Important Judgments of 2025: Legal Bites Year Update

This article highlights several landmark judgments from 2025 that have significantly contributed to the evolving landscape of Indian jurisprudence. From protecting the welfare of senior citizens and resolving disputes in medical education to upholding juvenile rights and reinforcing the right to life, these decisions reflect the Court's commitment to constitutional values and social justice

The author aims to familiarize readers with significant case laws decided by the Supreme Court. Understanding case laws is essential for gaining clarity on various legal subjects, as they help shape the interpretation and application of the law. Through this effort, the author strives to simplify complex legal concepts and highlight landmark judgments that have brought notable changes across different areas of law.

Important Judgments of 2025: Legal Bites Year Update

1. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. [1]

This case highlights the broader societal issue of neglect and exploitation senior citizens face, emphasizing the importance of a purposive interpretation of welfare legislation. The decision aligns with the constitutional vision of social justice, as highlighted in Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India. It underscores the societal obligation to care for the elderly.

Click Here and read more about this case.

2. Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others. [2]

This case deals with a contentious issue of promotion in the medical education service under the Kerala Health and Family Welfare Department. The dispute centred on the interpretation of eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, highlighting the interplay between executive orders and general rules such as the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS and SSR).

Click Here and read more about this case.

3. Om Prakash v. Union of India [3]

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, recognized the failure of the judicial system to address his juvenility claim, a constitutional mandate rooted in the principle of reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration of juveniles. The decision highlights the judiciary's duty to go beyond procedural constraints to uphold the fundamental rights of individuals, especially juveniles in conflict with the law.

Click Here and read more about this case.

4. S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. [4]

The judgment serves as a vital reminder of the intersection between statutory obligations and constitutional rights, emphasizing the State's duty to safeguard human lives. The Court emphasized that denying timely medical treatment during the golden hour violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Click Here and read more about this case.

5. Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. [5]

The Court, relying on its precedents, clarified that promotions under the 65% quota should not be treated as competitive and emphasized the balance between merit and seniority, ensuring the fair application of promotion rules.

Click Here and read more about this case.

6. Harshit Harish Jain & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[6]

The case revolved around the refund of stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The judgment addressed the applicability of an amended limitation period for claiming refunds and the statutory powers of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) to review its orders.

Click Here and read more about this case.

7. Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors.[7]

The case of Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on January 30, 2025, concerns an appeal filed by the mother of the deceased against the acquittal of the accused persons by the High Court. The case involves allegations of abetment to suicide and cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Click Here and read more about this case.

8. Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [8]

The Supreme Court of India in Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025) addressed a long-standing dispute concerning the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellant, Jaya Bhattacharya. The case revolved around allegations of unauthorized absence, non-conduct of a departmental inquiry, and the government’s refusal to grant pension benefits despite regularization of service.

Click Here and read more about this case.

9. State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi [9]

The Supreme Court of India in State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi (2025) examined whether the operation of a professional laundry service constituted a "manufacturing process" under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948, thereby bringing the premises under the purview of "factory" as defined in Section 2(m).

Click Here and read more about this case.

10. Kanishk Sinha & Another v. State of West Bengal & Another [10]

The case of Kanishk Sinha & Another v. State of West Bengal & Another (2025) revolves around allegations of forgery, fraud, misrepresentation, and criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court, in its decision, examined the prospective or retrospective application of the procedural requirement laid down in Priyanka Srivastava and held that the High Court was correct in ruling that this procedural safeguard was only applicable prospectively. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Click Here and read more about this case.

11. Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. [11]

The case of Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. (2025), decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on April 22, 2025, addresses critical questions under Hindu joint family law and civil appellate jurisdiction. Central to the dispute were the issues of whether the suit property was ancestral or self-acquired, and whether the High Court was justified in reappreciating facts under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Click Here and read more about this case.

12. K.P. Tamilmaran v. State By Deputy Superintendent of Police [12]

The Supreme Court of India, in K.P. Tamilmaran v. State By Deputy Superintendent of Police (2025), delivered a landmark judgment on honour killings and clarified the evidentiary value of hostile and related witnesses. The case arose from the brutal murder of a young inter-caste couple, Murugesan and Kannagi, in Tamil Nadu in 2003.

