Across states, courts in 2025 consistently asserted constitutional values—protecting dignity, liberty, privacy, equality and federal balance.
Published Dec 31, 2025 | 1:00 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 31, 2025 | 1:00 PM
Representational image. Credit: iStock
Synopsis: In 2025, the Supreme Court and courts across South India delivered landmark rulings reaffirming constitutional values. From free speech, privacy and LGBTQIA+ rights to limits on executive power, Governors’ authority and police surveillance, judgments stressed dignity, liberty, equality and federalism—stressing on the judiciary’s role as a bulwark against administrative excess and political expediency.
Indian courts in 2025 delivered a series of landmark judgments that reshaped debates on free speech, personal liberty, powers of Governors, gender rights, governance and constitutional accountability.
From online censorship and LGBTQIA+ rights to limits on executive power and police surveillance, High Courts and the Supreme Court repeatedly stressed that constitutional values cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience or political expediency.
Let’s have a state-wise look at the judgments that redefined the legal landscape in South India this year:
Online regulation and free speech
Karnataka High Court upheld the Centre’s “Sahyog” portal for issuing content takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. Rejecting X Corp’s challenge, the court held that Article 19 rights are guaranteed to citizens, not foreign corporations, and described Sahyog as an instrument of public good facilitating lawful cooperation between platforms and authorities. X Corp argued the system bypassed safeguards under Section 69A and enabled censorship; the matter is now set for appeal before the Supreme Court.
Judicial discipline in domestic violence cases
In Renuka v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court order that quashed criminal proceedings against a husband in a domestic violence case, while a coordinate bench had earlier allowed proceedings against the in-laws. Calling it a breach of judicial propriety, the apex court warned that contradictory rulings undermine public confidence and encourage forum shopping (seeking favorable judges), and revived the case against the husband.
Secularism and cultural events
Courts in Karnataka upheld the appointment of Muslim author Banu Mushtaq as chief guest for the 2025 Mysuru Dasara festival. Rejecting petitions alleging violation of religious sanctity, both the High Court and Supreme Court held that Dasara is a state-sponsored cultural event symbolising the victory of good over evil, and that inclusivity flows from constitutional secularism.
Chosen families and LGBTQIA+ rights
In a landmark June 2025 ruling, the Madras High Court expanded the scope of “family” under Article 21 to include consensual same-sex relationships and “chosen families.”
Arising from a habeas corpus petition involving a lesbian woman confined by her family, the judgment affirmed that adults have the right to live with partners of their choice, marking a major advance for queer rights in India.
Reproductive autonomy and mental health
The Madras High Court adopted a woman-centric interpretation of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, permitting abortions beyond the 24-week limit in exceptional circumstances. In one case, it allowed termination of a 28-week pregnancy of an 80% disabled rape survivor, holding that dignity, autonomy and mental health outweigh rigid statutory limits. Courts repeatedly stressed that reproductive choice forms part of personal liberty under Article 21.
Governors’ powers and federal balance
In a landmark constitutional ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies, effectively ending the practice of a “pocket veto.” Interpreting Article 200, the court ruled that the phrase “as soon as possible” requires timely action and does not permit prolonged inaction.
The court went further and, invoking its special powers under Article 142, deemed certain long-pending Tamil Nadu Bills as having received assent. The judgment significantly strengthened federalism by preventing constitutional deadlock through gubernatorial delay, though it also sparked debate on the extent of judicial intervention in fixing timelines.
Temple funds and religious property
In P. Bhaskar v. District Collector, the Madras High Court ruled that surplus temple funds cannot be diverted for commercial ventures such as shopping complexes. Holding that donations belong to the deity, the court said funds must be used only for purposes specified under the HR&CE Act, including charity, religious education and annadhanam. The court suggested converting partially built commercial structures into facilities for feeding the poor or conducting marriages for the underprivileged.
The court also clarified that no government permission is required to erect a war memorial on private land, reinforcing lawful private land-use rights.
Transfers and human dignity
In May 2025, the Madras High Court held that mechanical transfers ignoring family, health and safety concerns violate Article 21. While hearing a challenge to Union Bank of India’s transfer policy, the court issued multiple directions to protect employees, particularly women, including counselling centres, longer joining time, grievance redressal mechanisms and withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings.
Police surveillance and privacy
In Prasath C. v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court curtailed police surveillance powers, ruling that officers cannot enter homes at night for “history-sheet” surveillance. Declaring such actions a violation of the right to privacy under Article 21, the court quashed an FIR against a man who refused to comply with a midnight police demand.
Transgender parenthood
In a landmark ruling, the Kerala High Court directed authorities to replace “mother” and “father” columns with the gender-neutral term “parent” on a child’s birth certificate issued to a transgender couple. The judgment recognised their identities and affirmed that family law must evolve with social realities.
GST and doctrine of mutuality
In Indian Medical Association (Kerala) v. Union of India, the Kerala High Court struck down the retrospective application of a GST amendment taxing services between associations and their members. The court reaffirmed the doctrine of mutuality and held that Parliament cannot expand the constitutional meaning of “supply” through retrospective legislation.
Public trust and toll collection
The Kerala High Court suspended toll collection at the Paliyekkara Toll Plaza in Thrissur, citing severe congestion, poor road conditions and breach of public trust. The Supreme Court upheld the order. Though toll collection was later restored, enhanced rates remain barred pending compliance.
EPFO and higher pensions
The court directed the EPFO to accept applications for higher pensions without insisting on old consent documents under Para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, recognising practical difficulties faced by employees and ensuring implementation of the Supreme Court’s pension ruling.
Mental health, land rights, and free speech
In Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court ordered a CBI probe into the suicide of a 17-year-old NEET aspirant and recognised mental health as integral to the right to life under Article 21, issuing nationwide guidelines for educational institutions.
In Yerikala Sunkalamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the court restored land to a Scheduled Tribe family dispossessed without compensation and awarded ₹70 lakh, holding such action violated Articles 14, 21 and 300A.
Liquor scam and due process
In multiple rulings linked to the Andhra Pradesh liquor scam, the Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail to senior officials and upheld arrests, stressing that allegations of political vendetta cannot override prima facie evidence, while cautioning investigators against coercive methods.
Gender justice and political speech
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that trans women are entitled to protection under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, and quashed FIRs against political leaders accused of hate speech, warning against misuse of criminal law.
HCU tree felling
The year for Telangana began with intense judicial scrutiny over land levelling and tree cutting on the Hyderabad Central University (HCU) campus. Acting on PILs filed by Vata Foundation and activist Kalapala Babu Rao, the Telangana High Court on 3 April ordered an immediate halt to all activity, criticising the Revanth Reddy government’s “rushed” action.
The matter soon escalated to the Supreme Court, which took suo motu cognisance the same day. Staying all activities except tree protection, the court directed an urgent site inspection. Over subsequent hearings in April and May, the apex court repeatedly rapped Telangana for defending the tree felling without a restoration plan, describing the exercise as “pre-planned” and warning of “severe consequences”, including jail, if ecological damage was not reversed. By August, while reiterating that it was “not against development”, the court insisted on sustainability and continued the stay, monitoring restoration of the nearly 100-acre site.
Anti-defection law and Speaker’s delay
Political defections dominated another line of litigation in Telangana. In Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana (31 July), the Supreme Court dealt with petitions seeking disqualification of 10 MLAs who defected from BRS to Congress. Holding that Assembly Speakers act as tribunals under the Tenth Schedule, the court ruled they enjoy no immunity for procedural delays and directed the Telangana Speaker to decide within three months.
When the deadline was ignored, the court took a sterner view. In KT Rama Rao & Ors. vs Speaker, Telangana Legislative Assembly (17 November), it issued a contempt notice to the Speaker, terming the inaction “grossest contempt” and ordering decisions within four weeks. The court warned that procrastination was hollowing out the anti-defection law, especially in coalition-era politics.
Election speech, free speech
On the campaign trail, the Supreme Court struck a balance between political rhetoric and criminal law. In Telangana BJP vs A. Revanth Reddy (8 September), it dismissed BJP’s challenge to the quashing of a defamation FIR against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy over remarks on reservations. The court held that a state unit lacked locus without national authorisation and urged politicians to develop a “thick skin”, protecting election hyperbole under free speech guarantees.
Reservations and gubernatorial discretion
Affirming established constitutional limits, the Supreme Court in State of Telangana vs Backward Classes Welfare Association (16 October) refused to lift a stay on a government order granting 42 prcent BC quota in local bodies. Reiterating the 50 percent ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney, the court warned against politically driven quota hikes that could deepen caste divisions.
In another politically sensitive ruling, Sravan Dasoju & Anr. vs Governor of Telangana (17 August), the apex court quashed post-election MLC nominations made under the Governor’s quota, restoring earlier picks rejected in 2023. The judgment highlighted the need for constitutional neutrality in gubernatorial discretion, especially amid regime changes.
Crime, land and politics
The Telangana High Court also flagged concerns over the real estate–politics nexus. In Nalla Balu Durgam Shashidhar Goud v. State of Telangana (September 10), it granted interim bail to accused in an alleged land-grab conspiracy, noting weak evidentiary links but directing faster trials to curb prolonged detention in organised crime cases.
Across states, courts in 2025 consistently asserted constitutional values—protecting dignity, liberty, privacy, equality, and federal balance. Together, these rulings reaffirmed that governance, policing and political authority must operate within constitutional limits, stressing on the judiciary’s role as a guardian of rights.
(Edited by Amit Vasudev)
