A Constitution Bench is a bench of at least 5 judges, formed in order to answer sustantial questions arising out of interpreting provisions of the Constution of India. Here are the Constitution bench judgments of 2025 - Appellate Courts Have Power To Modify Arbitral AwardsCase Title: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S ISG Novasoft Technologies LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508A five-judge bench of...
A Constitution Bench is a bench of at least 5 judges, formed in order to answer sustantial questions arising out of interpreting provisions of the Constution of India. Here are the Constitution bench judgments of 2025 -
Appellate Courts Have Power To Modify Arbitral Awards
Case Title: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, 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.
In the majority judgment, authored by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, the Court held that the Courts can exercise this limited power 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 dissented, opining that section 34 does not give power to the appellate court to modify post award interest, but merely to set it aside. He further opined that Article 142 cannot be used to modify awards as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act already lays down the procedure, and Article 142 power cannot be used to give a go by to the substantive statutory provision.
Bench: Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice KV Viswanathan.
Other reports from the judgment - When Can Court Remand Arbitral Award To Tribunal Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act ? Supreme Court Explains
Article 142 Can Be Used To Modify Arbitral Awards, Holds Supreme Court; Justice Viswanathan Dissents
Judicial Officers With 7 Years Combined Experience Eligible For Direct Recruitment As District Judges
Case Title: Rejanish KV v. K Deepa and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that a judicial officer, who has a combined experience of seven years as a judicial officer and an advocate, is eligible to apply for direct appointment as a District Judge.
To ensure a level playing field, the Court held that the minimum age of the in-service candidates applying for District Judges' direct recruitment must be 35 years.
The Court observed that the state governments will have to frame rules providing eligibility for in-service candidates. The rules should provide that in-service candidates should be eligible if they have a combined experience of 7 years as a judicial officer and advocate.
The Court held:
(i) Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process;
(ii) The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application;
(iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, we direct that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years' combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate;
(iv) A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution;
(v) In order to ensure level playing field, we further direct that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application.
(vi) It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right from Satya Narain Singh till Dheeraj Mor (supra), which take a view contrary to what has been held hereinabove do not lay down the correct proposition of law.
The Court directed the High Courts and State Governments to amend the rules in terms of the judgment within a period of three months from today.
Bench: Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran
No Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge Posts
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1119
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled out any special quota/weightage for promotee judges in the posts of District Judges, observing that there is no nationwide pattern of disproportionate representation of direct recruits in the Higher Judicial Service.
The Court observed that a perceived feeling of "heartburn" among judicial officers cannot justify the creation of any artificial classification within the cadre Higher Judicial Service(HJS). On the entry into a common cadre from different sources (Regular Promotion, Limited Departmental Competitive Exam and Direct Recruitment) and assignment of seniority as per the annual roster, the incumbents lose their 'birthmark' of the source from which they are recruited.
The Court noted that in-service judicial officers have enough opportunities for advancement as District Judges, especially after the judgment in Rejanish, which allowed them to contest for direct recruitment as District Judges. Also, fast track promotions as Civil Judge (Senior Division) are facilitated with the reduction of service period condition.
Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court issued the following guidelines for filling up of the DJ posts –
- The seniority of officers within the HJS shall be determined through an annual 4-point roster, filled by all officers appointed in the particular year in the repeating sequence of 2 Regular Promotees, 1 LDCE, and 1 DR.
- Only if the recruitment process is completed within the year after which it was initiated and no other appointments, from any of the three sources, have already taken place in respect of the recruitment initiated for that subsequent year, shall the officers belatedly so appointed be entitled to seniority as per the roster of the year in which recruitment was initiated.
- If the recruitment process is not initiated for vacancies arising in a given year in the same year, the candidate filling such vacancy, in subsequent recruitment, shall be granted seniority within the annual roster of the year in which the recruitment process is finally concluded and appointment is made.
- After the recruitment of DRs and LDCEs is complete for a particular year, the positions falling in their quota that remain unfilled due to lack of suitable candidates shall be filled through RPs, subject to such RPs being placed only on subsequent RP positions in the annual roster; and the vacancies in the subsequent year shall be computed so as to apply the proportion of 50:25:25 to the entire cadre.
- The statutory rules governing the HJS in the respective States, in consultation with the High Courts, shall prescribe the exact modalities of the Annual Roster and how the directions of this judgement shall be implemented.
The Court clarified that these guidelines are not intended to resolve any inter-se dispute. The guidelines are general and mandatory to be incorporated into the regulations governing inter-se seniority of higher judicial services.
Bench: Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Presidential Reference | Supreme Court Cannot Prescribe Timelines For President/Governor On Granting Assent To Bills, No 'Deemed Assent'
Case Title: In Re: Assent, Withholding Or Reservation Of Bills By The Governor And The President Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124
Answering the reference made by the President of India, Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, a five-judge bench opined that the Supreme Court cannot impose any timelines for decisions of the President and the Governor on granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
The Court further held that the concept of Courts declaring "deemed assent" to the Bills if the timelines are breached was antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution and against the doctrine of separation of powers. The concept of Courts declaring "deemed assent" is virtually a takeover of the functions reserved for the Governor, the Court said.
At the same time, the Court observed, if there is a prolonged or unexplained delay by the Governor which frustrates the legislative process, then the Court can exercise a limited power of judicial review to direct the Governor to decide in a time-bound manner, without observing anything on the merits of the Bill.
The reference raised 14 questions. They were answered by the Court as follows :
1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Answer -Upon presentation of the bill, the Governor can assent to the bill, withhold assent or reserve for the President's assent. Withholding of the assent must be accompanied by the returning of the Bill to the Assembly as per the first proviso to Article 200. First proviso(which says Bill be returned to the Assembly) is not a fourth option, but qualifies the option of withholding assent. Thus, if assent to the Bill is withheld, then it must necessarily be returned to the Assembly. To permit the Governor to withhold the Bill without returning it to the house will derogate the principle of federalism. The Court rejected the Union's argument that the Governor can simply withhold the Bill without returning to the House.
2. Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Answer - Ordinarily, the Governor exercises functions under the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. But in Article 200, the Governor exercises discretion. The Governor enjoys discretion under Article 200, as indicated by the use of the words "in his opinion" in the second proviso of Article 200.
The Governor has discretion either to return the bill or to reserve the Bill for the President.
3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
Answer - The discharge of Governor's functions under Article 200 is not justiciable. The Court cannot enter into a merit review of the decision so taken. However, in a glaring circumstance of inaction, that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite, the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his functions under Article 200 within a reasonable time period without making any observation on the merits of the exercise of the discretion.
4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Answer: Article 361 is an absolute bar on judicial review. However, it cannot be used to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this Court is empowered to exercise in cases of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200. While the Governor enjoys personal immunity, the office of the Governor is subject to this Court's jurisdiction.
5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?
Answers - Questions 5, 6 and 7 answered together -
The text of Articles 200 and 201, has been framed in such a manner, so as to provide a sense of elasticity, for constitutional authorities to perform their functions, keeping in mind the diverse contexts and situations, and by consequence the need for balancing that might arise in the process of law-making in a federal, and democratic country like ours. The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserves.
In the absence of a Constitutionally prescribed timelimit, it would not be appropriate for this Court to judicially prescribe a timeline for the exercise of powers under Article 200. For similar reasoning as held for the Governor, the President's assent under Article 201 is not justiciable. For the same reason, the President too cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 201.
8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?
Answer: President is not required to seek the advice of the Court every time a Bill is reserved by the Governor. The subjective satisfaction of the President is sufficient. If there is a lack of clarity or need for advice, the President may refer.
9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?
Answer: No. The decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force. Bills can be challenged only if they become the law.
10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
Answer: No. The exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor cannot be substituted by this Court in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We clarify that the Constitution, specifically Article 142, does not allow the concept of "deemed assent" of Bills.
11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Answer: Answered in terms of Question 10's answer. There is no question of a law made by the State Legislature coming into force without the assent of the Governor under Article 200. Governor's legislative role under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another Constitutional authority.
12. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon'ble Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges?
Answer: Returned unanswered as the question is not relevant to the functional nature of this reference.
13. Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extend to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?
Answer: Answered as part of Question 10.
14. Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?
Answer: Not answered as it is found irrelevant.