When Courts Became Their Own Judges: Judicial Controversies That Shook India’s Constitutional Courts in 2025

From unprecedented suo motu reviews to moral policing in matrimonial matters, the Supreme Court and High Courts faced credibility questions over several landmark decisions

By SEEMA SINDHU

The Supreme Court wrapped up 2025 in an unprecedented manner with two decisions on the same day, both perceived as under “public dissent” – staying the Kuldeep Singh Sengar bail and staying the November 20 order of the Supreme Court in which another three-judge bench headed by then CJI Gavai had accepted the government-appointed Expert Committee’s definition of Aravali hills and range. Both cases shook public credibility in constitutional courts.

While there could be two possible views on whether the Public Servant definition in the Prevention of Corruption Act can be imported into POCSO, the Delhi High Court could have done better to decide the main appeal itself by Sengar against his conviction rather than spending so much time on his bail, and convict him under Section 4 of POCSO if it wasn’t convinced on conviction under Section 5, considering the turbulent history of this case.

It was strange for the Supreme Court to hastily accept the redefinition of Aravali, ignoring the contentions of the Amicus Curiae and the Forest Survey of India Report. It was equally unprecedented for the Supreme Court to do a de facto review of this order without an application from the government or other aggrieved party. When the November 20 order had already put a moratorium on fresh mining leases in Aravali until the Management Plan for Sustainable Mining was completed, what pressed the apex court to do a suo motu review of the order?

In November, in a Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court undid a two-judge bench judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu which had set specific timelines for assenting to or withholding bills. In Presidential Reference 2012, the Supreme Court had frowned upon the UPA government for attempting to seek modification of its 2G case judgment in the garb of a Presidential Reference. In contradiction, the Supreme Court entertaining Presidential Reference 2025 to covertly seek review of its judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case is unprecedented, if not illegal.

In a different league, the Delhi High Court in September issued summons in a case allowing an estranged spouse to sue her partner’s lover for damages (monetary claim) for meddling in her marriage and hence “alienation of affection.” This case stands alone in controversies, particularly regarding the waste of precious judicial time and oppression of personal freedom protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is the oddest case when it comes to moral policing by courts.

Courts need to stop guardian-ing adults in their personal matters and understand that law presumes citizens to be “reasonable persons.” Courts are imposing a Victorian notion of marriage in the 21st century. Most times, a bad marriage is the cause of an extramarital relationship, not the effect. Recently, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked that the Supreme Court has become a matrimonial and bail court. This judicial adventure by the Delhi High Court is testimony to why constitutional courts have become matrimonial courts.

In December, the Delhi High Court ruled that a husband can’t deny interim maintenance to his wife on the basis of her ancestral share and other inherited assets, but the husband’s capacity to pay will include not just his personal income but his interest in joint family assets and business.

In 2026, one hopes constitutional courts will not pluck low hanging fruits by showing judicial adventure in matrimonial matters and will focus more on constitutional and governance matters.

The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer
On X: @SeemaSindhu