The Supreme Court ruled on 6 October 2025 that tender conditions requiring prior supply experience **within a specific state** are unconstitutional. In *Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh*, the Court struck down the rule for violating **Article 14** (equality) and **Article 19(1)(g)** (freedom of trade), stressing that public procurement must ensure fair competition and a “level playing field.” Geographical restrictions lacking rational justification were deemed arbitrary. The decision reinforces that tender rules must serve legitimate objectives, not create artificial barriers favoring local suppliers over qualified national bidders.

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.

The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the Governor’s and President’s powers in assenting to state Bills. The reference follows the Court’s April 2024 judgment setting timelines for assent, which sparked debate on judicial overreach. Fourteen key constitutional questions have been referred, including whether Governors’ and the President’s actions are justiciable, if courts can set timelines, and the scope of Article 142. The outcome will shape federalism, separation of powers, and the legislative process, influencing how state laws are enacted in India.

The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the roles of Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The case follows a Tamil Nadu ruling that set timelines for assent and raised debates on judicial power. Key questions include whether Governors and the President must follow ministerial advice, if their discretion is justiciable, and whether courts can set timelines. The outcome will shape federal relations, legislative processes, and the balance between executive and judicial powers.

The Supreme Court of India has granted high courts a final eight-week extension to file compliance reports on providing adequate toilet facilities in courts and tribunals, reinforcing sanitation as part of the right to life under Article 21. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan warned that failure to comply will result in Registrar Generals being summoned personally.

This directive follows the Court’s January verdict highlighting critical gaps in judicial infrastructure. So far, only five high courts—Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, Delhi, and Patna—have filed reports outlining audits and upgrades. The Court’s firm stance signals possible contempt proceedings for non-compliance, emphasizing accountability and the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring dignity and accessibility in court premises.

The Supreme Court, in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala, quashed a preventive detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, holding that such laws cannot be used to bypass bail procedures. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan ruled that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure under Article 21 and must be applied sparingly. The Court found that the detention of a moneylender with pending criminal cases was based on law-and-order issues, not threats to public order. It stressed that the proper course was to seek bail cancellation, not misuse preventive detention.