Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 13, 2025 To October 19, 2025

Reports/Judgments

Plea Of Lack Of State's Consent For CBI's Investigation Should Be Taken Soon After FIR Registration : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. M/S Narayan Niryat India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

The Supreme Court held that objections regarding the CBI's lack of state consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, must be raised at the earliest stage, usually right after the FIR is registered. It clarified that once the investigation is complete, a chargesheet is filed, and a magistrate takes cognizance, such objections cannot be used belatedly to invalidate the proceedings, except where a quashing petition was already pending before cognizance was taken.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench order, which quashed the criminal case registered under Sections 420 read with 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

The High Court allowed the Respondents' quashing plea even after the trial court took cognizance of the offence against the Respondents. The High Court noted that there was a lack of the State's consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, and no allegations had been made out, making the Respondents prima facie guilty of the offences.

Magistrates Can Direct Witnesses To Give Voice Samples, Not Just Accused; Article 20(3) Not Violated : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Rahul Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1002

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate can direct the collection of voice samples not only from accused persons but also from witnesses. It ruled that such samples, whether voice, fingerprints, handwriting, or DNA, constitute material evidence rather than testimonial evidence, and therefore do not infringe the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran relied on the 2019 precedent Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., which held that even in the absence of an explicit provision in the Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate has the authority to direct a “person” to provide a voice sample for investigation. The Court clarified that the term “person” is not confined to the accused alone but also extends to witnesses.

Supreme Court Reverses Acquittal Of Man For Daughter-in-Law's Murder In 1997

Cause Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Janved Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1003

The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of a father-in-law in a case connected to the murder of his daughter-in-law, after noting that the circumstantial evidence pointing towards his guilt, including the chain of circumstances, was complete.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior Bench order, noting that although the appeal against the acquittal carries with it a proof of innocence, the Appellate Court can overturn the order of acquittal if the same was passed upon misappreciation of the evidence.

The deceased was found dead in her matrimonial home in December 1997. The Respondent-accused initially reported that she died of accidental electrocution while ironing. However, medical evidence revealed she died of strangulation, with burn marks inflicted post-mortem.

Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case Against Ex-MLA For Allegedly Using Fake Caste Certificate In Election

Cause Title: Komal Prasad Shakya v. Rajendra Singh and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

The Supreme Court restored the criminal case against former MLA Rajendra Singh and others accused of fraudulently procuring a Scheduled Caste certificate to contest elections from a reserved constituency of Guna, Madhya Pradesh.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan set aside the MP High Court's Gwalior Bench order, which held a mini-trial, despite having a prima facie case, stating that once a complaint discloses prima facie offenses of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy, the matter must go to trial and cannot be interfered at the quashing stage.

The complainant alleged that Rajendra Singh, historically recorded as belonging to the General Category, obtained a fraudulent Scheduled Caste (Sansi) certificate in 2008, enabling him to contest and win from the Guna (SC Reserved) constituency.

Uncontrolled Use Of Firecrackers Affecting Health Can't Be Permitted Solely Based On Traditions & Religious Norms : Supreme Court

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

While allowing the limited use of green crackers in the National Capital Region for Diwali, the Supreme Court said that commercial interests and festive celebrations cannot outweigh concerns about public health and the environment, while considering issues related to the manufacture and use of firecrackers.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that bursting firecrackers is deeply rooted in India's cultural and religious fabric, often seen as a joyful expression of festive spirit during celebrations and auspicious occasions. However, the Court cautioned that such traditions cannot justify practices that harm public health or degrade the environment

“The commercial considerations and the festive spirit should take a back seat when it concerns the environment and health,” observed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran while lifting the blanket ban on firecrackers in NCR. The sale of green crackers has been permitted from October 18 to October 20, 2025. Their use is allowed on October 19 and October 20, between 6AM to 7AM and 8PM to 10 PM. The authorities have been directed to strictly monitor the situation to ensure that unauthorised crackers are not used.

Supreme Court Criticizes Casual Practice Of Declaring Witnesses Hostile For Minor Inconsistencies

Cause Title: Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1006

The Supreme Court criticized the practice of declaring witnesses hostile merely for minor inconsistencies in their statements, emphasizing that this should be done only in exceptional situations where the witness completely departs from the prosecution's case, gives false testimony, or shows clear hostility towards the party on whose behalf they are testifying.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan cautioned that courts should not routinely or casually invoke their discretionary powers under Section 154 Evidence Act. (now Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) to allow a party to cross-examine its own witness. The Court stressed that such discretion must be exercised only after carefully examining and weighing the surrounding circumstances.

“We are frequently coming across cases where the prosecutor, for no ostensible reason, wants to treat the witnesses hostile and the Court indiscriminately grants permission. It is well settled, by judgments of this Court, that before a witness can be declared hostile and the party examining the witnesses is allowed to cross-examine, there must be some material to show that the witnesses are not speaking the truth or has exhibited an element of hostility to the party for whom he is deposing.”, the court noted.

'Rental Compensation Requires Complete Deprivation of Property', Supreme Court Denies ₹238 Crore Claim Against Nashik Corporation

Cause Title: Pradyumna Mukund Kokil v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

Observing that the 'rental compensation' in land acquisition proceedings is granted only when the owner is completely deprived of its property's use, the Supreme Court denied a massive claim of ₹238 Crores in "rental compensation" made against the Nashik Municipal Corporation for its alleged unauthorized use of a plot of land over 45 years.

Rental compensation is awarded to the land owner when the acquiring authority uses the acquired property (before the acquisition) in an unauthorised manner, depriving the land owner of the benefit of possession.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the case relating back to 1972, when the Nashik Municipal Corporation resolved to reserve the land for public purposes and took possession of a portion of it without initiating acquisition proceedings. While a part of the land was formally acquired in 1978, the disputed 3,700 sq. meters was left out, yet the Corporation continued to use it.

ITC Cannot Be Denied To Bona Fide Purchasers If Seller Defaults On Tax Payment : Supreme Court

Case Title: Commissioner Trade and Tax Delhi v. M/S Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

The Supreme Court held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods purchased from registered dealers cannot be denied to bona fide purchasers merely because the seller failed to deposit the Value Added Tax (VAT) with the government.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that there was no infirmity in the order of Delhi High Court granting credit to the respondent, a bonafide purchaser.

“We do not find a good reason to interfere with the order of the High Court directing for grant of ITC benefit after due verification.,” while dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the Delhi Trade and Tax Department.

Dismissing Employee For A Charge Not Mentioned In Show-Cause Notice Improper : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

The Supreme Court set aside the suspension of school teachers in Jharkhand, after finding that they were declared ineligible based on a different charge, which was never labelled against them in the show cause notice.

The candidates were held ineligible based on an erroneous marks calculation method, which was never part of the original show cause notice, and denying them the opportunity of a hearing before ordering their dismissal on a different charge. In short, the teachers were penalised on a charge they were never asked to answer. They successfully defended against Charge A, but were punished for un-levelled Charge B.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan heard the case where the Appellants, who were appointed as teachers, were terminated from their posts as Intermediate Trained Teachers in 2016, just months after their appointment in 2015. Primarily, the show cause notice levelled allegations against the Appellants that they have not secured a minimum of 45% marks to be eligible for the post. The Appellants replied to the notice informing that as a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate, they only need 40%, and having secured such marks, their eligibility cannot be disputed.

Waitlisted Candidates' Right Extinguish When All Selected Candidates Join Posts : Supreme Court

Cause Title: The Union of India & Ors. v. Subit Kumar Das

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

Observing that the waitlist of candidates cannot operate indefinitely and ceases once all the posts are filled up via recruitment process, the Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court's ruling which directed notional absorption of the waitlisted candidate years after the initial recruitment resulted in filling up of all the posts.

Allowing the Union government's plea, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the candidate's claim as a “waitlisted candidate extinguished when all the selected candidates joined on their respective posts.” The Court stressed that a waitlist cannot be treated as a permanent source of recruitment, and once exhausted, it cannot be revived to fill vacancies in later years.

The case stemmed from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio for three Technician posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The Respondent was placed first on the reserve panel (waitlist), but all selected candidates joined their posts, leaving the panel inoperative. In 1999, during tribunal proceedings, government counsel assured that the Respondent would be “absorbed as soon as a vacancy arises.” That assurance became the bedrock of his litigation for nearly 25 years.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Rejection Of Plaint To Be Decided Solely On Plaint Averments : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1011

The Supreme Court observed that an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC shall be decided based on the averments made in the plaint, and does not consider the defendant's defence or any external evidence.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's ruling, which rejected the plaint at the threshold, taking into account the defendant's defence while ignoring the averments made in the plaint.

“while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defence is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint.”, the court said.

CBI Investigation Must Be Ordered Only In Exceptional Cases; May Not Be Appropriate In Recruitment Disputes : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors. (And Connected Matters)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

The Supreme Court set aside theAllahabad High Court's ruling, which directed a CBI enquiry into alleged irregularities in the recruitment process for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and Assembly secretariats.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi reiterated that CBI investigations are an extraordinary measure, justified only in rare circumstances such as where State agencies are compromised, fundamental rights are at stake, or issues of national importance arise. Recruitment disputes, the Court noted, do not ordinarily cross this threshold unless it shakes the Court's conscience.

“The Court may exercise such discretion, where the incident may have national or international ramifications and with intent to do complete justice or for enforcing the fundamental rights. Mere sweeping remarks are not enough to direct for CBI investigation, until prima facie disclosure of commission of criminal offence is made out. It is further said that in the matters relating to recruitment, it would not be appropriate to direct CBI investigation in routine course unless the facts brought on record are so abnormal that shake the conscience of the Court.”, the court said.

Art. 226 | High Courts Should Not Entertain Writ Petition In Matters Within Domain Of Tribunals : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Leelavathi N. and Ors. Etc. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

The Supreme Court observed that matters falling within the jurisdiction of the tribunals should not be interfered with by the High Court upon invoking its Writ Jurisdiction.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of appeals concerning the recruitment of 15,000 primary school teachers in Karnataka, affirming the Karnataka High Court's Division bench ruling, which had set aside the Single Judge decision entertaining the Writ petitions despite an alternative remedy to approach the Tribunal being available to the petitioners.

Noting that there's a mandatory requirement of first approaching the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) in service disputes, in line with the Constitution Bench ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Court said “where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals.”

Mohammedan Law | Muslim Widow With No Child Entitled To 1/4th Share In Deceased Husband's Estate : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Zoharbee & Anr. v. Imam Khan (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1014

The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's decision that had denied a Muslim widow a 3/4th share in her late husband's estate. The Court said that the widow, a Muslim wife having no child, is entitled to receive only 1/4th share.

Further, the Court clarified that a mere agreement to sell executed by the deceased's brother could not defeat the widow's inheritance rights, since such an agreement neither transfers nor extinguishes ownership.

Non-Resident Company Need Not Have Permanent Office In India To Be Taxed On Income Accruing Here : Supreme Court

Case: Pride Foramer S.A. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

The Supreme Court has clarified that under the Income Tax Act, a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection within the country, even if it does not maintain a permanent office or physical establishment here.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in its judgment examined the scope of Sections 4, 5(2), and 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that the statute does not make it mandatory for a non-resident assessee to have a “permanent establishment” in India to be considered as carrying on business in the country. The Court explained that what determines tax liability is whether the income has accrued or arisen, directly or indirectly, through any business connection in India.

'Prosecution Suppressed Origin & Genesis Of Offence', Supreme Court Acquits Four Men In 1990 Murder Case

Cause Title: Kannaiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

The Supreme Court acquitted four persons who were convicted in a 1990 murder case, giving them the benefit of doubt since the prosecution is found to have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence of the offence.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the convicts, after noting grave inconsistencies with respect to the place of the incident mentioned in an FIR and narrated by the eyewitnesses.

The Court observed that such suppression and inconsistency regarding the start of the incident struck at the very foundation of the prosecution's case. “Once the prosecution is found to have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence, the only proper course is to grant the accused the benefit of doubt,” the Court said.

Should AYUSH Doctors Have Equal Service Conditions As Allopathy Doctors ? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anisur Rahman and Connected Cases.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether doctors practicing under indigenous medical systems (AYUSH, Unani, Ayurveda, Homeopathy etc.) can be equated with allopathic doctors in regard to service conditions such as retirement age and pay scales.

The reference was made in a batch of appeals challenging differential treatment by States in prescribing retirement age and benefits for doctors of different systems of medicine.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran noticed conflicting judgments on this issue and referred the question as to whether the doctors, practising allopathy and indigenous medicine, like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani etc. can be treated equally for the purpose of determining service conditions, specifically retirement age.

Supreme Court Awards Compensation To Transwoman Teacher Dismissed Over Gender Identity; Forms Committee On Transgender Rights

Case Details: Jane Kaushik v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1405/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

The Supreme Court, in a significant pronouncement on transgender rights, has awarded compensation to a transwoman whose services as a teacher were terminated by two private schools, one in Uttar Pradesh and another in Gujarat, within a year, on the ground of her gender identity.

The Court noted that not only the institutions but the respective States failed to comply with the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020. Through their omission, the States and the respective ministries committed omissive discrimination.

The Court noted that one of the provisions of the 2019 Act requires the establishment to appoint a complaint officer as a grievance redressal mechanism to address the issue of discrimination. However, both two schools did not have a complaint officer.

'Dock Identification Without Test Identification Parade Unreliable When Witness Had No Familiarity With Accused' : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

The Supreme Court acquitted three persons convicted of murdering a minor, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, observing that they were strangers to the key witness and that their dock identification, unsupported by any Test Identification Parade ("TIP"), was unreliable.

“where the accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP is held, courts must exercise extreme caution in accepting such identification.”, the court said.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case where the Appellants-accused were convicted for the offence of the murder of a 10-year-old boy, where the witness claimed to have last seen them with the deceased, however no TIP was done to test the reliability of their identification. The trial court convicted the Appellants based on the witnesses' dock identification during trial ignoring the fact that the Appellants were strangers to them and no TIP took place.

'Don't Detain International Travellers In Haste' : Supreme Court Cites Rolex Watch Seizure At Airport; Quashes Case Against NRI

Case: Rocky Abraham v. Union of India Wp(Crl) 331/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

In a strong message to enforcement and airport authorities, the Supreme Court has cautioned against the hasty detention and arrest of international traveller and directed that such actions should be taken only after obtaining appropriate legal opinion and adopting a pragmatic approach. The Court warned that ill-advised arrests at airports could tarnish India's image globally and violate human rights.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observations while quashing the arrest and criminal proceedings against Rocky Abraham, an Indian citizen settled in Italy for over two decades, who was detained at the Delhi airport in January 2025 for allegedly carrying a deer horn in violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Abraham, who had travelled from Italy to Kochi via Delhi for a vacation and medical treatment, was arrested after airport officials found the horn in his baggage and registered an FIR under Sections 39, 49, and 51 of the Act. He remained in custody for nearly two weeks before securing bail with onerous conditions, including a ban on leaving India.

'Religious Gatherings Or Charity Not Offences Under UP Conversion Act': Supreme Court Quashes Cases Against SHUATS University VC

Case Details: Rajendra Bihari Lal and Anr. v. State of UP and Ors. | WP (Crl.) No. 123/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

The Supreme Court has quashed multiple FIRs registered in Uttar Pradesh against Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), and several other university officials, holding that the proceedings were based on “completely incredulous material” and amounted to an abuse of criminal process.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra delivered the ruling in a batch of appeals arising from criminal proceedings lodged in various police stations of Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, along with IPC offences.

In the judgment, the Court noted that one FIR was legally barred as it was not lodged by a victim. As per the UP Act, as it stood then, only victims(or their relatives) could have lodged an FIR.

Supreme Court Expresses Anguish At Insurance Companies Filing Unnecessary Appeals Raising Technical Pleas

Cause Title: Alok Kumar Ghosh v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

The Supreme Court observed that the entire burden of compensating an employee injured during the course of work cannot be shifted onto the employer alone, as the insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with the employer.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Calcutta High Court's ruling that had absolved the insurer of liability to compensate the employee along with the employer, despite the existence of an insurance contract that made the insurer liable for such compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ordered both the employer and insurer to pay compensation jointly and severally. The Calcutta High Court modified the award, making only the employer liable, who could then seek reimbursement from the insurer, leading to the filing of an instant appeal on the employer's behalf before the Supreme Court, which reversed the High Court, reinstating the Commissioner's order.

'Genuine Cultivators Should Not Be Made To Suffer' : Supreme Court Declares Plantation Vested With Kerala Govt As Not Private Forest

Case: M. Jameela v. State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

“Genuine cultivators should not be made to fight a prolonged battle to vindicate rights that are apparent from the public records,” the Supreme Court observed while declaring that 37.5 acres of land in South Wayanad, cultivated with coffee and cardamom, is private plantation land and not a vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV. Anjaria set aside the 2012 judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had upheld the Forest Tribunal's rejection of the claim by M. Jameela, and restored ownership and possession of the land to her. The Court held that the entire extent of 37.5 acres was exempt from vesting under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the 1971 Act.

The Bench found that the land had been cleared and converted to coffee and cardamom plantations as early as 1957 by the original owner, Parappu Mappilakath Imbichi Ahmed, after obtaining permission from the District Collector under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. The plantations, the Court noted, were duly registered with statutory boards before the appointed day. The Coffee Board Registration Certificate No. 284/1972 and Cardamom Registration Certificate No. 81/SW dated June 30, 1971 established their existence prior to May 10, 1971, the appointed day as perr the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act .

Tests To Determine Employer-Employee Relationship In Cases Under Industrial Disputes Act, Factories Act Etc : Supreme Court Discusses

Case Details: General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd v. Achchey Lal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

In a judgment clarifying the principles governing the determination of employer–employee relationships, the Supreme Court discussed the tests to be applied while adjudicating disputes under legislations such as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Factories Act, 1948.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta discussed the tests to determine employer-employee relationship to be kept in mind while deciding matters arising from legislations like Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Factories Act, 1948 etc.

They are, the Control Test, Organisation (Integration) Test, Multifactor Test, and the Refined Multifactor Test, which have been evolved over various precedents.

The Court explained that the existence of an employer–employee relationship is a mixed question of fact and law and depends on the degree of control, supervision, integration, and economic dependence in each case.

Hindu Succession Act Doesn't Apply To Scheduled Tribes: Supreme Court Reiterates

Case: Nawang and Another v. Bahadur and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a direction issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had held that daughters in tribal areas of the State would inherit property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act and not tribal customs.

The apex court observed that such a direction ran contrary to Section 2(2) of the HSA.

UAPA | Mandate To Furnish Grounds Of Arrest Not Fulfilled By Remand Court's Explanation: Supreme Court

Case: Ahmed Mansoor and Others v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

The Supreme Court has quashed the arrest and remand of three individuals booked for the offences of unlawful activities and conspiracy under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the offences of criminal conspiracy, promotion of communal harmony, etc. under the Indian Penal Code, holding that the mandatory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest was not complied with.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which held that the mandate under Section 43B of the UAPA is fulfilled when the remand requisition report, containing the grounds of arrest is served on the accused.

“Suffice it is to state that the explanation by the Court before whom the arrestees are produced can never be an adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing an accused” the bench held, setting aside the Madras High Court's order that had upheld the arrest.

Orders and Other Developments

Karur Stampede : Two Petitioners Have Denied Filing Petitions Seeking CBI Probe, TN Govt Tells Supreme Court

In the Karur stampede matter, the State of Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that the petitioners in two petitions, which sought an investigation by the Central Bureau into the tragedy, have denied filing the petitions. The State's lawyers told the Court that they have written to the Supreme Court Registry denying knowledge about the filing of the petitions.

Along with the petition filed by actor Vijay's political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), there were few other petitions filed before the Supreme Court seeking an independent investigation into the stampede, which occured during TVK's political rally on September 27, claiming 41 lives.

Two petitions, filed by Paneerselvam Pitchaimuthu and Selvaraj P, respectively, sought CBI investigation. Today, after the bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari passed an interim orderto transfer the investigation to the CBI from the SIT of TN Police Officers formed by the Madras High Court, the State's lawyers told the bench that the petitioners have denied filing the petitions.

'In Judicial Service, Majority Are Women Without Reservation; So Do Women Lawyers Need Preference In Chamber Allotment?' Asks Supreme Court

Case Title: Bhakti Pasrija and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 921/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking framing of a uniform and gender-sensitive policy for allotment of professional chambers/cabins to women advocates in different Courts and bar associations across the country.

The petition seeks directions for reservation or prioritization of chambers/cabins for women lawyers in future allotments. It also seeks construction and priority allotment of chambers/cabins to women advocates who have over 25 years practice at Supreme Court and are currently on Supreme Court Bar Association's waiting list.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order.

'Pursue Before ECI' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking SIT Probe Into Rahul Gandhi's Voters' List Fraud Allegations

Case Title: Rohit Pandey v. Union of India and Others | Diary No. 46726/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the allegations raised by Leader of Opposition-Rahul Gandhi, regarding large-scale voters list manipulation in the Bengaluru Central constituency during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

At the outset, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Election Commission of India. The petitioner's counsel replied that representation has already been submitted before the Election Commission of India, which has not yet take any action.

The bench however refused to entertain the matter and disposed it of, observing that the petitioner 'may' pursue the matter before the ECI. Though the counsel sought for fixing a timelimit for the ECI to decide, the bench declined to pass any such direction.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On NGO's Plea To Decommission 130-Year-Old Mullaperiyar Dam In Kerala, Construct New One

Case Details: Save Kerala Brigade v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000964 / 2025

The Supreme Court sought responses from the Union Government and the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in a writ petition seeking the decommissioning of the 130-year-old Mullaperiyar Dam in Kerala.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notice on a writ petition filed by an NGO 'Save Kerala Brigade', which has sought directions for the creation of a new dam in place of the Mullaperiyar Dam in Kerala. The petitioner seeks a holistic evaluation of the dam by experts and the Court's directions for decommissioning its operation/reconstruction of it.

Notably, the present dam at the place is 130 years old, situated on the Periyar River, Kerala, near Tamil Nadu border. The dam, although located in Kerala, is maintained and operated by the State of Tamil Nadu for irrigation purposes, based on a pre-independence lease executed between the erstwhile princely kingdom of Travancore and the former Madras Presidency during British rule.

Supreme Court Rejects Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore's Plea To Quash FIR Over Social Media Post On Pahalgam Terror Attack

Case Details: Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 16250/2025 Diary No. 55953 / 2025

The Supreme Court refused to quash the FIR lodged by the Uttar Pradesh Police against folk singer Neha Singh Rathore under multiple offences, including "endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India" over her allegedly 'provocative' social media posts on the Pahalgam Terror Attack.

The Court refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's order, which observed that the case needs to be investigated.

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi said that the petitioner can raise the issue of quashing certain charges, including "waging war against India", at the time of framing of charges. The Court said that it has not expressed any merit on the case but has simply refused to entertain the plea, stating that the petitioner will have to face the trial.

Supreme Court Rejects Asian Paints' Plea Against CCI Probe On Complaint By Grasim Industries

Case Details: Asian Paints Limited v. Competition Commission of India | SLP(C) No. 028923 - / 2025

The Supreme Court today(October 13) refused to entertain a plea by Asian Paints Ltd challenging the Bombay High Court decision that upheld the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order to investigate the company for alleged abuse of dominant position in the decorative paints market. Consequently, the Asian Paints Ltd sought permission to withdraw its plea.

Before a bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and NK Kaul, appearing for Asian Paints Ltd, argued that it was not allowed an oral or written hearing at the time when CCI formed a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, that it had allegedly abused its dominant position in the market.

As per the September 11 order of the Bombay High Court, it stated that the CCI's order was administrative in nature at this stage, and therefore, there is no inherent right for a party to see an oral or written hearing under Section 26(1).

'He Didn't Play Single Day': Supreme Court Stays NCDRC Order Directing Insurer To Compensate Rajasthan Royals For Sreesanth's Injury

Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Royal Multisport Private Limited, Diary No. 33872-2025

The Supreme Court stayed the NCDRC order which directed United India Insurance Company to pay the owner of 'Rajasthan Royals' a sum of over Rs.82 lakhs on account of S. Sreesanth's injury during 2012 IPL cricket tournament.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order in a petition filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the respondent(Rajasthan Royals), had earlier argued that a pre-existing toe injury, on account of which the claim was repudiated by the appellant, did not render Sreesanth incapable to play. Rather, it was the knee injury, suffered during the insurance period, which rendered him unfit. Today, the senior counsel pointed out that BCCI had taken another insurance for the same loss of fee (stated to be covered by the insurance in the present case) and the same was paid.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Status Of Implementation Of 2017 Palliative Care Guidelines

Case Title: Dr. Rajshree Nagaraju v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 138/2024

The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file within 3 weeks its response on implementation of Palliative Care guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 2017.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order in a PIL seeking directions for provision of palliative care to terminally-ill persons as part of the national health programme.

The Union government shall file the affidavit after collecting and collating data from the States/Union Territories on the implementation of the 2017 guidelines, the Court said.

Supreme Court Asks YouTuber To Apologise & Donate Money For Disclosing Identity Of Child In POCSO Act Case

Case Title: Suraj v. Sukumar @ Suraj Palakaran v. State of Kerala, Diary No. 9256-2025

The Supreme Court asked Kerala-based YouTuber Suraj Palakaran to consider tendering unconditional apology for disclosure of identity of a child in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the YouTuber's plea to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him over the aforesaid disclosure. Besides an apology, it further asked him to consider making some monetary donation, since he made money out of the video which led to disclosure of the victim's identity.

"Identity of the child got disclosed, we are not saying that you disclosed...so maybe inadvertently, not deliberately...we are giving benefit of doubt to you. But mistake was committed. For mistake, you can think of tendering an unconditional apology...and you have minted money on the channel, donate something out of that...there's no compulsion, but you [can think of this]", said Justice Kant.

Should Some District Judge Posts Be Reserved For Entry-Level Judicial Officers Promotion: Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear On Oct 28-29

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

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear on October 28 and 29 the issue regarding the career stagnation faced by young judicial officers, who join entry-level posts due to limited promotional avenues in judicial service.

The 5-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi will determine what should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of higher judicial service. The bench will also consider the ancillary and related issues.

The parties who support the proposition that a certain percentage of seats in the cadre of Principal District Judges must be reserved for Judges who joined service as Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates will make the arguments on October 28. The parties opposing the proposition will argue on October 29. Advocates Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Manu Krishnan have been appointed as the nodal counsel for the respective sides to prepare the compilations.

Pharma Company Roche Approaches Supreme Court Against Delhi High Court Allowing Natco To Make Generic Drug For Spinal Muscular Atrophy

Swiss pharmaceutical giant F Hoffmann-La Roche AG has approached the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's order allowing Natco Pharma to manufacture and sell a generic drug of Risdiplam, a drug used to treat Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).

The counsel for Roche mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. CJI agreed to list the matter.

On October 9, a division bench of the Delhi High Court had refusedto pass an injunction against Natco Pharma in a patent dispute. A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed Roche's appeal against a Single Judge's decision, which had allowed Natco to continue manufacturing and selling the drug in India. Roche had argued that Natco's product infringed its suit patent IN'397, valid until 2035, which claimed compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy.

Telangana Phone-Tapping Case | Supreme Court Asks Ex-Intelligence Chief T Prabhakar Rao To Reset & Share iCloud Password With Police

Case Details: T. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Telangana | SLP(Crl) No. 7354/2025

The Supreme Court directed former Telangana intelligence chief T Prabhakar Rao, the prime accused in the alleged phone-tapping case, to reset and furnish the password to his iCloud account in the presence of forensic experts with the State Police.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan passed the direction while hearing Rao's anticipatory bail plea, in which the State of Telangana has filed an interlocutory application (IA) seeking to vacate the interim protection from arrestgranted to him earlier.

The State, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the investigation was not progressing due to Rao's “non-cooperation”. “I will present some facts that will shock the court,” the SG submitted, alleging that Rao had formatted electronic devices and destroyed vital evidence while under the court's protective order.

Ex-MCD Mayor Shelly Oberoi Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Challenging Standing Committee Election

Case Details: Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 649/2024

The Supreme Court allowed a withdrawal of a petition filed by Shelly Oberoi, former Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), challenging the election of the 6th member of the MCD standing committee held on September 27, 2024, which was won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar passed order in this regard on October 9.

Shelly Oberoi's term had ended in November 2024. Raja Iqbal Singh of the BJP took charge as the new Mayor in April this year.

Supreme Court To Hear On Nov 11 Pleas Challenging Law Dropping CJI From Panel Appointing Election Commissioners

Case Title: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024 (And Connected Cases)

The Supreme Court will hear the pleas challenging Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act 2023, which dropped the CJI from panel appointing Election Commissioners, on November 11.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which could not take it up at its turn due to paucity of time. When it was mentioned by Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioner), the matter got listed on November 11.

While mentioning, Bhushan submitted that the matter has been listed from time to time, but not been heard. He beseeched the Court to spare 3-4 hours on a day, of which the petitioners will take 2 hours to complete their submissions. Hearing him, Justice Kant said that the matter may be mentioned on the morning of November 11, so that the bench can adjourn non-urgent matters on the said day.

Supreme Court Seeks Union & SEBI Responses On Sahara Company's Plea To Sell Assets To Adani Properties Ltd

Case: 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 Supreme Court (October 14) sought the response of the Union Government and SEBI on 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.

The Court directed Sahara to implead the Ministries of Finance and Corporate Affairs in its application.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice MM Sundresh also directed the parties, who have claims over the properties sought to be sold by Sahara, to submit them before amicus curiae Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade. The amicus was requested to prepare a chart identifying which properties were disputed, which were free from claims, and where ownership rights remained unclear. The Court also directed Sahara to examine the claims of its workers on the next date of hearing and asked the Union of India, SEBI, and the amicus to file their responses to Sahara's application.

Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Order Setting Aside Election Of Congress MLA KY Nanjegowda

Case Title: K.Y.Nanje Gowda v. K.S Manjunath Gowda and Ors., C.A. No. 12371/2025

Partly staying a Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court allowed Congress leader KY Nanjegowda to continue as a Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly. The Court however maintained the direction for recounting of votes of Malur assembly constituency and called for the results in a sealed cover.

The result of recounting shall not be disclosed without prior permission of the Court, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi ordered.

"Issue notice. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court, to the extent it set aside election of appellant, shall remain stayed. Resultantly, the appellant shall continue to be an elected member of Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. However, ECI is directed to comply with directions to extent of recounting of votes and submit the result in a sealed cover before this Court. The recounting result shall not be declared without prior permission of this Court" the bench directed.

'Won't It Encroach Upon State's Right?' : Supreme Court Extends Stay Of ED Investigation Against Tamil Nadu's TASMAC

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 7958/2025 and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, (Tasmac) v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 8048-8049/2025

The Supreme Court (October 14) extended the interim orderrestraining the Enforcement Directorate from taking coercive action, including search, seizure or investigation, against the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) in connection with the liquor retail scam in Tamil Nadu.

Granting leave to appeal in the Special Leave Petitions filed by TASMAC and the State of Tamil Nadu, the Court posted the matter after the review petitions against the 2022 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment - which upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act relating to arrest, search, ECIR, etc.,- is decided. This was because TASMAC raised arguments regarding the non-supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report, which the Vijay Madanlal decision held that need not be supplied to the parties.

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC challenging Madras High Court's rejection of its plea against searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notices To States/UTs For Defying Orders On Formulating ICU/CCU Healthcare Standards

Cause Title: Asit Baran Mondal & Anr. v. Dr. Rita Sinha Mbbs Ms (Obst. Gynae) & Ors.

The Supreme Court (October 13) issued contempt notices and summoned the concerned Additional Chief Secretary or the senior-most health officials of 28 States and Union Territories for their "casual" failure to comply with the Court's directives on formulating nationwide standards for Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and Critical Care Units (CCUs).

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N Kotiswar Singh asked all the concerned officers to appear on Nov. 20, 2025, before the Court, along with an affidavit showcasing why an action should not be taken against them for their casual approach towards the Court's orders. It added that no excuse of officer's prior engagement or meetings shall be taken into account to postpone the hearing.

“notice is issued to the concerned Additional Chief Secretary/Senior-most Official of the Department of Health of all the concerned States/Union Territories (UTs), as to why action be not taken against them for such casual approach shown towards the Court. The said officers shall remain personally present before this Court, along with their personally affirmed show cause affidavits, on the next date of hearing, i.e., 20.11.2025.”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Appreciates UPSC Decision To Publish Answer Keys After Civil Service Preliminary Exams

Case Details:Himanshu Kumar v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 118/2024 Diary No. 5468 / 2024

The Supreme Court today(October 14) recorded its satisfaction with the decision taken by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to publish the answer keys of the Civil Services Preliminary Examination soon after the test is conducted.

The policy shift was revealed in an affidavit filed by the UPSC in response to a writ petition seeking measures to improve transparency in the Civil Services Examination process. As for the relief of the petitioners, the Court disposed of the matter, giving them liberty to approach the concerned High Court.

At the outset, a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar appreciated the UPSC for its decision. The bench also appreciated Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, who put forth the proposal that the UPSC should publish the answer keys soon after the preliminary exams.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For SIT Probe Into BJP MP Dhullu Mahto's Alleged Disproportionate Assets

Case Title: Somnath Chatterjee v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., Diary No. 50594-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of criminal activities and possession of disproportionate assets/benami properties by BJP MP Dhullu Mahto.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan for petitioner-Somnath Chatterjee (a social worker).

The petitioner had initially moved the Jharkhand High Court with a petition in 2018, seeking directions to statutory authorities to file inquiry reports in terms of a 2016 order passed by the Court in a PIL against Mahto. The same was dismissed as a "wagering attempt".

'Why No CCTVs In Interrogation Rooms Of Police Stations?': Supreme Court Asks Rajasthan Govt; Seeks Response On 11 Custody Deaths

Case Title: In Re Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations SMW(C) No. 7/2025

The Supreme Court questioned the Rajasthan government as to why there are no CCTV cameras in the interrogation rooms of its police stations.

Taking note of an affidavit filed by the state in a suo motu case initiated over lack of functional CCTVs in its police stations, Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, "one very interesting feature in this affidavit - there is no camera in the interrogation room. Any of the police stations. There's no camera in the interrogation room which is the main place where camera has to be there. What you're doing in the interrogation room is the most relevant!".

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Mehta asked the State of Rajasthan to come back with a proposal for maintaining oversight on CCTV surveillance of police stations. It was orally observed that the same may entail monetary burden, but that should not be a problem, as it is a matter of human rights.

Sonam Wangchuk Hasn't Made Representation Against Detention; Wife, Brother & Lawyers Met Him In Jail : Authorities Tell Supreme Court

The Leh District Magistrate has informed the Supreme Court that climate activist Sonam Wangchuk has not yet made any representation challenging his preventive detention under the National Safety Act (PSA).

In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the District Magistrate stated that the detention order was passed on September 26 after due consideration, and that it was based on credible inputs indicating that Wangchuk was “indulging in activities prejudicial to national security.”

He was kept under detention following the violent protests in Ladakh over demands for statehood.

Supreme Court Summons Allahabad High Court Registrar To Explain Delay In Listing Of Criminal Appeals

Cause Title: Chatra Pal v. State of U.P.

The Supreme Court has directed the Registrar Judicial (Listing) of the Allahabad High Court to appear before it on October 16, 2025, to explain the procedure for listing criminal appeals. The Court noted with concern that as many as 2,297 appeals in the High Court involve accused persons who have been incarcerated for over ten years, and in 52 appeals, the period of incarceration exceeds fifteen years.

The Court said that the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court must be apprised of this development.

“we direct the Registrar Judicial (Listing) who submitted the Report dated 27.09.2025, or the incumbent officer, to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing with complete working plan concerning listing and/or hearing of these appeals. Learned Chief Justice of the High Court be apprised of the passing of this order.”, the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Appreciates ED For Efforts To Restore Flats To Innocent Homebuyers Defrauded In Real Estate Scam

Case: Udaipur Entertainment World Private Ltd v. Union of India and Others | SLP(C) No. 10734/2025

The Supreme Court has appreciated the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for its efforts in restoring the properties attached in a money-laundering case to protect innocent homebuyers who had fallen victim to a real estate fraud.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe noted that the agency's initiative ensured the protection of innocent investors. “We record our appreciation for the efforts made by the Directorate of Enforcement in restoring the attached assets so as to protect the rights of genuine and innocent homebuyers,” the Court observed.

The case related to the Royal Rajvilas housing project in Udaipur, Rajasthan, which is under a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. A case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was also initiated, and several flats were provisionally attached by the ED.

No Objection To Sonam Wangchuk Sharing Notes Prepared Against Detention With Wife : Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The Union Government (October 15) told the Supreme Court that they have no objection to Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk sharing the notes he has prepared to challenge his detention with his wife Dr.Gitanjali Angmo.

Taking note of this submission, the Court adjourned the petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo challenging Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act till October 29, after the petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, expressed the desire to amend the petition to include certain additional grounds and reliefs.

Before a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, Sibal said that Wangchuk was not allowed to share the notes with his wife. "He has made certain notes on the detention which he wanted to pass to the lawyer for his wife. Whatever notes he prepares, he is entitled to the assistance of the lawyer. All that we want that is the notes be passed."

High Courts Should Directly Entertain Anticipatory Bail Pleas Only In 4 Circumstances : Amici Curiae Report In Supreme Court

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

Although the law confers concurrent jurisdiction both on the Sessions Court and the High Court to hear anticipatory bail applications, ordinarily the Sessions Court must be approached first, opined the amici curiae appointed by the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthara and Advocate G Arudhra Rao, the amici appointed by the Court in this issue, suggested that High Courts can be approached directly for anticipatory bail only in exceptional circumstances. They recommended that while both High Courts and Sessions Courts enjoy concurrent powers to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC (now Section 482 of the BNSS), the Sessions Courts should be treated as the primary forum for such applications.

According to their considered view, the only circumstances in which an individual apprehending arrest be permitted to approach a High Court under Section 438 CrPC/ S. 482 BNSS directly, could be as under:

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Allow Lawyer's Presence During Police Interrogation

Case Details: Shaffi Mather v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking directions to allow the presence of an individual's lawyer during the interrogation by police or other investigating agencies.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the petition filed by lawyer Shaffi Mather.

At the outset, the bench inquired whether the petition refers to any incidents of duress faced by individuals called for questioning.

AP Liquor Scam: Supreme Court Criticises High Court Order Deferring Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy's Bail Hearing

Case Details: Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh | D No. 58657/2025

The Supreme Court (October 15) disapproved of an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that restrained the trial court from hearing the bail plea of YSRCP leader and former MLA Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy in the liquor scam case, until the High Court decided the State's plea seeking cancellation of bail granted earlier to four co-accused.

The Court quashed the High Court's interim order and directed that Trial Court should decide the bail application on its own merit, without any influence of any observation made by the High Court.

"We are of the view that there was no good reason for the High Court directing the Special Judge to wait till the High Court takes a call on the cancellation application. Since the issue of someone's personal liberty is involved, top priority needs to be given to hearing the bail application," observed the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswathanan.

'Govt Not Ready To Evolve': Supreme Court On Union's Opposition To Alternatives To Hanging For Death Sentence

Case Title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017

In the PIL seeking abolishment of death-by-hanging, the Supreme Court lamented the Union's opposition to a suggestion that death row convicts be given an option to choose lethal injection as mode of execution.

It was orally expressed that the Union government is not ready to evolve alongwith changes that have taken place over a period of time.

A suggestion was placed before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that the old method of execution by hanging can be replaced with use of lethal injection. Or at least, an option can be given to a condemned prisoner to choose between hanging and lethal injection. However, when it was pointed out from the Union's counter affidavit that giving an option to a convict may not be "feasible", Justice Mehta remarked,

Telangana CM Revanth Reddy's Prosecution In 2015 'Cash-for-Votes' Case Unsustainable : Mukul Rohatgi To Supreme Court

Case: A Revanth Reddy v. State of Telangana | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5333 of 2021

The Supreme Court (October 15) heard Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy'spleaseeking to quash the 2015 "Cash for Votes" case, as per which he is alleged to have offered bribe to an MLA for securing votes in the Legislative Council election.

The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Revanth Reddy, told the Court that the trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in the 2015 cash-for-vote case was “completely illegal” as it was conducted before the registration of any First Information Report (FIR).

Advocates Move Supreme Court Challenging BCI Hiking Nomination Fee For Bar Council Elections To Rs 1.25 Lakhs

Two advocates approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to impose what they term an “excessive and exorbitant” nomination fee for candidates contesting in the upcoming State Bar Council elections.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenges the BCI's circular (No. BCI:D:6880/2025(Council-STBC's)) dated September 25, 2025, which fixed the non-refundable nomination fee for candidates at Rs 1,25,000. The petitioners, who are advocates enrolled with the Bar Councils of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, have alleged that the fee hike is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the democratic spirit of the Constitution.

"Imposition of condition precedent to deposit exorbitant amount of Rs,1,25,000/- in the name of nomination fee to be eligible to take part in the electoral process whereas poses threat to the fairness in the democratic process on the one hand; it abridges the rights of the citizens of equality and of fair opportunity. Imposition of such a huge sum to be eligible to take part in election not only deprives the voters of level playing field but also curtails the choices of the voters. Such curtailment of the choices of citizens/ voters tantamount to unfairness in the electoral process," stated the petiton filed by Advocates Manish Jain and Pradeep Kumar.

Supreme Court Bench Refers Plea To Bring Minority Schools Under RTE Act To CJI

Case Title – Nitin Upadhyay v. Union Of

India

After Centre's Request, Supreme Court Collegium Modifies Proposal To Transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan

The Supreme Court Collegium, in a meeting held on October 14, 2025, has recommended the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan, Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, to the Allahabad High Court.

This recommendation was made upon reconsideration sought by the Central Government. The Collegium had earlier proposed Justice Sreedharan's transfer to the High Court of Chhattisgarh. However, after reviewing the Government's request, the Collegium resolved to modify its earlier recommendation and instead transfer him to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

"The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 14th October, 2025, on reconsideration sought by the Government, resolved to recommend that Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan, Judge, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, be transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad instead of the High Court of Chhattisgarh," stated the Collegium's statement.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Ilaiyaraaja On Sony's Plea To Transfer Copyright Suit From Madras To Bombay HC

Case Details: Sony Entertainment India Private Limited v. Ilaiyaraaja

The Supreme Court sought a response from Music Composer Dr Ilaiyaraaja in a transfer petition filed by Sony Music Entertainment seeking the transfer of a copyright dispute from Madrasto the Bombay High Court.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran agreed to consider the matter and issued notice in the same.

Sr Adv AM Singhvi, appearing for Sony, stressed that the issue pertains to the copyrights over the music works of Ilaiyaraaj, and Sony was the first one to file a suit regarding this in 2022 before the Bombay High Court. Sighvi stressed for staying the proceedings before the Madras High Court.

Supreme Court Directs Centre To Upload Nodal Officer Details On Mission Vatsalya Portal For Missing Child Complaints

Case Title – Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to ensure that all states and Union Territories make available details of dedicated Nodal Officers to handle cases of missing children and to upload their details on the Mission Vatsalya portal.

“we direct the respondent(s) Union of India to communicate to each of the States and the Union Territories to make available details of a designated/dedicated Nodal Officer, who is in-charge of the missing children, along with the name, designation and telephone number so that the said details could be uploaded on the Mission Vatsalya portal”, the court stated.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan observed that once a complaint is received on the portal, information must be simultaneously disseminated to the Nodal Officers, who can then take steps to trace missing children, investigate perpetrators such as kidnappers, and register further complaints.

Supreme Court Dismisses TN Govt Plea Against HC Order For SIT Probe Into Organ Trading; Refuses To Direct CBI Investigation

Case Details: Chief Secretary To The Government of Tamil Nad v. S.N.Sathishwaran | SLP(C) No. 026990 - / 2025

The Supreme Court on October 10 dismissed a plea challenging the Madras High Court's order, which constituted a five-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the allegations of a human organ transplantation racket in the State, including kidney transplants.

The High Court in its August 28 order, noting that the State's response was "disappointing", stated that the SIT will be monitored by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court.

Rejecting the State's plea against the High Court's order, a bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anjaria observed: "Having considered the submissions as made by learned counsel for the parties, we find that formation of the Special Investigating Team (SIT) by the High Court do not warrant any interference except to clarify that the observations as made in Paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment indicating proven integrity of the officers of the State be treated to be made only with respect to the appointment of the SIT and it has no bearing with respect to the functioning and conduct of the officers of the State."

Judgment Directing Gender Neutral JAG Appointments Doesn't Apply Retrospectively : Supreme Court

Case Details: Seerat Kaur v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S).928/2025

The Supreme Court clarified that its judgmentstriking down of reservation for men in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) post of the Indian Army should not apply retrospectively in the ongoing recruitment.

Pursuant to the August 11 judgment of the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Kaur v UOI, in which it held that the recruitment in JAG must be gender-neutral, petitioner Seerat Kaur had approached the Court seeking relief by way of appointment in the 35th recruitment cycle(October 2025).

As per her contention, in the merit list published on July 10, she scored an overall 6th rank, out of a total number of 8 recommended candidates, women and men combined. However, despite the merit, the petitioner has not been selected. She prayed that the notification for the 35th recruitment be applied in a manner that if 100% women candidates are eligible on merit, all seats should go to them, as said in the Arshnoor Kaur judgment.

Plea Against LTTE Ban : Supreme Court Refuses Intervention Of Person Claiming To Be Tamil Eelam Transnational Govt Leader

Case Title: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No. 44958-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, stated to be the Prime Minister of Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), for impleadment in UAPA Tribunal proceedings concerning the declaration of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as unlawful association.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and dismissed it as withdrawn, after hearing Advocate Payoshi Roy. The Court however gave Rudrakumaran liberty to avail any other remedy that may be available in law.

To recap, the LTTE was declared as an unlawful association way back in 1992 and this was renewed was by the Central Government every couple of years.

Supreme Court Halts ILS Hill Road Project In Pune Till Grant Of Environmental Clearance

Case Details :In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 202/1995

The Supreme Court directed that the ILS Hill road project which is part of the Balbharati - Paud Phata Link Road in Pune shall begin work only after the grant of an environment clearance (EC)

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a plea by environmentalist Dr. Sushma Date in the TN Godavarman Case.

The bench passed the following direction:

AG Grants Consent For Contempt Action Against Advocate Who Tried To Throw Shoe At CJI BR Gavai

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who tried to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in Court room last week.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, jointly mentioned the matter before the bench led by Justice Surya Kant, the second senior judge, seeking the listing of the criminal contempt matter.

Singh informed the bench about the AG granting the sanction and SG confirmed this fact. "I have taken the consent of the Attorney General and seeking a listing tomorrow," Singh said. "Learned AG has given consent, I would also join my learned friend and request your lordship to take up the contempt. It is constitutional integrity which is under question," SG said.

“Why Revive The Issue? Let It Die Naturally”: Supreme Court On Pursuing Contempt Action Against Lawyer Who Tried To Throw Shoe At CJI

The Supreme Court wondered whether it should reopen the controversy surrounding the lawyer who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai last week, observing that perhaps it was better to allow the matter to “have a natural death.”

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation after Senior Advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the issue, seeking urgent listing of criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani has already granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Kishore for his act in the Chief Justice's courtroom.

Supreme Court Dismisses Telangana Govt Plea Against HC Stay On 42% Backward Classes Reservation In Local Body Elections

Case: State of Telangana v. Buttemgari Madhava Reddy | SLP(C) No. 29820-29836/2025

The Supreme Court (October 16) dismissed the plea filed by the State of Telangana against the Telangana High Court's interim order staying the implementation of 42% reservation for Backward Classes in the local body polls.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified that the High Court should decide the main matter on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the State's Special Leave Petition.

At the outset, Justice Nath asked Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi why the reservation was not brought in before the elections were notified. Singhvi replied that the Governor had kept Bill pending without granting assent.

AG Refuses Consent; Plea For Contempt Action Against WB CM Mamata Banerjee Over Comments On SSC Judgment Withdrawn

Case Details: Aatmadeep (A Public Charitable Trust) v. Mamata Banerjee |

The Supreme Court was informed that the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani has not given consent to initiate criminal contempt against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over her remarks on the Apex Court's ruling in the teachers' recruitment scam case.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran, NV Anjaria was hearing a petition by Aatmadeep, a public charitable trust, seeking the initiation of criminal contempt against Banerjee.

Today, the counsel for Aatmadeep requested the bench to allow withdrawal as the Attorney General for India had not given consent to initiate criminal contempt.

Throwing Objects & Shouting At Judges Is Scandalous, Says Attorney General Sanctioning Contempt Action Against Lawyer

Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, granted permission for the initiation of the Contempt of Court proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on October 6.

AG, in his letter granting consent to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh to file criminal contempt petition against Kishore, said that throwing or attempting to throw any object aimed at the judges, or shouting at judges to find fault with the conduct of proceedings, will be scandalous.

"No person can have any reason whatsoever to scandalise the Court. Throwing or attempting to throw any object aimed at the Hon'ble Judges, or shouting at judges to find fault with the conduct of proceedings will be scandalous. The reason said to have been given by Mr. Rakesh Kishore, can never be in justification of such scandalous conduct. Such acts constitute a grave affront to the dignity of the Court and to the rule of law itself. From the materials placed on record, I find Mr. Rakesh Kishore, has not shown any repentance as regards the conduct in question as is evident from his subsequent utterances."

Bihar SIR | "Have No Doubt ECI Will Fulfil Their Responsibility", Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Till Nov 4

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

The Supreme Court (October 16) adjourned the hearing of the petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision of Bihar electoral rolls to November 4.

Bihar assembly elections are scheduled to take place on November 6 and November 11 in two phases.

During the hearing today, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the ADR, fervently urged the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi to direct the ECI to publish the list of names added/deleted in the final list.

Bihar SIR : ECI Denies Claim Of Disproportionate Exclusion Of Muslims From Voters' List, Calls Petitioners' Argument “Communal Approach"

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

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has strongly refuted the allegation that there was a “disproportionate exclusion of Muslims” from Bihar's electoral rolls following the State-wide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters.

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the ECI described the claim made by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) as baseless and communal, stating that such an approach “is to be deprecated.”

The poll body clarified that its electoral rolls database does not record or capture any information about an elector's religion. Hence, any allegation of religious bias in the voter deletion or inclusion process, it said, is unfounded.

Supreme Court Denies Bail To Lawyer In UAPA Case Over Alleged Attempts To Disrupt Communal Harmony

Case Details: Wasid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 11851/2025

The Supreme Court today(October 16) refused to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which upheld the Trial court's order denying bail to lawyer Wasid Khan, who faces various charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly attempting to disturb communal harmony in the society with the object of establishing 'Mughal Order' which existed prior to British rule.

Before a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam argued for Khan. He submitted that the High Court did not deal with various serious allegations, including the fact that Khan was not associated with the Popular Front of India after the organisation was banned in 2022, but came to the conclusion that there is incriminatory evidence against him.

For the National Investigating Agency, Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, opposed the plea. He stated that the evidence found with Khan included a "Vision 2047" document, which aims to transform India into an Islamic country with the application of Sharia law.

Advocate Moves Supreme Court Challenging BCI's Decision To Supervise State Bar Council Elections

Case Title – M. Vardhan Union of India & Ors.

An application has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to restrain the Bar Council of India (BCI) from interfering with or assuming control over the conduct of elections to various State Bar Councils.

“the conduct of Bar Council of India strikes at the very root of representative self-governance within the Bar and undermines the democratic character of the State Bar Councils envisaged under Sections 3 and 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961. If the ongoing interference of the Bar Council of India is not immediately restrained, the resultant delay will cause irreparable institutional damage by eroding public confidence in the Bar's self-regulatory framework and rendering the forthcoming elections a mere illusion”, the application states.

The application, filed in a writ petition, also seeks a direction to constitute a special committee under Section 8-A of the Advocates Act, 1961, and to authorize the respective Advocates General to oversee and complete the election process.

BCCI Supports Criminalization Of Match-Fixing; Seeks Intervention In Case Before Supreme Court

Case Title: State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Abrar Kazi and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 9408-9411/2022

In a matter flagging the consequences of betting and match-fixing, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has come out in support of constitution of match-fixing as a criminal offense.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was informed of the BCCI's stance by Advocate Shivam Singh, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter.

Singh apprised the Court that BCCI has filed an intervention application supporting criminalization of match-fixing. This application states that match-fixing constitutes an offense under the IPC (replaced by BNS), inasmuch as an accused can be charged with "cheating".

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Allowing Police Custody Of 2 Women Journalists In Case Over Video Against Telangana CM

Case Title: Pogadadabnda Revathi and Anr. v. State of Telangana, SLP(Crl) No. 16536/2025

The Supreme Court stayed a Telangana High Court order which allowed the state police to take into custody two women journalists despite grant of bail to them in a case over alleged objectionable video against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for petitioner-women journalists).

During the hearing, Dave argued that taking a person into police custody after grant of bail, without the bail having been cancelled, is not permissible. He submitted that an accused can be called by the police for the purpose of investigation, but not taken into custody while the bail is operating.

Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Measures To Prevent Overcrowding In Buses

The Supreme Court (October 16) refused to consider a PIL seeking directions against the excessive overcrowding of passengers in public and privately operated buses.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to entertain the PIL, considering that the matter lies in the domain of public policy.

The Counsel stressed that many people risk their lives and some even die due to the overcrowding in the public and private operated buses.

'Matter Of Grave Concern' : Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Case On Digital Arrest Scams Using Forged Court Documents

Case Title – In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related To Forged Documents

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of rising cases of “digital arrest” scams, where fraudsters impersonate law enforcement agencies or judicial authorities to extort money from citizens, particularly senior citizens.

The action follows a complaint from a 73-year-old woman from Ambala, Haryana, who alleged that scammers used forged Supreme Court orders to confine her in a so-called “digital arrest” and extort more than ₹1 crore.

In her complaint addressed to Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai, the woman claimed that the fraudsters produced a fake order purportedly issued by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Bar Council Elections: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To BCI's Decision Fixing Nomination Fee At ₹1.25 Lakh

Case: Manish Jain v. Bar Council of India | W.P.(C) No. 1005/2025

The Supreme Court (October 17) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by two advocates challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to hike the nomination fee for contesting the State Bar Council Elections to Rs 1,25,000.

After a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed reluctance to entertain the matter, the petitioners withdrew the matter.

The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the BCI has exorbitantly increased the fee from Rs 9,000 to Rs 1,25,000. He submitted that blanketly fixing the nomination fee at an exorbitant level, without any connection with the standing of the candidate at the bar, was unreasonable. He suggested that the nomination fee should be in tune with the standing of the bar, as is done in the Supreme Court Bar Association elections.

Supreme Court Dismisses Roche's Plea To Restrain Natco From Making Generic Drug For SMA; Asks Delhi HC To Decide Patent Suit Soon

Case Details: F. Hoffmannla Roche Ag v. Natco Pharma Limited | SLP(C) No. 29664/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Swiss pharmaceutical giant F Hoffmann-La Roche AG against the Delhi High Court's order allowing Natco Pharma to manufacture and sell a generic drug of Risdiplam, a drug used to treat Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar declined to interfere with the High Court's order, observing that it was only an interim order. The bench also noted that both the single bench and the division bench of the High Court have entered concurrent findings.

The bench however urged the High Court to dispose of the suit filed by Roche against Natco expeditiously.

Supreme Court Stays ED Arrest Of Bihar Contractor Rishu Shree In PMLA Case

Case: Rishu Shree v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 411/2025

The Supreme Court (October 17) stayed the arrest of Bihar-based contractor Rishu Shree by the Enforcement Directorate in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while refusing to entertain the writ petition filed by Rishu Shree against the ED. The bench asked the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief and stayed coercive actions by the ED till November 10.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the writ petition was filed since certain provisions of the PMLA were challenged.

Four-Year Tenure For Tribunal Members Insufficient, Petitioners Tell Supreme Court In Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act

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

The Supreme Court (October 16) heard the Madras Bar Association case concerning the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the issues pertaining to the reduction in tenures of members and Chairpersons of Tribunals across the country.

Previously, Sr Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioners, was asked to submit a comprehensive report on commercial Tribunals, as the Court was of the view that different superannuation norms were causing a lot of confusion.

Yesterday, Datar referred to several ordinances issued by the government with respect to the administration/ conditions of service for various kinds of Tribunal Members, which have been challenged in the batch of petitions as contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court.

'Wait For Decision On Presidential Reference' : Supreme Court Defers TN Govt Plea Against Governor Reserving Bills For President

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Secretary To His Excellency, The Honble Governor and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 978/2025

The Supreme Court deferred the hearing of the writ petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the Governor's decision to reserve the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025 and the Sports University Bill for the consideration of the President of India.

The Court suggested that the State wait for the decision on the Presidential Reference on timelines for granting assent to Bills by the President and the Governor under Articles 200/201 of the Constitution.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the matter.

'Temple Too Dismantled' : Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Demolition Of Ahmedabad Mansa Masjid's Portion For Road Widening

Case :Mancha Masjid v. State of Gujarat | SLP(C) No. 30200/2025

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court's order declining to grant a four-week stay to the Mansa Masjid Trust against the proposed partial demolition near a 400-year-old mosque in Ahmedabad for a road-widening project.

The Court observed in its order, “In view of the categorical stand taken by the authorities in the pleadings before the High Court and also in light of the position recorded by the division bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment that a portion of the mosque comprising some open land is being demolished due to the widening of the road, and that “the main structure of the mosque is not being demolished”, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, especially when a temple, commercial properties and residential properties of persons affected have also been included for demolition for the purpose of road widening.”

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, kept open the question of whether the property is waqf property and if the Waqf Board is entitled to compensation.

'Is Magistrate Too Small For You To Go There?' : Supreme Court Dismisses Chhattisgarh Congress Leader's Plea Alleging ED Torture

Case Title – Hemant Chandrakar v. Union of India

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by businessman and Congress leader Hemant Chandrakar alleging custodial torture by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during interrogation in connection with a money laundering probe.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the plea, questioning why Chandrakar approached the High Court directly instead of filing a complaint before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

“Go to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. If there is a delay, somebody can monitor, the High Courts are there. Article 227 is meant for that. Article 226 is also there. Please go to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, respect that court. Only problem is, these people are obsessed with their status symbol. They feel that Chief Judicial Magistrate is too small for them. That is what is happening, instead of recognizing the majesty of law”, Justice Kant said.

8.8 Lakh Execution Petitions Pending Across Country : Supreme Court Expresses Alarm, Asks High Courts To Ensure Speedy Disposals

Case: Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. | Miscellaneous Application Nos.1889-1891/2025 In C.A. Nos.3640- 3642/2025

The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the alarming pendency of execution petitions across the country, revealing that 8,82,578 execution petitions remain pending before district courts nationwide, despite earlier directions to High Courts to ensure their disposal within six months.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal was monitoring compliance with its March 6, 2025 order in Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr., which set a 6 month limit to dispose of execution petitions.

The Court described the statistics received from the High Courts as “highly disappointing" and "alarming."