100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2025 - Part 4 [76-100]

76. Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea Challenging CJI's Recommendation For His RemovalCase Details: XXX V THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 699/2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 782)The Supreme Court August 7) dismissed the writ petition filed by Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house inquiry report, which indicted him in the case-at-home scandal, as well as the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation made to the President and the Prime Minister for Justice Varma's removal.A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih pronounced the judgment.Pronouncing the judgment, the bench held at the outset that the writ petition cannot be entertained at all, in view of the conduct of Justice Varma in participating in the in-house inquiry and later questioning the competence of the in-house panel to conduct the inquiry.Also from the judgment - CJI Has Authority To Recommend Removal Of Judge While Forwarding In-House Inquiry Report To President & PM : Supreme CourtJustice Yashwant Varma Case | Videos, Photos Shouldn't Have Been Published, But In-House Inquiry Not Vitiated: Supreme Court77. Bar Councils Can't Collect Any Amount As "Optional Fee" During Enrolment : Supreme CourtCase Details: K. L. J. A. KIRAN BABU v. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY RAMESH S NAIK (FDA)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 786The Supreme Court clarified that the Bar Council of India or the State Bar Councils can't collect any fees over and above the statutory fees as "optional fee" for enrolment."We make it clear that there is nothing like optional. No State Bar Council(s) or Bar Council of India shall collect any fees of any amount as optional. They shall strictly collect fees in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the main judgment."The Court affirmed its Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024) judgment that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Therefore, it stated that as stipulated in Section 24, the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs. 750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs. 125 for advocates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories.78. 'Against Equality' : Supreme Court Quashes Army Policy To Reserve Higher Number Of JAG Posts For Men Than WomenCase Details: ARSHNOOR KAUR V UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 772/2023Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 788The Supreme Court today(August 11) struck down a policy of the Indian Army to reserve the posts in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch for men and restricted the number of women who can be appointed to JAG posts."Keeping the above noted analytical framework in consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the practice challenged in the present petition results in indirect indiscrimination. The practice of fixing a ceiling limit to recruitment of female candidates has the effect of perpetuating the status quo, which has been historically discriminatory to women candidates. The result of such practice is confinement of women candidates, irrespective of their performance/merit, in their gendered category, thereby being destructive of not just the Constitutional scheme under Articles 15 and 16 as noted hereinabove, but also of the concept of 'gender-neutrality' and 'merit'."The Court held that the true meaning of gender-neutrality is that all meritorious candidates, irrespective of gender, should be selected. Therefore, it has directed the Union of India and the Indian Army to conduct recruitment in JAG in a manner that there is no bifurcation of seats for any gender, that is, if all female candidates are deserving, all of them should be selected.79. Publish On Website List Of Voters Omitted In Bihar SIR With Reasons; Specify Aadhaar Card Can Be Submitted: Supreme Court Directs ECICase Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (And Connected Cases)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 804The Supreme Court (August 14) directed the Election Commission of India to publish on the websites of the District Electoral Officers the district-wise list of approximately 65 lakh voters who have been omitted from the draft electoral roll published after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive in Bihar. The Court also stated that the reasons for deletion, such as death, migration, double-registration etc, should be specified.This information should also be displayed on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar. The documents should be searchable based on EPIC numbers.Apart from that, the Court also directed the Election Commission to specify in public notices that the excluded persons, at the time of submitting their claims for inclusion in the final list, can also furnish their Aadhaar cards. Wide publicity should be given through newspapers, electronic and social media that the list will be published on website.Supreme...

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2025 - Part 4 [76-100]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags