Reports/JudgmentsAll Retired HC Judges Entitled To Equal & Full Pension Based On 'One Rank One Pension' Principle : Supreme CourtCase Details: In Re Refixation Of Pension Considering Service Period In District Judiciary And High Court SMW (C) No. 4/2024Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 595The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) held that all retired judges are entitled to full and equal...
Case Details: In Re Refixation Of Pension Considering Service Period In District Judiciary And High Court SMW (C) No. 4/2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 595
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) held that all retired judges are entitled to full and equal pension, regardless of their date of retirement and source of entry, following the principle of "one rank one pension."
The Court held that there cannot be discrimination in the pension of High Court judges based on when they entered service and whether they are appointed from judicial service or from the bar.
"We hold that all the retired judges of the High Court, irrespective of the date on which they were appointed, will be entitled to receive full pension," the Court held.
Case Details: Ramkirat Munilal Goud Versus State Of Maharashtra Etc.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 596
The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man, who was sentenced to death by the trial court, in a case relating to the rape and murder of a three year old girl. The Court cited grave loopholes in the prosecution's case and the flawed investigation.
The Court noted that his statement after alleged commission of crime about he being “tensed up” was wrongly treated as an extra-judicial confession.
The Court held that such confessions are inherently weak and must be corroborated, yet the witness, to whom the confession was made, failed to mention it in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the magistrate and only offered an improved version during the trial.
The Court emphasized that if an extra-judicial confession was truly made to a witness, the witness should have promptly disclosed it to the police and would not have omitted mentioning it during the recording of their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, rather than presenting an improved version during trial.
Case Details: K. Mangayarkarasi & Anr. Versus N.J. Sundaresan & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 597
The Supreme Court recently held that a mere allegation of fraud or misconduct does not divest an arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to adjudicate in personam disputes stemming from contractual relationships governed by an arbitration agreement.
“The law is well settled that allegations of fraud or criminal wrongdoing or of statutory violation would not detract from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve a dispute arising out of a civil or contractual relationship on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by the arbitration agreement.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made these observations while dismissing a plea challenging the referral of a trademark dispute to arbitration, reaffirming that contractual disagreements involving intellectual property rights (IPRs) can be resolved through arbitration unless they involve sovereign or public (in rem) rights.
S.161 Statement Of Accused Implicating Co-Accused Cannot Be Considered At Bail Stage : Supreme Court
Case Details: P Krishna Mohan Reddy Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598
The Supreme Court observed that the statements of accused recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (police interrogation) cannot be used against co-accused at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail.
“The fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence is that a statement of one accused person cannot be used against another co-accused person. The limited exception to this aforesaid general principle are inculpatory confessions, where the accused person in his confessional statement not only admits his own guilt but also implicates another co-accused.”, the Court observed.
The Court observed that when statements are recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the accused may make either exculpatory or inculpatory statements. If the statement is exculpatory, it has limited evidentiary value and can be used only for the purpose of contradicting or re-examining the witness who made it under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Domestic Violence Act Complaints Can Be Quashed By HCs Under S.482 CrPC/528 BNSS : Supreme Courth
Case Details: Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs Vidhi Rawal
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 599
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) held that High Courts can quash complaints filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now S.528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2003).
"The view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate," the Court observed.
"There are decisions of the High Courts taking a view that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is not available to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005. The decisions are primarily based on the premise that proceedings under Section 12(1) are predominantly of a civil nature. The said view is not correct," the Court added.
Inclusion In Draft NRC Cannot Annul Foreigners Tribunal's Declaration As Non-Citizen : Supreme Court
Case Details: Rofiqul Hoque Versus The Union Of India & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 600
The Supreme Court today (May 19) ruled that mere inclusion of the name in the draft National Register of Citizenship (“NRC”) cannot invalidate a previous declaration given by a Foreigners Tribunal that the person was a 'foreigner' under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (“Act”).
Holding thus, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra affirmed the Gauhati High Court's decision, which had refused to interfere with the Tribunal's decision to declare the Appellant as a foreigner despite his name appearing in the draft NRC.
Supreme Court Mandates Minimum Practice As Advocate To Enter Judicial Service
Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 20) restored the condition that a minimum practice of three years as an advocate is necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service.
The period of practice could be reckoned from the date of provisional enrolment. The said condition will, however, not apply to recruitment process already initiated by the High Courts before the judgment. In other words, this condition will apply only to future recruitments.
The Supreme Court directed that the quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion as District Judges from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) be increased from 10% to 25%. The Court directed all High Courts and State Governments to amend their service rules to this effect.
Other stories about the judgment can be read here.
Juvenile Justice Board Has No Power To Review Its Orders : Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajni Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 602
The Supreme Court today (May 20) ruled that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has no authority to review its own decisions or adopt a contradictory stance in later proceedings, as the JJB is not vested with any review jurisdiction under the law.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the judgment while deciding a case where the JJB took into account date of birth while deciding a plea of juvenility (to find out age), however in subsequent proceeding the JJB proceeded to have the opinion of the medical board.
Case Details: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Others v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9982/2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 603
In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (May 21) issued directions to reform the appointment and functioning of Consumer Commissions, while granting interim relief to existing members and ordering the Union of India to explore the possibility of setting up a permanent tribunal system for consumer disputes.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and MM Sundresh directed the Union of India to submit an affidavit within three months regarding the feasibility of establishing a permanent forum for consumer dispute resolution either as a Consumer Tribunal or Consumer Court, which shall comprise permanent judicial and non-judicial members, headed by sitting or retired judges, and equipped with adequate infrastructure and financial resources to ensure its efficiency and independence.
Case Details: Smt. Shaifali Gupta Versus Smt. Vidya Devi Gupta & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 604
The Supreme Court held that a suit filed seeking partition of joint family property cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when a plea was taken that such property is saved by the exception to the benami transaction.
The Court reaffirmed the principle that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) if it is "ex facie barred by law" without requiring evidence, but the determination of whether the properties are benami or joint family assets involves factual inquiries (e.g., source of funds, family arrangements) that cannot be decided at the pleading stage, necessitating a trial to resolve factual disputes.
The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case where the Respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, declaration, and injunction against the elder son, his wife, and others, alleging that the properties in question were joint family assets and saved by an exception to the benami transaction.
IAS Officers Can't Write ACRs Of Indian Forest Service Officers Up To APCCF Rank : Supreme Court
Case Details: In Re Performance Appraisal Reports Of The Officers Of The Indian Forest Service
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 605
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) ruled that officers in the Indian Administrative Service cannot write the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of Indian Forest Service(IFS) officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF).
The Court quashed a Government Order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh on June 29, 2024, as per which the comments of the District Collector were regarded as relevant for the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) of Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) and the comments of the Divisional Commissioner were relevant for the PAR of Conservator of Forests and Chief Forest Conservator (Territorial), the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator (Development).
Case Details: Shital Fibers Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 606
Answering a reference, the Supreme Court held that deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB of the Income Tax Act need not reduce the gross total income before computing deductions under other provisions like Section 80-HH for export profits.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih delivered the verdict while answering a reference after a matter was referred to the larger bench due to split verdict in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Micro Labs Limited (2015) on the issue of whether deductions claimed under Section 80-IA/80-IB (for industrial profits in certain categories) and Section 80-HHC (for export profits) could be cumulatively allowed.
Case Details: State of UP v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari and others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 607
The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions regarding the conduct of counselling for NEET-PG (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test- Post Graduate) to tackle the malpractices of seat-blocking for admissions to post-graduate medical courses.
The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was considering the issue of large-scale blocking of seats during the Medical Admissions/ counselling procedure for NEET PG exams.
Duty Of Central Government To Keep Highways Free Of Encroachment: Supreme Court Issues Directions
Case Details: Gyan Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC ) 608
The Supreme Court has issued various directions to the Union Government and Highway Administration for the removal of encroachments on National Highways, while expressing dissatisfaction over ineffective implementation of statutory provisions under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002.
The directions include – The Union of India and Highway Administration must widely publicize the Rajmargyatra app (to register encroachment complaints), issue SOP for highway inspection teams, and form surveillance teams with State Police for highway patrolling.
The authorities also have to consider and implement the suggestions by Amicus Curiae Swati Ghildiyal which included issuing circulars on inspection teams, creating surveillance teams, installing CCTV cameras, and improving the Rajmargyatra app and grievance portal.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih issued the directions in a writ petition raising issues relating to the safety of National Highways and the implementation of the 2002 Act and Highway Administration Rules, 2004.
“In fact, under the 2002 Act, there is a provision in the form of Section 23, which stipulates that highway land shall be deemed to be the property of the Central Government. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Central Government to maintain the National Highways. The maintenance of highways includes the obligation to keep them in good condition. It also includes keeping them free of encroachments and, most importantly, providing adequate safety measures to reduce the possibility of accidents”, the Court observed.
Case Details: In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 609
The Supreme Court today (May 22) held that Zudpi jungle lands in Maharashtra are forest lands, bringing them under the purview of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (“FC Act”) and stalling their conversion without prior approval from the Central Government.
The judgment delivered by a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih held that all Zudpi Jungle land allotments made before 12 December 1996 when the T.N. Godavarman judgment (1996) extended the applicability of the FC Act's scope, will be regularized without compensatory afforestation or NPV payments, as they predated the settled legal position. However, post-1996 allotments will face strict scrutiny, requiring Central Government approval, compliance with forest laws, and possible action against officials responsible for illegal allotment, the court said.
Supreme Court Reinstates Rajasthan Judicial Officer Dismissed Over Alleged Concealment Of Govt Job
Case Details: Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr., SLP(C) No. 23529/2023
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 610
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by a former judicial magistrate from Rajasthan, who was dismissed from service over allegations of concealment of employment and academic impropriety.
The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma set aside the High Court's Full Court decision to terminate the Appellant from the judicial service in 2020, ordering her reinstatement to the service with the notional fixation of pay, except the backwages.
"It is further clarified that the respondent(High Court) shall take the appellant as to have successfully completed her probation period, and the appellant shall be treated as a confirmed employee.", the court directed.
Also from the judgment- Greater Representation Of Women In Judiciary Will Improve Overall Quality Of Judicial Decision Making : Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Kerala's Luxury Tax On Cable TV As Constitutionally Valid
Case Details: The State Of Kerala And Anr. Versus Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. And Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court today (May 22) upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala luxury tax and allowed Kerala's appeal, affirming the state's power to tax cable TV services under Entry 62 of List II (State List) as “luxury.”
The Court clarified that the service tax imposed by the Finance Act on broadcasting services under Entry 97 of List I (Union List) does not conflict with state taxes on entertainment, and therefore, no constitutional overlap exists between central and state levies.
“in the instant case, the Parliament under the Finance Act is not imposing a tax on entertainment. Such a tax is being imposed by the state legislatures as entertainment is a luxury within the meaning of entry 62 list 2. In the same way, the Finance Act along with its amendments seeks to impose a tax on the service record by the broadcasting agency which is imposed under Entry 97 List 1. In the same way, under Entry 62 List 2, the state governments are not imposing any service tax on the assesses.”, the court observed.
The Supreme Court held that both the Centre and the State are empowered to levy service tax and entertainment tax, respectively, on assessees such as cable operators and entertainment service providers.
The bench held that broadcasting constitutes a form of communication, while entertainment falls under the category of luxuries as outlined in Entry 62 of List II. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, it reasoned that entertainment can be delivered through means of communication, making broadcasting merely incidental to it. As such, it does not directly encroach upon matters within the Union List. Consequently, both taxes function within their respective constitutional spheres, allowing the Centre and the State to concurrently impose service tax and entertainment tax on the activities undertaken by an assessee.
Case Details: Lakshya Tawar Vs Central Bureau Of Investigation | SLP(Crl) No. 5480/2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 612
The Supreme Court today (May 22) granted bail in a special leave petition specifically on the ground that the Allahabad High Court, which was dealing with the bail application of the present petitioner, adjourned the matter 27 times. The Court observed that in matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep adjourning the matter. Consequently, the Court, while disposing of the matter, stated that the application for bail pending before the High Court is rendered infructuous.
"In the matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time. The petitioner has been incarcerated for a period of more than four years. The complainant's evidence has also been recorded. In that view of the matter, and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner."
A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih on April 21 had issued notice on the ground that the petitioner has been incarcerated for a period of more than 4 years, and further that the application for bail was adjourned on 27 occasions.
Case Details: Padman Bibhar Versus State Of Odisha
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 613
Observing that the "last seen together" theory alone is not enough to sustain a conviction unless supported by other compelling evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted a man who was convicted just because the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the time gap between the last sighting and the death was unclear.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, citing significant flaws in the prosecution's case. As the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Court found that the complete chain of circumstances had not been established, ultimately leading to the accused's acquittal.
“It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and none else. Further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.”, the court observed.
Case Details: K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which had denied maternity leave to a government teacher for the birth of her third child, citing State policy restricting benefits to two children.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that maternity benefits are part of reproductive rights and that maternity leave is integral to those benefits.
“We have delved into the concept of reproductive rights and have held that maternity benefits are a part of reproductive rights and maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Therefore, the impugned order has been set aside. The division bench order has been set aside,” the Supreme Court observed.
"Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Reproductive rights are now recognized as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law viz. the right to health, right to privacy, right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to dignity."
The Court set aside the impugned judgment which provided that maternity leave was not a fundamental right but a statutory right or a right flowing from service conditions.
'Abuse Of Process' : Supreme Court Quashes UP Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS University Director
Case Details: Vinod Bihari Lal Versus The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr., Crl.A. No. 000777 - 000778 / 2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 615
The Supreme Court today (May 23) quashed the two first information reports registered against Vinod Bihari Lal, the Director of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS), Prayagraj, under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It stated that the said FIRs were nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
"It cannot be gainsaid that the materials garnered during the investigation only ignite conjectures and surmises, and do not make out a prima facie case to be proceeded against the appellant under the Act of 1986. At the stage of forwarding and approving the gang-chart, the competent authorities are under the obligation to record their satisfaction that a case for action under the Act of 1986 is made out, and the gang-chart and other records should reflect such satisfaction. The impugned judgment and consequently, the impugned order clearly bring about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court which makes the interference of this Court necessary. We are of a firm view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law."
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra also thereby set aside the orders and judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court whereby the latter had refused to quash the criminal proceedings, including non-bailable warrants issued against the Appellant under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act.
Case Details: Bank Of India Versus M/S Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 616
In a significant ruling under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (“Act”), the Supreme Court today (May 23) held that inter-creditor disputes (between secured creditors) must be resolved through arbitration under Section 11 of the Act read with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).
Unlike the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which requires a written agreement for reference, Section 11 of the Act creates a statutory mandate for arbitration, eliminating the need for any such agreement, the court said.
“Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, provides for a statutory arbitration for any dispute mentioned therein between any of the parties enumerated thereunder. There is no need for an explicit written agreement to arbitrate between such parties in order to attract Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The said provision creates a legal fiction as regards the existence of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding whether such agreement exists or not in actuality.”, the court added.
Case Details: In Re: Right To Privacy Of Adolescents
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 617
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 23) decided not to impose a sentence on a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), after noting that the victim did not perceive the incident as a crime and that she had suffered more due to the legal and social consequences that followed.
"The final report concludes that though the incident is seen as crime in law the victim did not accept it as one. The committee records that it was not the legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim but rather it was the consequence that followed which took a toll on her. What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system, and constant battle to save the accused from punishment", the Court observed.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution (power to do complete justice) and decided not to impose any sentence.
The Court sought the view of the Central Government on the suggestions made by amici curiae on reforms in the sex education policy and real-time tracking and data collection of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
No Lunatic Can Be Convicted As He Can't Exercise Right To Defend Under Article 21 : Supreme Court
Case Details: Dashrath Patra Appellant v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man who was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, on the ground that there was more than a reasonable doubt regarding his mental condition at the time of the offence.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that a lunatic cannot be held criminally liable as he is not in a position to defend himself, and the right to defend oneself is part of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The law lays down that no act done by a lunatic is an offence. The reason is that a lunatic is not in a position to defend himself. Right to defend a charge for an offence is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, the Court observed.
Case Details: V. S. R. Mohan Rao Versus K. S. R. Murthy & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 619
In a significant ruling interpreting the scope of land grabbing under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (“the Act”), the Supreme Court clarified that violence is not a prerequisite for an act to amount to land grabbing. The Court held that even peaceful or “non-violent” unauthorized possession of land falls within the ambit of the Act.
Affirming the decision of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran upheld the finding that the appellant was a "land grabber" under the Act due to his unauthorized and non-violent occupation of the land.
Case Details: State Of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere Versus C B Nagaraj
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 620
The Supreme Court held that the mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless the entire chain of events i.e., the demand, acceptance, and recovery is established.
Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah acquitted a public servant accused of demanding a ₹1,500 bribe from a school teacher for forwarding a caste certificate, finding that the element of demand was not established, irrespective of the fact that the other two components acceptance and recovery of tainted money was proven.
“The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain – beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components – of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete.”, the court observed.
Case Details: Shree Ram College Of Pharmacy Versus Pharmacy Council Of India, W.P. (C) No. 24/2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 621
In the backdrop of multiple litigations being initiated against it by pharma colleges, the Supreme Court recently slammed the Pharmacy Council of India and said that expert bodies like it should act in a responsible manner.
"Looking at the facts in all these matters...we are of the considered opinion that it is high time that such bodies like Pharmacy Council of India, which is supposed to be expert in the field of specialized education, acts with due diligence. It is only on account of total lack of application of mind and exercise of powers in an arbitrary manner that this Court is flooded with petitions after petitions challenging the orders of the Pharmacy Council of India", observed a bench of Justice BR Gavai (now CJI) and Justice AG Masih.
While setting aside the Pharmacy Council's rejections of certain institutions' approvals, the Court directed the concerned Registrar to forward a copy of the order to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to take suitable action so that "such unwarranted litigation" can be avoided in future.
Case Details: Sulthan Said Ibrahim Versus Prakasan & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 622
The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata applies to impleadment proceedings under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. This means that if a party had the opportunity to raise objections regarding their impleadment or non-impleadment at the appropriate stage but failed to do so, they cannot raise the same issue later, as it would be barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata.
Case Details: Shailendra Mani Tripathi Vs. Union Of India | Diary No. – 28817/2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 623
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 23) came down heavily on a petitioner who filed a PIL seeking action against Maharashtra officials for their protocol lapse during the visit of the Chief Justice of India to Mumbai last week.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih dismissed the petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, observing that it was a "publicity interest litigation" filed for "cheap publicity"
"We highly deprecate such a practice. We are of the considered view that everybody concerned should not make a mountain out of a molehill," the bench observed in the order. Since the petitioner was a young lawyer with 7 years of practice, the bench refrained from imposing heavy costs. The petitioner was asked to pay a cost of Rs 7000.
CJI BR Gavai said that when he himself had appealed to everyone not to blow the trivial issue out of proportion, as the officials had expressed apologies, there was no reason for the petitioner to file the petition.
Case Details: HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 624
The Supreme Court held that to make directors of a company liable for the offence of dishonour of cheque, it is not necessary that the complaint should state their specific role within the company.
The Court noted that while Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires a specific averment that the person was “in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business”, there is no necessity to adopt word for word the language of the statute. Rather, material compliance is enough provided the complaint specifies the role of the director.
"What is important to note is that the repetition of the exact words of the Section in the same order, like a mantra or a magic incantation is not the mandate of the law."aq
Case Details: Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 625
The Supreme Court held the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) must be treated as part of Organised Group-A Services (OGAS) not only for the purpose of granting Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) but also for all cadre-related matters, including cadre review.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Central Government to complete the cadre review of all CAPFs and to amend the recruitment rules of each CAPF in line with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 12 July 2019 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) recognizing CAPFs OGAS within six months.
Therefore, the Court directed that the number of posts filled through deputation in each CAPF up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level should be gradually reduced over a period of time, say two years. This is to ensure that CAPF officers have better chances of promotion and can take part in the internal functioning of their own forces, the Court said.
Case Details: Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 626
The Supreme Court recently observed that the records of the Trial Court should not be called "Lower Court Records" as describing any Court as a Lower Court was against the ethos of the Constitution.
"The record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as “Lower Court Record”. Describing any Court as a “Lower Court” is against the ethos of our Constitution," observed the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih while deciding a criminal appeal.
In this regard, the bench reiterated its direction given on February 8, 2024 to the Registry. “The record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as Lower Court Record (LCR). Instead, it should be referred as the Trial Court Record (TCR),” the Court had observed in its order passed on February 8, 2024. Following that, the Registry issued a circular on February 28, 2024.
The Court made these observations while setting aside the life sentence imposed on two appellants for the offences under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC.
Case Details: Kunwar Vijay Shah Versus The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., Diary No. 27093-2025
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) said that a Special Investigation Team comprising three senior IPS officers, who do not belong to the State of Madhya Pradesh, must investigate the FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. One of the officers should be a woman, it added.
The Court ordered the Madhya Pradesh DGP to constitute the SIT by 10 AM tomorrow. It should be headed by an Inspector General of Police and the other two members shall also be of rank SP or above.
The Court also stayed the arrest of Vijay Shah in the FIR, which was registered following a suo motu direction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, subject to the condition that he should join and cooperate with the investigation fully.
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Bale Shah Peer Dargah Demolition
Case Details: Balepeer Shah Charitable Trust v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors. | W.P. (C) No. 517/2025
The Supreme Court today (May 19) ordered status quo on the Maharashtra Government's demolition order against constructions at Bale Shah Peer Darga, Uttan.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a challenge to the order of the Bombay High Court, which refused to interfere in the demolition orders as it found that 'no urgency is made out'.
The bench granted stay of 4 weeks on the demolition orders.
Case Details: Vodafone Idea Ltd. And Anr Vs Union Of India
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed petitions filed by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Telecom seeking waiver of interest, penalty, and interest on penalty components on their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed the petitions as "misconceived".
Case Details: Anurag Singh Thakur Versus Ajay Singh And Ors., Diary No. 25229-2025
With consent of the parties, the Supreme Court today consolidated before the Delhi High Court cases pertaining to elections of the Boxing Federation of India.
"We have discussed the matter in open Court. Parties agree that Delhi High Court can be the appropriate forum to agitate all issues. We dispose of case numbers [...] pending before Himachal Pradesh High Court with liberty to the writ petitioners before the High Court to file either a fresh writ before Delhi High Court or join the pending proceedings. Respondents undertake not to raise issue of territorial jurisdiction", the Court ordered.
A stay order of the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court, which effectively paused the election process, was permitted to continue to operate for 6 weeks. Meanwhile, parties may seek continuation/modification thereof before the Delhi High Court, the Court said.
Case Details: Shri CT Ravi v. State of Karnataka & Ors | SLP(Crl) 7859/2025
The Supreme Court today (May 19) stayed the trial proceedings against CT Ravi, Karnataka's Member of Legislative Council, who was facing criminal charges for his speech delivered on the floor of the Council last year.
The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing a challenge to the Karnataka High Court's order, which refused to quash a case registered against BJP Legislator CT Ravi, booked for allegedly using derogatory words against Congress Legislator Laxmi Hebbalkar inside the State Council at Belagavi.
Ravi is facing trial for offences under S. 75 (sexual harassment) and 79 ( outraging the modesty of a woman) of the BNS 2023.
Case Details: Narender Kumar Malhotra Versus Union Of India And Anr., SLP(C) No. 13556/2025
The Supreme Court today refused to interfere with a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which dismissed with cost a public interest litigation seeking to make Karwa Chauth festival compulsory for all women, including widows, divorcees and those in live-in relationships.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh declined the petitioner's prayers, noting that the PIL before the High Court was "frivolous" and "motivated". "These are funded by actors who don't come forward", remarked Justice Kant.
The bench noted that the petitioner failed to disclose any law which provided for observation of the festival by sections of women allegedly deprived of the privilege to celebrate. "The High Court, taking a lenient view, has imposed cost of Rs.1000 only. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. If the petitioner attempts to file any such petition directly or indirectly, we hope the High Court will take exemplary action", it said.
Case Details: In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Supreme Court has framed a uniform pattern of pay and allowances to be given to Presidents and Members of District and State Consumer Commissions across all States and Union Territories.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the directions in a suo motu case concerning disparities in salaries and service conditions of Consumer Forum members.
The Court noted that many States had framed their own rules under Section 102 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, after the Central Government notified the Consumer Protection (Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Model Rules, 2020, which has caused a lot of variance in pay among the states.
“There is a lot of variance when it comes to the pay and allowance admissible to the members of the State Commissions and the Presidents and Members of the District Commissions. As a result, in some States they are receiving bare minimum amount.”
Case Details: Anti-Corruption Movement v. State Represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police
The Supreme Court on Monday recalled a portion of its May 9 order that had directed the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate action against Advocate N Subramaniam for professional misconduct in connection with the Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam case.
On May 9, the Court had pulled up Advocate Subramaniam for filing the SLP on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Movement while representing accused no. 18 in the trial related to the same case.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that it had received an affidavit from Advocate N Subramaniam, in which he admitted to his mistake and gave an undertaking that he will not appear in any case related to the scam.
Case Details: Radheyshyam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to a 65-year-old cheating and forgery accused who suffers from 50 percent visual disability and has been in custody for 7 months.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that it is unfortunate that accused persons in such cases are compelled to approach the Supreme Court to seek bail.
Case Details: Lt. Col. Pooja Pal And Ors. Versus Union Of India And Ors., C.A. No. 9747-9757/2024
The Supreme Court yesterday clarified its interim order staying release of in-service women officers of the Indian Army, saying that it would cover all such officers whose cases are pending before the Supreme Court, High Courts or the Armed Forces Tribunals.
Case Details: Sandeep Chaudhry Versus Jagmal Singh Jatain And Ors., SLP(C) No. 7868 - 7869/2025
The Supreme Court today called on the Chairman of Punjab and Haryana Bar Council to submit within 2 days a proposal regarding nomination of a former High Court judge to conduct Bar elections in Haryana.
The ex-judge so nominated should preferably be well-conversant with the functioning of the Bar Associations/Bar Council, the Court said.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order after a counsel appearing for the P&H Bar Council failed to convey necessary instructions in the above regard, despite the Court having sought the parties' opinion, including that of the Bar Council, on an earlier date. "Enough is enough", remarked Justice Kant.
Case Details: Anwar Dhebar v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) granted bail to Anwar Dhebar, businessman and brother of former Raipur Mayor Aijaz Dhebar, accused in a money laundering case arising out of the alleged Rs. 2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence is seven years and that there is no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future.
“Following the law laid down in the case of Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail”, the Court held.
Can Third Party Invoke Order XXI Rule 97 CPC ? Supreme Court To Settle Conflicting Views
Case Details: P. Sumathi Versus K. Krishna Gounder & Ors.
The Supreme Court recently issued a notice in a plea highlighting the judicial inconsistency between two decisions concerning the interpretation of Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, which deals with resistance or obstruction to the execution of a decree.
At the outset, the Court highlighted a conflict between two of its prior rulings. In Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal (1997) 3 SCC 694, the Court had held that any person facing dispossession, not just decree-holders or auction purchasers, could seek relief under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. However, in Sriram Housing Finance v. Omesh Misra Memorial Charitable Trust 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565, the Court had taken a more literal approach, limiting the provision's applicability strictly to decree-holders or auction purchasers.
The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard a plea challenging the Madras High Court's decision, which had affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's execution application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Case Details: Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad Versus State Of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) granted interim bail to Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in the Haryana Police FIR over his social media posts about 'Operation Sindoor.' He was arrested on May 18 and has been under custody ever since.
At the same time, the Court refused to stay the investigation. The Court also directed the Haryana DGP to constitute within 24 hours a Special Investigation Team comprising senior IPS officers, who do not belong to Haryana or Delhi, to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts.”
One officer of the SIT should be a woman. The SIT should be headed by an IG rank officer and the other two members must be of SP rank.
As a condition of interim bail, the Court restrained Ali Khan Mahmudabad from writing any posts or articles in relation to the social media posts which are subject matter of the case or from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter-response given by India. The Court also directed him to join and fully cooperate with the investigation. He has been directed to surrender his passport.
Case Details: Mathews J Nedumpara and Ors. v. Supreme Court of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) dismissed a writ petition filed by a few advocates seeking registration of FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma pursuant to the in-house inquiry into the allegations of recovery of illicit cash currencies from his official residence.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the Chief Justice of India has already forwarded the report of the in-house inquiry committee, along with the response of Justice Varma, to the President and the Prime Minister.
Since the petitioners have not filed a representation before the President and the Prime Minister seeking action, the writ petiton seeking mandamus is not maintainable, the bench said.
Case Details: Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 000357 - / 2025
The Supreme Court today (May 21) granted anticipatory bail to ex-IAS probationer Puja Khedkar, who has been accused of submitting fake OBC & PwD certificates in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination.
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by Khedkar. In January, the Court had granted her interim protection from arrest.
Today, the court made the interim bail absolute.
Case Details: Abdul Sathar v. Union of India and Yahiya Koya Thangal v. Union of India
The Supreme Court granted bail to Abdul Sathar, then Secretary General of the Kerala unit of Popular Front of India (PFI), in the conspiracy case related to the murder of RSS worker Srinivasan in Palakkad, Kerala in September 2022.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing Sathar's special leave petition against the denial of bail by the Kerala High Court.
During the hearing, Justice Oka remarked, “For ideology you cannot put someone in jail.” He further remarked, “This is the trend we find. It is because they have adopted a particular ideology (they are put in jail).”
Case Details: Srirangam Koil Miras Kainkaryaparagal Matrum Athanai Sarntha Koilgalin Miraskainkaryaparargalin Nalasangam v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 7692/2023
The Supreme Court has recently directed the Tamil Nadu government to fill up the vacancies of priests in 'Non-Agama' Temples within a period of 3 months.
The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal on May 14 directed the committee appointed by the Madras High Court to identify he number of Agama Temples as against the number of non-Agama Temples in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The entire exercise of identification is to be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of its order. After which the State Government is required to fill up vacancies in non Agama Temples, while keeping due regard to the customs of the temple.
Case Details: Justice V.S. Dave President, the Association of Retd. Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts v. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) issued contempt notice to Chief Secretaries of six states over non-compliance with its directions concerning the entitlement of retired High Court Judges to medical facilities, domestic help, and telephone allowances.
The notices have been issued for non-compliance with six directions, including parity of facilities with sitting Judges, reimbursement without prior State approval, sanctioning authority of Registrar Generals, reimbursement for treatment in other States, cashless facilities, and benefits relating to domestic help and telephone allowances
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Telangana, West Bengal, and Delhi had not complied with the directions issued earlier.
Case Details: Chandra Bhushan Pandey Versus High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Ors. SLP(C) No. 017588 - / 2024
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) refused to interfere with the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which held that an advocate convicted of contempt cannot be eligible for allotment of a chamber under the High Court guidelines.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea by an advocate who was denied a chamber allotment at the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court by the Allahabad Bar Association.
Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme For Accident Victims in True Spirit: Supreme Court To Centre
Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court recently directed the Central Government to ensure that the Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Scheme, 2025, which was notified on May 5, 2025, is implemented in its true letter and spirit.
The scheme has been framed under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates the government to provide cashless treatment to road accident victims during the “golden hour” – the first hour following a traumatic injury.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also directed the government to file an affidavit by the end of August 2025, detailing the implementation of the scheme and to give wide publicity to the scheme.
Case Details: In Re : Filling Of Vacant Posts In The State Pollution Control Boards And Pollution Control Committees
The Supreme Court recently directed the Delhi Government to fill all vacancies in its Pollution Control Committee by September 30, 2025, warning that failure to do so would amount to aggravated contempt.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed this direction while hearing a suo moto contempt case concerning the non-fulfilment of vacancies in the pollution control boards and committees of Delhi and other NCR states.
“We cannot tolerate laxity being shown by the government especially when Delhi is worst affected in terms of air pollution at least three months in every year”, the Court said in its order, referring to the issue of severe air pollution every year in Delhi during winter.
It directed the state to fill all 204 vacancies by September 30, 2025. The court warned, “We make it clear that if all the vacancies are not filled in, it will be a case of aggravated contempt.”
Case Details: The State Of Tamil Nadu V. Directorate Of Enforcement And Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 7958/2025 and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, (TASMAC) V. Directorate Of Enforcement| SLP(Crl) No. 8048-8049/2025
The Supreme Court today (May 22) stayed the investigation and raid of the Enforcement Directorate against the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC).
"Your ED is crossing all limits. How can there be the offence against the corporation?", Chief Justice of India BR Gavai asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju.
"ED is crossing all limits. You are totally violating the federal structure of the country," CJI Gavai said.
A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC challenging Madras High Court's rejection of its plea against searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters.
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 22) observed that its direction for minimum representation of women in the posts of Senior Executive Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association has been fulfilled, as three out of six elected candidates are women.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan said that no further reservation is required in the Senior Executive and clarified that the object of the earlier order was to ensure representation, not to enforce strict reservation.
Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (1) | W.P.(C) No. 276/2025
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 22) reserved interim order on the plea to stay the operation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.
A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the matter on the point of interim order across three days. During the arguments, CJI Gavai orally said that the requirement of registration of Waqfs has been there under the previous laws of 1923 and 1954.
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 22) said that any member of the Bar who has a grievance regarding irregularities in the recently held Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections can approach the Court with proper material.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan said it would examine any allegation of gross illegality, including impersonation of voters, if substantiated with evidence. The Court also ordered the preservation of CCTV footage in light of allegations of voter impersonation.
“Election Committee is directed to preserve the video cameras/CCTV recordings till further orders. Recording of the video cameras shall be kept in the custody of Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, Chairman of Committee”, the Court ordered.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union On Plea To Tackle Effects Of Heat Wave
Case Details: Vikrant Tongad v. Union Of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 523/2025
The Supreme Court recently sought response from Union in a PIL seeking efficient implementation of the National Guidelines for Heat Wave Management 2019 issued by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) in tackling the issue of heat waves across the country.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking a slew of measures to curb the drastically increasing heat wave across the country.
While using notice, the bench sought a response within 2 weeks from the Home Ministry, the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, the Ministry of Earth Sciences, the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs and the National Disaster Management Authority.
Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court recently questioned the Central Government for failing to implement Section 215B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and constitute the National Road Safety Board.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted six months to the Government to ensure that the National Road Safety Board is constituted. The Court clarified that no further time would be granted.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Punjab & Haryana Civil Judge Recruitment Of 2010
Case Details: Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V/S State Of Haryana Through Chief Secretary & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 5482 Of 2024
The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere in the challenge to the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Punjab & Haryana for the year 2010, considering the lapse of 15 years.
The Court declined to interfere in the issue as it held that "now in the year 2025, the clock cannot be turned back by appointing judicial officer after 15 years or grant consequential reliefs at this point of time."
The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar was considering the issue of the interpretation of Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Haryana Amendment Rules, 2010 in the context of recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) of the year 2010.
Case Details: Dr. K.A. Paul @ Kilari Anand Versus Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 299/2025
The Supreme Court today called for the Union government's response on a public interest litigation seeking banning/regulation of online and offline betting apps on the ground that they amount to 'gambling'.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, after hearing evangelist Dr KA Paul (petitioner), who contended that betting on online/offline platforms has resulted in a number of suicides. Pointing out that multiple FIRs have been registered against celebrities and influencers over endorsement of such apps, the petitioner beseeched that the Court take notice of the ill-effects of celebrity endorsements on young, innocent individuals.
Case Details: Government Of NCT Of Delhi Versus Office Of Lieutenant Governor Of NCT Of Delhi | W.P.(C) No. 452/2023
The Supreme Court on May 23 allowed the Delhi Government to withdraw seven pleas filed during the term of the previous AAP-led Government against the Union Government and the Lieutenant Governor over several administrative issues.
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih permitted the withdrawal of pleas.
Case Details: Subaskaran @ Jeevan @ Raja @ Prabha Vs State | Diary No. 21310-2025
India is not a "dharamshala" that can entertain refugees from all over the world, the Supreme Court orally observed, while refusing to interfere with the detention of a Sri Lankan Tamil national.
"Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore. This is not a Dharmshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over," Justice Dipankar Datta, the presiding judge of the bench, observed.
The bench, also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, was hearing a petition challenging the Madras High Court's order, which directed that the petitioner should immediately leave India as soon as his 7-year sentence, imposed in a UAPA case, got over.
Telangana Domicile Quota In MBBS Seats : Supreme Court To Hear On June 2
Case Details: The State Of Telangana And Ors. Versus Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram And Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on June 2, the challenge to the Telangana Domicile Quota Rule for MBBS Admissions.
Case Details: Jawaharlal Sharma Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 483/2025
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging Jharkhand government's 2023 notification which declared Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) as an 'Industrial Township' and seeking constitution of a Municipal Corporation for the city.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, tagging the PIL with another similar case pending since 2018.
In response to a submission made by counsel for Tata Steel, Justice Kant said, "This is in continuation of earlier proceedings...now 2023 notification is being challenged...even if notification is not challenged, in our opinion, consequence will remain the same. If provision is struck down, how will notification survive? We are issuing notice."
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging BCI's Fee Structure For All India Bar Exam
Case Details: Sanyam Gandhi Versus Union Of India And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 288/2025
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging the fees and other incidental charges of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan passed the order after the petitioner informed that pursuant to the Court's order in an earlier round of litigation, a representation was made to the Bar Council of India but no reply was received.
The matter is next listed on July 15.
Supreme Court Relaxes Restrictions On Adjournment Letters After SCAORA Request To CJI BR Gavai
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) issued a circular modifying its earlier restrictions on the circulation of adjournment letters. The relaxation came after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association made a request before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai.
Case Details: In Re the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | W.P.(C) No. 269/2025
The State of Kerala has sought intervention in the batch of cases involving challenge to the constitutionality of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.
The State contends that the 2025 amendment deviated from the scope of the parent Act ie the Waqf Act, 1995. It further states that its Muslim population, having waqf properties, has "genuine apprehension" that the amendment would affect their fundamental rights under the Constitution and negate/alter the nature of their waqf properties.
"The State feels that the apprehension of the Muslim minority in Kerala that they are discriminated against in the matter of right to manage religious affairs, the waqf and waqf properties is genuine. Many of the provisions of the amendment Act are highly unjust and the Constitutional validity is doubtful", the plea states.
Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (1)|W.P.(C) No. 276/2025
The Supreme Court heard for over three hours the petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 on the question of passing interim orders.
During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih orally observed that for a stay of the statute, a strong case has to be shown.
"There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, presumption of constitutionality will be there," CJI Gavai said.
Case Details: Ishwar Chanda Sharma Versus Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court to modify its earlier decision where it permitted the Uttar Pradesh Government to use funds from the Shri Banke Bihari Temple (Vrindavan) for acquiring 5 acres of land around the temple for corridor development, on the condition that the acquired land shall be registered in the name of the deity.
Case Details: NSDPAY Technology Private Limited v. The Union of India & Anr | WP (Crl) 132/2025
A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutional validity of S.50 and S.63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The plea states that the impugned provisions are violative of Articles 14, 20,21 and 300A of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih issued notice to the Union on the petition and tagged it with a similar matter (WP(Crl) 65/2023).
Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India | Diary No. 28793/2025
The State of Tamil Nadu filed an original suit in the Supreme Court against the Union Government, alleging that the Centre was withholding funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme(SSS) over the non-implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 & PM SHRI in the State.
In the suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, the State sought a direction to the Union Government to pay it a sum of over Rs 2291 crores, which is said to be due under the SSS, along with future interest.
Case Details: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (1)|W.P.(C) No. 276/2025
The Supreme Court on May 21 heard for over three hours the arguments made by the Union Government opposing any interim stay of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the arguments.
Union's arguments
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that the Amendment Act was passed after detailed deliberations by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, which took the views of various stakeholders across the country.
"Waqf is an Islamic concept. But it is not an essential part of Islam..Waqf is nothing but just charity in Islam," SG argued. Charity is recognised in every religion, and it cannot be regarded as an essential tenet of any religion. SG next stated that Waqf Boards are performing secular functions.
"Waqf Board discharges only secular function. Managing properties, register maintenance, and auditing accounts. Purely secular. There is a power to regulate secular practices in a religion. Administration of property has to be in accordance with law." SG said. Therefore, having two non-Muslims on the Board will not affect any religious practice.
Case Details: WG CDR Sucheta EDN v. Union Of India And Ors., Diary No. 28412-2024
A woman Indian Air Force Wing Commander, who reportedly participated in Operation Sindoor and Operation Balakot, has approached the Supreme Court assailing denial of Permanent Commission to her.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter today and while issuing notice, stayed her release from service, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Among other things, it was clarified that the order shall not create any equities in the officer's favor.
Case Details: Seema Chaudhary Versus Giridhar Aramane And Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 496/2024 in R.P.(C) No. 1036/2023 in C.A. No. 2216/2022
The Supreme Court recently deprecated the Indian Navy's failure to grant Permanent Commission to a 2007 batch Short Service Commission woman officer in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, despite earlier observations to that effect in the matter.
Calling on the Naval authorities to grant PC to the petitioner-officer, the Court remarked that its asking of authorities to "consider" granting PC to the petitioner did not mean that the observations could be ignored.
The matter pertained to a woman officer-Seema Chaudhary who, despite about 5 rounds of litigation, had not been granted Permanent Commission by the Navy.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh listed the matter in the first week of July on the request of Senior Advocate Dr R Balasubramanian to seek instructions from the respondent-authorities.
Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala Moves Supreme Court Challenging SCBA Election Results 2025
Senior Advocate Dr Adish C Aggarwala, who had contested for the post of President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has filed an application in the Supreme Court challenging the SCBA 2025 election results on the ground of alleged irregularities.
Aggarwala mentioned the matter before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant today, saying that about 200 additional votes were polled illegally.
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
In a plea alleging irregularities in the recently concluded elections of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Supreme Court today indicated that it will set aside the elections if satisfied that the allegations have merit.
The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh by Senior Advocate Dr Adish Aggarwala.
The mentioning was pursuant to an application filed by the ex-SCBA president in SCBA v. BD Kaushik case, where a bench of Justices Kant and KV Viswanathan is considering issues pertaining to reforms in the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Release Of Report Unclogging The Docket By Supreme Court
The Report 'Unclogging the Docket: Tackling Short, Infructuous and Old Cases' has been released by the Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court that shares transparently the sum total of the pendency project carried out at the Court between November, 2024- May, 2025.