Top 10 Legal Current Affairs: July 2025

From the Supreme Court expanding the meaning of the Right to life, to fresh interpretations under the new criminal law code (BNSS), and even some major political moves, July 2025 saw a mix of landmark judgments, constitutional clarifications, and procedural shake-ups.

In this blog, we’ve picked 10 of the most important legal updates every CLAT PG aspirant (and curious law student) should know. Whether it’s about mental health being declared a fundamental right, or the Court stepping in on stray dog attacks, or a ruling that allows secretly recorded spousal conversations as divorce evidence, each of these developments connects directly with the kind of legal thinking CLAT PG expects.

We’ve explained each update simply, if you're preparing for competitive exams or just want to stay legally aware, this round-up is your shortcut to staying sharp.

#1 Mental Health Integral Part Under Article 21

Case Name: Sukdeb Saha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Relevant Legal Provisions & Framework:

1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

This article says every person has the right to live—not just survive, but live with dignity, freedom, and safety.

In this case, the Supreme Court clearly said mental health is also part of this right, not just physical survival.
It relied on older cases like:

• Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India – Mental suffering of death row prisoners was held to violate human dignity.

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India – Psychological autonomy (freedom over one’s mind and identity) was upheld.

2. Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 –

This is a special law made to protect people’s mental health rights.

• Section 18 – Gives everyone the legal right to access mental health care, treatment, and support.

• Section 115 – Says if someone tries to die by suicide, they must be given help, not punished. It treats it as a health issue, not a crime.

These were used by the Court to show that India already has a legal duty to protect people’s mental health.

3. Constitutional Powers:

Article 32 – Writ Jurisdiction

This allows any citizen to directly approach the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are violated.

In this case, the girl’s father came to the SC using Article 32 to seek justice for his daughter’s suspicious death.

Article 141 – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Decisions

Whatever the Supreme Court says as "law declared" becomes binding on all courts and authorities across India.

That’s how the 15 student mental health guidelines became mandatory—even though no new law was passed.

4. CrPC Section 174 → BNSS Section 194

This section is used when someone dies unnaturally (like by suicide or under suspicious conditions).

It allows police to do an inquiry into how and why the death happened.

• Earlier, this was Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

• Now it’s Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—the new law that replaced the CrPC.

In this case, the first police action was done under this section after the girl’s death.

Want clarity on how BNSS reshapes criminal procedure in India, especially in cases like unnatural deaths? Read How New CrPC is Different from Old CrPC for a detailed breakdown of the key procedural changes.

Key Highlights:

1. A teenage NEET student died under suspicious circumstances:

A 17‑year‑old girl who was studying at Aakash‑Byju’s coaching in Visakhapatnam fell from her hostel terrace in July 2023 and died later in hospital. Her family believed it was not suicide but negligence or foul play. The Andhra Pradesh police and High Court failed to investigate properly.

2. Supreme Court orders a fresh, reliable CBI investigation:

The father approached the Supreme Court. The Court found the local probe seriously flawed—missing CCTV footage, destroyed forensic samples, contradictory medical records—and said those circumstances demanded a fair investigation. So it directed a CBI probe under its special powers.

3. Court rules mental health is part of "right to life" (Article 21):

Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declared that mental health is not optional! It’s a constitutional right under Article 21. They explained that life means more than just surviving, it must include dignity, emotional well‑being, autonomy, and protection from degrading treatment.

4. 15 nationwide guidelines issued for all educational institutions:

To immediately protect students, the Court issued 15 rules that must be followed by schools, colleges, coaching centres, hostels, etc., across India, until formal laws are made. These include:

• Hiring a trained counsellor if an institution has 100+ students (smaller ones must connect with external professionals)

• Having clear mental health policies, grievance systems, and helplines (like Tele‑MANAS) displayed

• Banning public shaming, rank-based stress, or unfair segregation

• Staff must undergo mental‑health first aid training twice a year

5. States, institutions, and the Centre must act fast:

The Court told all state governments and Union Territories to roll out rules within two months for things like coaching‑centre registrations and grievance procedures. District Magistrates must lead local monitoring teams. The Union government must submit a compliance report in 90 days detailing progress and timelines, especially for the National Task Force set up to study student mental health.

#2 Right to Safe & Motorable Roads is a Fundamental Right

Case Name: Umri Pooph Pratappur (Upp) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Road Development Corporation & Another

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

Relevant Provisions:

1. Article 21 – Right to Life

This Article says every person has the right to live with dignity. Over time, courts have added many things under this “Right to Life” — like clean air, health, education.

Now, the Supreme Court has said safe, well-maintained roads are also part of this right. Because unsafe roads can risk your life.

2. Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts

This allows people (or even government bodies) to go to the High Court directly to protect their legal rights. Usually used to stop injustice or correct actions by government or authorities.

In this case, even the government used Article 226 against a private contractor, because the work (road construction) involved public interest.

3. Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983

This is a special law in Madhya Pradesh to handle disputes in government works contracts (like road building, bridges etc.).

It creates a special MP Arbitration Tribunal to solve such disputes. Even if the contract has a private arbitration clause, if it’s a public works contract in MP, only this Tribunal can hear the case.

4. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

This law allows two parties (usually private) to solve disputes through private arbitration, without going to court.

Fast and flexible process, often used in business deals. But in public works contracts in MP, this Act won’t apply — the 1983 law will take priority.

5. Madhya Pradesh Highways Act, 2004

This law explains the State’s role in building and maintaining highways and roads in MP.

It shows that road development is not just a contract job — it’s a government duty. Used by the Court to say the State must ensure good roads and cannot shift the full responsibility to private companies.

Key Highlights:

1. Right to Good Roads = Right to Life:

The Supreme Court said that having safe and motorable roads is a basic part of the Right to Life under Article 21. It’s the State’s duty to develop and maintain these roads, not just hand over the job to private players.

2. Private Companies Can’t Escape Accountability:

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh government against a private contractor, saying even private parties doing public work (like road construction) can be challenged in court under writ jurisdiction.

3. State Can’t Bypass Its Responsibility:

Even if a private company is hired to build roads, the State remains responsible. The Court criticised the practice of offloading core public functions like infrastructure development onto private entities.

4. Only MP Arbitration Tribunal Has Jurisdiction:

The Court ruled that since this was a “works contract” with a state body, the dispute must go to the MP Arbitration Tribunal, not a private arbitration body like ICADR. The private arbitration was declared invalid.

5. Appellant Gets a Second Chance – But Only One:

Though the private company had wrongly withdrawn its earlier case from the MP Tribunal, the Court gave it a final opportunity to revive that case – but strictly under the proper forum and law.

#3 Police Summons Can’t Be Served Electronically

Case Name: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N.K. Singh

Relevant Provisions:

1. Section 35, BNSS, 2023 – Police notice in lieu of arrest

When police believe someone may have committed a less serious (cognizable) offence, but arrest is not necessary, they can send a notice asking the person to appear before them.

If the person follows the notice, no arrest. If not, and police record reasons, they may arrest. So, this notice can affect a person’s freedom — that’s why proper service is important.

2. Section 530, BNSS, 2023 – Electronic mode of trials and proceedings

This section allows court-related procedures (like hearings, witness statements, evidence recording) to be done through electronic means like video calls or emails.

But it does not include investigation steps like police notices, unless clearly mentioned elsewhere.

3. Sections 63, 64, 71, 94, 193, BNSS, 2023 – Modes of serving summons and notices

• Section 63 & 64: Summons from court must be in writing and personally served, but may also be sent electronically if they carry the court’s seal.

• Section 71: Courts can send witness summons by electronic means or post.

• Section 94: Police or courts can ask for documents to be produced, even through electronic orders.

• Section 193: After finishing an investigation, police can send their final report to court or inform victims electronically.

Overall: Some notices can be sent online, but only when the law clearly allows it.

3. Article 21, Constitution of India – Protection of personal liberty

Every person has the right to life and personal freedom.

So, if a legal step (like a police notice) can lead to arrest, the procedure must be strictly followed to avoid misuse or unfair harm to a person’s liberty.

Key Highlights:

1. Supreme Court’s Ruling:

The Court said that police notices under Section 35 of BNSS (which can lead to arrest if not followed) must be served physically — not on WhatsApp or email. This is because such notices directly affect a person’s liberty.

2. Why Electronic Service Was Rejected:

Even though BNSS allows some electronic communications, Section 35 doesn’t mention it. The Court said unless the law clearly allows electronic service, it can’t be used.

3. State of Haryana’s Argument Rejected:

Haryana tried to argue that because courts can send summons electronically under Sections 64, 71 etc., police should be allowed too. The Court disagreed, saying a court summons and a police notice are very different — one is judicial, the other executive.

4. Protection of Personal Liberty:

The Court explained that a Section 35 notice could lead to arrest if ignored. So, it should be served in a reliable and legally sound way to protect the person’s fundamental right under Article 21.

5. Final Verdict:

The Court dismissed Haryana’s plea and confirmed its earlier direction — police cannot send Section 35 notices via electronic means. Only proper physical service, as prescribed in law, is valid.

#4 Companies Can Appeal Acquittal as 'Victim' Under S.372 CrPC

Case Name: Asian Paints Limited vs Ram Babu & Another

Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Relevant Provisions:

1. Section 2(wa) CrPC – Definition of ‘Victim’

A victim is anyone who has suffered loss or injury because of the crime. It also includes their guardian or legal heir.

Example: If a company loses money due to someone selling fake products using its brand, that company is a "victim".

2. Section 372 CrPC – Victim’s Right to Appeal

Normally, appeals aren't allowed unless the CrPC says so. But this section gives victims the right to appeal in 3 situations:

• Accused is acquitted
• Accused is convicted for a lesser offence
• Court gives less compensation than deserved

Important: Victims can appeal directly—they don’t need State permission.

3. Section 374 CrPC – Accused’s Right to Appeal

Allows a convicted person (someone found guilty) to appeal:

• To the High Court if sentenced by Sessions Court
• To the Sessions Court if convicted by a Magistrate

4. Section 378 CrPC – Appeal Against Acquittal

Lets the State or the complainant (in some cases) appeal if the accused is acquitted. But they must usually take permission (leave) from the High Court.

Note: It’s a different route from the one available to victims under Section 372.

5. Section 420 IPC – Cheating and Dishonest Inducement

If someone cheats you and dishonestly makes you do something (like give money or goods), it's punishable under this section.

Punishment: Jail up to 7 years + fine.

6. Sections 63 & 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957

• Section 63 – Deals with willful infringement of copyright (like selling pirated or fake goods). Punishment: Jail between 6 months to 3 years + fine up to ₹2 lakh.
• Section 65 – Punishes removal or alteration of copyright protection notices (like fake labels).

Key Highlights:

1. What Happened:

Asian Paints caught a shopkeeper (Ram Babu) selling fake paints using their brand name. They had sent investigators, seized fake paint buckets, and filed a police complaint. The accused was convicted by the Trial Court.

2. How did the case proceed:

The accused appealed. The First Appellate Court (Sessions Court) acquitted him in 2022. Asian Paints, although not the direct complainant, filed an appeal as a “victim” under Section 372 CrPC in the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court dismissed it, saying Asian Paints wasn’t the original complainant.

3. What did the Supreme Court say:

The Supreme Court ruled that a company that suffers loss from a crime is a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC. It said that the victim doesn't have to be the complainant or informant to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372.

4. Why is this important:

The Court made it clear that the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is independent and not restricted by Section 378. This means victims—including companies—can directly appeal against acquittals without special permission if they suffered harm.

5. Final outcome:

The Supreme Court restored Asian Paints’ appeal and directed the Rajasthan High Court to hear it again on merits. It also clarified that such victims have the right to be heard, even if the acquittal was by an appellate court.

#5 Secretly Recorded Telephonic Conversation Admissible Evidence

Case Name: Vibhor Garg v. Neha

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Relevant Provisions:

1. Section 122, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Marital Communication Privilege

This section says that private conversations between husband and wife during marriage cannot be shared in court without the consent of the one who spoke.

But — there’s an exception: if the case is between the spouses themselves (like divorce), then this protection doesn't apply.

In this case, because it was a divorce case, the husband was allowed to use the conversation as evidence.

2. Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to Privacy

This article protects the right to life and personal liberty, which includes privacy.

But the Court said — privacy is not absolute. It has to be balanced with other rights like the right to a fair trial.

So, just because the call was private doesn’t mean it can’t be used if it's important to prove the case.

Curious how courts balance privacy with fairness in modern jurisprudence? Dive into the evolving scope of Article 21 of the Constitution and its impact on individual rights.

3. Sections 14 & 20, Family Courts Act, 1984 – Flexible Evidence Rules

• Section 14 allows Family Courts to accept any evidence they feel is helpful — even if it doesn’t follow strict rules of the Evidence Act.

• Section 20 says that these rules can override other laws if needed.

This gave the Family Court extra power to admit the recorded conversation.

4. Section 65B, Evidence Act – Electronic Record Admissibility

This section explains how electronic records (like phone recordings, CDs, emails, WhatsApp messages) can be used in court.

It says you need to prove the device was working and give a certificate to show the recording is genuine.

The husband submitted the memory card and transcript as per this section.

Key Highlights:

1. Recorded Calls Can Be Evidence in Divorce Cases:

The Court ruled that secretly recorded phone calls between spouses can be used as evidence in matrimonial proceedings like divorce, even if one spouse didn’t know about the recording.

2. Privacy Not Absolute Between Spouses:

The Court said the right to privacy under Article 21 doesn’t apply in the same way between spouses when they are in court against each other. Section 122 protects private communication in marriage, but it has an exception for court cases between spouses.

3. No Violation of Law Just Because It Was Secretly Recorded:

Just because the conversation was secretly recorded doesn’t make it illegal or inadmissible. If it’s relevant, reliable, and accurate, it can be considered by the court.

4. Fair Trial vs. Privacy – Fair Trial Wins Here:

The Court said a fair trial is also part of the right to life (Article 21), and allowing a spouse to prove cruelty with such evidence supports that right. It shouldn’t be blocked just due to privacy claims.

5. Snooping Reflects Broken Trust, Not Court’s Encouragement:

The judges rejected the idea that this ruling promotes spying. They said if one spouse is secretly recording the other, it shows the marriage is already strained and lacks trust — the court didn’t create that problem.

#6 Equal Inheritance Rights to Tribal Woman’s Heirs

Case Name: Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors.

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi

Relevant Provisions:

1. Article 14 – Equality Before Law

This means that everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

No person—whether man or woman, rich or poor—should get special treatment unless there is a very good reason.

In this case the Court said it’s unfair to treat tribal women differently from men when it comes to property rights, especially when there’s no law saying women should be excluded.

2. Article 15(1) – No Discrimination Based on Sex, Caste, etc.

This stops the government from discriminating against anyone just because of their gender, caste, religion, or place of birth.

In this case denying a tribal woman her right to inherit only because she’s female goes against this article.

3. Articles 38 & 46 – Directive Principles for Social Justice

These are guidelines for the government to reduce inequality and help weaker sections, especially women and Scheduled Tribes.

In this case the Court reminded everyone that our Constitution expects the State (including courts) to protect women and uplift tribal communities, not exclude them.

4. Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 – Justice, Equity & Good Conscience

This section says that if there is no clear law or custom, then the court should decide the matter based on what is fair, just, and reasonable.

In this case even though the Act was repealed in 2018, the Court said the principle still applies because the property dispute started long before that.

So, in the absence of a clear tribal custom, the Court used this principle to ensure fairness for the woman and her children.

Key Highlights:

1. Background:

• Dhaiya, a tribal woman from the Gond community, was one of six siblings (five brothers, one sister).

• Her children (the appellants) sought a share in their maternal grandfather’s ancestral property.

• Every lower court—trial, appellate, and Chhattisgarh High Court—denied the claim, ruling no customary law showed females could inherit tribal land

2. Supreme Court’s Core Ruling:

On 17 July 2025, the top court reversed all prior findings. Since neither a custom permitting women to inherit nor a custom barring them was proven, equality must prevail.

3. Burden of Proof Shift:

The lower courts wrongly expected Dhaiya’s heirs to prove a positive custom allowing inheritance. The Supreme Court ruled instead that it was the opposing side’s responsibility to prove a custom excluding women

4. Constitutional Foundation:

Denying property rights to Dhaiya or her children, on the basis of gender alone, violated Article 14 and Article 15(1). Articles 38 and 46 underscore the state’s duty to eliminate discrimination and uplift women and marginalized communities.

5. Equity Principles Apply:

In absence of tribal succession law or clear custom, the Court applied Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which survives via the saving clause. It mandates decisions based on justice, equity and good conscience—even though the Act was formally repealed in 2018—for rights that had already vested.

6. Outcome:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing that Dhaiya’s legal heirs are entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property, treating them on par with male heirs.

Want to understand how constitutional equality impacts inheritance and gender rights? Discover how courts interpret Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

#7 PoA Holder Cannot Present Sale Deed Without Authentication

Case Name: G. Kalawathi Bai (Died), per LRs. v. G. Shashikala (Died), per LRs. and Others

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Relevant Provisions:

1. Section 32(a) – Who can present a document for registration

Says that the person who actually signs (executes) the document can go to the Registrar and get it registered.

Example: If A sells his land to B and signs the sale deed himself, A can present it for registration.

2. Section 32(c) – Agent presenting document

Says that a power of attorney (PoA) holder, i.e., someone authorized by the actual person, can also present the document for registration.

But there’s a condition: This PoA must be properly executed and authenticated as per the law.

3. Section 33 – Rules about Power of Attorney

Tells us what kind of PoA is valid for presenting a document.

For example, if the principal lives in India, the PoA must be authenticated by a Registrar/Sub-Registrar.

If not done properly, the PoA holder cannot register the document.

4. Section 34(3) – Registrar's duty to verify

When a document is presented for registration, the Registrar must check:

• Who signed the document.
• Who is appearing before him.
• Whether the person has the right to appear as an agent (if it’s a PoA).

5. Section 35(2) – Extra check by Registrar

Allows the Registrar to ask questions or examine people to make sure the person who signed or is presenting the document is genuine.

Key Highlights:

1. Legal Issue:

The Court had to decide whether a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder becomes the executant of a sale deed and can present it for registration without fulfilling other authentication rules under the Registration Act.

2. Which old case is in doubt:

The bench disagreed with the 2009 decision in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan, which said that if the PoA holder signs and presents the document, they are treated as the executant and need not follow authentication steps under Section 33.

3. Court's Ruling:

The present bench said: No, a PoA holder only signs on behalf of the real owner (the principal) and remains an agent, not the executant. So, they must still follow all requirements under Sections 32(c), 33, 34, and 35.

4. Why is this important:

If PoA holders are treated as executants, even an unregistered or just notarized PoA could be used to register property without scrutiny. That opens doors for misuse and fraud in property deals.

5. What next:

Because the Court disagreed with an earlier SC view, it didn’t pass a final ruling. Instead, it referred the issue to a larger bench to decide the correct legal position.

#8 Stray Dogs Attacking Kids In Delhi

Case name: In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”

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

Relevant legal provisions:

1. Inherent Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

This means the Supreme Court can take up matters on its own, even if no one has filed a case. It can do this when it feels that an issue is serious, affects public interest, and needs urgent attention.

In this case, the Court saw the newspaper report about stray dog attacks and decided to act on its own motion (called suo motu action).

2. Article 32 of the Constitution of India

This article gives the Supreme Court the power to protect Fundamental Rights of citizens. If someone’s basic rights (like right to life, safety, dignity) are being violated, the Supreme Court can step in.

In this case, frequent dog attacks and lack of proper action by authorities may affect people's Right to Life under Article 21, so the Court is using Article 32 to start the case.

Key Highlights:

1. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance on July 28, 2025 of a Times of India report titled “City hounded by strays and kids pay price”, describing hundreds of daily dog‑bite incidents in Delhi and outskirts leading to rabies among children and the elderly.

2. The court noted the figures were deeply alarming and disturbing, mentioning that roughly 20,000 dog bites occur across India daily, with around 2,000 incidents reported in Delhi each day.

3. A writ petition (Civ. No. 5/2025) was registered by the Court, directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India (B. R. Gavai) for suitable orders.

4. The court issued notices to the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, with the matter listed for hearing on August 11, 2025.

5. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on this pressing issue of stray dog menace and public safety.

This step signals urgent judicial scrutiny over mounting stray dog bites and rabies risk in Delhi. The Court has moved swiftly, using its constitutional mandates to press authorities into action, with hearings set and expert assistance appointed to chart a humane and effective path forward.

#9 SC stays Bombay HC’s acquittal judgment in 7/11 blasts case

Case Name: The State of Maharashtra v. Mohd Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh & Ors.

Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

Relevant Legal Provisions:

1. MCOCA – Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

This law is used when crimes are linked to organised crime syndicates or terrorist groups. It allows stronger investigation powers, and confessions to senior police officers can be used as evidence (unlike normal cases).

In this case, the accused were tried under MCOCA for allegedly being part of a terror network.

2. IPC – Indian Penal Code, 1860

Some major sections likely used:

• Section 302 – Murder
• Section 307 – Attempt to murder
• Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy
• Section 121 – Waging war against the Government of India

These are standard provisions used in serious criminal and terror cases.

3. UAPA – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Anti-terror law used for acts threatening India’s sovereignty or public order. Allows longer police custody, tough bail conditions, and strict punishment.

This law was used because the blasts were considered an act of terrorism.

4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Governs what type of evidence is allowed in court.

The High Court found that confessions, eyewitness accounts, and identification of accused were not strong or reliable under this law.

5. CrPC – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

This law sets the procedure for investigation, trial, appeals, and acquittals. Used for framing charges, conducting the trial, giving bail, and appealing verdicts.

The State used Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution to appeal the Bombay High Court’s acquittal in Supreme Court.

Key Highlights:

1. HC had acquitted all 12 accused:

On July 21, 2025, the Bombay High Court overturned the 2015 MCOCA convictions—including death sentences for five and life imprisonment for seven—holding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Weak evidence flagged by High Court

The Court pointed to unreliable eyewitness testimony—including delayed TIPs—and possible coerced confessions, calling the investigation deeply flawed

3. SC staying HC verdict—but limited scope

On July 24, 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice on Maharashtra’s appeal and stayed the Bombay High Court’s judgment only to the extent that it cannot be used as precedent in other cases

4. Accused will not return to prison—at least for now

Although the HC verdict is stayed in precedent value, the Court clarified the freed accused will not be sent back to jail at this time, since SG Mehta did not seek surrender orders

5. Impact on broader MCOCA cases

The state argued that HC’s reasoning could affect other pending terrorism trials under MCOCA, hence the targeted stay to limit ripple effects while preserving inmate release status.

#10 Jagdeep Dhankhar resigns as Vice President of India

Relevant Provisions:

Article 67(a) – Resignation of the Vice President

This article is part of Chapter I of Part V of the Constitution, which deals with the Union Executive—i.e., the President, Vice President, and other key constitutional authorities.

Key Highlights:

1. Immediate Resignation on Health Grounds:

On 21 July 2025, Jagdeep Dhankhar stepped down with immediate effect to “prioritise health care and abide by medical advice.” He officially cited Article 67(a) of the Constitution in his letter to President Droupadi Murmu.

2. Term Ended Two Years Early:

Dhankhar assumed office in August 2022 and was scheduled to serve until August 2027. His resignation mid‑term makes him the first Vice President in India’s history to step down voluntarily before completing the full term.

3. Gratitude to Top Leadership:

In his resignation letter, he thanked President Murmu, Prime Minister Modi, and the Council of Ministers for their “unwavering support,” and praised the trust and warmth from Members of Parliament during his tenure

4. Opposition Raises Questions Over Sudden Exit:

Political parties, including the Congress, raised doubts over the abrupt nature of his resignation. They suggested there may be deeper reasons beyond health, calling for clarification from the government.

5. Election Timeline Set in Motion:

The Election Commission finalized the electoral college and announced that the Vice Presidential election will be held on 9 September 2025, to fill the now‐vacant post.

Wrapping Up

Legal news isn’t just about knowing what happened; it’s about understanding how the law is evolving. July 2025 showed us how courts continue to shape the meaning of rights, revisit old rules under new codes like the BNSS, and address real-world concerns, from mental health to public safety.

For CLAT PG aspirants, staying updated with these judgments isn’t optional—it’s essential. These are the kinds of cases that turn into MCQs, legal reasoning questions, or even essay prompts.

So keep reading, keep questioning, and most importantly, keep connecting the dots between law in the books and law in action.

Also Read:

• Top 15 Legal Current Affairs: April 2025
• Top 10 Current Affairs May 2025
• Top 7 Legal Current Affairs: June 2025