Introduction: A Year Beyond Case Law

The Supreme Court of India in 2025 cannot be assessed merely through the prism of its judgments. While the Court delivered significant rulings across constitutional, criminal, and civil law, the year stood out for something deeper: it revealed the institution in motion—its leadership transitions, its internal debates, its social symbolism, its vulnerabilities, and its evolving relationship with the public.

2025 was not a year of judicial monotony. It was a year where the Supreme Court spoke through its judgments, but also through its people, its processes, and its moments—both proud and unsettling.

I. Three Chief Justices, Three Life Journeys

One of the most defining features of 2025 was that the Supreme Court was led by three Chief Justices within a single year, each shaped by markedly different backgrounds, yet united by constitutional responsibility.

When the year began, the Court was headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who carried forward not only judicial discipline but also a powerful constitutional legacy. As the nephew of Justice H.R. Khanna, whose dissent in ADM Jabalpur remains the moral compass of Indian constitutionalism, Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s tenure was marked by restraint, institutional balance, and fidelity to due process. His stewardship symbolised continuity—where constitutional courage was inherited not as rhetoric, but as responsibility.

In May 2025, the baton passed to Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, a moment of deep constitutional symbolism. For the first time, a person from a Scheduled Caste background assumed the office of the Chief Justice of India. Justice Gavai’s elevation reflected the Constitution’s promise of social justice reaching the highest judicial office. His background—shaped by lived realities of marginalisation and a familial exposure to politics through his father—brought a sharp sensitivity to liberty, misuse of criminal law, and institutional accountability. His tenure reinforced the Court’s counter-majoritarian role at a time of expanding State power.

The present Chief Justice, Justice Surya Kant, completes this remarkable leadership arc. Hailing from a small village in Haryana, his journey to the highest judicial office stands as a testament to the democratising force of the Constitution. His humble beginnings, professional perseverance, and emphasis on access to justice added a human dimension to the Court’s authority. Together, these three Chief Justices made 2025 a year where leadership itself became a constitutional narrative.

II. The Court’s Core Work: Judgments That Defined 2025

Substantively, the Supreme Court in 2025 consistently reaffirmed one central principle:
liberty is not a concession—it is a constitutional guarantee.

Arrest, Bail, and Due Process

Across multiple rulings, the Court reasserted that:

• Arrest is an exception, not the rule
• Non-compliance with Arnesh Kumar guidelines is unconstitutional
• Magistrates cannot mechanically authorise remand

The Court’s tone shifted from advisory to uncompromising. Illegal arrests were no longer treated as procedural lapses but as constitutional violations.

Civil Disputes Are Not Crimes

Another major judicial correction came through repeated warnings against converting:

• Property disputes
• Contractual disagreements
• Matrimonial and partnership conflicts

into criminal cases. The Court made it clear that criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tactic, reinforcing the boundary between civil wrongs and criminal offences.

POCSO and Adolescent Privacy

In In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025), the Court adopted a nuanced, humane approach, recognising that blind criminalisation under POCSO can irreversibly damage young lives. The judgment reflected constitutional maturity—balancing child protection with dignity and autonomy.

Family Law and Senior Citizens

The Court strengthened welfare jurisprudence by upholding the rights of parents under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, including the authority to reclaim property from neglectful children. Responsibility, not entitlement, was placed at the heart of family law.

III. Institutional Performance: Numbers That Tell a Story

In terms of workload, the Supreme Court in 2025 handled a massive docket.

• 75,391 cases were instituted
• 65,517 cases were disposed of
• Resulting in an 86% disposal rate

While impressive for a court of last resort, this represented a 12% decline from 2024, when the Court achieved a remarkable 98% disposal rate under the single, stable leadership of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

The contrast highlights an institutional truth: judicial productivity is influenced not only by effort, but by continuity of leadership and administrative coherence. The transition through three Chief Justices in 2025 inevitably required recalibration, even as the Court continued to deliver jurisprudential depth.

IV. Strengthening the Bench: Seven New Judges

The Court’s capacity was bolstered in 2025 with the appointment of seven new judges:

• Justice K. Vinod Chandran
• Justice Joymalya Bagchi
• Justice Nilay Vipinchandra Anjaria
• Justice Vijay Bishnoi
• Justice Atul Sharachchandra Chandurkar
• Justice Alok Aradhe
• Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi

These appointments enhanced regional diversity, judicial experience, and institutional balance, reinforcing the Court’s ability to handle complex constitutional and criminal matters during a demanding year.

V. Collegium, Consensus, and Recorded Dissent

While the Supreme Court has consistently defended the collegium system as essential to judicial independence, 2025 also exposed its internal complexities.

During the appointment of Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Justice B.V. Nagarathna formally recorded her displeasure with the collegium decision. Importantly, this dissent did not challenge the system itself, but raised concerns about process and transparency.

The episode demonstrated that judicial independence does not require unanimity, and that internal dissent—when recorded institutionally—can strengthen, rather than weaken, constitutional legitimacy.

VI. Moments Beyond Judgments: The Human Face of the Court

2025 will also be remembered for moments that transcended legal texts.

• The elevation of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai marked a historic milestone for social inclusion.
• An unfortunate incident where an advocate threw a shoe at the Chief Justice during court proceedings raised serious concerns about courtroom decorum and professional ethics.
• In contrast, rare displays of unity were seen when all Supreme Court judges travelled together by bus to Ranthambore, and later attended a RALSA function in Jaisalmer, reflecting institutional camaraderie.
• The year also marked a shift in judicial-media engagement, with the incoming Chief Justice giving an interview, and retired Chief Justices and judges visiting media houses, signalling cautious openness and transparency.

These moments—uplifting, uncomfortable, and transformative—revealed the Supreme Court as an institution that is deeply constitutional, yet unmistakably human.

VII. Administrative Reforms: Rethinking Vacations and Court Functioning

During 2025, the Supreme Court also undertook important administrative and procedural reforms aimed at improving judicial efficiency and public perception of accessibility. In a significant departure from tradition, court vacations were officially designated as “partial working days”, signalling a conscious effort to balance judicial rest with institutional responsibility.

Notably, the Chief Justice of India constituted benches and held court during the winter vacation on two separate occasions, underscoring that constitutional urgency does not pause with the calendar. This approach addressed long-standing criticism that court recesses contribute to pendency, while still preserving the necessity of judicial breaks.

Further, the Supreme Court introduced a fixed time framework for oral arguments, empowering benches to regulate hearings more effectively. By placing reasonable limits on arguments, the Court sought to curb prolonged submissions, reduce adjournments, and ensure focused advocacy—particularly in routine and repetitive matters.

Together, these measures reflected a shift towards structured efficiency, where procedural discipline was viewed not as a constraint on justice, but as a tool to enhance it.

Why 2025 Will Be Remembered

The Supreme Court’s achievements in 2025 cannot be reduced to statistics or isolated judgments. This was a year where the Court:

• Reasserted liberty against unchecked power
• Balanced efficiency with constitutional depth
• Reflected India’s diversity through its leadership
• Confronted its own institutional challenges openly

Above all, 2025 reaffirmed why the Supreme Court remains the last refuge of the citizen against the might of the State. It was a year when the institution did not merely adjudicate disputes—it revealed its conscience.

Share this News