As we step into October, it’s essential to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of September 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 October, it’s important to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of September 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 September 2025, highlighting their key takeaways, legal reasoning, and potential ramifications.
Supreme Court Upholds Telangana’s Domicile Rule: 4-Year Study Must for MBBS & BDS State Quota Admissions
The Supreme Court upheld Telangana’s rule that only students who have studied continuously in the state for the last four years up to Class 12 are eligible for medical and dental college admissions under the state quota.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the Telangana government’s appeal and approved the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, as amended in 2024.
The rules specify that students must complete four years of study within Telangana to qualify for state quota seats. This overturned a Telangana High Court decision, which had held that permanent residents should not lose admission benefits solely due to time spent outside the state.
Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Sravan Kumar Karnam represented the state, arguing that a “threshold becomes inevitable” once a domicile rule is implemented.
Case Title: THE STATE OF TELANGANA VS KALLURI NAGA NARASIMHA ABHIRAM
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court says arbitral tribunals can condone delay beyond ICA Rules in interest of justice
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a plea challenging whether arbitral tribunals seated in India can extend timelines beyond institutional arbitration rules in the “interest of justice.”
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan upheld a Delhi High Court ruling that had validated an arbitral tribunal’s decision to condone an 84-day delay by Doosan Power Systems India in filing its defence under the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) Rules.
Although Rule 18(a) of the ICA Rules allows only a 60-day period plus a maximum 30-day extension, the tribunal led by Justice (retd.) Vikramajit Sen held that it retained discretion to grant more time. The Delhi High Court agreed, stating that rules are meant to guide, not rigidly bind, arbitral proceedings.
Aneja Constructions argued that such relaxation undermined party autonomy and violated Section 2(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention, confirming that tribunals have broad powers to extend timelines when equity and justice so demand.
Case Title: Aneja Constructions v. Doosan Power Systems India
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24089/2025
READ ORDER HERE
System That Lets Rapists Walk Free Is a Failure: Supreme Court Restores Conviction Of 2 Men Who Raped 12-Year-Old
On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court restored the conviction of two men for repeatedly raping a 12-year-old girl in Bihar’s Bhojpur district, overturning their acquittal by the Patna High Court.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma held that minor procedural lapses cannot outweigh consistent victim testimony and corroborative medical evidence. The Court condemned the High Court’s reliance on technicalities, stressing that acquittals in heinous sexual offences “undermine justice and the protective intent of child safety laws.”
The trial court had earlier sentenced Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari to rigorous life imprisonment under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. Though the High Court cited irregularities in age proof, charge framing, and joint trial, the Supreme Court ruled that such defects caused no prejudice to the accused and did not justify an acquittal.
Observing that “there is nothing like perfect evidence in Court,” the Bench emphasised that rural victims often face inconsistencies in records and cannot be expected to produce flawless testimony. It directed both convicts to surrender within two weeks, restoring their life sentences.
Case Title: X vs Y
SLP(Crl.) No. 18377 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court: “Every Child Has a Right to the Affection of Both Parents, Interaction Must Continue Even if Living Apart or Abroad”
On September 2, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that every child has a right to the affection of both parents, even if separated or living in different countries.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed a father’s plea for virtual interaction with his 9-year-old son, who resides in Ireland with his estranged mother. Emphasizing that the child’s emotional and mental well-being is paramount, the Court said custody disputes must focus on the child’s best interests rather than parental fault.
The parents, married in 2012, have been embroiled in custody litigation since 2017. While lower courts had denied the father custody, the Supreme Court noted that he now sought only video-call access.
Observing that denying paternal contact would deprive the child of love, guidance, and support, the Court directed that the father be allowed two-hour video calls every alternate Sunday. Both parents were ordered to cooperate in good faith, ensuring the child’s welfare remains the central consideration.
Case Title: Manoj Dhankar Vs Neeharika & Ors
SLP (C) NO. 25029 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court: “Bar on Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act is Absolute if FIR Shows Prima Facie Offence”
The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court order granting pre-arrest bail in a caste violence case, reaffirming that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, imposes an absolute bar on anticipatory bail when an FIR prima facie discloses an offence.
A Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria ruled that courts cannot conduct a “mini-trial” at the bail stage. Only if the FIR lacks prima facie merit can anticipatory bail be considered.
The case stemmed from a November 2024 FIR by Kiran, a Scheduled Caste member, alleging that Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and others attacked him and his family over their voting choice, used caste slurs such as “Mangtyano,” and issued threats of arson.
While the Sessions Court rejected bail, the Bombay High Court allowed it, terming the case politically motivated. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that caste-based slurs in public view and violence clearly satisfied the ingredients of the offence. The High Court’s order, it said, was a “manifest error.”
Case Title: Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr
@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8169 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court: ‘Disability for Motor Accident Compensation Must Be Functional, Not Merely Medical’: Rs 48 Lakh Awarded to Victim
The Supreme Court has awarded ₹48,44,790 to a motor accident victim, stressing that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be based on functional disability, its impact on earning capacity, rather than only medical disability percentages.
The case involved Anoop Maheshwari, who suffered a hemipelvectomy (amputation of one leg and part of the pelvic bone) after a truck hit his motorcycle in April 2007. The Tribunal initially fixed disability at 45% and granted ₹13.23 lakh, later enhanced by the High Court to ₹23.09 lakh on a 50% functional disability assessment.
A Bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria upheld the 50% disability finding but revised income on the basis of tax returns, accepted full medical bills, and awarded an additional ₹10 lakh for future prosthetic and medical care.
The final compensation included loss of income, medical costs, pain and suffering, attendant charges, and prosthetic expenses, totaling ₹48.44 lakh with 6% annual interest.
Case Title: Anoop Maheshwari v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Civil Appeal Nos. 12098-12099 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
‘Review Cannot Be an Appeal in Disguise’: Supreme Court Clarifies Review Jurisdiction
On September 8, the Supreme Court reiterated that a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is not an appeal in disguise. It can only correct errors apparent on the face of the record, not reopen or reappreciate facts.
The case arose from a partition suit over ancestral property. After multiple proceedings, the Madras High Court in 2022 upheld daughter Malleeswari’s coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. However, in 2024, the High Court, on review by respondent Suguna, reversed its own ruling and remanded the matter, effectively re-hearing the case.
A Bench of the Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its limited review powers by treating the petition as an appeal. It restored the 2022 judgment recognizing Malleeswari’s coparcenary rights and directed the trial court to conclude pending applications within three months.
The ruling reinforces that review is a narrow corrective jurisdiction, distinct from appellate powers, ensuring finality of judgments.
Case Title: Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another
SLP (C) NO. 12787 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Heated Exchange or Scuffle Between Neighbours Not Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court
On September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court acquitted Geeta, who had been convicted by the Karnataka High Court for abetting the 2008 suicide of her neighbour Sarika.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan held that ordinary neighbourhood quarrels, even if unpleasant, cannot by themselves amount to abetment of suicide without proof of intention or instigation.
Sarika, a 25-year-old student, set herself on fire after disputes with Geeta, alleging harassment and insults. The trial court convicted Geeta under Section 306 IPC and the SC/ST Act, though the High Court later limited the conviction to abetment of suicide with a reduced sentence.
Reversing this, the Supreme Court reiterated that a conviction under Section 306 IPC requires mens rea, a clear intent or active role in provoking suicide. The victim’s personal sensitivity cannot replace this statutory requirement.
Finding no evidence that Geeta deliberately instigated the act, the Court set aside her conviction and ordered her acquittal.
Case Title: Geeta vs. The State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1044 OF 2018
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Reserved Candidates Cannot Later Claim General Seats If Rules Bar It: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that reserved category candidates who avail of age relaxation cannot later be considered for unreserved posts if the recruitment rules expressly prohibit it.
The case arose from an SSC constable recruitment where OBC candidates, including Sanjib Roy, applied under age relaxation. Despite scoring higher than the last selected general candidate, they were not appointed, as their marks fell below the last selected OBC candidate. The High Court had ruled in their favor, but the Centre challenged this decision.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi set aside the High Court verdict, citing a 1998 Office Memorandum that bars reserved candidates from migrating to unreserved vacancies after availing relaxations in age, qualifications, or attempts. The Court clarified that eligibility must strictly follow recruitment rules, and prior judgments allowing migration do not apply where rules prohibit it.
Case Title: RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE VS PREM CHAND KUMAR
SLP (C) No.20866/2019
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Adverse Remarks Against Advocate, Says Omission Was Bona Fide and Could Have Been Avoided
The Supreme Court has removed adverse observations made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding Advocate Siddharth Gupta’s professional conduct, noting that such remarks “could have been avoided” under the circumstances.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reviewed the case arising from Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022. The High Court had criticized Gupta for relying on the Index Medical College Hospital judgment without citing a related 2020 decision (Arushi Mahant & Ors. vs. State of M.P.), suggesting it gave a misleading impression. Gupta had tendered an unconditional apology, clarifying that the omission was unintentional and that he was not involved in the 2020 case.
The Supreme Court held that there was no intent to mislead, and the adverse remarks unjustly affected Gupta’s professional reputation. It expunged the April 6, 2022, observations, set aside the High Court’s January 5, 2024, refusal to modify, and disposed of the appeals accordingly.
Case Title: Siddharth vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Sexual Harassment Complaints Must Be Filed Within 6 Months, Moral Record of Misconduct to Stay on Resume”: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a sexual harassment complaint under the POSH Act filed by a faculty member of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) against Vice-Chancellor Prof. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, ruling it was filed beyond the statutory six-month period.
The complaint, alleging repeated harassment since 2019, including unwanted advances, physical contact, and threats, was lodged in December 2023, while the last alleged act occurred in April 2023. The Court held that subsequent administrative actions, such as her removal as Director in August 2023, were independent decisions of the university and not acts of sexual harassment.
While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that the wrongdoing should not be forgotten. It directed that the judgment be included in the Vice-Chancellor’s professional record, ensuring accountability.
The Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale observed:
“It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing.”
Case Title: Vaneeta Patnaik Vs Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17936 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Decide Anticipatory and Regular Bail Pleas Within 2 Months of Filing: Supreme Court Directs High Courts & Trial Courts
The Supreme Court has directed high courts and district courts across India to decide bail and anticipatory bail applications within two months of filing. The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, emphasized that cases concerning personal liberty must be prioritized and not indefinitely delayed due to judicial workload.
Highlighting Articles 14 and 21, the Court observed that prolonged delays undermine constitutional rights and leave applicants in a state of uncertainty. It noted that bail determinations are generally straightforward and should not be deferred, likening undue delays to a “sword of Damocles” over the applicant.
The ruling stemmed from appeals by two Maharashtra revenue officials whose anticipatory bail applications had been pending for nearly six years. While interim protection was granted, the Court stressed that such extended delays are unjustifiable.
The Supreme Court ordered high courts to implement administrative measures ensuring the timely disposal of bail applications, instructing subordinate courts to prioritize matters of personal liberty. Investigating agencies were also urged to expedite probes to prevent prejudice to either party.
Referencing past judgments, including Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018) and recent cases from 2022–2023, the Court reaffirmed that liberty-related matters demand urgent attention, and delays are inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
Case Title: Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra
SLP(Crl) No. 11128/2025 Diary No. 40804 / 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Murder or Attempt to Murder?: Supreme Court Lays Down Key Guidelines
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court clarified how courts should distinguish between murder (Section 302 IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) when death occurs after a long delay due to medical complications.
The case involved Rekhchand Verma, who was assaulted, thrown from a terrace, and left with severe spinal injuries. He survived bedridden for nine months before dying of septic shock and multi-organ failure. The Chhattisgarh High Court reduced the trial court’s conviction from murder to attempt to murder, holding that the death was due to poor treatment.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan overturned this, restoring the murder conviction, and held that the chain of causation was unbroken since the death was directly linked to the injuries.
The Court laid down key principles:
- Delayed death still amounts to murder if complications flow naturally from the injuries.
- Medical treatment quality is irrelevant; liability remains with the assailant.
- Cumulative injuries showing intent can sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Only if a new, unrelated cause breaks the chain of consequences can liability shift.
Calling the High Court’s view a “serious error,” the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction must remain under Section 302 IPC.
Case Title: Maniklal Sahu versus State of Chhattisgarh
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5578 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Meeting Daughter’s Marriage Expenses Is a Natural Extension of Duty as a Parent: Supreme Court Directs Father to Pay Rs. 10 Lakh
On September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that a father’s duty includes contributing to his daughter’s marriage expenses, even after divorce. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld a Delhi High Court ruling that dissolved a 1996 marriage marked by years of acrimony and separation since 2009.
While affirming the divorce, the Court directed the father to pay ₹10 lakh towards his daughter’s wedding, calling it a “natural extension of parental duty, irrespective of spousal differences.”
The Court noted that the marriage had “irretrievably broken down” and dismissed wider appeals, limiting its order to the marriage expenses. The father must deposit the amount with the mother by October 15, 2025.
Case Title: Geeta @ Reeta Mishra Vs Ajay Kumar Mishra
SLP(C) NOS.15168-15173/2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Vantara Is in Strict Compliance With Laws, a Pride of Our Country, Let Positive Developments Be Appreciated: Supreme Court After SIT Report
The Supreme Court heard a writ petition seeking an investigation into Vantara (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre) in Jamnagar, Gujarat, managed by the Reliance Foundation. Petitioners CR Jaya Sukin and Dev Sharma alleged unlawful acquisition of animals, violations of wildlife laws, and financial irregularities.
Earlier, the Court had set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine these claims. During the hearing, the Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale noted the submission of the SIT report, stating it would be reviewed and incorporated into the final order.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing Vantara, emphasized that the report speaks for itself but raised concerns about sensitive proprietary information. The Court assured that confidential details would not be made public.
The Bench acknowledged that the SIT had addressed all issues, allowing authorities to act on its recommendations. Justice Mithal emphasized that repetitive questions would not be entertained, as all previously posed concerns had been covered.
The petitioners raised specific concerns about a temple elephant taken to Vantara, including a payment of Rs. 11 lakhs. The Court noted that if animals are acquired legally and cared for properly, such claims cannot be entertained.
The SIT was instructed to examine:
- Acquisition of animals domestically and internationally, including elephants;
- Compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and zoo regulations;
- Adherence to CITES and import/export laws for live animals;
- Animal husbandry, veterinary care, welfare standards, and causes of animal deaths;
- Complaints regarding climate, location near industrial zones, or misuse of resources;
- Allegations that Vantara operates as a private collection rather than a conservation project;
- Misuse of water resources or carbon credits;
- Wildlife smuggling, illegal trade, and other legal violations;
- Financial irregularities, including possible money laundering;
- Any other related issues raised in petitions.
The Supreme Court confirmed it would review the SIT report in detail and pass the order in chambers.
Case Title:
CR Jaya Sukin v. Union of India
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 783/2025 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 779/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Presumption Favors Constitutionality: Supreme Court Refuses Full Stay on Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Imposes Partial Stay
The Supreme Court has allowed most provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, to remain in force, but temporarily stayed three key clauses while hearing petitions challenging its validity.
The stayed provisions include:
- Section 3(r): The requirement that a person must have practiced Islam for five years before dedicating property as waqf. The Court said the absence of a clear mechanism could lead to arbitrary decisions.
- Section 3C(2): Granting the Collector authority to decide if waqf property belongs to the government. The Court ruled this violates the separation of powers and froze changes to revenue or board records until final adjudication.
- Composition of Waqf Boards: The Court restricted non-Muslim representation—no more than four on the Central Waqf Council and three on State Boards. It also advised that the CEO of the Board should, as far as possible, be from the Muslim community.
The Court stressed that property rights would remain unaffected until titles are conclusively decided and no waqf property could be dispossessed during ongoing proceedings.
Petitioners, including MPs Mohammad Jawed and Asaduddin Owaisi, argued that the Act undermines Muslim rights and removes the concept of “waqf by user,” threatening historical mosques, graveyards, and charitable properties. The Centre, however, defended the law as a step to prevent misuse, ensure transparency, and protect public lands.
Key reforms under the Act include separating trusts from waqf, introducing a central waqf portal for digital management, clarifying women’s inheritance rights before property dedication, and regulating “waqf by user” properties.
The Court reiterated that while statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, limited judicial intervention was necessary to safeguard fundamental principles until the matter is finally decided.
Case Title: IN RE THE WAQF (AMENDMENT)w ACT, 2025 (1)
W.P.(C) No. 276/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
‘Criminal Law Ought Not to Become a Platform for Vindictive Proceedings’: SC Slams Misuse of Law, Quashes Cheating FIR Filed to Settle Personal Scores
On September 15, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal law cannot be misused for personal vendettas or to settle private disputes, quashing a 2023 cheating FIR and charge sheet against businessmen Paramjeet Singh and Sarabjit Singh.
The case stemmed from a 2017 contractual dispute over the supply of a sand ruula machine. A cheque for ₹5 lakh was dishonoured due to stop payment, leading to a cheque dishonour case. Nearly five years later, an FIR alleging cheating was filed, claiming the machine was defective.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan held that:
- Mens rea (dishonest intent) is essential for cheating under Section 420 IPC; mere breach of contract is insufficient.
- The five-year delay in filing the FIR indicated mala fide intent.
- Civil remedies were available, but criminal prosecution could not be misused.
Citing landmark rulings including Bhajan Lal (1992) and Vesa Holdings (2015), the Court concluded the allegations were vague, mala fide, and unsustainable. It overturned the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s refusal to quash the case and declared:
“Criminal law ought not to become a platform for vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores.”
Case Title: Paramjeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3415 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Divides Pleas in Rs 2,000 Crore Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam, Sets Aside Bail Protection
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a batch of 13 petitions linked to the alleged ₹2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam, investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma grouped the matters into four categories—FIRs filed by Chhattisgarh Police, FIRs by Uttar Pradesh Police, challenges to ED’s ECIRs, and bail rejections.
Counsel argued against parallel probes in Chhattisgarh and UP, raised concerns over selective arrests, and highlighted delays in investigation. The Bench noted misuse of Section 66(2) PMLA, since FIRs were based on the same facts where charge sheets already existed, but refused to quash the ECIR itself.
In its order, the Court:
- Granted ED custody of one respondent for four weeks with directions to cooperate.
- Set aside anticipatory bail for another respondent but allowed an application for regular bail.
- Clarified that earlier interim orders do not invalidate collected evidence.
- Dismissed SLPs seeking further relief.
The Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.
SLP(Crl) No. 6323-6324/2020
READ ORDER HERE
“Karta of a HUF has Discretion to Sell Joint Family Property for Legal Necessities”: Supreme Court
On September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) has broad discretion to sell joint family property to meet legal necessities, and such sales must be evaluated based on facts and circumstances of each case.
A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi heard a coparcener’s challenge against the sale of HUF land by the Karta. The Court overturned the Karnataka High Court’s 2007 judgment, confirming the sale’s validity and the bona fide status of the purchaser.
Key observations:
- Burden of proof lies on the purchaser to show the sale was not for legal necessity, but Section 106 of the Evidence Act prevents forcing them to prove facts within the coparceners’ special knowledge.
- The trial court had correctly held the sale was for family expenses, specifically funding Kashibai’s marriage, constituting a legal necessity.
- The plaintiff’s delay of five years in challenging the sale cast doubt on his credibility.
- The purchaser acted as a man of ordinary prudence, and the sale was conducted for valuable consideration.
The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decision, dismissed the suit, and reinforced that the Karta may act in the family’s interest when meeting legal necessities.
Case Title: Dastagirsab VERSUS Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5340/2017
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Faith Must Not Become a Privilege or Handicap: Supreme Court Orders States & UTs to Frame Rules Within 4 Months
The Supreme Court of India has directed all States and Union Territories to frame and notify rules for the registration of Sikh marriages (Anand Karaj) within four months, ensuring uniform legal recognition.
The order arose from a writ petition under Article 32, seeking operationalisation of Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (as amended in 2012), which mandates maintenance of a marriage register, issuance of certified extracts, and a uniform registration mechanism. The Court noted that while some States had notified rules, many had not, causing unequal access to civil benefits like inheritance, maintenance, insurance, and legal proof.
Key directions:
- States/UTs without rules must notify them within four months; interim registration is allowed under existing frameworks, noting the Anand Karaj rite.
- No duplicate registration: Once registered under the Act, re-registration under another law is not permitted.
- Existing rule-holding States must publish procedures online, issue clarifications, and provide certified extracts.
- Nodal officers must be appointed to monitor compliance and address grievances.
- The Union Government must circulate model rules within two months and submit a consolidated compliance report in six months.
The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, emphasized:
“In a secular republic, the State must not turn a citizen’s faith into either a privilege or a handicap. Recognition without registration machinery is only half the promise kept.”
The ruling ensures that Anand Karaj marriages are uniformly registered, safeguarding the rights of Sikh couples, especially women and children.
Case Title: AMANJOT SINGH CHADHA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 911 OF 2022
READ ORDER HERE
498A FIR Filed 3 Years After Separation Abroad: Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Harassment Case as Abuse of Process
On September 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India quashed a dowry harassment FIR filed nearly a decade ago by Tina Khanna Ahluwalia against her ex-husband, Nitin Ahluwalia, an Australian citizen of Indian origin. The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed his appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s 2017 refusal to quash the FIR.
The dispute arose from a 2010 marriage in Panchkula, followed by relocation to Australia. After marital discord, the wife left for Austria in 2013 with their daughter, prompting foreign custody and divorce proceedings. Both Austrian and Australian courts ruled in the husband’s favour by 2016. The FIR in India was lodged three years after separation, only after foreign courts had decided the case, raising suspicion of mala fide intent.
The Court observed:
- The High Court had adopted a mechanical approach, ignoring context and timing of the FIR.
- Allegations, including child abduction, did not result in charges and appeared misleading.
- India cannot ignore valid foreign court decrees, even though it is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.
- Prolonged hostility between the parents was detrimental to the child.
Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court held that continuing criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process, emphasizing that criminal law must not be misused to settle personal disputes.
Case Title: Nitin Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab & Anr.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 187 OF 2020
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Typographical Error is No Defence, Complaint Invalid if Demand Notice Shows Wrong Cheque Amount: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is invalid if the amount mentioned differs from the cheque amount, even due to a typographical error. The Court emphasized that criminal statutes must be strictly interpreted, leaving no room for flexibility or “substantial compliance.”
The dispute arose from a ₹1 crore cheque issued by Nafto Gaz India to Kaveri Plastics in 2012, which was dishonoured. The complainant issued demand notices mistakenly stating ₹2 crores. The trial court rejected objections, but the Delhi High Court quashed the complaint, holding the notices defective.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, noting:
- The notice must exactly match the cheque amount; any deviation renders it invalid.
- Even repeated or obvious typographical errors cannot be excused, as they create ambiguity.
- Precision in cheque dishonour proceedings is mandatory, and penal provisions require strict compliance.
Justice N.V. Anjaria, speaking for the Bench, stated:
“Even typographical error can be no defence. The error, even if typographical, is fatal to the legality of notice given the need for strict mandatory compliance.”
The Court therefore dismissed Kaveri Plastics’ appeal, reinforcing that Section 138 notices require exact compliance with statutory requirements.
Case Title: KAVERI PLASTICS VERSUS MAHDOOM BAWA BAHRUDEEN NOORUL
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 11184-11185/2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Judicial Decision Does Not Offend Any Fundamental Right”: Supreme Court
On September 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition challenging its earlier judgment upholding the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, reiterating that no judicial decision can violate Fundamental Rights. The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih also imposed ₹1 lakh costs on the petitioners, directing the amount be donated to a society supporting children with cancer.
The petition, filed by the Managing Committee of Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Sk. Mahammad Abdur Rahaman, sought reconsideration of the 2020 ruling that upheld the Act’s validity under Article 30 (minority educational rights). The Supreme Court held the petition “misconceived”, emphasizing that it attempted to re-litigate issues already conclusively decided.
Key observations:
- Reliance on the recent Vasanta Sampat Dupare (2025) case was misplaced, as it dealt with capital punishment, not statutory validity.
- Citing Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1967), the Court affirmed:
“A judicial decision does not offend any Fundamental Right.”
The ruling underscores the finality of judicial decisions and prevents settled matters from being reopened under the guise of Fundamental Rights.
Case Title: The Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah & Anr Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 878 OF 2025
READ ORDER HERE
“Conviction Cannot Stand When Evidence Chain is Incomplete and Motive Unproven, Disclosure Statements Need Scrutiny”: Supreme Court
On September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India acquitted three individuals convicted in a 2006 murder case of a policeman, citing the prosecution’s failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and K. Vinod Chandran overturned the Karnataka High Court and trial court rulings.
The case arose from an alleged murder over a loan dispute. The prosecution claimed that Nagamma (A2), her brother (A3), and her brother-in-law (A4) attacked the deceased with chili powder and choppers at A2’s home. The trial court had convicted them under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, while A1 was acquitted.
The Supreme Court observed major gaps in the prosecution’s case:
- Motive unproven due to contradictory witness statements.
- Recovery of the body and weapon was unreliable.
- Extra-judicial confessions were inadmissible.
The Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was incomplete and insufficient to sustain a conviction:
“The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved, and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused.”
Consequently, the apex court acquitted A2, A3, and A4 and directed their immediate release if not held in any other case.
Case Title: Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. Versus The State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No.425 of 2014
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Allows 2022 MP Civil Judge Recruitment: 3-Year Practice or 70% LL.B Marks in One Attempt Rule Not Applicable
The Supreme Court of India set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s June 13, 2024, order requiring three years of legal practice to qualify for the civil judge (Junior Division) 2022 recruitment. The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar allowed the High Court’s appeal against its own division bench ruling.
The Court held that the 2023 amendment, which mandates three years of practice or at least 70% marks in an LL.B., does not apply to the 2022 recruitment process. Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey argued that re-examining eligibility would be unconstitutional and impractical, potentially opening the door to litigation.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had permitted the High Court to conduct interviews and declare results for the 2022 civil judge exam and stayed the division bench’s order that barred recruitment for candidates not meeting the three-year practice requirement.
The case arose after fresh litigation from unsuccessful candidates who sought review of cut-off marks under the amended rules. The apex court clarified that exceptional law graduates with 70% marks are exempt from the practice requirement, and the June 13 order of the division bench was set aside.
Case Title: High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Jyotsna Dohalia and Anr.
SLP(C) No. 21353/2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
No Separate Notice Needed for SARFAESI Asset Sale: Supreme Court Protects Auction Purchasers
The Supreme Court of India has clarified the interpretation of Rules 8(6), 8(7), and 9(1) of the SARFAESI Rules, 2002, resolving a long-standing debate over whether secured creditors must issue separate notices of sale.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the rules envisage a single composite notice of sale, with differences only in the mode of service—such as personal delivery, affixation, publication, or online upload—not separate notices.
The case arose from a loan default on ₹5 crore cash credit and ₹30 lakh term loan, where the Bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings and sold the mortgaged property through auction. While the DRT upheld the sale, the Madras High Court quashed the sale certificate, prompting the appeal.
The apex court observed that the 30-day requirement between notice and auction applies uniformly, regardless of the method of service. It also clarified that for sales by quotation or private treaty, newspaper publication is not mandatory. Any third-party rights created contrary to this ruling will be null and void.
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and directed that the judgment be circulated to all High Courts and relevant ministries. The ruling provides clarity on SARFAESI sale procedures and calls for legislative amendments to remove existing ambiguities.
Case Title: M. RAJENDRAN & ORS. VERSUS M/S KPK OILS AND PROTIENS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12174 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Baseless Complaint Against Advocate: Supreme Court Fines Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Rs 50,000
The Supreme Court has imposed a ₹50,000 fine on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for pursuing a baseless disciplinary complaint against an advocate. The amount is to be paid to the advocate concerned.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed BCMG’s appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that had stayed disciplinary action.
The complaint, linked to consent terms in a 1985 civil suit, accused the advocate of fraud. However, the High Court found that the complainant was not a party to the original suit and had already contested the consent terms earlier. It ruled that no professional misconduct was made out and criticised the misuse of disciplinary complaints to harass opposing counsel.
Upholding this view, the Supreme Court termed the proceedings unwarranted and ordered costs against BCMG.
Case Title: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and Ors.
SLP(C) No. 27606/2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Pension, Gratuity Cannot Be Withheld for Not Vacating Govt Housing: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that government employees are entitled to their pension, gratuity, and retirement benefits regardless of delays in vacating official accommodation.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the Madhya Pradesh government’s appeal, upholding the High Court’s order directing release of withheld dues with interest.
The case involved Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, whose pension and gratuity were delayed and partially deducted by the department for not vacating his government residence promptly. The High Court had ruled that these deductions were illegal and ordered payment with 6% interest.
The Supreme Court held that retirement benefits are earned rights, not bounties, and cannot be withheld arbitrarily. It clarified that possession of government housing is distinct from entitlement to pension, and there was no fraud or misrepresentation to justify deductions.
The Court directed the department to refund the withheld amounts and pay interest on both the deductions and the delayed pension/gratuity, condemning the attempt to use pensionary benefits as leverage against the employee.
