The Supreme Court has ruled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on a multifactor assessment—chiefly control, supervision, business integration, remuneration source, and disciplinary authority—rather than on mere provision of facilities or subsidies. Deciding in General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Achchey Lal (2025 INSC 1175), the Court set aside rulings that had treated a bank’s canteen workers as its employees, holding that the bank only provided infrastructure and subsidy while a staff society hired and managed the workers, negating a direct master–servant relationship.

The Supreme Court in Zoharbee & Anr v. Imam Khan (2025 INSC 1245) ruled that a Muslim widow without children is entitled to one-fourth of her deceased husband’s estate under Mohammedan law. The Court rejected her claim for a larger share, holding that property under an unexecuted “agreement to sell” remains part of the estate until a registered sale deed is executed. Referring to Qur’an 4:12 and Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, the bench explained inheritance priorities and cautioned that inaccurate translations of trial court judgments may mislead appellate courts and affect outcomes.

The Supreme Court has ruled that speculative investors cannot use Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate insolvency proceedings against real estate developers. Affirming the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s decision, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the IBC’s objective is to revive distressed companies and protect genuine homebuyers, not speculative actors seeking assured returns. The Court identified indicators of speculation such as buyback clauses, refusal of possession, high-interest refund demands, and deviations from the RERA Model Agreement, directing such investors to approach RERA, consumer fora, or civil courts instead.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Magistrates may direct witnesses, not only accused persons, to provide voice samples for investigation, holding that such directions do not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Restoring a Magistrate’s order and overturning a High Court decision, the Court said voice samples are non-testimonial evidence used solely for comparison. Citing Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kathi Kalu Oghad, the bench noted that Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita now expressly empowers Magistrates to obtain voice samples from any person during investigations.

The Supreme Court has directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Dehradun, to dispose of a pending securitisation application within the statutory period under Section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act—60 days, extendable up to four months with recorded reasons. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, hearing Indian Overseas Bank v. Radhey Infra Solutions (P) Ltd., set aside the High Court’s non-intervention approach and criticised the DRT for delay. The Court underscored that extensions must be justified in writing, stressing the legislature’s intent for swift resolution of such applications.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih ordered the release of a man convicted in a 1981 murder case after confirming he was 12 years and 5 months old at the time of the offence. Citing Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Court held that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage and applies retrospectively. The bench ruled that custody beyond the three-year limit under juvenile law violates Article 21 and reaffirmed the rehabilitative nature of juvenile justice while criticizing past procedural lapses.