Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 17 – November 21, 2025
1) Ensure strict compliance of procedure u/s. 147 & 148 BSA while recording witness statement via video conference: Supreme Court directs Trial Courts
The Court directed that in every case where it is proposed to record the statement of a witness over video conferencing (VC) and any previous written statement of such witness of case is available, the Trial Courts shall ensure that a copy of the statement or document is transmitted to the witness through electronic transmission mode.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, by which the accused’s Appeal was dismissed.
Cause Title- Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1322)
Date of Judgment- November 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) Submit plan for restoration of Corbett Tiger Reserve; demolish unauthorised construction: Supreme Court directs Uttarakhand State
The Court directed the State of Uttarakhand to submit a plan for the restoration of the Corbett Tiger Reserve and demolish unauthorized construction.
The Court accepted the recommendations made by the Expert Committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) vide an Office Memorandum dated March 15, 2024.
Cause Title- In Re: Corbett (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1325)
Date of Judgment- November 17, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice A.S. Chandurkar
3) Demolition of completed projects results in throwing valuable public resources in dustbin: Supreme Court recalls ‘Vanashakti’ judgment
The Court with 2:1 majority recalled its Judgment dated May 16, 2025 passed in the case of Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025 INSC 718), in which it struck down the 2017 notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Central Government, which provided for the grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearances (EC), declaring them as illegal.
The three-Judge Bench was deciding a Review Petition filed by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI), seeking recall of the said Judgment and final Order. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had dissented.
Cause Title- Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1326)
Date of Judgment- November 18, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice Vinod Chandran
4) Challenge to arbitral award cannot be sustained merely due to high interest rate unless it shocks judicial conscience
The Court held that a challenge to an arbitral award cannot be sustained merely because a party disputes the rate of interest awarded, unless the interest component is shown to be so unreasonable as to shock the judicial conscience. It emphasised that the 'public policy' ground under Section 34 is narrowly construed and does not extend to disagreements over commercial interest rates.
The Court was hearing an Appeal by borrowers seeking to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the interest stipulated in the loan agreements and upheld by the arbitrator was exorbitant and contrary to public policy. The concurrent decisions of the arbitral tribunal, the Section 34 court, and the Section 37 appellate court had rejected the challenge.
Cause Title- Sri Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Limited & Another v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1327)
Date of Judgment- November 18, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
5) Creating quotas for district judges is iniquitous: Supreme Court issues directions on seniority of officers in higher judicial services
While holding that creating quotas within the cadre of District Judges is unfair, the Court issued certain directions with respect to the determination of seniority of officers in the Higher Judicial Services (HJS).
All India Judges Association (AIJA) had approached the Court, seeking to revisit the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadre of HJS of all the States.
Cause Title- All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1328)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
6) Assignment of decree for specific performance does not require registration as it does not create any right or interest in immovable property
The Court held that an assignment of a decree for specific performance does not require registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, observing that the decree does not create any right, title or interest in the property.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising out of execution proceedings where an objection was raised that the deed of assignment was invalid for want of registration. The Executing Court had upheld the objection, but the High Court reversed that view.
Cause Title- Rajeswari & Others v. Shanmugam & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1329)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
7) Violates constitutional principles of separation of powers & judicial independence: Supreme Court strikes down provisions of Tribunals Reforms Act
The Court struck down some of the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, saying that they violate the Constitutional principles of Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence.
The Court was deciding a Writ Petition preferred by the Madras Bar Association (MBA), challenging Sections 3(1), 3(7), 4, 5, 6, 7(1), and 33 of the Tribunals Reforms Act.
Cause Title- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1330)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
8) Settlement undermined allegation of dishonest intention: Supreme Court quashes proceedings in alleged school dacoity case
The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings arising out of an alleged dacoity incident at a school, holding that the amicable settlement and complete restitution between the complainant and the accused undermined the allegation of “dishonest intention” that forms the foundation of offences such as theft, robbery and dacoity.
The Court was hearing an Appeal against a Bombay High Court Judgment that had partially quashed an FIR arising out of an incident at a school, but had refused to quash the charge of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Cause Title- Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1323)
Date of Judgment- November 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
9) Limitation for filing appeal u/s.16 (h) of NGT Act will commence from earliest date on which communication is carried out by duty bearers
While upholding an Order of the National Green Tribunal, the Court held that the period of limitation for filing an Appeal under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, will commence from the earliest date on which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers.
The Court made such an observation while holding that the Appeal filed by the Appellant was beyond the mandatory period of limitation.
Cause Title- Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1331)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
10) Contract voluntarily entered into cannot be reopened by invoking statutory provisions excluded by agreement
The Court held that when compensation payable for acquired land is determined through a negotiated agreement under the applicable statute, the terms of the agreement are binding, and no further claim beyond the contract can be entertained.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising out of a challenge to the Madras High Court’s direction granting interest to landowners by invoking Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019, despite the existence of a concluded agreement under Section 7(2) determining the amount payable.
Cause Title- Government of Tamil Nadu & Others v. P.R. Jaganathan & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1332)
Date of Judgment- November 19, 2025
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
11) Orders passed in course of execution of arbitral award not traceable to CPC; letters patent appeals not maintainable
The Court held that the legislative design of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restricts judicial interference. The Court also observed that Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable when orders are passed in the course of execution of the arbitral award.
The Appeals before the Court challenged the correctness of Orders passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court staying two Orders passed by the Single Judge pertaining to an Execution Application.
Cause Title- Bharat Kantilal Dalal v. Chetan Surendra Dalal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1334)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
12) Judicial imposition of timelines on Governor under Article 200 erroneous; deemed assent concept amounts to virtual takeover of executive function
The Court while answering the Presidential Reference, held that the imposition of timelines on the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution are erroneous. The Court observed that a state of doubt or confusion has arisen in relation to various issues concluded in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481).
In exercise of powers conferred under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, the President of India on May 13, 2025 referred fourteen questions relating to interpretation of powers of the Governor under Articles 200 and 201 along with certain ancillary questions for opinion of the Court.
Cause Title- In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1333)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
13) Clear first charge under EPF Act overrides priority provisions under SARFAESI Act
The Court held that a clear first charge created under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, overrides the priority under Section 35 and Section 13 as also that conferred under Section 26-E of the SARFAESI Act, since a priority cannot be equated with a first charge and cannot be given prevalence over the first charge statutorily created.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by a secured creditor, a Co-operative Bank, which sought to proceed against the properties of the mortgagee, a Co-operative Society, engaged in the manufacture of sugar at its factory.
Cause Title- Jalgaon District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1335)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
14) Supreme Court rules out complete ban on mining across Aravali range; directs MoEF&CC to prepare management plan for sustainable mining
The Court observed that a complete ban on mining across the Aravali range cannot be imposed and directed the preparation of a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining to determine ecologically sensitive regions, restoration priorities and zones where regulated activity may be permissible.
The Court was hearing proceedings concerning the definition and conservation of the Aravali Hills and Ranges and the regulatory framework governing mining activities within the region. The Bench examined the recommendations of an expert committee constituted pursuant to earlier directions.
Cause Title- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1338)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2025
Coram- CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
15) Court is bound to seek explanation from investigating agency if there is large gap between FIR & chargesheet: Supreme Court issues directions
The Court issued certain important directions with regard to the investigations in criminal cases.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused aggrieved by the Patna High Court’s refusal in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
Cause Title- Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1339)
Date of Judgment- November 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
16) Fresh application u/s. 12(1) of Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act is not mandatory in appeal challenging eviction order
The Court held that a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, is not mandatory in an Appeal challenging an Eviction Order.
The Court made such an observation while directing the tenant to hand over vacant physical possession of the shops in question to the Appellants-landlords.
Cause Title- P.U. Sidhique v. Zakariya (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1340)
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
17) Environmental protection is constitutional imperative: Supreme Court constitutes high-level committee over Jojari River pollution
The Court constituted a High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee in view of the pollution in Jojari River of Rajasthan.
The Court took suo-motu cognizance of the pollution in important rivers in western Rajasthan at peril which has put the lives of 2 million people, animals, and ecosystem at risk.
Cause Title- In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1341)
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
18) Indian courts can’t appoint arbitrator for foreign-seated arbitration irrespective of nationality or domicile of parties
While dismissing an Arbitration Petition filed by a Steel Company, the Court reiterated that Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration, irrespective of the nationality or domicile of the parties.
The Arbitration Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the Petitioner to anchor an international commercial arbitration, arising out of Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA), and its Addendum, governed by the laws of Republic of Benin, into the domestic framework of the 1996 Act by placing reliance on dispute resolution clauses contained in subsequent contractual arrangements.
Cause Title- Balaji Steel Trade v. Fludor Benin S.A. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1342)
Date of Judgment- November 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar