Law & Justice This Week: Big Wins, Court Orders & Legal Milestones [September 1- 7, 2025]

1. Presidential Reference: At the Supreme Court hearings on the Presidential reference this week, Chief Justice Gavai emphasized that judicial decisions hinge on constitutional interpretation rather than political power. Tamil Nadu, through Senior Advocate Singhvi, argued that governors are not “super chief ministers” with unchecked authority, cannot withhold or “kill” bills. Meanwhile, West Bengal’s counsel, led by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, stated that the reference could shape the country's future in terms of gubernatorial powers. Sibal also contended that allowing governors to block bills would render the constitutional framework dysfunctional.

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

Read more on CJI's remark here, for Tamil Nadu Govt's submissions here and for West Bengal govt's arguments here and here

2. West Bengal WBSSC Scam: The Supreme Court came down hard on West Bengal over the WBSSC scam, slamming the state and TMC for “smuggling in” tainted candidates and jeopardising students’ futures. It barred the 1,804 exposed names from fresh recruitment, warned against any deadline extensions, and vowed to come down “like a ton of bricks” on any bid to shield the corrupt process.

Case Title: Rehana Begum & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. and connected matters

Read more here and here

3. SC/ST Act & Anticipatory Bail: On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that anticipatory bail is barred in absolute terms under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. But the court allowed a narrow exception where the FIR itself shows no prima facie offence, permitting courts to grant relief “at first blush” without delving into evidence. Court emphasized that the “non-making” of a prima facie case must be apparent on the face of the FIR.

Case Title: Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr

Read more here

4. Aadhaar Not A Citizenship Proof: The Supreme Court on September 1, 2025, ruled that Aadhaar is only an identity document, not proof of citizenship, while rejecting its use in Bihar’s electoral roll revision and cautioning political parties against attempts to elevate its legal status beyond what is stipulated under law. Court underscored that the landmark Puttaswamy judgment of 2018 clearly limits the scope of Aadhaar to identity verification and welfare schemes

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors vs. Election Commission of India & Another

Read more here

5. RTE Act and Religious Institutions: The Supreme Court has questioned its 2014 Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs. Union of India judgment, which exempted minority institutions from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the RTE Act). On September 1, 2025, it referred the issue to the CJI for possible reconsideration by a larger bench. It raised key questions, including whether the exemption is valid, if the RTE Act infringes minority rights, if Section 12(1)(c) should be read down to include disadvantaged minority children.

Case Title: Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Others

Read more here

6. Guidelines For Social Media Influencers: The Centre, through the Attorney General, has told the Supreme Court its upcoming guidelines for social-media influencers, being drafted by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting in consultation with stakeholders, will ensure accountability without compromising individual dignity. The bench affirmed that speech created for profit lacks the same protections as journalistic free expression.

Case Title: Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India & Others

Read more here

7. Floods in the Northern States of India: The Supreme Court, acting on a PIL under Article 32, on September 4, 2025, issued notice to the Centre and flood-hit states including Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, and Jammu & Kashmir over allegations of rampant illegal tree felling in the Himalayas, stressing the urgent need to balance development with ecological protection.

Case Title: Anamika Rana vs. Union of India and Others

Read more here

8. 2020 Delhi Riots Bail Denial to Accused: The Delhi High Court on September 2, 2025, dismissed bail applications filed by several accused, including Shifa-ur-Rehman, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and Tasleem Ahmed, in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case tied to the 2020 Northeast Delhi violence. Court observed that Imam and Khalid played prima facie grave roles in orchestrating the unrest. Notably, in an interview, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has questioned the narrative set by a particular segment of society over the bail plea filed by Umar Khalid.

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam vs State and other connected matters, and Case Title: Tasleem Ahmed v. State

Read more on Khalid's bail rejection here, on Tasleem Ahmed's bail rejection here, and Ex CJI Chandrachud's interview here

9. Madurai Meenakshi Temple Properties: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on September 4, 2025, directed the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to submit a comprehensive report detailing all properties owned by the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple and its subsidiary shrines, including revenue particulars and specific actions taken to remove encroachments.

Case Title: A.Radhakrishnan vs The Chief Secretary to Government And 70 Others

Read more here

10. 79% Reservation in MBBS Admissions Cancelled: The Allahabad High Court has annulled Uttar Pradesh government's orders that imposed over 79% reservation in MBBS admissions at four medical colleges at Ambedkar Nagar, Kannauj, Jalaun, and Saharanpur, deeming them unlawful for exceeding the statutory 50% cap mandated by the Uttar Pradesh Reservation Act, 2006.

Case Title: Sabra Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Read more here

11. Foreign Courts Cannot End Hindu Marriages: The Gujarat High Court has held that marriages solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) in India cannot be dissolved by foreign courts merely because the couple later acquired foreign citizenship. For a Hindu marriage, the citizenship of the parties to the marriage has absolutely no relevance and what is relevant is only the fact that both the parties profess the Hindu faith and agree to bind their marital relationship in terms of the HMA, court held.

Case Title: X vs Y

Read more here