As we step into December, it’s essential to reflect on the Supreme Court’s most impactful judicial pronouncements in November 2025. 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 December, it’s important to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of November 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 November 2025, highlighting their key takeaways, legal reasoning, and potential ramifications.
Supreme Court Urges BCI to Consider Quota for Disabled Advocates in Elections: Reservation Is a Policy Matter
The Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to examine the feasibility of introducing reservations for advocates with disabilities in Bar Councils and Bar Associations.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Joymalya Bagchi issued the order while hearing a petition filed by a lawyer advocating for disability rights. The petitioner had sought reserved positions for disabled advocates within the governing bodies of the BCI and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
While noting that the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council elections had already been announced, the Court said it could not interfere with the ongoing process or mandate reservations at this stage. However, it emphasized the importance of inclusivity and representation in professional bodies and held that the issue deserved careful consideration under existing laws and constitutional principles.
In its order dated November 3, the Court stated that since reservations for persons with disabilities are primarily a policy issue, the BCI should assess the matter in light of relevant statutes and equality principles. It also allowed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in the future if necessary, disposing of all pending applications.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Yadav v. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1045/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Says Biometric Attendance System Legal Even Without Employee Consultation
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the legality of introducing the Biometric Attendance System (BAS) in government offices, ruling that it is both lawful and beneficial for all stakeholders.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale delivered this verdict while allowing a Central Government appeal against a 2014 Orissa High Court judgment that had struck down the BAS circulars for being issued without consulting employees.
The Court observed that implementing BAS in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, introduced through circulars in 2013, did not violate any rules or service conditions. It emphasized that the lack of prior consultation with employees does not make the move unlawful, especially when the system promotes transparency, accountability, and punctuality.
Since the employees no longer objected to the system, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling, permitting the department to continue with BAS implementation. The Court also noted that the High Court’s detailed examination to invalidate the circulars was unnecessary.
The judgment clears the path for government offices nationwide to adopt biometric attendance systems, reinforcing that technological measures to improve efficiency cannot be struck down on mere procedural grounds.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS DILLIP KUMAR ROUT & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13572/2015
READ ORDER HERE
Appellate Decree in Favor of Deceased Parties a Nullity, Original Trial Verdict Revives: Supreme Court
In a ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that any decree passed by an appellate court in favour of appellants who had already died before the hearing is a nullity in law. The Court clarified that when such a situation arises, the decree of the trial court automatically revives and becomes executable.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar while allowing the appeal filed by Mr. Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade, representing the original plaintiffs. The dispute concerned agricultural land in Wardha district, Maharashtra, which had been allotted to an ex-Army serviceman, Arjunrao Thakre. After his death, the land was re-allotted by the Collector to others. The trial court, in 2006, declared the re-allotment illegal and upheld the plaintiffs’ ownership.
Defendants 4 and 5 appealed against this decision, but both died before the appellate hearing. Unaware of their deaths, the appellate court heard the matter and modified the decree. When the plaintiffs sought to execute the original trial court decree, both the executing court and the High Court dismissed their plea, stating that the decree had merged with the appellate judgment.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that since both appellants were dead before the appeal was heard, the appellate decree was void ab initio. Order XXII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, which protects judgments delivered after the death of a party post-hearing, did not apply. The Court held that an appeal cannot survive without living appellants or their legal heirs being brought on record.
Relying on earlier precedents, the bench reaffirmed that a decree passed in favour of dead persons is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, even during execution proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the 2006 trial court decree in favour of the plaintiffs, set aside the orders of the executing court and the High Court, and revived the execution proceedings.
Case Title: VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9947 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court: Accused Under Any Law Must Get Written Grounds of Arrest in Their Own Language
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that police and investigating agencies must provide written grounds of arrest to every person taken into custody, regardless of the offence or law under which the arrest is made.
The decision came in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, linked to the 2024 Worli BMW crash. A Bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice A. G. Masih said this rule applies to all offences, including those under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which has replaced the IPC.
The Court said that giving written reasons for arrest is part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Failure to do so would make the arrest unconstitutional and illegal.
The judges made four key directions:
- Every arrestee must be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing.
- The information must be in a language the person understands.
- If immediate written communication isn’t possible (for example, during an ongoing crime), the reasons may be given orally but must be provided in writing within a reasonable time, and no later than two hours before the person is produced before a magistrate.
- Non-compliance will make the arrest and remand illegal, entitling the person to be released.
The Court said written communication helps both the accused and the authorities — ensuring transparency, accountability, and protection of constitutional rights.
Copies of the judgment have been sent to all High Courts and State Chief Secretaries for implementation across India.
Case Title: Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2195 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Stray Dogs Row| Remove Stray Cattle from Highways and Expressways: Supreme Court Orders States, UTs to File Compliance Reports
The Supreme Court of India has taken a serious view of the growing number of deaths and injuries caused by stray dog attacks. In a strong order issued on Friday, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria directed all States and Union Territories to act immediately and file compliance reports within three weeks.
The Court, hearing a suo motu case on stray animals, accepted the report of the amicus curiae and issued detailed directions addressing both stray dogs and stray cattle on public roads and institutional premises.
Reaffirming earlier directions of the Rajasthan High Court, the bench ordered that the Public Works Department, municipal bodies, and transport authorities must remove stray cattle from highways and expressways and shift them to designated shelters. Dedicated highway patrol teams are to be formed in every State to monitor cattle movement, and all National Highways must display helpline numbers for reporting stray animals.
The Court also turned its attention to the alarming rise in dog bite cases in schools and hospitals. It directed every State and Union Territory to identify all educational and healthcare institutions within two weeks and ensure their campuses are properly fenced to stop stray dogs from entering. Each institution must appoint a nodal officer responsible for safety and maintenance, while local bodies and panchayats will inspect these premises every three months. Importantly, the Court said that dogs caught from institutional areas must not be released back to the same location.
This order follows the Court’s strong remarks on October 31, when it reprimanded States for ignoring earlier directives in the stray dog matter, saying authorities had been “sleeping over” the issue. The ongoing case was initiated in July 2025 after reports of increasing dog attacks and rabies cases, especially involving children.
With the latest directions, the Supreme Court has made it clear that public safety cannot be compromised and that both stray dog and cattle issues must be handled urgently and humanely across India.
Case Title: In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
SMW(C) No. 5/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Bona Fide Purchasers Entitled to ITC Even If Seller Fails to Deposit Tax: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a bona fide purchasing dealer cannot be denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit VAT with the government.
Upholding the Delhi High Court’s view under Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act, 2004, the Court said it would be arbitrary and unconstitutional to punish honest buyers for the lapses of registered sellers.
The case involved M/s Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd., which had purchased goods from registered dealers and paid VAT against valid invoices. When the sellers defaulted in depositing tax, the Department sought to deny ITC — a move both the Delhi High Court and now the Supreme Court rejected.
The apex court stressed that the remedy lies in proceeding against defaulting sellers, not bona fide purchasers. It reaffirmed that genuine transactions backed by valid documents must be protected, aligning with its earlier stance in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. GNCTD.
Case Title: The Commissioner Trade & Taxes, Delhi vs. M/s Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2042–2047 of 2015 & 9902 of 2017
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Tenant Can Never Become Owner of Rented Property
In a major ruling strengthening property owners’ rights, the Supreme Court of India has held that tenants—regardless of how long they stay—cannot claim ownership of a rented property through adverse possession. The judgment came in the case Jyoti Sharma vs. Vishnu Goyal, where a tenant of more than 30 years argued that his long, uninterrupted stay and non-payment of rent made him the owner.
The Court overturned a Delhi High Court decision and said tenants live with the owner’s permission, so their occupation is “permissive,” not “hostile”—a key requirement for adverse possession. Simply staying for many years cannot convert a tenant into an owner.
The bench referred to earlier rulings to stress that adverse possession requires clear intent to possess against the owner, which does not apply in landlord-tenant relationships.
Property owners and developers welcomed the decision, saying it will prevent misuse, boost redevelopment, and restore confidence. Tenant groups, however, fear it will worsen housing insecurity, especially for the poor, elderly, and long-term occupants who invest in maintaining homes. Political and social organizations have raised concerns about rising evictions and called for reforms in rent laws and tenant protections.
Overall, the ruling brings legal clarity but highlights the need for balanced policies that protect both ownership rights and vulnerable tenants in India’s growing cities.
Case Title: Jyoti Sharma vs. Vishnu Goyal & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (C) No.29500 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Violating an Injunction Order is Punishable Even If the Order Is Later Set Aside: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that breaking an injunction order is punishable even if the order is later cancelled, reaffirming its earlier view in Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998).
The case involved allegations that the accused trespassed and made illegal renovations on disputed property despite a High Court status quo order. The Magistrate had sent the case for police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, but the Karnataka High Court stopped the proceedings.
The Supreme Court restored the FIR, holding that:
- Violating a subsisting injunction still attracts consequences.
- A Magistrate may order police investigation when a complaint shows a cognizable offence.
- The accused had no permission to alter the property, contradicting their own defence.
The Court ordered the police to conduct a prompt investigation and clarified that its observations will not affect other ongoing proceedings.
Case Title: Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.11336 OF 2022
READ JUDGMENT HERE
DNA Testing Cannot Be Ordered As Routine Part Of Investigations & Must Protect The Dignity Of Individuals: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that DNA testing cannot be treated as a routine investigative step and should be ordered only in exceptional situations where it is necessary for justice. The bench stressed that DNA testing is a serious intrusion into privacy and bodily autonomy, and courts must act with the highest caution, especially when such orders may disturb family relationships or question a child’s legitimacy.
The Court warned against allowing DNA tests for “fishing inquiries” and held that they are permissible only when they satisfy the constitutional tests of legality, legitimate purpose, and proportionality.
A Tamil Nadu doctor challenged a Madras High Court order directing him to take a DNA test in a case where a woman accused him of fathering her child and cheating her. The FIR involved cheating charges and the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.
The Court set aside the High Court’s order, stating it was based on a misunderstanding of the law. It held that:
- The offences alleged did not justify DNA analysis.
- The High Court wrongly relied on CrPC Sections 53 and 53A, which apply only when medical tests directly help prove the crime.
The Supreme Court concluded that compelling a DNA test without a clear necessity turns a lawful investigative tool into an unjustified invasion of rights.
Case Title: R. RAJENDRAN VERSUS KAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1013 OF 2021
READ JUDGMENT HERE
‘Section 27 Evidence Act Ceases When Disclosure Statement is Not Contemporaneously Proved’: Supreme Court Acquits Surendra Koli After 18 Years
The Supreme Court has acquitted Surendra Koli, one of the main accused in the Nithari killings, by allowing his curative petition and setting aside all earlier convictions and death sentences. The Court ordered his immediate release, noting that the evidence used to convict him in the Rimpa Haldar case was the same evidence relied on in 12 other Nithari cases in which he had already been acquitted.
The Bench found major flaws in the confession and recovery evidence:
- The disclosure statement was not proved contemporaneously.
- Police and locals already knew the recovery site before Koli’s alleged disclosure.
- Excavation had begun even before he arrived.
- Contradictions existed in the recovery records.
Because of these defects, the Court held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act did not apply, and the recoveries could not legally be attributed to Koli.
The Supreme Court highlighted:
- A confession recorded after 60 days of continuous custody, with no private legal access.
- The Investigating Officer’s presence during confession.
- No medical, forensic, or material evidence linking Koli to the murders.
- Weapons with no human blood and no remains found inside the house.
- Failure to investigate the organ-trade angle flagged earlier.
The Court said these structural failures undermined the fairness of the trial and violated Articles 14 and 21, as similar cases must be treated alike and convictions must rest on reliable evidence.
The Supreme Court:
- Allowed the curative petition,
- Set aside its own earlier judgments,
- Quashed all charges under IPC Sections 302, 364, 376, and 201, and
- Ordered Koli’s release.
The judgment ends with a reminder that suspicion cannot replace proof and courts must uphold legality over expediency, especially in death penalty cases.
Case Title: SURENDRA KOLI vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Diary No. – 49297/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Pending Appeal Doesn’t Protect Tenants from Eviction for Non-Payment of Fixed Rent: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that a tenant cannot avoid eviction for wilful default simply because an appeal against a fair-rent order is pending. Unless the tenant actually obtains a stay, the revised rent must be paid.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan dismissed the appeal filed by the heirs of a Coimbatore lessee, upholding their eviction from a godown. The dispute began when the landlord sought fixation of fair rent, which the Rent Controller set at ₹2,43,600 per month in 2007. Although the tenant continued to contest this amount, no stay was ever granted, and the arrears were cleared only six years later.
While the Rent Controller initially found no wilful default, the Appellate Authority and the Madras High Court held that the prolonged non-payment—despite an operative fair-rent order—was deliberate. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that an appeal does not suspend an order on its own and the tenant’s conduct showed no bona fide confusion about liability.
Finding no error in the High Court’s decision, the Court upheld the eviction but allowed the tenants six months to vacate, subject to filing an undertaking within two weeks.
Case Title: K. SUBRAMANIAM (DIED) THROUGH LRS K.S. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS. VERSUS M/S KRISHNA MILLS PVT.LTD.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2561 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary: Supreme Court Orders Jharkhand to Notify 126 Compartments, Bans Mining Within 1 km
The Supreme Court rejected the Jharkhand government’s plea to reduce the proposed Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary from 310 sq km to 250 sq km. The State had sought to exclude about 60 sq km of forest land inhabited by tribal communities, citing protection of their forest rights and existing schools.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) noted that the sanctuary area had been repeatedly altered over the years and clarified that most of the 128 compartments were meant for conservation, with only two designated for mining. The CJI emphasized that tribal rights remain protected under the Forest Rights Act and the Forest (Conservation) Act.
The Court directed the state to notify 126 compartments as part of the sanctuary, excluding six earmarked for mining, and prohibited mining within 1 km of the sanctuary boundary. It also required a public affirmation safeguarding the individual and community rights of tribals.
The ruling seeks to balance ecological conservation with the protection of indigenous livelihoods, upholding statutory and constitutional safeguards.
Case Title: IN RE: SARANDA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 202/1995
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Prolonged Custody & Trial Delays Can’t Override Bail Bar in Commercial-Quantity NDPS Cases: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has overturned two bail orders granted to Vigin K. Varghese, Director of Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd., in a major NDPS case involving the seizure of over 50 kg of cocaine.
In a November 13, 2025 judgment, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria sent both bail matters back to the Bombay High Court, holding that the earlier orders did not meet the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Supreme Court Set Aside the Bail
- Delay in trial cannot override Section 37, which imposes a strict bar on granting bail in commercial-quantity drug cases.
- The High Court’s finding of “no knowledge” was unsupported, as it did not assess the accused’s statements or the prosecution’s evidence.
- The High Court ignored the prosecution’s claim of Varghese’s prior involvement in another large seizure.
Directions
- The matters are remitted to the Bombay High Court for a fresh, reasoned decision within four weeks, considering all statutory parameters under Section 37.
- Varghese will remain on bail until the High Court passes its new order.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA VERSUS VIGIN K. VARGHESE
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 7768 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Election Void for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Conviction: Supreme Court
In Poonam v. Dule Singh, the Supreme Court of India held that a candidate’s failure to disclose criminal history in the nomination affidavit can make their election invalid.
Poonam, elected as a Councillor in Madhya Pradesh, had not revealed a prior conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even though the law (Rule 24-A of the MP Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994) required her to do so. She argued that her conviction was later overturned, but the Court held that what matters is the status at the time of filing the nomination.
Key points from the judgment:
- Disclosure is mandatory: All past convictions—serious or not—must be declared.
- Voters’ right to know: Suppression of criminal antecedents deprives voters of information needed for an informed choice.
- Material impact presumed: Hiding a conviction automatically affects the fairness of the election; separate proof of impact is unnecessary.
- Later acquittal irrelevant: Subsequent relief does not erase the duty to disclose.
- No grounds for interference: The Court declined to overturn the lower courts’ decision.
The Supreme Court affirmed that transparency is essential for free and fair elections, and non-disclosure of criminal background makes an election void if the nomination was improperly accepted.
Case Title: POONAM vs. DULE SINGH & ORS.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12000 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Companies Buying Software as ‘Commercial Purpose’ Are Not Consumers, Can’t Claim Consumer Rights: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has held that companies buying software to improve or automate their business operations cannot claim the status of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The ruling came in a case filed by Poly Medicure Ltd., which sought a refund after alleging that a software it purchased malfunctioned.
Consumer forums had already dismissed the complaint, stating the software was bought for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court upheld those decisions, noting that the software was used for activities linked to the company’s profit-making process, such as export documentation, tracking consignments, handling foreign exchange and managing statutory benefits.
Since the purchase was tied to improving business efficiency and profitability, the Court said Poly Medicure does not fall within the legal definition of a consumer.
Case Title: Poly Medicure Ltd. vs. Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6349 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Minor’s Fear in Court When Saw Unmasked Accused is ‘A Pointer in Itself’: Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Conviction
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a 4–5-year-old child, agreeing with the trial and High Court that the minor’s visible fear in court supported the findings. The accused had entered the child’s home while she was asleep; the mother discovered him near the child, and the child complained of pain.
Medical examination showed genital redness, and the parents’ testimonies were consistent with the evidence. The Court ruled that even without external injuries or proof of penetration, the evidence was sufficient for aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m).
While the conviction was upheld, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from seven to six years of rigorous imprisonment, considering the over four years the accused had already spent in custody.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4732 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Paying Back Embezzled Funds Isn’t Enough to Save Govt Employee From Dismissal: Supreme Court
On November 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India restored the removal of a Rajasthan postal employee who had misappropriated public funds, rejecting the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to reinstate him.
The Court emphasized that returning embezzled money after being caught does not absolve misconduct, and ignorance of rules cannot be used as a defense, especially by experienced staff.
The employee, appointed as a Branch Post Master in 1998, was found in 2011 to have accepted deposits and stamped passbooks without recording them in official accounts. He admitted the misconduct during inquiry. Despite this, the Rajasthan High Court overturned his removal, prompting the appeal.
The Supreme Court noted:
- Misappropriation was clearly proven through documents and admissions.
- High Court’s interpretation was flawed and beyond its jurisdiction.
- Integrity in public service is non-negotiable; self-deposit of misused funds does not excuse breach of trust.
The Court upheld the original penalty of removal, sending a strong message that financial misconduct in public service carries serious consequences.
Case Title: Union of India v. Indraj
CIVIL APPEAL NO.13183 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Corbett Tiger Reserve: Supreme Court Orders Uttarakhand to Restore Damage, Remove Illegal Constructions
The Supreme Court has ordered the State of Uttarakhand to repair the ecological damage caused in the Corbett Tiger Reserve due to illegal tree felling and construction. A bench led by CJI BR Gavai directed the Chief Wildlife Warden to demolish all unauthorized structures within three months and asked the Central Empowered Committee to supervise the state’s ecological restoration plan.
The Court mandated strict compliance with NTCA’s 2019 rules for tiger safaris, including setting up rescue centres and limiting the number of vehicles. Only eco-tourism will be permitted, and a tiger conservation plan must be prepared within three months. The Court also instructed that reserve staff duties should not be outsourced and suggested awarding staff for motivation.
CJI Gavai noted that the issued guidelines focus on preventing human–animal conflict, involving stakeholders, and managing religious tourism. The case relates to permissions for the Pakhro Tiger Safari project, for which the Court had earlier allowed safaris only in the buffer zone, while criticising officials responsible for the reserve’s damage.
Case Title: IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD V UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
READ JUDGMENT HERE
My Judgment Has Been Criticised: CJI Gavai as Supreme Court Restores Retrospective Environment Clearance, Justice Bhuyan Dissents
The Supreme Court has reinstated a legal framework allowing retrospective environmental clearances (EC) for projects that began or expanded without prior approval under the 2006 EIA rules, reviving a mechanism that had previously been struck down.
The Court agreed to hear a review petition challenging its May 2025 judgment, which had annulled the 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum permitting retrospective ECs.
A three-judge Bench—CJI BR Gavai, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice K Vinod Chandran—delivered separate opinions:
- CJI Gavai supported recalling the earlier Vanashakti judgment, noting that barring retrospective ECs could jeopardize public projects worth ₹20,000 crore. He emphasized that ECs remain prohibited in sensitive zones like CRZs and grasslands.
- Justice Bhuyan dissented, arguing there was no basis to review Vanashakti, criticizing rulings like D. Swamy and Electrosteel for weakening environmental law, and highlighting that the MoEF had not sought a review.
- Justice Vinod Chandran concurred with the CJI, emphasizing judicial flexibility and the relevance of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to adapt to practical realities.
Previously, in May 2025, a Bench led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Bhuyan had ruled that allowing retrospective ECs violated Supreme Court directives, as developers undertaking projects without approval were aware of their illegality.
The review petition was filed by CREDAI, citing difficulties for the real estate and allied sectors.
Case Title: CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS OF INDIA (CREDAI) V VANASHAKTI AND ANR.
Diary No. 41929-2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
District Judge Appointments: CJI Says Selection Grade Follows Merit Cum Seniority, States & UTs Told to Amend Rules in 3 Months
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai delivered a major ruling on the issue of stagnation and seniority disputes among judicial officers. The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi, held that seniority in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) must be determined strictly by continuous length of service under an annual roster system, regardless of whether an officer entered the cadre as a Direct Recruit (DR), Limited Departmental Competitive Examination candidate (LDCE), or Regular Promotee (RP).
The Court clarified that once officers enter the HJS, they lose the “birthmark” of their recruitment source. Seniority cannot be reshaped based on personal dissatisfaction or career aspirations, and the discomfort of regular promotees is not a legally valid reason to alter the system. The Bench stressed that experience as a Civil Judge cannot justify creating a separate class of District Judges.
The Court directed all States and Union Territories to amend their service rules within three months to reflect the new guidelines. These directions apply prospectively and do not reopen past seniority decisions. The Bench also noted that the guidelines may be revisited once the Rajanish judgment is implemented.
This decision resolves I.A. No. 230675 of 2025 in the long-running All India Judges Association case. The application, filed by Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar, highlighted severe stagnation in promotions—especially for Civil Judges who rarely advanced to Principal District Judge or High Court Judge positions—discouraging young lawyers from judicial service. Recognising the systemic imbalance, the matter was earlier referred to the Constitution Bench for authoritative clarification.
The judgment is expected to bring long-needed clarity to seniority, promotion, and career progression across India’s judicial services.
Case Title: All India Judges Association and Ors. Vs. Union Of India and Ors.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022 OF 1989
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Violates Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act
The Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, ruling that the government had unlawfully reintroduced provisions earlier declared unconstitutional. A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran held that the Act violated the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence by effectively overriding binding judgments without curing the defects previously identified.
The Court criticised the Central government for repeatedly ignoring its directions on tribunal functioning and warned that such litigation wastes valuable judicial time amidst heavy case backlogs. It reaffirmed that the principles laid down in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-4 and MBA-5) cases would continue governing tribunal appointments and tenure.
The Court also ordered the establishment of a National Tribunals Commission within three months, emphasising that piecemeal amendments would not fix the larger systemic issues. It clarified that the tenure of ITAT members and earlier appointments would continue to be governed by older statutes and the MBA rulings, not the shortened terms in the 2021 Act.
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, had replaced the earlier Ordinance, which the Court had already criticised for limiting members’ tenure to four years and setting a minimum appointment age of 50. Petitioners challenged provisions affecting tenure, eligibility, and the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, arguing that they gave the executive excessive control. Senior advocates Arvind Datar and others appeared for the petitioners, while Attorney General R. Venkataramani represented the Centre.
Separately, during hearings in the long-pending Madras Bar Association case, the CJI expressed displeasure at repeated adjournment requests by the Attorney General, calling it unfair and disruptive. The Court stressed the urgency of resolving long-standing issues regarding tribunal independence.
The Central government defended the 2021 Act, arguing that it does not violate fundamental rights and falls within its legislative authority. The Act had also dissolved several appellate tribunals and reassigned their functions to courts, as part of a broader rationalisation effort that began in 2015.
Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1018 OF 2021
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Presidential Reference Row: Governor Cannot Return Bills Without Saying Why: CJI Gavai
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai continued hearing the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether the Supreme Court can impose fixed timelines on Governors and the President for granting assent to State Bills. The reference was made under Article 143, following the Court’s April 2025 judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor case, which held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills.
During the reading of its opinion, the Bench discussed the constitutional options available to Governors under Article 200. The Union Government argued that Governors have four choices: assent, withhold, return, or reserve for the President, while the Opposition maintained there are only three. The Court stressed that when a Governor returns a Bill, clear reasons must be communicated, as this dialogue reflects the federal structure.
The Chief Justice clarified that a Governor must normally act on the advice of the State Cabinet and cannot exercise unrestrained discretion. The Court held that the Governor cannot “withhold assent” without explanation, and effectively has only three valid options:
- Grant assent,
- Return with reasons, or
- Reserve the Bill for the President.
On the core issue, the Court ruled that judicially prescribed deadlines or “deemed assent” would violate the separation of powers. Imposing timelines would amount to the judiciary intruding into the constitutional functions of the Governor and the President. However, the Court said that prolonged and unexplained delays by a Governor remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
The Bench also clarified that the President is not obliged to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion every time a Bill is reserved for consideration. The Presidential Reference arose after President Droupadi Murmu sought clarification on whether judicially imposed timelines for assenting to Bills are constitutionally permissible.
This follows the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling that while Article 200 does not specify a time limit, Governors must act within a “reasonable time,” and that the President should decide on reserved Bills within three months, providing reasons for any delay.
President Murmu submitted 14 questions to the Court, raising issues such as:
- The exact constitutional options available to Governors under Article 200,
- Whether Governors and the President are bound by judicial timelines,
- Whether their decisions are justiciable,
- Whether courts can review actions before a Bill becomes law,
- The extent of judicial powers under Article 142, and
- The scope of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in Union–State disputes.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu oppose the maintainability of the Reference, while the Centre supports it.
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India
SPL. REF. No. 1/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
No Statutory Interest Can be Claimed If a Voluntary Compensation Agreement is Signed U/s 7(2) of TN Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that landowners in Tamil Nadu who voluntarily agreed to compensation under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 cannot later demand statutory interest under Section 12 of the Act.
Setting aside a Madras High Court order that directed payment of interest, the Bench held that once compensation is mutually agreed upon, it forms a final and comprehensive settlement, preventing parties from reopening claims.
The dispute related to land acquired in Singanallur and Kalapatti for Coimbatore Airport expansion. A 2018 agreement fixed compensation rates at ₹1,500 per sq. ft. (residential) and ₹900 per sq. ft. (agricultural), later approved by the State. Despite accepting this settlement, landowners sought additional statutory interest, which the Supreme Court rejected.
The Court emphasised that Section 12 applies only when compensation is not mutually settled, and invoked the principle that parties cannot accept benefits and later challenge terms. The appeals by the State were therefore allowed, and the High Court’s direction to pay interest was nullified.
Case Title: The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. P.R. Jaganathan & Ors.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12770-83 of 2020
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Rajasthan’s Jojari River Crisis: Supreme Court Forms High-Powered Committee Against Industrial Pollution
The Supreme Court of India has taken decisive steps to tackle the ongoing pollution of the Jojari River in Rajasthan by setting up a High-Powered Committee led by a retired High Court judge. This follows growing concerns over industrial and municipal contamination affecting both the river ecosystem and nearby communities.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, during a November 17 hearing, criticized the state authorities for administrative inaction despite clear evidence of environmental harm. Justice Mehta highlighted systemic negligence in addressing river pollution.
The Court noted that pollution in Rajasthan’s rivers—including the Jojari, Bandi, and Luni—has been a persistent issue. Previous interventions by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had exposed severe industrial pollution, especially from textile and steel units in districts such as Jodhpur, Pali, and Balotra.
NGT Directions and Compliance:
- Between 2020–2021, NGT monitoring committees chaired by former Chief Justice Prakash Chandra Tatia reported alarming contamination levels.
- The NGT’s February 25, 2022, order mandated:
- Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) by industries
- Environmental compensation for violations
- Closure of defaulting units
- Some orders were challenged through statutory appeals under Section 22 of the NGT Act, leading to interim stays in 2022.
To streamline legal proceedings, the Supreme Court directed the consolidation of all related cases.
The Court emphasized the urgent need for Rajasthan’s government and central authorities to act, noting that pollution in the Jojari River is impacting hundreds of villages and contaminating drinking water, posing serious ecological and public health risks.
Case Title: IN RE: 2 MILLION LIVES AT RISK, CONTAMINATION IN JOJARI RIVER, RAJASTHAN
SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No(s). 8/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Accused Cannot Be Made to Suffer Endlessly: Supreme Court Quashes IAS Officer’s 15-Year Case
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reinforced the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, holding that undue delays in investigation can violate fundamental rights. The case involved IAS officer Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu, against whom criminal proceedings were quashed due to an 11-year delay in filing the chargesheet.
Chongthu, who served as District Magistrate in Saharsa, Bihar, between 2002 and 2005, faced allegations of irregularities in granting arms licenses, leading to an FIR in 2005. The initial 2006 chargesheet reported no offence, but a re-investigation was ordered in 2007 and approved by the court in 2009. Despite this, the fresh chargesheet was filed only in 2020, and prosecution sanction was granted in 2022. Chongthu, already cleared in departmental proceedings in 2016, challenged the delay.
The Supreme Court held that the right to a speedy trial extends to all stages, including investigation, and that vague sanction orders fail to meet legal standards. While the officer may have technically exceeded statutory timelines under the Arms Act, the Court found the excessive delay and prior exoneration outweighed any alleged violations.
The judgment also emphasized judicial oversight over prolonged investigations and allowed recourse under Sections 482/528 CrPC for undue delays. Consequently, the Court quashed both the cognizance order and the criminal proceedings, setting a precedent for safeguarding fundamental rights against prolonged investigations.
Case Title: Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @RL Chongthu v. State of Bihar
SLP(Crl.) No. 10130 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Rape Law in Broken Relationships, Says Criminal System Cannot Be Used for Personal Revenge
The Supreme Court of India strongly criticised the rising trend of treating failed romantic relationships as criminal cases of rape, calling it a dangerous misuse of the legal system. While quashing an FIR alleging rape on the false promise of marriage, the Court stressed that consensual physical relations during a functioning relationship cannot later be termed rape simply because the relationship did not lead to marriage.
A bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan noted that the offence of rape should apply only where there is real sexual violence, coercion, or lack of free consent. The case involved a three-year relationship, which the Court said was neither temporary nor deceitful. Therefore, continuing prosecution would be an abuse of legal process.
The Court emphasised that false allegations harm the justice system and damage the lives of the accused, while also weakening the fight against genuine cases of sexual exploitation. It reminded that legal protection for real victims remains essential but must rest on solid evidence.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court order, quashed the FIR and charge sheet, and warned against using criminal law as a tool for revenge in personal disputes.
Case Title: SAMADHAN S/O SITARAM MANMOTHE vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5001 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
ITR filed After Accident or Death can be Considered When Calculating Compensation for Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court
In a significant ruling affecting motor accident compensation claims nationwide, the Supreme Court of India has held that Income Tax Returns (ITRs) filed after an accident or death can be considered when assessing compensation amounts. The judgment prevents families from being disadvantaged due to the timing of tax filings.
The case involved the death of 32-year-old Rajendra Singh Gena in a 2006 road accident. His family claimed compensation, showing rising income from transport business and agriculture. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Rajasthan High Court disregarded the higher income declared in an ITR filed after the accident, leading to a lower compensation assessment.
Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that rejecting a tax return solely because it was filed after the accident is unsustainable. While noting signature discrepancies, the Court acknowledged that business income usually increases over time and reassessed the yearly income at ₹1,00,000. After adding 40% future prospects, deducting personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 16, the Court fixed loss of dependency at ₹16,80,000. An additional ₹2,29,900 was awarded under conventional heads, raising total compensation to ₹19,09,900.
The respondents were ordered to deposit the amount directly to the claimants’ accounts within four weeks, with the interest rate of 5% unchanged.
Case Title: Sayar & Ors. v. Ramkaran & Ors.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 24501/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Living Separately Is NOT Grounds for Divorce, ‘Irretrievable Breakdown’ Needs Proof, Not Assumption: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has stated that courts must carefully examine evidence before declaring a marriage “irretrievably broken.” On November 14, 2025, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that living separately does not automatically mean a marriage has ended.
The case involved a couple married in 2009. After failed divorce attempts by the husband, the Trial Court rejected his claim of desertion, but the Uttarakhand High Court granted divorce mainly based on his oral statements, ignoring the wife’s claim that she was forced to leave and was raising their child alone.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not determining who was responsible for the separation, not considering the child’s welfare, and not properly evaluating evidence.
The Court set aside the divorce order and sent the case back to the High Court for reconsideration. The parties must appear on November 24, 2025.
Case Title: DR. ANITA VERSUS INDRESH GOPAL KOHLI
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 24920 OF 2019
READ ORDER HERE
Read More Reports On the Supreme Court
Read More Reports On Monthly Recap
