{"id":355360,"date":"2025-08-02T10:00:59","date_gmt":"2025-08-02T04:30:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=355360"},"modified":"2025-08-02T10:23:09","modified_gmt":"2025-08-02T04:53:09","slug":"supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court July 2025 | Stories & Judgments on Electoral Roll revision; Recorded spousal conversations; Tribal woman\u2019s right to ancestral property and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

In July, the Supreme Court\u2019s 2-month long partial working days ended, and the Court came out with multiple major decisions. Therefore, as July ends, it is only appropriate to delve into these key Supreme Court rulings some of which are sure to shape the legal landscape. This Roundup provides an overview of the top stories, important cases, and key updates that made headlines. It also highlights the \u201cKnow Thy Judge<\/a>\u201d section.<\/p>\n

Do not miss out on the latest Supreme Court Judgments published in SCC Weekly.<\/p>\n

Top Stories<\/p>\n

Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Tamil Nadu MLA Jagan Moorthy in Minor\u2019s abduction case<\/a><\/p>\n

Multi Crore Chit Fund Scam Case | Read why Supreme Court granted interim relief from arrest to actor Shreyas Talpade<\/a><\/p>\n

Know Why Supreme Court set aside proceedings against badminton players Chirag Sen & Lakshya Sen for birth record falsification<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court dismisses Hindustan Motor\u2019s petition against resumption of 395 acres of land by West Bengal Government<\/a><\/p>\n

Authority empowered to inflict minor penalties, under CCS CCA Rules, can issue charge sheet even for imposition of major penalties<\/a><\/p>\n

Petrol Pump NOC Case | Supreme Court imposes Rs 50,000 cost for non-disclosure of parallel proceedings before NGT and High Court<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court issues notice in dispute over transfer of Ratanshi Premji Charitable trust lands to Fenkin Infotech; Stays Bombay HC order<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court grants relief to M3M Group; Permits substitution of attached land in PMLA case<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court to Decide: Are RBI circulars binding on SREI Equipment Finance Ltd?<\/a><\/p>\n

*Did you Know?<\/span> As per National Judicial Data Grid\u2019s coram-wise pendency, there are 1130 cases pending before 3-Judges Bench; 206 cases before 5-Judges Bench; 35 cases before 7-Judges Bench and 70 cases before 9- Judges Bench1<\/sup><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Arbitration<\/p>\n

\u2018Use of \u2018may\u2019 in alleged arbitration clause doesn\u2019t indicate clear intention to refer dispute to arbitration\u2019; SC upholds Calcutta HC\u2019s verdict<\/p>\n

While considering an appeal revolving around existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra*<\/span>, JJ., upheld Calcutta High Court\u2019s impugned judgment wherein it had held that, when there is use of \u201cmay\u201d in a supposed arbitration clause, there is no clear intention of the parties to refer the dispute between them to arbitration. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Bail<\/p>\n

\u2018Case of Saviour turning into a devil\u2019; Supreme Court cancels Superintendent\u2019s bail in Patna\u2019s Uttar Raksha Grih women inmates trafficking case<\/p>\n

While considering this appeal filed by the victim challenging the grant of bail to Respondent 2, who during her tenure as Superintendent of Uttar Raksha Grih, was accused of sex trafficking helpless women who resided in that protection home; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*<\/span>, JJ., lamented that the present case was clearly of one where the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil. Observing that allegations against Respondent 2 had shaken the Court\u2019 conscience. \u201cGrant of bail to the person accused of such grave offences without assigning reasons shakes the conscience of the Court and would have an adverse impact on the society\u201d. Therefore, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, the Court cancelled the bail granted to Respondent 2. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Bhushan Power Liquidation\/ JSW Resolution Plan<\/p>\n

Supreme Court recalls its judgment rejecting JSW Steel\u2019s resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel<\/p>\n

The Division Bench of B.R Gavai, CJ and Satish Chandra Sharma, J., on 31-7-2025, recalled its judgment dated 2-5-2025<\/a> wherein the Court had rejected JSW Steel\u2019s Rs 19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) and had ordered for the company\u2019s liquidation. The Court while recalling its judgment, prima facie observed that the previous judgment did not consider the precedents and the legal position properly. The case is now due to be heard on August 7th<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Bihar\u2019s Electoral Roll Revision<\/p>\n

Bihar\u2019s Electoral Roll revision: Supreme Court urges Election Commission to accept Aadhaar, Ration Cards, and EPICs for voter identity verification<\/p>\n

In a batch of petitions filed by opposition party leaders and several NGOs, challenging the Election Commission of India (\u2018ECI\u2019) directive dated 24-06-2025, which ordered a Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar., the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. urged the ECI to consider allowing Aadhaar, ration cards, and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (\u2018EPICs\u2019) as admissible documents for proving voter identity during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls being undertaken in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections in November 2025. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Criminal Law<\/p>\n

Police must serve Section 35 BNSS notices physically; WhatsApp and other electronic modes not valid: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

In an application filed by the State of Haryana seeking modification of the order dated 21-01-2025, passed by the Supreme Court, the Court had directed all States and Union Territories to issue Standing Orders to their respective police departments mandating that notices under Section 41-A<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019), or Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (\u2018BNSS\u2019), be issued only through modes of service prescribed by law. The division bench comprising MM Sundresh and NK Singh, JJ., dismissed the application and confirmed the impugned order. The Court held that it was not persuaded that electronic communication constituted a valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023. The deliberate omission of such a provision by the Legislature was construed as a clear indication of its intent. The Court observed that incorporating a procedure into Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, which had not been expressly provided by the Legislature, would have been contrary to legislative intent. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

SC issues guidelines for handling of DNA evidence; Implores legislature to consider compensation for acquittal after long incarceration<\/p>\n

While considering the instant appeal challenging conviction and sentence of death penalty to the appellant (convict) which was affirmed by Madras High Court via the impugned judgment; the 3 Judge Bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol*<\/span> and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., emphasised need of a legislative framework to compensate accused persons who have been suffering long incarcerations only for them to be cleanly acquitted. The Court further took strict note of the faulty investigation and especially the treatment of the DNA evidence in ways that rendered the samples useless for the purposes of the case. Hence, the Court issued certain guidelines which must be followed in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Not born as criminals\u2019: Supreme Court permits woman convicted for fianc\u00e9\u2019s murder to seek pardon<\/p>\n

In an appeal seeking to assail the life sentence on the appellants (\u2018accused persons\u2019), the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh*<\/span> and Aravind Kumar, JJ., upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused persons. However, the Court observed that that it did not condone the action of Accused 4, a 20-year-old woman (\u2018accused woman\u2019) as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life, her fianc\u00e9. The Court stated that the accused persons were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure which led to the commission of a heinous crime. Thus, the Court facilitated the accused persons\u2019 right to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate petitions before Governor of Karnataka. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

High Courts must consider incorporating provision in their respective Rules, obligating disclosure of criminal antecedents by accused persons: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

The appellant, a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, approached this Court to challenge the strictures passed against him in order dated 3-5-2024 (\u2018the impugned order\u2019) by the Rajasthan High Court (\u2018the High Court\u2019). The 3-Judges Bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*<\/span>, JJ., opined that the strictures and\/or the scathing observations were made to the detriment of the appellant as he was not provided with any opportunity of explanation, thus, the same were set aside. The Court opined that every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a provision in the respective High Court Rules and\/or Criminal Side Rules which would impose an obligation on the accused persons to make disclosures regarding his\/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Conciliation<\/p>\n

Limitation Act is not applicable to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

While considering an appeal, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha*<\/span> and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., had to decide whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963<\/a> are applicable to conciliation and arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18<\/a> of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006<\/a> (MSMED Act). Further, even if the Limitation Act is not applicable, whether a supplier can recover a time-barred debt by taking recourse to the remedies provisioned under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. The Court upon deliberating over the issues, opined that Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act. A time-barred claim can be referred to conciliation as the expiry of limitation period does not extinguish the right to recover the amount, including through a settlement agreement that can be arrived at through the conciliatory process. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Custodial Torture\/ Police Atrocities<\/p>\n

Supreme Court directs Rs 50 Lakhs compensation to J&K Police Constable who was victim of brutal custodial torture<\/p>\n

While considering an appeal challenging J&K and Ladakh High Court\u2019s decision to dismiss appellant\u2019s petitions seeking FIR against police personnel; transfer of the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); and quashing of the FIR filed against the appellant; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*<\/span>, JJ., exercised the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 136 read with Article 142<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and directed the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay compensation of Rs 50 Lakhs to the appellant so as to provide some solace to the appellant and his family for the barbaric acts of custodial torture leading to complete castration. The Court further directed the CBI to take over the investigation in the matter. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Defection<\/p>\n

SC directs Speaker of Telangana Legislative Assembly to expeditiously conclude disqualification proceedings against defected BRS MLAs<\/p>\n

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*<\/span> and A.G. Masih, J., declined to accede to the appellants\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

However, in view of specific findings in<\/span> Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu<\/span>, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 and Subhash Desai v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, (2024) 2 SCC 719, the Court deemed it fit to direct the Speaker of Telangana Legislative Assembly to conclude the disqualification proceedings pending against the 10 MLAs pertaining to the present appeals\/petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.<\/p>\n

Designation of Senior Advocates<\/p>\n

Issue of suo motu designation of Senior Advocates by Full Court does not warrant reconsideration: Supreme Court upholds Orissa High Court\u2019s power<\/p>\n

While considering the petition filed by Orissa High Court\u2019s administrative side, challenging the quashment of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 (2019 Rules) as ultra-vires by the judicial side of the High Court; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*<\/span>, JJ., following and concurring with the verdict laid down by 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1099, stated that issue of designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power does not warrant reconsideration. Taking note of amended Rule 6(9) of the 2019 Rules, which contemplates designation of Senior Advocates by Full Court under the suo-motu power, the Court reiterated that the conferment of Senior Advocate status is a privilege, not an entitlement, and must be governed strictly by the principles of fairness, accountability, and institutional integrity. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Fraud on Court\/ Abuse of Process<\/p>\n

\u2018Fraud is an exception to doctrine of merger\u2019: Supreme Court recalls its own judgment obtained by fraud<\/p>\n

In a civil appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 28-10-2021, whereby \u2018R\u2019 was made the sole owner of the subject property, the three Judge Bench of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta*<\/span> and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., stated that the doctrine of merger might not automatically apply to every set of related civil appeals made from the same order, and laid down certain exceptions to the doctrine. Further, the Court stated that fraud was an exception to the doctrine of merger, and since fraud vitiated the entire proceedings, the Court set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the Court recalled its judgment in Reddy Veerana v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (2022) 14 SCC 252 (\u2018Reddy Veerana case\u2019), which too was obtained by fraud. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Intellectual Property Law\/ Counterfeit Products<\/p>\n

Know why Supreme Court held this Company as \u2018victim\u2019 within the ambit of S. 2(wa) read with Proviso to S. 372 CrPC?<\/p>\n

While considering this appeal by Asian Paints Ltd, (appellant) whereby the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah*<\/span> and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., were faced with the question that whether the appellant would fall under the definition of \u2018victim\u2019 as per Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Court opined that Section 2(wa) CrPC does not define \u2018victim\u2019 in a narrow sense. The Court further stated that Section 372 of the CrPC is a self-contained and independent Section; i.e., it is a stand-alone Section and is not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX of the CrPC including Section 378. Thus, the right of a victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Matrimonial Disputes<\/p>\n

Privacy vs. Evidence: Supreme Court allows secretly recorded spousal conversations as admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes<\/p>\n

