The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for issuing summons to advocates solely for representing or advising clients in legal matters. Hearing a suo motu case, a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said such actions potentially infringe on lawyer-client privilege and could have a chilling effect on the legal profession. The court emphasized that even incorrect legal advice remains privileged communication. “They are crossing all limits,” the CJI said, noting that legal advice cannot become grounds for investigation. Senior advocates like Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal were reportedly issued notices, prompting widespread concern in the legal community. Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta acknowledged the issue and confirmed that ED officials had been instructed not to summon lawyers for rendering legal opinions. The court directed all parties to submit detailed notes and set the next hearing for July 29, affirming the need for formal guidelines.
Delhi High Court has ruled that Nutella, the popular hazelnut cocoa spread by Ferrero, is a well-known trade mark under the trade mark law of India. As the Court pointed out, the brand has an extensive reputation in the world as well as India, where it is recognised widely and has well-established goodwill. The decision stressed that Nutella has become synonymous with hazelnut cocoa spread all over the world, and its use by other parties without authorisation may mislead consumers and diminish its identity. In doing this, the Court has given the brand increased protection against infringement, imitation and passing off even outside the specific class of goods. This decision strengthens the idea of internationally renowned trademarks, as they should be given broader protection in India so that they cannot be misused and their commercial value can be maintained. This ruling is in line with India's commitment to international trademark protection regimes and enhances the intellectual property regime through consideration of brand reputation and perception as a critical element.
The Non-Adversarial Legal Approach To Justice (NALA) or the Mediation Campaign was a countrywide NLSA and Supreme Court Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (led by Justice D Y Chandrachud) initiative, launched on 29 July 2025. The project will flow up to 30 September 2025 and has the tendency to promote the resolution of civil conflicts out of courts in mediation forms. The campaign covers a wide scope of cases, which comprise motor accident claims, matrimonial and domestic violence cases, land acquisition disputes, consumer disputes, loan recoveries, and service-related dispute cases. Cases that would like to submit can apply to any of their respective courts of law to be referred to mediation bodies. Such a campaign will be important in the effort of India to reduce its judicial backlog, which has, over the years, been a challenge towards the timely administration of justice in the country. By making the court mediation-friendly, fast, and cheap, the culture of litigation should not be encouraged as much as the constitutional vision of the provision of access to justice quickly and cheaply to all citizens of this country should be promoted.
In Anila & Others v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottapalam & Another (Kerala HC, July 16, 2025), Justice Viju Abraham addressed the interplay between the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner, a daughter-in-law with a protection order under the DV Act, challenged the Tribunal's decision allowing her mother-in-law to reside in the same house under the Senior Citizens Act. The Court, citing Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, held that reliefs under both statutes can coexist when applied harmoniously. Importantly, it expansively interpreted "children" under Section 2(a) of the Senior Citizens Act to include a daughter-in-law in possession of the senior citizen’s property, following Deepika H. The judgment emphasized purposive interpretation of welfare legislation and held that both vulnerable parties—senior citizens and women facing domestic violence—deserve protection. Separate accommodations within the same building were suggested to balance interests without overriding either statute.
The Bills of Lading Act, 2025 came into formal effect on 31 July 2025 and entirely superseded the Indian Bills of Lading Act, 1856, realising a long overdue reform in the maritime commerce law. The Act transfers all the rights and liabilities under a bill of lading to the consignee or lawful endorsee, thus addressing the statutory alignment of the international trade practice. It states that a bill of lading is itself evidence of shipment, whereas it is rebutted by fraud and notice of non shipment to the benefit of a bona fide holder in a bona fide case. Significantly, it secures the right of stoppage in transit to a shipper and allows claims of freight against the original shipper or owner. The law also delegates the power to the Central Government to issue directives in the implementation of the law, and it repeals the old law of 1856 with provisions of saving to safeguard earlier rights. With the modernisation of evidence and contracts, the Act makes India a better place to transact global trade as it guarantees more certainty, belief, and efficiency in the shipping business.
The Supreme Court of India made the headlines on 30 July 2025 by failing to hear the review petitions against its earlier rejection of the JSW resolution scheme in Bhushan Power & Steel, only in an open court hearing. The move makes proceedings in courts more transparent, and the weaker parties have a “face-to-face” platform to argue against and appeal on important corporate and financial decisions. The Court, on the same day, also expedited the appointment controversies in the Kerala universities, whose resolution, the Court asked the state government and the governor to commence. The Supreme Court also addressed itself to the process of correcting misconduct litigations against judges, thus explaining why the issues of accountability among the judges are taken seriously by the Supreme Court. All these are reflective of a vibrant judicial style of handling issues related to corporate, pedagogical and moral laws. The Supreme Court, with open reviews and greater scrutiny, provides fair play, openness and procedural rigour in reaching a high-stakes decision that has implications on the law and society in India.
On 30 July 2025, the Myanmar State Administration Council published the seminal Cybersecurity Law, which is to regulate online media, digital communications and online activities in the country. The legislation possesses extraterritorial jurisdiction, and any VPN service or other digital network that exceeds a user base of 000 has to apply for a government-issued licence. It requires information on online data storage sites to keep personal information that users submit on such sites for a minimum of three years, thus providing greater control over the communication and personal information online. Anti-market infringements that carry penalties include access to unlicensed and fraudulent sites offering online gambling services or misuse of the use of cyber resources that attract heavy fines and prison terms. The law alters rules that relate to unsolicited e-communications and the offences of cybercrime. Opponents have expressed worry over privacy and limitations to freedom of expression and censorship. However, the legislation tends to respond to the existing cyber threats, as well as enhance the digital infrastructure in Myanmar. The promulgation of this law represents a major step towards a more positive change in the manner in which cybersecurity and internet governance policy can be undertaken in Myanmar.
On 1 August 2025, the trial courts and magistrates in Delhi will be enabled by law to issue summons and warrants via WhatsApp and email with an adaptation of a This is governed by a set of rules, the BNSS (Service of Summons and Warrants), Rules, 2025 laid down by the Delhi government. The primary ruling is made by the courts of Delhi within the context of the BNSS system that tries to update judicial communication. Process serving of summons and warrants used to be performed traditionally by the physical delivery of the document by process servers, who could be subject to delays and manipulation of not providing the documents or doing so improperly in the process. Courts have a way to guarantee faster, traceable and more substantial communications with digital delivery. This shift is especially relevant to the Delhi District Courts, which have to handle a lot of criminal and civil matters every day. Electronic service will reduce the time lag in the proceedings, speed up the trial and improve transparency. It is also in tandem with the higher trend of digital justice undertaken by the judiciary, complementing electronic filing and video courts. Delhi courts are striving to enhance efficiency and curb the use of loopholes in procedures and instil more trust in the judicial process with the introduction of e-service
On 1 August 2025, the Bombay High Court, through the approval of the Governor of Maharashtra, made a roster to set up its 4th bench in Kolhapur. This bench will officially commence on 18 August 2025, and its territorial jurisdiction will cover the six districts of western Maharashtra- Satara, Sangli, Solapur, Kolhapur, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg. In February 2003, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court revived one of the benches at Nagpur in order to decongest the Mumbai and Aurangabad benches. It is also meant to enhance access to justice since the litigants in these districts had to travel long distances to Mumbai or Aurangabad to prosecute their suits. Creation of the Kolhapur Bench will be an instance of judicial decentralisation, offering relief to the people faster and alleviating the backlog. The development is a milestone by the Bombay High Court that already disposes of one of the highest caseloads in the nation. It is also likely to clear other benches and bring the court in touch with people of western Maharashtra
On 31 July 2025, the Punjab Prevention of Offences against Holy Scripture PS, 2025, was moved to the next stage by the Assembly select committee, seeking responses to the draft bill by 31 August. In an attempt to instil strict penalties on people who commit sacrilege, life imprisonment and a fine of up to 10 lakh will be the penalties laid out in A Bill that will be used against perpetrators or aiding and abetting. A panel of 15 members would be headed by AAP MLA Inderbir Singh Nijjar to receive suggestions from the people, religious communities, non-government organisations, as well as legal practitioners. Recommendations will be made in six months time to hone the proposed law. To increase the number of suggestions, the committee has enabled suggestions via WhatsApp, email and MLAs. Throughout the Bill, there are repeatedly recurring issues of sacrilege in Punjab regarding the scriptures of holy texts, which have been known to be a cause of mob violence over the years. Pairing harsh punishment with open consultation is part of the system of checks and balances, which the legislation aims to achieve. This move shows the attempt to the Punjab government to legislate on delicate religious issues as it gains legitimacy by involving people and being open, i.e. transparent.
All States and Union Territories have been asked to come out with a notification within a month, in a PIL filed by the advocate Poulomi Pavini Shukla, in four weeks, recognising orphaned children as a disadvantaged group who can be covered under 25 percent reservation in private unaided educational institutions under Section 12(1) (c) of the Right to Education (RTE) Act. Another bench, headed by Justices B. V. Nagarathna and K. V. Viswanathan, has also directed an overall survey to be conducted of children who have been brought under the RTE Act as orphaned along with those who have been refused admission- with reasons being recorded. In the process of this data collection, states are to make sure that orphans are placed in neighbourhood schools as soon as possible and who deserve them. It has also been suggested that the Centre take into consideration, involving orphans as a distinct population in the national census of 2027 to enhance data-based decision-making on the consistently unrepresented group of the country.
The Supreme Court of India held that alimony or maintenance that a woman receives due to her first divorce will not be a reason to deny or minimise alimony on divorce the second time. A Bench of In both instances, the object of the justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih was that there is a marriage and subsequent dissolution and that a woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This was an appeal which was being determined by the Court, where the husband, following the reconciliation between him and his wife, had alleged that since his wife already received permanent alimony in her previous marital relationship, she should not be entitled to other maintenance in this case. Dismissing this argument, the Bench upheld that the right to maintenance promotes social justice and the financial well-being of women and cannot be restricted based on the earlier settlements. The determination highlights that maintenance is not a one-off payment within the entire lifetime of a woman, but an ongoing responsibility that goes hand in hand with the case of each marital relationship dissolution. It empowers the rights of women and eliminates the financial weakness following the recurrent failure of marriages.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has suggested creating a broad-based legal framework for ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards in India. The panel further argued for the necessity of shifting beyond voluntary disclosures and establishing an enforceable system to achieve genuine corporate accountability. One of the recommendations is to be an independent ESG oversight mechanism within the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), which would ensure disclosures, deter greenwashing, and penalize with respect to fraudulent assertions. The committee also suggested the use of the Companies Act, 2013, to include ESG requirements within the fiduciary duties of company directors so that sustainability becomes part of the law. The panel suggested sector-wise ESG standards and further help to competent MSMEs to implement a sustainable approach regarding tackling the industry-specific issues. There would also be companies having independent committees on ESG at the board level like audit committees. Furthermore, MCA will be required to have an ESG separate chapter in the annual report since FY 2025-26, to monitor national progress. Another facet identified by the committee was the need to tighten up regulatory bodies such as the NFRA and the SFIO as a way of boosting supervision, investigation, and enforcement capabilities.
A few days after the onset of late July 2025, the Supreme Court of India conducted a suo motu cognisance of the rising numbers of stray dog attacks and deaths caused by rabies, mostly among children. Due to alarming media reports, a bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan opined that the situation is ‘extremely grim’, and the matter was subsequently referred to CJI B. R. Gavai. On 11 August 2025, the bench gave detailed guidelines to Delhi-NCR, stating that every stray dog should be taken off the streets and taken to shelters. The order did not allow them to be released into localities and threatened a penalty to a person who hinders it. The guidelines emphasised the health and safety of the people, especially the safety of children. On 12 August 2025, actor John Abraham submitted a petition to the CJI, terming the order as inhumane and impractical and seeking the Court to reconsider the same in light of the humane co-existence that exists between citizens and stray dogs. On his part, CJI Gavai emphatically promised, “I will look into it.”
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) himself has the power to recommend dismissal of a judge in the High Court or the Supreme Court when submitting an in-house inquiry report to the President and the Prime Minister, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India. A bench headed by Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan decided that the role of the CJI is not to merely forward the report mechanically; he can use his judgment as to how serious the findings are and make suitable recommendations. The decision was made when considering a plea against a procedure of addressing the complaints of indicative misinterpretation of the judges. The Court noted that an in-house mechanism may be non-statutory, but has acquired legitimacy via the practice of constitutions and precedents. It also wrote that the maintenance of judicial integrity lies with the CJI, who must strike a balance between judicial independence and accountability. This decision further establishes the fact that although judges are entitled to constitutional privileges, charges of misconduct must be addressed in a transparent manner such that there is trust in the courts.