As August comes to a close, it’s time to reflect on the latest judgments, orders, and developments from the Supreme Court in August 2025. This roundup provides an overview of the 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
Justice Alok Aradhe & Justice Vipul M. Pancholi take oath as Judges of Supreme Court
*Did you Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid’s coram-wise pendency, there are 1136 cases pending before 3-Judges Bench; 184 cases before 5-Judges Bench; 35 cases before 7-Judges Bench and 53 cases before 9- Judges Bench1
Top Legal Battles in the News
Capture, Vaccinate, Release: Supreme Court modifies stray dog order; Bans street feeding
In a suo motu case concerning stray dogs, that was initially heard by a 2-Judge Bench on 11-08-2025, and later placed before a 3-Judge Bench, the bench of Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, JJ modified the directions issued by the 2-judge bench and observed that that “the direction given in the order dated 11-08-2025, prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh”. The previous Bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, had issued directions for the removal of stray dogs in the Delhi National Capital Region (NCR) to shelter homes. The case was then referred to a Three-Judge Bench. The Bench reserved its judgment on 14-08-2025, which was pronounced on 22-08-2025. Read more
[City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, In Re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1792]
Also read: The Stray Dog Case Explained: Key Developments and Updates
Supreme Court partly expunges its order restraining Allahabad HC Judge from hearing criminal matters
In the present case, an undated letter from the Chief Justice of India was received, requesting the present Court to reconsider its directions issued in paras 25 and 26 of the order dated 4-8-2025 (‘the order’). The Division Judge Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ., clarified that the intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the Judge concerned. The Court stated that “when matters cross the threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this Court to intervene, even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.” Since a request was made in writing by the Chief Justice of India, the Court deleted paras 25 and 26 respectively from the said order, whereby the Judge concerned was restrained from hearing criminal matters and left it to the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to look into the matter. Read more
[Shikhar Chemicals v. State of U.P., SLP( Crl.) No. 11445 of 2025]
[Shikhar Chemicals v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1643]
SC constitutes Committee led by former Allahabad HC Judge to supervise functioning of Bankey Bihari Temple
While considering the petitions and applications pertaining to the management and development of the Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple at Vrindavan, Mathura in Uttar Pradesh, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., directed the establishment of a High-Powered Temple Management Committee (“the Committee”) under the Chairmanship of Justice Ashok Kumar, Former Judge, Allahabad High Court, to oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning inside and outside of the Bankey Bihari Temple, subject to the ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court. Read more
[Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1666]
In-House Procedure for inquiry into judicial misconduct is not a removal mechanism; much less an extra-constitutional mechanism: Supreme Court
This writ petition was filed by a sitting Judge of Allahabad High Court seeking declaration of Paragraphs 5(b) and 7 of In-House Procedure dated 15-12-1999 to the extent that it enables the In-House Committee to inquire and comment on the existence of ‘serious misconduct warranting removal’ and the CJI to intimate the same to the President and the Prime Minister for initiating proceedings for removal and other consequential action, as unconstitutional and ultra vires; and set aside the Final Report dated 03-05-2025 submitted by the Committee, and all consequential actions taken pursuant to the same. Read more
[XXX v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1646]
‘There is nothing like optional’; BCI & State Bar Councils cannot collect any ‘optional’ fees: Supreme Court
While considering a contempt petition concerning non-compliance of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 641, as regards to enrolment fee which the State Bar Council are entitled to collect, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ., clarified that State Bar Councils or Bar Council of India shall not collect any fees of any amount as optional. The Court emphasised that the Bar Councils shall strictly collect fees in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the main judgment. Read more
[KLJA Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1659]
Supreme Court directs Registrar General of all High Courts to place matters before Chief Justice if judgment not delivered within three months
In the present case, appeals were filed against the impugned interim orders dated 28-8-2024 and 9-1-2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court, by which a criminal appeal preferred by Respondent 2 was not taken up for hearing. The Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ., referred to the report of the Registrar General and was extremely shocked and surprised that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard. The Court stated that in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 (‘Anil Rai Case’), it had issued certain guidelines for pronouncement of judgments and thus, for its adherence, it reiterated the directions in the present case and directed that if the judgment was not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders. Read more
[Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1813]
Supreme Court directs Samay Raina, 4 other comedians to apologize on social media for insensitive remarks about disabled persons; Asks Centre to formulate comprehensive guidelines
A Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. directed five comedians, including Samay Raina, to issue public apologies on their respective YouTube channels and other social media platforms for making insensitive remarks targeting persons with disabilities (‘PwDs’).
The petition highlighted objectionable jokes made by comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar, which allegedly mocked individuals with disabilities and perpetuated harmful stereotypes. The Court further directed the Centre to formulate comprehensive guidelines for regulating social media platforms, with a specific focus on curbing content that offends, ridicules, or targets persons with disabilities, women, children, and senior citizens. The issue of an appropriate penalty would be considered at a later stage.
[Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v Union of India ,Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 83/2025]
Constitution Bench
5-Judge Constitution Bench to decide issues related to appointment of Judicial Officers as District Judges
While considering the appeal seeking review of Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401, where it was held that the members of the Judicial Service of a State could be appointed as District Judges either by way of promotion or via Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE); the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI.*, K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration before a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges of the Supreme Court: Read more
[Rejanish K.V v. K. Deepa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1678]
Presidential Reference Case
A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar is currently hearing a Presidential Reference concerning the timelines and procedures to be followed by the President and State Governors when dealing with Bills passed by State Legislatures.
Also Read: Article 143 of the Constitution of India: Supreme Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction Explained
Constitutional Law
Asst. Engineer Mains Paper Leak | SC clears Arunachal Pradesh PSC Member of all 6 charges levelled in Presidential Reference seeking her removal
The present matter pertained to a Presidential reference under Article 317(1) vis-a-vis a member (Respondent) of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) facing allegations of misbehaviour, especially related to leakage of the question paper of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination conducted by the APPSC on 26/27-8-2022; and whether the Respondent ought to be removed from APPSC on the grounds of the alleged misbehaviour. Read more
[In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1845]
Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers
While considering this writ petition challenging the imposition of death sentence on the convict and seeking its reconsideration in the light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments, particularly with reference to the guidelines laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, the 3 Judge Bench of Vikram Nath*, Sanjay Karol** and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court in cases related to capital punishment, to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty to ensure that the guidelines mandated in Manoj (supra) were followed. “This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the Manoj (supra) safeguards in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing, and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person”. Vikram Nath, J., however cautioned that Article 32 of the is the bedrock of constitutional remedies, but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters. Read more
[Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1823]
Criminal Law
“Classic example of lackluster and shabby investigation”; Supreme Court acquits two men, including death row convict, in 12-year-old’s rape and murder case
In an appeal filed against the 2018 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the convictions of two individuals, sentencing one to death and the other to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in Lucknow in 2012, a three-judge bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. acquitted both the convicts. Read more
[Putai v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1827]
*Did You Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid, the total number of pending cases (civil and criminal) is: 87968 cases2
Simple blow with a school bag without evidence of deliberate maltreatment, doesn’t satisfy ingredients of Child Abuse: SC
While considering a criminal appeal challenging the appellant’s (convict) conviction and sentence under Sections 323, 352 and 504 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, for allegedly hitting a child with a school bag; the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., acquitted the convict for charges under Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act and Section 504 IPC and confirmed his conviction under the Sections 323 and 352 of the IPC, deemed it fit to release the convict on probation. Read more
[Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. State of Goa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1828]
Read why Supreme Court set aside Delhi HC’s order granting bail to Wrestler Sushil Kumar in Sagar Dhankhar murder case
In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by Delhi High Court, wherein, the High Court granted bail to Olympian Wrestler Sushil Kumar’s (accused) in the Sagar Dhankhar murder case, the division bench of Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. viewed that the High Court had erroneously passed an order releasing the accused on bail. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and directed the accused to surrender before the court concerned within one week. Read more
[Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690]
‘Attending meetings of organisation not banned under UAPA isn’t prima facie offence’; SC affirms Karnataka HC’s order granting bail
While considering this matter where the Union of India challenged Karnataka High Court’s verdict in partly allowing a criminal appeal thereby granting bail to the Respondent and denying bail to another accused for offences under Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Arms Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA); the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., upheld the High Court’s decision. Read more
[Union of India v. Saleem Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1754]
Inside Supreme Court decision to cancel bail granted to actor Darshan & other accused persons in Renukaswamy murder case
While considering the appeal filed by State of Karnataka challenging the grant of bail to actor Darshan and other accused persons in Renukaswamy murder case; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala** and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., finding that Karnataka High Court order granting bail suffers from serious legal infirmities, cancelled the bail granted to the accused persons. The authorities concerned were directed to take the accused persons into custody and direction was given to conduct the trial expeditiously. Read more
[State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702]
Justice for Home Buyers as Supreme Court grants Builder 6-Month interim bail to settle claims; Merges 81 FIRs
In a special leave petition filed against the order of Patna High Court, by which the High Court declined to club all the FIRs registered against the petitioner-a real estate developer and the Company in which he is one of the Directors, the division bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. held that clubbing of FIRs arising from the same transaction is legally permissible to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to safeguard the larger interest of the victims. Read more
[Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1728]
Supreme Court upholds jail official’s conviction for facilitating undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt
In a case wherein an appeal was filed against judgment and order dated 4-5-2023 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby conviction and sentence dated 31-10-2014 of the appellant, Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana (accused) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, was upheld, for facilitating undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt from custody. The Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., stated that the use of a private vehicle associated with the appellant, the involvement of unidentified persons, the stop at scheduled location under false pretext, and the appellant’s inaction during the violent assault despite being in a position of official authority, formed a continuous chain of incriminating circumstances that pointed toward his complicity in the conspiracy. Read more
[Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1669]
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. Read more
[Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1516]
Man who killed family over wife’s alleged infidelity spared death penalty; to remain in prison until natural death: Supreme Court
In the present case, the appellant-convict suspected infidelity of his wife and that his three children were not his own, brutally assaulted them, which resulted in their death. The 3-Judges Bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol*, and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., while affirming the findings of the Courts below regarding the appellant’s conviction for the barbaric and ruthless murders of his family members, opined that the High Court, despite having considerable information, did not consider it appropriately and sufficiently, in relation to the findings of report that detailed the appellant’s social and psychological backdrop. Read more
[Byluru Thippaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1455]
Supreme Court clarifies bail granting procedure, rules out undertakings as basis for regular or anticipatory bail
In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Bombay High Court, where an interim application was allowed and the bail order was modified, the division bench of JB Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ. made it unequivocally clear through explicit directions that henceforth, no Trial Court or High Court shall grant regular bail or anticipatory bail based on any undertaking furnished by the accused solely for the purpose of obtaining such relief. Read more
[[Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571]
POCSO| ‘No mitigation for crimes that subvert notion of family as space of security’; SC upholds father’s life sentence
While considering this petition challenging the affirmation of accused person’s conviction and sentence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and Section 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by Himachal Pradesh High Court; the Division Bench of Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., confirmed the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. Noting that the accused in the case is the father of the victim, the Court strictly emphasised that incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. Read more
[Bhanei Prasad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1636]
Service Law
‘Professors are intellectual backbone of any nation’; SC asks Gujarat Govt. to rationalize pay structure of contractual Assistant Professors
While considering these appeals concerning the pay parity of the contractually appointed Assistant Professors, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., allowed the appeals and by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, asked the State to rationalise their pay structure and directed that the contractual Assistant Professors be paid minimum of the scale payable to Assistant Professors. Read more
[Shah Samir Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1788]
Judge Advocate General Recruitment | Executive can’t restrict number of women candidates/ reserve posts for men under the guise of ‘extent of induction’: SC
In a significant matter the primary issue was whether Union of India after having issued a Notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 allowing induction of women in the Judge Advocate General (‘JAG’) branch, could have denied admission to the Petitioners who secured 4th and 5th rank in the merit list of women candidates in preference to Respondent 3 who secured 3rd rank in the merit list of men candidates, but obtained lesser marks than the female candidate placed at 10th in the Females Merit List. The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Manmohan*, JJ., opined that Executive cannot restrict number of women candidates and/or make a reservation for male officers under the guise of ‘extent of induction’ by way of a policy or administrative instruction. Read more
[Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1668]
“State cannot balance budgets on daily wage earners’ backs”; Supreme Court Orders full regularisation of Class III & IV employees’ posts & financial benefits
While addressing the issue concerning denial of rights to persons engaged as ad-hoc/daily wage employees in public institutions, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., said that State (Union and State Governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. Taking note of the Appellants, who were hired as daily wagers by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992, and whose nature of service was found to be perennial, the Court thus issued elaborate directions to grant them the relief of fully regularising their posts and financial benefits. Read more
[Dharam Singh v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735]
‘Employer’s discretion ends where employee’s dignity begins’; Supreme Court directs TSRTC to redeploy colour-blind employee
The instant appeal challenged the decision by Division Bench of Hyderabad High Court for State Telangana, whereby it had set aside the direction to Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) to provide the appellant, who is colour blind, with an alternative employment. The Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar*, JJ., allowed the appeal by holding that the Appellant was prematurely retired from service on medical grounds without any meaningful effort by the Corporation to explore his suitability for alternate employment. This action was taken in disregard of Clause 14 of the binding Memorandum of Settlement dated 17-12-1979 and without adherence to principles of fairness or accommodation and is therefore, unsustainable in law. Read more
[Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1592]
Employees can claim compensation under Employment Compensation Act in cases of accidents during work commute: Supreme Court
In a case where primary question for consideration was whether the accident which caused the death of the deceased while commuting for place of work could be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, the Division Bench of Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., interpreted the phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” occurring in Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (‘EC Act’) to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or vice versa, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment was established. Read more
[[Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1534]
State Govt cannot whimsically interfere in recruitment processes governed/driven by Statutes and Rules via its Executive Orders: Supreme Court
While considering the appeals revolving around cancellation of the ongoing recruitment processes by the State on the pretext of a policy decision, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ., held that when recruitment processes are held under strength of the relevant Statutes and Rules framed under such Statutes, then it cannot be left at the whims and fancies of the State to interfere in it through executive orders, without adhering to the principles of consistency and predictability, which are warranted by the rule of law and are pillars of non-arbitrariness. Read more
[Partha Das v. State of Tripura, Civil Appeal Nos. 4426-4466 of 2023]
*Did you Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid, 5,666 cases have been disposed last month.3
Politics & Elections
Supreme Court remands BJP MLA Tankadhar Tripathy’s election case to Orissa HC; Directs scrutiny of defects in Form 25 affidavit
In an appeal concerning certain procedural and technical requisites, generally ancillary to the filing of election petitions mandated under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘RP Act’), the Division Bench of Surya Kant* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. asked the Orissa High Court to identify and assess the defects, if any, in the Form 25 affidavit accompanying the petition challenging BJP MLA Tankadhar Tripathy’s (appellant) election, which alleged corrupt practices. Read more
[Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 179]
Mere non-disclosure of assets/income, unless substantial, will not invalidate election results: Supreme Court
In a civil appeal filed under Section 116-A of Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘the Act’) against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-10-2024 passed by Telangana High Court (‘High Court’), whereby, the appellant’s election petition was dismissed, the Division Bench of Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh* and Surya Kant, JJ., stated that merely because a returned candidate had not disclosed certain information related to the assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a fastidious approach, unless it was shown that such concealment or non-disclosure was of substantial nature that could have influenced the election result. Read more
[Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723]
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. Read more
[Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1576]
Petition can’t be transferred from one State High Court to another merely because it involves a political figure: Supreme Court
While deliberating over a suo motu contempt petition which originated from a petition seeking transfer of a criminal petition from Telangana High Court to Bombay High Court citing alleged partiality of a Single Judge Bench of Telangana High Court; the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI.*, K. Vinod Chandran and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., held that merely on the basis that a petition involves a political figure in a State, cannot constitute a ground to transfer the proceedings from the High Court of that State to the High Court of another State. The Court grimly took note of a recurring trend that whenever any matter involves a political figure in a particular State, petitions for transfer of proceedings from that State to any other State is sought, alleging that a litigant may not get justice in that State. Read more
[N. Peddi Raju, In Re., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1694]
Environment Law
Supreme Court constitutes SIT led by Justice Jasti Chelameswar to probe Reliance Foundation’s ‘Vantara’ Wildlife Centre in Gujarat
After two writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in public interest, based exclusively on reports and stories published in newspapers, circulated on social media, and on various complaints submitted by non-governmental organizations and wildlife organizations, containing allegations against ‘Vantara’ (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre), operated by the Reliance Foundation in Jamnagar, Gujarat, the Division Bench comprising Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to inquire into the affairs of Vantara. The SIT, led by Former Supreme Court judge, Justice Jasti Chelameswar, has been tasked with examining, among other issues, the compliance with the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and other relevant statutory frameworks in relation to the acquisition of animals, particularly elephants, from both within India and abroad. Read more
[C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1842]
‘Situation in Himachal gone from bad to worse; severe ecological imbalance led to serious natural calamities’; Supreme Court seeks State’s action plan
In the present case, the petitioner, Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., had preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, challenging Notification dated 6-6-2025, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Town and Country Planning Department, whereby construction in Shri Tara Mata Hill area was prohibited as it was declared a ‘green area’. The High Court had declined to entertain the writ petition stating that the petitioner still had to seek permission from the State authorities to purchase the land in question. Read more
[Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1630]
Intellectual Property Law
Supreme Court| No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark ‘Blenders Pride’ against ‘London Pride’ in a trade mark infringement case
In the present case, an appeal was filed against the judgment dated 3-11-2023 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby the appellants’ challenge to the order dated 26-11-2020 passed by the Commercial Court, was dismissed. The Commercial Court had rejected the appellants application for interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’ alleging that it was deceptively similar to the appellants marks, ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’, amounting to trade mark infringement. Read more
[Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701]
Human Rights Law
Supreme Court directs Maharashtra Govt. to stop inhuman practice of plying hand pulled rickshaws in Matheran within 6 Months
While considering the applications highlighting several issues related to popular Maharashtrian hill station, Matheran in Raigad, including whether or not the practice of towing by hand the carts/rickshaws should be permitted; the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI*, K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., pointed out that persons towing hand cart/rickshaw in Matheran do so not of their own choice, but are compelled due to having no other source of livelihood. The Court thus directed the State of Maharashtra to forthwith stop the practice of plying hand pulled carts/rickshaws in the town of Matheran in a phased manner and within a period of 6 months. Read more
[In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1780]
Supreme Court issues notice to Union in PIL on rights of persons with neurodivergent conditions
In a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) concerning the State’s systemic apathy towards persons with neurodivergent conditions, including autism, cerebral palsy, dyslexia, and multiple disabilities, the division bench of B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. issued notice to the Union of India and other main respondents. Read more
[Action for Autism v. Union of India, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 729/2025]
Supreme Court Steps In: EDMC and PWD directed to respond to allegations of Manual Scavenging
In a matter concerning manual scavenging, the Division Bench comprising Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, JJ., directed the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) to file a reply to the applications, explaining why manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning were still being carried out using manual labour, thereby endangering workers’ lives and failing to provide them with proper safety gear, as evidenced by the photographs annexed to the applications. Read more
[Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1672]
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 is subject to provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act: Supreme Court
While considering an appeal challenging Calcutta High Court’s rejection of the tenant’s application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act); the Division Bench of J.K Maheshwari* and Aravind Kumar, JJ., held that applicability of Limitation Act is subject to provisions of the WBPT Act. The compliance as required to be done by the tenant in Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and first part of Section 7(2) regarding deposit of rent and filing an application within the same time is mandatory. In default, tenant cannot avail the benefit of the proviso of Section 7(2) which only relates to the payment of determined amount of rent and whereby the Civil Judge may exercise the discretion to grant extension of time. Read more
[Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1696]
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
SC pushes for POSH Act Compliance; directs District-wise survey on constitution of Internal Complaints Committee
While considering the matter pertaining to proper implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., in pursuance of the Court’s earlier order dated 3-12-2024, wherein the District Authorities concerned were to survey the number of organisations, (both public sector as well as private), which have already constituted the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC); directed the respondents have this survey conducted now with the assistance of the District Labour Commissioners and the Chief Labour Commissioner of the State. The Court emphasised that the survey shall be conducted within a period of 6 weeks from 12-8-2025 if not already completed. Read more
[Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1749]
Infrastructure Law
Promoter Liability and Deemed Sanction under RERA | SC upholds Allahabad HC Ruling declaring L&T as sole promoter
In a Special Leave Petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘UPRERA’) challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 01-10-2024, wherein it was held that Larsen & Toubro (‘L&T’), being the developer, qualified as a promoter under the Act, and that the landowner was not required to be added as a co-promoter for the purpose of project registration. It further observed that, since UPRERA failed to decide the registration application within the prescribed period of 30 days, the project would be deemed to have been registered under Section 5(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘the Act’). A division bench of B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, noted that the agreements and correspondence on record, including various letters from the landowner, clearly indicated that L&T was solely responsible for the construction, sale, and marketing of the project. On that basis, the Court found no reason to interfere with the deemed sanction declared by the High Court. Read more
[Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority v Larsen and Toubro Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1750]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Supreme Court stays coercive action against insolvent guarantors in 11 pending criminal cases under NI Act and PSS Act; Issues notice
In a writ petition filed by directors and personal guarantors of GC Raj Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., challenging the criminal complaints across India for cheque dishonour and payment defaults related to loans guaranteed by them, the division bench of B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. issued notice and directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners in all 11 pending criminal cases across three States and four cities. These include five criminal trials in Punjab (including Chandigarh and Ludhiana), five in West Bengal (Kolkata), and one in Rajasthan (Jaipur). The proceedings consist of six cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), and five cases under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (PSS Act). Read more
[Raj Kumar Aggarwal v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1721]
Arbitration and Conciliation
Whether a non-signatory to an agreement can be allowed to remain present in arbitration proceedings? Supreme Court Answers
While considering the present matter, the Court had to answer whether it is permissible for a non-signatory to an agreement leading to arbitration proceedings to remain present in such arbitration proceedings. The Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar*, JJ., held that when arbitration proceedings can take place only between parties to an arbitration agreement and Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) does not make the arbitral award binding on non-signatories to such agreement, therefore, there can be no legal right conferred by the A&C Act that would enable a non-party to the agreement to remain present in arbitration proceedings between signatories to the agreement. Read more
[Kamal Gupta v. L.R. Builders Pvt Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1691]
Electricity Law
SC flags regulatory failure in power sector; Directs States to clear DISCOMs dues within 4 years
In a batch of writ petitions and civil appeals, three distribution companies supplying electricity to consumers in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, namely, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited challenged the manner in which the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission had determined the tariff for the retail supply of electricity over the years, which had led to the creation and continuation of a “regulatory asset.”, the division bench of PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. concluded the following: Read more
[BSES Rajdhani Power Limited v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1637]
Civil suits
‘Special nature of suit under S. 92 CPC requires it to be filed on behalf of the public for vindication of public rights’: Supreme Court
While deciding this appeal, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and R, Mahadevan, JJ., had to consider whether the Operation ASHA as registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, can be said to have fulfilled all the requirements stipulated under Section 92 of the CPC for the purpose of instituting a suit under the said provision? Delving in depth into the aspects of Section 92 CPC, the Court pointed out that a suit under Section 92 of the CPC is a representative suit of a special nature since the action is instituted on behalf of the public beneficiaries and in public interest. However, at the stage of grant of leave, the court neither adjudicates upon the merits of the dispute nor confers any substantive rights upon the parties. The Court explained that while the society cannot be considered as an ‘express trust’, but for an entity to be brought within the rigours of Section 92 CPC, the plaintiff has the option of also contending that a ‘constructive trust’ exists in the circumstances and a breach of such a constructive trust has occurred or that the directions of the Court are necessary for the administration of such a constructive trust. Read more
[Operation ASHA v. Shelly Batra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1605]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Know Why Supreme Court decided to recall its judgment ordering liquidation of BPSL & rejecting JSW’s Resolution Plan
While considering this review petition filed in respect of Supreme Court’s decision dated 2-5-2025 in Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1010, whereby the Court had directed the liquidation of Bhushan Steel and rejected the Resolution Plan by JSW; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ and Satish Chandra Sharma, J., opined that Kalyani Transco (supra) did not correctly consider the legal position as laid down by several judgments such as- Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd., (2021) 10 SCC 401; Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657; Essar Steel India Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531; Swiss Ribbons Private Limited v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17 etc. Read more
[Punjab National Bank v. Kalyani Transco, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1634]
Creditor’s name not essential in balance sheet for acknowledgment of debt to extend limitation period; Supreme sets aside NCLAT Order; Allows IFIN’s plea
In an appeal filed by IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (‘IFIN’) against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) which had dismissed IFIN’s application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd (‘respondent/Corporate Debtor’) on the ground of limitation, the division bench of Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. held that the entry in the Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor for the financial year 2019—20 constituted a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This acknowledgment effectively extended the limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings. Read more
[IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1567]
Compulsory Internship for Foreign Medical Graduates
Supreme Court issues notice to NMC over delay in compulsory rotating internship for foreign medical graduates
In a writ petition challenging the arbitrary and unreasonable inaction on the part of the respondents in failing to initiate the process of Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship for Foreign Medical Graduates (‘FMGs’) from the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, a Division Bench comprising BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan, JJ. issued a notice to National Medical Commission (‘NMC’)returnable on 01-09-2025. Read more
[Association of Doctors and Medical Students v. National Medical Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1722]
Know Thy Judge
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice J.B. Pardiwala’s expansive career and key rulings
SCC Weekly
Appointments and Transfers
Supreme Court Collegium recommends transfer of 14 High Court Judges
Supreme Court Collegium recommends appointment of 9 Permanent Judges for 2 High Courts
Supreme Court Collegium recommends appointment of Judicial Officer as Judge of Punjab & Haryana HC
1. National Judicial Data Grid | Supreme Court
