2025 Summer Session Review of the Supreme Court of India

This is a review of the Supreme Court Summer Session from 1 April to 24 May 2025. Although the Supreme Court lacks an official session calendar, for analytical clarity, we at the Supreme Court Observer have divided it into four sessions: Spring (January to March), Summer (April to June), Monsoon (July to September), and Winter (October to December).

The summer session of the Supreme Court saw long-pending moves towards judicial transparency, and much awaited hearings on the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act. It also delivered critical decisions concerning personal liberty. 

A Constitution Bench clarified the scope of judicial power to modify arbitral awards, while key orders addressed Delhi-NCR’s pollution crisis and administrative delays. This summer also saw significant transitions in the Court’s leadership, with a new Chief Justice assuming office and three new judges joining the Court. 

This review unpacks the Court’s most important rulings, institutional shifts, and thematic concerns that defined this particularly intense season.

Quick Facts

Working Days: The Supreme Court worked for 34 days between 1 April and 24 May 2025, before it broke for its annual summer break on 26 May. The Court reopens on 14 July. During these seven weeks, the CJI has constituted 21 benches to hold court during the ‘Partial Court Working Days.’

Qurom: Currently, the Court has a working strength of 33 judges of the sanctioned strength of 34. The Court was sitting in full sanctioned strength for 10 days until Justice Bela Trivedi’s retirement on 9 June 2025, after three new judges assumed office on 30 May 2025. However, Justice Trivedi did not hold court during the period after 16 May 2025, choosing to complete her service prior to the start of the vacation period. 

Appointments and retirements

On 13 May, Justice Sanjiv Khanna retired as the 51st Chief Justice of India. He was succeeded by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai. The summer session saw the retirement of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Bela Trivedi. 

The Justice Gavai-led Collegium appointed Justice A.S. Chandurkar, Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. 

Constitution bench decisions

• Court’s power to modify an arbitral award — five judge bench — judgement delivered on 30 April 2025

Constitution bench hearings

None

Pendency

• 20 five-judge bench matters are pending with 193 tagged matters.
• 5 seven-judge bench matters are pending with 35 tagged matters.
• 3 nine-judge bench matters are pending with 54 tagged matters.

Total pendency: 81,728

(The data was collected from the National Judicial Data Grid on 11 June 2025.)

Constitution bench decisions

Courts have the power to modify arbitral awards

On 30 April, a five-judge Constitution Bench in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies held by a 4:1 majority that courts possess a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 

The majority reasoned that this power is implicit in the court’s authority to set aside awards and is essential to avoid undue hardship, procedural delays, and additional costs. The Bench clarified that such modification is not akin to an appeal. They affirmed courts’ discretion to alter post-award interest and discouraged routine remands, while upholding the Supreme Court’s authority under Article 142 to modify awards. 

Justice K.V. Viswanathan dissented, cautioning that this approach could compromise the Act’s principle of minimal judicial interference and hinder international enforceability.

For a better understanding, explore our concise summary of the 190 page Judgment along with the Judgment Matrix, Arguments Matrix, and detailed reports on the hearings from Days 1, 2, and 3.

Division bench decisions and hearings

No pocket veto for the Governor

On 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court held the Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged withholding of assent to ten bills was “illegal” and “erroneous” under Article 200. The Bench held that the Governor must act within a reasonable time. The Governor is constitutionally bound to either assent to a bill, return it with recommendations, or reserve it for the President; indefinite inaction is impermissible. The Judgement set timelines for action and made non-compliance subject to judicial review. Using Article 142, the Court deemed the bills assented. The ruling drew sharp criticism from Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who accused the Court of overreach. 

On 13 May, President Murmu sought the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 on 14 questions about the assent process under Articles 200 and 201, following criticism of the Tamil Nadu Governor verdict. This is the 16th such reference and will require a Constitution bench of at least five judges to answer the reference.

We’ve summarised the judgment and provided a quick-view of the key decisions in our judgment matrix.

The Waqf debate continues

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court began hearing challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which drew strong public interest. Petitioners argued that the Act violates Muslim religious rights, particularly by removing the concept of a ‘waqf by user’ and allowing non-Muslim majorities on waqf boards. The Union defended the law and the Court deferred constitutional questions, giving the Centre a week to respond. 

Petitioners claimed the law facilitates a “wholesale takeover” of waqf properties, while the Union maintained that registered waqf assets would remain unaffected. As of 22 May, judgement on interim relief was reserved.

New rules for designating Seniors

On 13 May, a three-judge Bench in Jitender @ Kalla v State (NCT of Delhi) overhauled the process for designating Senior Advocates. It scrapped the points-based evaluation system and the Permanent Committee, while retaining the Permanent Secretariat to assist the Full Court. The Court directed that no new designations be made until fresh rules and guidelines are framed by the Supreme Court and High Courts.

A POCSO exception

On 23 May, the Supreme Court used its powers to do “complete justice” under Article 142 to spare a convict a 20-year sentence awarded under the POCSO Act, 2012. The Court noted that the victim, a teenager in a consensual relationship with the convict, had faced emotional and financial strain while trying to secure his release. It held that continued imprisonment would only deepen her distress.

Mahmudabad’s misery

On 21 May, a Division Bench granted interim bail to Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who had been arrested over social media posts related to Operation Sindoor. The Court noted that the bail was intended to aid the investigation and formed a three-member Special Investigation Team to examine the posts and “holistically” assess the “complexity of the phraseology” used. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that Mahmudabad had no criminal intent, even as the Bench remarked that his statements amounted to “dog whistling.”

Pollution in the Capital

As part of its ongoing monitoring of the Delhi-NCR pollution crisis under M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1985), the Supreme Court reviewed efforts on solid waste and vehicular pollution. It acknowledged that over 8 lakh complaints were resolved and 2,000+ fines were issued. However, it flagged weak compliance, gaps in implementing high-security number plates and fuel-type stickers and called for mass awareness. The Court noted deeper issues including 134 vacancies in the Central Pollution Control Board, underuse of 30% of clean air funds, and frequent staff transfers. It directed quarterly reports, senior nodal officers, and a real-time air quality portal.

In May, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi Government to fill all 204 vacancies in its Pollution Control Committee by 30 September 2025, warning that failure would amount to aggravated contempt. Noting staff shortages in pollution boards, the Court criticised the government’s laxity amid Delhi’s annual winter pollution crisis. It had earlier issued contempt notices to the Chief Secretaries of Delhi and other NCR states for failing to comply with its August 2024 order. The Court also ordered that recruitment for future vacancies begin at least six months in advance.

Bail for Balaji

On 20 April, the Supreme Court rejected a plea to cancel the bail of DMK Minister Senthil Balaji, who faces money laundering charges linked to a cash-for-jobs scam during his AIADMK tenure. Balaji was arrested by the ED in June 2023 and granted bail in September 2024 due to likely trial delays and not on the merits of the case. Concerns over his reappointment to the Tamil Nadu cabinet prompted a cancellation plea, with the Enforcement Directorate and petitioner, K. Vidhyakumar fearing that he could influence witnesses. On 23 April, the Court gave him a Hobson’s choice—resign or risk losing bail. He resigned on 27 April, ahead of the next scheduled hearing.

Comments on contempt

On 30 May, the Supreme Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for making “scandalous” remarks about a senior judge in a YouTube video. The Court held that the comments were aimed at undermining the judiciary and ordered the video to be taken down immediately.

Court News this Summer

A rebrand 

Under Chief Justice Gavai, the Supreme Court reinstated its original logo featuring the Sarnath Lion Capital, rolling back the modern emblem introduced in 2024 as part of its 75th anniversary celebrations. 

The contemporary design, unveiled by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and President Murmu, drew on Buddhist iconography and offered a sleek, accessible aesthetic. But under CJI B.R. Gavai, the Court appears to be reclaiming a more traditional visual identity—also removing glass partitions installed under Chandrachud’s tenure, which were criticised for disrupting architectural flow. While these changes may seem cosmetic, they hint at deeper questions of continuity versus reinvention and symbolism versus substance. 

The Court also rebranded the phrase “vacation” and “Vacation Benches” which described the Court’s annual break. In response to rampant criticism of the court’s long periods of partial functionality in the face of an ever growing pile of pending cases, the Court now calls the break “partial working days”. 

Read more in our analysis of the issue.

Assets on public display

The Supreme Court judges during CJI Khanna’s tenure had agreed in a full court meeting on 1 April to make their asset declarations public. The decision followed heightened scrutiny over judicial accountability, especially after cash was recovered from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court. Although judges have submitted asset details to the Chief Justice since 1997, public disclosures, introduced informally in 2009, remained sporadic.

In a significant move, the Supreme Court published the asset statements of 21 out of 33 sitting judges on 5 May, with the rest expected to follow.

Summer Reads: Stay updated with the Supreme Court through SCO.LR!

Since 2017, our Case Archive has offered in-depth coverage of important Supreme Court decisions through detailed reports and summaries. 

This year, we started publishing the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR), a compilation of five key cases from the top court each week. You can access our structured summaries on our new page. Each judgement is presented in a reader-friendly HTML format with options to filter by year, volume and issue.

Here’s the Volume for the summer session months—April, May and June. 

Check out our SCO.LR page here.