100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2025 - Part 2 [26-50]

26. Student Suicides | Supreme Court Constitutes National Task Force To Address Mental Health Concerns In CollegesCase Details: Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 341The Supreme Court (March 24) directed the formation of the National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the rising number of suicides in higher educational institutions (HEIs).The Court also held that in the event of any unfortunate incident, such as a suicide occurring on campus, it becomes the unequivocal duty of the institution to promptly lodge an F.I.R. with the appropriate authorities. The Court took note of various reports regarding caste discrimination, ragging and academic pressures driving students to suicide. It reminded that universities are not just centres of learning but institutions responsible for the well-being and holistic development of their students. The Court said that every institution must have a culture of sensitivity and proactive intervention so that every student feels safe, supported, and empowered to pursue their aspirations without fear or discrimination.27.'Judges Must Protect Freedom Of Speech Even If They Don't Like What Was Said': Supreme Court Quashes Gujarat FIR Against Congress MP Over PoemCase Details: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of GujaratCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” in the background.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, allowing the petition filed by Pratapgarhi, observed that no offence was made out.In its judgment, the bench underscored the importance of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and reminded the Courts and the Police of their duty to uphold the rights of persons expressing unpopular opinions.Other reports on the judgment - For 'Promoting Enmity' Offence, Words Must Not Be Judged On Standards Of Insecure People Or Those Seeing Criticism As Threat : Supreme CourtSupreme Court Mandates Preliminary Inquiry Before FIR On Certain Offences Related To Speech & Expressions28. Supreme Court Directs Customs Authorities To Upgrade Lab Facilities For Proper Testing Of Disputed Articles On All ParametersCase Details: Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, KandlaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 366The Supreme Court overturned the confiscation of imported goods labelled as "Base Oil SN 50,"which customs authorities had classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD), which only the State entities can import.The Court found that the Customs Department failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the goods were High-Speed Diesel (HSD), due to inadequate laboratory testing and conflicting expert opinions. In this regard, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh criticized inadequate lab testing facilities, which led to the release of confiscated goods because the customs authorities tested only 8–14 out of 21 IS 1460:2005 (HSD) parameters—insufficient to classify the goods as HSD.Therefore, the Court directed the Respondents to upgrade lab facilities within six months to ensure full IS-standard testing and prevent future disputes.29. Giving Arrest Memo Not Same As Supplying Grounds Of Arrest: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arrest & RemandCase Details: Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh | Criminal Appeal No. 1518 /2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 367The Supreme Court set aside the arrest and remand for an appellant in the light of the decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), which held that supplying grounds of arrest in writing as prescribed under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires mandatory compliance, lest the arrest and remand will stands vitiated in the eyes of the law.A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal held that what was furnished to the arrestee was an arrest memo, which did not contain any worthwhile particulars, such as the charges framed against him. It only contained the name of the accused and the place of arrest and stated that he was arrested based on the statement of the co-accused. "We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him. This, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment, particularly, in light of the judgment rendered by this Court reported as Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2024) 8 SCC 254."30. Wife Can Claim Maintenance From Husband Even If She Doesn't Live With Him As Per Decree On Conjugal Rights Restitution: Supreme CourtCase Details: Rina Kumari @ Rina...

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2025 - Part 2 [26-50]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK