The Supreme Court of India has ruled that State Bar Councils need not and cannot charge any fee as an optional fee, on the graduates of the law course, when they are enrolled. A Bench headed by Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale made it clear that the enrolment fee prescribed under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules is a prescribed fee of 750 and 150, respectively, to the State Bar Council and the BCI. Any extra charge that someone wants to call, say a voluntary or optional fee, will be outside the statutory directive and thus unlawful. The petitions were being argued in the Court against the practice of Bar Councils levying of charges during enrolment to be used toward welfare funds, library development, buildings, etc. The Bench noted that forcing law graduates to pay these amounts against their statutory right to enroll amounts to nothing less than infringement of their rights. The judgment upholds transparency, mitigates the financial strain on the young lawyers, and enrolment is to be tightly controlled by the law and not through the discretionary requirements of the council.
In a recent judgment of Kerala High Court dated August 6, 2025, it was made clear by Justice G. Girish that reframing a judicial trial based on Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after the accused has been declared mentally unstable to conduct their case is subject to a new judicial inquiry. The order was instituted in a case of uxoricide whereby the accused, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia earlier and had received medical care, was held available to be tried in court. Session Court, however, reinstated the case and framed charges on the basis of only a new medical report, without holding a judicial hearing and without cross-examination by the medical professional. The High Court pointed out that a simple medical certificate is not enough. Rather, it is the trial courts that need to undertake a judicial inquiry procedure available in Sections 329 - 332 CrPC to determine on a self-contained basis whether the accused can defend themselves. Cross-examination of expert opinion is an opportunity that should be provided to the accused/ his representative. The judgment strengthens the legal protection of the criminal process, the fairness of the trial and the possibility of a mentally ill accused.
The Supreme Court has declared the hand-pulled rickshaw in Matheran (one person carrying another on a cart) as inhuman, and one that violates the constitutional promise of social and economic justice in India. The Maharashtra government was directed by a bench presided over by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai to phase out the practice in six months. The court referred to an earlier case (Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union, 1980), heavily criticising the practice of forced and exploitative labour by emphasising that the practice existed up to 78 years after Independence. The court observed that whatever is hauled by a majority is not out of choice but necessity, thus demanded that the state rehabilitates them, and this is by creating e-rickshaws- a more comfortable alternative to the planet and a source of dignity. The model was quoted to be available in Gujarat, Kevadia, where tribal women hire e-rickshaws.
Whether lawyers can be summoned by investigating agencies on their professional advice to the client, the Supreme Court, on August 13, 2025, in a suo motu hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasised that the attorney-client privilege with the client is a fundamental and sacrosanct doctrine which is secure under Sections 132 and 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. He stated that a lawyer may not be forced to reveal professional advice given to him or her when making a legitimate representation. But Mehta was categorical in his view that when one of the lawyers does something that does not fall within the rights and legitimate professional practice, like facilitating the destruction of evidence or coaching on the creation of false evidence, no special protection or immunity should extend. In these instances, the attorney must be regarded as any other citizen, and the law must be equal, according to Article 14 of the Constitution of the country. Any efforts to establish a special body of law that would protect advocates by effectively providing blanket immunity to them were unacceptable to him, as he feared that such immunity might be misused. The submissions by various counsel were heard by the bench of CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria, and the bench reserved its order on an issue as to whether judicial sanction is necessary before summoning lawyers during investigation.
In the case of Olympian wrestler Sushil Kumar, the Supreme Court on August 13, 2025, cancelled his bail in the murder of Sagar Dhankar and has asked him to surrender within one week. It was arrived at following a request by the father of the victim, Ashok Dhankad, who accused Kumar of threatening a key witness during his interim bail. The case goes back to May 4, 2021, when a junior national wrestling champion, Sagar Dhankar, at the age of 23 years, was reportedly assaulted by Sushil Kumar and a group of his associates over a dispute over property in New Delhi at the stadium Chhatrasal. Later the same night, Dhankar died because of the head injuries he had sustained. In May 2021, Kumar was arrested and has been under judicial custody for more than three years. The further trial proceeded slowly, and he received regular bail in March 2025 in the Delhi High Court due to extensive imprisonment and a small percentage of witnesses called in. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court indicated that the intimidation accusations created a grave threat to the fair nature of the trial. The Court enhanced the principle that personal liberty under bail should be balanced with the need to protect witnesses and the judicial integrity of serious criminal cases by withdrawing the bail.
The Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) case involves the mass revision of electoral rolls in the state of Bihar by the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the 2025 state elections. The SIR also sought to check the eligibility of the electorate on June 24, 2025. The petitioners (of which the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) was one) argued it shifted the burden of proof, which was potentially dangerous to impose on the voting population, particularly due to accounts of living voters being declared dead. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the matter was heard on August 12 and 13, 2025, by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. The Supreme Court rejected the stay on the SIR but noted that the SIR can be quashed if it is proven to be illegal. It had also asked the ECI to give a reason why 65 lakh names were removed by them in the draft rolls. The Court supported the view of the ECI that Aadhaar and ration cards are not evidence of citizenship, but they can take note of the same following verification. The Court referred to the controversy as a trust deficit and highlighted the fact that the present list was still a draft and that one could rectify the mistakes before rubber-stamping. The subsequent hearing will have to be conducted upon the expiry of the claims-and-objections phase, and the court keeps the right to step in in case of unjust rejections.
Abdul Rashid Sheikh, commonly known by the name Engineer Rashid, a member of parliament representing Baramulla in Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) on 9th August 2019. The arrest was in connection with a terror funding case filed on 30th May 2017 (RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI), accusing Rashid of facilitating funds to separatist and terrorist activities in Jammu & Kashmir. After his arrest, a charge sheet was filed in October 2019, and charges were framed formally on 16th March 2022 under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA. Rashid discredited and filed an appeal to be placed on interim bail. On 25th July 2025 and 17th August 2025, the Delhi High Court issued notice to NIA in his bail application and followed due process in determining his arguments. The case also offers an insight into the precarious nature of the tension between national security and the rights of the individual, whereby the judiciary would have a role to play in overseeing UAPA-related arrests and bail applications.
On August 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized the consumption of alcohol in an historic judgment that struck down a 2007 Kerala Government Order (G.O. (P) No. 25/2007/TD, notified as S.R.O. No. 145/2007, dated February 14, 2007), that had, among other things, restricted the ethyl alcohol content of natural fermentation of coconut toddy to 8.1% v There had been large scale prosecutions under Rule 9(2) of the Kerala abkari shops ( Disposal in Auction ) Rules 2002 on toddy above a cock of a limit as commanded in the order. In the course of the litigation, the Supreme Court, on May 1, 2024, ordered the Kerala government to reconsider the scientific reasoning behind the usage of the 8.1% limit. As a counter, the State constituted an Expert Committee, which advised an increase to 8.98 % v/v 15.56 °C, on the basis of widespread trials in regional labs. Thereafter, on July 16, 2025, Kerala released a fresh Government Order following the expert panel's suggestion. Based on the findings of the committee and the modified G.O., the Supreme Court called off all the prosecutions under the 2007 limit altogether and officially overruled the previous government order.
The Supreme Court of India, on August 14, 2025, quashed the bail given by the Karnataka High Court to Kannada movie actors Darshan Thoogudeepa and Pavithra Gowda, and five others, in the highly-publicised murder case of Renukaswamy. The High Court faces criticism from the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan regarding grave procedural shortcomings in dismissing altering considerations- notably its inability to state exceptionally or cogent reasons as per Section 302 and Section 34 of the IPC and making an early appreciation of the witnesses, which stands as a preserve of the Court of trial. By quoting reliable fears of witness intimidation buttressed by indubitable forensic and circumstantial evidence, the apex court considered bail as an obstacle to justice in the fair trial campaign. It went to the extent of giving a stern lecture to prison authorities against offering any kind of VIP or five-star treatment to the accused, and it was therefore made clear that no one is above the law.
On August 19, 2025, the Delhi High Court declined a request made under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to view statistical results on the accused complaint filed against the judges of district courts since 2015. It used exemptions under the following sections of the RTI Act- Section 2(n) (relating to information not held by the public authority), Section 8(1)(j) (relating to personal information). Such decision has also brought about questions concerning transparency and accountability of the judges concerning the process of handling the complaints of lower court judges. The denial highlights the point that there is a continuous conflict between access of judicial accounts to information and discretion of the judiciary to release internal information.
On August 19, 2025, the Delhi high court-headed by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, rejected the bail application of Arvind Dham, the former chairperson of Amtek Group, who faced a bank fraud of 27,000 crores under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The defence of Dham rested on the sick and infirm status that relied on Section 45(1) on the PMLA. Nonetheless, the Court made it clear that medical conditions on their own do not necessarily result in the granting of bail in serious economic offences. Bail on medical grounds can only be allowed when treatment in custody is substandard. The Court observed that the medical conditions of Dham could be treated in jail, where the authorities are required to offer the required medical attention. In addition, the Court referred to the gravity of the charges of accounting manipulation and the control over more than 500 entities, which is a sign of a systematic and intentional criminal conspiracy. The Court also raised an issue of the possibility of interference in evidence and the interference with witnesses who needed to be kept in custody. The ruling emphasises that in cases involving the PMLA, medical defences cannot be based on bare assertions that a patient was not treated properly and should be given priority over the seriousness of the accused crimes.
Manisha Pande, Managing Editor of Newslaundry, together with eight other women journalists, brought a 2 crore rupee defamation action against political commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra in the Delhi High Court in the month of May 2025. The complaint accuses Mitra of making disparaging comments on X (previously Twitter), calling them prostitutes and workers of a brothel, between February and April 2025. On May 21, the Delhi High Court rebuked Mitra over the language he used as it was something that was unacceptable in a civilized society, and he was to take down the offensive posts within five hours Thereafter, on August 18, the court sought a response by Mitra to another application of the plaintiffs in which they sought a restraining order barring further defaming posts by Mitra pending the suit. This case reminds the stakeholders of the role of the judiciary in balancing the right of freedom of speech and the right to protection against defamation, especially when it comes to gendered online abuse.
The complainant/petitioner Chand Mehra complained of professional misconduct of three advocates, by stating that they initiated a litigation against him on a false basis without due diligence. The Bar Council of Delhi rejected his petition on 6 October 2023 and stated that no fault can be attributed to lawyers carrying out their clients wishes. Mehra tried to appeal the decision on 11 November 2024 but was refused by the Bar Council of India. Suspended both judgments, Mehra approached the High Court of Delhi, where his writ petitions were rejected on 15 April 2025 by a single judge. The court held that no misconduct was revealed in the allegations. Mehra appealed to a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela) who ordered the dismissal of his Letters Patent Appeal, 21 August 2025. It reasserted that advocates are not bound to determine the accuracy of client directions-that is the role of the adjudicating court. It would undermine the responsibility of the advocates to the clients by entertaining those kinds of complaints.
On 20 August 2025, the Supreme Court (Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta) held that the limitation period of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and brought in time in accordance with the Limitation Act, 2020 and not in terms of the IPC, 2020 or Limitation Act, 1870. The case occurred when drugs were sampled on 29 January 2010, the reports of the Government Analyst were received on 30 March 2010 and 9 April 2010. In June-July 2013, the prosecution complained to the directors of Indica Laboratories. The Court ruled that, in cases sentenced to up to three years, the limitation period runs onwards rather than backwards; that is, it starts when the analyst's report has been received but not when the sample is collected. Therefore, the three-year limitation ran out in the period from March to April 2013, and, thus, the following complaints were out of time. Leaving the ruling of Kerala High Court that warranted the continuation of prosecution, the Supreme Court ordered quashing of the proceedings on the ground that prosecution should take place timely manner so as to protect the rights of the accused.
In October 2013, Devendra Kumar, when he was in the position of SHO at Nand Nagri Police Station, Delhi, was charged with obstructing the activities of process server, Ravi Dutt Sharma, on 3 October 2013. Harma asserted that Kumar abused him verbally and illegally detained him, and he delayed accepting summons and warrants of the court issued against him. Complaint: Sharma had to file a complaint, and in turn, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, directed the registration of an FIR against Kumar under Sections 186 (obstructing a public servant) and 341 (wrongful restraint) IPC. Kumar appealed (Writ Petition) against this by approaching the Delhi High Court, which upheld the decision of the CMM. Next, he addressed the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition. On 20 August 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the High Court and commented that the claims, in case evidence criterion, amounted to an offence under Section 186 IPC and set the case for trial. The Court has underscored the significance of taking note of the responsibilities of the public servants and also sticking to the procedural protection.