The Supreme Court of India delivered a wide range of impactful orders this week, touching upon criminal law, women’s rights, constitutional freedoms, AI regulation, political accountability, economic offences, and environmental protection.

1. Dowry Death Case: SC Sets Aside Bail – Reaffirming Zero Tolerance for 304B Offences

Case Reference: Name Withheld v. State, SLP (Crl) No. — /2025 (Dowry Death Appeal)

Statutes Cited:

Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

In a powerful reaffirmation of India’s anti-dowry jurisprudence, the Supreme Court quashed a High Court order granting bail in a dowry death case. The bench observed that dowry practices have led to the “commercialisation of marriage” and emphasised that courts must act with heightened sensitivity in offences involving domestic violence and unnatural deaths within seven years of marriage.

The Court reiterated that Section 113B of the Evidence Act creates a presumption of dowry death when death occurs under abnormal circumstances. It held that granting bail in such cases without examining circumstantial evidence undermines public confidence in the justice system.

The decision strengthens the doctrinal stance established in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207, where the Court warned against diluting dowry-death prosecutions.

2. SC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Pinnelli Brothers in Political Murder Case

Case Reference: Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP (Crl) No. —/2025

The Court dismissed anticipatory bail pleas filed by former MLA Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy and his brother in a politically sensitive double-murder case. The bench held that anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be extended when allegations involve brutal political violence, potential witness intimidation, and custodial interrogation requirements.

The ruling aligns with precedents in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, where the SC limited anticipatory bail in cases involving evasion or influence.

3. SC Seeks Detailed Compliance Reports on Prison Overcrowding

Case Reference: In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, W.P. (Civil) No. 406/2013

Highlighting systemic human rights concerns, the Court directed all states to file updated reports regarding infrastructure expansion, non-custodial alternatives, and undertrial review committees. The bench noted that many prisons are operating at 180–200% capacity, violating the right to life under Article 21.

The order cites international norms, including the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules).

4. Nirbhaya Fund Under-Utilisation: Supreme Court Criticises States

Statutes Cited:

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
Nirbhaya Fund Guidelines, Ministry of Women and Child Development

The Court expressed dissatisfaction with states failing to utilise the Nirbhaya Fund effectively, noting incomplete emergency response systems, forensic kits shortages, and non-functional one-stop crisis centres. The bench demanded utilisation certificates and warned of further directions for non-compliance.

This aligns with earlier judicial scrutiny in Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427, concerning state obligations toward women’s safety.

5. Supreme Court to Hear PIL Seeking Ban on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

Case Reference: Chetna Welfare Society v. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. —/2025

Statutes & Conventions Cited:

Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, Constitution of India
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
CEDAW (Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)

The PIL argues that FGM practiced within the Dawoodi Bohra community is unconstitutional, violates bodily autonomy, and causes lifelong harm. The Court noted that religious freedom cannot justify harmful practices, echoing reasoning from Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 and Sabarimala Review (2018) 11 SCC 1.

This matter may become a watershed ruling in gender-justice jurisprudence.

6. AI Deepfakes: SC Seeks Government Response on Regulatory Framework

Case Reference: Public Union for Civil Liberties v. UoI (Deepfake PIL)

The Court acknowledged the national security implications of AI-generated deepfake content, including election manipulation, identity theft, and defamation. The bench questioned whether existing IT Rules, 2021 sufficiently regulate synthetic media.

This marks India’s first potential judicial framework on AI governance, similar to global developments under the EU AI Act and US Senate AI guidelines.

7. SC Issues Notice to Rajasthan on Anti-Conversion Law

Case Reference: People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Rajasthan, W.P. (Civil) No. —/2025

Statutes Cited: Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025

The Court clubbed this case with other anti-conversion law challenges from UP, MP, Uttarakhand, and Karnataka, signalling a potential constitutional reference bench.

Key issues include:

whether prior permission requirements violate privacy under Puttaswamy (2017) 10 SCC 1
whether "allurement" and "coercion" definitions are unconstitutionally vague
whether consenting adults can marry and convert without state interference

This may become the most significant verdict on Article 25 in decades.

8. SC Flags Concern Over 2-Judge Benches Overruling Judicial Precedent

Doctrine Cited: Article 141 – Law declared by Supreme Court binding.

Precedent: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 673

The Court warned that smaller benches overturning established precedents without referring issues to larger benches undermines judicial discipline and legal certainty. The comment suggests upcoming internal judicial reforms to enforce stare decisis.

9. SC Examines Whether EC Exceeded Powers Under Article 324

Case Reference: Association for Democratic Integrity v. Election Commission of India

The petitioner argued EC cannot introduce procedures unsupported by the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Court examined the boundary between constitutional autonomy under Article 324 and statutory limitations.

A judgment could reshape India’s electoral administrative jurisprudence.

10. Supreme Court Calls for Independent Social Media Regulator

Observing rising misinformation and algorithmic harms, the SC commented that self-regulation is inadequate and India needs a digital regulatory authority akin to TRAI or SEBI.

This aligns with global shifts seen in:

UK Online Safety Act, 2024
EU Digital Services Act, 2023

11. Supreme Court Continues Hearing on IT Rules Fact-Checking Unit (FCU) — A Pivotal Free Speech Battle

The Supreme Court’s ongoing examination of the IT Rules, 2021 (specifically the 2023 amendment introducing the Fact-Checking Unit) has emerged as one of the most crucial free-speech cases of the decade. Petitioners—journalists, digital media publishers, and civil liberties groups—argue that empowering a state-appointed agency to classify any online content relating to the “business of the government” as “fake, false, or misleading” is effectively an institutional mechanism for censorship. They contend that the wording is vague, allowing the government to suppress criticism, investigative journalism, and dissent. They also argue that the FCU violates Article 19(1)(a) by chilling speech and placing unreasonable restrictions outside the scope permitted under Article 19(2).

During the hearing, the Supreme Court queried the government on safeguards to prevent abuse of power and asked why independent, multi-stakeholder bodies were not considered. The bench noted the global struggle against misinformation but warned that state-controlled truth-checking can be misused in politically charged environments. The government maintained that misinformation poses national security and public-order risks, making an FCU necessary. The Court appears inclined toward a balanced approach—ensuring protection against misinformation while preventing executive overreach. A final ruling will have massive implications for digital rights, journalism, and platform regulation in India.

Case Title: Editors Guild of India & Ors. v. Union of India

Citation: W.P. (Crl.) No. 441 of 2024 – Pending before Supreme Court of India

12. Supreme Court Approves $570 Million Settlement with Sandesara Brothers — A Controversial Economic Offence Resolution

In a precedent-setting development, the Supreme Court approved a settlement enabling fugitive businessmen Nitin and Chetan Sandesara of Sterling Biotech to repay approximately $570 million against an alleged ₹12,000-crore bank fraud. The decision has triggered intense debate among legal experts and financial analysts. The Court emphasized that partial recovery of public funds—previously at risk of total loss—should not be dismissed simply because the accused had fled the country.

The bench clarified that approval of the settlement does not exonerate the accused from potential criminal and regulatory liabilities. Instead, it opens a pathway for repatriation and financial recovery. Critics argue that allowing fugitives to negotiate settlements sets a problematic precedent under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. They fear it may embolden white-collar criminals to flee and later bargain for leniency. Proponents counter that India requires pragmatic solutions for complex cross-border financial frauds where extradition is improbable.

The Court indicated that such settlements must remain exceptional and subject to strict judicial oversight. This ruling marks a shift towards economic realpolitik: prioritising restitution over long-drawn prosecution when recovery is uncertain. Other banking fraud litigations may now attempt similar mechanisms.

Case Title: Sandesara Group Entities v. Union of India & Consortium of Banks

Citation: SLP (Civil) No. 19032 of 2025 – Settlement Order dated 24 Nov 2025 (SC)

13. Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Position on Uniform, Religion-Neutral Adoption & Guardianship Laws

The Supreme Court heard a PIL demanding a uniform adoption and guardianship framework across all communities, arguing that current laws discriminate based on religion. The petitioner highlighted disparities between the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, and personal laws governing Muslims, Christians, and Parsis. For instance, Muslims cannot formally adopt under personal law and can only take a “kafala”-type guardianship, which does not create inheritance rights.

The Court observed that adoption is fundamentally a matter of child welfare and must be guided by Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity). It asked whether personal law restrictions can override a child’s best interests. The bench also referenced international standards such as the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption.

This case has broader implications for the debate around the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). However, the Court clarified that its focus is not on imposing uniformity but ensuring that no child is denied a nurturing family due to religious barriers embedded in outdated personal laws. A final ruling may harmonise adoption procedures under a religion-neutral statutory umbrella.

Case Title: Aarav Sharma v. Union of India

Citation: W.P. (Civil) No. 1283 of 2024 – Pending PIL (SC)

14. Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Assam Delimitation Process — Reinforcing Judicial Restraint in Electoral Matters

The Supreme Court declined to halt the Election Commission of India’s delimitation exercise in Assam, despite petitions alleging arbitrariness, demographic distortion, and political influence. The Court held that it would not intervene in the middle of an electoral process unless there is evidence of constitutional or statutory violation. This reflects long-standing judicial restraint as articulated in cases like Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC and PUCL v. Union of India.

The petitioners argued that the delimitation was conducted without proper consultation, ignored demographic realities, and disproportionately affected minority-dominated regions. The Court acknowledged the gravity of these concerns but maintained that delaying or staying delimitation at this late stage would disrupt the electoral process and compromise administrative stability.

The order reinforces the doctrine that election-related decisions require a very high threshold of proof for judicial intervention. It also implicitly affirms the Election Commission’s constitutional independence under Article 324. The case may be revisited after the elections, with the Court indicating that substantive challenges could still be heard later. Currently, the revised constituency boundaries will remain in effect.

Case Title: All Assam Minorities Students Union v. Election Commission of India