{"id":365523,"date":"2025-11-01T17:00:50","date_gmt":"2025-11-01T11:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=365523"},"modified":"2025-11-01T16:40:26","modified_gmt":"2025-11-01T11:10:26","slug":"supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court October 2025 | From District Judge Eligibility to Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Officers – Stories that Shaped the Month"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

As October comes to a close, it’s time to reflect on the latest judgments, orders, and developments from the Supreme Court in October 2025. This roundup provides an overview of the important cases, and key updates that made headlines this month. It also highlights a “Know Thy Judge” feature, as well as appointments and transfers by the Supreme Court. Do not miss out on the latest Supreme Court Judgments published in SCC Weekly.<\/p>\n

Highlights<\/p>\n

Know Your CJI Designate Justice Surya Kant who will take charge as the 53rd Chief Justice of India in November<\/a><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Justice BV Nagarathna: The Arc Moving Toward a First Woman CJI<\/a><\/p>\n

RTI reply sheds light on pendency of Habeas Corpus, Preventive Detention, UAPA and NDPS cases before the Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court designates 1 former High Court Chief Justice and 4 Judges as Senior Advocates<\/a><\/p>\n

Constitution Bench<\/p>\n

Judicial Officers with 7 years’ experience in law practice are eligible for direct appointment as District Judge\/Additional District Judge: Supreme Court<\/span><\/p>\n

In a landmark ruling, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai, CJI.*, M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S.C. Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., while deciding a reference on issues related to appointment of Judicial Officers as District Judges, held the following: Judicial Officers who have already completed 7 years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service, would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge\/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Officers<\/p>\n

To Summon or not to Summon an Advocate? Inside important SC directions to guide Investigators & protect Client-Advocate privilege<\/p>\n

While considering this reference made by a Division Bench of the Court in a Special Leave Petition filed against notice issued against an Advocate under Section 179<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS), the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., K. Vinod Chandran*<\/span> and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., issued the following directions to ensure that the Client-Advocate privilege is not impinged upon by valiant investigators or overzealous parties to a litigation, purely on the basis of the interpretation of the evidentiary rules codified: Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, In Re]<\/p>\n

Protection of Transpersons<\/p>\n

Gaps in Transgender Persons Act & Rules; Advisory Committee; Identity issues: Inside Supreme Court Directions & Suggestions to ensure protection of Transpersons<\/p>\n

While considering a writ petition highlighting discrimination faced by the petitioner due to gender identity as a transgender person in employment, which allegedly resulted in the petitioner’s termination from two different schools situated in two different States in the span of a year; the Division Bench of J.B Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ*., dishearteningly noted the there are several provisions in both the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights Act), 2019 (2019 Act) and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020<\/a> (2020 Rules) respectively which remain as mere aspirations on paper despite the same being couched in a mandatory language. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2257<\/a>]<\/p>\n

*Did you Know?<\/span><\/span> As per National Judicial Data Grid’s coram-wise pendency, there are 1127 cases pending before 3-Judges Bench; 184 cases before 5-Judges Bench; 35 cases before 7-Judges Bench and 50 cases before 9- Judges Bench<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Stick to enrollment fee limits or face contempt<\/p>\n

SC directs BCI to issue written circulars to all State Bar Councils to ensure compliance with statutory limits<\/p>\n

In a contempt petition filed for non-compliance with the judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 641<\/a>, wherein the Court had held that the State Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment fees beyond the limits prescribed under Section 24<\/a> of the Advocates Act, 1961<\/a>. Under Section 24, the maximum enrollment fee is Rs. 750 for advocates in the general category and Rs. 125 for advocates belonging to the Scheduled Castes\/Scheduled Tribes categories. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee]<\/p>\n

Ban on firecrackers in NCR<\/p>\n

Supreme Court temporarily relaxes complete ban on firecrackers in NCR; Permits sale of Green Crackers from 18-10-2025 till 20-10-2025<\/span><\/p>\n

In a significant decision right before the festival of lights, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., issued the following directions as a temporary measure on use of firecrackers during Diwali: The sale of Green Crackers as uploaded on the website of NEERI, shall be permitted commencing from 18-10-2025 till 20-10-2025. The district administration and the police shall ensure that use of firecrackers shall be confined between 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM on the 2 days i.e., the one before and on the Diwali day.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[MC Mehta v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2244<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Karur Stampede<\/span><\/p>\n

Supreme Court transfers investigation to the CBI; Proposes setting up of Supervisory Committee to ensure investigation impartiality<\/p>\n

While considering this petition challenging Madras High Court’s direction of constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the unfortunate incident of stampede which occurred on 27-09-2025 at about 7.30 P.M. in Velusamypuram, Karur District, Tamil Nadu (the “Karur stampede”); the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., taking note of the gravity of the matter, transferred the investigation to the CBI. The Court directed CBI’s director to forthwith appoint a senior officer for taking over the investigation and appoint some other officers for assistance of the said officer. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2218<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Sex education for children<\/p>\n

Sex education for children must be in school curriculum from younger age; not from class IX onwards: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

In the present case, a 15-year-old juvenile accused under Sections 376<\/a> and 506<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a> and Section 6<\/a> of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> was denied bail by the High Court. Subsequently, vide order 10-9-2025, the present Court, released the juvenile and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to submit details on sex education in higher secondary schools. The Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ., opined that sex education should be provided to the children from a younger age and not from class IX onwards. The authorities concerned should apply their mind and take corrective measures, so that children are informed of the changes that happen after puberty and the care and cautions to be taken in relation thereto. Thus, the Court opened the said aspect for the authorities concerned to take necessary steps and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[X v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2200<\/a>]<\/p>\n

*Did You Know?<\/span> <\/span>As per National Judicial Data Grid, the total number of pending cases (civil and criminal) is: 90427 cases<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Corbett Tiger Reserve case<\/p>\n

‘High Courts are expected to keep their hands away when Supreme Court is seized of any judicial matter’: SC<\/p>\n

While considering this case wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with a suo moto action pertaining to Corbett Tiger Reserve, noted that its order on sanctioning prosecution of an officer was stayed by Uttaranchal High Court; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J., opined that the High Court is a Constitutional Court and not inferior to the Supreme Court. However, in the judicial matters, when Supreme Court is seized of the matter it is expected of the High Courts to keep their hands away. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1870<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Cash-for-Jobs case<\/p>\n

Supreme Court issues notice on plea to club chargesheets in Cash-for-Jobs case against former TN Minister Senthil Balaji<\/p>\n

In an application seeking the clubbing of multiple chargesheets filed in the cash-for-jobs scam under the Prevention of Corruption Act, relating to former Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji, a Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. issued notice on plea to club chargesheets in Senthil Balaji cash-for-jobs case and directed the State of Tamil Nadu to file its response, particularly on the maintainability of the petition. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Y Balaji v Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2178<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam case<\/p>\n

Supreme Court dismisses 13 SLPs in Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam case, including bail plea by former IAS Anil Tuteja<\/p>\n

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. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Anil Tuteja v Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2110<\/a>]<\/p>\n

*Did you Know?<\/span> As per National Judicial Data Grid, 3,622 cases have been disposed last month3<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Pay and recover principle in motor accident claims<\/p>\n

‘Expecting insurer to pay third-party compensation beyond terms of agreement is unfair’: Supreme Court upholds pay and recover principle in motor accident claims<\/p>\n

In an appeal challenging the common final judgment and order dated 25-9-2019, passed by the Karnataka High Court (‘the High Court’), wherein pay and recover principle in motor accident claims was applied, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., stated that when an Insurance Company takes on a policy and accepts payments of premium, it agrees to do so within certain bounds. The Court explained that the contract lays down the four corners within which such an insurance policy would operate. Therefore, to expect the insurer to pay compensation to a third party, which was clearly outside the bounds of the said agreement would be unfair. Thus, the Court stated that balancing the need for payment of compensation vis-à-vis the interests of the insurer, the order of the High Court applying the pay and recover principle, was entirely justified and required no interference. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[K. Nagendra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2297<\/a>]<\/p>\n

UP Conversion Act<\/p>\n

Interference of State authorities in conversion procedure under UP Conversion Act is conspicuous: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

