Supreme Court's October Term Delivers Key Rulings on Arbitration, IPR, and Criminal Procedure

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India concluded a consequential month in October 2025, delivering a series of landmark judgments that have refined the legal landscape across constitutional, commercial, and criminal law. The month was marked by significant rulings on the non-retroactivity of surrogacy laws, the rights of transgender persons, the procedural nuances of the Commercial Courts Act, and the evidentiary value in criminal trials. Simultaneously, a notable friction between the judiciary and the executive came to the fore over the Attorney General's absence in a key constitutional matter.

Executive-Judiciary Tension Over AG's Absence

The month began with a rare public display of judicial disapproval as a bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai strongly admonished the Central government for seeking an adjournment in the challenge to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The government cited the unavailability of Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani, who was engaged in a multi-billion-dollar international arbitration.

CJI Gavai, noting it was the third such request, remarked, "Very unfair to the Court. Every time you seek accommodation for international arbitration. You have a battery of lawyers and then you file midnight applications seeking reference to larger benches!" The AG later clarified that his presence was mandated by the government in the arbitration, which concerned a national asset. However, the incident drew sharp commentary from the legal community. Former AG Mukul Rohatgi opined that constitutional matters before the Supreme Court take precedence over commercial arbitrations, stating, "I personally would never have left a hearing midway to go for an international arbitration... ditching a Court hearing midway is not done."

Key Judgments Shaping Commercial and Civil Law

The Court delivered several critical decisions impacting commercial litigation and arbitration, clarifying procedural requirements and statutory interpretations.

Pre-Institution Mediation Not Mandatory in Urgent IPR Cases In a significant ruling for intellectual property rights holders ( Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. ), the Court held that the requirement for pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is not a mandatory prerequisite in cases involving urgent IPR infringements. The bench reasoned that mechanically applying this provision would leave plaintiffs remediless against continuing violations, an outcome the legislature never intended. This decision provides much-needed clarity for litigants seeking immediate injunctive relief.

Arbitration Clause Survives Ineligible Arbitrator Clarifying a crucial aspect of arbitration law ( Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ), the Court ruled that an arbitration clause remains valid even if the named arbitrator is statutorily ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the disqualification of the arbitrator does not invalidate the underlying agreement to arbitrate. In such scenarios, the Court is empowered under Section 11(6) to appoint a neutral arbitrator, thereby preserving the arbitral mechanism chosen by the parties.

Cumulative Preference Shareholders Are Not Financial Creditors Under IBC In a judgment with major implications for corporate insolvency ( Epc Constructions India Limited v. M/S Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited ), the Court held that holders of Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) are investors, not financial creditors. Consequently, they cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for non-redemption of shares. The Court emphasized that preference shares are part of a company’s capital, and non-payment does not constitute a "financial debt" or a "default" as defined under the IBC.

Other Notable Civil Rulings:

* Specific Performance: The 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, which made specific performance a mandatory relief, was held to have no retrospective effect and does not apply to suits filed before October 1, 2018 ( Annamalai v. Vasanthi ).

* Stay of Money Decrees: The Court clarified that depositing the decretal amount is not an absolute precondition for an appellate court to grant a stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, terming the provision "directory, not mandatory" ( Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies Inc. ).

Developments in Criminal Jurisprudence

October saw the Supreme Court reinforce foundational principles of criminal law, focusing on evidentiary standards, procedural fairness, and the rights of the accused.

Summoning Advocates for Legal Advice: SC Issues Protective Directions Taking suo motu cognizance of investigating agencies summoning lawyers over legal advice rendered to clients ( In Re: Summoning Advocates ), a three-judge bench issued a slew of directions to prevent the arbitrary use of such powers. While ruling out the need for prior magisterial approval, the Court laid down a framework to protect privileged communication. The judgment emphasized that provisions like Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are designed to "shield lawyers from unnecessary bullying," reaffirming the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship.

Threatening a Witness is a Cognizable Offence In State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil , the Court decisively ruled that threatening a witness, an offense under Section 195A of the IPC, is cognizable. This empowers the police to register an FIR and investigate directly, without requiring a formal complaint from a court under Section 195 CrPC. The ruling distinguishes witness tampering from offenses against the administration of justice, providing a more direct recourse for victims.

Magistrates Can Compel Voice Samples from Witnesses Expanding the investigative toolkit, the Court held in Rahul Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. that a Magistrate’s power to order the collection of voice samples extends to witnesses, not just accused persons. The bench clarified that such samples are material evidence, not testimonial, and thus do not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

Conviction in Law Cannot Be a Moral One Acquitting a man sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a four-year-old, the Court reiterated a cardinal principle: "there cannot be a moral conviction in law." In Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the bench found the prosecution’s case, resting on an unreliable extra-judicial confession, insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the rigorous standards required to uphold a conviction.

Rulings on Constitutional and Social Justice Issues

The Court also delivered pronouncements reinforcing fundamental rights and addressing systemic issues.

Compensation for Transwoman Teacher, States Held Liable for Omissive Discrimination In a landmark decision on transgender rights ( Jane Kaushik v. Union of India ), the Supreme Court awarded compensation to a transwoman teacher terminated by two private schools due to her gender identity. Critically, the Court held the states of Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat liable for "omissive discrimination" for failing to enforce the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which mandates the appointment of a complaint officer in establishments. The ruling sets a powerful precedent for holding states accountable for inaction in protecting transgender rights.

Retrospective Application of Surrogacy Age Limits Denied Providing relief to many couples, the Court held that the age restrictions in the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, do not apply retrospectively to those who had begun the process by freezing embryos before the law came into force ( Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India ). The bench ruled that these couples had acquired a "vested right to surrogacy" which could not be taken away by subsequent legislation.

The judgments from October 2025 reflect the Supreme Court’s continued engagement with complex legal questions arising from new legislation, evolving social norms, and the perennial challenges of the justice system. The rulings offer critical guidance to practitioners and lower courts, reinforcing procedural safeguards while adapting legal principles to contemporary realities.