Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: August 25, 2025 to August 31, 2025

Reports/JudgmentsMaharashtra Slum Areas Act | Land Can't Be Acquired Without Extinguishing Owner's Preferential Right To Propose Rehabilitation Scheme : Supreme CourtCase Title: Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others, SLP(C) No.19774/2018Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 832While dealing with acquisition of a parcel of land in Mumbai's Kurla for slum rehabilitation purposes, the Supreme Court held that Chapter I-A of the Slums Act gives preferential right to a landowner, vis-a-vis the State, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), occupiers, and other stakeholders, to redevelop land.The SRA shall mandatorily issue notice to the landowner inviting its proposal for an SR Scheme and the landowner must submit the Slum Rehabilitation (SR) Scheme "within a reasonable period" , the Court said.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh also held that acquisition by the State in terms of Section 14 of the Slums Act [that is, the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971] shall await extinguishment of the landowner's preferential right.No UAPA Offence Over Attending Meetings Of Organisation Which Isn't Banned : Supreme Court Affirms BailCase: Union Of India v. Saleem KhanCitation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 833The Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency challenging the bail granted by the Karnataka High Courtto one Saleem Khan under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act over alleged links with 'Al-Hind' organisation.The Court, noting that 'Al-Hind' was not an organisation banned as per the UAPA, observed that no prima facie offence under the UAPA is attracted if a person is having meetings with it."While dealing with the prayer for bail of accused no.11, Saleem Khan, the High Court noticed that the allegations found in the charge-sheet related to his connections with an organisation by the name of ALHind, which admittedly is not a banned organisation under the schedule to UAPA. Therefore, to say that he was attending meetings of the said organisation, AL-Hind and others would not amount to any prima facie offence," observed the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice KV Viswanathan.If High Court Bench Doesn't Deliver Judgment In 3 Months After Reserving, Registrar Must Place Matter Before Chief Justice : Supreme CourtCase Details: Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State Of U.P.|Slp(Crl) No. 4509-4510/2025Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 834The Supreme Court expressed shock at the manner in which judgments are not being delivered for long period by the High Courts, depriving the litigant to seek appropriate remedy. It reiterated that the guidelines passed by the Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2002), wherein the Court directed that the parties are free to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court for withdrawal of case and to be assigned to a different bench if the judgment is not pronounced within six months after being reserved, must be adhered to properly."It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard. This Court is repeatedly confronted with similar matters wherein proceedings are kept pending in the High Court for more than three months, in some cases for more than six months or years wherein judgments are not delivered after hearing the matter. In most of the High Courts, there is no mechanism where the litigant can approach the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice bringing to its notice the delay in delivery of judgment. In such situation, the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice."Remarking that the principles laid down in Anil Rai must be followed, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said: "We reiterate the directions and direct the Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the Chief Justice of the High Court a list of cases where the judgment reserved is not pronounced within the remaining period of that month and keep on repeating the same for three months. If the judgment is not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing the order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter be assigned to another Bench."Supreme Court Orders SIT Inquiry Into Affairs Of Vantara Wildlife Centre & Acquisition Of AnimalsCase: C R Jaya Sukin V Union Of IndiaCitation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 835The Supreme Court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to inquire into the affairs of Vantara (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre) run by the Reliance Foundation at Jamnagar, Gujarat.The SIT has to inquiry into, among other things, the compliance with the provisions of the Wildlfie Protection Act and other relevant statutes in the acquisition ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: August 25, 2025 to August 31, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags