Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Constitutional Law

75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society. (Para 42 ix) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362 : 2025 INSC 410 Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Judicial Independence - Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 - Legislative Override - The Supreme Court reiterated that an executive or legislative action that frustrates or overturns a mandatory direction or a finding of unconstitutionality previously issued by the Court, without remedying the underlying basis for the declaration of invalidity, amounts to an impermissible legislative override and violates the basic structure doctrine, specifically the principle of judicial independence- held that the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, which contains provisions identical to the previously struck-down Ordinance and sections of the Finance Act, 2017- including the minimum age requirement of fifty years, the truncated four-year tenure for members, and the mandate for the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) to recommend a panel of two names- is invalid as it constitutes a direct attempt to negate binding judicial directions and encroach upon the judicial sphere- clarified that all appointments of Members and Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was completed before the commencement of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, shall be protected- Such appointments will continue to be governed by their respective parent statutes and the conditions of service as laid down in the previous binding judgments, rather than by the truncated tenure and altered service conditions introduced by the 2021 Act. [Relied on Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another (2021) 7 SCC 369; S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124; Paras 84-86, 87-89, 90, 117, 118, 136-141] Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120 : 2025 INSC 1330 Executive Authority vs. Cabinet Policy – Relaxation of Rules – Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding that a valid State Policy adopted by the Cabinet cannot be rescinded by an Executive Officer on mere procedural grounds, such as a Cabinet Memorandum not being routed through the Chief Secretary - Since the Chief Secretary was the Ex-Officio Secretary of the Cabinet and Chairman of the State Level Empowered Committee that cleared the appointments, the State could not plead ignorance or disapproval of the process. [Relied on Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 580; Paras 2-6] State of Assam v. Mukut Ranjan Sarma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1204 Legal Principle (Post-46th Amendment) - Following the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, the principle of 'dominant intention' is irrelevant for levying sales tax on a works contract, as the contract is by legal fiction divisible into a contract for the sale of goods and a contract for labour and services - Held that the 'dominant intention' test for works contracts, is no longer good law - Appeals dismissed. [Larsen and Toubro Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.; overruled-Rainbow Colour Lab & Anr v. State of M.P & Ors. 2014 1 SCC 708, (2000) 2 SCC 385; Paras 132, 154] Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 975 : 2025 INSC 1188 List II in the Seventh Schedule - the event, that is inter-State movement of the goods, which does not amount to inter-State sale, falls within the legislative domain and power of the State Legislature. The State, when it imposes such tax, does not exceed its power to impose tax conferred by the State List as inter-State sale of goods is not being subjected to tax. C.T. Kochouseph v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : 2025 INSC 661 Part III, IV - Article 21 - Forest Act, 1927, Section 29 – Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Sections 2, 3A, 3B – Zudpi Jungle/Forest in Maharashtra – Protected Forests – Sustainable Development – Encroachments – Afforestation – Non-Forestry Use – Compensatory Afforestation – Special Task Force – State Accountability – The Supreme Court, following the T.N. Godavarman judgment (1996), declared Zudpi Jungle lands in Maharashtra as forest lands under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, requiring Central Government approval for any non-forestry use under Section 2. Pre-December 12, 1996, allotments of Zudpi Jungle lands may be regularized without compensatory afforestation or Net Present Value (NPV) payments, subject to State approval under Section 2. Post-December 12, 1996, allotments require Central Government approval, strict compliance...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Constitutional Law

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags