As we step into September, it’s essential to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of August 2025 of the Supreme Court. This monthly recap below lists a series of significant rulings that have shaped legal discourse across various domains.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: As we step into September, it’s important to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of August 2025. This month saw a series of significant rulings that have influenced legal discourse across various fields, including constitutional law, criminal justice, corporate regulations, and human rights. From Supreme Court verdicts establishing new precedents to High Court rulings with wide-ranging implications, these decisions continue to shape and evolve the legal landscape.
In this monthly recap, we examine the most important judgments of August 2025, highlighting their key takeaways, legal reasoning, and potential ramifications.
“Why don’t you apply to the Supreme Court… In the Supreme Court, everybody can apply”: Supreme Court
In the case of Vijai Pratap Singh v. Delhi High Court through its Registrar General, the Supreme Court of India, on August 1, 2025, refused to entertain a petition challenging Rule 9B of the Delhi High Court (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2024.
The rule restricts eligibility for designation as senior advocates in the Delhi High Court to only those retired judges from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) who have completed at least 10 years of service.
Vijai Pratap Singh, a retired judge from Uttar Pradesh, argued that this rule was unfair, discriminatory, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an arbitrary classification based on place of service, thereby forming a “class within a class.” However, a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran upheld the rule and observed that Singh could instead apply to the Supreme Court, which does not impose such regional restrictions for senior advocate designation.
Chief Justice Gavai said,
“Why don’t you apply to the Supreme Court… In the Supreme Court, everybody can apply.”
The Delhi High Court had previously justified the rule on grounds of administrative feasibility, stating that it has direct access to ACRs/APARs of its judicial officers, whereas it lacks such supervisory control over officers from other states, making fair assessment difficult.
It further emphasized that the designation of a senior advocate is not a legal right but a professional privilege, and thus denial does not infringe on the right to practice law under Article 19(1)(g).
CASE TITLE: VIJAI PRATAP SINGH Vs DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
SLP(C) No. 15148/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Slams BDA Over Land Transfer Scam: “Public Property Handed to Private Parties”
In the case of S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., the Supreme Court of India strongly criticised the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for engaging in collusive litigation with private individuals to return land acquired for public use back into private hands. The land, originally acquired in 1978 and 1982 under valid notifications and allotted under a development scheme, had its de-notification from 1992 quashed by the High Court in 1996—a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Despite this, a fresh legal twist arose in 2015 when new writ petitions claimed the acquisition had lapsed. In 2016, a single judge allowed these petitions, and the BDA deliberately withdrew its appeals, allowing the decision to stand. The Supreme Court called this a clear case of collusion and stated that public interest was compromised due to the actions and omissions of the BDA.
The case also involved a criminal complaint by one Keerthiraj Shetty, who alleged cheating and breach of trust after the accused revoked a General Power of Attorney and refused to execute a sale deed despite a sale agreement. The Court, however, found no evidence of criminal intent or deception and ruled that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process.
As a result, the FIR, the chargesheet (dated August 28, 2024), and the magistrate’s cognizance order (dated August 30, 2024) were all quashed. Although the Court considered using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to reverse the 2016 High Court ruling, it refrained, noting that the BDA had already filed a separate appeal (SLP (C) Nos. 10134-10135/2025) on the matter. Until that case is resolved, the Court ordered that no third-party rights be created on the disputed land.
Case Title: SN Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.8626 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“He Was No Minor”: Supreme Court Overturns Juvenile Status in Murder Case, Orders Adult Trial
In a landmark ruling on August 1, the Supreme Court of India overturned the judgments of the Allahabad High Court (2016) and the trial court (2015), which had wrongly declared a murder accused as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed an appeal filed by the complainant, ruling that the accused was not a minor but a major at the time of the 2011 murder incident in Kairana, Uttar Pradesh.
The Court found that the lower courts failed to properly evaluate key evidence, including:
- A school certificate showing April 18, 1995, as the birth date, based solely on the oral claim of the accused’s father.
- A family register under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which stated the accused’s year of birth as 1991.
- A 2012 voter list showed the accused as 22 years old.
- A medical board’s report estimated his age as around 22 years, which placed him well above 18 at the time of the incident.
The Court concluded that the juvenile declaration was “plainly improper” and set aside both the trial court and High Court orders.
Although the accused had already served three years in custody under the Juvenile Justice Board, the Supreme Court directed him to surrender before the trial court within three weeks. He will now face a full criminal trial as an adult, with the liberty to apply for bail as per law.
The Court has ordered the trial court to conclude the proceedings by July 2026, stressing that the matter be handled on a priority basis.
Case Title: Suresh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.347 OF 2018
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Educated Women Shouldn’t Rely On Handouts”: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has officially ended a prolonged matrimonial dispute by granting divorce and directing that a flat in Mumbai be transferred to the estranged wife as part of a property settlement.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran delivered the final verdict after both parties agreed to the terms of settlement. The case drew significant attention as the wife had sought Rs 12 crore and a flat, despite the marriage lasting only 18 months.
During a hearing on July 21, the Court expressed concern over the wife’s high monetary demand. On learning that she held an MBA degree and had IT sector experience, CJI Gavai questioned why she was not working, remarking:
“You are well educated. You should not be depending on handouts. You should earn and live with dignity.”
The husband’s counsel, Sr. Adv. Madhavi Divan emphasized that the wife was capable of employment and should not expect indefinite support.
The Bench also clarified that the wife had no legal right to her husband’s ancestral property, and asked for the husband’s income tax records to assess a fair settlement.
Eventually, the Court gave the woman two options:
- Accept the flat in Kalpataru (Mumbai) without further legal claims, or
- Take a one-time settlement of Rs 4 crore.
The wife chose the flat, and the Supreme Court finalized the divorce, bringing the long-standing legal battle to an end.
CASE TITLE: ANURAG VIJAYKUMAR GOEL VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. 5277 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Respect the Army; You Sleep Peacefully Because of Them”: Supreme Court Backs CBI Probe in Assault on Colonel
On August 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition by two Punjab policemen, Inspector Harjinder Singh Dhillon and Harry Boparai, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order transferring the probe to the CBI in a case involving the brutal assault of an Army Colonel and his son.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma refused to interfere and made strong remarks against the conduct of the policemen, stating:
“Don’t misbehave with an Army officer who is serving the country. The Army stands for the nation. If we cannot ensure their protection, we are compromising national integrity.”
The incident occurred on the night of March 13–14, 2025, when Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son were dining at a dhaba in Patiala, Punjab. A parking dispute escalated into a violent assault by around 12 police personnel, including four inspectors. The Colonel and his son were severely beaten, their ID card and phones seized, and they were allegedly threatened with a fake encounter.
Despite the gravity of the incident, the Punjab Police delayed the FIR by eight days. Later, an SIT was formed, but progress was negligible; no arrests were made even months after the FIR. Alleging a biased and lax investigation, the Colonel approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which, on July 16, 2025, transferred the probe to the CBI.
