Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 17, 2025 To November 23, 2025

JudgmentsSupreme Court Directs Uttarakhand To Restore Ecological Damage In Corbett Tiger Reserve, Demolish Illegal ConstructionsCase Details: In Re: CorbettCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112The Supreme Court has issued a detailed set of directions to restore the Corbett Tiger Reserve following large-scale illegal constructions, roadworks and tree felling that took place during the establishment of the Pakhrau Tiger Safari. Accepting the recommendations of the Expert Committee constituted in March 2024, the Court ordered the State of Uttarakhand to begin demolition of all unauthorised structures within three months and to file a compliance affidavit within one year.The judgment forms the latest chapter in the continuing proceedings stemming from theCourt's March 2024 decision in the T N Godavarman case, where the Bench had flagged serious ecological damage inside Corbett and called for expert evaluation, CBI investigation and disciplinary action against the officials involved.Supreme Court Issues Directions On Tiger Safaris, Directs States To Notify ESZs Around Tiger ReservesCase Details: In Re: CorbettCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112The Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions regarding Tiger Safaris, the management of Tiger Reserves and the protection of sensitive tiger landscapes.Accepting the findings of the Expert Committee constituted after the Corbett Tiger Reserve violations came to light, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar has issued mandatory directives that all States must now implement within strict timelines.Supreme Court Directs States To Consider Treating Human-Wildlife Conflict As 'Natural Disaster', Orders Rs 10 Lakh Ex Gratia To VictimsCase Details: In Re: CorbettCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112The Supreme Court has directed all States to actively consider classifying human-wildlife conflict as a "natural disaster" and to ensure payment of Rs 10 lakh ex gratia for every human death caused in such incidents. The Court said this uniform compensation is mandatory, as fixed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the CSS Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats scheme.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar passed the directions while considering the issues related to the Jim Corbett tiger park in Uttarakhand.When Witnesses Examined Virtually, Their Prior Statements Must Be Electronically Transmitted To Them : Supreme Court To Trial CourtsCase Details: Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of DelhiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1113Delivering a significant judgment (November 17), the Supreme Court issued a binding directive to rectify a critical procedural gap in virtual trials. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta mandated that in all proceedings where a witness is examined via video conferencing, the trial court must facilitate the electronic transmission of the witness's prior statements to them.This measure, the Court said addresses the "procedural irregularity" that disadvantaged the defence, which was often unable to effectively cross-examine a witness because the document containing their prior inconsistent statement could not be physically presented in the virtual setting.Thus, recognizing the accused's right to fair cross-examination of a witness, the Court directed that “in every case where, it is proposed to record the statement of a witness over video conferencing and any previous written statement of such witness or a matter in writing is available and the party concerned is desirous of confronting the witness with such previous statement/matter in writing, the trial Court shall ensure that a copy of the statement/document is transmitted to the witness through electronic transmission mode and the procedure provided under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (corresponding Section 144 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act) is followed in the letter and spirit, so as to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the trial.”If Witness Had Opportunity To See Accused Before TIP, Test Identification Proceedings Not Reliable : Supreme CourtCase Details: Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of DelhiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1113The Supreme Court (November 17) acquitted a man accused of murdering an elderly man during a robbery. The Court discarded the sole eyewitness's identification of the accused, made nearly eight years after the incident, noting that it could not inspire confidence because of her weak eyesight and subsequent improvements in testimony.“Once her identification of the accused-appellant in Court is discarded, no substantive evidence remains on record to connect the accused with the crime.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, pointing out that the dock identification was unreliable as it was undertaken years after the incident, having substantial improvements and material...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 17, 2025 To November 23, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags