26. Student Suicides | Supreme Court Constitutes National Task Force To Address Mental Health Concerns In CollegesCase Details: Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 341The Supreme Court (March 24) directed the formation of the National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the rising number of suicides in...
26. Student Suicides | Supreme Court Constitutes National Task Force To Address Mental Health Concerns In Colleges
Case Details: Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 341
The Supreme Court (March 24) directed the formation of the National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the rising number of suicides in higher educational institutions (HEIs).
The Court also held that in the event of any unfortunate incident, such as a suicide occurring on campus, it becomes the unequivocal duty of the institution to promptly lodge an F.I.R. with the appropriate authorities.
The Court took note of various reports regarding caste discrimination, ragging and academic pressures driving students to suicide. It reminded that universities are not just centres of learning but institutions responsible for the well-being and holistic development of their students. The Court said that every institution must have a culture of sensitivity and proactive intervention so that every student feels safe, supported, and empowered to pursue their aspirations without fear or discrimination.
27.'Judges Must Protect Freedom Of Speech Even If They Don't Like What Was Said': Supreme Court Quashes Gujarat FIR Against Congress MP Over Poem
Case Details: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” in the background.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, allowing the petition filed by Pratapgarhi, observed that no offence was made out.
In its judgment, the bench underscored the importance of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and reminded the Courts and the Police of their duty to uphold the rights of persons expressing unpopular opinions.
Other reports on the judgment - For 'Promoting Enmity' Offence, Words Must Not Be Judged On Standards Of Insecure People Or Those Seeing Criticism As Threat : Supreme Court
28. Supreme Court Directs Customs Authorities To Upgrade Lab Facilities For Proper Testing Of Disputed Articles On All Parameters
Case Details: Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 366
The Supreme Court overturned the confiscation of imported goods labelled as "Base Oil SN 50,"which customs authorities had classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD), which only the State entities can import.
The Court found that the Customs Department failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the goods were High-Speed Diesel (HSD), due to inadequate laboratory testing and conflicting expert opinions.
In this regard, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh criticized inadequate lab testing facilities, which led to the release of confiscated goods because the customs authorities tested only 8–14 out of 21 IS 1460:2005 (HSD) parameters—insufficient to classify the goods as HSD.
Therefore, the Court directed the Respondents to upgrade lab facilities within six months to ensure full IS-standard testing and prevent future disputes.
29. Giving Arrest Memo Not Same As Supplying Grounds Of Arrest: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arrest & Remand
Case Details: Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh | Criminal Appeal No. 1518 /2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 367
The Supreme Court set aside the arrest and remand for an appellant in the light of the decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), which held that supplying grounds of arrest in writing as prescribed under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires mandatory compliance, lest the arrest and remand will stands vitiated in the eyes of the law.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal held that what was furnished to the arrestee was an arrest memo, which did not contain any worthwhile particulars, such as the charges framed against him. It only contained the name of the accused and the place of arrest and stated that he was arrested based on the statement of the co-accused.
"We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him. This, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment, particularly, in light of the judgment rendered by this Court reported as Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2024) 8 SCC 254."
30. Wife Can Claim Maintenance From Husband Even If She Doesn't Live With Him As Per Decree On Conjugal Rights Restitution: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 47
In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court held that a wife, even if she refuses to live with her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against her, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
The issue before the bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was that “Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home?”
The judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that a wife's refusal to comply with the decree of conjugal rights passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on just cause would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
The Supreme Court noted that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are essentially civil in nature and should not be equated with criminal proceedings merely because they involve a penal consequence.
“even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings.”, the bench remarked.
Case Details: Vijay Pal Yadav v. Mamta Singh and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 380
The Supreme Court issued a stern warning to the police personnel of all States and Union Territories against the violation of the norms regarding arrest. The Court warned that officers who flout the arrest guidelines will face strict action.
A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made these observations while dealing with a case, where the petitioner alleged that he was arrested by the Haryana police in violation of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and was subjected to physical abuse both at the spot as well as later in the Police Station.
Case Details: Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) Through Lrs v. Laxmibai Narayan Satose Since Deceased Through Lrs & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 411
The Supreme Court expressed dismay over the use of long and bulky pleadings in a civil trial which led to the passing of lengthy judgments by the trial court and appellate court, that could have been summed up concisely.
The Court also flagged the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), saying that the Courts are also confronted with AI-generated or computer-generated statements.
Thus, the court advocated the use of Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC, which empowers the court to strike out or amend any pleadings finding it to be unnecessary, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process of law. Pleadings be made brief and concise, the Court stated.
The Supreme Court observed that when the language of a deed is clear and unambiguous, there is no justification for judicial intervention to interpret it differently. It added that applying the literal rule of construction, the words must be given their plain and natural meaning, as they are presumed to convey the true intent of the parties.
“the court must look at the words used in the contract unless they are such that one may suspect that they do not covey the intention correctly. If the words are clear, there is very little the court can do about it. In constructing a deed, looking at the surrounding circumstances and subject matter is legitimate only if the words used are doubtful.”, the court observed upon placing reliance on the case of Provash Chandra Dalui and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another, (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 487.
Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti laid down the guiding tools for the construction of contracts and deeds.
Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 419
The Supreme Court held that the action of the Tamil Nadu Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for 10 bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020, and reserving them to the President after they were re-enacted by the State Legislature is "illegal and erroneous" in law and liable to be set aside.
Any consequential steps which might have been taken by the President on the said ten bills were also declared non-est in law.
The Court declared that the ten Bills would be deemed to have received the assent of the Governor when they were presented in the second round after they were passed again by the State Assembly.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor did not act with bona fides, as the bills were sent to the President, after the Governor himself sat over them over a long time, and were reserved for the President soon after the Supreme Court's judgment in the Punjab Governor's case, which held that the Governors cannot veto the bills by sitting over them.
Also from the judgment –
President Must Decide On Bills Reserved By Governor Within 3 Months: Supreme Court
Governors Must Act As Per Advice Of State Govt On Assent For Bills: Supreme Court
[The judgment was held as incorrect in the subsequent Presidential Reference]
34. Supreme Court Lays Down Twin Test To Resolve Copyright–Design Conflict Under S15(2) Of Copyright Act
Case Details: Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426
The Supreme Court (April 15) resolved an ambiguity under the intellectual property (IP) law, by resolving the overlap between 'design' and 'copyright' protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act specifically deals with designs capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, and the limit of copyright protection in such cases. The copyright protection to such design ceases if the design remains unregistered and is industrially reproduced more than 50 times.
The Court noted that an 'artistic work' does not automatically lose copyright protection simply because a design based on it has been used in industrial production. It stated that under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, copyright protection for such an artistic work would cease if the resulting design is capable of registration under the Designs Act, remains unregistered, and is applied industrially more than 50 times.
35. 'Let Us Make Friends With Urdu & Every Language': Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Urdu Signboard In Maharashtra Municipality
Case Details: Mrs. Varshatai W/O. Sh. Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Etc. | Diary No. 24812 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 427
In a significant judgment advocating respect for the linguistic diversity of the country, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the use of Urdu in the signboard of a Municipality in Maharashtra.
The Court dismissed a petition challenging the Bombay High Court's judgment which allowed the use of Urdu on the signboard of the new building of the Municipal Council, Patur in district Akola, Maharashtra.
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that the display of an additional language was not a violation of the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 and that there was no prohibition in the said Act on the use of Urdu.
The Court held that the purpose of the use of Urdu is merely "effective communication" and diversity in language must be respected.
The judgment authored by Justice Dhulia contains many notable observations on the need to cherish the diversity in our languages. Language must not become a cause for division amongst people, the judgment appealed.
36. Courts & SROs Must Report To Income Tax Authorities If Suits/Deeds Mention Cash Transactions Above ₹2 Lakh: Supreme Court
Case Details: Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 429
In a significant ruling aimed at combating black money and tax evasion, the Supreme Court (April 16) directed courts and registration authorities to report cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakhs to the Income Tax Department.
The Court ruled that whenever any suit is filed claiming that a consideration of Rs. 2 Lacs or above is paid towards a transaction, then it becomes obligatory upon the Court to intimate the jurisdictional Income Tax Department for verification whether there's a violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).
Further, the Court directed the Registering authorities that if any document is presented for registration (like a sale agreement) mentions a cash payment of Rs. 2,00,000 or more, the Sub-Registrar must inform the Income Tax Department to prevent unreported cash transactions in real estate deals.
Also, the Court held that failure of officials to report such transactions will lead to disciplinary action by the Chief Secretary of the State/UT.
The Supreme Court held that a proposed purchaser under an agreement to sell cannot file a suit for a permanent injunction seeking the protection of the vendor's interest in the property against a third party with whom there exists no privity of contract.
The Court clarified that only the vendor has the right to seek protection of their interest in the property, as an agreement to sell does not confer any proprietary rights on the proposed purchaser. Since no legal interest in the property is transferred through such an agreement, the purchaser lacks the locus to initiate action to protect the property.
37. Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS: Supreme Court
Case Details: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434
The Supreme Court (April 17) held that the power under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot be invoked to delete charges already framed against an accused, as it can only be used to add or alter the existing charges.
The analogous provision to Section 216 CrPC in the BNSS is Section 239.
“We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 228 CrPC, the accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers under Sections 227 or 216 CrPC. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 CrPC provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed.”, the Court observed.
The Court approved the Allahabad High Court's decision Dev Narain v. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3216, where it was held that a power to delete charges is not conferred on the Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C.
The Supreme Court observed that when a previous judgment is overruled by a subsequent one, the later judgment operates retrospectively, as it clarifies the correct legal position that may have been misunderstood due to the earlier ruling.
Further, the Court clarified that the later judgment could be a prospectively overruling judgment if it is expressly mentioned in the judgment otherwise, the judgment would operate retrospectively.
The Supreme Court observed that activities involving a psychotropic substance listed in the NDPS Act's Schedule, but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, constitute an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
38. Income Tax Commissioners Must Not Routinely Remand Matters Just Because Assessing Officer Could Not Find Additions: Supreme Court
Case Details: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Chandigarh v. V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 435
The Supreme Court advised that the Commissioners of Income Tax should not randomly remand matters in exercise of their revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely by saying that the Assessing Officer was required to do more inquiries.
The Court said that to remand matters on the ground of inadequate inquiry by the AO, the Commissioner must record “abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and prejudice caused to revenue” is necessary.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Chandigarh against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which upheld the ITAT's decision quashing the remand order.
The Court observed that if the Assessing Officer could not find additions to income, then it can be taken that the assessee's stand was correct.
39. Supreme Court Flags Long Submissions In S.34/37 Arbitration Act Proceedings, Says Timelimit Needs To Be Imposed
Case Details: Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 449
On April 21, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over the prolonged arguments and submissions made by members of the Bar in arbitration proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court noted that excessively long oral submissions force judges to invest significant time in reviewing extended arguments, often supported by a large volume of case law, regardless of their relevance. This practice, particularly in high-stakes matters, leads to unnecessarily lengthy judgments and ultimately undermines the efficiency and growth of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism in India.
“We have noticed that there is a tendency on the part of senior members of the bar to argue as if these proceedings were regular appeals under Section 96 of CPC. In this case, while making submissions, we learned counsels for both the parties have gone into minute and factual details…”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.
