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 Delhi High Court, in its ruling on Arjun Patil v. Union of India & Ors., clarified two key aspects concerning foreign exchange law. It held that Indian currency involved in unauthorized foreign exchange dealings could be confiscated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The Court also emphasized that appeals to the High Court under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), are restricted solely to questions of law and do not extend to factual disputes. The judgment delineates the boundary between legal and factual considerations in foreign exchange enforcement cases.
The Delhi High Court has acquitted Rahul Bhupinder Verma, previously convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that allegations of “physical relations” without clear details or supporting evidence cannot substantiate charges of rape or penetrative sexual assault. The court noted that terms like “physical relations” and “sambandh” must be explicitly defined to meet the legal standards. It further observed delays in filing the FIR, lack of medical or forensic proof, and absence of foundational facts for applying the statutory presumption under Section 29 of POCSO.
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 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 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 is hearing Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, a key case on alleged government surveillance using Pegasus spyware. Pegasus can secretly access smartphones and was reportedly used to target journalists, politicians, and activists. Petitioners argue this violates privacy and free speech rights. The government denied wrongdoing, citing national security and existing surveillance laws. Finding its response inadequate, the Court set up an independent Technical Committee to investigate. The case raises questions on privacy, legality, and oversight, and its outcome will shape India’s digital rights and surveillance framework.
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.
