Law & Justice This Week: Big Wins, Court Orders & Legal Milestones [August 25- 31, 2025]

1. Presidential reference: Before the Supreme Court, the Maharashtra government argued that courts cannot direct Governors to give or withhold assent to bills under Article 200, as such powers rest exclusively with constitutional authorities. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added that permitting states to challenge a Governor’s inaction through writs under Article 32 would render the immunity granted to the President and Governors under Article 361 meaningless. The Centre further stressed that decisions involving political discretion, including assent to bills, are non-justiciable and beyond the scope of judicial review.

Case Title: In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India

Read more on Maharashtra Govt's submissions here, for SG Tushar Mehta's submissions here and here

2. Vantara Centre: The 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 SIT has been asked to conduct the inquiry forthwith and submit its report by September 12, 2025.

Case Title: C R Jaya Sukin v. Union of India & Others

Read more here

3. Illegal Migration from Bangladesh: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on August 29, 2025, opposing a petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board challenging the detention and deportation of Bengali-speaking migrant workers across states, told the Supreme Court that the issue is not about individual hardship. “This is systematic infiltration. Agents are facilitating illegal entry. Several terrorist organisations have infiltrated,” he submitted, adding that illegal immigrants are consuming resources meant for Indian citizens.

Case Title: West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board v. Union of India

Read more here

4. Ecological Crisis in Himachal Pradesh: The Supreme Court on August 25, 2025, took up suo motu case on Himachal’s ecological crisis, noted State’s 65-page report, and considered appointing amicus after earlier warning State may “vanish into thin air". Court said it would require independent assistance in addressing the wider environmental concerns.

Case Title: In Re: Issues Relating to Ecology and Environmental Conditions Prevailing in the State of Himachal Pradesh

Read more here

5. Acquittal in child rape-murder case: The Supreme Court on August 26, 2025, set aside the death penalty of one man and life sentence of another in a 2012 child rape-murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Court dismissed the DNA report as inadmissible calling it “a piece of trash paper” since the chain of custody of blood samples was not established.

Case Title: Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Read more here

6. Husband's CDR data: The Delhi High Court on August 29 held that a wife alleging adultery can seek her husband’s call detail records (CDRs) as well as his tower location data, along with the tower records of the alleged paramour, to substantiate her case. Court said CDRs and tower data, being neutral business records, can provide corroborative circumstantial evidence in adultery cases and are not a speculative fishing exercise

Case Title: X vs Y

Read more here

7. PM Modi degree row: The Delhi High Court on August 25, 2025, set aside the Central Information Commission’s order permitting inspection of Delhi University’s 1978 BA records, including those relating to Prime Minister Modi. Court stressed that the Right to Information Act is meant to ensure transparency, not fuel sensationalism, and clarified that such records are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) unless a compelling public interest is shown. The same principle was applied to Smriti Irani’s educational records, which remain protected from disclosure.

Case Title: University of Delhi v. Neeraj & Anr. and connected matters

Read more on the HC’s order on PM Modi’s degree here and here, and on Smriti Irani’s degree here

8. Temple funds misuse in Tamil Nadu: The Madras High Court quashed government orders diverting Rs. 80 crore of surplus temple funds for constructing marriage halls, holding that temple wealth must serve only religious and charitable purposes. In a separate matter, court pulled up HR&CE officials for allowing commercial shops inside the historic Nellaiappar Temple mandapams in violation of the Act. It further directed eviction of such shops and warned against turning temple resources into business ventures.

Case Title: Rama.Ravikumar vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others and K.Balasubrahmanyam vs. Principal Secretary To Government, Tourism,Culture and Religious Endowments Department and Others

Read more on temple funds misuse here and here, for Nellaiappar Temple shops here

9. Age of consent debate: An intervention plea by The Network for Access to Justice and Multidisciplinary Outreach Foundation before the Supreme Court warns that lowering the age of consent could amplify risks of pedophilia, paternity disputes, and exploitation of minors. A survivor of sex trafficking, now serving as NGO trustee, has also sought intervention urging the court to maintain the age of consent at 18 to preserve the integrity of child protection laws under POCSO Act. Reinforcing these views, doctors, lawyers, and activists have strongly called for keeping the age of consent at 18, arguing that lowering it would erode vital safeguards for vulnerable minors.

Read more on the plea by Network for Access to Justice and Multidisciplinary Outreach Foundation here, the survivor-trustee’s plea here, and the round-table discussion here

10. Salwa Judum judgment debate: Union Home Minister Amit Shah has accused I.N.D.I.A. Bloc’s VP nominee, ex-Supreme Court judge B. Sudershan Reddy, of ideologically backing Naxalism, claiming his 2011 Salwa Judum verdict prolonged Maoist insurgency by disbanding the tribal militia. The judgment was criticized by security officials as a setback to counter-insurgency. Over 50 retired judges slammed peers defending Reddy, warning political statements risk judicial credibility, while senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi backed 56 judges supporting Shah, calling scrutiny of judicial decisions fair. Law Commission member and senior advocate Hitesh Jain also criticized retired judges, including Justice Abhay Oka, for engaging in political activism like his involvement in a statement defending retired Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy.

Read more on Home Minister's remarks here, Salwa Judum verdict here, judges’ statement here, Sr. Adv. Rohatgi’s take here and Sr. Adv Hitesh Jain's comments here

11. Collegium dissent controversy: Following the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation, Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul Pancholi have been elevated to the Supreme Court. The appointments were cleared despite a dissent note from Justice B.V. Nagarathna concerning Justice Pancholi's seniority and calls for transparency from the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR). With their swearing-in, the Supreme Court is now at its full strength.

Read more on Collegium's recommendation here, Justice Nagarathna's dissent here, CJAR's transparency call here, Govt's clearance here, and swearing-in here

12. Delhi LG notification and lawyers' strike: Delhi lawyers went on strike, protesting a Delhi LG notification that allows police to depose from their stations via video conferencing. The lawyers, who called the order a "Kala Kanoon" (Black Law), argue that it undermines the principles of a fair trial. The protest was suspended after Union Home Minister Amit Shah agreed to meet with the Bar and the Delhi Police Commissioner's office confirmed the notification would not be operationalized until all stakeholders are consulted.

Read more on lawyers' strike here and their meeting with Union Home Minister here