Latest Supreme Court of India News | Top Supreme Court of India News Headlines Today | Today India news | Breaking Supreme Court of India News Today | English Supreme Court of India News Headlines - TheDailyGuardian

Trinamool targets High Court judges by Name

June 22, 2025, 2:25 am

‘Targeting judges by name creates a chilling effect, discouraging impartial rulings,’ said a senior advocate from the Calcutta High Court.

KOLKATA: With the Mamata Banerjee government facing setback after setback before the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court of India, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) party has trained its guns on the judges who passed the verdicts and orders. Recently, the TMC has targeted Calcutta High Court Justices Amrita Sinha, Rajasekhar Mantha, and Debangshu Basak for issuing rulings perceived as unfavourable to the party’s interests. The criticism has come in the form of public statements and protests.

TMC spokesperson Kunal Ghosh has criticised the judges by name, a practice that has few parallels in recent memory. “Targeting judges by name creates a chilling effect, discouraging impartial rulings,” said a senior advocate from the Calcutta High Court, speaking anonymously. Justice Sinha has long been a focal point of TMC’s ire due to her stringent orders in high-profile cases involving the party. She has been hearing matters related to the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment scam, including cases implicating TMC general secretary Abhishek Banerjee. She imposed a Rs 25 lakh fine on Banerjee, prompting accusations of bias from TMC leaders, including Banerjee himself, who moved the Supreme Court to request that cases involving him not be heard by Sinha.

This week, she issued an interim stay prohibiting the State Government’s financial relief scheme for nonteaching staff who lost jobs after a Supreme Court order, which TMC labelled a move by “anti-Bengal” forces. The 26,000 teachers and non-teaching staff lost their jobs after a Supreme Court judgment in a case in which the former TMC number two and Education Minister Partha Chatterjee and a host of party leaders are behind bars for corruption. “Once the Supreme Court decided the issue of illegal appointment conclusively and opined that the appointments were the result of fraud, no person who was the beneficiary of a fraudulent act of the statutory authority ought to be provided any support, that too, from the public exchequer,” Justice Sinha stated in her order.

In 2023, Justice Sinha’s husband, Pratap Chandra Dey, was summoned for questioning by the CID, and his allegations triggered a political row. “I was treated like a criminal, accused of some heinous crime. I was questioned by more than one officer, and questions were asked only about my wife… The video [camera] was switched on and off at their convenience. The torture and harassment went on for three and a half hours. I was permitted to leave at about 3:30 pm,” Dey, a lawyer, wrote in a letter addressed to the president of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court Bar Association. The letter added that a notice under Section 160 of the CrPC was issued directing him to appear at the office of the Economic Offences Wing, CID, West Bengal.

The CID accused Dey of using his influence as the spouse of a sitting High Court judge to favour his client. Justice r Mantha is another judge who faced TMC’s brickbats. This week, his bench stayed the West Bengal government’s new OBC list, citing concerns over its constitutionality, as data showed that over 86% of newly added groups belonged to the Muslim community, raising questions about religious bias for electoral gain. In 2023, Mantha faced TMC’s ire after he restrained West Bengal police from investigating complaints against BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari, a decision TMC criticised as favouring the Opposition. In December 2022, Mantha ordered the stay of 17 FIRs against Adhikari and required High Court approval for new FIRs, which he deemed politically motivated by the State police.

Following this, a section of lawyers held protests outside his courtroom. Several posters targeting the judge appeared in the Calcutta High Court premises and near the judge’s residence in South Kolkata. Ghosh said, “There is a clear pattern in the manner in which these judges – specifically Justices Sinha, Mantha, and Basak – have passed orders. The general public is questioning their impartiality and saying that they are anti-Bengal.” Ghosh maintains that the party’s criticism is a legitimate exercise of free speech and not an attack on the judiciary. He argued that questioning judicial decisions is necessary when rulings appear to favour the BJP or disrupt the state’s governance.

Earlier, the party targeted former Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, who faced similar criticism before joining the BJP. “It was because of the Trinamool’s challenge that I decided to quit the judiciary and join active politics,” the former judge told The Sunday Guardian while campaigning in the last Lok Sabha elections for Tamluk constituency, which he won. Justice Basak was part of a High Court bench that ordered the sacking of 26,000 teachers and non-teaching staff, stating that corruption in their appointment process was so endemic that it was “impossible to separate the grain from the chaff.” BJP leader Amit Malviya accused the TMC of seeking a “committed judiciary” to suppress dissent, citing the protests as evidence of TMC’s intolerance for judicial scrutiny.

CPI(M) leaders echoed similar sentiments, calling for institutional safeguards to protect judges. Retired IAS officer and former TMC Rajya Sabha MP Jawhar Sircar said, “While TMC frames its rhetoric as democratic critique, the naming of judges and associated protests amount to intimidation and threaten judicial independence. As West Bengal’s political landscape remains polarised, the judiciary’s role as a check on power needs safeguards to protect its autonomy.”

“The TMC’s actions show a disregard for democratic institutions. However, they cannot bully the judiciary into submission,” said Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, advocate and CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP, who has played a pivotal role in all the cases against the TMC and the Bengal government.

“Dog-Whistling in Law”: SC Rebukes Ashoka University Professor Over Facebook Post on Op Sindoor

May 21, 2025, 2:41 pm

Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted interim bail to Ashoka University assistant professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, firmly rebuking him for a contentious social media message on India’s Operation Sindoor. Mahmudabad uploaded the Facebook post amid heightened national sentiment following the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s military operation against Pakistani terror camps.

Supreme Court Takes a Stern View

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was not shy in words as it condemned the professor’s remarks. “Everybody has a right to express free speech. But is it the time to talk of this much communal…? The country has faced a big challenge. Monsters came all the way and attacked our innocents. We were staying united. But at this juncture… why to gain cheap popularity on this occasion?” Justice Kant said, LiveLaw reported.

The court termed Mahmudabad’s post “dog whistling,” a legal term that refers to coded or veiled language addressing specific groups. It condemned his choice of words, saying, “Although everybody has the right to freedom of expression, statements by Mahmudabad are what is called dog whistling in law.”

Granting bail, the Supreme Court imposed three major conditions: Mahmudabad should not pen or comment in public about the case, the Pahalgam attack, or Operation Sindoor; and he should hand over his passport. In addition, the Court also declined to stay the ongoing investigation and instead ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within 24 hours. The SIT will consist of senior IPS officers from outside Haryana and Delhi.

Ashoka University Reacts

Ashoka University hailed the interim bail, saying, “We are relieved and heartened by Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad being granted interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has provided great comfort to his family and all of us at Ashoka University.” However, the episode highlights how intellectual voices are increasingly in the crosshairs, particularly at the time of sensitive national crises. With the ongoing SIT investigation, all eyes are on how the legal and academic fraternity will act in this high-profile case.

Waqf Law Changes Suspended for Now – Is This Just the Calm Before the Storm?

April 17, 2025, 4:36 pm

The government promised the Supreme Court on Thursday that there will be no new Waqf board appointments and no alteration to the status of properties asserted by Waqf boards until a hearing of challenges to recent laws changing the management of Muslim charity properties. This assurance was given while there was increased concern and protests all over India over the amended Waqf laws, more so the controversial ‘waqf by user’ provision, and the membership of Waqf boards.

Waqf by User Provision Under the Microscope

During the hearing, the Supreme Court was informed that current Waqfs, including those asserted under the ‘waqf by user’ provision, would not be altered. This provision enables Waqf boards to acquire properties that have been utilized by Muslims for religious or charitable causes, even if there is no formal document. The court had questioned this provision in its earlier hearing, stating, “We are not saying all ‘waqf by user’ is wrong. But there is concern.”

This has been a cause for concern as it raises the possibility of abuse of the provision, which has led to widespread criticism and court challenges. The court stressed that they would need to conduct an extensive review of how this provision affects properties and individuals who claim them through Waqf laws.

Government’s Response

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, sought a week to reply to the objections over the amendments to the Waqf laws. The government assured that in the interim period, it would not make any appointments under Sections 9 and 14 of the new law. The two sections restrict the Muslim members on the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf boards to only eight and four, respectively, out of 22 and 11 overall members.

The government’s promise that no appointments would be made was a short-term measure until the next hearing. The new provisions have been criticized, especially by Muslim community leaders and opposition parties. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna posed an important question during the hearing, inquiring from the Solicitor General if the government would permit Muslims to be included in Hindu endowment boards as well.

Protests Across India Over Law Amendments

The amendments to the Waqf laws have also led to protests throughout the nation, with most critics terming the amendments discriminatory and unfair. In West Bengal, clashes turned violent and resulted in the deaths of three people, further fueling tensions between the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the opposition BJP. The TMC has pledged not to carry out the changes in the state, accusing the BJP of engaging in “appeasement politics” ahead of elections next year.

The protests have drawn mass attention towards the amendments, with religious organizations and opposition parties filing petitions challenging them. More specifically, non-Muslims’ inclusion in Waqf boards has been contentious. The provision, according to its critics, intrudes on Muslim institutions’ independence and contradicts the values of religious freedom and representation.

Court’s Focus and Future Hearings

The Supreme Court, in its recent hearing, chose to address only five of the numerous writ petitions that were filed against the amendments to the Waqf laws. “It is not possible to consider 100 or 200 (petitions),” Chief Justice Khanna said, and added that the remaining petitions would be considered as disposed of. Petitioners will get five days’ time to respond to the government’s submissions after the government has filed its reply.

The court has made it clear that it will not overstep into the domain of the legislature, emphasizing the importance of the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution. However, it has agreed to hear the petitioners who argue that the changes to the Waqf laws infringe upon fundamental rights, including the right to equality and the right to practice religion freely.

Political and Religious Opposition to Waqf Law Changes

Opposition to the new Waqf laws has been across the board, with opposition political parties and religious groups moving against the amendments. Signatories to the petition include opposition party leaders such as Congress, AAP, DMK, and CPI, besides Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s JDU, which is an ally of the BJP. The JDU challenge is notable since Bihar, where there are many Muslims, will be going in for an assembly election this year.

Religious bodies like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board have also objected to the new laws. Some of the petitioners have demanded cancellation of the law while others have demanded a temporary ban on its implementation.

Waqf Act Under Fire: Will the Supreme Court Stay Parts of the Law? The 3 Key Issues in Question | TDG Explainer

April 17, 2025, 3:44 pm

The Supreme Court of India is considering a stay on sections of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, following a series of petitions questioning the newly enacted law. A bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna on April 16 suggested that the court could suspend certain sections of the Act.

The three issues are the revocation of waqf-by-user, the addition of non-Muslims to Waqf boards, and powers excessively awarded to district collectors over waqf properties. The hearing continues April 17, when interim orders are likely. The nation is watching as the court’s ruling could determine the balance between religious freedom, state control, and constitutional rights.

BIG BREAKING NEWS ? Supreme court refuses to grant interim stay on Waqf Act.

Supreme Court orders status quo in Waqf matter.

All Waqf properties must be preserved in their current state until the next hearing.

Centre has been asked to reply within 7 days.

SC said Waqf Act… pic.twitter.com/DOJmYuLYxW

— Times Algebra (@TimesAlgebraIND) April 17, 2025

What is ‘Waqf ‘ and Why does it matter?

Waqf is a property given for religious or charitable causes under Islamic law. It can be land, a building, or even assets. Once it is announced as waqf, the property cannot be sold or transferred. Such assets are managed by a Waqf Board, which ensures they are utilized for mosques, graveyards, madrassas, or welfare programs.

India’s waqf institution originated during the Delhi Sultanate. Over centuries, individuals entrusted properties to society without documentation. Legislations such as the Waqf Act of 1954 and 1995 created a contemporary legal infrastructure. Nonetheless, significant sections of this legacy depend on a legal principle named waqf-by-user.

Waqf-by-User: The core contention

The 2025 Act does away with waqf-by-user, a centuries-old legal principle. It permits properties employed for religious or charitable use to qualify as waqf on the basis of continuous usage — even though they were never actually registered.

Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that among the almost 8 lakh waqf properties that currently exist, practically half qualify as by-user. “This provision eradicates them in one go,” he said.

Kapil Sibal further stated that most of them have no documents, since they were established centuries ago. “How can you expect a mosque of the 14th century to yield a document of registration?” he quipped. The court concurred, observing that Jama Masjid and other heritage sites exist only under waqf-by-user.

The Centre, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, took a different view. He asserted that registration has been compulsory since 1923. Even waqf-by-user, he asserted, is subject to legal registration under all previous Waqf Acts. But the court asked whether it’s equitable to invalidate centuries-old waqfs retrospectively.

What is Waqf–by-User?

Waqf-by-user is an Islamic charitable doctrine of law whereby land or property is automatically considered waqf (endowment) merely because it has been perpetually put to use for charitable or religious purposes, though without written documentation.

In simple terms, if property has long existed as a graveyard, mosque, or madrasah — even without being formally registered — then it is very likely waqf property. This is doctrine that traditionally preserved properties bequeathed to, or preserved by, Muslim societies for generations on end when proper registration could not be possible, or indeed legally required.

Most of the mosques, dargahs, and graveyards in India fall under this premise. The Supreme Court petitioners contend that repealing this tenet erases the legal validity of almost half of all currently existing waqf properties.

Why is it controversial now?

The 2025 amendment to the Waqf Act does away with the idea of waqf-by-user. Petitioners contend this wipes out centuries-long religious properties in a single night, particularly those formed before the existence of registration laws. The Supreme Court was worried that requiring registered deeds for properties constructed in the 14th or 15th century is practically impossible.

Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards

The second concern relates to the induction of non-Muslims to Waqf Boards. Two non-Muslim members in every State or UT Waqf Board are required under the new Act and also representation from Bohra and Aghakhani communities.

This was challenged by Kapil Sibal under Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations’ rights to handle their own affairs. He contended that only 8 of 22 members of the Central Waqf Council are Muslims in the new framework.

“Would the government permit Muslims on Hindu religious trusts?” the court asked bluntly. When the Solicitor General attempted to deflect by challenging the impartiality of the bench, the judges responded curtly. “When we sit here, we lose our religion,” they asserted judicial neutrality.

Collector’s role: Executive overreach

The third one is with regard to Section 3C. It enables a district collector or a superior officer to investigate whether a waqf property is indeed government land. Until the inquiry is complete, the property by itself ceases to be a waqf.

The court pointed this out as profoundly troubling. “Is this fair?” it inquired. “Even before the collector has arrived at a decision, you divest the property of its character?” The worry is that the clause facilitates backdoor land acquisition without due process.

Minority institutions under the scanner?

This scandal is part of a larger story. Critics say the 2025 Waqf Act follows the recent trend of growing state domination of religious and community institutions.

Legislations regarding church properties, temple trusts, and now waqf boards are making people wonder: Is the government centralising control over minority assets? Is this part of a larger ideological drive?

The Act’s proponents believe that accountability and transparency are needed. According to them, waqf properties tend to be mismanaged, and registration provides legal clarity. But its opponents worry that true waqfs will get lost in technicalities.

What happens next?

No formal stay has yet been issued by the Supreme Court. It preferred to wait after the Centre and the states sought extra time. But oral comments from the bench leave no doubt that the court perceives “exceptional” grounds to act.

The hearing resumes on April 17 at 2 pm before CJI Sanjiv Khanna, and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. Everybody is waiting with bated breath for the possible interim relief.

Stakes are high for Rights and Property

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has rekindled controversies surrounding religious freedom, administrative justice, and constitutional protection. The Supreme Court now has the challenging task of reconciling heritage and legality, community rights and state authority.

Its ruling will probably not only shape waqf administration, but also the way India deals with minority-governed institutions in the future.

The Risk of Erasing Religious Heritage

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, by doing away with waqf-by-user, lays down a contemporary bureaucratic norm on ancient establishments. The action, according to critics, is more than a legislative fine-tuning — it runs the risk of making centuries-old religious monuments invalid because of the lack of documentation.

The Supreme Court itself recognized this point while hearing the case, pointing out how mosques dating back as early as the 14th or 15th century cannot reasonably be held to provide registered deeds.

This raises a larger question: Can state processes rewrite history and denotify holy spaces just because they don’t conform to today’s documentation system?

Supreme Court Allows Urdu on Municipal Signboards, Says ‘Language Is Not Religion’ | TDG Explainer

April 16, 2025, 4:32 pm

The Supreme Court of India ruled that Urdu can appear alongside Marathi on the signboard outside the Patur Municipal Council building in Maharashtra. This decision came after a legal challenge questioned whether using Urdu violated the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. The court’s verdict defends India’s linguistic diversity and reflects cultural inclusion in a multilingual nation.

What triggered the controversy?

The controversy began when Varshatai Sanjay Bagade, a retired councillor from Patur in Akola district, objected to Urdu being used alongside Marathi on the council’s signboard. She claimed the 2022 Act declared Marathi the only official language for local bodies, and thus Urdu had no place on official signs.

However, since 1956, Urdu had featured on signboards in Patur. It remained familiar to the local population, especially among Urdu-speaking communities. After the Bombay High Court dismissed her plea in 2021, Bagade approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s verdict

On April 15, 2025, a bench led by Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran ruled against Bagade. The court stated that no law forbids using multiple languages on municipal signs. Judges clarified that public signage should help communication, not serve political or religious agendas.

