The appropriate group to review this material would be Senior Constitutional Law Scholars and Judicial Services Examination Preparatory Faculties.
Abstract
This analysis addresses key judgments handed down in 2025 by the Supreme Court of India, focusing on constitutional rights, gubernatorial authority, arbitration modification powers, and property law.
In criminal jurisprudence (Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar), the Court reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of involuntary narco-analysis and similar diagnostic tests under Articles 20(3) and 21, while clarifying the admissibility of resultant material facts under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
In matters of legislative assent (State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and the subsequent Presidential Reference), the Court established that while gubernatorial inaction on bills is unconstitutional, the judiciary cannot prescribe fixed, mandatory timelines for the Governor's decision under Article 200. Furthermore, the Court revoked the power to grant "deemed assent" to bills, asserting that such an action usurps the legislative functions of the executive.
Regarding alternative dispute resolution (Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.), the Court confirmed that its power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, exists, but is strictly limited to issues of severability, clerical errors, correction of interest, or through the invocation of Article 142.
Finally, in property law (Mahnoor Fatima & Ors. v. M/S Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors), the judgment reinforced that mere registration of a sale deed does not confer ownership if the transferor lacks valid legal title, underscoring the necessity of due diligence concerning the chain of title.
Core Principle: Involuntary conduct of narco-analysis, polygraph, or brain mapping tests is illegal and unconstitutional, violating Articles 20(3) (Right against Self-Incrimination) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This judgment references the landmark precedent set in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010).
Admissibility of Findings: Although the results of such involuntary tests are inadmissible, any consequential facts or information discovered as a direct result of these tests (e.g., location of a hidden weapon) may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Conviction Basis: Information obtained through these tests cannot serve as the sole basis for a conviction.
Voluntary Test: An accused may voluntarily demand a narco-analysis test to prove innocence; however, this is explicitly stated to not be an indefeasible (absolute) right. The Court retains discretion to approve or deny the request based on situational assessment.
4:21 Case 2: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu
Issue: Addressed the inaction of the Governor of Tamil Nadu regarding the grant of assent to multiple State Assembly bills, some pending for up to three years.
Initial Ruling (Article 200): The Supreme Court held that the Governor's indefinite inaction on a bill is unconstitutional as it impedes the State's law-making machinery. The Court initially prescribed a timeline for the Governor to act on bills.
Article 163: The Court initially asserted that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Cabinet) when making decisions regarding bills.
Article 142 Invocation: The Court utilized its complete justice power under Article 142 to grant "deemed assent" to 10 specific, long-pending bills, treating them as having become Acts.
10:15 Case 3: In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India (Presidential Reference)
Context: Following the Tamil Nadu judgment, the President referred 14 questions to the Supreme Court for clarification under Article 143.
Timeline Constraint: The Court modified its prior stance, ruling that it cannot prescribe a fixed timeline for the Governor or President to act on a bill under Article 200. The Court can only question undue delay (inaction) and request action within a reasonable time.
Deemed Assent Revocation: The Court ruled that granting "deemed assent" is unconstitutional, as the judiciary cannot substitute the President or Governor in their executive/legislative functions.
Precedent on Tamil Nadu Bills: The Court clarified that the "deemed assent" granted to the 10 Tamil Nadu bills in Case 2 was a standalone action under Article 142 and does not set a binding precedent for future cases.
Gubernatorial Discretion (Article 163): The Court revised the Case 2 ruling, clarifying that the advice of the Council of Ministers is advisory and influential, but not binding on the Governor. The Governor retains full discretion.
Judicial Review: The decision to grant assent, withhold, or reserve a bill is generally not subject to judicial review.
13:58 Case 4: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.
Issue: Resolved long-standing confusion regarding whether courts, when reviewing an arbitral award, can only set it aside or also modify it under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Modification Power Confirmed: The Court held that the power of modification exists under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act.
Limited Grounds for Modification: Modification is permissible only under strict and limited circumstances:
Application of the Doctrine of Severability (removing an invalid, separable part of the award).
Correction of clerical, computational, or typographical errors.
Correction or inclusion of post-award interest calculations.
Invocation of Article 142 (Complete Justice), though this power is also restricted (e.g., Court cannot collect evidence or act as an appellate body).
Minority View (Justice Viswanathan): A dissenting opinion argued that modification should not be allowed, citing the UNCITRAL Model Law and parliamentary intent to preserve the finality and speed of arbitration.
19:55 Case 5: Mahnoor Fatima & Ors. v. M/S Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Domain: Property Law (Registration Act, 1908).
Core Principle (Section 49): Registration of property is insufficient to transfer ownership if the seller does not possess a valid legal title.
Facts: The sellers (Bhavana Society) had no legal title to the 53 acres of land, as the property had vested in the State under the Land Reform Act of 1975. Subsequent sale and registration to the petitioners (Mahnoor Fatima & Ors.) were deemed illegal.
Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226): The Court ruled that Article 226 cannot be used to protect a party’s claims when they do not hold a rightful legal claim or valid title to the property.
Statutory Requirement: The judgment reiterates that unregistered sale agreements cannot transfer property rights (Section 49) and emphasizes that instruments must be registered within the statutory time limit (Sections 23 and 24) to secure valid legal title.