2025 Spring Session Review

This is a review of the Supreme Court’s Spring Session from 2 January to 29 March 2025.

Spring at the Supreme Court was not all gloomy and sombre. The Court saw its first Constitution Bench hearing during Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s tenure. Fresh appointments were also made to the bench with two retirements. 

The seasonal blues began with the Justice Yashwant Varma cash-at-home controversy which led the conversation for the better part of the Spring session. And like Achilles’ heel, it was a small opening that threatened a great edifice. 

In this seasonal roundup, we dive into all that was brewing at the top court. 

Note: The Supreme Court does not have an official session calendar. For analytical clarity, we at the Supreme Court Observer have divided it into four sessions: Spring (January to March), Summer (April to June), Monsoon (July to September), and Winter (October to December).

Quick facts

Working days

The Supreme Court worked for a total of 54 days between 1 January and 31 March 2025. During this period, the Court went on break for the Holi vacation that lasted a week.

Quorum

By the time the Spring Session concluded, the Court had a working strength of 33 judges out of the sanctioned strength of 34 judges. 

Appointments and retirements

Justice C.T. Ravikumar retired at the start of the Spring Session. He was the only judge in the top court who was from the Kerala High Court. The appointment of Justice K.V. Chandran returned the regional representation of Kerala back to the bench.  Justice Chandran will serve a 3.25-year term.

Justice Hrishikesh Roy also retired in January. Known for his wit and pop culture references, he delivered 46 judgements during his five year long tenure. Some of his notable decisions helped shape arbitration law and affirmed the National Green Tribunal’s suo moto powers. 

In March, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Calcutta High Court was elevated as a sitting judge to the top court. While recommending him for elevation the Collegium, for the first time, stated that he would be in line to become the CJI in 2031. Moreover, the Collegium noted that there had been no CJI from the Calcutta High Court since the retirement of Justice Altamas Kabir in 2013.

Constitution bench decisions

None

Constitution bench hearings

• Court’s power to modify an arbitral award – five-judge bench – judgement reserved on 19 February 2025.

Pendency

• 20 five-judge matters are pending, with 193 tagged matters.
• 5 seven-judge matters with 35 tagged petitions.
• 2 nine-judge matters with 53 tagged petitions.

Total pendency: 81,209 cases

Note: This data was collected from the National Judicial Data Grid on 8 April 2025.

Constitution Bench hearings

To modify or not to modify?

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna reserved judgement in a case concerning the extent of judicial intervention in modifying arbitral awards. The bench heard arguments for over three days in February 2025. The core issue relates to  the interpretation of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers courts to “set aside” an arbitral award. The question is whether this also includes the authority to “modify” an award. The respondents answer in the affirmative. 

Whereas, the petitioners, including the Union, maintained that Parliament in the Arbitration Act deliberately excluded any judicial power to modify arbitral awards. In contrast, the respondents argued that Parliament would have explicitly stated that arbitral awards cannot be modified.

Marriage equality review dismissed 

A five-judge bench  dismissed review petitions seeking a re-evaluation of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v Union of India (2023), which had refused the fundamental right to marry of sexual minorities. The review was listed in-chambers where the bench  found no error in the October 2023 ruling. 

Notable Division Bench hearings

Cries of juvenility – heard, but late

In Om Prakash v State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court set aside a life sentence after finding the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The Court took note of how his claims of being a juvenile were rejected at previous stages despite credible evidence, school records and medical tests.  

By the time his life sentence was set aside, the appellant had spent over 25 years in prison. He was initially sentenced to death which was later commuted to a life sentence in 2012 by the President. The judgement, authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh,  reaffirmed that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the trial under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. 

Going green with the top court

The Supreme Court continued monitoring the Delhi pollution crisis under M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1985). The case was initially taken up in winter last year following the capital’s worsening air quality. This session, the top court took on multiple issues that aggravate the crisis every year. These include the compliance of colour-coded stickers to identify fuel types,  the implementation of solid waste management rules, stubble burning, firecracker ban and more. 

Locking away discrimination in prisons 

In January, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan gave the Union and state governments a “last opportunity” to submit compliance reports on non-discrimination in Indian prisons. The Court is monitoring the issue of caste, gender, and disability-based discrimination in Indian prisons in the ongoing suo moto case In Re: Discrimination inside prisons in India. 

The case was taken up after the judgement in Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024), where the Court struck down rules perpetuating caste based discrimination in prisons. 

Calling reinforcements

On 30 January, a Special Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, with Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant held that high courts could appoint two to five retired judges as ad-hoc judges under Article 224A. The bench observed that the  overwhelming backlog of over 62 lakh cases in high courts could be tackled with the appointment of these judges. However, to ensure that ad-hoc judges do not supplant the process of appointment of additional and permanent judges, the bench capped the ad-hoc judges to 10 percent of the sanctioned strength. 

The Court also put in abeyance its earlier ruling in Lok Prahari v Union of India (2021), which had made such appointments conditional on whether recommendations have been made for 20 percent of the regular vacancies. The Court also stayed the part of Lok Prahari which stated that ad-hoc judges cannot be part of division benches which include permanent or additional judges. 

CrPC applicable on Customs and GST Act 

In a significant judgment in February, the Supreme Court held that procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) apply to arrests under the Customs Act, 1962 and GST Act, 2017. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice M.M. Sundresh, and Justice Bela Trivedi had reserved judgement in the matter in May last year. 

CJI Khanna authored the majority opinion with a concurring opinion penned by Justice Trivedi. The Court drew a parallel between arrest powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and the Customs Act, applying the same standards to the GST regime. Relying on Arvind Kejriwal v Directorate of Enforcement (2024), also a PMLA case, the bench held that the authorities must demonstrate “reasons to believe” before making arrests under these laws. Justice Trivedi clarified that judicial review of such arrests is limited to cases where mala fides are prima facie evident. 

Judges under Lokpal’s lens?

On 27 January 2025, the Lokpal delivered a controversial order stating that it can investigate corruption complaints against high court judges. The Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance and stayed the order in February this year. During the hearing in March, the bench appointed Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar as amicus curiae to assist with the matter. The Court is weighing whether the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 can bypass the in-house procedure set up by the Supreme Court in 1999 to deal with judicial misconduct.

A sensitive approach 

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh reinstated the appointment of two women judicial officers from Madhya Pradesh, calling their termination “punitive, arbitrary, and illegal.” The bench noted that the Madhya Pradesh High Court did not take the complete picture into consideration while assessing the performance of the officers. For instance, one of the officers had suffered major personal setbacks – miscarriage, COVID, and her brother’s cancer. The other officer had a solid track record, and the complaints against her had been resolved with mere warnings.

Justice Nagarathna, writing the judgement, said that it isn’t enough to count women in robes and that courts must also ensure they’re working in environments that understand their realities.

Hitting play on “The Ranveer Show”

Ranveer Allahbadia’s incest joke landed him in trouble across the media and also the Supreme Court. In February, as the Court granted him protection from arrest, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh also described his joke as “dirty” and “perverted”. The Court also directed that no new FIRs shall be filed against him except the ones in Maharashtra and Assam. 

The conditions imposed on Allahbadia were that he could not release any more episodes and had to turn in his passport. In early March, the Court relaxed the former condition after directing Allahbadia to submit an undertaking that he will keep the content moderate and suitable for all age groups.  

While lifting the restriction, the Court urged the Union to frame content guidelines that restrict vulgarity and perversity on the internet while also not restricting the fundamental right to  free speech under Article 19.

The bench is yet to decide on the aspect of Allahbadia’s international travel. 

The seniority debate

A Special Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A.S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and S.V. Bhatti reserved judgment on whether the current framework for designating senior advocates needs reform. The bench revisited the designation process, shaped by the Indira Jaising decisions of 2017 and 2023. Over two days of hearings, petitioners questioned the interview process and the opacity of the points-based marking scheme. Proposals included eliminating interviews altogether, revising the scoring criteria, and even bringing back the secret ballot. The Court will now decide whether the robe of seniority requires some tailoring.

Court news

75 ‘Supreme’ years

In January, a ceremonial bench marked the close of the Supreme Court’s 75th year. CJI Sanjiv Khanna led the session, recalling the institution’s constitutional journey. Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Supreme Court Bar Association President Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal delivered speeches highlighting the Court’s evolving legacy. CJI Khanna traced the Court’s jurisprudential milestones across decades – from the early days of Article 13 interpretation and the Basic Structure doctrine to modern developments in environmental law, personal liberty, and privacy rights. 

(Note: We have traced many of the landmarks and transformations mentioned above in a year-long special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court. Do go through our set of 12 articles that thematically document the Court’s 75-year-journey through a cultural and critical lens.)

The burning question about the 15 crore 

The judiciary was rocked in March after reports revealed that Rs. 15 crore of unaccounted half-burnt cash was discovered at Delhi High Court’s Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence. CJI Sanjiv Khanna swiftly set up an in-house inquiry committee to look into the ‘cash-in-house’ controversy. He also ordered that Justice Varma be stripped of all judicial work. Further, the Collegium recommended his transfer from the Delhi High Court to his parent High Court in Allahabad. In early April, Justice Varma took oath as a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court in a private ceremony.

Following the incident, conversations around judicial accountability have picked up again with the Vice President suggesting that the cash-at-home row could have been avoided if the Court hadn’t struck down the NJAC in 2015.