2025: A turbulent phase for Judiciary

The year 2025 was a turbulent phase for the Indian judiciary. It was a year when scandals tested the institution’s internal integrity. Its stability was questioned by frequent reversals. Executive-legislative-judicial friction challenged its authority. The most destabilising event for judicial image was the Cash-at-door case involving Justice YashwantVarma, from whose official residence in New Delhi, burnt wads of currency notes were found in a storeroom after a fire incident on March 14, 2025.

Varma, a sitting High Court judge, faced impeachment notices in Parliament after a Supreme Court in-house inquiry found prima facie culpability. The event compelled the judiciary to adopt a defensive stance regarding “judicial corruption.”

A major aspect of 2025 was the Supreme Court’s tendency to stay or overturn its own orders. The most recent reversal syndrome was witnessed following the controversy arising from the November 20 judgment accepting a uniform definition for the Aravalli hills, in which, at the fag end during the winter vacation (December 29, 2025), the Supreme Court, in a special sitting, took a suomotu cognisance of the controversy and stayed its own order.

The Supreme Court’s handling of questions regarding the assent process for State Bills involving Governors and the President brought judicial turbulence and flip-flop. A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on April 8, 2025, using its inherent power under Article 142, set specific timelines for Governors and the President to act on State bills presented for assent under Articles 200 and 201, and even went to the extent of suggesting ‘deeming assent’ on some long-pending bills.

In May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu made a rare move by invoking Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 specific questions regarding the assent process for State Bills. A five-judge Bench delivered its opinion on the President’s Reference on November 20, 2025, by expressing disagreement with the April 8 decision, saying that while Governors cannot sit on bills indefinitely, the Court cannot impose fixed timelines or grant “deemed assent,” as this would violate the separation of powers.

The Vodafone-Idea AGR and the Bhushan Steel-JSW cases added to the turbulence. Both involved the Supreme Court initially passing orders that sent shockwaves through the Indian economy, only to perform significant “U-turns” or modifications later in the year.

For years, the Supreme Court in the Vodafone-Idea had refused to budge on the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues owed by telecom companies, even dismissing a major curative petition in February 2025. However, by October 27, 2025, the Supreme Court took a dramatic turn.

Recognising that the Government now owns a 49 per cent stake in Vodafone-Idea and that the survival of the company is a matter of “public interest” for 20 crore subscribers, it allowed the Union Government to reconsider and reassess the dues. On November 3, 2025, the Supreme Court further clarified that the Government is free to grant relief on both additional and reassessed dues, effectively handing the “telecom crisis” back to the Government to solve as a policy matter.

The judicial inconsistency in 2025 came to the fore in the Bhushan Steel-JSW case. On May 2, 2025, a two-judge bench ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Power & Steel, despite JSW Steel having already acquired it and invested nearly Rs 20,000 crore to make it profitable. Realising the “disastrous results” and errors in the May judgment, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of recalling its own order in July. Finally, on September 26, 2025, a new bench performed a complete U-turn, reinstating the JSW takeover.

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the stray dog crisis became a primary example of judicial flip-flops. In just five months, there were three different orders. In July, a bench initially ordered a strict “capture and shelter” mandate to clear public streets, but by August, a different bench modified this to a “sterilise and release” policy. The confusion peaked in November when the Supreme Court issued a third directive, ordering the permanent relocation of dogs from public institutions like schools and hospitals to shelters without release.

This rapid succession of contradictory orders prompted a stinging “institutional warning” from a judge, who recorded an observation that such frequent reversals weaken the Court’s moral authority. He cautioned that when the judiciary fails to speak with a stable voice, it undermines Article 141, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court must remain final and binding to ensure public confidence in the legal system.

The high-intensity executive-legislative-judicial friction reached a peak as the three branches of the State clashed over the control of semi-judicial bodies and religious assets.

In the Tribunal Reform Case (Madras Bar Association v Union of India), the conflict was direct. The Legislature (Parliament) re-enacted a law that the Judiciary (Supreme Court) had already struck down as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court slammed this “legislative override,” ruling that Parliament cannot simply “re-package” a law that violates judicial independence.

Similarly, in the Waqf (Amendment) Act controversy, friction arose when the Executive (the Government) attempted to take over the role of the Judiciary. The new law tried to give District Collectors the power to decide land ownership disputes, but the Supreme Court intervened in September, staying these provisions.

The Supreme Court held that deciding who owns a property is a judicial task, and the Executive cannot seize this power without breaking the constitutional balance of the “Separation of Powers.”

A further point of direct confrontation emerged over ‘Judicial Infrastructure.’ The Law Ministry and the Supreme Court clashed over the utilisation of Rs 12,101 crore allocated for courtrooms and residential units. While the Ministry blamed various states for failing to use the funds, the Supreme Court threatened to bypass the executive entirely.

The Supreme Court proposed creating an independent ‘National Judicial Infrastructure Authority’ to manage its own development and budgeting. This move, which the Government has long resisted as an encroachment on its executive domain, highlighted a deepening standoff over the ‘power of the purse.’ The Lokpal versus Judiciary conflict was also a moment of jitteriness for the Indian Judicial System. A glimpse of it was manifested on January 14, 2025, when the Lokpal decided that it possessed the jurisdiction to entertain and investigate corruption complaints against sitting High Court judges, a decision that was subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court on February 20, 2025.

The full bench of Lokpal passed the order asserting that High Court judges fall under the definition of “public servants” in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Supreme Court took a suomotu cognisance of the Lokpal order and, after orally observing that it was “procedurally disturbing,” decided to examine the entire issue. The Supreme Court described “the matter is of great significance concerning the independence of the judiciary.”

In 2025, there were instances of judicial corruption in the Subordinate judiciary. A Special CBI Judge in Panchkula was accused of showing favoritism to real estate developers in exchange for bribes. The FIR alleged he used his nephew as a middleman. In August 2025, a departmental inquiry committee gave the judge a “clean chit,” stating they did not find sufficient evidence of misconduct. However, as of late 2025, the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have continued their legal battles. A formal charge sheet was filed against him and others in the Panchkula District Court in October 2025.

The country also got a shocker in another “Cash-at-Door” Case Verdict. While this case originated in 2008, it reached a massive conclusion in the Chandigarh CBI court this year. On March 29, 2025, a Special CBI Court in Chandigarh acquitted former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Nirmal Yadav.

An area of concern in the year gone by was the conflicting decisions in criminal matters of an identical nature. For example, in November 2025, two decisions of the Supreme Court garnered nationwide attention. Both of them concerned the issue of quashing criminal proceedings related to bank fraud on the basis of a One-Time Settlement (OTS).

The first was the Supreme Court judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd & Others (Nov 11, 2025), and the second was the order in the Sandesara brothers (Sterling Biotech Ltd) cases (Nov 19, 2025). The two decisions, pronounced by different benches, were contradictory regarding the application of the principle of OTS. While in the Sandesara case, the Supreme Court proposed to quash all criminal proceedings on the condition of a Rs 5,100 crore deposit, the Supreme Court restored the criminal proceedings in the Sarvodaya Highways Ltd case, explicitly holding that an OTS is not a ground to quash charges of fraud and corruption.

A notable feature of these two decisions is that one case involves a smaller company (M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd), while the other involves a large, fugitive-run conglomerate (the Sandesara brothers — Nitin and Chetan). While the absconding Sandesara brothers received relief without returning to the country, luck is running out for fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya. On December 23, 2025, the Bombay High Court issued a significant ultimatum to Mallya regarding his ongoing legal challenges. The High Court made it clear that it will not entertain his petitions while he remains outside the country.

The High Court refused to hear Mallya’s challenge to the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act unless he returns to India and submits to the jurisdiction of the court. The High Court pointedly asked, “How does one wipe out criminal liability without submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court?”

Thus, the handling of the Mallya case by the Bombay High Court and the relief granted to the Sandesara brothers by the Supreme Court have caused confusion regarding the legal treatment of absconding accused.

The year 2025 saw three different Chief Justices of India in a single year: Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant. While Justice Surya Kant has very recently taken over as the head of the judiciary, his predecessors did not have an easy task in leading the Collegium on the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary, as both faced significant executive interference.

Furthermore, both the Khanna and Gavai-led Collegiums faced internal dissension, with a member recording formal objections against the elevation of two High Court judges to the Supreme Court for bypassing the principle of seniority. These two judges are now in line to eventually assume the role of Chief Justice of India.

Beyond the Supreme Court, charges of favoritism and nepotism in High Court appointments continued to grip the institution. Allegations surfaced that local practitioners were being sidelined in favour of ‘outsider’ advocates-primarily those practicing in the Supreme Court- who appeared to gain disproportionate currency for selection. Administrative decisions by the Collegium, particularly its agreement with the Union Government’s objection to a proposed transfer of a High Court judge (Justice AtulSreedharan), received sharp criticism.

In December 2025, the Madras High Court faced its own crisis when over 100 Members of Parliament from the INDIA bloc submitted a formal notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker seeking the impeachment of Justice GR Swaminathan. The move was triggered by an order regarding a religious ritual at the Thirupparankundram hill in Madurai, where the judge permitted the lighting of a traditional lamp near a dargah.

The impeachment notice accused the judge of “proven misbehaviour,” alleging that his rulings were influenced by personal political ideology and violated secular constitutional principles. This development sparked a major debate on judicial independence, with dozens of former judges signing a joint statement to condemn the move as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

The final month of 2025 saw a fresh debate centered on the Supreme Court itself following certain remarks by the new Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant. During a hearing on December 2, 2025, concerning the disappearance of Rohingya detainees, the CJI questioned whether illegal “intruders” should be given a “red carpet welcome” with full access to State facilities like food and education.

These comments triggered a sharp divide within the legal community. While a group of senior lawyers and former judges issued an open letter criticising the remarks as “dehumanising,” a counter-group of retired judges defended the CJI, arguing that he was merely raising essential legal questions about national security and the definition of a “refugee.”

This public “judges-versus-judges” disagreement further added to the year’s atmosphere of judicial turbulence and institutional friction.

The growing public tension surrounding the judiciary manifested in a shocking security breach on October 6, 2025, when a lawyer attempted to hurl a shoe at then-Chief Justice BR Gavai in open court. The lawyer shouted slogans claiming he would not tolerate an “insult to Sanatan Dharma,” reportedly triggered by the Chief Justice’s earlier remarks during a hearing about a damaged religious idol.

While the shoe did not hit its target and the Chief Justice remained remarkably composed-even asking security to ignore the incident-the event sparked a national outcry. Later in the year, a bench led by the current CJI, Surya Kant, declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the lawyer, opting to let the incident “die a natural death” to avoid giving the offender more publicity.

This unprecedented attack and the Supreme Court’s subsequent restraint highlighted the extreme pressures and polarised environment the judiciary faced throughout 2025. The Supreme Court observed that such incidents are often fueled by social media, where judicial remarks are frequently twisted to incite public anger.

A similar atmosphere of confrontation was seen in the Jharkhand High Court in October 2025. During a heated hearing, an advocate engaged in a verbal spat with a senior judge, telling him to “not cross the line” and remarking that “the country is burning with the judiciary.” The exchange, which was live-streamed, went viral on social media and sparked widespread debate. In response, a full bench of the High Court, led by the Chief Justice, took suomotu cognisance and issued a criminal contempt notice against the advocate.

This incident, occurring alongside the shoe-throwing case in the Supreme Court, highlighted a growing trend of aggressive behaviour within courtrooms that was amplified by digital platforms.

Following these incidents, the judiciary realised that silence was no longer enough. By late 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Government to frame new guidelines for social media to fix the “legal vacuum” surrounding online content. The Supreme Court proposed creating an independent oversight body to filter out harmful or distorted content before it can go viral and cause real-world violence.

The Supreme Court noted that while free speech is vital, “post-occurrence” penalties like takedown orders often come too late to stop the damage. This shift showed a growing judicial belief that unregulated social media had become a direct threat to the safety of the public and the dignity of the courts.

Internal friction also spread to the administrative relationship between the Supreme Court and the High Courts. In late 2025, the Chief Justices of two prominent High Courts formally questioned the Supreme Court’s authority to issue direct mandates on their local listing procedures. They argued that High Courts are not “subordinate” to the Supreme Court in administrative matters, but are independent constitutional entities. This rare pushback from within the judicial family underscored a breakdown in the traditional hierarchy, adding another layer of instability to an already difficult year for judicial governance.