Top 15 Legal Current Affairs: April 2025

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.

#1 Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

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.

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.

#2 Supreme Court on Tamil Nadu Governor Withholding Bills

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment, 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.

​​​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.

#3 Lokpal’s Jurisdiction Over HC Judges

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.

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.

#4 Pegasus spyware case

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.

#5 Constitutional Validity of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

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).

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.

#6 Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2025

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.

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.

#7 Obscenity On OTT Platforms & Social Media

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.

Curious how censorship laws apply to OTT platforms? Read more on OTT platform censorship here.

#8 Disciplinary Proceedings Timeframe Set

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.

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.

#9 Delay cannot Quash FIRs

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.

📌 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.

#10 Right to Digital Access

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.

Other Important highlights of the Month

#11 Justice B. R. Gavai appointed as next CJI of India

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

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.

#12 Inclusion of Caste Data in Census

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.

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.

#13 Kerala Bar Association's Historic Election

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.

#14 Pahalgam Terror Attack

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.

#15 Indus Waters Treaty Suspension

Following the Phalagam Attack, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), citing national security concerns.

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.