Supreme Court Weekly Digest September [15 - 23, 2025]

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 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 limited pool of retired players - Rejected AIFF's suggestion to include domestic matches, favouring only internationally sanctioned matches. [Paras 40] All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 925 : 2025 INSC 1131 All India Football Federation (AIFF) - Supreme Court upheld inclusion of 15 Eminent Players (minimum 5 women) as voting members in the General Body of AIFF - Held that NSC 2011 provides a carve-out for prominent sportspersons of outstanding merit to have voting rights, overriding the general exclusion under clauses 3.9 and 3.10 - Supreme Court relied on FIFA Statutes 2022 and 2024, Article 111 & standard Statute and an International Centre for Sport Studies report to affirm best practices globally for including various stakeholders. [Paras 25, 30-33] All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 925 : 2025 INSC 1131 Anand Marriage Act, 1909 - Section 6 - Registration of Ananad Karaj - Supreme Court directs States/UTs (17 states and 7 UTs) to register Sikh marriages, make Rules under Anand Marriage Act within 4 months - Held that decades of non-implementation created unequal treatment of Sikh citizens across India and violated the principle of equality - The fidelity of a constitutional promise is measured not only by the rights it proclaims, but by the institutions that make those rights usable - In a secular republic, the State must not turn a citizen's faith into either a privilege or a handicap - When the law recognises Anand Karaj as a valid form of marriage yet leaves no machinery to register it, the promise is only half kept. [Para 8-10] Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 920 : 2025 INSC 1127 Anand Marriage Act, 1909 - Section 6 - Registration of Ananad Karaj - The Supreme Court passed following directions for implementation of Rules regarding the registration of Sikh marriages - i. Every respondent that has not yet notified rules under Section 6 of the Act shall do so within 4 months from today - Rules shall be published in Official Gazette and laid before the State Legislature in terms of Section 6(4) of the Act; ii. With immediate effect and until such rules are notified, each respondent shall ensure that marriages...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest September [15 - 23, 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags