Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [September 8-14, 2025]

1. [Defamation] The Supreme Court dismissed a petition moved by Bhartiya Janata Party (Telangana) challenging a High Court order quashing the defamation case filed against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy. A bench comprising CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S Chandurkar refused to entertain a challenge to the August 1 order of the Telangana High Court, which quashed the complaint filed by BJP State General Secretary over Reddy's statements that if BJP gets 400 seats in the Lok Sabha elections, it will abolish SC/ST/OBC reservations.
Case Title: BJP Telangana vs. Revanth Reddy
Bench: CJI Gavai, Justices Chandran and Chandurkar
Click here to read more

2. [Elgar Parishad] The Supreme Court heard a plea filed by Mahesh Raut, an accused in the Elgar Parishad–Maoist links case, seeking release on medical grounds owing to his deteriorating health condition. The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma took note of Raut’s submission that he has been suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and that adequate medical facilities for treatment are not available within the prison or at J.J. Hospital.
Case Title: NIA v. Mahesh Sitaram Raut
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Click here to read more

3. [Bihar SIR] The Supreme Court clarified that Aadhaar cards issued under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, shall be accepted as the 12th document for establishing identity in the revised electoral rolls of Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections. The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that while Aadhaar may be used to verify identity, it does not constitute proof of citizenship.
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

4. [Vedanta] Justice Vinod K Chandran of the Supreme Court has recused himself from hearing the PIL filed seeking a thorough investigation by the Regulatory bodies such as SEBI, RBI and MCA into the affairs of Vedanta Limited, Hindustan Zinc Limited and Vedanta Resources Limited along with its sister concern. The PIL has been filed on the basis of a United States based investigative financial research firm namely Viceroy Research LLC which in July published a Research Report highlighting commission of fraud, financial manipulations, price rigging, and regulatory violations by public listed entities namely Vedanta Limited, Hindustan Zinc Limited and Vedanta Resources Limited along with its sister concerns.
Case Title: Shakti Bhatia vs. Union of India
Bench: CJI Gavai, Justices Chandran and Chadurkar
Click here to read more

5. [Jailed beyond term] The Supreme Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay Rs. 25 lakh in compensation to a rape convict who remained in prison for over 4.7 years after completing his seven-year sentence. The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan strongly reprimanded the State for its lapse, which led to the prolonged incarceration.
Case Title: Sohan Singh @ Bablu v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan
Click here to read more

6. [Online Gaming Act] The Supreme Court will now decide on the validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 as it allowed the Centre's petition to transfer cases pending before the High Courts challenging the law. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan allowed the transfer petition and ordered thus, “The transfer petition is allowed and the proceedings are transferred to this court. We make it clear that no other high court will entertain a challenge to the said law and proceedings will stand transferred to this court.”
Click here to read more

7. [Mhadei tiger reserve] The Supreme Court ordered status quo on the Mhadei-Kotigaon area in Goa being notified by National Tiger Conservation Authority as a Tiger reserve. A bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S Chandurkar has asked a central empowered committee to hear stakeholders in the matter and submit a report to the Supreme Court in six weeks.
Case Title: The State of Goa Through Chief Secretary vs. The Goa Foundation and Ors
Bench: CJI Gavai. Justice Chandran and Chandurkar
Click here to read more

8. [AMU Vice Chancellor] The Supreme Court of India rejected an appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court decision upholding the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), dismissing a batch of petitions challenging the legality and fairness of her selection. The controversy around Khatoon's appointment is related to her husband Prof. Mohammad Gulrez being the then acting Vice-Chancellor.
Case Title: MUZAFFAR URUJ RABBANI vs. UNION OF INDIA
Bench: Justices Maheshwari and Bishnoi
Click here to read more

9. [Tamil Nadu DGP] The Supreme Court directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to expedite the process of recommending names for the appointment of a regular Director General of Police (DGP) in Tamil Nadu. The direction came while the Court was hearing a contempt petition alleging that the state government had violated the Top Court's earlier directions in the Prakash Singh v. Union of India judgment by appointing an acting police chief instead of following the prescribed procedure.
Case Title: Henri Tiphagne v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Bench: Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Click here to read more

10. [Justice Varma Cash Row] The Supreme Court took note of a plea by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking urgent listing of a review petition in the Justice Yashwant Varma cash row case. Nedumpara submitted that he had filed a review application and requested that it be heard in open court. Justice Datta responded, “You would definitely agree with what is laid down in Order 47 of the CPC.” The Bench said that review petitions would be duly considered.
Case Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Supreme Court of India & Ors.
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan
Click here to read more

11. [TPC terrorist] An operative of the unlawful organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) has approached Supreme Court of India against a Jharkhand High Court order denying his plea for bail. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has issued notice on the SLP returnable on October 27, 2025. The Petitioner, one Dashrath Singh Bhokta was arrested in May 2020 and has been in custody since. As per the NIA's chargesheet, the Petitioner was a zonal commander of the TPC, involved in collection of levies across multiple districts, and that such extorted funds were routed to procure arms and support terrorist activities.
Case Title: DASHRATH SINGH BHOKTA @ DASHRATH GANJHU vs. UNION OF INDIA
Bench: Justices Kant and Bagchi
Click here to read more

12. [Baba Ramdev] The Supreme Court heard Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev’s plea seeking the clubbing of multiple FIRs filed against him for allegedly making disparaging statements against allopathic medicines during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was informed that out of the two FIRs in question, one registered in Chhattisgarh had already been closed, while the only surviving case was pending before a court in Patna, Bihar.
Case Title: Swami Ram Dev v. Union of India
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Click here to read more

13. [Brain Death declarations] The Supreme Court heard a petition raising serious concerns that patients in Indian hospitals are being prematurely declared “brain dead” to enable organ harvesting, with the Bench observing that the issue lies primarily in the medical and legislative domain rather than judicial determination. At the outset, the Bench noted that the question essentially pertained to medical science and public health policy. “You have experience and understand the subject well. Why don’t you make a representation to the NMC (National Medical Commission) or another expert body? We can request them to examine it,” the Bench suggested to the petitioner, cautioning that while the grievance may be genuine, the Court’s powers in the matter were limited.
Case Title: Dr. S Ganapathy v. Union of India
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

14. [Pennaiyar River Dispute] The Supreme Court has agreed to hear on September 23, 2025 the water sharing issues between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in relation to the Pennaiyar River. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was told that the Pennaiyar Water Dispute Tribunal had still not been constituted by the Central government. In November last year, the Supreme Court was told that although an effort by Central Government for mediation was attempted between the State of Karnataka and the State of Tamil Nadu and discussions were held on multiple dates, the mediation process had not succeeded.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Bench: Justices Nath and Mehta
Click here to read more

15. [Rape] The Supreme Court has once again underlined the misuse of criminal law in cases involving allegations of rape on the promise of marriage. The Court quashed summons issued against a man after finding that the complaint filed against him was both frivolous and vexatious, and that continuing the proceedings would amount to gross abuse of law. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta dealt with the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, who was accused by a woman in 2014 of repeatedly raping her since 2010 on the pretext of marriage. The Court found that the complaint, filed after a delay of four years, lacked essential particulars and was not supported by independent evidence.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

16. [Bail] The Supreme Court has raised a significant procedural issue concerning anticipatory bail applications, cautioning against the growing practice of litigants directly approaching High Courts under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), formerly Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), without first seeking relief before the Sessions Court. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while making interim protection earlier granted to the petitioners absolute, has now sought a response from the Kerala High Court through its Registrar General on whether such a practice of directly entertaining anticipatory bail pleas is being followed.
Case Title: Mohammed Rasal. C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

17. [GMR] The Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court’s September 1 order directing Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) and other GMR Group entities to vacate Pushpanjali Farms, the southwest Delhi property currently serving as the residence of GMR Group Chairperson G. M. Rao. Pushpanjali Farms spans 3.81 acres, with a 30,000 sq. ft. residence, landscaped lawns, and an outhouse. In April 2020, 2.45 acres of the property, including the main house, were leased to DIAL and other GMR affiliates at Rs. 39.6 lakh per month, later revised to Rs. 45.6 lakh. The farmhouse was used as the official residence of G. M. Rao, with the company claiming substantial investment in amenities, including a swimming pool.
Case Title: Delhi International Airport Ltd v. Onkar Infotech Pvt Ltd.
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjaria
Click here to read more

18. [Vodafone Idea AGR dues] Vodafone Idea Ltd has approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash a fresh adjusted gross revenue (AGR) demand of Rs 9,450 crore raised by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), contending that a substantial portion of the demand pertains to the pre-FY17 period already settled by the apex court in 2020. The telecom operator’s petition also challenges DoT’s revised calculations covering liabilities up to FY19, following its merger with Idea Cellular in August 2018.
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Union of India
Click here to read more

19. [Abetment to suicide] The Supreme Court on September 9, 2025 ruled that neighbourhood quarrels involving heated exchanges and even physical blows cannot be construed as abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Vishwanathan set aside the conviction of Geeta, a resident of Karnataka, who had been held guilty of abetment to suicide following the death of her neighbour Sarika. The Court held that such quarrels are part of everyday life and in the absence of clear intention or instigation to drive a person to take their life, Section 306 cannot be attracted.
Case Title: Geeta Vs State of Karnataka
Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Vishwanathan
Click here to read more

20. [Reservations] The Supreme Court has on September 9, 2025 set aside a High Court order that had directed appointment of certain candidates belonging to reserved categories against unreserved posts in the Railway Protection Force. The candidates had applied under the reserved category and availed relaxation in age and physical measurements during recruitment, but later sought to be considered in the unreserved category on the basis that they had obtained marks higher than the last selected candidate in that category.
Case Title: Railway Protection Force & Ors v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors
Bench: Justices Surya Kant & Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

21. [Asia Cup] Supreme Court on refused to urgently listing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to cancel the upcoming India Pakistan Asia Cup T20 match scheduled to be held in Dubai on September 14, 2025. The petitioners argue that at a time when Indian soldiers and civilians continue to suffer losses from cross-border violence and terror attacks, allowing a high profile cricket match against Pakistan sends a message contrary to national dignity and the sacrifices of the armed forces.
Case Title: Urvashi Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Click here to read more

22. [POCSO] The Supreme Court on September 10, 2025 acquitted a man who had been sentenced to death for the sexual assault and murder of a minor girl in Uttarakhand in 2014, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence. The ruling raises the central legal question of when the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which governs the imposition of capital punishment in India, can be invoked.
Case Title: Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

23. [Vantara] The Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into Vantara, recently spent three days at Vantara inspecting its facilities. Notably, the SIT has issued a questionnaire seeking detailed answers on financial transactions, international acquisition of animals, compliance with wildlife and zoo regulations, housing standards, and procedures followed for international and inter-state transfers.
Case Title: C R Jaya Sukin vs. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read more

24. [Presidential Reference] The Supreme Court's five judge bench has reserved verdict in a special reference case which was registered on July 19 by the court's own motion after President Droupadi Murmu has 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. A five judge bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar had on July 22 issued notice to the Union of India and all the state governments in a special reference case which was registered by the court's own motion.
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

25. [District Judge recruitment] The Supreme Court on a September 23, 2025 will begin hearing a case concerning the appointment of judicial officer who has completed seven years in practice at the Bar as an Additional District Judge against vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment from the Bar. In August, a bench led by Chief Justice of India had referred to a five judge Constitution Bench the question of whether a judicial officer who has completed seven years in practice at the Bar prior to joining the subordinate judicial service can be considered eligible for appointment as an Additional District Judge against vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment from the Bar.
Case Title: Rejanish K V vs. K Deepa And Others
Bench: CJI Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and Vinod K Chandran
Click here to read more

26. [Farmers Protest] The Supreme Court refused to entertain actor-politician Kangana Ranaut’s plea to quash a criminal defamation case arising from her remarks during the 2020–21 farmers’ protests, observing that her tweet “added spice” and could not be brushed aside as a mere retweet. The case stems from her 2020 retweet where she allegedly misidentified 73-year-old farmer protestor Mahinder Kaur as Bilkis Bano, popularly known as the “Shaheen Bagh dadi” during the anti-CAA protests, triggering a defamation complaint.
Case Title: Kangana Ranaut v. Mahinder Kaur
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

27. [Photography inside SC] The Supreme Court of India has issued a fresh circular strictly prohibiting photography and videography inside its High Security Zone, except for official purposes. The notification, dated September 10, 2025, was issued by Secretary General Shekhar C. Munghate. According to the guidelines, media personnel will be allowed to conduct interviews and live broadcasts only from the designated lawn in the Low Security Zone. The use of mobile phones, cameras, tripods, selfie sticks or other equipment for photography, videography or creating reels has been banned within the High Security Zone.
Click here to red more

28. [Black Money] The Supreme Court agreed to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to frame comprehensive rules for the registration and regulation of political parties with the aim of curbing the unchecked proliferation and misuse of black money in the electoral process.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

29. [Delhi Riots] The Supreme Court said it will hear on September 19 the bail pleas filed by UAPA accused, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider, all accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. All the four UAPA Accused have filed a Special Leave petition (SLP) before the Apex Court challenging the Delhi High Court's September 2, order denying bail to them.
Case Title: Gulfisha Fatima v. State of NCT of Delhi and connected matters
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N Anjaria
Click here to read more

30. [Firecracker Ban] The Supreme Court suggested a nationwide ban on firecrackers ahead of Diwali and not just the National Capital Region. "If firecrackers are to be banned, they should be banned throughout the country..", Chief Justice of India BR Gavai remarked while hearing the MC Mehta case. “If cities in NCR are entitled to clean air, why not people of other cities? Whatever policy has to be there, it has to be on a pan-India basis. We can’t have a policy just for Delhi because they’re elite citizens of the country. I was there in Amritsar in winter last year, and there the pollution was worse", CJI added.
Case Title: MC Mehta vs. Union of India
Bench: CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran
Click here to read more

31. [Custodial Torture] The Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition filed by the brother of a minor who was brutally tortured in police custody by several officers of Botad Town Police Station in State of Gujarat. A mentioning was made before a bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice Vinod K Chandran which agreed to hear the petition seeking constitution of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) or, in the alternative, an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the supervision of the Court. The plea also seeks counselling services and compensation for the minor boy.
Click here to read more

32. [PwD reservations] The Supreme Court has asked the Union of India to explain whether appropriate measures have been taken to provide the upward movement of meritorious candidates applying against the post/s reserved for persons with disabilities, in case such candidate secures more than the cut-off for the unreserved category. Stating that the same principle must also be applied to promotions, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has said, "Such consideration must be guided by the overarching aim that the true and substantive benefit of reservations reaches those most in need, ensuring that no person with disability is ignored from his rightful claim to the post, merely due to the compounded barriers of poverty, stigma, and lack of access. Such an exercise must be undertaken keeping in view the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and inclusion, and ensuring that the benefits of reservation are neither diluted nor denied to those who genuinely require them".
Case Title: JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION vs. U.O.I.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read more

33. [Judicial Cadre] Reiterating its consistent concern over delays in trials under special laws, the Supreme Court suggested that instead of earmarking cases within the existing judicial strength, the Union Government should consider increasing the cadre of judicial officers to handle such matters. The Court observed that diverting sitting judges exclusively for trials under laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) would adversely affect the functioning of other courts.
Case Title: Mahesh Khatri @ Bholi v. State NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 1422/2025
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Click here to read more

34. [Sexual Harassment Complaints] The Supreme Court has clarified that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, complaints of sexual harassment must be filed within a maximum period of six months from the date of the last incident. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale held that while limitation issues ordinarily involve mixed questions of fact and law, a complaint that is patently barred by limitation on the face of it may be rejected at the threshold, without calling the opposite party.
Case Title: Vaneeta Patnaik Vs Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors
Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale
Click here to read more