As we step into May , it’s essential to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of April 2025 of Supreme court. This month witnessed 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 May, it’s important to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of March 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 recap, we examine the most important judgments of April 2025, highlighting their key takeaways, legal reasoning, and potential ramifications.
Non-Examination of DNA Expert Fatal to Prosecution: Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Sentence in POCSO Case
The Supreme Court of India set aside the death sentence awarded in a POCSO case due to critical procedural lapses. The DNA expert was not examined, making the DNA report inadmissible. Chain of custody of forensic samples was not proven, raising tampering concerns. No FSL witness was called to validate receipt of sealed samples.
The accused’s confession was improperly exhibited through a police officer, violating the Indian Evidence Act. The trial was conducted in a grossly unfair manner. The prosecution failed to establish a credible link between the accused and the crime.
Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction. The accused was acquitted of all charges. The judgment highlights the necessity of strict compliance with procedural and evidentiary standards in criminal trials.
Case Title: Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2025 INSC 444
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses under Section 28 of Contract Act
The Supreme Court held that
“exclusive jurisdiction clauses in contracts are valid and not barred by Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.”
The Court clarified that while the right to legal remedies cannot be extinguished, parties can validly choose a specific competent court. The dispute arose from conflicting High Court rulings regarding HDFC Bank’s employment contract containing a Mumbai jurisdiction clause.
The Bench ruled that
“restricting disputes to a chosen court does not violate Section 28 as long as legal recourse remains available“
Three conditions for validity were emphasized: no absolute bar on remedies, competency of the chosen court, and clear party intent.
The Court noted that contractual terms must be respected irrespective of bargaining power unless vitiated by coercion or illegality. It directed the plaint to be returned for refiling before competent courts in Mumbai. The appeal against the Patna High Court judgment was dismissed, and the Delhi High Court ruling was set aside. The decision reinforces the sanctity of contractual freedom and the enforceability of exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 473
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
Supreme Court: ‘Anticipatory Bail Not Meant for Absconding Accused’
The Supreme Court ruled that absconding individuals are not entitled to anticipatory bail, especially in serious economic offences. A Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed 16 appeals filed by the SFIO.
The Court observed that
“deliberate evasion of summons and warrants disqualifies an accused from seeking discretionary relief. Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and cannot aid those avoiding judicial processes. Economic offences must be treated more seriously due to their broader impact.“
The High Court’s orders granting bail were termed perverse and contrary to statutory mandates. Section 212(6) of the Companies Act was emphasized.
The judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law was reiterated. The Apex Court highlighted that obedience to legal proceedings is essential for justice. Consequently, the anticipatory bails were set aside.
Case Title: Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 462
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Declares Governor’s Veto Power Under Article 200 ‘Unconstitutional and Non-Est in Law’
In the case State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023), the Supreme Court declared that Governors do not have veto power under Article 200 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that
“a Governor must act within a reasonable timeframe, either granting assent, withholding assent and returning the Bill for reconsideration, or reserving it for Presidential approval. Once a Bill is re-passed by the legislature after reconsideration, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent.“
The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to deem ten Bills, pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor, as having received assent. It prescribed clear timelines for Governors’ actions, making non-compliance judicially reviewable.
The Court also rejected the earlier BK Pavitra judgment, affirming that Governors must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot exercise discretion in reserving Bills. The ruling reinforces the principle of cooperative federalism and curtails any arbitrary delays in the legislative process.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 INSC 481
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Reaffirms Rigorous Application of Limitation Law
In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the strict enforcement of limitation statutes, particularly when parties were aware of earlier transactions or court proceedings. The Court criticized the Madras High Court’s decision to remand a decades-old dispute on the grounds of limitation, stating that the delay of 17 years without valid justification rendered the claim legally untenable.
It reaffirmed that limitation is a statutory obligation, not a mere technicality, and that courts must consider it suo motu when evident. The Court further stressed that bona fide purchasers should be protected from stale claims. It also clarified that when the issue of limitation is undisputed and unpleaded, it becomes a legal question. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court’s remand and upheld the Trial Court’s decree.
Case Title: R. Nagaraj (Dead) through LRs. and Another v. Rajmani and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 478
READ MORE ON THIS CASE
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Lays Down Two-Test Formula to Differentiate Between Copyright and Design Protections
The Supreme Court laid down a clear two-step test to distinguish between copyright and design protection under Indian law.
- First, courts must assess if a work is a pure artistic creation under Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act or an industrially applied design falling under Section 15(2).
- Second, if it is not protected as copyright, courts must apply the “functional utility test” to see if it should be protected under the Designs Act.
The judgment clarified that copyright protection is not lost merely by industrial use unless the design is replicated more than 50 times without registration.
Artistic works enjoy broader, long-term protection, while designs receive limited, short-term protection focused on commercial utility.
The Court emphasized distinct but complementary objectives of the Copyright Act and the Designs Act.
It relied on prior decisions like Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar and Dart Industries Inc. v. Techno Plast for clarity.
The judgment also highlighted that intent alone does not decide protection; actual use and application matter.
Finally, the ruling aims to ensure consistency and avoid overlaps between copyright and design protections in India’s IP framework.
Case Title: Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd & LNG Express India Pvt Ltd v. Inox India Ltd
Citation: 2025 INSC 483
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Issues Guidelines: “When the Child is Lost, Parents Suffer Agony for Life”
In Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, the Supreme Court severely criticized the Uttar Pradesh government and Allahabad High Court for mishandling a child trafficking case.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan condemned the authorities’ apathy and laid down strong guidelines for handling child trafficking matters. The Court directed fast-tracking of trials, mandatory hospital responsibilities, and immediate suspension of hospitals where newborns are trafficked.
It emphasized the emotional devastation caused by the disappearance of children, distinguishing it from death.
Ten binding guidelines were issued, including speedy trial completion within six months and the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors.
The Court relied on NHRC reports and real-time media accounts to highlight systemic failures.
A heartfelt appeal was made urging parents and citizens to remain extremely vigilant against child trafficking threats.
Case Title: Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Upholds Use of Urdu on Municipal Signboards in Maharashtra
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the Municipal Council nameboards in Maharashtra. The Court ruled that
“Urdu, like Marathi, has constitutional recognition under the Eighth Schedule and is not tied to any religion. It clarified that language is a tool for communication, not a symbol of religious identity”
The petitioner’s argument under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, was rejected. Citing Article 345, the Court affirmed the state’s authority to adopt multiple official languages. The historical and cultural Indian roots of Urdu were emphasized.
The judgment stressed inclusivity and linguistic diversity as constitutional values. It noted Urdu’s significant influence on India’s legal terminology. Procedural objections regarding the locus standi of the petitioner were also upheld. The Court urged overcoming biases and embracing all Indian languages as part of the nation’s strength.
Case Title: MRS. VARSHATAI W/o. SH. SANJAY BAGADE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUDICIARY, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI AND ORS. ETC.
Citation: 2025 INSC 486
READ THE JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Quashes 498A Charges Against Husband’s Relatives Post-Divorce
In a significant ruling dated April 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the relatives of a man, holding that such charges cannot be sustained when the alleged incident occurred after the legal dissolution of marriage. The case arose from a complaint filed in 2015 by a woman whose marriage had ended through an ex parte divorce decree in 2012.
She alleged that her former husband’s relatives visited her and made dowry demands three years after the divorce. A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra found the allegations inconsistent and unsubstantiated, emphasizing that cruelty under Section 498A IPC must have a nexus with the subsistence of marriage.
The Court relied on the precedent in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012), which warned against the casual implication of a husband’s family members in matrimonial disputes. Observing that no specific acts were attributed to the relatives during the marriage, the Court ruled that continuing criminal proceedings would be vexatious and an abuse of process.
This judgment highlights the need for courts to carefully assess the timing and credibility of allegations in matrimonial offences.
Case Title: Sushila & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 505
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
SC Clarifies Principles for Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail
In a ruling dated April 19, 2025, the Supreme Court held that
“anticipatory bail granted by a High Court can be cancelled only if a serious legal error or misuse of liberty is demonstrated”
The appeal arose from the grant of anticipatory bail to Abdul Razzak, a habitual offender, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasized that mere criminal antecedents or disapproval of the High Court’s view are insufficient grounds for cancellation. The Court noted that
“the offences alleged were non-heinous and triable by a Magistrate. It found that the High Court had followed a reasoned approach without ignoring legal standards.”
Dismissing the appeal, the Court imposed conditions on Razzak, including monthly police reporting and a prohibition on committing further offences. The judgment reinforces that anticipatory bail protections must not be lightly disturbed without compelling grounds.
Case Title: Ankit Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 501
Supreme Court Clarifies Disability Exemption Under Limitation Act Does Not Extend to Appeals
In a judgment dated April 19, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that
“the disability exemption under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to original suits and execution applications, not to appeals”
The case arose from a motor accident claim where the Kerala High Court had enhanced compensation after a delayed appeal by the deceased’s children. A Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran held that once the legal representatives’ father had accepted the original award, a delayed independent appeal was impermissible.
The Court clarified that
“abandonment or other personal circumstances do not extend limitation periods for appeals“
Further, the delay of 2877 days was found unjustifiable even under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Court reinforced the strict interpretation of limitation laws to maintain procedural discipline.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopu & Anr
Citation: Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 511
Supreme Court Imposes Costs on UP Government for Misusing Criminal Law in Civil Dispute
The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated April 21, 2025, condemned the misuse of criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes and imposed Rs. 50,000 costs on the Uttar Pradesh Government. A Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar found that an FIR registered over a failed property sale lacked essential elements of criminal offences.
The Court observed that
“the chargesheet merely reiterated FIR allegations without credible evidence. Stressing that breach of contract does not amount to cheating, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings“
It directed the State to deposit the costs within six weeks and suggested an internal inquiry against erring officials. The Court refrained from imposing costs on the complainant, considering possible erroneous legal advice. This judgment reinforces the distinction between civil wrongs and criminal offences and demands greater institutional accountability.
Case Title: Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 512
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Reiterates Bar on Filing Fresh Suit Against Compromise Decree
In a judgment dated April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court held that
“a compromise decree cannot be challenged by filing a fresh suit”
A Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized that the only remedy against such a decree is a recall application before the same court. The Court relied on Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC and its earlier ruling in Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh. It rejected the appellants’ argument of coercion, noting that their father never contested the compromise decree.
The appeal against the High Court’s 2022 judgment was dismissed. The Court reaffirmed the sanctity and finality of compromise decrees, discouraging multiple litigations over settled matters.
Case Title: Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi & Anr. v. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi (Dead Through LRs)
Citation: 2025 INSC 517
READ THE JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Acquits Man Over Procedural Lapse in Section 313 CrPC Examination
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that
“appellate courts must verify whether an accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC has been properly recorded”
The Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal of Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh, earlier convicted for the deaths of his wife and three daughters. The key ground for acquittal was the failure to confront the accused with the prosecution’s primary evidence—two dying declarations—during his Section 313 examination. A three-judge Bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka held that this omission caused serious prejudice, warranting exclusion of the declarations from evidence.
The Court reiterated that procedural safeguards must be strictly followed, especially in serious criminal trials. It observed that no conviction can be sustained without confronting the accused with incriminating material. The ruling strengthens procedural fairness and due process protections in criminal jurisprudence.
Case Title: Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 529
READ THE JUDGEMENT HERE
Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown Using Article 142
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to dissolve a marriage citing irretrievable breakdown, despite the husband’s divorce petition being earlier dismissed by the Family Court and Jharkhand High Court.
The couple had been separated for over a decade, and all reconciliation attempts had failed. The Court held that
“prolonging the dead marriage would serve no useful purpose. The marriage was thus dissolved to do complete justice under the Constitution”
The 3-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta also addressed the emotional needs of the estranged mother. Though the mother had not formally sought custody, the Court granted her visitation rights to meet the daughter twice a month. The judgment balances legal rigor with human compassion. It reinforces the Court’s evolving approach in matrimonial disputes by providing equitable relief when statutory provisions fall short.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 INSC 543
SC: Substantive Change in Judgment Reasoning Not Permissible Under Section 362 CrPC
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that
“altering the reasoning in a criminal judgment does not qualify as a clerical or arithmetical correction under Section 362 CrPC.“
The case stemmed from a 2012 FIR involving charges under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, 506, and later Section 304 IPC.
While the High Court initially upheld the convictions, it later modified its judgment on a Correction Application, effectively changing the basis of conviction. The Apex Court criticized this as a clear violation of Section 362, which strictly limits post-judgment modifications to clerical errors.
The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih, restored the original judgment. It directed the accused to surrender if their sentence was not already completed.
The Court reaffirmed that final judgments cannot be re-evaluated under the guise of corrections. This ruling strengthens the principle of finality of judicial decisions in criminal cases.
Case Title: Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Etc. Etc.
Citation: 2025 INSC 544
Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape Case Due to Material Contradiction in Victim’s Testimony
The Supreme Court upheld
“the acquittal of two accused in a 2012 rape case, citing material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements.“
The girl had inconsistently stated the date and place of the alleged incident between her Section 164 CrPC statement and court testimony. The Court held that
such inconsistency seriously undermined her credibility. The lack of DNA analysis and other corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution’s case.
The Bench emphasized that even in rape cases, victim testimony must be consistent and reliable. No specific allegation of rape was made against the second accused, Chaman Shukla. The trial court’s conviction was overturned by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, a decision the Supreme Court found plausible. The apex court reiterated that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal by the State was dismissed, and the acquittal stood affirmed.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar
Citation: 2025 INSC 561
READ THE JUDGEMENT HERE
Remedies Against Compromise Decree Clarified by Supreme Court
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court clarified the
“procedural remedies available to parties and non-parties challenging a compromise decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”
The Court held that Order XLIII Rule 1-A CPC does not confer an independent right of appeal but only enables an appellant already before the appellate court to argue that a compromise decree was wrongly recorded.
Citing Section 96(3) CPC, the Court reaffirmed that
no appeal lies against a consent decree unless the compromise is disputed. If a party to the suit challenges the validity or existence of the compromise, the appropriate route is to raise objections before the Trial Court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
Fresh suits on such grounds are barred by Order XXIII Rule 3-A. Only after the Trial Court decides against the objector can an appeal under Section 96(1) CPC be filed, wherein Order XLIII Rule 1-A may be relied upon. Allegations of fraud or misrepresentation do not convert a consent decree into a regular one and must be adjudicated by the Trial Court first.
The Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s view that while third parties may appeal with leave, parties to the suit must follow the prescribed trial court process. Since the appellant was a party to the original suit, her direct appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1-A was found incompetent.
The Supreme Court, therefore, affirmed the dismissal of her appeal and observed that she may, if advised, seek recourse under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC before the Trial Court.
Case Title: Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) v. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 570
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE