With September gone by, it’s time to reflect on the issues touched by the Supreme Court through its decisions and the developments that occurred in the month. This roundup will provide 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.
Top Legal Developments in the News
Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling
In a batch of petitions challenging the validity of several provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (‘Impugned Act’), the division bench of BR Gavai, CJI* and AG Masih, J. concluded that, in the totality of the circumstances, no case had been made out to stay the provisions of the entire statute. Therefore, the prayer for a stay of the impugned Act was rejected. However, to protect the interests of all parties and balance the equities during the pendency of this batch of matters, the court issued directions in relation to the stay on certain provisions of the Amended Waqf Act. [The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1978].
Supreme Court bans photography and videography inside its High Security Zone
The Supreme Court of India issued a circular prohibiting all forms of photography and videography inside its High Security Zone, except for official purposes. The guidelines, issued by the Competent Authority, take immediate effect and apply to advocates, litigants, interns, law clerks, registry staff, media personnel, and all other stakeholders. The move underscores the Supreme Court’s emphasis on maintaining decorum, security, and confidentiality within its premises.
Advocates write to CJI requesting reconsideration of proposal to transfer Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
A group of 94 Advocates practicing in Delhi High Court, have written a letter to the Chief Justice of India expressing their protest at the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation/proposal to transfer Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju from Delhi High Court to Karnataka High Court. The letter further requested the CJI to reconsider this recommendation for transfer. On 27-8-2025, the Supreme Court of India notified the Collegium’s decision to recommend transfer/repatriation of 14 Judges, including Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju.
While considering an appeal wherein the appellant challenged the decision of Calcutta High Court’s division Bench whereby it had reversed the Single Judge Bench’s order directing the Local Complaint Committee (LCC) to rehear the appellant’s complaint on an alleged incident of sexual harassment committed by the Vice Chancellor (VC) of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS); the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., opined that the High Court’s Division Bench did not commit any error in law in restoring the decision of the LCC that the complaint of the appellant was time barred and liable to be dismissed. However, the Court was of the view that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of NUJS VC may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever. Hence the Court directed that the present order of the Court shall be made part of the VC’s resume, compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally. “It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed against the appellant may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten”. [X v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1964]
Supreme Court Affirms SIT clean chit to Reliance Foundation’s Vantara
While considering this matter pertaining to allegations about Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Trust (‘Vantara’); the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., upon perusing the report prepared by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted in pursuance of order dated 25-8-2025, took note of the Report’s conclusion that Vantara did not violate any of the relevant laws such as the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009, CZA guidelines, Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Trade (Regulation and development) Act, 1992, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna and Flora. The SIT was constituted on 25-8-2025, and its Report in sealed cover, was submitted on 12-9-2025. [CR Jaya Sukin v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2007]
While considering an appeal urging the Court to uphold and advance the constitutional vision of an inclusive society that recognizes every individual, regardless of their disability, as an equal participant in the nation’s framework, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., directed a nationwide monitoring of all State-run care institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities to be distributed across different regions of the country for greater reach and oversight so as to be effective. The monitoring shall also extend to examining the implementation of the RPwD Act. To undertake this task, the Court directed that the monitoring be undertaken under the name and style of the “Project Ability Empowerment” and which shall be undertaken by eight National Law Universities each covering specific States and/or Union Territories. [Reena Banerjee v. NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1966]
While considering this petition concerning the disbursement of funds by banks to builders-cum-developers through subvention schemes for various housing development projects in Noida, Greater Noida, Gurugram, and other nearby areas, the 3-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register the case under the appropriate provisions of law and proceed to investigate the same. The Court took further took note that the CBI upon completing its preliminary enquiry as per previous instructions of the Court, found that a cognizable offence is made out. The matter is to be listed on 16-10-2025 before the Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh. [Himanshu Singh v. Union of India1].
Know why Supreme Court directed seizure of the steno book of a High Court Judge’s secretary
While considering a Special Leave Petition (SLP) revolving around non-uploading of the impugned order rejecting grant of anticipatory bail on the website of Punjab and Haryana High Court as per previous directions of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., directed that the steno book of the High Court Judge’s Secretary to be seized in order to find that on which date the impugned order was typed and corrected on P.C. The Court also directed to hold a discreet inquiry, and the report of P.C., regarding typing and uploading from NIC to be collected and the details filed on the affidavit. [Ajay Maini v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1884].
While considering this petition filed by Euro Pratik Ispat (India) Private Ltd., assailing the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court had restored the suit between the parties on the record of the Commercial Court; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., noted that the long drawn litigation between the parties, which has been murkier and murkier day-by-day could be brought to an end if the parties are persuaded to go for mediation before any Former Judge of the Supreme Court, more particularly considering the nature of the disputes between them and the stakes involved therein. Therefore, the Court appointed former Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, to act as Mediator between the parties and resolve the disputes. The Court requested the Mediator to submit his report at the earliest. [Euro Pratik Ispat (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Geomin Industries Pvt Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2041].
Did you Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid’s coram-wise pendency, there are 1134 cases pending before 3-Judge Bench; 26 cases before 5-Judges Bench and 6 cases before 7-Judges Bench2.
Arbitration
The present appeal challenged the judgment dated 27-09-2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court (‘High Court’), contending that it ought not to have interfered with the arbitral award. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench set aside both the arbitral award and the earlier judgment dated 17-06-2022 passed by the Single Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’). The Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ and Augustine George Masih, J.*, stated that that an arbitrator lacks the power to deviate from or to reinterpret the terms of the contract while making an award. The awards must be within the parameters of the agreement entered between the parties. [Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn. v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2088]
Abetment to Suicide
In a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, wherein the Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. held that the evidence did not establish the ingredients of abetment to suicide. The Court observed that the quarrels between the appellant’s family and the victim’s family were in the nature of heated exchanges that occur in everyday life and could not be construed as instigation to such an extent that the victim was left with no option but to commit suicide. It therefore concluded that the appellant was not guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and acquitted her of the charge. The appeal was accordingly allowed; the judgment of the Karnataka High Court was set aside. [Geeta v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1938]
Advocate Suspension
In an appeal filed by an advocate against the order of the Bar Council of India , wherein the appellant was found guilty of professional misconduct and was imposed a punishment of three years’ suspension from the roll of advocates maintained by the State Bar Council, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., taking note of the serious misconduct committed by the appellant, particularly his repeated and scandalous allegations against the respondent-complainant, the Court refused to take a lenient view. The appeal was dismissed with a cost of ₹1 lakh. [Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Priyanka Bansal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2076]
Akola City Communal Riots
While considering this matter whereby the appellant was aggrieved at the dismissal of his complaint regarding police inaction apropos the attack and assault on him during communal riots in Akola City, Maharashtra on 13-05-2023 by Bombay High Court after expressing suspicions on the appellant’s bonafides; the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., directed the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to constitute a special investigation team (SIT), comprising senior police officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities, to undertake an investigation into all the allegations made by the appellant, by registering an FIR in connection with the assault upon him, and take appropriate action thereon as warranted. The Court further directed to initiate measures to instruct and sensitize the rank and file in the police department as to what law requires of them in the discharge of their duties. [Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1955].
Abuse of Power by CBI Officers
While considering this appeal filed by Vinod Kumar Pandey, former Inspector of CBI and Neeraj Kumar, former Joint Director of the CBI (appellant officers), who challenged the decisions whereby the Delhi High Court directed the registration of FIR with the finding that prima facie cognizable offences under Sections 506, 341, 342 and 166, and Sections 218, 463, 465, 469, 166 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) were made out for investigation against the appellant officers; the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., declined to interfere with the High Court’s order and pointed out that the offences were alleged to have been committed in the year 2000 and till date the matter has not been allowed to be investigated. [Vinod Kumar Pandey v. Seesh Ram Saini, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1951].
All India Football Federation
Supreme Court approves the Draft Constitution of All India Football Federation
While considering this appeal concerning Constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF), the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., approved the provisions of the Draft Constitution and directed the AIFF administration to call for a special general body meeting and adopt the draft Constitution with the modifications made in the judgment. [All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2020]
Bhushan Power & Steel Insolvency case
Breakdown of Supreme Court verdict in Bhushan Power & Steel Insolvency case
In a batch of six appeals filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (‘IBC’) erstwhile promoters and various operational creditors of the corporate debtor challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 17-02-2020, which had been passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) in relation to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (‘BPSL’).
The three-judge bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI*, and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. dismissed the appeals filed by the erstwhile promoters-cum-directors of BPSL and upheld the NCLAT’s judgment dated 17-02-2020. The Court strongly rejected the arguments raised by the appellants and the CoC regarding post-approval claims, particularly concerning Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (‘EBITDA’). [Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2093].
Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam case
In a batch of 13 Special Leave Petitions (‘SLPs’) filed in connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case, the division bench comprising of M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. dismissed all the petitions. The SLPs challenged various FIRs registered in the States of Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh, an Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’), as well as the rejection of bail applications, including one filed by IAS officer Anil Tuteja. [Anil Tuteja v Union of India3]
Civil Procedure
While considering an appeal wherein the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti*, JJ., had to consider the validity of Madras High Court’s impugned decision to remand the matter related to the Appellant’s status as a co-parcener in a partition suit to the Trial Court. The Court upon perusing the impugned order, delved into relevant precedents detailing the distinction between the power of review and appellate power and restated the power and scope of review jurisdiction, thereby summing up the grounds for Review. [Malleeswari v. K. Sugna, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927].
Criminal Law
In a special leave petition filed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court rejected a 71-year-old woman application for anticipatory bail in a forgery case, the three-judge bench of Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. took strong exception to the conduct of respondent 2, a practicing advocate, who was found to be evading service in a case pertaining to an FIR lodged at his instance. The FIR alleged forgery of a sale deed dated 21-08-1971, and was registered in 2023, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings against a 71-year-old woman. [Usha Mishra v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2023]
In an appeal arising from a challenge to a Karnataka High Court order refusing to quash criminal proceedings in a complex land dispute, marked by allegations of non-payment and forged documents leading to multiple sales of the same property, the division bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti, JJ. the State of Karnataka to submit a comprehensive and categorical report on the status and direction of the investigation. It specifically instructed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central Crime Branch, Bangalore City) to supervise the probe and to report, in a sealed cover, on the authenticity of the disputed documents, the role of registration officials, and whether the charge sheet filed was preliminary or final. The Inspector General of Registration and the Commissioner of Stamps were also asked to provide their input in the final report. The interim order protecting the petitioner was directed to continue until the next hearing, which was scheduled for 11-11-2025. [Chandrashekar C. v State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2018]
Did you Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid, the number of pending cases (civil & criminal) is: 890914.
Criminal Procedure
While deciding an appeal arising from an order passed by Allahabad High Court by which the High Court had dismissed the appellant’s petition seeking quashment of summoning order, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., laid down certain steps which must be followed to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947].
While considering the instant appeal against common judgment of Bombay High Court dismissing appellants’ bail applications, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., opined that applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years while the applicants remain under a cloud of uncertainty. “The consistent line of authority of this Court makes it abundantly clear that bail and anticipatory applications must be decided expeditiously on their own merits, without relegating the parties to a state of indefinite pendency”. The Court explained that prolonged delay in disposal not only frustrates the object of CrPC, but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to the constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21. [Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1974].
The present appeal was filed by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 12-3-2024, passed by the Patna High Court, whereby Respondents 2 and 3-accused persons were granted anticipatory bail, who had allegedly got the appellant’s wife murdered with the aid of contract killers. The Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., after noting the appellant’s assertion that the respondents used to run a racket of granting loans at higher interest rates and later extorted the said money, opined that the High Court did not appreciate the gravity of accusations and granted them anticipatory bail in such a heinous offence. Thus, the order dated 12-3-2024 passed by the High Court, was set aside. [Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar5]
The present appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 18-2-2016 (‘impugned judgment’) passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction passed by the Trial Court, was dismissed. The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., stated that only because the firearm alleged to have been used and fired by the appellant, was not recovered or discovered, at any point of time during the investigation, would not render the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses, doubtful. The Court opined that the Trial Court and the High Court had well appreciated the oral version of the two eyewitnesses and thus dismissed the appeal. [Rajan v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1952]
The present appeal challenges the impugned order dated 18-11-2024, whereby the appellant’s petition assailing the order dated 16-8-2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)-2/Special Judge (NDPS), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘Sessions Judge’) was dismissed. In the said order, the Sessions Judge had affirmed the bail granted to the accused persons by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (‘ACMM’), Karkardooma Courts, East District, Delhi. The Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ., stated that the manner in which bail was granted revealed certain procedural irregularities at the grassroots level of the judiciary, which should not be ignored. Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18-11-2024 and the Session Judge’s order dated 16-8-2024. While refusing to turn a blind eye to the manner in which the ACMM granted bail to the accused and the Sessions Judge who refused to interfere with grant of bail, the Court stated that the Judicial Officers who passed the respective orders, should undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days. [Netsity Systems (P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2079]
In the present case, the petitioner filed the special leave to appeal, challenging the order dated 1-7-2025, passed by the Bombay High Court (‘the High Court’), whereby the petition to quash the FIR was disposed of on the ground that after the charge sheet was filed, the petition had become infructuous. The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., stated that so long the cognizance of the offence was not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226 of Constitution. However, once cognizance is taken, power under Section 528 of the BNSS was available to quash the FIR/charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance, provided the same was placed on record along with the requisite pleadings. The Court stated that in the present case, the Division Bench of the High Court did have the jurisdiction to pass such an order, since its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS was also invoked and accordingly, set aside the impugned order. [Pardnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948]
Competition Law
While considering an appeal concerning interpretation of certain provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act), the Division Bench of Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., stated the ecosystem of competition law provides for behavioural and structural remedies to be imposed depending on the facts of the case. As to what remedy will best address the mischief in the individual case and act as a deterrent not only for the violator but also generally would be for the CCI to decide. Internationally, these remedies are well accepted and Competition Act, 2002 in Section 27 vests the power in the CCI to pass such orders as deemed necessary to check the malaise. The ecosystem of the Competition Act is sufficient notice to the violator that the regulating body has vast discretion and depending on the factual scenario can fashion an appropriate remedy. [Competition Commission of India v. Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2092]
Consumer Protection/Consumer Courts
In the present case, an appeal was filed assailing the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (‘NCDRC’) whereby it was held that, there was no liability attached to the Nursing Home, Chandigarh (‘nursing home’) for the death of Respondent 1’s wife and his new born son, and the entire responsibility of paying Rs. 20,26,000 was upon the Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, consulted by Respondent 1 and his wife. The Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., stated that the entire focus of NCDRC was only upon the antenatal care and management of the patient, which was never the subject matter of the complaint case. In doing so, the NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction, as it was not for it to travel beyond the pleadings and build up a new case on its own. Thus, the Court stated that the NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by NCDRC, stated that Respondent 1 should return and refund the sum of 10,00,000 received by him, to Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, ‘Dr. G’ and the insurer, New India Assurance Company Ltd. [Deep Nursing Home v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1934]
Electricity Law
In a dispute arising from a ‘Change in Law’ event due to a coal shortage at GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd. (GKEL)’s 1050 MW power plant in Odisha, which necessitated the use of costlier imported coal, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ*., and K. Vinod Chandran, J., dismissed a batch of appeals filed by various DISCOMs. The Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (‘APTEL’), which had held that coal shortages and the resulting additional costs must be equitably shared among all electricity procurers from the plant. The Bench further clarified that no DISCOM can claim priority in power supply during periods of coal shortage, reaffirming the principle of proportional cost and fuel allocation based on the energy actually drawn by each DISCOM. [Haryana Power Purchase Centre v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1928]
Environment Law
While considering the appeals filed against 2 orders by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) holding the appellant guilty for violating environmental norms, directing a Joint Committe to investigate past violations and subsequently directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs 18 crores at rate of 2%; the Division Bench of Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ., pointed out that NGT exercises judicial functions; therefore, it is all the more necessary for it to adhere to a fair procedure which has been statutorily laid down, and of which principles of natural justice, is an inalienable part. [Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1877].
Human Rights
While deliberating over this appeal revolving around a PIL that was instituted in Delhi High Court highlighting a news report over beggars suffering from Cholera and Gastroenteritis, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., deemed it appropriate to issue directions on diverse aspects, in respect of all Beggars’ Homes across the country, to ensure that the improved conditions are continuously maintained. [M.S. Patter v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1970]
Local Authorities/ Gram Panchayat
Supreme Court deprecates State Inaction; Orders immediate restoration of suspended Rajasthan Pradhan
In a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought extraordinary relief, a direction to the High Court to list and expeditiously dispose of a contempt petition filed by him. The contempt arose from the failure of the authorities to comply with an interim stay order dated 19-03-2024, passed by the Single Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. found it distressing that the petitioner had not yet received the benefit of the judicial directions issued in his favour. Accordingly, the Court directed all authorities to implement the High Court’s interim order dated 19-03-2024 without any further delay. The immediate effect of this direction was the restoration of the petitioner to the position of elected Pradhan. [Himanshu v State of Rajasthan6]
Marriage Registration
In a significant decision, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., while considering this petition seeking directions for the States and Union Territories (Respondents) to frame and notify rules under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (as amended in 2012) to facilitate registration of marriages solemnised by the Sikh rite commonly known as Anand Karaj, laid down general directions for the States and Union Territories. [Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2017].
Matrimonial cases
While considering the present appeal challenging the refusal to quash proceedings against the accused persons (appellant) for offences under Sections 323 and 498A of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“Dowry Act”); the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., emphasised that Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with matrimonial complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. [Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2059]
NDPS Cases
While considering this appeal challenging Bombay High Court’s decision to direct re-trial of a NDPS case and remanding the appellant to judicial custody, who was originally convicted by the Trial Court after recovery of contraband; the Division Bench of Manoj Misra* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., opined that mere non-production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn from the seized material. [Kailas v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1977].
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
While considering this appeal challenging Bombay High Court’s decision to acquit the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), the Division Bench of Manmohan* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., took judicial notice of the fact that despite repeated directions by the Court in various judgments, pendency of cheque bouncing cases under the NI Act in District Courts in major metropolitan cities of India continues to be staggeringly high. Thus, in view the massive backlog and the fact that service of summons on the accused in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act continues to be one of the main reasons for the delay in disposal of the complaints as well as the fact that punishment under the NI Act is not a means of seeking retribution but is more a means to ensure payment of money and to promote credibility of cheques as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment, the Court issued extensive Guidelines. [Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069].
POCSO
In a special leave petition filed against the judgment filed passed by Chhattisgarh High Court, wherein the Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a man under Sections 363 and 366 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (‘POCSO’) Act, 2012, the division bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. granted interim bail to the convict to enable him to reunite with the prosecutrix (now his wife) and their minor child, after both expressed their desire to live together as a family. [Hemchand v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2104]
While considering a criminal appeal challenging the setting aside of the Respondents’ convictions under Sections 376(2) of Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 by Patna High Court, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ., set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the Respondents’ conviction and sentence as given by the Trial Court, while pointing out that, in the present case, a fairly consistent and creditworthy case of the prosecution was discarded on basis of misapplication of procedure. The Court further pointed out that the victims often find themselves in conflict with the procedural intricacies of the laws in place. Despite the importance of procedural sanctity, it is always a matter of utter failure for the system when a culprit, that too of a heinous sexual offence, manages to walk free by entangling the victim in misapplication of procedural rules, without the knowledge of the victim and without any control of the victim. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1878]
Supreme Court stays Rajasthan High Court’s directions containing adverse remarks against POCSO Judge
In a Special Leave Petition filed not to challenge the conviction but solely to seek expunction of adverse remarks made against the trial judge and to quash any disciplinary or consequential proceedings arising from those remarks, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. granted a stay on the operation of the Rajasthan High Court’s order, wherein the High Court had passed strictures and made adverse observations against a judicial officer serving as Special Judge, POCSO Court. [Sonika Purohit. v State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1885]
In a criminal appeal filed by the convicts against the judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court, which had partially upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge (POCSO), a Three Judge Bench comprising Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., held that, upon considering the evidence in its entirety and bearing in mind the principles governing cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution had failed to establish the complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to bring home the guilt of the convicts. Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and death penalty imposed on the man convicted for the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl in 2014. The co-accused, who had been convicted for harbouring the offender, was also acquitted. [Akhtar Ali v State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1949]
In an appeal filed by a man convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his 11-year-old niece, the division bench of Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, JJ. upheld the 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded by the Special POCSO Court and affirmed by the Gauhati High Court. The Court further emphasised that courts must remain vigilant to ensure that procedural submissions are not misused as tactics for harassment. In strong terms, it held that requests to recall a child victim after the conclusion of trial and concurrent findings of guilt raise serious concerns, particularly when there is no manifest illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence. [Arjun Sonar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2065]
Political Parties under POSH Act
In a special leave petition filed against the Judgment of Kerala High Court, wherein it was held that it was not compulsory for political parties to set up an Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’) to address sexual harassment complaints as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, (‘POSH Act’), since there is no employer-employee relationship among its members, the three Judge Bench of BR Gavai, CJI, K. Vinod Chandran and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. refused to entertain a petition seeking to bring registered political parties under the ambit of the POSH Act. [Yogamaya v State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2011]
Raja Sardar Singh will/Khetri Estate
In an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court upheld the validity of the Will of Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri, holding that there had been due compliance with Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 and that the Will had been duly proved in accordance with Section 68 of the ‘Evidence Act, 1872, the division bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. held that a State has no locus to challenge a Probate granted to a Will. The Court further clarified that Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act (which allows for escheat of property to the Government) would apply only in the event of a failure of heirs upon intestate succession. Therefore, until such a situation arises, the Government remains a stranger to both probate proceedings and succession under personal law. [State of Rajasthan v Ajit Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1992].
SARFAESI
While considering this appeal wherein Madras High Court’s decision to quash the Sale Certificates issued in favour of the appellants (Auction Purchasers) was challenged, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., pointed out glaring errors in respect of Section 13(8) of the SARAFESI Act and Rules 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI Rules, expressing disbelief at the ill-wording of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, which resulted in a glaring inconsistency between the Section and the Rules, the Court pointed out that the ambiguities within the statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder have left the interests of secured creditors and auction purchasers high and dry. “The interpretative deadlock between the provision and the rules has single handedly resulted in a huge mess insofar as enforcement of security interest is concerned., giving birth to an endless pipeline of litigation clogging the specialized forums of the DRT and DRAT, that are expected to expeditiously decide matters of recovery of debt”. Therefore, the Court urged the Ministry of Finance to take a serious look at the afore-stated provisions and bring about necessary changes, before it is too late in the day. [M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2036]
Senior Citizens Rights
While considering this appeal wherein a senior citizen (appellant) was aggrieved by Bombay High Court’s decision to set aside the eviction order passed against his eldest son by the Maintenance Tribunal (the Tribunal); the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., reiterated that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. The appellant is a senior citizen, aged about 80 years with a 78-year-old wife and three working children. The appellant had purchased two properties and had moved to Uttar Pradesh leaving their children behind in the purchased properties. However, the eldest son had taken the properties in his possession, and he did not allow the appellant to reside in them. [Kamalkant Mishra v. Additional Collector, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077].
Did you know? As per National Judicial Data Grid, total 5595 cases were disposed of last month7.
Service Law
Supreme Court issues notice over alleged irregularities and lapses in the conduct of SSC Exams
While considering a writ petition highlighting widespread irregularities and lapses in conduct of SSC exams including SSC Selection Post/Phase XIII Examination and the Stenographer Examination Grade ‘C’ and ‘D’ Examination 2025, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., issued notice in the matter. In his plea, the petitioner had alleged that Eduquity Career Technologies Pvt. Ltd. took over the responsibility of conducting the exams after the Staff Selection Commission suddenly shifted the contract to Eduquity from Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). The petitioner alleged that since Eduquity started conducting the SSC exams, widespread lapses were reported in multiple phases of recruitment exams including the afore-stated Exams. It was stated that Eduquity’s past record has been marred by complaints and allegations of mismanagement. [Nikhil Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1921].
An overview of Supreme Court decision mandating Aspiring and In-service Teachers to qualify the TET
While considering this appeal raising questions as regards to applicability of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to minority educational institutions and whether qualifying in the TET is mandatory prerequisite for recruitment of teachers as well as promotion of teachers already in service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ., held that teachers aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion, must qualify the TET, “Or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature”. [Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912].
While considering the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgments whereby the respondents who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under unreserved category; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi*, JJ., held that where there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats. [Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943]
While considering this special leave petition revolving around Chhattisgarh Civil Judge Examination, the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CPSC) to not insist upon the requirement of three years’ experience at the Bar for the candidates as the advertisement was issued and the selection process had commenced prior to the judgment of the Court in All Indian Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online SC 1184. [Urwashi Kour v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2033].
Witness Protection
The present appeal arose from the order passed by the Allahabad High Court (‘the High Court’) whereby the appellant’s application to cancel the bail of the accused person was dismissed on the ground that with the appellant’s remedy was under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (‘Witness Protection Scheme’) and thus, declined to cancel the bail. The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., stated that the existence of a Witness Protection Scheme could by no stretch be a consideration to decline to cancel the bail, even when there is prima-facie material indicating that the accused administered threats or intimidated witnesses. The Court stated that to substitute one for the other was to denude the court of its authority and render the provisions of bail cancellation otiose and thereby make a mockery of the conditions imposed while granting bail. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and remanded the matter back to the High Court with a direction to rehear the application for cancellation of bail on its own merits. [Phireram v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1915]
Know Thy Judge
Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge: Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
SCC Weekly
Judicial Recommendations and Appointments
Supreme Court Collegium recommends appointment of 9 Judges for 4 High Courts
Supreme Court Collegium recommends appointment of Chief Justices for 3 High Courts
Supreme Court designates 1 former High Court Chief Justice and 6 Judges as Senior Advocates
1. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).7649/2023
2. https://scdg.sci.gov.in/scnjdg/
3. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11790/2024
4. https://scdg.sci.gov.in/scnjdg/
5. Crl.A. No. 4081 of 2025
6. Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 818/2025