Supreme Court Review: Top 10 judgements of 2025

The Supreme Court delivered 1426 judgements this year. In our year-end list, however, we selected 10 verdicts that are already considered as ‘landmark’ or are likely to be in the years to come. One of the key parameters we use to draw up this list is ‘citability’—how likely is this case to be cited in future constitutional litigation? Our list also includes an advisory opinion—not a “judgement” in the strictest sense, but it is one that reached the Court as a response to a controversial verdict earlier in the year. 

Admittedly, a list of this nature is necessarily subjective, but we’ve tried to pick cases that, when read together, can paint at least an impressionistic picture of where the Supreme Court landed on the burning rights-related and governance-related issues of the day. We’ve covered a couple of cases that made waves in the commercial and corporate world, an area that is often under-reported in year-end lists given the focus on public law.

1. Court has limited power to modify arbitral award | Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies | Five-judge Bench

On 30 April 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench held, in a 4:1 majority, that courts possess a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the  Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The majority held that the restricted power of severing an award under the proviso to Section 34(2)(a)(iv) implies a power of the court to vary or modify the award. It rejected the view that courts may only set aside awards in toto. The majority recognised a power to correct “computational, clerical or typographical errors, as well as other manifest errors apparent on the face of the record.” It treated this power as distinct from appellate review and review on merits. While it disallowed modifications to pendente lite interest, the Bench permitted changes to post-award interest. The majority accepted that the Supreme Court may invoke Article 142 in limited situations to bring litigation to an end. 

In his dissent, Justice K.V. Viswanathan relied on Project Director, NHAI v M. Hakeem (2021), arguing that Section 34 strictly permits only setting aside or remitting awards. He maintained that modification violates the UNCITRAL Model Law and that Article 142 cannot override statutory limitations.

2. Constitutional Immunity of the Speaker | Padi Kaushik Reddy v State of Telangana | Two-judge Bench 

In July, a Division Bench of Justices Gavai and Masih clarified that the Speaker does not enjoy constitutional immunity from judicial scrutiny under Articles 122 and 212 when exercising power under paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule. The top court placed guardrails on the Speaker’s discretion to decide disqualification on the ground of deflection, holding that the determinative jurisdiction of the Speaker under Tenth Schedule is justiciable. 

Padi Kaushik Reddy approached the Supreme Court to opine on the inaction of the Speaker in deciding the disqualification of 10 MLAs under the Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on the ground of Defection) Rules, 1986. The Court relied on Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (1992), noting that the Speaker exercising his discretion under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule is a Tribunal and thereby, is bound to decide disqualification petitions in a timely manner. The Division Bench further determined timelines for the Speaker to fix a schedule for hearing a defection petition (four weeks). Beyond that, the matter would be open to be heard by the Court.

3. RTE Act does not apply to Minority Education Institution | Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v The State of Maharashtra | Two-judge Bench 

In September, the Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that aspiring and in-service teachers are required to pass the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) under the Right to Education Act 2009 to continue in service. The Court clarified that the ruling does not apply to Minority Educational Institutions (MEIs) administered under Article 30 of the Constitution. However, it stated that there was a need to examine the correctness of the Constitution Bench decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v Union of India, which held that RTE Act’s application to educational institutions established under Article 30 was ultra vires. . 

It referred Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust to a larger bench, stating that there is no inherent conflict between Articles 20(1) and 30, implying that the application of the RTE Act to MEIs cannot be held to be ultra vires. Further, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to relax the TET requirement for teachers with less than five years of service remaining. However, they will not be eligible for promotion unless they pass the test.

4. No general interim stay on Waqf Amendment | In re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | Two-judge Bench 

In September 2025, a Division Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih delivered its interim judgement in petitions seeking a blanket stay on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. While the Court refused a general stay, it stayed specific controversial provisions.

The Bench stayed Section 3(r), which mandated that a person must practice Islam for at least five years before creating a Waqf. The Bench reasoned that there were no verification mechanisms in the Act. However, it added that the provision can be enforced once there are mechanisms as it was not prima facie arbitrary or discriminatory. It also stayed Section 3C, holding that entrusting property title disputes to the government’s revenue officers violates the separation of powers. The Court ruled that such disputes require judicial or quasi-judicial resolution.

The Court upheld mandatory registration of Waqfs and the requirement that only owners dedicate property. It also maintained the bars on declaring protected monuments or tribal lands as Waqf. Regarding governance of the Waqf Boards, the Court capped non-Muslim membership at four for the Central Council and three for State Boards, recommending that CEOs be from the Muslim community whenever possible.

5. Revival, not liquidation | Kalyani Transco v Bhushan Power and Steel Limited | Three-judge Bench

On 2 May 2025, a two-judge Bench ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Steel. This Order came despite JSW’s ₹19,700 crore acquisition of the company in 2021 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The decision drew sharp criticism for undermining resolution efforts and compromising the scheme under the IBC. 

Reversing the Order, a three-judge Bench reaffirmed that the IBC prioritises reviving viable companies, with liquidation serving only as a last resort. The Bench accepted arguments from JSW and the Committee of Creditors that attachments by the Enforcement Directorate, regulatory hurdles and obstruction by former promoters caused the implementation delays. It ruled that JSW should not be penalised for factors beyond its control. The Court held that the IBC is not a mechanical checklist but a living framework that requires both speed and sensitivity to economic realities.

6. Direct recruitment of District Judges from Bar stream | Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa | Five-judge Bench

A five-judge Bench held that judicial officers who have previously practised as advocates for at least seven years are eligible for appointment as District Judges through direct recruitment under Article 233. The Court held that eligibility does not depend on whether a candidate practises as an advocate at the time of appointment.

The dispute arose from the appointment of Rejanish K.V., who completed more than seven years of practice at the Bar before joining the judicial service as a munsiff. Before his appointment as a District Judge took effect, he entered the subordinate judiciary. The Kerala High Court set aside the appointment and held that only practising advocates qualified under Article 233(2), relying on Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi (2020).

On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Article 233 as a complete code. It held that clause (1) governs appointments to the post of District Judge, while clause (2) enables advocates with seven years’ practice to be considered. The Court held that the provision does not exclude candidates who enter judicial service after acquiring the requisite Bar experience. The Court directed states and High Courts to amend recruitment rules to recognise eligibility based on a combined seven years of experience at the Bar and in judicial service. The judgement applies prospectively.

7. Affirmation of transgender rights | Jane Kaushik v Union of India | Two-judge Bench

In October 2025, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed the Union government, the states of Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, and two private schools to pay ₹50,000 each in compensation to a transgender woman who was denied employment after revealing her gender identity. The decision highlighted the glaring gap between promise and practice, eleven years after NALSA v Union of India (2014) was celebrated for recognising the right to self-identification.

The Court noted that the State and its institutions showed a “grossly apathetic attitude” toward implementing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the 2020 Rules. It observed that the petitioner would have been “in a significantly better position” to exercise her fundamental rights had the states  had not shown “such inaction and apathy.” Notably, the Court ruled that transgender or gender-diverse individuals do not require permission from their employers to undergo gender-affirming medical procedures, such as Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), unless the specific nature of their work is based on gender identity.

8. Legality of Ex Post Facto Clearances | CREDAI v Vanashakti | Three-judge Bench 

Overruling the judgement in Vanashakti v Union of India in a 2:1 split, the three-judge Bench of former CJI Gavai, Justice K.V. Chandran and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan (dissenting) held that the grant of ex post facto environmental clearances is not illegal and can be granted sparingly. The majority decision underscored that the precedents upon which the foundation of the Vanashakti judgement was laid were per incurium i.e. they were made in ignorance of controlling precedents. 

The majority decision further held that the declaration of illegality of the ex post facto clearances comes at the expense of risking public interest while also “squandering significant public resources.” In his dissenting opinion, Justice Bhuyan noted that ex post facto clearances are contrary to both the precautionary principle and sustainable development, noting that this review judgement is a “step in retrogression.”

9. Striking down key provisions of Tribunals Reforms Act | Madras Bar Association v Union of India | Two-judge Bench

A Division Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Chandran struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, holding that Parliament had reintroduced provisions already declared unconstitutional by this Court. It further held that the principles and directions issued in Madras Bar Association-4 (2020) and Madras Bar Association-5 (2021) shall continue to govern all matters related to appointment, qualification, tenure and service conditions for tribunal members and chairpersons.

Situating the dispute within its settled tribunal jurisprudence, the Judgement held that the challenge could not be viewed in isolation, as issues relating to appointment, qualification, tenure and service conditions had already been examined in S.P. Sampath Kumar v Union of India (1987), Madras Bar Association (2014) and Rojer Mathew (2019). 

On merits, the Court found that several impugned provisions were reproduced verbatim from the earlier Tribunals Reforms Ordinance. Holding that merely shifting the same content does not cure constitutional defects, the Court noted that the Act amounted to a “legislative override in the strictest sense”. It reiterated that tribunals discharge functions traditionally exercised by courts and must therefore be governed by the same standards of independence. Striking down Sections 3 to 7 of the Act, the Court extended protection to appointments made prior to the enactment of the 2021 Act.

10. No timelines for assent | Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | Five-judge Bench

In an advisory opinion, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the Governor and President possess discretionary powers over bills presented for their assent under Articles 200 and 201. The President invoked the Court’s jurisdiction—only for the 16th time in history— after State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) established specific timelines for granting assent. In that case, Tamil Nadu had argued that the Governor was sitting on Bills and exercising an unlawful veto over them. While the advisory opinion agreed that the Governor does not possess an absolute veto, it struck down the timelines established in Tamil Nadu Governor.

Tamil Nadu Governor had held that a Governor must either grant assent, withhold assent, or refer the bill to the President. It had further held that if a Governor returns a Bill and the legislature repasses it, the Governor has no option but to grant assent. The Governor could not refer the Bill to the President in that second round.

The advisory opinion agreed that the Governor is limited to three options. However, it diverged from Tamil Nadu Governor in its holding that a Governor may refer a Bill passed in the second round to the President. The Bench clarified that any exercise of discretionary power by the Governor or President is non-justiciable. Finally, the Court noted it can issue a “limited mandamus” if a Governor delays deciding on a state Bill.