The accused policemen challenged this order in the Supreme Court, but the bench firmly rejected their plea, endorsing the High Court’s decision for an independent investigation. The Court criticized the inaction of state authorities and warned that such misconduct toward Army personnel was unacceptable. It refrained from imposing a penalty but noted that a heavy fine would have been justified.
The case now rests with the CBI for investigation, and the Supreme Court’s remarks serve as a stern warning against police high-handedness, particularly toward members of the armed forces.
Case Title: HARJINDER SINGH DHILLON & ANR. VERSUS PUSHPINDER SINGH BATH & ORS.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No. 41450/2025
READ ORDER HERE
“Confession Made In FIR Lodged By Accused Is Inadmissible Under Evidence Act”: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that an FIR lodged by an accused containing a confession cannot be used against him in a trial, as it is barred by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan acquitted the appellant, who had been convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC.
In 2019, Yadav himself lodged the FIR admitting to killing his employer during a drunken quarrel and stealing money and a vehicle. The trial court convicted him of murder, later modified by the Chhattisgarh High Court to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a confessional FIR by an accused is inadmissible except,
- to prove conduct under Section 8 Evidence Act, or
- to the limited extent of discovery under Section 27.
The High Court erred in using the FIR to corroborate medical evidence, which by itself cannot sustain a conviction. Most prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and no valid discovery was made.
The Court held it was wrongly applied since the deceased was unarmed and the attack was indiscriminate, making it neither mutual nor without undue advantage.
With no substantive evidence, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered Yadav’s immediate release.
Case Title: Narayan Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3343 OF 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 10595 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Quashes HC Ban on Using CM Stalin’s Name & Photo in Welfare Schemes, Fines AIADMK MP Rs 10 Lakh: “Unwarranted and Abuse of Law”
The Supreme Court has overturned a Madras High Court order that had barred the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government from using the names and photos of present or past Chief Ministers in its welfare schemes.
A Bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, with Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, termed the PIL filed by AIADMK leader and MP C Ve Shanmugam as an “abuse of process of law” and imposed a Rs 10 lakh fine on him.
The Madras High Court, in its July 31 order, had restricted the state from naming schemes after living persons or using portraits of former Chief Ministers, ideological leaders, or DMK symbols in related advertisements. Shanmugam had challenged the “Ungaludan Stalin” scheme, alleging it promoted the Chief Minister’s personal image.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed these arguments, holding that the PIL was unwarranted and politically motivated. By restoring the government’s discretion, the Court has allowed Tamil Nadu to freely use the names and photos of leaders in welfare schemes, while cautioning against filing frivolous PILs.
CASE TITLE: DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM vs THIRU. C.VE. SHANMUGAM
SLP(C) No. 21487/2025
READ ORDER HERE
“Get Ready to Pay More Electricity Bill!”: Supreme Court Approves Hike, Rates May Rise Nationwide, Including Delhi
The Supreme Court has issued a landmark order that could lead to higher electricity bills nationwide, as all states and Union Territories have been directed to clear over Rs 1.5 lakh crore in regulatory dues owed to power distribution companies (DisComs) within four years.
A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar mandated State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) to prepare recovery timelines, with APTEL overseeing compliance. The court strongly criticized regulators for their failure to control rising regulatory assets, warning that such negligence burdens consumers.
Regulatory assets arise when DisComs sell power at a higher cost than the tariff approved by regulators, with payments deferred to keep tariffs affordable. These deferred dues, however, accumulate interest and escalate liabilities.
The order, stemming from petitions by Delhi DisComs, has now been extended across India. The Court emphasized that while tariff hikes are inevitable, they must be reasonable and phased, ensuring the burden is shared by domestic, commercial, and industrial consumers.
The Supreme Court also directed State Commissions to explore whether recovery of dues can be separated from regular tariffs to reduce consumer impact, marking one of the biggest reforms in India’s power sector billing in recent years.
Case Title: BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India and Ors.
WRIT PETITION (C) 104 OF 2014
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Justice Must Not Be Handcuffed By Procedure”: Supreme Court Allows Sessions Court to Summon Accused Even Without Chargesheet
On August 5, the Supreme Court of India delivered a key judgment on criminal trials, holding that a Sessions Court can summon an accused at the very start of the trial under Section 193 CrPC, even if the police did not name that person in the chargesheet.
The ruling, by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, clarified that this can be done if evidence clearly indicates the person’s involvement, and rejected the argument that such summoning is possible only later under Section 319 CrPC when witnesses testify.
The case involved Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar, who was accused in a rape and murder case. Though not named in the chargesheet, the complainant sought his summoning under Section 193 CrPC, which was allowed by the trial court and upheld by the Allahabad High Court. Kallu’s challenge in the Supreme Court was dismissed.
The Court emphasized that a Magistrate, when committing a case, takes cognizance of the offence, not of specific individuals. Therefore, once the case is sent to the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can summon additional accused as part of the trial process, without requiring a fresh committal.
Upholding the summoning of Kallu, the Court directed that this judgment be circulated to all High Courts, ensuring clarity across the country.
Case Title: Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar versus State of UP
SLP(Crl) No. 010010/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Quotes Manusmriti to Uphold Conviction of Father for Raping Minor Daughter: “Dignity of Women Is Non-Negotiable”
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a father found guilty of raping his minor daughter, refusing to show leniency. The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Kumar emphasized that when a father, expected to be a protector, becomes the violator, the betrayal is both personal and institutional.
The Court observed that the dignity of women is non-negotiable, stressing that misplaced sympathy or procedural arguments cannot dilute punishment in such cases. It underscored that the home must remain a sanctuary, not a place of trauma, and that incestuous sexual violence demands the severest condemnation.
Relying on forensic, medical, and testimonial evidence, the Court dismissed the father’s claim of false implication, noting that the DNA report sealed the case beyond doubt. It also referenced the Manusmriti, stating that respect for women is both a cultural principle and a constitutional vision.
Reaffirming its stance from Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019), the Court directed a compensation of Rs 10.5 lakh to the victim and concluded that such crimes warrant no mitigation, only a resolute judicial response.
Case Title: Bhanei Prasad @Raju vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)
DIARY NO. 33114/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Rejects Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against Cash Recovery Probe and Removal Recommendation
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, who challenged the recommendation for his removal made by former CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna after large amounts of cash were allegedly found at his residence following a fire.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih held that the in-house inquiry committee followed due process and that the CJI’s act of forwarding the report to the President and Prime Minister was not unconstitutional. The Court said there was no violation of procedure, except for not uploading videos of the inquiry, which was not fatal to the case.
Justice Varma argued that the process was illegal since no formal complaint was filed, he was denied cross-examination, and the inquiry exposed him to a media trial. However, the Court rejected these claims, ruling that the in-house procedure of 1999 permits such action to preserve judicial integrity.
The Bench framed six issues and ruled against Justice Varma on all counts, finally dismissing his writ petition in full. It also dismissed a plea seeking an FIR against him.
Meanwhile, the government has already initiated the impeachment process in Parliament, with over 145 MPs submitting a notice against Justice Varma over the cash-at-home row.
CASE TITLE: XXX Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
W.P.(C) No. 699/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Section 138 NI Act: “Offence Must Be Tried Only By A Court Within Local Jurisdiction Where Payee Maintains Bank Account”
The Supreme Court of India has clarified the issue of territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881.
The case arose when Prakash Chimanlal Sheth’s complaints were rejected by the Mangalore Magistrate, who held that jurisdiction lay in Mumbai, where the cheques were physically deposited. The Karnataka High Court upheld this view.
The Supreme Court, however, referred to Section 142(2)(a) (post-2015 amendment) and the precedent in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh (2016), holding that jurisdiction lies where the payee maintains his bank account, not where the cheque is deposited.
Since the appellant’s account was at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bendurwell Branch, Mangalore, the Court ruled that the Mangalore Magistrate had jurisdiction.
The Court set aside the orders of the Magistrate and High Court and directed the Mangalore court to hear the complaints on merits.
Case Title: Prakash Chimanlal Sheth Versus Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat
S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 5540-5543 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Restricting Women’s Seats Violates Right to Equality”: Supreme Court Quashes Army Policy Reserving More Posts for Men
The Supreme Court of India has struck down the reservation of six JAG posts for men and three for women in the Indian Army, ruling that a unified merit list must be prepared for all candidates regardless of gender.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that reserving seats for men was arbitrary, violative of the right to equality, and contrary to gender neutrality. The Court directed the Union of India to conduct recruitment based on merit and publish a combined merit list for men and women.
The ruling arose from a petition by two women affected by the 2023 notification, who ranked fourth and fifth overall but were denied selection due to the disproportionate allocation. The Court confirmed the induction of the first petitioner into the JAG department but denied relief to the second petitioner.
The judgment emphasizes that gender-based reservations in recruitment cannot override merit, ensuring equal opportunities for all candidates.
Case Title: Arshnoor Kaur v. Union Of India
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 772 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Defamation Case: Supreme Court Convicts Medha Patkar in Case Filed by Delhi LG Saxena
The Supreme Court of India declined to interfere in the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case filed by Delhi LG Vinai Kumar Saxena, but set aside the Rs 1 lakh penalty imposed by the trial court.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh also modified the probation conditions, removing the requirement for Patkar to appear before the trial court periodically and allowing her to furnish bonds instead.
The case arose from a 2000 press release in which Patkar accused Saxena of hawala transactions, issuing a bounced cheque, and being unpatriotic. The trial court convicted her under Section 500 IPC for making statements with deliberate malice, which the Delhi High Court later upheld in April and July 2025, modifying only the probation terms.
The Supreme Court dismissed her appeals challenging both the conviction and the rejection of her request to summon an additional witness, affirming the legality of the trial and High Court orders.
Case Title: Medha Patkar vs V.K. Saxena
SLP (Crl) No. 11953/2025
READ ORDER HERE
SpiceJet Service Tax Dispute | “How Can You Appeal Against Your Own Order?”: Supreme Court Slams GST Department
The Supreme Court of India on Monday strongly criticised the CGST and Central Excise Department, Delhi South, for filing an appeal against an order passed by its own Commissioner, which had been upheld at all stages. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the appeal, remarking,
“How can you file an appeal against your own commissioner’s order? The CESTAT has also dismissed your appeal. Dismissed.”
The dispute arose from a 2014 show cause notice to SpiceJet regarding alleged wrong CENVAT credit claims, service tax on excess baggage, and application of the extended limitation period. In 2016, the Commissioner of Service Tax ruled in SpiceJet’s favour, and subsequent appeals by the department to CESTAT (2023) and Delhi High Court (2024) were dismissed.
Despite the High Court allowing the department to approach the Supreme Court under Section 35L and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the top court rejected the appeal, questioning the logic of challenging an order already favourable to the department.
The CGST department was represented by Senior Advocate Arjit Prasad, while SpiceJet was represented by Advocate Charanya Lakshmikumaran.
CASE TITLE: Commissioner CGST v. SpiceJet
DIARY NO.15159/2025
READ ORDER HERE
“Not a Constitutional Flaw, But About Breaches in Individual Cases”: Supreme Court Rejects Bhupesh Baghel’s Plea Challenging Section 44 of PMLA
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition by former Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel and his son Chaitanya Baghel in a money laundering case.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for them, argued that only Section 44 of the PMLA permits the ED to conduct further investigation, and that a statutory explanation cannot confer such powers.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that the investigation is incident-based, not accused-based, and the law only recognises the ED’s residual powers. He stressed there is no constitutional flaw in PMLA, only case-specific breaches. Justice Surya Kant added that if the ED acts beyond its powers, the accused can approach the High Court.
The Court also referred to the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary judgment (para 263), which allows the ED to file additional evidence with court permission or proceed under Section 319 CrPC.
Finally, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition, granting the Baghels the liberty to approach the High Court if aggrieved, while upholding the scope of ED’s investigative powers under the PMLA.
Case Title: Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union of India and Others
W.P. (Crl.) No. 301/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Confirms Jail Officer’s Conviction For Helping Prisoner Escape: “Grave Institutional & Moral Breach. He Actively Undermined the Justice System”
On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of a former Punjab jail officer in a high-profile 2010 jail escape conspiracy case, confirming the findings of the Sessions Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan ruled that the officer had actively aided an undertrial prisoner’s escape, orchestrating a private vehicle and failing to protect escorting police personnel during a violent attack.
The incident occurred on November 30, 2010, when the officer suggested using a private Toyota Qualis for prisoner transport. En route, two unidentified men attacked the police with chilli powder, knives, and a kirpan, but the prisoner remained secured. The officer remained unharmed and disappeared, raising suspicion of conspiracy.
The trial court (2014) found the officer’s actions—arranging the secluded vehicle, allowing the attack, and fleeing—proved his collusion. The High Court (2023) upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court emphasized that guilt can be inferred from actions and circumstances when direct evidence is rare. The Bench highlighted the serious breach of trust committed by a custodial officer, stating that such acts undermine the justice system and institutional integrity.
The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the officer to immediately serve the remainder of his sentence.
CASE TITLE: Gurdeep Singh vs. The State of Punjab
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 705 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Nitish Katara Murder Case| “Convict Must Be Released After Completion of the Prescribed Prison Term”: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India ordered the release of Sukhdev Pehalwan, convicted in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case, stating that his continued detention beyond March 9, 2025, is illegal. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan emphasized that convicts serving fixed-term sentences must be released immediately after completing their term, without the need for remission, which applies only to life sentences.
