1. Governor’s Powers Over State Bills
(Assent, Reservation & Return Clarified)
Case:

State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)
(along with similar matters involving Kerala and Punjab)

Background / Facts:

Several State governments approached the Supreme Court alleging that Governors were indefinitely withholding assent to Bills passed by elected legislatures, thereby paralysing law-making.

Issue:

Whether a Governor can indefinitely delay assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature under Article 200 of the Constitution.

Held:

The Governor has only three constitutionally permissible options:

Grant assent

Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President

Return the Bill (once) for reconsideration

❌ The Governor cannot sit on a Bill or exercise a “political veto”.

Constitutional Basis:

Article 200

Doctrine of constitutional morality

Federalism and democratic accountability

Significance:

Prevents misuse of gubernatorial office

Reinforces supremacy of elected legislatures

Strengthens cooperative federalism

2. Speaker’s Immunity & Anti-Defection Law
Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana (2025)
Facts:

Petitioners challenged the inaction and delay by the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly in deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule.

Issue:

Whether the Speaker enjoys constitutional immunity from judicial review while acting under the Anti-Defection Law.

Held:

The Speaker acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal, not as a political authority

No blanket immunity exists

Courts can intervene where there is:

Undue delay

Mala fides

Manifest arbitrariness

Key Precedents Relied Upon:

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)

Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker (2020)

Significance:

Prevents manipulation of defection proceedings

Protects democratic stability

Ensures timely adjudication

3. Article 142 Cannot Override Substantive Law
(Complete Justice ≠ Unfettered Power)
Case:

Union of India v. Union Carbide Survivors’ Association (clarificatory observations, 2025)
(along with arbitration-related cases)

Issue:

Scope and limits of the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142.

Held:

Article 142 cannot be used to bypass statutory provisions

Courts may supplement, but not supplant, substantive law

Legal Maxim Applied:

Equity follows the law

Significance:

Reinforces separation of powers

Prevents judicial overreach

Maintains rule of law

II. Arbitration & Insolvency Law
4. Limited Power to Modify Arbitral Awards
Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (2025)
Facts:

A party sought modification of an arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue:

Whether courts can modify arbitral awards or are limited to setting them aside.

Held:

Courts cannot rewrite or re-appreciate evidence

Limited modification is permissible only to:

Correct patent illegality

Rectify clerical errors

Modify interest

Sever illegal portions

Key Precedents:

McDermott International v. Burn Standard (2006)

Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021)

Significance:

Strengthens arbitration finality

Promotes India as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction

5. Preference Shareholders & Financial Creditor Status (IBC)
Case:

Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank (clarified in 2025 IBC rulings)

Issue:

Whether preference shareholders qualify as financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Held:

Preference shareholders are owners, not lenders

Financial creditor status arises only when:

Redemption is due, and

There exists a debt with time value of money

Significance:

Clarifies creditor hierarchy

Prevents misuse of insolvency proceedings

III. Fundamental Rights & Social Justice
6. Maternity Benefits in New Marital Unions
(Reproductive Autonomy & Gender Justice)
Case:

X v. Union of India (2025)

Facts:

A woman was denied maternity benefits because she had children from a previous marriage.

Issue:

Whether maternity benefits can be denied for the first child of a new marital union.

Held: