760 : 2025 INSC 961 Vanashakti v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025) 05 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.] Issue for Consideration The present petition challenges the notification dated 29.01.2025 (impugned notification) bearing number S.O. 523(E) issued by Construction Projects – Environmental clearance – Challenge to Notification dated 29.01.2025 and O.M. dated 30.01.2025 – According to the petitioner, the impugned notification dated 29.01.2025 totally changes the regime, which was provided by the notification dated 14.09.2006
1879 : 2025 INSC 912 Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Others Etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 9932-9933 of 2025) 31 July 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and Augustine George Masih, J.] Issue for Consideration The matters herein present a challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of order of the Single Judge of the High Court, as Single Judge had only asked the Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing etc.) within a period of four weeks. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Tenth Schedule – Arts. 122 and 212
1675 : 2025 INSC 900 Manohar and Others v. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Civil Appeal No. 9870 of 2025) 28 July 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and Augustine George Masih, J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the First Appeals filed by the – Benefit of, ought to be given to the Appellants – Appellants’ land and other adjoining lands were acquired under the 1961 Act for the establishment of Jintur Industrial Area – LAO awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,800/- per Acre – Appellants sought
1756 : 2025 INSC 902 M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt Ltd and Another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (Civil Appeal No. 6406 of 2016) 24 July 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the repudiation of the insurance claim by the first obligations under Clause 8 thereof. Headnotes† Insurance – Marine Transit Open (Declaration) Insurance Policy – Repudiation of insurance claim of the Appellant- Insured, by the Respondent-Insurer, owing to damage of goods while being in transit at the Shalimar
1744 : 2025 INSC 901 M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited and Others v. Union of India & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2017) 24 July 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the legality of having parallel and continuation of adjudication adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings – Legality – Criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants u/ss.9 and 9AA of the 1944 Act – Discharge application by the appellants on the ground that quashing of the departmental proceedings initiated by the
1007 : 2025 INSC 771 Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier and Others (Civil Appeal No. 7160 of 2024) 23 May 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI* and Augustine George Masih, J.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether High Court was justified in remitting the matter back to the trial court on the second for de-novo disposal – Correctness: Held: High Court remitted the matter back to the trial court only on the ground that there was no proper identification of the subject land by the Court Commissioner – Appeal could have been very well decided on the basis of the interpretation of
1480 : 2025 INSC 754 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands [(I.A. No. 12465 of 2019 with I.A. No. 98194 of 2019, I.A. No. 127871 of 2020, I.A. No. 127874 of 2020, I.A. No. 44062 of 2025, I.A. No. 66986 and 74569 of 2025) In (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995)] In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of Issue pertains to the status of Zudpi Jungle or Zudpi Forest in the six districts of State of Maharashtra; and whether the recommendations made by the CEC in its 2025 Report should be accepted or not. Headnotes† Forest Act, 1927 – Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 –
1449 : 2025 INSC 748 In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service [(I.A. No. 172422 of 2024 with I.A. No(s). 172425, 172427, 172429, 179359, 290215, 290217 of 2024 and I.A. No(s). 105862, 105864 and 105865 of 2025) In (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995)] In Unit) ... Applicant 21 May 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI* and Augustine George Masih, J.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the officers in the Indian Administrative Service-IAS would be a “reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to restoration of 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-LDCE Judicial Service-cadre of District Judge, to 25%; reduction of the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in LDCE, and if so, by how many years; percentage of reservation of quota for meritorious candidate from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division); the minimum
2648 : 2025 INSC 727 Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 394 of 2024) 19 May 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and K.V. Viswanathan,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether multiple FIRs registered across different States can be clubbed and consolidated in one of FIRs – Multiplicity of proceedings – Petition u/Art.32 for clubbing and transfer of FIRs in different States – Petitioner facing 64 FIRs in 10 States – Similar allegations arising out of a common scheme – Writ petition seeking clubbing FIRs within the
Issue for Consideration Matters pertains to issues with regard to pension payable to retired Judges of the High Courts including the payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits: (i) non-grant of full pension to the as High Court Judges without taking into consideration the services rendered by them as District Judges. (ii) denial of full pension on the ground of break-in service for a period between the date on which they retired as District Judges and the date on which they assumed the charge as High
Issue for Consideration Whether in light of the Thirteenth Finance Commission, Second National Judicial Pay Commission Report (SNJPC) and the judgment of this Court in the any further direction needs to be issued to various High Courts and State Governments for framing and implementation of rules for the Court Managers. Headnotes† Administration of Justice – Justice Delivery System – Court Managers – Court Managers were introduced
1382 : 2025 INSC 701 In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra [(I.A. No. 2079 of 2007, I.A. No(s). 2301-2302 of 2008, I.A. No(s). 3044-3045 of 2011, I.A. No. 254946 of 2023 and I.A. No. 39711 of 2024) In (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995) With (Writ Petition Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the subject land is a Forest Land; whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending the allotment of subject land in favour of C family and as to whether the State Government was justified in accepting the said recommendation; whether
Issue for Consideration The Court was seized of a matter concerning the contemptuous conduct of a Tehsildar who forcibly evicted home dwellers and defied court orders. Court appreciated the factual scenario in light of principle of rule of law. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – of their houses via representation to revenue authorities – Not considered – Writ petitions filed against revenue authorities’ eviction attempt without considering Respondents’ representation – Direction to Appellant (the then Tehsildar) by High Court to
Issue for Consideration Consortium of National Law Universities-respondent no.1 has been framing questions for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT); In an examination, several questions and/or the answers were found to be not suitable; The High Court had passed an order with regard Headnotes† Education – Law Education – Common Law Admission Test – Framing of questions – Six questions in dispute – Each question dealt with individually – Respondent no.1 directed to amend the answer key, revise the marksheet and re-publish/ notify
Issue for Consideration In ‡M. Hakeem and Anr.’s case, this Court held that while exercising powers u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Court hearing the petition had no power to “modify” the Award, of two judges and three judges of this Court have either modified or accepted modification of the arbitral awards. In view of the divergent and contrasting judicial opinions as regards the power of the court u/s.34 to modify an arbitral award, the matter has been placed before the Constitution
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the date from which the appellants are entitled to seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division); also whether, the appellants are entitled to seniority over the batch of Judicial Officers appointed on 10.07.2012. Headnotes† Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Seniority – Appellants selected in the selection process of 2003 were appointed in terms of the order of High Court dtd.02.05.2012 wherein it was also stated that their seniority was to be reckoned from the date of appointment – Delay in
Issue for Consideration When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view holding the respondent to be guilty of contempt, whether another Judge could have come to a finding that the respondent was not guilty of contempt. Headnotes† Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.12, 13, the High Court in a contempt petition held the respondent guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 and has committed contempt of the orders of the Court – In light of the same, the Single Judge of the High Court granted time to the respondent
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in allowing the Correction Application filed under Section 362, CrPC by the accused persons and modifying its earlier judgment by converting the conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part Code, 1973 – s.362 – Court not to alter judgment – Accused were convicted by the trial court u/ss.302, 323 r/w 34, 452, 504, 506 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life – High Court dismissing the criminal appeals thereagainst affirmed the conviction – However,
Issue for Consideration Whether in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. and the order of this Court in the case of Viswanath v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is Headnotes† Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – s.23 – NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 – A notification dated 29.09.2022 was issued by the WBBPE for the recruitment of qualified trained candidates to the posts of