Top Legal Highlights Of The Week: Judgments Shaping Indian Law

Supreme Court Orders Dedicated NIA Courts by September 2025

New Delhi, July 19, 2025- The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Central Government and the Maharashtra State Government to set up exclusive NIA courts by September 30, 2025. The Court said that cases under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act must be heard in special courts that are properly assigned for this purpose. A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed this order while hearing a petition that raised concerns about long delays in NIA trials, especially in Maharashtra. The Court said that using regular courts to handle NIA cases causes serious delays, which is unfair to both victims and the accused.

According to the Court, the NIA Act, 2008, clearly requires the government to create dedicated courts to deal with serious crimes such as terrorism and national security threats. However, in many states, including Maharashtra, regular courts are temporarily assigned to deal with these cases, which slows down the process. The judges clearly stated that this system must change, and the government cannot keep delaying the formation of proper NIA courts. The court set a clear deadline of September 30 for this to be completed. Legal experts believe that this decision will impact many other states that have been following similar temporary arrangements. The ruling is expected to improve the speed and quality of trials in serious criminal cases and help in delivering timely justice.

Supreme Court Balances Free Speech Rights with Legal Boundaries in July 2025 Rulings

New Delhi, July 2025- In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India clarified the balance between the right to free speech and the legal limits placed on it. The court granted anticipatory bail to cartoonist Hemant Malviya, who faced charges for posting cartoons criticized as offensive about political figures. This ruling emphasized that while free speech is a fundamental right, it must not cross the line into incitement or hate speech.

The Court highlighted that criticism of public figures, including satire, should generally be protected under the Constitution, as long as it doesn’t promote violence or hatred. The judges stressed the importance of proportionality and careful investigation when dealing with cases related to speech, warning against excessive restrictions or misuse of legal powers. This verdict reinforces the message that citizens have the right to express their views, especially political opinions, but also carry the responsibility to respect legal boundaries. The Court encouraged self-regulation while reaffirming that speech leading to harm or criminal acts will face legal consequences.

This decision marks an important moment for free speech jurisprudence in India, setting clear guidance for courts, law enforcement, and citizens on respecting rights without compromising public order.

Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling: Non-Resident Firms Can Be Taxed Without a Physical Office in India

New Delhi, July 24, 2025 - The Supreme Court of India today delivered a landmark ruling that will have far-reaching implications for foreign companies operating in India. In a judgment that underscores the principle of "substance over form," the Court held that a non-resident company can be deemed to have a "permanent establishment" (PE) in India even without a physical office, making it liable for Indian taxes. The decision was delivered in a case involving a non-resident company that provided strategic oversight and advisory services to hotels in India under a long-term agreement. The tax authorities had argued that the company's activities, including operational control and supervision through its employees, constituted a fixed-place PE, a finding upheld by the Delhi High Court. Dismissing the company's appeal, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan affirmed that the company's continuous and substantive control over the day-to-day operations of the Indian hotels established a PE under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The Court clarified that the "disposal test" for a PE does not require a foreign entity to have exclusive possession of premises. The judgment stated that temporary or shared use of a space is sufficient if the foreign company carries on its core business activities through that space. The Court also noted that the long-term nature of the agreement, coupled with the company's control over key functions like appointing staff, managing finances, and setting policies, showed an operational presence that went far beyond mere advisory services. This ruling is expected to lead to heightened scrutiny of business models adopted by foreign companies in India, especially those that provide services through integrated arrangements or remote structures. Tax experts believe that the judgment reinforces the Indian judiciary's focus on economic reality over legal documentation in determining tax liability.

No WhatsApp, No Email: Police Notices Under BNSS Must Be Served in Person, Rules Supreme Court

New Delhi, July 24, 2025- In a crucial judgment safeguarding an individual's right to personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India ruled today that notices issued by police under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), which can lead to an arrest, must be served physically and cannot be sent through electronic means like WhatsApp or email. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. Singh made the ruling while dismissing an application by the State of Haryana, which sought to modify an earlier directive and allow electronic service of such notices. The state had argued for the use of digital communication for efficiency. The Court, however, was not persuaded, stating that the deliberate omission of electronic service in the relevant provision of the BNSS was a clear indication of the legislature's intent to protect fundamental rights. The judges emphasized that a notice under Section 35 has serious implications for a person's liberty, as non-compliance can result in arrest. Therefore, a procedure that ensures unambiguous and verifiable service is essential.

The bench held that a court cannot read a new procedure into a law when the legislature has consciously chosen not to include it. The judgment draws a clear distinction between other legal communications where electronic service is permitted and notices that directly impact a person's life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This decision reinforces the principle of due process and acts as a vital check against potential arbitrary actions by law enforcement agencies.

New Bills of Lading Act 2025: Boosting India’s Global Maritime Trade

New Delhi, July 25, 2025 - India has made a landmark move to modernize its maritime trade laws with the enactment of the Bills of Lading Act, 2025. This important legislation, which received presidential assent on July 24, 2025, replaces the old colonial-era Bills of Lading Act of 1856 that had governed shipping for nearly 170 years. The bill of lading is a fundamental legal document in maritime commerce, serving as both a receipt for the goods loaded onto a vessel and as a contract between the shipper and the carrier. Recognizing the need to update India’s shipping laws to reflect the realities of modern trade, the new act simplifies and clarifies the language of the law, making it more accessible to all stakeholders. It retains essential rights and protections for shippers, carriers, and consignees, such as the ability to transfer the bill of lading by endorsement and safeguarding against unauthorized changes. Additionally, the Act grants the central government the power to issue directions to ensure smooth implementation and the flexibility to adapt regulatory measures as trade practices evolve.

Supreme Court Extends Stay on Summons to Rahul Gandhi in Savarkar Remarks Case – Latest Legal Update, 2025

New Delhi, July 25, 2025 – The Supreme Court has extended its stay on the summons issued to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a criminal case related to his controversial remarks about freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The order provides Gandhi more time to respond as the legal battle continues. The case began after Gandhi, during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in Maharashtra’s Akola district in November 2022, allegedly called Savarkar a “British pensioner” and “servant.” These comments sparked outrage and led to a complaint filed in Lucknow, resulting in the Magistrate’s court summoning Gandhi on December 12, 2024, under charges of promoting enmity and public mischief. Gandhi had moved the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the summons. In an earlier hearing in April, the Supreme Court temporarily paused the proceedings and warned Gandhi to avoid making derogatory statements against respected freedom fighters, especially in states like Maharashtra. The bench instructed that any repetition could have serious legal consequences. On July 25, the top court extended the stay on the summons, giving the complainant two additional weeks to file their reply and Gandhi another two weeks to respond. The Uttar Pradesh government has supported the magistrate’s decision, claiming Gandhi’s comments were intentional and could incite hatred.

The Supreme Court will hear the matter again after four weeks, keeping the case in the spotlight amid ongoing political debate.