In a year with fewer Constitution Bench rulings, the Supreme Court delivered landmark verdicts on Governors’ assent to Bills, judicial appointments, promotions, and the power of courts to modify arbitral awards, reshaping constitutional governance and arbitration law in India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The year 2025 witnessed several critical Constitution Bench judgments from the Supreme Court of India that shaped constitutional law, judicial governance, and the balance of powers within the Indian legal system. Although the number of Constitution Bench decisions was fewer compared to previous years, the judgments delivered were substantive in scope, addressing fundamental constitutional questions, including judicial appointment procedures, arbitration law, and the limits of executive powers.
This year, the Supreme Court delivered four Constitution Bench judgments, three led by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and one by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna. This marked a sharp decline from 12 such judgments in 2024 and 18 in 2023, possibly influenced by the appointment of three Chief Justices during the year.
ALSO READ: 2025 in Legal History: 10 Supreme Court Rulings That Redefined Governance
The Constitution Bench cases primarily addressed issues relating to appointments and promotions in the district judiciary, the Court’s authority to modify arbitral awards, and an advisory opinion arising from a Presidential Reference.
What is a Constitution Bench?
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court consists of five or more judges and is constituted only in exceptional circumstances. Most Supreme Court cases are ordinarily decided by two-judge (Division Benches) or occasionally three-judge benches.
Under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, a Constitution Bench is mandatory for cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation or for hearing Presidential References under Article 143. Article 143 empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on matters of public importance. Such opinions, while authoritative, are not binding and do not constitute declared law.
Constitution Benches are also formed when conflicting judgments are delivered by different three-judge benches on the same legal issue, requiring resolution by a larger bench. These benches are established on an ad hoc basis, as needed.
The demand for a permanent Constitution Bench arose from concerns over judicial delays and mounting pendency, which has crossed 71,000 cases, despite an increase in the Court’s sanctioned strength to 34 judges. A permanent bench could streamline listings, prioritise constitutional matters, and improve judicial efficiency.
Major Constitution Bench Judgments of 2025
1. Presidential Reference Case
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai examined the scope of powers of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 concerning assent to State Bills. The advisory opinion arose from a Presidential Reference under Article 143, following the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which had criticised indefinite delays by Governors in acting on Bills.
The Bench clarified that the discharge of constitutional functions by the Governor and the President is generally non-justiciable. It set aside the timelines and the concept of “deemed assent” prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment, holding that judicially imposed deadlines would violate the principle of separation of powers. However, the Court recognised that in cases of prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite delay, courts may issue a limited mandamus to seek explanations.
The Court reaffirmed that, under Article 200, a Governor effectively has three options: to grant assent, to return the Bill with reasons, or to reserve it for the President. Withholding assent without explanation is impermissible, and Governors are ordinarily bound by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet. While judicial deadlines are unconstitutional, unreasonable delays remain open to judicial scrutiny.
The Presidential Reference, initiated by President Droupadi Murmu, raised 14 questions on the justiciability of decisions under Articles 200 and 201, the limits of judicial review, the scope of Article 142, and whether courts can intervene before a Bill becomes law. The reference marked the first Constitution Bench constituted by CJI Gavai in 2025, reflecting ongoing tensions between constitutional discretion and judicial oversight in Centre–State relations.
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India
SPL. REF. No. 1/2025
ALSO READ: 16 Key Constitutional Bench Rulings Under Ex CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
2. All India Judges Association Case
In All India Judges Association v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai addressed long-standing issues of stagnation, seniority, and promotion within the Higher Judicial Service (HJS). The case arose from concerns that Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates often faced limited career progression compared to direct recruits, with many retiring before reaching the rank of Principal District Judge (PDJ).
After reviewing submissions and reports from States and High Courts, the Court found wide disparities in promotion and seniority practices across the country. It held that a legitimate expectation of reservation cannot justify an artificial classification within a single judicial cadre. Once officers enter the HJS, they shed the “birthmark” of their recruitment source, whether as Direct Recruits, Regular Promotees, or LDCE candidates and must be treated uniformly.
The Bench ruled that seniority in the HJS should be determined by continuous length of service under an annual roster system, based on the principle of merit-cum-seniority. It rejected demands for separate promotional quotas or classifications within the PDJ cadre and clarified that personal dissatisfaction or stagnation concerns cannot override constitutional equality.
The Court directed all States and Union Territories to amend their judicial service rules within three months to align with these principles. The ruling applies prospectively and does not disturb settled seniority positions. This judgment is expected to bring nationwide uniformity, reduce stagnation, and restore confidence in judicial career progression.
Case Title: All India Judges Association and Ors. Vs. Union Of India and Ors.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022 OF 1989
3. Direct Recruitment of Judicial Officers as District Judges
In Rejanish K.V. v. State of Kerala, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court examined whether judicial officers with prior experience at the Bar are eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges under the advocate (Bar) quota. The case arose after Rejanish K.V., who had over seven years of legal practice, was appointed as a munsiff before his selection as a District Judge was finalised, leading to his disqualification by the Kerala High Court.
Relying on Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), the High Court had held that only advocates actively practising at the time of appointment were eligible under the Bar quota. Rejanish challenged this interpretation, arguing that his eligibility should be assessed based on his prior completion of seven years’ practice.
A five-judge Constitution Bench ruled in favour of Rejanish, holding that judicial officers with at least seven years of experience at the Bar are eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges under Article 233(2). The Court clarified that eligibility is to be determined based on qualifications already acquired, and there is no constitutional bar on in-service judicial officers being appointed under the Bar quota.
The Bench expressly overruled Dheeraj Mor, noting that its interpretation unfairly excluded meritorious judicial officers. The judgment significantly expands eligibility for District Judge appointments and ensures a more inclusive and practical interpretation of Article 233(2).
Case Title: Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3947 OF 2020
4. Arbitral Award Modification
In Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court addressed whether courts have the power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case arose from a long-standing employment dispute in which an arbitral tribunal awarded ₹2 crore in compensation to Gayatri Balasamy. Subsequent modifications by the Madras High Court, first enhancing and then drastically reducing the compensation, led to conflicting interpretations of judicial powers over arbitral awards.
Recognising divergent judicial precedents, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench to clarify the scope of the courts’ authority. On 30 April 2025, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna delivered a 4:1 majority ruling holding that courts possess a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34. The majority held that courts may sever invalid or non-arbitrable portions of an award while preserving the remainder and may, in rare and exceptional cases, invoke Article 142 to do complete justice.
Justice K.V. Viswanathan dissented, holding that neither Section 34 nor Article 142 permits modification of arbitral awards and that prior decisions allowing such modifications were per incuriam. The judgment strikes a balance between judicial restraint and fairness, clarifying that while arbitral autonomy must be respected, limited judicial intervention is permissible to prevent manifest injustice.
Case Title: Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited
S.L.P.(C) Nos.15336-15337 of 2021
While 2025 saw a comparatively lower number of Constitution Bench rulings, the judgments delivered were substantive and foundational, particularly in areas affecting judicial governance, arbitration law, and constitutional procedures. These decisions continue to shape legal practice and constitutional discourse in India, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting and preserving constitutional values.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Landmark Verdicts
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Constitutional Bench
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
