The Supreme Court held that the families of private doctors who died of COVID-19 while treating patients are entitled to benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan insurance scheme.

The Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan set aside a Bombay High Court ruling which had denied benefits to doctors not formally requisitioned for COVID duty.

The bench emphasised that doctors who served during the pandemic, regardless of formal deployment, cannot be denied insurance coverage.

The judgment clarified that eligibility under the scheme depends on whether the doctor actively provided medical services during the pandemic and whether the death resulted from COVID-19.

[Pradeep Arora v. Director, Health Depatment]

The Supreme Court has confirmed that its earlier order mandating assured representation for women applies to all Bar Associations in Gujarat, irrespective of their nomenclature or classification.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant clarified that no Bar Association can avoid compliance by calling itself a different category.

The clarification arose in a miscellaneous application in Meena A. Jagtap v. Bar Council of India & Ors., resolving all ambiguity about the scope of the May 9, 2025, order.

The Court emphasized that the mandate applies uniformly to all Bar Associations operating in Gujarat.

[Meena A Jagtap v. Bar Council of India & Ors.]

The Supreme Court held that a woman employee can file a sexual harassment complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee of her own department even when the accused works for a different organisation.

The Court said the POSH Act aims to ensure a safe workplace and cannot be interpreted narrowly or technically that restricts the remedy only to complaints against co-employees.

It observed that denying jurisdiction in such cases would leave women without an effective forum, defeating the purpose of the statute.

It clarified that ICCs must follow a practical, victim-centric approach and that the respondent’s employer must cooperate with inquiries conducted by the ICC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace.

[Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr.]

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has reconstituted the Supreme Court’s “Artificial Intelligence Committee” to guide the adoption, development, and deployment of AI tools across the Supreme Court and subordinate judiciary.

Justice P. S. Narasimha will chair the committee, with members including judges from Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Punjab & Haryana, and Karnataka High Courts.

The Committee has been tasked with overseeing current and upcoming AI-based initiatives aimed at enhancing judicial efficiency, accessibility for litigants, and transparency in court processes.

Mr. Anupam Patra will serve as Member-Secretary, and Mr. Ashish Shiradhonkar as Special Invitee.

The reconstitution signals the Supreme Court’s continued commitment to responsibly leveraging emerging technologies to modernise the justice delivery system.

The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage on mutual consent, noting it was a “rare settlement” because the wife did not seek alimony or any monetary compensation.

The Court appreciated her gesture of returning the gold bangles gifted by the husband’s mother at the time of marriage.

The bench said such settlements are uncommon today and encouraged the woman to move forward positively.

After interacting with her via video conference, the Court invoked Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce and quashed all pending proceedings between the parties.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the State of Telangana on a plea seeking the temporary release of a real estate agent who has been in jail for over seven years in multiple consumer cases filed by plot buyers.

The plea argued that the sentences were directed to run consecutively instead of concurrently, even though the cases arise out of the same transaction.

The Court will now examine the request and hear submissions from both parties regarding the grant of temporary release. 

[Yellapragadha Prabhakara Rao v. Devulapalli Sri Karthik & Ors.]

The Supreme Court recently sought an explanation from the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh after being informed that law graduates were being charged ₹2,500 for appearing in “oral interviews” before enrollment.

The Court noted that the interviews appear to bypass its 2024 ruling capping lawyer enrollment fees at ₹750.

The matter was flagged during submissions, and the Court will examine the reasons for the higher charges and compliance with its earlier directions.

[Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee]

The Supreme Court urged the Law Ministry to revisit gaps in India’s arbitration regime while the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024 is under consideration.

The Court said the legislation should clarify the arbitral tribunal’s power to terminate proceedings and entertain recall requests, and define the effect of such termination with precision.

The observation came in an appeal involving refusal to appoint an arbitrator under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where the Bench noted that uncertainties dating back to the Model Law persist even today.

The Court suggested consolidation of provisions and a statutory appeal mechanism, and remanded the case for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

[Harshbir Singh Pannu and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh]

The Supreme Court criticised the present state of news reporting, calling it “unfortunate” and noting that earlier standards of factual accuracy have weakened.

The observation arose while the Court was hearing a case concerning allegations that multi-system operators in Andhra Pradesh stopped TV signal transmission after the 2024 assembly election results.

Courts have repeatedly flagged issues such as “kangaroo courts,” selective leaks, sensationalism, and media trials, including in matters such as the Rujira Banerjee investigation and coverage of the Aarushi Talwar and Sushant Singh Rajput cases.

Prior orders have also stressed anchors’ responsibility in preventing hate speech during televised debates.

The Supreme Court held that an award passed by a Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act cannot be annulled or questioned before an Executing Court.

The Court said such awards attain statutory finality and can only be challenged through the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

It observed that objections filed in execution proceedings do not constitute an alternative remedy, as an Executing Court is limited to enforcing the award and cannot examine its validity.

Setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s contrary view, the Court restored the writ petition for reconsideration. 

[Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta & Ors.]

The Supreme Court closed Twitter India’s 2020 petition challenging multiple FIRs registered across states for allegedly promoting a tweet on “Khalistan” by Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.

The Court was examining Twitter India’s request to quash or club these FIRs, arguing that it had no control over user content and that parallel FIRs could not be maintained for the same alleged act.

After noting that five years had passed and several states were unrepresented, the Court said there was no reason to keep the matter pending.

It recorded status updates from some states and disposed of the petition.

[Twitter Communications India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India]

The Supreme Court on Monday directed a forensic voice analysis of an audio clip in which Uttar Pradesh DIG Sanjeev Tyagi is allegedly heard using a communal slur.

The Court said the State police had abused its authority by prosecuting Islamuddin Ansari, observing that the materials on record showed no case was made out against him.

It noted that instead of acting on the complaint regarding the officer’s conduct, the police initiated proceedings against the complainant.

The Court quashed the case against Ansari and ordered that the voice clip be examined by a certified forensic laboratory to verify the allegations.

[Islamuddin Ansari v. State of UP]

The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts cannot question municipal fiscal or economic policies, such as property tax revisions, through PILs unless they are unconstitutional or arbitrary. 

Setting aside a Bombay High Court ruling that quashed Akola Municipal Corporation’s property tax revision, the Court held that municipalities need financial autonomy to function effectively. 

It criticised the High Court for overstepping its judicial review limits and noted that the petitioner, a corporator, had bypassed statutory remedies. 

The Court restored the Corporation’s resolutions, emphasising that tax updates after 16 years were necessary for public welfare.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea alleging that the Delhi High Court failed to reconsider applications from the earlier Senior Advocate designation process. 

The Bench led by CJI Surya Kant clarified that High Courts are already updating their rules and emphasized that members of the Bar should not generate unnecessary litigation. 

The Court’s April 2025 order had directed the Delhi High Court to revisit rejected or deferred applications, following concerns over the Permanent Committee’s functioning, including the deferral of 67 candidates and designation of 70 out of 302 applicants.