Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
The year 2025 witnessed a series of landmark judicial interventions by the Supreme Court, High Courts and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Many cases have seen dramatic reversals, intense public debate, and far-reaching impacts on governance, the environment, the economy, and freedom of expression.
From the definition of Aravalli hills to regulation of digital platforms and comedians, here are the top 10 court cases of 2025 that dominated legal and public discussion:
definition saga of aravalli hills
On 20 November, the Supreme Court accepted the definition of the Aravalli Hills and the Aravalli Range, ruling that only land formations 100 meters or more high would qualify as the Aravalli Hills.
Environmental activists strongly criticized the decision, arguing that the Aravalli range includes not only hills, but also hills, slopes and shallow hills.
They warned that excluding the low-lying areas would leave vast areas vulnerable to mining, undermining the Aravali’s vital role in groundwater recharge and preventing desertification of the northern plains.
However, the Center assured the court that no new mining lease would be granted until the management plan for sustainable mining (MPSM) is finalised.
Later on December 29, the apex court stayed the new definition and ordered the formation of a new committee to analyze all the concerns in the case.
Read this also ‘Ray of hope’: What political parties said about Supreme Court’s stay on Aravali redefinition order
vodafone idea agr case
In a major change, on October 27, the Supreme Court allowed the Department of Telecommunications Vodafone Idea gets relief from AGRReversing his earlier radical stance.
The court said that in the light of specific facts such as the Centre’s stake in the telecom company and the impact on 20 crore consumers, it sees no impediment to the Center reconsidering the issue and taking an appropriate decision.
The court had upheld the AGR demand, noting that the government holds a 49% stake in the telecom operator and the issue is of considerable public interest.
JSW Steel-BPSL resolution: Rejection then approval
The bankruptcy story of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL) took a dramatic turn. On May 2, the Supreme Court canceled JSW Steel’s ₹19,700 crore resolution plan.
However, on September 26, the court overturned its earlier decision, upholding the plan.
The top court rejected the Committee of Creditors (CoC) plea seeking additional ₹6,100 crore citing BPSL’s EBITDA during the insolvency period. The court ruled that such claims have no basis under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
President’s Reference: Time limit for assent to Bills
On April 8, the Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan sharply criticized state governors for sitting indefinitely on bills passed by state assemblies and set a three-month deadline for the governors and the President to approve the legislation.
On 13 May, President Draupadi Murmu sought the court’s opinion on whether such a deadline could be imposed.
On November 20, a five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI BR Gavai said no judicially enforceable time limit can be fixed for the President or governors under the Constitution. However, the top court ruled out the possibility of “simply withholding assent”, saying a Governor cannot refuse to sign a bill and keep it in abeyance.
The judges clarified that although the merits of the Governor’s decision are not open to scrutiny, the “prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction” can be reviewed in court. Article 361’s personal immunity for Governors does not protect the office from judicial scrutiny of constitutional delays.
Read this also SC lays down law on Governor’s powers: Constitution bench answers 14 questions in presidential reference
ex post environmental clearance
On 16 May, the Supreme Court struck down a government notification allowing retrospective environmental clearance for various environmental projects.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said “very strict action should be taken” over the Centre’s “attempt to do something which is completely prohibited under law”. The bench said, “Protecting the environment is the constitutional responsibility of the central government as well as of individual citizens.”
“Cleverly, the words ex post facto have not been used, but without using those words, there is a provision to effectively grant ex post facto EC. The 2021 OM has been issued in contravention of the judgments of this court…” It has declared the 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) and related circulars as “arbitrary, illegal and contrary” to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification. 2006.
on 18th November The court overturned its own decision Further ex post facto approval was allowed in a split 2:1 decision. The top court said that public projects worth Rs 20,000 crore would be destroyed by the earlier court verdict.
The then CJI Gavai had said, “If the approvals are not reviewed, public projects worth Rs 20,000 crore will have to be demolished. In my judgment, I have allowed the recall. My judgment has been criticized by my brother…Justice Bhuiyan.”
stray dog issue
The issue of stray dogs resulted in multiple and sometimes contradictory directions from the apex court.
On August 11, the court had ordered the removal of all stray dogs from the streets of Delhi within eight weeks. Later, in the same month, it directed officials to collect the dogs for sterilization and release them back in the same areas. These directions were given in the suo motu case initiated on July 28 into the spread of rabies due to the bite of stray dogs in the national capital.
On 7 November, the court directed that stray animals should be removed from institutional areas such as schools, railway stations and hospitals. The top court ruled that the dogs should not be released back into the same area and should be rehabilitated in designated shelters.
Read this also Teachers in Delhi to be appointed nodal officers in cases related to stray dogs; Associations expressed concern
X Corp vs Government
The Karnataka High Court on September 23 rejected X Corp’s (formerly Twitter) challenge against the government’s powers to remove content under the IT Act.
X Corp argued that “any Tom, Dick and Harry official” could issue an expulsion order.
The high court ruled, “No social media platform can pretend to be exempt from the laws of the country. India cannot be treated as a playground by disregarding its laws.”
settlement of sandesara brothers
The Supreme Court on November 19 said all criminal proceedings against Nitin and Chetan Sandesara, known as the Sandesara brothers, would be quashed if they agreed to deposit Rs 5,100 crore as part of the settlement.
Fixing the December 17 deadline, a bench headed by Justice JK Maheshwari said, “If the petitioners (Sandesara brothers) are ready to deposit the amount decided in the one-time settlement (OTS), and the public money is returned to the lending banks, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.”
The court later verified that the fugitive billionaire brothers had settled the payments and closed the case.
Legal experts raised red flags, pointing out that there is no statutory mechanism in place to handle criminal cases in this manner, warning that the decision could set a controversial precedent.
separation of vedanta
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved on 16 December Vedanta’s demerger planThe government’s objections related to outstanding dues and alleged disclosure violations were rejected. The decision paved the way for one of India’s largest corporate restructurings.
The NCLT approval paved the way for splitting Vedanta into five separate listed entities, including the already listed Vedanta Limited.
Once the demerger is complete, each business will operate as an independent entity with its own leadership and capital allocation strategy.
‘India’s Got Latent’ controversy
India’s Got Latent Case The issue of the Chief Justice of India pulling up comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Sonali Thakar and Nishant Tanwar in the Supreme Court came into limelight.
The court found that the influencers were “monetizing free speech” and directed them to issue an apology.
It also told the Center that a regulatory void exists and called for the development of a framework to regulate social media and digital content creators.
2025: Year of upheaval and reckoning
2025 stood for the Supreme Court to reconsider its own decisions, sparking debate on judicial stability, executive accountability, and the balance between development and rights.
As these decisions continue to shape policy and public life, their long-term impact will be closely watched in the years to come.