The Supreme Court of India, in Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors. (2025), reaffirmed…

The Supreme Court has ruled that a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection in the country, even without a permanent office or physical presence. Deciding in Pride Foramer S.A. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2025 INSC 1247), the Court restored Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relief to the company and overturned the Uttarakhand High Court’s restrictive stance. It clarified that a “permanent establishment” applies under tax treaties, not domestic law, and directed reassessments accordingly. The judgment emphasizes that bids and correspondence can demonstrate ongoing business activity in India.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts should refrain from entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 in service recruitment disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Deciding appeals related to teacher recruitment in Karnataka, the Court upheld a Division Bench order directing parties to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). It emphasized that no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing this remedy. The Court clarified that provisional select lists do not create vested rights and urged the KSAT to conclude the matter within six months.

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 asked the Union Government to explain how housing promised under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, can align with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which restricts permanent constructions in forest areas. Hearing Sugra Adiwasi & Ors. v. Pathranand & Ors., a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar directed the Ministries of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Tribal Affairs to consult and file an affidavit within four weeks outlining a framework that balances housing needs of forest dwellers with conservation laws. The case is reported as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 995.

Madhya Pradesh is defending its decision to increase OBC reservation from 14% to 27%, taking total reservations to 73%, above the 50% ceiling set by the Supreme Court. The state cites the large OBC population and their underrepresentation in public services. The case raises legal questions about balancing affirmative action (Articles 15(4) and 16(4)) with equality principles. Key precedents, including *Indra Sawhney* and *M. Nagaraj*, guide how reservations can exceed 50% only in extraordinary circumstances, supported by data on backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency. The Supreme Court will examine these issues in its upcoming hearing.