2025 emerged as a defining year for Indian law. From the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand to the Supreme Court stepping in to protect the Aravalli hills, the year witnessed landmark rulings and far-reaching legislative reforms that reshaped rights, governance, and public policy.
This curated roundup brings together the 25 legal developments that mattered most in 2025 - moments that didn’t just make headlines, but left a lasting imprint on India’s legal landscape.
1. Uttarakhand Became the First Indian State to Implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
For over seven decades, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) remained a constitutional aspiration under Article 44, discussed and debated but never fully implemented by any State. In 2025, Uttarakhand became the first Indian State after Independence to operationalize the UCC, converting a Directive Principle into enforceable civil law.
| Article 44 directs the State to endeavor to secure a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens of India. It is a Directive Principle of State Policy and reflects the constitutional goal of legal uniformity and equality in personal laws. |
The Uniform Civil Code refers to a common set of civil laws governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, succession, and inheritance, applicable to all citizens regardless of religion. Until now, these matters were regulated by separate personal laws: Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and others.
Uttarakhand’s UCC replaces this plurality with a uniform, secular legal framework while excluding Scheduled Tribes to preserve constitutionally protected customs under Articles 342 and 371.
Key Features
-
Uniform rules for marriage, divorce, maintenance, and succession across religions
-
Mandatory registration of marriages and live-in relationships
-
Equal inheritance rights for sons and daughters
-
Abolition of polygamy and unilateral divorce practices
-
legal recognition of live-in relationships, along with duties and safeguards
-
Scheduled Tribes exempted, respecting Articles 342 and 371
2025 data highlight: 65 live-in relationships registered in Uttarakhand within the first year of implementation.
To read more highlights: UCC Uttarakhand
2. Rape & Murder of Doctor in RG Kar College Hospital, Kolkata
On 9 August 2024, a 31-year-old postgraduate doctor on duty at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, was raped and murdered inside a seminar room, sparking national outrage and protests across India.
By 10 August 2024, police arrested Sanjay Roy, a civic volunteer working with the Kolkata Police disaster management force, as the prime suspect. Within days, senior doctors and residents went on a nationwide strike lasting 42 days, demanding justice and better safety for healthcare workers.
On 13 August 2024, the Calcutta High Court transferred the investigation to the CBI, citing serious doubts about the initial police probe. The Supreme Court then took suo motu cognisance on 18 August 2024, criticized investigative lapses, and ordered the constitution of a National Task Force to recommend safety measures for medical professionals nationwide.
After months of hearings, the trial culminated on 20 January 2025, when a sessions court convicted Roy for rape and murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, citing that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” standard for the death penalty.The court also fined him and awarded ₹17 lakh in compensation to the victim’s family.
On 27 January 2025, the Calcutta High Court reserved its order on the admissibility of these appeals.
In the latest development on 17 December 2025, the Supreme Court transferred the suo motu proceedings it had been monitoring to the Calcutta High Court for continued oversight and implementation of earlier directives. The top court also ordered that CBI status reports be shared with the victim’s family and allowed the High Court to examine safety recommendations and other issues previously flagged.
3. India’s Got Latent Controversy: Supreme Court Stays Ranveer Allahbadia’s Arrest
The Supreme Court of India granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia in connection with multiple FIRs filed over allegedly obscene remarks made during his appearance on Samay Raina's online show India’s Got Latent. The Court stayed his arrest and restrained authorities from registering any further FIRs on the same cause of action, noting that multiplicity of proceedings would be unfair.
At the same time, the Bench strongly disapproved of the language used, observing that such remarks were irresponsible and undermined social values, particularly given the influencer’s wide reach among young audiences. As a condition of relief, the Court directed Allahbadia not to participate in or host any shows until further orders and asked him to fully cooperate with ongoing investigations.
The order reflects the Court’s attempt to strike a balance between personal liberty and accountability, reinforcing that freedom of speech does not extend to content that offends public morality, while also ensuring protection against excessive criminal action.
4. Bar Council Warns Lawyers Against Social Media Advertising
Read the official press release here: link
On 17th March 2025, the Bar Council of India issued a strong warning to lawyers and law firms against using social media for advertising and promotion, including celebrity endorsements.
The move came after the regulator noticed a growing trend of advocates posting promotional reels, sponsored content, and influencer-style videos on platforms like Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn to attract clients. According to the Bar Council, such practices violate Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules.
|
Rule 36 – Advertisements by Advocates:
“An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or by producing photographs to be published in connection with cases in which the advocate has been engaged or concerned.”
|
The rule exists to ensure that the legal profession remains a service-oriented profession, not a commercial business competing for clients through marketing tactics. The message was clear: online visibility cannot come at the cost of professional ethics.
5. Visually impaired candidates eligible to participate in judicial service examination
Read the judgment here: link
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025), the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment reaffirming that disability cannot be a ground to exclude candidates from judicial service.
The case originated from a suo motu petition after a visually impaired aspirant was denied participation in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination under the MP Judicial Services Rules, 1994. The Court examined Rule 6A, which excluded visually impaired persons from recruitment, and Rule 7, which imposed additional requirements such as three years of legal practice or securing 70% marks in the first attempt.
The Court held that such conditions failed to account for the unequal circumstances in which persons with disabilities operate. It observed that treating unequals equally amounts to a denial of substantive equality, violating Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Court struck down Rule 6A in its entirety and partially invalidated Rule 7 insofar as it imposed extra burdens on PwD candidates. While minimum educational qualifications may apply, PwD candidates cannot be compelled to meet first-attempt or prior-practice requirements.
The Court further ruled that:
-
Relaxation in cut-off marks is permissible for PwD candidates, relying on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
-
Separate cut-off marks and merit lists must be maintained for PwD candidates at every stage.
-
Non-declaration of separate cut-offs violates transparency and fairness.
Importantly, the Court clarified that there is no distinction between PwD and PwBD for employment rights. It directed authorities to reconsider excluded candidates, carry forward unfilled vacancies, and complete recruitment within three months.
6. Govt Confirms Transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma to Allahabad HC After Cash-In-House Controversy
The Government of India has officially confirmed the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court back to the Allahabad High Court, his parent cadre, amid the “cash-in-house” controversy that shook public confidence in judicial accountability earlier in 2025. The controversy erupted when, following a fire at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14–15, 2025, a large amount of unaccounted and partially burnt cash was reportedly discovered in a storeroom on the premises.
A three-judge Supreme Court-appointed panel found that the storeroom where the money was located was under “covert or active control” of Justice Varma and his family, raising serious questions about his conduct. The panel’s report recommended removal proceedings, and then-Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna forwarded the findings to the President and Prime Minister, initiating the impeachment process.
While the transfer was formally notified by the Centre, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not directly connected to the cash allegations, even as his judicial duties were withheld pending further process.
7. Parliament passed the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025
Read the Act here: link
|
Waqf refers to a permanent dedication of movable or immovable property by a person professing Islam for religious, charitable, or public welfare purposes recognized under Muslim law. Once declared as waqf, the property vests in perpetuity and cannot be sold, gifted, or inherited. The person managing the property is called a mutawalli (caretaker), who is legally bound to use its income for the intended purpose.
|
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, passed by Parliament in April 2025, amends the Waqf Act, 1995 with the objective of ensuring transparent, accountable, and efficient management of Waqf properties in India.
-
The Act introduces mandatory registration of all Waqf properties, aiming to curb encroachments, misuse, and long-standing land disputes.
-
It removes the concept of “Waqf by user”, making formal deeds and documentary proof compulsory for recognition of Waqf assets.
It enhances central oversight and government supervision to bring uniformity and financial discipline. After intense parliamentary debate and Presidential assent, it has been challenged in the Supreme Court. Over 65 petitions, including from AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi, allege the Act infringes on the right of religious denominations to manage their affairs, questions provisions like the five-year Islamic practice rule, “Waqf by user” exclusion, and inclusion of non-Muslims on boards. The Court has stayed key provisions while refusing to halt the entire Act, and the constitutional validity is pending final adjudication.
8. Digital Access as a Part of the Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty
In a significant rights-expanding ruling, the Supreme Court of India in 2025 recognised digital access as an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment came in a batch of writ petitions, including Amar Jain v. Union of India and Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India, which highlighted how modern digital systems systematically exclude persons with disabilities, especially those with blindness or low vision.
The petitions pointed out that everyday digital requirements such as selfie-based KYC, signing on screens using a mouse, printing and rescanning documents, clicking photos of filled forms, and extremely short OTP time limits are inaccessible to many persons with disabilities.
Such practices, the Court observed, violate both the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
| KYC: KYC is a legal process to verify who you are and where you live before banks or other service providers offer services, to prevent misuse and illegal activities. |
Issuing notice, the Court tagged the petitions together and examined the broader issue of digital inclusion in financial services, telecom services, and access to government schemes. It held that exclusion through design amounts to discrimination and offends the principle of substantive equality, read with Articles 21 and 38 of the Constitution.
The Court directed key regulators- RBI, SEBI, and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to revise KYC norms and digital infrastructure to ensure accessibility and reasonable accommodation. Importantly, the judgment recognised that the digital divide affects not only PwDs, but also rural populations, elderly persons, economically weaker sections, and linguistic minorities.
/content-assets/d8fb5e78049943b49305416d38165f64.jpg)
9. SC Mandates Minimum 3 Years of Legal Practice for Entry into Judicial Service
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that aspiring judges must have a minimum of three years of legal practice to be eligible for appointment to the Judicial Service, particularly for posts like Civil Judge (Junior Division). This judgment was delivered in All India Judges Association v. Union of India on 20 May 2025, overturning earlier precedents that had allowed fresh law graduates to directly appear in judicial service examinations.
Under the new rule, candidates must have practised as an advocate or law clerk for at least three years before applying for judicial exams. The Court clarified that this practice period is counted from the date of provisional enrolment with a State Bar Council and not merely after passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). Certification of this practice must be supported by appropriate authority, such as a judicial officer or a senior advocate.
The decision is aimed at ensuring that judges entering the lower judiciary possess real courtroom experience and practical legal skills, strengthening the quality and competence of the justice delivery system. All High Courts and State Governments were directed to amend their service rules to reflect this mandatory requirement.
10. Supreme Court affirms Maternity Leave as a Fundamental Right under Article 21
Read the judgment here: link
In K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), The SC held that maternity leave and maternity benefits are part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court ruled that maternity benefits cannot be denied merely because the woman has given birth to a third child.
Brief Facts: The petitioner was a government school teacher in Tamil Nadu. She applied for maternity leave for her third child, which was conceived after her remarriage. Her request was rejected by the State authorities on the basis of Fundamental Rule 101(a), which restricted maternity leave to women having less than two surviving children. The Madras High Court upheld the denial, treating maternity leave as a service condition rather than a constitutional right. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and directed the State to grant maternity benefits.
The Court held that maternity leave is not a privilege or discretionary service benefit, but a constitutional entitlement flowing from Article 21. It emphasized that pregnancy and childbirth directly affect a woman’s health, dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy, all of which are protected under the right to life.
The Court relied on international labour standards and human rights conventions, which recognize maternity protection as a basic workplace right.
11. Justice BR Gavai became the 52nd Chief Justice of India
Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai is a distinguished Indian jurist who served as the 52nd Chief Justice of India from 14 May 2025 until his retirement on 23 November 2025. Born on 24 November 1960 in Amravati, Maharashtra, he began his legal career by joining the Bar on 16 March 1985 and initially practiced at the Bombay High Court, particularly its Nagpur Bench.
He held roles such as Assistant Government Pleader and Government Pleader before his elevation as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court in 2003 and then as a permanent judge in 2005. In May 2019, he was appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
Over his judicial career, Justice B.R. Gavai served on nearly 700 benches and authored about 300 judgments. He was part of landmark rulings such as the Article 370 verdict, the Electoral Bonds case, and the Maratha Reservation case, shaping constitutional law, equality, and federalism. He also represented India at international judicial forums and delivered lectures globally on constitutional governance and human rights.
12. Narco-Analysis Not an Investigative Tool: Supreme Court Bars Forced Tests
Read the judgment here: link
In Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court held that forced narco-analysis is unconstitutional and that an accused person has no absolute or indefeasible right to undergo such a test, even voluntarily.
The Court held that while an accused may voluntarily seek a narco-analysis test, there is no indefeasible right to demand it under Section 233 of the CrPC.
| Section 233 of the CrPC gives the accused the right to present evidence in their defence after the prosecution case is over. It allows the accused to examine witnesses or produce documents to prove their innocence. |
The Court clarified that the appropriate stage to seek such a test is when the accused is leading defence evidence and not during investigation.
Relying squarely on Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Court reiterated that any direction for forced narco-analysis violates Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution and courts must ensure strict compliance with safeguards laid down in Selvi, including:
-
Free and informed consent
-
Consent to be recorded before a Magistrate
-
Compliance with medical, legal, and procedural safeguards
On evidentiary value, the Court held that:
The Court clarified that only information discovered as a consequence of the test may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but even that cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
13. After Ahmedabad Tragedy, PIL Seeks Grounding of Air India’s Boeing Fleet
In the aftermath of the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad on June 12, which claimed 270 lives, a PIL had been filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking suspension of Air India’s Boeing fleet until comprehensive safety and security audits are conducted.
The PIL, filed by Advocate Ajay Bansal, alleges widespread non-compliance with the Aircraft Act, 1934, Aircraft Rules, 1937, and DGCA civil aviation requirements. It seeks surprise safety audits of not only Air India but all commercial airlines operating in India. The petitioner has asked that audit findings be made public, penalties imposed for violations, and uniform safety guidelines framed for periodic checks of aircraft engines, airframes, and cabin systems.
The plea relies on a DGCA inspection report which reportedly found that Air India falsified internal safety audit records. It also cites repeated technical complaints and social media reports highlighting systemic lapses.
The petitioner argues that the crash of the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner was not an isolated incident, but the result of chronic neglect and regulatory laxity, prioritising operations over passenger safety.
14. Stray Dog Crisis & Rabies Deaths: How a News Report Led to the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Action
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of rising stray dog bite cases and rabies-related deaths after a Times of India report highlighted the death of a 6-year-old girl in Delhi who succumbed to rabies following a dog attack, allegedly due to administrative apathy and lack of timely medical care.
11 August Order
A two-judge Bench, acting on the news report, issued strong directions for Delhi-NCR:
-
Capture all stray dogs within 8 weeks.
-
Sterilise, vaccinate, and relocate them to shelters.
-
No return of dogs to streets after capture.
This order marked a strict, safety-first approach, but raised concerns for being inconsistent with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.
22 August Order
A three-judge Bench reconsidered the matter and moderated the earlier directions and Held that a blanket non-release policy was “too harsh”.
-
Restored the ABC framework: capture → sterilise → vaccinate → release to the same locality, except rabid dogs.
-
Directed creation of: Designated feeding zones, Helplines to report violations
7 November Order
The Court adopted a risk-based approach, carving out “institutional areas”: Schools, colleges, hospitals, transport hubs, ISBTs, railway stations.
In these areas, stray dogs must be removed, sterilised, vaccinated, and shifted to shelters without being released back.
Additional directions included:
-
Mandatory Anti-Rabies Vaccine (ARV) and immunoglobulin stocks.
-
Public disclosure of vaccine availability (specifically directed to Delhi Govt).
-
Immediate medical response on every dog-bite complaint.
-
Monthly stock data and patient treatment records.
-
District-level monitoring, nodal officers, fencing of campuses.
-
SOPs to be issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).
The matter is listed next on 13 January 2026.
15. No Delimitation Before 2026 Census: Supreme Court Draws a Constitutional Line
Read more on delimitation here: link
|
A Delimitation Commission in India is a high-powered body set up to redraw the boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies to reflect population changes after each census, ensuring fair representation.
|
In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed pleas seeking early delimitation of Assembly constituencies in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, holding that the Constitution places a clear embargo on such exercises until after the first census conducted post-2026.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh relied on Article 170(3) of the Constitution, as amended by the 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002, which freezes the strength of State Legislative Assemblies based on the 1971 Census until new census figures after 2026 are published. The Court held that this constitutional bar cannot be bypassed.
The petitioners argued parity with Jammu and Kashmir, where delimitation was carried out recently. Rejecting this, the Court clarified that J&K is a Union Territory governed by Article 239A, which operates under a different constitutional framework and is not subject to Article 170.
The Court also ruled that provisions in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 cannot override a constitutional mandate. Allowing exceptions, it warned, would open “floodgates” of similar demands from other States.
/content-assets/e1d91c8850b446d294f1939c75489143.jpg)
16. 7/11 Mumbai Blasts Case: Acquittal Stayed by SC, Accused Remain Free
On 11 July 2006, seven coordinated bomb blasts ripped through first-class compartments of Mumbai local trains within six minutes, killing 187 people and injuring over 800. Multiple FIRs were registered and the probe was handed to the ATS. Thirteen accused were put on trial under IPC, UAPA, MCOCA and Explosives laws.
In 2015, a special MCOCA court convicted 12 accused, awarding death penalty to five for planting bombs and life imprisonment to seven. One accused died during incarceration.
Bombay High Court Acquittal (21 July 2025): A Special Division Bench of the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused, holding that the prosecution had “utterly failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
Key reasons: Confessional statements under MCOCA were unreliable: lack of proof of voluntariness, allegations of torture, no proper legal assistance, inadequate medical checks, ignored “cooling-off period,” and poor judicial oversight. Circumstantial evidence (call records, alleged travel links) was inconclusive and did not directly connect each accused to the blasts. The Court warned that “creating a false appearance of having solved a case” undermines justice. All accused were ordered to be released on PR bonds.
The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s acquittal judgment, but did not send the accused back to jail, allowing them to remain free pending the State’s appeal.
17. India Bans Real-Money Games Under Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025
Read the Act here: Link
In August 2025, the Indian Parliament enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, a major law reshaping the digital gaming landscape. The Act creates a comprehensive legal framework for online games, balancing industry growth with social protection.
Key Features:
-
Ban on Real-Money Gaming: All online money games whether based on skill or chance are prohibited, including platforms involving monetary stakes or deposits.
-
Promotion of E-Sports & Social Games: The law actively encourages e-sports, competitive gaming as a legitimate sport, and safe social/educational games that do not involve gambling.
-
National Online Gaming Authority: A regulatory body will license and oversee platforms, classify games, and handle grievances.
-
Penalties: Offering, promoting, or facilitating banned games can attract up to 3 years’ imprisonment and fines up to ₹1 crore; repeat offences carry higher penalties.
The government’s rationale includes protecting consumers from addiction and financial harm and reducing fraud and money-laundering risks, while still fostering innovation in non-monetary gaming.
18. Firecracker Ban: SC Questions Delhi-Only Approach, Calls for Pan-India Policy
In September 2025, the Supreme Court of India questioned why restrictions on firecrackers are limited only to Delhi-NCR, when the right to clean and pollution-free air is a fundamental right under Article 21 for all citizens.
Chief Justice B.R. Gavai observed that if people in Delhi-NCR are entitled to clean air, the same right must extend to citizens across the country. The Court remarked that pollution is not exclusive to Delhi, noting that cities like Amritsar and other regions often record worse air quality. Therefore, a geographically limited ban was termed illogical and discriminatory.
The Court stressed that public health cannot be compromised and must prevail over economic concerns, even while acknowledging the livelihood issues faced by firecracker manufacturers. It made clear that special treatment for Delhi as an “elite” city is constitutionally impermissible.
The observations were made while hearing petitions by firecracker manufacturers challenging the Delhi-NCR ban. The Court indicated that if firecracker bans are necessary, they should be uniform and nationwide, ensuring equal protection of health and environment for all Indians, rather than fragmented, localised measures.
19. Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Under NSA
Ladakh-based climate activist and educationist Sonam Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act 1980 amid ongoing protests in Ladakh demanding statehood and inclusion of the region under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. These demands seek greater constitutional protection for Ladakh’s land, culture, and local employment.
Wangchuk has been a prominent face of peaceful protests, including hunger strikes, highlighting concerns over environmental protection, political representation, and development without safeguards after Ladakh became a Union Territory in 2019. Authorities detained him under the NSA, which allows preventive detention without trial if a person is considered a threat to public order or national security.
