In a significant public interest litigation raising foundational questions about identity, biology, and constitutional recognition, the Supreme Court of India is set to examine whether intersex persons have been incorrectly subsumed under the transgender category in Indian law and policy. The petition calls for a clear legal distinction between sex characteristics and gender identity, arguing that conflation of the two has resulted in systemic invisibility and inadequate protection of intersex persons

“Criminal complaint cannot be sustained where issues have attained finality or have been adjudicated in a foreign jurisdiction.” In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of fairness, finality of litigation, and protection against abuse of criminal process, the Supreme Court of India has held that a criminal complaint initiated in India cannot be sustained when the same issues have already been adjudicated and attained finality in a foreign jurisdiction. The Court categorically termed such proceedings as an abuse of the process of law and quashed the criminal complaint in its entirety. The judgement serves as a strong caution against forum shopping, suppression of material facts, and the misuse of criminal law to re-litigate disputes already settled abroad.

In a significant ruling strengthening the contractual rights of government contractors, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court categorically held that a contractor cannot be penalised for the administrative failures of government departments, particularly where work has been executed in good faith and acknowledged by the authorities. The Court further reaffirmed that already admitted contractual dues cannot be withheld on the pretext of lack of funds or pending internal approvals.

In a significant pronouncement reinforcing personal liberty and procedural safeguards, the Bombay High Court has held that arrest is an “Individualized Act” and cannot be justified through collective or group-based reasoning. Investigating agencies, therefore, must record distinct, fact-specific grounds for arresting each person, even when several individuals are implicated in a common FIR. Interpreting the requirements under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Court emphasized that reasons for arrest cannot be a mechanical reproduction of statutory clauses, but it must reflect specific conclusions independently drawn by the Investigating Officer after evaluating the individual’s conduct and circumstances in the case.

In a landmark judgement on Thursday reaffirming the nation’s commitment to its frontline medical workforce, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that families of private doctors who served patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and succumbed to the virus are eligible for compensation under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19’ (PMGKP). “Families of doctors who sacrificed during Covid period cannot be told there is no compensation”, the Court said.

“One-Time Settlement with Bank No Ground to Quash Loan Fraud Case; Society at Large is Impacted”. In a significant judgement reinforcing accountability in economic crimes, the Supreme Court has held that a “One-Time Settlement” (OTS) with a bank cannot be cited as a ground to quash criminal prosecution in cases involving forgery, fraud, corruption, and loss to the public exchequer. Restoring CBI proceedings against M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. and its directors, the Court emphasized that economic offences transcend private disputes and adversely impact society at large.

In a significant interim development on Tuesday 9th December, the Karnataka High Court has stayed the State Government’s 20 November 2024 notification mandating one day of paid menstrual leave every month for all women employees permanent, contract, and outsourced working in registered industrial establishments. The notification, which sought to make menstrual leave compulsory across sectors governed by labour welfare statutes, faced immediate challenge from industry associations, resulting in the High Court’s intervention.

The matter of retirement age (superannuation) in technical institutions has acquired renewed attention after the Supreme Court of India (SC) recently directed AICTE to clarify whether the age limits prescribed under the 2010 and 2019 Regulations apply mandatorily to private non-aided (self-financed) technical institutions. In particular, the Court’s notice is in light of conflicting practices involving private unaided institutions that have set lower retirement ages than those under AICTE regulations. The case before the Court — Dr. Ali — raises the question: for private unaided institutions affiliated with AICTE (and a State University), is the enhanced retirement age of 65 (or 65 + possible extension) binding or only applicable to aided / government institutions

In a landmark decision that fortifies the constitutional right to personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1288) has ruled that every arrested person must be furnished the written grounds of arrest, not merely informed orally. This judgment, delivered in November 2025, underscores the apex court’s continuing commitment to protecting procedural fairness under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. It has wide-ranging implications for how arrests are carried out, recorded, and challenged across India.

In a recent and significant pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized both the Union and state governments for their persistent reliance on temporary, daily-wage, and contractual