The Supreme Court of India gave an important judgment on 4 September 2025 in Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. - is a case concerning abuse of the Witness Protection Scheme as an alternative to cancellation of bail. Applicant, Phireram, had moved the Allahabad High Court cancelling bail that had been granted to the accused in a murder case (Sections 302, 201, 364, 120-B, 34 IPC) on the grounds that the accused was threatening witnesses. Allahabad High Court rejected the plea and instructed the complainant to obtain protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, rather than address the cancellation of bail. These "cyclostyled" orders were condemned by the Supreme Court which made clear that the Witness Protection Scheme is not preventive but curative in nature, which had replaced the role of bail cancellation. The Court ordered the Allahabad High Court to re-hear the cancellation application on merits, get the report of an Investigating Officer and to dispose the issue within four weeks. The ruling underlines that the witness protection may not supersede the judicial control over a bail violation.
The Supreme Court of India handed a landmark ruling on the issue of anticipatory bail based on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) on September 3, 2025. The Court expressed the view that under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the anticipatory bail is usually prohibited. There is, however, the exception that where the First Information Report (FIR) fails to reveal a prima facie case as provided by the Act, then the court can exercise its discretion to grant anticipatory bail. In the present case, the complainant complained that the accused had abused him using a casteist slur, assaulted him using an iron rod and threatened to burn his house. The accused had been given anticipatory bail by the Bombay High Court. This order was overruled in the Supreme Court, where the claims on the allegations, assuming their true nature, were a prima facie offence in the SC/ST Act, Section 3. The Court made it clear that anticipatory bail cannot be given unless the FIR itself indicates that there is no prima facie case under the Act. This decision highlights how the judiciary will protect the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by making sure that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are not avoided under anticipatory bail unless in exceptional circumstances.
On September 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that High Courts must record specific reasons when framing an additional substantial question of law in a second appeal under Section 100(5) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This power is not to be exercised routinely but only in exceptional circumstances, ensuring that the High Court's discretion is exercised judiciously. The Court highlighted that such questions must be grounded in the parties' pleadings and the findings of lower courts, addressing issues fundamental to the case. The decision aims to maintain the balance between finality in litigation and the need to address significant legal questions that may have been overlooked.
The Supreme Court also gave its ruling in Ramesh Chand (D) Through Legal Representatives v. on 8 September 2025. Suresh Chand and Anr is a property dispute between two brothers where they disagreed over who owns what in the form of immovable property. Suresh Chand, the respondent, used the documents signed in 1996, such as an Agreement to Sell, a General Power of Attorney (GPA), a receipt, an affidavit, and a Will to prove that he was the owner. According to the Court, it is the titles that such documents do not in themselves give legal title--only a registered sale deed can pass ownership under the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act. The Will prepared by Suresh Chand was also examined by the Court and was not satisfactorily established as it did not meet the legal requirements and as it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Because of this, his claim of ownership was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The decision confirmed that property rights should be passed only in the form of registered instruments, in accordance with which ownership of property will be unambiguous and informal documents will not be abused.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has announced a special relief scheme in order to help bar associations in Punjab and Haryana that have been hard hit by the recent floods and heavy rainfall on September 5, 2025. The program offers financial support in order to rebuild damaged infrastructure and enhance environmental sustainability. The district bar associations are allowed a one-time grant to the tune of 2,00,000,000, and sub-divisional bar associations are allowed up to 1,00,000,000. These are funds that are meant to restore chambers, libraries, furniture, and electrical equipment, among other important facilities. The scheme also provides environmental restoration grants totalling [?]10,000 to the district associations and [?]5,000 to the sub-divisional associations to promote plantation and maintenance of trees in order to reclaim the lost green cover in the flood periods. The applications should be submitted within 60 days along with a decision of the executive committee, and a certificate of expert damages. The associations should provide an elaborated report with photographs within three months after using the funds. As an advocate, Suvir Sidhu emphasised how BCI is determined to contribute to the legal community at this decisive time.
On 4th September, 2025, the Supreme Court of India had purported cognizance of a case about cadets who had incurred disabilities in the process of military training. The case, in which it can be seen is named IN RE: Cadets Disabled in Military Training Struggle, concerns the problem of rehabilitation and welfare of cadets who got injured during their training. The court intervention serves to show that the rights and welfare of the people who are going through military training must be preserved. More is anticipated in the case.
On the date of 9 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. Proceedings against a rape case in the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. were quashed on the basis of the so-called false promise of marriage. The case was initiated in 2014 over the events that occurred in 2010, however, the Court determined that there were severe shortcomings in the case: a four-year inexplicable delay, indistinct and inconsistent assertions, and the absence of corroborating data. The Court found that it would be an abuse of judicial process to allow the continuance of the trial. And more importantly, it also brought a four-step test to the High Courts in determining petitions under Section 482 CrPC (since replaced by Section 528 BNSS). High Courts should consider: (1) the material upon which they are relying has to be reliable and beyond reproach, (2) that it has to clearly disprove the allegations, (3) that it has to be unrefuted or irrefutable, and (4) that proceeding with trial would not be against justice or would amount to abuse of the process. The purpose of this framework is to strike the right balance between fairness and averting harassment by the use of weak cases.
The Supreme Court of India passed its verdict in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Sajib Roy and Ors. on 9 September 2025, relating to SSC recruitment to the ranks of Constable (GD)/Rifleman. The controversy arose because the age relaxation had been offered to those who were candidates of the OBC, and their scores were higher than those of the past selected general category candidates, but lower than the past OBC candidates. They wanted to migrate to the unreserved seats on merit. The High Court permitted this, but this was appealed by the Union of India. The Supreme Court ruled that the Office Memorandum of 1 July 1998 was categorical in excluding the candidatures of reserved category quota candidates who availed relaxation against the general category vacancies. Leaving the decision of the High Court aside, the Court made it clear that migration is subject to the recruitment rules which govern migration, only when there is no embargo. In this way, the respondents were not allowed to lay claim to unreserved seats because they applied for age relaxation.
