Top Legal News & Supreme Court Updates From July 11 To 18July, 2025

Supreme Court Allows Aadhaar For Voter Verification: Major Relief For Bihar Electoral Roll Update

New Delhi, July 11, 2025- The Supreme Court of India has directed the Election Commission to accept Aadhaar cards as valid identity proof for verifying entries in the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process currently underway in Bihar. Along with Aadhaar, the Court also allowed the use of voter ID cards and ration cards for the same purpose. The matter reached the apex court following concerns raised by civil society groups and political leaders over the potential exclusion of eligible voters, especially those from rural and marginalized communities. Many individuals reportedly lacked access to traditional voter ID cards but possessed Aadhaar as their primary form of identification. Petitioners argued that excluding Aadhaar could result in large-scale deletion of names from the electoral rolls, thereby disenfranchising genuine voters.

A bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that Aadhaar, which is legally recognized under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and used extensively for government welfare schemes, cannot be denied as a valid form of identification in the voter verification process. The Court emphasized that procedural limitations should not undermine the fundamental right to vote, and administrative measures must promote inclusion rather than exclusion.

Following the Court’s directive, the Election Commission is expected to issue revised guidelines to ensure that booth-level officers accept Aadhaar during the verification process. The judgment is seen as a significant step toward safeguarding electoral rights and promoting voter inclusion, particularly in states preparing for upcoming elections.

Supreme Court Seeks Negotiators In Yemen Case To Save Kerala Nurse via Blood-Money Settlement

On July 14, India’s Supreme Court examined a petition for Nimisha Priya, a Kerala nurse whose execution in Yemen was scheduled for July 16 after being convicted of murdering a Yemeni national in 2017. Her sentence has been temporarily paused, following a combination of diplomatic and religious interventions. Attorney-General R. Venkataramani told the court that India has exhausted formal diplomatic channels due to the absence of direct ties with the Houthi-controlled regime in Yemen. However, he said the government continues to offer all possible support, legal aid, consular visits, coordination with friendly nations, and discreet talks involving local communities to help delay the execution and explore settlement options through blood money (diyah) under Yemeni law. Religious mediator Grand Mufti Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musaliyar has played a crucial part, facilitating rare discussions with Yemeni Sufi scholars and tribal leaders in Dhamar to persuade the victim’s family to consider forgiving Nimisha in exchange for diyah. Despite some optimism, a key family member has publicly rejected any settlement and insisted on execution under Islamic law.

The court instructed the center to secure travel permission by July 18 for a delegation comprising negotiators and religious figures and to update the bench on all progress by then. Until the next hearing, Nimisha Priya remains under legal stay.

Calcutta High Court Questions Deportation Of Bengali Speakers: Seeks Centre’s Response On Language-Based Detentions

On July 16 in Kolkata, the Calcutta High Court voiced strong concern over reports that Bengali-speaking Indians are being detained in states such as Delhi and Odisha, and in some cases even deported to Bangladesh, solely because of their native language. A bench led by Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra has demanded detailed affidavits from the Union Home Ministry, the Delhi government, and the West Bengal administration. They must explain the reasons and legal grounds for these actions and clarify who decided to detain or deport these individuals.

Representing West Bengal, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay described the situation as "deeply troubling." He argued that speaking Bengali cannot automatically mark someone as an illegal migrant; only official authorities following proper procedures can make that determination. The court was particularly alarmed by several incidents: a family from Birbhum, including a pregnant woman and a child, was reportedly sent to Bangladesh from Delhi, and in Odisha, around 227 Bengali-speaking workers were detained, though most were eventually released after proving their citizenship.

The bench warned these actions risk setting a dangerous precedent, equating language with foreign status, and criticized any intent to treat such cases as routine. It refused to dismiss petitions even if similar matters are pending elsewhere, emphasizing its responsibility to safeguard the rights and cultural identity of citizens, regardless of state lines.

The court has ordered affidavits to be filed by July 28, with parties responding by August 4, and a follow-up hearing scheduled for August 6. It made clear that procedural shortcuts or ignoring these sensitive matters would not be tolerated.

Can Vehicle Passengers Claim Under Third-Party Insurance? Supreme Court Seeks Larger Bench

New Delhi, July 17, 2025- The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Kerala had concluded that the deceased deserved treatment as a “third party” and ordered the insurer to pay damages. The High Court agreed. However, New India Insurance argued that such a policy shouldn't cover passengers inside the insured vehicle.

Justices Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale noted that different courts have reached conflicting conclusions regarding whether passengers in non-commercial vehicles qualify as “third parties.” Highlighting the seriousness and widespread effect of this question and recalling a similar earlier reference concerning pillion riders on motorcycles sent to a larger bench in 2022, the court decided that the issue needs more authoritative examination.

For now, the Supreme Court has stayed the family’s compensation award but ordered New India Insurance to deposit the full amount, plus interest, with the tribunal within six weeks to ensure relief remains within reach for the bereaved.

This ruling could bring clarity and fairness to countless families affected by road accidents. If the larger bench rules that passengers are indeed “third parties,” those traveling without payment or in private vehicles would gain clear rights under compulsory motor insurance. At the same time, insurers would receive definitive guidance on their responsibilities.

The matter is officially styled The Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Co. v. Radha Santhosh & Ors. (SLP(C) No. 17630/2025). It now awaits the formation of a larger bench to address and resolve this important legal question thoroughly.

Chhattisgarh HC Rules Husband Cannot Force Wife To Share Phone Or Bank Passwords, Upholds Privacy Rights

July 18, 2025, Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a husband’s request to access his wife’s call detail records and passwords, stating that marriage does not nullify her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey upheld the Family Court’s earlier decision, asserting that compelling disclosure of personal data from a spouse could amount to domestic violence under the PWDVA, 2005.

The case arose after the couple, who married on July 4, 2022, became embroiled in a divorce petition filed by the husband on grounds of cruelty. Suspicious of frequent calls between his wife and her brother-in-law, he initially approached local police in Durg in late 2023 and filed an application in the Family Court in June 2024 to obtain her CDRs and passwords. Both courts rejected the pleas, noting that the husband had not previously included adultery in his divorce petition and had not demonstrated how the records were relevant to his claims. Justice Pandey emphasized that while marriage involves sharing lives, it does not erode individual autonomy. He observed, “Marriage does not grant the husband automatic access to the wife’s private information, communications, and personal belongings. Compelling the wife to disclose passwords would amount to a violation of privacy and potentially domestic violence.”

The court reinforced established Supreme Court precedents, including K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, that privacy is a fundamental right and includes marital communications. It stated that unfettered intrusion into personal devices could lead to legal consequences and set a dangerous precedent. The High Court’s verdict clarifies that spouses retain their constitutional rights within marriage and cannot be forced to violate each other’s privacy, even in cases of domestic conflict.