Home
/

Top Stories
/
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up:...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: February 17, 2025 To February 23, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

28 Feb 2025 3:31 PM

Reports/Judgments

Marks Of Other Candidates In Public Examination Can Be Disclosed Under RTI In Public Interest: Supreme Court

Case Details: Public Information Officer and Registrar & Anr v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr.| Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 2783/2025

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 210

The Supreme Court upheld an order of the Bombay High Court, wherein it was observed that a request to disclose the marks obtained by other candidates in a public examination under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the public interest, cannot be declined. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said:

“We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process.”

If Accused Is To Get Final Verdict After 6-7 Years In Jail As Undertrial, It Means Right To Speedy Trial Is Violated : Supreme Court

Case Details: Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 211

“Howsoever serious a crime may be, the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution,” expressed the Supreme Court while granting bail to an accused charged under the UAPA who has been under custody for over five years.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan granted bail to the accused who was arrested by the Chhattisgarh Police on the allegations of carrying articles ordinarily used relating to the Naxalite Activities.

Against Wrongful Dismissal, Lumpsum Compensation Could Be Better Remedy Than Reinstatement With Backwages In Certain Cases : Supreme Court

Case Details: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 212

The Supreme Court observed that a grant of lumpsum compensation could be the more appropriate remedy in cases of wrongful dismissal of an employee instead of reinstatement with back wages in certain cases. While directing such compensation, the courts are required to justify their approach, keeping in mind the interests of the employee and the employer.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Penalty For Lack Of Fair Trial

Case Details: Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 259-260 of 2019

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 213

The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence of a man accused of killing his wife and 12-year-old daughter, after noting that he was denied a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta allowed the man's appeal, overturning the Allahabad High Court's decision that had convicted him of murder and imposed the death penalty. The Court noted several lapses in the trial resulting in the denial of a fair trial.

Charitable Trust 's Registration For Income Tax Exemption To Be Decided Based On Proposed Activities & Not Actual Activities : Supreme Court

Case Details: Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions v. M/S International Health Care Education and Research Institute

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 214

The Supreme Court reiterated that when a charitable trust applies under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) for income tax exemptions (under Sections 10 and 11), the tax authorities should decide on the registration based on the charity's “proposed activities” than its actual activities, as stated in the Ananda Social case.

The Court, however, clarified that mere registration under Section 12-AA would not entitle a charitable trust to claim exemption under Sections 10 and 11 respectively of the Act, 1961, and the authorities can decline the grant of exemption if the materials produced by the trust do not seem convincing for grant of exemption.

“When a return is filed by any trust claiming exemption it is for the assessing officer to look into all the materials and satisfy itself whether the exemption has been claimed genuinely or not. If the assessing officer is not convinced it is always open for him to decline grant of exemption.”, the court observed.

Test Identification Parade Loses Evidentiary Value When Witness Who Identified Accused Wasn't Examined In Trial : Supreme Court

Case Details: Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 215

The Supreme Court acquitted an accused after noting that the person who witnessed the accused during the Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) was not examined during the trial.

The Court stressed that unless the person who witnessed the accused during the TIP is not examined in trial, then the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict the witness would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification.

“Thus, if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification. The rationale behind the aforesaid legal principle is that unless the witness enters the witness box and submits himself for cross examination how can it be ascertained as to on what basis he identified the person or the article. Because it is quite possible that before the TIP is conducted the accused may be shown to the witness or the witness may be tutored to identify the accused. Be that as it may, once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an identification by some other witness.”, the court observed.

Payment Of Gratuity Act | Conviction In Criminal Case Not Required For Gratuity Forfeiture, Dismissal For Moral Turpitude Enough : Supreme Court

Case Details: Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 216

The Supreme Court ruled that a criminal conviction is not required for gratuity forfeiture under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Gratuity can be forfeited if the employee's misconduct itself constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude.

The Court clarified the law laid down in the case of Union Bank of India and Ors. vs. C.G. Ajay Babu (2018), stating that the observation made in CG Ajay Babu's case that the forfeiture of gratuity is permissible only upon the criminal conviction was an obiter remark having no binding effect.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran considered whether gratuity can be forfeited when employment is terminated due to misconduct constituting an offence involving moral turpitude, even without a criminal conviction or proceeding.

Contractor Can't Be Blacklisted On Mere Allegation Of Contractual Breach Without Anything More : Supreme Court

Case Details: Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, SLP(C) No. 10042/2023

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 217

The Supreme Court observed that though an authority has inherent power to blacklist a contractor, such power must be exercised on a reasonable ground. It also observed that even at the stage of issuing a show cause notice, the guiding principles laid by the Court should be followed.

“Therefore, the Authority is expected to be very careful before issuing a show cause notice. It is expected to understand the facts well and try to ascertain what sort of violation is said to have been committed by the contractor. As noted above, there is always an inherent power in the Authority to blacklist a contractor. But possessing such inherent power and exercising such power are two different situations and connotations. There may be a power but there should be reasonable ground to exercise such power.”

The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added that an order of blacklisting is a drastic step as it would put an end to the business of the person concerned. Placing its reliance on Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of W.B. reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70, the Court highlighted that passing of such an order against every contractor who is in breach of his contractual obligations, would be unreasonable and arbitrary.

S. 34 IPC | Mere Presence At Crime Scene As Spectator Doesn't Establish Common Intention Unless Active Participation Proven: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 218

Observing that mere presence at the crime scene doesn't establish common intention unless active participation is proven, the Supreme Court acquitted the husband alleged to have actively participated with his mother in setting his wife ablaze.

“A person present on the scene might or might not be guilty by the application of Section 34, IPC. If he is present on the scene for the purpose of participating in the offence, he would certainly be guilty as a participator in the offence. On the other hand, if he is present there merely as a spectator, he would not be guilty.”, the Court explained.

The Court stated that “every person charged with the aid of Section 34, must in some form or the other participate in the offence in order to make him liable thereunder.”

Supreme Court Allows AYUSH Students To Retain Degrees Though They Didn't Take Admission Through NEET-UG

Case Details: Ebtesham Khatoon v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(C) No. 6658/2021

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 219

The Supreme Court allowed certain students of under-graduate AYUSH courses to retain their degrees although their admissions were not taken through the NEET-UG exam.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, observing that withholding the students' result, after they had completed their course, would cause immense hardship to them.

“It is true that admission to candidates who had not appeared in NEET examination could not have been given by the College, yet as of now these students have completed their course and to withhold the exam results or their Degree will cause immense hardship to them” it said.

Supreme Court Directs States To Consider Premature Release Of Convicts When They Become Eligible Even Without Their Applications

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 220

The Supreme Court today(February 18) passed certain directions on the power of the Government to remit the whole or part of the sentence of the convicts under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the CrPC') and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih held that the power to grant remission can be exercised without convict or anyone on behalf of the conviction applying to the appropriate Government.

Benefit Of Input Tax Credit Can't Be Reduced Without Statutory Sanction : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Punjab & Ors. v. Trishala Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 221

The Supreme Court held that Rule 21(8) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which was notified on January 25, 2014, could not be applied to transactions before April 1, 2014, as the enabling amendment to Section 13 of the parent statute, the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, was effective from that date.

This means businesses that bought goods at a higher tax rate before this date are not subject to the limitation imposed by Rule 21(8) when claiming ITC, even if the tax rate was later lowered.

Rule 21(8) states that if the rate of tax on certain goods is reduced, then the input tax credit (ITC) on those goods lying in stock would also be admissible only at the reduced rate from the date of the tax reduction.

The core issue before the bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was whether the introduction of Rule 21(8) during the period from January 25, 2014, to April 1, 2014, was valid in the absence of an enabling provision in the parent statute, the Punjab VAT Act.

“The benefit of input tax credit is traceable to the statute. If the same has to be reduced, which will have an adverse civil consequence upon the beneficiary, it must have the requisite statutory sanction. In this case, the statutory sanction came on and from 01.04.2014 with the amendment of the first proviso to Section 13(1) of the Punjab VAT Act. Therefore, the High Court was justified in holding that prior to 01.04.2014, there was no statutory sanction to allow applicability of Rule 21(8) on the stock in trade i.e. on inputs already purchased for which transactions stood concluded at a higher rate of tax”, the Court answered.

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Case Over Times Of India Article, Advises Media To Exercise Caution Before Publishing Content

Case Details: Jaideep Bose v. M/S Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited | SLP (Crl) No. 10212/2024 and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 222

The Supreme Court today(February 18) quashed a 2014 criminal defamation case against Jaideep Bose, the Editorial Director of Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd, which publishes the newspaper Times of India. The Court also quashed the proceedings against co-accused Nergish Sunavala, Swati Deshpande and Neelam Raj, who were working as correspondents/editors at the Times of India then.

The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court and the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused in the defamation case initiated by M/s Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited over an article published in the newspaper, which allegedly implied that counterfeit artworks were being put up for auction.

S.437(6) CrPC/S.480(6) BNSS | Be Liberal While Deciding Bail When Magistrate Trial Hasn 't Concluded In 60 Days : Supreme Court

Case Details: Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 818/2025

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 223

The Supreme Court observed that courts should adopt a liberal approach while dealing with applications under Section 437(6) of CrPC in cases where there is no chance of evidence tampering, absconding, or accused delaying the trial.

“Differently put, where there is absence of positive factors going against the accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section 437(6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as envisaged under the Constitution.,” the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added.

'She Went With Him Voluntarily' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Kidnapping Girl Aged Between 16-18 Yrs For Marriage

Case Details: Tilku Alias Tilak Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 224

The Supreme Court acquitted a man accused of kidnapping a minor girl, ruling that the girl had willingly left with him and was living with him as his wife. The Court found that the essential elements of “taking” or “enticing” a minor away from the lawful guardian were not met, leading to the acquittal.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the prosecution alleged that the Appellant along with his father and other relatives kidnapped the prosecutrix/minor girl from a village in February 1994. After search and investigation, the prosecutrix was found to reside with the Appellant in Dehradun.

Supreme Court Upholds NEET Qualification Mandate To Pursue MBBS From Foreign Universities

Case Details: Arunaditya Dubey v. Medical Council of India and Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No.1205 of 2019 (And Connected Cases)

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 225

The Supreme Court upheld Medical Council of India's(now National Medical Commission) regulations mandating that those desirous of studying in foreign medical institutions shall qualify the NEET (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) in order to obtain an Eligibility Certificate.

“The requirement of an Eligibility Certificate from the Medical Council had been provided by section 13(4B) by an amendment in the year 2001 and the incorporation of sub-Clause (iv) under Clause 8 in the year 2018; mandating qualification in the NEET exam, ensures a fair and transparent procedure in the grant of Eligibility Certificate. The regulation does not in any manner conflict with the enactment...We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the regulations”, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran observed.

Mortgage Created By Deposit Of Title Deeds Prevails Over Equitable Mortgage Created By Deposit Of Agreement To Sell : Supreme Court

Case Details: Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 226

The Supreme Court has held that a mortgage created by the deposit of an unregistered agreement to sell will be subservient to a mortgage which was created by the deposit of title deeds.

This is because an agreement of sale does not by itself create any interest in or charge on any property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as explained by the judgments in Suraj Lamps and Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain.

The Court agreed that the deposit of an incomplete title deed can create a mortgage, which is 'equitable' in nature. However, such an 'equitable mortgage' will be inferior to a 'legal mortgage' created by the deposit of proper title deeds.

