether the surety module prepared by the National Informatics Centre for Trial Courts in India is functional and operational, and what other mechanism exists for verification of the genuineness of sureties, are issues which, in our considered view, require a comprehensive examination.”, the court noted.

Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Asks CAQM To Consider Directing Postponement Of School Sports Activities In NCR

The Supreme Court (November 19) requested the Commission of Air Quality Management (CAQM) to consider issuing directions to the schools in the Delhi-National Capital Region to postpone the sports and game competitions scheduled in November-December to safer months after improvements in the air quality.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the direction after concerns were raised about the holding of sports competitions at a time when the Air Quality Index has plummeted to dangerous levels.

Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, the amicus curiae in the matter, informed the bench that several NCR schools are going to hold sports meet in November in the middle of severe air pollution. "Children are most vulnerable, holding sports now is like putting them in gas chambers," she submitted.

'Seeing Your Double Standards': Supreme Court Slams SEBI Over Reluctance In Indiabulls' Probe; Questions CBI's 'Cool Attitude'

Case Details: Citizens Whistle Blower Forum v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 2993/2025

During the hearing of Citizens Whistle Blower Forum's pleafor SIT probe against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (now Sammaan Capital), the Supreme Court slammed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) over reluctance to probe allegations against IHFL.

"When question of taking over properties and selling comes, then you say we are the only authority in the country with jurisdiction. But when question of investigation comes? Because your officers have some vested interest? When we are conferring you jurisdiction, [what's the problem?] When we want to give you some authority, why are you reluctant? Every day we see double standards of SEBI! In one of the matters where I constituted a High Powered Committee, your stand was only SEBI has the right to auction the properties. And what you have been auctioning, we know that! 30 crore property, you have sold in few lakhs. When Courts are instructing, you should perform your statutory duty. You say you don't have power. Why are your officers getting salary if you do not have power?" remarked Justice Surya Kant.

Notably, the judge also flagged CBI's "cool attitude" in IHFL's case and questioned Ministry of Corporate Affairs' alleged compounding of about 100 violations in the span of 2 days.

Supreme Court Urges Hindu Women To Make Wills; Mandates Pre-Litigation Mediation In Succession Of Childless Wives Dying Intestate

Case Details – Snidha Mehra v. Union of India

The Supreme Court urged all women, especially Hindu women who may leave behind property after their death, to make a will to ensure that their property is distributed according to their wishes and to avoid future litigation between their parents and in-laws.

“we appeal to all women and particularly all Hindu women irrespective of their age who are likely to be in position of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to take immediate steps to make a testament or will bequeathing their properties including their self-acquired properties in accordance with section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act read with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. We do so in order to safeguard the interest of not only women in this country in general but female Hindus in particular so as to avoid any further litigation”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan declined to decide a PIL challenging Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on merits, and left the question of validity open.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Jyoti Jagtap In Bhima Koregaon Case

Case Details: Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigating Agency and Anr | Crl.A. No. 2598/2023 And the National Investigation Agency v. Mahesh Sitaram Raut and Anr. | Crl.A. No. 3048/2023

The Supreme Court (November 19) granted interim bail to activist and member of cultural organisation Kala Kabir Manch, Jyoti Jagtap, in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad matter till the next date of hearing, which is in February 2026.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order. Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, for Jagtap, told the bench that she has been under custody for over five years.

The bench agreed to grant interim bail till the next date of hearing.

Supreme Court Stays CBI Investigation In Tamil Nadu BSP Leader Armstrong Murder Case

Case Details: Commissioner of Police v. K. Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong and Another | SLP(Crl) No. 15897/2025

The Supreme Court (November 11) stayed the direction for the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the murder case of the BSP leader and prominent Dalit activist Armstrong.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a special leave petition preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Madras High Court's order, which quashed the chargesheet filed by the State Police in the murder case and transferred the investigation to the CBI. Though the Supreme Court, on October 10, stayed the High Court's order quashing the chargesheet, it did not interdict the CBI investigation.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra(appearing for Tamil Nadu police) refuted the allegations that the State police refused to share the record of the case with the CBI. "Entire documentary record of this case that there are 7400 pages, every aspect of the investigation dealt with, every witness dealt with, and the High Court in six para rubbishes my chargesheet-which is what mylords stayed. Now, please see two things. The consequence of the order of the High Court, which mylords were kind to stay, and now accused have been granted bail, which CBI or I will take appropriate recourse because the trial court has taken a view that nothing will happen, every single witness, everything was there on record. This is 7400 pages and my friend says nothing has happened. Additional documents were also on record."

Pollution By Vehicles Not Dependent On Their Age Alone : CJI BR Gavai

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

While hearing the Delhi-NCR Air Pollution case, the Chief Justice of Inida verbally remarked that pollution caused by cars/ vehicles may not depend upon their age alone. The distance they have travelled may also need to be factored in.

Some vehicles may cover over 30,000 kilometres in one year, but some others, like the official vehicles of the judges, may not even cross 15,000 km in five years, the CJI said.

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

Supreme Court Flags Lacuna In 'Talaq-e-Hasan', Questions Practice Of Husbands' Lawyers Sending Talaq Notices To Wives

Case Details: Benazeer Heena v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 348/2022 (And Connected Case Detailss)

The Supreme Court flagged certain issues in the practice of 'Talaq-e-Hasan', a form of divorce in Islamic law, and raised concerns over the practice of husbands' lawyers sending Talaq notices to wives. This enabled the husbands to later deny issuing Talaq and accuse wives of polyandry when they remarry, the Court observed.

The Court sought for inputs from the parties on the possibility of judicial interference.

Talaq-e-Hasan is a form of divorce in Islamic law where the husband pronounces talaq once a month over a period of three months. It is considered a revocable and staggered form of divorce, unlike instantaneous triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat, which was declaredunconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2017).

'Why Not Ask CBI To Investigate?' : Supreme Court Asks Haryana Police In Case Where Advocate Was Arrested

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

The Supreme Court asked the State of Haryana why the murder case in which an advocate was arrested should not be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Vikram Singh challenging his arrest and remand in the case. The advocate alleged that he was arrested to extract information about his clients. Last week, the Court had ordered the interim release of the lawyer.

Sr Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that third-degree torture was meted out on the lawyer.

Supreme Court Deletes Direction To Ex-NUJS VC To Mention Dismissal Of Sexual Harassment Complaint In His Resume

Case Details: Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Others | (M.A. D. No. 54540 of 2025 Ors

The Supreme Court deleted a direction contained in its earlier judgment that Professor Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the former Vice Chancellor of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Science, should mention the dismissal of a sexual harassment complaint in his resume.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale deleted the direction in view of the fact that the sexual harassment complaint was dismissed as time-barred and that there was no finding on merits against him.

On September 12, the same bench had held thatthe sexual harassment complaint made by a faculty member of NUJS against the then VC was time-barred as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. While dismissing the complaint, the bench had observed in the concluding paragraph of the judgment - "In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1(Chakrabarti) may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever. Thus, it is directed that this judgment shall be made part of the resume of respondent no.1, compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally."

'TN Governor Judgment Caused Confusion, Authoritative Opinion Needed' : Supreme Court Holds Presidential Reference Maintainable

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

While holding that the President's Referencemade on the issues relating to Bills' assent was maintainable, the Supreme Court observed that the judgment of a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governorcase - which laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act on Bills - had created doubts and confusions.

The 5-judge bench also observed that some of the conclusions in theTamil Nadu case were contrary to precedents.

States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Punjab had objected to the maintainability of the Reference, arguing that the questions raised were already answered by the judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu case. They also argued that the Reference was an "appeal in disguise" and that Article 143 of the Constitution cannot be used to overrule a judgment.

Advocates Should Not Disclose What Transpired In Mediation Between Parties : Supreme Court

While hearing a transfer petition relating to a matrimonial matter, the Supreme Court reprimanded an advocate for disclosing what transpired in mediation between the parties.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the matter. At the outset, he asked the advocate: "Have you not read CrPC, CPC? How can you disclose what happened in mediation?"

Justice Kumar remarked that advocates should be careful in drafting the pleadings, and asked for the advocate to unconditionally withdraw the averments made.

CJI BR Gavai Announces Launch Of New Version Of E-Filing Portal

The Supreme Court launched a new version of the e-filing portal for lawyers and litigants, which also allow online appearances of lawyers.

Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, in the morning session, announced the launch of the new version being floated on a pilot basis. He said that the platform offers e-filing, certified copy, physical hearing with hybrid option through a single login.

"We are trying to adopt Artificial Intelligence into the platform, where it is certainly a breakthrough. This feature will continue to evolve, and the support and cooperation of the members of the bar will be crucial in its capability."

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Police Plays Clips Of Sharjeel Imam's Speeches In Supreme Court; Says Accused Are 'Anti-Nationals'

Case Details: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

The Delhi Police continued its arguments opposing the the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Md Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case in which they are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Delhi Police, played in the Court certain video clips of the provocative speeches made by Sharjeel Imam. The clips showed Imam making statements such as chakka-jams must be held in all Indian cities, Muslims must unite to cut off the 'chicken neck' area connecting India to Assam and cut-off north-east from the mainland, must disrupt supplies of essentials to Delhi, must paralyse the Government, and that the Courts cannot be trusted.

Supreme Court Stays Haryana Police Investigation Against Advocate In Murder Case

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

The Supreme Court stayed the investigation by the Haryana Police Special Task Force (STF) against an advocate in connection with a murder case. The Court also confirmed his interim bail.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Vikram Singh challenging his arrest and remand in the case. The advocate alleged that he was arrested to extract information about his clients. Last week, the Court had ordered the interim release of the lawyer.

Sr Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, urged the court to refer the matter to the CBI and call for the status report. He also said that the Court may consider discharging the petitioner from the FIR after the CBI report is filed. He stressed :

Supreme Court Allows Members Of MP Judges Association To Continue In Service Till 61 Years

Case Details: Case Details: Madhya Pradesh Judges Association v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 000986 / 2025

The Supreme Court, as an interim relief, allowed the members of the MP Judges Association to continue their service as district judges till they reach the age of 61 years, as opposed to the earlier superannuation age of 60 years.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and PB Varale was hearing the challenge to the administrative order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which refused to increase the retirement age of judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years. The Petition has been filed by the MP Judges Association.

The Association contends that this was in clear violation of the Supreme Court's directions on May 26. The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih had clarified that there was no impediment in raising the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years and asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take an administrative decision on enhancing the retirement age within 3 months.

'Don't Throw' : CJI BR Gavai Stops Lawyer From Showering Flowers On Him During Farewell

In an unusual moment during the ceremonial farewell for Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, a lawyer attempted to shower flower petals on the retiring CJI inside Courtroom No. 1, prompting a quick but light-hearted intervention from the bench.

A lawyer, while offering his farewell remarks, praised CJI Gavai and then announced that he had brought a packet of flower petals to “shower” on the Chief Justice as a mark of respect. He even opened the packet and took some petals into his hand, preparing for the gesture.

Before he could proceed, CJI Gavai immediately responded from the bench, saying, “No, no, don't throw… hand it over to someone,” drawing laughter across the packed courtroom.

Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association Approaches SC Against Bombay HC Ruling Excluding Bar Council From POSH Act

Case Details: Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order holding that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 does not apply to complaints of sexual harassment made by advocates against other advocates before Bar Councils.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice on the plea and tagged the matter with Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India and Ors.

Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, for the petitioner, submitted that the High Court judgment went against the principles laid down in Aureliano Fernandes, where the Supreme Court had directed that every professional body must have an Internal Complaints Committee.

Supreme Court Dismisses ED's Challenge To Madras High Court's Order Summoning ED Officer In Contempt Matter

Case Details: Joint Director v. Akash Bhaskaran | SLP (Crl) 14728/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging an order of the Madras High Courtissuing notice to an ED officer in a contempt petition. The contempt petition was filed alleging that the ED was continuing the investigation ignoring the High Court's stay order.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi expressed that the bench is not inclined to entertain the ED's petition having regard to the fact that the contempt proceedings are pending in the High Court. Giving liberty to raise all contentions before the High Court, the bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

The case relates to the ED investigation against film producer Aakash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran in a TASMAC-related probe. On July 20, the High Court had stayed the proceedings against them in the money laundering case and directed the ED to return the seized materials to them after prima facie observing that there was no proper authorization for search as per Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To ECI On Pleas To Postpone SIR In Kerala; Hearing On Nov 26

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1136/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India on a petition filed by the Kerala Government seeking to defer the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Kerala till the completion of the local body elections.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, SVN Bhatti and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to post the matter on November 26. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State Government.

Along with the State's petition, the bench also issued notice on the petitions filed by Indian Union Muslim League General Secretary PK Kunhalikutty, KPCC President Sunny Joseph and CPI(M) Secretary MV Govindan Master. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the CPI(M) Secretary and Advocate Haris Beeran for IUML.

Delay In Framing Of Charges | Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Furnish Information Sought By Amicus Curiae

Case Details: Aman Kumar v. State of Bihar | SLP(Crl) No. 8437/2025

In the matter where the Supreme Court has proposed laying down guidelines to avoid delay in the framing of charges by the Trial Courts, the Supreme Court asked the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to furnish to the amici curiae the information sought by them.

The Court observed that the Chief Justices of High Courts can form committees to get the information from the districts and forward them to the amici.

Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Nagamuthu are the amici curiae in the matter.

Never Saw Position Of Judge As Office Of Power, But As Chance To Serve : CJI BR Gavai In Farewell Address

The Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, expressed that he never saw the office of a judge as a position of power but as a means to serve the nation.

Speaking at the ceremonial bench conducted by the Supreme Court to bid him farewell, the CJI expressed :

"As a lawyer and then as the judge of the High Court and then a Supreme Court judge, I have always believed that the office is not an office of power but an opportunity to serve the society, to serve the nation."

Delhi Riots UAPA Case | Trial Can Be Completed In 2 Years If Accused Cooperate : Police Tell Supreme Court

Case Details: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

The Delhi police (November 21) told the Supreme Court that the trial in the riots larger conspiracy case - in which Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima etc., are booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act -can be completed within two years if the accused cooperate.

"I can finish the trial in 2 years, provided they cooperate," Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Delhi Police, told a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria.

The bench is hearing the bail petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

Manipur Police Sent Edited Clips For Forensic Analysis : Kuki Group To Supreme Court In Plea For Probe Against Ex-CM Biren Singh

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

The Kuki Organization for Human Right Trust has told the Supreme Court that the Manipur Police forwarded only short, edited clips to the National Forensic Science University (NFSU), Gandhinagar, instead of the complete 48-minute recording that allegedly contains a conversation implicating former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in the 2023 ethnic violence.

“the Respondent forwarded only four short, cut-out clips of durations 0:30, 1:28, 0:36, and 1:47 minutes, recording, instead of the complete 48-minute and 46-second recording, thereby giving an incomplete and misleading representation of the evidence. misleading representation of the evidence. Such selective transmission of material raises serious concern regarding the bona fides of the Respondent's conduct and its impact on the fairness of the ongoing investigation”, the organization has said.

The allegation is made in a detailed affidavit responding to NFSU's report dated October 10, 2025, which found the audio files tampered with and unfit for scientific voice comparison. The affidavit has been filed in the organization's writ petition seeking an independent court-monitored probe into the role of state machinery in the ethnic violence.

Judicial Officers Who Joined Before May 20 Not Bound By 3-Year Practice Mandate To Apply For Services In Other States : Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court has clarified that Judicial Officers, who joined the service before the judgment delivered on May 20, 2025 - which reintroduced the mandate for three years' practice at the bar to enter Judicial Service- need not meet this practice condition in case they are applying for judicial services in any other state. However, this is subject to the condition that they have completed three years of service in the present state.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed this order while considering the application filed by a person who has been serving in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service as a Civil Judge Junior Division since 2019. She entered the judiciary within one year of enrollment with the Bar Council of Delhi, since at that time, there was no mandate of minimum practice to join the judicial service.

Now, the applicant is desirous of applying for the Judicial Services in other States. However, since she does not have three years of practice at the bar, she filed the application seeking a clarification.

Supreme Court Seeks ECI Response On Congress MP Tanuj Punia's Plea Against SIR In Uttar Pradesh

Case Details: Tanuj Punia v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1129/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by Congress MP Tanuj Punia challenging special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, SVN Bhatti and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order. It also issued notice on pleas challenging SIR in Kerala and seeking postponement thereof.

Tanuj Punia, a Lok Sabha MP from Barabanki and Chairman of Scheduled Caste Department of Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee, has challenged the notification dated October 27 issued by ECI notifying SIR for Uttar Pradesh.

Judicial Officer Moves Supreme Court Against Penalty Imposed By High Court For Summary Disposal Of Cases

Case Details: SLP(C) No. 32492/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a Judicial Officer's plea against the penalty imposed on her for disposing of 1926 criminal cases in 5 months by stopping proceedings as a Magistrate, without proper application of mind, at the summons stage itself.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate PB Suresh (for the petitioner). The senior counsel argued that the law is settled to the effect that unless there are extraneous considerations attributable to the Presiding Officer, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the judicial discretion exercised by them. He further highlighted that most of the cases disposed of by the petitioner were cases involving penalty of fine.

"[Discretion] exercised in 1926 cases. What kind of message goes?", remarked Justice Mehta.

Supreme Court Shocked By Rajasthan Police's 'Shielding' Of Maharashtra Police Officer In Criminal Case; Orders DGP To Form SIT

Case Details: Sitwat Qazi v. State (Govt. of Rajasthan), T.P.(C) No. 2623/2024

In a case seeking transfer of a contempt petition from Rajasthan to Delhi, the Supreme Court passed a strongly worded order against the Rajasthan police, being of the view that a police officer belonging to Maharashtra was being "shielded".

The Court ordered the Director General of Police, Rajasthan to constitute an impartial high-powered Special Investigation Team of "proven competence" to investigate the case and submit the final report.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra was dealing with the case of a woman-complainant who, in 2017, approached the Rajasthan High Court alleging that she was being stalked by respondent No.8, and respondent No.9 (a police officer in Maharashtra) was assisting respondent no.8. She sought protection against the two respondents.

Improper For Authorities To Pick Up Trivial Omissions In Supreme Court's Order & Defy It : Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court observed that it is improper for authorities to defy an order of the Supreme Court citing certain trivial omissions. The Court's observation came in a matter where the Uttar Pradesh prison authorities delayed the release of an undertrial on the ground that the Supreme Court's order granting him bail had omitted to mention one sub-section, although all other particulars related to the crime were clear from the order.

In June, the Court had reprimanded the authorities for delaying the release of the prisoner named Aftab, who was booked under the UP Unlawful Religious Conversions Prohibition Act, over a clerical omission to mention sub-section (i) in the bail order [it mentioned only Section 5 instead of Section 5(i)], and directed the State to payhim an interim compensation of Rs 5 lakhs. The Court had also directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, to conduct an inquiry into the matter.

As a follow-up hearing, the matter was listed before Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan on November 17. The bench was surprised to note that the enquiry report of the District Judge put the blame on the Additional District & Sessions Judge (who passed the release order). The bench wondered how the Additional District and Sessions Judge could be blamed when he was acting in furtherance of the Supreme Court's order.

Supreme Court Bars Union From Disbanding CEC Formed For Forest Protection Without Court's Prior Approval

In a significant order aimed at preserving the functioning of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the Supreme Court directed that the Union of India shall not take any steps to disband the CEC without first obtaining the prior approval of the Court.

The direction was issued in the long-running forest matter, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, while the bench was considering issues relating to staffing and continuation of the CEC, which has been assisting the Court in environmental matters for over 28 years.

Noting that the Committee has now been granted statutory status through a 2023 notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, the Court emphasised that the CEC has played a crucial role in providing factual assessments, conducting inspections, and facilitating numerous orders on environmental protection and conservation.

Supreme Court Publishes Details Of Collegium Recommendations During CJI Gavai's Term

The Supreme Court released an official documentwith details of the recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium during the term of the present Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, who is retiring tomorrow.

As per the document, the Collegium made 93 recommendations for High Courts from May 14, the date on which Justice Gavai took over as the CJI.

Out of the 129 candidates, 93 were approved by the Supreme Court Collegium. Notifications for appointment have been issued by the Union Government in respect of 90 approved names, and three names are still pending with them.

Indian Super League Tender Crisis | Centre Assures Supreme Court ISL Will Be Held

Case Details: All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra and Ors.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the Union Government would step in to ensure that the delayed Indian Super League (ISL) is held without placing players at any disadvantage, in light of the failed tender for All India Football Federation's (AIFF) new commercial partner.

“The Minister is aware of the concern. He assured me the ISL must be held. How it is to be held, what sponsors, who will finance etc. can be left to the government. Government will intervene to ensure that ISL is held and our players are not put to any disadvantage”, he said.

Responding to the Court's concern over government interference, Mehta said the government would intervene only to ensure that players were not put at a disadvantage.

'Dalits, Adivasis, Working Class Face Risk Of Disenfranchisement' : Thol Thirumavalavan Moves Supreme Court Against Tamil Nadu SIR

Member of Parliament and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) president Thol Thirumavalavan has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections. He has sought the quashing of the Election Commission's 27 October 2025 notification initiating the exercise in the State.

In the petition filed under Article 32, the petitioner contends that the SIR is arbitrary, non-transparent, and unconstitutional, and violates multiple fundamental rights, including equality, dignity, and universal adult franchise. He argues that the rushed exercise, announced less than a year before the State goes to polls, poses a serious threat of large-scale voter deletions, particularly among marginalised communities.

According to the petition, the design and timing of the SIR disproportionately burden Dalits, Adivasis, migrant workers, women who relocate after marriage, the working class, disabled persons, and those lacking stable documentation or digital access. Structural barriers such as seasonal migration, informal housing, linguistic challenges and digital illiteracy could make compliance nearly impossible, resulting in wrongful deletions from the rolls.

Before The End Of CJI Gavai's Tenure, Supreme Court's In-House Research Centre Releases 10 Pathbreaking Reports

Before the Chief Justice of India, Justice B.R. Gavai demits office, the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP), the in-house research centre of the Supreme Court of India, has released 10 landmark reports. Collectively, these reports address some of the most pressing issues before the judiciary: including the reform of colonial and caste-coded administrative terminology in court documents, the evolution of judicial discourse on caste, global and national standards on indigenous rights, the strengthening of court research systems, child rights, prison reforms, menstrual leave policy, legal aid capacity-building, and the responsible integration of artificial intelligence in the justice system.

These are now available under the “Publications” tab of CRP: https://www.sci.gov.in/centre-for-research-and-planning/

These 10 reports, produced over months of collaborative legal research, reflect the outgoing Chief Justice's strong commitment to judicial reform, institutional strengthening, and the development of nuanced scholarship on issues affecting courts, legal practitioners, and marginalised communities.

Vijay's TVK Party Approaches Supreme Court Against SIR In Tamil Nadu

Actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam(TVK) party has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Special Intensive Revision(SIR) of the electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.

As per the petition, the SIR constitutes a gross violation of constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326, and is contrary to statutory provisions under Sections 21 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (ROPA).

The petition states that the SIR amounts to a "de novo" preparation of electoral rolls without any recorded reasons or justification, violating the statutory requirement under ROPA.