Explore how 2025 became a defining year in legal history through 10 landmark Supreme Court rulings. These judgments reshaped constitutional governance, strengthened democratic principles, and set powerful precedents influencing India’s legal and political future.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India delivered numerous landmark judgments in 2025 that crucially influenced constitutional governance, civil liberties, public safety, and environmental protection. These decisions reflect the apex court’s pivotal role in defending democratic principles, clarifying legal ambiguities, and balancing rights with public interest.
From clarifying the limits of judicial intervention in Presidential and Governor assent to Bills to strengthening women’s representation in legal institutions, the Court’s rulings recalibrated the balance between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.
Here are the 10 most important Supreme Court judgments of 2025 that have influenced Indian governance and jurisprudence for years to come.
Presidential Reference on Assent to Bills
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai continued hearing the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether the Supreme Court can impose fixed timelines on Governors and the President for granting assent to State Bills. The reference was made under Article 143, following the Court’s April 2025 judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor case, which held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills.
During the reading of its opinion, the Bench discussed the constitutional options available to Governors under Article 200. The Union Government argued that Governors have four choices: assent, withhold, return, or reserve for the President, while the Opposition maintained there are only three. The Court stressed that when a Governor returns a Bill, clear reasons must be communicated, as this dialogue reflects the federal structure.
The Chief Justice clarified that a Governor must normally act on the advice of the State Cabinet and cannot exercise unrestrained discretion. The Court held that the Governor cannot “withhold assent” without explanation, and effectively has only three valid options:
- Grant assent,
- Return with reasons, or
- Reserve the Bill for the President.
On the core issue, the Court ruled that judicially prescribed deadlines or “deemed assent” would violate the separation of powers. Imposing timelines would amount to the judiciary intruding into the constitutional functions of the Governor and the President. However, the Court said that prolonged and unexplained delays by a Governor remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
The Bench also clarified that the President is not obliged to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion every time a Bill is reserved for consideration. The Presidential Reference arose after President Droupadi Murmu sought clarification on whether judicially imposed timelines for assenting to Bills are constitutionally permissible.
This follows the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling that while Article 200 does not specify a time limit, Governors must act within a “reasonable time,” and that the President should decide on reserved Bills within three months, providing reasons for any delay.
President Murmu submitted 14 questions to the Court, raising issues such as:
- The exact constitutional options available to Governors under Article 200,
- Whether Governors and the President are bound by judicial timelines,
- Whether their decisions are justiciable,
- Whether courts can review actions before a Bill becomes law,
- The extent of judicial powers under Article 142, and
- The scope of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in Union–State disputes.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu oppose the maintainability of the Reference, while the Centre supports it.
Firecracker Ban Relaxed
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has allowed the sale and use of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR during Diwali 2025, subject to strict conditions to limit pollution. The order was passed by a Bench led by CJI BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran, stressing the need to balance environmental protection with the livelihood of manufacturers.
The Court observed that a complete ban had led to smuggling of conventional crackers, worsening pollution, and noted that green crackers, developed after the Arjun Gopal judgment with NEERI’s research, have significantly reduced emissions over the years.
Key Conditions:
- Sale permitted: October 18–21, 2025
- Usage allowed only:
- 6 AM–7 AM
- 8 PM–10 PM
- Only on Diwali and the day before
- Only NEERI-approved, QR-coded green crackers can be sold.
- Sales are allowed only through licensed vendors at designated locations.
- Online sales and out-of-region supply are banned.
- Police and pollution officials will conduct strict monitoring.
- Violations may lead to license cancellation and confiscation.
The Court emphasized that regulated use of green crackers is preferable to an outright ban, which had shown limited improvement in air quality.
Stray Dogs and Article 21
Taking suo motu cognisance of rising dog bite and rabies cases, the Supreme Court addressed stray dog management as a public safety and Article 21 issue.
While an initial order directing permanent removal of dogs sparked backlash, the Court later modified its stance. It reaffirmed that:
- Stray dogs must be sterilised, vaccinated, and returned to the same locality under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023
- Rabid, aggressive, or suspected rabid dogs must not be released
- Street feeding was banned, with designated feeding zones mandated
The Court expanded the case nationally, impleading all States and Union Territories, and transferred similar High Court cases to itself.
Nithari Serial Killing Case
The Supreme Court has acquitted Surendra Koli, a key accused in the Nithari serial killings (2005–06), setting aside his conviction and multiple death sentences. Allowing his curative petition, the Court overturned the Allahabad High Court judgment and ordered his immediate release.
A Bench led by CJI BR Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, noted that Koli’s conviction in the remaining case rested largely on a single statement and recovery of a knife, especially given his acquittal in 12 related cases. The Court held that the petition deserved to be allowed.
Koli had earlier been convicted for the murder of a 15-year-old girl, a verdict upheld in 2011. After the Allahabad High Court acquitted him in other cases in 2023, he approached the Supreme Court again.
The Nithari killings, one of India’s most shocking crime cases, surfaced in December 2006 after skeletal remains of children and young women were found behind a house in Noida. The CBI later took over the probe, naming Koli and house owner Moninder Singh Pandher as accused. Over the years, several convictions were overturned due to lack of consistent evidence, culminating in the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Koli.
Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday partly stayed certain provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, while declining to halt the law in its entirety. The Act had been challenged on grounds of alleged discrimination against the Muslim community.
A Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih reiterated that laws are presumed constitutional and can be struck down only in the rarest cases. The Court found no prima facie case to stay the Act as a whole after reviewing its legislative history and the objections raised.
However, the Court granted an interim stay on specific provisions:
- Section 3(r): The requirement that a person creating a waqf must prove they have practised Islam for at least five years was stayed, with the Court terming it arbitrary in the absence of clear guidelines.
