June 23, 2025 To June 30, 2025
Case Title: KUNDAN SINGH Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, SLP(Crl) No. 9111/2025
Quotation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 686
The Supreme Courtroom strongly deprecated the observe of events getting anticipatory/common bail orders from courts after voluntarily providing to deposit substantial quantities however later going again on the statements and approaching larger courts claiming that the situation imposed whereas granting bail was onerous or the involved counsel didn’t have authority to make the assertion.
“We strongly deprecate this observe…we’ve to take heed to the sanctity of judicial course of. We can’t enable events to play tucks and methods with the Courtroom…we can’t allow events to make the most of a tool resorted by them to safe orders of launch”, noticed a bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh.
The Courtroom famous that the observe of events elevating such claims earlier than the Supreme Courtroom was turning into “commonplace” and resulted in foreclosures of consideration of circumstances by Excessive Courts on deserves.
Case Title: WAZAHAT KHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 247/2025
The Supreme Courtroom on Monday (June 23) stayed the arrest of Wazahat Khan, the person whose grievance led to the arrest of influencer Sharmistha Panoli, within the FIRs registered in states aside from West Bengal in relation to his social media posts for allegedly hurting non secular sentiments.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh handed the interim order whereas issuing discover on Khan’s writ petition looking for the consolidation of the FIRs registered within the States of Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana over his social media posts. The bench famous that Khan was arrested in two circumstances registered in West Bengal and is presently present process police custody within the FIR registered by the Golf Hyperlink Police Station, Kolkata, and was remanded to judicial custody within the different Bengal FIR.
Case Title: SANTOSH KUMARI Versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 55/2025
The Supreme Courtroom proposed to put down tips for grant of OBC (Different Backward Courses) certificates to youngsters of single moms, in order that the identical may be issued with out insistence on paperwork from the paternal facet.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and listed it for closing listening to on July 22. The order summarized the problem raised thus,
“The current petition raises an essential situation about issuance of OBC certificates to youngsters of single mom the place the mom belongs to OBC class. The declare of the petitioner is certificates must be issued on the idea of the certificates held by single mom. The grievance of the petitioner is that current tips appear to supply for…contemplating the OBC certificates issued to any paternal blood relative as the idea. Based on the petitioner, this causes grave hardship to single moms.”
Case Title: BASKARAN @ MAYURAN AND ANR. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 16491-2025
The Supreme Courtroom stayed a 2019 deportation order handed towards a Sri Lankan Tamil immigrant and referred to as for the response of Indian authorities on his request for permission to bodily go to Switzerland Embassy for processing of a visa on humanitarian grounds.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and issued discover to the respondent-authorities.
Since almost 5.5 years had elapsed because the impugned deportation order was handed, the bench was inclined to hunt the authorities’ response as to the present standing.
Case Title: WAZAHAT KHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 247/2025
“Hate speeches get us nowhere”, remarked Supreme Courtroom choose Justice KV Viswanathan , whereas coping with the plea of Wajahat Khan (complainant in Sharmistha Panoli’s case), who’s going through complaints/FIRs in a number of states over alleged offensive remarks in his outdated social media posts.
A bench of Justices Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh was contemplating Khan’s plea for consolidation of the FIRs lodged towards him over alleged hurting of non secular sentiments by means of the social media posts.
Notably, the FIRs had been lodged after Khan complained towards influencer and legislation pupil Sharmistha Panoli, who was arrested and subsequently launched on interim bail.
Within the wake of the tragic Air India aircraft crash that befell in Ahmedabad on June 12, claiming 270 lives, a public curiosity litigation has been file earlier than the Supreme Courtroom looking for suspension of the airways’ Boeing fleet until acceptable security and safety audits are carried out.
The PIL, filed by Advocate Ajay Bansal, alleges that the Plane Act, 1934, the Plane Guidelines, 1937, and civil aviation necessities usually are not being adhered to by industrial airways. It seeks shock security audits throughout your entire Air India fleet and different industrial airways working within the nation.
Case Title: AFTAB Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
The Supreme Courtroom took critical exception to the non-release of an accused individual from Ghaziabad jail, regardless of a bail order handed by the highest Courtroom, on the alleged floor {that a} sub-section of a provision underneath which he was booked was not talked about within the bail order.
Sensing “one thing fishy”, the Courtroom referred to as what transpired “ridiculous” and a “travesty of justice”, and proposed contempt motion towards the involved authority if petitioner’s averments had been discovered to be true. On the identical time, it warned the petitioner’s counsel that if the allegation towards the jail authorities was discovered to be unfaithful, penalties will comply with for the petitioner – together with withdrawal of the bail order.
Case Title: GURSHER SINGH SANDHU Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 9140/2025
In a plea filed by dismissed Punjab DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu towards issuance of Part 41A CrPC notices, the Supreme Courtroom at this time questioned how the ABP reporter, who carried out the interview of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi (accused in singer Sidhu Moosewala homicide case), acquired contained in the Punjab jail.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and dismissed it as withdrawn, noting that comparable petition filed by Sandhu earlier than the Punjab and Haryana excessive Courtroom is listed for listening to on July 3.
Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE TOWN POLICE STATION Versus HEMANTH DATTA @ HEMANTHA @ BABY AND ANR | SLP (Cal) 9295/2025
In a case filed by the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Courtroom is more likely to take into account the problem as as to if its judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) should furnish grounds of arrest to the accused in writing, is retrospective in utility.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter yesterday and adjourned it to June 26.
The case assails resolution dated 17.04.2025 rendered by the Karnataka Excessive Courtroom holding that the Supreme Courtroom’s judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India shall apply retrospectively to circumstances the place arrest was made previous to 03.10.2023 (date of the judgment) and that the mentioned arrests may be challenged on the bottom of non-service of grounds of arrest.
Case Title: AFTAB Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
The Supreme Courtroom got here down closely on the State of Uttar Pradesh for not releasing a prisoner from the Ghaziabad jail regardless of the bail order handed by the Supreme Courtroom.
A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs 5 Lakhs as provisional compensation to the accused, who was denied launch for 28 days, over a clerical omission of a sub-section within the bail order and the discharge order. The bench noticed that private liberty can’t be denied on “ineffective technicalities” and “irrelevant errors”, when the small print of the case and the offences are in any other case clear from the bail order.
Case Title: ASHWINKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 9334/2025
The Supreme Courtroom expressed a prima facie view that summoning of authorized professionals by prosecuting companies/police in relation to consumer data or recommendation given is untenable and a menace to autonomy of the authorized occupation.
“Authorized occupation is an integral element of technique of administration of justice. Counsels who’re engaged of their authorized observe have sure rights and privileges assured due to the truth that they’re authorized professionals, and in addition attributable to statutory provisions. Allowing investigating companies/police to immediately summon protection counsel/advocates who recommendation events in a given case would severely undermine autonomy of authorized occupation and would even represent a direct menace to independence of administration of justice”, the Courtroom noticed.
Case Title: AFTAB Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
“God is aware of what number of are languishing in your jails over technicalities”, the Supreme Courtroom mentioned at this time whereas heavily rebuking State of Uttar Pradesh for not releasing an accused over lack of particulars within the bail order.
The Courtroom additional directed a judicial enquiry by a sitting District Choose, which shall concentrate on why there was delay within the petitioner-accused’s launch and whether or not there was one thing “sinister” happening. Notably, an interim compensation of Rs.5 lakhs was additionally ordered to be paid by the state to the petitioner.
Case Title: KADAM GIRISH SHRIRAM Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 14738/2025
Quotation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 688
The Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday (June 25) granted interim aid to a NEET-PG 2024 candidate, who was denied admission attributable to a delay in reporting to school regardless of paying the charges. The Courtroom directed the medical school to permit the petitioner to attend the PG class from tomorrow onwards.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh handed the order within the peculiar information of the case, directing ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences and Analysis, Haldia, to confess the petitioner-candidate.
“The petitioner being duly counselled and having paid charges on or earlier than 20.03.2025 must be permitted to attend the school within the seat allotted. We direct that respondent No.9-Faculty to which the petitioner has been allotted a seat to allow him to attend the courses from tomorrow onwards”, the Courtroom ordered.
Case Title: TANVI AND ORS. Versus A.Okay. ATRI AND ANR., Diary No. 33610-2025
Alleging that the choice to transform the Union Territory quota seats of Chandigarh as All India Quota seats is in violation of the judgment in Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, a contempt petition has been filed within the Supreme Courtroom.
In Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, the Courtroom held that residence-based reservation in PG Medical seats is impermissible as it’s violative of Article 14 of the Structure.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter on Tuesday and positioned it earlier than CJI BR Gavai for itemizing earlier than the suitable bench (comprising judges who handed the Tanvi Behl judgment).
“We will not do something. It is solely correct that being a contempt, it goes to the identical choose…who’s sitting on June 7…the admissions are over now, they are often reversed if there’s breach”, mentioned Justice Viswanathan.
Supreme Courtroom Bar Affiliation (SCBA) President Vikas Singh has written to Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, requesting the relocation of the Nationwide Judicial Museum and Archive to the Extra Constructing inside the Supreme Courtroom campus and repurposing of the present museum area, the erstwhile Judges’ Library, to be used by Bar member
Singh reiterated the Affiliation’s objection to finding the museum in a high-security zone, which, he mentioned, made it inaccessible to the general public and was completed with none session with the Bar.
Singh has proposed two measures: first, to downgrade the safety standing of the Extra Constructing Space inside the Appu Ghar Complicated to match that of chambers inside the primary campus, and second, to relocate the Nationwide Judicial Museum and Archive to the vacant areas on this Extra Constructing Space.
The SCBA President famous that the land was initially allotted to Appu Ghar and was later reallocated to the Supreme Courtroom for developing attorneys’ chambers after Appu Ghar’s lease expired.
Case Title – Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Case no. – Diary No. 33782 / 2025
The Supreme Courtroom on Tuesday declined to grant exemption from give up to a person convicted over 20 years in the past underneath Part 304B of the IPC (dowry loss of life) for killing his spouse, rejecting his plea that he had served in Operation Sindoor and labored as a Black Cat Commando for the final 20 years.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vinod Chandran was listening to a particular depart petition filed towards a Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom order that had dismissed the convict’s enchantment and upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. The petitioner had additionally filed an utility looking for exemption from surrendering until the pendency of the proceedings earlier than the Supreme Courtroom.
When the bench expressed disinclination from granting exemption, the petitioner’s counsel mentioned stating, “I can solely depart with one line, I’m a participant of Operation Sindoor. For the previous 20 years I’m a black cat commando posted my lord in Rashtriya Rifles.”
Nonetheless, the bench was not moved by this plea, with Justice Bhuyan responding, “That does not offer you immunity from committing atrocity at house. This goes to indicate how bodily match you’re, and the way through which alone you possibly can have killed your spouse, strangulated your spouse.”
Case Title – Jaynab Bibi v. Union of India
Case no. – Diary No. 20270/2025
The Supreme Courtroom at this time granted interim safety from deportation to a girl who has been declared a foreigner by Foreigner’s Tribunal underneath Part 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Gauhati Excessive Courtroom has upheld the Tribunal’s order.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vinod Chandran issued discover returnable on August 25, 2025 in a plea difficult the Excessive Courtroom resolution.
“Difficulty discover returnable on 25.08.2025. Realized counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the standing counsel for respondent(s). In the mean time, petitioner shall not be deported and no coercive steps shall be taken towards the petitioner” The Courtroom ordered.
Case Title – AS Ismail v. Nationwide Investigation Company Particular Go away to Attraction (Crl.) No(s). 9327/2025
The Supreme Courtroom at this time declined to think about the plea for bail on medical grounds by Standard Entrance of India (PFI) chief AS Ismail, who’s booked underneath the Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act, 1967.
A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, nevertheless, issued discover to look at whether or not physiotherapy amenities accessible in Tihar Jail No. 3 is also prolonged to Ismail, who’s at the moment lodged in Tihar Jail No. 1.
“Whereas we aren’t inclined to think about enlarging the petitioner on bail on medical grounds, contemplating the report of All India Institute of Medical Sciences dated 15.03.2025 (web page 236 of the paper e-book), we’re issuing discover to the respondent solely to look at whether or not the physiotherapist facility, which in accordance with the realized counsel for the petitioner which is on the market in Tihar Jail-3, is also made accessible to the petitioner who’s at the moment lodged in Tihar Jail-1”, the Courtroom ordered.
Case Title – Raghunath Bansropan Pandey v. State of Gujarat
Quotation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 690
The Supreme Courtroom lately refused to remain conviction of a public servant convicted underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, noting that courts ought to chorus from staying conviction of public servants who’ve been convicted on prices of corruption.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale famous that there was no purpose to intervene with the Gujarat Excessive Courtroom order which had solely suspended the sentence however didn’t keep the conviction.
“This Courtroom in K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584 and Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. M.N. Sharma, (2008) 8 SCC 549 has categorically laid down that the Courts ought to chorus from staying conviction of public servants who’ve been convicted on prices of corruption. Ex facie, we discover no justifiable purpose to take a special view. That being the scenario, we’re of the agency opinion that the impugned order doesn’t undergo from any infirmity warranting interference”, the court docket held.
The Supreme Courtroom has notified the “Tips for Retention and Destruction of Data, 2025” to control the dealing with of administrative data within the Registry. The transfer addresses the absence of a uniform retention framework for administrative data.
Whereas judicial data are already ruled by Order LVI of the Supreme Courtroom Guidelines, 2013, and Chapter XXI of the 2017 Handbook on Observe and Workplace Process, no such system existed for non-judicial information.
A 90-day lengthy Pan India mediation marketing campaign titled ‘Mediation For the Nation’ will start on July 1, 2025, and proceed until September 30, 2025.
“MEDIATION ‘FOR THE NATION’ marketing campaign is being launched throughout India to settle the pending circumstances and make folks imagine that mediation as a mechanism for dispute decision is peoples’ pleasant, value efficient and speedy with capability to save lots of relationships, money and time”, a joint press launch by NALSA and MCPC acknowledged.
The marketing campaign has been conceptualised underneath the steering of the Chief Justice of India and Justice Surya Kant, Choose, Supreme Courtroom of India, who can also be the Government Chairman of the Nationwide Authorized Providers Authority (NALSA) and Mediation and Conciliation Challenge Committee (MCPC).
Case Title – State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman
Quotation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 691
The Supreme Courtroom lately dismissed an enchantment filed by the State of Rajasthan difficult the acquittal of a homicide accused, observing that mere restoration of a blood-stained weapon matching the sufferer’s blood group isn’t sufficient for a homicide conviction.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the Excessive Courtroom’s judgment dated Could 15, 2015, which had put aside the conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court docket on the respondent.
Case Title – Annu @ Aniket By way of His Father As Subsequent Buddy Krupal Singh Thakur v. Union of India
Case no. – SLP (Crl) No. 9285/2025
The Supreme Courtroom directed the instant launch of a 24-year-old legislation pupil from Madhya Pradesh who had been underneath preventive detention for almost a 12 months underneath the Nationwide Safety Act, 1980 (NSA).
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vinod Chandran noticed that the grounds talked about within the order, which embrace disruption of legislation and order didn’t fulfill the necessities of Part 3(2) of the Act.
“Nonetheless, we’re of the view that the explanations for which he has been taken into preventive detention doesn’t fulfill the requirement of Sub Part(2) of Part 3 of the Nationwide Safety Act, 1980. Preventive detention of the appellant, due to this fact, turns into wholly untenable”, the Courtroom noticed.
Case Particulars : ASSAD KHATRI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.|T.P.(C) No. 1746/2025
The Supreme Courtroom at this time (June 26) refused to switch to itself a writ petition filed within the Delhi Excessive Courtroom difficult the conduct of the NEET-UG 2025 examination. The Courtroom noticed that because the problem was based mostly on particular person information relevant to the petitioner himself, and never on any floor relevant typically throughout the board, the Excessive Courtroom was the suitable discussion board to resolve.
Nonetheless, contemplating the priority raised by the petitioner that the seats can be crammed up by the center of July, the bench allowed him to hunt development of the listening to.
Contemplating the urgency of the matter, the bench allowed the petitioner to say it earlier than the Delhi Excessive Courtroom Chief Justice for a potential early listening to.
Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE TOWN POLICE STATION Versus HEMANTH DATTA @ HEMANTHA @ BABY AND ANR | SLP (Cal) 9295/2025
The Supreme Courtroom issued discover in a Particular Go away Petition filed by the State of Karnataka elevating the problem whether or not the judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) should furnish grounds of arrest to the accused in writing, has retrospective utility and whether or not it applies to offences underneath the Indian Penal Code.
The bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh, whereas listening to the matter for admission, noticed that the end result of the case Mihir Rajesh Shah v. The State of Maharashtra, through which judgment was reserved by the Supreme Courtroom in April, will handle the problems raised within the current matter as nicely.
Case Particulars: SULEKHATAI NALINITAI NARAYANRAO KUMBHARE Vs THE UNION OF INDIA| D No. 19102/2025
The Supreme Courtroom refused to entertain a writ petition looking for handy over the administration of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara at Bodh Gaya, Bihar to Buddhists.
The petitioner additionally challenged the Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949, as per which the temple is managed by a administration committee consisting of 4 Buddhists, 4 Hindus and one district collector.
A partial working days bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Okay Vinod Chandran dismissed the petition, giving the petitioner liberty to strategy the Excessive Courtroom.
Case Particulars : M/S ALANKAR GRANITES v THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ORS.| SLP(C) No. 16999/2025
The difficulty whether or not a stone crusher unit can function within the Eco Delicate Zones (ESZ) notified round protected forests may be raised earlier than the Kerala Excessive Courtroom, the Supreme Courtroom noticed lately, whereas permitting the withdrawal of a petition.
A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh was listening to a particular depart petition filed by M/s Alankar Granites difficult the order of the Kerala Excessive Courtroom, which vacated its earlier keep on the cease memos issued towards the stone crushing unit.
Case Particulars : RAGHAVENDRA BAGAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.| Petition(s) for Particular Go away to Attraction (C) No(s). 16610/2025
The Supreme Courtroom is ready to think about the validity of the Union’s current coverage of getting uniform pricing for Consular Passport and Visa Providers, regardless of whether or not the applicant avails of different Worth Added Providers.
The bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh was listening to the plea filed by a petitioner who’s a citizen of India, residing in Oman.
The petitioner has moved towards the Delhi Excessive Courtroom’s order of dismissing his PIL, which challenged the Union’s coverage modifications concerning the pricing of Consular Passport and Visa Providers (CPV companies) by third-party suppliers.
Case Title : S. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR v STATE OF TAMIL NADU | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO(S). 33621/2025
The Supreme Courtroom on Monday sought an evidence from the Registrar Basic of the Madras Excessive Courtroom, for the non-listing of an anticipatory bail plea filed underneath the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice NK Singh was listening to the Particular Go away Petition filed difficult the Registry’s refusal to record the petition earlier than the bench on the bottom that anticipatory bail was barred underneath Part 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 .
The Courtroom noticed that it’s in the end for the bench to resolve whether or not a matter is maintainable or not.
The petitioner contended that the Registry can’t resolve the maintainability of a petition because it was a matter of judicial discretion. Nonetheless, by the point the matter reached the Supreme Courtroom, the petitioner acquired arrested.
Case Particulars : M. Jegan Moorthy Vs The Inspector Police| SLP(Crl) No. 009477 – / 2025
The Supreme Courtroom at this time granted anticipatory bail to “Poovai” Jegan Moorthy, MLA of KV Kuppam, Tamil Nadu, within the case alleging his involvement within the abduction of a minor boy.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice NK Singh was listening to the problem towards the Madras Excessive Courtroom’s order dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by Moorthy in reference to the alleged abduction of a minor boy. The bench agreed to situation discover within the matter and granted anticipatory bail.
Case Title: LALIT KUMAR MODI Versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 14199-2025
The Supreme Courtroom declined to entertain a writ petition filed by former IPL Chairman Lalit Kumar Modi towards the Board of Management for Cricket in India (BCCI), looking for indemnification for a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate underneath the International Alternate Administration Act (FEMA).
The matter was listed earlier than the partial court docket working days bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, which on the outset noticed that the BCCI (Board of Management for Cricket in India) isn’t a “State” underneath Article 12 of the Structure and therefore circuitously amenable to writ jurisdiction underneath Article 226, besides in sure restricted useful public duties like organizing sports activities occasions.
