Supreme Court Judgments: October to December 2025
1. Marital Rape Exception Struck Down (October 2025)
Background
Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines rape. Exception 2 to Section 375 stated that "sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape." This was the marital rape exception. It meant that a husband could not be prosecuted for raping his wife, regardless of whether the act was non-consensual, unless she was below fifteen.
The exception was challenged in multiple writ petitions filed in the Delhi High Court in 2015. The Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict in May 2022 (Justice Rajiv Shakdher held the exception unconstitutional; Justice C. Hari Shankar upheld it). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
What the Court held
A five-judge Constitution bench, in a 4:1 judgment, struck down Exception 2 to Section 375 as unconstitutional. The majority opinion, written by the Chief Justice, held that the exception violates Article 14 (the right to equality , it creates an unreasonable classification between married and unmarried women), Article 15(3) (which allows the State to make special provisions for women , the Court held that a provision that harms women cannot be justified under Article 15(3)), and Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty , marital status does not extinguish a woman's right to bodily autonomy and sexual consent).
The Court reaffirmed the independence of sexual autonomy established in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017) and the Navtej Singh Johar judgment (2018) . The right to say no, the Court held, is not surrendered at marriage.
The dissent
Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, arguing that the Court should have read down the exception rather than striking it down. She proposed raising the age of consent within marriage to eighteen, consistent with the age of consent outside marriage. Her concern: striking down the exception entirely creates a legal vacuum. Parliament must now legislate to define the contours of marital rape , a task the Court, in her view, was ill-equipped to perform.
Prelims traps
- "The Supreme Court created a new criminal offence of marital rape." False. The Court struck down an exception. Rape by a husband was already covered under the general definition of rape. The exception had carved it out. Striking down the exception means it is now covered
- "The judgment was unanimous." False. It was 4:1. Justice Nagarathna dissented
- "The marital rape exception was part of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023." The BNS retained the exception as Section 63(2). The Court's judgment applies to both the IPC and its successor BNS
2. Places of Worship Act, 1991: Constitutionality Upheld (November 2025)
Background
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, was enacted during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Section 3 of the Act declares that the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, shall be maintained. No person shall convert any place of worship. Section 4 bars courts from entertaining any suit or proceeding to change the religious character of a place of worship. Section 5 exempted the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site (which was already under litigation at the time the Act was passed).
The Act was challenged in multiple petitions. The petitioners argued that it violates the right of religious communities to reclaim their places of worship (Article 25 and 26) and that it freezes a historical wrong. The Act was defended on the ground that it is a legislative implementation of the constitutional value of secularism and that reopening religious disputes from 1947 would unleash communal litigation across India.
What the Court held
A five-judge Constitution bench upheld the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act by a 4:1 majority.
| Issue | Court's Ruling |
|---|---|
| Does the Act violate Article 25 (freedom of religion)? | No. Article 25 is subject to public order, morality, and health. The Act is a reasonable restriction on religious freedom in the interest of public order. Reopening centuries-old religious disputes would threaten public order |
| Does the Act violate secularism (Basic Structure)? | No. The Act enforces secularism by freezing the religious status quo as of Independence. The Constitution's secularism is not about correcting historical wrongs. It is about maintaining religious neutrality going forward |
| Is the bar on court jurisdiction (Section 4) valid? | Yes. Parliament has the power to exclude court jurisdiction in specific matters. Section 4 is not a blanket exclusion , it is limited to changing the religious character of places of worship. Other disputes (management, access, rituals) can still be litigated |
| What about the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi and Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah disputes? | The Court did not dismiss these pending cases. It held that the Act applies to them, but left it to the respective High Courts to determine whether the suits are maintainable under Section 4. This was widely seen as a compromise: the Act stands, but pending cases are not automatically dismissed |
The dissent
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, in his dissent (his last major judgment before retirement), held that Section 4's bar on court jurisdiction is unconstitutional because it denies citizens access to justice, which is part of Article 21. He argued that the determination of the religious character of a place of worship is a justiciable question. Courts have adjudicated religious disputes throughout Indian history. Parliament cannot remove this power from the judiciary.
Prelims traps
- "The Places of Worship Act freezes the religious character of all places of worship as of 1950." False. The cut-off date is August 15, 1947
- "The Act bars all litigation about places of worship." False. Section 4 bars suits to change the religious character. Other disputes can still be litigated
- "The Ram Janmabhoomi site is covered by the Act." False. Section 5 explicitly exempted it
3. Sedition Law Replacement: Constitutionality of Section 152 BNS (December 2025)
Background
Section 124A of the IPC (sedition) was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India (May 2022) . The Court held that the provision was overbroad, vague, and had been used as a tool to suppress political dissent. The Court stayed all pending sedition cases and directed the government to either repeal or amend the provision.
The government responded by replacing Section 124A with Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 152 criminalises "acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India." The new provision is narrower than Section 124A: it requires a specific act (not just speech), it requires intent, and it uses the phrase "sovereignty, unity, and integrity" (which appears in the Preamble and the Fundamental Duties) rather than the colonial language of "disaffection towards the Government."
A fresh petition challenged Section 152, arguing that it was substantively identical to Section 124A under a different name.
What the Court held
A three-judge bench upheld the constitutionality of Section 152, with important safeguards read into the provision:
- "Endangering sovereignty" requires a proximate nexus between the act and the threat. Speech that merely criticises the government, however harshly, does not endanger sovereignty
- Mere possession of material or ideological sympathy is not an offence. The prosecution must prove that the accused committed a specific act with the specific intent to endanger sovereignty
- Peaceful protest, civil disobedience, and dissent are not covered. The right to protest is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and (b). Section 152 does not criminalise protest
The Court effectively read Section 152 as a sedition provision that cannot be used against dissenters, journalists, students, or political opponents. Whether this holds in practice depends on how trial courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court itself apply these safeguards in individual cases.
Also noteworthy this quarter
| Case | Date | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| In Re: Media Trial and Fair Trial | October 2025 | The Court issued guidelines restraining the media from publishing confession statements, witness testimonies, or investigative findings while a criminal trial is pending. The right to a fair trial (Article 21) cannot be subordinated to the right to freedom of the press (Article 19(1)(a)). The Court directed the Press Council of India to frame a media trial code within three months |
| Bar Council of India vs Union of India (Foreign Law Firms) | November 2025 | The Court allowed foreign law firms to establish offices in India and practise foreign law, but not Indian law. They cannot appear before Indian courts. The BCI must register and regulate them. This opens India's legal services market for the first time |
Dive deeper into each case: Marital rape exception struck down · Places of Worship Act upheld · Section 152 BNS: the new sedition law