Supreme Court May 2025: Judgments and News| SCC Times

As May comes to a close, it’s time to reflect on the latest judgments, orders, and developments from the Supreme Court from May, 2025. This roundup provides an overview of the top stories, important cases, and key updates that made headlines this month. It also highlights a “Know Thy Judge” feature, as well as appointments and transfers by the Supreme Court. Do not miss out on the latest Supreme Court Judgments published in SCC Weekly.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MONTH

Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai sworn in as 52nd Chief Justice of India

Upholding an unwavering commitment to the constitutional values, 51st CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, retires

TOP STORIES

ARBITRATION

Breakdown of SC’s 4:1 Verdict on Court’s limited power to modify Arbitral Awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

In a 4:1 majority ruling, a five-judge Bench comprising Sanjiv Khanna*, CJI., B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, Augustine George Masih, and K.V. Viswanathan**, JJ. held that the Appellate Courts may exercise limited powers to modify arbitral awards under certain specific circumstances: Severability — When the invalid portion of the award can be separated from the valid part. Apparent Errors — To correct clerical, computational, or typographical errors evident on the face of the record. Post-Award Interest — To modify post-award interest where appropriate. Article 142 Powers — The Supreme Court may exercise its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to modify awards, but such powers must be used sparingly and with great caution, in accordance with constitutional limits. Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered the dissenting opinion. Read more HERE

Can a dispute raised by an insured be referred to arbitration after issuing full and final discharge voucher to the insurer? Supreme Court answers.

In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Bombay High Court, concerning the issue that whether a dispute raised by an insured after giving a full and final discharge voucher to the insurer can be referred to arbitration, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ. held that the High Court had erred in rejecting the appellant’s applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’). The Court observed that the question of whether the appellant was compelled to sign the standardized voucher/advance receipt sent by the respondent under economic duress, and whether the claim to arbitration was sustainable despite the receipt of Rs. 1,88,14,146.00 against a total claim of Rs. 5,71,69,554.00, fell squarely within the domain of the arbitral tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court was set aside. Read more HERE

Did You Know? According to National Judicial Data Grid, there are 1242 cases pending before the three-judge bench,193 cases before the five-judge bench, 35 cases before the seven-judge bench, and 54 cases before the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court.¹

Supreme Court urges courts to exercise suo motu powers in cases involving misleading arbitration clauses drafted by lawyers.

In a batch of appeals challenging judgments passed by the Delhi High Court, in three separate proceedings pertaining to multiple Concession Agreements executed between the Municipal Corporation(s) of Delhi and various private contractors for the development of parking and commercial complexes, the division bench of Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. emphasised the need for courts to invoke their suo motu powers in cases where legal professionals are found deliberately drafting misleading arbitration clauses. The Court pointed out that the time is near when personal liability may need to be assigned for such unscrupulous actions, coupled with the imposition of stringent punitive measures. Further, the Court held that Article 20 of the Concession Agreements executed in all three appeals does not form an arbitration agreement and, as such, cannot be brought under the purview of the Arbitration Act. Consequently, the following rulings were made: The impugned judgments of the High Court in the cases of SMS Ltd. and CCC Ltd. Were set aside. The impugned judgment of the High Court in the case of DSC Ltd. Was upheld. It was clarified that the parties involved in all three appeals are at liberty to pursue their alternative remedies in accordance with the law. Read more HERE

Did You Know? According to National Judicial Data Grid, there were 30 cases disposed of by the Supreme Court last month.²

Claims can’t be bisected into arbitrable and non-arbitrable at the stage of appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of A&C Act: Supreme Court.

In a civil appeal against Delhi High Court’s decision, whereby, while appointing an Arbitral Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), the High Court excluded certain claims holding them to be non-arbitrable, the Division Bench of PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra*, JJ. allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it excluded the part of claims of the impugned order. The parties were given the liberty to take the plea of non-arbitrability of certain claims before the arbitral tribunal, which shall decide the same without being prejudiced by any observations made in the order of the High Court. The appellant’s case was that while exercising power under Section 11 of the Act, the Court has to only examine whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and if it exists, an Arbitrator is to be appointed who, thereafter, would decide whether the claims fall within the excepted category or not. The respondent’s submission was that the High Court is empowered to exclude non-arbitrable claims in light of Emaar India Limited v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP, (2023) 13 SCC 661. Read more HERE

CRIMINAL LAW

‘Not common for rustic persons to be aware of mental illness’; SC converts mother’s conviction from under S. 302 to S. 304 Part II IPC for killing two minor daughters, appeal allowed.

IIn a criminal appeal against Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the present accused/ mother under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for killing her two minor daughters was upheld, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. partly allowed the appeal. The Court said that in the light of the strange, bizarre and inexplicable behaviour of the accused, there was no other plausible explanation that could be attached to her conduct in the given circumstances, other than to infer that she was under certain impaired mental condition which the accused described as being under the influence of invisible power. Read more HERE

‘Penetrative act by one is sufficient to convict all in the gang if there is common intention’; SC upholds conviction in 21-years-old gang rape case.

In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the convict by the Special Judge for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘1989 Act’), by the division bench of Sanjay Karol and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ. upheld the conviction of the convict found guilty of gang rape, rejecting the argument that he had not personally committed any act of penetration. The Court clarified that Section 376(2)(g) of the Penal Code, 1860 if a penetrative act was carried out by even one person, all others sharing a common intention could also be held liable. Thus, while maintaining the conviction of the convict under Sections 366, 342, and 376(2)(g) of the IPC, set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act. Further, to bring the sentence in line with that imposed on the servant for the offence under Section 376(2)(g), the Court modified the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the convict to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year in case of non-payment of the fine. Read more HERE

Allegations of past harassment insufficient without proximate mens rea for abetment of suicide: Supreme Court quashes case against Husband’s in-laws.

In two appeals preferred against the judgment passed by Madras High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the petitions preferred by the accused persons under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of the chargesheet submitted against them under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih*, JJ. highlighted that mere allegations of harassment, especially when made about an incident that occurred a month prior, followed by a complete lack of contact, could not suffice to conclude that the accused persons compelled the deceased to take his life. The Court held that since the essential ingredients for the offence of abetment to suicide had not been fulfilled, the continuation of the proceedings was not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. The impugned judgment dated 13-04-2018 passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside, along with the proceedings pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram. Read more HERE

Did You Know? According to National Judicial Data Grid, there are about 81734 pending cases before the Supreme Court³

“Impugned order suffers from judicial caprice and arbitrariness”; Supreme Court sets aside Karnataka HC order quashing 498A IPC case against Husband.

In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the Karnataka High Court, order whereby the High Court quashed proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the husband, the division bench of PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi*, JJ. noted that although an earlier order had refused to quash the proceedings against some of the in-laws, the impugned order, quashing the case against the husband, made no reference to this prior decision. The Court found this omission inexplicable and emphasized that it was incumbent upon the Judge to refer to the earlier judgment of the co-ordinate bench and provide reasons for arriving at a different conclusion. Remarking that inconsistent decisions emerging from different benches undermine public trust in the judiciary and reduce litigation to a matter of chance, the Court found that the impugned order suffered from judicial caprice and arbitrariness and, on that ground as well, was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the proceedings against the husband be revived and continue in accordance with law. Read more HERE

Supreme Court quashes FIR filed by a wife who alleged that her husband lied to her about his profession.

While considering the instant appeal challenging the non-quashment of FIR filed by an estranged wife on the ground that she was lied about her husband’s profession; the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., opined that the FIR against the husband and his family was filed for totally extraneous reasons which should have been quashed by the Gujarat High Court. Read more HERE

Did You Know? According to National Judicial Data Grid, there are 0 cases instituted before the Supreme Court last month.⁴

Supreme Court quashes criminal charges against anti-human trafficking activists branded as criminals for raid to rescue bonded labourers and minor children from brick kiln.

In an appeal filed by anti-trafficking activists challenging a cryptic order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash the criminal case against them for offences under Sections 186 and 353 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the division bench of PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi*, JJ., quashed the criminal charges. The Court held that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC. Regarding Section 186 IPC, the Court emphasized that for an offence to be made out under this section, obstruction must be accompanied by the requisite mens rea, meaning the intention to prevent a public servant from discharging his official duties. The Court found that the appellants’ actions were not intended to impede the interrogation but to ensure that it was conducted in a more effective and secure environment. This factual context negated the existence of the mens rea, or intention, to obstruct official duty, leading the Court to quash the charges. Read more HERE

‘High Court misapplied S. 319 CrPC by prioritising unproved defence documents over sworn testimony’; Supreme Court restores summoning order in abetment to suicide case

In an appeal filed by the father of the deceased against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’) summoning the accused to face trial under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Division Bench comprising of Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. held that, in view of the purpose and scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), there was no infirmity in the Trial Court’s decision to summon accused 2. The Court observed that not summoning him would have risked a truncated trial and a potential miscarriage of justice. It further held that the High Court, by placing unproven defence documents above sworn testimony, had adopted an approach, inconsistent with both the statutory mandate of Section 319 CrPC and the broader context of a case involving a vulnerable victim. This intervention, the Court noted, effectively prevented the prosecution from testing the alibi and curtailed the Trial Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside. The Trial Court’s order summoning accused 2 to stand trial under Section 306 IPC was restored. The accused was directed to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks and comply with all further directions issued by the court. Read more HERE

Supreme Court acquits accused in 14-year-old murder case whose acquittal was reversed by HC relying on testimony of the Investigating Officers.

While considering the instant appeal challenging reversal of acquittal in a murder case, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran*, JJ., noted that the Karnataka High Court in the instant matter, had reversed the accused’s acquittal on mere surmises and conjectures relying wholly on the testimony of the Investigating Officers, who merely repeated the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and the voluntary statements of the accused. The Court said that it understood the consternation of the High Court Judges examining a cold-blooded murder where the elaborate investigation collapsed during the trial and majority of the witnesses turned hostile. However, that was no reason to rely on Section 161 statements, or the story scripted by the investigating agency based on the so-called voluntary statements and the recoveries made, which the prosecution failed to prove to have a nexus with the crime. The Court emphatically observed that, “We can only accede to and share the consternation of the Division Bench of the High Court, which borders on desperation, due to the futility of the entire exercise. That is an occupational hazard, every judge should learn to live with, which cannot be a motivation to tread the path of righteousness and convict those accused somehow, even when there is a total absence of legal evidence; to enter into a purely moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence”. “Prevaricating witnesses, turning hostile in Court and overzealous investigations, done in total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law, often reduces prosecution to a mockery. Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eyewitnesses turn blind”. Read more HERE

Supreme Court acquits husband in 498A IPC case, expresses concern over misuse of dowry and cruelty provisions.

In an appeal filed by the convict against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the convict’s conviction under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act, 1961’), the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ. expressed concern over the misuse of Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961. The Court highlighted a growing trend where complainant-wives indiscriminately array aged parents, distant relatives, and married sisters living separately as accused in matrimonial disputes. The Bench observed that such practices undermine the credibility of the allegations and vitiate the very core intent of these protective legal provisions. The Court further emphasised that the term “cruelty” under Section 498A IPC is often subject to misuse and cannot be established by general or vague allegations alone. It must be supported by specific instances detailing the time, date, and manner of the alleged cruelty. The Court remarked that invoking these penal provisions without providing clear, concrete instances significantly weakens the prosecution’s case and raises serious doubts about the credibility of the complainant’s version. Given these considerations, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment passed by the High Court, and acquitted the convict of all charges under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, 1961. Read more HERE

Supreme Court proposes framing of mandatory guidelines for expeditious appraisal of criminal appeals.

While considering a writ petition revolving around 4 petitioners seeking a direction to the Jharkhand High Court for pronouncement of judgments in their respective Criminal Appeals; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., took note after the directions issued by them via order dated 5-5-2025, and during the pendency of these proceedings, the judgments in all the four Criminal Appeals have been pronounced by the High Court. It was noted that consequently, all the four petitioners have been released from custody as of 13-05-2025. Read more HERE

SC grants anticipatory bail to former IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar for allegedly misrepresenting information in UPSC 2022 exam.

In a criminal appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision, whereby former IAS probationer Puja Khedkar’s anticipatory bail plea was rejected, the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. allowed the appeal, noting the submissions of the counsel and considering that she was cooperating with the investigation. The Court viewed that Puja was entitled to bail, hence set aside the impugned decision. The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the Arresting Officer shall release Puja on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two like sureties. The Court also directed that Puja shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation and shall not misuse her liberty, and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record. Read more HERE

Supreme Court grants bail to accused person whose application was adjourned by Allahabad HC on 27 occasions.

While considering the instant matter, wherein the petitioner (accused) raised a grievance regarding the pendency of his bail application before the Allahabad High Court for a long time; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and A.G. Masih, J., noted that the High Court had adjourned the petitioner’s matter on 27 occasions and opined that in the matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time. Read more HERE

POCSO

Supreme Court dismisses petition challenging 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment given to convict under S. 6 of POCSO Act

While considering the instant petition challenging Bombay High Court’s decision to upholding the conviction of the petitioner (convict) under 6 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) thereby sentencing him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment; the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.,* dismissed the petition finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Read more HERE

Supreme Court urges sensitization of officials and creation of more POCSO Courts to combat delays in child rape trials.

In a suo motu writ petition concerning the alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents, the Division Bench consisting of Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., urged both the Central Government and the State Governments to take appropriate steps to sensitize officials involved in the investigation of POCSO cases. The Bench also emphasised the need to prioritize the creation of additional courts dedicated to hearing cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and to ensure that chargesheets were filed within the mandatory period stipulated in the Act. Furthermore, the Court directed that the trials be completed within the time frame envisaged by the Act. Read more HERE

Supreme Court spares POCSO convict from sentence citing marriage to victim; Highlights injustice to victim by family, society and legal system.

In a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Court in 2023, following the Calcutta High Court ruling that controversially urged adolescent girls to “control” their sexual urges rather than “giving in to two minutes of pleasure”, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, held that although the accused was convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), he would not undergo sentence. The Court observed that, in law, it was obligated to sentence the convict and impose the minimum punishment prescribed by the statute. However, in this case, society, the victim’s family, and the legal system had already inflicted sufficient injustice upon the victim. Having endured significant trauma and agony, the Court did not wish to compound her suffering by sending her husband to jail. Read more HERE

SCBA ELECTIONS

SCBA Elections | Supreme Court finds no foul play in Presidential polls; Directs recount for 9 junior executive posts

In a matter concerning the Supreme Court Bar Association (‘SCBA’) elections, a division bench of Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. concluded that there appeared to be no irregularity or malpractice in the conduct of the SCBA elections for the post of President. The discrepancy in the vote count was found to be a bona fide and inadvertent error, which was appropriately addressed through a transparent recounting process. Further, the Court directed the Election Committee to conduct a recount for the election of nine Junior Executive Members to address concerns raised by aggrieved members. Read more HERE

SCBA Elections | Post of Secretary of SCBA and 1/3rd seats in Executive Committee & Senior Executive Members to be reserved for women: SC

While considering the unanimous prayer for notification of the time schedule for conducting elections of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) as the term of the existing office bearers will be expiring on 19-05-2025; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., issued the following directions: The Court directed that in the ensuing election for 2025-2026, the post of Secretary of the SCBA shall be exclusively reserved for a woman candidate. In addition, 1/3rd seats in the Executive Committee i.e., 3 out of 9 shall be exclusively reserved for women candidates. Similarly, 1/3rd seats out of the Senior Executive Members i.e., 2 out of 6 shall also be reserved for women candidates. The election of the office bearers of the SCBA and the Executive Committee shall be held on 20-05-2025 on the basis of voter list as was finalised in the elections for the year 2024. Apart from those who are included in the voter list for 2024, all such other members who have acquired eligibility upto 28-02-2025, shall also be included in the voter list. The Court also appointed the Election Committee comprising of (i) Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Advocate; (ii) Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advocate; and, (iii) Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Advocate. The counting of votes shall commence on 20-05-2025 and the result shall be declared preferably on the same date or on 21-05-2025. The Election Committee shall be at liberty to co-opt for any other member, if so required. The current office bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association will extend full cooperation and provide necessary facilities to the Election Committee for conducting the smooth and fair election. Read more HERE

SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATION PROCESS

‘Experience shows that points-based assessment is not flawless’; Breakdown of SC’s new take on Senior Advocate Designation process.

In a criminal appeal seeking reconsideration of the guidelines laid down for conferment of Senior Advocate designation in 2017 and 2023 in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising — 1) and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising — 2), the three-Judge Bench of Abhay S Oka*, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti, JJ. directed that: the directions of Indira Jaising-1 as amended by Indira Jaising-2 shall not be implemented; the High Courts to frame Rules in terms of what is held in this decision within a period of 4 months from today by amending or substituting the existing Rules. The Rules shall be made keeping in view the following guidelines: The decision to confer designation shall be of the Full Court of the High Courts or this Court; The applications of all candidates found to be eligible by the Permanent Secretariat along with relevant documents submitted by the applicants shall be placed before the Full House. An endeavour can always be made to arrive at. However, if a consensus on designation of Advocates is not arrived at, the decision-making must be by a democratic method of voting. Whether in a given case there should be a secret ballot, is a decision which can be best left to the High Courts to take a call considering facts and circumstances of the given case; Minimum qualification of 10 years of practice fixed by Indira Jaising-1 needs no reconsideration; The practice of Advocates making applications for the grant of designation can continue as the act of making an application can be treated as consent of the Advocates concerned for designation. Additionally, the Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case; In the scheme of Section 16(2), there is no scope for individual Judges of this Court or High Courts to recommend candidate for designation; and At least one exercise of designation should be undertaken every calendar year. Read more HERE

RECRUITMENT AND SERVICE CONDITIONS FOR COURT MANAGERS

Supreme Court directs High Courts to frame or amend rules for recruitment and service conditions for Court Managers; Issues directions for their regularisation.

In a matter concerning a unique issue regarding the role of Court Managers, who were introduced by the Thirteenth Finance Commission (2010-2015) to improve the efficiency of court management, the objective was to provide administrative support to judges, ultimately leading to enhanced case disposal, the three Judge Bench of BR Gavai*, CJI, Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. issued the following directions: (i) High Courts to frame or amend rules: All High Courts in the country shall frame or amend the rules concerning the recruitment and conditions of service for Court Managers. They must take the Assam Rules of 2018 as the model and submit them to the respective State Governments for approval within three months from the date of this judgment. The High Courts and State Governments are free to make suitable modifications to accommodate their specific needs. Read more HERE

REPORTS ON PENDING CASES

Supreme Court directs all High Courts to submit reports on pending cases with reserved judgments as of 31-01-2025.

In a writ petition filed by four convicts seeking a direction to the Jharkhand High Court for the pronouncement of judgments in their Criminal Appeals, which, according to the petitioners, had been finally heard by a Division Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench comprising Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., after reviewing the Report sent by the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court, deemed it appropriate to seek similar Reports from all High Courts. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar General of all High Courts to submit a Report regarding cases where judgments had been reserved on or before 31-01-2025, but the pronouncement of judgments was still awaited. Read more HERE

MATERNITY LEAVE

Objectives of population control & providing maternity leave to working women not mutually exclusive & must be rationally harmonised: SC

While considering the instant matter wherein the appellant who was denied maternity leave for a third child on account of her re-marriage, challenged the said rejection; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ., held that the appellant was entitled to maternity leave. The Court explained that the appellant has two biological children out of her first wedlock; however, that was before entry into her service. Post her entry into service and from her subsisting marriage, this is her first child. Furthermore, the Court took note of the record that the two children out of her first wedlock were not residing with her but with their father, who had their custody. Read more HERE

SERVICE LAW

Supreme Court overturns Sikkim High Court ruling on leave encashment for re-employed retired government employees beyond 300 days under Sikkim Leave Rules

In an appeal filed by the State of Sikkim against the order passed by the Sikkim High Court, wherein the Court held that the respondent was entitled to leave encashment for unutilized leave accrued during the period of re-employment, the division bench of JK Maheshwari* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. concluded that, under Rule 36 of the Sikkim Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982 (‘Leave Rules’), a regular government servant who retires under the Sikkim Government Service Rules, 1974 (‘Service Rules’) was entitled to leave encashment only up to a maximum of 300 days. If a government servant was re-employed after attaining the age of 58 years and continues in service for an extended period, thereby accumulating additional leave, such re-employment does not entitle him or her to a second leave encashment merely based on leave accrued during the re-employment period. Consequently, the orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench were set aside, and both appeals were allowed. Read more HERE

Can past contractual service count towards pension once an employee is regularised? Supreme Court answers

In an appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court, wherein it was held that the appellants, who were initially appointed on contractual basis and subsequently regularised, will not be entitled to seniority, service benefits, and pension for the period of their contractual service, the division bench of PS Narasimha* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. highlighted that upon regularisation, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (‘Pension Rules’) would apply, and Rule 17 mandates that the past service as a contractual employee be taken into account when calculating pension. Hence, upon consideration of the Pension Rules and the decision in State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272, the Court partly allowed the present appeals and directed Union of India to grant pensionary benefit to the appellants in accordance with law. Read more HERE

Supreme Court upholds ‘One Rank One Pension’ for all retired High Court Judges; Orders equal and full pension.

In a matter concerning the pension payable to retired Judges of the High Courts, including the payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits, a Three- Judge Bench of BR Gavai*, CJI., Augustine George Masih, and K.Vinod Chandran, JJ. issued the following directions: The Union of India was directed to pay the full pension of Rs. 15,00,000/- per annum to a retired Chief Justice of the High Court. The Union of India was directed to pay the full pension of Rs. 13,50,000/- per annum to a retired Judge of the High Court, other than a retired Chief Justice of the High Court. Read more HERE

Supreme Court restores minimum three-year legal practice requirement for eligibility in civil judge exams.

Mandatory 3 Years’ Practice Requirement: All candidates applying for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced law for a minimum of 3 years.

Proof must be submitted through: A certificate by the Principal Judicial Officer, or A certificate by an advocate with at least 10 years’ standing, duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer. For those practicing before High Courts or the Supreme Court, certification must come from a 10-year advocate endorsed by an officer designated by that High Court or this Court. Law Clerk experience shall also count toward the 3-year practice requirement.

All selected candidates must undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court.

Practice Period to be Counted from Provisional Enrolment: The required years of legal practice shall be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment/registration with the respective State Bar Council. Read more HERE

Supreme Court upholds Gauhati HC order directing Nagaland to ensure salary parity for RMSA teachers.

In a matter concerning pay parity for teachers employed under the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (‘RMSA’), the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and K. Vinod Chandra, JJ. declined to interfere with a judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court, wherein the Court directed the Nagaland State Government to pay salaries to a batch of teachers employed under RMSA in parity with their counterparts. Read more HERE

Supreme Court upholds Calcutta HC Judgment appointing teacher with age relaxation for Municipal School under West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

In a special leave petition filed by the State/Directorate of Local Bodies (‘petitioner’) against a judgment of Calcutta High Court, wherein appointment was given to respondent 1-teacher for municipal school under Sections 54 and 55 of West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 by virtue of advertisement dated 8-06-2017, despite the entire selection process was cancelled vide order dated 29-08-2022, the division bench of Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. upheld the impugned Judgment and interpretation by the High Court. Read more HERE

‘Non-disclosure of past government service can’t be a ground for discharge’: Supreme Court reinstates woman Civil Judge.

While deliberating over instant appeal whereby Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by the appellant challenging her discharge from Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS); the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ., set aside the order of discharge and directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant. The Court opined that non-disclosure of past government service, cannot be a ground to discharge the appellant. Read more HERE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

‘Right to digital access intrinsic component of right to life & liberty’; SC issues Directives to ease Digital KYC for acid attack victims/visually impaired.

In a significant ruling, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., laid down 20 Directions in order to make the process of digital KYC accessible to persons with disabilities, especially facial/ eye disfigurements due to acid attacks and visual impairments. The Court further held that inaccessibility of digital KYC for persons with disabilities due to digital platforms not being compatible to with screen readers; crucial information being presented in visual formats without alternative text etc., such significantly hinder the ability of persons with disabilities to work, learn, and engage with society, thereby violating their right to equal opportunity and full participation as guaranteed under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and national disability laws. These barriers collectively amount to a denial of equal access and violate the accessibility mandates under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and results in economic and social marginalization. The Court pointed out that bridging the digital divide is no longer merely a matter of policy discretion but has become a constitutional imperative to secure a life of dignity, autonomy and equal participation in public life. The right to digital access, therefore, emerges as an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty, necessitating that the State proactively design and implement inclusive digital ecosystems that serve not only the privileged but also the marginalized, those who have been historically excluded. Read more HERE

High Court’s supervisory power under Art. 227 can’t be invoked to usurp original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise: SC.

While considering the instant appeal wherein the question arose that whether the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution reject a plaint? The Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi*, JJ., held that essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, neither it can be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise, nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Illustrating with an example, the Court pointed out that existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the CPC operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Read more HERE

Air Force School not a ‘State’ or ‘Authority’ under Article 12 of the Constitution: Supreme Court by 2:1 Majority.

In two appeals involving the issue whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli, in District Allahabad, is a ‘state or authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the three Judge Bench of Abhay S. Oka*, Ahsanuddin Amanullah**, and Augustine George Masih, JJ. in 2:1 majority held that the Air Force School is not a “State” or “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution, and consequently, writ petitions filed by its employees are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah gave the dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the majority’s view. Read more HERE

CUSTODY

Supreme Court reverses Kerala HC order granting children’s custody to father, citing lack of home-cooked food and companionship.

In an appeal challenging the Kerala High Court’s order granting interim custody of the children to the father, a three-judge bench comprising Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., held that the High Court had clearly erred in granting interim custody for 15 days every month. The Court observed that the High Court’s decision was not based on a thorough evaluation of the pros and cons of the situation. It emphasized that the periodic division of custody was detrimental to the children’s physical, mental, and emotional well-being. The Court noted that such an arrangement could ultimately prove harmful and lead to irreversible psychological trauma for both children. As a result, the Court concluded that the High Court’s order granting interim custody to the father for 15 days each month was unsustainable. Read more HERE

CONTEMPT OF COURT

Supreme Court stays Bombay HC’s decision sentencing woman to one week imprisonment for ‘dog mafia’ remark against Judges.

In a criminal appeal against Bombay High Court’s decision High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Own Motion v. Vineeta Srinandan, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1398, whereby, the present accused was convicted for contempt of Court for circulating a circular referring to Supreme Court and High Court Judges as “dog mafia”, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan, JJ. issued notice and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Read more HERE

SC dismisses petition to initiate contempt action against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey; Terms his scandalizing remarks against SC & CJI as irresponsible.

While considering the instant petition under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution seeking initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, for making deliberate and scandalizing remarks against the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India; the Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna, CJ., and Sanjay Kumar J., declined to entertain the petition. However, the Court opined that the comments by the BJP MP were highly irresponsible and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court. This apart, the statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution. The Court further opined that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. “We do not believe that the confidence in and credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such absurd statements, though it can be said without the shadow of doubt that there is a desire and deliberate attempt to do so”. Read more HERE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC

While considering the instant petition concerning challenge to the constitutionality of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for being violative of Article 14 for prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the district, state and national commissions on the basis of value of goods and services paid as consideration, instead of compensation claimed; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ., dismissed the challenge and declared that the said provisions are constitutional and neither violative of Article 14, nor manifestly arbitrary. The Court further held that Central Consumer Protection Council and the Central Consumer Protection Authority shall in exercise of their statutory duties under Sections 3, 5, 10, 18 to 22 take such measures as may be necessary for survey, review and advise the government about such measures as may be necessary for effective and efficient redressal and working of the statute. Read more HERE

Supreme Court directs Central Govt. to consider feasibility of permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes.

While considering a bunch of appeals concerning issues related to appointments and tenure in various consumer forums; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh*, JJ., exercising the Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution, issued the following directions: The Union of India was directed to file an affidavit on the feasibility of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of a Consumer Tribunal or a Consumer Court, within a period of 3 months, on the touchstone of the constitutional mandate. Such a forum shall consist of permanent members, including both staff and the Presiding officers. The Union of India may also consider facilitating sitting Judges to head the fora. The strength may be increased adequately. Union of India to notify the new Rules within a period of 4 months strictly adhering to— the Court’s view in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited, (2020) 6 SCC 1; Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 369 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2022) 12 SCC 455, with respect to the tenure of office being five years, being both logical and necessary, must be incorporated in the new Rules to be notified; composition of the Selection Committee shall be such that the members from the Judiciary must constitute the majority; No written examination, followed by a viva voce, shall be required for appointment and reappointment to the posts of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission; written examination followed by a viva voce shall be required only for appointment and reappointment to the posts of Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission and Members of the District Commission. written examination for appointments to the State and District Commissions shall be conducted in consultation with the respective State Service Commissions; The Court also accepted the proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 4(1) of the 2020 Consumer Protection Qualification for Appointment Rules (Para 72 of the Judgement) that the qualification for appointment to the post of President of the District Commission, shall be restricted to either a serving or a retired District Judge. Upon notification of the new Rules by the Union of India, all the States are directed to complete the process of recruitment under the same, within a period of 4 months from the date of the notification of the said Rules. Read more HERE

HUMAN RIGHTS

Supreme Court orders Assam Human Rights Commission to probe alleged fake police encounters in Assam; Sets aside Gauhati HC Judgment, orders legal aid for victims

In an appeal filed against the Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) seeking records of all alleged fake encounters in the State of Assam, registration of FIRs against the erring police officials, and an independent investigation into such incidents, a Division Bench of Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. gave the following directions: a) The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27-01-2023 was set aside. b) The order dated 12-01-2022 passed by the full bench of the Assam Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’), disposing of the issue on the ground that the subject matter was sub-judice before the High Court, was also set aside. The matter was directed to be reinstated on the board of the AHRC for necessary inquiry into the allegations independently and expeditiously, in accordance with law. Read more HERE

RIGHT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY

“Reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from our Constitution”; SC directs admission of MBBS aspirant in PwBD quota at AIIMS.

In an appeal filed by a person with a benchmark disability (‘PwBD’) who belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste and aspires for admission to the MBBS UG course, the Division Bench comprising Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., while setting aside the impugned order, directed that the appellant to be allocated a seat in the MBBS UG course for 2025, against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota, at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (‘AIIMS, New Delhi’), in the forthcoming academic session. Read more HERE

Discharge of serviceman or denial of disability pension based on unreasoned medical board report would be unsustainable in law: Supreme Court.

In an appeal filed by an Army sepoy against the Judgment passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, wherein the claim of the appellant for grant of disabilities pension was denied, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh*, JJ. held that if any action was taken by the authority to discharge a serviceman or deny him a disability pension based on a report from the Medical Board that failed to disclose reasons for the opinion provided, such an action by the authority would be unsustainable in law. Read more HERE

There can be a departure from the Schedule of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 in deciding functional disability: Supreme Court.

In a Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant against the reduction of the disability as per the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the division bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran*, JJ., while allowing the appeal, relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Mohd. Nasir, (2009) 6 SCC 280 wherein the Court had pointed out that Motor Vehicles Act created a legal fiction insofar as permitting reference to Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and held that it is not as if there can never be a departure from the Schedule in deciding the functional disability, which it has been recognised would in certain cases have a corelation with the physical disability. Read more HERE

ENVIRONMENT LAW

Only valid and subsisting DSR can form basis for environmental clearance; draft DSR legally untenable: Supreme Court upholds NGT order.

In a batch of appeals filed against the order passed by National Green Tribunal (‘NGT’), the division bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ. upheld the decision of the NGT, which had quashed the e-auction notice dated 13-02-2023 issued by the State Government for sand mining and the consequent grant of Letters of Interest (‘LOIs’) in favour of successful bidders. The Court held that the auction had been conducted in the absence of a valid, final, and subsisting District Survey Report (‘DSR’). It further held that a draft DSR was not tenable. A draft DSR could never form the basis for a recommendation by the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee (‘DEAC’) or for the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (‘DEIAA’) to grant environmental clearance for B2 category projects pertaining to the mining of minor minerals in lease areas less than or equal to five hectares. The Court unequivocally upheld the statutory regime governing sand mining and underscored that unauthorized activities must not be tolerated. It emphasized that strict adherence to the legal and environmental regulations was non-negotiable. Read more HERE

[Forest Conservation] | Supreme Court directs constitution of SITs to investigate illegal conversions of Forest Land

While considering the instant application concerning conversion of Forest Land for commercial purposes; the Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ.*, Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., noted that the instant case was a classic example of as to how the nexus between the Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Builders can result in the conversion of precious Forest Land for commercial purposes under the garb of resettlement of people belonging to the backward class from whose ancestors, agricultural land was acquired for public purpose. Taking note of the illegal conversion of forest land as it was done in the instant case, the Court issued the following directions: The Court directed the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special Investigation Teams for the purpose of examining as to whether any of the reserved Forest Land in the possession of the Revenue Department has been allotted to any private individuals/institutions for any purpose other than the forestry purposes. The State Governments and the Union Territories were also directed to take steps to take back the possession of the land from the persons/institutions in possession of such lands and handover the same to the Forest Department. In case, it is found that taking back the possession of the land would not be in the larger public interest, the State Governments/Union Territories should recover the cost of the said land from the persons/institutions to whom they were allotted and use the said amount for the purpose of development of forests. The Court directed the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special Teams to ensure that all such transfers take place within a period of one year from today. Needless to state that hereinafter such land should be used only for the purpose of afforestation. Read more HERE

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT

S. 25 HMA | SC stays Gujarat HC order remanding matter to Family Court for reconsideration on issue of Permanent Alimony; Issues notice.

While considering the instant special leave to appeal concerning Gujarat High Court’s decision in Darshankumar v. Bhavika Darshankumar Kalani, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 1260, whereby the High Court had quashed the judgment and order of the Family Court, Vadodara, dated 16-01-2019 and remanded the matter to the Family Court over the issue of permanent alimony; the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., issued notice in the matter and put a stay on the High Court’s direction to remand the matter to the Family Court over issue of permanent alimony. Read more HERE

BANK GUARANTEE

Encashment of bank guarantees offered as security cannot be treated as payment of customs duty: Supreme Court.

While considering the instant appeal revolving around refund of customs duty thereby challenging the decision of Gujarat High Court in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 10110; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ., opined that in the instant case, the Customs Department resorted to arbitrary encashment of the bank guarantees. Such encashment of bank guarantees cannot be treated as payment of customs duty or duty paid by a claimant. In such circumstances, the doctrine of unjust enrichment or Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 would not be applicable. “It is evidently clear that respondents are holding on to money of the appellant which they are not authorized to do so (…) They have no authority in law to hold on to such money and, therefore, the same has become totally untenable”. Read more HERE

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Unregistered document affecting immovable property can be an admissible evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance: Supreme Court.

In a civil appeal against an order of Madras High Court dated 26-02-2021, whereby the High Court held that the appellant’s unstamped and unregistered agreement to sell (document) cannot be brought on record; the division bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., perusing the facts of the case, permitted the appellant that the document sought to be brought on record under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Read more HERE

INHERENT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT

High Courts can quash proceedings under Section 12 of DV Act pending before Magistrate.

In two connected criminal appeals challenging the common order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which rejected the appellants’ prayer to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., held that High Courts were empowered to exercise their inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) or Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to quash proceedings arising from applications filed under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the Magistrate. However, the Court cautioned that, considering the beneficial object and purpose of the DV Act, High Courts must exercise such jurisdiction with great caution and circumspection. It reiterated that interference under Section 482 CrPC would be warranted only in cases of gross illegality or manifest injustice. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and restored the petitions to the file of the High Court. The Court directed that the restored petitions be heard afresh and disposed of by the High Court in accordance with the principles laid down in the present judgment. Read more HERE

ENCROACHMENT ON NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

Supreme Court issues directions to Union Government to enhance safety and address encroachments on National Highways.

In a writ petition concerning the issue about the safety of India’s National Highways, based on the report titled “Road Accidents in India — 2017”, which revealed that 53,181 persons were killed during the year 2017 on highways in India, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., gave the following directions. Read more HERE

CIVIL CASES

High Court cannot dismiss substantive portion of suit while hearing appeal against rejection of interim injunction: Supreme Court, Appeal allowed.

In a civil appeal against Bombay High Court’s decision dismissing the suit while considering an application for an injunction, the Division Bench of PS Narasimha and Joymala Bagchi, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decision and restored the appellants’ suit filed before the Bombay City Civil Court holding that while considering an appeal against the order of the Trial Court refusing to grant an injunction pending the disposal of the suit, the High Court cannot dismiss the substantive portion of the suit itself and direct that the remaining part of the suit be agitated in a suit filed by the defendant. Read more HERE

Construction in alignment with pre-existing design, no violation of UNESCO guidelines; SC upholds P&H HC’s directives for verandah construction and parking development

In a set of two civil appeals against Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decisions in a public interest litigation, whereby the Court directed construction of verandah in front of Court Room No.1 and allowed the kutcha parking space to be used for parking of four wheelers visiting the High Court, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. allowed the appeals and upheld the decision of the High Court regarding the construction of the verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the pre-existing verandahs in front of the Court Room Nos. 2 to 9, holding that the same would not violate the guidelines because neither such verandah can be said to be a major restoration nor a new construction within the main structure of the High Court building. Read more HERE