As we step into July , it’s essential to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of June 2025 of 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 July, it’s important to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of June 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 June 2025, highlighting their key takeaways, legal reasoning, and potential ramifications.
Supreme Court Set- Aside Preventive Detention of MP Law Student, Orders Immediate Release: “Wholly Untenable”
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Annu @ Aniket through his father Krupal Singh Thakur v. Union of India, delivered its judgment on June 27, 2025, quashing the preventive detention of a law student under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
The Supreme Court held that the detention was unjustified and called it ‘wholly untenable’. It quashed all detention orders, including subsequent extensions made under National Security Act, 1980.
The Court ordered immediate release of Aniket, a Madhya Pradesh law student, unless detained in connection with other valid criminal cases.
The Court emphasized that preventive detention under NSA is meant for threats to public order, not for routine law-and-order issues, as it made a distinction between the concepts of “Public Order” and “Law and Order”. It held that the grounds cited, earlier criminal cases and alleged involvement in communal tensions, did not meet the high threshold of disturbing public order.
The Court held that the District Magistrate wrongly handled Aniket’s representation. As per law, it should have been considered by the State Government. This was a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to make a representation against detention.
The court also held that the NSA detention was repeatedly extended without fresh or independent grounds being recorded. The Court found this mechanical extension to be arbitrary and illegal.
The Court observed that the detention appeared to be a misuse of preventive law and not done in good faith. It reiterated that preventive detention laws must be used sparingly and with strict adherence to safeguards.
Case Title: Annu @ Aniket through his father as next friend Krupal Singh Thakur vs. Union of India
Citation: SLP (Crl.) No. 9285 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
“This Generation Don’t Want to Go to the Trial Court to Learn the Practice”: Supreme Court Slams Lawyer & Grants Parole to Accused for Wife’s Surgery
In the case of Ajay Kumar versus State of Uttar Pradesh, the writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, by the the father of the law student who is in the preventive detention under National Security Act, assailing the order of preventive detention, which was passed by the District Magistrate, Betul on 11.07. 2024.
The Court observed that the petitioner should have initially approached the appropriate administrative authorities for parole instead of directly filing the petition. It also remarked that the petitioner’s counsel failed to notify the State counsel in advance regarding the urgency of the matter.
Nevertheless, considering the circumstances, the Court granted parole for a limited period of one week, from June 15 to June 21, 2025.
It further directed that the order be communicated through the Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with Special Case No. 1115/2017 (State of U.P. vs. Ajay Kumar), arising out of Crime No. 149 of 2014, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, and executed by the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9024/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Maharashtra Assembly Polls 2024 | “Farcical Claims Out Of Desperation”: Bombay HC Junks Plea Claiming Bogus Voters & EVM Hacking
On 25th June 2025, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 challenging the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections. The petitioner, alleged irregularities in votes cast after 6 PM, claiming around 76 lakh such votes lacked proper documentation.
A Bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Arif Doctor declined to consider the writ petition. The bench said that the petitioner has failed to provide authentic information regarding his allegation and claim.
The Court stated that
“We have no manner of doubt that this writ petition needs to be summarily rejected. It is accordingly rejected. The hearing of this petition has practically taken the whole day leaving aside our urgent cause list, and for such reason the petition would certainly warrant dismissal with cost, however, we refrain from doing so.”
Case Title: Chetan Chandrakant Ahire v. Union of India Through Department of Legal and Others
Citation: WP/1402/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court: “Mere Recovery Of A Weapon Is Not Enough To Prove Guilty”
On 19 June 2025, in a landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated a essential principle of criminal jurisprudence, mere recovery of a weapon is not sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case unless it is conclusively linked to the crime through forensic or medical evidence.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of circumstantial evidence. While motive and weapon recovery were presented, they did not conclusively prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court reaffirmed that in criminal jurisprudence, the presumption of innocence prevails unless guilt is proven beyond doubt. the Court said,
“The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.”
Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs Hanuman, Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2017
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2017
READ ORDER HERE
“No Contempt If Parliament, State Legislature Simply Make Laws”: Supreme Court
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that no law enacted by Parliament or a state legislature can be classified as contempt of court, while resolving a contempt petition from 2012, filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others.
The Supreme Court, On May 15, stated that the enactment of a law by Chhattisgarh after the court’s order could not be considered an act of contempt.
The court emphasized that to maintain the rule of law and achieve the constitutional goal of establishing an egalitarian society, a careful balance must be upheld between the functions of different sovereign authorities.
The Court also highlighted the necessity for “specific steps” to promote peace and rehabilitation in affected areas through coordinated efforts from both the state and the Central Government.
The Court also highlighted the essence of legislative function lies in the authority of the legislative body to create and amend laws.
The Supreme Court emphasized the legislature’s power to enact laws and to either remove the foundation of a judgment or validate a law that a constitutional court has struck down by amending it to comply with the court’s ruling.
CASE TITLE: NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF CHATTISGARH
CASE NO: WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 250/2007
READ ORDER HERE
Narco-Analysis Test Can’t Be Forced on Accused: Supreme Court Narco-Analysis Test Can’t Be Forced on Accused: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a narco-analysis test cannot be conducted on an accused without their consent, and even if done voluntarily, the result cannot be the sole reason to convict someone in a criminal case.
The Supreme Court criticised the Patna High Court for allowing narco-analysis test, stating that the ruling went against an earlier landmark decision, the 2010 Selvi vs State of Karnataka case, where a three-judge bench had ruled that these tests are unconstitutional if done without consent.
The court made it clear that forcing someone to undergo such a test without their agreement is a serious violation of privacy and represents an unfair use of police power.
Finally, the Supreme Court criticised the Patna High Court’s decision to allow a narco test at the bail stage, calling it premature and legally inappropriate.
“It does not involve entering into a roving enquiry or accepting the use of involuntary investigative techniques,” the top court held, pointing out that a bail hearing is not the correct time for such an extreme investigative measure.“
CASE TITLE: Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
CASE NO: SLP(Crl.) No.5392 of 2024)
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“State Cannot Object to Interfaith Marriage of Consenting Adults”: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Man Jailed for Marrying Hindu Woman
The man, Arif Siddiqui, was arrested under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on allegations of hiding his religion and marrying the woman using Hindu marriage rituals.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made it clear that the state cannot interfere in the lives of two consenting adults who choose to live together, even if they belong to different religions.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court granted bail to Arif Siddiqui, who had been arrested under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on allegations of concealing his religious identity before marrying a Hindu woman.
The Court observed that the couple had married with the approval of both families and that the state had no grounds to prevent them from living together as consenting adults. Emphasizing personal liberty and freedom of choice, the bench held that ongoing criminal proceedings should not interfere with their right to cohabit.
The Court further noted that Siddiqui had already spent nearly six months in jail and that a charge sheet had been filed, thereby making a case for bail.
The Court also took into account the affidavit submitted by Siddiqui, assuring that he would not pressure his wife to convert and that she was free to follow her faith. It disagreed with the Uttarakhand High Court’s denial of bail and rejected the claim that the marriage was conducted through deception.
the Supreme Court concluded that bail was appropriate in this case reaffirming the couple’s right to live peacefully and independently.
CASE TITLE: AMAN SIDDIQUI ALIAS AMAN CHAUDHARY ALIAS RAJA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
CASE NO: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4600/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court: Railways Can Levy Penalty for Misdeclared Goods Even After Delivery
On June 11, the Supreme Court of India has given clarity on the powers of the Indian Railways under Section 66(4) of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Court ruled that railway authorities can collect the correct amount for goods, even after the delivery of those goods, if it is found that the consignor had made a false declaration about the goods.
The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, upheld the right of the Indian Railways to recover charges for false declarations of goods even after the goods have been delivered. This came after the Central Government challenged a 2021 Gauhati High Court ruling that had held otherwise.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra clarified that Section 66(4) of the Railways Act does not restrict the collection of such charges to only before delivery. The Court emphasized that unlike Sections 73 and 78, which deal with excess weight and overloading and require charges to be collected pre-delivery, Section 66 operates independently and permits recovery of dues either before or after delivery when false declarations are made.
The dispute originated from demand notices issued by the Railways in 2011-2012 to Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others for misdeclaration of goods. Although the Railway Claims Tribunal and Gauhati High Court sided with the respondents, the Supreme Court reversed these findings, ruling that the notices were lawful and supported by Section 66(4).
The judgment reinstated the Railways’ demand notices and set aside the lower court and tribunal decisions, affirming the Union of India’s legal position in the matter.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Etc.
Case No: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7376-7379 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.11566-11569/2022)
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court’s Time Ceiling on Property: “Sale Deed Must Be Registered in 4 Months or Becomes Invalid”
The Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s decision validating a property sale deed registered 24 years after the agreement was made, calling it legally unacceptable and indicative of fraud.
A Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran ruled that under Section 34, a sale deed must be registered within four months, extendable by another four months only with sufficient cause and a fine. The Court stressed that merely registering an outdated agreement does not make it legally valid.
Criticizing the registration process in this case, the Court noted discrepancies between the documents and held that the sale agreement was not executed by the rightful parties. It observed that the transaction “smacks of fraud.”
Ultimately, the Court restored the Single Judge’s earlier ruling, which had found the delayed registration to be a sham, and allowed the appeals filed by the State of Telangana and private landowners. The 1982 agreement, even if revalidated in 2006, was declared invalid.
CASE TITLE:
MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS. vs M/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD & ORS.
Case No:
Special Leave Petition (C) No.1866 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Is Shutting Down a Business a Fundamental Right? Supreme Court Says…..
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that businesses have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to shut down operations, subject to reasonable restrictions under labour laws like Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Court held that if the government does not respond to a closure request within 60 days, the permission is deemed granted.
The case arose from Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (HSML), which sought to close its biscuit manufacturing unit in Mumbai after its only client, Britannia, ended their contract. Despite filing a proper closure application in August 2019, the Maharashtra Labour Department failed to issue a valid decision within the statutory deadline.
Instead, unauthorized communications were sent by a Deputy Secretary, which the Court found to be procedurally invalid due to lack of delegated authority under Section 39.
The Supreme Court criticised both the Labour Department and the Bombay High Court for procedural lapses, including reliance on incorrect legal forms. It also clarified that internal notings cannot replace a formal, reasoned government order.
Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the apex court ruled in favour of HSML, allowing the company to shut its unit. It also directed the company to pay ₹15 crore as compensation to workers, beyond their legal entitlements, to be disbursed within eight weeks.
Case Title:
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors
READ JUDGMENT HERE
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE