The Supreme Court observed that excluding specific denominations from temples could negatively impact the unity of Hinduism and divide society.

The Bench examined whether a denomination's right to manage its affairs under the law supersedes the State's power to reform religious institutions under Article 25(2)(b).

Justice Nagarathna remarked that denying sections of Hindus access to temples is "counter-productive" to the religion's interests.

The Bench clarified that religious rights are subject to "morality," which includes the constitutional mandate against untouchability under Article 17. The Court emphasized the need for a unified approach to ensure temple access for all.

[Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association]

The Central Government has criticized the Supreme Court’s reliance on "constitutional morality" to strike down laws, arguing it lacks a textual basis in the Constitution.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that this "vague" concept has been used to overreach judicial review.

The Centre argued that the judgments decriminalizing adultery and homosexuality erroneously replaced "societal morality" with this judicially evolved term. Mehta maintained that Article 25 and 26 limitations should stick to "public morality" as intended by the framers. 

He further warned that using abstract ideals to reform religious practices risks the judiciary assuming a legislative role.

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to restrict new Aadhaar enrolments to children below the age of six to prevent "infiltrators" from obtaining the document.

The petitioner argued that since nearly 144 crore Aadhaar numbers have already been generated, only newborns should require fresh enrolment.

The plea suggests that adults and adolescents should instead be required to obtain Aadhaar through Sub-Divisional Magistrates or Tehsildars under stringent guidelines.

Further seeking a clear display at all centers stating that Aadhaar is proof of identity only, not of citizenship, and calls for consecutive sentences for those obtaining the document using forged papers.

[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI]

The Supreme Court held that an insurance company, when impleaded as a party in a motor accident claim, can contest the case on all available grounds, including the quantum of compensation.

It clarified that such a right is not limited to the defences under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which apply when the insurer is only a noticee.

The Court set aside a Bombay High Court decision that had restricted the insurer’s arguments and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on compensation, directing the High Court to decide the issue expeditiously.

[National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gauri Gurudas Gaonkar & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has quashed over 80 legal proceedings in a "matrimonial Mahabharata," ordering a lawyer-husband to pay ₹5 crore in alimony.

Utilizing Article 142, the bench dissolved the marriage due to its irretrievable breakdown, noting the husband had "weaponized" his legal expertise to harass his wife and her advocates.

The Court dismantled his "artificial veil" of financial incapacity, concluding that his litigation was "hostile and vindictive."

By consolidating all dues into a final settlement and quashing pending cases, the Court aimed to provide a quietus to a decade-long dispute, ensuring "complete justice" for the wife and their two children.

The Central government has told a nine-judge Supreme Court bench that secular courts should not determine if religious practices are "superstitions," arguing this power belongs to the legislature.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserted that courts lack the expertise to judge religious tenets and that Hinduism’s vast plurality makes defining "essential" practices difficult.

However, the Bench pushed back, stating that the judiciary can intervene if a practice violates "public order, morality, or health."

The judges noted that while they respect religious expertise, the Court’s duty is to ensure practices do not shock the "judicial conscience" or infringe upon fundamental constitutional values.

The Supreme Court has criticized the Central government for failing to regularly monitor and address racial discrimination against North East Indians.

The Bench noted that the government had ignored a court mandate to hold committee meetings every three months. Highlighting the persistence of racial slurs and the lack of high-level official representation at welfare meetings, the Court remarked that the Union was "taking things very lightly."

The Bench ordered that future meetings include fixed schedules and demanded greater sensitivity toward the community's struggles.

The case remains pending to ensure the government takes concrete steps toward protecting the rights of North East citizens living across India.

[Alana Golmei v. UOI]

Trimurti Films has sued Aditya Dhar’s B62 Studios in the Delhi High Court for allegedly using the songs "Rang De Lal" and "Hum Pyar Karne Wale" without permission in Dhurandhar 2.

The production house owns the rights to the 1989 film Tridev, claims that the unauthorized use of these tracks constitutes copyright infringement.

While the film has crossed ₹1,600 crore in box office, it now faces a potential injunction that could restrict its further distribution.

This case highlights the growing complexity of music licensing in Bollywood,especially when modern blockbusters recreate classic hits to capitalize on nostalgia.

[Trimurti Films Pvt Ltd v. B62 Studios & Ors.]

The Central Government on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the framework of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), suggesting the jurisdiction has outlived its original purpose.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the "access deficit" which once justified PILs has been substantially addressed through legal aid mechanisms and e-filing.

He noted that many current PILs are motivated by hidden agendas. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant responded that the Court is already extremely cautious, applying strict parameters before entertaining such pleas.

The Bench observed that the judicial system has evolved significantly over the last two decades to filter out unsubstantiated litigation.

In the Sabarimala reference hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that "constitutional morality" is an uncertain and subjective standard that should not be used to review religious practices under Article 25.

He contended that the framers intended "morality" to reflect societal standards, rather than a judicial doctrine that varies between benches. Mehta also questioned "transformative constitutionalism," calling it a vague concept that risks overstepping judicial bounds.

While Justice BV Nagarathna acknowledged the subjectivity of these terms, she noted that morality is dynamic.

The hearing continues to deliberate whether judicial review can override long-standing religious traditions based on these evolving constitutional principles.

The Supreme Court directed the sealing of 44 unauthorised properties in Meerut’s Central Market area while coming down heavily on a former divisional commissioner for defying its demolition orders.

The Court termed the officer’s decision to halt demolitions due to “public hue and cry” as an “absolute defiance” of judicial directions and stressed that public officials must uphold the rule of law.

It also expressed concern over schools and hospitals operating from illegal structures, questioning how such establishments obtained utilities and permissions. 

[Lokesh Kumar Khurana v. Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & other connected cases]

The Supreme Court has ruled that borrowers do not have an inherent right to a personal hearing before banks classify their accounts as "fraud."

The Court held that a written representation suffices to meet the principles of natural justice. While oral hearings are not mandatory, but preferred to avoid paralyzing banking operations, as transparency is essential.

Banks are now strictly required to furnish the complete Forensic Audit Report to borrowers, rather than mere summaries.

This balanced approach ensures that while administrative actions remain swift, borrowers have the necessary material to contest findings effectively through written submissions before a final reasoned order is passed.

[State Bank of India v. Amit Iron Pvt. Ltd & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has upheld the life imprisonment of a man from Rajasthan who murdered his newlywed wife by setting her on fire over a dispute regarding cooking.

The Bench observed that patriarchy remains a "daily reality" in India, describing domestic abuse as a symptom of a "diseased social order."

The Court rejected the appellant's challenge to the victim's dying declaration, noting that medical evidence and the magistrate's certification confirmed her fitness to testify. 

Lamenting that nearly 4.5 lakh crimes against women were recorded in 2023, the judges emphasized that legal reforms alone cannot ensure equality without a shift in the collective societal conscience.

[Shankar v. State of Rajasthan]

The Supreme Court has ruled that unreserved posts horizontally reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) are open to all candidates with disabilities, regardless of their vertical category (SC/ST/OBC).

The Bench held that "Unreserved" signifies a merit-based pool.

If a PwD candidate from a reserved category outscores a general-category PwD candidate, the more meritorious candidate must be appointed.

The Court emphasized that denying selection to a more qualified individual based solely on their social category is arbitrary and violates the right to equality, provided they have not availed themselves of specific relaxations for the UR post.

[West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. v. Dipendu Biswas & Ors.]