While considering the appeals arising out of six FIRs filed under various provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)<\/a> and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021<\/a> (“the U.P. Conversion Act”), the Division Bench of J.B Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ., took note of the scheme of the UP Conversion Act and observed that the provisions of the U.P. Conversion Act pertaining to the pre and post-conversion declaration seems to introduce a very onerous procedure to be followed by an individual seeking to adopt a faith other than the one he professes. The involvement and interference of the State authorities in the conversion procedure is also conspicuous, with the District Magistrate having been legally obliged to direct a police enquiry in each case of intended religious conversion. Further, the Court observed that statutory requirement of making public the personal details of each person who has converted to a different religion may require a deeper examination to ascertain if such a requirement fits well with the privacy regime pervading the constitution.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides Industrial Disputes Act<\/doclink>?<\/p>\n

SC issues notice in appeal challenging lay-offs during insolvency: Key questions raised on IBC-ID Act Conflict<\/p>\n

The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., issued notice to the respondents, returnable in four weeks, in a civil appeal raising following two significant questions of law: whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) overrides the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947<\/a> (‘ID Act’). whether a Resolution Professional (‘RP’) could lawfully retrench employees under the guise of a lay-off during the corporate insolvency resolution process. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Unitech Machines Karamchari Sangh v. Vivek Raheja<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2255<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Constitutional Validity of S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act<\/p>\n

Supreme Court issues notice; Directs status quo vis-a-vis the suit property<\/p>\n

While considering this petition challenging the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision declaring S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (1954 Act) as unconstitutional, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., directed status quo with regard to the suit property until further orders.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Trilochan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 225<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Singur Land Restoration<\/p>\n

Whether an industrial entity could be benefitted from Kedar Nath Yadav (2017) ruling on Singur Land Restoration? Inside Supreme Court’s decision<\/p>\n

While considering this appeal whereby the State of West Bengal had challenged restoration of 28 Bighas of land in Singur to Santi Ceramics (respondents) pursuant to directions laid down in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of W.B., (2017) 11 SCC 601<\/a>, the Division Bench of Surya Kant* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., the Court held that the respondent cannot claim the benefit of the Court’s directions in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra). Having accepted monetary settlement without challenge and remaining passive during litigation spanning several years, the respondent cannot now seek benefits from relief secured by others.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[State of W.B. v. Santi Ceramics (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2220<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Mediation<\/p>\n

‘Mediator’s selfless intervention resolves 40-year dispute’; Supreme Court urges lawyers to evolve into mediators, recommends ‘swadeshi’ model of resolution<\/p>\n

In a 40-year-old civil dispute, a Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ, commended a Court-appointed mediator for successfully resolving the matter. The Court observed that the essence of dispute resolution rested in selfless endeavour, the foundation of harmonious living. It held that exactly that had occurred, the mediator set aside the argumentative skills and adversarial demeanour associated with a lawyer and personally travelled to Hamirpur to mediate between the parties.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Raksha Devi v. Parkash Chand<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2238<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Power of Armed Forces Tribunal<\/span><\/p>\n

Armed Forces Tribunal has power to substitute finding of Court Martial & pass sentence afresh: SC<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering the instant appeal challenging the judgment and order of Armed Forces Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the appellant’s conviction in respect of charge for alleged possession of ammunition was substituted and instead held him guilty of an act prejudicial to good order and discipline; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe*, JJ., the Court found the Tribunal under Section 15(6)<\/a> of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007<\/a> (2007 Act), which contains a non-obstante clause, has power to substitute the finding of Court Martial, a finding of guilty of any other offence for which offender could have been lawfully found guilty by Court Martial and may pass a sentence afresh. The Court opined that scope of interference in an appeal with the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal is limited. The Supreme Court in appellate jurisdiction would interfere if the order were shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[S.K. Jain v. Union of India<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2201<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Arbitration<\/p>\n

Whether non-operation of arbitration clause due to statutory amendments would negate the entire arbitration mechanism? Supreme Court explores<\/p>\n

While considering the present appeal challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court’s refusal to appoint an arbitrator and dismissal of the Application under section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (“1996 Act”) by the Appellant on the ground of limitation; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih*, JJ., perusing the arbitration mechanism between the parties, held that merely because the procedure to appoint an arbitrator provided in the arbitration clause has become inoperative due to subsequent changes in statutory provisions, the same would not mean that the core of the contract referring the dispute for adjudication to arbitrator would be rendered nugatory.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2147<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

‘Arbitral award must be within parameters of arbitration agreement’; Supreme Court upholds setting aside of award granted in favour of SEPCO Electric Power<\/p>\n

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<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act’).<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn. v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2088<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Notice to foreign entity via diplomatic channels under S. 105<\/a> CrPC<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC and Sessions Court orders against UBS Switzerland AG<\/p>\n

Supreme Court: In a special leave petition filed against the judgment and order passed by Calcutta High Court, the division bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. stayed the effect and operation of the following: Order dated 21-08-2025: Passed by the Calcutta High Court, which held that notice to UBS Switzerland AG, a foreign entity, via diplomatic channels under Section 105<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’)<\/a> in a Criminal Revision Petition is not mandatory. Revision Petition Judgment dated 24-09-2025: Passed by the Sessions Court, Alipore, proceeding to adjudicate the said Revision Petition ex parte against a foreign entity, despite a substantive challenge pending through an SLP filed before the Supreme Court.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[UBS Switzerland v. State of West Bengal<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2274<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Unlawful Assembly<\/p>\n

‘Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts’; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case<\/p>\n

In two criminal appeals filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court, which set aside the acquittal of the appellants-accused persons in a premeditated assault resulting in the death of one person and grievous injury to two others, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi*, JJ. noting that the appellants were not passive spectators but integral participants in a premeditated and violent assault, upheld their conviction. The Court held that, irrespective of their individual actions, once the accused shared a common object and actively participated as members of an unlawful assembly, they were vicariously liable under Section 149<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)<\/a>.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Haribhau v. State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n

, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2301<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Surrogacy<\/span><\/p>\n

Age limit under Surrogacy Act not applicable to couples who froze embryos prior to commencement of law: Supreme Court<\/span><\/p>\n

In the present case, common grievance of the petitioners and applicants was regarding upper age limit for the ‘intending couple’, since the female could not be over and above 50 years of age and the male could not be over and above 55 years of age.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Vijaya Kumari S. v. Union of India<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2195<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Juvenile Justice Act<\/p>\n

Relief to convict under Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 for crime committed in 1981 at age 12: Inside Supreme Court Ruling<\/p>\n

While considering the writ petition filed by a murder convict who was in custody from 3 years, and thus sought release from prison after raising the plea of juvenility; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and A.G, Masih, JJ., had to consider whether the petitioner (convict) is entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000<\/a>, as amended in 2006 whereby Section 7-A was inserted.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Hansraj v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2193<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Railway Accident claims<\/p>\n

Verification of ticket issuance corresponding the date\/route of untoward incident by official railway inquiry can be a proof of bona fide travel: SC<\/p>\n

While considering the present appeal challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court’s dismissal of the claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of the appellant’s husband in an alleged railway accident; the Division Bench of Aravind Kumar* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., held that where an official railway inquiry or evidentiary record verifies the issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and route of an untoward incident, such verification shall constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Rajni v. Union of India<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2182<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Environment<\/p>\n

‘Not a wetland but a man-made waterbody’; Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging construction in and around Futala Lake in Nagpur<\/p>\n

The appellant, Swacch Association challenged the judgment and order dated 30-11-2023, passed by the Bombay High Court, whereby it disposed of the Public Interest Litigation, filed for raising grievance regarding constructions and recreational activities set up in and around the Futala Lake in Nagpur, Maharashtra. The 3-Judges Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria*, JJ., noted that the historical facts showed that the Futala Lake was a man-made waterbody constructed for drinking water and irrigation purpose. The Court thus opined that the Lake was not a ‘wetland’ as defined in Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’), and so the restrictions of activity in the ‘wetland’, provided under Rule 4 would not apply stricto sensu to Futala Tank.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Swacch Association, Nagur v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2144<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Guidelines on Pedestrian Safety<\/p>\n

Supreme Court issues elaborate guidelines on ensuring Pedestrian Safety; Directs conduct of audit to identify deficiencies<\/p>\n

While considering this petition filed by a leading orthopaedic surgeon and a public-spirited citizen raising issues concerning road safety, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., issued Guidelines as an interim measure on the following 5 important aspects, expressing hope that if complied with, the Guidelines would help in reduction of road accidents and fatalities:<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2191<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Fundamental Rights<\/p>\n

Tender condition requiring experience in supply of sports kit within State of Chhattisgarh for past 3 yrs violates Arts. 14 & 19: SC<\/p>\n

While considering this appeal against dismissal of challenge against certain tender conditions contained in 3 tender notices which were issued for supply of Sports Kits to the students at Government Primary School, Government Upper Primary Schools and Government High and Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Chhattisgarh; the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe*, JJ., quashed the impugned tender notices holding that the impugned tender condition of past supply of sports kit within Chhattisgarh, had the effect of excluding bidders who have no experience of supply of sports goods to the State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in past 3 years. The State by linking the eligibility criteria with past local supplies, thus created an artificial barrier, against the suppliers who had no past dealing with the State of Chhattisgarh, thereby curtailing the fundamental rights of the bidders, who have been ineligible to participate in the tenders.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

License fee<\/p>\n

Strong directions by Court without notice to parties creates chilling effect on prospective litigants: Supreme Court sets aside directions for vigilance enquiry<\/span><\/p>\n

The present appeal was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 9-8-2023, passed by the Kerala High Court (‘High Court’), whereby the license fee of Rs. 1,50,000, as decided by the Respondent 1-Cochin Devaswom Board (‘Board’) was upheld. Further, the High Court directed the Board to conduct an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer, in the matter relating to leasing out the land to the Chinmaya Trust and take necessary action, based on the report.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[P. Radhakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2118<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Competition Act, 2002<\/a><\/p>\n

Inside Supreme Court verdict reaffirming CCI’s powers to impose behavioural and structural penalties under Competition Act, 2002<\/a><\/p>\n

While considering an appeal concerning interpretation of certain provisions of the Competition Act, 2002<\/a> (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.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Competition Commission of India v. Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2092<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Procedure<\/span><\/p>\n

Supreme Court urges High Courts to encourage filing of anticipatory bail applications first before Sessions Court; discourage direct interference<\/p>\n

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.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Training for judicial officers<\/p>\n

‘Manner of granting bail revealed procedural irregularities at grassroot levels of judiciary’; Supreme Court directs special training for two judicial officers<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

[Netsity Systems (P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2079<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge<\/p>\n

Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge: Justice Alok Aradhe<\/a><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Joymalya Bagchi’s stellar career and notable judgments<\/a><\/p>\n

Appointments and Transfers<\/span><\/p>\n

Supreme Court Collegium recommends transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan to Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SC Collegium recommends appointing Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, Judicial Officer as Allahabad HC Judge<\/a><\/p>\n

