The Supreme Court’s 2025 landmark judgments exposed deep structural flaws in governance, from delays and institutional inertia to misuse of discretion. The Court flagged failures in federal relations, anti-defection rulings, electoral processes, tribunals, investigations, and legislative privileges.
In 2025, the Supreme Court’s focus on governance and democracy highlighted its engagement with the operational aspects of institutions.
The Court addressed structural challenges such as delays, institutional inertia, and the strategic application of its discretion.
The Court identified procedural failures across various federal relations, anti-defection rulings, electoral management, tribunal oversight, investigative autonomy, and legislative privileges as constitutional issues.
State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu
Assent to Bills Case
A vital moment in this pursuit occurred in the joint outcome of the two-judge Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and the advisory opinion in Special Reference No. 1 of 2025 under Article 143.
Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court arguing that the Governor had been repeatedly delaying, withholding action, and unnecessarily reserving several Bills approved by the State Legislature, and that this prolonged inaction had effectively stalled the legislative process and undermined democratic functioning.
The apex court held that the Governor cannot use an “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” under Article 200 by sitting on State Bills for months or years without action, as such delay is unconstitutional and violates democratic governance.
The Court ruled that when a Governor withholds assent, they must return the bill, and upon its repassage by the legislature, the Governor is obliged to grant assent unless the bill pertains to High Court powers or constitutionally reserved matters.
Governors cannot indefinitely postpone bills, as doing so constitutes an impermissible pocket veto.
The Court emphasized that, as a general constitutional principle, Governors are required to act according to the “aid and advice” of the State Council of Ministers, except in specific, narrowly defined scenarios.
Governors are expected to:
- Uphold the democratic choices made by the elected legislature.
- Avoid unreasonable delays in action, as prolonged postponement is deemed unconstitutional and undermines legislative intent. The Court affirmed that judicial review is applicable when a Governor delays, withholds assent, or behaves arbitrarily, despite the constitutional nature of the office.
To address the unusual situation of several Bills pending for years, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 (its plenary powers) to consider ten of those pending Bills as having received assent.
This action aimed to prevent legislative stagnation and maintain democratic processes, although it later sparked discussions about the separation of powers and the limits of Article 142.
While the judgment reinforced constitutional constraints on Governors, it also raised concerns about judicial overreach particularly regarding the Court’s use of Article 142 to effectively approve bills on the executive’s behalf.
Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana
Anti-Defection Law Case
The case emerged from the anti-defection law as outlined in Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which stipulates the disqualification of elected legislators who switch parties after being elected on a specific party’s ticket.
Following the Telangana Assembly elections in late 2023, several MLAs elected on Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) tickets were accused of defecting to the Indian National Congress (INC) in 2024. Consequently, disqualification petitions were filed with the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, requesting action against these MLAs for their defections.
However, the Speaker failed to address these petitions in a timely manner for several months. In response to this inaction, the appellants, including Padi Kaushik Reddy, approached the High Court.
After a series of orders and appeals, the case escalated to the Supreme Court.
In its 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court made several important rulings:
- Timeliness of Speaker’s Action: The Court emphasized that the Speaker’s prolonged inaction in addressing disqualification petitions undermines the anti-defection law’s intent.
- Lack of Constitutional Immunity for the Speaker: It was determined that the Speaker does not possess constitutional immunity under Articles 122 or 212 of the Constitution when acting as the adjudicator for matters concerning the Tenth Schedule. This means that the Speaker’s decisions, including any failures to act regarding disqualifications, are open to judicial review.
- Reversal of High Court Order: The Supreme Court annulled the earlier High Court ruling that had reversed a Single Judge’s directive for a prompt hearing, asserting that the High Court had made an error by intervening in the process.
- Deadline for Decision: The Court mandated that the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly must resolve all outstanding disqualification petitions involving the defected MLAs swiftly, and within a maximum timeframe of three months from the date of the judgment.
- Call for Legislative Reform: The Supreme Court also called upon Parliament to consider re-evaluating the anti-defection law and the role of Speakers in adjudicating such matters, highlighting that delays negate the law’s purpose.
The ruling clearly stated that Speakers are not immune from judicial review when exercising authority under the anti-defection law and that prolonged inaction undermines the constitutional goal of preventing political defections.
Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Tribunals Reforms Act Case
The Court’s commitment to institutional independence was further demonstrated in its judgment in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association, which scrutinized the governance of tribunals.
This case is a constitutional law case concerning the independence of quasi-judicial tribunals and judicial independence under the Constitution of India.
The Madras Bar Association (MBA) challenged the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021 (and related Rules) which amended conditions of service, qualifications, age limits, and tenure for members of tribunals across India.
The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, relating to the appointment and tenure of tribunal members, holding them unconstitutional.
The Court found that the Centre had reintroduced provisions earlier invalidated by the Court with only minor changes, amounting to a legislative override that violated judicial independence and the separation of powers.
Reprimanding the government for repeatedly ignoring binding precedents, the Court directed that earlier rulings in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-4 and MBA-5) cases will continue to govern tribunal appointments and tenure.
It also ordered the Union government to establish a National Tribunals Commission within three months, stressing that piecemeal reforms cannot fix systemic flaws in the tribunal framework.
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India
Electoral Bonds Case
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenged the Electoral Bond Scheme introduced through the Finance Act, 2017.
The scheme allowed individuals and companies to buy anonymous bonds from SBI and donate them to political parties without disclosing their identity.
ADR argued that this created secrecy in political funding, violated voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a), removed earlier limits on corporate donations including allowing shell companies to donate and was passed as a Money Bill to avoid full parliamentary scrutiny.
- The Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional, holding that anonymous political donations violate citizens’ right to information.
- The Court said voters must know who funds political parties to make informed choices.
- It held that removing corporate donation limits and allowing unlimited, opaque funding undermines fairness and transparency in elections.
Although the Court refrained from addressing broader political or citizenship issues tied to the revision process, it issued binding directives aimed at procedural transparency.
Also Read: Electoral Bonds Case | Chronology of Events
These included mandating the publication of lists of deleted voters with justifications and expanding acceptable identity documents for claims of inclusion, focusing on the mechanics of electoral administration rather than electoral outcomes.
Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council
MLC Expulsion Case
Sunil Kumar Singh, an RJD leader and Bihar MLC, was expelled on 26 July 2024 for unruly conduct, including derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister.
The Council’s Ethics Committee recommended expulsion, and a bye-election notification was issued. Singh challenged the expulsion in the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Supreme Court Ruled that,
- Expulsion Excessive:
The Court held that Singh’s conduct was improper but expulsion was disproportionate. Punishment must follow the doctrine of proportionality. - Judicial Review Allowed:
Courts can review legislative punishment, despite Article 212, since it affects fundamental rights and constituency representation. - Punishment Modified:
Singh’s absence was treated as suspension, deemed sufficient. He was reinstated as MLC immediately, without back pay for the period out of office but entitled to other allowances. - Bye-Election Cancelled:
The Court set aside the EC notification for a bye-election, as the expulsion itself was quashed.
Periammal (Dead) v. V. Rajamani
Periammal Property Execution Case
This case involved a long-standing property dispute from a 1980 agreement to sell land. Although a decree for specific performance was passed in 1986, the decree‑holders could not take possession due to objections and delays in execution proceedings.
The legal heirs challenged the orders of the Executive Court and Madras High Court, and the matter reached the Supreme Court in 2025.
In , a two-Judge Bench mandated that all High Courts ensure their district courts resolve pending execution petitions within six months. The Supreme Court expressed concern over the prolonged delays in executing petitions, which hindered litigants from reaping the benefits of judicial rulings.
Supreme Court Ruled,
- Execution Must Not Be Obstructed: Third-party objections cannot be used to reopen settled issues; execution proceedings must enforce the decree.
- Lower Court Orders Set Aside: The Supreme Court quashed the Madras High Court and Executing Court’s orders that caused undue delays.
- Directions for Possession: Decree‑holders must be given vacant possession within two months, with police assistance if needed.
- Nationwide Directive: All High Courts must ensure pending execution petitions are disposed of within six months to reduce backlog.
Collectively, these interventions reveal a Supreme Court in 2025 that was increasingly aware of systemic distortions in constitutional processes.
A recurring theme across these cases is the Court’s insistence that constitutional offices and institutions must not exploit delays, discretion, or procedural ambiguity to evade democratic accountability.