Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 24, 2025 To November 30, 2025

Anyone Can Lodge Complaint Under Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1134

The Supreme Court held that a complaint for offences punishable under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (“1984 Act”) can be initiated by any person, as the Act imposes no restrictions on who may set the criminal law in motion.

“it is a well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set out or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary.”, observed a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order that had quashed the magistrate's summoning of the accused after taking cognizance of the Gram Pradhan's complaint under various IPC provisions read with the 1984 Act.

IBC | Section 7 Application Can't Be Rejected For Curable Defects In Affidavit : Supreme Court

Case Details: Livein Aqua Solutions Private Limited v. HDFC Bank Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1135

The Supreme Court (November 24) observed that procedural defects in a Section 7 insolvency application under IBC, such as a defective affidavit, are curable and cannot be used as a basis for summary dismissal.

“Mere filing of a 'defective' affidavit in support of an application would, however, not render the very application non est and liable to be rejected on that ground as it is neither an incurable nor a fundamental defect.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe while restoring the secured creditor's Section 7 IBC application, which the NCLT had rejected solely on the ground of a mismatch between the verification date and the date of swearing of the supporting affidavit.

Supreme Court Directs Registry To Not Clear Petitions Filed With Black & White Photographs; AoRs Must Produce Colour Photos

Case Details: Dinamati Gomes v. State of Goa, SLP(C) No. 7944/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1136

By way of a judicial order, the Supreme Court has directed its Registry to not accept any paperbook for listing if it contains photographs in black-and-white.

Until properly coloured photographs are filed, duly appended with dimensions and conceptual plan, the matter will remain in the category of "defects not cured", the Court has said. Moreover, if the photographs have been filed electronically, Advocates-on-Record must also file hard copies of the same.

To Convert Every Sour Relationship Into Rape Trivialises Seriousness Of Offence : Supreme Court

Case Details: Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1137

The Supreme Court (November 24) quashed a rape case against an advocate who was accused of committing repeated rape on a woman on a false pretext of marriage. Noting that the sexual intercourse was consensual, not influenced by any false promise of marriage, the Court found the woman's allegations to be untrue and a classic instance of a consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious.

“The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan while setting aside the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) order which refused to quash the case against the Petitioner.

The Court observed that in a society where marriage carries deep social and cultural importance, it is common for a woman to consent to a sexual relationship based on the belief that it will lead to a lawful and socially accepted marriage. In such situations, her consent is conditional and rooted in the promise of marriage. The Court held that if it is proved that the promise was false, made in bad faith, and with no real intention to marry but only to exploit the woman, such consent may be considered vitiated, attracting the protection of Section 376 IPC. At the same time, the Court cautioned that this principle can be applied only when supported by credible evidence and concrete facts, and not on mere allegations or assumptions.

Appellate Courts Can Grant Interim Relief Even If Suit Is Dismissed By Trial Court : Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohammadhanif Mohammadibrahim Patel & Ors. v. Pallaviben Rajendra Kumar Patel & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1138

The Supreme Court observed that an interim relief can be granted by an Appellate Court even when the original suit has been dismissed.

“Just because the original suit came to be dismissed, that does not mean that in the pending appeal, the appellate court cannot grant appropriate relief as prayed for.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan while setting aside the Gujarat High Court's decision which refused the plaintiff's request for a status quo order on the ground that the suit had already been dismissed.

“An appeal is considered a continuation of the original suit, and the appellate court has co-extensive power to grant appropriate interim relief to prevent irreparable injury and preserve the status quo pending the final disposal of the appeal.”, observed the Court adding that “in a suit for specific performance concerning an immovable property, if the relief sought is not granted and the aggrieved party appeals, then an application seeking to maintain the status quo filed before the appellate court cannot be dismissed solely because the suit for specific performance stood dismissed.”

Sandesara–Sterling Group Loan Fraud | Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Cases After Accused Agree To Pay Rs 5,100 Crore To Banks

Case Details – Hemant S. Hathi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. With Connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1139

The Supreme Court quashed all criminal and civil proceedings against Hemant S. Hathi and Chetan Jayantilal, accused in the Sandesara–Sterling Group bank fraud case, after they agreed to deposit Rs 5,100 crore as full and final settlement with lender banks.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, however, clarified that the directions were issued in the peculiar facts of the case with the purpose of protecting public money, and will not operate as a precedent.

“it is apparent that since inception, this Court was of the view that if the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount as settled in OTS and public money comes back to lender banks, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose. The tenor of the proceedings apparently indicate peculiarity, with intent to protect the public money and interest and to get deposited the defalcated amount. In furtherance, the consensus has been arrived at as indicated above. In this view, in the peculiar facts and situation of the present case, discretion as prayed, deserves to be exercised for granting the relief, as prayed and to direct for quashment of all the proceedings”, the Court observed.

Bombay HC Appellate Side Rules | 7-Day Notice To Client Not Required When Advocate Files 'No Instructions' Pursis: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shri Digant v. M/S. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1140

The Supreme Court has clarified that the requirement of giving a seven-day advance notice to the client before withdrawing a vakalatnama, as mandated under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, and the Civil Manual, does not apply when an advocate merely files a pursis stating that he has 'no instructions' from the client.

Holding so, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interference under Article 227, observing that it cannot reappreciate facts or substitute a plausible, well-reasoned order of the First Appellate Court.

“The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi.

Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Auction Sale Can't Be Challenged On Grounds Which Could Have Been Raised Before Proclamation : Supreme Court

Case Details: G.R. Selvaraj (Dead), Through Lrs. v. K.J. Prakash Kumar and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1141

The Supreme Court (November 25) held that a judgment-debtor cannot, at a belated stage, assail an auction sale in execution proceedings, particularly once the sale has been completed. The Court observed that such a challenge is impermissible under Order XXI Rule 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure when the judgment-debtor had a prior opportunity to raise objections before the proclamation of sale was issued

“if the judgment debtor had been put on notice by the executing Court but had acquiesced, by taking no action before the date of the sale, he would be precluded from assailing its legality or correctness thereafter.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe while setting aside the Madras High Court's decision which set aside the auction sale (made in the Appellant's favour) upon accepting the Respondent judgment-debtor's belated objection against the auction sale.

The judgment debtor raised an objection that the executing court hadn't considered the aspect of whether the part sale of the judgment debtor property could satisfy the decree. This objection was raised belatedly even when he had an opportunity to raise before the proclamation of sale.

Letter Of Intent A 'Promise In Embryo'; Doesn't Create Vested Rights Until Preconditions Are Met : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. M/S Oasys Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1142

Holding that a Letter of Interest (LoI) does not confer any enforceable or vested rights until all stipulated pre-conditions are fulfilled, the Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh government's decision to cancel an LoI issued to a private company for the supply of electronic Point-of-Sale (ePoS) devices for its Public Distribution System (PDS).

“an LoI (Letter of Interest) creates no vested right until it passes the threshold of final and unconditional acceptance. It is but a “promise in embryo,” capable of maturing into a contract only upon the satisfaction of stipulated preconditions or upon the issue of an LoA (Letter of Acceptance).”, observed a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh.

Administrative Orders Must Be Justified On Reasons Stated There; Can't Add Fresh Grounds Later : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. M/S Oasys Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1142

The Supreme Court reiterated that a government order can be defended only on the basis of the reasons which are stated there. The reasons in the order cannot be improved through grounds subsequently raised in the affidavits filed in Courts.

“This Court has, however, cautioned against the practice of post-facto rationalisation, whereby authorities attempt to supplement or fabricate reasons after the decision has already been taken. Such afterthoughts cannot cure an inherently arbitrary action. The legitimacy of administrative reasoning must be tested with reference to the material that existed at the time the decision was made, not by subsequent embellishment.”, observed a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, adding that “what is permissible is elucidation of contemporaneous reasoning already traceable on record; what is impermissible is the invention of fresh grounds to retrospectively justify an otherwise unreasoned order.”

The bench made this observation while considering a case in which the State of Himachal Pradesh challenged a High Court order that had quashed its decision to cancel a contract for supplying ePoS machines for the Public Distribution System. The State had issued an unreasoned cancellation order, prompting the private contractor to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to challenge the termination.

Marriage Should Not Be Taken As Broken Down Just Because Spouses Live Separately; Courts Must Identify Who Broke Ties : Supreme Court

Case Details: A v. I

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1143

The Supreme Court has cautioned High Courts and Trial Courts against dissolving marriages solely on the basis of couples living apart and labelling it an irretrievable breakdown. The Court emphasised that judges must undertake a thorough examination of the reasons behind the separation and determine the real cause of the spouses living separately.

“we may hasten to add that Courts, in recent times, often observe that since the parties are living separately, the marriage should be taken to have broken irretrievably. However, before jumping to such a conclusion, it is imperative upon the Family Court or the High Court to determine as to who out of the two is responsible for breaking the marital tie and forcing the other to live separately. Unless there is cogent evidence for wilful desertion or refusal to cohabit and/or look after the other spouse, the finding of marriage having been broken irretrievably is likely to have devastating effects, especially on the children. The arrival of such a conclusion puts the Courts under an onerous duty to deeply analyse the entire evidence on record, consider the social circumstances and the background of the parties, and various other factors.” observed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi while setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court order which interfered with the trial court's order refusing to grant divorce to the Respondent-man against whom an allegation was labelled that he had thrown away the Appellant-wife from the matrimonial home making her to live separately forcefully.

Arbitration | Unconditional Stay On Execution Of Award Only In Exceptional Cases: Supreme Court

Case Details: Popular Caterers v. Ameet Mehta & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1144

The Supreme Court declined to grant an unconditional stay on the execution of the arbitral award, holding that the requirement to deposit the security amount was justified since the award was not shown to have been induced or tainted by fraud or corruption.

Referring to its latest ruling in Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Another v. Amazon Technologies Inc., a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan reiterated the requirements that need to be fulfilled for the grant of an unconditional stay on the execution of an arbitral award.

Supreme Court Stops Deer Translocation From Delhi's AN Jha Deer Park, Orders Probe Into Negligence By DDA

Case Details: New Delhi Nature Society Through Verhaen Khanna v. Director Horticulture DDA & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1145

The Supreme Court (November 26) stopped the translocation of spotted deer from Delhi's A.N. Jha Deer Park to Rajasthan, after finding a 'distressing pattern of negligence' on the Delhi Development Authority's (“DDA”) part while translocating deer.

“It is evident from the record that the translocation protocol and best practices incorporated in the guidelines issued by the Central Zoo Authority and IUCN Guidelines were not adhered to during the translocation of deer from Deer Park to Ramgarh Vishdhari Tiger Reserve and Mukundra Hills Tiger Reserve in the State of Rajasthan. There is no documentary evidence of pre-translocation genetic screening, tagging, tranquilisation protocols, veterinary fitness certification, or behavioural acclimatisation, all of which are internationally recognised preconditions for release.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta flagging the concern of the survival of the deer's during the translocation process as “no tracking mechanisms such as telemetry collars, radio chips, or post-release surveys were done to monitor the well-being or survival of the released animals.”

The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's ruling which refused to interfere with the DDA's chronic mismanagement in the functioning of the AN Jha Deer Park, appointing Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to conduct an independent, on-ground assessment covering, actual population at Deer Park, its ecological carrying capacity, survival status of deer already shifted to Rajasthan, and a scientific, welfare-compliant roadmap for any future relocation.

Recent Trend Of Overturning Judgments By Succeeding Benches Painful : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1146

The Supreme Court (November 26) voiced strong disapproval of attempts at bench hunting, noting growing trends amongst litigants to seek reversal of a prior bench's ruling by approaching a subsequent bench. The Court warned that permitting such practices would undermine the very purpose of Article 141, as no judgment could have finality if it could be reopened merely because a later bench believes its own view to be a 'better' view.

“In the recent past, we have rather painfully observed a growing trend in this Court (of which we too are an indispensable part) of verdicts pronounced by Judges, whether still in office or not and irrespective of the time lapse since pronounced, being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of some party aggrieved by the verdicts prior in point of time.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih. The bench added that “a matter that is res integra may not be reopened or revisited or else consistency in legal interpretation could be compromised and the special authority that is invested in decisions of this Court, under Article 141, lost.”

Recently, judgments such as Vanashakti, Delhi firecracker ban, TN Governor judgment, Bhushan Steel Insolvency etc were revisited.

PC Act | Sections 19(3) & (4) Irrelevant When Sanction Is Quashed By Trial Court Itself : Supreme Court

Case Details: T. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1147

The Supreme Court clarified that the safeguards under Sections 19(3) and 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which prevent a conviction from being set aside due to defects in sanction unless they result in a “failure of justice”, do not apply when the validity of the sanction is questioned at the trial stage. These protections operate only at the appellate or revisional stage, once the trial court has already taken cognizance based on the sanction, the court clarified.

PC Act | Witnesses Turning Hostile In Departmental Proceedings No Ground To Seek Discharge In Criminal Trial : Supreme Court

Case Details: T. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1147

Reiterating that a discharge in departmental proceedings does not automatically absolve a public servant in a criminal case, the Supreme Court has observed that exoneration is comparatively easier in disciplinary inquiries because witnesses often turn hostile, whereas in criminal trials witnesses depose on oath and risk prosecution for perjury if they make false statements.

“when a witness deposing on oath in a criminal trial resiles from the original version and does not support the prosecution case, he would be liable to face prosecution for perjury. Under this pressure, the witness may choose to speak the truth. Thus, the mere fact that some of the witnesses did not support the department's case in the disciplinary proceedings would, by itself, not give any assurance that they would behave in the same manner at the criminal trial.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta while hearing an appeal filed by an public servant in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) who challenged the legal validity of the order granting sanction to prosecute him, arguing that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority as per Section 19(1) of the PC Act.

Second Complaint After Closure Report In 1st Complaint Can't Be Maintained By Adding New Offence For Same Incident : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ranimol & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1148

The Supreme Court held that simply adding a new offence in a subsequent complaint concerning the same alleged incident after a closure report has already been filed in the original complaint, does not render the later complaint maintainable.

“By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of Section 200 of the Code is certainly not maintainable.”, observed a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma while setting aside the Kerala High Court's decision, which had declined to quash a second complaint that merely added a new offence despite arising from the same alleged incident for which the original complaint had already led to a closure report.

For Account Payee Cheque's Dishonour, Complaint Must Be Filed At Place Of Payee's Home Branch : Supreme Court Explains S.142(2)(a) NI Act

Case Details: Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. M/S Heg Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1149

The Supreme Court (November 28) held that complaints arising from the dishonour of account payee cheques must be instituted only before the court that has jurisdiction over the branch of the bank where the payee maintains their account.

The Court clarified that even if the cheque is deposited at a branch different from the payee's home branch, for the purposes of jurisdiction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must still be filed before the court governing the home branch of the payee's bank account.

'Marriage Reduced To Commercial Transaction Due To Evil Of Dowry': Supreme Refuses Bail In Dowry Death Case

Case Details: Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh Alias Prince and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1150

The Supreme Court (November 28) cancelled the bail of a man accused of poisoning his wife for dowry just four months after their marriage. While doing so, the Court criticized the menace of dowry, still existing in society, reducing the sacred bond of marriage to a mere commercial transaction.

“This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that marriage, in its true essence, is a sacred and noble institution founded on mutual trust, companionship, and respect. However, in recent times, this pious bond has regrettably been reduced to a mere commercial transaction. The evil of dowry, though often sought to be camouflaged as gifts or voluntary offerings, has in reality become a means to display social status and to satiate material greed.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan while allowing the appeal filed by the father of the deceased, and setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order that had granted bail to the accused-husband.

“The phenomenon of dowry deaths represents one of the most abhorrent manifestations of this social malaise, where the life of a young woman is extinguished within her matrimonial home – not for any fault of her own, but solely to satisfy the insatiable greed of others. Such heinous offences strike at the very root of human dignity and violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and life with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They corrode the moral fibre of the community, normalize violence against women, and erode the foundations of a civilized society.”, the court added.

IBC | Terminated Contract Not Corporate Debtor's Asset; Moratorium Won't Revive Extinguished Contractual Rights : Supreme Court

Case Details: A Estates Private Limited v. Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1151

The Supreme Court has held that a contract which has been lawfully terminated before the initiation of insolvency proceedings cannot be treated as an “asset” or “property” of the corporate debtor, and therefore does not enjoy the protection of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Bench observed that “once a contract stands lawfully terminated, it ceases to exist and cannot be treated as an 'asset' or 'property' of the corporate debtor. The moratorium under Section 14 does not have the effect of reviving or re-creating contractual rights that have been extinguished before insolvency.”

The Court further observed that a defaulting developer cannot take refuge under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to stall the redevelopment of a housing project, especially when the agreement was lawfully terminated prior to the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1152

The Supreme Court disposed of a 2019 case challenging 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.

Arbitration | No Review Or Appeal Lies Against Order Appointing Arbitrator : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1153

The Supreme Court observed that a review or appeal from an order of appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible.

“Once an arbitrator is appointed, the arbitral process must proceed unhindered. There is no statutory provision for review or appeal from an order under Section 11, which reflects a conscious legislative choice.”, the Court held, while setting aside the Patna High Court's order allowing the review petition and recalling its earlier appointment of an arbitrator, despite the party having actively participated in the proceedings and seeking review nearly three years later.

The Court said that “the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to reopen or review its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act. Once the appointment was made, the court became functus officio and could not sit in judgment over the very issue it had already settled. The review order cuts against the grain of the Act, undermines the principle of minimal judicial interference, and effectively converts the review into an appeal in disguise.”

Orders and other Developments

Justice Surya Kant Takes Oath As 53rd Chief Justice Of India

Justice Surya Kant took oath as the 53rd Chief Justice of India at a ceremony held at the Rashtrapati Bhavan.

President Droupadi Murmu administered the oath, which was taken in Hindi by Justice Kant.

As the CJI, Justice Kant will have a tenure till February 9, 2027.

'How Can Drunken-Driving Accused Go Scot-Free?' Supreme Court Questions UP Law Abating Trials Pending For MV Act Violations Till 2021

Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

While questioning the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Act, 2023, the Supreme Court expressed concern about how the state government could terminate in one go trials pending for Motor Vehicles Act violations for 2 or more years then.

Expressing concern at the UP Amendment Act, as per which the MV Act cases pending as on 31.12.2021 would stand abated, the Court said :

"In a country like India, traffic is a big problem...Citizens are not so disciplined insofar as abiding by the traffic Rules and Regulations is concerned...there has to be some deterrence so that a check remains on people indulging in offences relating to Motor Vehicles Act, more particularly, the youngsters. The consequences, in this regard, would be extremely grave. This is an age of highly powerful cars, and it is a matter of common experience how accidents are being caused because the drivers are unable to control these powerful cars."

'Seems Tax Department Has Not Trusted Even Its Lawyers' : Supreme Court Flags Procedural Delays In IT Dept's Petition Filings

Case Details: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Hyderabad Cricket Association, Hyderabad

The Supreme Court criticised the Income Tax Department for filing its Special Leave Petition after a delay of 524 days, observing that the Department, despite having an entire team of legal experts, failed to act on its own lawyers' advice and instead allowed time to be wasted in unnecessary and prolonged litigation.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Department's explanation for the massive delay, noting that "no one in the Department is taking care to shorten the process" for filing appeals within the statutory timeframe.

The Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), arose from a judgment of the Telangana High Court dated October 12, 2023. The Department's petition, however, only reached the Supreme Court after a delay of over one and a half years.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Income Tax Exemption For Political Parties For Cash Donations Upto Rs 2000

Case Details: Khem Singh Bhati v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1076/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking better transparency in political party-funding, while alleging 'huge discrepancy' between the income tax returns and contribution reports filed by political parties.

The petition challenges the Income Tax Act provision which allows political parties to receive cash donations up to Rs.2000. The petitioner claims that with the phenomenal increase in digital payments across India, there is no justification for allowing cash donations up to Rs.2000.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta called for the response of the respondents, including the Election Commission, after hearing Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria. Emphasizing on transparency in political party funding as a fundamental right recognized in the Electoral Bonds case, Hansaria submitted that tax exemption is available to political parties under the subject provision on the basis that they declare details of contributors with PAN details and bank details.

Except For Extraordinary Circumstances, Urgent Mentioning To Be Done Through Written Slips : CJI Surya Kant

Newly sworn-in Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, clarified that, barring 'extraordinary' situations, requests for urgent listing must be made in writing through a mentioning slip rather than by oral mentioning. He added that the registry would first assess the slip and the grounds of urgency, and the matter would be listed only thereafter.

A counsel made an urgent mention of a matter relating to the demolition of a canteen before the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Baghchi and AS Chandurkar.

Krishna Janmabhoomi Case | Dispute In Supreme Court Over Which Suit Represents Entire Devotees

Case Details – Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman v. Anjuman Islamia, Committee of Shahi Masjid Idgah

In the Krishna Janmabhoomi Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute, the plaintiffs in one suit (filed seeking the removal of the mosque from the contested site) have approached the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court allowing the plaintiffs in another suit to be treated as representatives of the entire devotees of Lord Krishna.

Altogether, there are 18 suits on the issue, which the Allahabad High Court has transferred to itself. 15 of them are consolidated and the remaining are listed separately. In July this year, the High Court allowed the plaintiffs in the suit no.17 to be treated as the representatives of the entire devotees. Suit number 17 was filed in the name of the deity Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman through next friend. The other plaintiffs in suit no.17 are Surendra Kumar Gupta, Mahabir Sharma and Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava.

Challenging this order of the Allahabad High Court, the plaintiffs in suit no.1, which is also filed in the name of the deity through next friend, approached the Supreme Court. The other plaintiffs in the suit no.1 are Ranjana Agnihotri, Pravesh Kumar, Rajesh Mani Tripathi, Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Shivaji Singh, and Tripurapuri Tiwari.

Supreme Court Seeks Status Of NIA Probe Into Deaths Of 10 Persons In Manipur CRPF Camp Encounter

Case Details: Vanrampani v. Union of India | Diary No. - 44574/2025

The Supreme Court sought responses from the Union and the State of Manipur in a plea seeking an investigation into the killings of 10 persons at a CRPF camp in Manipur last year.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Baghchi and AS Chandurkar agreed to consider the matter and issued notice to the Union and the State of Manipur.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner, Adv Vishwajeet Singh, stressed, "At least a status report may be called for, we ( family of the deceased) are entitled to know the status of the investigation."

'District Judge Stooped So Low To Take Vengeance Against His PSO' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Vigilance Enquiry

Case Details: Pa. U. Chemmal v. Lokeshwaran Ravi and Ors., Diary No. 65129-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a District Judge's plea against Vigilance Enquiry, after he was accused of misusing his position to seek vengeance against his own former Personal Security Officer (PSO).

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the petitioner-judge.

Briefly put, the petitioner challenged a Madras High Court order, whereby the Registrar (Vigilance) was directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled against him regarding misuse of power and bias.

'97 Laws Have Provisions Discriminatory Towards Leprosy-Affected Persons': NHRC Tells Supreme Court; Gives Recommendations

Case Details: Federaton of Lepy. Organ. (FOLO) . and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 83/2010 (And Connected case)

The National Human Rights Commission informed the Supreme Court that there are 97 existing laws at the Central/State level which contain provisions discriminatory towards leprosy-affected persons.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with a PIL initiated in 2010, where it had directed the States to form a Committee to identify provisions in various laws, etc. which discriminate against leprosy-affected or cured persons, and take steps for their removal so that they conform with constitutional obligations.

Insofar as the National Human Rights Commission was found to have independently examined the issue, the Court had ordered that the Secretary of NHRC shall furnish the details to the Court after getting approval from NHRC Chairman.

'Gross Indiscipline' : Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Christian Army Officer For Refusal To Participate In Religious Parades

Case Details: Samuel Kamalesan v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 25838/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a Christian officer named Samuel Kamalesan challenging his termination from the Indian Armed Forces over refusal to participate in regimental weekly religious parades.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order, which upheld his termination from service.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, told the bench that his client was dismissed only for one infraction, which was his refusal to enter the innermost sanctum sanctorum of a temple at the place of his posting. He added that the petitioner used to participate in places where there were "sarva dharma sthals"

Supreme Court Asks Petitioners Alleging Sexual Abuse In ISKCON-run Schools To Approach Child Rights Commissions

Case Details: Rajneesh Kapur v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 398/2025 Diary No. 51457 / 2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking an investigation into alleged instances of sexual abuse in schools run by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness(ISKCON), allowing the petitioners to approach the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the State Commissions in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal with a fresh representation.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan heard the plea, in which the petitioners alleged that internal records indicated serious cases of sexual abuse and that complaints made to authorities had not elicited any action. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the material placed before the Court was only a small part of what they believed to be a larger pattern of abuse, and that earlier representations to child rights bodies had gone unanswered.

Justice Nagarathna asked the petitioners to send another reminder to NCPCR and the State Commissions, and sought clarity on whether any FIRs or investigations had been initiated. The counsel responded that their knowledge was limited but that complaints had been lodged with the police.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On MDMK Leader Vaiko's Plea Challenging SIR In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: Vaiko v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1099/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by MDMK founder and former Rajya Sabha MP Vaiko challenging Election Commission's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order. The matter is next listed for consideration on December 2.

Vaiko challenges Tamil Nadu SIR saying that the notification is violative of Articles 14, 19,21, 325, 326 of the Constitution of India and various provisions of Representation of People Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules,1960.

Maharashtra Local Body Polls | Further Elections You Notify Must Be Within 50% Reservation Limit, Supreme Court Tells SEC

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

The Supreme Court (November 25) adjourned the hearing of the Maharashtra local body elections matter till Friday, after the State of Maharashtra sought time, saying that they are in consultation with the State Election Commission on the issue regarding 50% ceiling limit for reservations in the local bodies.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, for the State Election Commission, informed the bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that elections to 242 Municipal Councils and 42 Nagar Panchayats have already been notified to be held on December 2. Out of these 288 local bodies, 50% reservation limit is crossed in 57 bodies, Singh added.

Singh further informed that elections to the Zila Parishads, Municipal Corporations, and Panchayat Samitis are yet to be notified.

'We Should Not Divide Society On Caste Lines': CJI Surya Kant In Maharashtra Local Body Elections Matter

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

"Whatever we do, we should not divide the society on caste lines," said Chief Justice of India Surya Kant during the hearing of the Maharashtra local body elections matter.

The remark came as parties expressed concern over the possible exclusion of Other Backward Classes from representation in grassroots democracy if the 50% ceiling on reservations is insisted in the local body elections. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, supporting the reservation, said that since many areas of Maharashtra have a substantial tribal population, the SC-ST reservation alone will constitute 50% in those regions, and hence, there will not be any space for OBC reservation. She also pointed out that no caste census has been conducted since 1931, but noted that a fresh census is now proposed, which would help determine the OBC population percentage.

Opining that OBCs cannot be completely excluded, CJI Kant remarked, "how can there be democracy by excluding OBCs?" Later, in passing, the judge voiced his belief that society must not be divided on caste lines.

CCTVs In Police Stations : Supreme Court Grants Final Deadline To States/UTs For Compliance Affidavits; Directs Secretary's Appearance On Default

Case Details: In Re Lack Of Functional CCTVs In Police Stations Versus, SMW(C) No. 7/2025

The Supreme Court granted 3 weeks to the States and UTs that have not filed their compliance affidavits in the matter relating to the lack of functional CCTV Cameras in police stations across the country.

The Court added that in case of non-compliance with the deadline, Chief Secretaries are to be present in the Court on the next hearing.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the Suo-motu case of the lack of functional CCTV Cameras in police stations across the country.

Supreme Court Leaves Open Question Whether Customs Can Seize Goods Which Left Port

Case Details: Commissioner of Customs, Airport Special Cargo v. Epsilon Eye Care Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) view that once goods are cleared from the port, customs authorities lose their power to confiscate them for violations such as non-compliance with license requirements.

However, the bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan left open the question whether the Customs Authorities would have a right to confiscate the goods after they had left the Port

The dispute arose when customs authorities intercepted postal parcels containing intraocular lenses (IOLs) imported by Respondent Epsilon Eye Care in 2022. The Department alleged undervaluation and a lack of a valid import license, leading to a demand of over ₹10 crores.

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

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

The Supreme Court directed the Kerala government to take immediate steps to establish government lower primary and upper primary schools in all regions where none currently exist, emphasising that the right to education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act) 2009 cannot be denied due to geographical or financial constraints.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld a Kerala High Court direction requiring the State to set up a school in an area that had no educational facility within a 3-4 km radius. Calling the High Court's order “justified and valid,” the Court granted the State three months to ensure compliance.

The bench was dealing with the State's petition challenging the High Court's direction to establish a lower primary school in a remote village in Malappuram district. While refusing to entertain the State's challenge, the bench also issued a general direction for the establishment of schools in areas lacking educational facilities.

MV Act | Supreme Court Refers Issues Regarding Cashless Treatment To Justice Sapre Committee's Examination

Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 295/2012

The Supreme Court referred to the Justice AS Sapre Committee (Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety) issues pertaining to cashless treatment and complete insurance coverage for road accident victims.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan was dealing with intervention applications filed by Advocate Kishan Chand Jain in the 2012 PIL of Dr. S Rajaseekaran (Chairman and Head of Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore) relating to road accident deaths.

One of these applications sought a direction to the Union of India to formulate a scheme under Section 162(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby requiring insurance companies to provide cashless treatment for road accident victims in hospitals, who are entitled to benefits under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Cover, and also to reimburse post-discharge medical expenses, time-to-time, within 2 weeks of submitting invoices and supporting documents for timely financial support and uninterrupted medical care for accident victims post discharge.

Supreme Court To Examine Private Universities' Functioning Across Country, Seeks Details From Govts & UGC

Case Details: Ayesha Jain v. Amity University, Noida & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No.531/2025

Expressing its intention to examine the functioning of private universities across the country, the Supreme Court sought details from the Union Government, the State/UT Governments to furnish comprehensive details on the creation, functioning and regulatory oversight of all private and deemed-to-be universities.

The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria passed the order while hearing a peculiar case, which started with a student filing a writ petition seeking a direction for the Amity University to accept her official name change. The Court has now converted it to a public interest litigation seeking information on how private universities are being regulated.

"This Court would like to have details from the Government(s) as to the background/circumstances and under which provisions of law all private/non-government/deemed-to-be Universities came into being and further, what benefits the Government has granted to them, including the stipulations and conditions under which such benefits, both in terms of allotment of land, preferential treatment of any kind and/or other ancillary benefits conferred upon them. The Government(s) shall also furnish details of the memorandum of articles and aims and objectives of the societies/organizations and persons who are actually running/managing/in-control of the said bodies/Universities, whether through an apex body/Managing Committee/Board of Governors, i.e., by whatever nomenclature the top decision-making body is known as also their composition and mode of selection to such bodies which run the institutions."

Supreme Court Suggests Union Bring Back Persons Deported To Bangladesh Over Nationality Suspicion For Hearing Opportunity

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

The Supreme Court suggested to the Union government to bring back as a temporary measure certain West Bengal residents alleged to have been deported to Bangladesh on suspicion of being foreigners.

Commenting that the deportees, who claim to be Indian citizens, had a right to plead their case before the authorities with supporting documents, the Court suggested that the government bring them back as an interim measure and give them an opportunity of hearing. It also said that the government agencies can verify the genuineness of the deportees' documents.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and made the suggestion to a counsel appearing on behalf of the Union. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Sanjay Hegde appeared for the petitioners.

'Pendency Of This Court Is 90,000; Will Cross A Lakh; Who's Responsible?' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Lawyer For Adjournment

The Supreme Court criticised the practice of lawyers seeking adjournments to obtain instructions from clients, observing that such conduct contributes to the mounting pendency before the Court.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan pulled up the counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka after she sought time to obtain instructions in a criminal case concerning allegations of trespass and theft of coffee beans.

“Whenever we ask a question, learned counsel will say I have to seek instructions. That's how matters are getting adjourned. The pendency of this court is 90,000. Who is responsible for it? It will cross a lakh”, Justice Nagarathna said.

Andhra Pradesh Liquor Scam: Supreme Court Exempts Ex- CM's Secretary & OSD, Director Of Balaji Cements From Surrender

The Supreme Court (November 26) exempted three accused in the Andhra Pradesh liquor scam from surrendering in terms of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order which cancelled the default bail granted to them.

The interim relief is granted to retired IAS officer K. Dhanunjaya Reddy (former Secretary in the CMO), Krishna Mohan Reddy (former OSD to former Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy), and Balaji Govindappa (director of Bharati Cements). As per the High Court's order, they were supposed to surrender on November 26. The High Court, while setting aside the default bail, asked the accused to surrender before the trial court before November 26 and seek regular bail.

While issuing notice on their special leave petitions challenging the High Court's order, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi exempted the petitioners from surrender. Noting that there are several witnesses, nearly 200, the bench observed that the trial will take time.

Kerala SIR | 99% Of Voters Given Forms, No Need To Defer Process Citing Local Body Polls : ECI Tells Supreme Court

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

Opposing the pleas to defer the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Kerala, the Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court that 99% of voters have been supplied with the enumeration forms, and 50% of the forms have been digitised.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that there was no need to defer the SIR due to the local body election process, saying that the ECI was acting in coordination with the State Election Commission.

"The State Election Commission and the Election Commission of India are collaborating with each other. There was a meeting with the officials of various districts. There's no problem; we just need a small section of BLOs. The Commissions are not finding any difficulty. The SEC also said our work is not hampered," Dwivedi submitted.

'We Can Direct ECI To Extend Date For Publication Of Draft Rolls If Case Made Out' : Supreme Court In Pleas Against SIR In WB, TN

While hearing the petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court (November 26) orally remarked that it can extend the deadline for the publication of the draft electoral rolls if found necessary.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made this oral comment when the parties appearing in the West Bengal matter raised concerns about the Court posting the case to December 9, which is the date for publication of the draft roll as per the SIR schedule.

"So what? If you make out a case, then we can direct them to extend the date. Can that date be a ground for the Court to say that we don't have any power now? Court can always say," CJI Kant said.

Supreme Court Seeks Medical Board's Report On Father's Plea Seeking Passive Euthanasia For Son In Vegetative State

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

Hearing a plea seeking passive euthanasia for a 32-year-old man who has remained in a vegetative state for the past 12 years after falling from a building, the Supreme Court directed the District Hospital in Noida to constitute a Permanent Medical Board in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Common Cause judgment of 2018.

The Court instructed the Board to evaluate the patient's medical condition and submit a report on whether life-sustaining treatment may be withdrawn.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order in terms of the2018 constitution bench judgment in Common Cause, in which the Supreme Court recognised passive euthanasia, and also in terms of the January 2023 modified order, in which the previous guidelines for Living Will/Advance Medical Directive were modified to make it workable. In the 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court recognised the fundamental right to die with dignity.

Foreign Chief Justices Witness Supreme Court Proceedings, Laud India's Judiciary & Jurisprudence

In a rare and historic moment, Chief Justices of Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Mauritius, along with a judge of the Supreme Court of Nepal, joined the bench of the Chief Justice of India to witness proceedings in the Supreme Court for a short while.

CJI Surya Kant welcomed the visiting dignitaries warmly, calling their presence a “historic occasion.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also extended greetings on behalf of the Government of India.

Those who joined CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on the bench included Chief Justice of Bhutan Lyonpo Norbu Tshering, Chief Justice of Kenya Martha Koome, Chief Justice of Mauritius Rehana Bibi Mungly-Gulbul, Chief Justice of Sri Lanka Padman Surasena and Justice Sapna Pradhan Malla of the Nepal Supreme Court. Tan Sri Datuk Nalini Pathmanathan from the Federal Court of Malaysia and Justices Thurairaja PC and A H M D Nawaz from the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka were present in the courtroom.

Can't Go For Walks Due To Delhi's Pollution, Says CJI Surya Kant; Agrees To Consider Request For Virtual Hearings

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that the air pollution in Delhi has made it difficult even to go for a walk outdoors. He said he experienced significant discomfort after taking a 55-minute walk the previous day.

CJI Surya Kant made the observation when Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi sought to be excused from the SIR hearing due to poor health. The CJI asked whether his condition was linked to Delhi's weather, and Dwivedi agreed.

“The only exercise I do is walking. But even that is difficult now. Yesterday I walked for 55 minutes, and till morning I had problems,” the CJI said.

Kerala Govt Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Permission To Use HMT Land For 'Judicial City' To Relocate High Court

Case Details: HMT (Machine Tools) Ltd v. Taluk Land Board Kanayannur & Ors | Civil Appeal No.271 of 2016

The Kerala Government has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to take possession of 27 acres of land currently held by Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT) at Kalamassery, for establishing a proposed “Judicial City” meant to house the Kerala High Court's judicial wing and associated infrastructure.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the HMT and other respondents on the application.

The State has sought permission to " take possession of 27 acres now under the possession of HMT subject to the state depositing the compensation for transfer of 27 acres, as per the `Basis Valuation Report, 2014' by way of an FDR, in the name of the Registrar General of the High Court, in a nationalized bank"

Will Soon Decide Case That Froze 'Ritu Chhabaria' Judgment On Incomplete Chargesheet- Default Bail : CJI

The Chief Justice of India said that it will soon decide the matter in which the 2023 judgment in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India And Ors has been kept in abeyance. In Ritu Chhabaria, a two-judge bench held that the filing of an incomplete chargesheet will not defeat the right of the accused to seek default bail.

However, the effect of the judgment was suspended by a 3-judge bench in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar by ordering that Courts should not consider applications seeking default bail relying on Ritu Chhabaria principle.

Let New UP Societies Bill Be Assented To & Notified On Passing By Assembly : Supreme Court

Case Details: Cm Zila Mahila Samiti v. State of U.P., C.A. No. 14257/2025

The Uttar Pradesh government told the Supreme Court that it will be soon bringing a law to repeal and replace the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the state. Hearing the submission, the Court directed that as and when the proposed Bill is passed by the State Assembly, the same be notified and assented to at the earliest.

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

The case pertained to a Bulandshahr-based Society working for destitute women, where the post of ex-officio President was occupied by the wife of a District Magistrate.

Supreme Court Hears Plea Challenging Formation Of Bombay High Court's Kolhapur Bench

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

The Supreme Court (November 26) heard a writ petition filed by advocate Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar, challenging the August 1 notification of the Bombay High Court issued under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, for the creation of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench, which became effective from August 18. Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai inaugurated the Kolhapur Bench.

As per the petition, he has challenged the notification for not fully appreciating the Jaswant Singh Commission's report on the 'General Question of having Benches of the High Courts at places away from their Principal Seats and Board Principles and Criteria to be followed in regard thereto'.

As per the 1985 Report, the establishment of such benches away from the Principal Seat was to be an exception rather than a norm. Apart from the distance consideration, these criteria included whether the litigation in the principal seat from the said area was at least 1/3rd of the total number of cases, the disposal rate at the High Court itself, and whether an increase in the strength of Judges would be an effective remedy.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Women's Reservation In Upcoming State Bar Council Elections

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

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on December 1, the issue of adequate representation of women members in the State Bar Council elections across the country.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghchi issued notice in an interlocutory application seeking directions for ensuring that adequate women representation is there before the onset of State Bar Elections across the country in a phased format.

No Voter Came Forward To Challenge Exclusion Despite Apprehensions Of Mass Deletions After Bihar SIR : Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court heard extensive arguments on the legality and process of the Electoral Roll Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, during the hearing, observed that despite the widespread apprehension voiced earlier about mass exclusions in Bihar, not a single voter had come forward to challenge a deletion. This suggested that the deletions from the Bihar roll on grounds of death, migration and duplication were correctly done, the bench surmised.

The bench was hearing petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and other petitioners, including political leaders and civil society organisations, questioning the legality of the SIR process. It may be noted that the bench was not hearing any State-specific issue and was hearing the broader legal questions. The petitions related to Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have been posted to future dates, seeking the ECI's response.

Union Files Curative Petition Against 9-Judge Bench Judgment Upholding States' Power To Levy Tax On Minerals

The Union Government has filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court against the 9-judge bench judgment which upheld the power of the States to levy tax on mining rights and mineral-bearing lands.

In July 2024, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 8:1 majority, in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority Of India, held that Royalty is not within the nature of a tax and that the legislative power to tax mineral rights vests with the state legislatures. In August 2024, the 9-judge bench refused the Union's plea to give the judgment only a prospective effect and allowed the States to recover the past tax dues, but not for a period before April 1, 2005. The Court also allowed the assesses to pay those dues in a staggered manner in 12 instalments spread over 12 years from April 1, 2026. In October 2024, the Court had dismissed the Union's review petition filed against the judgment.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the Union has filed a curative against the judgment. The SG made this statement in response to a mentioning by another counsel who sought the listing of over 80 appeals which were sent to regular bench after the 9-judge bench's decision on the reference.

What Magic Wand Does Judiciary Have To Cure Delhi's Air Pollution Immediately? Supreme Court

While agreeing to list the Delhi air pollution matter (MC Mehta case) next Monday, the Supreme Court remarked that the judiciary cannot be expected to pass any miraculous orders to solve the issue instantly.

"What magic wand can a judicial forum exercise? I know this is hazardous for Delhi NCR... Tell me, what can we direct so that there is clean air immediately?" CJI Surya Kant asked when Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, the amicus curiae in the MC Mehta case, sought the urgent listing of the case. The amicus flagged the “alarming situation” in Delhi NCR and described the present conditions as a “health emergency”.

CJI Surya Kant responded by acknowledging the severity of the crisis but underlined the structural constraints of judicial intervention. “We all know the problem. We need to identify all the reasons. There is no one single reason; it would be a mistake to think so.”

Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Relating To Validity Of West Bengal Door Step Ration Scheme In January

Case Details: State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Sekh Abdul Majed and Ors. | C.A. No. 1444/2024

The Supreme Court adjourned till January 2026 the hearing of the petitions relating to the validity of the 2021 West Bengal Duare Ration scheme, under which the State government delivers foodgrains through the public distribution system at the doorsteps of beneficiaries.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter till January 15 based on the request made by the State's lawyers, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Rakesh Dwivedi. Sibal sought adjournments due to his prior engagement in the matter relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in various States, which is being heard by the Chief Justice's bench.

The West Bengal Government has challenged the September 28, 2022, order whereby a division bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Roy and Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash held the scheme to be illegal and ultra vires of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA, 2013). It was observed that the State Government has transgressed the limit of delegation by obliging the Fair Price Shop dealers to distribute the rations to the beneficiaries at their doorstep in the absence of any authority to that effect in the enabling Act, i.e. NFSA. (Sekh Abdul Majed v. State of West Bengal & Ors).

Self-Regulation For Online Media Ineffective; Need Independent & Autonomous Body For Effective Regulation, Says Supreme Court

Case Details:

The Supreme Court (November 27) stressed the need for a "neutral, independent and autonomous" body to regulate obscene, offensive or illegal content in online platforms, expressing dissatisfaction with the efficacy of the "self-regulation" model being followed by media entities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petitions filed by podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia and others challenging the FIRs related to the obscene content in the "India's Got Latent" show. Earlier, the bench had expanded the scope of the matter to consider guidelines against online obscenity.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and Solicitor General for India Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the Union Government has proposed some new guidelines and is in the process of consultation with the stakeholders.

Supreme Court Asks Samay Raina & 4 Other Comedians To Conduct Events To Raise Funds For Persons With Disabilities

Case Details: M/S. Cure Sma Foundation of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 460/2025

The Supreme Court (November 27) directed comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagadish Tanwar to telecast programs in their shows about the success stories of persons with disabilities to generate funds for the treatment of disabled persons, especially those suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).

They have been asked to do so as a reparation for their insensitive jokes about the disabled.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that such programs be held at least twice a month. The bench said that they can invite specially abled persons on their platforms to promote the cause of generating funds to provide timely treatment to those suffering from rare diseases such as Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

Retired IPS Officers' Forum Moves Supreme Court Against Pension Rule Creating Pay Disparity For Pre-2006 Retirees

Case Details: Forum of Retired Indian Police Service Officers (FORIPSO) v. Union of India & Ors | Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 48588/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition filed by the Forum of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) for declaring the "Validation of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and Principles for Expenditure on Pension Liabilities from the Consolidated Fund of India” under Part IV of the Finance Act, 2025 as ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The association of retired IPS officers have come before the Court, stating that the said part of the Finance Act introduced with retrospective effect has been passed to nullify the effect of the Delhi High Court's judgment dated March 20, 2024, which was upheld by the Supreme Court on October 4, 2024. By the said orders, it was held that no distinction in pension can be made on the basis of date of retirement. To briefly put it, the petitioner had challenged the pay disparity created between pensioners who retired prior to January 1, 2006 and post January 1, 2006.

A bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Prasanna B. Varale issued notice to the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Finance, and the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare.

ECI Cannot Rely Upon Article 324 To Justify SIR When RP Act Does Not Recognise Present Process : Petitioners To Supreme Court

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

In the petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India, the petitioners told the Supreme Court that the ECI does not have the powers under the Representation of the People's Act, 1950, to carry out the SIR in the present manner.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the ECI cannot fall back upon its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India to justify the SIR, since there are precedents which hold that once the field is occupied by the Parliamentary law (RP Act), then the EC has to act as per the statute.

Singhvi pointed out that the enumeration forms for the SIR have no statutory recognition. The RP Act and the Rules do not recognise the enumeration form. He relied on the judgment in AC Jose v Sivan Pillai (1984) which held that "where there is an Act and there are express Rules made thereunder, it is not open to the Commission is over-ride the Act or the Rules and pass orders in direct disobedience to the mandate contained in the Act or the Rules. The Powers of the Commission are meant to supplement rather than supplant the law (both statute and Rules) in the matter of superintendence, direction and Control as provided by Article 324."

Why Railways Provide Accident Insurance Cover Only To Online Ticket Buyers? Supreme Court Asks

Case Details – Union of India v. Radha Yadav

The Supreme Court asked Indian Railways to explain why accident insurance cover is available only to passengers who purchase tickets online and not to those who buy tickets offline.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran also directed the Railways to focus on safety of railway tracks and railway crossings.

“we are of the considered opinion that, at the initial stage, the focus should be on the safety of the tracks and the railway crossings, from which other aspects would emerge”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Dismisses Byju Raveendran's Appeal Against NCLAT Order Mandating CoC Nod For BCCI's Plea To Withdraw CIRP

Case Details – Byju Raveendran v. Pankaj Srivastava and Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Byju Raveendran, suspended director and promoter of Think and Learn Private Ltd (which ran the Ed-Tech firm Byju's), challenging an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which held that the approval of the Committee of Creditors is necessary for the application filed by the BCCI to withdraw the insolvency proceedings against Byju's.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan dismissed the appeal. Earlier, in July, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeals filed by the BCCI and Riju Raveendran against the same NCLAT order.

The primary question raised in the appeal was whether the withdrawal of CIRP, through Form FA submitted by BCCI on 16 August 2024, was made before or after the constitution of CoC. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, particularly Paras 63(ii), 78 and 79, to assert that the case falls under the pre-CoC category.

Supreme Court Criticises Kerala Governor's Delay In VC Appointments; Asks Him To Decide Soon On Justice Dhulia's Report

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

The Supreme Court (November 28) criticised the Kerala Governor for delaying action on the report submitted by the Justice(retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia regarding the appointments of Vice Chancellors of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology in the State.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that the Governor is expected to take a decision soon on the recommendations of the Justice Dhulia committee.

It may be recalled that the Court had, in August, constituted a search committee headed by Justice Dhulia to shortlist names for VC appointments in view of the stalemate between the State Government and the Chancellor (Governor). The Court had also directed the Chancellor to make the appointments in the same order of preference as recommended by the Chief Minister.

'Unacceptable': Supreme Court Asks How Pinnelli Brothers Accessed Case Diary In TDP Workers' Murder Case; Refuses Anticipatory Bail

Case Details: Pinnelli Rama Krishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13622/2025 (And Connected case)

The Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail pleas filed by YSRCP leader and former MLA Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy, as well as his brother Pinnelli Venkatarami Reddy, in the double murder case of two Telegu Desam Party (TDP) activists.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Pinnelli brothers to surrender within 2 weeks, while expressing displeasure at their alleged obtaining of case diary material at ongoing stage through suspicious means, before filing of the chargesheet.

At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the complainant raised a preliminary objection, saying that the petitioners (Pinnelli brothers) have filed their S.161 statements (of the witnesses) recorded before the Investigating Officer. "I want to raise a question as to how they have a copy of the S.161 statements? They have filed it as well before this Court!"

Maharashtra Local Body Polls | Remaining Elections Be Notified But No Reservation Above 50%, Orders Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court (November 28) restrained the Maharashtra State Election Commission from notifying reservations in excess of 50% in the local bodies, where elections are yet to be notified. The elections of the local bodies where reservation in excess of 50% has already notified will be subject to the outcome of the result of the writ petitions, the Court stated.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing writ petitions challenging the OBC reservation in the Maharashtra local bodies.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, for the State Election Commission, told the bench that there are 246 Municipal Councils and 42 Nagar Panchayats where the election process has already commenced, and voting is scheduled on December 2. Out of these, there are 40 Municipal Councils and 17 Nagar Panchayats where reservation is exceeding 50%. However, elections to 29 Municipal Corporations, 32 Zilla Panchayats and 346 Panchayat Samitis are yet to be notified.

Supreme Court Appreciates SCBA For Raising Menstrual Dignity Matter, Issues Notice On Plea Against 'Period Checks' At Workplaces

Case Details – Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued notice on the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) plea seeking formulation of binding guidelines to ensure that the privacy, dignity, bodily autonomy and health of women are not violated when they are menstruating or facing related gynaecological issues at workplaces and educational institutions.

SCBA approached the Court after reports emerged that women sanitation workers at Maharshi Dayanand University in Haryana were allegedly subjected to degrading checks to verify whether they were menstruating.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan appreciated the SCBA for taking up this issue and remarked that if a worker on account of menstruation was unable to perform heavy tasks, another employee could have been assigned.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Stipend For Foreign Medical Graduates In Gujarat

Case Details: All India Parents Association Belarus Medical Students v. National Medical Commission | D No. 55061/2025

The Supreme Court (November 28) issued notice in a writ petition filed by the All-Indian Parents Association Belarus Medical Students raising the issue of non-payment of stipend to foreign medical graduates in the State of Gujarat.

The petition raises the issue of disparity in payment of stipend to Indian Medical Graduates and Foreign Medical Graduates. It is stated that despite many circulars from the National Medical Commission(NMC), the stipend is not paid to the Foreign Medical Graduates. It also focuses on the fact that the provision of a stipend is governed under Clause 3 (Schedule IV) of the National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021.

Clause 3, Schedule IV of the Regulation reads: "3. Stipend a) All interns shall be paid stipend as fixed by the appropriate authority applicable to the institution/ University or State. (b) Stipend may not be paid during any period of extension except in the case of maternity or paternity leave or medical leave, as may be recommended and approved by the Medical Board. Total stipend paid for the entire internship may be for fifty-two weeks (Twelve months) only."

Supreme Court Rejects Foreign LL.B. Holder's Plea Against BCI's Additional Qualifying Exam Condition Despite Bridge Course Completion

Case Details: Saanil Patnayak v. Bar Council of India W.P.(C) No. 1132/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging Bar Council of India's requirement of an additional qualifying exam for Indian nationals holding foreign law degrees, despite completion of the prescribed bridge course.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order after hearing Advocates PB Sashaankh and Vipin Nair for the petitioner and Advocate Radhika Gautam for the BCI.

The petitioner, a 25-year-old Indian citizen holding a foreign LL.B. degree, pled that despite completing the Indian equivalent Bridge Course in a Goa University as prescribed by BCI in a 2016 notification, and passing its formal exam, he was being compelled to undergo an additional "qualifying examination" to be eligible for sitting in the AIBE and getting enrolled as an advocate in India.

'Alarming' : Supreme Court On Allegations Of Fabrication Of Evidence By MP Police; Seeks Response From Senior Officers

Case Details: Anwar Hussain v. State of Madhya Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 14087/2025

The Supreme Court has taken serious note of allegations of police misconduct in Madhya Pradesh, impleading senior police officers after finding that a false affidavit had been filed before it and that further claims of fabricated evidence had been raised against the same officials.

The proceedings arise out of a case in which the Madhya Pradesh Police admitted to submitting an incorrect affidavit attributing eight criminal antecedents to a petitioner accused of storing fortified rice meant for public distribution. When the matter came before a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sandeep Mehta on November 4, it emerged that in four of the cited cases, including one involving rape, the petitioner was not even an accused. The State sought to explain this as a “computer-generated” mix-up due to the petitioner and his father sharing the same name.

Disturbed by the submission of an erroneous affidavit, the Court had earlier summoned Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Officer in Charge) Dishesh Aggarwal and Station House Officer Indramani Patel, directing them to appear on November 25 and file their explanations.

'Frivolous Cases Waste Judicial Time' : Supreme Court Raps Income Tax Dept For Filing SLP On Settled Issue

The Supreme Court pulled up the Income Tax Department for filing yet another Special Leave Petition (SLP) in a matter already settled by the Court, calling it a frivolous exercise that contributes to mounting pendency.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an SLP challenging a Karnataka High Court order on tax deduction at source (TDS) liability, an issue the Supreme Court had already decided last year in a case involving Vodafone Idea, holding that payments made to non-resident telecom operators were not liable for TDS.

Supreme Court Refers Plea Seeking Separate Personal Law For Buddhists To Law Commission

Case Details: Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 1138/2025

The Supreme Court referred to the consideration of the Law Commission of India a plea seeking separate personal laws for the Buddhist Community.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghchi was hearing a PIL filed by the Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee.

The Committee sought to have separate personal laws for the Buddhist community.

West Bengal School Recruitment | Ensure Tainted Candidates Don't Slip Through Fresh Selection : Supreme Court To Calcutta High Court

Case Details: Bibek Paria and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others | Diary No. 46049/2025 and Connected case

The Supreme Court has declined to continue monitoring issues linked to the West Bengal school recruitment controversy and directed that all pending grievances be pursued before the Calcutta High Court, which is already examining the matter in detail.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a large batch of petitions filed by candidates and other stakeholders challenging various aspects of the teacher recruitment process. In April, the Supreme Court had upheld the Calcutta High Court's judgment to quash the entire recruitment process by the West Bengal School Service Commission in 2016 due to various irregularities. Later, in August, the Court issued a stern warning that no candidate, who has been specifically found to be tainted by the Court's earlier judgment, should be allowed to appear in the fresh recruitment exams. Following the Court's directions, the State also published a list of the tainted candidates.

Many petitioners sought to withdraw their appeals, saying they wished to approach the High Court instead. The bench allowed the withdrawals and dismissed those petitions with liberty to move the High Court.

Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of HLL Biotech CEO In SC/ST Act Case Over Alleged Denial Of Maternity Benefits

Case Details: Vijay Kumar Sistla v. State of Tamil Nadu | SLP(Crl) No. 018448 - / 2025

The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of Vijay Sistla, CEO of HLL Biotech Limited (PSU), in a case alleging discrimination under the SC/ST Act 1989 by an employee.

The bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti passed the interim order while issuing notice to the respondents on his Special Leave Petition.

The petitioner is challenging the order of the Madras High Court, which refused to grant him anticipatory bail for the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1988.

Do Special Educators Need TET? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity From NCTE; Bars Appointments Of New Spl Teachers Without TET

The Supreme Court asked the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to clarify the prevailing statutory position on whether clearing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for candidates seeking appointment as Special Educators. The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the directions while hearing a batch of petitions arising from Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India.

During the hearing, Senior advocate Rana Mukherjee, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, drew the Court's attention to the 2021 judgment in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey, arguing that TET had been acknowledged as the minimum educational qualification for educators from pre-school to Class V. The Bench noted that this was contrary to its existing impression that, as per a 7 March 2025 order of a coordinate Bench, Special Educators were required to possess the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) qualification.

Amicus curiae Rishi Malhotra also referred to an earlier Supreme Court order dated 21 July 2022 which discussed a 10 June 2022 circular of the Ministry of Education that recognised CTET/TET/NTA scores along with a classroom demonstration and interview as part of the recruitment process.

No Need For Oral Mentioning; Urgent Matters Will Be Automatically Listed In 2 Days : CJI Surya Kant Brings Reforms In Supreme Court

Days after Justice Surya Kant became the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court introduced major changes, restructuring the system of oral mentioning, urgent listing and adjournment of cases with effect from December 1, 2025. The changes aim to streamline filings, reduce unnecessary mentioning before benches, and ensure faster listing of matters involving personal liberty and urgent interim relief. Four circulars have been issued to this effect.

The circulars on listing and mentioning specify that litigants need not make oral mentioning before the CJI for the listing of matters. Matters requiring urgent relief (specified below) will be listed automatically within two working days.

Before His Retirement, Chief Justice BR Gavai Urged High Courts To Amend Caste-Coded, Colonial Job Titles

Before demitting office, Justice B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, wrote to all Chief Justices of High Courts urging immediate attention to the released report titled “Reforming Administrative Nomenclature in the Indian Judiciary: Embedding Dignity and Equity in Service Rules”, prepared by the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP), Supreme Court of India.

In his communication, the Chief Justice emphasised that several service rules across the judiciary continue to use caste-coded, colonial, and hierarchically loaded titles that are wholly incompatible with the values of the Constitution. Justice Gavai underscored that such terminology, some of which dates back to feudal and colonial regimes, cannot persist in an institution that is constitutionally mandated to uphold equality, dignity, and fraternity.

A Call for Urgent Reform

Petition In Supreme Court Challenges ECI's Decision To Hold Only Special Revision Of Assam Electoral Rolls Instead Of SIR

Case Details: Mrinal Kumar Choudhury v. Election Commission of India

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's decision to conduct only a “Special Revision” of the electoral roll in Assam instead of a “Special Intensive Revision” ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections. The petition argues that this move is arbitrary, discriminatory, and inconsistent with the Commission's own policy for several other States and Union Territories.

The petition has been filed by Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, former President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association. It alleges that while States such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa and UTs including Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Puducherry are undergoing Special Intensive Revision, Assam has been singled out for a less rigorous process.

According to the plea, Special Revision does not require electors to submit documents proving citizenship, age or residence. In contrast, Special Intensive Revision mandates production of documents to justify inclusion in the voter list. The petitioner argues that given Assam's history of large-scale illegal immigration, the State requires stricter verification.