Home
/

Top Stories
/
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up:...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: March 03, 2025 To March 09, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

11 March 2025 10:08 AM IST

Reports/Judgments

'None Should Be Excluded From Judicial Service Only Because Of Disability' : Supreme Court Strikes Down MP Rule Barring Visually Impaired Candidates

Case Details: In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services v. The Registrar General The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, SMW(C) No. 2/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274

The Supreme Court held that no person can be denied consideration for recruitment in the judicial service solely on account of their physical disabilities.

The Court held that persons with disabilities must not face any discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service recruitments and that the State must provide them affirmative action to ensure an inclusive framework. "Any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of Person with Disabilitiess, whether through cutoff or procedural barriers must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality," the Court pronounced.

"No candidate can be denied consideration solely on account of their disability," the Court stated. Accommodation must be provided to them while assessing their eligibility in terms of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Holding so, the Supreme Court struck down a rule of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules to the extent it barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service.

The Court emphatically held that "visually impaired and low vision candidates are eligible to participate in the selection for posts under the judicial service.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the verdict in a suo motu case regarding Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules 1994.

'Breastfeeding In Public & Work Places Shouldn't Be Stigmatised' : Supreme Court Issues Directions Regarding Nursing & Child Care Rooms

Case Details: Maatr Sparsh An Initiative By Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No.950/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 275

While asking the States/Union Territories to act upon an advisory issued by the Union Government regarding the creation of feeding and child care rooms in public buildings, the Supreme Court observed that the practice of breastfeeding in public places and workplaces should not be stigmatised.

"It would not be wrong at this instance to remind the citizens of this nation of their duty to “renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women”, as enshrined in Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India. Over and above the duty of the State to facilitate the exercise of the right of nursing mothers to breast-feed their children, the citizens must ensure that the practice of breastfeeding in public places and at workplaces is not stigmatized."

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and P.B. Varale pronounced the judgment in a petition seeking directions to construct feeding and child care rooms and creche at public spaces and buildings.

Washing & Dry Cleaning Of Clothes 'Manufacturing Process' Under Factories Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 276

The Supreme Court ruled that activities such as washing, cleaning, and dry-cleaning fall within the definition of "manufacturing process" under the Factories Act, 1948, even if they do not result in the creation of a new tangible product.

Holding so, the Court added that the laundry business constitutes a "factory" under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 (“Act”) if they employ 10 or more workers and laundry work is carried out with the aid of power-operated machines used for cleaning and washing clothes.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing the appeal filed by the State of Goa against the High Court's decision to quash the JMFC's order, which issued process against the respondent for violations of the Factories Act, 1948.

Court Shouldn't Discard Expert's Opinion Regarding Child's Decision-Making Capacity Merely Based On Direct Interaction: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 277

The Supreme Court ruled that in child custody matters, when there is uncertainty about the child's ability to make independent decisions, expert opinions confirming a disability should be prioritized over inferences drawn from direct interactions with the child.

The Court emphasized the importance of relying on expert medical assessments to determine the capacity of individuals with disabilities to make independent decisions. It ruled that when a specialist's expert opinion confirms a child's inability to make independent decisions, custody decisions should not be based on the child's implied or express consent, as it could have significant consequences for the child.

Granting Bail In Dowry Death Cases Despite Evidence Of Direct Involvement Shakes Public Confidence In Judiciary : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shabeen Ahmed v. State of UP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to a father-in-law and a mother-in-law in a case of alleged dowry death of their daughter-in-law, after observing that there was prima facie evidence regarding dowry demand and domestic violence.

"When a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness," the Court said criticising the High Court's "mechanical approach" in granting bail.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the case records suggested that the victim underwent extreme brutality in connection with a pattern of dowry demands. The Court warned that casually granting bail to accused in such cases will shake the public confidence in the judiciary given the broad societal impact of dowry death cases.

'Hard To Believe Highly Qualified Woman Allowed Man To Sexually Exploit Her For 16 Years On Marriage Promise' : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

Case Details: Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 279

The Supreme Court quashed a criminal proceeding against a man who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman, with whom he had a 16-year-old consensual sexual relationship, on a false pretext of marriage.

The Court reaffirmed that a mere breach of a marriage promise does not constitute rape unless it is proven that the accused never intended to marry the woman from the outset of the relationship.

The Court expressed surprise that the complainant, a highly educated and well-established adult, did not report the alleged sexual assaults for over a decade, raising doubts about the credibility of her claims. It noted that she filed the FIR only after the accused married another woman, suggesting an ulterior motive to harass him.

Calling Someone "Miyan-Tiyan” & “Pakistani" In Poor Taste But Doesn't Amount To Offence Of Hurting Religious Sentiments : Supreme Court

Case Details: Hari Nandan Singhv v. State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 280

The Supreme Court observed that calling a man "Miyan-Tiyan" and "Pakistani" would be in poor taste, but would not amount to an offence of hurting his religious sentiment.

Discharging a person of the charge under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code(Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), the Court said :

"The appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani.” Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant."

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was considering an appeal filed against a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which refused to discharge the appellant.

'Hangman's Noose Be Taken Off, Let Him Be In Prison Till End' : Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Father Who Killed Children

Case Details: Ramesh A. Naika v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Citing factors such as lack of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man accused of killing his two minor children to life imprisonment without remission.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that the death sentence should be awarded in “rarest of rare” cases after a thorough consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Because the appellant had no criminal antecedents, had good relations with his family before the incident, and other mitigating circumstances were not considered by the Courts below, the Court relying on the precedents like Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 and Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of U.P deemed it appropriate to commute the death sentence to a life imprisonment without remission which means that the appellant have to spent rest of his life in jail.

“We direct that the hangman's noose be taken off the appellant-convict's neck, and instead that he remains in prison till the end of his days given by God Almighty.”, the Court observed.

'No Evidence' : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Ex-Indian Army Officer; Notes Complainant Filed 8 Other Rape Cases

Case Details: Rakesh Walia v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr | SLP (Crl.) No. 14850 of 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 282

The Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings in a rape case against a former Indian Army officer, Rakesh Walia, after finding the complaint to be unbelievable.

The Court found that the complaint was nothing but an "abuse of the process of law", because apart from her statements, there was no evidence on record. Moreover, the Court found that the same complainant had filed eight other identical FIRs against different individuals across different police stations in Delhi but refused to cooperate after the police began the investigation.

"Apart from her statement in the FIR and her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (as per new act, under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), there is no other evidence on record. However, what is most concerning before this Court is that the same respondent has filed nearly identical cases at least against eight other individuals (nine cases in total). These FIRs, lodged in different Police Stations across Delhi, involve offenses under Sections 34, 328, 354, 354A, 354D, 376, 377, 506, and 509 of IPC. Additionally, we have been informed that after lodging the FIR, the complainant has not cooperated with the investigation and has not appeared before this Court despite being served with notice."

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran observed that this was a fit case where the Delhi High Court should have exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) to quash the proceedings.

Specific Relief Act | Appellate Court Must Specify Time Period To Deposit Sale Consideration For Specific Performance: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ram Lal v. Jarnail Singh (Now Deceased) Through Its Lrs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 283

The Supreme Court advised Appellate Courts to specify the time limit for depositing the balance sale consideration, as required under Order XX Rule 12A of the CPC, in cases of specific performance involving the sale or lease of immovable property.

Order XX Rule 12A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) states that where a decree for the specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property orders that the purchase-money or other sum be paid by the purchaser or lessee, the court shall specify the period within which the payment shall be made.

The Court ruled that due to operation of doctrine of merger, the decree passed by the trial court specifying the time limit to deposit the balance sale consideration gets merged with the Appellate Court's order, and if the Appellate Court fails to specify the time limit to deposit the balance sale consideration, it would be unjust to deny execution of the decree just because there was belated deposit of balance sale consideration.

IBC Moratorium Does Not Bar Execution Of Penalties Imposed Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284

The Supreme Court (March 4) ruled that an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not apply to penalty proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”).

The Court explained that Section 79(15) of the IBC excludes certain liabilities, such as fines and penalties, from the moratorium's effect. As a result, penalties imposed by Consumer Redressal Forums under the regulatory statutes like the CP Act do not fall within the scope of the moratorium.

“The present case does not involve a mere financial dispute but concerns the enforcement of consumer rights through regulatory penalties. Given that the legislative intent behind the CP Act is to ensure compliance with consumer welfare measures, staying such penalties would be contrary to public policy. Further, the appellant cannot invoke insolvency proceedings as a shield to evade statutory liabilities. The objective of the IBC is to provide a mechanism for resolving financial distress, not to nullify obligations arising under regulatory statutes.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale delivered the verdict where the property builder, who faced multiple penalties (27 in total) imposed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) for failing to deliver possession of residential units to homebuyers within the agreed timeline, filed the appeal cotnteding that since aapplication under Section 95 of the IBC has been filed against them triggering an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC, the penalties cannot be enforced against them.

Supreme Court Wonders Why NCLAT Wrote Long Order On Delay Condonation Application Despite High Pendency

Case Details: Power Infrastructure India v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 285

The Supreme Court expressed surprise that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), despite having a high pendency of cases, devoted extensive time and effort to writing a 17-page order on a delay condonation application.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that lengthy submissions and pleadings by members of the Bar often contribute to unnecessarily verbose orders.

“We wonder why the NCLAT which has a high pendency should devote so much of time and energy in writing an order running into 17 pages for considering the application for condonation of delay. While we say this, we cannot ignore that some times, such long orders are required to be written due to verbose and unnecessary long submissions of the members of the Bar. We find from the decisions after decisions which come before us that in many cases, the members of the Bar make very lengthy submissions before the NCLAT and file lengthy pleadings and affidavits in an application for the condonation of delay”, the Court observed.

S. 141 NI Act | Non-Executive & Independent Company Directors Not Liable For Cheque's Dishonour : Supreme Court

Case Details: K. S. Mehta v. M/S Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 286

The Supreme Court reiterated that non-executive and independent directors of a company cannot be held vicariously liable for the company's obligations under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), unless their direct involvement in the company's financial transactions is established.

