Top 7 Legal Current Affairs: June 2025

When a divorced woman’s alimony jumps from ₹20,000 to ₹50,000, and the Supreme Court says police can’t summon lawyers just for giving legal advice—you know the courtroom’s been busy redrawing boundaries.

This June, the Supreme Court delivered a string of judgments that didn’t just apply the law—they reshaped how we understand rights, dignity, and due process. From protecting the autonomy of the legal profession, to clarifying when narco-analysis is allowed, to reaffirming that unregistered sale agreements don’t create ownership—each ruling speaks volumes about the evolving legal landscape.

Whether you're a law student, a practicing advocate, or someone who just wants to stay updated with justice in action—here’s a clear, simplified roundup of 7 impactful legal updates from the apex court that you need to know.

#1 Accused Can Voluntarily Opt for Narco Test, But Court’s Permission Is Must

Case Title: Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Legal Provisions Involved:

1. Article 20(3), Constitution of India: No person accused of an offence can be forced to be a witness against themselves (right against self-incrimination).
2. Article 21, Constitution of India: Right to life and personal liberty—includes bodily privacy and informed consent
3. Section 439, CrPC: Provisions for bail—courts should consider gravity of offence, evidence, custody etc.
4. Section 27, Indian Evidence Act: Allows use of information discovered through voluntary confessions, if it leads to discovery of relevant facts.
5. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Guidelines: Lay down procedures and safeguards for conducting narco-analysis with consent.

Background:

• A woman went missing under suspicious circumstances. Her family filed a case alleging dowry harassment by her husband (Amlesh Kumar) and in-laws.

• The FIR was filed under several IPC sections including 498A (cruelty), 364 (kidnapping), and 506 (criminal intimidation).

• During bail proceedings, the Patna High Court accepted the police’s suggestion that narco-analysis tests be done on all accused and witnesses.

• The husband’s bail was denied, and he challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that forced narco-analysis violates fundamental rights.

What is Narco-Analysis?

• It involves injecting a person with a sedative drug like sodium pentothal to reduce self-control and prompt them to speak the truth.

• The person doesn’t have full conscious control—so the reliability of such statements is legally questionable.

Legal Issues Before the Court:

1. Can a High Court order narco-analysis during bail hearings?

2. Can results of voluntary narco-analysis be used to convict someone?

3. Does the accused have an automatic (indefeasible) right to undergo narco-analysis?

What the Supreme Court Held?

1. No Court Can Order Involuntary Narco-Analysis:

• Referring to the landmark case Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the SC said:

  • Forced narco-analysis violates Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.

  • It goes against personal liberty and the right against self-incrimination.

  • High Courts cannot order it during bail hearings—bail decisions must consider custody, evidence, and flight risk, not investigative methods.

• The Patna High Court acted wrongly in allowing the police to conduct narco tests during a bail application.

2. Voluntary Narco-Analysis Can’t Be Sole Basis for Conviction:

• A person can voluntarily request a narco test.

• But:

  • The test result alone cannot be used to convict someone.

  • If new facts emerge from the test (e.g., revealing the location of a weapon), those facts can be used as evidence only under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act—and still require supporting proof.

3. There Is No Absolute Right to Take a Narco Test:

• The Court clarified:

  • An accused does not have an automatic right to demand a narco test.

  • It’s up to the trial court to evaluate:

    • Whether the request is truly voluntary.

    • Whether all safeguards (e.g., medical checks, legal advice, judicial consent) are followed.

• Rajasthan High Court’s earlier view—that narco test is part of the right to lead defence evidence under Section 233 CrPC—was rejected.

Simple Takeaways:

• Forced narco-analysis is illegal and unconstitutional.

• An accused can voluntarily offer to take the test—but only with Court’s permission.

• Narco test results alone can’t be used to convict someone.

• Any information discovered can be used in court only if backed by additional evidence.

• Courts must follow strict safeguards to ensure the accused understands the legal and medical consequences.

Curious how courts balance the rights of accused persons with women’s protection? Learn more about how Section 498A IPC operates in real life.

#2 Police Cannot Summon Advocates for Legal Advice Without Safeguards

Case Name: Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Bench: Justices - K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh

Stage: Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court

Relevant Legal Provisions:

1. Article 19(1)(g), Constitution: Right to practice a profession – includes lawyers practicing freely

2. Article 21, Constitution: Personal liberty – includes the dignity and autonomy of legal professionals

3. Section 132, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Lawyer-client privilege – No disclosure of legal advice or client communication without consent

4. Section 179, BNSS, 2023: Permits police to summon witnesses – but not for protected legal communications

5. ED Circular (June 2025): No summons to advocates without prior approval of Director and compliance with Section 132, BSA

Background:

• Ashwinkumar Prajapati, a practicing advocate and President of the Vastral Advocates Association in Gujarat, was summoned by police under Section 179 of the BNSS (Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

• His only role in the matter? He was the defense lawyer for an accused person in a loan dispute case involving charges under:

  • BNS (Indian Penal Code equivalent) – Sections 296(b), 351(3)

  • Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011 – Sections 40, 42(a)(d)(e)

  • SC/ST Act – Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va)

• Despite this, the police asked him to appear for questioning to "ascertain facts and circumstances" of the case.

• He challenged this notice in the Gujarat High Court, which dismissed his petition. He then approached the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues:

1. Can police or investigating agencies summon a person who was associated with a case only as a lawyer?

2. Even if the agency believes the person had a role beyond being a lawyer, should such summoning be allowed without prior judicial approval?

Supreme Court's Key Observations:

1. Lawyers Cannot Be Summoned for Legal Advice Alone:

• If a lawyer's only role is representing or advising a client, police cannot summon them for questioning.

• Doing so undermines the legal profession and violates the independence of lawyers.

2. Prima Facie Violation of Lawyer-Client Confidentiality:

• Advocates are protected by Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (earlier Section 126 of Evidence Act), which protects:

  • Communication between lawyer and client

  • Legal advice

  • Documents accessed during professional service

3. Notice Stayed:

• The Court stayed the operation of the police notice and barred the State from issuing further notices to the lawyer.

Related Developments:

• Recently, two Senior Advocates were summoned by the ED for giving legal advice to a client.

• After strong backlash, ED withdrew the summons and issued a circular (Technical Circular No. 3 of 2025) stating:

  • No summons to lawyers unless:

    • There’s suspicion of illegal purpose

    • Or evidence of fraud/crime committed after legal representation started

  • Even then, summons require Director’s permission

Simple Takeaways:

• Lawyers cannot be harassed or summoned just for doing their job.

• Legal advice is protected under the principle of confidentiality.

• The Court will now decide if and how exceptions can apply, but with safeguards.

• This protects not just lawyers, but also clients’ right to fair representation and public trust in the justice system.

Also read about the historic development of Fundamental Rights in India to see how today’s Supreme Court safeguards emerged.

#3 Right to Do Business Also Means Right to Shut It Down

Case Title: Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Bench: Division Bench (2 judges) included: Justices - Sanjay Karol & Prashant Kumar Mishra

Relevant Legal Provisions

1. Article 19(1)(g) – Right to Trade, Profession, or Business

• This Article gives every citizen the freedom to choose their occupation — whether that’s doing a job, running a business, or practicing a profession.

2. Article 19(6) – Reasonable Restrictions on Business Freedom

• This Article allows the government to impose restrictions on the freedom given under Article 19(1)(g), for reasons like: Public interest, Workers' welfare, Ensuring legal compliance

• Example: You can’t shut down a business overnight if it affects hundreds of workers. You must follow the law.

3. Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Rules for Closure of Industrial Undertakings

• This provision says that:

  • Any company with more than 100 workers needs prior permission from the appropriate government to shut down.

  • An application must be made in a prescribed format (in this case, Form XXIV-C in Maharashtra).

  • If the government does not respond within 60 days, the closure is deemed to be approved.

Background:

• Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (HSML) had a biscuit manufacturing unit.

• They worked exclusively for Britannia Industries Ltd. (BIL) for 30+ years under job work contracts.

• In 2019, Britannia ended the contract, and HSML decided to shut down the biscuit division.

• HSML applied for closure under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 28 August 2019.

• The Maharashtra Government's Deputy Secretary rejected the application saying it was incomplete.

• Workers' unions opposed the closure and got a stay from the Industrial Tribunal.

• HSML's case to resume closure was dismissed by the Bombay High Court, so they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Core Legal Issue:

Does the right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution also include the right to shut down that business?

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

1. Right to Close Business is Part of Article 19(1)(g):

• The Court said that if you have a constitutional right to start and run a business, you also have the right to close it.
• But this right is not absolute – it must follow reasonable legal procedures, especially when workers’ rights are involved.

2. HSML’s Application Was Valid:

• The application to shut down was complete on August 28, 2019.

• As per law, if no decision is taken within 60 days, closure is automatically allowed. So, HSML had a “deemed closure” by October 2019.

3. Deputy Secretary Had No Legal Power:

• Only the Minister was authorized to handle such applications under Section 25-O.

• The Deputy Secretary’s actions were invalid.

• The Minister did not apply his mind independently, which was legally wrong.

4. HSML Had Genuine Reasons to Shut Down:

• With Britannia pulling out, HSML had no other business left.

• Their decision to close was not fake or malicious, but out of economic necessity.

5. Compensation to Workers Increased:

• The Court praised HSML for compensating employees.

• It increased compensation by ₹5 crores, to be paid within 8 weeks.

• The Court also said HSML doesn't need to recover the earlier compensation paid during litigation.

Simple Takeaways:

• This case protects business owners’ rights—you can’t be forced to keep running a business that's no longer viable.

• But it also shows that you must follow proper legal steps and ensure workers are treated fairly.

• The Court balanced economic freedom with employee protection—a key theme in constitutional and labour law.

Also learn how Article 19 of Indian Constitution balances the rights of individuals with the interests of society through reasonable restrictions.

#4 Registered Deed Based on Unregistered Sale Agreement Cannot Confer Ownership

Case Title: Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweshwara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran

Legal Provisions Involved:

1. Section 17, Registration Act, 1908: Requires compulsory registration of documents involving immovable property over ₹100
2. Section 23, Registration Act, 1908: Documents must be presented for registration within 4 months of execution
3. Section 34, Registration Act, 1908: Registrar may condone delay with a fine (max 4 more months)
4. Section 49, Registration Act, 1908: Unregistered documents can't affect property title or be used as evidence
5. Article 226, Constitution of India: Writ jurisdiction should not be used if title/ownership is unclear or fraudulent

Background:

• In 1982, an agreement to sell land was signed between the landowners and Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society.

• But this sale agreement was never registered, as required under the Registration Act, 1908.

• Later, based on this unregistered sale agreement, the society sold parts of this land to other people (including the Respondents) through registered sale deeds.

• In 2006, the unregistered 1982 agreement was “validated” by the Assistant Registrar.

• The Respondents (those who bought from the society) claimed that their registered sale deeds gave them full ownership.

• The High Court agreed with them and granted protection from dispossession.

• The matter reached the Supreme Court when this decision was challenged.

What the Supreme Court Held?

1. Unregistered Sale Agreement Cannot Create Ownership Rights:

• A sale agreement that was never registered cannot become valid just because a later sale deed was registered.

• The original 1982 sale agreement was never properly registered within the legal timeframe.

• Therefore, the subsequent registration of sale deeds cannot magically fix this error.

2. Registration Has a Legal Time Limit:

• Under Section 23 of the Registration Act, a document must be registered within 4 months of signing.

• Section 34 proviso allows another 4-month extension with a fine—but that didn’t happen here.

• The 1982 agreement was claimed to be "validated" in 2006, 24 years later, which is invalid in law.

3. Title Can Only Be Transferred Through Properly Registered Deed:

• The Court referred to the precedent in Suraj Lamp Industries v. State of Haryana [(2012) 1 SCC 656], which held that:

  • Only a registered deed of conveyance can legally transfer ownership of immovable property.

  • GPA (General Power of Attorney) or agreement to sell or will cannot replace a sale deed.

4. Even Possession Not Proven:

• The people claiming ownership couldn’t even prove they were in physical possession of the land.

• Court said: You can’t just claim ownership or protection unless you actually have valid title + proven possession.

5. High Court Was Wrong:

• The High Court granted protection from eviction without examining title or possession properly.

• Supreme Court said that was an error in law, and restored the earlier decision that dismissed the writ.

Simple Takeaways:

• A registered sale deed based on an unregistered agreement to sell cannot create valid ownership.

• Registration laws must be followed strictly—there is no shortcut to land ownership.

• You must also prove actual possession to seek protection from dispossession.

• This case reinforces that fraud or irregularity in land transfers will not be protected by courts.

#5 Person Working in Society Not a Govt Servant

Case Title: Pintu Chowdhury vs. Union of India

Bench: (2-judge bench) Justices Ujjal Bhuyan & Manmohan

Relevant Legal Provisions:

1. Article 12 – Constitution of India

   • Defines “State” to include Government, Parliament, State Legislatures, and authorities under their control.

   • Includes PSUs, societies, etc., for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights.

2. Rule 2(h) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

   • A "Government servant" must:

     • Hold a civil post under the Union or a State Government, or

     • Be on deputation from such posts.

3. Doctrine of Estoppel and Misrepresentation

   • The Court clarified: if someone gets a job through false representation, it’s voidable.

   • The employer can cancel such appointment—even if the person has worked for years.

Background:

• Pintu Chowdhury was earlier working as a Craft Teacher at the Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TTWREIS) – a society aided by the Government of Tripura.

• Later, he applied for a government job as a Junior Weaver in the Weaver’s Service Centre, Agartala (a central government organisation).

• While applying, Pintu claimed that his previous job was in a government department. Based on this, he was appointed.

• But later, an official inquiry revealed:

  • TTWREIS is not a government department, but a registered society.

  • So, technically, he wasn’t a “government servant.”

Core Legal Issue:

Does working in a government-funded society (which qualifies as "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution) make you a government servant?

What the Court Said?

• NO. Just because TTWREIS is a “State” under Article 12, it doesn’t mean employees are government servants.

• Key Quote: “Society being amenable to Article 12 doesn't make a person working there a Govt servant.” — Justice Bhuyan

Simple Takeaways:

• Not all public bodies = government departments.

• Even if you work in a society that gets government funds, you may not be a “government employee.”

• Government jobs come with specific eligibility. Misrepresenting your past job can cost you the post.

• Fraudulent appointments can be legally cancelled.

#6 SC Raises Divorced Woman’s Alimony for Fair Financial Security

Case Title: Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Legal Provisions Involved:

1. Section 27, Special Marriage Act, 1954: Governs divorce between parties married under this Act

2. Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Allows wife/husband to claim interim maintenance and litigation costs during divorce

3. Article 142, Constitution (in context): Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice in personal matters.

Background:

• The couple got married in 1997, and had a son in 1998.

• In 2008, the husband filed for divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, claiming cruelty by his wife.

• The wife, in turn, asked for interim maintenance for herself and her minor son under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

• The Trial Court rejected the divorce, but the Calcutta High Court later granted divorce in 2019, citing mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

What the High Court Ordered in 2019?

• Husband to:

  • Transfer flat ownership (where wife and son lived) to the wife.

  • Pay ₹20,000/month as permanent alimony, with 5% increase every 3 years.

  • Cover son’s educational + tuition expenses.

• The wife found ₹20,000/month too low and appealed to the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court Held?

1. ₹20,000/month Was Too Low:

• The Court said ₹20,000/month was not enough, considering:

  • Rising inflation

  • The wife had not remarried and was fully dependent on this amount

  • The standard of living she had during the marriage

2. Alimony Increased to ₹50,000/month:

• Based on the ex-husband’s salary slips, ITRs, and bank records, the Court found he could afford more.

• Therefore, the Court ordered:

  • ₹50,000/month permanent alimony to the wife

  • With 5% increase every 2 years (for inflation adjustment)

3. Son Now an Adult – No More Compulsory Support

• The son is now 26 years old.

• The Court said the father is not legally bound to pay more unless he wishes to help voluntarily.

• The son can still claim inheritance rights separately under property laws.

Simple Takeaways:

• Alimony must reflect standard of living during marriage and cost of living today.

• Divorced women who remain unmarried and are financially dependent deserve fair support.

• Once children become adults, there’s no legal obligation to provide for them — though voluntary support is welcomed.

• Periodic increases (e.g. 5% every 2 years) help adjust for inflation.

#7 SC PIL Seeks Grounding of Air India Boeing Jets Over Safety Fears

The Ahmedabad plane tragedy has deeply shaken the nation.

An Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner, operating a routine international flight from Ahmedabad to London, tragically crashed just minutes after takeoff from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on June 12, 2025.

The aircraft crashed into the hostel mess of B.J. Medical College, causing not only the death of over 270 people on board but also several fatalities and injuries on the ground. Many of the deceased were young medical students.

This is one of India’s worst aviation disasters to date.

What Caused the Crash?

The exact cause is still under investigation. However, early reports point to technical failures and potential neglect in aircraft maintenance.

The aircraft involved was 11 years old, raising serious questions about Air India's safety practices, especially since previous audits by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) have highlighted internal lapses.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has now been filed in the Supreme Court seeking:

1. Grounding of Air India’s Boeing fleet until full safety audits are completed.

2. Public release of audit findings.

3. Strict penalties for violations of aviation safety norms.

What Does the Law Say About Compensation?

Whenever a plane crash occurs, compensation for victims and their families is a legal right—regardless of who was at fault. This is governed by both international law and Indian law.

Let’s break it down:

📘 1. Montreal Convention, 1999 – International Law

This Convention sets out uniform rules for international air travel.

India ratified the Montreal Convention on May 1, 2009, and it came into effect in the country on June 30, 2009.

Under this law:

• The airline is subject to strict liability — meaning the airline is automatically liable to pay compensation for passenger death or injury without requiring proof of negligence.

• Compensation is capped at 151,880 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per passenger.

• As of October 2024, this equals approximately ₹1.85 crore per deceased or injured passenger (based on SDR value ~₹120 per unit).

👉 Even if Air India (owned by Tata Sons) announces ₹1.25 crore per victim, they may still be legally required to pay around ₹60 lakh more per passenger under international law.

📘 2. Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Indian Law

This is the domestic law that brings the Montreal Convention into Indian legal effect.

Key points:

• Initially, this Act applied only to international flights, but later the Indian government extended it to domestic flights too.

• However, the First Schedule of the Act still refers to an older cap of 1,25,000 francs, which is about ₹1.32 crore — slightly lower than the international standard.

This creates a gap in compensation, and may lead to litigation where families seek the higher international rate under the Convention.

What About Ground Victims and Property Damage?

The Montreal Convention only covers:

• Passengers

• Their baggage

• Cargo

It does not cover:

• People injured or killed on the ground

• Damage to buildings, vehicles, or public property

In such cases, tort law and domestic compensation laws apply. These include:

• Absolute liability doctrine (from the Bhopal Gas tragedy case)

• Negligence claims in civil courts

• Class-action lawsuits, especially in mass disaster situations like this one

Precedents and Related Judgments

• In Trivedi Kodkany v. Air India Ltd, the Supreme Court awarded ₹7.64 crore to the family of a deceased Air India passenger.

• The compensation was calculated based on:

  • The victim’s income

  • Dependents

  • Future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi judgment)

• The Kerala High Court (in the 2010 Mangalore crash) held that even in the absence of proven fault, airlines must pay actual damages proven by the victims or families.

Final Thoughts

This incident raises critical legal, moral, and policy questions:

• Are India’s current aviation safety laws strong enough?

• Should there be better monitoring of older aircraft?

• Is it time for regular, independent audits of all commercial airlines?

• Should India update compensation caps under domestic laws to match international standards?

Conclusion

Each of these judgments reinforces vital aspects of India’s legal framework—be it safeguarding personal liberty, ensuring dignified support for divorced women, or upholding the sanctity of the legal profession.

These rulings remind us that the law is not static. It evolves with society, and the Supreme Court plays a key role in interpreting it in light of present-day challenges—whether it’s inflation, privacy, or fair investigative practices.

As citizens, being aware of these changes helps us not only understand our rights but also the responsibilities of institutions that uphold them. Stay informed, stay empowered—and keep watching this space for your next legal digest.

Also Read:
Top 10 Current Affairs May 2025
Top 15 Legal Current Affairs April 2025