SCC Weekly<\/p>\n

2025 SCC Vol. 8 Part 4<\/a><\/p>\n

2025 SCC Vol. 8 Part 3<\/a><\/p>\n

2025 SCC Vol. 8 Part 2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

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

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

3.<\/a> National Judicial Data Grid | Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Stay informed with the latest Supreme Court judgments from October 2025, covering critical topics such as BCI Enrollment fee limit; Karur Stampede; Firecracker ban relaxation in NCR; Sex education for children; Corbett Tiger Reserve case; Cash-for-Jobs case; Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam case; and more<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":365550,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45673,34119],"tags":[91829,91833,91834,91832,91830,90495,91831,91828],"class_list":["post-365523","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-columns-for-roundup","category-scmonthly","tag-bci-enrollment-fee-limit","tag-cash-for-jobs-case","tag-chhattisgarh-liquor-scam-case","tag-corbett-tiger-reserve-case","tag-firecracker-ban-relaxation-in-ncr","tag-karur-stampede","tag-sex-education-for-children","tag-supreme-court-october-2025"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court October 2025: Judgments and Stories| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Explore Supreme Court October 2025 Updates | Stories on BCI Enrollment fee limit; Karur Stampede; Firecracker ban relaxation in NCR; Sex education for children; and more\" \/>\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\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court October 2025 | From District Judge Eligibility to Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Officers - Stories that Shaped the Month\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Explore Supreme Court October 2025 Updates | Stories on BCI Enrollment fee limit; Karur Stampede; Firecracker ban relaxation in NCR; Sex education for children; and more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-11-01T11:30:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Supreme-Court-October-2025.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=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court October 2025 | From District Judge Eligibility to Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Officers - Stories that Shaped the Month\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 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\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court October 2025: Judgments and Stories| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Supreme-Court-October-2025.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-11-01T11:30:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Explore Supreme Court October 2025 Updates | Stories on BCI Enrollment fee limit; Karur Stampede; Firecracker ban relaxation in NCR; Sex education for children; and more\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Supreme-Court-October-2025.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Supreme-Court-October-2025.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court October 2025\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court October 2025 | From District Judge Eligibility to Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Officers – Stories that Shaped the Month\"}]},{\"@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\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court October 2025: Judgments and Stories| SCC Times","description":"Explore Supreme Court October 2025 Updates | Stories on BCI Enrollment fee limit; Karur Stampede; Firecracker ban relaxation in NCR; Sex education for children; and more","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\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court October 2025 | From District Judge Eligibility to Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Officers - Stories that Shaped the Month","og_description":"Explore Supreme Court October 2025 Updates | Stories on BCI Enrollment fee limit; Karur Stampede; Firecracker ban relaxation in NCR; Sex education for children; and more","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-11-01T11:30:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Supreme-Court-October-2025.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Supreme Court October 2025 | From District Judge Eligibility to Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Officers - Stories that Shaped the Month","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/","name":"Supreme Court October 2025: Judgments and Stories| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Supreme-Court-October-2025.webp","datePublished":"2025-11-01T11:30:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Explore Supreme Court October 2025 Updates | Stories on BCI Enrollment fee limit; Karur Stampede; Firecracker ban relaxation in NCR; Sex education for children; and more","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Supreme-Court-October-2025.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Supreme-Court-October-2025.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Supreme Court October 2025"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/01\/supreme-court-october-2025-latest-judgments\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court October 2025 | From District Judge Eligibility to Summoning of Advocates by Investigating Officers – Stories that Shaped the Month"}]},{"@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\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Supreme-Court-October-2025.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":365523,"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":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":365523,"position":1},"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":295840,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/supreme-court-june-2023-roundup-legal-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":365523,"position":2},"title":"Supreme Court June 2023| New Mentioning\/Listing Procedure; Rape Victim\u2019s mangal dosh; Coal India versus CCI; Bike Taxi Ban; Enrolment of Advocates; and more","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The month of June was a vacation month for the Supreme Court. The Vacation Benches, nevertheless, assembled to pass some orders in important and urgent matters. The retiring judges of the Supreme Court also delivered some important judgments. This roundup covers reports on these judgments and orders and some special\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":"supreme court june 2023","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/supreme-court-june-2023.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/supreme-court-june-2023.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/supreme-court-june-2023.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/supreme-court-june-2023.webp?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":365523,"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":221653,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-october-2019\/","url_meta":{"origin":365523,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 October 2019","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"TOP NEWS AYODHYA HEARING| 40-days hearing comes to an end; Verdict reserved The Court had, though, initially set October 18 as the deadline for completion of all arguments in the protracted land title dispute. If speculations are to be believed, the Ayodhya verdict will be out by mid-nov. \u201cCan\u2019t treat\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\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282842,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-january-2023-demonetisation-note-ban-euthanasia-free-speech-cinema-hall-food-sikkimese-legal-law-service-tax-ibc-arbitration-research-knowledge-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":365523,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court January 2023| Note Ban; Free Speech; Euthanasia; Delhi versus Centre; Haldwani Eviction, Dissents, Did You Know Facts, & more","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court\u2019s judgments\/orders on constitutionality of Demonetisation; Freedom of Speech of Ministers; Guidelines to withhold life support of a terminally ill patients; Tussle between Delhi Government and Centre, and more. It also covers reports on Justice SA Nazeer\u2019s retirement; the career trajectory & important\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\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-245.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365523","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\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=365523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365523\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/365550"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=365523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=365523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=365523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}