10 Major Legal Developments of 2025

As we reach almost halfway through 2025, the Indian legal landscape has already witnessed some great legal developments—landmark Supreme Court rulings, critical policy shifts, and tectonic developments in constitutional and administrative law. This blog presents a comprehensive overeview of the 10 most important legal developments so far.

Whether you're a law aspirant, student, professional, researcher or just a citizen keen to understand the law's pulse — this is your one-stop mid-year legal digest.

1. Tamil Nadu Governor Withholding Bills Assent

Case Name: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

Judgment Date: April 08, 2025

Core Issue: Whether the Governor’s delay in acting on bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was allowed under the Constitution.

Factual Background

• Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed 12 bills. Most of these aimed to change how state universities are run, especially in matters like the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and reducing the Governor's role in such processes.

• As per the Constitution, these bills were sent to the Governor for approval (called "assent") under Article 200.

• However, the Governor did not act on 10 of these bills and sent 2 to the President, without giving timely responses.

• The state government argued that this long delay violated the Constitution and created a blockage in the state's law-making process.

Supreme Court's Findings

1. Governor’s Delay Was Unconstitutional: The Court said the Governor's long delay in deciding on the bills was against the Constitution and not acceptable. The Governor cannot sit on bills without action for an indefinite time.

2. Deemed Assent via Article 142: Using its powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court said that the 10 pending bills would be considered as having received assent — meaning they are now law, even without the Governor’s formal approval.

3. Time Limits for the Governor’s Actions: To prevent such delays in the future, the Court laid down clear deadlines:

• Withholding assent or sending the bill to the President: Must be done within one month

• Returning the bill for reconsideration: Must happen within three months

• Assenting to a re-passed bill: Must be done within one month

4. No Absolute Veto Power: The Governor cannot permanently block a bill by refusing assent after it is passed again by the Assembly. Once re-passed, Governor is constitutionally bound to approve it.

5. Judicial Review Allowed: The Court also said that the Governor’s actions (or inaction) can be reviewed by courts. If the Governor does not perform their constitutional duties, the Court can issue a writ of mandamus (a court order to act).

2. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

A Waqf is a permanent donation of property made by a Muslim for a religious, charitable, or pious purpose.

Once declared as Waqf, the property cannot be sold, transferred, or inherited — and is managed for the benefit of the community.

Why Was This Amendment Needed?

For years, Waqf properties in India have faced several issues:

• Mismanagement and lack of proper records

• Encroachments and illegal occupation of Waqf land

• Disputes over ownership and misuse of properties

• No clear legal system for solving such disputes quickly

• Concerns over exclusion of women and non-Muslims in administration

This amendment aims to bring transparency, inclusivity, and better legal structure to the Waqf system.

Core Issues Addressed by the Amendment

1. Better management and digital record-keeping of Waqf properties

2. Representation of non-Muslims and women in decision-making bodies

3. Protecting rightful heirs — especially women and children — before declaring any property as Waqf

4. Faster dispute resolution and application of legal time limits to settle long-pending cases

Key Changes Introduced in 2025

1. Act Renamed:
   Now officially called the UMEED Act, 2025 – short for Unified Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development

2. Non-Muslim Members in Waqf Bodies:
   It is now compulsory to include at least one non-Muslim member in both the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, to promote inclusivity and transparency.

3. Representation of Muslim Women:
   A minimum of two Muslim women must be included in these Boards to ensure gender diversity.

4. Protection of Inheritance Rights:
   Before declaring any property as Waqf, authorities must ensure that legal heirs, especially women and children, get their rightful share.

5. Application of the Limitation Act, 1963:
   Now, Waqf-related disputes must follow legal time limits, preventing never-ending cases and improving efficiency.

6. Exclusion of Trusts from Waqf Regulation:
   If a Muslim trust is governed under another legal framework (like for public charities), it will not be treated as Waqf property under this Act.

7. Improved Transparency and Accountability:
   Waqf property managers (called Mutawallis) must register property details on a central digital portal within six months.

8. New Dispute Resolution Authority:
   Instead of Waqf Tribunals, a senior government official will now decide whether a property belongs to Waqf or not.

9. Appeals to the High Court Allowed:
   If someone is unhappy with the decision of the Waqf Tribunal, they can now file an appeal in the High Court. Earlier, only limited powers were available.

10. Lowered Contribution to Waqf Boards:
    The mandatory contribution by Waqf institutions has been reduced from 7% to 5%, allowing more funds to be used for charity and community welfare.

Legal Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its reforms, the Act has faced criticism and is being challenged in the Supreme Court. Key objections include:

⚠️ Threat to Religious Autonomy: Including non-Muslims in Waqf Boards is seen by some as interference in a minority religious institution.

⚠️ Disqualification of New Donors: The amendment removes the ‘Waqf by user’ doctrine, making it harder for recent converts or newer donors to dedicate property as Waqf.

⚠️ More Government Control: Shifting power from Waqf Boards to government-appointed officials could lead to political misuse or interference.

⚠️ Limitation Act Concerns: Applying time limits might weaken Waqf Boards’ power to reclaim old encroached lands.

What’s Next?

Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of this Act.
Last hearing took place on 22nd May where the Court reviewed and reserved its decision on the legality of key provisions.

To understand the history and context behind these changes, check out our detailed explainer on the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

3. Modification of Arbitral Awards

Case Name: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.

Bench: Constitution Bench (5 Judges)

• Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna

• Justices B.R. Gavai, P.V. Sanjay Kumar, A.G. Masih

• Justice K.V. Viswanathan (Dissenting)

Judgment Date: April 30, 2025

Core Issue: Can Indian courts modify arbitral awards (not just set them aside) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially under Sections 34 and 37?

Factual Background

• Ms. Gayatri Balasamy was appointed as Vice President at ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.

• She resigned soon after, alleging sexual harassment by the CEO.

• Her resignation was not accepted. Instead, she received three termination letters later.

• Ms. Balasamy filed criminal complaints against the company’s CEO and Vice President.

• The company also filed counter-complaints accusing her of defamation and extortion.

• The dispute was referred to arbitration by the Supreme Court.

• The arbitral tribunal awarded ₹2 crore to Ms. Balasamy.

• A single-judge bench of the Madras HC increased this by ₹1.6 crore.

• Later, a division bench reduced the additional amount to just ₹50,000.

• Ms. Balasamy then approached the Supreme Court, challenging this reduction.

What the Court Held (Majority View: 4–1)

The Supreme Court delivered a split decision. Here’s what the majority said:

1. Severability Principle: If an arbitral award has some parts that are invalid and some that are valid, courts can remove (or sever) the bad parts and keep the rest of the award.

2. Correction of Obvious Errors: Courts have the inherent power to fix clerical or typographical errors in an award — such as wrong calculations or spelling mistakes — without changing the core outcome.

3. Modification of Interest: Under Section 31(7)(b), courts can modify the post-award interest rate or period if it’s found to be too high or unfair. But courts cannot change the interest awarded for the time before the award (pendente lite interest).

4. Use of Article 142 for Complete Justice: In exceptional cases, the Supreme Court can step in and make changes to an arbitral award to ensure complete justice — using its Article 142 power. However, this should be used sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances — not to re-evaluate the facts of the case.

5. Not Equal to Appeal: The Court made it clear that this modification power is not the same as appellate review.
Courts cannot go into the full merits of the case or change the arbitrator’s decision just because they would have decided differently.

Dissenting Opinion – Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Justice Viswanathan disagreed with the majority. According to him:

• Sections 34 and 37 only allow setting aside an award — not modifying it.

• The 1996 Arbitration Act was designed to limit court interference, unlike the older 1940 Act.

• Allowing courts to edit awards would blur the line between review and appeal, which defeats the purpose of arbitration.

• Article 142 should not be used to bypass what the law clearly restricts.

4. Justice Yashwant Varma Cash Row

• On March 14, 2025, a fire broke out at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Delhi High Court.

• During the firefighting efforts, officials discovered partially burnt bundles of cash, reportedly amounting to several crores, inside an outhouse on the premises.

• This shocking discovery raised serious concerns about judicial misconduct and possible corruption.

• The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Varma’s transfer to his parent High Court in Allahabad.

• The Central Government approved the transfer but also advised that he should not be assigned any judicial work until the inquiry is completed.

• At the same time, the Delhi High Court removed all judicial and administrative responsibilities from Justice Varma.

Core Issues:

1. Judicial Accountability – How do we hold judges accountable when misconduct is alleged?

2. Investigation Procedures – What is the proper way to conduct an inquiry into a sitting judge?

3. Transparency vs. Confidentiality – How do we balance public interest with the need for confidentiality in judicial discipline?

What Is Judicial Misconduct?

Judicial misconduct means when a judge acts in a way that is unethical, illegal, or improper, violating the code of conduct expected from the judiciary.

What Is Judicial Impeachment?

Judicial impeachment is the constitutional process to remove a judge (High Court or Supreme Court) for proven misbehavior or incapacity.

Why Is It Rare?

• The process is very strict and detailed, to protect judicial independence.

• It needs strong evidence, multiple stages, and political consensus.

Step-by-Step Impeachment Process

STEP 1: Initiation: At least 100 MPs in Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in Rajya Sabha must sign a motion for impeachment.

STEP 2: Admission: The Speaker or Chairman examines and admits the motion.

STEP 3: Inquiry Committee: A 3-member committee is formed (includes a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a jurist).

STEP 4: Investigation: The committee conducts an inquiry and submits its report.

STEP 5: Parliamentary Approval: If charges are proven, both Houses of Parliament must pass the motion with a 2/3rd majority.

STEP 6: Removal: The President of India formally removes the judge.

5. Advocates cannot Use Social Media for Promotion: BCI

BCI issued a Circular on Legal Advertising and Social Media Promotions performing its statutory authority as per the Advocates Act, 1961.

Core Issue: Can lawyers in India promote their legal services using social media, celebrity endorsements, or digital ads?

According to the Bar Council of India (BCI) — the answer is no.

Factual Background

• A well-known Indian law firm released a cinematic-style promotional video featuring a Bollywood actor to celebrate its 20th anniversary.

• The video highlighted the firm’s work culture and legal services in a glamorous, film-like format.

• This triggered a major debate in the legal community about whether such promotions are ethical or allowed under current legal norms.

• In response, the Bar Council of India (BCI) issued a circular condemning such promotional practices, stating that they violate the ethical code of lawyers in India.

Key Directives Issued by BCI

1. Absolute Prohibition on Legal Advertising: Advocates are completely banned from using:

• Social media platforms

• Influencer marketing

• Promotional videos

• Online ads or sponsored content

• Using celebrities to advertise law firms is seen as violating the dignity of the legal profession.

2. Emphasis on the Nobility of the Profession

• The BCI emphasized that law is not a commercial business, but a noble profession built on ethics and public trust.

• Turning law practice into a brand using modern marketing tools, like ads and influencers, undermines its seriousness and integrity.

3. Disciplinary Action for Violations: Any lawyer found violating Rule 36 or other ethical rules can face:

• Reprimand (formal warning)

• Suspension of license to practice

• Removal from the roll of advocates (permanent disbarment)

These actions are taken under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

4. Clarification on What Is Allowed: Advocates can provide basic information like:

• Name, contact details, and specialization

• Office address and working hours

• Lawyers can share legal knowledge or awareness content (like blog posts or explainer videos) as long as they don't promote their services or make self-praising claims.

But anything that amounts to soliciting clients or advertising services is not allowed.

6. Pahalgam Terror Attack and Indus Water Treaty Suspension

• On April 22, 2025, a deadly terrorist attack took place in Baisaran Valley, Pahalgam, in Jammu and Kashmir.

• Five heavily armed militants opened fire on a group of tourists, killing 26 people and injuring over 20 others.

• The attackers were allegedly linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and its offshoot The Resistance Front (TRF), both believed to be Pakistan-based terror groups.

• They specifically targeted non-Muslim men, reportedly asking them to recite Islamic verses to identify their religion before opening fire.

India’s Strong Response

Following the attack, the Government of India took a series of strong military and diplomatic actions:

1. Operation Sindoor: A precision military operation involving 24 missile strikes on alleged terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

2. Suspension of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT): India suspended the implementation of the 1960 treaty with Pakistan, citing national security concerns.

3. Diplomatic Retaliation:

   • India expelled Pakistani diplomats from New Delhi.

   • All Pakistani imports were banned.

   • Indian airspace was closed to Pakistani aircraft.

What is the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)?

• The Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan, with help from the World Bank.

• It is one of the most resilient water-sharing treaties in the world, surviving even during wars.

• Article III of the Treaty:

  • Gives India control over the eastern rivers: Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi.

  • Gives Pakistan unrestricted rights over the western rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.

• India can use western rivers only for non-consumptive uses (like irrigation, navigation, and hydropower), but not for storing or diverting the water.

• After the Attack: India halted water flow from the Chenab River and conducted dam flushing without informing Pakistan — a direct violation of the treaty’s terms.

What About International Law?

• Suspending or violating a treaty like the IWT raises serious concerns under international law, especially those related to:

  • Shared natural resources

  • Transboundary river agreements

  • Peace-time treaty obligations

• While national security is a recognized ground for action, unilaterally suspending a treaty can be seen as provocative and may affect international reputation.

7. Preliminary Inquiry Before Every FIR

The Supreme Court clarified when a preliminary inquiry (basic fact-checking) is required before registering an FIR, and when it is not.

Let’s understand this with two important cases from 2025:

Case 1: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale

Judgment Date: March 17, 2025

Core Issue: Should police conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR in corruption cases involving public officials?

Factual Background

• Pradeep Sharma, a retired IAS officer, faced multiple FIRs for alleged corruption in land allotment when he was Collector.

• He argued that the FIRs were filed without any preliminary inquiry, which was against his constitutional rights and amounted to harassment.

• He requested the court to make preliminary inquiry mandatory before any new FIRs are filed against him.

Court’s Findings

• If the information clearly shows a cognizable offence, police must file an FIR immediately — no preliminary inquiry needed.

• In Sharma’s case, the allegations were clear and serious (abuse of official power and corruption), so police were right to register FIRs directly.

• The Court refused to make preliminary inquiry compulsory in all future FIRs against Sharma.

• Verdict: Appeal dismissed. Police acted within the law.

Case 2: Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat

Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

Judgment Date: March 28, 2025

Core Issue: Should a preliminary inquiry be done before filing an FIR for offences related to speech and expression?

Factual Background

• Imran Pratapgarhi, a Congress MP, posted a poem video titled “Ae Khoon Ke Pyase” on social media.

• Gujarat Police filed an FIR saying the poem promoted religious enmity (offence under Section 196 of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)).

• Pratapgarhi argued the FIR violated his freedom of speech and was filed without any inquiry to assess the context.

Court’s Findings

• For speech-related offences (especially with punishment between 3 to 7 years), a preliminary inquiry is compulsory before registering an FIR.

• This is to prevent misuse of law against freedom of expression.

• The Court said the poem did not promote violence or enmity and was just artistic expression.

• Since no inquiry was done and FIR was directly filed, the Court quashed the FIR.

8. Mandatory Restaurant Service Charges are Unlawful

Case Name: NRAI & FHRAI v. Union of India & Anr.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Judgment Date: March 28, 2025

Core Issue: Can restaurants and hotels force customers to pay service charges as part of their food bill?

The Delhi High Court says no — service charges must be optional, not mandatory.

Factual Background

• The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) received many complaints from customers who were being charged a “service charge” (usually 5–20%) automatically in their restaurant bills.

• Customers said this was done without their consent and was often not clearly disclosed.

• In response, the CCPA issued guidelines in 2022, stating that service charges must be voluntary — not auto-added to the bill.

• Two big restaurant industry bodies — National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) and Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) — challenged these guidelines in court, claiming that:

  • Service charges were a standard industry practice.

  • The CCPA didn’t have the power to ban them.

Court’s Findings

The Court upheld the CCPA guidelines and said:

1. Mandatory service charges = Unfair trade practice

2. Restaurants must give consumers the freedom to decide whether or not to pay a service charge.

3. Automatically adding service charges is misleading, as it makes people believe it's a government-imposed tax, when it's not.

4. Customers may feel pressured to pay, even if the service wasn’t satisfactory — this violates their consumer rights.

5. The Court also rejected the argument that displaying the service charge on the menu makes it part of an implied contract.

6. It said that such practices are still unfair, even if the charge is mentioned beforehand.

7. The Court ordered both NRAI and FHRAI to pay ₹1 lakh each, to be used for consumer welfare efforts.

9. Disciplinary Proceedings Timeframe Set

Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra

Judgment Date: 23 April 2025

Core Issue: Can a government continue disciplinary proceedings against an employee beyond a deadline set by a court or tribunal — without formally asking for an extension?

The Supreme Court says no — continuing beyond the deadline without permission is illegal.

Factual Background

• Ram Prakash Singh, a retired Assistant Engineer from the Panchayati Raj Department, Uttar Pradesh, was accused of embezzling ₹2.5 crores of Panchayat funds during 2004–2005.

• He was suspended in 2006, and a charge sheet was issued based on audit reports.

• The U.P. State Public Services Tribunal gave a 3-month deadline to complete the disciplinary proceedings.

• But the inquiry dragged on for years — and no formal extension was sought.

• In 2010, Singh was dismissed from service and penalized ₹10.52 lakhs.

• Singh challenged his dismissal. Both the Tribunal and the High Court ruled in his favor.

Court's Findings

1. Timelines Must Be Respected:

• Once a court or tribunal sets a deadline, the government must finish the inquiry within that time.

• If more time is needed, the authority must apply for an extension.

• If the deadline is crossed without permission, the authority loses jurisdiction — the entire proceeding becomes invalid.

2. Sharing Enquiry Report Is Mandatory:

• Not giving the employee a copy of the enquiry report violates natural justice.

• Without this report, the employee cannot defend themselves properly.

3. Flawed Process Can’t Be Justified: The Court said the inquiry was flawed:

• No new witnesses were examined

• Relevant documents weren’t given to the accused

• The department relied only on old documents without fresh investigation

4. No Need to Prove Prejudice

• The Court clarified: the employee doesn’t have to prove that the delay or unfair process caused harm.

• If basic procedural safeguards are violated, the case itself is legally unsound.

5. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal and High Court's decision.

6. It ordered the State of Uttar Pradesh to:

• Release all retirement benefits to Ram Prakash Singh

• Accept that the disciplinary action was invalid

10. Inclusion of Caste Data in Census

• The last full caste-based census in India was done in 1931, during British rule.

• After independence, the national census only collected caste data for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

• Other caste groups, such as Other Backward Classes (OBCs), were not recorded in detail in any post-independence census.

What Has Changed?

• In April 2025, the Indian government announced that the next national census will include caste enumeration — this is a major policy change.

• The census is likely to begin in late 2026 or early 2027, after delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective of the Caste Census

1. The main goal is to collect accurate data on all caste groups — including OBCs, upper castes, and sub-castes.

2. This data will help the government to:

• Understand social and economic inequalities

• Design better welfare and reservation policies

• Ensure fair resource distribution

• Support affirmative action based on evidence

Data Privacy & Legal Validity

• Government officials clarified that no change in law is needed for collecting caste data, because the Census Act, 1948 already allows such data to be gathered.

• Individual information will remain confidential, and will only be used for statistics — this is a legal requirement under the Census Act.

Why Is It Important?

• India’s population is diverse and layered by caste, but current data is outdated or incomplete.

• Accurate caste data will help:

  • Identify gaps in representation and development

  • Update reservation policies

  • Support state-level planning, especially in areas like education, jobs, and welfare

• Some states like Bihar and Telangana have already conducted their own caste surveys, but a national-level census will give a complete picture.

Many political leaders have supported the move, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi called it a “victory for the deprived.” Haryana CM Nayab Singh Saini welcomed it as a step towards social justice.

Curious about the broader debate around this move? Read more on whether the Caste Census should be done in India and what it really means for our democracy.

Conclusion

So far the year is marked by a mix of constitutional clarity, judicial accountability, public policy reform, and strengthened consumer rights. From landmark Supreme Court rulings like the Tamil Nadu Governor’s Bill Assent case and the clarification on arbitral award modification, to important statutory reforms like the Waqf (UMEED) Act and caste census announcement — these updates reflect India’s evolving legal system responding to societal needs and governance challenges.

As future lawyers, judges, or policymakers, understanding these developments will not only strengthen your exam prep but also deepen your grasp of how law shapes — and is shaped by — society.

Also Read:

• Top 10 Current Affairs May 2025
• Top 10 Current Affairs April 2025