August 2025 saw major Supreme Court directions on Bar Council fees, speedy delivery of judgments, criminal investigation standards, death penalty sentencing safeguards, non-retrospective punishment, There’s also a big question about who can be appointed as District Judges and when eligibility is counted, two new judges took oath and joined the Supreme Court, and two significant updates were introduced strong rules for online gaming and cleaned up how sports bodies are run.
This blog explains each update in plain language - what happened, which provisions apply, why it matters, and what to remember.
Supreme Court bans “optional” Bar Council fees
Case Name: K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council represented by Ramesh S. Naik (FDA)
Bench: Justices J. B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan
What happened?
The Supreme Court clarified that State Bar Councils and the BCI cannot collect any “optional” or extra amounts beyond the statutory enrolment fee caps in the Advocates Act, affirming the earlier Gaurav Kumar ruling.
|
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024):
-
Prohibits any fees over the statutory limit
-
States only stamp duty (if applicable) can be extra
-
Declares extra fees violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
-
Applies prospectively (no refunds ordered)
|
Examples identified included extra levies in Himachal Pradesh (via Welfare Fund), Jammu & Kashmir (₹900/₹450 instead of ₹750/₹125), and Karnataka (₹6,800/₹25,000 as “optional”). The Court said, “There is nothing like optional.”
Relevant Legal Provisions:
-
Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 - Caps the enrolment fee at ₹750 for general category advocates and ₹125 for SC/ST advocates. Only stamp duty can be charged in addition, where applicable.
-
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution: Equality before the law; Right to practice a profession - extra compulsory or “optional” fees violate these constitutional protections.
Why does it matter?
It lowers entry barriers for fresh advocates, standardises enrolment practices, and curbs arbitrary levies by State Bar Councils.
What to remember?
-
Max fee: ₹750/₹125 + stamp duty (if any).
-
Labels like “optional” don’t save an extra charge.
-
Operates prospectively (no automatic refunds).
Want to see the exact fee structure for advocates across states? Check the guide on Bar Council Enrolment Fees.
/content-assets/9ba7f560b40140208ccfeef284f628fa.jpg)
SC Sets Deadline for Delayed Judgments
Case Name: Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol & Prashant Kumar Mishra
What happened?
Shocked that a reserved judgment was undelivered for nearly a year, the Court reiterated Anil Rai's (2001) directions and added operational checks: if a judgment isn’t delivered within 3 months after being reserved, the Registrar General must place it before the Chief Justice, who must ensure delivery within two weeks; failing that, assignment to another Bench follows.
|
Directions in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001):
-
State the date of reserving judgment and the date of pronouncement on the first page of every judgment for transparency.
-
Aim to pronounce judgments without undue delay; “some subsequent time” should ordinarily be weeks, not months, with only exceptional cases taking longer.
-
High Courts should monitor reserved-but-undelivered matters (periodic/monthly lists) for administrative oversight by the Chief Justice.
-
If a judgment is not delivered within 3 months of reservation, any party may move an application before the court seeking early pronouncement.
-
If still not delivered within 6 months, parties may apply to the Chief Justice to withdraw the matter from the original Bench and place it before another Bench for appropriate orders (including reassignment).
-
Avoid pronouncing only the operative part and supplying reasons much later, as delay in reasons undermines appellate remedies and fair trial under Article 21.
|
Relevant Legal Provisions:
-
Article 21 of the Constitution: A Fair trial includes the right to a reasoned, timely judgment.
What to remember?
-
3 months after reservation → mandatory flag to Chief Justice.
-
Two-week push to pronounce; else, reassign.
Want to understand why the Supreme Court calls speedy trials and reasoned judgments a part of fundamental rights? Read how these protections are rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution.
SC Acquits Over Shoddy Investigation
Case Name: Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, & Sandeep Mehta
What happened?
The Court acquitted two persons convicted of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old, criticising a lax investigation and trial. Breaks in the chain of custody, failure to examine neighbours, untested material objects, an unsupported “sniffer dog” claim, and a DNA “supplementary” report admitted via affidavit without recalling the expert undermined the case.
Relevant Legal Provisions:
-
Circumstantial evidence - Must form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
-
Section 293 CrPC (now Section 329 BNSS, 2023) - Affidavits can prove only formal facts; substantive forensic evidence like DNA requires proper proof and expert examination.
-
Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS, 2023) - Incriminating material must be put to the accused for explanation; skipping this is fatal.
What to remember?
Reopening the death sentence stage under Article 32
Case Name: Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Anr.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, & Sandeep Mehta
What happened?
The Court held it can revisit the sentencing phase in death cases via Article 32 if mandatory safeguards from the Manoj (2022) judgment were missed. The court said that the conviction of the accused stands; only the sentence will be reconsidered.
|
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)
Mandates trial courts to gather and consider mitigating factors (psychiatric, psychological reports, socio-economic background) before imposing the death penalty.
|
Relevant Legal Provisions:
-
Article 32, Constitution of India - Empowers the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights directly via writ petitions.
What to remember?
-
Not a blanket reopening power, used when safeguards were clearly violated.
-
“Living remedy” view of Article 32: capable of correcting constitutional wrongs, even post-finality.
SC Disallows Harsher Retrospective Sentence
Case Name: Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta
What happened?
The Court upheld the conviction under POCSO but reduced the sentence because the trial court applied the post-2019 amendment that made “imprisonment for life” mean the remainder of natural life. The offence was pre-amendment (May 20, 2019).
Relevant Legal Provisions:
-
Section 6, POCSO Act (pre-2019 Amendment) - Up to life imprisonment (conventional, not natural life).
-
Section 6, POCSO Act (post-2019 Amendment) - Minimum 20 years with “imprisonment for life” meaning remainder of natural life or death.
-
Article 20(1), Constitution - No retrospective criminal penalty; punishment must reflect the law at the time the offence was committed.
What to remember?
Want to know why retrospective punishments are prohibited in India? Read about Article 20 of the Indian Constitution for a complete explanation.
District Judge eligibility referred to the Constitution Bench
Case Name: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Others
Bench: Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran & N. V. Anjaria
What happened?
A three-judge Bench referred two questions under Article 145(3) to a five-judge Bench: whether a judicial officer who had seven years’ Bar practice before joining service can be appointed as District Judge under the Bar quota, and the correct time to assess eligibility - application stage or appointment stage (or both).
Relevant Legal Provisions:
-
Article 233(2), Constitution of India - A person not already in Union or State service can be appointed as District Judge only if they have at least seven years' experience as an advocate or pleader.
-
Article 145(3), Constitution of India - Any case involving substantial constitutional interpretation, or a reference, must be decided by a bench of at least five judges.
|
Precedent - Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020)
Bar quota is only for people who are actually practising advocates at the relevant time; if someone is already a serving judicial officer, they cannot claim a seat from the Bar quota.
It means serving judges can’t use the “advocates’ quota” to become District Judges, and the 2020 ruling didn’t clearly settle what happens if someone had 7 years’ Bar practice before joining service, but the recruitment process overlapped with their joining.
|
What to remember?
/content-assets/1a46e656497b4a5e8b5654287ba6ebc8.jpg)
Two new Supreme Court judges were sworn in.
-
Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi were sworn in as Supreme Court judges.
-
With their induction, the Supreme Court is now operating at its full complement of 34 judges.
-
Administered by CJI Gavai at a Full Court gathering, attended by all sitting Supreme Court judges.
-
Justice Aradhe’s background: Former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court; served earlier in MP, J&K, Karnataka, and Telangana High Courts. His SC term runs until April 2029.
-
Justice Pancholi’s background: Former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court (previously Gujarat HC), with an SC tenure until May 2033.
-
Future CJI: Pancholi is expected to become Chief Justice of India, likely serving from October 2031 to May 2033, based on seniority.
India Bans Real-Money Online Games
-
Online Gaming Bill - Introduced in Lok Sabha (Aug 20, 2025), cleared Rajya Sabha next day, received President’s assent on Aug 22.
-
Became the Act - Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
-
Complete ban on real-money online gaming - no monetary stakes, deposits, or winnings allowed.
-
Criminal liability & penalties - operating or promoting real-money games attracts fines and imprisonment (up to ₹1 crore/3 years for operators; penalty up to ₹50 lakh/2 years for promoters).
-
Advertising & promotion banned - includes suspension of sponsorships (e.g., Dream11).
-
Banks and financial entities are prohibited from processing payments for such games.
-
Establishes the National Online Gaming Commission (NOGC) with powers to license, regulate, and classify games; enforce consumer protection, age verification, grievance redress, and data protection.
-
E-sports and social games are exempted and encouraged, recognised as legitimate formats separate from gambling.
India Overhauls Sports Governance
-
For the first time, Indian sports bodies now operate under a binding legal framework, replacing ad hoc codes.
-
Act Name - The National Sports Governance Act, 2025
-
The newly created National Sports Board (NSB) grants recognition, suspends bodies, sets ethics, and ensures athlete welfare.
-
A formal National Sports Tribunal handles sports disputes efficiently, thereby reducing the court backlog. Appeals go to the Supreme Court.
-
The cricket board now falls under regulation, must seek recognition, and comes under the RTI Act (if government-funded).
-
Executive committees, capped at 15 members, must include two sportspersons of merit, two athlete-elected representatives, and four women.
-
Federations must adopt Codes of Ethics and Safe Sports policies. Internal grievance redress mechanisms are mandatory.
-
NSB oversees a National Sports Election Panel to enable transparent polls; ad-hoc bodies can be appointed if needed.
Conclusion
If there’s one message this month, it’s this: rules must be fair, clear, and timely. No more hidden fees to enter the profession. No more endless waiting for judgments. No shortcuts in investigations. No harsher punishments added after the fact. And stronger, cleaner rules for fast-growing areas, such as online gaming and sports. Keep these notes close—whether preparing for an exam, filing a matter, or advising a client, these are practical guardrails that help people get justice, not just read about it.
Also Read: