Supreme Court Weekly Updates [August 11-17, 2025]

1. [Talaq-e-Hasan] Supreme Court has said it will hear the petitions to declare the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extrajudicial talaqs void and unconstitutional as affected individuals were before it. "We should not be worried about technicalities, there are individuals who are affected, and we will look into it", a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the respondents. Allowing all the intervention applications filed in the matter, court said the opinion of the NCW, NHRC and NCPCR should be on record for proper assistance.
Case Title: Benazeer Heena Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justices Kant and Bagchi
Click here to read more

2. [Reservations] Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea seeking framing of policies for a more equitable and just system of reservation in government employment and educational opportunities. Seeking to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits on a merit-cum-means approach, the instant petition has been filed by persons who belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories. The petition calls for an urgent need to integrate economic criteria into the reservation policy to ensure that benefits are conferred upon those who genuinely require state support.
Case Title: Ramashankar Prajapati & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors.
Click here to read more

3. [Medha Patkar Defamation Case] Supreme Court confirmed the criminal defamation conviction of Medha Patkar in a 2001 case filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena but set aside the Rs. 1 lakh penalty imposed on her by the trial court. While removing the supervision order and waiving the penalty, the Court confirmed the conviction. It also extended time for furnishing the bond by two weeks’. The case stemmed from a suit filed by Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena claiming that Patkar had made defamatory statements on television aimed at ruining Saxena's reputation.
Case Title: Medha Patkar v. VK Saxena
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh
Click here to read more

4. [JSW-BPSL dispute] The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on petitions challenging its recent decision quashing JSW Steel’s resolution plan for Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (BSPL), after days of sharp exchanges between Senior lawyers over the fate of nearly Rs. 6,000 crore in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) generated during the corporate insolvency process.
Case Title: Kalyani Transco v. M/S Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.
Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Click here to read more

5. [JAG recruitment] Supreme Court on August 11, 2025, ruled that restricting women candidates to 50 percent of vacancies in the Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, even when they score higher than male candidates, violates the constitutional right to equality. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that male and female JAG officers belong to the same cadre with identical service conditions. The concept of gender neutrality and the 2023 recruitment policy require that the Union of India select the most meritorious candidates regardless of gender.
Case title: Arshnoor Kaur & Anr vs The Union of India & Ors
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
Click here to read more

6. [Senthil Balaji] The Supreme Court declined to alter or delete any portion of its earlier orders in the litigation involving former Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthil Balaji, but clarified that those observations would have no bearing on the trial proceedings. Court while disposing of miscellaneous applications filed by Balaji, stated: “We will not expunge anything, we will not touch a single word… We are not touching the judgment. We will only clarify that the observations shall have no bearing on the trial.” Balaji, a senior DMK leader and erstwhile Electricity Minister of Tamil Nadu, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June 2023 in connection with a cash-for-jobs scam allegedly dating back to his tenure as Transport Minister between 2011 and 2015.
Case title: V. Senthil Balaji v. The Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

7. [Allegations against a Telangana High Court judge] The Supreme Court directed the litigant and lawyer who had filed a petition with scandalous remarks against a sitting Telangana High Court judge to apologize to the judge concerned. In a transfer petition, scandalous allegations were made against Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya for quashing an SC/ST Act case against Telangana CM Revanth Reddy. "We direct the Registrar General of High Court to reopen the matter before the learned judge. Respondent to tender the same apology to the judge within a period of 1 week of reopening, the judge is to consider the issue of acceptance of apology within a period of 1 week.", a CJI Gavai led bench ordered.
Case Title: N. Peddi Raju vs. Anumula Revanth Reddy
Bench: CJI Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria
Click here to read more

8. [Section 152 BNS] Supreme Court granted interim protection from coercive action to The Wire’s founding Editor Siddharth Varadarajan in connection with an FIR lodged by the Assam Police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a provision alleged to have effectively revived the repealed sedition law. The FIR against Varadarajan was registered after an article was published in 'The Wire' on Operation Sindoor, under which India targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in May in retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam attack. Court has also issued notice on a petition filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism and Varadarajan challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152, which penalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Case Title: Foundation for Independent Journalism v. Union of India
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

9. [Old vehicle ban] Supreme Court of India ordered no coercive action against owners of 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles plying in the Delhi NCR region. Issuing notice on a plea moved by the Delhi government, a Chief Justice of India B R Gavai led bench ordered, “In the meantime, no coercive steps to be taken against the owners of the car on the ground that they are 10 years old in respect to diesel vehicles and 15 years old with respect to petrol vehicles.” Delhi government has moved an application before the Supreme Court of India asking it to reconsider its 2018 end-of-life vehicle ban stating that these age-based standards disregard advancements in vehicle emissions technology and current roadworthiness.
Case Title: MC Mehta vs. Union of India
Bench: CJI Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran
Click here to read more

10. [BCI Probe into Ghost Lawyers] In a significant development aimed at protecting the integrity of court proceedings, the Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to conduct a detailed inquiry into the alleged appearance of “ghost lawyers” in a decade-old property dispute, which led to the disposal of a case on the basis of a purported settlement that one party insists was forged and never agreed upon. The matter concerns allegations that certain individuals falsely represented one of the parties before the apex court, secured an order in favour of the opposing party, and filed a forged settlement agreement. The top court has sought a comprehensive report from the BCI by the end of October 2025.
Case Title: Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh v. Harish Jaiswal
Bench: Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar
Click here to read more

11. [Affinity Test] The Supreme Court on August 12, 2025 allowed the appeal of a man claiming Scheduled Tribe status, holding that the affinity test is not a litmus test to decide caste claims and is not an essential part of the process in every case. Court ruled that greater probative value must be assigned to a pre-Independence document if available. The court observed that with the change in times, migration, modernisation and the integration of tribal populations into the mainstream, the inability of claimants to recall anthropological or ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies or burial methods cannot be the sole ground to reject a claim.
Case Title: Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Bench: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice K Vinod Chandran
Click here to read more

12. [Direct Recruitment of District Judges] The Supreme Court has on August 12, 2025 referred to a five judge Constitution Bench the question of whether a judicial officer who has completed seven years in practice at the Bar prior to joining the subordinate judicial service can be considered eligible for appointment as an Additional District Judge against vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment from the Bar. The decision could have a significant impact on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution and on recruitment policies for higher judicial service across the country. The court will also decide whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be assessed at the time of appointment, at the time of application, or at both stages. This clarification will address a long standing ambiguity in the recruitment process and determine how service history interacts with constitutional eligibility criteria.
Case Title: Rejanish K V Vs K Deepa And Others
Bench: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, Justice N V Anjaria
Click here to read more

13. [Matrimonial Disputes] The Supreme Court on August 12, 2025 held that where a matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce and the parties have since settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution arising from that past relationship should not be allowed to linger merely as a means of harassment. Court ruled that in such cases, the power to quash proceedings is necessary to uphold fairness and to bring quietus to personal disputes that have run their course. The bench observed that the High Court has the inherent power to quash a criminal proceeding, complaint, or FIR if satisfied that in view of such settlement, there is little likelihood of conviction and that refusal to quash would result in a miscarriage of justice and defeat the ends of justice. It emphasised that the law must balance addressing genuine grievances with preventing its misuse.
Case Title: Navneesh Aggarwal & Others v. State of Haryana & Another
Bench: Justice B V Nagarathna, Justice K V Vishwanathan
Click here to read more

14. [Kancha Gachibowli Deforestation] Supreme Court has granted six weeks time to the Telangana government for coming up with a proposal for restoration of the large-scale deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli forest. In May, the supreme court had come down heavily on the Telangana government over alleged large-scale deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli forest area, warning of possible contempt proceedings and putting the State administration on notice. While hearing the suo motu case concerning clearing of dense forest in the Kancha Gachibowli forest area, the CJI had said, "I am an advocate of sustainable development, but that does not mean you employ bulldozers overnight and destroy forest land..".
Case Title: In Re: Kancha Gachibowli Forest, State of Telangana
Bench: CJI Gavai, Justice Vinod Chandran
Click here to read more

15. [Bihar SIR] The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to make public, within four days, the names of approximately 65 lakh voters whose names appear in Bihar’s 2025 electoral rolls but are missing from the draft rolls prepared under the “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) process. Justice Kant told the ECI to ensure the notices are in “layman-friendly language” and to collate compliance reports from every district. Court had earlier noted that while Aadhaar-based requirements may have an exclusionary effect, the availability of a larger number of permissible documents “is actually voter-friendly” as it provides citizens multiple options to prove their eligibility.
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

16. [Telangana MLC nomination cancellation] Supreme Court has quashed the nominations of M Kodandaram and Ameer Ali Khan as Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) in Telangana, acting on a petition filed by Sravan Dasoju and K Satyanarayana.
In July 2023, the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) government in Telangana had recommended the names of Dasoju Sravan Kumar and Kurra Satyanarayana for the two MLC seats under the governor’s quota. The then-governor, Dr Tamilisai Soundararajan, rejected their nominations in September 2023. Dasoju and K Satyanarayana challenged the governor’s rejection in the Telangana High Court. After the BRS government lost the Assembly elections, and Congress came to power in January 2024, it recommended new names for the two MLC seats of Kodandaram and Amer Ali Khan.
Case Title: YADAVALLI SIVA PRASAD vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih
Click here to read more

17. [Renukaswamy Murder Case] In a stern message on equality before law, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order granting regular bail to Kannada film actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case, directing that he be taken into custody immediately. Court has held that the High Court’s December 2024 order suffered from “serious legal infirmities” and amounted to a “mechanical exercise of discretion” without recording any special or cogent reasons for granting bail in a case involving grave charges under the Indian Penal Code. Justice Mahadevan said the High Court had impermissibly examined witness statements at the pre-trial stage, highlighting contradictions and delays that were matters for the trial court to assess during cross-examination. Granting bail in such a case without properly considering the nature of the offence, the accused’s role, and the risk of interference with the trial, he said, was “wholly unwarranted.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Shri Darshan
Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Click here to read more

18. [Stray Dogs Order] The Supreme Court reserved its order on pleas to stay the court's recent order directing relocation of dogs from all localities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, NOIDA, Faridabad, Gurugram as well as areas on the outskirts, to designated shelters / pounds. While raising concerns over the implementation of Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, and other legislations, Justice Vikram Nath led bench asked the NGOs before it as to why they did not approach court for compliance earlier. "These NGOs should also be responsible..they should have approached court for compliance earlier..all these intervenors are also responsible..", the bench said. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing before court addressing the recent outrage over the court's orders on strays told the bench that he saw videos of people eating beef chicken etc and then suddenly becoming animal lovers.
Case Title: IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE”
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria
Click here to read more

19. [Nimisha Priya execution] Supreme Court has adjourned by eight weeks the hearing of a PIL filed by the Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council concerning Indian nurse Nimisha Priya, who faces a death sentence in Yemen. This was after the court was informed by Advocate K.R. Subhash Chandran that negotiations in the matter are currently underway. Priya, convicted by a Yemeni court, was scheduled for execution on July 16, 2025. Her execution was stayed on July 15 until further orders. Kerala Chief Minister (CM) Pinarayi Vijayan had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, seeking urgent intervention to save the life of Nimisha Priya Tomy Thomas, an Indian national facing execution in Yemen. The CM had stressed that the case deserves "sympathy and intervention at the highest level."
Case Title: Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council v. Union of India & Anr.
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

