Monthly Review: December 2025

A typically quiet month of sombre business followed by the relief of a short but festive break, December was unusually active for the Supreme Court in 2025. As with every turn of the year, it was also a time that provided an opportunity for us to gather our thoughts, ideas and data. 

Led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, the Court heard several urgent concerns in December and even constituted vacation benches for the first time in winter. It intervened in the 2017 Unnao rape case, maintained a close watch on air quality and continued to review the electoral rolls revision in Bihar.

Looking back on the year

As 2025 drew to an end, the Supreme Court Observer reviewed major developments from the top court, looking at the top 10 judgements of the year, four Constitution Bench decisions and seven new appointments. The 2025 Supreme Court Review series sought to discern emerging tendencies in the Court’s approach to sensitive, controversial matters and reflected on some of its quieter but nonetheless significant interventions. 

Senior Associate Editor V. Venkatesan observed how the Court has tackled several high profile cases on freedom of speech, gradually developing its jurisprudence for the digital age. He also reviewed its engagement with institutions of governance, highlighting its growing attention to procedural safeguards. Our Court Reporter Namrata Banerjee took a step back from hearings to consider the Court’s muddle of decisions on bail while Debjani M. noted its preference for a discretionary rather than principled approach to environmental matters. 

Unnao case to be reconsidered

On 23 December, the Delhi High Court suspended the life sentence of Kuldeep Sengar, a former Bharatiya Janata Party MLA accused in the 2017 Unnao rape incident. On 29 December, a Vacation Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.G. Masih of the Supreme Court stayed the Order noting that the matter involved substantial questions of law.

In its decision, the Delhi High Court had taken the prima facie view that Sengar did not qualify as a “public servant” under Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and thus could not be sentenced for life. CJI Surya Kant noted the inconsistencies that arise from this interpretation, while questioning the relevance of the definition in cases involving minors. 

20 days into the ECI review 

In December, a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi continued hearing arguments (Day 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20) on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. Petitioners argued that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) operates on a premise of suspicion rather than facilitation and cannot be justified by broad references to migration. The Bench on its part firmly discouraged “sweeping assertions,” and refused to rely on media reports of mass deletions from the rolls. It took note of the SIR’s toll on Booth Level Officers and stressed the State’s role in easing hardship while carrying out the contested exercise.

The Chief takes on the AQI

In a significant turn of events, CJI Surya Kant began the month with a decision to list the Delhi air pollution matter on a regular rather than seasonal basis. Together with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, he questioned the selective focus on stubble burning and insisted on consideration of other contributing factors. 

On 17 December, as the Air Quality Index (AQI) soared in the Capital city, a three-judge Bench led by the CJI permitted action against pre-BS-IV vehicles and refused to intervene in challenges against the closure of primary schools. It issued directions regarding operation of toll booths, payments to construction workers and long term measures for pollution control. 

Limits to the Speaker’s powers

On 16 December, the Court questioned the powers of the Speaker to constitute an inquiry committee without consulting the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha in the impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma. Former Chairperson, Jagdeep Dhankhar, had tendered his resignation on the very day the motion was received. As an impeachment motion against Madras High Court Justice G.R. Swaminathan rolls out, we analysed the limits to the Speaker’s decision in impeachment motions. 

Bail judgement reserved

In the first week of December, the Supreme Court heard final arguments on bail applications for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and others accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case. Senior advocates appearing for the accused argued on grounds of parity, delay and lack of overt acts of violence. While they questioned what public interest was served by the prolonged incarceration, the prosecution alleged conspiracy and violent attempts to bring about regime change.

On 10 December, the Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria reserved judgement on the matter. The following day, Khalid was granted two weeks of interim bail by Delhi’s Karkardooma Court to attend his sister’s wedding. 

Newsletters in December

Every month we publish four newsletters containing insights and reflections on the latest developments in the Supreme Court. Subscribe here to receive them in your inbox, every Saturday at 6PM sharp! 

In our first desk brief, we noted with concern how ECI activity continues while its very legality remains under review. With polls concluded in Bihar and the second phase of the SIR underway, we ask if the matter is at risk of becoming a purely academic exercise.

The following week, we considered observations made by CJI Surya Kant while hearing a habeas corpus petition which alleged the disappearance of five Rohingya persons. Crucial for the next hearing is the distinction between the limited pleas for transparency and broader questions of refugee law in India.

In the third newsletter of the month, we highlighted a plea that tests the bounds of passive euthenasia for the first time since it was legally sanctioned in 2018. Set to hear final arguments in January, a Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Vishwanathan will have to determine whether clinically assisted nutrition and hydration can be classified as “life-sustaining medical treatment.”

Our final desk brief of the year took a more reflective tone. Considering the tenure of the three Chief Justices of 2025, it gathers data from our reporting on pendency, Constitution Bench matters, Collegium dissents and in-house procedure. 

Commentary from field experts

This month we published four expert commentaries.

In the last week of his tenure, former CJI B.R. Gavai took a firm stance with Justice K.V. Chandran against the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. Refusing to depart from earlier decisions they affirmed the Court’s power to lay down parameters to ensure judicial independence. In their commentary, Douglas McDonald-Norman and Arun K. Thiruvengadam provide a brief history and discussion of the Union’s repeated attempts to alter tribunal governance. 

In November 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed Bata’s appeal in an infringement suit filed by Crocs Inc. USA under the Design Act, 2000 for passing off the shape of their footwear. Intellectual property lawyer Aparajita Lath argues that Indian courts missed an opportunity to clarify a key question of design and trademark law.

In light of the Court’s decision to overturn its own ruling in Vanashakti v Union of India, Advocate Gulnar A. Mistry revisited the reasoning and precedents cited by both benches. She argues that in permitting retrospective environmental clearances, the Court subverted legal principles and turned the rule of precedents on its head.

As former CJI Gavai retired from the apex court, Advocate Aparna Mehrotra and Researcher Rishiraj Bhagawati identified five cracks in his tenure, pointing out a troubling erosion of finality. 

SCO.LRs this December

In December we completed one year of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR), marking a total of 250 cases in our repository! Five issues were published in Volume 12: Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4 and Issue 5. 

You can also access them on our landing page with concise summaries, mind maps and clean versions of each judgement.

Last but not least, make sure to read our article on Manohar Lal Sharma, the man famous for his PIL filings. We also published a review and an excerpt of historian V. Krishna Ananth’s book, Constitution of India: 75 Years of the World’s Largest Democracy.