On September 26, 2025, a Bench of the Supreme Court (led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Atul S. Chandurkar) delivered a scrutinizing judgment that quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 498A (cruelty), 377 (unnatural sex), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC, against a husband’s in‑laws.
In a significant ruling that strengthens buyer protections in statutory auctions, the Supreme Court has held that a bank’s failure to disclose existing encumbrances on a mortgaged property renders the auction sale invalid. The judgment mandates a full refund to the auction purchaser, sending a clear message: transparency in auction notices is not optional — it’s a legal necessity.
On 24 September 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a sharp reminder: criminal law cannot be harnessed as a tool to settle private disputes or to “wreak vengeance.” The Court quashed an FIR which, on its face, had been launched over a purely commercial/contractual issue — a dispute over a loan, alleged coercion in executing documents, and bounced cheques — but had been dressed up in criminal colors. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed and sharpened the boundary between civil wrongs and criminal offenses.
On 24 September 2025, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a significant directive ordering a comprehensive, statewide inspection of all juvenile homes and child protection institutions across the state. This includes both government-operated and privately run homes under NGO management. The decision was prompted by reports revealing widespread deficiencies, such as inadequate infrastructure, severe staff shortages (particularly of trained counsellors), lack of access to medical care, absence of psychological and therapeutic support, and general non-compliance with statutory obligations under child protection laws.
The Supreme Court of India emphasized a basic legal principle on September 18, 2025: "Legal proceedings must be final." This declaration was made at the hearing of a fresh petition that Vodafone Idea Limited had filed to contest the Department of Telecommunications' (DoT) new Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) demands. Regarding judicial finality, administrative decision fairness, and the economic impact of regulatory certainty, the case has reignited debates surrounding one of India's most important and long-running legal disputes, the AGR dues issue.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that grandchildren cannot claim a share in their grandparents’ property if their parents are alive at the time of the grandparent’s death. The case, Kritika Jain v. Rakesh Jain & Ors., clarifies key provisions under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, especially in cases of intestate succession (where no will is made).
The Supreme Court of India emphasized a basic legal principle on September 18, 2025: “Legal proceedings must be final.” This declaration was made at the hearing of a fresh petition that Vodafone Idea Limited had filed
The Supreme Court, in Shanti Devi (through LRs) vs. Jagan Devi & ors. (2025), ruled that a sale deed made in favor of the defendant was invalid because the defendant failed to prove payment of consideration (price) to the plaintiff.
A landmark issue concerning the eligibility criteria for the appointment of District Judges is set to be decided by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India from September 23–25, 2025. The key question:
In a judgment that strikes at the heart of fair play in India’s affirmative action policies, the Supreme Court of India has recently clarified a key issue: Can a candidate from a reserved category, who has availed category-based relaxations, later be considered under the General category for selection?