Supreme Court Weekly: Major Rulings on Waqf Act, NDPS Evidence, and Anand Karaj Registrations

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India delivered a series of significant judgments and orders this past week, shaping legal discourse across constitutional, criminal, and civil law. Key developments included a partial stay on the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, a landmark ruling on the registration of Sikh marriages under the Anand Marriage Act, and crucial clarifications on evidence in NDPS cases and procedural mandates for searches without warrants.

The week's proceedings saw benches led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai tackle complex issues ranging from environmental protection and religious freedoms to the sanctity of the tendering process and the execution of arbitral awards. Here is a comprehensive roundup of the most impactful legal developments from September 15 to September 20, 2025.

Constitutional and Administrative Law Highlights

Partial Stay on Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025

In a closely watched matter, a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih granted a partial interim stay on certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, while allowing several other contentious sections to remain in effect. In In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 , the Court stayed the condition requiring a person to be a practitioner of Islam for at least five years, noting that the absence of a mechanism to determine this could lead to arbitrariness.

The Court also stayed provisions empowering a government officer (Collector) to decide on encroachment disputes during the pendency of a title question, flagging it as a violation of the separation of powers. The bench directed that disputed Waqf land will not be affected until the title is decided by a competent Tribunal or Court, and barred the creation of third-party rights on such lands. However, the Court did not interfere with other major provisions, including the abolition of 'waqf-by-user' and the application of the Limitation Act.

Mandate for Anand Karaj Marriage Registration

Decades of non-implementation of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 came under judicial scrutiny in Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India & Ors. The Court directed 17 States and 7 Union Territories to frame rules for the registration of Sikh marriages (Anand Karaj) within four months, calling the delay a violation of the principle of equality. In a poignant observation, the bench noted, "The fidelity of a constitutional promise is measured not only by the rights it proclaims, but by the institutions that make those rights usable." As an interim measure, the Court ordered that Anand Karaj marriages be registered under existing general marriage laws, with the certificate explicitly mentioning the 'Anand Karaj' rite if requested.

Recording Reasons for Warrantless Searches is Mandatory

In ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr. , the Supreme Court delivered a definitive ruling on procedural safeguards for searches under special enactments. The Court held that in every search conducted without a warrant, the requirement under Section 165 of the CrPC to record "reasons to believe" is mandatory. This applies to special laws like the Legal Metrology Act, Income Tax Act, and GST Act, which incorporate CrPC procedures. The Court emphasized that these reasons must be based on credible information, not "mere presumption or extraneous considerations," thereby reinforcing protections against arbitrary state action.

Key Rulings in Criminal Law

Non-Production of Contraband Not Fatal in NDPS Cases

In a significant clarification of narcotics law jurisprudence, the Court in Kailas S/O Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra held that the prosecution's case under the NDPS Act does not automatically fail if the seized contraband is not produced in court. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that a conviction can be sustained if the inventory and sample-drawing records are duly prepared in compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and supported by reliable evidence. The Court observed, “mere non-production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn.” This ruling sets a higher bar for acquittals on technical grounds and underscores the importance of proper documentation during seizure.

Touching Minor's Private Parts is "Aggravated Sexual Assault" Under POCSO, Not Rape

In Laxman Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh , the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between different offences under the POCSO Act and the IPC. The Court held that merely touching the private parts of a minor girl, without penetration, constitutes "aggravated sexual assault" under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act (if the victim is below 12 years) and "outraging modesty" under Section 354 IPC, but does not amount to rape under Section 375 IPC or penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. This decision provides crucial guidance for trial courts in correctly framing charges in cases of child sexual abuse.

Context Matters When Quashing FIRs

The Court cautioned High Courts against a mechanical approach to quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC. In Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Anr. , the bench stressed that in some cases, the surrounding context, including whether the FIR is a retaliatory "counterblast," must be considered. While acknowledging that a detailed examination of evidence is impermissible at this stage, the Court stated, “What renders a judicial mind distinct is its application to the given facts in accordance with law.”

Civil, Commercial, and Property Law Judgments

No Rectification of Tenders After Financial Bids are Opened

Upholding the integrity of the public procurement process, the Court in Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v. Mandeepa Enterprises and Others ruled that once financial bids are opened, rectification is impermissible. A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a Calcutta High Court decision that had allowed a bidder to amend its bid post-opening. The Court reiterated that the "mere possibility of accrual of more money" is not a ground to deviate from tender rules that impose an absolute bar on alterations.

Counter-Claim Cannot be Filed Against a Co-Defendant

Clarifying a key aspect of the Civil Procedure Code, a bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held in Rajul Manoj Shah v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr. that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A can only be filed against the plaintiff, not a co-defendant. The ruling settles a procedural ambiguity and reinforces the intended scope of counter-claims as a defendant's weapon against the plaintiff.

Karta Can Alienate HUF Property for Daughter's Marriage, Even Post-Wedding

The Court reaffirmed the powers of a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa . It was held that alienating joint family property for a "legal necessity," which includes a daughter's marriage, is valid even if the property transfer occurs after the marriage ceremony. The Court acknowledged the social reality that families often incur heavy debts for weddings, stating, “It is common knowledge families incur heavy debts to perform marriages of their daughters and such debts have a cascading effect on family finances down the years.”

Other Notable Developments

• Vantara Gets Clean Chit: The Court accepted the report of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former SC Judge J. Chelameswar, which found no foul play or contravention of law in the acquisition of animals by the Vantara facility run by Reliance Foundation. The complaints against the centre were consequently closed.
• Execution of Arbitral Awards: In Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka , the Court held that the execution of an arbitral award cannot be stalled merely because an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is pending.
• 'Bachat Land' Redistribution: Affirming a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision, a three-judge bench held that unutilized 'bachat land' in Panchayats must be redistributed to the proprietors in proportion to their original contribution ( State of Haryana v. Jai Singh ).
• Cheque Dishonour Notices: Reaffirming precedent, the Court in a case held that a statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must precisely state the cheque amount to be maintainable.
• Religious Conversion Laws: The Court granted four weeks to various states to file their responses to petitions challenging the constitutionality of their respective anti-religious conversion laws.
• Stubble Burning: While hearing matters on Delhi-NCR air pollution, the bench of CJI Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran expressed the need to prosecute farmers who engage in stubble burning and sought information on penal provisions.

This week's diverse rulings and orders from the Supreme Court reflect a judiciary actively engaged in refining legal principles, enforcing procedural discipline, and balancing individual rights with state authority, providing ample material for legal practitioners to digest and apply.