Supreme Court Weekly: PMLA Scrutiny, Defamation Debate, and Caution on Hindu Succession Act Dominate Proceedings

New Delhi – The final week of September 2025 saw the Supreme Court of India navigating a complex docket, delivering significant pronouncements that spanned from the stringent provisions of anti-money laundering laws to the potential decriminalization of defamation and the delicate structure of Hindu personal law. The Court’s proceedings underscored its role as the final arbiter on issues of personal liberty, corporate disputes, environmental crises, and the accountability of state machinery.

Key observations from the bench, including a pointed remark on the need to decriminalize defamation and a cautious warning against judicial overreach in personal laws, set the tone for a week of high-stakes hearings and impactful orders.

---

Personal Liberty and Criminal Law: PMLA, UAPA, and Defamation in Focus

The judiciary's ongoing struggle with the balance between state power and individual rights was prominently displayed in several high-profile criminal cases.

In a significant setback for Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih dismissed her plea to quash proceedings in a Rs 200 crore money laundering case. The bench explicitly cited the binding precedent of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment, which upheld the controversial provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court acknowledged the harshness of the law, observing, "We appreciate that the law is such that anyone can be involved... If one friend gives something to the other friend, ultimately if it is found that the other person is involved in a predicate offence, very difficult. Vijay Madanlal has considered this part and we are bound by that." This decision reinforces the formidable challenge accused individuals face under the PMLA framework, where the burden of proof is heavily skewed.

Conversely, a different bench expressed a contrasting view on another aspect of criminal law. While hearing a plea by the digital news platform The Wire against a defamation summons, Justice M.M. Sundresh made a striking observation on the persistence of such cases. He remarked, “How long will you go on dragging this? Time has come to decriminalise all this.” This comment, though not a binding ruling, signals a potential judicial appetite for re-evaluating criminal defamation, a provision often criticized for its chilling effect on free speech and journalism.

The Court also waded into the contentious 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case, issuing notices on the bail pleas of several UAPA-accused activists, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Their challenge to the Delhi High Court's denial of bail brings the stringent bail conditions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act back under the apex court's scrutiny.

In another matter concerning liberty, the Court set aside the Kerala High Court's cancellation of bail for five accused in the murder of an SDPI leader. The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih delivered a crucial dictum: liberty cannot be curtailed based on "political assumptions or organisational labels." The Court emphasized that a person's political description in a charge sheet cannot substitute for concrete legal proof of misconduct, a principle vital for preventing pretrial detention based on prejudice.

---

Civil, Corporate, and Constitutional Matters: Navigating Complex Legal Frameworks

The week was also marked by significant developments in corporate law, personal law, and environmental jurisprudence.

A Word of Caution on the Hindu Succession Act

In a notable moment, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan urged caution while hearing challenges to provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The bench advised against judicial interventions that could dismantle long-standing societal structures. “Do not demean the structure of the Hindu society... We do not want by our judgment to break something which has been there for thousands of years,” the bench stated. While acknowledging the importance of women's rights, the Court stressed the need to balance them with the preservation of the social fabric, suggesting a preference for incremental reform over radical judicial restructuring of personal laws.

Corporate Disputes and Insolvency

In the corporate arena, the Court reversed its own recent decision in the long-running JSW Steel-Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL) insolvency case. A bench led by CJI BR Gavai reviewed and overturned its previous order that had quashed JSW's resolution plan. The decision brings a significant turn in one of the country's landmark insolvency cases, impacting the fate of nearly Rs. 6,000 crore in earnings generated during the insolvency process.

Additionally, the Supreme Court partially restored an arbitral award in favor of Chinese contractor SEPCO against GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference under the Arbitration Act, stating, “Courts must resist the temptation to sit in appeal over arbitral awards. Reappreciation of evidence is not our role under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.” This reaffirms the principle of arbitral autonomy, a cornerstone of India's ambition to be a hub for international arbitration.

---

Suo Motu Cognizance: Addressing Environmental and Systemic Failures

The Supreme Court continued to flex its suo motu powers to address pressing national issues.

Taking up the ecological crisis in Himachal Pradesh following devastating floods, a bench led by Justice Vikram Nath directed the state government to provide a detailed response on deforestation, unregulated construction, and the impact of hydropower projects. This intervention highlights the Court's proactive role in environmental governance.

Similarly, the Court acted on the severe pollution of Rajasthan's River Jojari and the systemic failure of installing functional CCTV cameras in police stations nationwide. In the custodial death matter, the Court's cognisance was triggered by a news report on 11 deaths in police custody in Rajasthan. This demonstrates the Court's commitment to upholding Article 21 rights and ensuring police accountability.

Other significant orders from the week include: * Delhi's Unauthorised Constructions: Stay orders protecting illegal constructions in Chandni Chowk will be vacated from December 31, 2025, to address rampant violations in the heritage area. * Air India Crash Probe: The Court commenced hearing a PIL seeking a court-monitored investigation into the 2025 Air India crash, citing concerns over the impartiality of the existing probe. * Mineral Tax: The Centre has filed a curative petition against a nine-judge bench ruling that allowed states to levy taxes on mineral-bearing lands, setting the stage for another major federal fiscal dispute. * Advocates' Misconduct: The Court held that a State Bar Council must record "reasons to believe" an advocate is guilty of misconduct before referring a complaint to a disciplinary committee, reinforcing procedural safeguards under the Advocates Act.

As the week concluded, the Supreme Court left an indelible mark on multiple legal domains. From reaffirming the wide net cast by the PMLA to hinting at a more liberal approach to defamation, and from protecting arbitral autonomy to exercising caution in reforming personal laws, the Court's pronouncements reflect the dynamic and often conflicting priorities of a modern constitutional democracy.