New Delhi, January 11, 2026 – As India's judiciary reflects on a year of seismic shifts in constitutional interpretation and criminal justice, a galaxy of legal stalwarts convened Sunday to unpack 2025's landmark verdicts. At the 9th National Symposium on Landmark Judgments of 2025, hosted by the student-led Think India forum at the Prime Ministers' Museum and Library auditorium, over 300 aspiring lawyers and advocates witnessed a riveting discourse. The 15-member panel—featuring Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Delhi High Court Justice Saurabh Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, and a cadre of senior advocates including Vijay Hansaria, A.S. Nadkarni, and Sanjay Ghose—delved into rulings that redefined privilege, prosecutorial rigor, judicial entry barriers, and federal fault lines. Amid applause and probing questions, the event underscored a judiciary navigating politics, privilege, and pragmatism, with experts cautioning that true "landmark" status emerges only through enduring societal impact.
The symposium, a flagship initiative of Think India—a collective of law students from premier national institutes—kicked off with tributes to judicial icons and segued into thematic panels. "Landmark judgments aren't etched in stone at pronouncement; they evolve through application and critique," remarked Justice Saurabh Banerjee in the valedictory address, flanked by ABVP National Organising Secretary Ashish Singh Chauhan and senior advocate Shravan Yammanur. The discussions, moderated by forum convenors, wove through four pivotal verdicts, blending doctrinal analysis with real-world ripple effects.
#### Safeguarding the Sanctity of Solicitor-Client Privilege
Opening the floor, senior advocates Vijay Hansaria, A.S. Nadkarni, and Siddharth Dave dissected a March 2025 Supreme Court ruling that fortified lawyer-client confidentiality, stemming from a Gujarat police summons to an advocate probing his client's affairs. In a three-judge bench decision led by then-Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, the apex court expanded the privilege's ambit to encompass litigation, pre-litigation, and even non-litigious consultations, barring summons by investigating officers absent client consent, evidence of ongoing crimes, or judicial oversight. The verdict mandated written superintendent approval and specific factual grounds for any probe intrusion, interpreting statutes like the Indian Evidence Act without prescribing new guidelines.
Hansaria and Nadkarni hailed it as a bulwark against "fishing expeditions," with Hansaria noting, "This privilege is the bedrock of justice—erode it, and the adversarial system crumbles." Nadkarni echoed the sentiment, stressing its dual shield for counsel and client. Dave, however, injected nuance: "A lawyer can, according to me, be prosecuted for giving advice knowing it to be wrong; privilege does not absolve him, it does not protect him." Experts agreed the ruling curbed overzealous enforcement but flagged implementation challenges in high-stakes probes, urging bar councils to train on ethical boundaries.
#### The Malegaon Acquittal: Triumph of Evidence or Travesty of Justice?
A charged segment zeroed in on the July 31, 2025, acquittal of seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blasts—a motorcycle bomb attack in Maharashtra's Muslim-majority town that claimed six lives and maimed over 100—by a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai. Among the exonerated was former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur (Sadhvi Pragya), Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, and five others charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for an alleged "Hindu terror" conspiracy. Special Judge A.K. Lahoti's 1,500-page order lambasted the prosecution's "cogent, reliable evidence" as riddled with "material inconsistencies," noting no forensic tether linking Thakur's motorcycle to the blast site or Purohit's residence to bomb assembly.
Advocate on Record Ayush Anand and NIA Special Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi navigated the verdict's minefield with candor. Anand underscored the 17-year ordeal's toll, including Purohit's nine years in custody as an undertrial, framing the acquittal as a rebuke to "narrative-driven" investigations. Tyagi, who prosecuted the case, confronted its ironies head-on: "The victims think these people did this and have been let off, but what they don’t realise is that the real culprits, in this narrative of politics and media coverage, were never found or investigated." He lamented the shift from Maharashtra ATS to NIA mid-probe, which diluted focus, and the 34 hostile witnesses that eviscerated the case. "It's a lesson in prosecutorial humility—convictions demand ironclad proof, not public outrage," Tyagi reflected, as victims' kin appealed to the Bombay High Court in September.
The panel grappled with broader implications for "saffron terror" probes, with Chauhan warning against politicization: "Acquittals like this fuel distrust; we need depoliticized agencies to restore faith." Anand concurred, advocating NIA reforms for swifter trials, lest delays breed skepticism.
#### Judicial Entry: Balancing Merit with Experience
Former Judge and Rajya Sabha MP Mahendra Singh Solanki spotlighted the All India Judges Association verdict, upholding a three-year bar practice mandate for civil judge (junior division) aspirants—a nod to experiential depth over raw academic prowess. The Supreme Court's comprehensive order, resolving seven interconnected issues, restored the limited departmental competitive examination quota for district judge promotions to 25% from 10%, issued nationwide service rule amendment guidelines, and standardized reservations based on cadre strength. It introduced a dedicated quota for meritorious juniors and stability tests in merit-cum-seniority promotions, drawing affidavits from high courts and states in favor.
Solanki praised it as "a wonderful initiative" for maturing benches, arguing, "Fresh law graduates bring theory; practitioners infuse empathy and realism—three years isn't a hurdle, it's a honing." Swati Ghildiyal, Standing Counsel for Gujarat, lauded the standardization: "It levels the playing field, ensuring judges aren't novices in nuance." Critics on the panel, however, flagged potential talent drain, with Ghildiyal committing Think India's resources to bridge aspirant gaps through mock trials and mentorship.
#### Governors' Powers: No Deadlines, But Discretion's Double Edge
Capping the symposium, senior advocates Sanjay Ghose and Shravan Yammanur unraveled the November 20, 2025, advisory opinion on a Presidential reference probing Governors' and President's legislative vetoes—a fallout from delays in states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab. In a unanimous five-judge Constitution Bench ruling (Special Reference No. 1 of 2025), the court nixed "deemed assent" for delayed bills, affirming Governors' "independent discretion" unbound by ministerial advice or court-imposed timelines under Articles 200 and 201. "It is impermissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill before it becomes law," the bench held, rejecting prior three-month limits as unconstitutional overreach.
Yammanur characterized India's federalism as "amphibious"—a quasi-federal blend demanding equilibrium—urging contextual study of precedents like Tamil Nadu v. Governor (April 2025), which clarified withholding grounds but stopped short of timelines. Ghose advocated chronological lens: "Read these not in isolation; they're dialogues in federal evolution." While Venkataramani nodded to the verdict's restraint—"Courts can't micromanage constitutional functionaries"—Pathak Dave voiced federalism fears: "This empowers Governors as de facto vetoes, tilting scales toward the Centre in opposition-ruled states." The panel consensus: A pragmatic curb on judicial activism, yet a red flag for cooperative federalism's fragility.
As the gavel metaphorically fell, AG Venkataramani encapsulated the year's judicial ethos: "2025's verdicts remind us—law is a living instrument, tempered by evidence, equity, and evolving democracy." With over 1,400 Supreme Court judgments that year, from PMLA dilutions to free speech expansions, the symposium affirmed the bench's role as society's mirror. For Think India's young brigade, it was more than discourse—a clarion call to wield the law as a scalpel for justice, not a sledgehammer for ideology. As Banerjee signed off, "These aren't just cases; they're chapters in our constitutional saga."
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
