April 2025 has been a significant month for legal developments in India, with several important cases, new laws, and international issues making headlines. From the historic changes to the Waqf Act to major Supreme Court rulings, the legal system has seen reforms focused on improving transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. Additionally, the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan has complicated the country's foreign relations and legal framework.
In this blog, we will look at the key legal events of April 2025, understand their broader impact, and explore how they might shape India’s legal, political, and diplomatic future. Let's begin into these pivotal developments.
/content-assets/994dd929b3fd473bb0117067a6822e19.jpg)
Photo credit: Juris Hour
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, will be known as the Unified Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Act, 2025. It is a significant reform in India’s management of Waqf properties, passed by Parliament in April 2025 and receiving presidential assent on April 5, 2025, this Act amends the Waqf Act of 1995 to address longstanding issues such as mismanagement, lack of transparency, and disputes over property ownership.
|
What is a Waqf?
A Waqf is a charitable endowment under Islamic law, where a Muslim permanently dedicates property—such as land, buildings, or money—for religious, educational, or social purposes. Once dedicated, the property cannot be sold or transferred. Waqf properties in India are managed by State Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council.
|
📌 Key Changes in the 2025 Amendment
1. Renaming the Act: The Waqf Act, 1995, is now known as the UMEED Act, emphasising modern governance and development.
2. Inclusion of Non-Muslim Members: For the first time, non-Muslims are mandated to be included in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards—to promote inclusivity and transparency in the administration of Waqf properties.
3. Protection of Inheritance Rights: Before declaring any property as Waqf, the Act mandates that the rightful inheritance rights of women and children must be respected. This provision safeguards the property rights of heirs, particularly widows, divorced women, and orphans.
4. Application of Limitation Act, 1963: The Act introduces the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to Waqf properties from the date the amendment comes into effect. This change aims to minimize prolonged legal disputes and ensure timely resolution of property-related issues.
5. Exclusion of Trusts from Waqf Regulations: The Act establishes a legal separation between trusts and Waqfs, ensuring that trusts created by Muslims, whether before or after the Act’s enactment, do not fall under Waqf regulations if they are governed by other statutory provisions related to public charities.
6. Enhanced Transparency and Accountability: Mutawallis (Waqf property managers) are required to register all property details on a centralised portal within six months. This measure aims to improve governance and make Waqf property information publicly accessible.
7. Dispute Resolution: In cases of property disputes, a senior government official will have the final authority to determine whether a property belongs to Waqf or the government, replacing the existing Waqf tribunals.
8. Appeal Mechanism: The Act introduces a provision allowing appeals to the High Court against Waqf Tribunal decisions, addressing the current gap in which the High Court is granted only limited revisional powers.
This Amendment has faced criticism and legal challenges from various quarters. several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for May 15, 2025, to deliberate on these petitions.
/content-assets/3dfe854f6a624929a761f571506ef358.jpg)
Photo credit: India Today
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment (The State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu), concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor's delay in assenting to 10 bills passed by the state legislature.
A little background
Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed 12 bills aimed at amending laws related to state universities. These bills were sent to Governor R.N. Ravi for assent, as required by Article 200 of the Indian Constitution. However, the Governor withheld assent to 10 of these bills and reserved 2 for the President's consideration.
The state government challenged this inaction, arguing that the Governor's prolonged delay was unconstitutional and hindered the state's legislative process.
|
Under which provision?
Article 200. This article requires that once a bill is passed by the state legislature, it must be sent to the Governor for assent. The Governor has the power to either:
- Grant assent
- Withhold assent
- Reserve the bill for the President's consideration (in specific cases)
Other provisions involved:
- Article 161: This article gives the Governor the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, and to withhold assent to bills.
- Article 142: This article allows the Supreme Court to issue orders to ensure justice is served when constitutional issues are involved.
|
What was the final Ruling?
The Court held:
1. Governor's Delay is Unconstitutional: The action of withholding assent and reserving bills for the President after they were re-enacted by the state legislature was "illegal and erroneous."
2. Deemed Assent: Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court deemed the 10 pending bills as assented to from the date they were re-presented to the Governor.
3. Time Limits for Governor's Actions:
- Withholding assent: Must be done within one month.
- Returning a bill: If the Governor withholds assent against the advice of the Council of Ministers, the bill must be returned within three months.
- Reserving a bill for the President: Must be done within three months.
- Re-passed bills: Upon receiving a re-passed bill, the Governor must grant assent within one month.
📌 Significance of the Ruling
It is a landmark decision that clarifies the constitutional responsibilities of Governors and ensures that their discretionary powers are exercised within the bounds of the Constitution.
/content-assets/21c96be062494b6a931acfc28c1df853.jpg)
Photo credit: Verdictum
A significant legal development regarding the jurisdiction of the Lokpal, India's anti-corruption ombudsman, over judges of the High Courts.
The Lokpal issued an order stating that it had the authority to examine complaints against sitting High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
|
What is Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013?
It is a law passed by the Parliament of India to establish a Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at the state level. These institutions are designed to address corruption in public offices.
What is a Lokpal and Lokayuktas?
The Lokpal is an anti-corruption body at the national level, which investigates complaints against public servants (including ministers and members of Parliament) who are alleged to have engaged in corrupt activities.
The Lokayuktas are similar bodies at the state level, each functioning independently in their respective states.
|
This decision of the Lokpal was based on the interpretation that High Courts established by Acts of Parliament fell within the ambit of Section 14(1)(f) of the Act, which defines "any person" as including individuals holding positions in bodies established by Parliament.
The Lokpal's order was issued in response to complaints alleging that a sitting Additional Judge of a High Court had influenced judicial proceedings in favour of a private company.
The Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognisance (In Re: Order Dated 27/01/2025 Passed By Lokpal Of India And Ancilliary Issues) of the Lokpal's order, expressing concern over the potential implications for judicial independence.
The court stayed the Lokpal's order, describing it as "something very, very disturbing." The Court emphasized that High Court judges are constitutional authorities and not mere statutory functionaries, as suggested by the Lokpal.
The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings on this matter.
📌 Significance
This case is pivotal in determining the scope of the Lokpal's authority and the extent to which it can investigate complaints against judges of constitutional courts.
/content-assets/6b29089295d240ba9d6ed50390991785.jpg)
/content-assets/c58193474873475a8adeafa01b3ace29.jpg)
Photo credit: Live Law
The controversy began in 2021 when reports revealed that Pegasus, an Israeli-made surveillance software, was allegedly used to hack the phones of journalists, activists, and politicians in India. These individuals were often critical of the government or involved in sensitive issues. The matter led to significant public and legal scrutiny, with several petitions seeking an independent investigation.
The Supreme Court intervened, appointing a technical committee to investigate the allegations. The committee's findings were submitted to the court in a sealed report. The government has maintained that any surveillance activities were conducted in accordance with the law and for national security reasons.
On an Interesting note:
Justice Surya Kant stated that there is nothing wrong with a country possessing and using spyware, especially when it serves national security interests. His point was that the real concern lies in who is being targeted. He emphasized that protecting national security is a priority, stating, "We cannot compromise or sacrifice the security of the nation."
Solicitor General representing the government, argued that terrorists should not be allowed to claim privacy rights, thereby justifying the use of spyware for counter-terrorism efforts.
And to that Justice Kant added a key distinction, "A civil individual who has the right to privacy will be protected under the Constitution."
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for July 30, 2025.
📌 Significance
This case raises important questions about the right to privacy and how it should be protected in a digital age where technology can be misused for surveillance.
This decision will likely set a precedent for how India deals with issues related to digital surveillance and privacy while ensuring national security provides a balanced approach to these concerns.
/content-assets/87858e12841041039a59ee157279d468.jpg)
Photo credit: India Legal
The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, that prescribe the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District, State, and National Commissions based on the value of goods or services paid as consideration, rather than the compensation claimed.
This was a major ruling in the case Rutu Mihir Panchal and Others vs Union of India and Others, 2025.
Background of the case
The case was filed by the legal heirs of a man who died due to a manufacturing defect in a Ford Endeavour car. The heirs sought ₹50 crores in damages, but the National Commission dismissed their complaint, as the price of the car was below the threshold required for jurisdiction.
Previously, under the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986, jurisdiction was determined by the compensation a consumer sought. The 2019 Act shifted this basis to the actual amount paid for the goods or services. This change led to challenges, with some petitioners arguing that it created anomalies and violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality).
|
Why Article 14 was violated in this case?
The petitioners argued that the classification of cases based on the value of goods or services violated Article 14, As it could result in cases with large compensation claims being dismissed due to the value of the product or service.
- Classification Based on Transaction Value: The Act assigns cases to consumer forums (District, State, National Commissions) based on how much a consumer paid for a product or service, not on the nature of the complaint.
- Discriminatory Impact: Consumers with smaller purchases might be forced to go to lower forums with fewer resources, while those with larger purchases get better forums.
|
The Court dismissed the petitions stating:
1. Legislative Competence: Parliament has the authority to define the jurisdiction and powers of courts and tribunals, including setting pecuniary limits.
2. Rational Classification: Determining jurisdiction based on the value of consideration paid is a valid and rational classification, as it directly relates to the object of creating a hierarchical structure of judicial remedies.
3. No Loss of Remedy: Consumers can still claim any amount of compensation; the jurisdictional change does not restrict the relief available.
4. Jurisdiction Based on Product Value: The Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission, and the National Commission) Rules, 2021 provide the following pecuniary limits:
- District Commission: Cases involving goods or services up to ₹50 lakh.
- State Commission: Cases involving amounts between ₹50 lakh and ₹2 crore.
- National Commission: Cases involving amounts above ₹2 crore.
/content-assets/40ae3af7bc8944e0b8746e8a583b8a3a.jpg)
Photo credit: Hindustan Times
Supreme Court of India introduced the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, published via a Gazette notification on April 21, 2025 . These amendments aim to enhance the efficiency and clarity of case management within the Court.
|
What was the primary purpose of this Amendment?
For the revision of Part IV – Subject Categories in Schedule III of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. This revision introduces a more detailed classification system for cases, reflecting the evolving legal landscape and the increasing complexity of legal matters.
|
Key Features of the Amendment
1. Detailed Classification of Cases:
- The amendment provides a more detailed categorization for different types of cases, making it easier to handle complex cases such as arbitration and bankruptcy separately.
- Specific subject codes have been introduced to categorize cases more effectively, allowing the Court’s registry and judges to allocate cases based on their complexity and importance.
2. Improved Judicial Efficiency: By creating more specific case categories, the rules aim to enhance judicial efficiency, ensuring that cases are processed faster and more effectively.
3. Alignment with Modern Laws: Alignment of Supreme Court’s rules with contemporary legal issues such as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), GST, and the IT Act, ensuring that the Court remains equipped to deal with modern legal challenges.
Related read: See how constitutional amendments work in India and how they differ from procedural updates like this.
/content-assets/9f595fad0b03498abab7f05d3cedb3d4.jpg)
Photo credit: The Week
This issue gained significant attention in India, leading to legal and regulatory developments.
The Supreme Court heard a PIL (Uday Mahurkar And Ors. Versus Union Of India And Ors.) filed by journalist and former information commissioner, addressing the proliferation of obscene content on Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms and social media.
The petition highlighted concerns over unregulated explicit material circulating online, potentially impacting societal values, mental health, and public safety.
During the proceedings, the Court expressed that the matter raised an "important concern" and issued notices to the Union Government and major platforms including Netflix, Amazon Prime, AltBalaji, Ullu Digital, Mubi, X Corp, Google, Meta Inc, and Apple.
The Court emphasized that this issue falls within the domain of the executive or legislature, and directed the Centre to address it appropriately.
|
In parallel News Block
A Parliamentary panel had previously raised concerns about the presence of obscene and pornographic content on OTT platforms. The panel urged the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to take steps to prevent such content from being shared on these platforms. This recommendation aligns with the Supreme Court's call for more robust regulations.
|
Curious how censorship laws apply to OTT platforms? Read more on OTT platform censorship here.
