📰 Legal Monthly: Current Affairs Digest (January – May 2025)

This report provides a comprehensive overview of significant legal developments in India from January to May 2025, covering landmark judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts, key legislative actions, and notable judicial appointments.

I. January 2025: Legal Landscape Unfolds

The commencement of 2025 witnessed the Indian judiciary and legislature actively shaping the legal contours of the nation. The Supreme Court delivered several pronouncements impacting fundamental rights, criminal procedure, and public administration. High Courts also contributed with key decisions, particularly in the realm of labour law. The process of judicial appointments continued with new additions to the Delhi High Court.

A. Supreme Court: Landmark Pronouncements

The Supreme Court of India began the year with a series of significant judgments, each carrying substantial implications for various facets of law and governance.

1. Right to Internet as a Fundamental Right (XYZ v. Union of India)
   In a potentially transformative ruling on January 31, 2025, the Supreme Court addressed the nature of the right to internet access, reportedly declaring it a fundamental right.1 This case, XYZ v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 456), builds upon earlier jurisprudence that has progressively recognized access to information as integral to fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression. The declaration of the right to internet as a fundamental right imposes positive obligations on the state to ensure access and negative obligations not to arbitrarily restrict it. Consequently, this judgment could catalyze a comprehensive review of existing policies concerning internet accessibility, digital literacy initiatives, and the legal framework governing internet shutdowns. Such shutdowns, often implemented on grounds of public order, may now face stricter judicial scrutiny, demanding a higher threshold of justification. Furthermore, the ruling may influence the ongoing discourse on data privacy, as internet access is intrinsically linked to data generation and protection. The precise scope and limitations of this right, as delineated by the Court, will be critical in shaping future digital governance in India. Any restriction on this newly affirmed right would need to satisfy the stringent tests of reasonableness and proportionality under the Constitution.
2. Reinforcing Rights of the Accused and Principles of Confession
   On January 29, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment underscoring the cardinal principles of criminal law related to confessions of an accused and the sacrosanct presumption of innocence until proven guilty.1 This reiteration serves to fortify the due process safeguards enshrined in the Constitution and procedural laws. The judgment likely delved into the admissibility of confessions and the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure their voluntariness and reliability. Such pronouncements from the apex court are pivotal in guiding the practices of law enforcement agencies and subordinate courts. A renewed emphasis on these foundational principles may lead to more rigorous scrutiny of confession-based evidence, potentially impacting the outcome of trials where confessions are central to the prosecution’s case. This could also stimulate further discussions on police reforms and the necessity of adopting advanced, scientific investigative techniques over reliance on confessions.
3. Acquittal in Corruption Case: The Imperative of Sufficient Evidence
   In a judgment dated January 28, 2025, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, citing insufficient evidence.1 While one source refers to T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu in this context, noting its decision date as January 4, 2006, the January 2025 judgment appears to be a distinct matter emphasizing the necessity of robust evidence for convictions in corruption cases. This decision highlights the judiciary’s role as a bulwark against convictions based on mere suspicion or inadequate proof. Such acquittals, particularly in corruption cases which attract significant public attention, can lead to institutional introspection within investigative agencies regarding the quality of investigation and evidence collection. It reinforces the legal tenet that the burden of proof rests heavily on the prosecution and must be discharged beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. NDPS Act: Pre-Trial Confiscation of Vehicles Clarified
   The Supreme Court, on January 8, 2025, addressed a critical aspect of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act concerning the pre-trial confiscation of vehicles allegedly used for trafficking narcotics. The Court set aside such a confiscation, clarifying that vehicles could not be confiscated before the conclusion of the trial.1 This ruling carefully balances the state’s objective of combating drug trafficking with the protection of property rights, especially when guilt has not yet been established. Pre-trial confiscation can impose severe hardship and impact livelihoods. The Supreme Court’s intervention suggests a move towards greater adherence to due process in such punitive actions. This may necessitate amendments to NDPS enforcement protocols or guidelines, possibly requiring a higher evidentiary threshold or specific judicial sanction for pre-trial confiscation of vehicles, particularly those that may have served merely as conveyance rather than being intrinsically linked to the core trafficking operation.
5. Scope of Appeal: Supreme Court’s Plenary Powers under Article 142 (Biswajit Das v Central Bureau of Investigation)
   In Biswajit Das v Central Bureau of Investigation, decided on January 16, 2025, by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its expansive powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice”.2 The Court held that it is not bound to limit the scope of its inquiry while hearing an appeal if it is convinced that a substantial question of law exists and that “justice could be a real casualty” if it were to strictly adhere to the initial scope. This power, the Court clarified, is discretionary and may be exercised when “satisfaction is reached” that the case demands such intervention. This ruling underscores that procedural constraints will not deter the apex court from rectifying potential miscarriages of justice. While this empowers the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter, it may also encourage more litigants to invoke Article 142, potentially increasing the Court’s docket or necessitating stricter criteria for exercising these extraordinary powers.
6. Public Recruitment: Strict Adherence to Rules Emphasized (Jyostnamayee Mishra v State of Odisha)
   The Supreme Court, in Jyostnamayee Mishra v State of Odisha (January 16, 2025, with a related order on January 20, 2025), held that public recruitments must scrupulously follow pre-established rules.2 The case involved a peon in Odisha seeking promotion to a ‘Tracer’ role. The Court, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, ruled that a vacancy meant for direct recruitment cannot be filled by promotion. Significantly, the Court invoked the principle of “negative equality,” asserting that past illegal promotions do not create a legal right for others to claim similar unlawful benefits, citing R Muthukumar vs TANGEDCO, 2022. This judgment is vital for maintaining fairness, transparency, and legality in public employment, a domain frequently subject to litigation. It strengthens the position of public authorities aiming to rectify historical irregularities in appointments and promotions, ensuring that public employment adheres strictly to statutory rules and the constitutional principles of equality of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16.
7. Prisoner Transfers: Administrative Discretion Upheld (State of Jharkhand v Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath)
   On January 17, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the transfer of a prisoner from one jail to another is primarily an administrative decision, and judicial interference in such matters should be sparse.2 The case involved the transfer of Vikash Tiwary, a gangster, to prevent a potential gang war. The Court found that a transfer citing security reasons, supported by a “profound rationale,” is valid under existing legal frameworks, including the Prisoners Act, 1900, the Jharkhand State Jail Manual, 1925, the Prison Manual, 2016, and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023. This judgment clarifies the scope of judicial review over prison administration decisions, balancing institutional security needs with prisoner rights. It implies that challenges to transfer orders based on vague allegations of mala fide intent may face difficulty, especially when authorities provide a credible security-based justification.
8. ED Custody: 24-Hour Presentation Before Magistrate Mandated (Directorate of Enforcement v Subhash Sharma)
   In a significant ruling concerning procedural safeguards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, the Supreme Court, on January 21, 2025, held that failing to present a person taken into custody by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) before a magistrate within 24 hours is illegal.2 The bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan further clarified that if a court finds a fundamental rights violation in the arrest process, it is duty-bound to release the accused on bail, even if all the stringent conditions stipulated under the PMLA are not met. This decision strongly reinforces the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution. It prioritizes constitutional safeguards over statutory bail conditions when the arrest itself is vitiated by illegality. This could compel the ED to ensure meticulous adherence to arrest procedures and may provide a new avenue for accused individuals under PMLA to seek bail based on procedural lapses.
9. PG Medical Courses: Residence-Based Reservation Struck Down (Tanvi Behl vs Shrey Goel & Ors.)
   The Supreme Court, on January 29, 2025, in Tanvi Behl vs Shrey Goel & Ors. (2025 INSC 125), declared residence-based reservation for Post Graduate (PG) Medical Courses in the Union Territory of Chandigarh unconstitutional, holding it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.3 Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hrishikesh Roy, and SVN Bhatti, in their reasonings, emphasized that while institutional preference for students from the same medical college is permissible to a limited extent, broader residence-based quotas at the PG level undermine national integration, equality, and dilute academic excellence. Justice Roy highlighted that the Constitution permits only one domicile—India—and state-wise reservations contradict this. The Court directed that such seats be filled based on merit in the NEET examination but allowed students already admitted under interim orders to continue their courses to prevent undue hardship. This ruling is poised to trigger a review of PG medical admission policies in other states and UTs with similar domicile-based quotas, potentially fostering more uniform, merit-centric admissions nationwide.
10. Plea of Juvenility: Rectifying Grave Injustice (Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das vs. Union of India & Anr.)
    In a judgment delivered on January 8, 2025, the Supreme Court in Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das vs. Union of India & Anr., set aside a life sentence imposed on an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the crime.4 The bench, comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, highlighted the judicial system’s failure to acknowledge and act upon the constitutional mandate regarding the plea of juvenility. The Court noted the appellant had been imprisoned for almost 25 years due to this error. Crucially, the Supreme Court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to proactively identify welfare schemes to facilitate the appellant’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society, focusing on his rights to livelihood, shelter, and sustenance under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case underscores the critical importance of accurately determining juvenility at the earliest possible stage and the severe, life-altering consequences of judicial errors in this regard. It may also prompt stricter protocols in trial courts for verifying juvenility claims and encourage a more proactive role for legal services authorities in identifying and assisting individuals wrongly tried as adults.
11. Basic Amenities: Toilet Facilities in Courts as a Human Right (Rajeeb Kalita vs. Union of India & Ors.)
    Recognizing access to proper sanitation as a fundamental aspect of human dignity, the Supreme Court, on January 15, 2025, in Rajeeb Kalita vs. Union of India & Ors., declared that access to toilets, washrooms, and restrooms is a basic necessity and a facet of human rights, falling under Article 21 of the Constitution.4 The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan directed High Courts and State Governments/Union Territories to ensure the construction and availability of separate and adequate toilet facilities for males, females, persons with disabilities (PwD), and transgender persons in all court premises and tribunals across the country. This judgment, referencing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, is a significant step towards improving judicial infrastructure and ensuring dignity for all individuals accessing court premises. It will necessitate budgetary allocations and infrastructure upgrades nationwide and could set a precedent for demanding similar facilities in other public institutions.
12. Other Important Judgments (January 2025)
    The Supreme Court delivered a multitude of other judgments and orders throughout January 2025, covering diverse areas of law. These include cases such as Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gagan Narang & Ors. etc. (January 02, 2025), Sri Mahesh vs. Sangram & Ors. (January 02, 2025), and The State, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A. Satish Kumar & Ors (January 02, 2025), among many others listed in legal news reports.4 The sheer volume and variety of these decisions underscore the Supreme Court’s extensive docket and its pivotal role in settling legal disputes across the spectrum, from corporate and tax law to criminal and civil matters, particularly active after its winter vacation.

