© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
2025 Supreme Court Review: Key judgments on women’s reservation, presidential reference, constitutional rights
From rendering its opinion on Presidential reference to mandating reservation for women in state bar councils, the Supreme Court’s rulings addressed questions carrying far-reaching legal and societal consequences.
The Supreme Court mandated 30 per cent representation for women in state bar councils. (Image generated using AI)
The year 2025 saw the Supreme Court pass several crucial verdicts that upheld constitutional values, protected legal independence and advanced gender equity. From rendering its opinion on Presidential reference to mandating reservation for women in state bar councils, the court’s rulings addressed questions carrying far-reaching legal and societal consequences.
Here’s a look at the 10 significant rulings that defined the judicial landscape of the year.
Presidential reference
In a reference to the Supreme Court in May, President Murmu posed 14 crucial questions on the verdict. (File Photo)
In November, the court held that no timelines can be fixed for the President and Governor to act on bills passed by legislatures. Rendering its opinion on a reference made by President Draupadi Murmu, a five-judge constitution bench presided by the then Chief Justice B R Gavai also said that the concept of deemed assent to bills is “antithetical not only to the spirit of the Constitution but also specifically the doctrine of separation of power which is a part of the basic structure of Indian Constitution.”
Relaxation of firecracker ban
Days ahead of Diwali, the court relaxed the ban on firecrackers in the Delhi-NCR area and allowed the sale of green crackers approved by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) from October 18 to October 20.
The court said that firecrackers will only be sold through licensed traders, and that the products, i.e., green crackers, must be manufactured by those registered with NEERI and holding a license from the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO).
Summons to lawyers
In a 4:1 decision, the court in May held that appellate courts can modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The majority ruling by the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Kumar and A G Masih held that courts have “limited power” under Section 34 and 37 of the Act to modify arbitral awards. Justice K V Viswanathan delivered a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the majority on certain aspects.
Reservation for women in bar councils
The court mandated 30 per cent representation for women in state bar councils where elections are pending, with 20 per cent seats filled by election and 10 per cent by co-option for this year. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant further directed submission of co-option proposals for councils lacking sufficient women advocates.
Story continues below this ad
Stray dogs
The court directed that these dogs should be returned to the area from where they were picked up after sterilisation.
Terming its earlier order on confining stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to dedicated shelters instead of releasing them as “too harsh”, the court directed that these dogs should be returned to the area from where they were picked up after sterilisation, deworming and vaccination, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
The court, however, “clarified that this relocation shall not apply to dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies, and those that display aggressive behaviour”.
Mandatory 3 year practice
The court in May reinstated the three-year minimum practice requirement for law graduates to apply for positions in the judicial services, saying that “neither knowledge based on law books nor pre-service training could be an adequate substitute to the first-hand experience of the working of the court system and administration of justice”.
Striking down Tribunal Reforms Act
The court struck down key provisions relating to the appointment process in the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021, as unconstitutional and violative of separation of powers and judicial independence. The bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran said provisions already struck down by it in an earlier Ordinance had been re-enacted in the 2021 law with minor tweaks.
Story continues below this ad
Nithari serial killing
In November, the court, while observing that “suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt” and “courts cannot prefer expediency over legality,” set aside the conviction of Surendra Koli in a case of rape and murder of a teenage girl, one of the many cases that arose out of the Nithari serial killings two decades ago, and ordered his “forthwith” release.
Recall of order striking down grant of ex post facto environmental clearance
In May 16, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had barred grant of ex-post-facto environment clearance.
Citing public interest and legal flaws, the court, in a 2-1 decision, recalled its May 16 ruling that had struck down a Central government notification allowing grant of environmental clearance (EC) for projects ex post facto- in short, clearance for projects after commencement.
Arbitral awards
In a 4:1 decision, the court in May held that appellate courts can modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The majority ruling by the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Kumar and A G Masih held that courts have “limited power” under Section 34 and 37 of the Act to modify arbitral awards. Justice K V Viswanathan delivered a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the majority on certain aspects.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Live Blog