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment affirming that disciplinary proceedings against government employees must be concluded within a stipulated timeframe, and any extension beyond this period requires explicit approval.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
1. Fixed Timeframe for Disciplinary Proceedings: The Court emphasized that when a tribunal or court sets a specific time limit to conclude disciplinary proceedings, it is binding. Proceedings cannot be prolonged beyond this period without obtaining an extension.
2. Necessity of Extension: If the proceedings are not completed within the prescribed time, the disciplinary authority must seek an extension. Failure to do so renders the continuation of the proceedings illegal.
3. Implications for Government Employees: For government employees, the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 set guidelines for initiating and concluding disciplinary actions. These rules stipulate time limits for various stages of the proceedings, ensuring timely resolution.
|
What is The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965?
These are the set of rules which applies to government employees in India and governs disciplinary proceedings.
It lays down procedures for initiating disciplinary action and prescribes time limits for the completion of various stages of the proceedings, including the issuance of a charge sheet, the submission of the employee’s defense, and the final decision.
Rule 14 (1) of these rules mandates that the disciplinary authority must complete the proceedings within a reasonable time.
If the proceedings are delayed, the employee can argue that the delay is an infringement on their right to a speedy resolution.
|
4. Legal Precedent: The judgment reinforces the principle that legal proceedings must adhere to prescribed time limits to ensure fairness and prevent unnecessary delays. It underscores the importance of accountability and transparency in administrative processes.
|
Relevant Legal Provisions applicable
- Article 311, Constitution of India
It provides safeguards to government employees against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank. It states that no government employee shall be dismissed or removed except after an inquiry in which they are given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
-
Article 21, Constitution of India
It guarantees the right to a fair hearing and the right to speedy justice which protects personal liberty and the right to life. This can be invoked in cases where disciplinary proceedings are dragged out beyond a reasonable time, thus causing undue hardship to the employee.
|
/content-assets/4745b8aa4fa04986809c9e31299b4d40.jpg)
The Supreme Court of India (Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.) clarified that a delay in lodging a First Information Report (FIR) cannot be the sole reason to quash criminal proceedings for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years, provided the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had quashed an FIR registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which pertain to serious offences like forgery and cheating. The High Court had cited a 16-year delay in lodging the FIR as a reason for quashing it.
The Court emphasized that the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973 does not prescribe a limitation period for such serious offences under Section 468, and the period of limitation commences only when the offence comes to the knowledge of the aggrieved person, as per Section 469.
In this case, the complainant became aware of the alleged fraudulent activities in December 2021 and filed the complaint within 15 days, which was deemed timely by the Court.
|
Legal Provisions Referenced
- Section 468 CrPC: Deals with the bar to taking cognisance after the expiry of the period of limitation.
- Section 469 CrPC: Specifies that the period of limitation commences from the date the offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved.
|
📌 Significance
This ruling reinforces the principle that the timeliness of lodging an FIR should be evaluated based on the knowledge of the offence by the complainant, rather than the date of commission.
The right to digital access is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court mandates that digital services, particularly the e-KYC (electronic Know Your Customer) process, be made accessible to all individuals, including those with disabilities such as acid attack survivors and the visually impaired.
The Court addressed two writ petitions:
1. Pragya Prasun v. Union of India: Filed by an acid attack survivor with permanent facial and eye disfigurement, challenging the traditional e-KYC process that requires facial movements like blinking.
2. Amar Jain v. Union of India: Filed by a 100% blind individual, highlighting the inaccessibility of current e-KYC procedures, including difficulties with OTPs, digital signatures, and capturing live photographs.
Both petitioners argued that the existing e-KYC norms violated their rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Constitution.
|
What does Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 say?
This act aimed at promoting and protecting the rights of people with disabilities. It focuses on ensuring that people with disabilities have equal access to opportunities and services in various aspects of life, including education, employment, healthcare, and social participation.
|
Other Important highlights of the Month
/content-assets/d31b2044082d4b6d85492cf9127b78f0.jpg)
Photo credit: Gujarat Samachar
President Droupadi Murmu appointed Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI). He is set to take the oath of office on May 14, 2025, succeeding Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who will retire on May 13, 2025.