When Second FIR Can Be Registered : Supreme Court Outlines Key Circumstances

Case Details: State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 227

The Supreme Court (February 19) ruled that while a second FIR for the same offence is impermissible, a second FIR for a different offence is permissible.

The Court stated that the nature of the allegations in both FIRs must be examined to determine the permissibility of registering a subsequent FIR.

The Court narrated the following circumstances when the registration of a second FIR is permissible:

“1. When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.

2. When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.

3. When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.

4. When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.

5. Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.

Dowry Demand Not Necessary For S.498A IPC Offence If Physical Or Mental Cruelty To Wife Is Established : Supreme Court

Case Details: Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao & Ors., SLP(Crl.) No. 9243 of 2024

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 228

The Supreme Court observed that a dowry demand is not a prerequisite to constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. The Court explained that this provision recognizes two distinct forms of cruelty. Firstly, physical or mental harm and secondly, harassment which forces the wife to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.

The Court observed that though these two forms of cruelty can co-exist, the absence of dowry demand does not exclude the application of this Section in cases of mental or physical harassment.

“The absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate the applicability of the provision where acts of physical violence and mental distress have been demonstrated. The core of the offence under Section 498A IPC lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry.”

Supreme Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Citing Trial Delay & Long Custody, Distinguishes Recent Precedent

Case Details: Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate, Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2025

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 229

Citing prolonged incarceration and the likelihood of delay in the completion of the trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused in a money laundering case.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of Udhaw Singh, who had been in custody for 14 months. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had listed 225 witnesses for examination, yet only one has been examined so far.

Moreover, the interesting facet of the case was that the bench clarified the recent order passed by the bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi in the case of Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad, where the Court, citing non-fulfillment of twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, canceled the bail granted to the PMLA accused. While granting bail in the present case, the bench le by Justice Oka provided an explanation or interpretation of why the Justice Trivedi-led bench might have reached the decision it did in the Kanhaiya Prasad case.

'Can't Assume Indian Manufacturers Are Incapable' : Supreme Court Criticises Gwalior Municipality For Restricting Tender To Foreign Companies

Case Details: Omega Elevators v. State of M.P. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 230

The Supreme Court criticized the Gwalior Municipal Corporation (GMC) for its arbitrary tendering process, allowing only multinational brands to submit bids, purportedly to ensure quality assurance.

The Court noted that the GMC's action of excluding Indian firms from the tender process suggested a belief that they were inherently incapable of competing with multinational corporations or providing comparable services.

Also Read - Sensitive Work Environment Must Be Ensured For Growing Number Of Women Judicial Officers : Supreme Court

“Admittedly, all 10 companies flagged by the GMC as eligible in the NIT are multi-national corporations, and are all based outside India. This fact clearly indicates that the GMC ostensibly believes that a company's status as a global entity ipso facto confers on it the requisite repute and expertise necessary to undertake the specified works. In our considered opinion, it is wholly untenable to argue that Indian manufacturers (such as the present appellant) are inherently incapable of competing with international products, or that any service tendered by them would be of an inferior nature.”

“We, in no uncertain terms, disapprove of such presumptive practices”, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh said.

Vehicle Insurance Condition That Claim Will Be Accepted Only If Accident Occurs Within Premises Of Insured Is Absurd : Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Tarapore and Co v. United India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2387 of 2025

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 231

The Supreme Court (on February 12) observed that an insurance policy condition that the insurer would not be liable if the vehicle is used in any place other than the insured's premises is absurd. Given that the insured vehicle was a crane, the Court expressed its disappointment and said that cranes are always used at construction sites, and neither party pointed out this condition.

“The understanding of the Insurance Company is that it is only in the event of the accident occurring within the premises i.e. the place mentioned in the insurance policy that the claim is liable to be sanctioned.

Prima facie it appears that neither of the parties paid attention to such an absurd condition. The appellant at the time of purchase of the crane and while getting it insured could have pointed out to the insurance company that how do you accept us to use the crane in our office. A crane is always used at the construction sites. At the same time even the Insurance Company kept themselves silent in this regard. Even the Insurance Company could have said that how do you intend to use the crane in your office.,” observed the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.

Supreme Court Flags Two Concerns With Senior Designation Process, Refers Matter To CJI

Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 232

The Supreme Court expressed certain concerns with the senior designation system, which has been laid down as per the two judgments rendered by the Top Court in the Indira Jaising case in 2017 and 2023.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, clarifying that it was not disrespecting the two binding decisions, was only recording the concerns to enable the Chief Justice of India to take an appropriate decision on a larger bench reference.

The Court expressed doubts about the current system, particularly the process of self-application for designation, the practice of interviews for assessing personality and suitability, and the allocation of points based on experience without considering active practice.

The Court also held that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) bear full responsibility for the accuracy of petitions filed before the Court, even if the drafts are prepared by other advocates. The Court warned against AoRs merely lending their names to petitions without due diligence, stressing that any misconduct could lead to action under Rule 10 of Order 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Under Rule 10, if an AoR is found guilty of misconduct, the Court can order the removal of the AoR's name from the register, either permanently or for a specified period, with reports sent to the Bar Council of India and the relevant State Bar Council.

'Mediation Cannot Be Forced Without Consent Of Both Parties ' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC 's Mediation Reference In Contempt Matter

Case Details: Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 233

The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the Calcutta High Court 'directing' parties to mediation without the consent of both the parties, that too in a contempt proceeding. It emphasized that mediation is only permissible when both parties consent to resolving the dispute through that process.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was hearing a petition arising out of the Calcutta High Court's decision where, in a contempt petition, instead of holding the State guilty of contempt for not complying with the judicial order, it had referred the matter to mediation despite an opposition from the Appellant.

Supreme Court Disapproves Of High Court Interdicting Insolvency Process Against Personal Guarantor At Threshold Stage In Writ Jurisdiction

Case Details: Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2759/2025

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 234

The Supreme Court while deciding an appeal pertaining to insolvency proceedings initiated against a personal guarantor, observed that the High Court should not have prohibited such proceedings by holding that the guarantor's liability has been waived.

“It is well-settled that when statutory tribunals are constituted to adjudicate and determine certain questions of law and fact, the High Courts do not substitute themselves as the decision-making authority while exercising judicial review.,” the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Mishra observed.

Kerala Paddy Land Act | No Exemption From Conversion Fee If Land Exceeds 25 Cents : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob, Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 25736- 25737/2023

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 235

The Supreme Court held that exemption from conversion fee as per Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetlands Act, 2008 will not apply to properties exceeding 25 cents.

The Court set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court which held that the conversion fee for a land, which has an extent of more than 25 cents, should be computed after reducing 25 cents.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan held that the Kerala High Court erred in interpreting the true intent of the notification issued by the Kerala Government on 25th February 2021 granting exemption from paying reclamation fee in respect of lands up to 25 cents. As per Section 27A, conversion fee is 10% of the fair value of the land. The Supreme Court held that the notification's intent was to exempt small landholdings, which are less than 25 cents, from conversion fee. The notification cannot be interpreted as holding that conversion fee need not be paid for land up to 25 cents when a large landholding in excess of 25 cents is sought to be converted.

'Both Hands Intact' Condition For MBBS Admission Of Persons With Disabilities Arbitrary : Supreme Court

Case Details: Anmol v. Union of India & Ors | Civil Appeal No. 14333 of 2024

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 236

The Supreme Court held that the eligibility condition prescribed by the National Medical Commission's guidelines that candidates with disabilities must have “both hands intact, with intact sensation and sufficient strength” for admission to MBBS course was arbitrary and antithetical to the Constitution.

The Guidelines regarding admission of students with “Specified Disabilities”, which constitute Appendix H-1 to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019, stated one of the conditions to be as:

“Both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be considered eligible for medical course.”

Finding this condition to be against the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and also the Constitution, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the petitioner, a candidate with disability, to secure admission to MBBS course in the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan

Courts Should Avoid Interference When Appointing Authority Has Accepted Equivalence Of Qualifications: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullah, Civil Appeal No. 17308 of 2017

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 237

The Supreme Court observed that while recruiting, if the appointing authority has not objected to the candidate's qualifications and there is no glaring difference between the specified qualification and the candidate's qualification, the Court's interference by setting aside the appointment is unwarranted. It is the appointing authority which has to take the decision on whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence, the Court said.

“In circumstances where the appointing authority has not objected to the qualifications of the appellants and there is no apparent or glaring difference in the qualifications, we see no reason for courts to interfere and set-aside the appointments made after due consideration.,” observed P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra.

Foreigners Tribunal Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Its Own Judgment & Reopen Concluded Issue Of Citizenship: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rejia Khatun @ Rezia Khatun v. Union of India & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12481/2023

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 238

The Supreme Court held that a Foreigners Tribunal has no power to reopen a case by sitting in appeal over its own concluded judgment.

The Court set aside an order of the Foreigners Tribunal which reopened an inquiry into the citizenship of a person, despite its earlier judgment which held the person to be. an Indian citizen.

Odisha Pension Rules | Job Contractors Not Entitled To Pension For Pre-Regularisation Period Unlike Work-Charged Employees : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 239

The Supreme Court has held that 'work-charged employees' are distinct from 'job contractors' when it comes to pensionary entitlements under the Odisha Pension Rules 1992.

Explaining the distinction between the work-charged employee and employees working on a job contract, the Court observed:

“There is a clear distinction between the employees who are in work-charged establishment vis¬à¬vis those who are in job contract establishment. The distinction becomes obvious from a bare perusal of sub-Rules 3 and 6 of Rule 18 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 where it is given that work-charged employees who have worked in the establishment for a period of five years or more without interruption and are subsequently appointed to the same or another post in temporary or substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment, the period of service rendered by him/her in a work-charged establishment shall qualify for pension under the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. Compare this with the provision relating to job contract establishment for whom it has been specifically stated that in case of a job contract employee, after he/she is brought in pensionable establishment, only that much period as job contract service shall be added to regular service as would make him qualify or eligible for pensionary benefits.”

Departing from the usual practice of rejecting time-barred pleas filed after excessive delay, the Supreme Court allowed the State of Odisha's batch of belated petitions concerning the distribution of pensionary benefits to employees.

Physical Presence Not Necessary In Domestic Violence Act Proceedings : Supreme Court Quashes Magistrate's Order To Extradite Husband From US

Case Details: Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 4297 of 2023

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 240

The Supreme Court (on February 20) observed that, in proceedings under the Domestic Violence, there is no requirement for a party to be personally present as such proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Elaborating, the Court said that such proceedings have no penal consequences except when there is a breach of a protection order, under Section 31 of the Act.

“We may observe that as the proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature, thus, there cannot be any justification to require the personal presence of the appellant in these proceedings.”, the Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta said.

Prevention Of Corruption Act | Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Before Registering FIR Against Public Servant : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (SC) 241

The Supreme Court observed that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the accused cannot have a vested right to claim preliminary inquiry before FIR registration in corruption cases.

“it is perspicuous that conducting a preliminary inquiry is not sine qua non for registering a case against a public servant who is accused of corruption. While preliminary inquiry is desirable in certain categories of cases including those under the PC Act, it is neither a vested right of the accused, nor a mandatory pre-requisite for registration of a criminal case.”, the Court observed.

Orders

Chandni Chowk Illegal Constructions | 'Will Direct CBI Enquiry ' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Delhi Municipal Corporation

Case Details: Dr. S. Jaitley and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 35312-2024

The Supreme Court expressed an inclination to direct a Central Bureau of Investigation enquiry into alleged illegal and unauthorized commercial construction in Chandni Chowk, Delhi as well as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's failure to deal with the same.

Pulling up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi over its inaction, Justice Surya Kant said, “We are inclined to [direct] CBI to investigate...in Chandni Chowk, builders construct like that and you shut your eyes!?”

“This matter requires not only the inspection of the site by an expert team, including the measurements, the affairs of the Municipal Corporation would also have to be gone into in the matter of permitting illegal and unauthorized commercial constructions apparently for extraneous considerations. There shall be a show cause as to why a deeper probe [not] be ordered...” dictated Justice Kant.

Besides the aforementioned direction to MCD, the bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh asked the petitioners to serve the unserved respondents, as the Court cannot pass an order without hearing them. It also called on the petitioners to suggest names of some independent persons (architects, engineers, etc.) for constitution of a Committee that can go and inspect the site prior to the Court ordering CBI enquiry.

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots | Ensure Petitions Against Acquittals Are Filed Within 6 Weeks: Supreme Court Tells Delhi Police

Case Details: S Gurlad Singh Kahlon v. Union of India | WP (Crl) 9/2016

The Delhi Police (February 17) informed the Supreme Court that it would be filing Special Leave Petitions in six cases where the accused in the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots were acquitted.

The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an Article 32 petition filed by S Gurlad Singh Kahlon in 2016. In this petition, the Court formed a committee led by Justice SN Dhingra.

The Bench passed the following order :

“SLP will be filed by the State of Delhi in the following 6 cases...considering the fact that this bench is seized of WP 9/2016, the SLP shall be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice of India, seeking administrative directions for tagging those SLPs along with the present writ petition. We direct the State of Delhi to ensure that SLP in the aforesaid cases are filed in the maximum period of 6 weeks from today.”

Rohingya Children Can Move HC If Denied School Admission Despite Eligibility: Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea

Case Details: Social Jurist A Civil Rights Group v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 1895/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking admission for Rohingya refugee children in Delhi schools, observing that the appropriate course of action would be for the children to first approach the concerned government schools (to which they claim eligibility). If they are then denied admission (despite being eligible), the children would be at liberty to approach the Delhi High Court, the Court said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating, “the appropriate recourse for these children would be to apply to the Government Schools for which they are claiming themselves eligible and in the event of denial of admission, if they are entitled to such admission, the concerned children can approach the Delhi High Court...With liberty aforementioned, the special leave petition is disposed of.”

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability Of 10 Year Experience Condition For Women's Reservation In Delhi District Bar Associations

Case Details: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024

The Supreme Court clarified that half of the 30% Executive Committee member posts reserved by it for women lawyers in Delhi District Bar Associations shall be filled by those having over 10 years of practice. This eligibility criteria would not be applicable for the other half of the reserved EC posts, the Court said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order.

'Dirty Mind, Perverted' : Supreme Court Berates YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia, Stays His Arrest In FIRs For Obscenity

Case Details: Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia (popularly known as Beer Biceps) in the FIRs registered at Mumbai, Guwahati and Jaipur for the offence of obscenity over his remarks during an episode of the “India's Got Latent” show.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order, while issuing notice to the respondents (Union of India, State of Maharashtra and State of Assam) on the writ petition filed by Allahabadia against the multiple FIRs. It was directed that no further FIR shall be registered against Allahabadia based on the India's Got Latent episode.

The Court expressed its intention to do something to regulate obscene content on YouTube and other social media, and asked the Union Government about its views.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Christian Michel In CBI Case Related To Agusta Westland Chopper Scam

Case Details: Christian James Michel v. Central Bureau of Investigation | SLP(Crl) No. 17016/2024

The Supreme Court (February 18) granted bail to British Arms Consultant Christian James Michel in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the AgustaWestland chopper scam case.

A Special Leave Petition was filed by Michel against the September 25, 2024 order of the Delhi High Court denying him bail.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted bail with a condition that he should renew his passport and subsequently surrender it.

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Order Affirming Doctors' Liability Under Consumer Protection Act

Case Details: Medico Legal Society of India v. Bar of Indian Lawyers & Ors., Diary No. 57132/2024 In C.A. No. 2646/2009

The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed against its order which refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha) where it was held that doctors and medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019).

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan passed the order in the following terms:

“Having perused the Review Petition and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the review petition. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed”.

Supreme Court Allows Petitioners To Approach P&H HC With Their Objections To HC Order For Car Parking Space In Green Belt

Case Details: Trilochan Singh Anand and Anr. v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh and Ors | Diary No. 8978-2025

The Supreme Court allowed a senior architect and a Municipal Councillor of Chandigarh administration to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court to raise their objections to the order passed by the High Court on February 7 to create a four-wheeler parking space for the High Court.

The petitioners contended that the directions will involve the cutting down of trees and would lead to environmental damage, affecting the heritage status of the HC building.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Sanjay Karol refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition filed by them and allowed them to approach the High Court instead.

Supreme Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost On West Bengal Govt For Filing Delayed & Baseless Petition Against Employee's Retiral Dues

Case Details: State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Md. Kamaluddin Ansari & Ors.

The Supreme Court imposed ₹10 Lakh cost on the State of West Bengal for filing a delayed and baseless petition against an employee's rightful retiral dues, which had remained unpaid for 18 years. The cost was directed to be paid to the retired employee (respondent in the case).

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case involving a retired employee who had not received his retiral dues since his retirement in 2007. The Appellant-State of West Bengal had filed a petition challenging the Calcutta High Court's decision, which had quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and directed the state to release his long-pending retiral dues.

Andhra Pradesh Order Barring Non-Hindu Vendors From Temple Shop Auctions Cannot Be Enforced Due To Stay On HC Ruling: Supreme Court

Case Details: T.M.D. Rafi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Supreme Court clarified that the Andhra Pradesh Government Order (GO) dated November 9, 2015, which bars non-Hindu vendors from participating in temple shop lease auctions, cannot be acted upon in view of the apex court's stay on the High Court decision upholding the GO.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made this clarification while disposing of an application challenging a tender process that implemented the impugned rule.

