Supreme Court Review 2025: Constitution Bench decisions

This year, the Supreme Court delivered four Constitution bench judgements, of which three were led by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and one by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna. There was a steep decline in Constitution Bench judgements as compared to 12 in 2024 and 18 in 2023. The year also saw three CJI’s which may have factored into the decline in Constitution Bench activity. 

This year’s Constitution Benches involved the appointment and promotion of judges in the district judiciary, the Court’s power to modify arbitral awards and an advisory opinion in a Presidential Reference. 

This article compiles the key highlights of the decisions. 

1. Presidential Reference on Powers of Governors and the President | Five-judge Bench 

Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | Advisory Opinion: 20 November 2025 

The five-judge bench led by former CJI B.R. Gavai clarified the scope of powers exercised by Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 for granting or withholding assent, or reserving the bill for consideration of the President. The Presidential Reference came in the aftermath of State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), which prescribed limits on the discretionary powers exercised by the constitutional functionaries. Setting aside Tamil Nadu Governor, the five-judge bench held that the discharge of the Governor’s and the President’s functions is non-justiciable. 

The advisory opinion set aside timelines set by the Bench in Tamil Nadu Governor for granting assent on state bills. However, the five-judge bench ruled that a “limited mandamus” can be sought in circumstances of prolonged, unexplained and indefinite delay in the discharge of the Governor’s functions.

2. Reservation for Civil Judges for the post of Principal District Judge | Five-judge Bench 

All India Judges Association v Union of India | Judgement: 19 November 2025 

The five-judge bench determined the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadres of the Higher Judicial Services (HJS). The Court held that a legitimate expectation of reservation cannot be a basis for allowing artificial classification of members within a cadre. 

Despite the refusal to account for the reservations, the Court acknowledged the need for a uniform framework based on merit-cum-seniority in promotion within the HJS. The Court further noted that seniority shall be determined through an annual four-point roster, providing proportional representation to Regular Promotees (RPs), Direct Recruits (DRs) and promotees through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCEs).

3. Direct recruitment of judicial officers as District Judges | Five-judge bench 

Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa | Judgement: 9 October 2025

The five-judge bench ruled that judicial officers, with at least seven years of practice as an advocate, are eligible for direct recruitment for District Judges under the Bar quota. The Court clarified that there is no bar under Article 233(2) of the Constitution for the appointment of in-service judicial officers as District Judges. 

The Court set aside the ruling in Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi (2020), where the Supreme Court held that only advocates practising at the time of appointment are eligible to be appointed. The Court further stated that the current practice excludes merited service judges from consideration for direct recruitment.

4. Court’s power to modify an arbitral award | Five-judge bench 

Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited | Judgement: 30 April 2025

A bench of five judges, led by CJI Khanna, in a 4:1 majority held that appellate courts can exercise limited powers to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The majority decision held that appellate courts have the power to “sever” non-arbitrable parts of awards to modify a portion while retaining the rest. The Court further held that the powers of Article 142 may be invoked, with great care and caution, to modify an award. 

In his dissent, Justice K.V. Viswanathan wrote that the precedents cited by the majority decision are per incuriam and the Court does not have power either under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996 or under Article 142 of the Constitution to modify arbitral awards.