Governors' powers to stray dogs: Supreme Court's defining calls of 2025

From constitutional limits on Governors to arbitration clarity, minority rights, environmental protection and public safety, these Supreme Court rulings shaped governance and daily life in 2025

In 2025, the Supreme Court delivered some landmark rulings which clarified constitutional boundaries, protected minority rights, strengthened environmental safeguards and addressed everyday safety concerns. From limiting governors’ ability to delay state Bills to clarifying when courts can touch arbitration awards, the top court's 2025 rulings addressed key issues of the society.

 

Below are some of the year’s most consequential verdicts.

 

Governor’s powers over Bills

 

A long-running constitutional dispute over governors delaying state legislation reached a decisive moment in 2025. On May 13, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) and referred 14 questions to the Supreme Court on the scope of governors’ powers under Articles 200 and 201.

 

 

The reference followed the court’s April 8 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, where a two-judge Bench held that a governor cannot exercise a “pocket veto” by indefinitely sitting on bills. The court ruled that a governor has only three options: grant assent, return the bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President.

 

In its November advisory opinion, a five-judge Constitution Bench reaffirmed that indefinite delay is unconstitutional. However, it declined to impose fixed timelines on governors or the President, citing separation of powers. The court clarified that while courts cannot order “deemed assent”, prolonged and unexplained inaction could invite limited judicial intervention.

 

Arbitration awards: Narrow window for modification

 

In a key boost to arbitration certainty, a five-judge Constitution Bench on April 30 ruled in Gayatri Balasamy vs ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd that courts have a very limited power to modify arbitral awards.

 

By a 4:1 majority, the court held that modification is permissible only in narrowly defined situations, such as correcting clerical or computational errors, severing invalid portions of an award, or adjusting post-award interest and costs in exceptional cases. Courts, it said, cannot re-examine evidence or reassess merits, which would amount to an appeal.

 

Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

 

On September 15, the Supreme Court stayed key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, amid concerns over minority rights and constitutional validity. The Bench, led by then Chief Justice BR Gavai, paused clauses requiring a person to be a practising Muslim for five years before creating a waqf, and provisions enabling authorities to declare government land as waqf without judicial scrutiny.

 

While stopping short of blocking the entire law, the court directed that no irreversible actions be taken under the disputed provisions. The case remains pending, with the court balancing governance reforms against religious freedoms.

 

Aravalli protection: Verdict stayed

 

The court’s November 20 ruling defining Aravalli hills as landforms rising 100 metres or more above local relief triggered widespread concern. The definition allowed regulated mining instead of a blanket ban, drawing criticism from environmental groups and Opposition parties.

 

On December 29, the Supreme Court stayed its own ruling, citing the need for further clarity. It directed that no irreversible activity be undertaken and scheduled fresh hearings in January 2026, leaving the legal status of the Aravallis unresolved.

 

Unnao rape case: Bail stayed

 

In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court on December 29 stayed the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case. The high court had suspended his life sentence, citing custody duration and a legal interpretation under the Pocso Act.

 

The apex court held that substantial questions of law arose from the bail order and underlined the seriousness of the offence. Sengar will remain in jail while the matter is examined further.

 

Stray animals: Public safety first

 

Responding to rising incidents of stray-dog attacks and rabies cases, the Supreme Court in August issued binding directions to states and civic bodies. It ordered removal of strays from high-risk areas such as schools, hospitals and highways, mandated sterilisation and vaccination drives, and directed the creation of regulated shelters.

 

The court stressed humane treatment but ruled that aggressive or rabid dogs must not be released back into public spaces, prioritising public safety alongside animal welfare.

 

Environmental accountability and forest protection

 

In November, the Supreme Court ordered the formal notification of the entire Saranda forest in Jharkhand as a wildlife sanctuary, citing repeated delays by the state. The region is one of the world’s largest sal-forest belts and a vital wildlife corridor.

 

The court also reaffirmed the “polluter pays” principle, holding that polluting industries can be asked to furnish bank guarantees and pay restitution for ecological damage. It reiterated the prohibition on mining within 1 km of national parks and sanctuaries, reinforcing environmental accountability nationwide.