1) Extraordinary judicial intervention not warranted when parties possess adequate means to vindicate their rights
The Court remarked that extraordinary judicial intervention is warranted when systemic barriers prevent certain classes from accessing ordinary remedies, not when parties possess adequate means to vindicate their rights.
The Court remarked thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the Single Judge’s Order directing the State to restore 28 bighas of land to a company.
Cause Title- The State of West Bengal and Others v. M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1222)
Date of Judgment- October 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
2) Mere furnishing of sample won’t incriminate person: Supreme Court upholds Magistrate’s order directing witnesses’ voice sample collection
While upholding an Order of the Magistrate allowing an Investigating Officer’s application seeking a voice sample of a witness, the Court reiterated that a Judicial Magistrate can order a person to give a sample of his voice for the investigation of a crime.
The Court also reaffirmed that mere furnishing of a sample of the fingerprint, signature or handwriting would not incriminate the person as such. It made such observations while considering a matter relating to domestic violence.
Cause Title- ABC v. The State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1223)
Date of Judgment- October 13, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
3) Supreme Court seeks explanation from Madras High Court over handling of petitions related to Karur stampede incident
The Court, while disposing Petitions arising out of the Karur stampede incident in Tamil Nadu, expressed serious concern over handling of related cases and sought an explanation on the same from the Madras High Court.
The Court was hearing a batch of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging various Orders of the Madras High Court concerning the investigation and administrative response to the stampede that occurred during a political rally organised by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
Cause Title- Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1224)
Date of Judgment- October 13, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice N.V. Anjaria
4) BMC making genuine efforts to ensure compliance: Supreme Court directs corporation to comply with auditor’s calculation & ensure payment of wages
In an ongoing dispute relating to the payment of outstanding dues and wages to the workers of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the Court asked the Corporation to comply with the calculation as may be determined by the Auditor and to ensure payment of the outstanding dues, if any, to the employees.
The Court also noted that the Corporation has been making genuine efforts to ensure compliance with the directions. The Court was considering a Contempt Petition filed by the Respondents for non-compliance with the Judgment whereby the Court had modified the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
Cause Title- Kachara Vahatuk Sharamik Sangh v. Ajoy Mehta (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1227)
Date of Judgment- October 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) Arbitration request made 2 years after initial notice: Supreme Court dismisses application seeking arbitrator’s appointment
The Court dismissed an Arbitration Petition seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator where the notice of arbitration and the arbitration request were found to be delayed. The Court noted that the arbitration request was made two years after the initial notice.
The Petitioner, a UK resident, having entered into a partnership, the deed of which contained an arbitration clause, sought the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Cause Title- Alan Mervyn Arthur Stephenson v. J. Xavier Jayarajan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1228)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
6) Accused’s false explanation regarding cause of death which took place in his house becomes additional link pointing to his guilt
While restoring a conviction order passed against a man (father-in-law of a deceased woman) in a dowry death case, the Court reaffirmed that when an accused offers a false explanation regarding the cause of death, which takes place within the confines of his house, such falsity becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the State against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court setting aside the conviction and acquitting the husband and father-in-law of a young woman whose life ended in mysterious, yet telling circumstances. The accused Respondents were booked in a case registered under Sections 302, 304B, 498A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Cause Title- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Janved Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1229)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
7) Even if minor girl wilfully volunteered to sexual intercourse, it is immaterial: Supreme Court upholds rape conviction
The Court upheld conviction in a rape case observing that even if a minor victim girl has wilfully volunteered to sexual intercourse, it is immaterial.
An Appeal was filed challenging the Order of the High Court, whereby the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Varun Kumar Alias Sonu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1232)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
8) Supreme Court restores criminal case against an ex-MLA accused of procuring false caste certificate to contest elections on reserved seat
The Court restored criminal proceedings against a former MLA of the Madhya Pradesh Assembly and others accused of conspiring to obtain a false Scheduled Caste certificate to contest the assembly elections from a reserved constituency.
The Court was hearing Appeals challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Order, which had quashed the criminal complaint filed against the accused, including public officials who allegedly aided in the issuance of a forged caste certificate.
Cause Title- Komal Prasad Shakya v. Rajendra Singh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1230)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
9) Small or insignificant omissions can’t be basis for treating witnesses hostile: Supreme Court while upholding conviction in minor girl’s rape case
While upholding the conviction of a man in minor girl’s rape case, the Court held that small or insignificant omissions cannot be the basis for treating the witnesses hostile.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which confirmed his conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge.
Cause Title- Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1231)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
10) Mere placement in wait list doesn't create any vested right for being appointed
The Supreme Court set aside a direction asking All India Radio to absorb the services of a candidate to the post of Technician under the Scheduled Castes category. The Court reaffirmed that mere placement in the wait list does not create any vested right for being appointed and the right to be considered for appointment would spring only in the contingency of a selected candidate not joining on his post.
The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the All India Radio through its Director General approached the Court challenging the direction issued by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court requiring them to absorb the services of the Respondent on the post of Technician at the Eastern Zone of All India Radio under the Scheduled Castes (SC) category.
Cause Title- The Union of India v. Subit Kumar Das (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1235)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
11) Rental or damages for use awarded only where possession unlawfully detained by authority before notification or acquisition
The Court reiterated that rental or damages for use shall be awarded only where possession is unlawfully detained by the acquiring authority prior to notification or acquisition.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal arising from a long-standing dispute concerning land situated in Nashik District.
Cause Title- Pradyumna Mukund Kokil v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1236)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
12) Future Prospects to be computed at 50% when deceased was aged below 40 years: Supreme Court allows motor accident claimants’ appeal
While granting an enhanced motor accident compensation of over Rs 74 lakh in the case of the motor accident death of an Engineer employed with Power Grid Corporation of India, the Court held that the addition for future prospects would have to be at the rate of 50% considering that the deceased was aged below 40 years at the time of the accident.
The Court was considering an Appeal arising out of a Judgment of the Patna High Court whereby the compensation awarded by the XIth Additional District and Sessions Judge – cum - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was reduced from Rs. 88,20,454/- to Rs. 38,15,499/-.
Cause Title- Manorma Sinha v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1237)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
13) Plaint cannot be rejected if one of the reliefs sought is within limitation: Supreme Court clarifies scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC
The Court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, merely because one of the reliefs sought appears time-barred, if any other relief in the suit is within limitation.
The Court was hearing Appeals filed against Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had allowed a Revision Petition and dismissed a recall application, holding that a suit instituted by the Appellant was barred by limitation.
Cause Title- Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1238)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
14) An order directing investigation to be carried out by CBI should be treated as a measure of last resort
The Court emphasized that an Order directing an investigation to be carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be treated as a measure of last resort.
The Court emphasized thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the common Order of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
Cause Title- Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1241)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
15) Where efficacious alternate remedy is available, High Courts shouldn’t entertain writ petitions in matters falling within tribunals’ domain
The Court held that where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals challenging the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which set aside the Judgment of the Single Judge.
Cause Title- Leelavathi N. and Ors. Etc. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1242)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
16) Property left behind by deceased constitutes matruka property; will is first document to be satisfied subject to limits imposed by Muslim law
While considering a property dispute matter, the Court explained that matruka property simply refers to the property left behind by deceased person. Referring to the law relating to the devolution of such property, the Court explained that the Will is the first document that is to be satisfied subject to the limits imposed by Muslim Law.
The Court was considering the Appeals challenging the final Judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, whereby the Appellants assailed the Order of the First Appellate Court in overturning the findings of the Civil Court.
Cause Title- Zoharbee v. Imam Khan (D) Thr. Lrs. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1245)
Date of Judgment- October 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
17) Doctrine of merger doesn't have rigid & universal application: Supreme Court asks litigant to approach High Court in contempt case
While giving liberty to an aggrieved litigant to initiate contempt proceedings before the High Court, the Court held that the doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application and it cannot be said that wherever there are two orders, one by inferior court or tribunal and the other by superior court or tribunal, passed in an appeal or revision, there is fusion or merger of two orders irrespective of the subject matter of such orders.
The Contempt Petition before the Court alleged willful disobedience of an earlier Order passed in a Civil Appeal.
Cause Title- M/S Khurana Brothers v. Anand Bardhan Principal Secretary (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1240)
Date of Judgment- October 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
18) Not mandatory for non-resident assessee to have permanent establishment in India to carry on business or have any business connection
The Court held that no provisions of Income Tax Act,1961 makes it mandatory for a non-resident assessee to have a permanent establishment in India to carry on business or have any business connection in India.
The Court was hearing Appeals filed by a French company engaged in offshore drilling operations, challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision disallowing deductions of business expenditure and the carry-forward of unabsorbed depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Cause Title- Pride Foramer S.A. v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1247)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
19) Conviction cannot be sustained when genesis of incident doubtful: Supreme Court acquits four accused in 1990 murder case
The Court acquitted four men convicted in an over three-decade-old murder case, observing that when the genesis and manner of the incident are doubtful and the prosecution’s version suffers from material contradictions, conviction cannot be sustained.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by one of the convicts challenging concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Cause Title- Kannaiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1246)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
20) Transgender persons also have a right to be reasonably accommodated: Supreme Court directs authorities to pay compensation over discrimination
While granting compensation to a transgender employee, the Court has held that transgender persons also have a right to be reasonably accommodated.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition preferred by a transgender woman who was aggrieved by the discrimination and humiliation she faced in employment which allegedly resulted in her termination from two different schools of different States in the span of a year.
Cause Title- Jane Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1248)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2025
Coram- J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
21) Permitting initiation of criminal proceedings under U.P. Conversion Act at instance of strangers dilutes freedom of religion
The Court observed that permitting initiation of criminal proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (U.P. Conversion Act), at the instance of strangers dilutes the freedom of religion.
The Court held thus in a batch of Writ Petitions and Criminal Appeals concerning six FIRs filed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the U.P. Conversion Act.
Cause Title- Rajendra Bihari Lal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1249)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
22) Undue leniency can cause public confidence in justice system to plummet: Supreme Court upholds eight-year sentence for culpable homicide
The Court refused to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of killing a 23-year-old during an altercation, emphasising that judicial discretion in sentencing must be exercised with balance and proportionality.
The Appeal arose from a conviction of the Appellant, who had struck the deceased with an axe during an altercation between two families.
Cause Title- Kotresh @ Kotrappa v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1250)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
23) Can MBBS & AYUSH doctors be treated equally in terms of service conditions: Supreme Court refers issue to larger bench
The Court referred the issue of whether doctors practising allopathy and indigenous medicine, such as Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Unani, can be treated equally for the purpose of determining service conditions, specifically retirement age, to a larger bench.
The Court was of the view that the claim for parity would have to be decided looking at the qualification acquired, the treatment practices, the functions, work and duties.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Anisur Rahman (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1251)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
24) Advertisement indicated that there could be increase or decrease of vacancies: Supreme Court grants relief to Ambedkar Nagar Class IV Court staff
The Court ordered the aggrieved Ambedkar Nagar Class IV Court Employees to be accommodated in the existing vacancies after noting that the advertisement specifically indicated that there could be an increase or decrease of vacancies.
The Court ordered that the employees, if not having completed the age of superannuation, shall be accommodated in the existing vacancies of Class IV in the District Judgeship. The Appellants, who were terminated from their jobs in the year 2008, had approached the Court.
Cause Title- Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1252)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
25) Suit for groundless threat of infringement governed by Sec.106 of Patents Act has independent cause of action from that of infringement suit
While considering a case relating to competing transfer petitioners, the Court held that the suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement governed by Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, has an independent cause of action from that of a suit for infringement governed by Sections 104 and 108.
The Petitioner, through a Transfer Petition, sought transfer of the Suit for Infringement (Delhi Suit) instituted by the first respondent before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where the Petitioner’s Suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement was pending adjudication. The first Respondent also filed a Transfer Petition seeking transfer of the Suit for the Groundless Threat of Infringement (Bombay Suit) instituted by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court to the Delhi High Court.
Cause Title- Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1253)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
26) Once claimant produces substantial evidence of cultivation, slight gaps or doubts should not negate claim in forest vesting matters
The Court reiterated that under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, once the claimant produces substantial evidence of cultivation, slight gaps or doubts should not negate the claim in vesting matters.
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals arising from a common Judgment of the Kerala High Court, which affirmed the Order of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode.
Cause Title- M. Jameela v. The State of Kerala and Another Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1254)
Date of Judgment- October 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria