Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [September 29-October 5, 2025]

1. [Media Trial] In the fallout of singer Zubeen Garg's untimely death in Singapore, the organiser of an Assam cultural festival has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32, claiming he is being subjected to a large scale media trial and faces grave threats to life and liberty. According to the petition, over 54 FIRs have been lodged across Assam and adjoining states naming him, his bank accounts have been frozen, his residence raided, and multiple menacing messages circulated over social media, “Come home and we will burn you alive,” reads one. The petitioner says that media narratives have already convicted him in public eye without investigation, thereby jeopardising his fundamental rights to dignity, presumption of innocence, and fair trial. He requests that the Court direct a central agency (CBI or NIA) to take over the probe, stay further FIRs, preserve Singaporean evidence, and issue protective relief against coercive action.

Case Title: Shyam Kanu Mahanta v. Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read more

2. [Detention] Gitanjali J. Angmo, spouse of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, has approached the Supreme Court with a habeas corpus plea contesting his detention under the National Security Act (NSA) after violent clashes in Ladakh. Angmo asserts she has no clarity on his health status, grounds for detention, or access to the NSA record, contending that this opacity is inconsistent with Article 21 safeguards. The background of the matter relates to the protests in Leh calling for Sixth Schedule status and union territory designation escalated into clashes in which four people died. Wangchuk’s arrest in Jodhpur on September 26 has sparked debate about whether NSA is being deployed disproportionately to suppress dissent. The petition urges the Court to scrutinize whether the procedural and substantive prerequisites of the NSA were met, and whether prolonged detention sans judicial oversight is constitutionally sustainable.

Case Title: Dr. Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria

Click here to read more

3. [Reservation] The Madhya Pradesh government has moved to clarify its position before the Supreme Court, rebutting viral social media claims that its OBC quota affidavit disparaged Shudras or reintroduced caste hierarchies. The state clarifies that the language in question originates from the 1983 Mahajan Commission report and was never part of its court documents. To label those passages its own, it argues, is a “false, fabricated and misleading” distortion. The clarification warns that isolating excerpts from commission reports, divorced from their original context, can inflame caste animosity and malign the government's reputation. This assertion arrives amid ongoing litigation over quota schemes and caste classification in higher education and governance.

Click here to read more

4. [Judicial Role] The Supreme Court has raised internal alarm over being inundated with matrimonial and bail appeals, cautioning that its role is slowly pivoting toward day-to-day dispute resolution at the expense of constitutional adjudication. While hearing a delayed marital matter, Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked whether the Court had become “more of a matrimonial and bail court”, a veiled recognition that repeated adjournments and family litigation are crowding out space for public interest and higher order legal questions. The bench also signalled alignment with prior remarks by Justice BV Nagarathna, who complained of the Court’s image narrowing to just granting bail. In parallel, the Court urged high courts to actively supervise criminal trial pacing to prevent fragmentation that forces appeals to the apex another symptom of systemic overload.

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Click here to read more

5. [Child Rights] In an effort to strengthen coordination in cases of trafficking and missing children, the Supreme Court has urged the Ministry of Home Affairs to design a national portal integrating data from states, central agencies, police, NGOs and child welfare committees. The bench acknowledged that children who cross state borders often vanish due to lack of inter-jurisdictional tracking. The court has asked that each state designate a nodal officer who will link to this portal, enabling real-time sharing of information and centralized alerts. Additionally, the SC has asked for district-wise data of missing children since 2020, under its existing Cri-MAC (Crime Multi Agency Centre) framework, as it explores how legal structure, funding and oversight might shape such an institution.

Case Title: Guria Swayama Sevi Sansthan v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan

Click here to read more

6. [Procedure] The Supreme Court has intervened in a case involving Usha Mishra, now 71,to stay her arrest in a 1971 land forgery dispute. The bench has stayed any coercive action and issued a bailable warrant against the advocate who filed the FIR, accusing him of misusing criminal procedure. The Court also faulted the Allahabad High Court’s refusal of anticipatory bail and asked the investigating agency to justify procedure followed. Emphasising the need for fairness toward aged litigants, the intervention reflects judicial restraint in protecting elderly persons from harassment via stretched criminal law tactics.

Case Title: Usha Mishra v. State of UP & Anr.

Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh

Click here to read more

7. [Education] A Public Interest Litigation filed by an 11 year old before the Supreme Court challenges the Delhi government’s move to admit students to CM SHRI schools through a competitive test, alleging it contravenes the Right to Education Act (Section 13) and Article 21A. The petition argues that labelling children outside a merit threshold as “undeserving” stigmatises them from early on, and advances that a draw of lots would better uphold inclusive access. It criticises the July 2025 circular’s emphasis on “talented and meritorious” students as inconsistent with the constitutional ethos. The petitioner also cites a Delhi High Court view (in Social Jurist v. GNCTD) that the RTE’s no-test norms do not bind “specified category” schools, and contends that distinction is constitutionally infirm. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether admission tests in such state schools can stand in light of the RTE regime and equality principles.

Case Title: Master Janmesh Sagar (through next friend & natural father Arvind Sagar) vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Click here to read more