Click Here and read more about this case.

13. Workplace Injury Compensation [13]

In the matter of Kamal Dev Prasad v. Mahesh Forge (2025), the Supreme Court of India adjudicated a crucial issue regarding the quantification of compensation for a workplace injury under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly Workmen's Compensation Act). The Court reconsidered the statutory disability percentage prescribed in the Schedule to the Act and evaluated the appropriateness of its rigid application when multiple injuries cumulatively affect an employee's functionality.

Click Here and read more about this case.

14. Chain Collision Liability [14]

The Supreme Court decision in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Honnamma & Ors. (2025) has clarified critical issues related to fault and insurance liability in such accidents. The court held that if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident.

Click Here and read more about this case.

15. 3 Years' Bar Practice Mandatory for Civil Judge Exam [15]

The Court in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (2025) addressed long-standing concerns over promotions, quota allocation, and eligibility norms for judicial officers. This judgment marks a significant evolution in judicial policy, especially regarding the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), minimum practice requirement for judicial entrants, and structured incentives for meritorious service.

Click Here and read more about this case.

16. One Rank One Pension for judges [16]

The Court in In Re: Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court (2025) affirmed that once a person assumes the constitutional office of a High Court Judge, “birthmarks” from previous service should disappear. Whether the judge rose through the Bar, civil service, or the judiciary, their pension must reflect the stature of the office, not the route taken.

Click Here and read more about this case.

17. Greater Gender Representation in the Judiciary [17]

The Supreme Court of India, in Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr. (2025), not only reinstated a young tribal woman judge who was discharged from service during probation, but also made a powerful case for greater gender representation in the judiciary. This judgment becomes a significant touchstone for institutional introspection on inclusivity and the retention of women judges in India’s legal system.

Click Here and read more about this case.

18. Public Trust Doctrine in Land Allotment Case [18]

The Supreme Court of India, in Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust & Anr. v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2025), upheld the cancellation of an industrial land allotment originally granted to the Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT) by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of contractual obligations, procedural propriety, and the Public Trust Doctrine in matters of public resource allocation.

Click Here and read more about this case.

19. Supreme Court Cautions Against Overreliance on Circumstantial Evidence [19]

In Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Supreme Court overturned the appellant’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC (Section 103 of BNS), citing insufficient and inconclusive circumstantial evidence. The case involved the death of Vaibhav’s friend Mangesh, allegedly caused by a gunshot from the appellant’s father’s service pistol. The Court noted inconsistencies in the bullet trajectory and the lack of forensic proof linking Vaibhav directly to the firing.

Click Here and read more about this case.

20. Compensatory Environmental Damages [20]

In Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. & Others (2025), the Supreme Court examined whether State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), such as the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), have the power to impose compensatory environmental damages under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The Court upheld these powers, provided they are exercised fairly, transparently, and through proper procedures.

Click Here and read more about this case.

21. Supreme Court Rejects False Juvenility Claim [21]

In Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the Supreme Court delivered a significant pronouncement on the determination of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, particularly when conflicting evidence arises. The Court set aside the finding of juvenility recorded by both the trial court and the High Court and directed the respondent-accused to face trial as an adult in a murder case. This judgment reiterates the importance of corroborative documentary evidence, medical reports, and judicial discretion in determining the age of an accused in heinous crimes.

Click Here and read more about this case.

22. Directions to High Courts on Reserved Judgments [22]

In Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling addressing a chronic issue in the Indian judiciary—delayed pronouncement of judgments after conclusion of hearings. By reaffirming the principles laid down in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar and supplementing them with a structured reporting and escalation mechanism, the Court underscored the importance of timely justice as an inseparable facet of Article 21. This intervention not only safeguards the fundamental rights of litigants but also reinforces public confidence in the justice delivery system.

Click Here and read more about this case.

23. NCLT’s Role in Protecting Shareholder Rights [23]

In Mrs. Shailja Krishna v. Satori Global Limited & Ors., the Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision on corporate governance and shareholder rights. By restoring the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Court emphasised that tribunals must adjudicate allegations of fraud when such claims are inseparably linked with issues of oppression and mismanagement. The ruling makes it clear that corporate democracy cannot be subverted through coercion, manipulation, or misuse of corporate structures, and that probity and fairness remain the foundational pillars of company law.

Click Here and read more about this case.

24. Application of Section 67 of Indian Succession Act [24]

In C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph & Ors., the Supreme Court of India examined crucial questions concerning Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the proof and validity of a joint will, and the scope of High Court jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). At its core, the dispute involved inheritance rights within a family, the sanctity of testamentary succession, and whether the attestation of a will by a close relative of the beneficiary undermines its validity. The ruling is significant for reaffirming the boundaries of second appellate jurisdiction, protecting testamentary intent, and illustrating the constitutional restraint the Supreme Court observes under Article 136.

Click Here and read more about this case.

25. Regulatory Supremacy in Electricity Tariff Fixation [25]

In M/s. KKK Hydro Power Limited v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Ors., the Supreme Court of India examined fundamental questions on electricity tariff fixation, the binding authority of State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs), and the impermissibility of private negotiations in the power sector under the Electricity Act, 2003. At its core, the ruling clarified whether a private generating company and a state distribution licensee can execute supplementary agreements altering tariff terms without prior approval from the SERC.

The judgment also explored the interface between pre-existing contractual arrangements, subsequent statutory regulations, and the overarching role of regulatory oversight in governing modifications to power purchase agreements (PPAs).

Click Here and read more about this case.

26. Probation Benefit Available in Cheque Bounce Cases [26]

In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., the Supreme Court examined key issues under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), with particular reference to Sections 138, 118, and 139. The Bench of Justices Manmohan and N.V. Anjaria clarified the scope of statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases, the requirement of proving the complainant’s financial capacity, and the limits of revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts. Significantly, the Court also laid down comprehensive guidelines aimed at addressing the mounting backlog of cheque-bouncing cases across India.

Click Here and read more about this case.

27. Repudiation of Guardian’s Voidable Sale by Clear Conduct After Majority [27]

In K.S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma, the Supreme Court held that a guardian’s sale of a minor’s immovable property without court permission is voidable, not void, and that upon attaining majority, the minor may repudiate that sale by clear, unequivocal conduct (such as selling the same property) rather than being bound to file a separate suit. The Court applied this to the facts where, after majority, the former minors re-sold the property within the limitation period, thereby repudiating their guardian’s unauthorised sale, and in doing so, deprived the subsequent claimant (Neelamma) of any valid title.

Click Here and read more about this case.

28. Insurer Not Absolved by Driver’s Fake Licence Unless Owner Knew of It [28]

In Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot avoid liability just because the driver used a fake licence—unless it proves that the vehicle owner knew or colluded in the fraud or failed to exercise due diligence in entrusting the vehicle. The Court set aside a High Court order that allowed the insurer to recover from the owner, emphasising that mere later discovery of a fake licence does not automatically amount to a breach of policy by the owner.

Click Here and read more about this case.

..................................Additionally, more cases will be added.

References

[1] 2025 INSC 20

[2] Civil Appeal No. 13422 of 2024

[3] Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024

[4] Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012

[5] Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2025

[6] Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21778 of 2024

[7] Criminal Appeal No.1086 of 2017

[8] Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 8850-8852 of 2024

[9] 2025 INSC 306

[10] Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.: 8609-8614 of 2024

[11] Civil Appeal No. 5401 of 2025

[12] 2025 INSC 576

[13] SLP(C) No. 4974 of 2022

[14] Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2135 of 2023

[15] Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989

[16] 2025 INSC 726

[17] Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23529 of 2023

[18] 2025 INSC 791

[19] 2025 INSC 800

[20] Civil Appeal No(s): 757–760 of 2013

[21] Criminal Appeal No.:347 of 2018

[22] Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4509–4510 of 2025

[23] Civil Appeal Nos. 6377–6378 of 2023

[24] 2025 INSC 1071

[25] 2025 INSC 1057

[26] Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2010

[27] 2025 INSC 1195

[28] 2025 INSC 1204