“The impugned judgement has been stayed by this court by interim order dated 27th January 2020. The impugned judgement affirms G.O.MS. No. 426, Revenue Endowments dated 9th November 2015. In view of the stay granted to the operation of the impugned judgement we clarify that the GO dated 9th November 2015 shall not be acted upon”, the Court held.

'Very Disturbing' : Supreme Court Suo Motu Stays Lokpal's Decision To Entertain Complaint Against High Court Judge

Case Details: In Re: Order Dated 27/01/2025 Passed By Lokpal of India and Ancilliary Issues, SMW(C) No. 2/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government in a suo motu case initiated against a Lokpal decision which held that it can exercise jurisdiction over High Court Judges.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka expressed disapproval of the Lokpal's reasoning and stayed the operation of the order. The Court also issued notice to the Registrar General of the Lokpal and the complainant. The bench injuncted the complainant from disclosing the name of the High Court judge and the contents of the complaint.

'We Expect HC To Act More Responsibly In Future' : Supreme Court Criticizes Allahabad HC For Passing Orders When SC Was Seized Of Issue

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Pratyush Rawat & Ors., Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 30405/2024

The Supreme Court criticised the Allahabad High Court for passing an interim order regarding the supply of food to lactating mothers and young children in Anganwadi centres, despite the Supreme Court being seized of the issue.

Commenting that the High Court's order was an “attempt to overreach” the Supreme Court, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan recorded their strong displeasure, and advised the High Court to act more responsibly in future.

“We would, thus, expect the High Court to act more responsibly in future,” the Supreme Court stated in its order.

Mullaperiyar Dam : Supreme Court Asks Supervisory Committee To Look Into Tamil Nadu's Complaints Against Kerala

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala . and Anr., Orgnl.Suit No. 3/2006

In the original suit pending between States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala over the Mullaperiyar Dam, the Supreme Court directed the Supervisory Committee constituted by the Union to convene a meeting of all concerned officers of the states to try and resolve the interim issues raised by Tamil Nadu.

In the event of inability to resolve some issues, the Committee shall submit a report to the Court to enable it to address them, the order added.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the directions, while placing before CJI Sanjiv Khanna all the cases pending before the Court related to Mullaperiyar dam safety (for consolidation). These included - the present original suit, Dr. Joe Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India.

Supreme Court Rejects Contempt Petition Alleging Illegal Demolition, Says 'Would've Entertained If Sanction Plan Was Shown'

Case Details: Vikas Mamanchand Goyal v. Shekhar Singh and Anr., Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 60/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 295/2022

Asking a petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court, the Supreme Court refused to entertain another contempt petition alleging violation of its judgment dated November 13, 2024 restraining demolition actions across the country without prior notice and opportunity of hearing.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, stating, “we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petitioner, if aggrieved, can very well approach the jurisdictional High Court”.

Matheran E-Rickshaw Allotment : Supreme Court Gives Time To Maharashtra Govt For Fresh Proposal, Rejects State's Objection To District Judge's Report

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

The Supreme Court granted 2 weeks' time to the State of Maharashtra to furnish a proposal for revisiting the process of allotment of 20 e-rickshaw licenses to original hand-cart pullers in the pedestrian hill-town of Matheran.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with the issues pertaining to a pilot e-rickshaw project in the hill-town. It passed the order after Maharashtra's counsel submitted that it would be appropriate for the state to undertake the allotment process afresh.

“Two weeks' time is granted to the state government to come out with a proposal for revisiting the process of allotment of e-rickshaws”, dictated Justice Gavai.

Notably, Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat (for handcart-pullers) submitted during the hearing that the report submitted by Principal District Judge, Raigad over the allotment of licenses was “completely flawed”, not based on correct appreciation of material and might be required to be re-done by the judge or the state. Rejecting the submission, the bench said,

“We are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr Kamat inasmuch as the report is prepared by a responsible, senior judicial officer.”

Supreme Court Issues Notice To NCRB On Collection Of Caste-Data Of Prisoners

Case Details: In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India| SMW(C) No. 10/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) to implead it as a party in the ongoing suo moto proceedings to monitor the direction of compliance of the October 4, 2024, Sukanya Shantha judgment.

It was submitted by Senior Advocate Dr S. Muralidhar that in the judgment, the Court passed specific direction (para XX, 231, no. (iv) of judgment) for deleting the “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts' prisoners' registers inside the prisons shall also stand deleted.

The amicus then filed an application in terms of this direction, stating that the direction to delete caste columns should not preclude the NCRB from collecting statistics on caste inside the prisons. On November 7, 2024, as pointed out by Dr. Muralidhar, the Court clarified that the NCRB can continue doing this exercise.

Considering this request and the need for the NCRB to file a compliance report in this regard, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued notice to it.

'Essentially A Conviction Order' : Supreme Court Judge Raises Concerns About Delhi HC's Long Orders In Anticipatory Bail Applications

Case Details: Aadhar Khera v. State of Government of NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl) No. 2591/2025

While dealing with a bail matter, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of Delhi High Court orders disposing of anticipatory bail pleas running into 30-40 pages. The same are practically “conviction orders” giving the Trial Court reasons to convict, the judge said.

“What's happening in Delhi HC is something disgusting. High Court writing 30-40 pages while disposing of anticipatory bail is hinting the trial court that here is reason for you to convict. Essentially, it's a conviction order.”

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with the bail plea of a practicing surgeon in a case registered under Sections 408/420/467/468/471/120B IPC.

Supreme Court Quashes Culpable Homicide Charge Against Doctor For Patient's Death After Phone Instruction

Case Details: Dr. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

The Supreme Court quashed the charge of culpable homicide (Section 304, Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code) against a doctor who gave telephonic instruction to a nurse to administer an injection, which led to a patient's death due to an adverse reaction.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta but directed the trial court to proceed with the case under Section 304A IPC(death by negligence).

Supreme Court Directs Union To File Affidavits On Establishment And Functioning Of Central Mental Health Authority

Case Details: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1496/2018

The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to file a detailed affidavit indicating the establishment and functioning of the Central Mental Health Authority, State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Board under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The order was passed in a writ petition filed under Article 32, seeking certain directions with respect to the persons requiring mental healthcare. Since January 3, 2019, the Supreme Court has been passing directions in this writ petition.

'Only Parliament Can Change SC List' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Add Are-Katika Community In Scheduled Castes Category

Case Details: Telangana State Are-Katika (Khatik) Sangh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 141/2025

Saying that only the Parliament has the power to do so, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of the Are-Katika (Khatik) community in the Scheduled Castes (SC) category all across India.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The bench told the petitioner that the Courts do not have the power to make additions or alterations to the Scheduled Caste list.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain NewsClick's Writ Petition Against Tax Demands, Gives One Week Interim Protection To Approach HC

Case Details: PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-1) | W.P.(C) No. 158/2025

The Supreme Court granted a week's interim protection to PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd, the company running the news portal NewsClick, in relation to tax recovery demands. The Court while dismissing the Article 32 petition file by the company, granted it liberty to approach the High Court.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 by news portal NewsClick against the tax recovery demands over 'unexplained cash credits'.

Supreme Court Asks CBI To Probe How Man Travelled To USA Despite Depositing Passport With Court

Case Details: Rajyashree Chhokar v. Manish Chhokar | Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 533-534/2022 In Crl.A. No. 1607-1608/2019

The Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate how a man, facing contempt proceedings, managed to escape to the USA despite his Indian passport being deposited with the Court.

The issue arose out of a child custody battle between a husband and a wife, and contempt proceedings were initiated against the man after he failed to bring the child from the USA.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Manmohan directed the CBI to register an FIR.

Supreme Court Seeks Reports From High Courts On Pendency Of Criminal Appeals

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail

The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to submit detailed reports on the pendency of criminal appeals, seeking comprehensive data on cases pending before Single Judges and Division Benches, including a bifurcation based on the bail status of the accused.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed this order in a suo moto petition on policy strategy for grant of bail to convicts whose appeals are pending for a long time. In this case, the court is dealing with the issue of remission, bail, and delay in disposal of criminal appeals in High Courts.

Why 4.5 Years To Frame Rules? Supreme Court Questions Delay In Implementing 2020 Code On Rights Of Gig Workers

Case Details: The Indian Federation of App – Based Transport Workers, (IFAT) & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1068/2021

The Supreme Court directed the Union to file an affidavit indicating the timeline in which the rules/scheme relevant to give effect to provisions of Chapter IX of the Code on Social Security, 2020, will be framed and given effect to.

Chapter IX of the 2020 Code is specifically dedicated to rights and social security for unorganised workers, gig workers and platform workers. The Code received the assent of the President three years back in 2020. However, the relevant rules are yet to be framed.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan passed the order on February 18 in a writ petition filed by the 'Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers' pertaining to the rights of gig workers.

Supreme Court Imposes Costs On States & UTs For Failing To File Affidavit On Effective Implementation of Domestic Violence Act

Case Details: We The Women of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1156/2021

The Supreme Court on February 18 imposed a cost of Rs.5,000 on States of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Odisha, Telangana, West Bengal, Assam and the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep for failing to file a status report on the effective implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA).

The Court has now given 2 weeks of additional time with a payment to be deposited by each State the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

Supreme Court To Recover Costs From Defence Colony RWA For Illegal Occupation Of Historic Monument For 60 Years

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 12213/2019

The Supreme Court directed the Department of Archaeology, Delhi to constitute a Committee within a week to initiate the process of restoration of Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance, which was under the illegal occupation of the Defence Colony Residents Welfare Association for 60 years.

The Court also indicated its intention to recover the cost of illegal occupation from the DCRWA.

Supreme Court Stays NCLAT Order Allowing NBCC To Take Over Stalled Housing Projects Of Supertech

Case Details: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v. NBCC (India) Limited and Ors. | C.A. No. 2240/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the NCLAT order allowing National Building Constructions Corporation (India) Limited to take over pending projects of real-estate giant Supertech Limited. The Court also directed stakeholders to submit alternative proposals for the completion of projects.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge to the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which approved NBCC (India) Ltd.'s proposal to complete 16 incomplete projects of Supertech Limited.

Other Developments

Supreme Court To Hear Places Of Worship Act Matter In April

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 001246/2020

The Supreme Court (February 17) deferred the hearing of the pleas concerning the Places of Worship Act 1991 to April.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed that the matter be listed for hearing in the week commencing April 1. Notably, the matter was earlier heard by a three-judge bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan.

The bench is seized of one set of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 and another set seeking the strict enforcement of the Act.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Assailing Disposal Of Chemical Waste From Bhopal Gas Tragedy Site At Pithampur, Indore

Case Details: Chinmay Mishra v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 3661-2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court's direction for transportation and disposal of 337 metric tonnes of “hazardous” chemical waste from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy site to Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order.

Supreme Court Plans To Constitute Committee Led By Former SC Judge For Electoral Reforms In SCBA

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik, Diary No. 13992-2023

The Supreme Court orally remarked that it would constitute a committee led by former judge of the Supreme Court, comprising two senior advocates (one male and female each), two advocates on record (male and female each) and one experienced advocate for suggesting reforms for the elections in the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA)

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan was hearing an intervention application filed by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh suggesting some reforms to the SCBA.

New Delhi Railway Station Stampede | PIL Filed In Supreme Court For Better Crowd Management Measures

In the wake of the stampede which occurred at the New Delhi Railway Station leaving at least eighteen persons dead, a Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court, seeking to constitute an expert committee to suggest measures to prevent such mishaps. The petitioner, Advocate Vishal Tiwari, also sought directions to the Union and the States to implement the Report made by the National Disaster Management Authority in 2014 titled as “Managing Crowd at Events and Venues of Mass Gathering.”

'So Many Law Officers, Yet None Present' : Supreme Court Criticises Union's Non-Representation In West Bengal's Suit Over CBI's Powers

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Union of India | Original Suit No. 4 of 2021

In State of West Bengal's suit against the Union over suo motu registration of cases by CBI despite revocation of general consent, the Supreme Court expressed dismay at non-representation on behalf of the Union, saying it showed that the Union was not interested in an important matter.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih for framing of issues. Conveying the Court's displeasure, Justice Gavai flagged the non-representation to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (who subsequently appeared in another matter) and said,

'Need To Be Practical' : Supreme Court On Whether Appellate Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards [Day 2 Hearing]

Case Details: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited | SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench (February 18) continued hearing on the issue of whether Courts have the power to modify an arbitral award under S. 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. During the hearing, CJI Sanjiv Khanna verbally noted that giving a rigid interpretation to S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 may end up overlooking the practical purpose of the Act.

S. 34 provides the outline for applying to set aside an arbitral award. S. 37 of the Act states the instances where an appeal may lie against orders relating to arbitral disputes.

The CJI explained that the 1996 Act was framed when the Country opened its doors for liberalisation and the legislation came for tackling cross-border disputes which may arise. However, S.34 being adopted from the UNCITRAL Model law without modifications would not mean that the provision has to be given an outdated meaning.

'Allows Executive To Influence ECI Composition': Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra Approaches Supreme Court Against Election Commissioners' Law

Case Details: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024

Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra has approached the Supreme Court in support of the petitions challenging constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 which removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel appointing Election Commissioners (ECs).

Seeking intervention, the Trinamool Congress MP alleges constitutional infirmities in the Act and suggests alternative models of selection/appointment of CEC/ECs with inbuilt constitutional safeguards. The impugned Act is a “deliberate attempt to usurp the independent functioning of an institution responsible for conducting free and fair elections, and directly transgresses elementary constitutional principles”, she says.

Civil Services Exam : Supreme Court Seeks Views On Union, UPSC On Plea Of Persons With Disabilities To Have Option To Change Scribe

Case Details: Mission Accessibility v. Union of India and Anr. | Diary No. 8097-2025

The Supreme Court on February 18 issued notice to the Union Government and the UPSC on a writ petition filed by persons with disabilities appearing for the Civil Services Examination, 2025 (CSE) seeking option to change the name of scribe given in the registration form.

Advocate Rahul Bajaj, for the petitioners, submitted that the CSE form asks for details of the scribe a few months before the examination and once the details are submitted, it cannot be changed.

Before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, Bajaj submitted: “We are raising three grievances on behalf of persons with disabilities appearing for Civil Services Exams, 2025. This is where I am seeking some interim relief-they have been asked to share the details of their scribe by the deadline of 18th February when the Prelims exam is on 25th May and the Mains exam will be another three months later. So, obtaining such a long term commitment from scribe, who are doing this as a voluntary service, is proving extraordinarily difficult for a large number of who have written to us, as the members of the organisation.”

Can Appellate Courts Modify Arbitral Awards Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act? Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgement

Case Details: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited | SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021

The Supreme Court 5-judge constitution bench (February 19) reserved its decision on the issue of whether Courts have the power to modify an arbitral award under S. 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

S. 34 provides the outline for applying to set aside an arbitral award. S. 37 of the Act states the instances where an appeal may lie against orders relating to arbitral disputes.

The bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna comprises Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, AG Masih and KV Viswanathan.

Planning To Change SEIAA & DEIAA Process For Grant Of Environmental Clearance : Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. Rajiv Suri | Civil Appeal Nos. 3799-3800/2019

The Union of India (February 20) informed the Supreme Court that it would propose key changes in the District Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (DEIAA) and State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA), which grant environmental clearances.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a civil appeal against an order of the National Green Tribunal which disapproved of the grant of Environment Clearances in certain leases by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (DEIAA) instead of State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA). The Court directed the Union to submit the proposed changes by February 24 in its affidavit.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Former West Bengal Minister Partha Chatterjee's Bail Plea In CBI Case Over 'Cash-for-Job Scam'

Case Details: Partha Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 2471-2472/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by former West Bengal Education Minister and now MLA Partha Chatterjee seeking bail in the CBI case arising out of the state's cash-for-jobs scam. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order.

'India's Got Latent' Row | Supreme Court Issues Notice On YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani's Plea Against Multiple FIRs Over Obscenity Allegations

Case Details: Ashish Anil Chanchlani v. State of Guwahati and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 85/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on YouTuber Ashish Chanchalani's plea against the multiple FIRs registered for the offence of obscenity over the remarks made during an episode of the “India's Got Latent” show.

The petitioner seeks the clubbing of the FIRs registered in Guwahati and Mumbai and transfer to Mumbai.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh issued notice to the respondents and tagged the matter along with the petition filed by co-accused Ranveer Allahabadia.

Former Chhattisgarh Advocate General Approaches Supreme Court For Anticipatory Bail; State Agrees Not To Arrest Him For A Week

Case Details: Satish Chandra Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 2600/2025

The Supreme Court recorded the statement of Counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh that no coercive steps will be taken against the former Advocate General of Chhattisgarh, Satish Chandra Verma, in connection with the NAN scam case, till the next date of hearing, February 28.

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court of Chhattisgarh order dated February 13, denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. His anticipatory bail was also rejected by the Sessions Court last year in November.