The Supreme Court witnessed a significant constitutional moment as Justice Surya Kant was sworn in as the 53rd Chief Justice of India at Rashtrapati Bhavan, where the President administered the oath.

Justice Kant, who began his legal practice in 1984, previously served as Advocate General of Haryana before his elevation as a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

He later became Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019. The Court noted that his tenure as CJI will continue until February 9, 2027. 

The Supreme Court announced that the President of India nominated Justice Vikram Nath as the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) under Section 3(2)(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The appointment takes effect from November 24, 2025. The Court noted that this nomination aligns with the established convention of appointing the second-senior judge of the Supreme Court to the post. NALSA, constituted to provide free legal aid and ensure access to justice, functions under the statutory framework of the 1987 Act.

With this nomination, Justice Nath will oversee the implementation and coordination of legal services across jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court published an official record of Collegium recommendations issued during the tenure of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, who assumed office on 14 May 2025.

The document shows that the Collegium recommended 129 candidates for High Court appointments, of which 93 received approval from the Union Government.

The Collegium also disclosed demographic details of the recommended candidates, noting that 11 belonged to the Other Backward Classes, 10 were from the Scheduled Caste, 13 were from minority communities, and 15 were women. The publication forms part of the Court’s initiative to promote transparency in judicial appointments and strengthen institutional accountability.

Students of MNLU Mumbai protested after faulty wiring at the temporary Kanjurmarg hostel caused appliances to catch fire, damaging laptops and raising safety concerns. 

Students also flagged overcrowded rooms, non-functional lifts, and a switch from packaged water to RO water that allegedly made several unwell. 

Promised facilities like a mess, reading room and library remain unavailable. 

Following the protest, the University ordered fire and electrical audits, initiated replacement of faulty equipment, and directed the private hostel operator to act urgently.

India has officially rolled out all four labour codes, replacing 29 central labour laws. 

The new framework introduces a national minimum wage, mandatory appointment letters for workers, simpler compliance architecture for businesses, and unified safety standards across workplaces.

It also brings gig and platform workers into the formal social-security net for the first time and eases portability of benefits. Women’s employment options receive a boost with provisions for safer night-shift work, while MSMEs get relief via reduced compliance burdens.

The reform aims to modernise labour governance and deliver a clearer legal regime for both workers and employers.

The Supreme Court has announced that it will launch an upgraded e-filing platform on a pilot basis.

Chief Justice B.R. Gavai said the new system will bring several digital services onto a single interface, including an online advocate-appearance portal, virtual filing, and tools to support hybrid hearings.

The existing filing mechanism will continue to operate alongside the new platform during the transition.

The Court noted that the rollout will be gradual, allowing users to adapt before full implementation.

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to file a status report within six weeks on the measures taken for the effective implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). 

The direction came while hearing a PIL highlighting serious lapses, including the non-functional statutory disability fund and the State’s failure to implement the mandatory 5% reservation in public employment for persons with disabilities.

The Bench noted that compliance with the RPwD Act cannot be delayed and requires coordinated administrative action. The matter will be heard next on February 4, 2026, after the court reviews the State’s compliance report.

[Y Karthik & Ors V State of Karnataka & Ors]

The Bar Council of India has notified its new regulations governing the enrolment and practice of foreign nationals in India, formally publishing them in the official gazette this week.

The rules apply to non-Indian citizens who seek permission to practise law in India, whether they hold an Indian law degree or a foreign qualification.

Foreign nationals with an Indian law degree may register only for non-litigious work, while those with foreign qualifications may advise on foreign and international law but cannot practise Indian law or appear before courts or tribunals.

The framework sets out eligibility, registration procedures, and practice restrictions under India’s liberalised legal services regime.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Bar Council of India on a petition challenging the validity of the 2016 BCI Rules that barred office bearers of district and High Court bar associations from contesting State Bar Council elections.

The petitioner, the District Bar Association, Bulandshahar, argued that the restriction was arbitrary and discriminatory because officers of the Supreme Court Bar Association faced no comparable bar.

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi sought responses from the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh but declined to grant interim relief, allowing the impugned rules to remain in force. 

[District Bar Association Bulandshahar v Bar Council of India]

The Delhi High Court heard a petition filed by CMS IndusLaw challenging the Bar Council of India’s regulatory framework restricting the entry and practice of foreign law firms in India. Following an earlier challenge by Dentons Link Legal, this is the second major action by an Indian law firm contesting the Rules.

 The petitioner contended that the restrictions impose arbitrary barriers, violate constitutional rights, and hinder the development of international legal practice in India. The plea questioned the legality and proportionality of the BCI’s conditions governing foreign firms and sought judicial scrutiny of the regulatory scheme governing cross-border legal services.

[CMS IndusLaw v Bar Council of India]

The Union Government notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025, introducing enhanced safeguards for the processing of children’s personal data.

The Rules require online platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent through reliable methods that confirm the parent is an identifiable adult. Significant Data Fiduciaries must conduct annual data protection impact assessments and independent audits to ensure compliance.

In the event of a data breach, platforms must promptly notify affected users and the Data Protection Board of India, which will operate entirely through a digital mechanism. The Rules aim to strengthen accountability, transparency, and protection standards across all entities handling children’s data.

The Supreme Court held that a company purchasing software to manage or automate its business operations is not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The case arose from a complaint alleging software malfunction, but the Court found that the program was used for export documentation, consignment tracking, foreign exchange management and statutory compliance, all directly linked to the company’s commercial activities.

The Bench ruled that such software is acquired for a commercial purpose and therefore falls outside the consumer definition. Since the dominant purpose was to enhance business efficiency, the company could not claim consumer rights.

[Poly Medicure Ltd v Vembu Technologies Pvt Ltd]

The Bombay High Court clarified that live‐streaming of court proceedings will take place only with the consent of the presiding judge(s).

A notice issued on November 10, 2025, reiterated that under Rule 5.1 of the Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2025, streaming is not automatic but depends on judicial approval.

It further stated that recordings will be stored or preserved only when specifically directed by the Court under Rule 7.4. The High Court emphasized that live-streaming is a facilitative measure governed by judicial discretion and procedural safeguards.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that only the owner of a motor vehicle is liable to pay interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court clarified that such liability arises on the “no fault” principle and cannot be extended to the driver. The Court found that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in imposing joint liability on both the driver and owner.

Referring to Section 2(30) of the Act, the Court reiterated that the registered owner alone bears statutory responsibility for payment.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s award was modified to fix sole liability on the vehicle owner for the interim compensation.