Pehalwan had been sentenced to 20 years, while co-accused Vikas and Vishal Yadav received 25-year sentences without remission for kidnapping and murdering Katara due to caste-based disapproval of his relationship with Bharti Yadav, daughter of politician D.P. Yadav. The Supreme Court clarified that Pehalwan’s prison term has been fully served, and there is no legal reason to keep him incarcerated further.
Case Title: Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of NCT of Delhi
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3271 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Telangana Lawyers Murder Case: Supreme Court Transfers Probe to CBI After Allegations of Police Harassment
The Supreme Court of India has transferred the investigation into the 2021 murders of Telangana lawyers Gattu Vaman Rao and P V Nagamani to the CBI, citing the need for a more thorough inquiry. The couple, known for filing PILs on public issues, were attacked with knives near Ramagiri Mandal after raising allegations of police harassment and custodial death.
The decision followed a plea by Gattu Kishan Rao, seeking a CBI probe into his son and daughter-in-law’s deaths. The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 and 32 of the Constitution and Section 406 of the CrPC, empowering it to ensure complete justice and transfer cases to appropriate investigative agencies.
Case Title: Gattu Kishan Rao v. State of Telangana
SLP(Crl) No. 9145/2021
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Slams Bihar Cricket Association, Appoints Ex-Judge Nageswara Rao as Ombudsman: “All Dirty Politics and Waste of Public Revenue”
The Supreme Court of India appointed retired Justice L. Nageswara Rao as the ombudsman for the Bihar Cricket Association (BCA) to address allegations of illegal activities by certain office bearers and ensure the smooth functioning of the association. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan set aside the Patna High Court’s earlier order cancelling the appointment of former Judge Shaikesh Kumar Singh.
The Court clarified that the BCCI has no role in the appointment, emphasizing that the decision was in the larger public interest. Both parties are directed to meet Justice Rao to formalize modalities, with his honorarium to be fixed in consultation with them. The bench criticized ongoing disputes within the association as a waste of public resources, remarking that internal politics should not consume the highest court’s time.
Case Title: SECRETARY BIHAR CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs BIHAR CRICKET ASSOCIATION
SLP(C) No. 21132-21133/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Historic Supreme Court Move: EVMs Called to Delhi, Votes Recounted by SC Registrar, Videographed & Haryana Sarpanch Winner Changed
The Supreme Court of India ordered a fresh vote recount in the Buana Lakhu village Sarpanch election, Haryana, after a dispute over the November 2022 results. The Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N. Kotiswar Singh directed all EVMs and election records from Panipat to be brought to the Court, with recounting videographed in the presence of both parties’ representatives.
The original winner, Kuldeep Singh, was initially declared elected, but petitioner Mohit Kumar challenged the results. After the recount of booths 65–70 on August 6, 2025, the tally showed Mohit Kumar receiving 1,051 votes and Kuldeep Singh 1,000 votes. The Court accepted the recount report and declared Mohit Kumar the winner, directing the Deputy Commissioner to issue the official notification and allow him to assume office immediately.
The Court clarified that while parties could raise other issues before the Election Tribunal, the Supreme Court–supervised recount report would be final and conclusive, and resealed EVMs would be sent to the tribunal for record.
EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines), used in India for secure electronic voting, consist of a Control Unit and a Balloting Unit. Votes are recorded offline, verified through VVPAT slips, and counted in the presence of candidates or their agents, ensuring transparency and security.
CASE TITLE: Mohit Kumar v. Kuldeep Singh
SLP (C) No.18410 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Sagar Dhankar Murder Case | “Surrender Within 1 Week”: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Wrestler Sushil Kumar
The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to wrestler Sushil Kumar, the prime accused in the murder of junior national champion Sagar Dhankar, overturning the Delhi High Court’s March 4 order. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra directed Kumar to surrender within one week.
Kumar, along with 17 others, is accused of brutally assaulting Dhankar and his friends outside Delhi’s Chhatrasal Stadium on May 4, 2021, in a dispute allegedly linked to property. Dhankar, aged 23, later died of blunt force trauma, while two companions sustained injuries.
After the attack, Kumar evaded arrest for 18 days before being caught on May 23, 2021, and has since faced charges under Section 302 IPC (murder) and several related offences, including rioting, conspiracy, and attempt to murder.
The High Court had granted him bail earlier this year, citing his three and a half years in custody and the slow pace of the trial, as only 30 of 186 witnesses had been examined. However, the victim’s father challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.
The top court, siding with the victim’s family, ruled that Kumar must return to custody while the murder trial continues. Notably, Kumar had earlier been given a week-long interim medical bail in 2023 for knee surgery.
CASE TITLE: Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.
SLP(Crl) No. 5370/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Once the Marriage is Over, Let the Cases End Too”: Supreme Court on Post-Divorce Criminal Proceedings
The Supreme Court of India, on August 13, ruled that once a marriage has ended in divorce and both spouses have moved on, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members—especially without clear and specific allegations—serves no purpose. In such cases, the court said, it only prolongs bitterness and unnecessarily burdens the justice system.
The case arose from an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had refused to quash an FIR under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 IPC filed by the wife. The husband argued that since the couple had divorced and settled all disputes, the case should not continue.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the FIR, chargesheet, and related proceedings. The judges noted that both parties had accepted the divorce decree, entered into a settlement, and withdrawn all pending cases.
The court emphasized that in such circumstances, allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to harassment and serve no meaningful purpose. Accordingly, the husband’s appeal was allowed, and all criminal proceedings against him and his family members were set aside.
Case Title: Navneesh Aggrwal &Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.16217 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Caste Certificate | “Pre-Independence Documents Have Greater Probative Value”: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has directed the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee to issue a Caste Validity Certificate to medical aspirant Yogesh Madhav Makalwad, holding that pre-Independence documents carry greater probative value in caste verification.
A Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai with Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran overturned the Bombay High Court’s decision, which had upheld the cancellation of Makalwad’s certificate for the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe.
The Court relied on its precedent in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims (2012), stressing that:
- Pre-Independence records are less likely to be fabricated and provide stronger proof of caste status.
- The affinity test—which checks tribal customs and traditions—cannot be the sole basis to reject a claim, especially given social changes and cultural assimilation.
The judges noted that school records from 1943 (grandfather), the 1970s (father and uncle), and 2005 (appellant) consistently recorded the family’s caste as Koli Mahadev, with no signs of interpolation.
Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court clarified that an applicant’s inability to recall tribal practices cannot invalidate genuine documentary evidence.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the High Court’s ruling and the Scrutiny Committee’s order, declared Makalwad a member of the Koli Mahadev ST, and directed the issuance of the Caste Validity Certificate within six weeks.
