Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [August 25-31, 2025]

1. [Child Rape-Murder Case] The Supreme Court allowed a writ petition filed by death row convict Vasanta Sampat Dupare, reopening his sentencing in light of the Constitution Bench ruling in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), which laid down mandatory safeguards in capital punishment cases. Dupare, convicted for the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl, had approached the Court under Article 32 seeking reconsideration of mitigating factors despite his death sentence having attained finality. “The corrective power under Article 32 is invoked to ensure that a person is not deprived of his fundamental right to equal treatment by being denied the rigorous safeguards required at the sentencing stage,” the Court observed.
Case Title: Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Anr.
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

2. [India's Got Latent Controversy] The Supreme Court pulled up Comedian Samay Raina and others over the apology submitted by them for allegedly mocking persons with disabilities. "The apology must always be proportional to the disrespect caused..", Justice Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court said. Justice Kant further observed, "Today we have an unfortunate case of disabled, tomorrow it can be women, then children then senior citizens...where this society will land..". With this view the bench has directed the respondent comedians before it to tender unconditional apology on their YouTube channels. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, also on the bench, said that these so called influencers were commercializing speech and that was affecting the community at large.
Case Title: M/S. Cure SMA Foundation of India vs. Union of India & Ors
Bench: Justices Kant and Bagchi
Click here to read more

3. [Ecological crisis in Himachal Pradesh] Supreme Court took up a suo motu matter concerning the ecological imbalance in Himachal Pradesh, where it had earlier sounded a stark warning that the State may “vanish into thin air” if immediate remedial measures were not undertaken. A 65-page report, has been filed before court comprehensively dealing with various aspects of environmental degradation, including deforestation, landslides, and unregulated construction. Justice Nath, while noting the report, observed that the Court would require independent assistance in addressing the wider environmental concerns raised in the suo motu proceedings. “We will consider and appoint somebody to help us,” the Bench remarked, indicating its intention to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the Court.
Case Title: In Re: Issues Relating to Ecology and Environmental Conditions Prevailing in the State of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

4. [Nimisha Priya] The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL filed by activist Dr. KA Paul seeking a media gag order in the case concerning Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, who is facing the death penalty in Yemen for an alleged murder. Priya, convicted by a Yemeni court, was scheduled for execution on July 16, 2025. Her execution was stayed on July 15 until further orders. Appearing in person, Dr. KA Paul argued that Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteed the right to life of Nimisha Priya, an Indian citizen, and sought directions restraining anyone other than the Government of India from making media statements.
Case Title: Dr. KA Paul@ Kilari Anand Paul v. Union of India and Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council v. UOI & Ors.
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

5. [Operation Sindoor] The Supreme Court was informed that a closure report has been filed in one of the FIRs filed against Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, over his social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'. Regarding the other FIR, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was told by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju that a chargesheet has been filed and same was handed over to court. The court passed an order barring the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the chargesheet filed in pursuance of the second FIR. This was after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, told the bench that it was "unfortunate" that the Haryana police invoked Section 152 for social media comments.
Case Title: MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD @ ALI KHAN MAHMUDABAD vs. STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

6. [Vantara] Supreme Court on August 25, 2025, constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice Jasti Chelameswar to conduct a fact finding inquiry into allegations of unlawful procurement of animals, mistreatment in captivity, financial irregularities, and money laundering concerning Vantara Centre in Jamnagar, Gujarat. The petitions alleged large-scale acquisition of animals from India and abroad, violations of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, non-compliance with CITES norms, and misuse of resources such as water and carbon credits. The Court noted that the accusations extended beyond the private respondent to include statutory authorities like the Central Zoo Authority, the CITES Management Authority, and even courts.
Case Title: C R Jaya Sukin v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale
Click here to read more

7. [Scope of Review] Supreme Court has held that criminal courts are barred from altering or reviewing their own judgments except for narrowly defined statutory exceptions. The Court emphasized that this prohibition under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) remains absolute, notwithstanding the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. Court has observed that once a criminal court has signed its judgment or final order, it becomes functus officio, leaving no scope to revisit the matter except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or when explicitly provided under law.
Case Title: Vikram Bakshi and Others v. R.P. Khosla and Another
Bench: Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
Click here to read more

8. [Attempt to influence NCLAT judge] In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court ordered an inquiry into a startling disclosure made by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Judicial Member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai. Justice Sharma revealed that he had been approached by “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary of this country” to deliver a favourable order in an insolvency case. The Apex Court directed its Secretary General to conduct the probe to ascertain the identity of the judge; whether from the Supreme Court or a High Court, who allegedly attempted to influence the outcome.
Click here to read more

9. [Age of Consent] In a searing affidavit before the Supreme Court, a survivor of sex trafficking has recounted her years of brutal exploitation inside Delhi’s GB Road brothels, urging the judiciary not to dilute child protection laws by reducing the age of consent from 18 to 16 years. In her affidavit, annexed to an intervention application filed by an NGO, she narrates how she was sold into prostitution and forced to endure years of repeated sexual violence, torture with cigarette burns, and relentless beatings. “Only a girl of 15-16 years can understand the pain of being abused inside a brothel,” she states, describing her life at the time as “hell".
Case Title: In Re Assessment Of The Criminal Justice System In Response To Sexual Offences tagged with Nipun Saxena vs Union of India
Click here to read more

10. [Section 152 BNS] The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea by senior journalist Abhisar Sharma, who has challenged the constitutionality of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, widely described as the successor to the colonial-era sedition law under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Court heard the petition moved under Article 32 of the Constitution, which arose out of an FIR lodged against Sharma in connection with a YouTube video questioning the allotment of 3,000 bighas of tribal land to a private entity. The video reportedly flagged concerns relating to tribal rights, environmental degradation, and democratic accountability, citing recent proceedings before the Guwahati High Court.
Case Title: Abhisar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh
Click here to read more

11. [PIL] The Supreme Court has recently, issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), by a parent-led support group, working for the rights of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder alleging institutional neglect, systemic apathy, and failure of the State in upholding its constitutional and statutory obligations towards persons with neurodivergent conditions, including Autism, Dyslexia, and ADHD. The petition, filed by the group Action for Autism (AFA), sought immediate judicial intervention to address glaring lapses in the implementation of The National Trust Act, 1999, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and related legislations. It urged the Court to direct urgent reforms to safeguard the dignity and rights of persons with mental illness, autism, and other neurodevelopmental disabilities.
Case Title: Action for Autism vs. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan
Click here to read more

12. [Child Abuse] The Supreme Court on August 26, 2025 held that a simple blow with a school bag, without any evidence of deliberate or sustained maltreatment, does not constitute “child abuse” under the Goa Children’s Act, 2003. Court observed that the offence of child abuse necessarily presupposes an intention to cause harm, cruelty, exploitation, or ill-treatment directed towards a child in a manner exceeding a mere incidental or momentary act during a quarrel. “To invoke penal consequences of such a serious offence in the absence of clear intention or conduct indicative of abuse would amount to an unwarranted expansion of the provision,” the bench said.
Case Title: Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar vs. The State of Goa
Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

13. [Video Recording of Courts] A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking urgent reforms to end what it describes as the “ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants” and the “discriminatory and unjust practices prevailing in courts across the country.” The plea filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara and others calls for mandatory video recording of proceedings in all courts and tribunals in India, preservation of such records, and access to them as a matter of right for litigants, lawyers, and stakeholders.
Case Title: Shri Mathews J Nedumpara & Ors. v. The Supreme Court of India & Ors.
Click here to read more

14. [Presidential Reference] The Central government has told the Supreme Court that matters closely linked with high policy or political discretion, should be considered non-justiciable as it may require choices for which there exists no clear legal standards. In an additional note submitted by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the special reference case before the Supreme Court, the distinction between judicial review and justiciability has been relied upon. A five judge bench has been told that question of justiciability is a self-imposed limitation exercised as a matter of caution and judicial statesmanship, especially while dealing with co-ordinate constitutional authorities and organs.
Case Title: In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India
Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar
Click here to read more

15. [Two New SC judges sworn in] The Supreme Court held the swearing in ceremony for Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi. Recently the Central government had cleared their names for appointment as Supreme Court judges. The recommendation has been in the spotlight for the past few days owing to a dissent over the elevation of Justice Pancholi, by Justice BV Nagarathna. Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented from the collegium’s recommendation to elevate Justice Pancholi to the Supreme Court. The recommendation by a 4-1 majority of the collegium led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, saw Justice Nagarathna as the sole dissenter. Her objection has placed the spotlight on the principle of seniority in judicial elevations.
Click here to read more

16. [Bihar SIR] The Supreme Court agreed to hear on September 1 the plea filed by the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) seeking an extension of time for filing claims and objections in the ongoing voter registration process in Bihar. Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter before a Bench led by Justice Surya Kant, requesting a one-week extension of the current September 1 deadline. Justice Surya Kant questioned why the plea was not first taken to the Election Commission. Bhushan responded that while the parties had approached the Commission, it had refused to grant any extension.
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

17. [Ram Setu] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed by BJP leader and former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy seeking directions to the Union Ministry of Culture to expeditiously decide his representations urging the declaration of the Ram Setu (Adam’s Bridge) as a monument of national importance. Court had earlier granted liberty to Dr. Swamy to submit additional material and had observed that the Court be apprised of the decision taken by the Government. However, Dr. Swamy now contends that no response or update has been furnished either to him or the Court since then, prompting the present Public Interest Litigation.
Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India & Others
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

18. [Bhima Koregaon] Supreme Court has agreed to list next week the bail plea filed by Surendra Gadling, accused in the Bhima Koregoan Elghar Parishad Violence case of 2018. Gadling had also moved the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of the default bail by the Special Court. He accused of providing aid to the Maoists and allegedly conspiring with various co-accused, including the ones absconding in the case. He was booked under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and the IPC and the prosecution claimed Gadling provided secret information about government activities and maps of certain areas to underground Maoist rebels.
Case Title: Surendra Gadling vs State of Maharashtra
Bench: CJI Gavai, Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Alok Aradhe
Click here to read more

19. [Arun Gawli] The Supreme Court has granted bail to gangster Arun Gawli in the 2007 murder of Mumbai Shiv Sena corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar. "We have been informed that the appellants have been incarcerated for nearly 18 years. Taking into consideration that the appellants have been incarcerated for a period of almost 18 years, we are inclined to grant bail to them. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeals, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court", a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh ordered.
Case Title: ARUN GULAB GAWALI vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Bench: Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh
Click here to read more

20. [ST Status] Supreme Court has issued notice in plea challenging the Telangana High Court’s December 17, 2024 decision that disposed of their plea questioning the Scheduled Tribes status granted to Lambadi, Sugali, and Banjara communities. The petitioner, belonging to the Koya tribe; a constitutionally recognized Scheduled Tribe, had originally filed a writ petition in 2016 under Article 226 seeking to declare the inclusion of these communities as unconstitutional. The Telangana High Court, relying on an earlier 2018 judgment in W.P. No. 21254 of 2018, had directed the petitioners to approach the Central Government with their grievance. That 2018 judgment is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 17519/2018 (Gondwana Welfare Society v. State of Telangana), in which notice has been issued and leave granted.
Case Title: Tellam Venkata Rao v. Union of India
Bench: Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Ajay Bishnoi
Click here to read more

21. [Bangladeshi Migrants] Supreme Court heard a petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board challenging the detention and deportation of Bengali-speaking migrant workers across states. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, opposing the plea, said the issue was not about individual hardship but about a much larger threat. “This is systematic infiltration. Agents are facilitating illegal entry. Several terrorist organisations have infiltrated,” he submitted, adding that illegal immigrants were consuming resources meant for Indian citizens.
Case Title: West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board v. Union of India
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi
Click here to read more

22. [POSH Act] A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 seeking application of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) on lawyers. The plea filed by Seema Joshi, also challenges the Bombay High Court ruling that the provisions of the POSH Act do not apply to advocates, as there is no employer-employee relationship between Bar Councils and members of the legal profession. Relying on the decision in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India wherein Supreme Court had itself directed the BCI to ensure the implementation of the Vishaka guidelines, meant to curb sexual harassment in the workplace, across all Bar bodies, the plea argues that by ignoring this binding precedent, the Bombay High Court's ruling is per incuriam.
Case Title: SEEMA JOSHI vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Bench: Justices Nagarathna and Mahadevan
Click here to read more

23. [J&K Ban on books] The Supreme Court disposed of a public interest litigation challenging the Jammu and Kashmir government’s notification declaring 25 books “forfeited” on grounds of promoting secessionism and threatening India’s sovereignty, holding that the matter should be pursued before the High Court. The Bench requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a three-judge bench presided over by him to hear the matter and decide it at the earliest. The Court made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Shakir Shabir v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi
Click here to read more

24. [Tadipatri Clash Row] The Supreme Court has kept in abeyance an August 20 interim order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s division bench, which had suspended a single-judge ruling directing security arrangements for former YSR Congress Party MLA Kethireddy Pedda Reddy to visit his residence in Tadipatri. Pedda, who lost the 2024 assembly elections to senior TDP leader J.C. Prabhakar Reddy, has been unable to return to his hometown amid alleged political clashes following the results.
Case Title: Kethireddy Pedda Reddy v. P. Jagadeesh
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

25. [DNA evidence] In a significant ruling on August 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction of two men who had been sentenced for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh back in 2012. The Court held that the prosecution’s failure to produce proper forensic evidence, particularly regarding DNA reports, fatally weakened the case. Court acquitted the accused, Putai (who had been given the death penalty by a trial court) and Dileep (sentenced to life imprisonment). Their appeals were allowed against a 2018 Allahabad High Court judgment, which had earlier upheld the trial court’s verdict from 2014.
Case Title: Putai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

26. [Black Money] A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to frame comprehensive rules for the registration and regulation of political parties. The petitioner has argued that unchecked proliferation of parties without statutory regulation has turned them into vehicles for money laundering, corruption, and criminalisation of politics.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read more