Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [November 24-30, 2025]

1. [Plea to remove judge's husband from Standing counsel post] The Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal filed against a Allahabad High Court order refusing to oust from office the Law Officer of the State (Standing Counsel, Government of U.P.). In May, the Allahabad High Court had rejected a petition seeking the ouster of Justice Sangeeta Chandra’s husband Sandeep Chandra from the post of Standing Counsel, Government of Uttar Pradesh. When the matter was taken up, CJI Surya Kant said, "There are some issues to be handled on the administrative side. Please do not name anyone or target anyone".
Click here to read more

2. [Political Funding] A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking direction that political parties must disclose the name and all other particulars of the person paying any amount of money to it and no amount can be received in cash so as to maintain transparency in the political funding. "The voters have right to information of all the amounts received by the political parties to enable them to cast their votes with full knowledge of the donors and their antecedents. It is only if the voters have information as to the persons who are financing the political party, they would be able to cast their votes rationally and intelligently. The voters have the right to the disclosure of all the information about the political parties which would include the details of the donors before choosing a political party for whom he/ she should cast their vote", the plea filed through Advocate Jayesh Unnikrishnan states.
Case Title: DR. KHEM SINGH BHATI vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OFINDIA AND OTHERS
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

3. [Custodial deaths] The Supreme Court granted three weeks' time to the Union government and the states for filing compliance affidavit in the suo motu case initiated by the court on the issue of CCTVs in police stations. "We have perused the tabulation chart by the amicus. We find that only 11 states have filed their compliance affidavit. Request has been made by Solicitor General that 3 weeks' time may be granted within which compliance affidavit may be filed. We grant 3 week's time to the states also who have not filed. List again on December 16. If they are not filed by the next date, Principal Secretaries of the department of home shall remain present before this court along with their respective explanations", a Justice Vikram Nath led bench has ordered.
Case Title: In Re: Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

4. [Dismissal of Christian Officer] The Supreme Court upheld the termination of a Christian Army officer who refused to participate in regimental religious parades, observing that courts cannot second-guess the Army’s decisions, which require higher standards of discipline. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi confirmed the Delhi High Court's decision which noted that, “It is for the military leadership to decide what is necessary to motivate and command troops.”
Case Title: SAMUEL KAMALESAN vs UNION OF INDIA
Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi
Click here to read more

5. [Child Abuse in ISKCON run schools] The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking probe into alleged instances of sexual abuse in schools run by International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan instead asked the petitioner before it to approach the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights with their grievances. Court directed that if such representations are made to the state child rights commissions in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, the same shall be considered in a reasonable time.
Case Title: RAJNEESH KAPUR vs. UNION OF INDIA
Bench: Justices Nagarathna and Mahadevan
Click here to read more

6. [Women Representation in Bar Councils] The Supreme Court has issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking directions to ensure proportional representation of women, queer persons, persons with disabilities, and lawyers from marginalized communities in the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils. The petitioner, Advocate Yogamaya MG has contended in the PIL that despite the Advocates Act, 1961 being in force for over six decades, there has been no legislative or policy intervention to address the “gross underrepresentation” of women and other marginalized groups in these statutory bodies.
Case Title: Yogamaya MG v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

7. [Online Gaming Act] The Union government has told the Supreme Court that unregulated real-money online gaming has evolved into a high-risk ecosystem linked to terror financing, money laundering and rising cases of suicides, estimating that Indians collectively lose nearly Rs 20,000 crore every year on such platforms. The submission came in a detailed affidavit responding to constitutional challenges to the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, filed by major industry players including Head Digital Works Pvt Ltd.
Case Title: Head Digital Works Private Limited v. Union of India
Click here to read more

8. [India's Got Latent Controversy] The Supreme Court has directed Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Ghai, Sonali Thakker and Nishant Tanwar to persuade and invite specially abled persons on their platforms to promote the cause of generating funds to provide timely treatment to specially abled including those suffering from SMA. A CJI Surya Kant led bench was hearing a petition filed by NGO Cure SMA Foundation seeking regulation of online content & action against Comedian Samay Raina & others for allegedly mocking persons with disabilities.
Case Title: M/S. Cure SMA Foundation of India vs. Union of India & Ors
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi
Click here to read more

9. [Overturning of Judgments] The Supreme Court on November 26, 2025 expressed concern over a growing trend in the apex court wherein verdicts pronounced by judges are being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of litigants attempting to reopen settled Supreme Court verdicts. Court observed thus while dismissing a plea by West Bengal murder-accused Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman seeking relaxation of a bail condition that restricts him to the city of Kolkata.
Case Title: Sk Md Anisur Rahaman Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih
Click here to read more

10. [TDP double murder case] The Supreme Court severely criticised YSRCP leader and former MLA Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy and his brother Pinnelli Venkatarami Reddy for obtaining access to the case diary in the double murder case involving two Telugu Desam Party (TDP) workers. The Bench questioned how the accused managed to procure such sensitive investigation material at this stage of the probe. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the anticipatory bail pleas and expressed strong displeasure over what it termed a clear instance of tampering.
Case Title: Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another connected matter 
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

11. [Menstruation Verification of Workers] The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking binding, nationwide guidelines to protect the privacy, dignity, bodily autonomy and health of women who are menstruating or facing gynaecological issues at workplaces and educational institutions. The SCBA moved the Court after disturbing reports surfaced from Maharshi Dayanand University in Haryana, where women sanitation workers were allegedly subjected to humiliating physical checks to determine whether they were on their periods.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr.
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan
Click here to read more

12. [Maharashtra Local Body Polls] The Supreme Court allowed the local body elections in Maharashtra can proceed as scheduled but that the poll results will be subject to the final verdict in the case. Maharashtra’s decision to implement a fresh OBC reservation matrix for local body elections based on the Banthia Commission’s findings has been challenged before the Supreme Court. "The elections of the Nagar Panchayats and Municipal Corporations shall take place. However, the result of 40 Municipal Corporations and 17 Nagar Panchayats shall be subject to the final outcome..", a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi ordered.
Case Title: Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

13. [Hindu Personal Laws] The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a petition filed by Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee seeking to amend the constitutional provisions and certain personal laws allegedly against Buddhist beliefs. Additionally, a CJI Surya Kant led bench has requested the Law Commission of India to consider the petition as a representation of the Buddhist Trust against certain personal Hindu laws, alleging that they are against their fundamental rights, including freedom to practice religion. "You are wanting a court mandamus to amend the constitution and personal laws? Where have you approached the government authority? You want us to consider Kesavananda Bharati now and amend basic structure also..", CJI Surya Kant observed as the plea was taken up.
Click here to read more

14. [Kerala VC Appointments] The Kerala Governor has approached the Supreme Court alleging that the Chief Minister forwarded only “incomplete records” relating to the appointment of Vice Chancellors for APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology, making it impossible for him to act on the recommendations of the Justice (retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia Committee. The application, filed through AoR Venkita Subramoniam TR in the pending Special Leave Petitions challenging the Kerala High Court’s July 14, 2025 judgment, asserts that the Supreme Court’s August 18 direction; requiring the Chief Minister to transmit the entire set of documents relied upon by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, has not been followed.
Case Title: The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Click here to read more

15. [WBSSC Recruitment Scam] The Supreme Court has disposed of a batch of special leave petitions arising from the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) appointments litigation, directing all petitioners to approach the Calcutta High Court, which is already examining the matter in a pending writ petition. The Bench of Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe noted that W.P.A. 26288/2025 is being heard by a single judge of the Calcutta High Court, who has already flagged multiple issues in orders dated November 7, 11, 12 and 19, 2025.
Case Title: Bibek Paria & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 
Bench: Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe
Click here to read more

16. [Uttar Pradesh SIR] The Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) Azad Trust has approached the Supreme Court seeking a three-month extension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls underway in Uttar Pradesh, warning that the current four-week timeline is “administratively impossible” for a state with over 15.35 crore voters. The Petitioner emphasised that the challenge is not to the SIR itself, but only to the compressed time frame which, it argues, risks widespread and arbitrary disenfranchisement.
Case Title: Bharatiya Kisan Union Azad Trust v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Click here to read more

17. [Female Genital Mutilation] The Supreme Court on issued notice in a newly filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) within the muslim community, calling it an “inhuman, discriminatory and unconstitutional” ritual that violates the fundamental rights of minor girls. The petition, filed by Chetna Welfare Society, through AoR Sadhana Sandhu urges the Court to frame binding guidelines and acknowledge the urgent need for legal and judicial reform to curb the practice. According to the petition, the ritual; referred to as khatna or khafd, involves cutting a part of the clitoral hood of girls, typically around the age of seven, with the stated objective of curbing sexual desire. The petitioner describes it as a deep-rooted custom followed for over 500 years within the community, despite its lack of sanction in the Quran and opposition from many Islamic scholars worldwide.
Case Title: Chetan Welfare Society (Regd.) v. Union of India & Anr.
Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan
Click here to read more