Case Title: Yogesh Madhav Makalwad v. The State of Maharashtra
SLP (C) No. 27410 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Liberty Poses Threat to Justice; All Are Equal Before Law”: Supreme Court Cancels Actor Darshan’s Bail in Renukaswamy Murder Case
The Supreme Court cancelled the bail of Kannada actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case, finding the Karnataka High Court’s order deeply flawed. A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that granting liberty in such a case posed a serious threat to the administration of justice, stressing that all individuals, regardless of influence, are equal before law.
Darshan and 13 others are accused of kidnapping, torturing, and killing 33-year-old auto driver Renukaswamy on June 9, after he allegedly sent objectionable messages to Darshan’s friend, Pavithra Gowda. Reports claim Darshan paid ₹30 lakh for the crime and for destroying evidence. The post-mortem revealed brutal torture, including beatings with wooden clubs, electric shocks, and injuries that led to death due to multiple blunt force trauma.
The High Court had earlier granted Darshan interim bail on medical grounds (October 30) and later regular bail (December 13), citing procedural lapses such as delayed and non-specific grounds of arrest. However, the Supreme Court termed this a “perverse exercise of discretion”, setting aside the bail and reinstating custody.
In total, 17 individuals have been charged in connection with the case, including Pavithra and members of Darshan’s fan club who allegedly lured and assaulted the victim.
Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA V SRI DARSHAN ETC.
SLP(Crl) No. 516-522/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
‘Pride Cannot Be Monopolised’: Supreme Court Rules Against Pernod Ricard in Blenders Pride vs London Pride Trademark Dispute
On August 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of India rejected Pernod Ricard’s plea in its trademark infringement and passing-off case against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, owner of JK Enterprises, over his whisky brand London Pride.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, noting that Pernod Ricard cannot claim exclusive rights over the word “Pride”, as its trademark covers the composite mark Blenders Pride, not the word individually.
The court observed that London Pride’s packaging, labels, logos, and bottle design are distinct from Blenders Pride, and that buyers of premium whisky are generally discerning, making consumer confusion unlikely. It emphasized that the word “Pride” is generic and widely used in the liquor industry and cannot be monopolized without separate registration.
The Supreme Court ruled that trademark protection applies to the entire registered mark, not individual unregistered words within it, and dismissed Pernod Ricard’s claims for injunctions, damages, and account of profits.
Case Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KARANVEER SINGH CHHABRA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10638 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Clarifies: GST Summons Are Not ‘Proceedings’ — Central & State Can Investigate Together
On August 14, the Supreme Court clarified that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 do not amount to initiation of proceedings under Section 6(2)(b). This allows both Central and State GST authorities to conduct parallel inquiries during investigations.
The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan resolved conflicting High Court views, holding that “proceedings” mean formal adjudicatory steps like assessment, demand, or penalty under Sections 73/74, not preliminary actions such as summons, search, or seizure.
The case arose from Armour Security, which faced inquiries by both State GST and CGST authorities over alleged under-declaration of turnover and wrongful ITC claims. The company argued that CGST’s summons violated Section 6(2)(b). The Court disagreed, ruling that summons are only evidence-gathering tools and not barred by law.
The Court further clarified that the bar on dual proceedings applies only to adjudication on the same cause of action, not to overlapping investigations. To prevent conflict between authorities, it also laid down a nine-point procedural framework ensuring cooperation, transparency, and taxpayer compliance.
On facts, the Court held that CGST Delhi East’s summons were part of an independent inquiry and not a duplication of State proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage After 15 Years: Ordered To Pay Rs 1.25 Crore Permanent Alimony Under Article 142
The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing irretrievable breakdown after nearly 15 years of separation. The Court also directed the husband to pay ₹1.25 crore as permanent alimony to his wife and son.
The couple married in 2009 and moved to the US, where their son was born in 2010. In 2012, the husband sought a divorce alleging cruelty and adultery. The Family Court in 2016 granted a divorce on grounds of cruelty but not adultery. However, the Madras High Court (2018) reversed this, holding that cruelty was unproven. Meanwhile, the husband remarried in 2017.
The husband challenged the High Court’s order. Mediation failed, and he sought relief under Article 142. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the couple had been living apart since 2010, the husband had remarried, and the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
The Court ordered payment of Rs 1.25 crore in five quarterly installments of Rs 25 lakh each (Sept 2025–Sept 2026). The divorce decree will be issued only upon proof of full payment. If the husband defaults, the order will stand recalled, and paid amounts forfeited.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
MP Mohan Delkar Death | “Humiliation Alone Is Not Instigation”: Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC’s Quashing of Suicide Abetment Case
The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court’s order quashing the abetment of suicide case linked to the death of MP Mohan Delkar. A Bench led by CJI BR Gavai with Justices Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria dismissed the plea filed by Delkar’s son, Abhinav, seeking restoration of the FIR against nine accused, including Union Territory Administrator Praful Khoda Patel.
Mohan Delkar, a seven-time MP from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, was found dead in a Mumbai hotel on 22 February 2021. A 14-page suicide note alleged harassment and political pressure by UT officials. An FIR was registered under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 389 IPC (extortion-related offence).
Bombay High Court (Sept 2022) quashed the FIR, holding that the allegations did not show any direct or “positive act” of abetment.
Supreme Court Proceedings: During hearings, the Bench noted that humiliation or political pressure alone does not amount to abetment under Section 306 IPC, and even remarks like “go and die” cannot attract liability without a proven causal link to the suicide. CJI Gavai observed that reactions to stress differ — “a sensitive person may end life, but a hard-hearted one may not.”
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora argued that Delkar’s suicide stemmed from continuous humiliation, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani defended the High Court ruling, stressing lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the claims.
On August 14, 2025, the Supreme Court confirmed that the FIR’s contents did not disclose abetment, thereby upholding the quashing of proceedings against all nine accused.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Citizens Should Not Pay to Travel Through Potholes”: Supreme Court Dismisses NHAI’s Appeal on Toll Collection
On August 19, the Supreme Court dismissed NHAI’s appeal against the Kerala High Court’s decision that suspended toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza for four weeks.
A Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria refused to interfere, remarking that “citizens should not have to pay extra to travel through potholes.”
The case arose after the Kerala High Court, on August 6, halted toll collection due to persistent traffic jams and poor road conditions on the Edappally–Mannuthi stretch of NH-544. The HC held that toll charges cannot be demanded when the highway is in disrepair, stressing that the relationship between NHAI and the public is one of “public trust.”
The Supreme Court echoed these concerns, criticizing the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model for overcharging commuters while failing to maintain roads. The Bench observed that people already pay motor vehicle tax, and forcing them to pay tolls for broken roads amounts to a “toll on both the purse and patience of citizens.”
The Court clarified that NHAI was not held absolutely liable for losses suffered by the private concessionaire; disputes over responsibility could be raised before the appropriate forum. It also directed the Kerala HC to continue monitoring traffic management and implead other contractors responsible for repair delays.
Notably, the ruling emphasizes that toll fees are valid only when roads provide a smooth and safe passage. Until then, commuters cannot be forced to pay.
The Court added that once repairs are completed and traffic improves, NHAI or the concessionaire may seek permission to resume toll collection.
CASE TITLE: NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR. vs O.J JANEESH AND OR
SLP(C) No. 22579/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court’s Landmark Divorce Verdict: Wife’s Alimony Increased from Rs 15 Lakh to Rs 50 Lakh
On 18 August 2025, the Supreme Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded to a wife from Rs 15 lakh to Rs 50 lakh, payable as a one-time settlement in five instalments between September 2025 and January 2026.
The parties married in 2009, but differences led the husband to file for divorce in 2011 citing mental cruelty. The Family Court dissolved the marriage in 2015, granting ₹15 lakh alimony and interim maintenance, which was later raised to Rs 25,000 per month by the High Court. In 2022, the Karnataka High Court upheld both the divorce and alimony amount.
Challenging the limited relief, the wife moved the Supreme Court, which confined the hearing to alimony. Financial disclosures revealed that the husband, a doctor, earned Rs 1.4 lakh per month, while the wife, though holding M.Tech and LL.B. degrees, was unemployed.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that alimony must ensure fair balance between the husband’s income and the wife’s long-term security. Considering her unemployment and his financial capacity, the Court revised the amount.
The final order affirmed the divorce decree, while enhancing the settlement to Rs 50 lakh as full and final relief, payable in five instalments of Rs 10 lakh each.
Case Title: M.V. Leelavathi v. Dr. C.R. Swamy @ Dr. C.R. Kumara Swamy
SLP (CIVIL) NOS.2249-2250/2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Contempt Of Public Authority | “Offences Under Section 172–188 IPC Can’t Be Split To Bypass Section 195 CrPC”: Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines
The Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2025 INSC 1009 clarified the ambit of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in relation to offences under Sections 172–188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with contempt of lawful authority of public servants.
The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that no court can take cognizance of such offences unless a written complaint is filed by the concerned public servant or their superior authority.
The Court stressed that this safeguard cannot be bypassed by reframing or splitting charges from the same facts, except in exceptional cases where distinct offences are genuinely disclosed. While Section 195 restricts court cognizance, it does not prevent police investigation, though courts must act in accordance with Section 340 CrPC.
The case arose from a 2013 incident where a process server alleged that then-SHO Devendra Kumar abused and restrained him while he attempted to serve summons at Nand Nagri Police Station. A complaint was filed under Section 195 CrPC, but the Magistrate erroneously directed a police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, instead of directly taking cognizance under Section 204, leading to a 12-year delay.
The Court also clarified that “obstruction” under Section 186 IPC is not confined to physical force but includes verbal abuse, threats, or conduct making it impossible for a public servant to perform official duties.
Disposing of the petition, the Court allowed the petitioner to raise the Section 195 bar before the trial court if a chargesheet is filed, and directed that the ruling be circulated to all High Courts to avoid similar procedural errors in future.
Case Title: Devendra Kumar versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
SLP (Crl) No. 12373 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Admits Earlier Stray Dogs Order Was ‘Too Harsh’, Chooses Compassion Over Cruelty
The Supreme Court has modified its earlier ruling on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, acknowledging that the previous direction mandating the permanent sheltering of all strays was “too harsh” and impractical given the lack of infrastructure. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria clarified that stray dogs can now be released after sterilisation, except in cases involving aggressive behaviour or rabies infection.
The Court also ordered that feeding should not take place in public spaces; instead, designated feeding points will be set up in each ward, along with a helpline for violations. It further cautioned animal activists and citizens not to interfere with municipal authorities engaged in collection, sterilisation, and release of stray dogs. Importantly, the ruling applies across all states and union territories.
The bench reiterated that Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules must be followed, meaning sterilised dogs should be returned to their original localities. The Court’s revised order has been welcomed by animal rights groups, PETA India, and activists like Maneka Gandhi, while also addressing public safety concerns after recent dog attack incidents. Congress MP Rahul Gandhi hailed the decision as a compassionate balance between human safety and animal welfare.
CASE TITLE: IN RE: CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE
SMW(C) No. 5/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court On UAPA Case: “Attending Jihadi Meetings Not a Crime” | Bail For Saleem Khan, No Relief For Co-Accused
On August 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Saleem Khan & Mohd. Zaid upheld a 2022 Karnataka High Court ruling that had granted bail to Saleem Khan but denied bail to Mohd. Zaid, both facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The case arose from an FIR (2020) later taken over by the NIA, involving allegations against 17 accused of terror links. Saleem Khan was arrested in January 2020, and the charge-sheet alleged his association with Al-Hind, a group not banned under UAPA. The High Court held that merely attending its meetings did not amount to a prima facie offence and granted him bail.
In contrast, Mohd. Zaid was found to have deeper involvement with banned organisations, use of the dark web, and links to extremist activities. The High Court, therefore, rejected his bail plea.
The Supreme Court (Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan) agreed with this reasoning, noting there was no ground to interfere. It clarified that Khan’s bail could be cancelled if he tried to delay the trial.
At the same time, the Court expressed serious concern that despite 5½ years in custody, charges had not yet been framed. It directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and finish the trial within two years, given the large number of witnesses.
Case Title: Union of India Vs Saleem Khan
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 3644 OF 2025, SLP(CRL.) NO.11583 OF 2022
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Owner Of A Slum Has Right To Develop It: Supreme Court Quashes SRA’s Bandra Land Acquisition Against Church
On August 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a key ruling in a land dispute in Bandra, Mumbai, involving the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount’s Church trust and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the SRA’s acquisition of the Church-owned land, holding that a landowner’s right to redevelopment cannot be taken away casually.
The dispute concerned a 1,596 sq. m. plot, declared a slum decades ago, where residents had tied up with a private developer for redevelopment. The Church trust opposed, insisting redevelopment should cover its entire 10,000 sq. m. property. Though the trust filed its own plan in 2021, the SRA rejected it on technical grounds and proceeded with the slum society’s proposal.
The Bombay High Court (2024) struck down the acquisition, and the SRA, developer, and society appealed. They argued the Church delayed action, but the trust pointed out that its proposal was timely and supported by feasibility reports, and that COVID-19 orders extended limitation.
The Supreme Court upheld the trust’s stand, ruling that an owner has a preferential right to redevelop and must be given a fair chance before acquisition. It found the SRA’s rejection of the trust’s plan unfair and legally unsustainable, criticising the collusion between the SRA, society, and the developer.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision and cancelled the acquisition proceedings.
CASE TITLE: Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bishop John Rodrigues & Ors.
