Monthly Review: February 2025

February saw the Supreme Court navigate a diverse docket. The Court saw its first Constitution Bench during the tenure of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, which dealt with the power of Courts’ to modify arbitral awards. It also upheld procedural safeguards in arrests under economic statutes and directed the modification of medical eligibility norms to facilitate enrollment of disabled persons.

The month saw significant rulings that addressed gender sensitivity within the judiciary and taxation powers over lotteries. The Court also maintained its scrutiny of environmental governance, tackling issues from stubble burning to waste management.

No arrest without justification

On 27 February, a three-judge bench of CJI Khanna and Justices M.M. Sundresh and Bela Trivedi unanimously held that the procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) apply equally to arrests made under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Two judgements were authored—one by CJI Khanna and a concurring opinion by Justice Trivedi.

The Court drew parallels between Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and Section 104 of the Customs Act—both dealing with the powers of arrest. It applied the principle established in Arvind Kejriwal v Directorate of Enforcement (2024), where it was established that arrests under the PMLA, and now the Customs Act, must be based on “reasons to believe.” The Court extended the same logic to the GST Act, reinforcing the necessity of preventing arbitrary arrests. The bench also held that arrests under the GST and Customs Act are subject to procedural safeguards, such as those found under the CrPC.

Justice Trivedi’s concurring opinion observed that the power of judicial review in determining the validity of arrests should only be exercised when the arrest was “prima facie found to be malafide.”

Gender sensitivity on the bench

On 28 February, the Supreme Court set aside the termination of two women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, calling it “punitive, arbitrary, and illegal.” A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh ordered their reinstatement within fifteen days, with seniority maintained as of 13 May 2023. The judgement called for greater sensitivity towards gender-specific challenges in the judiciary.

The Court noted that the performance assessment of one of the officers did not account for personal hardships such as her miscarriage, COVID-19, and her brother’s cancer diagnosis. The second officer, the Court noted, had a good overall record despite some irregularities in her Annual Confidential Report gradings. Moreover, the complaints against her, which were subsequently resolved with warnings, did not relate to her competence as a judge. 

Authoring the judgement, Justice Nagarathna stressed the necessity for an enabling work environment, “It is not enough to find comfort solely in the growing number of female judicial officers if we are unable to ensure for them a sensitive work environment and guidance.” 

Competency over physical conformity

On 21 February, the top court reiterated its earlier direction to modify the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) eligibility requirement for MBBS aspirants with disability. One of the guidelines required that an aspirant must have “both hands intact, with intact sensations and sufficient strength.” A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan ruled that this clause was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and discriminatory under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. 

The Court emphasised that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to disability assessment is impermissible and held that functional assessment, not rigid physical requirements, should determine a candidate’s eligibility. A functional assessment will determine whether the candidate, with assistive devices and reasonable accommodations, can successfully complete the course.

The direction to revise the guidelines was earlier directed in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v Union of India (2024) and Om Rathod v Director General of Health Services (2024). 

The Court also criticised the NMC for failing to revise its guidelines despite prior Supreme Court directives. The Court ordered the NMC to submit an affidavit on the status of the revised guidelines before the next hearing, scheduled for 3 March 2025.

States hold the winning ticket

On 11 February 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the Sikkim High Court’s ruling that the Union cannot impose service tax on lottery distributors purchasing tickets from state governments for resale. The Court affirmed that the power to tax such transactions rests exclusively with the states.

A Division Bench of Justices Nagarathna and Singh dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Union in Union of India v Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Court upheld a 2012 Sikkim High Court order, which ruled that taxation of lottery operations falls within state jurisdiction. The Supreme Court also upheld the Sikkim High Court’s decision to strike down Clause (zzzzn) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The clause was added in the provision through the enactment of the Finance Act, 2010. Section 65(105)(zzzzn) sought to classify “promotion, marketing, organising or in any other manner assisting in organising game of chance, including lottery” as taxable services.

Citing the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the bench reiterated that all lottery-related activities—from ticket publishing to prize distribution—fall under “betting and gambling” as per Entry 62 of the State List, placing taxation authority solely with state legislatures. The bench further clarified that while lottery tickets constitute “actionable claims”, conducting a lottery scheme remains a “betting and gambling activity,” firmly placing it under Entries 34 and 62 of the State List.

A battle for modification

On 19 February, a five-judge Constitution Bench reserved its verdict on whether courts have the power to modify an arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 34 provides grounds for setting aside an arbitral award, while Section 37 outlines instances where appeals can be filed against arbitral orders. The bench, led by CJI Khanna, included Justices Gavai, P.V. Sanjay Kumar, A.G. Masih and Viswanathan.

Over three days of hearings, the Constitution Bench heard arguments on whether Sections 34 and 37 inherently allow modification, whether modification can be exercised only on severable awards, and whether the power to set aside an award under Section 34 includes the power to modify it. 

During the hearing, CJI Khanna observed that arbitration operates as a “one-step adjudication” process, which comes with its limitations. He pointed out that Sections 33 (which allows parties to request the correction of computational, clerical, typographical, or similar errors in the award.) and 34 were introduced to provide corrective mechanisms, ensuring that parties have access to review and redressal.

Comedy or crime? SC weighs in

On 18 February, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Singh granted interim protection from arrest to Ranveer Allahbadia and barred the filing of further FIRs. Allahbadia had attracted controversy due to an incest joke on Samay Raina’s comedy show, India’s Got Latent, which streams on YouTube. 

Allahbadia had approached the Court seeking consolidation of multiple FIRs filed against him in Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Assam. While granting protection, the Court did not shy away from criticising the content, with Justice Kant condemning the remarks as “dirty” and “perverted.” The Court barred him from releasing new shows and directed that he cannot travel internationally “till further orders.” In March, the Court permitted Allahbadia to release new shows if he promises to follow the standards of “decency” and “morality.” 

The matter is listed for further hearing on 1 April 2025.

Can Lokpal oversight extend to judges?

On 20 February 2025, a Special Bench of Justices Gavai, Kant and A.S. Oka, reviewed a contentious Lokpal Order asserting that judges of high courts established by parliamentary statutes fall within its jurisdiction under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Order stemmed from a complaint against an Additional Judge, alleging judicial favoritism. 

The Lokpal, led by former Supreme Court judge A.M. Khanwilkar, distinguished this ruling from a prior decision that excluded Supreme Court judges from its ambit. Citing K. Veeraswamy v Union of India (1991), it forwarded the complaint to the CJI while deferring further action for four weeks. In K. Veeraswamy, a five-judge Constitution Bench had held that a judge of any court is a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Taking suo moto cognisance, the Supreme Court stayed the order, with Justice Gavai describing it as “very, very disturbing.” Justice Oka observed that all judges derive their authority from the Constitution, not a statutory body. The bench issued notices to the Union and the Registrar of Lokpal. The case is scheduled for further hearing on 18 March 2025.

Smog, stubble and slow progress

On 3 February 2025, the top court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to work with states of Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, and devise a strategy to eliminate stubble burning—a major contributor to Delhi-NCR’s pollution crisis. Justices Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan also criticised these states for failing to compensate construction workers affected by GRAP (Graded Response Action Plan) restrictions in November 2024. Displeased with the delays, the Court set a deadline of 17 March 2025 for responses on stubble-burning mitigation measures.

Midway through the month, on 13 February, the Court shifted its focus to the transition to cleaner fuels in the National Capital Region. Justice Oka questioned the uneven rollout of Piped Natural Gas infrastructure and directed the Commission for Air Quality Management to formulate a strategy ensuring uniform access. Concerns over industrial waste burning also remained unresolved, prompting the Court to instruct the Central Pollution Control Board to develop a real-time pollution monitoring framework. Stressing the need for a broader approach, Justice Oka stated that pollution control policies must extend beyond Delhi to all major metropolitan cities.

The issue of waste management took center stage on 24 February 2025, as a bench of Justices Oka and Masih scrutinised the poor implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. In cities like Gurgaon and Faridabad, waste segregation levels remain alarmingly low at just 15 to 20 percent. Justice Oka questioned how urban areas could claim “smart city” status while failing at basic waste management. The bench warned that non-compliance could lead to construction bans and ordered all NCR states to submit comprehensive reports. 

The next hearing is scheduled for 21 March 2025.