20. [Vantara] Supreme Court has called petition filed against Vantara's operations and transfer of elephant Mahadevi as completely vague. Court has noted that the petitions were filed without impleading Vantara as a party. Supreme Court had on August 11 agreed to hear a petition filed against the transfer of 33-year-old female elephant named Mahadevi from a Kolhapur-based Jain Math to Vantara in Gujarat. Vantara had clarified its involvement in the process of transfer of Mahadevi stating that it has been acting strictly in accordance to the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court. recently, in a landmark affirmation of animal welfare jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision directing the transfer of a Mahadevi from a Kolhapur-based Jain Math to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (Vantara) in Jamnagar, Gujarat.
Case Title: C.R. Jaya Sukin vs. Union of India and Ors.
Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale
Click here to read more

21. [Illegal Bangladeshi Migrants] Supreme Court has acknowledged the need to safeguard the country against illegal migration from Bangladesh while agreeing to hear a petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board challenging the detention of Bengali-speaking migrant workers in various states.  The bench was hearing the plea, which alleges that migrant workers from West Bengal, particularly Bengali Muslims, are being indiscriminately detained on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals, only to be later verified as Indian citizens. The Court emphasised the importance of balancing citizens’ rights with national security concerns. Justice Kant observed that “states where these migrant workers are working have the right to inquire from their state of origin about their bona fides,” adding that “the problem is in the interregnum” before verification is complete.
Case Title: West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board v. Union of India
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

22. [J&K Statehood] The Supreme Court while hearing an application seeking appropriate directions to the Union of India for restoration of the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir in a time-bound manner, told the applicants before it that ground realities cannot be ignored. "You cannot ignore what has happened in Pahalgam..ground realities have to be considered..", CJI BR Gavai has said. Notably, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the instant application was not maintainable. "This MA is not maintainable..we ensured elections were held..peculiar considerations emerge from this part of the country...don't know why this issue is emerging right now..", SG Mehta added. Agreeing with the SG's submission, the bench went on direct that a reply be filed on behalf of Union of India and listed the matter after 8 weeks. This application has been filed in the writ petition titled “In re: Article 370 of the Constitution” which was decided by the Supreme Court in December 2023 upholding the government decision of abrogation of Article 370.
Case Title: IN RE ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF (APPLICATION): ZAHOOR AHMAD BHAT AND ANR. vs. UNION OF INDIA
Bench: CJI and Justice Vinod Chandran
Click here to read more

23. [Wrestler Sushil Kumar] Supreme Court, on August 13, 2025, set aside the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Olympian wrestler Sushil Kumar in a 2021 murder case, holding that the High Court failed to consider the grave nature of the offence, the possibility of the accused influencing the trial, and his conduct during the investigation. Court observed that while personal liberty is sacrosanct in a constitutional democracy, it cannot be construed to dilute the seriousness of heinous crimes or undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The judgment records that certain witnesses had lodged written complaints fearing threats from the accused, and that whenever Sushil Kumar was granted temporary bail on five occasions between November 2022 and August 2023, a pattern emerged where prosecution witnesses subsequently turned hostile, 28 out of 35 examined so far.
Case Title: Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Click here to read more

24. [Timelines for deciding on Bills] The Supreme Court of India has been told by the Central government that as timelines are conspicuously absent in Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution which deal with the exercise of discretion by the Governors and President to grant assent on Bills, any judicially imposed timeline would create an interpretative confusion and functional problem for constitutional functionaries. Centre has said that Apex Court cannot create a concept of "deemed assent," turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head. Arguing that a timeline hampers the Governor’s or President’s ability to safeguard constitutional compliance, it has been submitted that any judicial direction of imposition of any timeline would amount to an amendment to the Constitution. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in his submissions has further said that the high plenary positions of Governors and President fall within an exclusive zone and while they are political positions, they are also representations of democratic will.
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