1) Indian army can’t impose additional restriction regarding extent of induction of women officers in corps: Supreme Court quashes quota policy for JAG
The Court while quashing quota policy for JAG (Judge Advocate General) branch, held that Indian Army cannot impose an additional restriction regarding extent of induction of women officers in corps.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition in which the primary issue was whether the Centre after having issued a Notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 allowing induction of women in the JAG branch could have denied admission to other women candidates.
Cause Title- Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 954)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
2) Hostile witness’s testimony need not be discarded in its entirety: Supreme Court upholds conviction of central jail employee in conspiracy case
The Court upheld the conviction of the Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail in a criminal conspiracy case.
A Criminal Appeal was preferred by the accused, challenging the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the Judgment of conviction rendered by the Fast Track Court.
Cause Title- Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 957)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan
3) Proviso to Sec.61(2) of IBC allows NCLAT to permit appeal filing even after expiry of 30 days’ period but such period shouldn’t exceed 15 days
While setting aside a Judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the Court explained that the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 allows the Tribunal to permit the Appeal to be filed even after expiry of the period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the Appeal within that time but such extended period should not exceed 15 days.
An Appeal before the Court was filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench.
Cause Title- Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 959)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
4) Power under Article 142 must be invoked to advance cause of complete justice in divorce cases
The Court emphasized that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in divorce cases.
The Court emphasized thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the father-in-law of a woman who came into contact with his son through a matrimonial website.
Cause Title- ABC v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 962)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
5) Once marital relationship has ended in divorce & parties have moved on, continuation of criminal case serves no legitimate purpose
While quashing a criminal case registered against a man and his family members, the Court held that once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on in their lives individually, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose.
The Court was considering a challenge laid against the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Application filed by the Appellant husband under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- A v. State Of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 963)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
6) Pre-independence documents have greater probative value in caste claims: Supreme Court asks scrutiny committee to issue caste validity certificate
While directing the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee to issue a Caste Validity Certificate to a medical aspirant, the Court reiterated that pre-Independence documents will have a greater probative value while considering the claim of the applicant.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Petition challenging the Order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee confiscating and invalidating the Caste Certificate of the appellant and his father for the Scheduled Tribe – Koli Mahadev.
Cause Title- Yogesh Madhav Makalwad v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 964)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India B.R.Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
7) Supreme Court refers issue regarding eligibility for appointment as district judge by way of direct recruitment to Constitution bench
The Court referred the issue regarding the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge by way of direct recruitment to the Constitution Bench. The Court also said that in view of the question involving the interpretation of Article 233(2), the matter ought to have been placed before a Bench of five Judges.
The Court was considering a batch of Petitions seeking review of the Judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (JUR) whereby it was held that the members of the judicial service of a State could be appointed as district judges either by way of promotion or the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).
Cause Title- Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 965)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
8) To convict a person under corruption, demand & acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non
The Court held that to convict a person in corruption cases, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non.
The Court was considering two Appeals against their conviction by the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981.
Cause Title- A. Karunanithi vs. The State Represented By Inspector Of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 967)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
9) Convict shall be entitled to be released in all cases where he has completed his period of jail term
The Court held that in all cases where an accused or convict has completed his period of jail term, he/she shall be entitled to be released forthwith.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal in which the question that arose was whether an accused/convict who has completed his “life imprisonment for a fixed term” such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, is entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence.
Cause Title- Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 969)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
10) Supreme Court upholds acquittal of husband in suicide abetment case; takes note of report suggesting gas leak
The Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of abetting his wife’s suicide and booked under the provisions of Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court took note of the scientific report, which suggested that the cylinder and gas stove were kept inside the bedroom, and as a result of the fire, the entire family suffered injuries.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Order passed in a Revision Petition filed by the Complainant, whereby the High Court had set aside the Order acquitting the Appellants/accused and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
Cause Title- XYZ v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 970)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
11) Supreme Court suggests constitution of expert appellate body against orders passed by tariff authority for major ports
The Court suggested the constitution of an expert appellate body to hear Appeals against the Orders passed by the adjudicatory board or Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP).
The Court was deciding Civil Appeals in which the issue pertained to fixation of tariff by the Paradip Port Authority.
Cause Title- Paradip Port Authority v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 971)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal
12) Principle of the best interest of child to be followed: Supreme Court directs police to hand over custody of children to adoptive parents
The Court while directing Police to hand over custody of children to adoptive parents, observed that the principle of the best interest of the child is to be followed in such cases.
The Court was considering an Appeal wherein the Appellant assailed the validity of the action of the Police Authorities in taking away the custody of the minor children from them as they claim to be the adoptive parents on the premise that it is without authority of law.
Cause Title- Dasari Anil Kumar & Another vs. The Child Welfare Project Director & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 972)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2025
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan
13) Appeal against grant of bail can’t be considered on same footing as application for bail cancellation
The Court enumerated guidelines governing the law of bail and also ruled that an appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail.
The Court was considering an Appeal preferred by the Complainant against the final Judgment whereby the Respondent Accused came to be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Cause Title- Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 974)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
14) Permitting non-signatory to agreement to remain present in arbitration proceedings is beyond scope of S. 11(6) A&C Act
The Court held that permitting the non-signatory to an agreement to remain present in the arbitration proceedings is beyond the scope of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals filed by the parties aggrieved by the directions issued by the concerned Judge.
Cause Title- Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/s L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 975)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
15) Adorn care & upkeep stray dogs responsibly at dog shelters or pounds: Supreme Court urges genuine stray dog lovers
The Court while hearing the Suo-Moto Writ Petition on the issue of dog-bites reported in Delhi and the areas on the outskirts, urged genuine stray dog lovers to adorn the care and upkeep of the stray dogs responsibly at the dog shelters or pounds.
The Court urged thus while directing the State of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to pick up all stray dogs from the localities and public places in Delhi and put them in shelter homes.
Cause Title- In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 977)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
16) Mere absence of written grounds doesn’t render arrest illegal unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of fair opportunity
The Court held that mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.
The Court held thus in Criminal Appeals preferred by the State, challenging the Common Order of the Karnataka High Court by which the accused persons were enlarged on bail.
Cause Title- State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 979)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
17) Consumers likely to exercise greater care in purchase decisions: Supreme Court rejects plea of ‘blenders pride’ alleging trademark infringement by ‘london pride’
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal filed by Pernod Ricard India Private Limited which alleged trademark infringement by whiskey brand ‘London Pride’ against ‘Blenders Pride’.
The Court was of the view that the consumers are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions.
Cause Title- Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 981)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
18) Action arising from audit or detailed scrutiny of returns must be initiated by tax administration: Supreme Court summarizes points under CGST Act
The Court summarized certain important points under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
The Court was deciding a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a company against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed a Writ Petition and declined from interdicting the summons issued under Section 70 of CGST Act by the Commissioner.
Cause Title- M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 982)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
19) Presume third party involvement whenever long delay is sought to be condoned: Supreme Court in property dispute
While setting aside an Order of the Bombay High Court condoning a huge delay of 5,250 days in filing the application for restoration, the Court held that whenever a delay of a long period of time is sought to be condoned, the Court should not rule out the involvement of third parties in the litigation.
The Appeal before the Court arose out of an Order whereby the High Court condoned a delay of 5,250 days in filing the application for restoration. This Order was passed in the absence of the non-applicants, noticing that their private service was complete in view of an affidavit filed by the applicant.
Cause Title- M/s. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 985)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
20) Application for determination of rent along with deposit of admitted rent is mandatory u/s. 7 West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act
The Court held that in the absence of twin conditions, i.e. the rent specified has not been paid and the application for determination of rent has not been filed within the period of thirty days as prescribed, tenant cannot avail the benefit of protection against eviction as envisaged under Section 7 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT) Act.
An Appeal was filed against the Order of the High Court and the Small Cause Court.
Cause Title- Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School V. Ismat Ahmed & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 984)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
21) Husband remarried before divorce decree was reversed: Supreme Court grants divorce subject to payment of ₹1.25 cr alimony
The Court while granting divorce invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has made the same subject to payment of Permanent Alimony of Rs. 1.25 Crores, since the husband had remarried before the High Court reversed the order of divorce by the Family Court.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an order of the High Court whereby the divorce granted by the Family Court was set aside at the Wife’s instance.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 978)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
22) Estoppel plea can’t be raised by party ignoring its conduct resulting in other party altering its position under A&C Act
The Court held that under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), a plea of estoppel cannot be raised by a party ignoring its conduct that resulted in the other party altering its position to its detriment in view of such conduct.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the High Court which dismissed an Appeal and affirmed the finding that the dispute was non-arbitrable.
Cause Title- Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 988)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
23) Statement of accused explaining incriminating circumstances should be considered before convicting
The Court reiterated that the statement of the accused explaining the incriminating circumstances is to be considered before recording conviction, while posthumously acquitting a man convicted for taking a bribe.
The Court also held that to make out an offence of bribery, there has to be cogent proof of demand. The Court was considering an Appeal against the Judgment and Order of the Kerala High Court whereby conviction of her husband under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was upheld.
Cause Title- Mini vs. CBI/ SPE Cochin (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 980)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
24) Merely because petition involves political figure, it can’t be ground to transfer proceedings
While asking the Advocates to tender an unconditional apology for making scandalous allegations against a Telangana High Court Judge, the Court held that merely on the basis that a Petition involves a political figure in a State cannot constitute a ground to transfer the proceedings.
The proceeding before the Court originated from a Transfer Petition seeking transfer of a Criminal Petition from the Telangana High Court to the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Cause Title- In Re: N. Peddi Raju and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 989)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
25) If court is satisfied of applicant's non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 proviso of CPC, ex-parte ad interim injunction can be vacated
The Court ruled that if the Court is satisfied of non-compliance by the applicant with the provisions contained in the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC, then, on being so satisfied, the Court can simply vacate the ex-parte order without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Petition before the Court arose from an Order passed by the Allahabad High Court by which the Petition filed by the Respondents (original Defendants) came to be allowed, thereby setting aside the Order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) granting ex-parte injunction as prayed for by the Petitioner.
Cause Title- Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. The State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 966)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
26) Courts shouldn’t rush to invalidate election merely because candidate hasn’t disclosed certain information related to assets: Supreme Court rejects plea against BRS MLA
The Court held that merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed certain information related to the assets, Courts should not rush to invalidate the election.
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal filed by INC (Indian National Congress) member Ajmera Shyam against BRS (Bharat Rashtra Samithi) party MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) Kova Laxmi.
Cause Title- Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 992)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh