Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 8 – September 12, 2025
1) Proceedings u/s 62 & 63 of Electricity Act are entirely different: Supreme Court dismisses pleas of HPPC & GRIDCO
The Court dismissed the Appeals filed by Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) and GRID Corporation of Orissa Limited (GRIDCO), saying that the proceedings under Sections 62 and 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are entirely different.
The Appeals were preferred against the Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), New Delhi, which dismissed the same and upheld the Order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC).
Cause Title- Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) and Others v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1079)
Date of Judgment- September 8, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
2) Not permissible for erroneous decision to be reheard & corrected in review; Courts should not mix up appellate & review jurisdiction
Highlighting the difference between the appellate & review jurisdiction and cautioning against the mix-up and overlapping of such jurisdiction, the Court held that it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected while exercising jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
The Court was considering an Appeal relating to a case of partition where the Appellant challenged an Order whereby the Order allowing her Revision Petition was set aside.
Cause Title- Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1080)
Date of Judgment- September 8, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
3) NIT conditions must be clear; non-submission of document not required as per tender can’t be ground to disqualify bidder
While remanding a matter relating to the disputes pertaining to a Notice Inviting Tender, the Court held that non-submission of a Joint Venture Agreement could not be a ground to disqualify the bidder when the clause of the NIT did not require submission of such agreement.
The Court also held that the conditions in a Notice Inviting Tender must be clear and unambiguous.
Cause Title- Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1085)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
4) Whether reserved candidate availing relaxation to participate in open competition with general candidates be recruited?: Supreme Court explains
The Court observed that whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on the facts of each case.
The Court was deciding Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the High Court by which the persons who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC (Other Backward Class) category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under unreserved category.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1084)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
5) Verified claim incorporated in published list of creditors acquire recognition within CIRP : Supreme Court grants relief to flat buyers
The Court granted relief to homebuyers by directing that the apartment in question be handed over and possession be given to them. The Court also held that when the claim was duly verified by the Resolution Professional and the same was incorporated in the published list of creditors, the claim acquired full legal recognition within the CIRP process.
The Civil Appeal before the Court was filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the Judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), affirming the decision rejecting the Appellant’s claim for possession of their residential apartment in the real estate project of M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, Corporate Debtor.
Cause Title- Amit Nehra v. Pawan Kumar Garg (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1086)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
6) Karnataka Rent Act| Rent receipts signed by landlord can be prima facie proof of landlord-tenant relationship
While restoring an Order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the Court explained that as per Section 3(e) and Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, whenever a dispute arises as to the jural relationship between the parties, the Court has to examine lease agreement or in its absence, receipts acknowledging payment of rent signed by the landlord as prima-facie proof of such relationship.
The Appellant approached the Court challenging the impugned final Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in a House Rent Revision Petition, setting aside the Order of the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore (Rent Controller) directing the Respondent to ‘quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession’ of the premises in question within 3 months.
Cause Title- H.S. Puttashankara v. Yashodamma (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1087)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
7) Compulsory retirement doesn’t mean that employee is unentitled to benefits: Supreme Court affirms disciplinary authority’s order
The Court while affirming the Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, reiterated that compulsory retirement of an employee from the services does not mean that the employee is not entitled to retirement benefits.
A Civil Appeal was filed by the General Manager of Canara Bank, challenging the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Labour Court.
Cause Title- The General Manager (P) Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1088)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
8) Heated neighbourhood quarrels do not amount to abetment to suicide without clear intention or instigation
The Court ruled that routine quarrels or heated exchanges between neighbours cannot, by themselves, establish the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code unless there is evidence of clear intention or instigation on the part of the accused.
The Court was hearing an Appeal against a conviction, where the Appellant had been accused of abetting the suicide of a neighbour following disputes between the two families.
Cause Title- Geeta v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1089)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
9) No illegality in terminating services when employee failed to clear G&SR training twice: Supreme Court upholds termination order
The Court upheld the termination order on the ground that there is no illegality in terminating services when the employee failed to clear G&SR (General and Subsidiary Rules) training twice.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Patna High Court, which allowed a Writ Petition of the employee. It said that the counsel for the Appellants has rightly pointed out that departmental examinations are conducted only for the purpose of promotions and not for the purpose of recruitment/appointment.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Alok Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1091)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
10) Manure kept & waste dumped in property not valid ground to find possession
While dismissing an Appeal in a suit for possession, the Supreme Court held that the manure kept and waste dumped in the property cannot be a valid ground to find possession, especially when the Plaintiff claimed that waste was being thrown in the property without permission and despite specific objections raised against such acts.
