Supreme Court Weekly Updates [August 4-8, 2025]

1. [JSW-Bhushan Steel Row] Supreme Court is hearing a batch of review petitions challenging its recent judgment that quashed the Rs. 20,000 crore resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel for Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (BSPL). Calling the matter “one of the worst cases of siphoning” he had seen, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised attempts to “target the party who has come forward with the best resolution plan”.
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

2. [Banke Bihari Corridor] Supreme Court has said that it would be constitution a committee to head the management of the Banke Bihari temple. Agreeing to modify the part of a coordinate bench's order on utilisation of temple funds as much as it affected the petitioners before it, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has allowed the petitioner before it to approach the High Court against the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025.
Case Title: Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple & Anr vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors and connected matters
Bench: Justices Kant and Bagchi
Click here to read more

3. [SC's observations on Justice Prashant Kumar] The Supreme Court reheard the case wherein it had directed the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to immediately withdraw the present determination of Justice Prashant Kumar. Observing that litigants who come to court expect the justice delivery system to act in accordance with law, the bench said, "In any view of this matter, we delete paras 25 and 26 from our order as a request has been received from the CJI.". Supreme Court had directed that Justice Prashant Kumar should be made to sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court. This order came to be passed by the High Court while hearing a challenge to a judgment passed by Justice Kumar wherein he had said that "asking the complainant to pursue civil remedies for the purpose of recovery of his balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time".
Case Title: M/s Shikhar Chemicals vs. State of U.P. and Another
Bench: Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan
Click here to read more

4. [PMLA Judgement Review] Enforcement Directorate has argued before Supreme Court against the maintainability of the review petitions challenging its 2022 judgment that upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. "Review cannot be made on asking...a strong case has to be made out..asking court to rewrite the judgment which is not permissible. Review cannot be an appeal in disguise.", Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told court. Notably, court told the ASG that it is concerned about the ED's image. "You cannot act like a crook. You have to work within the four corners of law. There is a difference between law-enforcing authorities and law-violating bodies. After 5000 cases, less than 10 convictions. We are equally concerned about the image of ED", Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said. Responding to this ASG Raju said that accused who were rich and powerful use a battery of lawyers and file many applications to delay the process. "They do not even allow the trial to take place and delay it," he added.
Case Title: Karti P. Chidambaram vs. The Directorate of Enforcement
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh
Click here to read more

5. [Cash Discovery Row] Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the findings of an in-house inquiry committee and the recommendation made by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) for his removal from office over alleged misconduct connected to the discovery of burnt currency notes at his official residence. The Court found no deviation in the process adopted by the CJI or the inquiry committee, barring the non-uploading of video recordings, which, it noted, was never raised as a grievance. The bench ruled that the Chief Justice forwarding the inquiry report to the President under Paragraph 7(2) was not unconstitutional.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India along with Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih
Click here to read more

6. [Ban on use of Political leaders for Ads] Supreme Court today quashed the Madras High Court order barring it from using the name or photograph of any political leader, in advertisements for welfare schemes. Court also dismissed the writ petition pending before the High Court with a fine of ₹10 lakh to be deposited with the state government. "Launching of schemes in the name of political leaders is a phenomena followed throughout the country..When schemes has been floated with names of political leaders from Tamil Nadu, we do not appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner to choose only one party and one leader..If the petitioner was so concerned with the misuse of the funds, he should have challenged all 45 schemes..", court observed.
Case Title: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. Thiru C V Shanmugam and Ors
Bench: Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria
Click here to read more

7. [Bihar SIR] Supreme Court recently heard an urgent interim application in the ongoing case concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, with serious concerns raised about the omission of over 65 lakh names from the draft rolls. Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that while the draft roll indicates a massive deletion of names, it lacks transparency. “There is no public list of the 65 lakh omitted voters. It simply states that 32 lakh have migrated, but offers no supporting details,” Bhushan submitted. He further pressed for the disclosure of constituency-wise data identifying who has been marked dead, migrated, or deleted on the recommendation of Booth Level Officers (BLOs). Bhushan also pointed out that this level of disclosure has so far been made available only for two constituencies. “What about the rest of the state?” he asked.
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice NK Singh
Click here to read more

8. [Case against Elvish Yadav] Supreme Court stayed trial proceedings initiated against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in connection with the snake venom case, involving the use of snakes during a music video shoot, and alleged drug and wildlife offences. Yadav faces prosecution under Sections 284, 120-B, and 289 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 8, 22, 29, 30, and 32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and Sections 9, 39, 48A, 49, 50, and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Allahabad High Court recently had dismissed a petition by the social media influencer Yadav seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him.
Case Title: Elvish Yadav vs. State of UP
Bench: Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh
Click here to read more

9. [Rahul Gandhi's remarks on Indian Army] Supreme Court came down heavily on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his alleged remarks against the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra, questioning the basis of his statements and asserting that such comments were unbecoming of a “true Indian.” Court questioned how Gandhi claimed that 2,000 km of Indian territory was occupied by China. “Are you there? Do you have any credible material? Why would you make these statements without anything? Just because you’re a responsible leader of the Opposition, it does not mean you say such things,” Justice Datta observed. Gandhi has filed a plea challenging a defamation case filed over his comments made on December 16, 2022, in the aftermath of a clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih
Click here to read more