B. High Courts: Notable Decisions

Various High Courts across the country also delivered significant rulings, with a particular focus on labour and employment law during January 2025.

1. Key Labour Law Judgments (Various High Courts) A series of important judgments emerged from different High Courts, interpreting and applying various provisions of labour laws. These decisions impact employer-employee relations, service conditions, and the resolution of industrial disputes.⁵
   • The Delhi High Court ruled that a charitable institution with the object of helping orphaned children is not an ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act (2025 LLR 43).
   • The Bombay High Court held that stealing property and disrupting work by calling union members constitute grave misconducts (2025 LLR 51).
   • Another Delhi High Court judgment clarified that a special incentive paid temporarily for bearing additional expenses during the pandemic does not qualify as ‘wages’ under the ESI Act (2025 LLR 3).
   • The Madhya Pradesh High Court found that the ‘first come – last go’ principle is not applicable when employees were not similarly situated (2025 LLR 7).
   • The Gauhati High Court ruled that a new contractor cannot be forced to engage workers of the previous contractor (2025 LLR 17).
   • The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed that contractual employees are entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act; however, honorarium for such leave may be denied if prescribed by specific departmental policies (2025 LLR WEB 370). These diverse rulings indicate the ongoing evolution and clarification of labour jurisprudence in response to contemporary work dynamics, such as the rise of contractual employment and pandemic-related workplace issues. They also reflect regional interpretations of central labour legislations, contributing to a growing body of case law that guides industrial relations practices.

C. Legislative Updates

January 2025 did not see the introduction or passage of major bills in Parliament, as parliamentary sessions typically commence later.

1. Status of Bills in January 2025 No significant bills were introduced or passed by the Indian Parliament in January 2025, according to available information.⁶ Legislative activity often aligns with scheduled parliamentary sessions, and January may have been a period of recess or preparatory work for upcoming sessions, such as the Budget Session.

D. Judicial Appointments

The process of judicial appointments saw activity concerning the Delhi High Court.

1. Delhi High Court: Appointment of Two Advocates as Judges By a notification dated January 6, 2025, advocates Mr. Ajay Digpaul and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar were appointed as judges of the Delhi High Court.⁸ This was in exercise of powers under Article 217 (1) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court collegium had recommended their names, along with that of Ms. Shewtasree Majumder, on August 21, 2024. However, the central government cleared the appointments of Mr. Digpaul and Mr. Shankar, while Ms. Majumder’s name was not cleared.⁸ This situation highlights the procedural aspects of judicial appointments, involving recommendations by the collegium and subsequent approval by the executive, and also illustrates instances where the government may exercise its discretion in not approving all recommended names. Such selective approvals often fuel the debate surrounding the balance of power and transparency in the judicial appointments process.

E. Other Legal News

1. Corporate Fraud: Competency Gaps Under Companies Act 2013 A news item on January 18, 2025, pointed out that the criminal offences specified in the Companies Act, 2013, represent a competency gap for many corporate professionals.¹ This observation suggests a need for enhanced awareness, training, and compliance mechanisms within corporations to prevent corporate fraud and ensure adherence to the stringent provisions of company law. Identifying such a “competency gap” may prompt regulatory bodies like the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) or professional institutions to initiate measures to improve understanding and compliance among corporate professionals.

Key Tables for January 2025

Table 1: January 2025 Supreme Court Landmark Judgments

Table 2: January 2025 Notable High Court Labour Law Rulings

Table 3: January 2025 Judicial Appointments (Higher Judiciary)

II. February 2025: Legislative and Judicial Momentum

February 2025 witnessed the introduction of significant legislative proposals, notably the comprehensive Income-Tax Bill, 2025. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, continued its active engagement with diverse issues ranging from fiscal federalism and criminal procedure to environmental protection. High Courts also issued important directives concerning environmental conservation and human-wildlife conflict.

A. Supreme Court: Key Rulings

1. Service Tax on Lotteries: State Prerogative Upheld
   In a ruling with implications for fiscal federalism, the Supreme Court on February 11, 2025, upheld a Sikkim High Court decision stating that the Union Government cannot impose service tax on lottery distributors who purchase tickets from state governments for resale.9 The Court affirmed that the power to tax such transactions rests exclusively with the states. This judgment provides clarity on the taxation powers concerning lotteries, which are a considerable source of revenue for several state governments. By affirming the states’ exclusive domain in this area, the ruling may embolden states to assert their taxation rights more forcefully in other spheres where fiscal ambiguities exist, potentially leading to further discussions on the division of taxation powers or necessitating clearer legislative demarcations.
2. Criminal Procedure: “Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception” Reaffirmed
   The Supreme Court, on February 6, 2025, emphatically reiterated the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence: “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception”.10 This reaffirmation came while the Court was granting bail in cases related to corruption and money laundering, offences where bail is often stringently opposed and subject to strict statutory conditions. This judicial stance, especially in the context of economic offences, signals a potential pushback against prolonged pre-trial detention unless demonstrably necessary. Coming shortly after the January 2025 ruling on the 24-hour presentation mandate for ED custody 2, this reinforces a judicial trend towards greater protection of personal liberty. It may encourage lower courts to apply the principle of bail more liberally, even in serious economic offence cases, by carefully balancing the gravity of allegations with the rights of the accused.
3. Role of Public Prosecutor: Emphasis on Fairness
   On February 4, 2025, the Supreme Court clarified the crucial role of the Public Prosecutor in the criminal justice system, emphasizing the duty to ensure fairness rather than merely striving for convictions.10 This clarification referenced the principles laid down in the judgment of Mahabir vs State of Haryana, which was delivered on January 29, 2025. Public Prosecutors, as officers of the court, have a responsibility that extends beyond representing the state; they must act impartially and assist the court in arriving at the truth. An emphasis on their role in ensuring fairness could foster a cultural shift in prosecutorial practices, encouraging a more balanced presentation of facts, including those that might be favorable to the accused. This, in turn, strengthens the integrity of the trial process and upholds the principles of a fair trial. It could also lead to enhanced training for Public Prosecutors focusing on ethical duties and impartiality.
4. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Stay on Exemption Notification
   In a significant environmental law development, the Supreme Court on February 24, 2025, stayed a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) dated January 29, 2025, and a related Office Memorandum dated January 30, 2025.11 These executive orders had exempted certain categories of projects, such as industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational institutions, from the mandatory requirement of obtaining an Environmental Clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. The Supreme Court’s stay effectively nullified this attempt to relax EIA requirements for these projects. This intervention highlights the judiciary’s increasing vigilance over executive actions that could dilute environmental safeguards. The EIA process is a cornerstone of environmental governance, and exemptions can lead to significant ecological consequences if not carefully considered. This stay may compel the MoEF&CC to adopt more transparent, scientifically robust, and legally sound procedures if it seeks to streamline environmental clearances in the future.
5. TikTok Ban Upheld (U.S. Supreme Court Case: TikTok v. Garland)
   While a judgment from the United States Supreme Court, the decision in TikTok v. Garland (No. 24-656), delivered on January 17, 2025, holds relevance for India due to its subject matter.12 The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” which effectively bans TikTok in the U.S. if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, does not divest its U.S. operations. The Court rejected TikTok’s First Amendment challenge, citing national security concerns related to potential data collection from U.S. users and the manipulation of public opinion. India has previously banned TikTok and other apps on similar grounds. This U.S. ruling could indirectly bolster the Indian government’s regulatory stance on foreign-controlled applications, offering a comparative legal precedent from a major democratic nation that prioritizes national security in specific contexts over absolute free speech claims related to platform operations. It might encourage stricter scrutiny of the operational and data-sharing practices of foreign technology companies in India.

