Supreme Court Monthly Digest September 2025

Citation 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 859 - 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 969 Advocates Act, 1961 - Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa filed a disciplinary complaint against an advocate alleging professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, for obtaining a consent decree without the knowledge of a party and suppressing material facts from the Court – Held, at the stage of cognizance, the Bar Council must record reasons based on a prima facie case of misconduct before referring a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee. A cryptic or laconic reference order without minimum discussion of allegations does not satisfy statutory requirements - The advocate had only endorsed the identification of the plaintiff's authorized representative in the consent terms, which remain undisturbed to date, and had no professional relationship with the complainant. Therefore, proceedings for misconduct were not justified - The Court quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings, holding that the complaint was frivolous and lacked foundation, imposing costs on the Bar Council for dragging the advocate to the Court without merit - The referral of a complaint to the disciplinary committee requires a reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct - Supreme Court imposes Rs. 50,000 cost on Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa for entertaining frivolous compliant against advocates. [Paras 29, 30-42] Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 943 : 2025 INSC 1147 Airports Authorities of India (AAI) - levy of service tax on services rendered in handling export cargo – Held, service tax on services rendered in handling export cargo, ruling that such services fall within the ambit of 'taxable services' under the Finance Act, 1994 - While 'handling of export cargo' is excluded from the definition of 'cargo handling service' under Section 65(23) of the Act, cargo handling service nonetheless qualifies as a 'taxable service' in terms of sub-clause (zzm) of section 65(105) was introduced with effect from September 10, 2024 - Definition of the taxable service is very wide and takes into its fold any kind of service that may be provided to any person by the Airports Authority in any airport - All kinds of services rendered by the Airports Authority in any airport are taxable services and are chargeable to service tax under Section 66 of the Act - Court distinguished between a 'definitional' section and a 'charging' section, stating that mere exclusion in the definitional section, does not preclude liability under charging section - If the service otherwise falls within the sweep of the taxing provision - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 9, 10, 13-21] Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 933 : 2025 INSC 1141 All India Bar Examination (AIBE) - Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging Rs. 3,500 free and other incidental charges levied by the Bar council of India (BCI) for the AIBE - Bar Councils cannot charge more than a statutorily prescribed Rs. 750 for enrolment - Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519 would apply in so far as enrolment fess are concerned - Bar Council of India would incur huge expenses for the purpose of conducting of such examination and if they are charging Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 2,500/- , it cannot be termed as violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution or any of the provisions of the Advocates Act - Petition dismissed. [Paras 2-5] Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 940 All India Football Federation (AIFF) - Disqualification Events - Supreme Court examined 3 main grounds - i. Criminal charges - Disqualification based on framing of charges was diluted, only conviction with a sentence of 2 years or more will disqualify a person; ii. Public servant status - Modified the provision to restrict disqualification to Ministers and Government servants; iii. Tenure in other NSFs - Upheld mandatory cooling-off and term limits as per good governance practices - Directed AIFF to convene a special general body meeting for adoption of the finalized Constitution within 4 weeks - Supreme Court set boundaries for private partnerships, particularly regarding the master rights agreement (MRA), requiring AIFF to maintain ultimate accountability - Commercial arrangements exceeding 4 years or 5 crores requires 75% majority approval - Constitution once adopted shall mark a new beginning for Indian Football. [Relied on BCCI V. Cricket Association of Bihar 2018 9 SCC 624; Para 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 77-78, 122] All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 925 : 2025 INSC 1131 All India Football Federation (AIFF) - Eligibility Criteria for Eminent Players - Fixing eligibility, Supreme Court reduced the threshold suggested by Justice L.N. Rao from 7 to 5 matches for men and from 3 to 2 matches for women, noting the...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest September 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags