The month of November saw the farewell of 52nd CJI B.R. Gavai and 53rd CJI Surya Kant taking charge. Furthermore, in the very beginning of Justice Surya Kant’s tenure as CJI, the Supreme Court introduced major procedural changes in listing and mentioning of cases with particular focus on urgent matters such as bail applications, habeas corpus petitions etc,. This month also saw the resolution of much debated issue on Powers and Functions of the Governor and President vis-a-vis giving assent to bills. Furthermore, judgments on determination of seniority in Higher Judicial Services, Communication of the grounds for arrest, acquittal of Nithari Killing accused, Tribunal Reforms Act and Environmental clearances were also delivered.
Besides providing an overview of the important cases, and key updates that made headlines this month, this Round-up also highlights a “Know Thy Judge” feature, as well as appointments and transfers by the Supreme Court.
Do not miss out on the latest Supreme Court Judgments published in SCC Weekly!
Highlights of the Month
Justice Surya Kant takes charge as 53rd Chief Justice of India
A staunch believer of the Constitution, Justice B.R. Gavai, 52nd Chief Justice of India, bids farewell to the Supreme Court
Procedural Shifts
Supreme Court directs Registry not to list paper-books appended with black and white photographs
Adjournment Requests in Supreme Court: Revised Protocol to take Effect from December 1
Supreme Court issues circular for streamlining service of Bail Petitions
Judgments of the Month
Constitution Bench/ Larger Bench Cases/Presidential References
While considering Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, In Re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2501, which was a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution relating to interpretation of powers of the Governor under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution for opinion of the Supreme Court; the Constitution Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., opined that:
-
The discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200, is not justiciable. The Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken. However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite — the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making any observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.
-
In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the Governor, it would not be appropriate for Supreme Court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200.
-
The President’s assent under Article 201 too, is not justiciable. The Court clarified that the President, too, cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the discharge of functions under Article 201.
[Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, In Re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2501]
While considering All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2500, seeking to revisit the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadre of statewide Higher Judicial Services (HJS), the 5-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., stated that the Court intends to lay down general and mandatory guidelines which shall, henceforth, be incorporated into the respective statutory service rules governing the determination of inter se seniority among officers appointed from different sources to the Higher Judicial Services.
The Court thus invoked the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and issued the following directions vis-a-vis determination and entitlement of seniority:
-
The seniority of officers within the HJS shall be determined through an annual 4-point roster, filled by all officers appointed in the particular year in the repeating sequence of 2 Regular Promotees; 1 Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations, and 1 Direct Recruitment.
-
Only if the recruitment process is completed within the year after which it was initiated and no other appointments, from any of the three sources, have already taken place in respect of the recruitment initiated for that subsequent year, shall the officers belatedly so appointed be entitled to seniority as per the roster of the year in which recruitment was initiated.
-
If the recruitment process is not initiated for vacancies arising in a given year in the same year, the candidate filling such vacancy, in subsequent recruitment, shall be granted seniority within the annual roster of the year in which the recruitment process is finally concluded and appointment is made.
[All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2500]
Judicial Discipline
The bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ served a powerful reminder to the Courts of the core duty of respecting precedents and maintaining judicial discipline, and observed that a judgment that attempts to resist binding authority undermines the unity of law, burdens litigants with avoidable expense and delay, and invites the perception that outcomes depend on the identity of the judge. [Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2366]
*Did you Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid, the total number of pending cases is 906941
Clarification on 3- Year Legal Practice Requirement for Judicial Officers
While considering an application seeking that the applicant be exempted from the directions passed by the Court in paragraph 89 (ii), (vii) and (viii) in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184 dated 20-5-2025, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., and K. Vinod Chandran, J., in order to remove any ambiguity, clarified that in case of Judicial Officers (JOs), who are appointed prior to the passing of the judgment dated 20-05-2025, the requirement of three years practice at the Bar would not be necessary, in case they apply for Judicial Services in any other State. This, however, will be subject to such JOs completing three years’ service in their present State. Furthermore, while perusing an application pertaining to the absorption/regularization of the services of the persons working as e-Court Technical Staff in the various High Courts and the Trial Courts across the country, the Court directed all those States/Union Territories and High Courts, who have not filed their responses, to do so within 6 weeks. [All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online SC 2574]
Criminal Law
While considering these criminal appeals wherein the appellants raised concerns over violation of their rights Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC (Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”]) asserting that they were not informed of grounds of their arrest in writing, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., and Augustine George Masih*, J., held the following vis-a-vis communicating the grounds of arrest to the arrested person:
-
The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under Penal Code, 1860 (now BNS, 2023)
-
The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; In cases where the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally.
-
The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.
-
In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.
[Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356]
“Investigation cannot continue endlessly”: Supreme Court issues directions
In a significant exposition of criminal procedure, the bench of Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ acknowledged the practical complexities of investigation but made clear that investigations cannot continue endlessly and hence, issued the following directions in this regard. [Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511]
Supreme Court interprets ‘Fact Thereby Discovered’ under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
Determining the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that deals with how much of the information as received from the accused, in Police custody may be proved, the bench of JK Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ interpreted the phrase ‘fact thereby discovered’ and held that only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’. [Govind v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2456]
In a case where the central question was whether to direct DNA testing to establish paternity in a criminal investigation predicated on allegations of an extra-marital relationship between a doctor and his patient’s wife, which purportedly led to the birth of a child, the bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., held that a DNA test to challenge paternity cannot be directed as a matter of routine unless the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been rebutted. The Court held that in the absence of strong, unambiguous evidence of non-access between a married couple, compelling the third party for DNA testing would be an unjustified intrusion into privacy and dignity, especially when the paternity issue was collateral to the core offences of cheating and harassment. [R. Rajendran v. Kumar Nisha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2372]
Environment Law
Ex-Post Environmental Clearances: What the Supreme Court’s 2:1 Verdict Says — Majority v Dissent
In a petition, filed by Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) seeking review of the earlier judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1139 (Vanashakti judgment) which had barred post-facto (ex-post) environmental clearances (ECs), the 3-judge bench of BR Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ, in a 2:1 verdict recalled the Vanashakti judgment and has held that retrospective ECs may be granted, but only for “permissible activities” as defined in the relevant regulatory framework. Further, these ECs will typically require payment of penalties/fines. BR Gavai, CJI, and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ formed the majority, while Ujjal Bhuyan, J dissented. [CREDAI v. Vanashakti, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2474]
In a matter concerning the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges and the need for its proper conservation in the States of Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan, the three-judges bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI* and K. Vinod Chandran, and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., directed the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (‘MoEF&CC’) to prepare an Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (‘MPSM’) for the entire Aravali Range. Regarding the ban on mining is concerned, the Court opined that a complete ban on mining might lead to illegal mining activities, and thus, no such ban is imposed on the present legal mining activities that are already being undertaken in the Aravali Hills and Ranges. Further, the Court directed that till the MPSM is finalized, no new mining leases should be granted, and once finalized, the mining would be permitted as per the MPSM. [In Re: Issue relating to definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2512]
While considering this matter pertaining to conservation of tigers and their habitat, restoration of Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve and permitting tiger safaris, the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI*, Augustine George Masih and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ., gave comprehensive directions. The Court held that Tiger Safari shall not be permitted in the core or a critical tiger habitat area. [IN RE : CORBETT, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2463]
The present case adjudicated on the issue concerning the various bodies/authorities monitoring, regulating and permitting construction activities in the Delhi Ridge, widely known as the “Green Lungs” of the city, an area of vital ecological and geographical significance in the National Capital Territory. The Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ and K. Vinod Chandran, J., directed Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to constitute Delhi Ridge Management Board (‘DRMB’), by issuing notification under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (‘EP Act’). The Court stated that a statutory backing would ensure that the fundamental principles of administration would directly apply to the Board. Like the CEC, if the DRMB is also given a statutory status, it will be able to function effectively and be accountable. Thus, the Court directed DRMB to be a single window authority insofar as issues concerning Delhi Ridge is concerned. [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2386]
Definition of Consumer
The present appeal was filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 15-6-2020, whereby the order passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (‘State Commission’) was affirmed, wherein it was held that the appellant was not a ‘consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Consumer Protection Act’) was affirmed. The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, J.*, stated that the appellant is an established company, which bought the product license to automate its processes. In such circumstances, the object of the purchase was not to generate self-employment but to organize its operations to maximise its profits and reduce costs. Thus, the Court stated that the transaction of purchase of goods/ services has a nexus with generation of profits and, therefore, the appellant’s transaction cannot be considered a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. [Poly Medicure Ltd. v. Brillio Technologies (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2443]
Did you Know? As per National Judicial Data Grid, 1129 cases are pending before 3-Judge Bench; 184 cases are pending before 5-Judges Bench & 35 cases are pending before 7-Judges Bench2.
Rise in Animal Bite Cases/ Stray Cattle causing Road Accidents
In furtherance of the directions passed by the Court in City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, In re, (2025) 9 SCC 1, the 3-Judge Bench of Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., perused the compliance affidavits filed by the States and Union Territories pursuant to this Court’s earlier directions; and deemed it fit to modify, the directions issued by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Suo Moto v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3831 and issued further directions in respect of institutional areas, including educational establishments, hospitals, sports complexes, and other public spaces such as railway stations and bus depots, where incidents of dog-bite attacks continue to be reported with alarming frequency, raising a cause of grave concern and requiring emergent remedial measures. [In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2371]
Nithari Killings
While considering this petition filed by Surendra Koli, whose conviction in Rimpa Haldar case was affirmed by the Supreme Court whilst his acquittal in 12 companion prosecutions connected to Nithari Killings was upheld; the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath*, JJ., allowed the curative petition and acquitted Surendra Koli of the charges under Sections 302, 364, 376 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), thereby allowing him to go free in the 13th criminal case related to the horrific Nithari Killings. The Court stated that to allow a conviction to stand on evidentiary basis that Supreme Court itself has since rejected as involuntary or inadmissible in the very same factual matrix, offends Article 21 of the Constitution. It also violates Article 14 of the Constitution, since like cases must be treated alike. Arbitrary disparity in outcomes on an identical record is inimical to equality before the law. “The curative jurisdiction exists to prevent precisely such anomalies from hardening into precedent”. [Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2384]
Tribunal Reforms Act
In a case wherein the validity of the key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (‘Impugned Act’) has been challenged, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ.* and K. Vinod Chandran, J., stated that the Impugned Act directly contradicts binding judicial pronouncements that have repeatedly clarified the standards governing the appointment, tenure, and functioning of tribunal members. The Court stated that merely reproducing the very provisions which were earlier struck down, amounts to a legislative override, which is an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities. Accordingly, the Court struck down the impugned provisions as unconstitutional. The Court further granted the Union of India a period of four months to establish a National Tribunals Commission, which must adhere to the principles concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system. [Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2498]
Negotiable Instruments/ Cheque Dishonour
While considering this petition wherein the issue was whether after the enactment of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Amendment Act, 2015), the court within whose local jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated, has the jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., held that jurisdiction to try a complaint filed under Section 138 in respect of a cheque delivered for collection through an account, i.e., an account payee cheque, is vested in the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank in which the payee maintains the account, i.e., the payee’s home branch, is situated. [Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. HEG Ltd.3]
Private Universities
The bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NV Anjaria, JJ has directed Union of India, all States and Union Territories, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to furnish comprehensive details in order to examine the aspects relating to the creation/establishment/setting-up of all private Universities, either under the State Governments/Union Territories or the Central Government, and connected concerns. The direction came while dealing with a dispute related to Amity University, Noida wherein the Court felt the pressing need to examine the establishment and functioning of private Universities across the country in the larger public interest. [Ayesha Jain v. Amity University, Noida, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2557]
Practice and Procedure (Civil)
In the case where the Court was called upon to decide whether an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA, 2015), the bench of Vikarm Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ held that an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC decides the lis finally and would tantamount to a ‘decree’ within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and hence, appealable before the High Court under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015. [MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited v. Renuka Realtors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2375]
Rent and Tenancy
Mere pendency of appeal does not excuse non-payment of rent: Supreme Court confirms Willful Default
In a case revolving around the question of willful default in payment of rent, the bench of Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ has held that mere pendency of appeal does not excuse non-payment of rent and that such conduct amounted to willful default. [K. Subramaniam v. Krishna Mills (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2383]
Property Law
The present appeal assailed the judgment passed by Patna High Court (‘the High Court’), wherein the appellant’s petition challenging the vires of Rules 19(xvii) and 19(xviii) of Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 (‘Bihar Registration Rules’), mandating mutation proof for property registration, was dismissed. The Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., stated that, considering the nascent stage at which the empirical data is translated as mutation into the relevant records, restraining registration till the jamabandi is effected would be illegal, as it has a direct impact on the right and freedom to purchase and sell property. Thus, the Court held that the prescription of mentioning and production of jamabandi allotment or holding allotment as a pre-condition for registration of a legally presented document under impugned sub-rules is arbitrary and illegal and as such, liable to be set aside. [Samiullah v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2370]
Road Accidents
Taking suo motu cognizance of two tragic road accidents that occurred within consecutive days in Rajasthan and Telangana, claiming a total of 34 lives and leaving several others injured, the bench of JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ directed the National Highways Authority of India and the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, to conduct a survey and submit following reports in particular, with respect to the two Highways where the accidents have taken place:
-
Number of dhabas situated alongside the highways in the area which is not notified for the facility area.
-
Road conditions and the norms followed by the contractors during the period of maintenance.
[IN RE: PHALODI ACCIDENT, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2428]
Sexual Misconduct
While considering an application moved by Dr Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, former Vice Chancellor, WBNUJS (Respondent) for expunging para Nos. 33 and 34 in X8 v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1964 dated 12-9-2025 but particularly, the sentence beginning from ‘Thus’ and ending with ‘personally’ contained in para 34 of the judgment; the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., allowed the application thereby deleting the sentence beginning from ‘Thus’ and ending with ‘personally’ contained in Para 34 of the judgment, which required the Respondent to make Supreme Court’s order dated 12-9-2025, a part of his resume. [X v. Dr Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2523]
Builder-Buyer Dispute
While considering a challenge to the impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) in which, appellant was directed to pay the interest at 6 per cent for a period of about 10 months to the respondents for delay in giving possession of a flat; the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., set aside NCDRC’s reasoning for awarding compensation to the respondents whereby it had held that circumstances due to which there was delay in constructing the flats, could not be construed as ‘Force Majeure’. Supreme Court directed the appellants to hand over the possession of the flat in 2 weeks. [Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd., v. Arunava Bhattacharjee, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2472]
IRCTC Catering Contract Disputes
While considering a matter concerning the scope and ambit of interference with a multi crore Arbitral Award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) passed against IRCTC in relation to several catering contracts for trains such as Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto Express, etc., the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., set aside the Award holding that merely because there was a subsequent change in the policy with prospective effect, based on the recommendations made by the IRCTC itself, whereby parity was brought about in the tariffs to be paid to the caterers for the first and the second regular meals, it did not have the effect of wiping out the policy decisions set out in Commercial Circulars No 67 of 2013 and 32 of 2014, during the period that they continued to hold sway and were in operation. The Arbitrator was, therefore, not justified in undertaking interpretation of the contractual terms contrary to language used therein, which merely mirrored the policy decisions of the Railway Board which were binding in nature. “In effect, the Arbitrator practically rewrote the contract between the parties in such a manner that it was in contradiction with the policy decisions set out in the Circulars dated 23-10-2013 and 06-08-2014, which he could not have touched”. This error on the part of the Arbitrator resulted in the Award not only being against the public policy of India but also made it patently illegal. [Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. Brandavan Food Products, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2369]
Did you Know? The case disposal percentage in Supreme Court for the current year is 87.65%; Total number of cases disposed in the current year is 60,284 cases & total number of cases disposed of in last month is 54404.
Election Candidates
While considering this matter wherein the petition challenged her removal from the post of Councillor at Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon as she had failed to disclose a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) while filing her nomination papers, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar*, JJ., explained that once it is found that there has been non-disclosure of a previous conviction by a candidate, it creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter. A voter is thus deprived of making an informed and advised choice. It would be a case of suppression/non-disclosure by such candidate, which renders the election void. [Poonam v. Dule Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2359]
Political Parties
While considering a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking direction to the Election Commission of India to frame Rules for ‘Registration & Regulation of Political Parties’ to promote secularism transparency democracy & political justice; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., issued notice in the matter. [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2364]
Online Gambling
While considering a petition filed by Centre for Accountability Systemic Change (CASC) seeking issuance of appropriate writ directing the Respondents to prohibit online gambling and betting games operating in the guise of social and e-sports games; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., issued notice in the matter. [Centre for Accountability Systemic Change v. Inion of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2353]
SCC Weekly
Appointments/Recommendations
-
Supreme Court released list of total number of names approved by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as High Court Judges w.e.f 14-5-20255:
Out of 129 candidates: Approved Candidates- 93 (Including OBC/BC-11; SC-10; Minority-13; Women-15; Related to judges-05)
Know Thy Judge
1. https://scdg.sci.gov.in/scnjdg/
2. https://scdg.sci.gov.in/scnjdg/
3. TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1099 OF 2025
4. https://scdg.sci.gov.in/scnjdg/
5. https://cdn.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2025/11/2025112118.pdf