Supreme Court Judgments: July to September 2025
1. NJAC Judgment Review Petition Dismissed (August 2025)
In 2015, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014. The Court held that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the independence of the judiciary, which is part of the Basic Structure. The collegium system (where the CJI and four senior-most judges recommend appointments) was restored.
A review petition was filed in 2016, arguing that the judgment had incorrectly struck down a constitutional amendment passed by near-unanimous parliamentary support. The review petition lay dormant for nearly a decade. In August 2025, a seven-judge bench finally dismissed it.
| Issue | Court's Ruling |
|---|---|
| Was the original judgment (2015) incorrect? | The review bench did not reopen the merits. It held that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal. The original judgment was not "patently erroneous" , it was a considered opinion of a five-judge bench. Review is a limited remedy |
| Has the collegium system worked? | The Court acknowledged that the collegium system has flaws: opacity, delays in appointments, and allegations of nepotism. But it held that the remedy is reform within the collegium framework (transparency in decision-making, objective criteria, a secretariat), not replacing judicial primacy with executive primacy |
| What about the NJAC Act? | The Act remains struck down. Parliament can legislate a new judicial appointments framework, but it must preserve judicial primacy. The Court did not define what "judicial primacy" means in precise terms , it has done so through individual judgments since 1993 (Second Judges case, Third Judges case, NJAC judgment) |
Prelims trap: "The NJAC was a statutory body." False. The NJAC was proposed through a constitutional amendment (the 99th Amendment). The amendment inserted Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C. The 99th Amendment itself was struck down, not just the NJAC Act.
2. Same-Sex Marriage: Implementation of the Supriyo Judgment (September 2025)
Background
In Supriyo Chakraborty vs Union of India (October 2023) , a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court declined to legalise same-sex marriage, holding that it is for Parliament, not the Court, to legislate on marriage. However, the Court issued several directions: (a) the government must form a committee to examine the rights and benefits that can be granted to queer couples without legislation, (b) discrimination against queer persons in access to goods and services is prohibited, (c) queer persons cannot be forced to undergo "conversion therapy."
The committee, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, submitted its report in December 2024. The report recommended: (a) queer couples should be able to nominate each other for bank accounts, insurance, and pension benefits, (b) they should have hospital visitation rights and the right to make medical decisions for each other, (c) they should be recognised as "family" for the purposes of ration cards and housing schemes.
The September 2025 judgment
The Supreme Court, in a follow-up judgment, directed the government to implement the committee's recommendations within six months. The key holdings:
- Right to cohabit: Queer couples have the right to live together without interference from family, police, or landlords. This right flows from Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty, including the right to choose one's partner)
- "Family" redefined: For the purposes of social welfare legislation (ration cards, housing, health insurance), a "family" includes any two adults who live together in a shared household, regardless of marital status or gender. This is a significant expansion of the legal definition of family
- The Court did NOT legalise same-sex marriage: The 2023 judgment stands. Marriage remains a legislative, not a judicial, question
Prelims trap: "The Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage in India." False. The Court declined to do so in 2023 and this judgment did not change that. What the Court did was extend specific rights and benefits to queer couples within the existing legal framework.
3. Preventive Detention and the Right to Effective Representation (July 2025)
A seven-judge Constitution bench delivered a significant judgment on preventive detention, holding that the right to effective legal representation is a fundamental right under Article 22. Preventive detention is the detention of a person without trial, based on the executive's subjective satisfaction that the person is likely to commit an offence. It is authorised under Article 22(3) to (7) of the Constitution, which is an exception to the general right against arbitrary arrest and detention.
The Court held that:
- The detenu (the person detained) has the right to be represented by a lawyer of their choice at the advisory board hearing. The advisory board, which reviews the detention order, cannot be a formality
- The detenu has the right to be informed of the grounds of detention in a language they understand, and in sufficient detail to enable them to make an effective representation
- The state's claim of "privilege" (withholding documents in the public interest) cannot be used to deny the detenu access to material that forms the basis of the detention order
- Preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution. If the state has evidence to prosecute, it must prosecute. Preventive detention is for cases where prosecution is not possible (for example, where revealing the evidence would compromise national security)
Also noteworthy this quarter
| Case | Date | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| In Re: Child Marriage and Personal Laws | August 2025 | The Court held that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, overrides personal laws. A marriage solemnised under any personal law (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi) is voidable if either party was a child at the time of marriage. The Court directed all states to appoint child marriage prohibition officers and conduct awareness campaigns |
| Central Vista Project: Environment Clearance Upheld | September 2025 | The Court upheld the environmental clearance for the Central Vista redevelopment, rejecting challenges based on procedural irregularities and inadequate public consultation. The judgment was criticised by environmental groups as prioritising executive convenience over environmental protection |
Dive deeper into each case: NJAC review dismissed · Same-sex marriage implementation · Preventive detention reforms