1. Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.

Question of Law: Does a court exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have the jurisdiction to "modify" an award, or is its power limited only to setting it aside?
The Verdict: A 5-judge Bench ruled that while the power is limited, courts can modify an award specifically to correct manifest clerical errors, arithmetic mistakes, or to sever an invalid portion, provided it doesn't require a fresh look at the merits.

2. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

Question of Law: Can State Governments sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) into further categories to provide preferential reservation for the "weakest among the weak"?
The Verdict: The Court (7-judge Bench) held that sub-classification is constitutionally valid. It ruled that SCs are not a "homogeneous" group and States can identify sub-groups that have not benefited from reservation as much as others.

3. In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

Question of Law: Is the "Assam Accord" cut-off date (March 25, 1971) for granting citizenship in Assam constitutionally valid under Article 14 and Article 21?
The Verdict: The Court upheld Section 6A, ruling that the special provision for Assam was a rational legislative solution to the unique problem of mass migration following the 1971 Bangladesh war.

4. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India

Question of Law: Is the Enforcement Directorate (ED) mandatorily required to furnish the "grounds of arrest" in writing to an accused at the time of arrest under the PMLA?
The Verdict: Yes. The Court ruled that to satisfy Article 22(1) and enable the accused to seek bail, the ED must provide written grounds of arrest without exception. Failure to do so renders the arrest illegal.

5. Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Question of Law: Should a reserved category candidate (OBC/SC/ST) who scores higher marks than a General category candidate be adjusted against the "Open Category" seats in a recruitment process?
The Verdict: The Court held that Open Category is not a quota for the General category. Meritorious reserved candidates must be placed in the Open Category first, regardless of their vertical reservation status.

6. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan

Question of Law: Can the Supreme Court use its plenary powers under Article 142 to grant a divorce on the ground of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" even if one party does not consent?
The Verdict: Yes. The Court ruled that it can dissolve a marriage if it is dead for all practical purposes, bypassing the statutory waiting periods to do "complete justice."

7. V. Senthil Balaji v. State

Question of Law: Does the "right to be informed of grounds of arrest" require the agency to explain the specific "reasons to believe" the accused is guilty?
The Verdict: The Court clarified that the agency must communicate the substance of the information that led to the arrest, ensuring the accused knows exactly why their liberty is being curtailed.

8. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India

Question of Law: Is there a constitutional time limit for a Governor to act on a Bill passed by the State Legislature?
The Verdict: While no fixed days are set, the Court ruled the Governor cannot sit on a Bill indefinitely. If a Bill is re-passed by the House after being returned, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent.

9. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds Review)

Question of Law: Does the non-disclosure of political donors violate the voter's right to information under Article 19(1)(a)?
The Verdict: Reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of the Electoral Bond scheme, emphasizing that transparency in political funding is essential for a free and fair democracy.

10. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie FOI Law College

Question of Law: Does the Bar Council of India (BCI) have the statutory power to conduct a "post-enrollment" exam like the AIBE?
The Verdict: The Court upheld the BCI’s power, ruling that the AIBE is a necessary filter to ensure professional standards and that the BCI is empowered to regulate the entry into the profession.

11. Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Question of Law: Can a Fundamental Right under Article 19 (Free Speech) or Article 21 (Life/Liberty) be enforced against private individuals/entities?
The Verdict: The Court held that Fundamental Rights can indeed be enforced horizontally against non-state actors if the violation directly impacts a person’s life or dignity.

12. State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Chaudhary

Question of Law: Does the use of the "Two-Finger Test" in sexual assault cases violate the victim’s right to privacy and dignity?
The Verdict: The Court strictly banned the test, declaring it unscientific and patriarchal. It ordered that any doctor conducting it would be liable for professional misconduct.

13. X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare

Question of Law: Can an unmarried woman be denied the right to an abortion between 20-24 weeks solely because of her marital status?
The Verdict: The Court ruled this was discriminatory. It held that reproductive autonomy belongs to all women, regardless of whether they are married or unmarried.