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15711 / 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Slams NGO for Fake Document in Smartworks IPO Case, Dismisses Appeal Against SEBI
The Supreme Court on August 25, 2025, dismissed the appeal filed by NGO Infrastructure Watchdog against SEBI concerning the Rs 560 crore IPO of Smartworks Coworking Spaces Limited. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar strongly reprimanded the NGO for submitting a fabricated document allegedly from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), and criticised its lawyers for allowing it to be filed in Court.
The matter arose after the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) on July 16, 2025, had rejected the NGO’s plea to stop the IPO, observing that Smartworks’ draft prospectus and addenda had already disclosed the complaints filed by the NGO, and that the income-tax reports relied upon were only “indicative” and had not resulted in statutory notices.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Narender Hooda, appearing for the NGO, presented the alleged MCA letter claiming ongoing investigations against the promoters, but Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing the respondents, demonstrated that no such letter existed.
The Court emphasised that filing false documents is a serious offence, warning the NGO that future attempts to mislead the Court could attract criminal prosecution. The Bench upheld the SAT’s order and allowed the IPO to proceed, noting that the issue had been fully addressed in the prospectus and that investor subscription, which jumped from 0.83% on the opening day to 13.45 times overall, reflected adequate transparency.
CASE TITLE: Infrastructure Watchdog vs Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Diary No(s). 38576/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Victims of Crime & Their Heirs Can Appeal Against Acquittal of Accused
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that victims of crime, including their legal heirs, have the right to file appeals against acquittal, lesser convictions, or inadequate compensation.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan held that a victim’s right to appeal must be on par with an accused’s right under Section 374 CrPC. The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (2009) gives victims an independent right to appeal, which is not conditional on the State filing an appeal under Section 378 CrPC. The ambit of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC includes legal heirs and guardians, allowing heirs to continue appeals if the original victim dies during proceedings.
The case arose from a 1992 attack in Haridwar, in which Khem Singh’s brother was killed. While the trial court convicted certain accused, the Uttarakhand High Court acquitted them in 2012. Khem Singh appealed to the Supreme Court but passed away during the proceedings, prompting his son, Raj Kumar, to seek substitution as his legal heir.
The Court allowed substitution, holding that heirs can pursue appeals to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Bench emphasized that victims’ heirs can prosecute appeals independently, even if the State does not challenge acquittal, and that the right to appeal “cannot be circumscribed”.
Arguments for the appellant relied on Section 372 CrPC, the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, and judicial precedent (PSR Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, 1980), while the respondents contended that appeals abate on the death of a victim and warned of potential misuse if heirs continue appeals indefinitely.
The Supreme Court set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s 2012 acquittal and remanded the matter for rehearing, directing the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the appeals while allowing both the State and the victim’s legal heir to make submissions. In the interim, the accused will remain on bail but must appear before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, and execute fresh bonds of Rs 15,000 each with two sureties.
CASE TITLE: KHEM SINGH (D) THROUGH LRs VERSUS STATE OF UTTARANCHAL (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) & ANOTHER ETC.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1330-1332 OF 2017
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Extremely Shocking & Surprising”: SC Slams Allahabad HC For Delaying Judgments After Hearings
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious concern over prolonged delays by High Courts in delivering judgments after hearings. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra described such delays as “extremely shocking and surprising.”
The issue arose from appeals filed by Ravindra Pratap Shahi against the interim orders of the Allahabad High Court in a criminal case pending since 2008. The appeal had been fully heard and reserved by a Division Bench on December 24, 2021, yet no judgment was delivered for almost a year, necessitating transfer to another Bench.
The Court noted that this was not an isolated instance, with many High Court judgments delayed for months or even years after hearings, undermining the justice system. Reiterating its stance from Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court emphasized that the timely delivery of judgments is vital.
To tackle the issue, the Court issued directions: Registrars of all High Courts must prepare a monthly report of reserved but undelivered judgments for submission to the Chief Justice; if a judgment remains undelivered for three months, the Chief Justice must ensure it is pronounced within two weeks or reassign the case to another Bench. The apex court mandated the circulation of its order to all High Courts for strict compliance.
CASE TITLE: Ravindra Pratap Singh vs State of UP.
S.L.P. (CRL.) NO(S).4509-4510 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court on Trivial Acts Involving Children: “Stray Blow During Quarrel Not Child Abuse”
The Supreme Court ruled that the offense of child abuse under the Goa Children’s Act does not apply to trivial or incidental acts, such as a single blow during a quarrel. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta clarified that for an act to qualify as child abuse, there must be a clear intent to cause harm, cruelty, exploitation, or ill-treatment. Imposing severe penalties without such intent would unnecessarily broaden the law.
The case arose from a 2013 scuffle on a school campus in Tivim, Goa, where the accused allegedly hit a child with his son’s school bag. The trial court convicted him under Sections 323, 352, 504 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment. The Bombay High Court in 2022 reduced the sentence but upheld the convictions.
The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the act lacked intent to harm and sought relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, citing his laborer background and clean record. The State opposed leniency, citing the deterrent purpose of the Goa Children’s Act.
The Court observed that the child’s injuries could have resulted from a fall and emphasized that the Act targets deliberate cruelty or sustained mistreatment, not incidental scuffles. It overturned the conviction under Section 504 IPC, upheld convictions under Sections 323 and 352 IPC, and ordered the appellant’s release on probation.
Case Title: Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar vs. The State of Goa
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1991 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Proprietorship Is Only a Trade Name, Not a Juristic Person , Can Be Sued but Cannot Sue: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that a proprietorship is merely a trade name for an individual and does not have a separate legal identity. While a proprietorship cannot sue in its own name, it can be sued, and including the proprietor in legal proceedings is sufficient.
The ruling was delivered on August 26, 2025, by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta in Dogiparthi Venkata Satish & Another v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Others. The dispute arose from a leased property given to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship owned by Pilla Durga Prasad. After the lease expired, the appellants filed an eviction suit, initially naming the proprietorship, later amending it to include the proprietor. The High Court rejected the plaint, claiming the proprietorship should have been included as a party.
The Supreme Court overruled this, holding that a proprietorship exists only through its owner, and including the proprietor adequately represents the business’s interests. The Court called the High Court’s approach “hyper technical” and noted that no prejudice occurred since the lease was signed solely by the proprietor.
Citing Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar (1998) and Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), the Court reaffirmed that legal actions involving a proprietorship are, in essence, actions involving the proprietor, as the business has no independent existence.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstated the trial court’s order, and directed the suit to proceed on merits. The judgment distinguishes proprietorships from companies or partnerships and provides clarity for civil litigation involving sole proprietors, ensuring procedural technicalities do not obstruct justice.
Case Title: Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.
SLP(C) NO.25938 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Acquits 2, Including Death Row Convict, of Rape and Murder of 12-Year-Old: “A Classic Example of Lackluster and Shabby Investigation”
On August 26, 2025, the Supreme Court acquitted Putai and Dileep in the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in Lucknow, including a death row convict, sharply criticizing the police and prosecution for a “lackluster and shabby investigation.” The case, Putai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, underscores the need for meticulous investigations and fair trial procedures in heinous crimes.
Case Background: In September 2012, the victim went missing, and her blood-stained body was found the next day. An FIR was filed under Sections 302, 201, and 376 IPC, and the postmortem confirmed sexual assault and strangulation. The accused were arrested after a dog squad led police to them.
- Blood samples were collected two months later; the initial DNA report (Jan 2014) was inconclusive.
- A supplementary DNA report (Dec 2014) allegedly linked the accused but was procedurally flawed, unsupported by expert testimony, and not put under Section 313 CrPC.
Trial History:
- 2014: Trial Court convicted Putai (death) and Dileep (life imprisonment).
- 2018: Allahabad High Court upheld convictions.
Supreme Court Observations:
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and point exclusively to the accused.
- Forensic lapses: Chain of custody and documentation were missing; medical testimonies were inconsistent.
- Prosecution failure: Recovery of belongings alone was insufficient; suspicion cannot replace proof.
The Court noted, “lackluster and shabby investigation and laconic trial procedure” led to the failure of the case.
- Convictions were set aside, and both accused were acquitted.
- The Court emphasized that no one should be punished based on suspicion or flawed investigation, reaffirming the importance of credible evidence, forensic accuracy, and due process.
This judgment highlights that even in heinous crimes, the rule of law and the presumption of innocence must prevail.
Case Title: Putai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 36-37 OF 2019
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Enhances Compensation to Rs 82.83 Lakh for 21-Year-Old Man in Vegetative State
On August 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India enhanced compensation for Kavin, a 21-year-old accident victim left in a vegetative state with 100% permanent disability, restoring fairness in motor accident claims and setting aside the Madras High Court’s reductions. The Court emphasized that compensation must adequately cover lifelong medical care, attendant needs, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Background: On July 3, 2011, Kavin was traveling in a bus from Coimbatore to Chennai when it crashed into a tamarind tree due to negligent driving. He suffered total disability and became vegetative. Kavin filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking Rs. 1 crore.
Tribunal and High Court Decisions:
- MACT (2019): Awarded Rs. 67,83,866, considering lifelong medical and attendant needs.
- Madras High Court (2022): Reduced the award to Rs. 48,83,866, slashing amounts for future medical expenses, attendant charges, permanent disability, pain and suffering of family, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Supreme Court’s Findings:
- The High Court’s reductions were unjustified. Kavin’s vegetative state and total disability were undisputed.
- Compensation must reflect lifelong needs and quality of life considerations.
SC Directions:
- Future Medical Expenses: Increased from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 15 lakh.
- Attendant Charges: Raised from Rs. 3 lakh to Rs. 10 lakh.
- Loss of Enjoyment of Life & Amenities: Restored Rs. 3 lakh.
- Pain & Suffering of Family Members: Restored Rs. 3 lakh.
- Permanent Disability Compensation: Awarded Rs. 5 lakh, distinct from loss of income.
Final Award: Kavin was awarded Rs. 82,83,866, with the insurer directed to release the unpaid amount within four weeks, carrying 7.5% annual interest as per the Tribunal’s order.
This ruling reinforces that motor accident compensation must fully address lifelong care and losses, ensuring justice for severely disabled victims.
Case Title: Kavin v. P. Sreemani Devi & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3132-3133 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court: Repeated Absence in Short Service is Gross Indiscipline | Punjab Constable Dismissal Upheld
The Supreme Court of India upheld the dismissal of Punjab Police Constable Satpal Singh for repeated unauthorized absences, terming it gross indiscipline incompatible with police service, in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh. A two-judge bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi emphasized that habitual absenteeism cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force.
Background: Satpal Singh, appointed in 1989, overstayed a sanctioned one-day leave in April 1994 by 37 days without permission. This was not an isolated incident, as records showed multiple prior absences. A departmental enquiry found him guilty, and he was dismissed in 1996, with the absence period treated as non-duty. Singh did not defend himself during the enquiry.
Legal Proceedings:
- Trial Court & First Appeal: Upheld dismissal.
- Punjab & Haryana High Court (2010): Ruled in Singh’s favor, citing failure to communicate past record in the show-cause notice, relying on State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda (1964).
- Supreme Court: State challenged the High Court’s decision.
Supreme Court Observations:
- Gravest Misconduct vs. Continued Misconduct: Dismissal can be for a single gravest act or cumulative misconduct. Singh’s dismissal was based on the gravest act—the 37-day absence—not past records.
- Reference to Past Misconduct: Prior absences were mentioned only to strengthen reasoning, not as the basis for dismissal; High Court’s reliance on K. Manche Gowda was misplaced.
- Police Discipline: Absence without permission in a short tenure of seven years amounts to gross indiscipline. Police service demands strict responsibility, and habitual absenteeism cannot be condoned.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and upheld Satpal Singh’s dismissal, reaffirming that discipline is paramount in police service.
Case Title: State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2012
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Income Tax Department Defying Its Own Circulars| Revenue Has Acted in Blatant Disregard to Binding Statutory Instructions: SC Slaps Rs.2 Lakh Fine
On August 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India quashed prosecution proceedings against Vijay Krishnaswami @ Krishnaswami Vijayakumar and imposed Rs 2 lakh costs on the Income Tax Department for disregarding its own binding circulars. A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi strongly criticized the Revenue for “wilful non-compliance,” calling it a serious lapse undermining fairness, consistency, and accountability.
Supreme Court Findings:
- Binding Nature of CBDT Circulars:
- 24.04.2008 Circular: Prosecution requires ITAT confirmation if concealment exceeds Rs 50,000.
- Prosecution Manual 2009: Reinforces prosecution only after ITAT confirmation.
- 09.09.2019 Circular: For cases below Rs 25 lakh, prosecution needs Collegium approval and ITAT confirmation.
- Precedents (K.C. Builders Ltd. v. CIT, UCO Bank v. CIT) confirm that circulars are binding on Revenue authorities.
- Revenue Acted in Disregard:
- No ITAT order existed confirming concealment.
- The Settlement Commission had already found no wilful evasion.
- Supreme Court noted: “Such wilful non-compliance reflects a serious lapse, undermining fairness, consistency, and accountability.”
- High Court Error: The Madras High Court ignored the binding nature of Settlement Commission findings and CBDT circulars, failing to evaluate the futility of continuing prosecution.
Verdict: The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution against the assessee and directed the Income Tax Department to pay Rs 2 lakh in costs. This judgment reinforces the binding authority of CBDT circulars and the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in tax prosecutions.
Case Title: Vijay Krishnaswami @ Krishnaswami Vijayakumar vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax
SLP (CRL.) NOS. 3618-3620 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Read More Reports On the Supreme Court
Read More Reports On Monthly Recap