B. High Courts: Environmental and Other Directives

High Courts across India were active in addressing pressing environmental concerns and human-wildlife conflicts.

1. Meghalaya High Court: Suo Motu PIL on Wetland Protection
   Following directives from the Supreme Court regarding the protection of Ramsar Convention sites, the Meghalaya High Court, on February 27, 2025, initiated a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL).14 The purpose of this PIL is to verify the status of wetlands within the state and ensure compliance with conservation mandates. This proactive judicial intervention demonstrates a cascading effect of judicial monitoring for environmental compliance, potentially leading to better enforcement of environmental laws at the state level and holding state authorities accountable for the protection of these ecologically vital areas.
2. Kerala High Court: Directions on Human-Elephant Conflict
   Addressing the escalating issue of human-elephant conflict, the Kerala High Court, on February 24, 2025, issued directions for immediate measures to mitigate this problem.14 The case pertained to writ petitions seeking the construction of protective barriers like elephant-proof trenches and rubble walls in regions prone to wild elephant attacks, highlighting a significant number of human fatalities. The Court noted failures in utilizing allocated funds for protective measures and impleaded senior officials from the state and central governments, as well as the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. The Authority was tasked with surveying affected areas and compiling public grievances, suggesting a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach to this complex socio-ecological challenge. This could serve as a model for other states grappling with similar conflicts.
3. Delhi High Court: Mechanism for Rescue of Distressed Birds
   The Delhi High Court, on February 17, 2025, directed the Department of Forest and Wildlife (GNCTD) and the Delhi Police to develop a suitable mechanism for the rescue of distressed birds in the National Capital Territory.14 The petitioner had contended that authorities lacked the necessary infrastructure and equipment for timely intervention despite multiple reports of birds in distress. This order could lead to the establishment of dedicated urban wildlife rescue cells or protocols in Delhi, potentially influencing other metropolitan areas to address similar issues of animal welfare within urban environments, where the needs of co-existing wildlife are often overlooked.
4. Madras High Court: Action Against Illegal Beach Sand Mining
   In a suo motu PIL, the Madras High Court on February 17, 2025, issued directions for enforcement action against large-scale illegal beach sand mining in the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu.14 The Court noted the gravity of the allegations, which included severe environmental damage, illegal transportation of minerals, and national security concerns related to the presence of monazite (a strategic mineral) in beach sands. Reports examined by the Court revealed discrepancies in mineral stocks and indicated official involvement in unauthorized mining. The High Court directed authorities to proceed with enforcement measures, including recovery of over ₹5,800 crore for illegally mined minerals and unpaid royalties, sealing of illegally stocked minerals, and penal action against those responsible. This robust stance, addressing official collusion and national security angles, may intensify state-level efforts to curb illegal mining.

C. Legislative Updates

February marked the beginning of significant legislative activity with the introduction of several important bills and the notification of new environmental guidelines.

1. Income-Tax Bill, 2025 Introduced
   The Income-Tax Bill, 2025, was introduced in Parliament on February 13, 2025.6 This landmark bill aims to replace the six-decade-old Income Tax Act of 1961, with stated objectives of simplifying tax laws, removing outdated provisions, introducing a unified tax year, and enhancing transparency. The bill contains crucial provisions affecting Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), although it reportedly leaves the existing tax residency criteria for NRIs unchanged, providing relief to those concerned about potential alterations.15 Key clauses (5, 60-61, 174, 207, 209, 211, 213-217, 306, 422, 505) address the scope of income, deductions, prevention of income transfers to avoid tax, tax rates on various incomes (including for non-resident sportspersons), exemptions, capital gains tax, and compliance measures for NRIs.15 The bill is expected to come into force on April 1, 2026.15 The decision to maintain stability in NRI tax residency rules, despite speculation, likely reflects the government’s intent to continue attracting NRI investments, while the overall simplification aims to improve compliance and reduce tax-related litigation.
2. Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Key Highlights
   News emerged on February 20, 2025, regarding the key features of an Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025.10 The highlighted provisions include:
   • Recognition of Corporate Lawyers & In-House Counsels.
   • Regulation of Law Firms & Foreign Legal Entities.
   • Potential Central Government Oversight on the Bar Council of India (BCI).
   • A ban on certain unspecified activities. This bill, if enacted with provisions for regulating foreign law firms and formally recognizing corporate lawyers, could significantly reshape the Indian legal market. It might foster greater competition and specialization but would also necessitate robust regulatory frameworks by the BCI, possibly under increased governmental oversight, which could be a point of contention regarding the autonomy of the legal profession’s regulatory body.
3. Finance Bill, 2025 Introduced
   The Finance Bill, 2025, was introduced in Parliament on February 1, 2025.6 This annual legislative instrument is crucial for implementing the Union Budget’s proposals and giving effect to the government’s taxation policies for the financial year. Its provisions typically encompass amendments to various tax laws and reflect the government’s economic priorities.
4. “Tribhuvan” Sahkari University Bill, 2025 Introduced
   The “Tribhuvan” Sahkari University Bill, 2025, was introduced by the Ministry of Cooperation on February 3, 2025.6 This legislation likely aims to establish a specialized university dedicated to promoting education, research, and professional development in the cooperative sector, aligning with the government’s focus on strengthening and modernizing cooperatives across the country. The creation of such an institution could address specific skill gaps and research needs in cooperative management, law, and economics.
5. New Environmental Guidelines and Rules
   • Control of Air Pollution & Water Pollution (Grant, Refusal or Cancellation of Consent) Guidelines, 2025: Published by the MoEF&CC on January 29 and 30, 2025, respectively, these guidelines aim to streamline the consent process for industrial plants.¹¹ They detail procedures for obtaining, renewing, and revoking Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO), setting specific validity periods and decision timelines based on industry categories (Red, Orange, Green, Blue). Clear timelines for CTE/CTO aim to improve the ease of doing business while ensuring necessary environmental checks.
   • Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022 Amended: Notified by the MoEF&CC on February 24, 2025, this amendment introduces new packaging requirements for batteries.¹¹ It mandates the printing of a barcode or QR code containing the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) registration number on batteries, battery packs, and related packaging. This measure enhances traceability and places greater responsibility on producers for waste management, aligning with circular economy principles.

D. Judicial Appointments

February saw continued activity in judicial appointments and confirmations across various High Courts.

1. High Court Appointments and Recommendations
   • Delhi High Court: Two judicial officers, Ms. Renu Bhatnagar and Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, recommended for appointment on February 5, were appointed by the Central Government on February 19 and took their oath on February 21.¹⁶
   • Telangana and Madras High Courts: Several additional judges were recommended for permanent judgeship on February 5, and these recommendations were subsequently approved by the government.¹⁶ For Telangana HC: Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, Justice Sujana Kalasikam. For Madras HC: Justice Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan, Justice Periyasamy Vadamala.
   • Patna High Court: Five advocates were recommended for elevation on February 20. Of these, Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Mr. Sourendra Pandey, and Ms. Soni Shrivastava were cleared for appointment on March 7, while the recommendations for Mr. Ritesh Kumar and Mr. Ansul @ Anshul Raj remained pending.¹⁶
   • Calcutta High Court: Five advocates were recommended for elevation on February 25. Appointments for Ms. Smita Das De, Mr. Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, and Mr. Om Narayan Rai were cleared on March 8, while recommendations for Mr. Md Talay Masood Siddiqui and Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker were pending.¹⁶
   • Clearance of Old Recommendations: A significant number of judicial appointments that had been pending from 2023 and even earlier were cleared by the Central Government in February. These included appointments for the Rajasthan, Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, and Gauhati High Courts.¹⁶ For instance, Advocate Maneesh Sharma was appointed to Rajasthan HC more than three years after his initial recommendation. Advocates Harmeet Singh Grewal and Deepinder Singh Nalwa were appointed to the Punjab & Haryana HC over a year after their reiterated recommendation.¹⁶ The pattern of some recommendations being cleared promptly while others, particularly fresh elevations of advocates, face delays or partial clearance suggests ongoing complexities or intensive scrutiny by the executive in the judicial appointments process. While the clearance of long-pending names helps reduce backlog, the overall dynamic can affect the timely filling of vacancies and the morale of prospective candidates.

Key Tables for February 2025

Table 4: February 2025 Supreme Court Key Rulings

Table 5: February 2025 Legislative Introductions & New Environmental Rules

Table 6: February 2025 Judicial Appointments & Recommendations (High Courts)

III. March 2025: Governance and Ethical Scrutiny

March 2025 was a period of intense legislative activity, with several significant bills, including the Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, progressing through Parliament. The Supreme Court was occupied with critical issues touching upon judicial ethics, the powers of the Lokpal, and the regulation of free speech in the digital domain.

A. Supreme Court: Significant Decisions

1. Rape Conviction: Sufficiency of Prosecutrix’s Statement Reiterated
   On March 7, 2025, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and P.B. Varale, reiterated the established legal principle that the statement of a prosecutrix (victim of rape), if found to be trustworthy, unshaken, and confidence-inspiring, is sufficient on its own to sustain a conviction for rape.17 The Court further observed that the mere lack of injury to private parts cannot be a ground to discard such credible testimony. This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s approach in sexual assault cases, which prioritizes the substantive credibility of the victim’s account. While upholding established law, this serves as an important reminder to trial courts to avoid introducing extraneous or overly technical reasons, such as minor inconsistencies or the absence of certain types of injuries, to discredit a prosecutrix if her core testimony is reliable. This approach aims to prevent the re-victimization of survivors during the trial process and balances the need for corroboration with an understanding of the often-limited direct evidence in such cases.
2. Lokpal’s Jurisdiction over High Court Judges: Suo Moto Examination
   The Supreme Court, on March 18, 2025, took up a suo moto case to determine whether the Lokpal has jurisdiction under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, to investigate allegations of corruption against sitting High Court judges.17 A Special Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and A.S. Oka heard the matter. This arose after a Lokpal Order dated January 27, 2025, claimed such jurisdiction, an order which the Supreme Court had previously stayed on February 20, 2025. An amicus curiae was appointed to assist the Court in this complex matter. The question of investigating sitting High Court judges involves delicate considerations of judicial independence and the separation of powers. The Supreme Court’s suo moto cognizance and appointment of an amicus underscore the constitutional importance of the issue. A final ruling affirming the Lokpal’s jurisdiction could significantly alter accountability mechanisms for High Court judges, while a contrary ruling would reinforce existing in-house mechanisms or potentially highlight legislative gaps.
3. Controversy Involving Justice Yashwant Varma: In-house Inquiry and Transfer
   A significant development concerning judicial propriety unfolded in March. On March 22, 2025, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry following the discovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court during a fire rescue operation.17 A three-member committee, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana HC), Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh HC), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka HC), was constituted to investigate the matter. Subsequently, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by CJI Khanna, recommended the transfer of Justice Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court. This transfer was notified by the Department of Justice on March 28, 2025, and Justice Varma was directed not to be allotted judicial work pending the inquiry’s conclusion.17 This incident and the judiciary’s response demonstrate an effort to maintain public confidence amidst serious allegations, while also highlighting the challenges and sensitivities in handling issues of judicial integrity. It may further fuel debates on the adequacy of existing in-house mechanisms versus the need for external oversight for judicial accountability.
4. Senior Advocate Designation: System Reassessment
   A Special Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices A.S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and S.V. Bhatti, reserved judgment on whether the current system for designating Senior Advocates requires an overhaul.17 The existing system is based on guidelines laid down in the Indira Jaising decisions of 2017 and 2023. The Court heard arguments concerning the fairness of the points-based system, the perceived subjectivity of interviews, and concerns regarding transparency and inclusivity in the designation process. Proposed reforms discussed included eliminating interviews, adjusting the marking scheme, and reinstating the secret ballot. The Supreme Court’s willingness to reassess its own guidelines indicates a responsiveness to concerns from the Bar. Any reforms could significantly impact career progression and diversity within the senior ranks of the legal profession, influencing similar designation processes in High Courts.
5. YouTuber Content Regulation and Free Speech (Ranveer Allahbadia Case)
   On March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court permitted YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, popularly known as “Beer Biceps,” to resume his online program, “The Ranveer Show,” which had been previously prohibited by a bench in February 2025.17 The Court directed Allahbadia to submit an undertaking to maintain content suitable for all audiences. Importantly, the Court also urged the Union Government to frame narrowly tailored content guidelines for digital platforms, ensuring such guidelines do not unduly infringe upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. The SC’s directive for “narrowly tailored content guidelines” signals a cautious approach, acknowledging the need for some regulation in the digital space but emphasizing that it must not become a tool for censorship. This could influence the ongoing debate on regulating online content and the responsibilities of intermediaries, stressing specific, objective criteria over broad, vague restrictions.
6. Other Supreme Court Procedural and Ethical Directives
   • Marking of Appearances in SC Proceedings: The Supreme Court, on March 19/20, 2025, specified rules regarding the marking of appearances by advocates in the record of proceedings of the Court.¹⁸ This procedural refinement aims to ensure accuracy and order in court records, which can impact advocate recognition and case history tracking.
   • Ethical Responsibilities of Advocates-on-Record (AoRs): In the case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State, the Supreme Court on March 30, 2025, delivered a stern message concerning the ethical responsibilities of Advocates-on-Record and the importance of procedural honesty.¹⁸

B. High Courts: Emerging Issues

1. Allahabad High Court Judgment on Attempt to Rape Stayed by Supreme Court The Supreme Court, on March 17, 2025, intervened to stay a controversial judgment by the Allahabad High Court.¹⁷ The High Court had held that certain acts, described as “grabbing of breasts” and “loosening of pyjama string,” did not amount to an attempt to rape. The Supreme Court bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih described the High Court’s comments as “totally insensitive” and issued notices to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the parties involved. This swift intervention underscores the Supreme Court’s supervisory role over High Courts, particularly in sensitive matters involving gender justice, and its intolerance for regressive judicial observations. Such corrective measures are crucial for maintaining public faith in the justice system and ensuring adherence to established legal principles in sexual offence cases.

C. Legislative Updates

March was a highly active month for Parliament, with several key bills, including the comprehensive Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, achieving significant milestones.

1. Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025 Passed by Lok Sabha
   The Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 11, 2025, and subsequently passed by the House on March 27, 2025.6 This landmark legislation aims to consolidate and modernize India’s existing immigration laws by repealing four legacy acts: The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920; The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939; The Foreigners Act, 1946; and The Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000.21
   The Bill’s objectives include strengthening national security, regulating the entry, stay, and exit of foreign nationals, curbing illegal immigration, and promoting economic growth by facilitating legitimate travel.22 Key features include the establishment of a National Immigration Authority (NIA) and an Integrated Immigration Management System (IIMS) leveraging biometric identification and AI-based monitoring.23 It also proposes a National Foreigners Registry (NFR) where foreign nationals staying in India for over 180 days must register.23
   The Bill introduces new visa categories such as Business Visa Plus, Startup Visa, Skilled Talent Visa, Investor Visa, Transit Visa, and Digital Nomad Visa, reflecting contemporary global mobility trends.23 It also enhances obligations on entities like educational and medical institutions to report information about foreign nationals to Registration Officers.22 Penalties for violations, such as entering without valid documents or overstaying visas, have been significantly increased.22 The Bill’s focus on digitization, new economic-oriented visa categories, and enhanced security measures signals India’s ambition to be a global economic player while tightening national security. However, its successful implementation will be a massive administrative undertaking, posing potential challenges in data management, privacy protection, and ensuring the fair application of its stringent penalty provisions.
2. Finance Bill, 2025 Passed by Parliament
   The Finance Bill, 2025, which gives legislative effect to the Union Budget proposals, was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2025, and by the Rajya Sabha on March 27, 2025.6 Its passage is a critical annual exercise for the government to implement its fiscal agenda, including taxation changes and financial plans for the upcoming year.
3. Appropriation Bills Passed
   Several Appropriation Bills, authorizing government expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India, were passed by both Houses of Parliament in March 2025. These included the Appropriation (No.2) Bill, 2025; the Appropriation Bill, 2025; the Manipur Appropriation (Vote on Account) Bill, 2025; the Manipur Appropriation Bill, 2025; and the Appropriation (No.3) Bill, 2025.6 The passage of these bills is essential for the continued functioning of government services and programs, with specific bills for Manipur possibly indicating special financial attention to the state’s needs.
4. Income-Tax Bill, 2025 Passed by Lok Sabha
   The Income-Tax Bill, 2025, a comprehensive overhaul of direct tax legislation, was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 27, 2025.7 Following its passage in the Lok Sabha, the Bill was reportedly referred to a committee for further scrutiny before its consideration by the Rajya Sabha.20 This is a common procedure for complex and significant legislation, allowing for detailed examination and stakeholder consultations, which may lead to refinements before final enactment.
5. “Tribhuvan” Sahkari University Bill, 2025 Passed by Lok Sabha
   The “Tribhuvan” Sahkari University Bill, 2025, aimed at establishing a specialized university for the cooperative sector, was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 26, 2025.6 It was subsequently scheduled for consideration and passage in the Rajya Sabha. The bill’s progression underscores the government’s commitment to advancing the cooperative sector through specialized education and research.
6. Other Bills Progressing Through Parliament
   Several other bills also saw legislative action in March:
   • The Bills of Lading Bill, 2024 was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 10, 2025.⁶
   • The Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Amendment Bill, 2024 was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 12, 2025.⁶
   • The Boilers Bill, 2024 (passed by Rajya Sabha in December 2024) was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2025.⁶
   • The Railways (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (passed by Lok Sabha in December 2024) was passed by the Rajya Sabha on March 10, 2025, thus completing parliamentary approval.⁶
   • The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (passed by Lok Sabha in December 2024) was passed by the Rajya Sabha on March 25, 2025.⁶
   • The Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (passed by Lok Sabha in December 2024) was passed by the Rajya Sabha on March 26, 2025.⁶

D. Judicial Appointments and Transfers

Significant developments in judicial appointments included a high-profile transfer and a notable Supreme Court recommendation.

1. Justice Yashwant Varma Transfer Notified
   Following the controversy and the initiation of an in-house inquiry, the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court (his parent High Court), as recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, was notified by the Department of Justice on March 28, 2025.17
2. Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Justice Joymalya Bagchi for Supreme Court
   On March 6, 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Calcutta High Court as a judge of the Supreme Court.17 The Collegium’s resolution notably stated that Justice Bagchi would be in line to become the Chief Justice of India in 2031 and also pointed out that there had been no Chief Justice from the Calcutta High Court since CJI Altamas Kabir retired in 2013. This was reportedly the first instance where the Collegium explicitly cited the ‘in-line to be CJI’ consideration as a factor for a Supreme Court appointment recommendation. Explicitly stating this factor could bring more transparency to Collegium considerations but might also lead to debates about whether future CJI potential should outweigh other merits or diversity considerations in judicial appointments.

E. Other Legal News

1. Bar Council of India Cracks Down on Unethical Legal Advertising and Influencer Culture The Bar Council of India (BCI), on March 17, 2025, issued a strong statement against what it termed a “disturbing rise in unethical legal advertising and social media promotion by law firms and self-styled legal influencers”.²⁷ The BCI stated that such promotional content directly contravenes Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, which prohibits advocates from soliciting work or advertising, either directly or indirectly. The Council warned digital platforms that the safe harbour provisions under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, may not apply if platforms are found to be actively facilitating unethical legal content. The BCI issued directives to State Bar Councils for immediate withdrawal of violative advertisements, a ban on using celebrities/influencers for legal service promotion, and removal of promotional online content. This crackdown reflects a growing concern that digital marketing in the legal field could erode professional standards.

Key Tables for March 2025

Table 7: March 2025 Supreme Court Key Decisions

Table 8: March 2025 Legislative Action (Bills Passed/Status)

Table 9: March 2025 Judicial Appointments & Transfers (Higher Judiciary)

IV. April 2025: Constitutional Interpretations and New Rules

April 2025 was characterized by the Supreme Court delivering landmark rulings on constitutional powers, particularly concerning the roles of Governors and the President in the legislative process. Several key bills received Presidential assent, officially becoming law. Additionally, important environmental and other regulatory rules were notified, further shaping the legal framework in various sectors.

A. Supreme Court: Landmark Rulings

1. Governor’s Action on Bills: Timelines Set, BK Pavitra Declared ‘Bad Law’
   In a judgment with profound implications for federal governance, the Supreme Court on April 8, 2025, addressed the powers of State Governors concerning bills passed by State Legislatures.28 The ruling, delivered by a Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, arose from a case involving the Tamil Nadu Governor’s prolonged withholding of assent to ten state bills, which the Court declared illegal. The Supreme Court held that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor must act within certain parameters: either grant assent to a bill, return it for reconsideration by the legislature, or reserve it for the consideration of the President. The judgment emphasized that a Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely or exercise an absolute veto over state legislation. This significantly curtails the discretionary power of Governors to delay or effectively block state laws, thereby reinforcing the principles of parliamentary democracy at the state level. Such a ruling is likely to reduce instances of gubernatorial inaction on bills and may lead to more predictable and timely legislative processes in states.
   In the same ruling, the Supreme Court also declared its previous judgment in BK Pavitra (which dealt with reservations in promotions in Karnataka) as “bad law”.28 While the specifics of why BK Pavitra was overturned would require a detailed analysis of service jurisprudence concerning reservation policies, its denouncement as “bad law” by the apex court is a significant judicial act of correction.
2. President’s Veto Power Over State Bills Clarified
   Extending the principles applied to Governors, the Supreme Court, in its April 8, 2025, ruling, also clarified the President’s powers concerning state bills that are reserved by the Governor for Presidential consideration.28 The Court held that the President does not possess an absolute veto or a pocket veto over such state bills and that any Presidential action (or inaction) in this regard is subject to judicial review. This clarification further strengthens federal principles by ensuring that even at the highest level of the Union executive, actions concerning state legislation must adhere to constitutional propriety and are not immune from judicial scrutiny. This prevents a potential avenue for the Union executive to indefinitely stall state legislation through Presidential inaction.
3. Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenges
   The Supreme Court, on April 16, 2025, agreed to list petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.28 The matter was mentioned by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. The hearing on the challenge reportedly drew exceptional public interest, with over a thousand participants joining the virtual proceedings. By May 22, the Supreme Court had reserved judgment on the plea for an interim stay on the Act.29 The Waqf Act and its amendments often touch upon sensitive religious, property, and constitutional issues. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these challenges, and the significant public engagement, indicate the gravity of the issues raised. The eventual ruling will have considerable socio-legal ramifications. The Waqf (Amendment Bill), 2025, had earlier seen its key features highlighted around April 5.1
4. Enforcement Directorate’s Use of Article 32 Petition Questioned
   In a notable judicial observation, the Supreme Court pulled up the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.28 Article 32 is primarily a remedy available to individuals for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. The ED had used this route to seek the transfer of the Nagarik Apurti Nigam (NAM) scam case from Chhattisgarh to Delhi. The Court sharply remarked that if the ED, a state agency, claims fundamental rights (which Article 32 is designed to protect for citizens against the state), then it must also be mindful of and respect the fundamental rights of citizens. This judicial observation could set a precedent limiting the ability of state agencies to invoke Article 32, reinforcing its primary purpose as a safeguard for citizens’ rights.
5. Protection of Foreign Investments Emphasized
   While restoring a criminal case against Moon June Seok, a former Chief Financial Officer of Daechang Seat Automotive (a company with foreign interests), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law to safeguard foreign investments in India.28 The Court noted that robust legal systems are essential for ensuring investor confidence and accountability, stating that protecting the interests of foreign investors is vital for maintaining India’s global economic credibility and fostering a secure business environment. Such pronouncements, even as obiter dicta, are likely intended to send a positive signal to the international business community about India’s commitment to a stable and predictable legal environment.
6. Child Trafficking: Strong Stance on Victims’ Rights & Binding Guidelines Issued (Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another)
   The Supreme Court, in the case of Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025), took a strong stance against child trafficking and issued ten binding guidelines for handling such matters.1 The judgment, delivered around April 15, 2025, saw the Court 30 cancel bail in a child trafficking case and condemn the apathy of authorities. The guidelines include fast-tracking of trials (completion within six months), mandatory responsibilities for hospitals (including immediate suspension if newborns are trafficked from there), and the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors. The Court relied on NHRC reports and media accounts to highlight systemic failures. This proactive judicial intervention, issuing comprehensive guidelines, is a form of judicial legislation aimed at filling gaps in the existing framework for combating child trafficking and will put significant pressure on state authorities and healthcare institutions to implement these measures rigorously.
7. Advocate Misconduct: Split Verdict Delivered
   On April 18, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on a matter concerning advocate misconduct.1 While the specifics of the case and the points of divergence among the judges were not detailed in the available information, any Supreme Court ruling on advocate misconduct is significant for setting standards of professional ethics and regulating the legal profession. A split verdict indicates differing judicial opinions on a complex issue, and the eventual majority opinion or a referral to a larger bench would be necessary to clarify the law definitively.
8. Moratorium Under IBC and Criminal Liability Clarified
   The Supreme Court, on April 5, 2025, provided clarification on the scope of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and its interplay with criminal liability.1 The extent to which the IBC moratorium affects criminal proceedings against a corporate debtor or its directors has been a frequently litigated issue. This clarification from the apex court is crucial for corporate insolvency jurisprudence, likely delineating which types of criminal proceedings (e.g., those involving personal culpability of directors versus those directly impacting the corporate debtor’s assets or the resolution process) are stayed by the moratorium. This would provide much-needed certainty to lenders, resolution professionals, corporate debtors, and individuals facing criminal charges.
9. Other Significant Supreme Court Rulings in April 2025
   April was a busy month for the Supreme Court, with several other important rulings:
   • Acquittal in Wife’s Suicide Case (Section 306 IPC): The Court ruled that strained marital relations or past quarrels alone are insufficient to justify a conviction for abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of instigation or intent.²⁸
   • CBI Probe into WB Schools Supernumerary Posts Quashed: The SC set aside a Calcutta High Court order for a CBI probe into the West Bengal Cabinet’s decision to create supernumerary posts in state-run schools. However, other High Court directions, including those related to the termination of appointments, were to remain unaffected.²⁸
   • Non-Examination of DNA Expert Fatal to Prosecution in POCSO Case: The Supreme Court set aside a death sentence awarded in a POCSO case due to critical procedural lapses, specifically the non-examination of the DNA expert, which rendered the DNA report inadmissible.³⁰
   • Absconding Individuals Not Entitled to Anticipatory Bail: The Court ruled that individuals who are absconding are not entitled to anticipatory bail, especially in serious economic offences.³⁰
   • Copyright vs. Design Protection: The judgment clarified that copyright protection is not lost merely by industrial use unless the design is replicated more than 50 times without registration under the Designs Act.³⁰
   • Misuse of Dowry Prohibition Act: The SC quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the relatives of a man, holding that such charges cannot be sustained when the alleged incident occurred after the legal divorce.³⁰
   • Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail: The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail granted by a High Court can be cancelled only if a serious legal error or misuse of liberty by the accused is demonstrated.³⁰
   • Disability Exemption under Limitation Act (Section 6): The SC clarified that the disability exemption under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies only to original suits and execution applications, not to appeals.³⁰
   • Misuse of Criminal Proceedings to Settle Civil Disputes: The Supreme Court condemned this practice and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the Uttar Pradesh Government in a case where an FIR over a failed property sale lacked essential elements of criminal offences.³⁰
   • Power to Modify Arbitral Awards: A five-judge Constitution Bench, on April 30, 2025, in Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies, delivered a landmark judgment holding that courts possess a “limited” power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.²⁹
   • Delhi-NCR Pollution Crisis: The Supreme Court reviewed efforts to control solid waste and vehicular pollution in the Delhi-NCR region, issuing directions for improved compliance reporting, mass awareness campaigns, and filling vacancies in pollution control boards. The Court stressed that lack of political will, not laws, was the core problem.²⁹
   • YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia’s Passport: On April 28, the Supreme Court allowed YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia to reclaim his passport, which had been seized, clearing the way for his international travel.²⁹
   • DMK Minister Senthil Balaji’s Bail: On April 20, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to DMK Minister Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case. Subsequently, after the Court presented him with a choice to either remain a Minister and risk losing bail or resign and retain liberty, he resigned on April 27.²⁹

B. High Courts: Environmental Directives

1. Madras High Court Bans Certain Plastic Items in Western Ghats In a significant move to protect ecologically sensitive areas, the Madras High Court banned the manufacture, storage, supply, transport, sale, and distribution of 28 specified plastic items throughout the Western Ghats region within its jurisdiction, including sanctuaries and tiger reserves like Kodaikanal and Nilgiris up to the Agathiyar Biosphere.³¹ The Court called upon the state government to issue necessary notifications to this effect and mandate that no vehicles be used for transporting or distributing these banned items in the protected areas. This proactive ban by the High Court could inspire similar comprehensive measures in other states with ecologically fragile zones.

C. Legislative Updates: Acts and Rules Finalized

April saw several bills, passed by Parliament in earlier sessions, receive Presidential assent, thereby becoming Acts. Additionally, new rules under various existing laws were notified.

1. Presidential Assent to Key Bills (April 2025)
   The following bills received the assent of the President of India in April 2025, marking their enactment into law:
   • The Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025: Assented on April 4, 2025. This Act consolidates and modernizes India’s immigration framework.²⁵ Key features include the establishment of a Bureau of Immigration, mandatory registration for foreigners upon arrival, enhanced obligations for entities like educational and medical institutions to report foreigners, and stricter penalties for violations.²⁵
   • The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Assented on April 5, 2025. This Act amends the existing Waqf law.³² One of its provisions states that only persons practicing Islam for at least five years may declare a waqf, and it removes waqf by user prospectively. It also stipulates that any government property identified as waqf will cease to be waqf.¹
   • The Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Bill, 2025: Assented on April 16, 2025. This Act, concerning the Ministry of Civil Aviation, aims to provide a framework for protecting security and leasing interests in aircraft objects, in line with international conventions.³² It includes provisions for debtors to submit records to the DGCA and outlines remedies for creditors in case of default, such as taking back possession of the asset within two calendar months.³³
   • The “Tribhuvan” Sahkari University Bill, 2025: Assented on April 3, 2025. This Act, under the Ministry of Cooperation, facilitates the establishment of a university focused on the cooperative sector.⁷
   • The Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Assented on April 15, 2025. This Act, under the Ministry of Finance, amends various banking laws to improve governance, consistency in reporting, depositor protection, and audit quality in public sector banks.¹⁹
   • The Boilers Bill, 2025: Assented on April 4, 2025. This Act, under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, likely updates regulations concerning boilers.¹⁹
   • The Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, 2025: Assented on April 5, 2025. This Act repeals the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923.¹¹ The enactment of these laws across diverse sectors such as immigration, finance, minority affairs, and industry indicates a productive legislative period.
2. Environment (Construction and Demolition) Waste Management Rules, 2025 Notified
   The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notified the Environment (Construction and Demolition) Waste Management Rules, 2025, on April 4, 2025.31 These rules, superseding the 2016 Rules, will come into effect on April 1, 2026. A key feature is the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), making producers (large-scale builders with projects of 20,000 sq meters or more) responsible for the environmentally sound disposal and management of C&D waste. This includes promoting recycling and reuse, with EPR targets enforced annually. An online portal will be established for registration and monitoring. This marks a significant shift towards making producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of C&D waste, potentially driving innovation in waste recycling and reuse, though it may also increase compliance costs for the construction sector.
3. Draft Greenhouse Gases Emission Intensity Target Rules, 2025 Released
   The draft Greenhouse Gases Emission Intensity Target Rules, 2025 (GEI Rules) were released on April 16, 2025.31 These rules propose to set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions for obligated entities in energy-intensive sectors and industries. The GEI Rules aim to establish a compliance mechanism for the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), 2023, by setting baseline emissions for the 2023-24 period and defining gradual reduction targets for 2025-26 and 2026-27. These draft rules are foundational for India’s domestic carbon market, and their finalization will create new compliance obligations for industries while also fostering opportunities for trading carbon credits, thereby driving investment in cleaner technologies in line with India’s climate goals.
4. Guidelines for Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities Published
   The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) issued Guidelines for Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities (CBWTDFs) on April 12, 2025.31 These guidelines are applicable to all new or upcoming CBWTDFs and to existing facilities undertaking expansion or modernization. They provide comprehensive details on the establishment and operation of such facilities, covering criteria for development, location, equipment, and inspection requirements. Stricter guidelines for CBWTDFs aim to enhance public health and environmental safety.
5. Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025 Notified
   The Ministry of Communications notified the Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025, on April 16, 2025.34 These rules establish a regulatory framework to ensure that telecom equipment used in India meets requisite safety, security, and performance standards. This is part of India’s broader strategy to secure its telecommunications infrastructure and promote domestic manufacturing by setting local standards, potentially impacting equipment vendors and telecom operators.

D. Judicial Appointments

1. Allahabad High Court: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Eight Judicial Officers On April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, approved the proposal for the appointment of eight judicial officers as judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.³⁵ The recommended officers include Jitendra Kumar Sinha, Abdul Shahid, Anil Kumar-X, Tej Pratap Tiwari, Sandeep Jain, Avnish Saxena, Madan Pal Singh, and Harvir Singh. This recommendation aims to address vacancies in one of India’s largest High Courts, which has a significant backlog of cases. Appointing experienced judicial officers to the High Court bench is a common way to enhance its strength.

E. Other Legal News

1. Supreme Court Judges to Publicly Declare Assets In a significant move towards greater transparency and judicial accountability, Supreme Court judges decided in a full court meeting on April 1, 2025, to publicly declare their assets.²⁹ This decision came amidst ongoing concerns over judicial accountability, particularly following the cash seizure incident involving Justice Yashwant Varma. Public declaration of assets by judges is seen as a crucial step in enhancing public trust in the higher judiciary.

Key Tables for April 2025

Table 10: April 2025 Supreme Court Key Rulings

Table 11: April 2025 Acts Assented & Rules Notified

Table 12: April 2025 Judicial Appointments (Higher Judiciary)

V. May 2025: Judicial Appointments and Regulatory Refinements

May 2025 saw crucial appointments to the Supreme Court, significant rulings on environmental matters and criminal law, and a host of regulatory amendments across finance, foreign contributions, and the legal profession.

A. Supreme Court: Key Rulings

1. NEPA Reviews and Agency Deference (Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. – U.S. Supreme Court)
   On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a judgment in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. (No. 23–975), which, while a U.S. case, offers insights into judicial review of environmental impact assessments relevant to similar processes globally, including India’s EIA regime.36 The Court reversed a D.C. Circuit decision, holding that the lower court failed to afford the U.S. Surface Transportation Board the “substantial judicial deference” required in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cases. It clarified that NEPA is primarily a procedural statute and that agencies have discretion in determining the scope and detail of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The Court emphasized that an agency is not typically required to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the proposed action, especially if those separate projects fall outside the agency’s direct regulatory authority.36 This ruling underscores the principle that courts should not micromanage agency choices in EIS preparation as long as they fall within a “broad zone of reasonableness.” This approach, emphasizing agency deference and proximate causation for impact assessment, could inform judicial review of EIA reports in India, where challenges often relate to the scope of impacts considered.
2. Illegal Allotment of Forest Land: SC Directs States/UTs to Reclaim
   In a landmark environmental ruling on May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India directed the Chief Secretaries of all states and administrators of all Union Territories to constitute special investigation teams.38 These teams are tasked with examining whether any reserved forest land under the possession of revenue departments has been illegally allotted to private entities or individuals for non-forestry purposes. The Court mandated that state governments and UTs must initiate actions to reclaim such illegally allotted reserved forest land and transfer it back to the forest department within one year. If reclaiming the land is deemed not to be in the broader public interest, the cost of the land must be collected from the allottees and utilized for forest development. The bench, led by CJI B.R. Gavai, emphasized that henceforth, such land should be exclusively used for afforestation. This directive came in a judgment concerning the illegal allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune, Maharashtra, to a cooperative housing society, which the Court declared entirely illegal, also nullifying the environmental clearance granted for it.38 This ruling signifies a strong judicial push for the protection and restoration of forest lands across the country.
3. Criminal Law: Rulings on Abetment to Suicide and Misuse of Dowry Provisions
   Throughout May 2025, the Supreme Court delivered several notable judgments in criminal law:
   • Abetment to Suicide (Section 306 IPC): The Court reiterated that allegations of past harassment, without evidence of proximate mens rea (intent) or direct instigation leading to the suicide, are insufficient for a conviction under Section 306 IPC. In one case, it quashed charges against a husband’s in-laws on these grounds.³⁹ In another, it restored a summoning order in an abetment to suicide case, finding that a High Court had misapplied Section 319 CrPC by prioritizing unproven defense documents over sworn testimony.³⁹
   • Misuse of Dowry and Cruelty Provisions (Section 498A IPC & Dowry Prohibition Act): The Supreme Court expressed concern over the growing trend of complainant-wives indiscriminately arraying aged parents, distant relatives, and married sisters living separately as accused in matrimonial disputes involving Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In one such case, the Court acquitted a husband, noting that invoking these penal provisions without clear, concrete instances weakens the prosecution’s case and raises doubts about the complainant’s credibility.³⁹ These rulings reflect the Court’s efforts to ensure that criminal provisions are not misused for settling personal scores, while also ensuring that genuine cases of abetment or cruelty are prosecuted based on credible evidence.
4. Bail Granted in Case of Prolonged Adjournment by High Court
   The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused person whose bail application had reportedly been adjourned by the Allahabad High Court on 27 occasions, highlighting concerns about delays in hearing liberty matters.39

B. High Courts: Notable Decisions

1. Punjab and Haryana High Court on Deteriorating Medical Infrastructure
   The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on May 13, 2025, sought an affidavit from the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Punjab, addressing deficiencies in medical infrastructure in the state, particularly in Malerkotla district.38 The Court noted that things did not appear to be improving and sought updates on the recruitment process for medical officers and the progress of tenders for diagnostic centers. This judicial oversight aims to ensure the availability of adequate healthcare facilities for citizens.
2. Delhi High Court on Abetment of Suicide: Consideration of Mental Vulnerability
   The Delhi High Court, in a case concerning abetment to suicide, observed that emotional or mental vulnerability due to depression and other psychiatric problems should be considered, and a higher proof of instigation might be required in such cases.39 This indicates a nuanced approach by the High Court in evaluating culpability in suicide cases involving victims with pre-existing mental health conditions.

C. Legislative and Regulatory Updates

May 2025 was marked by several important regulatory amendments and notifications from various ministries and regulatory bodies.

1. Income Tax Return (ITR) Filing Date Extended
   On May 27, 2025, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) extended the due date for filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2025-26 to September 15, 2025.34 This extension aims to provide taxpayers and professionals with sufficient time for compliance.
2. Securities Contracts (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2025 Notified
   The Ministry of Finance, on May 19, 2025, notified the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2025, to amend the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957.34 These amendments aim to provide regulatory clarity and ease of doing business for brokers and their investment schemes.
3. Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2025 Notified
   The Ministry of Home Affairs, on May 26, 2025, notified the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2025.34 These rules introduce significant refinements in provisions and aim to establish a stronger regulatory framework for receiving foreign contributions, enhancing transparency and compliance.
4. Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2025 Notified
   The Ministry of Coal, on May 20, 2025, notified the Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2025.34 These amendments are intended to streamline mining operations, allowing for boundary extensions in mining plans, increased production, and adaptation to new technologies.
5. Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Law Firms, 2022 Notified
   The Bar Council of India (BCI), on May 13, 2025, notified the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022.34 These rules enable foreign lawyers and law firms to practice foreign law, diverse international law, and international arbitration matters in India on a reciprocity basis. The amended regulations are designed to provide structured opportunities strictly limited to non-litigious areas, with Indian law practice remaining the exclusive domain of Indian advocates.40 Stringent registration, renewal requirements, and “Fly-In Fly-Out” (FIFO) provisions (limited to 60 days per 12-month period) are included to protect the interests of Indian lawyers while aiming to make India a hub for international arbitration.40
6. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) Amendments
   • Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors (Amendment) Regulations, 2025: Notified on May 19, 2025, these regulations revise provisions of the insolvency resolution process for personal guarantors.³⁴
   • Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2025: Notified on May 26, 2025, these amendments aim to enhance transparency, improve creditor protections, and streamline the corporate insolvency resolution process.³⁴
7. SEBI Directive on Accessibility and Inclusiveness of Digital KYC
   The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), on May 23, 2025, notified a legal directive mandating the accessibility and inclusiveness of Digital Know Your Customer (KYC) processes for Persons with Disabilities.34 This aligns with Supreme Court rulings on equal access to financial services.
8. Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Notifications
   • Relaxation for FPI Investment in Corporate Debt Securities: On May 8, 2025, the RBI issued a notification relaxing requirements for investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) in Corporate Debt Securities through the General Route, withdrawing certain prior conditions.³⁴
   • Payments Regulatory Board Regulations, 2025: On May 20, 2025, the RBI notified the ‘Payments Regulatory Board Regulations, 2025,’ establishing a structured framework for overseeing India’s payment and settlement system by formally creating a Payments Regulatory Board.³⁴

D. Judicial Appointments

The most significant judicial appointment news in May was the elevation of three new judges to the Supreme Court.

1. Three New Judges Appointed to the Supreme Court On May 29, 2025, the Union Government notified the appointments of Justice N.V. Anjaria (then Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court), Justice Vijay Bishnoi (then Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court), and Justice A.S. Chandurkar (then Judge, Bombay High Court) as Judges of the Supreme Court of India.⁴¹ These appointments followed the recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, on May 26, 2025. The new judges were expected to take their oath on May 30, 2025, bringing the Supreme Court to its sanctioned strength of 34 judges.⁴¹
   • Justice N.V. Anjaria: Born on March 23, 1965, he was serving as CJ of Karnataka HC since February 25, 2024. His parent High Court is Gujarat.⁴¹
   • Justice Vijay Bishnoi: Born on March 26, 1964, he was serving as CJ of Gauhati HC since February 5, 2024. His parent High Court is Rajasthan.⁴¹
   • Justice A.S. Chandurkar: Born on April 7, 1965, he was a judge of the Bombay High Court.⁴¹ The Collegium’s recommendations reportedly considered factors such as seniority, merit, integrity, and the need for diversity and regional representation on the Supreme Court bench, as detailed in a transparency document released by the SC on May 6, 2025.⁴¹

Key Tables for May 2025

Table 13: May 2025 Supreme Court Key Rulings

Table 14: May 2025 Key Legislative & Regulatory Updates

Table 15: May 2025 Judicial Appointments (Supreme Court)

VI. Conclusion

The first five months of 2025 have been dynamic for the Indian legal landscape. The Supreme Court has been proactive in interpreting fundamental rights, clarifying criminal procedures, and overseeing constitutional governance, notably in areas like the right to internet access, the powers of Governors, and environmental protection. High Courts have also played a crucial role, particularly in environmental conservation and upholding labour rights.

Legislatively, this period saw the introduction and progression of transformative bills such as the Income-Tax Bill, 2025, and the Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, alongside amendments to various sectoral laws and the notification of crucial environmental and financial regulations. These legislative and regulatory changes aim to modernize India’s legal framework, enhance transparency, and align with evolving economic and social needs.

Judicial appointments have continued, with efforts to fill vacancies in the higher judiciary, although the process highlights ongoing dialogue between the judiciary and the executive. The emphasis on judicial ethics and accountability also remained a prominent theme.

Collectively, these developments indicate a legal system actively responding to contemporary challenges, striving to balance individual rights with state interests, economic development with environmental sustainability, and traditional legal principles with the demands of a rapidly changing society. The rulings and legislative actions from January to May 2025 are set to have far-reaching consequences, shaping legal discourse and practice in the months and years to come. For those preparing for legal quizzes or seeking to stay abreast of current legal affairs, these developments offer rich material for understanding the trajectory of Indian law.

Works cited

1. January, 2025 – Law News India, accessed June 9, 2025, https://lawnewsindia.com/2025/01/
2. LR | 2025 | Volume 1 | Issue 3 – Supreme Court Observer, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sco-lr-2025-volume-1-issue-3/
3. Supreme Court, accessed June 9, 2025, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2025/02/2025021263.pdf
4. Supreme Selections: Top Supreme Court Judgments of January …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Supreme-Selections-Top-Supreme-Court-Judgments-of-January-2025
5. IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for January 2025 – Labour Law Reporter, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.labourlawreporter.net/importantjudgementmonth.asp?smonth=1&syear=2025
6. Bills List | Ministry OF Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India, accessed June 9, 2025, https://mpa.gov.in/bills-list
7. Bills – Digital Sansad, accessed June 9, 2025, https://sansad.in/ls/legislation/bills
8. Current Affairs & Editorials – Drishti Judiciary, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs-list/2025-01-07
9. scobserver.in, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/monthly-review-february-2025/#:~:text=On%2011%20February%202025%2C%20the,rests%20exclusively%20with%20the%20states.
10. February, 2025 – Law News India, accessed June 9, 2025, https://lawnewsindia.com/2025/02/
11. Indian environmental law update from February 2025 | Trilegal, accessed June 9, 2025, https://trilegal.com/knowledge_repository/trilegal-update-environment-law-monthly-updates-february-2025/
12. supremecourt.gov, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf
13. Last Month at the Supreme Court | February 2025 | Dykema, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.dykema.com/news-insights/last-month-at-the-supreme-court-february-2025.html
14. Environmental Law Tracker: February 2025 – Bar and Bench, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/environmental-law-tracker-february-2025
15. NRI Tax in India and New Income Tax Bill 2025 – ECOVIS International, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.ecovis.com/global/nri-tax-in-india-and-new-income-tax-bill-2025/
16. Judicial Appointments Tracker: February 2025 – Appointments …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://lawchakra.in/blog/judicial-appointments-tracker-february/
17. Monthly Review: March 2025 – Supreme Court Observer, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/monthly-review-march-2025/
18. March, 2025 – Law News India, accessed June 9, 2025, https://lawnewsindia.com/2025/03/
19. Budget Session, 2025 of Parliament adjourns sine-die – PIB, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2118954
20. Bills Track – PRS India, accessed June 9, 2025, https://prsindia.org/billtrack
21. The Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025 – PRS India, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-immigration-and-foreigners-bill-2025
22. Immigration Bill 2025 Explained: Foreigners classification, penalties …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/immigration-and-foreigners-bill-2025-salient-features-explained-foreigners-classification-punishments-2700186-2025-03-27
23. India’s Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025: An Overview – India Briefing, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.india-briefing.com/news/indias-immigration-and-foreigners-bill-2025-what-businesses-need-to-know-36567.html/
24. The Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025 | Diplomatic Shift – O.P. Jindal Global University, accessed June 9, 2025, https://jgu.edu.in/opjgublog/immigration-and-foreigners-bill-2025/
25. The Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025 – PRS India, accessed June 9, 2025, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-immigration-and-foreigners-bill-2025
26. India | Immigration and Foreigner’s Bill – B A L, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.bal.com/immigration-news/india-immigration-and-foreigners-bill/
27. Bar Council of India Cracks Down on Legal Advertising and Influencer Culture, accessed June 9, 2025, https://blog.galalaw.com/post/102k6nx/bar-council-of-india-cracks-down-on-legal-advertising-and-influencer-culture
28. Top Ten Legal Headlines of the Week-15 Apr 2025 – Law Colloquy, accessed June 9, 2025, https://lawcolloquy.com/publications/blog/top-ten-legal-headlines-of-the-week-15-apr-2025/354
29. Monthly Review: April 2025 – Supreme Court Observer, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/monthly-review-april-2025/
30. SUPREME COURT MONTHLY RECAP: APRIL 2025 – LawChakra, accessed June 9, 2025, https://lawchakra.in/monthly-recap/supreme-court-monthly-recap-april-2025/
31. Environment Law Monthly Updates – April 2025 – Trilegal, accessed June 9, 2025, https://trilegal.com/knowledge_repository/trilegal-update-environment-law-monthly-updates-april-2025/
32. Central Bills | Welcome to RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN – The Office and …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.rashtrapatibhavan.gov.in/central-bills
33. April 2025 – PRS India, accessed June 9, 2025, https://prsindia.org/policy/monthly-policy-review/april-2025
34. Legislation Roundup May 2025 | SCC Times – SCC Online, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/01/legislation-roundup-may-2025-legal-update/
35. SC collegium gives nod for appointing 8 judicial officers as …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/sc-collegium-gives-nod-for-appointing-8-judicial-officers-as-allahabad-hc-judges/articleshow/119974370.cms
36. 23-975 Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v … – Supreme Court, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf
37. S. Supreme Court Grapples with Loper Bright in the Context of NEPA Reviews | Insights, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/06/us-supreme-court-grapples-with-loper-bright-in-the-context-of-nepa
38. Supreme Court Ruling: States Ordered to Reclaim Illegally Allotted …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/environment/daily-court-digest-major-environment-orders-may-16-2025
39. Latest criminal law cases May 2025 | SCC Times – SCC Online, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/03/latest-criminal-law-cases-may-2025/
40. Press Release Dated 14.05.2025 | Bar Council of India, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.barcouncilofindia.org/info/press-rele-1bcbwy
41. Union appoints three new judges to Supreme Court: May 2025 …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/union-appoints-three-new-judges-to-supreme-court-may-2025-justice-n-v-anjaria-vijay-bishnoi-and-a-s-chandurkar/
42. Supreme Court gets three new judges, Govt notifies appointments. Who are they? – Mint, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.livemint.com/news/india/supreme-court-gets-three-new-judges-govt-notifies-appointments-11748512854798.html