On 8 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued its decision in the case of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another on whether or not a daughter could inherit ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. This dispute began in 2003 when the brother of Malleeswari was given a provisional partition decree, which she was not a part of. In 2018, she petitioned to have that decree modified, considering herself an equal coparcenary to a daughter, and as provided in the Will of her father. The Madras High Court had refused her claim in the earlier orders on the ground of re-appreciation of facts. The Supreme Court felt that the High Court had overstepped its narrow review prerogative under Order 47 CPC, which allows it to remedy only such mistakes that can be identified on the record. It was decreed that Malleeswari had a claim to a birth share in a coparcenary in the amendment of 2005 and that her rights in the property were reinstated. Thus, the Supreme Court on 8 September 2025 again specified that there was equality of daughters in the property of the ancestors and explained further that there were limitations to the power of review.
On 11 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India exonerated the life sentence of Dr. Rakesh Dutt Sharma who had killed an attacker in self-defence. The case had occurred on 25 June 1993 when Karan Singh had entered the clinic of Dr. Sharma in Haridwar with a pistol and fired at him. In the process, Dr. Sharma took the weapon and killed Singh. Although, he was found guilty by the trial court and Uttarakhand High Court of offence under section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment the act was alleged to be an exercise of personal defence, Dr. Sharma appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court established that the right to use self-defence could not be put in a golden scale where it had to be evaluated considering the standpoint of a reasonable person who was in danger. It believed that the reaction of Dr. Sharma to an unproven assault by an armed man was understandable. His conviction and life sentence were, therefore, put at bay until thus strengthening the principle protecting self-defence against imminent threats as legally guaranteed.
On the date of 10 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India decided Geeta vs. State of Karnataka vs. the conviction of Geeta on the grounds of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The case came to light following the suicide of her neighbour, Sarika, who claimed to be harassed by Geeta, threatened and insulted due to her caste. She had been found guilty by the trial court under sections 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Appealing, the Karnataka High Court quashed the conviction under the SC/ST Act but reinstated the conviction of abetment of suicide and sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court held Geeta not guilty and said that normal neighbourhood bickering, verbal abuse or insults, offensive as it was, did not constitute an act of abetment, unless there was clear instigation or intention to induce the victim to commit suicide. The Court highlighted that intentional provocation or aid would have to be proved to maintain a conviction under Section 306 IPC, and this was not the case here.
On the date of 10 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India provided its ruling in Vinod Kumar Pandey and Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini and Ors. The case involved misconduct allegations against two CBI officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar, charged with intimidation, unjustified seizure of documents and forgery. FIRs had been ordered to be registered earlier by the Delhi High Court, and were appealed by the officers. The Supreme Court maintained the directive of the High Court and made it clear that, according to Section 154 CrPC, registration of an FIR is obligatory when there is some information that indicates a cognizable crime. It made clear that the previous CBI finding that no offence was committed was not final, but could be taken into account in the course of the investigation. The Court ordered Delhi Police, using an officer not under the rank of ACP, to conduct the investigation on its own and with a deadline for completion preferably within three months. Simultaneously, the Court defended the officers by stating that no forceful measures should be made unless the custodial interrogation is considered necessary.
In Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supreme Court, Sept 10, 2025), the appellant, running a college under JVRR Education Society, was accused of submitting a forged Fire NOC to obtain educational recognition. The FIR charged him under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC, though the final chargesheet was only under Section 420 (cheating). The Supreme Court examined whether using a fake NOC could constitute cheating when the document was not legally required, as the college building was 14.20 metres tall (below the 15-metre threshold under the National Building Code 2016). The Court held that for Section 420 IPC, a false representation must induce the victim to act or grant a benefit. Since the Fire NOC was unnecessary, no material inducement occurred. Additionally, there was no proof that the appellant created the forged document, negating forgery charges. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 420, emphasizing the necessity of materiality and causation in cheating cases.
In Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand (Supreme Court, Aug 28, 2025), a doctor shot his attacker in self-defence after being fired upon during a monetary dispute. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 304 Part I IPC, and the High Court upheld it. The Supreme Court, however, acquitted him, recognizing his right to private defence. Relying on Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court held that self-defence must be assessed from the accused’s perspective during imminent threat, not through “microscopic scrutiny.” It emphasized that actions in self-defence cannot be “weighed in golden scales” and that reasonable apprehension of death suffices to justify defensive force. The judgment reaffirmed that self-preservation is a natural instinct, and one cannot expect arithmetical precision when reacting to a life-threatening assault.
In Akhtar Ali v. State of Uttarakhand, the appellant, sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a minor girl, was acquitted. The Supreme Court scrutinized the circumstantial evidence and found the chain of circumstances incomplete. Key witnesses gave inconsistent statements, crucial persons like the victim’s cousin were not examined, and the DNA and forensic evidence were unreliable due to questionable expert qualifications and compromised sample custody. The Court noted investigation lapses, delayed call records, and suspicious arrest circumstances. Applying the Sharad Birdhichand Sharda principles, it held that conviction requires a complete and conclusive chain excluding all other hypotheses. Given multiple infirmities and reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the convictions, emphasizing that doubtful evidence cannot sustain a death sentence. This judgment reinforces strict standards for circumstantial evidence and the protection of accused in capital cases.