The Supreme Court of India has, in M. Rajendran & Ors. v. M/s KPK Oils…

The Supreme Court has directed the CBI to register FIRs after its seventh preliminary enquiry…

In a landmark ruling on September 3, 2025, the Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari directed that when motor accident claimants cannot prove income, insurance companies must furnish applicable minimum wage notifications to tribunals. The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra enhanced compensation for an 8-year-old Gujarat boy with 90% disability from ₹8.65 lakh to ₹35.90 lakh, fixing his income at skilled worker minimum wages.

The Court held that minors cannot be treated as non-earning individuals, emphasizing compensation based on skilled worker wages, with additions for future prospects. Insurance companies now bear responsibility to present wage data in disputed claims. The judgment, circulated nationwide to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, ensures uniform application. This decision strengthens claimants’ rights, curbs arbitrary awards, and sets higher benchmarks for fair compensation in accident cases across India.

The Supreme Court has raised “serious doubts” over the Election Commission’s decision to conduct a ‘special intensive revision’ of Bihar’s electoral rolls just months before the 2025 Assembly elections. A bench questioned the timing, legal basis, and impact on voters, warning that eligible citizens could be disenfranchised without time to appeal. The Court also asked why Aadhaar is excluded as valid ID, suggesting it should be allowed. It sought clarity on the legal authority for such a revision, as only ‘summary’ and ‘intensive’ revisions are recognized. The case will shape future electoral roll practices in India.

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of investigative agencies summoning lawyers during criminal investigations and will frame guidelines to protect lawyer-client privilege and professional independence. A bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud will hear the matter on July 14. The move follows concerns after the ED summoned Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, later withdrawing the notices amid backlash. Bar associations urged intervention, warning of a “chilling effect” on legal practice. The Court’s guidelines are expected to safeguard legal confidentiality and uphold the autonomy of the legal profession.

The Supreme Court has issued notice on Tamil Nadu’s plea challenging the Madras High Court’s interim stay on amendments that shifted the power to appoint Vice Chancellors from the Governor to the State Government. A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan tagged the case with similar pending matters and allowed the State to seek early hearing. The amendments were challenged for allegedly conflicting with UGC Regulations, which vest appointment powers in the Chancellor. The case raises key questions on federal powers and university governance.