One person was killed and another wounded in a violent fight in 1992; the Sessions Court gave the accused life imprisonment. The conviction and the Uttarakhand High Court reversed the convictions in 2012. Khem Singh was a victim who petitioned the Supreme Court. His son (who had also suffered injury) applied after his death to be substituted, and to the abatement laid aside. On 22 August 2025, the Supreme Court decided that the right to prefer an appeal in the proviso of Section 372 CrPC must be accompanied by the right to prosecute an appeal, so that heirs can maintain an appeal on behalf of deceased victims. The Court believed that heirs of victims- such as heirs of the accused- must have a substantial right to appeal, which is consistent with the concept of the legislative intention and constitutional values. The Court therefore permitted replacement of the legal heir, condoned delay, abatement being set aside, the case remanded to the High Court with the direction of a reasoned rehearing, and the necessity of the proper appreciation of evidence.
In July 2025, the Supreme Court suo motu cognised a report in The Times of India that stated City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, about the alarming stray dog attacks and deaths of children, the most notorious being a six-year-old girl and a four-year-old boy amid civic indifference. A two-judge bench ruled on 11 August 2025 that Delhi-NCR and the surrounding areas be ordered to house stray dogs and transfer them to shelters, on the basis of people's safety. These instructions elicited mass discussion and demonstrations. On 13 August, a three-judge court was established to reexamine the issue. What occurred on 22 August 2025: The Supreme Court amended and put on hold its previous order to relocate. The new decision required sterilised, vaccinated, and dewormed stray dogs to be returned to their original areas- except those with rabies or those that were aggressive. Moreover, the court ordered the establishment of feeding zones, an MCD helpline and expanded ABC-Rule compliant management-extending countrywide.
On 21 August 2025, the Bombay High Court re-iterated its earlier position reiterating that the customer should be in a position to show that the place he/she purchased is where territorial jurisdiction is to be determined, and not where he/she resides. The court rebuffed the contention that simple delivery of goods to a customer in Mumbai is enough to say that the plaintiff is carrying on business there. Jurisdiction should be anchored on where the sale was made or where the plaintiff carries business, both of which was in Navi Mumbai or in Raigad District and not in Mumbai city proper. The court thus restated that it did not have territorial jurisdiction, and issued the plaint to be returned according to Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.
The Supreme Court of India made a new directive on the management of stray dogs in Delhi on 26 August 2025. The Court responded to the people and the outcry of the earlier policy that was perceived as unrealistic and not beneficial to human and animal lives. In the new rules, non-aggressive and non-rabid stray dogs can be sterilised, vaccinated, dewormed and sent back to their natural habitats. The designation of this strategy is to curb the stray dogs in a humane manner without the propagation of rabies and other diseases. Nevertheless, violent or rabid dogs will not be considered in this release policy and should be treated differently, which will give more priority to the safety of the people. The ruling stresses the need to balance animal welfare and the protection of citizens, and the municipal authorities are supposed to take these steps effectively. The case is an attempt on the part of the Court to develop a practical, humane and scientific policy on urban stray animals.
Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. The State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court of India, Ruling date 22 August 2025. The case involved a 9,054 m2 land parcel of Kurla, Mumbai, that Indian Cork Mills (ICM), through its possession since 1970, had been encroached by hutment dwellers. With time, a slum emerged, and the region was declared an SR Area in March 2011. Its acquisition was demanded by the Tarabai Society as a representative of the slum dwellers in order to be redeveloped. Although ICM was several times offered (in 2013, 2015, 2016) to develop the land under an SR Scheme, it has never been invited or supported. The Bombay High Court declared the acquisition invalid and asked the SRA to listen to the proposal made by ICM. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision, affirming the preferential first-right to redevelop of the landowner, requiring such notice-cum-invitation, and that acquisition under Section 14 must first be effected with a specific notice and with a reasonable time. It rejected the appeals, allowed ICM 120 days to submit a new SR Scheme and instructed the SRA and State to act on it within 60 days. Legal analysis and commentaries on that day, 25 August 2025, addressed and strengthened the legal decision of the Supreme Court--underlining the new doctrine of the first-right in Chapter I-A of the Slums Act, and the procedural protections they presented.
In 2008, a criminal appeal was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, where it was heard and reserved on December 24, 2021. But there was no verdict in more than a year. The appellant next appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court was very worried because it noted that such delays undermine the confidence of the people in justice. Referring to Anil Rai v. it repeated the timelines in State of Bihar (2001): within 2 months, the Chief Justice is supposed to intervene; after 3 months, parties may seek early judgment; after 6 months, the cases may be transferred. The Supreme Court gave new orders on August 25, 2025: each High Court Registrar General should provide the Chief Justice with a list of all cases in reserve monthly, and after 3 months, the Chief Justice must direct that all outstanding cases are decided within 2 weeks or assigned to another bench.
Indian online gaming firm A23, on August 27, 2025, petitioned a legal challenge against the newly introduced Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, before the Karnataka High Court. This is the first official objection to the countrywide prohibition of real-money online games that include poker and rummy, which the Indian government has implemented to prevent addiction and financial offences. A23's parent company, Head Digital Works, reasons that the law is unfair in its criminalisation of skill-based games and endangers the lives of the more than 70 million users and thousands of game companies. The firm challenges the law as being unconstitutional and wants it annulled under the skill-based games. Other large platforms such as Dream11, MPL, and Zupee have stopped real-money games in the wake of the ban, but have not taken legal action. The attitude of the government is that the prohibition is required to shield users against online gaming addiction and associated social problems. The dispute between Head Digital Works (which operates A23) and the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Law, 2025, is pending in the Karnataka High Court. This is the initial official objection of a real-money gaming (RMG) operator to the new legislation. The High Court will hear it on August 30, 2025.
The case Tahir V. Isani v. in the Supreme Court lacks any publicly available updates and proceedings at the time of August 27, 2025. Madan Waman Chodankar & Ors.. The most recent step is the additional time granted to the respondents to submit counter-affidavits and the agreement of notices to some respondents by the case petitioner, which the Supreme Court Registrar acted upon on January 19, 2023 and is to be re-listed on February 24, 2023. The legal issue of the case is a dispute over property between Tahir V. Isani and the legal representation of the dead Madan Waman Chodankar. The case is based on the unlawful construction and ownership of land in Panaji, Goa. Past Bombay High Court judicial proceedings concerned illegal construction and intrusion cases in which the court directed the First Information Report (FIR) to be recorded against the Isanis regarding the offences under other parts of the Indian Penal Code.
On 26 August 2025, the Supreme Court shed some light on what freedom of speech can mean in India with regard to community sentiments. The Court noted that although the Constitution provides the freedom of expression in Article 19(1)(a), it is not absolute and cannot be availed to intentionally insult or offend the feelings or religious beliefs of a group of people. That ruling was based on cases in which social media influencers and comedians had made objectionable remarks that were considered to be offensive to some communities. The Court noted that the influencers and the content creators need to be responsible when sharing their opinions on the open platform because abuse of freedom of speech can lead to social disharmony. The principle that constitutional rights are accompanied by responsibilities and restrictions is strengthened by the decision, where the thought of order, decency, or community peace is in jeopardy. In such a way, the Court established a precedent on the freedom of speech and sensitivity towards society, emphasising the responsibility of people on the Internet and in the real world.
On 31 July 2025 (also commonly referred to as 1 August 2025 issued) the Supreme Court ruled that in a case where a criminal case is initiated together with an underlying civil case over the same matter, may be quashed unless the allegations raise a prima facie claim of a criminal intention. It was a civil suit of S. N. Vijayalakshmi and Ors versus State of Karnataka and Anr., wherein a civil suit had been filed in respect to the transaction of property (agreement to sell etc.), but an FIR had been filed against the defendants (cheating 420 IPC, breach of trust 406 IPC, etc.). There was no evidence of criminal intent at the beginning of the case: the Court discovered that the dispute was more of a civil nature. Paralleling criminal actions in such a situation would be the abuse of the process. In this way, FIR and other criminal actions were blocked by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a petition against the Jammu & Kashmir Government’s order forfeiting 25 books under Section 98 of BNSS. The petitioner claimed that the section is vague, disproportionate, and restricts free expression. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea, ruling that the High Court is the appropriate forum for such a challenge
The Delhi High Court issued a decision on a PIL challenging Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which authorises further investigation in spite of a chargesheet being filed. The petitioner claimed that this contravenes the right to default bail by giving the police unlimited time to keep investigating. The Court, however, approved the provision, as it observed, there are safeguards that are incorporated into the law. Any additional inquiry must be authorised by the trial court, and, unless otherwise formally extended, must be finished within 90 days. The Court found that the liberty of the person is sufficiently safeguarded and gave up the challenge.
In a high profile case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to hand over an investigation of the alleged attack on an Army Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son by the Punjab Police officials to the CBI. The Court observed serious lapses such as failure to promptly register FIR and the accused personnel were not arrested, and these aspects raised the question of bias. In declining to intervene, the Court strengthened the fact that independent investigations should be the rule where the actions of state police are doubtful. It also emphasized respect to armed forces and responsibility towards misconduct by the law enforcement. This ruling emphasizes the judicial alertness about the neutrality in sensitive criminal cases.
On 2 August 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a claim of juvenility raised by an accused in a murder case. Earlier, lower courts had relied on school records to declare him a juvenile. However, the apex court held that school certificates alone cannot be considered conclusive proof of age when statutory documents like birth certificates or official records indicate otherwise. The Court emphasised that only statutory evidence should prevail to prevent misuse of juvenile protection in heinous offences. This decision strengthens the legal framework on age verification in criminal cases and sets stricter standards for determining juvenility in serious crimes
The same date (31 July 2025), the Supreme Court interpreted the procedural prerequisite of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which permits a Magistrate to direct an enquiry into a cognizable offence on the basis of a complaint. The Court again reiterated that a complainant is to produce a supporting affidavit to the truth of the allegations and to reveal past similar litigation, as in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015). The Court, however, concluded that failure to file the affidavit with the original application is not necessarily fatal: the deficiency can be rectified, provided the affidavit is filed prior to the Magistrate issuing any substantive order (i.e., order directing FIR or police investigation). When compliance occurs not prior to the substantive order, then that defect cannot be remedied and is in itself an avenue to quashing.