Weekly Verdict: Major Supreme Court Rulings Shaping Law, Rights, and Governance" from 01 Aug. to 7 Aug. 2025

Supreme Court Rules on Employee Compensation in Commuting Accident Case

New Delhi, August 1, 2025: The Supreme Court delivered an important judgment clarifying workers’ rights under social security laws. The case involved compensation claims after a watchman died in a fatal accident while traveling to his workplace. The Bombay High Court had earlier denied compensation, stating the accident did not occur “in the course of employment.” The Supreme Court, however, overruled this decision. It held that social security laws, including the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, and the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, should be read together to give broader protection to workers.

The Court ruled that deaths or injuries occurring during commuting between home and work should be treated as work-related accidents. By interpreting both laws in harmony, the Court ensured workers receive rightful benefits without being limited by narrow definitions.

This judgment strengthens social security protections for workers, emphasizing a wider understanding of what counts as work-related risk. Legal experts say it will impact many pending claims and set a key precedent for future cases involving employee safety and compensation.

Supreme Court Strengthens Worker Rights & Reviews Election Rules

New Delhi: On August 2, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision that greatly strengthens worker protections. It ruled that if an employee suffers an accident or dies while travelling between home and workplace, the incident should be treated as related to the job. This interpretation means their family can receive compensation under labour laws, even when the accident happens outside the factory, office, or work site. The Court explained that two important laws, the Employees’ Compensation Act and the Employees’ State Insurance Act, should be read together. This prevents technical loopholes from denying justice to workers’ families.

In the same session, the Court examined the ongoing revision of Bihar’s voter list. It stressed the need for every eligible citizen to be included, warning authorities against omissions that could impact democratic rights. The bench also initiated a significant constitutional hearing on whether Governors and the President have to decide on state-passed bills within a specific time frame. Several states opposed the Court discussing this matter, saying it concerns the separation of powers. The matter was left open for further debate.

Court Keeps Watch On Voter List Updates, Examines Governor’s Powers

New Delhi: On August 3, the Supreme Court continued to monitor the Bihar electoral roll update closely. The bench made it clear that the process must remain active and inclusive, refusing to halt it despite objections. The goal, it said, is to safeguard citizens’ voting rights by ensuring no eligible voter is left out due to errors or faulty scrutiny. The Court also spent significant time analysing the powers and responsibilities of Governors and the President in dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. The judges discussed whether delays in assenting to bills affect governance and whether constitutional changes or clear deadlines are necessary. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and other states argued that the judiciary should not interfere in this matter. However, the Court underlined that such issues directly relate to the health of India’s democratic system and must be examined carefully. The hearings are scheduled to continue, signalling the importance of this debate for the country’s federal structure.

Supreme Court Says – “No Political Flagpoles on Public Land”

New Delhi, August 6, 2025: The Supreme Court has agreed with the Madras High Court’s order to remove permanent political party flagpoles from public spaces in Tamil Nadu. The matter began when a man named Kathiravan from Madurai wanted to put up a flagpole for his party (AIADMK) in Palanganatham. The local engineer denied permission, so he went to the High Court. On January 27, 2025, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan ruled that no political party or group has a right to install permanent flagpoles on government land, roads, or other public places. The court said such poles often block pedestrians, disturb traffic, and even cause accidents.

The High Court ordered that all such flagpoles be removed within 12 weeks. It also made it clear that government officers, police, or revenue officials cannot give permission for such permanent structures on public property. Political parties claimed these flagpoles are part of their democratic expression, but the court said freedom of speech does not mean taking over public land. The court suggested that if parties want flagpoles for events, they should be placed temporarily on private land and removed afterwards. On August 6, 2025, a Supreme Court bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi rejected appeals against this order. Justice Maheshwari questioned how government land could be used for political gains, stressing that public property is for everyone’s benefit.

After this ruling, the Tamil Nadu government began removing all unauthorized political flagpoles from public spaces.

"Supreme Court Weighs NOTA Option in Uncontested Elections, Impact on Voter Rights"

New Delhi, August 7, 2025: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday heard an important matter on whether the None of the Above (NOTA) option should be made available to voters even in uncontested elections where there is only one candidate. Presently, under election laws, if a candidate is the sole contestant, they are declared elected automatically without a poll. The case, brought forward by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, questions whether this practice limits voter choice and curtails the right to reject a candidate. The petition argues that denying NOTA in such cases undermines the principles of democracy by preventing voters from expressing disapproval. A bench led by Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh, called the issue significant, asking whether a poll should still be held even if only one person stands. The bench also discussed the possibility of countermanding the election if NOTA gains more votes than the candidate.

However, the Election Commission of India and the Union Government opposed the proposal, stating that uncontested elections are extremely rare and that NOTA is not a “candidate” able to defeat an actual contestant under present law. The Court has not yet delivered a verdict but indicated that the matter could influence future election reforms, potentially expanding the scope of voter rights. This hearing marks an important moment in India’s electoral discourse, raising questions about fairness, democratic choice, and the role of NOTA in ensuring accountable elections.