The Supreme Court has directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Dehradun, to dispose of a pending securitisation application within the statutory period under Section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act—60 days, extendable up to four months with recorded reasons. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, hearing Indian Overseas Bank v. Radhey Infra Solutions (P) Ltd., set aside the High Court’s non-intervention approach and criticised the DRT for delay. The Court underscored that extensions must be justified in writing, stressing the legislature’s intent for swift resolution of such applications.
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 bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih ordered the release of a man convicted in a 1981 murder case after confirming he was 12 years and 5 months old at the time of the offence. Citing Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Court held that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage and applies retrospectively. The bench ruled that custody beyond the three-year limit under juvenile law violates Article 21 and reaffirmed the rehabilitative nature of juvenile justice while criticizing past procedural lapses.
The Supreme Court held that criminal courts cannot review or recall their own final, signed orders except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s recall and transfer of two FIR investigations to the CBI. It ruled that inherent powers under Section 482 (now Section 528 BNSS) cannot override the bar in Section 362 CrPC (now Section 403 BNSS). The Court restored finality to the earlier order and allowed parties to seek appropriate remedies.
The Supreme Court clarified key principles on oral gifts (Hiba) under Mohammedan law in *Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi v. Syeda Arifa Parveen* (October 7, 2025). It ruled that oral gifts cannot be “surprise instruments” and must meet three simultaneous conditions: donor’s declaration, donee’s acceptance, and delivery of possession. Without evidence like mutation or acts of ownership, the gift claim fails. The Court set aside the Karnataka High Court ruling and held the 2013 suit time-barred, stressing strict proof and possession as decisive for validating Hiba claims.
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.
The Supreme Court held in *Executive Trading Co. v. Grow Well Mercantile* that defendants in summary suits under Order XXXVII CPC must obtain the court’s permission (“leave to defend”) before filing any defence. The ruling preserves the fast-track nature of summary proceedings, requiring defendants to apply within set timelines and support their plea with an affidavit showing a substantial defence. Courts may grant leave with conditions, but cannot permit routine replies without leave. The decision enforces strict procedural compliance to protect quick recovery of liquidated commercial claims.
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.
News Summary The Supreme Court of India recently quashed criminal proceedings against a woman’s in-laws in a dowry harassment case, holding that vague and general allegations…
