Waqf assets are inalienable Islamic endowments used for religious and social services; India has over 870,000 registered waqf properties. The 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act is challenged in a consolidated Supreme Court petition (W.P.(C) No.269/2025) led by Asaduddin Owaisi. Petitioners seek a stay on denotifying waqf-by-user lands, non-Muslim board appointments, and collectors’ powers. The Court proposed interim measures to protect existing waqfs, allow investigations without changing status, and permit limited non-Muslim membership. The dispute raises constitutional issues on religious autonomy, equality, federalism and minority rights, with calls for safeguards and transparency.
The Supreme Court has placed a limited stay on the Bombay High Court’s 7/11 Mumbai train blasts acquittal judgment, stating it cannot be used as a precedent in other cases. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh balanced the acquitted individuals’ liberty with the State’s concerns about the ruling’s wider impact on MCOCA trials. While the acquittals remain, the Court will hear Maharashtra’s appeal later. The High Court had earlier acquitted all 11 accused, citing investigative lapses and unreliable evidence. The Supreme Court’s move quarantines the ruling’s legal effect without reversing the acquittals.
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 is using AI and ML to modernise case management. Tools provide real-time transcription (for Constitution Bench hearings), translate judgments into 18 Indian languages, and detect filing defects with IIT Madras. Prototypes for data extraction and integration with the ICMIS are being tested. SUPACE, an AI research tool for legal search, is experimental. The Court says AI will not be used for judicial decision-making. The update was given in the Rajya Sabha by Arjun Ram Meghwal.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea by Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal (the temple’s Vidhayahar) against the Kumbhabhishekam timing at Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N. Kotiswar Singh upheld the High Court’s expert committee decision to hold the ceremony on July 7 from 6:00–6:47 AM, saying courts should not decide auspicious timings. The petitioner had been on the committee.
In a significant development related to industrial activity in eco-sensitive areas, the Supreme Court recently allowed M/s Alankar Granites to withdraw its Special Leave Petition (SLP)…
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Karnataka’s plea challenging a High Court ruling that applied the Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) judgment retrospectively. In Pankaj Bansal, the Court held that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the accused at the time of arrest. Karnataka argues this rule applies prospectively, not to arrests before October 3, 2023. The State also cited Ram Kishor Arora v. ED (2024), where the Court held non-furnishing of grounds before Pankaj Bansal was not illegal. The case, listed for July 18, 2025, will clarify whether such safeguards apply retrospectively.
