New Insights

In a significant reaffirmation of administrative law principles, the Supreme Court of India has held that a State Government is bound by its own executive policies and cannot act in derogation of them unless such policies are lawfully amended or withdrawn. The Court quashed the naming of two newly created revenue villages in Rajasthan ‘Amargarh and Sagatsar’ after private individuals, holding the action to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of India, in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Anr. (decided on 19 December 2025), has delivered a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional protection accorded to the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport as facets of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court categorically held that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot operate as an indefinite or automatic bar on renewal of a passport, particularly where competent criminal courts have permitted such renewal while retaining control over foreign travel.

“Judicial appreciation of victim's evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.” – the Court said. Calling child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation a “deeply disturbing reality” in India, the Supreme Court of India has laid down authoritative guidelines on how courts must evaluate the testimony of minor victims of trafficking and prostitution. The ruling underscores that minor inconsistencies or stereotypical expectations of conduct cannot form the basis for disbelieving victims who have endured organised sexual exploitation.

In a significant step towards strengthening gender representation in the Legal Profession, the Supreme Court of India has extended its mandate of 30% reservation for women advocates to the Bar Councils of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The order forms part of the Court’s continuing supervision over State Bar Council elections and reflects its commitment to institutional reforms and inclusivity within the Legal Fraternity.

“Youngsters should be made aware that parties to marriage are not subservient to each other.” – Court. Dowry related cruelty and deaths continue to remain one of the most persistent social evils afflicting the Indian society, cutting across regions, religions, and economic strata. Despite the existence of a statutory framework under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and penal provisions such as Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the grim reality reflected in crime statistics shows that legislative intent alone has not been sufficient to eradicate the Menace.

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.