His tenure as CJI will be approximately six months, concluding with his retirement on November 23, 2025, upon attaining the age of 65.
His Career Timeline
- 1985: Joined the legal profession
- 1987–1990: Practiced independently at the Bombay High Court
- 1992–2000: Served as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court
- 2003: Appointed as Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court
- 2005: Made a permanent Judge of the Bombay High Court
- 2019: Elevated to the Supreme Court of India
- 2025: Appointed as Chief Justice of India
|
What is the Process of Appointment?
In line with Article 124, which deals with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India, including the Chief Justice. The incumbent Chief Justice, Sanjiv Khanna, recommended Justice Gavai as his successor on April 16, 2025. This recommendation was forwarded to the Union Law Ministry, which then sought the President's approval. The formal appointment was announced on April 29, 2025
|
Did You Know?
Justice Gavai will be the second Chief Justice from the Scheduled Caste community, following Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, who served from 2007 to 2010.
/content-assets/2a1818a3a4ba43e89fc86ed5adfcedd1.jpg)
Photo credit: Business Standard
The Indian government announced a significant policy decision: the upcoming national census will include caste enumeration for the first time since 1931. This move is expected to have profound socio-economic and political implications.
|
What is a Caste Census?
A caste census systematically records individuals' caste identities during the national population survey. Unlike previous censuses, which only collected data on Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), this census will aim to capture detailed information on all caste groups, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
|
The national census was originally scheduled for 2021 but was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The government plans to commence the census in late 2026 or early 2027.
The Relevant Act
The Census Act, 1948 governs the conduct of the national census in India. It provides the legal framework for data collection, including demographic and socio-economic data.’
The Census Commissioner is authorized under this Act to conduct the census and collect information, including caste data if it is included in the census form.’
Section 4 of the Census Act grants the Census Commissioner and their staff the authority to ask questions related to caste and other demographic information during the census.
/content-assets/5d6bc0fa458941d6ae28e474cc363c23.jpg)
Photo credit: The South First
The Pala Bar Association in Kerala made history by electing an all-women panel to its executive committee, marking a significant milestone in gender representation within the legal profession.
The election occurred in Pala, a town in the Kottayam district of Kerala. Out of the 347 members in the association, 73 are women. The election was conducted for the position of President, while the remaining 14 positions were filled unopposed by female candidates. This outcome reflects a growing trend towards increased female participation in bar associations across India.
This development aligns with the Supreme Court's directive in 2024, which mandated that at least one-third of the posts in the Supreme Court Bar Association be reserved for women.
/content-assets/e05e0a758e6d4e08b627c98943fba420.jpg)
Photo credit: The Hindu
A devastating terrorist attack occurred in Baisaran Valley, near Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir. At least 26 people were killed, and over 20 others were injured when militants opened fire on a group of tourists. The assailants, believed to be militants from the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba, targeted non-Muslim men, singling them out before opening fire. The attack has been widely condemned both nationally and internationally, leading to significant political and diplomatic repercussions.
The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility but later retracted their statement.
/content-assets/a5451abef241413aaedf531f5fbe9e7e.jpeg)
Photo credit: 2A Company
Following the Phalagam Attack, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), citing national security concerns.
|
What was The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)?
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is a water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan that was signed on September 19, 1960. The treaty was brokered by the World Bank and is considered one of the most successful and lasting international agreements, despite the political tensions between the two countries.
Article III (Water Allocation) is the core article of the IWT, which divides the use of the waters of the Indus River System between India and Pakistan.
|
Conclusion
April was a turning point for India’s legal system, with many important changes, court decisions, and international issues grabbing public attention. From improving accountability in the judiciary to reforms in property management and water-sharing agreements affecting national security, these developments show how India’s legal and political systems are evolving. Going forward, these issues will keep influencing the country’s government, legal practices, and relationships with other nations.
Also Read: