Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [November 17-23, 2025]

1. [BRS MLA defection] A CJI led bench of the Supreme Court called out the Telangana Speaker over not deciding the disqualification petitions pending against 10 BRS MLAs who allegedly defected to the ruling Congress party in March 2024. CJI Gavai noted that the Speaker was in gross contempt of the court's order from July 31, 2025 when it had directed the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker to decide within three months the disqualification petitions.
Case Title: Padi Kaushik Reddy & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Chandran and Justice Anjaria
Click here to read more

2. [Digital Arrest Scam] The Supreme Court signalled strong judicial intervention in the growing menace of “digital arrest” scams, with Justice Surya Kant observing that the matter “may require some unusual orders” to protect vulnerable citizens. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta echoed the sentiment, remarking that “unusual phenomena need unusual intervention.” The Bench also comprising of Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks while allowing an intervention application filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).
Case Title: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

3. [Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Law] Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society has moved the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2025, alleging that the newly enacted anti-conversion law imposes sweeping, vague and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Arguing that the Act neither addresses nor is connected to “public order,” a constitutionally permissible ground for limiting Article 25 rights, the petition urges the Supreme Court to strike down the Rajasthan Act as unconstitutional, oppressive and fundamentally incompatible with India’s constitutional framework.
Case Title: Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

4. [Maharashtra OBC quota] The Supreme Court raised serious concern over the manner in which its earlier directions on Maharashtra’s local body elections were being interpreted, making it clear that the 50 percent ceiling on reservations cannot be breached under any circumstance. The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi intervened after submissions indicated that the reservation matrix in several municipalities had exceeded the limit, contrary to previous constitutional mandates.
Case Title: Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

5. [Chennai Cantonment Mosque] The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking access for civilians to offer prayers at a mosque situated inside military quarters in Chennai, holding that such entry cannot be permitted due to security considerations. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition challenging an April 2025 judgment of a Madras High Court division bench. The High Court had upheld a single-judge order declining to interfere with the Army’s decision restricting civilian entry into the ‘Masjid-E-Aalishaan,’ located within the cantonment area.
Click here to read

6. [Corbett Tiger Reserve] The Supreme Court has directed state of Uttarakhand through its Chief Wildlife Warden, in consultation with the CEC to submit a plan for the restoration of the Corbett Tiger Reserve in line with the recommendations made by the Expert Committee, within a period of 2 months. A CJI BR Gavai led bench has also directed the state to begin all clearing/demolition of unauthorised construction as identified by the Expert Committee, before the lapse of 3 months from the date of its judgment; and file a compliance affidavit within a period of 1 year from the date of its judgment.
Case Title: IN RE : CORBETT
Bench: CJI Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar
Click here to read more

7. [Tamil Nadu flagpole issue] The Supreme Court has ordered a status quo on the dispute over flagpoles in Tamil Nadu, while hearing a petition filed by P. Shanmugam, Secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI). A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice, returnable in four weeks, and ordered, “Until further orders, the parties are to maintain status quo with respect to the subject flagpoles, as it exists today.”
Case Title – Communist Party of India v. State of Tamil Nadu
Bench: Justices Nath and Mehta
Click here to read more

8. [Airfare Hike] A social activist and frequent air traveller, S. Laxminarayanan approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent judicial intervention to curb what he described as “unchecked, opaque and exploitative” airfare practices by private airlines in India. The petitioner moved a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking binding guidelines to regulate sudden fare fluctuations, unchecked dynamic pricing, and rising ancillary charges such as baggage fees.
Case Title: S. Laxminarayanan v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

9. [Post-facto EC] The Supreme Court recalled its landmark Vanashakti judgment from May 2025, which barred the Central government from granting retrospective environmental clearances (ECs). Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, writing separate but concurring opinions, allowed a batch of review petitions and declared the verdict, delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Abhay S Oka (retired) and Ujjal Bhuyan, could not stand in the face of earlier Supreme Court rulings that had recognised limited situations where post-facto EC may be permissible.
Case Title: Vanashakti v. Union of India
Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Ujjal Bhuyan
Click here to read more

10. [Sale of alcohol in Tetra Packs] The Supreme Court expressed concern over sale of alcohol in tetra packs, noting that their deceptive packaging could give school-going children easy access. Tetra packs containing whiskey for sale were presented before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of a trademark dispute. "Should this even be permitted...it is so easy to carry in schools", Justice Kant said. Supreme Court was at the centre of a long-standing trademark battle between two liquor giants – M/s. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd., marketing its whiskey under the name ‘OFFICER’S CHOICE’ and M/s. John Distillers Ltd., marketing its whiskey under the name ‘ORIGINAL CHOICE’.
Click here to read more

11. [State Bar Council Elections] The Supreme Court fixed a revised, five-phase timetable for State Bar Council elections across 16 States and Union Territories, directing that the long-pending polls be completed between January 31 and April 30, 2026. The Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh issued the directions while also setting up High Powered Election Monitoring Committees (HPEMCs) at regional levels and a pan-India High Powered Supervisory Committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge.
Case Title: M. Varadhan v. Union of India & Anr.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and NK Singh
Click here to read more

12. [Tribunal Reforms Act 2021] The Supreme Court has struck down certain provision of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 for violating certain earlier judgments of the court on the issue. "The provisions of the impugned Act cannot be sustained as they violate separation of powers and judicial independence principles. It amounts to legislative overwrite without curing any defects and the binding judgment. It falls foul. Thus it is struck down as unconstitutional," a CJI Gavai led bench ruled.
Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA
Bench: CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran
Click here to read more

13. [Talaq-e-Hasan] The Supreme Court heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of “Talaq-e-Hasan”, a form of divorce under Muslim personal law through which a husband pronounces “talaq” once a month over three months to effect separation. A counsel appearing for a petitioner highlighted the case of a woman who allegedly received an 11-page talaq notice signed not by her husband but by his Advocate. Justice Kant strongly questioned the practice, remarking that such a procedure raised serious concerns about dignity and women’s rights.
Case Title: Benazeer Heena Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and NK Singh
Click here to read more

14. [Elgar Parishad Case] The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Jyoti Jagtap, who has been incarcerated for more than five years in connection with the Elgar Parishad–Maoist links case. The Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order after Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, appearing for Jagtap, submitted that her judicial custody had extended beyond five years.
Case Title: Jyoti Jagtap v. NIA
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Click here to read more

15. [Inter se seniority] The Supreme Court has laid down general and mandatory guidelines to be incorporated into the respective statutory service rules governing the determination of inter se seniority among officers appointed from different sources to the Higher Judicial Services. A five -judge constitution bench has clarified that these directions shall not be construed as an avenue to reopen or unsettle inter se seniorities that have already been determined between officers appointed from the different sources of recruitment.
Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Bench: CJI Gavai with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, Joymalya Bagchi and K Vinod Chandran
Click here to read more

16. [Delhi Pollution] Chief Justice of India said that pollution caused by vehicles may not depend upon their age alone. This remark was made by CJI Gavai while he was hearing the pollution case. "Yesterday I read an article, the age of the vehicle has nothing to do with the emission of pollution....some vehicles may run 30,000 km in a year. Like our vehicles for 5 years would not even run 15,000 km in a span of 5 years," the CJI said.
Case Title: MC Mehta vs. Union of India
Bench: CJI, Justices Chandran
Click here to read more

17. [Munambam Land Grab case] An SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court against the Kerala High Court's verdict which held the Kerala State Waqf Board unilaterally notifying 404 acres of coastal land in Munambam, Ernakulam, as Waqf property as a “land-grabbing tactic”. The petition has been filed by Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi. In a landmark decision that reasserts the limits of statutory power and property rights, the Kerala High Court came down heavily on the Kerala State Waqf Board for what it termed a “land-grabbing tactic” in unilaterally notifying 404 acres of coastal land in Munambam, Ernakulam, as Waqf property nearly seven decades after it was originally endowed for educational purposes.
Case Title: Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi & Ors. vs. State of Kerala
Click here to read more

18. [Hindu Succession Laws] The Supreme Court has urged Hindu Women to make a will to avoid potential litigation disputes between their parents and in-laws. “We appeal all women and particularly all Hindu women who are likely to be in position of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to take immediate steps to make a testament or will bequeathing their properties including their self-acquired properties in accordance with section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act read with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. We say so to safeguard the interest of not only women in this country in general but female Hindus in particular so as to avoid any further litigation”, the Court observed.
Case Title – Snidha Mehra vs. Union of India
Bench: Justices Nagarathna and Mahadevan
Click here to read more

19. [Indiabulls case] The Supreme Court delivered sharp criticism against the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for their reluctance to pursue investigations into allegations against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (now Sammaan Capital). The case, taken up on a plea by Citizens Whistle Blower Forum seeking a court-monitored SIT probe, concerns accusations of siphoning funds, round-tripping, large-scale corporate irregularities and violations of the Companies Act by Indiabulls, its promoters and related entities.
Case Title: Citizens Whistle Blower Forum v. Union of India
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh
Click here to read more

20. [Ex-NUJS VC Sexual Harassment Case] The Supreme Court has withdrawn a controversial direction from its September 12, 2025, judgment that required Professor Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, former Vice Chancellor of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, to disclose in his resume the dismissal of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him. The Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale was hearing a miscellaneous application moved by Chakrabarti seeking expunction of a sentence in paragraph 34 of the judgment.
Case Title: Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti
Bench: Justices Pankaj Mitthal and Prasanna B Varale
Click here to read more

21. [Presidential Reference] The Supreme Court has delivered a unanimous decision favoring the executive in a special reference case which was registered on July 19 by the court's own motion after President Droupadi Murmu had framed 14 questions seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court on issues regarding grant of assent on Bills by the President of India and Governors of states. Notably, a five-judge bench has set aside its decision from April 8, 2025, wherein a division bench had laid down structured timelines: one month for Governors under Article 200 and three months for the President under Article 201. It has said that the decision led to usurpation of powers of governor or president and was thus antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Case Title: In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India
Case Number: Special Reference Case No. 1 of 2025
Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar
Click here to read more

22. [Aravalli Range] The Supreme Court has directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to prepare a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) through Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) for the entire Aravalis, i.e., understood as the continuous geological ridge extending from Gujarat to Delhi. A CJI BR Gavai led bench has ordered that the MPSM must: a. Identify permissible areas for mining, ecologically sensitive, conservation-critical and restoration priority areas within the Aravali landscape where mining shall be strictly prohibited or permitted only under exceptional and scientifically justified circumstances; b. Incorporate a thorough analysis of cumulative environmental impacts and the ecological carrying capacity of the region; and c. Include detailed post-mining restoration and rehabilitation measures.
CASE TITLE: IN RE : ISSUE RELATING TO DEFINITION OF ARAVALI HILLS AND RANGES
Bench: CJI Gavai, Justice Chandran and Justice Anjaria
Click here to read more

23. [POSH Act] The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) challenging the Bombay High Court judgment which held that the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) does not apply to complaints of sexual harassment lodged by women advocates before Bar Councils. The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan sought responses from the Bar Council of India and other respondents after hearing preliminary submissions.
Case Title: Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. BCI
Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan
Click here to read more

24. [Rajasthan's Jojari River] The Supreme Court constituted a High-Powered Committee headed by a retired High Court judge to address the continued pollution of the Jojari River in Rajasthan. The direction came while hearing a matter concerning industrial and municipal contamination affecting the river ecosystem and surrounding communities.
Case Title: In Re 2 Million Lives at Risk, Contamination in Jojari River Rajasthan
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

25. [Kerala SIR] The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Kerala seeking a deferment of the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State of Kerala. A Justice Surya Kant led bench has listed the plea for hearing on November 26, 2025 when other related matters are also listed. Notably, court has also issued notice on a petition challenging the SIR process in Uttar Pradesh. Kerala has argued that the exercise cannot be undertaken simultaneously with the upcoming elections to the State’s Local Self-Government Institutions. Kerala through AoR CK Sasi has submited that the overlap will disrupt the statutory and constitutional mandate to complete local body elections before December 21, 2025, and may push the administration into a near standstill.
Case Title: State of Kerala vs. The Election Commission of India & Ors.
Bench: Justices Kant, Bhatti and Bagchi
Click here to read more

26. [Delhi Riots] The Supreme Court continued hearing the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur Rehman and Shadab Ahmad, all accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. The matter was heard by the Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, with Additional Solicitor General SV Raju presenting detailed submissions on behalf of the Delhi Police. ASG Raju strongly opposed the bail requests, asserting that the violence that rocked Northeast Delhi was not a peaceful protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act but part of a “well-planned conspiracy” to spark unrest and destabilise the government. He submitted that 53 people were killed and over 530 injured during days of violence that included arson, stone-pelting, acid attacks and use of firearms and chemicals. Public property was extensively damaged, including police vehicles, DTC buses and multiple structures, he said.
Case Title: Gulfisha Fatima v. State of NCT of Delhi and connected matters
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria
Click here to read more

27. [Sahara Sale of Properties to Adani] The Supreme Court allowed the Central government some more time to respond to applications filed by Sahara India seeking to sell its 88 of its properties to Adani Properties Pvt Ltd. Last month, the court had asked for a response from the Centre. These properties include Amby Valley in Maharashtra and Sahara Seher in Lucknow. An application has also been moved by Adani, in support of Sahara's application, seeking to buy the said properties. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested a bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice MM Sundresh to grant him four weeks. As the CJI smiled over this request, possibly over his retirement next week, he allowed the request.
Case Title: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA vs. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA AND ORS.
Bench: CJI Gavai, Justices Kant and Sundresh
Click here to read more