In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the High Court had ruled that recorded conversations between a husband and wife could not be the basis for deciding a petition under Section 13<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna*<\/span> and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. held that the founding rationale for Section 122<\/a> of the Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> as acknowledged by the Law Commission and various High Courts, was to protect the sanctity of marriage rather than focusing on the right to privacy of the individuals involved. Consequently, the Court stated that the right to privacy is not a relevant consideration in situations where the privilege under Section 122 is not granted, such as in proceedings between spouses (an exception recognized in Section 122 itself).<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 for the purpose of protecting the sanctity of the marital relationship, and not for safeguarding individual privacy rights. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SC directs wife & her family members to tender apology to husband & in-laws for cases filed<\/p>\n

While considering transfer petitions filed by husband and wife seeking transfer of their pending suits to competent courts in Rohini, Delhi and Hapur, Uttar Pradesh respectively and other connected matters; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and Augustine George Masih*<\/span>, J., deemed it fit to invoke the power under Article 142<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and dissolved the marriage between the parties. The Court further held that guidelines framed by Allahabad High Court in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine All 395, vis-a-vis \u2018Constitution of Family Welfare Committees\u2019 for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A of the IPC, shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Mental Health<\/p>\n

Supreme Court issues comprehensive Guidelines on protecting mental health of young students in coaching centres and colleges<\/p>\n

While considering this appeal challenging Andhra Pradesh High Court\u2019s decision to not transfer the investigation on the appellant\u2019s 17-year-old daughter\u2019s tragic death to the CBI; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*<\/span>, JJ., reflecting upon the underlying societal issue of growing crisis of student suicides in the context of contemporary education, issued 15 Guidelines for preventive, remedial, and supportive framework for mental health protection and prevention of suicides by students across all educational institutions.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that the Guidelines shall apply to all educational institutions across India, including public and private schools, colleges, universities, training centres, coaching institutes, residential academies, and hostels, irrespective of their affiliation. It was also clarified that these guidelines are not in supersession but in parallel to the ongoing work of the National Task Force on Mental Health Concerns<\/a> of Students and are being issued to provide an interim protective architecture in the interregnum. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

POCSO<\/p>\n

Constitutional bar against retrospectively imposing harsher penalty is clear and absolute: Supreme Court modifies sentence in POCSO case<\/p>\n

In an appeal challenging the judgment dated 5-9-2023, whereby the appellant\u2019s challenge to his conviction under Section 376-AB<\/a> of Penal Code 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) and Section 6<\/a> of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (\u2018POCSO Act\u2019) was dismissed, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath*<\/span> 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 \u201cimprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life\u201d, as per the amended provision under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, did not exist in the statutory framework on the date of the incident. Accordingly, the Court upheld the appellant\u2019s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Property Law<\/p>\n

Whether a Tribal Woman or her legal heirs will have any entitlement over equal share in ancestral property? Supreme Court answers<\/p>\n

While considering an appeal wherein the Court had to deliberate that whether a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not; the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol*<\/span> and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., opined that, unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out. Therefore, in keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, the Court held that in the instant case, since the Plaintiffs were D\u2019s (Tribal woman heir) legal heirs, they are entitled to their equal share in the property of their maternal grandfather. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Can a power of attorney holder by signing a sale deed on behalf of the principal, become the \u2018Executant\u2019? SC refers issue to Larger Bench<\/p>\n

While considering the instant appeal revolving around the validity of a registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., took note of the contradiction on the issue that whether a power-of-attorney holder, who signs a sale deed on behalf of the principal, would become the \u2018executant\u2019 and thus be covered by Section 32(a)<\/a> of the Registration Act, 1908<\/a> (the Act) and need not fulfil the requirements of Sections 32(c) and 33 of the Act. It was observed that Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation of the afore-stated issue in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar<\/span>, (2009) 14 SCC 782, deviated from the statutory scheme under Part VI of the Act. Therefore, the issue was referred to a Larger Bench for a conclusive resolution of the conflict. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

*Did You Know?<\/span> As per National Judicial Data Grid, the total number of pending cases (civil and criminal) is: 87115 cases2<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Practice and Procedure<\/p>\n

\u2018Review of a review not permissible\u2019; Supreme Court upholds Calcutta HC judgment on finality of Review Medical Board\u2019s decision in BSF recruitment<\/p>\n

