Supreme Court Questions Minority School Exemptions, Scolds States on Governance, and Tackles Tax Complexities in a Packed Week

New Delhi – In a week marked by significant constitutional debates and sharp rebukes on administrative failures, the Supreme Court of India has initiated a potential re-evaluation of the Right to Education Act's scope, while also addressing contentious issues ranging from gubernatorial powers to the integrity of public recruitment and the nuances of tax law. The nation's highest court, alongside key High Courts, delivered a series of orders and observations that will have far-reaching implications for constitutional law, criminal justice, and fiscal jurisprudence.

A key highlight was the Court's decision to refer a critical question to the Chief Justice of India: whether its 2014 judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs. Union of India , which granted a blanket exemption to all minority schools from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), was correctly decided. A bench of Justices Datta and Manmohan expressed "respectful doubt" about the precedent, suggesting a potential re-examination by a larger bench. This move reopens a fundamental debate on balancing the educational rights of children under Article 21A with the rights of minority institutions under Article 30(1), and could significantly alter the landscape of primary education in India.

States Face Judicial Scrutiny Over Governance and Law & Order

The Supreme Court did not mince words when addressing administrative lapses by state governments. The West Bengal government faced scathing criticism over its handling of the teachers' recruitment scam. Expressing disbelief at the state's arguments defending tainted candidates, Justice Sanjay Kumar remarked, “What kind of blue-eyed girls and boys are these that you even bring in the Advocate General to argue for them?” The bench pulled up the state for its interpretation of a previous judgment and its perceived attempts to protect individuals involved in the corrupt process.

In a separate matter involving federal structure, the Constitution Bench hearing the Presidential Reference on the powers of a Governor to withhold assent to bills continued to hear weighty arguments. West Bengal, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, contended that a Governor repeatedly withholding assent would render the constitutional framework unworkable. Chief Justice BR Gavai, leading the bench, emphasized that judicial decisions would be based on constitutional interpretation, not political power dynamics, setting the stage for a landmark ruling on Centre-State relations.

Further asserting its role as a constitutional watchdog, the Court reiterated a crucial principle in a case concerning electoral rolls in Bihar: Aadhaar is an identity document, not proof of citizenship. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi cautioned political parties against elevating its legal status, underscoring the limited scope of Aadhaar as defined in the landmark Puttaswamy judgment.

Criminal Justice: Bail, Misconduct, and Systemic Failures

The judiciary also took significant steps to address systemic issues within the criminal justice system. Troubled by media reports of 11 custodial deaths in 2025, the Supreme Court initiated a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) to monitor the installation and functionality of CCTV cameras in police stations across the country, a measure mandated in previous judgments to curb police brutality.

On the bail front, several high-profile cases saw developments. The Delhi High Court, in a detailed verdict, denied bail to Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and others in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case, holding that “violence in the name of protest is not free speech.” Subsequently, Sharjeel Imam has approached the Supreme Court challenging this order. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issued notice on a bail plea by alleged terrorist Shabir Ahmed Shah in a terror funding case but refused to cancel the bail granted to an accused in the brutal Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal murder case.

In a case of professional misconduct, the Apex Court upheld the dismissal of a Punjab police commando for unauthorized absence, clarifying that a disciplinary authority’s reference to past misconduct does not invalidate a dismissal order if the primary charge is proven. The Court observed, "Mere mentioning of past misconducts cannot be attributed to have formed the basis of adverse action against the delinquent employee."

Tax Jurisprudence in Focus

A significant portion of the week's legal developments came from the complex world of taxation, with the Supreme Court and High Courts delivering crucial rulings on GST, Customs, and Income Tax.

In a notable customs case, the Supreme Court held that electronic records seized from a taxpayer’s devices are admissible as evidence even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, provided their contents were admitted by the taxpayer in statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act. This ruling by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan prioritizes substantive admission over procedural technicalities, impacting how digital evidence is treated in customs investigations.

The Court also came down heavily on the Income Tax Department for initiating prosecution proceedings in violation of its own binding circulars. Imposing a ₹2 lakh fine on the Revenue, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi quashed the proceedings, reinforcing the principle that government departments must adhere to their own established guidelines.

On the GST front, the Court dismissed a Revenue SLP challenging a Gujarat High Court ruling that a CBIC circular on refunding unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) was retrospective. The bench imposed costs on the Union of India for filing the petition despite a pre-existing precedent, signaling its intolerance for frivolous litigation from the government.

Social Justice, Environment, and Individual Rights

The Supreme Court also entertained several matters of public interest and individual rights. Acknowledging the devastation caused by floods in Northern India, a bench led by CJI Gavai issued notices to the Centre and affected states on a PIL alleging that illegal tree felling contributed to the disaster. The Court also issued notice on a plea seeking the implementation of transgender-inclusive comprehensive sexuality education in schools, highlighting its continued engagement with LGBTQIA+ rights.

In a poignant appeal ahead of Teachers' Day, a citizen's letter urging the CJI to take suo motu cognizance of the "systemic exploitation of teachers" in private institutions was also brought to the Court's attention, framing the issue as a matter of "national interest."

From reconsidering foundational educational laws to enforcing accountability in state governance and clarifying intricate tax principles, the past week at the Supreme Court has demonstrated the judiciary's expansive and impactful role in shaping India's legal and social fabric. The decisions and observations made will continue to resonate across courtrooms, boardrooms, and legislative chambers in the months to come.