The Court held that merely holding the position of the non-executive and independent director of the company would not make them liable for the company's default unless their active involvement is proved. It added that only directors responsible for the day-to-day affairs and business operations of the company can be made liable for the company's default.

“This Court has consistently held that non-executive and independent director(s) cannot be held liable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act unless specific allegations demonstrate their direct involvement in affairs of the company at the relevant time.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma provided relief to the Appellants, who were non-executive directors of the company, quashing a criminal proceeding against them registered under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act.

S. 45 Evidence Act | Opinion Of Handwriting Expert Must Be Treated With Caution : Supreme Court

Case Details: C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D, Chennai

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 287

The Supreme Court observed that while expert evidence may not always require corroboration, courts must exercise caution when relying on expert testimony particularly the handwriting expert due to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved the fabrication of a mark sheet used for admission to an MBBS course.

S.306 IPC | Suicide Note Alone Insufficient For Conviction Unless Its Proved There Was Incitement By Accused Proximate To Death : Supreme Court

Case Details: Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man accused of committing an offence of abetment of suicide by blackmailing the deceased using compromising photographs and videos.

The Court observed that for invoking the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution must prove instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid with a clear mens rea to abet suicide. Mere harassment or differences are not sufficient unless there is a proximate act leading to suicide, the court said.

"Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence," the Court observed.

Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Transfer Complaint, Raise Objection Before Magistrate : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Kamal Enterprises v. A. K. Constructions Co

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 289

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking transfer of various cheque dishonour complaints against the petitioner observing that the lack of territorial jurisdiction of court in which complaint is filed cannot be a ground to transfer the complaint to another court.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a petition seeking transfer of 22 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a company from Varanasi, UP to Mumbai, Maharashtra.

“The contention of the petitioners is that the trial court before which complaints have been filed by the respondents has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The petitioners are entitled to raise the said contention before the learned trial magistrate who is empowered to return the complaint for presentation to proper court if the magistrate is satisfied that the court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, this ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be considered in transfer petition”, the Court held.

O 39 R 2A CPC | Even If Injunction Order Was Subsequently Set Aside, Party Remains Liable For Its Prior Violation : Supreme Court

Case Details: Smt Lavanya C & Anr v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deseased By Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 290

The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent setting aside of an injunction order would not preclude the courts from holding the party guilty of disobedience of the committed during the pendency of the order.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol delivered the ruling in the context of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, which specifies the mechanism to take action against those who disobey injunction orders or other orders made under Order 39 CPC Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

The Court emphasized that a party remains liable for violating an injunction order while it was in force, even if the order is later set aside.

The Court also held that given the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and a client, an advocate cannot provide an undertaking without explicit authorization from the client.

'Courts Shouldn't Hesitate To Deny Liberty To Accused If Necessary For Corruption-Free Society' : Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

Case Details: Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of anticipatory bail to a public servant accused of demanding illegal gratification.

The Court held that in serious offenses like corruption, courts must exercise caution when granting anticipatory bail to uphold public confidence in the justice system. It emphasized that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional cases where there is a prima facie indication of false implication or frivolous allegations.

"Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice," observed the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

S.138 NI Act Complaint Cannot Be Transferred Under S.406 CrPC For Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Shri Sendhuragro and Oil Industries Pranab Prakash v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. | T.P.(Crl.) No. 608/2024 and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 292

The Supreme Court held that a case under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act) cannot be transferred from one place to another for the lack of jurisdiction under Section 406(Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Also From Judgment: NI Act Allows Filing Of Cheque Dishonour Complaint At Place Of Payee Bank; Accused Can't Seek Transfer Citing Inconvenience: Supreme Court

When Can Criminal Trial Be Transferred From One State Under S.406 CrPC? Supreme Court Explains

Courts To Dispose Execution Petitions Within 6 Months, Presiding Officer Liable On Failure : Supreme Court

Case Details: Periyammal (Dead Thr. Lrs.) and Ors v. v. Rajamani and Anr. Etc | SLP(C) No. 8490-8492/2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 293

The Supreme Court today(March 6) directed all High Courts to call for information on all pending execution petitions in the district judiciary. It passed the directions after observing that the executing Courts are taking three to four years to pass appropriate orders, thereby, frustrating the entire decree which is in the favour of the decree-holder.

The Court directed the High Courts to issue an administrative circular asking the trial courts to ensure that pending execution petitions are decided within six months. On failure to do so, the Presiding Officer will be answerable to the High Court on the administrative side.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that in Rahul S Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021), the Court had directed that the execution proceedings be completed within six months fromthe date of filing. Same direction was reiterated in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors.(2022). Despite these directions, execution petitions are facing inordinate delays, the Court lamented.

The Court also observed that an application filed under Section 47 of CPC relating to the determination of questions related to the execution of the decree would be deemed as an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property.

No Illegality In Considering S.319 CrPC Application After Trial Based On HC's Revision Order : Supreme Court

Case Details: Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 294

In a key ruling on Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court held that while the power to summon an additional accused must be exercised before the trial concludes, if a pre-trial application for summoning is rejected and the High Court, in revision, sets aside the rejection and orders reconsideration, the application cannot be dismissed solely because it was heard after the trial ends. The Court ruled that it relates back to the original pre-trial rejection order.

“What can be discerned from the aforesaid is that if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction either setting aside or modifying the order of the Trial Court for the purpose of Section 319, the same would relate back to the original order passed by the Trial Court and substitute it to the extent of modification.”, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said.

High Court Can't Direct ED To Register ECIR Merely On Prima Facie Finding That Predicate Offence Existed : Supreme Court

Case Details: P Madhavan Pillai v. Rajendran Unnithan and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 295

The Supreme Court set aside a direction passed by the Kerala High Court to the Enforcement Directorate to register a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in an alleged Co-operative bank fraud case.

The High Court could not have passed a "drastic order" to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) merely on the basis of a prima facie conclusion that a predicate offence has been committed.

"High Court had no reason to pass a drastic order of directing the ED to register an ECIR only because the High Court prima facie came to a conclusion that a predicate offence exists," observed a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The bench also set aside the ECIR which was registered on the basis of the High Court's direction.

The bench left it to the ED to take a call on the question of initiating proceedings under the PMLA.

Every Document Pertaining To An Election Is Important, All Efforts Should Be Made To Preserve Them : Supreme Court

Case Details: Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 296

Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same, observed the Supreme Court.

The Court made this observation in the context of an election of a Gram Pradhan in a village in Uttar Pradesh, which was held in 2021. There were disputes regarding the final count of votes polled and the Presiding Officers' records were missing. Therefore, the Court observed that the final counts was in the realm of questionability.

The diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, which is an essential document recording the casting of votes, could not be found despite a concerted effort, the Court noted.

While ordering a recount, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh observed :

"The candidates in the election wanting to keep an eye on voting during the day and inspect records of the same is something which cannot be denied to them. If the Presiding Officers' records are missing and cannot be verified, it can be found that the final conclusion is within the realm of questionability. Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same."

The Court also observed that in an election, each vote has its own value, irrespective of its effect in the final outcome of the election and hence its sanctity has to be protected.

Refusal Of Alleged Rape Victim To Allow Medical Examination Raises Negative Inference Against Her : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 297

The Supreme Court has reiterated that adverse inference can be drawn against a woman, who is alleged to be a victim in a rape case, if she refuses medical examination.

"It is a well-settled proposition of law that non- allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape- victim raises negative inferences against them," the Court observed, referring to Dola v. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was deciding an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against a judgment of the High Court which acquitted the accused in a rape case.

Orders

'Caste Certificate Seems To Be Big Problem In Tamil Nadu; There Appears To Be A Huge Racket' : Supreme Court

Case Details: The Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer v. B Pradeepa | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27890/2019

The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation regarding the existence of a "huge racket" in the State of Tamil Nadu which was behind issuing bogus caste certificates.

The Court made this observation while dealing with a batch of cases concerning the certificates issued to thousands of persons certifying them to be belonging to the Hindu Konda Reddis Community in Tamil Nadu.

"Caste Certificate seems to be a big big problem in the State of Tamil Nadu. It appears that thousands of such certificates have been issued certifying people to be members of the Hindu Konda Reddis Community falling within the Scheduled Tribe," the Court observed.

"For the present, we do not level any allegations but prima facie it appears to be a huge racket. This is something extremely dangerous," the Court added.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing a batch of petitions in which the certificates were issued certifying several persons as members of the Hindu Konda Reddis Community, designated as a Scheduled Tribe.

The Supreme Court ordered a State Level Scrutiny Committee to inquire into the genuineness of the certificates and submit its report in order for the Court to decide these matters.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail 'On Trial Basis' To Ex-Civil Servants In Chhattisgarh Coal Levy Scam Case

Case Details: Ranu Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 015941 - / 2024 and connected matters.

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to ex-civil servants Saumya Chaurasia, Ranu Sahu and other accused persons in the Chhattisgarh Coal Levy Scam Case.

The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was hearing the challenge to the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated November 4, 2024, which dismissed the bail applications of the petitioners.

The Court granted interim bail in order to maintain an equilibrium between the petitioners' personal liberty and the investigating agency's efficient administration.

India's Got Latent Row | Supreme Court Allows Ranveer Allahabadia To Resume His Show In A Manner Which All Age Groups Can Watch

Case Details: Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025

The Supreme Court lifted the restriction imposed on YouTuber & Podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia on airing shows.

The Court allowed him to resume his show "The Ranveer Show" subject to furnishing an undertaking that his own shows will maintain the standards of decency and morality, so that viewers of any age group can watch.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh also ordered that his shows should not comment upon the proceedings which are sub-judice before the Court.

During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant seemingly expressed disapproval of articles decrying the criminal action against Allahabadia and defending his freedom of speech and expression.

'Approach HC': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Contempt Petition Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Accused Persons' Houses In Gujarat

Case Details: Mujahid Nafees v. Pankaj Joshi and Ors., Diary No. 6547-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition assailing demolition action stated to have been carried out by Ahmedabad authorities against houses of persons accused of crimes in violation of the Court's November 13 judgment.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, asking the petitioner, who claimed that the authorities were guilty of contempt of Court, to approach the Gujarat High Court for relief.

Supreme Court Directs Delhi HC & District Bar Assns To Not Defer Elections Beyond Mar 21; Asks NGT Bar Assn To Conclude Elections By Mar 31

Case Details: D.K. Sharma and Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., C.A. No. 10496-10497/2024

The Supreme Court ordered that the Delhi High Court and District Bar Association elections, which are scheduled to be held on March 21, shall be held on the scheduled date and not be deferred any further.

The Court further directed that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Bar Association shall hold and conclude its elections by 31 March, 2025.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order

Supreme Court Castigates Lawyer For Threatening Suicide If Adverse Order Was Passed, Seeks Written Apology

The Supreme Court warned a lawyer for threatening to commit suicide during a hearing on his petition seeking to quash a criminal complaint against him filed by another lawyer.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed shock at the lawyer's conduct and recorded its disapproval of the lawyer's conduct, stating,

“Today in the morning when the petition was called out, the first petitioner who is member of the Bar appeared through VC and stated that while quashing the offence against him, if the court quashes the FIR registered by him against the second respondent, he will commit suicide. We are shocked to record such conduct on part of member of the Bar.”

The bench asked the petitioner to submit a written apology along with an undertaking not to repeat such conduct in the future.

“Now in the afternoon, the first petitioner appears and apologizes. However, we expect the first petitioner to tender written apology and undertaking not to repeat such submissions. We are not forcing the first petitioner to tender apology in writing and give assurance as stated above, but we make it clear that on his failure to do so necessary consequences in terms of law will follow”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Stays Recruitment Process Of Judicial Magistrates In Gujarat Without Minimum Practice Condition

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

The Supreme Court today(March 3) stayed the recruitment process of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC), Civil Judge-Junior Division, in Gujarat. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Gujarat High Court allowing the recruitment process to proceed without any requirement of minimum number of years of practice as a lawyer. It pertains to recruitment through an advertisement issued on January 30.

The advertisement issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission did not prescribe that the candidate should have any qualification of minimum number of years of practice as an advocate. The Supreme Court said that it has reserved judgment on the issue whether freshers should be permitted to apply for entry level posts in judicial service. That being so, the High Court should not have allowed the recruitment, when the Supreme Court is seized of the issue, observed a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Plea To Regulate Private Hospitals' Medicine Charges : Supreme Court Leaves Issue For States' Policy Decision

Case Details: Siddharth Dalmia and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No.337/ 2018

In a public interest litigation assailing private hospitals' compulsion of patients/attendants to purchase medicines/implants/medical devices only from pharmacies run or recommended by them, which allegedly charge rates higher than notified market rates, the Supreme Court directed all State Governments to consider the issue and take policy decisions as they deem fit.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh disposed of the matter, ordering, "We dispose of this petition with direction to all state governments to consider this issue and take appropriate policy decision as they deem fit".

Supreme Court Asks Akali Leader Bikram Singh Majithia To Appear Before Punjab Police For Investigation In Drugs Case

Case Details: The State of Punjab v. Bikram Singh Majithia | SLP(Crl) No. 3650/2023

The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia to appear before the Punjab Police on March 17 for interrogation in a drugs case.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the Punjab Police against the order of the High Court granting regular bail to Majithia.

"The authorities may interrogate on these issues and complete the investigation. He will continue to appear on the date as and when required," the Court ordered.

“How Will Jaipur Become A Smart City By Destroying Jal Mahal?” Supreme Court Criticizes Municipal Body

Case Details: Nagar Nigam Heritage Jaipur & Anr. v. Rajendra Tiwari & Ors.

The Supreme Court criticized the Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Heritage) for allowing pollution in Jal Mahal Lake, questioning how the city can aspire to be a Smart City while destroying the water body.

“Today we see the Commissioner appearing online with the name board of Smart City behind him. We wonder how the city of Jaipur will become a Smart City by destroying Jal Mahal lake”, the Court remarked.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval, noting that untreated sewage and rainwater from the municipal corporation's headquarters were being discharged into the lake. The court also noted that the corporation had expanded sewage lines into natural drains flowing from the forest into the lake, further damaging its ecosystem.

The court directed the municipal corporation to appoint the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) within a week to prepare a detailed report on immediate pollution control measures and long-term strategies for the lake's preservation.

'Can't Be “Operation Successful-Patient Dead” Case' : Supreme Court Issues Notice To Telangana Speaker Over Delay In Plea To Disqualify BRS MLAs

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. The State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025

In Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs' pleas against Telangana Assembly Speaker's delay in deciding disqualification petitions in respect of party MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress, the Supreme Court questioned the impact of long pendency of disqualification petitions on democratic principles.

"Every matter can't be operation successful, patient dead...reasonable period (for deciding disqualification pleas) should be end of the term!? In a democracy, this process should go on endlessly till the end of the term? What happens to democratic principles then?", remarked Justice BR Gavai, in the backdrop of Telangana Assembly Speaker's delay in deciding disqualification petitions.

"People are not interested only in getting the law decided, they are interested in how the decision affects [them]", the judge added.

The observations came after BRS and its MLAs pointed out that the disqualification petitions against its MLAs (who defected to Congress) have been pending since more than 6 months, but nothing has happened.

States' Failure To Develop Medical Infrastructure Facilitated Growth Of Private Hospitals: Supreme Court

Case Details: Siddharth Dalmia and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No.337/ 2018

In a PIL raising the issue of private hospitals' alleged compulsion of patients to buy medicines etc. from only the hospital-recommended pharmacies, the Supreme Court deprecated states across the country over their failure to provide adequate health infrastructure.

This failure, the Court said, has led to the setting up of private hospitals (albeit renowned and specialized) to cater to the needs of all kind of patients.

"...in proportion to the population of this country, the states have not been able to develop the requisite medical infrastructure to cater the needs of all kinds of patients. The states have therefore facilitated and promoted private entities to come forward in the medical field, as a result of which, numerous renowned private hospitals, well known for their specialties, and which are no less than any hospital [all over] the globe, have been setup through the country...Not only the people, even the state also look for these private entities to provide basic and specialized medical facilities to the public at large", observed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.

'Institutional Lacunae Undermines Climate Action, Coordinated Effort Of Various Ministries Needed' : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India | Civil Appeal No(s). 388/2021

Various Ministries overseeing environmental issues appear to be working in "silos", observed the Supreme Court, while expressing a concern that "institutional lacuna undermines comprehensive climate action and engenders accountability deficit."

The Court also observed that a reassessment of existing statutes, such as the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and other similar legislations is necessary with a view to incorporate climate-centric enforceable mandates.

The Court further said that various regulatory bodies, such as the Pollution Control Boards, often grapple with fiscal constraints.

The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra made these significant observations while hearing a PIL filed by child-activist, Ridhima Pandey on the issue of carbon emissions and their impact on the environment.

Considering the significance of coordinated efforts for measures against increased carbon emissions, the Supreme Court sought responses from eight major Union Ministries related to environment policies.

'Will Hold Chief Secretaries Personally Liable' : Supreme Court Warns States/UTs Which Haven't Formed Expert Committees To Identify Forest Areas

Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd) and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1164/2023

The Supreme Court came down heavily on States/Union Territories for not complying with its earlier directions to constitute expert committees for the identification of forest areas.

If the non-compliant States fail to constitute the Expert Committees within one month and carry out the exercise in terms of Rule 16(1) of Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023 within six months, the Chief Secretaries and Administrators of the States/UTs shall be held personally accountable, the Court said.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order.

'No Reason Recorded' : Supreme Court Sets Aside BCI Order Dismissing Complaint Against Law Firm, Directs Reconsideration

Case Details: Sailesh Bhansali v. Alok Dhir and others | Civil Appeal Diary No. 36274/2024

The Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Bar Council of India dismissing a revision petition filed by a litigant alleging professional misconduct by Advocates Alok Dhir and Maneesha Dhir, partners of law firm Dhir & Dhir Associates.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan noted that without recording "any reason at all", the BCI rejected the revision petition filed against the order passed by the Bar Council of Delhi which dismissed the complaint.

Even if an order of affirmation does not require elaborate reasons, it cannot be that no reason at all need be recorded, the Court said.

Supreme Court Slams Punjab Govt For Disowning Undertaking Given By Addl Advocate General, Hauls Up Chief Secretary

Case Details: Rajnish Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Punjab for attempting to distance itself from an undertaking given by its Additional Advocate General in 2002 assuring the Court that the state will implement the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1986. The state had claimed that the undertaking was by the officer and not by the State Government.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh issued notice to Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for the breach of the undertaking given to the High Court.

CAMPA Funds Diverted To Buy iPhones, Laptops In Uttarakhand, Reports CAG; Supreme Court Seeks State Chief Secretary's Affidavit

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995

Taking serious view of alleged misutilization of CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) funds, which are meant for improving the green cover across the country, the Supreme Court called on the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand to explain why said funds were utilized for inadmissible purposes (including purchase of iPhones, laptops, etc.).

"The CAMPA fund is to be utilized for increasing the green cover. Utilization of the same for non-admissible activities and not depositing the interest as per the Act with the SCAF is a matter of serious concern. We therefore direct the Chief Secretary of the State to file an affidavit on these aspects by the next date", the Court said.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, taking note of a news report brought to its notice by Amicus Curiae K Parmeswar, as per which a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) had revealed that Uttarakhand forest authorities diverted funds meant for compensatory afforestation to the purchase of iPhones, laptops, fridges and coolers; renovation of buildings; court cases, etc.

'How State Government & Its Department Can Engage Two Separate Advocates?' Supreme Court Questions Delhi Government

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

Expressing shock over the forest department's lawyer, the Court stated how two different advocates can appear for the same government.

In this regard, the Court directed “the Registry to immediately communicate this order to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Delhi who shall personally ensure that compliance is made with our order dated 17th January, 2025 within a maximum period of three weeks from today.”

Expressing shock over the forest department's lawyer, the Court stated how two different advocates can appear for the same government.

Further, the bench clarified that “if compliance is not made within the time stipulated, an action under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 will be initiated against the concerned officers of the Government of Delhi.”

Supreme Court Directs States To Immediately Pay Salaries And Perquisites To Consumer Forum Members As Per Existing Rules

Case Details: In Re Pay Allowance of Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The Supreme Court has directed all state governments to immediately pay the salary and perquisites of the Chairpersons and Members of the State and District Consumer Dispute Resolution Commissions as per existing Rules.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh passed this order while hearing a batch of cases related to the salaries and service conditions of Consumer Forum members. The Court noted the grievance of some petitioners that in some states, the salary and perquisites of Consumer Forum members were not being paid even as per the prevailing Rules.

Supreme Court Orders Tree Census In Taj Trapezium Zone, Directs Forest Research Institute To Conduct Survey

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court ordered a tree census in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) to ensure the effective implementation of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh directed the TTZ authority to appoint the Forest Research Institute (FRI) to conduct a survey of all existing trees in the area.

The court emphasized that the 1976 Act is meant to protect trees, and its provisions—such as requiring permission before felling and imposing penalties for violations—can only be enforced if there is an accurate record of existing trees.

Supreme Court Upholds Allahabad HC Decision That Chargers Sold With Cell Phones Cannot Be Taxed Separately Under UP VAT Act 2008

Case Details: Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U. P. Lucknow v. M/S Samsung (India) Electronics Pvt. Ltd. | Diary No. - 20066/2021

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court which observed that the charger sold with a cell phone under the MRP cannot be taxed separately under the UP VAT Act 2008.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a challenge to the order of the Allahabad High Court which held that a mobile charger contained in a composite package with the cell phone cannot be taxed separately under Entry 28 Part B Schedule II U.P. VAT Act 2008.

Supreme Court Bars Registration Of Further Cases Against TN Dy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin Over 'Sanatana Dharma' Remarks Without Its Permission

Case Details: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 104/2024

The Supreme Court directed that no further FIRs/complaints should be registered against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin without its permission in relation to his remarks against 'Sanatan Dharma'.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea by Stalin for clubbing of criminal cases registered against him across multiple states over his controversial 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Hajj Airfare From Kerala, Asks Ministry To Explain Why Charges From Calicut Are Higher

Case Details: Abdussalam and Ors. v. Hajj Committee of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 190/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking rationalization of airfare structure across Kerala for the 2025 Hajj, saying it would not be prudent for the Court to express any opinion in that regard.

The Court was of the view that the fixation of airfare was relatable to viability of airlines and involved a commercial policy decision, interfering with which could cause immense harm to travelers, in the event the airlines refused to operate at agreed rates.

'Burger King' Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Gives Interim Relief To Pune Burger King, Stays HC's Restraint Order

Case Details: Anahita Irani v. Burger King | SLP(C) 6282/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Bombay High Court which restrained Pune's iconic Burger King from using the trademark 'Burger King'.

A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the proprietors of the Pune eatery against the High Court's order.

The case relates to the trademark dispute between the United States food giant 'Burger King' and the Pune-based eatery.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To UP MLA Abbas Ansari In Gangsters Act Case

Case Details: Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 1091/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari in a criminal case registered against him under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh has imposed stringent bail conditions while giving interim relief to Ansari, including that he cannot leave Uttar Pradesh without prior permission of the Special Judge, Trial Court. He is directed to stay at his official residence in Lucknow and if he intends to travel to his constituency in Mau, prior permission from the Trial Court and district police will be required. The Court has also directed Ansari to not make any public statement in respect of the sub-judice cases.

The matter is now listed after six weeks and the Court has asked for a status report on the progress of the trial.

Supreme Court Flags Delay In Amending Calcutta High Court Rule Requiring Division Bench Instead Of Single Judge For Certain Bail Cases

Case Details: Mahatab Ali v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

The Supreme Court raised concerns over the delay in amending the Calcutta High Court Rules on the aspect of the strength of the bench hearing bail applications, pointing out that the proposal to amend the Rule has been pending for 12 years.

The issue relates to the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, which requires certain bail applications to be heard by a Division Bench instead of a Single Judge.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that although the Full Court had on February 20, 2025, decided to amend the Rule, it had only referred the matter to the Rule Committee for drafting the amendment instead of directly implementing the change.

Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Excise Official, But Defers His Release Till April 10

Case Details: Arun Pati Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court has granted bail to Arun Pati Tripathi, a former Special Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Excise Department, in a cheating and corruption case linked to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam. However, the Court directed that he shall be released on April 10, 2025, to ensure that the ongoing investigation is not affected.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that Tripathi has been in custody for approximately 11 months and observed that there is no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future. The Court considered the state's contention that the investigation is still ongoing and, therefore, granted time until April 10 for his release.

Other Developments

Poem Not Anti-National' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Congress MP's Plea To Quash Gujarat FIR Over Poem

Case Details: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the petition filed by Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi seeking to quash an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police over a poem posted by him on social media.

During the hearing, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan orally observed that the poem "Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” was actually propagating a message of non-violence and said that the police ought to have shown sensitivity before lodging the FIR.

"This actually promotes non-violence. It has nothing to do with religion, this has nothing to do with any anti-national activity. Police has shown lack of sensitivity," Justice Oka said.

'Notice To User Necessary Before Taking Down Social Media Content': Supreme Court Expresses Prima Facie View In PIL Challenging IT Rules

Case Details: Software Freedom Law Center, India and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 161/2025

While hearing a PIL challenging the blocking of social media accounts/posts without issuing notice to the user ("originators") who uploaded the post, the Supreme Court orally remarked that notice must be issued to users who are identifiable.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih sought the response of the Union Government on the petition filed by Software Freedom Law Centre challenging certain IT Rules, after hearing the petitioner's lawyer, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising assisted by Paras Nath Singh, AOR.

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Tribunals Engaging Contract Staff From Private Agencies, Calls For Better Service Conditions

Case Details: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

The Supreme Court today(March 3) orally flagged two issues relating to the tribunals across the country that require immediate attention namely: the appointment of staff and the service conditions.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh was hearing a batch of petitions which broadly raised various issues regarding pendency vacancies, infrastructure and service conditions of the tribunals, etc across India and its members.

NMC Approaches Supreme Court Against HC's Interim Order Increasing Seats In Private Medical College

Case Details: National Medical Commission v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 005259 -/ 2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea by the National Medical Commission against the order of Rajasthan High Court which declined to interfere in the increase of medical seats from 50 to 100 at the JIET Medical College, Jodhpur.

The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was hearing the challenge to the Rajasthan High Court order of division bench which refused to interfere in the single judge's interim order allowing increase of MBBS seats in a medical college as the admission process had begun.

'We Don't Have Judges, Courts Overburdened' : Supreme Court Flags Rising Vacancies In District Judiciary

Case Details: In Re Alarming Rise In The Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2019

The Supreme Court today(March 4) expressed concerns about the vacancy of judges in the District Judiciary, which results in delay in trials in Special Courts created for POCSO Act offences.

The Court lamented that even though Special Courts were created, they are now overburdened due to the lack of judges. Hence, the various directions passed by the Supreme Court to expedite trials are not practically feasible because of the inadequate number of judges.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale made these oral remarks in suo moto proceedings initiated in relation to addressing the systematic flaws under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

'Poor Homebuyers In NCR Taken To Ransom, Nexus Between Banks & Builders Must Be Investigated': Supreme Court Hints At CBI Probe

Case Details: Himanshu Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7649/2023

Expressing the view that certain real estate companies, and banks which sanctioned loans to them for their projects in the National Capital Region, had taken poor homebuyers to ransom, the Supreme Court hinted at directing a CBI probe into a builder-banks nexus.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was considering grievances of homebuyers in the National Capital Region, who claimed that they were being forced by banks to pay EMIs without having obtained possession of flats due to delay by the builders/developers.

'IAS Officers Want To Show Supremacy Over IPS & Forest Service Officers': Supreme Court Judge

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995

During the hearing of a forest protection matter, Justice BR Gavai of Supreme Court took exception to a persisting conflict between Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers on one hand and the Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers on the other.

"In my experience as a government pleader for 3 yrs and a judge for 22 yrs, I can tell you IAS officers want to show their supremacy over IPS and IFS officers...there is always a conflict...there is always heartburning amongst the IPS and IFS as to why though they are part of the same [...] the IAS should treat them as superiors", the judge said to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for Union).

The observation was made while a bench of Justices Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with the TN Godavarman case, wherein Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers have raised a grievance regarding Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers' preparation of their performance appraisal reports (PAR). As per the forest officers, IAS officers do not know the intricacies of forest conservation and wildlife protection steps taken by the former.

'Will Order Reconstruction At Your Cost' : Supreme Court Criticises UP Govt For Demolishing Houses Of Lawyer, Professor & 3 Others

Case Details: Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

The Supreme Court criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing the houses of a lawyer, a professor, and three others in Prayagraj without following due procedure.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh expressed strong disapproval, stating that such actions send a “shocking and wrong signal.”

Justice Oka added, “there is something called as Article 21.”

SC Collegium Proposes Elevation Of Calcutta HC Justice Joymalya Bagchi As Supreme Court Judge; In Line To Be CJI In 2031

The Supreme Court Collegium has proposed the elevation of Calcutta High Court judge Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

SCAORA Launches Help Desk To Support Advocates-on-Record With Supreme Court Practice

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has launched a Help Desk to assist its members with procedural and substantive matters related to Supreme Court practice. The Help Desk will be staffed by experienced AORs who can guide a wide range of issues, including filing deadlines, case preparation, and court procedures.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Award Of Dharavi Redevelopment Project To Adani, Petitioner Offers Higher Bid Than Adani

Case Details: Seclink Technologies Corporation v. State of Maharashtra | SLP(C) No. 006090 - / 2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea by SecLink Technologies challenging the Bombay High Court decision which upheld the tender awarded to Adani Properties for Dharavi Slums Redevelopment Project.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge against the Bombay High Court order upholding the Maharashtra government's decision to cancel Dharavi Slums redevelopment tender in favour of SecLink Technologies Corporation (petitioner) and reissuing it to Adani Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Repatriation Of Justice Atul Sreedharan Back To Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium, during its meeting on March 6, 2025, has recommended the repatriation of Justice Atul Sreedharan, currently serving as a Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, to his parent High Court in Madhya Pradesh.