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

Supreme Court Urges Govt to Evict Ex-CJI Chandrachud from Official Bungalow

July 6, 2025, 4:29 pm

In an unusual step, the Supreme Court administration has formally written to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, requesting the immediate repossession of Bungalow No. 5, Krishna Menon Marg in Lutyens’ Delhi—assigned to the sitting Chief Justice. The current occupant, former CJI Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, has overstayed the allowed period since his retirement in November 2024.

A letter dated July 1, reviewed by Hindustan Times, states: “I am to request you to take the possession of Bungalow No. 5… from Hon’ble Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud without any further delay as… permission… expired on 31st May, 2025… [and] the six months provided in Rule 3B… expired on 10th May, 2025.”

Extended Stay After Retirement

Justice Chandrachud, India’s 50th CJI until November 2024, is still residing in the Type VIII bungalow nearly eight months post-retirement. His successors—Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bhushan R. Gavai—declined to occupy the residence, instead staying in other official lodgings.

When asked, the ex-CJI attributed his delay to personal reasons, including securing suitable accommodation for his family. He confirmed that he had been offered alternate housing, currently under renovation:

“I have already been allotted an accommodation… and I will shift the very next day that the house is ready.”

Permission Granted Amid Pollution Delay

In a December 18, 2024 letter to then CJI Khanna, Justice Chandrachud requested to remain at the Krishna Menon Marg bungalow until April 30, citing delays in shifting to Bungalow No. 14 on Tughlak Road due to pollution-related GRAP-IV restrictions.

“It would be more convenient if I am permitted to retain the existing accommodation… till 30 April 2025,” he wrote, also offering to forgo Tughlak Road housing.

India’s Housing Ministry granted permission from December 11, 2024 to April 30, 2025 at a license fee of ₹5,430 per month.

Oral Extension Closes May Grace

In June, Justice Chandrachud made an oral request to stay until May 31, 2025. The Supreme Court approved this extension with a strict warning: no more delays, as several judges awaited official housing.

However, the July 1 letter underlined that the extended stay violated Rule 3B, which permits retired CJIs only Type VII housing for six months, making his current occupation of Type VIII accommodation beyond May 10, 2025, unauthorized.

Court Seeks Immediate Possession

The Supreme Court pointed out that the special extension granted was conditional, and having overshot the May deadline, it requested MoHUA to repossess the bungalow promptly and confirm the action.

Such a formal demand is rare, marking the first high-level intervention by the court to retrieve its residence from a retired Chief Justice—an extreme departure from past practice where unofficial extensions were often allowed.

Family Needs Cited as Reason

Justice Chandrachud clarified the delay was partly due to his daughters’ medical needs. He stated: “I have two daughters with functional needs… which is why it has taken me some time to look for a house appropriate for their needs… both of whom require treatment for nemaline myopathy at AIIMS.”

He noted that his situation was known to the court administration.

Soon to Move: Acknowledging Obligations

The former CJI assured: “It is a matter of just a few days and I will shift… I am completely cognisant of my responsibilities.”

He further added that past Chief Justices received similar grace periods to accommodate family and logistical matters. He also mentioned a letter from April 28 requesting permission until June 30 to finalize a suitable home for his daughters.

With deadlines now passed, the Supreme Court’s demand to reclaim its premier residence highlights the balance between statutory rules and personal exigencies for retired top officials.

Thug Life Protests Controversy Karnataka Government to Guarantee Theatre Protection

June 19, 2025, 4:41 pm

Thug Life has sparked a Supreme Court clash as protests and threats escalate over Kamal Haasan’s new film in Karnataka. The controversy started after Haasan’s remarks on the Kannada language angered Kannada activists. Their protests quickly forced theatres to cancel screenings, which led to legal action and a heated public debate.

As the situation worsened, the Supreme Court stepped in, criticising the state for failing to protect theatres. Now, the Karnataka government promises full security for cinemas planning to screen the film. Meanwhile, tensions keep rising over freedom of expression and public safety.

Will provide security to theatres if Kamal Haasan’s film ‘Thug Life’ released in state: Karnataka in SC

If any threat is issued against screening of the film, Karnataka govt will take action against divisive elements: SC pic.twitter.com/6brqP1Y954

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) June 19, 2025

Karnataka Backs Thug Life Screenings

The Karnataka government told the Supreme Court it would provide security to any theatre screening Kamal Haasan’s Thug Life. The assurance came after the court strongly warned the state against letting vigilantes control public spaces. “Mob and vigilantes cannot be allowed to take over streets,” the court stated, showing concern over the growing unrest.

Earlier, Kannada activists had protested Haasan’s comments about the Kannada language. As a result, the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) halted the film’s release and demanded an apology from Haasan. However, activists intensified their protests by lodging police complaints and warning cinema owners against showing the film.

Supreme Court Slams State

The matter reached the Supreme Court after petitioner M Mahesh Reddy challenged the film’s non-release in Karnataka. On Tuesday, the court sharply criticised the Karnataka government for failing to prevent the disruption. The justices stressed that the state must act firmly against any group that threatens public order.

“If any threat is issued against the screening of the film, the state government will take action against divisive elements,” the court ordered.

Now, the Karnataka government promises police protection to reassure theatre owners and audiences. This growing controversy has sparked a wider debate across India about artistic freedom and how political protests can influence cinema.

Supreme Court Slams Karnataka Government for Blocking ‘Thug Life’

June 17, 2025, 3:06 pm

The Supreme Court highlighted that any films that are approved by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) must be screened, and ordered Karnataka to allow the screening of Kamal Haasan’s “Thug Life.” According to Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, vigilantes and mobs cannot take over the streets or prevent approved movie screenings.

Karnataka Under Supreme Court Scrutiny

The Supreme Court examined the PIL that Mahesh Reddy filed, seeking directions after groups in Karnataka threatened to block ‘Thug Life’. These groups reacted after Kamal Haasan stated that “Kannada was born out of Tamil,” which stopped the film’s release in the state. The court ordered the Karnataka government to confirm the film’s release within one day. The bench said, “We can’t allow mobs and vigilante groups to take over the streets.”

Can’t Allow Mobs To Take Over; State Must Ensure Film Release’ : Supreme Court To #Karnataka Govt On ‘Thug Life’ Ban

Rule of law demands that any film which has a CBFC certificate must be released the Court said.

கமல்ஹாசன் மிரட்டுவதை அனுமதிக்க முடியாது#ThugLife #KamalHaasan pic.twitter.com/jvdzD78Mjb

— KH FANZ ITWING (@Mathankamaltuti) June 17, 2025

The bench criticised the Karnataka High Court for suggesting that Haasan should apologise. The justices firmly stated that the high court had no authority to demand an apology. They explained that if Haasan’s statement was incorrect, intellectuals should openly debate and discuss it. They insisted that people must address such disagreements through dialogue, not by imposing bans or allowing extra-judicial actions that threaten legal procedures.

Haasan’s Remark Sparks Backlash

At a promotional event in Chennai, Haasan made comments that immediately triggered strong reactions in Karnataka. In response, the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce declared that it would not screen ‘Thug Life’ unless Haasan issued an apology. Nevertheless, director Mani Ratnam, who reunited with Haasan after their 1987 film ‘Nayakan,’ proceeded with the nationwide release on June 5.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court transferred the related case from the Karnataka High Court to itself and scheduled a further hearing for Thursday. Moreover, the Supreme Court stressed that only the Central Board of Film Certification holds the legal authority to decide a film’s release.

It firmly stated that personal objections, public outrage, or threats must never override the certification process or block a certified film from reaching audiences.

Justice Abhay Oka Calls Supreme Court ‘Chief Justice-Centric’, Urges Structural Reform in Farewell Speech

May 23, 2025, 10:23 pm

Supreme Court judge for whom Friday was his last day as a judge, Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka has stated that the top court is presently a “chief justice-centric court” and it needs to change.

Justice Abhay Oka Critiques Chief Justice-Centric Structure

Justice Oka, who was speaking at the farewell function organized for him by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), stated that the supreme court has judges from various regions of the country and that ought to be given expression.

“Supreme Court is a chief justice-centric court and it needs to change. Supreme Court has about 34 judges from different parts of the country and that should be reflected,” he said, according to Bar and Bench.

Justice Abhay Oka also expressed confidence that the change would be reflected under the tenure of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai.

“I’m sure you will see that change with the new CJI,” he said, according to Live Law.

Supreme Court as Guardian of Liberty

Third most senior judge Justice Abhay Oka also stated that the Supreme Court is one court that can ensure constitutional freedoms and the vision of the framers of the Constitution.

“I believe that this is the one court (Supreme Court) which can uphold the constitutional liberties, and that this has been my humble endeavor, and I am sure that the collective efforts will be made, this court will continue to uphold liberty, because that was the dream of the framers of the Constitution, and it was my honest endeavor to do that,” PTI news agency quoted him.

CJI Gavai Lauds Justice Oka’s Dedication

CJI Gavai also praised Justice Abhay Oka and spoke of his relentless work rate, even after suffering a personal loss.

“Just two days ago, his mother passed away. He came overnight for her funeral, back to work, and yet managed to hand down 11 judgments the following day,” the CJI stated.

Born on May 25, 1960, Justice Abhay Oka began his career in 1985 after joining the chambers of VP Tipnis, who was a former Judge of the Bombay high court. He worked more than two decades in judiciary, amongst whom was judge of the Bombay high court, Chief Justice of Karnataka high court after which he was elevated to Supreme Court August 31, 2021.

SC’s new ruling on civil judge appointments: Reform or roadblock?

May 21, 2025, 1:23 am

In a significant ruling on 20th May 2025, the Supreme Court, in the case of All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025, overturned its 2002 judgment and made it mandatory for candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam to possess a minimum of three years of legal practice. While this may appear to be a reform aimed at ensuring experienced and capable individuals join the judiciary, a closer examination reveals that the move is more regressive than revolutionary.

The Key Takeways of the Judgement

Three years of legal practice is now compulsory for eligibility.
Legal experience will be counted from the date of registration with the State Bar Council after clearing the All-India Bar Exam (AIBE).
Practice certificates must be signed by an advocate with 10 years of experience and endorsed by a judicial officer or principal judicial officer designated for the purpose.
For those practicing in High Courts or the Supreme Court, a designated court officer will be responsible for verification.
Recruitment processes already underway will not be affected by this decision.
Experience as a Law Clerk will now be counted toward the three-year requirement.
The judgment overrules the 2002 ruling that allowed fresh law graduates to appear for judicial exams, a policy supported only by Sikkim and Chhattisgarh. Most High Courts expressed dissatisfaction, citing that freshers hinder judicial efficiency.

Reality Check

Irregular and Unpredictable Judicial Examinations Judicial service exams across Indian states are far from regular. Many states notify vacancies only once every 4–5 years. On top of that, the selection process starting from preliminary to final appointment can take up to 1.5 years. By mandating an additional three years of practice, the Court has inadvertently created a situation where aspirants may have to wait nearly a decade from graduation before becoming eligible. The result? An entire generation of brilliant legal minds may be discouraged from pursuing the judiciary at all.

Disruption for Thousands of Law Students

In their final year, thousands of law students begin intensive preparation for judicial services, committing years of effort and spending substantial amounts on coaching and study resources. Despite the judgment being prospective, it has created widespread confusion. Students who had structured their career paths based on the earlier eligibility criteria now find themselves navigating an uncertain future. The sudden change in rules has upended their expectations, raising concerns about wasted time, financial investment, and the direction of their professional journey.

A Setback for Women in Law

This ruling delivers a particularly harsh blow to women. In a society where women are still under societal pressure to marry young and shoulder disproportionate family responsibilities, asking them to spend five years studying, three years practicing, and then wait several more years for exam cycles to turn is a formula that will push many women out of the race entirely. Just when women were beginning to make significant inroads in judicial appointments, this decision threatens to undo that progress.

The Door to Corruption Swings Wide Open

The Supreme Court’s requirement that experiences certificates be signed by a senior advocate and endorsed by judicial officers might seem like a step towards accountability. However, this opens the floodgates to nepotism, favouritism, and corruption. For those with the right connections or the means to “influence” the process, obtaining a certificate will be no big deal. Meanwhile, genuine aspirants who strictly adhere to ethics may find themselves sidelined yet another injustice in the name of justice. Who will protect these honest aspirants? Who will ensure that the “verification” of legal practice doesn’t become another bureaucratic hurdle riddled with underhanded dealings?

What We Needed vs What We Got

What India’s judiciary truly needs is systemic reform uniformity in exam schedules, a transparent and time-bound recruitment process, and structural reforms in the lower judiciary. What we got instead is a band-aid solution that disproportionately affects young, bright aspirants and women, and incentivizes manipulation over merit. This ruling, while cloaked in the language of reform, is a textbook example of how well-intentioned policy can go wrong when ground realities are ignored. In seeking to keep “inexperienced” individuals out of the judiciary, the judgment ironically risks keeping merit and integrity out as well. The future of judicial reform lies not in exclusion but in transformation. And that transformation must start with accountability, transparency, and above all, empathy for the very aspirants who dream of upholding the Constitution.

Parth Gautam, Advocate, Delhi High Court, and Pragati Solanki, Assistant Professor, HLM Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad.

Supreme Court to Hear Ashoka University Professor’s Petition Challenging Arrest Over ‘Operation Sindoor’ Post

May 20, 2025, 3:02 am

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to urgently hear a petition by Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who challenged his arrest by Haryana police over a Facebook post concerning Operation Sindoor. The court may take up the matter as early as Tuesday.

Professor Mahmudabad, who heads the Political Science Department at Ashoka University, was arrested on Sunday following two complaints, including one filed by the Haryana State Commission for Women. However, many argue the post was misinterpreted and contained no criticism of the Indian military action or the two women officers involved in briefing the media about the strikes.

Kapil Sibal Urges Urgent Listing

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai. Sibal stated, “A professor at Ashoka University has been proceeded against entirely for patriotic comments. I want the matter to be listed urgently.” The CJI responded by agreeing to list the case on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Arrest Sparks Outrage Over Police Action

The arrest has triggered significant criticism of the Haryana police, especially as Professor Mahmudabad was taken from his residence in Delhi to Sonipat. Critics pointed out the contrasting inaction by Madhya Pradesh police in handling communal remarks made by state minister Vijay Shah regarding Col. Sofiya Qureshi, one of the officers who led the Operation Sindoor briefings.

The Supreme Court dismissed the minister’s apology on Monday and ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team headed by a woman officer to probe the incident.

Facebook Post Highlighted State Hypocrisy

In the post, Mahmudabad wrote, “I am very happy to see so many right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophia Qureshi, but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing, and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens. The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important, but optics must translate to reality on the ground, otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.”

The Haryana State Commission for Women claimed the remarks undermined women officers in the armed forces and allegedly spread communal discord.

FIR Filed Under Multiple BNS Sections

The Haryana police stated that they received two complaints—one from Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Women’s Commission, and another from a village sarpanch. Based on these, they filed FIRs under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including 152 (acts endangering sovereignty), 353 (statements inciting public mischief), 79 (insulting a woman’s modesty), and 196(1) (promoting enmity between communities).

Faculty Association Condemns Arrest

The Ashoka University Faculty Association issued a strong statement condemning the arrest. “We condemn the calculated harassment to which Professor Mahmudabad has been subjected: after being arrested early in the morning from his home in New Delhi, he was taken to Sonipat, not allowed access to necessary medication, and driven around for hours without any communication about his whereabouts,” the statement read.

They expressed full support for the professor, whom they described as an “invaluable member of the university community, a deeply responsible citizen, and a friend to his students.”

Academic Community Backs Mahmudabad

Highlighting his academic credentials, the faculty noted, “Professor Mahmudabad is well-versed in diverse literary and linguistic traditions and is a widely acclaimed expert and scholar of history and political science in South Asia and beyond. In all of his writing, both for academic and wider public fora, he has emphasized the importance of justice, pluralism, and solidarity, and has always advocated a profound respect for Constitutional values and morality.”

The Supreme Court’s intervention is expected to be closely watched amid growing concerns over freedom of expression and the misuse of law enforcement for political targeting.

Shielding judicial propriety against casual remarks

May 17, 2025, 3:49 am

Recent proceedings in the Supreme Court and certain High Courts have brought to light a growing concern: judges, albeit acting in good faith, have made oral observations framed in language indicative of personal opinion, with only a tenuous connection to the facts and legal issues under consideration.
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in In Re: Remarks by High Court Judge During Court Proceedings (2024), observed that “The perception of justice to every segment of society is as important as the rendition of justice as an objective fact,” and that “casual observations often reflect individual bias of the judges,” thereby warranting caution on the part of judges. In the era of social media, where news is consumed in brief snippets, such observations can have unintended adverse repercussions for the subjects involved and may undermine the fairness of trial proceedings. This underscores the need for a deeper examination of the role and limits of judicial commentary in the courtroom.

Off-the-cuff remarks
When a judge of the Karnataka High Court referred to a specific territorial area in Bangalore as “Pakistan,” the Supreme Court promptly initiated suo motu proceedings and strictly advised caution and reasonable restraint. Also, in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), the Court emphasized that a judge’s personal distaste for particular words or expressions cannot impede the fulfilment of constitutional responsibilities or the delivery of impartial justice. Further, in Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India (2025), even though interim protection from arrest was duly granted, the judges orally lashed out at the petitioner, to the extent of calling him “perverted” with a “dirty mind.” Similarly, Rahul Gandhi v. State of UP and Anr (2025) was a defamation matter involving comments made against freedom fighter V.D. Savarkar, wherein interim relief was duly granted, notwithstanding an oral remark stating that “if the petitioner knew anything about the history and geography” of the nation, he wouldn’t have made such comments in the first place.
However, transgressing judicial propriety outside the courtroom, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, whilst delivering a lecture on the Uniform Civil Code at an event, vehemently asserted that the country would function in accordance with the “wishes of the majority.”

Challenges
There are multiple challenges posed by such misdemeanours on the part of judges. First, such remarks are susceptible to misinterpretation. For instance, in 2021, the Madras High Court casually remarked that the Election Commission of India should be booked for murder for allowing election rallies during the pandemic, thereby impliedly and unintentionally attributing culpability to a constitutional body. Second, it is contrary to the principle of judicial propriety, which demands adherence to decorum, the embrace of impartiality, and the practice of reasonable restraint, irrespective of the informal nature of courtroom interactions. Third, such oral observations often reflect personal biases and accumulated predispositions based on a judge’s life experiences and can bring disrepute to judicial integrity. Fourth, when expressed at the pre-trial stage, such subjective views can potentially prejudice the trial outcome. Fifth, given the expansive reach of legal reporting and live streaming, where judicial observations are often consumed in a piecemeal manner, such comments can result in the premature media trial of the accused. Lastly, from a layman’s perspective, it is particularly challenging to grasp the context and essence of such remarks without specialized legal reasoning.

Safeguarding judicial propriety
One of the most effective solutions was articulated by the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijay Bhaskar (2021), where it observed: “Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity.” Furthermore, the widespread live streaming of court proceedings post-COVID has added multiple layers of audience, extending the contours of courtroom spectatorship to individuals beyond the physical premises of the courtroom. This development imposes an added responsibility on all stakeholders in the judicial system.
Additionally, the Supreme Court, in In Re: Remarks by High Court Judge During Court Proceedings (2024), called upon judges to first become aware of their own predispositions shaped by personal life experiences, as such awareness is a sine qua non for preventing those predispositions from influencing their language, both on the Bench and in judgments. Also, it would be prudent to draw inspiration from the JCIO (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office) model and consider establishing a judicial conduct accountability body in India, with jurisdiction limited strictly to matters of personal misconduct. JCIO, an independent statutory body established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 in England, assists the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice in overseeing judicial discipline.
Empowered to address even minor misconduct, such as offensive language or rudeness, the JCIO follows a structured process that may involve reviewing hearing recordings, consulting third parties, and obtaining responses from the judge concerned to assess the validity of complaints. Lastly, it is also imperative to institutionalize sensitization and training as periodic exercises to ensure that judicial remarks remain firmly grounded in legal reasoning upholding the fairness of proceedings. Because being higher or supreme comes with no guarantee of being infallible.

Shivang Tripathi is a Doctoral Researcher, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University and Dr. Shaiwal Satyarthi is a Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

Justice BR Gavai Becomes Second SC Chief Justice of India

May 14, 2025, 11:13 am

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Wednesday, with President Droupadi Murmu conducting the oath of office at a function graced by senior political leaders and dignitaries. Justice Gavai took the oath of affirmation in Hindi after taking over from former CJI Sanjiv Khanna.

Justice Gavai will have a tenure of just a bit over six months, retiring on November 23. Appointed to the Supreme Court on May 24, 2019, he is presently the second CJI from the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, following Justice KG Balakrishnan, who was in office between 2007 and 2010.

The ceremony was also attended by a number of well-known personalities as well as the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, and a number of union cabinet ministers. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and previous President Ram Nath Kovind attended as well.

Justice Gavai hails from the family of legal and political prominence. He is the son of late RS Gavai, senior leader of the Republican Party of India (Gavai faction) and former Governor of Bihar, Kerala, and Sikkim.

Notable Legal Career

Justice Gavai started his law career in 1985 under the mentorship of the late Raja S Bhonsale, who was a former Advocate General and judge of the High Court. He had already set up his solo practice at the Bombay High Court by 1987.

CJI Gavai has authored some landmark Constitution Bench judgments over the years. Notably, he was a member of the five-judge bench that, by consensus, upheld the repeal of Article 370 in December 2023 — a historic verdict that deleted the special status of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Justice Khanna Retires; Justice B.R. Gavai to Be Sworn In as New CJI

May 14, 2025, 9:56 am

On his final day in office, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna expressed heartfelt gratitude as he addressed the Supreme Court. Speaking at a farewell event hosted by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Tuesday, Justice Khanna reflected on his time as a judge and admitted he felt relieved as he stepped down from the nation’s highest judicial post.

“Now, at 65, as I prepare to retire, I do so with gratitude, reflection, and yes, a sense of satisfaction. Age will see me off as a judge,” he said. “I can say this much, I am equally eager to get rid of the judge in me.”

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai will officially take oath as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on Wednesday. He will assume charge just a day after Justice Khanna’s retirement. Notably, Justice Gavai will be the first Buddhist to hold the position and the second person from the Dalit community, after former CJI K.G. Balakrishnan in 2007, to lead the Supreme Court.

Justice Khanna’s time as CJI was brief, lasting only six months. He took over the top post in November 2024, following the retirement of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

No Mixed Emotions, Only Happiness

Justice Khanna said he felt no conflicting emotions about retiring. Instead, he experienced peace. He described the symbolic moment when he hung up his judicial robe for the last time.

“This morning, as the robe was hung for the final time, the weight of responsibility lifted from my shoulder, and quite honestly, I felt a sense of bliss. This is certainly an emotional moment. I’ve attended many farewells. A sentiment commonly expressed on such occasions is that of ‘mixed feelings’ — a bittersweet moment. Let me confess — I have no mixed feelings. I am simply happy,” he stated.

Addressing the “By-the-Book” Label

Justice Khanna acknowledged that some viewed him as a conservative judge who always followed the rule book. Curious about this image, he decided to look into his own judicial track record.

He said that during his time at the High Court, he overturned convictions in around 33–35% of criminal appeal cases. This rate was similar to his fellow judges. However, he noticed a trend—more acquittals happened when court-appointed lawyers (amicus curiae) represented the accused, compared to those defended by senior lawyers.

Speaking Out Against Dishonesty in the Legal Field

Justice Khanna also highlighted a serious concern he has—the increasing lack of honesty in the legal profession. “As I step down from the Bench, I would like to speak about something that bothers me – truth deficit in our profession,” he said.

He emphasized that a judge’s duty is to search for the truth. Quoting Mahatma Gandhi, he said, “truth is God,” not just in a spiritual sense, but as a core legal value.

The Legal Power of Truth

Justice Khanna made it clear that truth is more than just a moral value—it is a legal force. He said courts frequently deal with situations where the truth is hidden or even intentionally misrepresented.

He warned that many legal professionals wrongly believe they must exaggerate or manipulate facts to win a case. “In fact, it complicates the process, making the Court’s job significantly harder. Because behind every falsehood, we are forced to dig deeper and longer to uncover the truth,” he explained.

A Look Back at His Judicial Journey

Justice Khanna became the 51st Chief Justice of India on November 11, 2024. He was elevated to the Supreme Court on January 18, 2019. Before that, he served as a judge at the Delhi High Court, where he was appointed at age 45 after practicing law in Delhi.

“It was only after donning the robes of a Judge that I truly understood the weight of the responsibility bestowed on us by the Constitution and by the people of this country,” he shared.

Gratitude and Best Wishes

Justice Khanna ended his speech by thanking his colleagues, both past and present. He also wished Justice B.R. Gavai success, as Gavai will take over as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on Wednesday.

In Historic Move Supreme Court Publishes Judges’ Asset Declarations Online

May 6, 2025, 12:01 pm

The Supreme Court of India has taken a major step toward transparency. It has uploaded the asset declarations of its judges on its official website. This action follows a unanimous decision made by the full court.

Court Issues Official Release

In a public statement, the court said, “The full court of the Supreme Court of India has on April 1, 2025 decided that the statements of assets of the judges of this court shall be placed in the public domain by uploading the same on the website of this court.”

The court has already published the asset details of judges who have submitted their declarations. For others, the data will go online as soon as their submissions are received.

SC Explains Appointment Process

Alongside the asset details, the Supreme Court has shared the full process behind appointing judges to the High Courts and Supreme Court. This move aims to boost public understanding of judicial appointments.

The process involves several parties — the High Court Collegium, state governments, the Union of India, and the Supreme Court Collegium.

The court added, “The proposals approved by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointments as high court judges during the period from November 9, 2022 to May 5, 2025, including the names, high court, source — whether from service or Bar, date of recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium, date of notification by the Department of Justice, date of appointment, special category (SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Woman) and whether the candidate is related to any sitting or retired High Court/Supreme Court judge, have also been uploaded on the Supreme Court website.”

CJI Sanjiv Khanna Declares Assets

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has disclosed his financial details. He holds ₹55.75 lakh in fixed deposits and savings, along with ₹1.06 crore in his Public Provident Fund (PPF) account.

He owns a two-bedroom flat in South Delhi and a four-bedroom apartment in the Commonwealth Games Village. Additionally, he has a 56% share in a four-bedroom flat in Gurugram, while his daughter owns the remaining 44%. He also holds a share in his ancestral home in Himachal Pradesh, which existed before the partition.

Justice Gavai Shares Property and Liabilities

Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai, who will become the next Chief Justice on May 14, has also disclosed his assets. He has ₹19.63 lakh in his bank accounts and ₹6.59 lakh in his PPF account.

Justice Gavai owns an inherited house in Amravati and other residential properties in Mumbai and Delhi. He also has inherited agricultural land in Amravati and Nagpur. His total liabilities are listed at ₹1.3 crore.

Supreme Court Compares Bitcoin Trading to Refined Hawala Business in India

May 6, 2025, 3:23 am

The Supreme Court on Monday told that dealing with Bitcoin in India is similar to “dealing with a sophisticated form of Hawala business” as it ruefully expressed the fact that the Centre has thus far not presented a clear regimen on regulating virtual currency.

Observations of Supreme Court on Bitcoin Trading in India

Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh made these observations while disposing of Shailesh Babulal Bhatt’s bail application, who the police had arrested for suspected illegal trade in Bitcoins.

The bench added that two years ago, while hearing a case pertaining to Bitcoin trade, it had requested the Centre to inform the court regarding the policy regime on virtual currency trade, but so far, it has not received any response.

Attorney General’s Submission on Bitcoin Trading

Attorney General senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Bhatt, argued that Bitcoin trading is not prohibited in India after the Supreme Court canceled a Reserve Bank of India circular, and that his client was arrested illegally.

Justice Surya Kant informed Rohatgi that while he himself does not know much about Bitcoin, the court has been explaining to the Centre that if there is a regulatory framework, then there will be no issue.

“All I understand is that there are some genuine Bitcoin and some are fake Bitcoin,” Justice Surya Kant said and told Rohatgi, “You see, trading in Bitcoin in India is like dealing with a refined way of Hawala business. There are no regulations at present.” Rohatgi said that Bitcoin has enormous value and one can walk into a showroom in a foreign country with just one bitcoin and buy a car.

“I checked on Sunday, the value of one Bitcoin was Rs 82 lakh,” Rohatgi said, adding that he too does not understand much about the trade.

ED’s Counter and Hearing Schedule of Supreme Court

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who represented the Gujarat government and the Enforcement Directorate, informed the court that they would like to submit a detailed counter to the bail application because it was not just about the Bitcoin trade.

The court granted 10 days to the state and the ED to file its reply and listed it for hearing on May 19.

Bhatt has alleged that he was taken into custody by the police on August 14, last year, and that he has been in jail since. He had petitioned against the February 25 order of the Gujarat High Court rejecting his application for bail in the case.

Centre’s Position on Cryptocurrency Regulation

The Centre had told the highest court in January last year that it had still not decided upon a mechanism to control cryptocurrencies and actually investigate offences related to them.

On February 25, 2022, the Supreme Court requested the Centre to clarify its position on whether the trade in cryptocurrency using Bitcoin or any other similar currency is legal in India or not.

The Supreme Court was hearing a case pertaining to the quashing of several FIRs filed against a person for allegedly cheating investors all over India by luring them to trade in Bitcoin and promising them with good returns.

SC junks woman’s claim on Red Fort: ‘Why not Fatehpur Sikri too?’

May 5, 2025, 3:28 pm

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition filed by a woman asserting herself as a descendant of Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar and seeking ownership rights over Delhi’s Red Fort.

“Why only Red Fort? Why not Fatehpur Sikri? Why leave them also. Writ is completely misconceived. Dismissed,” the bench remarked, dismissing the plea outright.

The woman, presenting herself as the widow of Mirza Mohammed Bedar Bakht purportedly the great-grandson and legal heir of Bahadur Shah Zafar had originally gone to the Delhi High Court in 2021. Not only did she claim ownership of the Red Fort in her plea, but she also demanded compensation from the Union government for what she described as its “illegal occupation” of the historic monument.

Yet, a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed her request, noting that the petition was made following an ‘inordinate delay of over a century’. The court labeled the appeal as a ‘gross misuse of time’.

She subsequently challenged this ruling, but the High Court division bench also rejected the appeal, observing that even the appeal against the single judge’s order had been made after more than two years’ delay.

After the Delhi High Court ruling in December of last year, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. On Monday, when the bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud indicated its willingness to reject the case, her lawyer contended that the division bench had knocked back the plea on grounds of delay alone and implored the top court to follow suit.

However, the Supreme Court took a step beyond and rejected the petition on merits, refusing to confine its decision to procedural delays.

Supreme Court Orders Return of Ranveer Allahbadia’s Passport, Granting Major Relief

April 28, 2025, 3:42 pm

In a relief to podcaster and YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the release of his passport. Allahbadia, who had previously been prohibited from traveling abroad, can now make an application to reclaim his passport to the Maharashtra Cyber Crime Bureau. This brings him closer to visiting abroad for professional obligations.

Case Tied to ‘India’s Got Latent’ Controversy

The sanctions against Allahbadia were put after his controversial comments on YouTube personality Samay Raina’s India’s Got Latent show spurred legal proceedings. His passport was confiscated during a Supreme Court hearing over the comments on the show. The action had already stopped him from making international travel.

In the recent hearing, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh granted the relaxation after the Assam and Maharashtra governments assured that the probe into Allahbadia’s role in the India’s Got Latent case had been completed, as per a PTI report.

New Petition Against Samay Raina to be Heard

In the meantime, the Supreme Court also fixed a hearing of a fresh petition filed by the SMA Cure Foundation against stand-up comedian Samay Raina. The petition, regarding Raina’s purported ridicule of disabled people, will be put to hearing next Monday, May 5.

Court to Deliberate on Application to Consolidate FIRs

In another respite for Allahbadia, the top court told his attorney, Abhinav Chandrachud, that it would hear his request to club the various FIRs filed against the YouTuber. Those FIRs pertain to the same contentious clip of India’s Got Latent.

Background of the Controversy

The controversy began on February 18 when Allahbadia was chastised by the Supreme Court for making obscene statements during Raina’s show. The court then banned him from traveling abroad and instructed him not to air any new episodes of his podcast.

Allahbadia’s offensive remarks regarding sex and parents elicited massive criticism, which led to legal action and ultimately the cancellation of the show.

Permission to Resume Podcast Streaming

In a subsequent hearing on March 3, the Supreme Court allowed Allahbadia to proceed with posting episodes of his podcast, The Ranveer Show, but underlined that the content has to be in line with standards of “morality and decency.”

Other Panelists Also Face Legal Action

Besides Allahbadia, many other personalities involved in the controversial episode have also been served FIRs. These include stand-up comedians Samay Raina, Jaspreet Singh, YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani, and content creator Apoorva Makhija.

Supreme Court Issues Notices to Netflix, Amazon Prime, & Others Over “Obscene” Content

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court of India on Monday sent notices to top streaming websites such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and others following a public interest litigation (PIL) which alleges that these websites are distributing “obscene” material. The Supreme Court has consented to hear the petition and requested the Centre to file its response to the current and proposed norms for digital media.

Government Admits Regulatory Oversight Needed

During the hearing, the government’s representative Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that there are already some regulations in place for OTT platforms. At the same time, he said the government is considering new regulations to deal with the issues at hand. The Solicitor General highlighted the need to balance freedom of speech with regulation while expressing concerns regarding the nature of content on streaming platforms.

The Centre’s report provided serious issues regarding some of the content carried on OTT platforms. The government labeled such content not only as obscene but also “perverse,” highlighting that although it could be for adults, controlling access to such content is a challenge. The government highlighted that ensuring that such material does not end up in unintended audiences’ hands is a challenge.

Severe Remarks on Obscene Content Availability

The Solicitor General underscored the seriousness of the situation by stating, “Two men sitting together will not be able to watch” some of the material that is already available on OTT platforms. This statement refers to the extent of the material in question, and this adds to the concerns regarding its potential effect on viewers.

The Supreme Court’s notice and the Centre’s approach indicate an increasing realization of the necessity to better regulate OTT platforms. With streaming services becoming a part of everyday entertainment, the necessity for clearer guidelines to strike a balance between freedom of expression and content moderation is becoming ever more essential.

Supreme Court to Hear Plea Seeking President’s Rule in West Bengal Over Murshidabad Violence

April 22, 2025, 8:11 am

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Tuesday that seeks President’s Rule in West Bengal. This follows communal clashes in Murshidabad after protests against a new Waqf law. Petitioners Devdutta Maji and Mani Munjal filed the application. They alleged that Hindus were attacked during these protests.

Petition Cites Attacks After Waqf Law

The plea claims the violence broke out after the state introduced a law to regulate Islamic charitable endowments. According to the petitioners, this led to targeted attacks on Hindus. They urged the Supreme Court to act and ensure constitutional order in the state.

Lawyer Requests Hearing With 2021 Cases

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain mentioned the plea in court. He requested that it be heard with earlier petitions related to post-election violence in 2021. The bench, led by Justices Bhushan R Gavai and AG Masih, responded firmly.

“You want us to issue a writ of mandamus to impose President’s Rule. As it is, we are being blamed for encroaching upon the legislative and executive functions,” the judges noted.

Judges React to Vice President’s Criticism

The bench’s remark comes after Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the court. Dhankhar reacted to its April 8 ruling, where the SC gave a three-month deadline for Presidential assent to state bills. He called the court a “super Parliament” and said Article 142 had become a “nuclear missile” against democracy.

BJP MP Slams Court; Nadda Defends Judiciary

On Saturday, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey criticized the court’s observations on the Waqf law. He said they were “responsible for inciting religious wars.” However, BJP president JP Nadda clarified the party’s position. “The BJP has always respected the judiciary and gladly accepted its orders and suggestions,” Nadda said.

SC Allows Plea Listing After Lawyer’s Appeal

Despite the controversy, the bench allowed the plea to be listed. Advocate Jain said, “All we seek is a report under Article 355 of the Constitution from the state.” Article 355 requires the Centre to protect states against internal unrest and to ensure they follow the Constitution.

Petition Lists Violence Since 2022

The petition mentions violence against Hindus in the state from 2022 to April 2025. It also asks for an independent investigation. Specifically, it requests a three-member panel led by a retired Supreme Court judge to probe the Murshidabad violence.

Plea Seeks Central Forces in Affected Areas

Additionally, the petition calls for central forces to be deployed in troubled regions. It urges the state to safeguard citizens’ life, liberty, and dignity.

Ram Navami, Holi Incidents Highlighted

The plea also mentions other incidents. These include violence on Ram Navami in Kolkata on April 6 and stone-pelting during Holi celebrations in Birbhum. Furthermore, it refers to unrest in Sandeshkhali. The petition accuses local TMC leader Shahjahan Sheikh of land grabbing and sexual assault.

Centre Halts Non-Muslim Appointments to Waqf Boards Till Next SC Hearing

April 17, 2025, 3:14 pm

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the Centre a week to respond to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. The government assured the Court, during the proceedings, that no non-Muslims would be made members of either the Central or State Waqf Boards till the next hearing.

In a step providing interim relief, the top court noted the Centre’s undertaking that no waqf properties—whether notified or registered as waqf by user will be denotified or their character altered until further orders.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) emphasized that properties registered under the Waqf Act, 1995, should not be agitated while the issue is under judicial consideration.

The Centre also notified the Court that it would not go ahead with any new appointments to the Central Waqf Council or different State Waqf Boards in the interim. This undertaking was made keeping in view the Court’s direction to preserve status quo pending the case.

“No administrative actions, including appointment, should be made during this period,” the Supreme Court insisted, emphasizing the need to leave the existing order in place until a final judgment is arrived at.

Supreme Court Asks Centre: “Will You Allow Muslims on Hindu Endowment Boards?”

April 16, 2025, 6:37 pm

In a dramatic turn of events, the Supreme Court on Wednesday raised sharp questions to the Centre during the hearing of a group of 73 petitions against the Waqf Amendment Act. The bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and consisting of Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan was concerned about many contentious provisions of the legislation, chiefly the recognition of ‘Waqf by user’ and the addition of non-Muslims to the Central Waqf Council.

Two Central Questions Agitated by the Bench of Supreme Court

Right from the beginning of the hearing, Chief Justice Khanna emphasised two core questions: whether the case should be referred to a high court and what particular constitutional arguments would be urged by the petitioners.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, said, “Several provisions of the new law infringe Article 26 of the Constitution, which promises the right to administer religious affairs.” Sibal was especially critical of the powers conferred on the Collector by the new law, saying, “The Collector is a part of the government and if he plays the role of a judge, it is unconstitutional.”

‘Waqf by User’ Provision Under Scanner

Sibal also highlighted the provision for ‘Waqf by user‘, where a property could be regarded as Waqf on the basis of its long religious or charitable usage, even if there is no documentation. He maintained that the new legislation goes against this fundamental principle by excluding disputed or government land. “The issue is, if a waqf was established 3,000 years ago, they will demand the deed,” he said.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi further pointed out that almost 4 lakh among 8 lakh Waqf properties come in the category of ‘Waqf by user’. At this point, Chief Justice Khanna observed, “We are informed Delhi High Court stands on Waqf land. We do not say everything waqf by the user is bad, but there is concern.”

Singhvi explained that the petitioners are not asking for the invalidation of the whole Act but are seeking a stay on certain provisions.

Centre Defends the Act; Supreme Court Presses for Clarity

Standing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the law, saying that it was passed after thorough debates in Parliament and vetted by a joint parliamentary committee. But the Chief Justice probed deeper into the ‘Waqf by user’ provision, asking, “Are you saying that if a ‘Waqf by user’ was created by a (Supreme Court) order or otherwise, today it is void?”

He pointed out that the majority of the mosques and Waqf institutions are traceable to the 13th to the 15th centuries, and hence, giving formal documentation is virtually impossible. “If you undo it, then it will be a problem,” he warned.

The bench also questioned the law’s inclusion of non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council. “Mr Mehta, are you saying you would permit Muslims on Hindu endowment boards? Say it loud,” the Chief Justice said.

Concerns Over Violence and Public Unrest

The Chief Justice spoke about incidents of violence in connection with the new law and stated it was “very disturbing.” When Mehta opined that protests were a bid to “pressurise the system,” Sibal retorted, “It is not known who is pressuring.” The Chief Justice emphasised that “positive points in the law must be highlighted,” but also warned against abuse and premature rejection of genuine waqf claims.

The Supreme Court will resume hearing the case tomorrow, with hopes that it may establish significant precedents on religious rights, property law, and the role of secular government in matters of faith.

SC Upholds Free Speech, Quashes Case Against Congress MP

March 28, 2025, 12:22 pm

The Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed the importance of freedom of speech, saying that literature, including poetry, drama, cinema, satire, and painting, enriches human existence. The court made this in the process of quashing an FIR lodged by the Gujarat Police against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi on charges of a so-called “provocative” song.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the responsibility of the judiciary to protect the basic rights of citizens, particularly freedom of speech and expression. “Even if a majority of people do not like the opinion expressed by someone, the right of person to express the opinions should be upheld and protected,” the bench declared.

Although this ruling came in Pratapgarhi’s case, it coincided with a growing debate over comedian Kunal Kamra’s satirical act targeting Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Kamra’s stand-up performance, uploaded on YouTube and Instagram, sparked outrage among Shinde’s supporters. On Sunday, his detractors vandalized the Mumbai venue where the show was shot, threatening they would not allow him “walk freely.” The police have detained Shiv Sena deputy leader Rahool Kanal and others who took part in the attack, while an FIR has been filed against Kamra.

During his act, Kamra ridiculed Maharashtra’s political realignments, highlighting the chaos created by Shiv Sena and NCP factions breaking up. He joked, “Jo inhone Maharashtra ke election me kia hai. bolna padega. pehle Shiv Sena BJP se bahar aa gayi fir Shiv Sena Shiv Sena se bahar aa gayi. NCP NCP se bahar aa gayi. ek voter ko 9 button dediye. sab confuse ho gaye…” He also made a veiled mention of Eknath Shinde, stating, “Chalu ek jan ne kia tha. wo Mumbai me bohot badhiya ek district hai Thane waha se aate hain…,” before breaking into a song that parodies a song from Dil To Pagal Hai.

In the Imran Pratapgarhi case, meanwhile, the Congress leader had objected to the Gujarat High Court’s January 17 ruling, which declined to quash the FIR, saying that the investigation was in its initial stages. Pratapgarhi was arrested on January 3 for allegedly sharing a provocative song at a mass marriage ceremony in Jamnagar. He was booked under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 196 (encouraging animosity between various groups on religious grounds, race, etc.) and Section 197 (statements prejudicial to national integration).

The case was based on a 46-second video posted on the X platform, in which Pratapgarhi waved to a group of people as flower petals rained on him while a song played in the backdrop. The FIR charged that the lyrics of the song were inflammatory and derogatory to national unity. But with the intervention of the Supreme Court, the case against him has been quashed.

SC Halts Allahabad HC’s ‘Grabbing Breasts Not Rape’ Ruling, Calls it Insensitive

March 26, 2025, 2:59 pm

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the Allahabad High Court’s objectionable order, which declared that actions like fondling breasts or snapping the pyjama string are not an attempt at rape. The top court clarified that the prosecution has to prove that the accused crossed the boundary of mere preparation in order to uphold the charge of attempted rape.

The Supreme Court went suo motu cognizance into the issue after ‘We the Women of India,’ a body, appealed against the Allahabad High Court’s March 17 order. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih rebuked the judgment, terming it a “lack of sensitivity” on the part of the high court judge.

SC’s Strong Response

Expressing concern at the judgment, the Supreme Court observed, “We are pains to state that it shows a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment. It was not even at the spur of the moment and was delivered 4 months after reserving the same. Therefore, there was an exercise of mind. The bench added, “We are generally reluctant to grant stay at this juncture. But as observations in para 21, 24, and 26 is not known to cannons of law and reflects inhuman approach. We stay the observations in said paras.”

The Supreme Court also sought the replies of the Centre and the government of Uttar Pradesh while seeking the help of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R Venkataramani.

Details of the High Court Ruling

Allahabad High Court’s provocative judgment was delivered by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra while giving relief to the accused in a criminal revision petition. The court held that the accused be tried 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), rather than attempted rape.

The incident happened on November 10, 2021, when the accused had promised to drop an 11-year-old girl home on their motorcycle after winning her father’s trust. During the journey, they reportedly stopped, raped the victim, touched her breasts, and one of them cut the string of her pyjama while trying to pull her under a culvert in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasganj. The accused left the spot when people passing by intervened.

The high court reasoned its decision by citing, “The allegations made against the accused, Pawan and Akash, and facts of the case barely make up an offence of attempt to rape in the case.”. In order to bring out a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must prove that it had passed beyond the stage of preparation. The court also added that the accused did not make further steps required to establish an intention to commit rape and that witnesses had not indicated that the victim was left naked or undressed.

The Supreme Court’s order to suspend the ruling indicates a strong position on the matter, with sensitivity in sexual assault and attempted rape cases.

SC Stays Allahabad HC’s ‘Grabbing Breasts Not Rape’ Order, Calls Insensitive

March 26, 2025, 11:44 am

The Supreme Court has stayed the Allahabad High Court’s controversial judgment, which stated that actions like grabbing a woman’s breasts or pulling the string of her pyjamas do not qualify as an attempt to rape. The top court took action after the organization ‘We the Women of India’ raised concerns.

Court Takes Immediate Action

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih criticized the ruling. They said it showed a “total lack of sensitivity” from the high court judge. The Supreme Court noted that the judgment was not made in haste. The judge delivered it four months after reserving the decision, which showed deliberate thought.

Observations Called “Inhuman”

The Supreme Court usually avoids granting a stay at this stage. However, in this case, it found the observations in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 unacceptable. The bench stated these remarks were “unknown to the canons of law” and showed an “inhuman approach.” Therefore, it stayed those observations.

Ensuring Sensitivity in Sexual Assault Cases

This decision highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring sensitivity in cases of sexual violence. It also sets an important precedent for future judgments

Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Foreign Aid Freeze, Orders Release Of $2B Funds

March 5, 2025, 11:10 pm

In a tightly contested 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday prevented President Donald Trump’s administration from withholding payments to foreign aid groups for work they had already done. The ruling affirms an earlier injunction by US District Judge Amir Ali, compelling the government to release nearly $2 billion in aid money.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were among the court’s three liberal justices who made up the majority, with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting. The decision comes at a time when Trump is in his larger bid to suspend foreign aid, an action which has derailed humanitarian initiatives across the globe.

The case is a result of Trump’s executive order halting all foreign aid expenditures on his first day returning to office on January 20. Judge Ali earlier granted a temporary restraining order requiring the disbursement of funds in anticipation of injury to recipients of aid and organizations. The Supreme Court ruling directs Ali to clarify the government’s commitment while taking into account the realities of compliance deadlines.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Alito derided the ruling, wondering aloud if one judge could compel the government to unleash such a significant amount of funds. While aid groups contended that further delays in funding would inflict “irreversible harm,” threatening key humanitarian initiatives.

Trump’s administration, with the guidance of adviser Elon Musk, has moved aggressively to curtail the federal government’s influence, slashing funds for several agencies. Critics say that suspending US-supported aid puts millions of vulnerable individuals at risk around the world.

The decision is a major blow to Trump’s foreign policy strategy, as court battles rage on over his administration’s attempts to reform government spending and constrain America’s involvement in global humanitarian aid.

Calling Someone ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ or ‘Pakistani’ Not a Crime, Rules Supreme Court

March 4, 2025, 12:53 pm

The Supreme Court held on Tuesday that calling a person ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ or ‘Pakistani’ can be offensive but is not an offence of hurting religious sentiments. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made this remark while rejecting a case against a man who allegedly used these words for a government official.

The case was initiated by an acting clerk and an Urdu translator of Jharkhand. In accordance with the complainant, during a meeting with the accused for providing information for a Right to Information (RTI) request, the accused used slanderous language addressing his religion and prevented him from doing his job.

Subsequent to this event, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the accused under Sections 298 (hurting religious sentiments), 504 (insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging duty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

But reversing an earlier order of the Jharkhand High Court, the Supreme Court ruled, “The appellant is alleged to have offended the religious sentiments of the informant by referring to him as ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ and ‘Pakistani’. The words spoken indeed are in bad taste. But it cannot be said to be offending the religious sentiments of the informant.”

The bench further made it clear that there was no action by the accused which could have triggered violence or caused disturbance in public peace.

“Evidently, there was no assault or application of force on the part of the appellant to invoke Section 353 IPC (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging duty),” the court said.

With this verdict, the Supreme Court essentially put an end to the case against the accused by pointing out that although such a statement is uncalled for, it is not a criminal offense under the given IPC sections.

‘Don’t Delete Data’: SC Warns Poll Body Over EVM Petition

February 11, 2025, 5:55 pm

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought clarity on the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) after elections, following a petition requesting that data from the machines not be erased even after the counting process is completed.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna directed that, for now, no data should be deleted from EVMs, nor should any new data be reloaded.

The Election Commission has been asked to provide details on the procedure for burning EVM memory and microcontrollers post-election.

SC Slams Assam: ‘Waiting for Muhurat?’ Orders Deportation of 63 Foreigners

February 4, 2025, 1:21 pm

The Supreme Court has severely lambasted the Assam government for delaying the deportation of people declared as foreigners. A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked the state government why it had not taken any action and if it was waiting for some “muhurat” to proceed with the deportations.

SC Directs Immediate Deportation of Foreigners

The court directed the Assam government to repatriate 63 people who are still in detention camps. These are foreigners who had been declared in the process of verification under the National Register of Citizens. The state government said that it didn’t have their address details from their respective countries of origin and that this seemed not convincing enough to the Supreme Court.

Justice Oka accused Assam of “suppressing facts,” leading to Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta offering an apology on behalf of the executive, admitting to “some lacunae” in the process. Justice Oka issued a stern warning: “We will issue a perjury notice to you. You are supposed to come clean.”

Court Questions Assam’s Legal Stand on Detention

Justice Bhuyan also questioned the state’s prolonged detention of foreigners without initiating deportation. “Once you declare a person as a foreigner, you must take the next logical step. You can’t detain them forever. Article 21 is there. There are many foreign detention centers in Assam. How many have you deported?” he asked.

Rebutting the argument of the state that it did nothing, Justice Oka provided a direct answer saying, “You deport them to the capital city of the country. Suppose the person is from Pakistan, you know the capital city of Pakistan? How can you keep them detained here saying their foreign address is not known?”

SC Urges Assam to Seek External Affairs Ministry’s Help

The court also raised a question of why Assam did not seek assistance from the Ministry of External Affairs regarding the process of deportation. “You know the status of their citizenship. Then how can you wait till their address is received? It is for the other country to decide where should they go,” Justice Oka asserted.

The Supreme Court remarks have heightened the controversy surrounding Assam’s handling of cases of deportation of foreigners, which it urgently called for to maintain legal and human rights principles.

Supreme Court Stunned As Man Flees To US Without Passport

February 1, 2025, 3:50 pm

In a rare situation, the Supreme Court has mandated an inquiry and the apprehension of a man who is part of contempt proceedings but successfully escaped to the United States, despite his passport being in the court’s possession. A panel of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra voiced skepticism regarding how the man departed the nation without his passport, questioning how he managed to travel internationally. “We are astonished as to how can the alleged contemnor/respondent leave for the USA or for that matter for any country without a passport, as his passport is in the custody of this court,” the bench stated. It subsequently issued a non-bailable warrant for his capture.

This case originates from a custody dispute between the man and his ex-wife concerning their child. The Supreme Court instructed the Ministry of Home Affairs to take all essential actions to detain him and bring him to justice.

The issue became apparent when senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the man, informed the court that he had already departed for the US. The bench directed additional solicitor general K M Nataraj to aid the court in discovering how the respondent was permitted to exit the country and to investigate who facilitated his escape, including any involved officials. The case was scheduled for further hearing on February 19.

Previously, the court had decided that any transactions or property dealings involving the man, whether during or subsequent to the contempt proceedings, would be subject to its order. The case involves a contempt petition filed by the wife against her estranged husband, whom she wed in 2006. They shared a 10-year-old child but divorced in 2017. In 2019, an agreement was made, obligating the man to transfer custody of the child to his wife. However, he did not comply, resulting in contempt proceedings.

Despite being requested to appear in court, the man skipped hearings in January 2024, leading the court to issue its most recent directives.

Supreme Court’s role in protecting voter Rights in India

January 30, 2025, 5:06 am

India recently celebrated its 15th National Voters’ Day on January 25th, 2025, commemorating the establishment of the Election Commission of India. Since the enforcement of the Indian Constitution, the Election Commission has introduced numerous measures to protect the rights of the voters. However, we cannot ignore the pivotal role played by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in safeguarding the interests of the voters.

In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled that right to free and fair elections are an essential part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The court also ruled that the 39th Amendment of constitution which was introduced by Kesavananda Bharathi case i.e., clause (4) of the Article 329A was unconstitutional and the Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that interferes with its basic structure. Article 329A was considered against these fundamental principles as it creates unfair distinctions and restricts the ability to challenge election results.

In Union of India vs Association for Democratic reforms (2002), the apex court addressed the issue of criminalization of politics, the Court ruled that voters have a basic right under the Indian Constitution i.e., “right to know” of the background of politicians contesting for public office. The court interpreted the “right to be informed” as a right arising from the freedom of speech and expression.

Affidavits from candidates describing any information pertaining to previous or ongoing criminal accusations or proceedings against them were to be obtained by the Election Commission. This includes details regarding the candidate’s prior criminal convictions, acquittals, and discharges. Additionally, the amount of penalty imposed on them if found guilty, as well as if the candidate has been charged with a crime carrying a minimum two-year imprisonment sentence before six months of filing their nomination.

In PUCL vs Union of India (2004), The Section 33B of Representation of People (Third Amendment) Act, which overturned the Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) ruling by stating that candidates contesting elections need not file affidavit of criminal antecedents and particulars as directed by the Court, was challenged by the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties in the Supreme Court of India.

This clause was declared illegal, null and invalid because it violated the “right of electors’ to know,” which is a component of the fundamental right to free speech and expression, and it obstructed free and fair elections, which are a key component of the Constitution. Consequently, it is now required that all criminal histories and antecedents of people contesting the elections be made public.

In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), a two-judge Supreme Court bench decided that members of Parliament, Legislative Councils, and Legislative Assemblies who were found guilty of crimes for which they received a minimum sentence of two years imprisonment would no longer be able to serve in the house to which they were elected as of the sentencing date. Additionally, it declared that those found guilty would be immediately disqualified and invalidated the clause that gave convicted members three months to appeal their verdict and sentence.

In PUCL v. Union of India (2013), The Supreme Court has introduced NOTA, recognizing the distinction between the statutory right to vote and the freedom of voting as a facet of the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression. The court found that a voter’s decision not to vote after evaluating candidates is a facet of the right to freedom of expression, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of India’s Constitution.

The court emphasized the importance of ballot secrecy, as fear of disclosure would constrain voter expression and decision not to vote. The court also considered various reasons why a voter might decide not to vote, such as not considering any candidate’s worthy. To give meaning to the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, the court emphasized the need for a ‘negative vote’ option in electronic voting machines (EVM) to protect free and fair elections.

In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), in a unanimous verdict, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC), led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), deemed the Electoral Bonds scheme as “unconstitutional,” The SC, while scrutinizing the legality of the electoral bonds scheme, ruled that anonymous electoral bonds infringe upon the right to information and Article 19(1)(a).

The scheme of electoral bonds is contrary to the goal of transparency in political finance and the court warned against the impact on the transparency aspect of political finance/funding and also it is submitted that exempting political parties from sharing details regarding contributions would keep information on foreign funding in the dark. All data related to electoral bonds will be published on Election Commission official website.

The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in ensuring the conduct of free and fair elections, often surpassing the Election Commission in certain aspects of upholding democratic principles. While the Election Commission of India (ECI) is the constitutional authority mandated to oversee and regulate elections, the SC has repeatedly stepped in to address issues that go beyond the ECI administrative and supervisory capabilities.

The Supreme Court’s proactive role has been instrumental in strengthening the framework of free and fair elections in India. Its contributions complement the efforts of the ECI, together creating a robust system that upholds the principles of democracy.

V. Abhinav Deep Dora, Assistant Professor and Akhila Penugondla 5th Year BBA LL. B(Hons.), Vignan Institute of Law, VFSTR Vadlamudi, Guntur

Atul Subhash Son to Stay with Mother, SC Dismisses Grandmother Custody Petition

January 20, 2025, 6:18 pm

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the plea of Atul Subhash’s mother for his custody. She had filed it against the states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Karnataka to trace the whereabouts of the child. Nikita Singhania, separated from her husband Atul Subhash, stayed in Gurugram, Haryana, while Subhash worked in Bengaluru. The estranged couple engaged in a legal battle over divorce, alimony, and child custody. Subhash’s family, including his mother, sought custody of the child, claiming that Nikita was keeping him away.

Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer, had taken his life in December. His suicide note and video accused his wife, Nikita Singhania, and her family of harassment. He stated that they had filed false cases against him, driving him to commit suicide. The video and suicide note sparked a huge debate on social media, with demands raised for action against Nikita and her family. Nikita Singhania, with whom the four-year-old child was staying, was at the center of the controversy. A Bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna and comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma interacted with the child before concluding that he stayed with his mother.

The Court dismissed the grandmother’s petition seeking custody of the child, stating that it would not entertain the plea. The grandmother had earlier raised objections regarding her daughter-in-law’s failure to disclose the whereabouts of the child.

Bengaluru police filed an FIR under sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for abetment of suicide and criminal act with a common intention. The Bengaluru police arrested Nikita, along with her mother and brother, although the court eventually granted them bail in Bengaluru. The case has raised important questions regarding harassment and legal battles within family disputes, especially in the context of marital disputes over divorce and child custody.

SC to Hear Appeals Against HC Verdict on Godhra Train Burning Case on February 13

January 16, 2025, 5:28 pm

The Supreme Court on Thursday scheduled a final hearing for February 13 on the appeals filed by the Gujarat government and several convicts in the 2002 Godhra train burning case. A bench consisting of Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar stated that no adjournment would be granted on the next hearing date.

The court directed that the records of the case, which are in Gujarati, be translated into English and digitized for accessibility to all parties involved.

A series of criminal appeals have been filed by the convicts challenging their convictions by both the trial court and the Gujarat High Court. They are contesting the October 2017 verdict in which the High Court upheld the convictions of several individuals.

The Gujarat government has also approached the Supreme Court, seeking the death penalty for 11 convicts whose sentences were reduced to life imprisonment by the High Court. In total, the High Court upheld the conviction of 31 individuals and commuted the death sentences of the 11 to life imprisonment.

The incident occurred on February 27, 2002, when a coach of the Sabarmati Express was set on fire, killing 59 people and sparking widespread riots across Gujarat. In March 2011, the trial court convicted 31 individuals, sentencing 20 to life imprisonment and 11 to death. It also acquitted 63 others.

SC Questions Punjab’s Claim on Farmer Leader Dallewal’s Health Amidst 49-Day Hunger Strike, Seeks AIIMS Opinion; Urges Swift Resolution to Farmers’ Demands

January 15, 2025, 10:53 pm

Expressing concerns over the deteriorating health of farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who has been on an indefinite hunger strike for over 49 days, the supreme court has sought his medical reports to be evaluated by the AIIMS medical board. During the hearing a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh questioned the Punjab government’s submission that Dallewal’s health is “improving,” despite his prolonged fast. “How can someone’s health parameters improve after nearly 50 days of fasting? Where are the latest test results?” , the bench remarked.

The apex court directed the Punjab government’s chief secretary to submit Dallewal’s latest health reports to the court registrar by the end of the day. The registrar was instructed to forward the reports to the AIIMS director for an expert opinion on Dallewal’s condition. Meanwhile, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Punjab government, informed the court that a makeshift hospital had been set up just 10 meters from the protest site, and progress had been made in persuading Dallewal to shift there. However, on the behalf of Punjab government, he reiterated that Dallewal had refused medical aid offered by the state government.

Dallewal, the convener of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) (non-political), began his hunger strike on November 26 last year at the Khanauri border , where hundreds of farmers from Punjab were camping since February 13 since they were not allowed by Haryana police to enter Haryana halting their Delhi march. The protesting farmers have been demanding the implementation of MSP guarantees and other farmer welfare measures. The Punjab government informed the court that discussions are ongoing with the farmers, and they remain hopeful of reaching a solution and representatives from the central government have also joined these deliberations. Whereas, Dallewal has maintained a firm stance as he refused to call off his hunger strike despite his deteriorating health.

The Supreme Court had earlier appointed a panel chaired by Justice (Retd) Nawab Singh to mediate with the farmers. Dallewal had met the panel on January 6 after persuasion by the Punjab government but he refused to end his fast saying that he was ready to end his fast if the union government to resume talks with the farmers over the pending demands including guarnteed Minimum Support Price.