“Let us make friends with Urdu and every language”, says Supreme Court rejecting the challenge to the use of Urdu on the signboard of a Municipality in Maharashtra. pic.twitter.com/sMOQKACDTz

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 15, 2025

They emphasized that both Urdu and Marathi form part of India’s linguistic legacy. Rejecting the argument that Urdu was “alien” to Indian identity, the court described such claims as colonial hangovers. The judges said language should bring people together—not create divisions.

Understanding the language law

The Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, designates Marathi as the official language for municipal councils. But it does not ban the use of other languages.

Bagade argued that Urdu signage violated the law and insisted that only Marathi should appear. The court disagreed. It explained that the Act only ensures Marathi’s presence. It doesn’t block additional languages, especially when they improve communication with local people.

Urdu’s cultural roots

Justice Dhulia described Urdu as “the best example of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb,” a term reflecting Hindu-Muslim cultural harmony in northern and central India. The court recognized Urdu’s deep Indian roots, shaped by centuries of cultural exchange. It stressed that Urdu never belonged to one religion or political group.

The judges noted that Urdu and Hindi share vocabulary and structure. This overlap reflects India’s pluralistic society. The court refused to treat Urdu as a symbol of any one community, affirming it as a shared cultural asset.

Why the merdict Matters?

This ruling challenges the belief that Urdu belongs only to a single group. By allowing Urdu on a municipal signboard, the court recognized it as part of India’s diverse cultural identity—on par with Marathi, Tamil, Hindi, or Bengali.

It also affirms inclusiveness in public spaces. Recognizing multiple languages sends a message of dignity and acceptance to linguistic marginalized groups. For Urdu-speaking Indians, this verdict isn’t just about signage. It’s about being seen, respected, and treated as equals.

The decision could prompt other municipalities—in Urdu-speaking areas like Hyderabad, Lucknow, or Patna—to include Urdu in official displays. It also sets a precedent for embracing regional languages based on local demographics.

Politics and Language: A sensitive mix

Language and politics often intersect in India. States like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra have seen decades of language-based movements. Language often stands in for identity and political power.

The Supreme Court struck a balance. It acknowledged the political weight of language but avoided politicizing it. The court firmly stated that language should remain a tool for communication—not a weapon for division.

It also pushed back against efforts to label some languages as “un-Indian.” Politicians have long tried to cast certain tongues as foreign. The court’s decision serves as a reminder that India’s unity lies in its diversity—not forced uniformity.

Broader cultural impact

This ruling encourages wider discussion about how India treats its many languages. Although the Constitution lists 22 official languages, hundreds more are spoken across the country. Many are at risk of fading away.

By defending Urdu here, the Supreme Court sent a powerful message: lesser-used or politically marginalized languages deserve public recognition. Embracing linguistic variety doesn’t weaken national unity—it strengthens it.

Symbol of unity

This isn’t just a legal decision—it’s a cultural moment. The verdict reminds us that language reflects the people who speak it. Seeing your language on a signboard affirms your place in society.

The court’s message is clear: India’s language history can’t be trimmed to fit narrow ideas of nationalism. It must expand to include every voice—from widely spoken languages like Hindi to rich, historic ones like Urdu.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Urdu and Marathi signage marks a milestone in India’s language debate. It upholds the rights of linguistic marginalized groups and reinforces the value of diversity.

At a time when symbols often divide people, this verdict offers a hopeful view. It shows that unity doesn’t require sameness. India thrives when it embraces its many voices.

Lapse in Judgment? Did the Allahabad HC Ruling Set a Dangerous Precedent? | TDG Explainer

March 27, 2025, 1:20 pm

The latest ruling in the Kashganj case has caused turmoil in the entire country. In a nation like India, in which the constitution protects the rights and honor of women and children, such a ruling has created an emotionally challenging situation within the society.

There are so many questions raised when the judgement appears unfit or unjustified for people. To make better sense of this verdict issued by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, The Daily Guardian spoke to Adv. Ashwin Dubey exclusively. He gave points regarding the case which places the verdict in the limelight.

On questioning whether there was a lapse in judgement Adv. Dubey explained to TDG that the judicial power of the High Court to hear any case and to enforce any judgement of the trial power is the judicial power. He stated, “In this context, when the high court gave an additional definition to the ‘attempt to rape’ was not right. If we compare the recommendations of the Verma Committee and the definitions of Bhartiya Nyay Sanghita (BNS) (earlier known as the Indian Penal Code), if a minor is subjected to sexual assault, it can turn into a case under the sections of BNS along with the POCSO Act.”

He added, “Any judgement of the high court is followed in different courts so this may form a positive mindset to the offenders. They may end up considering that if any such situation is faced by them, they can enjoy the benefit of this judgement in future.”

Referring to the rights cited in the constitution he stated that the constitution dictates the rights of women and children and in fact they are much more sensitive, and even they have been violated but it will be based upon the final verdict, which will be delivered by the Supreme Court.

Case Details

The Kasganj case is of the year 2021 when two men Pawan and Akash were accused of raping an 11-year-old girl. The accused had allegedly gained the confidence of the victim’s father and promised to drop her back home on their motorcycle. They allegedly halted in the middle, molested her, touched her indecently, and one of them tried to drag her under a culvert after slicing the string of her pyjama. They escaped when people passing by stopped them.

They were originally charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rape and Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, under the orders of the Kasganj trial court. But the Allahabad High Court modified the charges, ordering the accused to be tried under Section 354-B IPC (assault or criminal force with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault), NDTV reported.

A third accused, Ashok, Pawan’s father, was called up under Sections 504 (insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. Apparently, upon approaching him after the incident, he abused her verbally and threatened her.

Allahabad High Court’s Verdict

The top court amended the charges, ruling that the claims did not technically amount to rape. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, in his verdict, argued that for an attempt at rape to be proved, the prosecution must show that the accused had crossed the stage of preparation and taken meaningful steps toward commission of the offence.

Not withstanding these charges, the high court held that the evidence did not prove an attempt to rape, as there was no suggestion that the victim was left undressed or naked. The court explained its position by saying, “The allegations leveled against the accused, Pawan and Akash, and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case.”

Supreme Court’s Response

The Supreme Court on Wednesday suspended the Allahabad High Court judgment that had controversially ruled that such acts as fondling a victim’s breasts or slashing the string of her pyjama do not amount to an attempt to rape. The court emphasized that, in order to uphold the charge of attempted rape, it should be established that the accused went beyond preparation.

Taking suo motu cognizance of the issue, the Supreme Court reacted after an appeal from the organization ‘We the Women of India.’ A bench headed by Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih criticized the high court judgment, terming it as displaying a “lack of sensitivity.”

The court also sent notices to the Centre and the government of Uttar Pradesh and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R Venkataramani for their inputs.

Legal Community’s Outrage

The Allahabad High Court judgment evoked universal condemnation with people asking whether it does not constitute attempted rape to forcibly undress a girl against her wishes.

Senior lawyer Indira Jaising was one of those who opposed the ruling strongly and had asked the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance of the case. Significantly, a previous petition questioning the high court’s order had been rejected by a bench headed by Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

Rights activist Rachna Tyagi, who appeared for the survivor’s mother and Just Rights for Children, said, “The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of serious observations made by the Allahabad High Court and stayed that judgment. The Supreme Court has also issued notice to the Union of India.”

Watch Here:

https://latest.thedailyguardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Advocate-Rachna-Tyagi-.mp4

The Supreme Court’s intervention signals a firm stance on ensuring sensitivity in cases involving sexual assault and attempts to rape, emphasizing that such rulings must align with justice and the protection of victims’ rights.

Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra? SC Condemns His ‘Insensitive’ Ruling on Attempt to Rape

March 26, 2025, 5:04 pm

The Supreme Court has severely indicted controversial judgment by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra on March 17 on the definition of attempting to rape, terming it “insensitive” and “inhuman”. Not only did the apex court stay the ruling, but the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court has also been directed to take adequate action against him.

The judgment had ruled that actions like cupping breasts or snapping the string of a pyjama were not tantamount to attempts at rape, a ruling that had outraged the entire country and was put under legal scanner.

Supreme Court Condemns the Judgment

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih strongly indicted Justice Mishra’s reasoning as a flagrant disregard of judicial norms. “It’s very serious and exhibits complete lack of sensitivity on the part of the judge… We are sorry to use such harsh words against a constitutional court judge, but this is one of those cases,” the bench noted.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the judgment was not a hasty order but was delivered four months after being reserved in November 2023, showing careful consideration by the judge.

“We take strong exception to paragraphs 21, 22, and 26 of the judgment, which depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment. It is also not that the judgment was delivered on the spur of the moment—it was reserved in November and delivered four months later. It is thus clear that the judge applied his mind and authored this judgment,” the court explained.

The case landed in the Supreme Court after ‘We the Women of India,’ a rights group, moved the top court against the high court ruling.

What Was the Decison of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra?

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra delivered the verdict while granting the accused’s criminal revision appeal. The high court had first ordered the trial of the accused under Section 354-B of the IPC (assault or criminal force with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).

The case goes as far back as November 10, 2021, when an 11-year-old girl was home on a motorcycle by the accused. Her father, trusting them, let her go. But on their way, the three accused stopped and sexually assaulted her.

The accused, the prosecution alleged, touched her breasts, tore the string of her pyjamas, and tried to push her under a culvert in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasganj. They ran away when onlookers came between them, leaving the girl behind.

Despite these allegations, Justice Mishra decided that the incident “hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape.”

“The allegations levelled against the accused, Pawan and Akash, and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case. To bring out a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation,” said the judgment.

The judge also rationalized his position, contending that the accused did not take further steps that would have established an intent to rape.

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra: Background and Career

Justice Mishra has been a part of the judiciary for a long time. He acquired a law degree in 1985 and a post-graduation in 1987. He entered the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service as a Munsif in 1990 and subsequently got promoted to the higher judicial service in 2005.

Over the years, he served as district and sessions judge in Baghpat and Aligarh, held key positions such as director of the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), and later served as district and sessions judge, Lucknow.

He was elevated to the Allahabad High Court as an additional judge on August 15, 2022, and was sworn in as a permanent judge on September 25, 2023.

Public Outrage and Legal Ramifications

The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights growing concerns over judicial sensitivity in sexual assault cases. Legal experts and activists have called for stricter judicial accountability, ensuring judgments align with established legal precedents and victims’ rights.

As the drama plays out, all eyes are fixed on the Allahabad High Court’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s order for Justice Mishra. The case is a powerful reminder of the judiciary’s task of ensuring justice, particularly in women and children’s crimes.

Banks Can Charge Interest Rates Exceeding 30% on Credit Card Dues, Rules Supreme Court

December 26, 2024, 4:33 pm

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that banks can charge interest rates exceeding 30% on credit card dues, overturning a sixteen-year-old verdict by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that deemed such charges as unfair trade practices.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that the NCDRC’s assertion that interest rates above 30% per annum constituted an unfair trade practice was “illegal” and interfered with the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) clear authority. The court emphasized that the ruling contradicted the legislative intent of the Banking Regulation Act of 1949.

Clarification on Misrepresentation and Contract Terms

The Supreme Court clarified that banks had not misrepresented information to credit card holders, and the conditions for “deceptive practice” and unfair methods were absent. The court noted that the NCDRC lacked the jurisdiction to alter the terms of contracts mutually agreed upon by banks and credit card holders.

The bench supported the RBI’s position, stating that there was no basis for directing the RBI to impose a cap on interest rates for banks, either collectively or individually, in violation of the Banking Regulation Act and its associated directives.

Consumer Awareness and Contractual Obligations

The court acknowledged that while the national consumer commission has the authority to nullify unfair contracts, the interest rates set by banks, based on financial prudence and RBI guidelines, could not be deemed unconscionable or unilateral. It highlighted that credit card holders are adequately informed of their rights and responsibilities, including the necessity for timely payments and the penalties for delays.

The Supreme Court pointed out that customers are made aware of key terms and conditions, including interest rates, at the time of obtaining credit cards, and they agree to these terms. The court concluded that since the terms of credit card operations were disclosed to the complainants prior to the issuance of the cards, the NCDRC could not scrutinize these terms, including the interest rates.

Background of the Case

The ruling came in response to appeals filed by Citibank, American Express, HSBC, and Standard Chartered Bank against the NCDRC’s July 7, 2008, order, which had deemed interest rates ranging from 36% to 49% per annum as exorbitant and exploitative. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the banks’ ability to set interest rates within the framework established by the RBI, while also emphasizing the importance of consumer awareness regarding credit card terms.

‘This Is the India We Live In’: Supreme Court Judge Shares Photo of Menstruating Women In Rural

October 20, 2024, 3:04 pm

During the first International Supreme Court Advocates on Record (SCAORA) Legal Conference, Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Karol shared a disturbing account of a woman in rural India who is forced to live outside her home during menstruation. He showcased a photograph he took in 2023 of the woman living under a tent, prohibited from entering her house due to social taboos around menstruation.

Justice Karol, without specifying the exact location, pointed to remote areas in Bihar and Tripura as regions where access to justice is still severely lacking. He described this incident as a reflection of the broader societal injustice many face in rural parts of India, urging the legal community to step up and address these challenges.

HAVE A LOOK AT THE VIRAL POST:

Justice Karol: India is not Delhi or Mumbai. Unfortunately our approach has been very metro centric. Have we ever thought of teeming millions living in rural areas of India. Have we reached out to them .. I travel extensively and Mr Mishra knows both in Tripura and Bihar I have…

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) October 19, 2024

Justice System’s Metro-Centric Approach Criticized

Addressing the significant divide in access to justice, Justice Karol criticized the “metro-centric approach” of India’s legal system, stating, “India is not Delhi. India is not Bombay.” He highlighted the plight of millions in rural areas who are unaware of their rights or have no access to the justice system.

The judge called for greater outreach to those living in remote regions, emphasizing that the legal system must evolve to serve the broader population and not just the educated or urban elite.

Constitution as a Living Document for Social and Economic Justice

Justice Karol also underscored the importance of the Indian Constitution in driving social and economic justice, describing it as a “living document” that must adapt to the country’s evolving needs. He highlighted the Constitution’s role in rectifying historical injustices and fostering an environment that promotes equality and sustainable development.

The judge concluded by stressing the intrinsic link between social and economic justice, stating that inequality goes beyond a lack of resources, often representing a more profound disparity relative to others.

SC: Downloading And Watching Child Pornography Is An Offence Under POSCO Act

September 23, 2024, 11:58 am

In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India declared that downloading and viewing child pornography constitutes an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, overturned a previous decision by the Madras High Court, which had stated that such actions were not prosecutable under the law.

Background of the Case

The ruling originated from a case involving a 28-year-old man accused of downloading child pornography on his mobile device. The Madras High Court had previously dismissed the criminal proceedings against him, arguing that children today are increasingly exposed to pornography and that society should focus on education rather than punishment.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinstated the criminal charges against the individual. The bench criticized the Madras High Court for what they deemed an “egregious error” in its judgment.

Justice Pardiwala, in his remarks, expressed gratitude to the Chief Justice for the opportunity to draft the judgment. The court’s decision highlighted Section 15 of the POCSO Act, which prescribes penalties for the storage of pornographic material involving children. According to this section, individuals who store such material without reporting or destroying it face fines starting at five thousand rupees. Repeat offenders could incur fines of up to ten thousand rupees. Additionally, if the material is intended for further distribution or promotion, the punishment could include imprisonment for up to three years. In cases involving commercial storage of child pornography, the imprisonment term could range from three to five years, with a potential increase to seven years for repeat convictions.

Justice Pardiwala emphasized the psychological and societal harm that child pornography inflicts on victims. He noted the need for the Parliament to consider amending the POCSO Act to explicitly categorize child pornography as child sexually abusive and exploitative material. The bench suggested that an ordinance might be introduced and advised all courts to refrain from using the term “child pornography” in their rulings.

The Chief Justice characterized the ruling as “landmark” and acknowledged Justice Pardiwala’s contributions to the decision.

Supreme Court of India Files Cybercrime Complaint Against Impersonator of CJI Seeking Money for Cab Fare

August 28, 2024, 9:37 am

The Supreme Court of India has filed a cybercrime complaint with the Delhi Police against a social media user who impersonated Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and requested money for a cab fare. This action was taken after CJI Chandrachud noticed a screenshot of a message circulating on social media on Sunday. The Supreme Court’s security department then registered a First Information Report (FIR) with the cybercrime department.

What Did the Scammer’s Message Say?

The scammer, using CJI Chandrachud’s name and picture on their profile, sent a message to an X user named Kailash Meghwal, asking for ₹500 to take a cab to attend a Collegium meeting. The impersonator claimed to be “stranded” at Connaught Place in Delhi. The message read: “Hello, I am CJI and we have an urgent meeting of the collegium and I am stuck at Cannaught Place. Can you send me 500rs for a cab?”

Another Incident of Impersonation

In a separate incident in March, a 42-year-old man was arrested for allegedly impersonating a Delhi Police crime branch inspector and deceiving two people out of ₹4 lakh by promising to sell them luxury cars and expensive cellphones supposedly auctioned by Delhi courts at very low prices. The accused, Ayub Khan, was arrested after an investigation into a fraud case registered at the Subzi Mandi police station in January. The police recovered a forged Delhi Police identity card from Khan.

Khan was previously involved in four similar fraud cases registered at the Kamla Market, Daryaganj, Hari Nagar, and Parliament Street police stations in Delhi. The police reported that Khan used the money he swindled to live a lavish lifestyle and spent it at nightclubs in Delhi and Mumbai.

SC Grants Bail To Kavitha, Questions ED And CBI Fairness In Probe

August 28, 2024, 1:54 am

In a significant relief for K Kavitha, the Supreme Court of India has granted her bail in both corruption and money laundering cases related to the Delhi excise policy scandal. Kavitha, daughter of former Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao, has been in custody for five months. The court’s decision comes amid criticisms of the fairness of the investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Supreme Court’s Observations

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan criticized the Delhi High Court’s rejection of Kavitha’s bail plea. The High Court had denied bail based on Kavitha’s “highly educated and accomplished” status, arguing that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was meant for more “vulnerable” women. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that courts cannot create subcategories for bail provisions.

Concerns Over Probe Fairness

The Supreme Court also raised concerns about the fairness of the ED and CBI investigations. The bench questioned why certain individuals, like auditor Buchi Babu, who allegedly received Rs 25 crore, were not included as accused in the money laundering case. They also noted inconsistencies in how other individuals, such as liquor businessman Magunta Reddy and his son, were treated compared to Kavitha.

Legal Proceedings and Impact

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was influenced by the substantial delay in trial and the extensive evidence involved, including nearly 50,000 pages of documentation and 493 witnesses. The bench noted that continued incarceration should not become a form of punishment, especially when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.

Political and Legal Fallout

Kavitha’s release marks the third high-profile bail in the case, following AAP leader Manish Sisodia and MP Sanjay Singh. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal also secured bail in the PMLA case, though his CBI case bail plea is still pending. The Supreme Court’s remarks on the probe’s fairness have intensified scrutiny of the investigative agencies’ practices.

Next Steps

The bail plea of another accused, Vijay Nair, is scheduled for hearing next week. The CBI and ED have sought additional time to respond to his petition. The ongoing legal and political tensions highlight the complexities of the case and the critical examination of investigative fairness by the judiciary.

As the legal process continues, the Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the need for transparent and equitable handling of high-profile cases.

Survey on Doctors Strike

August 23, 2024, 12:01 am

On a call by the SC, doctors of the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Indira Gandhi Hospital and several other hospitals on Thursday ended their strike in protest against the rape and murder at a Kolkata hospital.

The Resident Doctors Association of Indira Gandhi Hospital has officially called off its 11-day strike in protest against the rape and murder at RG Kar Medical Hospital.

83% Support Indian Doctors Returning to Work Amid Ongoing Protests.

Here is the survey:

Q-1: After the Kolkata Rape-Murder Case, what is the most significant step that should be taken for the safety of Indian doctors?

Q-2: Should Indian doctors return to work with their demands and protests continuing?

Q-3: Has the INDI alliance weakened due to the Kolkata Rape and Murder case?

Q-4: Who do you think has suffered the most due to the doctors’ strike?

How SC Order On Sub-Classification Of Quota Reshaping Politics

August 14, 2024, 2:00 am

Around the decade of 80s, in academics, while understanding political parties in India, we used to ask the question about- ‘class base of political parties’. Now a days we are habitual to raise question- about ‘caste base of political parties’ in Indian society and politics. As we have observed that many political parties in India have their own caste base. The caste base of the political parties gets reflected in their political stands on various issue in different circumstances.

Recently, Supreme Court of India gave a very important verdict in which it permitted the state governments to make provisions for sub- classification in reservations for the most marginal communities within scheduled caste and scheduled tribe category. The Supreme Court also advised the state governments to do a judicious identification of such communities by rigorously collected data. As we know this verdict came in the case of Davinder Singh vs. State of Punjab which is decided by 6:1 bench of the judges of the apex court.

This verdict of the Hon’ble court created a sharp debate in Indian public-political sphere and also produced multiple polarisations among the political class of the country. Some of the political parties expressed their clear-cut stand either for or against of this issue and some others are still working on the strategy to wait and watch. The Political parties like Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and its supremo Mayawati, Lokshakti Janata Dal lead by central minister Chirag Paswan, HAM leader and ex-CM of Bihar Jeetan Ram Manjhi, Ram Das Athawale- leader of Republican Party of India (RPI-Athawale) took their clear stand on this recently articulated judgement.

Few Congresses chief ministers such as Revanth Reddy, chief minister of Telangana, K Siddaramaiah, Congress leader and Chief minister of Karnataka, appreciated enthusiastically this verdict of the Supreme Court. BSP leader Mayawati recently opposed this verdict aggressively and described that it may dilute the social justice benefit for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, provided by the Constitution.

She also posed the doubt that due to such acts Dalit communities may weaken and their empowerment process will be affected. Lok Jan shakti Party (LJP) leader Chirag Paswan also opposed this verdict. The critical stand expressed by both these leaders from the most visible and dominant Schedule Castes show that they are reflecting feelings of the caste base of their political parties. As we know that BSP’s caste base among Schedule Castes is centred around Jatav, Chamar castes in the various Northern Indian states who have evolved as main beneficiary of reservations for the scheduled castes in post Independent India.

Similarly, Paswan also known as Dusadh caste in Bihar– is the largest castes among the list of Schedule castes of Bihar. It is visible Dalit communities in the state and acquired various kinds of representations in politics, jobs and development. It is working as base vote community of Lok Jan shakti Party, led by Chirag Paswan, in electoral politics. This verdict may create possibility for the share in reservation generated opportunities in other marginal castes in Bihar, whose major benefits use to go to the Paswan Community.
The Chirag Paswan’s stand on it is largely reshaped by the pressure of their electoral caste base in the politics of Bihar. Jeetan Ram Manjhi and his party -Hindustani Awam Morcha (HAM) who represent the developmental and political desire of the Musher caste which is one of the poor and most marginal Schedule Castes in Bihar. As Manjhi supported this verdict of sub-classification of the SC-ST reservation for most backward and marginal castes.

It is obvious that while supporting it, he is supporting the interest of his political caste base. In this process he is also addressing his electoral base in the politics of democracy.
Second factor which has reshaped the stand of few political parties is electoral concern. In fact, in most of the state this assertion for sub-classification in SC-ST reservation is led by second largest or second politically influential caste in various state. In Punjab, it is led by Valmiki caste, in Telangana, it is led by Madiga caste and Maharashtra it is being demanded by various non-Mahar Dalit castes. So, to understand, political and electoral relevance of these communities, various national and regional political parties came forward to support this verdict.

However, supporting the cause of most marginal communities is ethical concern for our political class but what we observed – the political stand of many political parties has been reshaped by their mere political and electoral concern. The political is always pragmatic, mostly it keeps ethical and moral concern as secondary preference while articulating its political stand. But ‘literati class ‘of the any nation must take ethical and moral stand especially while articulating the politics of distribution of democratic resources for the most backward and most marginal communities.

SC directive puts Haryana govt in a spot

August 13, 2024, 5:03 am

The Supreme Court’s recent directive to partially reopen the Shambhu Border, where farmers have been protesting since February 13, has put the BJP-led Haryana government into a difficult position as the directive, aimed at alleviating local hardships, could potentially reignite farmer protests in a state bracing for upcoming elections.

Since February 13, the Shambhu Border has been the focal point of farmer protests organized by the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (KMM) and Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM). These protests, initially aimed at addressing demands for a legal guarantee on Minimum Support Prices (MSP) and farm loan waivers, have seen limited government engagement despite Union Agriculture Minister Arjun Munda’s offer for further discussions on February 21.

The Haryana government’s primary concern is that reopening NH 44 could lead to increased farmer movement towards Delhi, potentially reviving the large-scale protests that forced the Central government to retract three controversial farm laws during the 2020-21 agitation. In an affidavit submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Haryana government had justified the blockade as a necessary security measure, indicating that barricades would only be removed if the farmers shifted their protest away from the highway.

In response to the Supreme Court’s order, SKM (NP) leader Abhimanyu Kohar stated, “We want to make it very clear that our intention to march to Delhi was thwarted by the Haryana government. Our demands for guaranteed MSP and loan waivers remain unchanged. We are currently reviewing the Supreme Court’s orders and will determine our next steps after a meeting.”

The partial reopening of NH 44, a crucial highway with nearly 60,000 vehicles traversing daily, is poised to impact both local residents and ongoing farmer protests, making it a critical issue for the Haryana government as it navigates these complex political waters.

SC affirms LG’s power to appoint aldermen, clears way for Standing Committee formation

August 6, 2024, 5:59 am

Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) faced another setback as the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Delhi Lieutenant Governor’s decision to nominate 10 ‘aldermen’ to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

This ruling clears the way for forming the Standing Committee in the MCD, which has been absent since the AAP took power. Following the Supreme Court’s order, Sardar Raja Iqbal Singh, the leader of the opposition in the MCD, stated, “Considering the interests of the citizens, the Aam Aadmi Party’s Mayor should issue a notification for the elections of the Standing Committee and Ward Committees as soon as possible.”

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Narasimha and JB Pardiwala stated that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is expected to act according to the statutory mandate, rather than based on the aid and advice of the Delhi government. The top court, in its judgement, declared, “The Delhi LG is to act as per the mandate of the statute, not on the advice of the council of ministers.”

The Supreme Court’s verdict came in response to a plea from the Delhi government challenging the nomination of 10 ‘aldermen’ by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In May 2023, the apex court had reserved its judgement on the matter. The AAP government argued that the nominations were made in MCD ward committees where the BJP had a weaker presence. The counsel representing the LG contended that the “aid and advice” of the Delhi government were not required when exercising a statutory power explicitly conferred on the Administrator. After AAP won the municipal elections, the Lieutenant Governor appointed 10 ‘aldermen,’ a move opposed by the Delhi government. The Delhi government’s petition sought to quash the orders dated January 3 and 4, 2023, through which the LG nominated 10 individuals as members of the MCD. The plea argued that the Lieutenant Governor had “illegally” appointed these 10 members on his own initiative, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Delhi government noted that this was the first time since Article 239AA came into effect in 1991 that such a nomination was made by the LG, bypassing the elected government and thus assuming a power that rightfully belongs to the duly elected government.

Sanjay Singh, a senior leader of the Aam Aadmi Party and a Rajya Sabha MP, told the media, “I believe this decision is a significant blow to the country’s democracy. By bypassing the elected government, all the powers will be given to the LG. This is not good for democracy and the Constitution of India. With due respect, we completely disagree with this decision.” He added, “This decision is entirely against the spirit of democracy and contradicts the court’s comments during the hearing. After reading the full order, we will determine our next steps.”

Meanwhile, Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit criticised AAP, stating that the Supreme Court had followed the law and confirmed that the authority to appoint the aldermen rests with the Lieutenant Governor (LG). He also remarked that AAP has consistently clashed with the LG and should have understood the laws before submitting the names of the 10 aldermen.

“The Supreme Court looked at the law and clarified that the right to appoint the aldermen lies with the LG. You’ve always fought with the LG, and you should have read the law before sending the names of the aldermen. This shows that either you are uninformed or deceitful. It’s clear that you’re lying and manipulating the legal system,” Dikshit stated.

Sardar Raja Iqbal Singh, the leader of the opposition in the MCD, told the Daily Guardian that following the Supreme Court’s order, the Aam Aadmi Party should quickly hold elections for the Standing Committee and Ward Committees. This would allow stalled development projects to resume and enable citizens to access the services of the Delhi Municipal Corporation. He emphasised that the Standing Committee is a crucial component of the corporation, and its absence has halted all development work. Singh added that, considering the interests of the citizens, the Aam Aadmi Party’s mayor should promptly issue a notification for these elections.

From Shah Bano to Mohd Abdul Samad: The Supreme Court’s role in safeguarding Muslim women’s maintenance rights

July 16, 2024, 5:57 am

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) of India has demonstrated time and again that it is willing to take the lead in defending the rights of the vulnerable and Muslim women in particular and repeatedly affirmed that Muslim women may apply for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC as the procedural legislation is secular in nature. In the Recent judgement Mohd Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, the apex court upheld that Muslim women can seek maintenance under section 125 of CrPC even though they have an exclusive remedy under the Muslim women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act 1986.

Section 125 of CrPC

According to Section 125 of CrPC, “any person having sufficient means” is required to support “his wife” or “his legitimate or illegitimate minor child” in the event that they are unable to support themselves. Usually, this entails providing monthly financial support. The section’s explanation makes it clear that a divorced woman who hasn’t gotten married again is included in the definition of “wife.”

Shah Bano V. Mohamud Ahamad Khan

In 1978, a Muslim woman named Shah Bano Begum filed a petition for maintenance against her husband Mohamud Ahamad Khan. Later in the same year, he divorced her by way of triple talaq and contended that, as per Muslim law, he is liable to pay maintenance only for 3 months post-talaq (iddat period) and not beyond that.

The case reached the Supreme Court of India in 1980 following the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s granting of Shah Bano’s plea. Then it was argued by the All-India Muslim board that the court is bound to apply the personal law as per The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 but not the Criminal Procedure code. However, the 5-judge constitutional bench consisting of the then Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice D.A. Desai, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, Justice R.S. Pathak and Justice M. Hameedullah Beg upheld the decision given by the High court of Madhya Pradesh and ordered for the grant of maintenance. Then, Chief Justice of India Y V Chandrachud ruled those laws like Section 125 CrPC “cut across the barriers of religion” and that it makes no difference “whether the spouses are Christians or Parsis, Hindus or Muslims.” The court further decided that even after the Iddat period, the divorced wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 “if she is unable to maintain herself.”

The Muslim women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act 1986: (MWPRD ACT)

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was passed by the Indian Parliament in reaction to the Shah Bano case, and it gave Muslim women who have divorced, a particular way to file for maintenance. It confined the amount to the mahr, or dowry, given to the woman, and limited the maintenance term to the iddat period and the divorced wife’s children or relatives were obligated to pay maintenance after the iddat period and in their absence, the State Wakf Board was made responsible.

Danial Latifi v. Union of India, 2001

The Danial Latifi, advocate of Shah Bano filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the validity of the MWPRD Act 1986. He contested that the MWPRD Act discriminates against Muslim women, infringing against their rights to equality (Article 14) and to a life with dignity (Article 21), and that Section 125 is intended to shield women of all religions without any discrimination. However, the centre and the All-India Muslim board contended that the MWPRD Act is in accordance with their personal law and by no means it is against the constitutional provisions.

The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench, consisting of Justices G.B. Pattanaik, S. Rajendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju, and Shivaraj V. Patil, while upholding the constitutional validity of the Act and extended the right of a Muslim woman to get maintenance until she re-marries. The Apex Court also ruled that Muslim husbands are liable to provide maintenance to their divorced wives beyond the iddat period until she re-marries.

Mohd Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana

Mohd Adbul Samad, the petitioner, contested a 2017 family court ruling for him to provide his ex-wife maintenance in the amount of Rs 20,000 per month. In response to an appeal, the Telangana High Court declined to vacate the family court’s ruling. On appeal to the apex court a two-bench comprising of Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and George Masih upheld the judgement given by the High court and reiterated that section 125 of the CrPC being a secular legislation it is applicable even the divorce has been obtained through personal law.

Justice Nagarathna stated that Section 125 CrPC is “embedded in the text, structure and philosophy of the Constitution. The maintenance remedy is an essential source of support for the impoverished, abandoned, and underprivileged segments of the female population. It is an embodiment of the social justice ideology included in the constitution, which aims to free Indian wives—including those who have been divorced from the constraints of discrimination, disadvantage, and deprivation based on gender and nowhere in MWPRD Act created a bar to claim maintenance under section 125 of CrPC” and held that the section 125 of CrPC is an additional remedy in supplement to the right to maintenance under the personal law and also concluded that this section applies to all women irrespective whether they are married or not.

Hence time and again the Hon’ble Supreme court of India stood up to do complete justice to women of all religion and Muslim women in particular from “destitution or vagrancy.”

Congress welcomes SC move to hear Aadhaar Act challenge as money bill

July 16, 2024, 5:37 am

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Monday targeted the government over the bulldozing of Bills in Parliament in last 10 years under Article 110 of the Constitution and welcomed the Supreme Court agreeing to consider a submission for setting up a constitution bench to hear pleas challenging the validity of passage of laws like the Aadhaar Act as money bills, and hoped a final verdict will come before CJI D Y Chandrachud retires in November this year.

In a post on X, formerly Twitter Ramesh, who is also the party’s general secretary and communications incharge said, “In the last ten years many Bills have been bulldozed through Parliament by having them declared ‘Money Bills’ under Article 110 of the Constitution. A good example of this is the Aadhar Act of 2016. I had challenged its declaration as a money bill in the Supreme Court, and in his dissenting judgment then the present CJI had called this declaration as a ‘fraud on the Constitution’. I had challenged other instances as well.”

“The verdict of the CJI today to set up a separate Constitutional Bench to hear pleas on the gross misuse of Article 110 since 2014 is a welcome step. Hopefully a final and definitive pronouncement will come before he retires in November 2024,” the Congress leader said.
His remarks came after a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who also heads the Supreme Court Bar Association, that the pleadings are complete and the petitions needed to be listed for hearing.

The CJI said that “I will take the call when I form the constitution benches”.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had said it would constitute a seven-judge bench to consider the issue of validity of passage of laws like the Aadhaar Act as a ‘money bill’.

The decision came over the controversy around money bills after the government introduced legislations like the Aadhaar Act and even amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as money bills, apparently to circumvent the Rajya Sabha where it did not have a majority then.

Watch Video : Supreme Court Of India Hit By Heavy Rain

July 9, 2024, 1:21 pm

Delhi experienced a heavy downpour today, as the monsoon season continues to lash the city. Streets quickly flooded, causing significant traffic disruptions and waterlogging in several areas. Commuters faced delays, and some neighborhoods experienced power outages.

#WATCH | Heavy downpour at #SupremeCourt as #rains lash parts of #Delhi-NCR

Track latest updates at https://t.co/o0DfqPgD8V

?️: ANI | #DelhiRain pic.twitter.com/aQgpFEkmmt

— Hindustan Times (@htTweets) July 9, 2024

Even the Supreme Court of India witnessed the heavy downpour, with water gushing into the premises and briefly interrupting hearings. A video capturing the scene shows rainwater flooding parts of the building, highlighting the severity of the monsoon deluge.

The India Meteorological Department (IMD) has forecasted more rain in the coming days, advising residents to stay alert and take necessary precautions. This year’s monsoon has brought higher-than-average rainfall, providing relief from the scorching summer heat but also raising concerns about flooding and infrastructure challenges.

Suspicions emerge as a new Godhra link surfaces

June 15, 2024, 3:25 am

Amid student protests over alleged irregularities in NEET-IG 2024, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of Hiten Singh Kashyap and other students demanding a CBI inquiry. During the hearing of the case on Friday, the vacation bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has issued notice to the Centre and the National Testing Agency (NTA).

The petitioner has raised doubts over the students from Odisha, Karnataka and Jharkhand choosing a particular examination centre in Godhra taluka of Panchmahal, Gujarat. The petition claims that at least 16 students from Odisha, Jharkhand and Karnataka chose Jai Jalaram School in Godhra taluka of Panchmahal in Gujarat as their exam centre and allegedly paid Rs 10 lakh each to clear the exam.

The petition claimed that Gujarat Police arrested a teacher in this case. The petition claims that according to the police, out of this group of 26 students, 16 students chose this remote centre and their names were found in the lists recovered from the main accused Tushar Bhatt, who was a geography teacher in the school and the superintendent of the NEET exam centre.

Petitioner Hiten Kashyap has claimed that some students travelled more than a thousand kilometres to appear for the exam which “highlights irregularities”. The petition has sought an order to the NTA to conduct a fresh NEET 2024 exam after taking necessary steps to prevent other malpractices. Along with this, the Supreme Court has been asked to stay the results and counselling declared by the NTA on June 4 till the petition is pending.

NEET-UG 2024 Result: Centre Cancels Grace Marks; Announces Re-Test; But Why Were Grace Marks Given? – Explained

June 13, 2024, 8:40 pm

The NEET exam results for 2024 have become embroiled in controversy, leading to significant disruptions in the admission process for medical courses across India. The Centre’s decision to cancel grace marks awarded to 1,563 candidates and offer them a re-test has stirred debate and raised questions about the integrity of the examination.

Background of NEET-UG 2024:

The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate) (NEET-UG) serves as the primary gateway for admission to undergraduate medical programs in India. This year, over 24 lakh students appeared for the exam, which took place on 5 May across numerous centres.

Delayed Announcement and Perfect Scores:

The results, originally scheduled for 14 June, were announced on 4 June, raising eyebrows due to the unusually high number of perfect scores. A staggering 67 students achieved a perfect score of 720, prompting scrutiny and scepticism.

Awarding of Grace Marks:

Subsequently, it was revealed that 44 of the top scorers had been awarded grace marks, along with 1,563 other candidates. The grace marks were reportedly given to compensate for lost time during the exam and discrepancies in answer keys.

Reasoning Behind Grace Marks:

The National Testing Agency (NTA) attributed the awarding of grace marks to issues such as inadequate time allocation at certain exam centres and discrepancies in answer keys. These concerns prompted the formation of a Grievance Redressal Committee to address student complaints.

Normalization Process and Public Reaction:

The decision to award grace marks was based on a normalization formula established by a 2018 Supreme Court judgment. However, this process has faced criticism from students and the public, who question its transparency and fairness.

Political and Legal Fallout:

The controversy surrounding NEET-UG 2024 has led to political and legal repercussions, with the opposition demanding a Supreme Court-monitored probe into the examination process. The role of the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the government’s response to the issue have come under scrutiny.

Future Implications and Resolutions:

As the situation unfolds, there are calls for greater transparency and accountability in the examination process. Efforts to address concerns regarding the normalization process and the conduct of future NEET exams are underway, with a focus on ensuring fairness and integrity.

Conclusion:

The NEET-UG 2024 controversy underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity and credibility of entrance examinations. It highlights the need for robust mechanisms to address grievances and ensure a level playing field for all aspiring students.

‘Hamare Baarah’: Supreme Court Halts Release Of Controversial Film

June 13, 2024, 4:11 pm

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has stayed the release of the film ‘Hamare Baarah,’ starring Annu Kapoor. The film, which was slated for release on June 14, faces allegations of being derogatory towards the Islamic faith and Muslim women. The apex court has directed the Bombay High Court to expedite the hearing of a petition challenging the movie’s certification.

A vacation bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the stay order, effectively halting the film’s release until the petition is resolved. “Until disposal of the petition before the High Court, screening of the movie in question shall remain suspended. We request the High Court to dispose of the plea expeditiously,” the bench stated in its order.

Controversy:

The controversy began when Azhar Basha Tamboli filed a petition against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for granting certification to ‘Hamare Baarah.’ She claimed that the film’s content was offensive to the Islamic faith and derogatory to Muslim women. In response, the Supreme Court reviewed the film’s teaser and found it “offensive,” prompting the decision to halt its release.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Producer Virender Bhagat expressed gratitude to the apex court for considering their side of the story. He emphasized that the censor board had approved the film, recognizing its theme of women’s empowerment and population awareness. “The censor board said that this is a movie on women’s empowerment and population awareness and had submitted the report to the Bombay High Court,” Bhagat told ANI.

Previously, the Bombay High Court had permitted the release of ‘Hamare Baarah’ after the filmmakers agreed to delete two controversial dialogues. The court’s dissatisfaction with a three-person review committee, which failed to provide a timely report, led to this decision. Senior advocate Rahul Narichania, representing the filmmakers, assured the court of the deletion to avoid further delays.

The Karnataka government has also banned the film’s release for two weeks or until further notice, citing potential communal tension. The Congress-led state government made this decision following requests from several minority organizations and a review of the film’s trailer. The movie was initially scheduled for a nationwide release on June 7, 2024.

About ‘Hamare Baarah’:

Directed by Kamal Chandra and jointly produced by Birender Bhagat, Ravi S Gupta, Sanjay Nagpal, and Sheo Balak Singh, ‘Hamare Baarah’ aims to shed light on the critical issue of overpopulation. The film stars notable actors Annu Kapoor, Manoj Joshi, and Paritosh Tripathi, and is anticipated to deliver a powerful narrative on social issues.

As the Bombay High Court prepares to hear the petition expeditiously, the future of ‘Hamare Baarah’ remains uncertain. The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the delicate balance between creative expression and sensitivity towards religious sentiments. The outcome of this legal battle will be keenly watched by the film industry and social commentators alike. For now, the fate of ‘Hamare Baarah’ hinges on the Bombay High Court’s forthcoming decisions, setting a crucial precedent for similar cases in the future.

Fresh plea filed in SC to recall NEET-UG 2024 results

June 11, 2024, 3:14 am

A fresh petition has been filed in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking recall of NEET-UG 2024 results. The petition has been filed by two residents of Telengana and Andhra Pardesh.

The petitioner has sought direction to NTA to recall the results of the examination conducted on 5 May and to conduct the examination afresh after issuing due public notice upon revelation at the end of investigation through a report that large number of examinees are bound to be affected by the declaration of results depriving those qualified examinees of just and fair opportunity to compete in seeking admission in college of their choice, it added

The petitioner also sought an a stay on counselling to be held after declaration of results of NEET (U.G.) exam held on 5 May till the investigations on paper leak are completed containing a report about the dimension of such offence and its impact on the number of examinees.

The petitioner also sought formation of a Special Investigation Team for expeditious and thorough investigation of the malpractices and fraud involved in the NEET examination held on 5 May and to secure punishment of those found guilty.

The petitioner said that education system in India always remained an important aspect. However, because of voracity of few citizens the education system started degrading day by day with the use of unfair means in examinations resulting into miscarriage of justice for lacs of Students who sat for the examination, it added.

Petitioner claimed that cheating in entrance exams has far-reaching consequences for society as a whole. It can lead to the selection of incompetent or unqualified individuals in universities, which can have detrimental effects on the students who were preparing for the examination for a long time.

The petitioner further stated that cheating in entrance exams undermines the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunities, which are essential for fostering social mobility and ensuring fairness in society.

The results were declared 4 June wherein 67 Students received full marks, i.e. 720 out of 720, out of which 8 students were from same centre which in itself creates a doubt about the manner in which the exam was conducted.

Moreover, some students have secured 718 and 719 marks which is statically not possible. That there has no defined logic for the grace marks given to the students as well as no list has been shared as per given grace marks to students. The reason for awarding the grace marks is wastage of time, however, the same was never disclosed in the information bulletin before the exam, it added.

There are various petitions filed in different High Courts pertaining to same issue which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and may result into wasting of precious time of the Courts and because of this reason the Petitioners are filing the present petition so that the issue may be settled by this Court, it added

SC to hear Sisodia’s bail plea in liquor policy case today

June 4, 2024, 3:29 am

Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia on Monday moved Supreme Court seeking bail in liquor policy cases. The top court will hear Sisodia’s plea on Tuesday. Manish had sought bail in cases being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Sisodia has been in custody since February 26, 2023 after arrest by the CBI. Thereafter, he was arrested by the ED.

Earlier on May 21, Delhi High Court had dismissed the bail petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader in liquor policy cases. The bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma had pronounced the order and said the case at hand is of grave misuse of power and aim was to create policy that is beneficial to some and kickbacks could come in.

However, it had Sisodia to meet his ailing wife once in a week.

Corruption in this case originated with applicant’s desire to design a policy that is beneficial to some individuals.

Court had also observed that Sisodia had involved himself in the destruction of evidence and hence the possibility of tampering of evidence cannot be ruled out. He held 18 portfolios and was also a senior leader of AAP and Deputy CM, hence, he is very powerful.

Prosecution has made out a prima facie case of money laundering involfing great misuse of power by the applicant Manish Sisodia. This deceptive Act was a calculative move by him, the court had earlier said, adding that tempering can’t be ruled out if Manish Sisodia is out on bail. Many crucial witnesses in the case are public servants and possibility of influencing can’t be ruled out, it said.

On April 30, the Rouse Avenue Court had dismissed the bail petitions of Sisodia for the second time in the case and said, “This court is not inclined to admit the applicant to bail, either regular or interim, at this stage. The application under consideration is accordingly dismissed.”

Sisodia has been in custody since February 26, 2023, after arrest by the CBI. Thereafter, he was arrested by the ED.

The ED and the CBI had alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy, undue favours were extended to licence holders, the licence fee was waived or reduced and the L-1 licence was extended without the competent authority’s approval.

SC declines plea for re-polling in Bihar’s Munger constituency

June 1, 2024, 3:18 am

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear a plea seeking a directive for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct re-polling in certain booths of Bihar’s Munger constituency.

A vacation bench comprising Justices S. C. Sharma and P. B. Varale advised the petitioner to approach the high court instead.

“Why don’t you go to the HC? The high courts are not closed in this country,” the bench remarked.

The petitioner’s counsel alleged extensive rigging and booth capturing during the elections in Munger, purportedly with the involvement of the local administration.

The top court expressed its unwillingness to entertain the matter, prompting the petitioner to withdraw the plea. Consequently, the matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Apex Court was hearing a plea filed by RJD candidate Kumari Anita, who sought a directive for the poll panel to conduct re-polling in 45 booths in Munger. The plea alleged serious manipulation, booth capturing, and rigging by JD(U) workers, allegedly aided by officials. It also sought the removal of District Election Officer Munger, Dr. Avaneesh Kumar Singh, from all administrative responsibilities.

‘Prima facie, ad disparaging’: SC on BJP plea on HC order

May 28, 2024, 1:22 am

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea filed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) challenging a Calcutta High Court order that had refused to interfere with a single-judge verdict restraining the party from issuing advertisements allegedly violative of the model code during the Lok Sabha polls. A vacation bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Viswanathan declined to interfere with the high court order. “Prima facie, the advertisement is disparaging,” the noted. Appearing for BJP, Senior advocate P S Patwalia sought permission to withdraw the matter after the bench expressed disinclination to entertain it.

A division bench of the high court had on May 22, stated its disinclination to entertain the appeal against the interim order issued by the single-judge bench.

The single-judge bench, on May 20, had prohibited the BJP from disseminating advertisements that breached the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) until June 4, the day when the Lok Sabha poll results are slated to be announced.

Additionally, the court had restrained the saffron party from publishing the advertisements highlighted by the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal, as part of its plea alleging unverified accusations against the BJP and its members.

No SC direction to ECI on voter turnout data

May 25, 2024, 4:41 am

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to pass any direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea seeking the uploading of Form 17C data on the Commission’s website and publication of booth-wise voter turnout data.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta and Satish Chandra Sharma declined to grant any interim relief to petitioners and said it could not interrupt the polls.

The top court said that of the seven-phase elections, five phases are over and the sixth phase is scheduled for Saturday.

The “hands-off” approach is needed in the middle of the election process, observed the bench while adjourning the application. The court told the petitioner that the interim prayer raised in the present application was the same as of the petition pending before it since 2019.

The bench in its order stated that “Prima facie we are not inclined to grant any interim relief since prayer A of the 2019 petition is similar to prayer B of the 2024 application. List the interim plea after (summer) vacation.”

The bench clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case apart from the prima facie view.

The top court was hearing an application filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) seeking disclosure of final authenticated data of voter turnout in all polling stations including the number of votes polled in the Lok Sabha Elections 2024 within 48 hours of the polling.

During the hearing today, senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Election Commission of India (ECI), said that ADR’s application was based on “unfounded suspicions” and “false”.

Petitions like these are responsible for reducing the voter turnout because of the “continuous questioning of the process”, said Singh. He said such kind of attitude is causing damage to the public interest by always putting a question mark on the sanctity of the elections.

Earlier, the Election Commission had filed an affidavit before the top court and said that voter turnout data based on Form 17C (records of votes polled in each polling station) will cause confusion among voters as it will also include postal ballot counts.

Rampur Lok Sabha Seat: Independent Candidate Moves SC Against Denial Of Records Of Votes Polled

May 21, 2024, 2:19 am

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who contested the Lok Sabha elections as an independent candidate from Uttar Pradesh’s Rampur parliamentary seat, has approached the Supreme Court, alleging that the Returning Officer has failed to provide him with copies of the Form 17-C record of votes polled in the constituency.

Pracha has petitioned the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to promptly publish voter turnout data following the elections. He has filed an intervention application in an ongoing case by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) on a similar issue.

In his application, Pracha stated that he had requested the Returning Officer for machine-wise data of total votes cast in the polling stations, recorded in Form 17-C by the Presiding Officers, after the conclusion of voting in Rampur on April 30. However, on May 9, the Returning Officer informed him that the Form 17-C copies were provided to polling agents present at the polling stations and could not be provided now as they are sealed.

In response to ADR’s application, the Supreme Court had directed the ECI on May 17 to submit its response regarding an application seeking immediate uploading of accounts of votes recorded at all polling stations after the close of polling in each phase of the ongoing 2024 Lok Sabha election. During the hearing, the bench questioned the ECI about the difficulty in uploading copies of Form 17-C on their website.

ADR argued that the ECI’s delay in publishing the final voter turnout data raised concerns among voters, as there was a significant difference between the final data and the initial figures.

SC notice to ED on Soren’s bail Plea

May 18, 2024, 4:23 am

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea by former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren seeking interim bail in a money-laundering case, enabling him to campaign in the ongoing Lok Sabha polls. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta also instructed the federal probe agency to submit a concise reply on Soren’s plea against his arrest, scheduling the matter before a vacation bench on May 21. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, emphasized that if granted interim bail, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader would surrender on June 2.

“There is no material against me in the case. Elections will be over if not granted interim bail,” Sibal stated. Sibal and senior advocate Arunabh Chowdhury, also representing Soren, reiterated that the JMM leader neither possesses the land in question nor has any involvement in the matter.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, noted that Soren was arrested earlier and has not contested the rejection of his regular bail application.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Soren stressed interim bail and apprised the court that one phase of the Lok Sabha poll is over, the fifth phase is on May 20 and the third phase is scheduled for May 25. He also said that there is no material to show against Soren in the case.

The top court said that it will not pass any order unless it is prima facie satisfied. Soren has approached the top court against the Jharkhand High Court decision which rejected his plea challenging arrest in a money laundering case. Jharkhand High Court has rejected Soren’s plea challenging arrest in a money laundering case on May 3.

Soren in his plea before the High Court has claimed that his arrest was unwarranted and his remand in the matter was arbitrary and illegal. Hemant Soren, who has filed the petition through advocate Pragya Baghel, called his arrest illegal and malafide. In the meantime, he has sought interim bail.

After a prolonged moment of speculation in the media and a hide-and-seek drama, former Jharkhand Chief Minister and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chairperson Hemant Soren was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in the land scam case in January. The probe pertains to huge amounts of proceeds of crime generated by forging official records by showing ‘fake sellers’ and purchasers in the guise of forged or bogus documents to acquire huge parcels of land valued in crores. The JMM leader was apprehended on January 31 in connection with the money-laundering case linked to an alleged land scam following his resignation as the Jharkhand chief minister.