Case Title: PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & ORS. VERSUS SANTOSH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
SLP(C)No. 21625/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Allows Ram Lila in UP School Playground, Halts Allahabad High Court Ban
The Supreme Court of India has stayed the Allahabad High Court’s order banning Ram Lila performances at a school playground in Tundla, Uttar Pradesh.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. Kotiswar Singh clarified that the festival may proceed, provided children continue to have access to play and sports activities.
The controversy arose from a PIL alleging that the school ground was being misused, with permanent modifications like cement tiles and swings being installed, and the main gate renamed as ‘Sita Ram Gate’. The Allahabad High Court had halted the event, citing concerns over converting the playground into a permanent venue.
The Ram Lila organisers defended the event, noting it had been held at the same location for over 100 years and occurred only from 7 PM to 10 PM, without disturbing school activities.
The Supreme Court questioned why the PIL was filed only now, pointing out that neither students nor parents had raised objections. It directed the High Court to hear all concerned parties before passing any final order.
The ruling allows Ram Lila celebrations to continue while ensuring that children’s right to use the playground is not impeded.
The Supreme Court of India has stayed the Allahabad High Court’s order banning Ram Lila performances at a school playground in Tundla, Uttar Pradesh.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. Kotiswar Singh clarified that the festival may proceed, provided children continue to have access to play and sports activities.
The controversy arose from a PIL alleging that the school ground was being misused, with permanent modifications like cement tiles and swings being installed, and the main gate renamed as ‘Sita Ram Gate’. The Allahabad High Court had halted the event, citing concerns over converting the playground into a permanent venue.
The Ram Lila organisers defended the event, noting it had been held at the same location for over 100 years and occurred only from 7 PM to 10 PM, without disturbing school activities.
The Supreme Court questioned why the PIL was filed only now, pointing out that neither students nor parents had raised objections. It directed the High Court to hear all concerned parties before passing any final order.
The ruling allows Ram Lila celebrations to continue while ensuring that children’s right to use the playground is not impeded.
Case Title: SHREE NAGAR RAM LILA MAHOTSAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS
Diary No.55261/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Allows Parents to Evict Children from Property If They Neglect Them
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that adult children who neglect their elderly parents can be evicted from their property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that Maintenance Tribunals have the authority to order eviction when children fail in their statutory duty to care for senior citizens. The decision came on a plea by an 80-year-old man and his 78-year-old wife, whose eldest son had denied them access to their Mumbai properties after they relocated to Uttar Pradesh.
Earlier, the Tribunal had ordered the son to pay Rs 3,000 monthly maintenance and vacate the property, a decision upheld by the Appellate Authority. The Bombay High Court had overturned the eviction, claiming the son was also a senior citizen. The Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, noting the son was 59 years old, and restored the eviction order.
The Court directed the son to submit an undertaking to vacate the premises by November 30, 2025, reinforcing the rights of senior citizens and the powers of Tribunals to protect elderly parents against neglect while ensuring access to their property.
Case Title: Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and others
DIARY NO.42786/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Urges Day-to-Day Trials to Fast-Track Justice in Criminal Cases
The Supreme Court of India has directed all High Courts to issue circulars to their respective District Judiciaries, mandating speedy and day-to-day conduct of trials and inquiries, especially in sensitive cases.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, while hearing a CBI plea against bail granted to a rape accused, expressed concern over trial delays caused by adjournments, piecemeal witness examinations, and non-cooperation by lawyers.
The Court revived the earlier practice of continuous trials, stressing that adjournments should be granted only for exceptional reasons, not lawyer convenience. It also empowered courts to impose costs, cancel bail for non-cooperation, or appoint amicus curiae if defence counsel delays proceedings.
Key directions include:
- Trials to proceed day-to-day once witness examination begins.
- Witnesses present must be examined without adjournments.
- Trial judges should scrutinize the necessity of multiple witnesses to avoid delay.
- Public Prosecutors must ensure only relevant witnesses are examined.
Reiterating that the right to a speedy trial is part of Article 21, the Court emphasized that fairness and efficiency must go hand in hand. In the present case, it ordered the trial court to complete proceedings and deliver judgment by December 31, 2025.
Case Title: The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 969/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Upholds JSW’s Investments in BPSL: CCDs Issued by SRA Are to Be Treated as Equity
The Supreme Court has upheld JSW Steel’s ₹19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL), dismissing appeals that sought to contest it.
A Bench led by CJI BR Gavai, with Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vinod Chandran, ruled that delays in implementation were not due to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) or JSW, and reiterated that commercial wisdom of CoC cannot be interfered with. The Court also clarified that Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) issued by JSW must be treated as equity.
The Court observed that JSW had made substantial investments to revive BPSL and should not be penalized, stressing that reopening settled claims would undermine the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) framework.
This verdict follows the Court’s earlier May 2, 2025 ruling, which had struck down the plan and ordered liquidation. However, that decision was withdrawn on July 31, 2025, after the Court acknowledged errors in applying IBC principles.
Case Title: Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel Limited & Ors
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1808 OF 2020
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Against Govt Servant: Afterthought and Vengeance
The Supreme Court on September 22, 2025, quashed an FIR and chargesheet against Assistant Revenue Inspector Suresh Khawse, accused of raping a colleague.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh held that the FIR was an “afterthought” and a tool for vengeance, as it was filed only after the complainant faced a show-cause notice following Khawse’s earlier complaints against her.
The Court noted that the parties had a five-year consensual relationship and that the allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage were raised months later, casting doubt on their credibility.
Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023), the Court ruled that continuation of proceedings would be a misuse of criminal law.
Accordingly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated January 27, 2025, was set aside, and the FIR and chargesheet against Khawse were quashed.
Case Title: Surendra Khawse Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr
Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 3361 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Vague & General Allegations Cannot Warrant Prosecution Against In-Laws: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India quashed FIR No. 20 of 2022 and criminal proceedings against the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of a complainant, ruling that the allegations were vague, general, and did not establish a prima facie case under Sections 498-A, 377, and 506 IPC.
The bench of CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that continuing proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, overturning the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
The case arose from a complaint alleging dowry demands and mental harassment by the husband’s family. The Court noted that most allegations were general, Sections 377 and 506 did not apply to the appellants, and no grave cruelty was established under Section 498-A.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and charges against the in-laws, while proceedings against the husband will continue.
Case Title: Sanjay D. Jain & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.12584 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Husbands and Mothers-in-Law Fear False Complaints; Section 498A IPC Often Misused: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused under Section 498A IPC for alleged dowry harassment, holding that the FIR contained vague and unsubstantiated allegations.
The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan observed that the FIR made generalized claims without specifying instances of harassment, noting a growing misuse of anti-dowry provisions against husbands and their families.
The case arose after the complainant filed an FIR in Meerut alleging harassment, forced signing of consent letters, and physical injury due to dowry demands. The Allahabad High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR, citing a prima facie case.
The Supreme Court found no specific act implicating the appellant under Sections 323 or 498A IPC and emphasized mediation between the parties to resolve disputes amicably. The judgment reinforces that vague, omnibus allegations cannot sustain criminal proceedings and highlights the need to prevent misuse of anti-dowry laws.
Case Title: Shobhit Kumar Mittal versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4069 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Nationwide Consolidation of FIRs Not Permissible Unless From Same Incident: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India ruled that FIRs registered in different States cannot be consolidated, allowing clubbing only when multiple FIRs arise from the same incident or transaction.
A bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed petitions by the management and partners of a firm facing FIRs across Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan, alleging diversion of investor funds. The Court noted that each FIR involved different victims, evidence, and state-specific laws, making nationwide consolidation impractical.
However, the Court permitted clubbing of FIRs within the same State, directing transfers where necessary—for example, FIRs in Telangana and Maharashtra were consolidated locally. It also clarified that prayers to consolidate future FIRs or across States were overambitious and illegal.
The judgment emphasized that trials require witnesses from various locations, and defendants must bear travel and accommodation costs if FIRs are transferred. Bail was granted to petitioners in custody, while those with pending warrants were given six months of protection to cooperate with investigations.
Case Title: Odela Satyam & Anr. Versus The State of Telangana & Ors.
Diary No.26673 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Orders Judicial Training for Two Delhi Judges Over Flawed Bail: We Would Be Failing in Our Duty if We Turned a Blind Eye
The Supreme Court of India criticized the grant of bail to a couple accused of defrauding a company of over Rs.6 crore, observing that the lower courts had ignored prior misconduct and established legal principles.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti annulled the bail orders of the ACMM, Sessions Judge, and Delhi High Court, directing the accused to surrender within two weeks. The Court emphasized that bail must be granted based on facts and conduct, not mechanical reasoning.
The Court also ordered seven days of training at the Delhi Judicial Academy for the judicial officers involved and mandated a departmental probe into the investigating officer, citing lapses in the investigation.
The case involved allegations that the accused took Rs.1.9 crore for land transfers and failed to repay, with total dues exceeding ₹6 crore. The Supreme Court highlighted procedural irregularities and stressed accountability while upholding judicial discipline.
Case Title: M/S Netsity Systems Pvt Ltd. vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4283 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Motor Accident Compensation Survives to Legal Heirs Even if Victim Dies from Unrelated Causes: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India on September 26, 2025, ruled that claims for motor accident compensation survive in favor of legal representatives, even if the victim dies from causes unrelated to the accident.
A bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria decided the appeal of Dhannalal Alias Dhanraj (deceased), clarifying that the 2022 amendment to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ensures such rights survive to heirs regardless of the cause of death.
The Court reassessed compensation, fixing the monthly income at ₹9,000, applying an 11-year multiplier, and allowing 25% for future prospects, ultimately awarding ₹20,37,095 with 9% interest.
This judgment reinforces the rights of heirs to continue personal injury claims and confirms that death unrelated to the accident does not extinguish such claims.
Case Title: Dhannalal Alias Dhanraj (Dead) Thr LRs Vs Nasir Khan and Ors.
Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Read More Reports On the Supreme Court
Read More Reports On Monthly Recap
