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 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 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 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.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that couples who created and froze embryos before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 took effect on January 25, 2022, have the right to proceed with surrogacy despite later age restrictions. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan held that Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Act does not apply retrospectively. Justice Viswanathan’s concurring opinion stated that fertilisation and freezing mark the point where reproductive rights crystallise, protected under Article 21. The Court allowed eligible couples to continue their surrogacy process, distinguishing pre-Act actions from future regulations.

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 seeking restoration of a blocked WhatsApp account, holding that there is no fundamental right to use the messaging app. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the maintainability of the plea and suggested users could opt for indigenous alternatives such as Arattai by Zoho. The petitioner, a doctor who relied on WhatsApp professionally, later withdrew the plea, with liberty to pursue civil or other legal remedies, amid wider discussions on digital platform accountability and user rights in India.