14. All India Judges Association v. Union of India

Question of Law: Should there be a mandatory 3-year bar practice requirement for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)?
The Verdict: The Court emphasized the need for uniform service conditions and practical experience, directing states to align their rules with the recommendations for a more competent judiciary.

15. M.S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society

Question of Law: To what extent can the State regulate the recruitment of teachers in minority-run educational institutions?
The Verdict: The Court held that while Article 30 grants autonomy, the State can mandate minimum qualifications and transparency to ensure the "excellence of education."

16. S.P. Velumani v. State of Tamil Nadu

Question of Law: Can a High Court order a "Preliminary Inquiry" by a specialized agency (like the ACB) without hearing the accused?
The Verdict: The Court ruled that while an accused has no right to be heard at the FIR stage, the High Court must exercise caution and judicial restraint before ordering inquiries that could damage a person's reputation.

17. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (Jallikattu)

Question of Law: Can cultural rights under Article 29(1) protect traditional practices that are alleged to be cruel to animals?
The Verdict: The Court upheld the validity of the State amendments allowing Jallikattu, ruling that the legislature had introduced enough safeguards to prevent unnecessary pain to animals.

18. Central Bureau of Investigation v. RR Kishore

Question of Law: Does the striking down of a law (Section 6A DSPE Act) that granted immunity to senior officials apply retrospectively to pending cases?
The Verdict: Yes. The Court held that when a law is declared unconstitutional for violating Article 14, it is void from its inception (ab initio), and pending cases can proceed without prior sanction.

19. Madhav v. State of Maharashtra

Question of Law: Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a "Hostile Witness"?
The Verdict: Yes. The Court ruled that the entire testimony of a hostile witness isn't discarded. The portions that support the prosecution and are corroborated can be used by the court.

20. Aravalli Range Case (In Re: Godavarman)

Question of Law: What is the legal definition of "Aravalli Hills" for the purpose of prohibiting illegal mining activities?
The Verdict: The Court applied the Precautionary Principle, ruling that specific elevation and topographical features must be used to define the range to prevent further ecological degradation.

21. Union of India v. Union Carbide (Bhopal Gas Curative)

Question of Law: Can a "Curative Petition" be used to reopen a settlement that was reached decades ago?
The Verdict: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that curative jurisdiction is limited to correcting "gross miscarriage of justice" and cannot be used to re-litigate settled claims.

22. In Re: Appointment of Judges (The "Birthmark" Case)

Question of Law: Can the "source of recruitment" (Bar vs. Service) be a ground for different treatment in seniority or promotion once a judge is elevated to the High Court?
The Verdict: No. Once judges are part of the same cadre, they are equal. Any discrimination based on their professional background is unconstitutional.

23. Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India

Question of Law: Can the Court disqualify candidates with criminal charges from contesting elections?
The Verdict: The Court refused to create a new disqualification (which is Parliament's job) but mandated disclosure, requiring parties to publish criminal records of candidates on their websites.

24. Supriyo @ Koushik Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Question of Law: Does the "Right to Privacy" include the "Right to be Forgotten" regarding decades-old criminal records in the public domain?
The Verdict: The Court recognized a limited Right to be Forgotten, allowing for the masking of names in judgments involving matrimonial disputes or cases where the accused was acquitted.

25. Maintenance from Date of Application (Rajnesh v. Neha Follow-up)

Question of Law: Should maintenance in matrimonial cases be granted from the date of the order or the date of the application?
The Verdict: The Court reinforced that maintenance must run from the date of application to ensure the dependent spouse is not penalized for the duration of the trial.

Conclusion

These 25 judgments demonstrate a Supreme Court that is increasingly focused on substantive equality and procedural fairness. For advocates, the shift towards written grounds of arrest (PMLA) and the power to modify awards (Arbitration) are the most immediate tools for daily practice. For students, the sub-classification and citizenship rulings are the new pillars of Constitutional law.

Disclaimer: This article provides a summary for educational purposes. For court citations and full texts, please refer to the official Supreme Court website or legal databases.