Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments Of 2025

A Constitution Bench is a bench of at least 5 judges, formed in order to answer sustantial questions arising out of interpreting provisions of the Constution of India. Here are the Constitution bench judgments of 2025 - Appellate Courts Have Power To Modify Arbitral AwardsCase Title: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S ISG Novasoft Technologies LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, held that Appellate Courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under either Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.In the majority judgment, authored by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, the Court held that the Courts can exercise this limited power in the following circumstances:1. When the award is severable by separating the invalid portion from the valid portion of the award.2. To correct any clerical, computation or typographical errors which appear erroneous on the face of the record.3. To modify post-award interest in some circumstances.4. The special powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be applied to modify awards. But this power must be exercised with great caution within the limits of the Constitution.Justice KV Viswanathan dissented, opining that section 34 does not give power to the appellate court to modify post award interest, but merely to set it aside. He further opined that Article 142 cannot be used to modify awards as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act already lays down the procedure, and Article 142 power cannot be used to give a go by to the substantive statutory provision.Bench: Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice KV Viswanathan.Other reports from the judgment - When Can Court Remand Arbitral Award To Tribunal Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act ? Supreme Court ExplainsArticle 142 Can Be Used To Modify Arbitral Awards, Holds Supreme Court; Justice Viswanathan DissentsIf Courts Can Only Set Aside Awards & Can't Modify Them, Parties Will Be Forced To Undergo Fresh Round Of Arbitration : Supreme Court Judicial Officers With 7 Years Combined Experience Eligible For Direct Recruitment As District JudgesCase Title: Rejanish KV v. K Deepa and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that a judicial officer, who has a combined experience of seven years as a judicial officer and an advocate, is eligible to apply for direct appointment as a District Judge.To ensure a level playing field, the Court held that the minimum age of the in-service candidates applying for District Judges' direct recruitment must be 35 years.The Court observed that the state governments will have to frame rules providing eligibility for in-service candidates. The rules should provide that in-service candidates should be eligible if they have a combined experience of 7 years as a judicial officer and advocate.The Court held:(i) Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process;(ii) The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application;(iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, we direct that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years' combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate;(iv) A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution;(v) In order to ensure level playing field, we further direct that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application.(vi) It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right from Satya Narain Singh till Dheeraj Mor (supra), which take a view contrary to what has been held hereinabove do not lay down the correct proposition of law.The Court directed the High Courts and State Governments to amend the rules in terms of the judgment within a period of three months from today.Bench: Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran No Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge PostsCase Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1119A...

Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments Of 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments Of 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers