Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [October 27 - November 2, 2025]

1. [Attack on CJI] The Supreme Court declined to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai during a hearing in the Vishnu Idol case on October 6, while expressing concern over the growing trend of glorifying such acts on social media. The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against Kishore and a John Doe order to curb online glorification of the incident.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Rakesh Kishore
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

2. [Digital Arrest] The Supreme Court has proposed a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alarming “digital arrest” scams spreading across India after a 73-year-old woman was duped of ₹1 crore through a forged Supreme Court order. The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which took suo motu cognizance of the issue, also issued notice to all States and Union Territories, directing them to submit details of similar cybercrime cases under investigation.
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. [Vodafone Idea AGR dues] The Supreme court of India allowed the Centre to examine the issue pertaining to telecom giant Vodafone Idea Ltd’s challenge to additional adjusted gross revenue (AGR) demands for the period up to 2016-17. "The Learned Solicitor General on instructions states that taking account of change of circumstances and larger aspect of 20 crore customers utilising the services, the Union is willing to examine the issue. The government is also willing to reconsider and take an appropriate decision if the court permits, taking into consideration that the government has infused equity in the company. In the peculiar facts, we see no impediment in government considering the issue. We clarify that this is a matter of policy, there is no reason as to why the Union should be prevented from doing so", the bench noted.
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Union of India
Bench: CJI BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Click here to read more

4. [Babri Masjid FB post] The Supreme Court refused relief to a man who allegedly, in a provocative post on Facebook, wrote, "Babri Masjid will one day be rebuilt, just like Turkey's Sophia Mosque". A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi refused relief to one Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri who had filed an SLP against the Allahabad High Court's decision from September 9, 2025, dismissing his plea to quash the chargesheet and summoning order.
Case Title: MOHD. FAIYYAZ MANSURI vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Bench: Justices Kant and Bagchi
Click here to read more

5. [MGNREGA-West Bengal] The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court's decision ordering the Centre to resume the employment guarantee scheme of MGNREGA in West Bengal, which was put on hold in 2022 following allegations of embezzlement of funds. “We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General at length. However, we are not convinced that the impugned order requires any interference. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed,” a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed.
Case Title: Union of India vs. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and Ors
Bench: Justices Nath and Mehta
Click here to read more

6. [COVID Insurance claims by Doctors] The Supreme Court reserved its judgment in a plea concerning the Central Government’s insurance coverage scheme for doctors who lost their lives in the line of duty during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan made strong observations on the State’s responsibility toward medical professionals who risked; and, in many cases, sacrificed, their lives to serve the nation in its darkest hour.
Case Title: Pradeep Arora v. Director, Health Department
Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan
Click here to read more

7. [Sambhal Violence] The Supreme Court has granted bail to three men arrested in connection with last year’s violent clashes in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal, which erupted during a court-ordered survey near the Shahi Jama Masjid in November 2024. A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan has directed that Danish, Faizan, and Nazir be released on bail, noting that they have been in jail since 2024. The trial court has been directed to set the conditions for their release.
Click here to read more

8. [Timelines for framing of Charge] The Supreme Court voiced strong concern over the prolonged delays in the framing of charges in criminal trials across India, observing that such lapses have become one of the major causes for stagnation in criminal proceedings. The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria noted that despite the clear mandate under Section 251(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires that charges in cases exclusively triable by a sessions court be framed within 60 days of the first hearing, the provision is not being followed in letter or spirit.
Case Title: Aman Kumar v. State of Bihar
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria
Click here to read more

9. [Sonam Wangchuk] The Supreme Court allowed an application seeking to place on record additional facts and grounds in the habeas corpus petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Ladakh-based education reformer and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who is reportedly lodged in Jodhpur jail under the National Security Act (NSA) following violent clashes in Ladakh. The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria was hearing the plea seeking Wangchuk’s release, when Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, informed the Court that an amendment application (No. 31653) had already been filed.
Case Title: Dr. Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria
Click here to read more

10. [Judges Promotion] A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai was told by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, to issue general directions on the aspect of promotions. "The Supreme Court should keep a hands-off approach..let there be only general directions," the senior counsel told the bench hearing the issue concerning career stagnation faced by judicial officers across the country. Supreme Court mulled over the incentive for junior cadre judges while hearing the issue concerning career stagnation faced by judicial officers across the country. "If you give so much incentive to the seniority of direct recruits, our junior cadre will only work for competing", Justice Surya Kant had remarked. Court had further questioned incentive would be left for a judicial officer, who eventually, in terms of seniority or in terms of the benefit of higher payscale, is going to loose out.
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

11. [Karur Stampede] The Supreme Court asked a Karur stampede victims' family to approach the CBI with the allegations of political pressure being used to coerce families to withdraw their petitions from the court. Reportedly, the bench of Justice JK Maheshwari issued the direction after one S Prabhakaran, who lost both his sister and fiancée in the stampede, made an urgent oral mentioning through advocate Balaji Srinivasan. The bench told the petitioner that the investigation into the incident had already been transferred to the CBI.
Click here to read more

12. [Stray Dogs] The Supreme Court refused to permit Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories to appear virtually in the stray dogs management case, directing them to remain physically present before the Court to explain their non-compliance with its earlier orders. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the matter when Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta mentioned it seeking exemption from physical appearance for the Chief Secretaries. Previously, on October 27, after noting that only three compliance affidavits had been filed before it i.e., by the State of West Bengal, State of Telangana and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the supreme court had ordered the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories other than the States of West Bengal and Telangana to remain present before it on 3.11.2025 at 10:30 A.M. along with their respective explanations as to why compliance affidavits have not been filed.
Case Title: In Re: "City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price"
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

13. [Summoning of Lawyers] The Supreme Court of India has refrained from framing guidelines regarding procedure to be adopted in summoning a lawyer as it would in effect, be in derogation of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). "The power of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence, as provided under Section 175, even without the order of a Magistrate, cannot be regulated by any guideline issued by us, especially when sufficient guideline is available, under Sections 132 to 134 of the BSA. A police officer issuing summons to an Advocate, under Section 179, would be cautioned by the provisions of Section 132 in not expecting any disclosure of a privileged communication", the supreme court has added.
Case Title: IN RE : SUMMONING ADVOCATES WHO GIVE LEGAL OPINION OR REPRESENT PARTIES DURING INVESTIGATION OF CASES AND RELATED ISSUES vs.
Bench: CJI Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria
Click here to read more

14. [Guruvayur Ekadashi Pooja] The Supreme Court has ordered for the 'Udayasthamana Pooja' in the Guruvayur Sri Krishna temple in Kerala on the occasion of 'ekadashi' to be conducted on December 1 as per tradition. A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi noted that the day-long ritual was being conducted since 1972. Last year, the Supreme Court had slammed the Devaswom Board of Guruvayur Sri Krishna temple for deciding not to conduct the age-old Udayasthamana Pooja on Guruvayur Ekadasi citing crowd management and wondered how it could have decided so.
Case Title: P.C. HARY & ORS. vs. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS.
Bench: Justices Maheshwari and Bishnoi
Click here to read more

15. [Delhi Riots] The Supreme Court heard the batch of pleas filed by UAPA accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman seeking bail in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave submitted before the Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria that while Imam’s speeches in December 2019 and January 2020 called for “chakka jam” protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), none of them contained any call to violence. “I called for ‘chakka jam’, protest against the CAA Bill that was being introduced. My speeches were of two months prior to the riots,” Dave said, clarifying that Imam’s speeches were limited to civil protest. He argued that Imam had merely exercised his right to dissent under the Constitution.
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

16. [Shabir Shah Bail] The National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the bail plea of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah in the Supreme Court, taking strong objection to the assertion that India and Jammu & Kashmir are separate entities. Appearing for the NIA, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, “Before the Supreme Court of India, nobody can say Indian State and Jammu and Kashmir. I am making an issue out of it,” while referring to the stand often taken by separatist leaders.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. NIA
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

17. [Bhupesh Baghel] The Supreme Court has sought the Enforcement Directorate's response on a plea filed by Chaitanya Baghel, former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel’s son, challenging his arrest in a liquor scam case. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has directed the ED to file a counter in three weeks time. Court was told by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Baghel, that his arrest on grounds of non-cooperation was wrong as he had not been summoned even once by the agency.
Case Title: Chaitanya Baghel Vs Union of India, ED
Bench: Justices Kant and Bagchi
Click here to read more