The Court was considering a matter where the concurrent findings on facts as entered into by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, to reject the suit filed, were overturned by the High Court in the Second Appeal.
Cause Title- Kisan Vithoba Aakhade v. Suresh Tukaram Nerkar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1092)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
11) Deceased was multifaceted personality having several irons in the fire: Supreme Court enhances motor accident compensation
The Court allowed the Appeal of the motor accident claimants and granted an enhanced compensation of over Rs 20 lakhs.
The Court took note of the fact that the deceased was a multifaceted personality. The Appeal before the Court was filed by the claimants of a 43-year-old man who died in a motor accident.
Cause Title- Smt. Manjula v. The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Bijapur (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1093)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
12) Consumer fora cannot travel beyond pleadings to frame new case in medical negligence complaints
The Court set aside the findings of negligence recorded against a doctor and a nursing home by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), holding that consumer fora cannot transgress their jurisdiction by travelling beyond the pleadings and framing a new case.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed against findings of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) and the NCDRC, arising from the death of a woman and her newborn shortly after delivery. The Complainant had alleged negligence in post-delivery care at the nursing home. While the SCDRC found negligence and awarded compensation, the NCDRC shifted the liability onto the attending doctor, construing negligence in antenatal care.
Cause Title- Deep Nursing Home and Another v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1094)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
13) Supreme Court expunges Madhya Pradesh High Court’s adverse remarks against Advocate
The Court ordered the expunction of adverse remarks made against an Advocate by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Court took note of the Advocate’s submission that the omission on his part was bona fide.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by an Advocate seeking expunction of adverse observations made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court while deciding a Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Siddharth v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1082)
Date of Judgment- September 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
14) Police not required to go into genuineness & credibility of information to register FIR
The Court held that it is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information.
The Court was deciding Appeals filed by two officers who were on deputation to the CBI against Orders of the Delhi High Court directing registration of FIRs against two CBI officers based on complaints alleging intimidation, irregular seizure of documents, and abuse of power. The Petitioner-officers had argued that the High Court erred in disregarding the CBI’s enquiry report and in directing FIR registration after a delay of more than a decade.
Cause Title- Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1095)
Date of Judgment- September 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
15) To attract offence of cheating, false representation should be of material fact which would induce victim
The Court quashed a cheating case wherein it was alleged that an educational institution was involved in the forging of a fire NOC in order to renew affiliation.
The Court held that to attract penal consequences, it must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact which had induced the victim to either part with property or act in a manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false representation.
Cause Title- Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1096)
Date of Judgment- September 10, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
16) Scientific evidence is itself riddled with deficiencies: Supreme Court acquits two men in 2014 minor’s rape case
The Court acquitted two men who were accused of raping a minor girl in the year 2014. One of the two accused was awarded death sentence by the Trial Court.
The accused persons filed Criminal Appeals against the common Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which partially upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge.
Cause Title- Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1097)
Date of Judgment- September 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
17) In eviction suit, proof of ownership of tenanted premises not to be strictly looked at as in suit for declaration of title
While ordering the eviction of tenants who disputed the title of the successor of the landlord, the Court reaffirmed that in a suit for eviction, the proof of ownership of the tenanted premises is not to be strictly looked at as in a suit for declaration of title.
The Appeal before the Court revolved around a dispute where the successors of the landlord claimed eviction and possession on bona fide need, and the successors of the tenant sought retention on the ground that the alleged successor to the landlord had no title over the shop.
Cause Title- Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1099)
Date of Judgment- September 11, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
18) Police must act without bias: Supreme Court orders SIT investigation into assault case arising from Akola communal riots
While ordering an SIT probe into an assault case on a minor eyewitness during the Akola communal riots, the Court observed that the members of the police force, once in uniform, are duty-bound to set aside personal predilections or biases, whether religious, racial, casteist, or otherwise, and remain true to the call of duty with absolute integrity.
The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging the Order of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed the Writ Petition of a minor boy who, while being an eyewitness to a murder, was himself assaulted and injured. The grievance put before the Court was that despite the assault constituting cognizable offences, the police did not register an FIR against the accused persons, and the Superintendent of Police also failed to act upon a subsequent written complaint.
Cause Title- Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1100)
Date of Judgment- September 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
19) Exclusive control of alleged forged document must be proved in absence of direct evidence when document has passed through several persons
While acquitting a student accused of committing forgery by submitting tampered documents for college admission, the Court affirmed that the exclusive control of the alleged forged document must be proved when there is lack of direct evidence to connect the alleged forgery to the accused especially in a case where the alleged document has passed through the hands of several persons before forgery is detected.
The accused approached the Court questioning the correctness and legality of the Judgment of the Bombay High court affirming the Order altering the sentence imposed by the Trial Court upon the accused.
Cause Title- Vandana v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1098)
Date of Judgment- September 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta
20) Supreme Court asks NLUs to monitor institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities; seeks details from Centre on upward movement of meritorious PwD candidates
The Court asked the National Law Universities of the country to undertake “Project Ability Empowerment” in order to extensively monitor all care institutions, whether state-run or private, housing persons with cognitive disabilities. The Court also asked the Union Government to explain whether appropriate measures have been taken to provide the upward movement of meritorious candidates applying against the posts reserved for persons with disabilities, in case such a candidate secures more than the cut-off for the unreserved category.
The litigation before the Court arose from two cases, one a Writ Petition instituted in 1998 and another a Special Leave Petition filed in 2012 seeking directions to ensure comprehensive implementation of the statutory framework by the Government of States and Union Territories under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and protection of the persons with cognitive disability in a government-run care institution.
Cause Title- Reena Banerjee v. Government of NCT Of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1101)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
21) Father’s modest obligation: Supreme Court orders man to pay ₹10 lakh to estranged wife for daughter’s marriage expenses
The Court ordered a man to pay ₹10 lakh to his estranged wife for meeting the reasonable expenses of his daughter’s marriage. The Court further held that it is a father’s duty to provide for his children, and meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter is a modest obligation.
The Appeal before the Court arose from a Judgment of the Delhi High Court affirming the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court. The wife confined her claim to seeking an amount of ₹10 lakh towards the marriage expenses of her daughter.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1102)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
22) Forgive wrongdoer but don’t forget the wrongdoing: Supreme Court while upholding dismissal of POSH complaint against Kolkata NUJS VC
The Court dismissed a complaint of sexual harassment filed by a faculty member against the Vice-Chancellor of NUJS Kolkata as barred by limitation, but directed that its Judgment should be reflected in his professional record.
The Court held that the wrong that had been committed against the Appellant may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten, and should continue to haunt the wrongdoer forever.
Cause Title- Vaneeta Patnaik Vs Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1106)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
23) Supreme Court affirms competence of Coal India to notify interim prices under CCO 2000; upholds 20% increase for non-core sector
The Court upheld the validity of the Interim Coal Policy of 2006, affirming that Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries were competent to notify interim prices under the Colliery Control Order, 2000. The Court further clarified that coal price fixation is an exercise of economic policy within the statutory domain of the executive, and judicial scrutiny is limited to examining legality rather than the merits of the policy.
The Court was hearing Appeals filed by Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had struck down the Interim Coal Policy and directed the refund of the 20% additional charge levied on non-core sector industries.
Cause Title- Coal India Ltd Vs Ms Rahul Industries & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1103)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
24) Delay must be explained by establishing existence of “sufficient cause” for entirety of period u/s. 5 Limitation Act
The Court held that under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the delay must be explained by establishing the existence of “sufficient cause” for the entirety of the period from when the limitation began till the actual date of filing.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which condoned the delay of 3966 days in preferring the Second Appeal against the First Appellate Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1104)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
25) Sale Deed would be void in absence of sale consideration: Supreme Court dismisses plea, says Article 59 Limitation Act not applicable
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal, saying that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be applicable to the case.
The Appeal was filed against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, by which the Second Appeal of the Defendant against the Decree passed by the First Appellate Court was dismissed.
Cause Title- Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRs. Goran v. Jagan Devi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1105)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
26) When victim survived for some months & later died due to complications, is it murder or attempt to murder?: Supreme Court explains
The Court observed that where death was delayed due to later complications or developments, the courts should consider the nature of the injury, complications or the attending circumstances. The Court said that if the original injury itself is of a fatal nature, it makes no difference that death is actually caused by a complication naturally flowing from the injury and not the injury itself, since causal connection is proximate.
The Court considered the question when an offence is said to be made under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Maniklal Sahu V. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1107)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
27) Considerations of public interest should not be narrowly confined to financial aspect only
The Court cautioned that considerations of public interest should not be narrowly confined to financial aspect only.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench. It said that public tenders are the cornerstone of governmental procurement processes, being competitive and ensuring fairness and transparency in the allocation of public resources.
Cause Title- Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v. Mandeepa Enterprises and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1108)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
28) Order VIII Rule 6A CPC| Counter-claim cannot be made solely against a co-defendant
The Court reiterated that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of Code of Civil Procedure directed solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal against a Judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had permitted one of the Defendants to amend his written statement and file a counter-claim against a co-defendant in a suit seeking a declaration and injunction concerning a family property dispute.
Cause Title- Rajul Manoj Shah Alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1109)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
29) Right to secure & timely possession of one’s home is facet of fundamental right to shelter under Article 21
The Court held that the right to secure, peaceful, and timely possession of one’s home is a facet of the fundamental right to shelter enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. It reiterated that the right to social and economic justice as well as the right to shelter are fundamental rights encompassed within the ambit of the right to life.
The Court held thus in a batch of four Civil Appeals arising out of the final Judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Cause Title- Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1110)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
30) Provisions of CrPC applies in inspection, search & seizure under Section 15 Legal Metrology Act
The Court observed that the inspection and seizure conducted under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court also underscored that unless the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are explicitly excluded, the same shall apply to special enactments as well.
In this case, an inspection was conducted at the premises of the ITC Ltd. and seizure of 7600 CFCs / packages of ‘Classmate’ exercise books were made for the alleged violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2012 which is punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
Cause Title- ITC Ltd. V. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1111)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
31) Supreme Court upholds NGT order directing environment ministry to ensure that all building & construction projects within 5 km be treated as ‘Category A’
The Court upheld the 2024 Order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to ensure that all building and construction projects falling wholly or partly within 5 km of concerned categories shall be treated as ‘Category A’ projects.
The Apellants being Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI), Godrej Properties Ltd., and Sai Sahara Developers Ltd. filed Appeals before the Court, challenging Final Order of the NGT, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal.
Cause Title- Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) v. Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1112)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
32) Segregating MLA’s trial solely on account of his political office undermines integrity of criminal justice process
The Court observed that segregating the Appellant’s trial solely on account of his political office, in the absence of any legal or factual necessity, amounts to arbitrary classification and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice process.
The Court was hearing the Appeal to quash the Order of the Trial Court directing prosecution to file a separate charge sheet against the Appellant and ordered segregation of his trial from that of the co-accused.
Cause Title- Mamman Khan V. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1113)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
33) Dispose bail applications expeditiously preferably within two months: Supreme Court issues directions
The Court issued certain directions to the High Courts for expeditious disposal of pending Bail Applications and Anticipatory Bail Applications.
Two accused persons preferred Criminal Appeals before the Court, challenging the common Judgment of the Bombay High Court by which their Applications seeking pre-arrest bail were dismissed.
Cause Title- Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1114)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
34) Supreme Court directs Centre to frame model guidelines for nationwide uniform reforms in beggars’ homes
The Court directed the Centre to frame and notify model guidelines within three months to ensure that reforms in Beggars’ Homes are uniformly implemented across all States and Union Territories.
The Court was hearing a PIL concerning the conditions of Beggars’ Homes, which began with reports of deaths following a cholera outbreak at the Lampur Beggars’ Home in Delhi in 2000.
Cause Title- MS Patter Vs State Of NCT of Delhi & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1115)
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
