A Year in Review: Supreme Court’s Top 10 Rulings of 2025
A year-end selection of the Supreme Court’s most important rulings of 2025, reflecting its role in shaping law, rights and governance
Ten landmark judgments through which the Supreme Court addressed some of the most pressing legal, institutional and constitutional questions of 2025.
1. Lawyers Can Be Summoned Only in Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court
[In re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues]
Constitutional Law - Administration of Justice - Independence of the Bar - Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Advocates - Professional Privilege - Fair Investigation - The Supreme Court laid down authoritative safeguards governing the summoning of advocates by investigative agencies, holding that lawyers who provide legal opinions or represent clients during investigations cannot be routinely summoned for questioning. The ruling reinforces the principle that the right to legal representation is intrinsic to a fair criminal process and that advocates cannot be converted into witnesses merely because their advice later becomes inconvenient for the prosecution.
2. ‘Largely Unprotected’: Supreme Court Asks Centre to Consider Legal Framework for Domestic Workers
[Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.]
Constitutional Law - Social Justice - Labour Law - Unorganised Sector - Gender Justice - Directive Principles of State Policy - Right to Dignity - The Top Court noted that domestic workers, predominantly women and migrants, remain excluded from the core framework of labour protections governing wages, working hours, social security and grievance redressal. Observing that existing welfare schemes and fragmented State-level measures fail to provide comprehensive protection, the Court urged the Union Government to actively consider a dedicated legal framework for domestic workers.
3. Govt Must Ensure PwBD Benefits to PwD in Writing Exams: SC to Centre
[Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.]
Constitutional Law - Disability Rights - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Education - Reasonable Accommodation - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Supreme Court reaffirmed that statutory benefits meant for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) in competitive and academic examinations cannot be diluted or denied to eligible persons with disabilities (PwD) through administrative indifference or inconsistent implementation. The Court emphasised that reasonable accommodation is not a concession but a legal right flowing from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
4. Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Minimum Practice Rule for Judicial Services; Mandates Uniform Reforms Across States
[All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]
Constitutional Law - Judicial Independence - Subordinate Judiciary - Recruitment to Judicial Services - Minimum Bar Practice - Institutional Capacity of Courts - Uniform Service Conditions - In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court restored the requirement of a minimum of three years practice at the Bar for eligibility to judicial services, reversing earlier dilution of the rule. The Court held that prior exposure to court practice is essential for ensuring judicial competence, courtroom efficiency, and institutional credibility at the grassroots level of the justice system.
5. Governors’ Assent Is Not an Empty Formality: Supreme Court on Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills
[In re: Assent, withholding or reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India]
Constitutional Law - Federalism - Legislative Process - Role of Governor and President - Articles 200 & 201 - Constitutional Morality - Limits of Judicial Intervention - The Supreme Court delivered an important constitutional ruling clarifying the scope and nature of the powers exercised by Governors and the President while granting, withholding, or reserving assent to Bills passed by State legislatures; It rejected the notion that assent is a mere formality, holding instead that it is a constitutional function involving discretion, responsibility, and accountability under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
6. Supreme Court Sets Up National Task Force to Prevent Student Suicides in Higher Educational Institutions
[Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]
Constitutional Law - Right to Life - Mental Health - Education Law - Institutional Accountability - Preventive Frameworks - State Obligation - Recognising student suicides as a serious and recurring public health and human rights concern, the Supreme Court constituted a National Task Force to frame a structured, institutional response to mental health crises in higher educational institutions. The Court observed that the increasing incidence of student suicides reflects systemic failures in academic environments, including excessive pressure, lack of grievance redressal mechanisms, social isolation, and inadequate mental health support.
7. Stamp Vendors Perform Vital Public Duty, Qualify as Public Servants: Supreme Court
[Aman Bhatia Vs State (GNCT Of Delhi)]
Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Public Servants - Statutory Functions - Public Duty - Accountability in Revenue Administration - The Supreme Court held that licensed stamp vendors perform a vital public function within the statutory framework governing revenue collection and documentation and therefore qualify as “public servants” for the purposes of anti corruption laws. The Court rejected the argument that stamp vendors operate merely as private traders, noting that their appointment, regulation, pricing, and duties are tightly controlled by the State.
8. SC Confirms Two-Month ‘Cooling-Off’ Safeguards Before Arrest in Section 498A IPC Cases
[Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal]
Criminal Law - Section 498A IPC - Arrest Safeguards - Family Welfare Committees - Misuse Prevention - Procedural Fairness - Matrimonial Disputes - The Supreme Court upheld and endorsed the Allahabad High Court’s 2022 guidelines introducing procedural safeguards to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives. The top court held that no arrest should be made for at least two months after lodging a Section 498A FIR, effectively institutionalising a “cooling-off period” designed to avert precipitous police action that can escalate matrimonial discord.
9. SC Affirms Reproductive Autonomy: Maternity Leave Granted to Remarried Woman for First Child of New Union
[K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]
Constitutional and Labour Law - Gender Equality - Reproductive Autonomy - Maternity Benefits - Service Conditions - Right to Life and Personal Liberty - Discrimination on Grounds of Marital Status - The Supreme Court, in a significant affirmation of reproductive autonomy and gender justice, held that women are entitled to maternity benefits for the first child of their new marital union, even if they have been previously married. The Court observed that maternity leave and related benefits are not contingent on the continuity of marital status but flow from the biological and social reality of childbirth. Relying on principles of equality, non-discrimination and the right to life and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the Court underscored that denying maternity leave to a remarried woman on the basis of her past marital history constitutes impermissible discrimination.
10. An Advocate-on-Record Cannot Merely Lend Their Name; Professional Responsibility Is Non-Delegable
[Jitender @ Kalla v. State (NCT of Delhi)]
Legal Ethics - Advocates-on-Record - Professional Responsibility - Abuse of Process - Duty to the Court - Standards of Legal Practice - The Advocates Act, 1961 - The Top Court delivered a stern reminder on the role and responsibilities of an Advocate-on-Record (AOR), holding that an AOR cannot function as a mere name-lender while allowing pleadings, filings, or litigation strategy to be entirely controlled by others. The Court emphasised that the AOR system is designed to ensure accountability, ethical conduct, and institutional discipline before the Court, not to serve as a formalistic endorsement mechanism.