As the curtains draw on 2025, the Supreme Court can look back on a year marked by intense institutional scrutiny and constitutional adjudication. The Court was repeatedly called upon to respond to developments that tested the integrity of public institutions and raised fundamental questions about constitutional governance.
Among the most significant issues it dealt with were the recovery of unaccounted cash from a sitting High Court judge’s residence, the powers of Governors and the President in granting assent to State legislation, challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar—now extended to several other States and Union Territories.
The year opened on a shocking note with the accidental discovery of unaccounted cash by firefighters responding to a blaze at the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. Though Justice Varma denied ownership of the cash, the episode sent shockwaves through the judiciary and the public. Acting swiftly under the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, the Supreme Court initiated in-house proceedings and ultimately recommended Justice Varma’s removal to the President and the Prime Minister, leaving little room for procedural laxity.
However, controversy soon followed. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, on August 12, constituted an inquiry committee—headed by sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar—without involving the Rajya Sabha Chairman, even though impeachment motions had been moved in both Houses on the same day. This action appeared to violate the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which mandates that when motions are moved simultaneously in both Houses, a committee can be constituted only after the admission of the motion in both and must be jointly formed by the Speaker and the Chairman.
The apparent lapse prompted a pointed remark from the Supreme Court: “So many MPs and legal experts, but no one pointed this out?” Justice Varma has since challenged the constitution of the inquiry committee, bringing the matter back before the apex court, where it remains pending.
Another major constitutional moment came through the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference concerning timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures. The Court held that no timelines could be judicially prescribed for granting assent. This view came as a relief to the Union government, particularly after the Court’s April 8 judgment earlier in the year had laid down timelines, significantly curbing the practice of Governors sitting indefinitely on Bills passed by the legislatures in the opposition-ruled States.
While the advisory opinion softened the April 8 ruling, it did not overrule it. The Court reaffirmed that Governors have only three constitutionally permissible options: grant assent, return the Bill with a message, or reserve it for Presidential consideration. The so-called “fourth option”—doing nothing—was firmly rejected.
The Supreme Court’s handling of challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, also stood out. Although the Court stopped short of staying the law altogether, it passed interim directions that effectively stalled the operation of certain contentious provisions. The Bench expressed concern that these provisions enabled arbitrary executive action without adequate safeguards and potentially violated the doctrine of separation of powers.
Meanwhile, the challenge to the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar emerged as another major constitutional flashpoint. While final adjudication is scheduled to resume in January 2026, the Court’s intervention has already yielded tangible results. The Election Commission relaxed documentation requirements, allowed Aadhaar as proof of identity, and made public the names of over 65 lakh voters whose names had been deleted from the rolls.
At the heart of the dispute lies a deeper constitutional question: whether the Election Commission can examine or indirectly question the citizenship status of individuals already enrolled or seeking to be enrolled as voters, and whether statutory provisions permitting revision of electoral rolls in a constituency or part of it can be stretched to justify a State-wide—or multi-State—exercise.
The year also witnessed renewed judicial concern over the functioning of the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule. Repeated delays by Speakers in deciding disqualification petitions led the Supreme Court to suggest that Parliament consider whether Speakers should continue to exercise this adjudicatory role.
In a Telangana case involving ten BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress, the Court warned that judicial silence would allow the Speaker to replicate the “operation successful, patient died” scenario. The Bench observed that safeguarding democratic foundations required a re-examination of whether the existing mechanism was adequate and delivering.
On the criminal law front, the Supreme Court delivered significant rulings concerning investigative fairness, particularly in cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Amid growing allegations of political misuse, the Court held that an accused is entitled to copies of all documents collected during the investigation, including those not relied upon by the prosecution. In another case, the Court bluntly asked the ED why it was being “used across the country” for political battles, underscoring that such political contests must be resolved before the electorate.
Despite these interventions, several high-stakes constitutional matters remained unresolved at year’s end. The prolonged disputes within the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party continued without final resolution. The Court also did not initiate/commence hearings, on the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment) Act, 2023—which excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel—or the cross-petitions concerning the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Although an interim order of December 12, 2024, restrained courts from ordering surveys of existing religious structures, final adjudication on the law’s validity is still awaited. The hearings in these matters could not take place due to a paucity of time.
In sum, 2025 was a year in which the Supreme Court frequently stepped in to protect constitutional equilibrium, even as several crucial questions remain open. The Court’s interventions strengthened democratic accountability, but the unfinished business serves as a reminder that constitutional adjudication is often a long and contested journey.