- Parts of Section 3C: Provisions allowing government officers to decide whether property is waqf and to alter revenue records were stayed for violating the principle of separation of powers.
The Court clarified that waqf properties will not be affected or dispossessed until final adjudication by Waqf Tribunals and higher courts, and no third-party rights can be created during this period.
It also directed that non-Muslim representation in the Central and State Waqf Councils be limited, and that Waqf Boards should aim to have a Muslim ex-officio chairperson. Additionally, the deadline for waqf registration has been extended, with detailed reasoning provided in the Court’s judgment.
Delhi Air Pollution
The Supreme Court is examining severe air pollution in Delhi-NCR, examining issues such as school closures, construction bans, worker welfare, and toll plaza operations. The Court acknowledged the competing concerns but noted that school closures were a temporary emergency step, with winter vacations approaching.
The Bench observed that air purifiers are not a real solution and discussed a proposed hybrid learning model, supported by parents and schools. The Delhi government defended the closures as necessary to protect young children during an emergency.
On construction bans, the Court stressed that welfare measures must genuinely reach workers and warned that prolonged stoppages require alternative employment planning to prevent worker migration.
The Court also questioned the relevance of toll plaza operations during high-pollution periods, asking NHAI to review the relocation of toll booths and directing MCD/DMC to consider temporarily suspending toll collection.
Key Directions:
- No interference with school closures
- Notice issued to NHAI on toll plazas
- MCD/DMC to consider temporary toll suspension
- CAQM directed to strengthen long-term pollution control measures
The Court emphasized that air pollution has become a year-round crisis, calling for sustained solutions such as cleaner energy, control of stubble burning, regulated construction, increased green cover, and public awareness.
Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance Reconsidered
In a 2–1 split verdict, the Supreme Court recalled its earlier ruling that barred retrospective environmental clearances.
The majority held that an absolute bar could lead to demolition of ₹20,000-crore infrastructure projects, including hospitals and airports, harming public interest. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, warning that the ruling dilutes the precautionary principle.
30% Reservation for Women in State Bar Councils
The Supreme Court on Monday heard a plea seeking 30% reservation for women in State Bar Council elections, highlighting the need to improve gender representation in the legal profession.
The CJI stressed that the 30% quota must be strictly ensured, adding that even if women do not contest elections in sufficient numbers, they can be co-opted based on merit and professional contribution. The Court clarified that the reservation is meant to benefit practising women advocates, not token representation.
Given that elections are already underway in some states, the Court acknowledged that immediate reservation may not be feasible everywhere. For councils where elections are yet to begin, the Court proposed:
- 20% seats through the election
- 10% seats through co-option
- Ensuring 30% total representation for women
The Court sought a detailed proposal on the co-option process and clarified that even where women are contesting elections, co-option must be used if necessary to achieve the full 30% quota.
ALSO READ: CJI BR Gavai’s Legacy: How He Redefined Judicial Limits, With Key Judgments Explained
Madras Bar Association Case
The Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, ruling that the government had unlawfully reintroduced provisions earlier declared unconstitutional. A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran held that the Act violated the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence by effectively overriding binding judgments without curing the defects previously identified.
The Court criticised the Central government for repeatedly ignoring its directions on tribunal functioning and warned that such litigation wastes valuable judicial time amidst heavy case backlogs. It reaffirmed that the principles laid down in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-4 and MBA-5) cases would continue to govern tribunal appointments and tenure.
The Court also ordered the establishment of a National Tribunals Commission within three months, emphasising that piecemeal amendments would not fix the larger systemic issues. It clarified that the tenure of ITAT members and earlier appointments would continue to be governed by older statutes and the MBA rulings, not the shortened terms in the 2021 Act.
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, had replaced the earlier Ordinance, which the Court had already criticised for limiting members’ tenure to four years and setting a minimum appointment age of 50. Petitioners challenged provisions affecting tenure, eligibility, and the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, arguing that they gave the executive excessive control. Senior advocates Arvind Datar and others appeared for the petitioners, while Attorney General R. Venkataramani represented the Centre.
Separately, during hearings in the long-pending Madras Bar Association case, the CJI expressed displeasure at repeated adjournment requests by the Attorney General, calling it unfair and disruptive. The Court stressed the urgency of resolving long-standing issues regarding tribunal independence.
The Central government defended the 2021 Act, arguing that it does not violate fundamental rights and falls within its legislative authority. The Act had also dissolved several appellate tribunals and reassigned their functions to courts, as part of a broader rationalisation effort that began in 2015.
Mandatory 3-Year Legal Practice for Judicial Recruitment Restored
The Supreme Court has clarified the applicability of its May 20, 2025, judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, which restored the mandatory three-year Bar practice requirement for Civil Judge eligibility.
A Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that judicial officers appointed before 20 May 2025 will not be required to have three years’ Bar practice if they apply for judicial services in another State. However, such officers must complete three years of judicial service in their current State.
The clarification was issued to remove ambiguity while considering an application by a judicial officer appointed when no prior Bar practice was required. The Court noted that the applicant had already served as a Judicial Officer for six years, making the new eligibility condition inapplicable to her case.
Separately, the Court directed all States/UTs and High Courts that have not yet responded on the issue of absorption or regularisation of e-Courts technical staff to file their replies within six weeks.
The Court also recalled its earlier order dated 14 August 2025, which had declined to interfere with the May 20 judgment, and clarified that the practice requirement would not operate retrospectively against similarly placed judicial officers.
The Supreme Court’s 2025 judgments collectively reaffirmed constitutional boundaries, protected civil liberties, recalibrated environmental jurisprudence, and strengthened judicial institutions. From executive accountability to gender equity and judicial competence, the Court demonstrated a nuanced balance between restraint and intervention.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Landmark Verdicts
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE