1) Prosecutor can’t act as defence lawyer; accused persons must have ample opportunity to dispel claims against them
The Court ordered the Trial Court to recommence the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements in a criminal case, after finding that statements given by three accused persons were carbon copies of each other. It also held that the prosecutor is an officer of the Court and cannot act as a defence lawyer.
The Court further mentioned that one of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. The Appeals before the Court arose from the final Judgments and Orders of the Patna High Court affirming the Judgment of conviction and the Order of sentence in a murder case. A total of six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment. Three of them had approached the Court.
Cause Title- Chandan Pasi v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1371)
Date of Judgment- December 1, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
2) Power of State Govt under Maharashtra Slum Areas Act is subject to preferential right of owner
The Court reiterated that the power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is subject to preferential right, if any, of the owner.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal arising from the Judgment of the Bombay High Court by which a Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) was dismissed.
Cause Title- Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1372)
Date of Judgment- December 2, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
3) Police & criminal courts must be circumspect in filing chargesheet & framing charges in cases where there is pending civil dispute
The Court discharged an accused in a criminal case involving a landlord-tenant dispute after noting that there was a pending civil case with regard to the property, as well as a prior subsisting injunction order. The Court further held that the Police and the Criminal Courts must be circumspect in filing a chargesheet and framing charges and they must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to the formal trial stage.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed against the Judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court, whereby the Revision Petition filed by the Appellant-accused against the Order dismissing the discharge application filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
Cause Title- Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. The State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1373)
Date of Judgment- December 2, 2025
Coram- Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice Manmohan
4) Committed error in bifurcating continuous process of manufacture: Supreme Court quashes CESTAT’s order
The Court quashed an Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, saying that it committed an error in bifurcating the continuous process of manufacture.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot under Section 35-L (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA), challenging the Order of the CESTAT.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot v. Narsibhai Karamsibhai Gajera & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1374)
Date of Judgment- December 2, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
5) Object of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act aligns with Article 21: Supreme Court allows wife's appeal seeking return of gold & cash given to husband
While allowing an Appeal filed by a divorced Muslim woman seeking the return of gold and cash given by her father to her husband at the time of marriage, the Court held that the object of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is concerned with securing the financial protection of a Muslim women post her divorce which aligns with the rights of a women under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Appeals before the Court were directed against the Judgment passed in an application for modification by the Calcutta High Court at the instance of the Appellant, who is the former wife of the first Respondent.
Cause Title- AB v. XY (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1375)
Date of Judgment- December 2, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
6) Rights guaranteed to PwD candidates not acts of benevolence but expressions of equality: Supreme Court asks UPSC to formulate protocols for use of screen reader software
While observing that the rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are not acts of benevolence, but expressions of the constitutional promise of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution, the Court asked the Union Public Service Commission to formulate uniform guidelines and protocols for the use of Screen Reader Software and other assistive technologies to ensure accessibility, and security of the examination.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition instituted by Mission Accessibility, an organisation engaged in the advancement of the rights of persons with disabilities, for enforcing the rights of persons with disabilities to equal opportunity guaranteed to them under the Constitution of India and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Cause Title- Mission Accessibility v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1376)
Date of Judgment- December 3, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) Permission from High Court to withdraw prosecution missing: Supreme Court dismisses ex-MP’s appeal against rejection of quashing plea
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by the former MP Bal Kumar Patel challenging the decision refusing to quash a criminal proceeding against him on the ground that the permission as required under law, to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former Members of Parliament or Members of Legislative Assembly, was not sought by the State from the High Court.
The Appellant approached the Court seeking leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution to challenge the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quash the criminal proceeding against him.
Cause Title- Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1378)
Date of Judgment- December 3, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
8) Supreme Court upholds GST exemption on renting residential premises as hostels to students & professionals
The Court upheld the GST Exemption on renting residential premises as hostels to students and working professionals, and observed that if 18% GST is levied, then it will pass on to these students and working professionals.
Appeals were filed assailing the Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court, wherein the High Court set aside the Order passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka (“the AAAR”), which ruled that leasing residential premises as hostels to students and working professionals does not qualify for exemption, denying the exemption for renting residential dwellings used as residences.
Cause Title- The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1380)
Date of Judgment- December 4, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
9) Principle of unconscionability inapplicable to voluntary commercial agreements between parties of equal bargaining strength
The Court held that the Principle of Unconscionability is inapplicable to voluntary commercial agreements between parties of equal bargaining strength.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals arising from the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, by which an Appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act), was dismissed.
Cause Title- BPL Limited v. Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1380)
Date of Judgment- December 4, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta
10) Dying declaration cannot be discarded merely due to lapse of time between its recording and death
The Court held that a dying declaration does not lose its evidentiary value merely because the declarant’s death occurs after a considerable time has elapsed from the recording of the statement, so long as the statement relates to the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death.
The Court clarified that Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act contains no limitation mandating temporal proximity between the declaration and the death. The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal arising from an Order of the Allahabad High Court affirming dismissal of a prosecution application under Section 319 CrPC seeking the summoning of additional accused in a murder case.
Cause Title- Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1386)
Date of Judgment- December 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh
11) Quashing can’t be premised on disputed document when its validity is itself matter in issue
While upholding an Order refusing to quash the proceedings under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC, the Court held that interference is warranted only where the case clearly falls within the recognised parameters for quashing. The Apex Court also made it clear that quashing cannot be premised on a disputed document when its validity is itself a matter in issue.
The Appeal filed before the Court was filed against the final Order of the Telangana High Court partly allowing the application of the Appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by quashing cognizance under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 while maintaining cognizance under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC.
Cause Title- Rocky v. State of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1384)
Date of Judgment- December 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
12) Academic qualification for determining eligibility must be judged by curriculum and purpose, not nomenclature of degree
The Court held that eligibility conditions in a recruitment advertisement must be applied in a reasonable and purposive manner by assessing the curriculum and academic content studied by the candidate rather than mechanically depending upon the title of the degree.
The Court was hearing an Appeal against the termination of the Appellant from his contractual role as Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant, on the ground that he lacked the prescribed qualification, solely because his postgraduate degree did not expressly bear the title “Statistics,” though Statistics was studied by him as a principal subject.
Cause Title- Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1385)
Date of Judgment- December 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
13) Supreme Court refers Bharat Drilling judgment to larger bench on issue of interpretation of prohibitory claim clauses in contracts
The Court referred its Judgment in Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (2009) to a larger bench for reconsideration after noting that it is not an authority for the proposition that an excepted clause or a prohibited claim in a contract applies only to the employer and not to the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Jharkhand High Court allowing a Section 37 Appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Appeal was filed by the Respondent-claimant against the Judgment of the Civil Court setting aside the arbitral award, allowing the objections filed by State under Section 34. By its award, the Arbitral Tribunal allowed certain claims, but the Civil Court set aside three claims on the ground that they were specifically prohibited under the contract between the parties.
Cause Title- The State of Jharkhand v. The Indian Builders Jamshedpur (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1388)
Date of Judgment- December 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
14) Executive actions mandating unnecessary, excessive requirements must be set aside as illegal
The held that the Memo issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, mandating an additional recommendation of the Assistant Registrar, for the existence of a Cooperative Society, as a precondition for registration of a document for availing exemption under Section 9A of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988, is illegal.
The Court also recognized the principle that executive actions that mandate certain unnecessary, excessive requirements, must equally be set aside as illegal. The Court termed such a requirement as superfluous and redundant.
Cause Title- Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Swawlambi Society Ltd. v. The State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1389)
Date of Judgment- December 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
15) Wife entitled to maintain standard of living commensurate with what she enjoyed during marriage: Supreme Court asks judicial officer to pay Rs. 50 lakh alimony
While upholding a decree of divorce, the Court asked a Judicial Officer to pay Rs 50 lakh as permanent alimony to his estranged wife. The Court further held that the wife, who is presently not engaged in legal practice, is entitled to maintain a standard of living broadly commensurate with what she enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the High Court set aside the Judgment of the Family Court, granted a decree of divorce, and awarded a sum of Rs 30 lakh as permanent alimony to the appellant-wife.
Cause Title- AB v. JK (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1390)
Date of Judgment- December 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
16) Nomination itself won’t give mother better claim over total GPF amount than wife: Supreme Court allows appeal of government servant’s widow
The Court allowed the Appeal of a widow of a deceased government employee and held that nomination itself would not give the mother a better claim over total GPF amount than the wife.
The Court ordered that the GPF of the deceased be distributed between the wife and the mother. The Appeal before the Court involved a tussle between the wife and mother of the deceased regarding the release of General Provident Fund amount accrued in the course of employment of the deceased in the Defence Accounts Department, Government of India.
Cause Title- Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1391)
Date of Judgment- December 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
17) Discretion to award motor accident compensation in excess of claimed amount is based on evidence & reasons for granting fair compensation
While granting enhanced compensation to a man who suffered grievous injuries in a motor accident, the Court held that the discretion to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed in the petition is based on the evidence on record and for reasons recorded for granting just and fair compensation.
The Appeal before the Court arose from a matter relating to enhancement of compensation in a motor accident case.
Cause Title- R. Logeshkumar v. P. Balasubramaniam (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1392)
Date of Judgment- December 5, 2025
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti