Top 6 Legal Current Affairs: September 2025

September 2025 was a significant month for law in India, with several important developments across different areas. People in Ladakh pushed for statehood and special protections under the Sixth Schedule, while the government updated GST rules to make tax processes smoother. The Supreme Court also gave directions to speed up cheque bounce cases and improve police accountability through CCTV monitoring.

At the same time, courts took steps to protect the personality rights of celebrities, especially against misuse through AI and digital tools. We also saw debates on constitutional amendments that could affect ministers in office, highlighting the intersection of law, governance, and public accountability.

Here’s a summary of the Top 6 Legal Current Affairs of September 2025 that every law student, legal professional, and curious citizen should know.

#1 Ladakh’s Sixth Schedule & Statehood Demand

People in Ladakh (through bodies like the Leh Apex Body [LAB], Kargil Democratic Alliance [KDA], and activists such as Sonam Wangchuk) are calling for:

• Statehood for Ladakh (i.e. Ladakh becoming a full state, not just a Union Territory)

• Inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which grants constitutional protections and autonomy to tribal areas.

Why Sixth Schedule matters to them?

• Most of Ladakh’s population is from Scheduled Tribes; they want safeguards over land, culture, customary laws, forest rights etc.

• Sixth Schedule gives Autonomous District Councils powers over local governance, control of resources, legislation on local issues — stronger than what LT/Governor-led UT administration currently allows. 

What’s currently in place/already done?

• The Union Territory status (without legislature) remains. Ladakh has no statehood yet.

• Some regulations have been introduced: domicile-based job reservation, rule-making over languages, reservation in Hill Council seats for women, etc. 

In September 2025, protests escalated in Leh over these demands. There were reports of violence: clashes with police, arrests, and injuries. Four protesters died; mobile internet was suspended; curfews were imposed.

Sonam Wangchuk’s role

• He undertook a hunger strike (35 days) demanding statehood + Sixth Schedule.

• He was arrested (September 26) following protests in Leh.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has called for talks: Ladakh leaders were invited for discussions on October 6. The High-Powered Committee (HPC) for Ladakh (which includes MHA officials + local leaders) is part of that process.

Key demands beyond statehood & schedule, Alongside Schedule 6 and statehood, protesters also want:

• Preservation of local languages, culture, and customary land rights.

• Greater reservation for local jobs, protections against non-locals buying land.

• Stronger local governance via more empowered bodies like the Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs) or similar. 

Legal/constitutional challenges & opposition:

• Sixth Schedule doesn’t currently apply outside the northeastern tribal areas. Extending it to Ladakh would require constitutional/legislative changes.

• There are concerns that certain protections in Ladakh are already regulated under Article 240 of the Constitution, which gives more discretionary power to the Centre (less secure than Schedule 6 protections).

• Some fear that implementing Schedule 6 or statehood could slow infrastructure, complicate administration given Ladakh’s strategic location, high terrain, security sensitivities. 

Current status of negotiations

• Deadlock had persisted, but Ladakh leaders accepted centre’s invitation for talks on October 6, 2025.

• Until then, protests, strikes, curfews etc. have been ongoing. LAB has said it will not engage until detainees from recent protests are released and charges dropped.

Relevant Provisions:

• Article 239 & 239A – Relate to administration of Union Territories.

• Article 240 – Empowers the President to make regulations for certain UTs, including Ladakh.

• Sixth Schedule (Articles 244(2) & 275(1)) – Provides for Autonomous District Councils in tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.

• Fifth Schedule (Article 244(1)) – Provides safeguards for Scheduled Tribes in other parts of India (contrast to Sixth Schedule).

• Constitution (Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation) Act, 2019 – Made Ladakh a Union Territory without legislature.

Want to dive deeper into the constitutional and political context behind the protests? Read the full breakdown of the Ladakh Statehood Demand and why the Sixth Schedule debate is central to the region’s future.

#2 CGST Third Amendment Rules 2025

The amendments to the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, were notified on 17th September 2025 and came into effect on 22nd September 2025.

Key Changes:

1. Refund Processing Overhaul: Rule 91 has been amended to mandate that refund applications be processed based on a system-driven risk evaluation. The proper officer is required to issue a provisional refund order in FORM GST RFD-04 within seven days of acknowledgement.

2. Input Tax Credit (ITC) Distribution Expanded: Under Rule 39(1A), the scope of ITC distribution by Input Service Distributors (ISDs) has been broadened to include supplies under reverse charge as per Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act.

3. Appeals Process Streamlined: A new FORM GST APL-02A has been introduced, dividing the appeal process into Part A (acknowledgement) and Part B (submission). Additionally, Rule 110A empowers the Appellate Tribunal's President or Vice-President to assign appeals to a Single Member Bench if the matter does not involve a question of law.

4. Revised Valuation for Lotteries and Gambling: The valuation multiplier for actionable claims, such as lottery tickets, has been revised from 128% to 140% under Rule 31A(2), impacting the tax computation for businesses engaged in lottery, betting, and gambling activities.

5. Enhanced Annual Return Reporting: The annual return FORM GSTR-9 has been amended to include additional tables for reporting ITC availed in the next financial year, IGST credit on imports, consolidated ITC reversals, and differential tax paid due to adjustments.

6. Reconciliation Statement Updates: In FORM GSTR-9C, new rows have been added to account for supplies where tax is payable by e-commerce operators under Section 9(5), ensuring accurate reporting of liabilities.

7. Late Fee Reporting Formalised: Late fee reporting has been formalised under Section 47(2), and references to the electronic credit ledger have been incorporated to reflect modern digital practices.

8. Appeals Filing Deadline Established: A deadline has been set for filing appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), emphasising the importance of timely compliance.

9. GST 2.0 Rate Structure Introduced: The GST rate structure has been simplified to four standard rates: 0%, 5%, 18%, and 40%. This restructuring aims to make goods more affordable and stimulate consumer spending.

Relevant Provisions:

• Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 – amended via CGST (Third Amendment) Rules, 2025.

• Rule 91 – Refund processing procedure.

• Rule 39(1A) – Input Tax Credit (ITC) distribution by Input Service Distributors.

• Rule 110A – Empowering Appellate Tribunal’s President/Vice-President to assign appeals to Single Member Bench.

• Rule 31A(2) – Valuation of actionable claims like lotteries, betting, and gambling.

• Forms amended:

  • GST RFD-04 – Provisional refund order.

  • GST APL-02A – New appeal process format.

  • GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C – Annual return and reconciliation statement.

• Sections referred:

  • Sections 5(3) & 5(4) – Reverse charge under IGST Act.

  • Section 9(5) – Tax liability of e-commerce operators.

  • Section 47(2) – Late fee for delay in filing returns.

#3 CCTV Cameras in Police Stations

Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a media report highlighting the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across the country. The Court's action was prompted by a report from Dainik Bhaskar, which stated that 11 individuals had died in police custody in Rajasthan during the first eight months of 2025.

In December 2020 (Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others, 2020), the SC had mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations to ensure transparency and accountability.

BOX

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others, 2020

In that case, the Supreme Court directed that CCTV cameras and recording equipment be installed in police stations (and in the interrogation offices of central investigative agencies) across India to ensure accountability in custodial settings. 

It built upon earlier judicial thinking (for example, Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh – 2018) which had called for videography in criminal investigations and crime scenes.

BOX END

Despite the 2020 directive, many police stations have failed to install or maintain functional CCTV systems, leading to concerns over custodial deaths and human rights violations.

The court noted that the absence of CCTV footage in custodial death cases raises serious questions about police accountability and transparency. 

The Rajasthan government has been directed to submit a comprehensive compliance report detailing the installation and operational status of CCTV cameras in all police stations. 

The report must include information on the number of cameras, their placement, technical specifications (such as resolution and night vision capabilities), data storage mechanisms, and maintenance protocols. 

The Court has suggested the establishment of automated control rooms, potentially involving institutions like IITs, to monitor CCTV functionality in real-time without human intervention. 

Current Status: Next hearing is on 14th October 2025

Relevant Provisions:

• Article 21, Indian Constitution (Right to life and personal liberty) — the directive was rooted in protecting detainees from custodial abuse.

• Article 22, Indian Constitution (Protection against arrest and detention) — relates to procedural safeguards in custody and interrogations; ensures detainees are treated fairly.

• Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — via the mechanism of Human Rights Commissions, the Court linked CCTV surveillance to human rights oversight.

• The case also mandated the creation of State Level Oversight Committees (SLOCs) and District Level Oversight Committees (DLOCs) to monitor compliance, functioning, and review footage.

• The Court directed that CCTV cameras and recording equipment be installed not only in police stations but also in offices of investigative agencies (e.g., CBI, NIA, ED) where interrogations take place.

• The Court specified minimum requirements: placement in entry/exit, lockups, corridors, rooms of inspecting officers; storage/preservation of footage for a defined period (at least 6 months, ideally up to 12 or more)

#4 Cheque Bounce Trials Under Section 138 of NI Act

Case Name: Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar

Supreme Court ruled that magistrates need not issue summons to the accused before taking cognisance in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

1. The Court emphasised that cheque dishonour cases are prevalent in metropolitan areas and contribute significantly to the criminal docket. Streamlining procedures is essential to reduce delays and ensure timely justice.

2. The Court issued comprehensive directions to expedite the resolution of Section 138 cases, focusing on efficiency, technology integration, and early settlement.

3. Summons should be served through traditional methods, dasti (hand delivery), and electronic means such as email and WhatsApp. Complainants must provide verified contact details of the accused along with the complaint.

4. District Courts are directed to establish online payment systems, including QR codes or UPI links, allowing accused individuals to pay the cheque amount directly. Upon payment, courts may proceed to compound the case or close proceedings 

5. Every Section 138 complaint must include a detailed synopsis covering parties involved, cheque particulars, dishonour memo, statutory notice, cause of action, and relief sought 

6. Magistrates may question the accused during the initial stage to determine if the cheque is admitted, liability is disputed, or if the matter can be compounded 

7. After serving summons, matters should be placed before physical courts to encourage direct interactions and early resolution. Digital hearings are permitted only at the pre-service stage.

8. High Courts are advised to set realistic pecuniary limits for evening courts. The current limit of ₹25,000 in Delhi is deemed too low.

9. District and Sessions Judges in Delhi, Mumbai, and Kolkata are instructed to maintain dashboards tracking pendency, disposal rates, adjournments, and settlements in Section 138 cases. Quarterly reports should be submitted to the respective High Courts

Relevant Provisions:

• Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Punishment for dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds.

• Section 143 to 147, NI Act – Summary trials, evidence on affidavit, service of summons, and compounding of offences.

• Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Examination of complainant before taking cognizance.

• Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to speedy trial.

#5 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025

1. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025.

2. Under the Bill, if a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or any Union/State Minister is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on allegations involving an offence punishable by 5 years or more, they shall be removed from office, even before conviction.

3. The Bill outlines the procedure for removal:

• For Union Ministers (including PM): President acts on advice of the Prime Minister by the 31st day. If no advice is tendered, the minister automatically ceases to hold office the next day.

• Similar provisions are proposed for State Ministers under Article 164, and for Delhi under Article 239AA.

• The Bill allows the reappointment of the minister after release from custody.

4. To extend the reach, companion amendments were also introduced:

• Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025

• Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025

5. These aim to make the removal provisions effective in UTs and J&K.

6. Immediately, the Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) (21 members from Lok Sabha + 10 from Rajya Sabha) for examination.

7. The Statement of Objects and Reasons argues that a minister in custody for extended periods may erode public trust, hinder governance, and go against constitutional morality.

8. As of now, the Bill is pending before the JPC. It has not been passed by Parliament, nor enacted.

Curious how this amendment fits into India’s wider constitutional evolution? Check the complete guide on Constitutional Amendment for a timeline of changes that shaped Indian governance.

#6 Personality Rights of Celebrities (Aishwarya, Abhishek & Karan Johar)

Case Names: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors. 2025, Abhishek Bachchan v. The Bollywood Tee Shop & Ors. 2025, Karan Johar v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., 2025

What are Personality Rights?

These are the rights of a person to control the use of their image, name, likeness, voice, or any personal attribute. Nobody can commercially exploit these without permission.

1. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, and later Karan Johar approached the Delhi High Court because their names, photos, voices, and likenesses were being misused online and through AI tools without consent.

2. Justice Tejas Karia (for Aishwarya & Abhishek) and Justice Manmeet Arora (for Karan Johar) said that such misuse not only causes financial loss but also harms dignity, reputation, and goodwill.

3. The Court stressed that unauthorised use of a person’s identity is also a violation of the right to privacy and undermines their right to live with dignity (protected under Article 21 of the Constitution).

4. The Court specifically mentioned the use of Artificial Intelligence, generative AI, deepfakes, face morphing, and machine learning as tools being misused to create fake or misleading content with celebrities’ identities.

Orders in Aishwarya’s case –

• Court restrained entities (including unknown persons – “John Doe”) from using her name “Aishwarya Rai Bachchan”, acronym “ARB”, images, or likeness.

• Google was directed to take down infringing URLs within 72 hours and share user details in a sealed cover.

• Ministry of Electronics & IT (MeiTY) was directed to block/disable URLs within 7 days.

Orders in Abhishek’s case –

• Similar protection was granted for his name, acronym “AB”, image, voice, performances, and other attributes.

• Defendants were restrained from making or selling products (T-shirts, mugs, posters, videos, etc.) misusing his persona.

• Court noted that fake content can confuse the public into believing he endorsed products or services.

Karan Johar’s case –

He filed seeking similar protection, saying his name and image were being used without consent. The Court listed his matter for order on September 17, 2025.

What was the Reasoning by the Court?

• Personality rights have both commercial and dignity/privacy aspects.

• Unauthorised exploitation = violation of both economic rights and human dignity.

• Courts must protect such rights, especially when new technologies make misuse easier and faster.

Conclusion

These updates show how India’s legal system keeps evolving, constantly balancing people’s rights, government rules, and practical challenges on the ground. From courts working to make justice faster and more transparent, to lawmakers introducing new rules and amendments, every development plays a role in shaping how law works in real life.

Following such legal news is important not just for students preparing for exams like CLAT PG or judiciary exams, but also for anyone who wants to understand how laws affect governance, society, and daily life. Each headline highlights a legal principle, a procedural change, or a constitutional debate, showing that law is living and constantly adapting to new challenges. Staying aware of these changes helps you understand the bigger picture and apply legal knowledge in practical situations.

Also Read:

• Top 9 Legal Current Affairs: August 2025
• Top 10 Legal Current Affairs: July 2025
• Top 7 Legal Current Affairs: June 2025
• Top 15 Legal Current Affairs: April 2025