This article highlights several landmark judgments from 2025 that have significantly contributed to the evolving landscape of Indian jurisprudence. From protecting the welfare of senior citizens and resolving disputes in medical education to upholding juvenile rights and reinforcing the right to life, these decisions reflect the Court’s commitment to constitutional values and social justice
The author aims to familiarize readers with significant case laws decided by the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Understanding case laws is essential for gaining clarity on various legal subjects, as they help shape the interpretation and application of the law. Through this effort, the author strives to simplify complex legal concepts and highlight landmark judgments that have brought notable changes across different areas of law.
Important Judgments of 2025: Legal Bites Year Update
1. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. [1]
This case highlights the broader societal issue of neglect and exploitation senior citizens face, emphasizing the importance of a purposive interpretation of welfare legislation. The decision aligns with the constitutional vision of social justice, as highlighted in Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India. It underscores the societal obligation to care for the elderly.
Click Here and read more about this case.
2. Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others. [2]
This case deals with a contentious issue of promotion in the medical education service under the Kerala Health and Family Welfare Department. The dispute centred on the interpretation of eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, highlighting the interplay between executive orders and general rules such as the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS and SSR).
Click Here and read more about this case.
3. Om Prakash v. Union of India [3]
The Supreme Court, in this judgment, recognized the failure of the judicial system to address his juvenility claim, a constitutional mandate rooted in the principle of reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration of juveniles. The decision highlights the judiciary’s duty to go beyond procedural constraints to uphold the fundamental rights of individuals, especially juveniles in conflict with the law.
Click Here and read more about this case.
4. S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. [4]
The judgment serves as a vital reminder of the intersection between statutory obligations and constitutional rights, emphasizing the State’s duty to safeguard human lives. The Court emphasized that denying timely medical treatment during the golden hour violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Click Here and read more about this case.
……………………………Additionally, more cases will be added.
References
[1] 2025 INSC 20
[2] Civil Appeal No. 13422 of 2024
[3] Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024
[4] Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012
