Monthly Review: October 2025

October 2025 in the Supreme Court was packed despite the Diwali break. The Court was occupied with significant Constitution Bench hearings and a judgment on the appointment of judges in the district judiciary. The Court also took up matters concerning the rights of transgender persons, the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar and vacancies at information commissions. Our monthly review covers all these developments and more.  

Directions on judicial service recruitments

On 9 October, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai held that judicial officers who have previously served as advocates are eligible to be appointed as District Judges under Article 233. 

The Court was considering the validity of Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi (2020), where the Supreme Court held that only a practising advocate at the time of appointment is eligible to be appointed under the Bar quota. The Bench held that Dheeraj Mor did not lay down the “correct proposition of the law”. It noted that restricting appointments to only advocates practising at the time of appointment would make the process exclusionary and highlighted the need to promote competition. 

Reservation for civil judges 

On 28 October, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI Gavai, constituting Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K.V. Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi, observed the need for uniformity on the issue of reservation and inter-se seniority appointments to the post of the Principal District Judge (PDJ). 

Noting that it takes more time for promotees to reach the post of PDJ as compared to direct recruits, the Bench suggested the need to draw a balance between merit and seniority in promotions. 

The matter was last heard on 4 November.

The Diwali experiment 

On 15 October, a Bench of CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran permitted a limited sale of green firecrackers during the Diwali period from 18 to 21 October. The Bench noted that a complete ban on crackers had made no effect on the air quality levels in the national capital. The Court also directed the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards to monitor the air quality and conduct water sampling. A report will be submitted to the Court. 

Directions on the road 

On 8 October, the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan expressed concerns over the high number of pedestrian deaths and issued directions to adopt road safety measures across the country. It directed authorities to undertake audits for existing footpaths and encroachments on pedestrian zones. 

Moreover, the Bench also directed the States and Union territories to frame guidelines. It directed the Union to constitute a National Road Safety Board under Section 215B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 

Additionally, the Court directed the concerned authorities to use cameras to detect violations, alongside using graduated fines, dynamic lighting, and colored and textured markings for optimum road safety. It ordered the submission of periodic reports of data on violations and challans recovered from them. 

Disability within ranks 

On 7 October, the Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan observed that there is a lack of facilities and amenities for cadets who were disabled during their training. The Court was hearing the case under its suo moto jurisdiction, observing that a judicial oversight was necessary to rehabilitate this “minuscule minority” which suffered disabilities before they were even commissioned. The Court granted the Union government time to consider proposals submitted by the Court-appointed amicus Rekha Palli.  

Justice, in Retrospect 

On 9 October 2025, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih affirmed that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, applies retrospectively. The Court released a 56-year-old Hansraj, who was convicted for an incident that took place in 1981. The Bench noted that the claims of juvenility can be claimed at any stage of the trial, even after its disposal. It added that the Act would be applicable even in instances that took place before its enactment.

Green light for the CBI 

On 13 October, the Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the Karur Stampede case. The Court noted that such a probe is required in cases that involve international and national ramifications. Further, the Bench commented on the duplicity of proceedings concerning the Karur stampede at the Madras High Court. Notably, a single judge bench had taken suo moto cognisance in the matter when the case was pending before a Division Bench in Madurai. It suspended the Special Investigation Team set up by the Madras High Court and an Enquiry Commission set up by the Chief Minister. A three-member supervisory committee led by former Supreme Court judge Ajay Rastogi will monitor the CBI investigation. 

Concretising transgender persons’ rights 

In a landmark verdict on 17 October, the Supreme Court directed a private school, the Union and the states of Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh to provide Rs. 50,000 compensation to a transwoman teacher who was dismissed from her employment after she revealed her gender identity. The Court noted that the states and the Union government were liable due to their failure to constitute redressal mechanisms provided under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. 

The Court stated that the recognition granted to transgender persons under National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v Union of India (2014) did not translate into effective implementation under the 2019 Act. Moreover, the Court noted that the delay in implementing the NALSA judgement amounted to “omissive discrimination”. The Court appointed an eight-member advisory committee, headed by the former Delhi High Court judge, Asha Menon, to give effect to the provisions of the 2019 Act. 

Orders on other pressing matters 

In October, the Court continued hearing the petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. Petitioners alleged large-scale deletions and non-disclosure of electoral data by the Election Commission of India (ECI). A Bench of Justices Kant and Bagchi directed the ECI to ensure that voters have the right to appeal and raise objections in the final electoral roll that was released on 30 September. Moreover, the Court directed the State Legal Services Authority to assist the voters who were excluded from the rolls.  

On 27 October, the same bench, in another matter, directed state governments to submit status reports outlining vacancies and pending appeals at state information commissions. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj, pointed out that the Union had taken no measures to fill vacancies in the Central Information Commission for over 10 months. He also flagged that there was no transparency in the selection process and sought a list of the applicants under consideration.  

The Bench ordered the states to initiate the selection process within three weeks. 

Recommendation of Justice Surya Kant as the next Chief Justice 

CJI Gavai is approaching the near end of his tenure as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on 23 November 2025. As the top court approaches a transition, CJI Gavai recommended Justice Kant as the next Chief Justice of India. Justice Kant will have a 15-month tenure as the 53rd CJI and will retire on 9 February 2027. 

The October SCO.LR 

In October, we published Volume 10 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR). Read them here: Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, and Issue 4.