Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: September 15, 2025 To September 21, 2025

Reports/JudgmentsWaqf Amendment Act 2025 : Supreme Court Stays Certain ProvisionsCase Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | W.P.(C) No. 276/2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 909The Supreme Court stayed certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, while observing that several other provisions did not require any interference at the interim stage.The key points from the interim order passed by the bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih are as follows :1. Stayed the condition that a person should be a practitioner of Islam for at least 5 years till rules are framed by State Governments to provide a mechanism to determine this question. Without such a mechanism, the provision can lead to arbitrariness, the Court said.2. Stayed the provisions allowing the Government to derecognise a Waqf land during the pendency of decision by the Government officer on the dispute of encroachment. SC said allowing the Collector to decide the dispute is against the separation of powers.Till the question of title is decided by the Tribunal or the Court, the disputed Waqf land will not be affected. At the same time, the Court said that no third-party rights should be created on such lands till the dispute is decided.3. Directed that in the Central Waqf Council, the non-Muslim members cannot exceed 4. In State Waqf Boards, the non-Muslim members cannot exceed 3.4. Did not stay the provision allowing a non-Muslim to be the CEO of the State Waqf Board. However, the Court said that as far as possible, a Muslim person should be appointed.5. Did not interfere with the condition of registration.The Court did not interfere with the other major contentious provisions, such as the abolition of 'waqf-by-user', bar on creating waqfs over Scheduled Areas and protected monuments, condition that only Muslims can create Waqfs, application of the Limitation Act to the Waqf Act etc.For Search Without Warrant Under Special Enactments, Recording Of Reasons Is Mandatory : Supreme CourtCase Title: ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 11798 of 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 910The Supreme Court held that in every search conducted under a special enactment without warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is mandatory.The Court noted that Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (S.185 BNSS) mandates the recording of reasons for the belief regarding the existence of incriminating materials and the necessity of imminent search, when a search is carried out without warrant. The Court noted that special enactments like the Legal Metrology Act , the Income Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Central Excise Act, the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc., mandate the observance of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to search and seizure. Hence, the mandate of S.165 CrPC has to be followed."In every search conducted under a special enactment without a warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is mandatory. The reasons necessitating the search must be relevant and must reflect application of mind based on some information – either from a third party or personal knowledge – and cannot be based on mere presumption or extraneous considerations. Such reasons cannot rest on mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction; something more substantial is required for a prudent person to conclude that a search and/or seizure is necessary," the Court observed.Financial Bids In Public Tenders Can't Be Altered After Opening; Sanctity Of Process Can't Be Compromised For More Revenue : Supreme CourtCause Title: Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v. Mandeepa Enterprises and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 911The Supreme Court ruled that once financial bids of the tender are opened, it would not be permissible to rectify the bids. Otherwise, the sanctity of the tendering process would be compromised. The Court reiterated that the mere possibility of accrual of more money would not be a ground to rectify the bid once opened.A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Calcutta High Court Division Bench's decision that had allowed Respondent No.1 to amend its financial bid after the bids were opened. The High Court had assumed the bidder might have mistakenly quoted a per-day rate instead of the total for 1095 days. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this reasoning, stressing that when the tender rules impose an absolute bar on altering bids after opening, any such rectification is impermissible.Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC | Defendant Can't File Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant: Supreme CourtCause Title: Rajul Manoj Shah Alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 912Holding that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC can be filed only against the plaintiff, the Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision ...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: September 15, 2025 To September 21, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags