In July, the Supreme Court’s 2-month long partial working days ended, and the Court came out with multiple major decisions. Therefore, as July ends, it is only appropriate to delve into these key Supreme Court rulings some of which are sure to shape the legal landscape. This Roundup provides an overview of the top stories, important cases, and key updates that made headlines. It also highlights the “Know Thy Judge” section.
Do not miss out on the latest Supreme Court Judgments published in SCC Weekly.
Top Stories
Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Tamil Nadu MLA Jagan Moorthy in Minor’s abduction case
Supreme Court grants relief to M3M Group; Permits substitution of attached land in PMLA case
Supreme Court to Decide: Are RBI circulars binding on SREI Equipment Finance Ltd?
*Did you Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid’s coram-wise pendency, there are 1130 cases pending before 3-Judges Bench; 206 cases before 5-Judges Bench; 35 cases before 7-Judges Bench and 70 cases before 9- Judges Bench1.
Arbitration
‘Use of ‘may’ in alleged arbitration clause doesn’t indicate clear intention to refer dispute to arbitration’; SC upholds Calcutta HC’s verdict
While considering an appeal revolving around existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra*, JJ., upheld Calcutta High Court’s impugned judgment wherein it had held that, when there is use of “may” in a supposed arbitration clause, there is no clear intention of the parties to refer the dispute between them to arbitration. Read more here
Bail
‘Case of Saviour turning into a devil’; Supreme Court cancels Superintendent’s bail in Patna’s Uttar Raksha Grih women inmates trafficking case
While considering this appeal filed by the victim challenging the grant of bail to Respondent 2, who during her tenure as Superintendent of Uttar Raksha Grih, was accused of sex trafficking helpless women who resided in that protection home; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., lamented that the present case was clearly of one where the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil. Observing that allegations against Respondent 2 had shaken the Court’ conscience. “Grant of bail to the person accused of such grave offences without assigning reasons shakes the conscience of the Court and would have an adverse impact on the society”. Therefore, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court cancelled the bail granted to Respondent 2. Read more here
Bhushan Power Liquidation/ JSW Resolution Plan
Supreme Court recalls its judgment rejecting JSW Steel’s resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel
The Division Bench of B.R Gavai, CJ and Satish Chandra Sharma, J., on 31-7-2025, recalled its judgment dated 2-5-2025 wherein the Court had rejected JSW Steel’s Rs 19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) and had ordered for the company’s liquidation. The Court while recalling its judgment, prima facie observed that the previous judgment did not consider the precedents and the legal position properly. The case is now due to be heard on August 7th.
Bihar’s Electoral Roll Revision
Bihar’s Electoral Roll revision: Supreme Court urges Election Commission to accept Aadhaar, Ration Cards, and EPICs for voter identity verification
In a batch of petitions filed by opposition party leaders and several NGOs, challenging the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) directive dated 24-06-2025, which ordered a Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar., the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. urged the ECI to consider allowing Aadhaar, ration cards, and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (‘EPICs’) as admissible documents for proving voter identity during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls being undertaken in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections in November 2025. Read more here
Criminal Law
Police must serve Section 35 BNSS notices physically; WhatsApp and other electronic modes not valid: Supreme Court
In an application filed by the State of Haryana seeking modification of the order dated 21-01-2025, passed by the Supreme Court, the Court had directed all States and Union Territories to issue Standing Orders to their respective police departments mandating that notices under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), or Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), be issued only through modes of service prescribed by law. The division bench comprising MM Sundresh and NK Singh, JJ., dismissed the application and confirmed the impugned order. The Court held that it was not persuaded that electronic communication constituted a valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023. The deliberate omission of such a provision by the Legislature was construed as a clear indication of its intent. The Court observed that incorporating a procedure into Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, which had not been expressly provided by the Legislature, would have been contrary to legislative intent. Read more here
SC issues guidelines for handling of DNA evidence; Implores legislature to consider compensation for acquittal after long incarceration
While considering the instant appeal challenging conviction and sentence of death penalty to the appellant (convict) which was affirmed by Madras High Court via the impugned judgment; the 3 Judge Bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., emphasised need of a legislative framework to compensate accused persons who have been suffering long incarcerations only for them to be cleanly acquitted. The Court further took strict note of the faulty investigation and especially the treatment of the DNA evidence in ways that rendered the samples useless for the purposes of the case. Hence, the Court issued certain guidelines which must be followed in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved. Read more here
‘Not born as criminals’: Supreme Court permits woman convicted for fiancé’s murder to seek pardon
In an appeal seeking to assail the life sentence on the appellants (‘accused persons’), the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh* and Aravind Kumar, JJ., upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused persons. However, the Court observed that that it did not condone the action of Accused 4, a 20-year-old woman (‘accused woman’) as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life, her fiancé. The Court stated that the accused persons were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure which led to the commission of a heinous crime. Thus, the Court facilitated the accused persons’ right to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate petitions before Governor of Karnataka. Read more here
High Courts must consider incorporating provision in their respective Rules, obligating disclosure of criminal antecedents by accused persons: Supreme Court
The appellant, a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, approached this Court to challenge the strictures passed against him in order dated 3-5-2024 (‘the impugned order’) by the Rajasthan High Court (‘the High Court’). The 3-Judges Bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., opined that the strictures and/or the scathing observations were made to the detriment of the appellant as he was not provided with any opportunity of explanation, thus, the same were set aside. The Court opined that every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules which would impose an obligation on the accused persons to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered. Read more here
Conciliation
Limitation Act is not applicable to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act: Supreme Court
While considering an appeal, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., had to decide whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to conciliation and arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). Further, even if the Limitation Act is not applicable, whether a supplier can recover a time-barred debt by taking recourse to the remedies provisioned under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. The Court upon deliberating over the issues, opined that Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act. A time-barred claim can be referred to conciliation as the expiry of limitation period does not extinguish the right to recover the amount, including through a settlement agreement that can be arrived at through the conciliatory process. Read more here
Custodial Torture/ Police Atrocities
Supreme Court directs Rs 50 Lakhs compensation to J&K Police Constable who was victim of brutal custodial torture
While considering an appeal challenging J&K and Ladakh High Court’s decision to dismiss appellant’s petitions seeking FIR against police personnel; transfer of the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); and quashing of the FIR filed against the appellant; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., exercised the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay compensation of Rs 50 Lakhs to the appellant so as to provide some solace to the appellant and his family for the barbaric acts of custodial torture leading to complete castration. The Court further directed the CBI to take over the investigation in the matter. Read more here
Defection
SC directs Speaker of Telangana Legislative Assembly to expeditiously conclude disqualification proceedings against defected BRS MLAs
The present appeals were filed by MLAs belonging to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) who had been seeking disqualification of former BRS MLAs from Telangana Legislative Assembly on grounds of defection and had been aggrieved by the delay/inaction shown by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. While considering these appeals, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ* and A.G. Masih, J., declined to accede to the appellants’ request of deciding the question of disqualification of the defected MLAs stating that, judicial precedents have consistently held that the Speaker is the authority who should decide the issue regarding disqualification at the first instance.
However, in view of specific findings in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 and Subhash Desai v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 2 SCC 719, the Court deemed it fit to direct the Speaker of Telangana Legislative Assembly to conclude the disqualification proceedings pending against the 10 MLAs pertaining to the present appeals/petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.
Designation of Senior Advocates
Issue of suo motu designation of Senior Advocates by Full Court does not warrant reconsideration: Supreme Court upholds Orissa High Court’s power
While considering the petition filed by Orissa High Court’s administrative side, challenging the quashment of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 (2019 Rules) as ultra-vires by the judicial side of the High Court; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., following and concurring with the verdict laid down by 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1099, stated that issue of designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power does not warrant reconsideration. Taking note of amended Rule 6(9) of the 2019 Rules, which contemplates designation of Senior Advocates by Full Court under the suo-motu power, the Court reiterated that the conferment of Senior Advocate status is a privilege, not an entitlement, and must be governed strictly by the principles of fairness, accountability, and institutional integrity. Read more here
Fraud on Court/ Abuse of Process
‘Fraud is an exception to doctrine of merger’: Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud
In a civil appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 28-10-2021, whereby ‘R’ was made the sole owner of the subject property, the three Judge Bench of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., stated that the doctrine of merger might not automatically apply to every set of related civil appeals made from the same order, and laid down certain exceptions to the doctrine. Further, the Court stated that fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger, and since fraud vitiated the entire proceedings, the Court set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the Court recalled its judgment in Reddy Veerana v. State of U.P., (2022) 14 SCC 252 (‘Reddy Veerana case’), which too was obtained by fraud. Read more here
Intellectual Property Law/ Counterfeit Products
Know why Supreme Court held this Company as ‘victim’ within the ambit of S. 2(wa) read with Proviso to S. 372 CrPC?
While considering this appeal by Asian Paints Ltd, (appellant) whereby the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., were faced with the question that whether the appellant would fall under the definition of ‘victim’ as per Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Court opined that Section 2(wa) CrPC does not define ‘victim’ in a narrow sense. The Court further stated that Section 372 of the CrPC is a self-contained and independent Section; i.e., it is a stand-alone Section and is not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX of the CrPC including Section 378. Thus, the right of a victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC. Read more here
Matrimonial Disputes
Privacy vs. Evidence: Supreme Court allows secretly recorded spousal conversations as admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes
In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the High Court had ruled that recorded conversations between a husband and wife could not be the basis for deciding a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. held that the founding rationale for Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as acknowledged by the Law Commission and various High Courts, was to protect the sanctity of marriage rather than focusing on the right to privacy of the individuals involved. Consequently, the Court stated that the right to privacy is not a relevant consideration in situations where the privilege under Section 122 is not granted, such as in proceedings between spouses (an exception recognized in Section 122 itself).
The Court emphasised that spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 for the purpose of protecting the sanctity of the marital relationship, and not for safeguarding individual privacy rights. Read more here
SC directs wife & her family members to tender apology to husband & in-laws for cases filed
While considering transfer petitions filed by husband and wife seeking transfer of their pending suits to competent courts in Rohini, Delhi and Hapur, Uttar Pradesh respectively and other connected matters; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and Augustine George Masih*, J., deemed it fit to invoke the power under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage between the parties. The Court further held that guidelines framed by Allahabad High Court in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 395, vis-a-vis ‘Constitution of Family Welfare Committees’ for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A of the IPC, shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities. Read more here
Mental Health
Supreme Court issues comprehensive Guidelines on protecting mental health of young students in coaching centres and colleges
While considering this appeal challenging Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to not transfer the investigation on the appellant’s 17-year-old daughter’s tragic death to the CBI; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., reflecting upon the underlying societal issue of growing crisis of student suicides in the context of contemporary education, issued 15 Guidelines for preventive, remedial, and supportive framework for mental health protection and prevention of suicides by students across all educational institutions.
The Court clarified that the Guidelines shall apply to all educational institutions across India, including public and private schools, colleges, universities, training centres, coaching institutes, residential academies, and hostels, irrespective of their affiliation. It was also clarified that these guidelines are not in supersession but in parallel to the ongoing work of the National Task Force on Mental Health Concerns of Students and are being issued to provide an interim protective architecture in the interregnum. Read more here
POCSO
Constitutional bar against retrospectively imposing harsher penalty is clear and absolute: Supreme Court modifies sentence in POCSO case
In an appeal challenging the judgment dated 5-9-2023, whereby the appellant’s challenge to his conviction under Section 376-AB of Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) was dismissed, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., stated that the constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) of Constitution was clear and absolute. The Court stated that the sentence of “imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life”, as per the amended provision under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, did not exist in the statutory framework on the date of the incident. Accordingly, the Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life. Read more here
Property Law
Whether a Tribal Woman or her legal heirs will have any entitlement over equal share in ancestral property? Supreme Court answers
While considering an appeal wherein the Court had to deliberate that whether a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not; the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., opined that, unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out. Therefore, in keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court held that in the instant case, since the Plaintiffs were D’s (Tribal woman heir) legal heirs, they are entitled to their equal share in the property of their maternal grandfather. Read more here
Can a power of attorney holder by signing a sale deed on behalf of the principal, become the ‘Executant’? SC refers issue to Larger Bench
While considering the instant appeal revolving around the validity of a registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., took note of the contradiction on the issue that whether a power-of-attorney holder, who signs a sale deed on behalf of the principal, would become the ‘executant’ and thus be covered by Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act) and need not fulfil the requirements of Sections 32(c) and 33 of the Act. It was observed that Supreme Court’s interpretation of the afore-stated issue in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, (2009) 14 SCC 782, deviated from the statutory scheme under Part VI of the Act. Therefore, the issue was referred to a Larger Bench for a conclusive resolution of the conflict. Read more here
*Did You Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid, the total number of pending cases (civil and criminal) is: 87115 cases2.
Practice and Procedure
‘Review of a review not permissible’; Supreme Court upholds Calcutta HC judgment on finality of Review Medical Board’s decision in BSF recruitment
In a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, wherein it was held that the decision of the Review Medical Board in respect of the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Border Security Force (‘BSF’) is final, and that no appeal or further medical examination can be entertained against its findings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, comprising Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. upheld the impugned judgment and declined to interfere, thereby affirming the legal position adopted by the High Court. Read more here
‘Amendments to complaints permissible after cognizance if no prejudice is caused to accused’; Supreme Court allows amendment in S.138 NI Act complaint
In a criminal appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the High Court had held that the amendment sought by the appellant/complainant was not merely a typographical error and had a broader impact on the matter in dispute, thereby altering the nature of the complaint, a Division Bench comprising BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan*, JJ., while upholding the Trial Court’s order allowing an amendment application in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, reaffirmed that it is fallacious to contend that amendments to complaints can never be allowed after cognizance is taken. Further, the Court said that the High Court had misdirected itself by delving into the issue of GST applicability, which lies within the purview of the appropriate tax authorities under the relevant statute. The Court clarified that the amendment in question did not alter the fundamental nature or character of the complaint. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court’s order dated 02.09.2023 was restored. Read more here
Service Law
Supreme Court stays ‘pay minus pension’ rule for ex-defence faculty recruited by AIIMS Jodhpur
In a Special Leave Petition filed by retired defence officers who had been appointed to faculty posts at AIIMS Jodhpur through open advertisement and direct recruitment, the petitioners challenged a judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had held that, although the petitioners were appointed through direct recruitment, they would be governed by Regulation 33 of the AIIMS Regulations, 1999. While the High Court restrained retrospective salary deductions, it allowed the prospective application of the “Pay minus Pension” formula from the date of its judgment, i.e., 15-05-2025. In response, a Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. issued notice and granted interim relief to the recruited faculty members, staying the implementation of the “Pay minus Pension” rule pending further consideration. Read more here
Why Supreme Court decided to quash recruitment of 1091 Asst. Professors & 67 Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab
While deciding the appeal challenging Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision to uphold the selections made by the State of Punjab for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., quashed the entire recruitment and directed the State to initiate the recruitment process as per the 2018 UGC Regulations which are now in force in the State of Punjab. The Court pointed out that the State miserably failed to justify the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process and to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in question. The Court said that quashing of the entire recruitment process may cause hardships for the selected candidates, but at the same time, there is no equity in the favour of selected candidates as challenge to the recruitment was made during the pendency of the process and appointments were subject to the Court orders. A gross illegality like the present recruitment cannot be ignored. Read more here
Service Tax
Service Tax Exemption | Whether collection, processing, & storing umbilical cord blood stem cells are ‘healthcare services’? SC answers
While considering an appeal against Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) verdict holding that services of enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, provided by the appellant, do not fall within the scope of “Healthcare Services”; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., found that the appellant’s services fell within the ambit of “Healthcare Services” as defined under the exemption Notification No.25/2012—Service Tax dated 20-06-2012. It was held that these services are preventive and curative in nature and encompass diagnosis, treatment, and care. Read more here
Rights of Prisoners/ Rights of Disabled Prisoners
‘State bears constitutional and moral obligation to uphold rights of disabled prisoners’; SC issues directions for improved accessibility and care
In a civil appeal filed by an Advocate against the order passed by the Madras High Court, the division bench of JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ. in furtherance of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPwD Act’), and India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 (‘UNCPRD’), issued several important directions. Read more here
Taxation
Hyatt International has ‘permanent establishment’ in India under India-UAE DTAA; liable to pay tax in India: Supreme Court upholds Delhi HC’s decision
The principle that arose for determination in the present case, was whether Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd. (‘Hyatt International’), a tax resident of the UAE, had a Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) in India under Article 5(1) of the Indo-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’), and whether its income derived under the Strategic Oversight Services Agreement (‘SOSA’) was taxable in India. The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., stated that a detailed review of the SOSA executed between Hyatt International and Asian Hotels Limited, India (‘AHL’), demonstrated that the Hyatt International exercised pervasive and enforceable control over the hotel’s strategic, operational, and financial dimensions.
The Court stated that Hyatt International’s ability to enforce compliance, oversee operations, and derive profit-linked fees from the hotel’s earnings demonstrated a clear and continuous commercial nexus and control with the hotel’s core functions. Thus, the Court affirmed the findings of the Delhi High Court (‘High Court’), that Hyatt International had a fixed place PE in India within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, and the income received under the SOSA was attributable to such PE, therefore taxable in India. Read more here
*Did you Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid, 5,443 cases have been disposed last month3.
SCC Weekly
Know Thy Judge
1. National Judicial Data Grid | Supreme Court
2. Supra
3. Supra