40. Muslim Member Of State Bar Council Can't Continue In Waqf Board After End Of Term In Bar Council: Supreme Court
Case Details: Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid v. State of Manipur & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No.2138/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 454
The Supreme Court held that a person appointed as a member of the State Waqf Board by virtue of being a Muslim member of a State Bar Council can no longer continue to be a member of the State Waqf Board after he ceased to be a member of the Bar Council.
As per Section 14 of the Waqf Act(before the 2025 amendment), a Muslim member of the Bar Council of a State/UT can be appointed as a member of the Waqf Board of the said State/UT.
41. Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Direct Bank Transfer Of Compensation To Road Accident Victims & Workmen
Case Details: In Re Compensation Amounts Deposited With Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and Labour Courts
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 455
The Supreme Court has passed a set of directions to ensure that the compensation paid to claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are directly credited to their bank accounts.
The Court passed these directions after noticing that huge amounts of compensation passed under these laws are lying unclaimed before Courts. Based on a letter received from BB Pathak, a retired District Judge from Gujarat, the Court had initiated a suo motu case last year title "In Re: Compensation Amounts Deposited With Motor Accident Claims Tribunals & Labour Courts."
42. High Courts Must Check S. 313 CrPC/S.351 BNSS Compliance At Earliest To Avoid Acquittals: Supreme Court
Case Details: Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 456
The Supreme Court (April 22) flagged concern about the acquittal of the accused in cases where the prosecution's vital evidence is not presented to the accused to afford him an opportunity to explain the allegations labelled against him.
To address this legal defect, the Court recommended that High Courts must adopt a proactive approach by checking compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. at the outset of the criminal appeals and remanding the matter to the trial court for complying with the provision if there is a lapse.
43. For Every Instance Of S.498A IPC Misuse, There Are Hundreds Of Genuine Domestic Cruelty Cases: Supreme Court
Case Details: Janshruti (People's Voice) v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 2152-2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 464
While rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the Supreme Court said that mere potential of misuse of a provision cannot be a ground to strike it down.
The Court, acknowledging that there are instances of misuse of the provision, however, added that for every instance of misuse, there are hundreds of genuine cases where the provision acted as a safeguard against domestic violence.
"We are cognizant of the growing discourse highlighting instances where the provision may have been misused. However, it must be borne in mind that for every such instance, there are likely hundreds of genuine cases where Section 498A has served as a crucial safeguard for victims of domestic cruelty. We are also aware that certain unconscionable individuals, emboldened by the rising fervor to dismantle such protective provisions, have gone so far as to publicly share videos depicting the exchange of dowry—an act not only unlawful but also indicative of the entrenched nature of the very evil this provision seeks to combat," the Court said.
44. Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order To Remove 'Defamatory' ContentIn Wikipedia Page About ANI
Case Details: Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. ANI Media Private Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 465
The Supreme Court set aside the injunction orders passed by the Delhi High Court for the removal of the "defamatory and false" content in the Wikipedia page about news agency ANI Media Pvt Ltd.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the High Court's direction "to remove all false, misleading and defamatory content" was "very broadly worded" and not capable of being implemented. The bench however allowed the ANI to make a fresh application before the single judge of the High Court for the grant of an injunction in respect of specific contents in the Wikipedia page.
45. Form Swift Response Protocols For Road Accident Victims; Enforce Drivers' 8-Hour Daily Work: Supreme Court To States/UTs
Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 487
The Supreme Court issued significant directions to all states and union territories, mandating them to take effective steps towards developing swift response protocols to ensure that victims of road accidents receive immediate assistance. A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the growing concern of delayed medical help and rescue efforts for accident victims, calling it a matter of serious public interest.
46. 'Honour Killing Ugly Reality Of Caste Structure, Must Get Strong Punishment': Supreme Court Upholds Convictions In Kannagi-Murugesan Case
Case Details: KP Tamilmaran v. State SLP(Crl) No. 1522/2023 and connected cases.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 493
The Supreme Court on Monday (April 28) confirmed the convictions in the 'Kannagi-Murugesan' honour killing case from Tamil Nadu.
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice PK Mishra dismissed the appeals filed by nine convicts challenging the Madras High Court's 2022 judgment, which upheld their life sentence. The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by two policemen for fabricating evidence. The Supreme Court held that just because a witness has supported some, though not all, aspects of a case, it would not automatically mean that the witness has to be declared as 'hostile'.
The Supreme Court stated that a "Court Witness" - a person summoned by the Court as a witness invoking its powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act - cannot be cross-examined by the prosecution using the witness's previous statements made to the police.
47. 'Sharia Court', 'Court Of Kazi' Etc Have No Legal Recognition; Their Directions Not Binding: Supreme Court
Case Details: Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 495
The Supreme Court reiterated that a 'Court of Kazi', 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat','Sharia Court' etc., by whatever name styled, have no recognition in law and any direction given by them is not enforceable in law.
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah referred to the 2014 judgment in Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India, which held that Shariat Courts and fatwas do not have legal sanction.
The bench was deciding an appeal by a woman challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court upholding the Family Court's decision not to award her any maintenance on the ground that she was the cause for the dispute. The Family Court had relied upon a compromise deed filed before a Court of Kazi to make such findings.
48. Consumer Protection Act 2019 | Fixing Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based On Value Of Consideration Is Constitutional: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rutu Mihir Panchal and others v. Union of India and others, WP(C) 282/2021
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 503
The Supreme Court (April 29) upheld the constitutionality of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the district, state and national commissions on the basis of value of goods and services paid as consideration, instead of compensation claimed. The Court dismissed the constitutional challenge to Section 34, 47 and 58 of the 2019 Act and declared that the said provisions are constitutional and areneither violative of Article 14 nor manifestly arbitrary.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that "vesting jurisdiction in the district, state or national commission on the basis of value of goods or services paid as 'consideration' is neither illegal nor discriminatory." The judgment authored by Justice Narasimha held that the "value of consideration is and can be a valid basis for classifying claims for determining pecuniary jurisdiction."
49. 'Right To Digital Access Part Of Article 21': Supreme Court Directs To Make eKYC Process Accessible To Persons With Disabilities
Case Details: Amar Jain v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 49/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 507
The Supreme Court directed to revise the digital Know-Your-Customer (KYC) norms to enable persons with facial disfiguration due to acid attacks or visual impairment to access banking and e-governance services.
In the judgment, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan also emphasised the obligation of the State to design an inclusive digital ecosystem which is accessible to all, including the marginalised and vulnerable persons. Since many welfare schemes and government services are provided through online platforms, the Court said that bridging the digital divide has become a necessity to ensure a dignified life.
In this context, the Court traced the right to access digital services to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed that all government portals, learning platforms, financial technology servies must be "universally accessible" to all vulnerable and marginalised sections.
50. Courts Have Limited Power To Modify Arbitral Awards In Certain Circumstances Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited | SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508
Answering a reference, a Constitution Bench (by 4:1) of the Supreme Court held that Appellate Courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under either Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The majority judgment by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna held that the Courts have a limited power under Section 34/37 to modify arbitral awards. This limited power can be exercised in the following circumstances:
1. When the award is severable by separating the invalid portion from the valid portion of the award.
2. To correct any clerical, computation or typographical errors which appear erroneous on the face of the record.
3. To modify post-award interest in some circumstances.
4. The special powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be applied to modify awards. But this power must be exercised with great caution within the limits of the Constitution.
Justice KV Viswanathan delivered a dissenting opinion on certain aspects. He held that Section 34 Court cannot modify the award unless expressly authorised by the law, since it is tantamount to exercising a merits review. Courts exercising Section 34 power cannot change, vary or modify arbitral awards as it strikes at the core and the root of the ethos of the arbitration exercise.
Part 1 (1-25) can be read here.