In a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, wherein it was held that the decision of the Review Medical Board in respect of the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Border Security Force (\u2018BSF\u2019) is final, and that no appeal or further medical examination can be entertained against its findings, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court, comprising Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. upheld the impugned judgment and declined to interfere, thereby affirming the legal position adopted by the High Court. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Amendments to complaints permissible after cognizance if no prejudice is caused to accused\u2019; Supreme Court allows amendment in S.138 NI Act complaint<\/p>\n

In a criminal appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the High Court had held that the amendment sought by the appellant\/complainant was not merely a typographical error and had a broader impact on the matter in dispute, thereby altering the nature of the complaint, a Division Bench comprising BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan*<\/span>, JJ., while upholding the Trial Court\u2019s order allowing an amendment application in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>, reaffirmed that it is fallacious to contend that amendments to complaints can never be allowed after cognizance is taken. Further, the Court said that the High Court had misdirected itself by delving into the issue of GST applicability, which lies within the purview of the appropriate tax authorities under the relevant statute. The Court clarified that the amendment in question did not alter the fundamental nature or character of the complaint. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court\u2019s judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court\u2019s order dated 02.09.2023 was restored. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Service Law<\/p>\n

Supreme Court stays \u2018pay minus pension\u2019 rule for ex-defence faculty recruited by AIIMS Jodhpur<\/p>\n

In a Special Leave Petition filed by retired defence officers who had been appointed to faculty posts at AIIMS Jodhpur through open advertisement and direct recruitment, the petitioners challenged a judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had held that, although the petitioners were appointed through direct recruitment, they would be governed by Regulation 33 of the AIIMS Regulations, 1999. While the High Court restrained retrospective salary deductions, it allowed the prospective application of the \u201cPay minus Pension\u201d formula from the date of its judgment, i.e., 15-05-2025. In response, a Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. issued notice and granted interim relief to the recruited faculty members, staying the implementation of the \u201cPay minus Pension\u201d rule pending further consideration. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Why Supreme Court decided to quash recruitment of 1091 Asst. Professors & 67 Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab<\/p>\n

While deciding the appeal challenging Punjab & Haryana High Court\u2019s decision to uphold the selections made by the State of Punjab for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia*<\/span> and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., quashed the entire recruitment and directed the State to initiate the recruitment process as per the 2018 UGC Regulations which are now in force in the State of Punjab. The Court pointed out that the State miserably failed to justify the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process and to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in question. The Court said that quashing of the entire recruitment process may cause hardships for the selected candidates, but at the same time, there is no equity in the favour of selected candidates as challenge to the recruitment was made during the pendency of the process and appointments were subject to the Court orders. A gross illegality like the present recruitment cannot be ignored. Read more here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Service Tax<\/p>\n

Service Tax Exemption | Whether collection, processing, & storing umbilical cord blood stem cells are \u2018healthcare services\u2019? SC answers<\/p>\n

While considering an appeal against Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) verdict holding that services of enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, provided by the appellant, do not fall within the scope of \u201cHealthcare Services\u201d; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*<\/span>, JJ., found that the appellant\u2019s services fell within the ambit of \u201cHealthcare Services\u201d as defined under the exemption Notification No.25\/2012\u2014Service Tax dated 20-06-2012. It was held that these services are preventive and curative in nature and encompass diagnosis, treatment, and care.<\/span> Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Rights of Prisoners\/ Rights of Disabled Prisoners<\/p>\n

\u2018State bears constitutional and moral obligation to uphold rights of disabled prisoners\u2019; SC issues directions for improved accessibility and care<\/p>\n

In a civil appeal filed by an Advocate against the order passed by the Madras High Court, the division bench of JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*<\/span>, JJ. in furtherance of Articles 14<\/a> and 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016<\/a> (\u2018RPwD Act\u2019), and India\u2019s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 (\u2018UNCPRD\u2019), issued several important directions. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Taxation<\/p>\n

Hyatt International has \u2018permanent establishment\u2019 in India under India-UAE DTAA; liable to pay tax in India: Supreme Court upholds Delhi HC\u2019s decision<\/p>\n

The principle that arose for determination in the present case, was whether Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd. (\u2018Hyatt International\u2019), a tax resident of the UAE, had a Permanent Establishment (\u2018PE\u2019) in India under Article 5(1) of the Indo-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (\u2018DTAA\u2019), and whether its income derived under the Strategic Oversight Services Agreement (\u2018SOSA\u2019) was taxable in India. The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*<\/span>, JJ., stated that a detailed review of the SOSA executed between Hyatt International and Asian Hotels Limited, India (\u2018AHL\u2019), demonstrated that the Hyatt International exercised pervasive and enforceable control over the hotel\u2019s strategic, operational, and financial dimensions.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that Hyatt International\u2019s ability to enforce compliance, oversee operations, and derive profit-linked fees from the hotel\u2019s earnings demonstrated a clear and continuous commercial nexus and control with the hotel\u2019s core functions. Thus, the Court affirmed the findings of the Delhi High Court (\u2018High Court\u2019), that Hyatt International had a fixed place PE in India within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, and the income received under the SOSA was attributable to such PE, therefore taxable in India. Read more here<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

*Did you Know?<\/span><\/span> As per National Judicial Data Grid, 5,443 cases have been disposed last month3<\/sup><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

SCC Weekly<\/p>\n

2025 SCC Vol. 6 Parts 1 and 2<\/a><\/p>\n

2025 SCC Vol. 5 Part 5<\/a><\/p>\n

2025 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4<\/a><\/p>\n

2025 SCC Vol. 5 Part 3<\/a><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge<\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | From Student Union to the Supreme Court: Justice Aravind Kumar\u2019s dynamic journey & important judgments<\/a><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice M.M. Sundresh\u2019s dedicated career and notable judgments<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

1.<\/a> National Judicial Data Grid | Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Supra<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Supra<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Stay informed on the latest Supreme Court judgments of July 2025 on Bihar’s Electoral Roll revision, recording of spousal conversations; Tribal woman’s rights over ancestral property; Guidelines on collection of DNA evidence and mental health of college students. Explore notable rulings shaping the legal landscape.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":355363,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45673,34119],"tags":[34779,3226,32271,51527,45274,83923,86219,13271,11871,86483,9871,46945,86484],"class_list":["post-355360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-columns-for-roundup","category-scmonthly","tag-ancestral-property","tag-arbitration","tag-counterfeit-products","tag-crimes-against-women","tag-custodial-torture","tag-dna-evidence","tag-hyatt-international","tag-matrimonial-disputes","tag-mental-health","tag-recorded-conversations","tag-right-to-privacy","tag-supreme-court-monthly-roundup","tag-tribal-women-rights"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup: Explore Latest stories and Judgments given by the Supreme Court of India in July 2025.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court July 2025 | Stories & Judgments on Electoral Roll revision; Recorded spousal conversations; Tribal woman\u2019s right to ancestral property and more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup: Explore Latest stories and Judgments given by the Supreme Court of India in July 2025.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-02T04:30:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-02T04:53:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Supreme-Court-July-2025-Judgements.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court July 2025 | Stories & Judgments on Electoral Roll revision; Recorded spousal conversations; Tribal woman\u2019s right to ancestral property and more\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Supreme-Court-July-2025-Judgements.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-02T04:30:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-02T04:53:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup: Explore Latest stories and Judgments given by the Supreme Court of India in July 2025.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Supreme-Court-July-2025-Judgements.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Supreme-Court-July-2025-Judgements.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court July 2025 Judgements\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court July 2025 | Stories & Judgments on Electoral Roll revision; Recorded spousal conversations; Tribal woman\u2019s right to ancestral property and more\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup| SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup: Explore Latest stories and Judgments given by the Supreme Court of India in July 2025.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court July 2025 | Stories & Judgments on Electoral Roll revision; Recorded spousal conversations; Tribal woman\u2019s right to ancestral property and more","og_description":"Supreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup: Explore Latest stories and Judgments given by the Supreme Court of India in July 2025.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-02T04:30:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-02T04:53:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Supreme-Court-July-2025-Judgements.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Supreme Court July 2025 | Stories & Judgments on Electoral Roll revision; Recorded spousal conversations; Tribal woman\u2019s right to ancestral property and more","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/","name":"Supreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Supreme-Court-July-2025-Judgements.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-02T04:30:59+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-02T04:53:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"Supreme Court July 2025Judgements Roundup: Explore Latest stories and Judgments given by the Supreme Court of India in July 2025.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Supreme-Court-July-2025-Judgements.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Supreme-Court-July-2025-Judgements.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Supreme Court July 2025 Judgements"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/supreme-court-july-2025-judgments-scc-times\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court July 2025 | Stories & Judgments on Electoral Roll revision; Recorded spousal conversations; Tribal woman\u2019s right to ancestral property and more"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Supreme-Court-July-2025-Judgements.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":241629,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/05\/supreme-court-yearly-roundup-2020-in-review\/","url_meta":{"origin":355360,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court Yearly Roundup – 2020 in review","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 5, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"JANUARY 2020 Story of the month 5-judge bench holds no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-january-2020\/ FEBRUARY 2020 Story of the month Grant permanent commission to all women officers in Army who opt for it within 3 months: SC to Centre https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/06\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-february-2020\/ MARCH 2020 Story of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2020-wrap-up.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289721,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/15\/latest-supreme-court-judgment-on-ancestral-property\/","url_meta":{"origin":355360,"position":1},"title":"Ancestral Property: Latest Supreme Court Judgments","author":"Editor","date":"April 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"We often get to hear the term \u2018ancestral property\u2019, but the exact meaning of the term remains unknown to most of us. The term has not been defined expressly in any statute, but the Courts have time and again explained the term. In simple terms, an ancestral property is a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law made Easy"","block_context":{"text":"Law made Easy","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/law-made-easy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"latest supreme court judgment on ancestral propety","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/latest-supreme-court-judgment-on-ancestral-propety-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/latest-supreme-court-judgment-on-ancestral-propety-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/latest-supreme-court-judgment-on-ancestral-propety-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/latest-supreme-court-judgment-on-ancestral-propety-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286733,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/10\/important-supreme-court-judgments-february-2023-roundup-legal-updates-news-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":355360,"position":2},"title":"A Closer Look at Key Supreme Court Cases from February","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Watch the roundup of all the important Supreme Court judgments and stories from the month of February.","rel":"","context":"In "SCC Times Newsflash"","block_context":{"text":"SCC Times Newsflash","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/watch-now-2\/scc-times-newsflash\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-71.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-71.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-71.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-71.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259084,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/27\/supreme-court-2021-12-months-12-stories\/","url_meta":{"origin":355360,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court 2021: 12 Months, 12 Stories","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"JANUARY Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 The 3-Judge Bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ., in a 465-pages long judgment, upheld the validity of several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, albeit with directions given in exercise\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-11-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":353891,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/19\/supreme-court-tribal-woman-entitlement-equal-share-ancestral-property-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":355360,"position":4},"title":"Whether a Tribal Woman or her legal heirs will have any entitlement over equal share in ancestral property? Supreme Court answers","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 19, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cOne would think that in this day and age, where great strides have been made in realizing the constitutional goal of equality, this Court would not need to intervene for equality between the successors of a common ancestor and the same should be a given, irrespective of their biological differences,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tribal Woman equal share in ancestral property","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/sc-252.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/sc-252.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/sc-252.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/sc-252.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":356187,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/10\/ancestral-property-latest-supreme-court-judgments-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":355360,"position":5},"title":"Ancestral Property: Key Supreme Court Rulings You Should Know","author":"Editor","date":"August 10, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAncestral property is a rightful heritage, not a personal asset.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Law made Easy"","block_context":{"text":"Law made Easy","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/law-made-easy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Ancestral Property","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Ancestral-Property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Ancestral-Property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Ancestral-Property.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Ancestral-Property.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355360","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=355360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355360\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/355363"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=355360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=355360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=355360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}