Category: Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ Petition (Criminal) — Seeking registration of FIR and investigation into attempt to influence judicial outcome — Relief for criminal investigation based on disclosure in a judicial order of NCLAT, Chennai Bench — Issues raised are of vital public importance but deemed capable of administrative resolution by Chief Justice of India — Writ Petition treated as a representation to bring material information for consideration of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, allowing law to take its course — Petition disposed of on administrative treatment of investigation request.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S A.S. MET CORP PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).440/2025…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 233, 235, 309, 32, 141, 142 — Higher Judicial Services (HJS) — Determination of Seniority — Source of Recruitment — Recruitment to HJS is through Regular Promotees (RP), Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE), and Direct Recruits (DR) — Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 142 and other provisions to lay down uniform guidelines for judicial services across the country, independent of High Courts’ control under Article 235, to ensure a unified and robust judiciary — Overarching guidelines framed do not foreclose powers of High Courts but establish a homogenous framework for superintendence over judicial services.

2025 INSC 1328 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 32, 136, 141, 142, 226, 227, 323-A, 323-B, 368 — Separation of powers — Judicial Independence — Constitutional Supremacy — Judicial Review — Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (Impugned Act) — Challenge to vires — The Impugned Act, which reproduces provisions previously struck down in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (MBA) cases, is unconstitutional as it constitutes an impermissible legislative override of binding judicial pronouncements and violates the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, and judicial independence; the repetition of invalidated provisions without removing the underlying constitutional defects is impermissible; the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence are structural pillars of the Constitution and justiciable, not merely abstract ideas, especially concerning adjudicatory bodies.

2025 INSC 1330 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J. )…

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Environmental Protection — Monitoring Committee — Powers and Scope — A PIL was filed concerning environmental issues in Delhi, leading to the appointment of a Monitoring Committee. The Supreme Court clarified that the committee was appointed to prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes and not to interfere with residential premises used as such. Their power was limited to making suggestions to a Special Task Force regarding encroachments on public land, not to summarily seal premises.

2025 INSC 1274 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2 JUDGES BENCH M.C. MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : B. R. Gavai, CJI. and K. Vinod Chandran, J.…

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — Section 179 — Summoning of Advocate by Investigating Agency — Advocate representing accused cannot be summoned directly to elicit case details as it violates advocate-client privilege and constitutional rights of the accused, unless specific exceptions under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) apply.

2025 INSC 1275 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 3 JUDGES BENCH IN RE: SUMMONING ADVOCATES WHO GIVE LEGAL OPINION OR REPRESENT PARTIES DURING INVESTIGATION OF CASES AND RELATED ISSUES. ( Before…

Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and Rules, 2020 — Implementation — Lethargy, apathy, inaction on part of Union and States — Non-state establishments also in cold freeze of compliance — Serious concern — Community faces discrimination, marginalization, scarcity of healthcare, economic opportunities, non-inclusive education policies — Despite recognition of rights in statutes, reality is empty formality — Union and States need to do more to translate rights into reality.

2025 INSC 1248 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JANE KAUSHIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Civil)…

Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 — Section 4 (unamended) — Person competent to lodge FIR — Essential Nature — Prohibition Act is a special legislation and its procedure must be followed, overriding general CrPC provisions for FIR registration by police — Prior to 2024 Amendment, Section 4 restricted FIR lodging to aggrieved persons or their relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption — This restriction is not a mere procedural nicety but a deliberate legislative choice to protect individual autonomy and prevent frivolous litigation in matters of personal religious faith — FIR lodged by complainant not falling within these categories is ab initio void and liable for quashing.

2025 INSC 1249 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 233(2) — Appointment of District Judges — Eligibility for in-service candidates — Clause (2) not prescribing qualifications for those already in judicial service — Such candidates not barred from direct recruitment — Interpretation to the contrary renders first part of Clause (2) redundant.

2025 INSC 1208 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 5 JUDGES BENCH REJANISH K.V. Vs. K. DEEPA AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K.…

Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 — Section 4(iii)(c)(I) — Age-restriction for intending couples — Retrospective application — Intending couples who commenced surrogacy procedures (including embryo creation and freezing) before the Act’s commencement date (25.01.2022) are not subject to the age-restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I). The Act, unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective, is presumed to be prospective. The commencement of freezing embryos signifies a vested right and a crystallized intention, preventing subsequent age-bar imposition from frustrating the process.

2025 INSC 1209 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAYA KUMARI S AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

You missed