Monthly Review: November 2025

In November, just a week before his retirement, the former Chief Justice, B.R. Gavai, issued judgements in several key matters, including an advisory opinion in a Presidential Reference alongside two Constitution Bench judgements. The Court witnessed a transition at the helm, with Justice Surya Kant taking over as the 53rd Chief Justice of India. The Court continued hearings on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, the bail for Umar Khalid and others accused in the 2020 Delhi Riots, and the stray dogs matter. 

Our monthly review covers all developments in November 2025. 

Farewell to the Chief 

On 21 November 2025, the Bar bid farewell to former CJI Gavai. i. After having steered the wheels of the chieftain for the last six months, former CJI Gavai remarked, “My heart is full”, as members of the bar and bench shared memories of his tenure as a judge of the Supreme Court. The transition came at a time when pendency reached a three-decade high. 

We have compiled his top 10 notable judgements and his tenure in numbers. We also analysed the pendency and the Collegium activity during his tenure. 

Start of a new era 

Justice Surya Kant assumed office as the 53rd CJI on 24 November.. As a first-generation advocate from an agricultural village in Haryana, Justice Surya Kant rose from modest beginnings to a distinguished judicial career. Following the two short tenures of his predecessors, Chief Justice Surya Kant’s 14-month tenure, running until February 2027, promises greater stability and smoother court functioning, coming after the two brief tenures before him 

Setting out his foremost priority in the Court,  CJI Surya Kant committed to tackling the  Court’s pendency, which stood at 90,497 cases at the time of his appointment. He indicated that mediation and alternative dispute resolution would be central to his approach

Read our coverage on CJI Surya Kant, from his early days in the bar to his first week as the CJI. 

A word of advice 

On 20 November 2025, a five-judge bench led by former CJI Gavai delivered an advisory opinion on the powers of Governors and the President on assent, withdrawal and reservation of State bills. The case arose from a Presidential Reference where President Droupadi Murmu invoked the Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143. The bench unanimously reversed State of Tamil Nadu v the Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), holding that the discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200 is not justiciable.

The Court set aside the timelines earlier imposed on Governors by the Division Bench in Tamil Nadu Governor, noting that Article 200 does not permit judicially prescribed deadlines. It clarified that in cases of prolonged or unexplained delay in granting assent, the Court may issue a “limited mandamus.”

Our Judgement Matrix and Summary bring you the key highlights of the opinion. In our commentary, Pranav Verma, Assistant Professor (Law) at the National Law School of India University, argued that the opinion was a retreat from the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision. 

Tribulations and reforms 

On 19 November, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by former CJI Gavai, struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, holding that it substantially reproduced the exact provisions of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Madras Bar Association v Union of India (2021). 

The Court held that reenacting previously invalidated provisions breaches constitutional limits and that the 2021 Act, violated the separation of powers through excessive executive control, amounting to an attempted override of judicial decisions.

Our judgement summary and matrix provide a clean breakdown of the Judgement. 

Merit, seniority, reservations 

On 19 November, a five-judge constitution bench laid guidelines to determine inter-se seniority within the Higher Judicial Services (HJS) across all States. The Court identified three sources of recruitment in the HJS: Regular Promotions, Direct Recruitment and promotion through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). 

Rejecting the need for any artificial classification, the Court held that once appointed, all officers form a single cadre of District Judges and cannot be differentiated for seniority based on their mode of entry. It further stressed the need for a uniform framework for determining seniority in promotions within the HJS. For a structured overview of the ruling, refer to our judgement summary and matrix 

Roll revision ruckus 

In November, the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi continued hearing challenges to the Bihar SIR, while similar challenges from West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Kerala also came before the Court. 

Petitioners argued that the SIR departs from the statutory scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act) by shifting the burden of verification onto voters, introducing citizenship-linked checks and creating arbitrary classifications. They raised concerns about rushed timelines, risk of wrongful deletions and the feasibility of uniform procedures across States. The Court indicated that Sections 21 and 22 of the RP Act will be central to assessing the ECI’s authority. Our latest reports on the Bihar SIR hearings can be accessed here.

Our case background has all the hearing reports.  

Green clearances in perpetuity 

On 18 November, in a 2:1 decision, a Bench of former CJI Gavai and Justices K.V. Chandran and Ujjal Bhuyan recalled the judgement in Vanashakti v Union of India (2025), which had declared the grant of post facto environmental clearances illegal and harmful to the environmental jurisprudence. The majority held that the division bench of Justices Oka and Bhuyan overlooked precedents permitting ex post facto clearances in exceptional situations involving major public-interest infrastructure.

Justice Bhuyan dissented, questioning the maintainability of the review petition while also stating that the judgement is a “step in retrogression.”

Our analysis provides a broader understanding of the legal consequentiality of overturning final judgements. 

Closing acquittal in Nithari 

On 11 November, a bench of former CJI Gavai and Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath acquitted the last accused in the 2006 Nithari Killings, citing the absence of cogent evidence and lack of corroboration. The Court relied on earlier acquittals and noted that neither forensic material nor investigative records could cure the serious evidentiary gaps in a case built entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Justice Nath described the outcome as “unfortunate,” observing that investigative negligence and delay had corroded the fact-finding process and resulted in the acquittal of all accused persons.

Conspiracy code: Delhi riots 

A bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria continued hearing bail pleas of Umar Khalid and others in the 2020 Delhi riots case. 

The petitioners questioned the legitimacy of five-and-a-half years of custody without any demonstrated overt act of violence. The State maintained that the accused were involved in a larger conspiracy to block essential supplies, an act it claims threatens economic security under the UAPA framework.

 Our reports trace all developments in the matter through November 

The smog-proof blueprint 

On 19 November, the Court reviewed the Union Government’s short and long-term plans to tackle worsening air pollution in Delhi and the National Capital Region. 

The plans included road dust mitigation, industrial and vehicular pollution, and crop residue management, among other measures. The Union acknowledged that although the regulatory principle is robust, the enforcement continues to be weak. Accordingly, the Bench directed all NCR states to file affidavits on the release of subsistence allowance on the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP). 

Our report on the hearing can be accessed here.

Religious objection, military consequence 

On 27 November, the Division Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Christian officer, for refusing to participate in his regiment’s religious ceremonies. Dismissing the Lieutenant’s claim of violation of fundamental rights under Article 25, the bench held that not every religious sentiment or practice is an essential feature warranting constitutional protection under Article 25.

SCO.LR this November 

In November, we published Volume 11 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR), bringing you the five best judgements from each week in November. Read them here: Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, and Issue 4. 

You can also access them on our landing page with concise summaries, mind maps and HTML versions of each judgement to enhance accessibility and user experience.