New Delhi, Dec 31 (NationPress) Throughout 2025, the Supreme Court has made a series of pivotal rulings that bolster constitutional equality and freedom of speech, while also addressing crucial issues related to sanitation, judicial appointments, and human dignity. Below is an overview of some of the most impactful judgments.

Residence-based PG medical quota deemed unconstitutional:

The Supreme Court determined that residence or domicile-based reservations for post-graduate medical courses under state quotas are constitutionally invalid. It emphasized that such reservations contradict the principles of citizenship and equality. A 3-Judge Bench asserted that merit should not be compromised at the PG level. While some preference may be allowed for MBBS courses, extending this to PG medical education infringes on Article 14.

By upholding the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision that invalidated Chandigarh’s Government Medical College and Hospital PG reservation policy, the apex court reaffirmed that every citizen has the constitutional right to pursue education and professions throughout the nation.

Separate toilets in courts as a facet of Article 21:

Labeling sanitation as a fundamental human right, the Supreme Court directed the establishment and upkeep of separate restroom facilities for men, women, persons with disabilities, and transgender individuals across all court complexes and tribunals. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that access to clean washrooms is integral to the right to life and dignity under Article 21 and is essential for access to justice.

Expressing concern over the lack of basic amenities for judges in rural courts, it pointed out that this deficiency reflects a serious systemic issue. The apex court ordered High Courts to form monitoring committees, instructed states and union territories to allocate resources, and mandated surveys and audits to ensure the availability and cleanliness of washroom facilities in judicial premises.

Ad hoc judges - SC relaxes appointment criteria:

In a modification of previous directives regarding the appointment of ad hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A, the Supreme Court eased the requirement that 80% of the sanctioned strength must be filled. Emphasizing the necessity of addressing backlog, the apex court allowed the appointment of ad hoc judges up to 10% of the sanctioned strength, primarily to function as puisne judges on criminal benches.

This ruling emerged from a public interest litigation aiming to utilize Article 224A to tackle substantial arrears, with the Supreme Court reiterating that vacancies must be filled promptly to ensure justice is served in a timely manner.

Maintenance granted even in void Hindu marriages:

Clarifying conflicting interpretations, the Supreme Court ruled that a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under the Hindu Marriage Act is entitled to seek both permanent alimony and interim maintenance. A 3-Judge Bench concluded that Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, do not differentiate between divorce and nullity decrees.

Strongly condemning the misogynistic language used by the Bombay High Court, the apex court stated that labeling a woman as an “illegitimate wife” infringes on her dignity under Article 21. It clarified that while the provision of alimony is discretionary based on conduct, the remedy under Section 25 is accessible to both spouses, even in cases of void marriages.

Safeguards against summoning advocates:

In a crucial decision aimed at preserving the independence of the Bar, the Supreme Court limited the ability of investigative agencies to summon lawyers representing accused individuals. It clarified that such summons can only be issued under exceptional circumstances as per Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, requiring prior approval from a senior officer with documented justification.

The apex court cautioned that indiscriminate summons undermine attorney-client privilege and the integrity of the legal profession, mandating safeguards to allow for judicial review.

In-service judges eligible for district judge positions:

Overturning prior precedents, a Constitution Bench ruled that judicial officers with seven years of prior practice at the Bar qualify for direct recruitment as district judges. By introducing a “combined experience” criterion, the apex court determined that in-service judges with seven years of cumulative experience as advocates and judicial officers can compete alongside lawyers, ensuring a fair competitive environment.

This ruling, effective prospectively, directed states to develop uniform recruitment guidelines and reaffirmed the 50:25:25 quota for district judge appointments - 50% through promotion, 25% via limited departmental examination, and 25% through direct recruitment from the Bar.

Beggars’ homes must respect dignity:

Calling for a significant transformation, the Supreme Court asserted that beggars’ homes should not operate as quasi-penal institutions. Highlighting Article 21, it issued a series of guidelines mandating medical evaluations, hygiene, access to clean water, nutrition audits, skill training, legal awareness, and independent inspections.

The apex court mandated accountability for custodial deaths due to negligence, including compensation and disciplinary measures, and instructed the Centre to develop model guidelines for nationwide implementation.

Stray dogs - sterilize, vaccinate, return:

Striking a balance between public safety and compassion, the Supreme Court revised its earlier directives regarding stray dogs, mandating that captured dogs be sterilized, vaccinated, and returned to their original habitats, except in cases of rabies or aggression.

Expanding jurisdiction nationwide, it sought a uniform policy while emphasizing dedicated feeding areas and cautioning against hindrance to civic action. This ruling surfaced amid public discussion on safety, animal welfare, and constitutional principles.

RG Kar case - SC transfers to Calcutta HC:

The Supreme Court transferred its suo motu proceedings on the rape and murder of a junior doctor at RG Kar Medical College to the Calcutta High Court for ongoing oversight. It stated that parallel proceedings serve no beneficial purpose and instructed the CBI to provide status updates to the victim’s family.

Previously, the apex court had established a National Task Force (NTF) focused on hospital safety and related issues.

Poetry and free speech defended:

Quashing an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, the Supreme Court maintained that mere disapproval of someone's views cannot justify criminal charges.

Reiterating that poetry, literature, and art enrich human existence, a 2-Judge Bench concluded that the Instagram video in question did not incite unrest.

No ‘deemed assent’ to Bills:

Responding to a Presidential reference, a Constitution Bench concluded that courts cannot impose deadlines on Governors or the President for providing assent to Bills, and that the concept of “deemed assent” contradicts the separation of powers.

While Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent, the apex court clarified their constitutional duties and limited judicial intervention to compelling action within a reasonable timeframe. Previously, a two-judge Bench invoking Article 142 treated ten Bills in Tamil Nadu as deemed to have received assent following significant delays by Governor R.N. Ravi and set a three-month deadline for gubernatorial and presidential actions.

Other significant rulings:

The year also witnessed the Supreme Court dismissing a PIL challenging gender-specific dowry and domestic violence laws, denying judicial inquiries into terrorist attacks, mandating an AHRC (Assam Human Rights Commission) investigation into alleged fake encounters in Assam, issuing nationwide road safety directives, clarifying that individual judges cannot recommend “senior” advocate designations, and strongly condemning scandalous attacks by BJP Lok Sabha member Nishikant Dubey against the judiciary.