1. Limits on Governor’s Power to Withhold Bills
Case: State of Punjab v. Governor of Punjab & Ors. Key Article: Article 200
The Issue: Can a Governor indefinitely sit on a Bill passed by the State Legislature, effectively using "pocket veto" to stall governance?
The Judgment: A Constitution Bench held that the Governor is a "symbolic head" and cannot thwart the legislative process. The Court ruled that under Article 200, if a Governor withholds assent, they must return the Bill to the House "as soon as possible" with a message. The Court emphasized that a Governor cannot kill a Bill by simply staying silent, as this would undermine parliamentary democracy.
2. Bribery Not Shielded by Legislative Privilege
Case: Sita Soren v. Union of India Key Articles: Article 105 & Article 194
The Issue: Does an MP or MLA enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution if they take a bribe to vote or speak in a certain way inside the House?
The Judgment: In a historic 7-judge Bench verdict, the Court overturned the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment. It ruled that bribery is not essential to the legislative function and "destroys the probity of public life." The Court held that Constitutional immunity does not protect a legislator from charges of corruption, marking a massive win for judicial accountability.
3. "Open Category" is Not a Quota for the General Class
Case: High Court of Rajasthan v. Candidates Key Articles: Article 14, 15 & 16
The Issue: Can a reserved category candidate (SC/ST/OBC) who qualifies on merit be excluded from the "Open Category" pool?
The Judgment: The Supreme Court reiterated that the "Open Category" is a merit pool available to all. It ruled that if an SC/ST/OBC candidate scores higher than the general cutoff, they must be adjusted against the Open Category. To reserve the "Open Category" only for the General class would be a "communal reservation," which is unconstitutional.
4. Validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
Case: In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 Key Article: Article 11
The Issue: Is Section 6A, which was added following the Assam Accord to grant citizenship to certain immigrants, constitutionally valid?
The Judgment: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A. It ruled that the provision was a reasonable classification designed to balance the unique demographic challenges of Assam with the humanitarian goals of the Accord. This judgment settled decades of legal uncertainty regarding the citizenship status of thousands in the Northeast.
5. No "Automatic Vacation" of High Court Stays
Case: High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. Key Articles: Article 226 & Article 227
The Issue: Does a stay order granted by a High Court automatically expire after six months if not specifically extended?
The Judgment: Reversing its earlier stand in the Asian Resurfacing case, a 5-judge Bench ruled that the Supreme Court cannot issue a blanket direction that all stay orders will automatically expire. The Court held that such a rule interferes with the Constitutional autonomy of High Courts under Article 226 and could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
6. The Right to be Forgotten as a Facet of Privacy
Case: Karthick Theodre v. Madras High Court Key Article: Article 21
The Issue: Does a person acquitted of a crime have a Constitutional right to have their name removed from online search engines and court records?
The Judgment: The Court formally recognized the "Right to be Forgotten" as part of the Right to Privacy under Article 21. It ruled that individuals who are not "public figures" and have been acquitted are entitled to have their digital footprint masked to protect their reputation and dignity.
7. Direct Recruitment of District Judges
Case: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa Key Article: Article 233
The Issue: Are judicial officers with combined experience at the Bar and the Bench eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges?
The Judgment: Interpreting Article 233, a Constitution Bench ruled that the requirement of "seven years as an advocate" can include combined service. This ensures that merit within the subordinate judiciary is recognized, fulfilling the spirit of equal opportunity in public employment under Article 16.
8. Secularism and State Control over Waqf Properties
Case: Waqf Board Amendment Challenges Key Articles: Article 25 & Article 26
The Issue: Does the State’s power to regulate religious endowments violate the "Right to Manage Religious Affairs"?
The Judgment: The Court balanced the State's power with religious freedom. It held that while the State can regulate "secular" aspects of religious properties (like land records and financial audits) to prevent fraud, it cannot interfere with the "essential religious practices" or the core autonomy of the religious community under Article 26.
9. Minority Status of Educational Institutions
Case: In Re: AMU Minority Status Key Article: Article 30
The Issue: Can a University established by a central statute retain its minority status?
The Judgment: In a nuanced reading of Article 30, the Court held that the mere fact that a university was incorporated by a statute does not automatically strip it of its minority character. The true test is who "established and administered" the institution. This judgment significantly strengthened the educational rights of minorities in India.
10. Article 142 Cannot Be Used to Bypass Substantive Law
Case: Union of India v. ABC Key Article: Article 142
The Issue: Can the Supreme Court use its "Complete Justice" powers to pass orders that directly contradict existing statutes passed by Parliament?
The Judgment: A 5-judge Bench clarified the boundaries of Article 142. It ruled that while the Court’s power is wide, it is "supplementary" and cannot be used to override substantive laws. This verdict reinforced the "Separation of Powers," ensuring that the Judiciary does not take over the role of the Legislature.
The Constitutional verdicts of 2025 reflect a Supreme Court that is deeply committed to procedural fairness and institutional integrity. By setting clear boundaries for Governors, Speakers, and even itself, the Court has ensured that the "checks and balances" of the Indian Constitution remain robust.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.