Following his detention, Wangchuk’s wife approached the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the NSA order. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and the Ladakh Union Territory, seeking their response. However, the Court adjourned the hearing to December 8, keeping the matter pending.
The detention sparked widespread debate and criticism, with supporters arguing that peaceful democratic protest cannot be equated with threats to national security. Concerns were also raised about the use of preventive detention laws against civil activists, especially in the absence of violence.
20. Justice Surya Kant Appointed as 53rd Chief Justice of India
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai has recommended Justice Surya Kant as the 53rd Chief Justice of India, marking the rise of a jurist widely respected for humane, reform-oriented constitutional adjudication. A first-generation lawyer and the first CJI from Haryana, Justice Kant’s journey from practicing at the Punjab & Haryana High Court to leading the Indian judiciary reflects merit and integrity.
Known for his belief that justice must be lived, not merely read, Justice Kant has shaped transformative jurisprudence. His notable contributions include Jasvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) on prison reforms and conjugal rights, participation in the Electoral Bonds verdict striking down opaque political funding, the Pegasus spyware case safeguarding privacy, and the order suspending sedition law enforcement. He was also part of the Constitution Bench that upheld the abrogation of Article 370, while directing restoration of J&K statehood.
Recently, he advocated mandatory guidelines for speedy disposal of criminal appeals, leading to the release of undertrial prisoners. As CJI, Justice Surya Kant is expected to champion access to justice, judicial efficiency, and constitutional morality, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s role as the conscience keeper of democracy.
21. End of Nithari Trials: Supreme Court Acquits Surender Koli
Read the judgment here: Link
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court acquitted Surender Koli in the last pending case related to the Nithari killings, bringing a legal closure to one of India’s most disturbing criminal episodes. The Court held that criminal convictions, even for heinous offences, cannot rest on assumptions, conjecture, or moral suspicion.
The Nithari case came to light in 2006, after skeletal remains of children were discovered near a house in Noida’s Nithari village. Surinder Koli, a domestic help, and Moninder Singh Pandher, the house owner, were accused in multiple cases involving rape, murder, and destruction of evidence. Koli had earlier been awarded death sentences and life terms in several cases.
In the present case, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved Koli’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence relied upon largely circumstantial in nature did not form a complete and unbroken chain pointing only to the accused’s guilt. It ruled that missing links, inconsistencies, and a lack of direct proof made the conviction unsafe.
The Court categorically observed that “convictions cannot be based on conjecture or suspicion, however grave the offence may be.” It reiterated the settled principle that the prosecution must stand on its own evidence, and failure to do so entitles the accused to acquittal.
Want to understand the full story behind this acquittal and why the Nithari case remained legally complex for years? Read Nithari Killings for a detailed explanation of the crimes, investigation, and court decisions.
22. Supreme Court Clarifies Governor–President Assent Powers
In the 16th Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court clarified the constitutional position on the powers of the President and Governors while granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The Court held that the judiciary cannot impose fixed or mandatory timelines on the President or Governors to grant or withhold assent, as doing so would amount to judicial overreach into constitutional functions.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that constitutional authorities cannot sit on Bills indefinitely. While rejecting the concept of “deemed assent” that is, automatic approval of a Bill after the lapse of time, the Court held that prolonged inaction is impermissible. To address this, courts may issue a limited mandamus, directing Governors or the President to take a decision within a reasonable time, without prescribing a rigid deadline.
This advisory opinion came in the backdrop of the Court’s earlier ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which had raised concerns over delays in assent and introduced the idea of deemed assent. The Presidential Reference was sought to settle the constitutional uncertainty.
23. Centre introduced 4 Labour Codes, replacing 29 laws
Read here: link
In November 2025, the Central Government implemented four landmark Labour Codes, replacing 29 existing labour laws to modernise India’s labour framework, expand worker protection, and simplify compliance for businesses. These reforms aim to create a unified, transparent, and technology-driven system covering both the organised and unorganised sectors.
The Code on Wages, 2019 universalises minimum wages across all sectors, introduces a national floor wage, and standardises the definition of wages to prevent manipulation. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 streamlines laws on trade unions, employment conditions, and industrial dispute resolution, balancing workers’ rights with ease of doing business.
The Code on Social Security, 2020 is a major expansion of welfare coverage. It consolidates nine laws and, for the first time, extends EPF (Employees' Provident Fund), ESI (Employees' State Insurance) and social security benefits to gig workers, platform workers, and fixed-term employees, bringing millions into the formal safety net. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 merges 13 laws to set uniform national standards for workplace safety, health, and welfare.
24. Private Participation in India’s Nuclear Energy Sector
Read the Act here: link
Parliament has enacted the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, marking a major reform in India’s nuclear energy framework. The Act replaces the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and related laws to modernise nuclear governance.
The SHANTI Act permits limited and regulated private sector participation in nuclear research, development, and energy production, ending the earlier government monopoly while retaining strict safety controls. All nuclear activities such as mining, processing, transport, or use of radioactive substances require a Central Government licence, along with mandatory safety authorisation from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).
The Act strengthens nuclear safety, security, and waste management, aligns Indian standards with international norms, and introduces a clear nuclear liability and insurance regime, supported by a Nuclear Liability Fund. It also promotes advanced research, including AI and emerging technologies, while the Central Government retains control over strategic and policy matters, ensuring nuclear energy development remains safe, sustainable, and nationally secure.
25. Supreme Court Restores Life Sentence in Unnao Rape Case, Stays Delhi HC Order
| The Unnao rape case (2017) involved the rape of a minor by Sengar, then a sitting MLA. The case drew nationwide attention after the victim’s family faced alleged intimidation, the custodial death of the victim’s father, and a suspicious car accident that critically injured the victim and killed her relatives. In 2019, a Delhi trial court convicted Sengar and sentenced him to life imprisonment. |
The Supreme Court has stayed the Delhi High Court’s order suspending the life sentence of former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, thereby directing that Sengar shall continue to remain in custody.
The stay was granted on December 29, 2025, on a plea filed by the CBI challenging the High Court’s decision to suspend his sentence and grant interim bail pending appeal.
Earlier, on December 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court had suspended Sengar’s life imprisonment on the ground that he had already spent over seven years in jail, and that certain legal issues particularly the applicability of provisions relating to a “public servant” under the POCSO Act required consideration in appeal. The High Court had clarified that the suspension was not a comment on the merits of the conviction.
The Supreme Court, however, observed that the case involved grave offences and raised serious questions of law, warranting closer scrutiny. It issued notice to Sengar and stayed the operation of the High Court order.
Bonus Legal Current Affairs of 2025
Supreme Court Pauses Its Own Aravalli Order
Read the latest Order here: link
In a significant move, the Supreme Court on December 29, 2025, stayed its own November 20, 2025 order that had narrowed the definition of the Aravalli Hills. The earlier order had accepted a height-based definition, which environmental experts warned could exclude over 90% of the Aravalli range from legal protection, potentially opening vast areas to unregulated mining and construction.
The Court took suo motu cognisance of the issue in the case titled In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues. Acknowledging serious public concern, expert criticism, and ambiguities in the earlier expert committee report, the Court noted that defining an Aravalli hill as land rising 100 metres or more above local relief, and a range as two such hills within 500 metres, could create dangerous regulatory gaps, especially for ecologically sensitive low-lying areas.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the constitution of a new, independent, high-powered expert committee, comprising specialists in geology, ecology, and environmental science, to undertake a fresh scientific evaluation of the Aravallis and assess the environmental impact of mining.
Importantly, the Court imposed an interim ban on granting or renewing mining leases in the Aravalli region without prior Supreme Court approval. Until further orders, protection will operate under the Forest Survey of India (FSI) 2010 definition.
The matter is listed for January 21, 2026. Environmentalists have hailed the stay as a crucial, though temporary, safeguard for one of India’s oldest mountain ranges.
Conclusion
Taken together, these 25 developments capture a year where Indian law actively responded to social change, institutional challenges, and constitutional values. While each event stands on its own, collectively they reflect a legal system in motion, one that continues to test its limits while reaffirming core constitutional principles. The impact of many of these decisions will unfold in the years ahead, shaping governance, rights, and accountability beyond 2025
Also Read: