Quick Legal FAQs from Major Judgments of 2025

This compilation presents key legal takeaways from some of the most significant court rulings delivered in 2025 so far. Framed as FAQs, each entry offers a concise explanation of evolving legal principles, grounded in landmark judgments across diverse fields including constitutional rights, arbitration, criminal law, family law, and more.

"The courtroom never sleeps, and neither should your curiosity."

We hope this resource helps you stay informed, analytically engaged, and better prepared—whether you're a student, researcher, or legal practitioner.

Quick Legal FAQs from Major Judgments of 2025

1. Can a Gift Deed executed by a senior citizen be cancelled if the transferee fails to maintain it?

Answer: Yes. As held in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (2025), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, any property transfer made on the condition of maintenance can be declared void if the transferee fails to provide care.

2. What approach should courts take in interpreting the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act)—strict or liberal?

Answer: The Supreme Court held in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (2025) that beneficial legislation like the MWPSC Act must be interpreted liberally and in a purposive manner to achieve its objective of protecting senior citizens from abandonment and exploitation.

3. Why is Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors.(2025) significant for the future interpretation of welfare laws?

Answer: The ruling sets a precedent for empowering Tribunals and ensures that senior citizens can reclaim their rights, even in the absence of strictly worded clauses, as long as intent and welfare are demonstrable.

4. What was the main issue before the Supreme Court in Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others (2025)?

Answer: The issue in Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others (2025) was whether Dr. Sharmad's promotion to Associate Professor in Neurosurgery was valid under the 2008 and 2009 Government Orders, despite not having "post-super-speciality" experience as argued by the respondents.

5. What principle of interpretation did the Supreme Court apply in Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others (2025)?

Answer: The Supreme Court of India, in Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others (2025), invoked the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which means the express mention of one thing excludes others. Since post-qualification experience was specifically mentioned for administrative posts but not for teaching posts, the Court held that such a requirement could not be implied for teaching positions.

6. What broader message does Om Prakash v. Union of India (2025) send to the justice system?

Answer: That juveniles must be treated as subjects of reform, not retribution, and the procedural safeguards under the Juvenile Justice Act are non-negotiable and constitutionally protected.

7. Can juvenility be raised after the final disposal of a case?

Answer: Yes. The Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Union of India (2025) reaffirmed that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after final judgment, review, curative petitions, and even executive mercy, as per Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.

8. What is the “golden hour” as referred to in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (2025)?

Answer: In S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (2025), the Court referred to Section 2(12-A) of the MV Act, which defines “golden hour” as the first hour after a traumatic injury when immediate medical care is crucial to save lives.

9. What did the Supreme Court direct the government to do in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (2025)?

Answer: The Court directed the Central Government in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) to frame and implement a national cashless treatment scheme under Section 162(2) by March 14, 2025, and to submit a compliance affidavit by March 21, 2025.

10. As per the Dharmendra Kumar Singh Case, can a merit list override minimum qualifying marks in promotions under merit-cum-seniority quota?

Answer: No. In Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025), the Supreme Court held that once a judicial officer clears the suitability test by securing minimum marks, promotion cannot be denied solely due to a lower merit list position.

11. What principle regarding suitability tests was laid down in Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025)?

Answer: In Dharmendra Kumar Singh, the Court emphasized that for the 65% promotion quota, individual suitability, not comparative merit, determines eligibility once the minimum score is achieved.

12. Which precedent was followed in Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025), to support its reasoning?

Answer: In Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025), the Supreme Court relied extensively on the judgment in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat (2024 SCC OnLine SC 972), which affirmed that under the 65% merit-cum-seniority quota, promotion must be based on individual suitability, not comparative merit.

12. Did the Supreme Court allow the refund in Harshit Harish Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2025) despite the delay?

Answer: Yes. In Harshit Harish Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Court allowed the refund, stating that technical delay alone cannot deny a substantive and bona fide claim, especially when the State retains money unjustly.

13. What was the significance of Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. CCRA in Harshit Harish Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2025)?

Answer: In Harshit Harish Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Court cited Bano Saiyed Parwaz to reinforce the view that limitation laws should not be rigidly applied to deny relief in bona fide cases where the citizen was not at fault.

14. Why did the Supreme Court criticize the Trial Court’s use of the FIR in Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (2025)?

Answer: The Trial Court wrongly allowed the Investigating Officer to prove FIR contents under Section 67 of the Evidence Act, which the SC held to be legally impermissible.

15. Why did the Supreme Court reject the application of Section 113A Indian Evidence Act  (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), in Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (2025)?

Answer: The Court held that to invoke Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act (Section 117 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), there must be clear and credible evidence of cruelty amounting to instigation or abetment. Mere allegations of harassment, without direct proof of provocation or intent to drive the victim to suicide, are insufficient to raise the presumption.

16. What procedural principle did the Supreme Court reinforce in Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (2025) regarding documentary evidence?

Answer: In Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (2025), the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules must be strictly followed, particularly regarding the admissibility of documentary evidence like FIRs and witness statements. It clarified that FIR contents cannot be proved through the Investigating Officer unless they fall within exceptions under the Indian Evidence Act.

17. Was a departmental inquiry ever conducted against Jaya Bhattacharya regarding her alleged unauthorized absence?

Answer: No, the departmental inquiry directed by the Tribunal in 2003 was never conducted, which the Supreme Court found to be a denial of natural justice in Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal (2025).

18. Can a pension be denied to a government employee if the period of absence was regularised as extraordinary leave?

Answer: No. As held in Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal (2025), once the period of absence is regularised as extraordinary leave under the applicable rules, it cannot be treated as a break in service for denying pension

19. What did the Supreme Court of India hold about hotel-owned laundry units in State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi(2025)?

Answer: The Supreme Court of India held in State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi that even if the laundry unit operates solely for the hotel’s internal needs, it qualifies as a factory if it fulfills the criteria under the Factories Act.

20. Which statute was central to the Supreme Court of India’s decision in State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi (2025)?

Answer: The key statute was the Factories Act, 1948, specifically Section 2(m), which the Supreme Court of India applied in determining the applicability of labor laws to the hotel’s laundry unit.

21. What broader legal principle does Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal (2025) reinforce regarding judicial pronouncements?

Answer: The judgment in Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal (2025) affirms that judicial rulings can be applied prospectively where necessary to prevent hardship or injustice to parties who acted under the prior legal regime.

22. Why did the Court in Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal (2025)  find that the affidavit requirement should not be applied to older cases?

Answer: In Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal (2025), the Court reasoned that retrospective application would unfairly affect actions taken following the law as it existed at the time, thus violating principles of fairness and settled legal expectations.

23. Can an arbitral award be set aside for copy-pasting from a party’s submission?

Answer: In DJP & Ors. v. DJO (2025), the Singapore Court of Appeal held that copy-pasting substantial parts from one party's pleadings without independent reasoning violates natural justice.

24. Is the res judicata principle applicable to quasi-judicial bodies?

Answer: Yes. In M/S Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (2025), the Supreme Court confirmed that quasi-judicial bodies are bound by res judicata, reinforcing finality in litigation.

25. Did the Rajasthan High Court in Reena v. State of Rajasthan (2025) suggest a formal legal framework for live-in relationships?

Answer: Yes, the Court recommended that both Central and State Governments should frame a separate legislation or scheme to regulate live-in relationships, including registration, maintenance, and child support.

26. What constitutional rights were emphasized in Reena v. State of Rajasthan (2025) by the Rajasthan High Court?

Answer: In Reena v. State of Rajasthan, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, stating that adults have the autonomy to choose their partners, even in a live-in setup.

27. Which court delivered the judgment in Jindal Cocoa LLP v. RBI & Ors. (2025) and who were the judges?

Answer: The Bombay High Court delivered the judgment in Jindal Cocoa LLP v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors., Writ Petition (L) No. 8980 of 2024. The Bench comprised Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan.

28. How did the Court define the concept of "modesty" in the context of Section 354 IPC?

Answer: The Kerala High Court in Biju Abraham & Anr. v. State of Kerala (2025) described modesty as a virtue associated with a woman’s femininity, self-respect, and dignity, encompassing physical, moral, and psychological modesty.

29. How did the Kerala High Court interpret the impact of hostile witnesses in Biju Abraham & Anr. v. State of Kerala?

Answer: The Court noted in Biju Abraham & Anr. v. State of Kerala (2025) that the absence of support from hostile witnesses (PW2, PW3, PW6) does not undermine the prosecution’s case if the victim’s testimony is reliable and trustworthy.

30. What societal issue did the Court highlight concerning male victims?

Answer: Delhi High Court in Jyoti alias Kittu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025) acknowledged that men can also be victims of domestic violence and face societal disbelief and stigma, and thus should be equally protected under law.

31. Is a foreign national entitled to apply for bail in a criminal case in India?

Answer:  Yes, a foreign national has the right to apply for bail like any other accused. In Aizaz Kilicheva v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a foreign national undertrial

32. What is the difference between judicial custody and executive detention, as clarified by the Delhi High Court?

Answer: In Aizaz Kilicheva, the Delhi High Court explained that judicial custody refers to detention under a court’s order during trial, whereas executive detention involves confinement by government authorities, such as in a detention centre, under immigration laws like the Foreigners Act.

33. What role did religious and moral principles play in the Kerala High Court’s judgment?

Answer: The Kerala High Court in Unneen v. Shoukathali & Ors. (2025) cited religious scriptures from Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism to reinforce the moral obligation of children to care for ageing parents, emphasizing that law and morality align in such cases.

34. Does remarriage disqualify a father from seeking maintenance from his sons?

Answer: No. Kerala High Court in Unneen v. Shoukathali & Ors. clarified that a second marriage by itself does not bar a father from claiming maintenance if he is otherwise unable to support himself.

35. Can a married daughter claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for her father's death?

Answer: Yes. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Karu Nukalamma & Ors. (2025), held that a married daughter is a legal representative under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and can claim compensation for her father’s accidental death. However, the extent of her dependency must be established through evidence.

36. Can maternity leave be denied on the ground that the marriage is not registered?

Answer: No. In B. Kavitha v. Registrar General, the Madras High Court ruled that marriage registration is not a mandatory precondition for availing maternity leave. In the absence of any serious dispute, prima facie evidence such as photographs and invitations is sufficient.

37. What is the legal doctrine discussed in Smt. Anupama Biswal v. State of Odisha & Another (2025)?

Answer: The Orissa High Court discussed the Doctrine of In Pari Delicto, which bars relief to parties equally at fault. In this case, the petitioner’s claim was denied since she participated knowingly in an illegal act, thus failing the test of equity.

38. Did the Punjab and Haryana High Court strike down the 50% minimum qualifying marks rule in the viva voce?

Answer: No, the Court upheld the rule. In Rajesh Gupta v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others (2025), the High Court held that prescribing 50% as a qualifying benchmark in viva voce was neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.

39. Why has the judgment in Nischal Chandak’s case attracted criticism?

Answer: The Allahabad High Court’s remark in Nischal Chandak v. State of U.P. (2025) has been criticised for attributing partial blame to the victim, thus reinforcing problematic stereotypes and undermining the jurisprudence of victim protection in sexual offences.

40. Did the Karnataka High Court endorse the concept of Uniform Civil Code in Samiulla Khan & Ors. v. Sirajuddin Macci (2025)?

Answer: Yes, in Samiulla Khan & Ors. v. Sirajuddin Macci (2025), the Karnataka High Court made a strong judicial appeal to the Union and State Legislatures to enact a Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of the Constitution, noting inequalities in personal laws, especially concerning women’s rights.

 All detailed case summaries referenced here are available exclusively at Legal Bites—your trusted platform for quality legal content and academic support.