This week in Indian law: The Supreme Court held that the Speaker possesses no immunity from judicial review when exercising anti-defection powers under the Tenth Schedule. The Court also issued comprehensive guidelines on DNA evidence admissibility in criminal trials and directed states to ensure accessible prisons for disabled inmates. The RBI finalised its unified digital lending framework. 10 significant legal developments this week across constitutional law, criminal law, regulatory updates, and securities markets.
Top story
SC Holds Speaker Has No Immunity Under Tenth Schedule Powers
Category: Supreme Court Judgments | Date: 3 July 2025 | Source: Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling holding that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies possesses no immunity from judicial review when deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Bench ruled that the anti-defection provisions do not clothe the Speaker with absolute privilege, and that constitutional courts retain jurisdiction to examine whether the Speaker has acted in accordance with law. The judgment reaffirms the principle that no constitutional functionary operates beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny.
Why it matters: This ruling directly impacts pending anti-defection proceedings across several states and reinforces the judiciary's supervisory role over legislative decisions affecting elected representatives.
Read more: Veritect analysis
Court judgments
SC Issues DNA Evidence Guidelines, Seeks Wrongful Conviction Law
Court: Supreme Court of India | Date: 3 July 2025
The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines governing the admissibility and handling of DNA evidence in criminal trials. The Court also urged Parliament to consider enacting a dedicated statute addressing compensation and rehabilitation for persons wrongfully convicted on the basis of unreliable evidence.
Key point: DNA evidence must comply with chain-of-custody protocols and laboratory accreditation standards to be admissible; courts should treat DNA as corroborative rather than conclusive evidence.
Supreme Court of India · Veritect analysis
SC Directs States to Ensure Accessible Prisons for Disabled Inmates
Court: Supreme Court of India | Date: 4 July 2025
The Court directed all state governments and Union Territory administrations to conduct accessibility audits of prison facilities and ensure that disabled inmates receive reasonable accommodations consistent with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional dignity guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.
Key point: States must file compliance reports within six months detailing steps taken to make correctional facilities accessible to persons with disabilities.
Supreme Court of India · Veritect analysis
Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory Bail in White-Collar Fraud Case
Court: Delhi High Court | Date: 30 June 2025
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail in a significant white-collar fraud prosecution, applying a proportionality framework to assess whether pre-trial detention was justified given the economic nature of the alleged offences and the applicant's cooperation with the investigation.
Key point: The Court held that economic offences do not automatically warrant denial of anticipatory bail where the applicant demonstrates cooperation and absence of flight risk.
Delhi High Court · Veritect analysis
Regulatory updates
RBI Finalises Digital Lending Directions Under Unified Framework
Regulator: Reserve Bank of India | Date: 7 July 2025
The RBI issued consolidated digital lending directions bringing all regulated entities and lending service providers under a unified compliance framework. The directions standardise disclosure requirements, borrower protection norms, and data privacy obligations for digital lending operations.
Key point: All lending service providers must comply with the unified framework within 90 days, including mandatory disclosure of all-in cost to borrowers before disbursal.
Reserve Bank of India · Veritect analysis
SEBI Extends Cybersecurity Framework Deadline to August 2025
Regulator: SEBI | Date: 30 June 2025
SEBI extended the compliance deadline for its Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Framework (CSCRF) to August 2025, providing regulated entities additional time to implement the comprehensive cybersecurity requirements originally notified earlier in 2025.
Key point: Regulated entities now have until August 2025 to achieve full CSCRF compliance, but SEBI cautioned against treating the extension as a reason to delay implementation.
Also this week
- SEBI overhauls stock broker regulations — New digital-first compliance framework for stock brokers replaces legacy regulation. Veritect analysis
- MCA tightens beneficial ownership reporting — Enhanced disclosure requirements for significant beneficial owners under the Companies Act. Veritect analysis
- IBBI data shows improved IBC resolution timelines — Q1 FY26 statistics indicate faster resolution plan approvals compared to previous quarters. Veritect analysis
- TRAI recommends 40% cut in 5G spectrum prices — Telecom regulator recommends significant reduction in reserve prices for upcoming 5G spectrum auction. Veritect analysis
By the numbers
- 90 days — Compliance window for RBI's unified digital lending directions
- 40% — Proposed reduction in 5G spectrum reserve prices recommended by TRAI
- 536 — Total sections in the Income-Tax Bill 2025 currently before Parliament's select committee
Looking ahead
- Monday 7 July: Supreme Court resumes regular sittings — several constitutional matters listed including Article 370 review petitions
- Mid-July: Parliament Monsoon Session expected to commence with major legislative agenda including the Income Tax Bill 2025
- August 2025: SEBI cybersecurity framework compliance deadline after latest extension
This is the Veritect Weekly Legal Roundup for Week 27 of 2025. For daily updates, visit our legal news page. Subscribe to receive this roundup every Monday morning.
Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.