The Apex Court this year had it all: from a rare advisory opinion to intra-court reversals; from transgender rights to finer points on judge appointments ,covered crucial areas like digital rights, tribunal reforms, individual liberties (narco-tests), environmental protection, and executive accountability, with some key rulings and a decision striking down Chandigarh's medical seat reservation. In all, the Supreme Court delivered 1426 judgements this year. In the year-end list, however, there are 10 verdicts that are already considered as ‘landmark’ or are likely to be in the years to come
1. Court has limited power to modify arbitral award | Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies | Five-judge Bench
2. Constitutional Immunity of the Speaker | Padi Kaushik Reddy v State of Telangana | Two-judge Bench
In July, a Division Bench of Justices Gavai and Masih clarified that the Speaker does not enjoy constitutional immunity from judicial scrutiny under Articles 122 and 212 when exercising power under paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule.
3. RTE Act does not apply to Minority Education Institution | Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v The State of Maharashtra | Two-judge Bench. In September, a Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that aspiring and in-service teachers are required to pass the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) under the Right to Education Act 2009 to continue in service.
4. No general interim stay on Waqf Amendment | In re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | Two-judge Bench
In September 2025, a Division Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih delivered its interim judgement in petitions seeking a blanket stay on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. While the Court refused a general stay, it stayed specific controversial provisions.The Court ruled that such disputes require judicial or quasi-judicial resolution.The Court upheld mandatory registration of Waqfs and the requirement that only owners dedicate property.
5. Revival, not liquidation | Kalyani Transco v Bhushan Power and Steel Limited | Three-judge Bench
On 2 May 2025, a two-judge Bench ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Steel. The decision drew sharp criticism for undermining resolution efforts and compromising the scheme under the IBC.
6. Direct recruitment of District Judges from Bar stream | Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa | Five-judge Bench
A five-judge Bench held that judicial officers who have previously practised as advocates for at least seven years are eligible for appointment as District Judges through direct recruitment under Article 233.
7. Affirmation of transgender rights | Jane Kaushik v Union of India | Two-judge Bench
The decision highlighted the glaring gap between promise and practice, eleven years after NALSA v Union of India (2014) was celebrated for recognising the right to self-identification.
8. Legality of Ex Post Facto Clearances | CREDAI v Vanashakti | Three-judge Bench
Overruling the judgement in Vanashakti v Union of India in a 2:1 split, the three-judge Bench of former CJI Gavai, Justice K.V. Chandran and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan (dissenting) held that the grant of ex post facto environmental clearances is not illegal and can be granted sparingly
9. Striking down key provisions of Tribunals Reforms Act | Madras Bar Association v Union of India | Two-judge Bench
A Division Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Chandran struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, holding that Parliament had reintroduced provisions already declared unconstitutional by this Court.
10. No timelines for assent | Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | Five-judge Bench
In an advisory opinion, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the Governor and President possess discretionary powers over bills presented for their assent under Articles 200 and 201.
Follow us
