The Supreme Court has questioned the closure of 57 Delhi Metro stations and trains, asking the Centre to consider allowing services to operate in a regulated manner. The court's intervention brings the focus back on public transport access, commuter convenience and the measures needed to manage metro operations amid restrictions.


Dangeroud clash looms in Delhi as police ban CJP protest

CJP protests: Delhi metro to shut entry, exit at 57 stations from 9 pm on Oct 9

Mobile internet services will remain suspended within a 4-km radius of the Janpath-Kartavya Path crossing in New Delhi from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10, a day on which the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has called a protest at Jantar Mantar.


CJP protests: Mobile net to be suspended in 4 km radius of central Delhi

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea seeking a “free hand” for Delhi Police in connection with the CJP protest. The development brings renewed attention to the legal proceedings surrounding the protest and the role of law enforcement in managing demonstrations. The court’s decision highlights the ongoing scrutiny of police powers, protest-related cases and the legal questions emerging from the controversy. 


CJP protest: Supreme Court rejects plea for 'free hand' to Delhi Police

SC questions closure of 57 Delhi Metro stations, asks Centre to resume services in regulated manner

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Oct 08) directed the Centre to form an expert committee to examine unethical marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry and recommend a statutory mechanism to regulate them.&nbsp;A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing a plea alleging that pharmaceutical companies use various promotional practices to influence healthcare professionals and their drug-prescribing decisions.&nbsp;The petitioners alleged that these practices include direct or indirect monetary benefits, gifts, hospitality, sponsored travel, entertainment and other incentives offered to medical practitioners.<h3>Centre asked to form three-member committee</h3>The Supreme Court noted that the Centre has proposed setting up a three-member committee to examine the issue and suggest an appropriate statutory and regulatory framework for pharmaceutical companies.&nbsp;The bench directed the Union government to constitute the committee, if it has not already done so, within two weeks from the date of the order.&nbsp;The court said the move was necessary in view of the constitutional obligation to protect the right to health and the need for an effective and enforceable system to regulate pharmaceutical marketing practices.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/musk-doubles-down-on-starlink-india-licence-allegations-rahul-gandhi-says-wait-till-1791480199943">Musk doubles down on Starlink India licence allegations; Rahul Gandhi says ‘wait till...’</a><h3>Panel to examine existing rules, enforcement</h3>The committee will carry out a comprehensive review of issues linked to unethical pharmaceutical marketing practices. It will examine whether the existing laws and regulatory framework are adequate and how effectively the current monitoring, oversight and enforcement mechanisms work.&nbsp;It will also consider measures to improve transparency, accountability and compliance in the pharmaceutical sector.&nbsp;The Supreme Court said the committee should submit recommendations to the Centre on an appropriate statutory and regulatory framework for regulating pharmaceutical marketing practices.&nbsp;The court said its directions are aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the existing framework while helping the Centre develop a suitable regulatory mechanism.

Supreme Court has directed the Centre to form an expert committee within two weeks to examine unethical pharmaceutical marketing practices and recommend an effective statutory and regulatory framework.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Oct 08) directed the Centre to form an expert committee to examine unethical marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry and recommend a statutory mechanism to regulate them. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing a plea alleging that pharmaceutical companies use various promotional practices to influence healthcare professionals and their drug-prescribing decisions. The petitioners alleged that these practices include direct or indirect monetary benefits, gifts, hospitality, sponsored travel, entertainment and other incentives offered to medical practitioners. Centre asked to form three-member committee The Supreme Court noted that the Centre has proposed setting up a three-member committee to examine the issue and suggest an appropriate statutory and regulatory framework for pharmaceutical companies. The bench directed the Union government to constitute the committee, if it has not already done so, within two weeks from the date of the order. The court said the move was necessary in view of the constitutional obligation to protect the right to health and the need for an effective and enforceable system to regulate pharmaceutical marketing practices. Also Read: Musk doubles down on Starlink India licence allegations; Rahul Gandhi says ‘wait till...’ Panel to examine existing rules, enforcement The committee will carry out a comprehensive review of issues linked to unethical pharmaceutical marketing practices. It will examine whether the existing laws and regulatory framework are adequate and how effectively the current monitoring, oversight and enforcement mechanisms work. It will also consider measures to improve transparency, accountability and compliance in the pharmaceutical sector. The Supreme Court said the committee should submit recommendations to the Centre on an appropriate statutory and regulatory framework for regulating pharmaceutical marketing practices. The court said its directions are aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the existing framework while helping the Centre develop a suitable regulatory mechanism.

Supreme Court has directed the Centre to form an expert committee within two weeks to examine unethical pharmaceutical marketing practices and recommend an effective statutory and regulatory framework.

SC asks Centre to frame mechanism against unethical pharma marketing practices

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine an application seeking recall of its recent split verdict on whether challenges to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.&nbsp;On September 23, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma gave split opinions on whether a batch of pleas challenging the validity of a 2023 law that excludes the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection panel should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.&nbsp;Justice Datta held that the matter did not warrant a reference to a larger bench, while Justice Sharma favoured consideration by a five-judge Constitution Bench. Given the difference of opinion, the bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for the constitution of a bench of appropriate strength.&nbsp;Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the application before CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana on Wednesday, telling the bench that the plea sought recall of the September 23 judgment.“There is a split verdict on the Chief Election Commissioner issue. We have mentioned an application for recall of the judgment,” Sankaranarayanan said.&nbsp;CJI Surya Kant said the court would examine the application before deciding on it. “We will examine and then take a call,” he said.&nbsp;<h2>Plea cites a ‘reasonable’ apprehension of bias</h2>&nbsp;Sankaranarayanan clarified that the application was an interlocutory application (IA) seeking recall of the September 23 verdict passed by Justices Datta and Sharma. An IA is a formal application filed during the pendency of a case seeking a specific order or direction from the court.&nbsp;The recall application has been filed citing a reasonable apprehension of bias involving Justice Sharma. The application points to the fact that Justice Sharma’s son is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.&nbsp;<h2>Curative petition filed against split verdict by another party</h2>&nbsp;Sankaranarayanan also informed the bench that another party had filed a curative petition against the split verdict. “A curative petition has been filed. That, I think, will have to go in its own form. Whether it is maintainable, I don’t know. Ours is an IA seeking recall of the judgment. Curative often requires a review,” he said.The CJI noted that he had read about the curative petition.&nbsp;The recall application had earlier been mentioned before Justice Datta’s bench, but the matter was subsequently released, and Sankaranarayanan was asked to mention it before the CJI.&nbsp;The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister on the panel for selecting the CEC and ECs.Under the law, the selection committee now comprises the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister.

The application moved by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan points to the fact that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine an application seeking recall of its recent split verdict on whether challenges to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) should be referred to a larger Constitution bench. On September 23, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma gave split opinions on whether a batch of pleas challenging the validity of a 2023 law that excludes the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection panel should be referred to a larger Constitution bench. Justice Datta held that the matter did not warrant a reference to a larger bench, while Justice Sharma favoured consideration by a five-judge Constitution Bench. Given the difference of opinion, the bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for the constitution of a bench of appropriate strength. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the application before CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana on Wednesday, telling the bench that the plea sought recall of the September 23 judgment. “There is a split verdict on the Chief Election Commissioner issue. We have mentioned an application for recall of the judgment,” Sankaranarayanan said. CJI Surya Kant said the court would examine the application before deciding on it. “We will examine and then take a call,” he said. Plea cites a ‘reasonable’ apprehension of bias Sankaranarayanan clarified that the application was an interlocutory application (IA) seeking recall of the September 23 verdict passed by Justices Datta and Sharma. An IA is a formal application filed during the pendency of a case seeking a specific order or direction from the court. The recall application has been filed citing a reasonable apprehension of bias involving Justice Sharma. The application points to the fact that Justice Sharma’s son is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Curative petition filed against split verdict by another party Sankaranarayanan also informed the bench that another party had filed a curative petition against the split verdict. “A curative petition has been filed. That, I think, will have to go in its own form. Whether it is maintainable, I don’t know. Ours is an IA seeking recall of the judgment. Curative often requires a review,” he said. The CJI noted that he had read about the curative petition. The recall application had earlier been mentioned before Justice Datta’s bench, but the matter was subsequently released, and Sankaranarayanan was asked to mention it before the CJI. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister on the panel for selecting the CEC and ECs. Under the law, the selection committee now comprises the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister.

The application moved by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan points to the fact that Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son is a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Supreme Court agrees to examine plea seeking recall of split verdict on CEC selection law

Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and other retired judges on Monday condemned the remarks of Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on the Election Commission of India. Gavai said a sitting judge should not have made comments on the row over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as the matter is sub judice before the top court.&nbsp;&nbsp;“Judicial propriety would not permit him to make any comment on the matter which is sub judice before the court,” Gavai said.&nbsp;&nbsp;Retired Delhi High Court judges SN Dhingra and RS Sodhi also questioned Bhuyan’s remarks. Justice Dhingra said Bhuyan’s statement was “way beyond the limits of a sitting top court judge” and such comments should not be made at a public event when the issue is pending before the same court.&nbsp;&nbsp;“He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement,” Dhingra said, adding that Justice Bhuyan did not know the full facts of the issue.&nbsp;Justice RS Sodhi also criticised Justice Bhuyan for calling the SIR exercise disenfranchisement and said that the right to vote was governed by the statutory framework.&nbsp;&nbsp;“Whether you have a vote or you don’t have a vote depends upon the statute. If you fall within the parameters of the statute, you have a vote. If you don’t fall within the parameters of the statute, you don’t have a vote,” Justice Sodhi said.&nbsp;&nbsp;“I mean, these hardline thinking and these hardline statements, to my mind, are not a very mature way of looking at a thing, especially when you are supposed to be in a field which is supposed to be excellent in its rationalising,” he said.&nbsp;Justice Bhuyan had said that any process that “disenfranchises” millions of Indian citizens was “intrinsically arbitrary” and a “negation” of the constitutional order.&nbsp;In his address at NALSAR University of Law on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens, one with voting rights and the other without voting rights, and no amount of “whataboutery” could justify such a process.&nbsp;&nbsp;Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution does not create two classes of citizens based on voting rights and added that wholesale disenfranchisement would violate Articles 326 and 14. “No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution,” he said.&nbsp;&nbsp;Recently, a section of NALSAR Hyderabad students had opposed the proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest to the varsity’s convocation.&nbsp;Justice Bhuyan, who served as the Chancellor of NALSAR, said on Sunday that he can be legitimately proud of the students of the institution. “You have shown to the country and the world what a university student, that too, a student of law, should be like. You are brilliant. You are bold and you are brave,” he said.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said in his address at NALSAR University of Law that the Constitution does not create two classes of citizens based on voting rights and added that wholesale disenfranchisement would violate Articles 326 and 14.

Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and other retired judges on Monday condemned the remarks of Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on the Election Commission of India. Gavai said a sitting judge should not have made comments on the row over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as the matter is sub judice before the top court. “Judicial propriety would not permit him to make any comment on the matter which is sub judice before the court,” Gavai said. Retired Delhi High Court judges SN Dhingra and RS Sodhi also questioned Bhuyan’s remarks. Justice Dhingra said Bhuyan’s statement was “way beyond the limits of a sitting top court judge” and such comments should not be made at a public event when the issue is pending before the same court. “He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement,” Dhingra said, adding that Justice Bhuyan did not know the full facts of the issue. Justice RS Sodhi also criticised Justice Bhuyan for calling the SIR exercise disenfranchisement and said that the right to vote was governed by the statutory framework. “Whether you have a vote or you don’t have a vote depends upon the statute. If you fall within the parameters of the statute, you have a vote. If you don’t fall within the parameters of the statute, you don’t have a vote,” Justice Sodhi said. “I mean, these hardline thinking and these hardline statements, to my mind, are not a very mature way of looking at a thing, especially when you are supposed to be in a field which is supposed to be excellent in its rationalising,” he said. Justice Bhuyan had said that any process that “disenfranchises” millions of Indian citizens was “intrinsically arbitrary” and a “negation” of the constitutional order. In his address at NALSAR University of Law on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens, one with voting rights and the other without voting rights, and no amount of “whataboutery” could justify such a process. Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution does not create two classes of citizens based on voting rights and added that wholesale disenfranchisement would violate Articles 326 and 14. “No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution,” he said. Recently, a section of NALSAR Hyderabad students had opposed the proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest to the varsity’s convocation. Justice Bhuyan, who served as the Chancellor of NALSAR, said on Sunday that he can be legitimately proud of the students of the institution. “You have shown to the country and the world what a university student, that too, a student of law, should be like. You are brilliant. You are bold and you are brave,” he said.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said in his address at NALSAR University of Law that the Constitution does not create two classes of citizens based on voting rights and added that wholesale disenfranchisement would violate Articles 326 and 14.

Ex-CJI BR Gavai and former judges slam SC judge Ujjal Bhuyan’s remarks on EC

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5) declined to approve an ex parte interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations related to his role in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. In response, the court said it must first hear the Election Commission and others.&nbsp;A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notices to the Centre, Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna. “Let's first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision…,” observed the bench. The petition cited a report alleging that 14 significant SIR-related decisions were under the authority of the ECI despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Singh, demanded immediate suspension of the CEC, arguing that these one-sided decisions posed a serious threat to the democratic electoral process. Citing Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, Singh argued that decisions made by the ECI must either be unanimous or, in the absence of consensus, determined by majority vote. When Singh pressed for the CEC's suspension, however, the bench raised concerns about whether such a move was practical, noting that it risked disrupting the poll panel's operations altogether. “Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked. In response, Singh said that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the responsibilities. The bench noted that it would have to first examine the allegations after receiving responses from the respondents. CJI Kant felt that the statutory framework was necessary and said, “If there is any violation, we will undo.” Justice Bagchi also questioned the possibility of granting such relief without hearing the ECI, noting that if the records ultimately showed that decisions were not unanimous, the court could proclaim them ultra vires. Further, the CJI directed that the court couldn't pass an order based on media reports only.

The petition cited a report alleging that 14 significant SIR-related decisions were under the authority of the ECI despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners. 

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5) declined to approve an ex parte interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations related to his role in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. In response, the court said it must first hear the Election Commission and others. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notices to the Centre, Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna. “Let's first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision…,” observed the bench. The petition cited a report alleging that 14 significant SIR-related decisions were under the authority of the ECI despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Singh, demanded immediate suspension of the CEC, arguing that these one-sided decisions posed a serious threat to the democratic electoral process. Citing Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, Singh argued that decisions made by the ECI must either be unanimous or, in the absence of consensus, determined by majority vote. When Singh pressed for the CEC's suspension, however, the bench raised concerns about whether such a move was practical, noting that it risked disrupting the poll panel's operations altogether. “Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked. In response, Singh said that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the responsibilities. The bench noted that it would have to first examine the allegations after receiving responses from the respondents. CJI Kant felt that the statutory framework was necessary and said, “If there is any violation, we will undo.” Justice Bagchi also questioned the possibility of granting such relief without hearing the ECI, noting that if the records ultimately showed that decisions were not unanimous, the court could proclaim them ultra vires. Further, the CJI directed that the court couldn't pass an order based on media reports only.

The petition cited a report alleging that 14 significant SIR-related decisions were under the authority of the ECI despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners.&nbsp;

Supreme Court refuses ex parte order against CEC, seeks response from Election Commission

A controversy has emerged over the interim bail granted to Milan Pradhan, a Congress candidate who is an accused in connection with a 2007 murder case. The case has drawn attention to the legal proceedings surrounding Pradhan and the circumstances of the interim bail.

Row over Milan Pradhan's interim bail: Congress candidate is an accused in 2007 murder case

Amid growing concerns over children's use of social media, the Supreme Court has asked the Narendra Modi-led government to frame statutory rules to prevent intermediaries from creating social media accounts for minors.&nbsp;The Centre has agreed to examine the issue following the court's intervention.&nbsp;The case came before the Supreme Court through a plea filed by NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance, which sought safeguards for children using social media and other digital platforms. The plea questioned how minors can independently create social media accounts despite the Indian Contract Act of 1872 making them ineligible to enter into binding contracts.&nbsp;During the hearing, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana stressed that social media intermediaries must comply with Indian legal requirements, regardless of whether they are registered outside the country.&nbsp;The Supreme Court's intervention comes at a time of growing concern over children's vulnerability on online platforms and the possible impact of excessive social media use on their mental health.&nbsp;Countries around the world are also taking steps to address digital addiction among children and young people. Nearly 40 per cent of education systems globally have introduced varying levels of bans and restrictions on mobile phone use in schools.&nbsp;Countries such as Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia have also banned children below the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms.&nbsp;India is also grappling with concerns over social media addiction. According to a report, social media users in the country spend up to one hour and 30 minutes every day on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook.&nbsp;In the US, Meta agreed to strengthen its age verification measures as part of an $18 billion settlement with multiple US states. The states had sued the technology giant over claims that its platforms contributed to social media addiction and mental health problems.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/don-t-mess-with-us-netanyahu-warns-of-possible-attack-ahead-of-israel-polls-1790702151986">'Don't mess with us': Netanyahu warns of possible attack ahead of Israel polls</a>&nbsp;Meta also agreed to restrict Instagram and Facebook use for minors to two hours a day. Minors will also not be able to see the number of likes and reactions on posts.&nbsp;The changes are aimed at addressing concerns over the impact of social media, which can amplify peer pressure and contribute to anxiety and depression among young users.&nbsp;Following the Supreme Court's intervention, attention will now turn to the steps the Indian government takes to regulate social media access for minors and ensure a safer online experience for children.

The Indian Supreme Court has asked the Centre to examine rules restricting minors from creating social media accounts amid growing concerns over children's online safety and social media addiction

Amid growing concerns over children's use of social media, the Supreme Court has asked the Narendra Modi-led government to frame statutory rules to prevent intermediaries from creating social media accounts for minors. The Centre has agreed to examine the issue following the court's intervention. The case came before the Supreme Court through a plea filed by NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance, which sought safeguards for children using social media and other digital platforms. The plea questioned how minors can independently create social media accounts despite the Indian Contract Act of 1872 making them ineligible to enter into binding contracts. During the hearing, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana stressed that social media intermediaries must comply with Indian legal requirements, regardless of whether they are registered outside the country. The Supreme Court's intervention comes at a time of growing concern over children's vulnerability on online platforms and the possible impact of excessive social media use on their mental health. Countries around the world are also taking steps to address digital addiction among children and young people. Nearly 40 per cent of education systems globally have introduced varying levels of bans and restrictions on mobile phone use in schools. Countries such as Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia have also banned children below the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms. India is also grappling with concerns over social media addiction. According to a report, social media users in the country spend up to one hour and 30 minutes every day on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook. In the US, Meta agreed to strengthen its age verification measures as part of an $18 billion settlement with multiple US states. The states had sued the technology giant over claims that its platforms contributed to social media addiction and mental health problems. Also Read: 'Don't mess with us': Netanyahu warns of possible attack ahead of Israel polls Meta also agreed to restrict Instagram and Facebook use for minors to two hours a day. Minors will also not be able to see the number of likes and reactions on posts. The changes are aimed at addressing concerns over the impact of social media, which can amplify peer pressure and contribute to anxiety and depression among young users. Following the Supreme Court's intervention, attention will now turn to the steps the Indian government takes to regulate social media access for minors and ensure a safer online experience for children.

The Indian Supreme Court has asked the Centre to examine rules restricting minors from creating social media accounts amid growing concerns over children's online safety and social media addiction

India mulls banning social media accounts for minors as SC steps in | Gravitas

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 29) agreed to hear a petition next week questioning the functioning of Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner and seeking to have the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls declared illegal. The petition followed days after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had raised objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months over the decision of the SIR of electoral rolls. Both commissioners accused that some of the decisions related to SIR were taken without their knowledge or recommendation. However, the Election Commission stated that Sandhu and Joshi sent letters to the Cabinet Secretary related to an officer on deputation and had nothing to do with policy or IT division matters. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, asked a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to take up the matter on an early date.&nbsp;Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cec-has-become-a-puppet-kharge-demands-gyanesh-kumar-s-removal-lists-5-demands-1790681614607"> ‘CEC has become a puppet’: Kharge demands Gyanesh Kumar’s removal, lists 5 demands</a> “The purpose of having a multi-member Commission was that, and the statute says so, that it has to be a decision unanimously or by majority. Now, the way the Election Commission has functioned, there is serious doubt about whether the decision of the Election Commission also was there for this entire exercise of SIR,” Singh said. “Because if the Commission has not taken a unanimous decision, then this… And what Your Lordship also has decided (is) on the basis that it is a Commission’s decision. So it is a serious issue. I am only requesting an early date for listing,” he also said, adding that the CJI later directed it be listed next week.<h3>What Article 324(1) of the Constitution says</h3>The petition pointed to the reported differences between CEC Kumar and fellow Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi, along with the objections they had raised. It argued that Article 324(1) of the Constitution does not place the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the hands of an individual Chief Election Commissioner, but in a Commission as a whole. Singh noted that under Article 324(2), the Election Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner along with as many other Election Commissioners as the President may decide to appoint from time to time. He further pointed out that Article 324(3) states that once other Election Commissioners are appointed, the Chief Election Commissioner serves as the Commission's Chairman.

The petition followed days after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had raised objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months over the decision of the SIR of electoral rolls.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 29) agreed to hear a petition next week questioning the functioning of Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner and seeking to have the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls declared illegal. The petition followed days after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had raised objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months over the decision of the SIR of electoral rolls. Both commissioners accused that some of the decisions related to SIR were taken without their knowledge or recommendation. However, the Election Commission stated that Sandhu and Joshi sent letters to the Cabinet Secretary related to an officer on deputation and had nothing to do with policy or IT division matters. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, asked a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to take up the matter on an early date. Also read: ‘CEC has become a puppet’: Kharge demands Gyanesh Kumar’s removal, lists 5 demands “The purpose of having a multi-member Commission was that, and the statute says so, that it has to be a decision unanimously or by majority. Now, the way the Election Commission has functioned, there is serious doubt about whether the decision of the Election Commission also was there for this entire exercise of SIR,” Singh said. “Because if the Commission has not taken a unanimous decision, then this… And what Your Lordship also has decided (is) on the basis that it is a Commission’s decision. So it is a serious issue. I am only requesting an early date for listing,” he also said, adding that the CJI later directed it be listed next week. What Article 324(1) of the Constitution says The petition pointed to the reported differences between CEC Kumar and fellow Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi, along with the objections they had raised. It argued that Article 324(1) of the Constitution does not place the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the hands of an individual Chief Election Commissioner, but in a Commission as a whole. Singh noted that under Article 324(2), the Election Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner along with as many other Election Commissioners as the President may decide to appoint from time to time. He further pointed out that Article 324(3) states that once other Election Commissioners are appointed, the Chief Election Commissioner serves as the Commission's Chairman.

The petition followed days after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had raised objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months over the decision of the SIR of electoral rolls.

Supreme Court agrees to hear petition challenging CEC Gyanesh Kumar's functioning, SIR exercise

The Supreme Court on Monday (Sep 28) suggested ways for states and Union Territories to recover unpaid e-challan fines. The suggestion was given by the top court after it was informed that fines amounting to around ₹20,000 crore were yet to be recovered. The court was hearing a plea related to the electronic enforcement of traffic violations and recovery of unpaid e-challan fines. &nbsp;It was a part of a long-running public interest litigation (PIL) petition on road safety filed in 2012 by Coimbatore-based orthopaedic surgeon S Rajaseekaran. A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/can-cbi-probe-a-sitting-cm-supreme-court-asked-to-settle-major-legal-question-1787119148228">Can CBI investigate a sitting Chief Minister? ED asks Supreme Court for clarity</a><h2>What the court said?</h2>“If people are not paying traffic challans, add it to their electricity dues bill. They’ll have to pay electricity bills else power line will be disconnected. Work it out. In this country, you have to find a way out,” the court said. Other measures discussed included not allowing the renewal of registration certificates for vehicles with pending fines, preventing the issuance of duplicate certificates and blocking changes in ownership details until all outstanding challans were cleared. The court also suggested blacklisting vehicles with unpaid challans on the Parivahan portal and blocking ownership transfers. It further discussed withholding fitness and Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates for such vehicles, as well as preventing the renewal of driving licences and taking steps to suspend licences already in force.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/why-trump-congratulated-china-s-xi-jinping-after-birthright-citizenship-ruling-by-scotus-wion-decodes-1782871958992">Why Trump congratulated China's Xi Jinping after birthright citizenship ruling by SCOTUS? WION Decodes</a>&nbsp;Justice Pardiwala said that issuing of e-challans is not useful if people end up not paying it. He pointed out that the question is about recovery of fines. The court was informed that states and Union Territories have to recover around ₹45,000 crore in e-challan fines, of which approximately ₹25,000 crore has been recovered so far. One of the judges said the government needs to find ways to recover the fines rather than merely issuing challans after being informed about the pending dues, according to a Bar and Bench report.

The Supreme Court suggested measures to recover unpaid e-challan fines, after being told that states and UTs have around ₹20,000 crore in pending dues. Options included linking fines to electricity bills, blocking vehicle services and withholding licence renewals.

The Supreme Court on Monday (Sep 28) suggested ways for states and Union Territories to recover unpaid e-challan fines. The suggestion was given by the top court after it was informed that fines amounting to around ₹20,000 crore were yet to be recovered. The court was hearing a plea related to the electronic enforcement of traffic violations and recovery of unpaid e-challan fines. It was a part of a long-running public interest litigation (PIL) petition on road safety filed in 2012 by Coimbatore-based orthopaedic surgeon S Rajaseekaran. A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case. Also Read: Can CBI investigate a sitting Chief Minister? ED asks Supreme Court for clarity What the court said? “If people are not paying traffic challans, add it to their electricity dues bill. They’ll have to pay electricity bills else power line will be disconnected. Work it out. In this country, you have to find a way out,” the court said. Other measures discussed included not allowing the renewal of registration certificates for vehicles with pending fines, preventing the issuance of duplicate certificates and blocking changes in ownership details until all outstanding challans were cleared. The court also suggested blacklisting vehicles with unpaid challans on the Parivahan portal and blocking ownership transfers. It further discussed withholding fitness and Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates for such vehicles, as well as preventing the renewal of driving licences and taking steps to suspend licences already in force. Also Read: Why Trump congratulated China's Xi Jinping after birthright citizenship ruling by SCOTUS? WION Decodes Justice Pardiwala said that issuing of e-challans is not useful if people end up not paying it. He pointed out that the question is about recovery of fines. The court was informed that states and Union Territories have to recover around ₹45,000 crore in e-challan fines, of which approximately ₹25,000 crore has been recovered so far. One of the judges said the government needs to find ways to recover the fines rather than merely issuing challans after being informed about the pending dues, according to a Bar and Bench report.

The Supreme Court suggested measures to recover unpaid e-challan fines, after being told that states and UTs have around ₹20,000 crore in pending dues. Options included linking fines to electricity bills, blocking vehicle services and withholding licence renewals.

Unpaid e-challans to be added to electricity bills? Supreme Court suggests ways to recover traffic fines

Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of a law mandating the rendition of all stanzas of Vande Mataram under threat of penal action. During the initial hearing, a three-judge bench noted that conscientious objectors cannot face criminal consequences for refusing to sing the national song on religious grounds. 


Supreme Court: No criminal consequences for not singing Vande Mataram

The Supreme Court was informed on Monday that as many as 105 instances of donation theft at the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya were captured on the temple’s CCTV cameras and that a charge sheet would be filed before September 25.&nbsp;The disclosure came before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, which was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the alleged scam.&nbsp;&nbsp;Solicitor General Tushar Mehta shared details from the Special Investigation Team’s status report and informed the apex court that the statutory 90-day period from the first arrest would expire on September 25.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-russia-has-lost-control-of-its-diesel-industry-calls-for-end-to-ridiculous-never-ending-war-1789999050401">Trump says Russia has ‘lost control’ of its diesel industry, calls for end to ‘ridiculous, never-ending’ war</a>&nbsp;The Solicitor General informed the court that the SIT investigation is nearing completion and the charge sheet will be filed by September 25.&nbsp;“Ninety days from the date of the first arrest are going to be over on September 25, so we will have to file the chargesheet, otherwise they (the accused) will get default bail,” Mehta told the court.&nbsp;&nbsp;The bench directed the magistrate to deal with the chargesheet in accordance with law. It also perused a detailed status report submitted by the SIT in a sealed cover.&nbsp;&nbsp;The top court had earlier directed the SIT to complete its investigation expeditiously and take it to a logical conclusion, while asking for a progress report in a sealed cover.&nbsp;According to the status report, CCTV footage, mobile data and call detail records form key evidence in the case.&nbsp;The SIT report stated that 105 incidents of donation theft had been identified through temple CCTV footage, providing strong evidence against the accused, some of whom are identifiable on camera. Besides, witness statements and other materials have also been collected.&nbsp;The bench also directed that a copy of the chargesheet be placed before it after it is filed in the trial court.&nbsp;The court was informed about the number of arrests made so far, and the available evidence was also presented to the court. The Supreme Court has taken all the given information on record.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russian-document-details-broad-iran-cooperation-plan-across-finance-nuclear-and-aviation-sectors-report-1789995702968">Russian document details broad Iran cooperation plan across finance, nuclear and aviation sectors: Report</a>&nbsp;The report said that receipts for valuables are generated using software, and the items are stored in a State Bank of India (SBI) locker.&nbsp;The petitioners requested a copy of the SIT report, but the Supreme Court declined the request.&nbsp;&nbsp;The three-member SIT, headed by Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, was constituted by the state government on June 13 at the request of the Trust, before the Supreme Court intervened in the matter.The panel had submitted its preliminary report to the state government on June 23, making several stringent recommendations.&nbsp;The FIR named eight people: Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava and Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu, and other unidentified individuals as accused. All of them have been arrested and booked under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta shared details from the Special Investigation Team’s status report and informed the apex court that the SIT investigation is nearing completion and the charge sheet will be filed by September 25. All the available evidence was also presented to the court.

The Supreme Court was informed on Monday that as many as 105 instances of donation theft at the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya were captured on the temple’s CCTV cameras and that a charge sheet would be filed before September 25. The disclosure came before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, which was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the alleged scam. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta shared details from the Special Investigation Team’s status report and informed the apex court that the statutory 90-day period from the first arrest would expire on September 25. Also Read: Trump says Russia has ‘lost control’ of its diesel industry, calls for end to ‘ridiculous, never-ending’ war The Solicitor General informed the court that the SIT investigation is nearing completion and the charge sheet will be filed by September 25. “Ninety days from the date of the first arrest are going to be over on September 25, so we will have to file the chargesheet, otherwise they (the accused) will get default bail,” Mehta told the court. The bench directed the magistrate to deal with the chargesheet in accordance with law. It also perused a detailed status report submitted by the SIT in a sealed cover. The top court had earlier directed the SIT to complete its investigation expeditiously and take it to a logical conclusion, while asking for a progress report in a sealed cover. According to the status report, CCTV footage, mobile data and call detail records form key evidence in the case. The SIT report stated that 105 incidents of donation theft had been identified through temple CCTV footage, providing strong evidence against the accused, some of whom are identifiable on camera. Besides, witness statements and other materials have also been collected. The bench also directed that a copy of the chargesheet be placed before it after it is filed in the trial court. The court was informed about the number of arrests made so far, and the available evidence was also presented to the court. The Supreme Court has taken all the given information on record. Also Read: Russian document details broad Iran cooperation plan across finance, nuclear and aviation sectors: Report The report said that receipts for valuables are generated using software, and the items are stored in a State Bank of India (SBI) locker. The petitioners requested a copy of the SIT report, but the Supreme Court declined the request. The three-member SIT, headed by Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, was constituted by the state government on June 13 at the request of the Trust, before the Supreme Court intervened in the matter. The panel had submitted its preliminary report to the state government on June 23, making several stringent recommendations. The FIR named eight people: Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava and Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu, and other unidentified individuals as accused. All of them have been arrested and booked under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta shared details from the Special Investigation Team’s status report and informed the apex court that the SIT investigation is nearing completion and the charge sheet will be filed by September 25. All the available evidence was also presented to the court.

Ram Temple donation theft caught on CCTV 105 times, charge sheet to be filed before Sept 25

The Supreme Court said on Friday (September 18) it may visit the National Testing Agency’s (NTA) permanent office to examine whether the systems put in place to conduct examinations are actually functioning effectively. The decision comes while hearing multiple petitions linked to the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. Justice PS Narasimha said the court could visit the NTA office in New Delhi to examine its systems, manpower and other arrangements. “We'll come and see whether the system is actually in place, whether it is working or not working, manpower, all these things,” he said, as reported by Bar and Bench. On NTA reforms, the court stressed that the committees' recommendations should not remain confined to reports and must be translated into the actual on-ground implementation. The Supreme Court instructed the Joint Secretary coordinating with the high-powered committee to submit an affidavit outlining the committee’s progress so far.<h3>NTA directs to file updated affidavit</h3>The NTA was also directed to file an updated affidavit outlining the reforms undertaken and progress achieved, and to publish this information on its website. The court further allowed lawyers and state governments to send in their suggestions via a designated email address, and said it would take up the matter once the updated affidavit is submitted. The bench also deliberated on the need to strengthen the NTA's institutional framework, including expanding its permanent staff strength. It observed that the agency must have sufficient manpower and effective coordination with other institutions, while also examining whether it needs statutory backing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the high-powered committee, led by Nandan Nilekani, had held extensive consultations and was expected to submit its report by the end of September. The court reiterated that progress must go beyond recommendations and reports, insisting that expert suggestions ultimately translate into institutionalised reforms within the examination system.&nbsp;

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the high-powered committee, led by Nandan Nilekani, had held extensive consultations and was expected to submit its report by the end of September. 

The Supreme Court said on Friday (September 18) it may visit the National Testing Agency’s (NTA) permanent office to examine whether the systems put in place to conduct examinations are actually functioning effectively. The decision comes while hearing multiple petitions linked to the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. Justice PS Narasimha said the court could visit the NTA office in New Delhi to examine its systems, manpower and other arrangements. “We'll come and see whether the system is actually in place, whether it is working or not working, manpower, all these things,” he said, as reported by Bar and Bench. On NTA reforms, the court stressed that the committees' recommendations should not remain confined to reports and must be translated into the actual on-ground implementation. The Supreme Court instructed the Joint Secretary coordinating with the high-powered committee to submit an affidavit outlining the committee’s progress so far. NTA directs to file updated affidavit The NTA was also directed to file an updated affidavit outlining the reforms undertaken and progress achieved, and to publish this information on its website. The court further allowed lawyers and state governments to send in their suggestions via a designated email address, and said it would take up the matter once the updated affidavit is submitted. The bench also deliberated on the need to strengthen the NTA's institutional framework, including expanding its permanent staff strength. It observed that the agency must have sufficient manpower and effective coordination with other institutions, while also examining whether it needs statutory backing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the high-powered committee, led by Nandan Nilekani, had held extensive consultations and was expected to submit its report by the end of September. The court reiterated that progress must go beyond recommendations and reports, insisting that expert suggestions ultimately translate into institutionalised reforms within the examination system.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the high-powered committee, led by Nandan Nilekani, had held extensive consultations and was expected to submit its report by the end of September.&nbsp;

NEET-UG paper leak case: Supreme Court may visit NTA office, seeks report on Nandan Nilekani panel's progress

After seven people were killed in the collapse of a building having paying guest (PG) facility in Delhi’s Satya Niketan, the Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it may expand its court-monitored exercise against illegal constructions and the unauthorised use of residential premises to examine the safety of student accommodation across the country.&nbsp;A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan said it would take up the matter on Thursday (September 10) after the court-appointed amicus curiae sought a time-bound safety audit of PG facilities, private hostels and other student accommodation in and around colleges across Delhi.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/moscow-threatens-harsh-retaliation-after-hungary-orders-expulsion-of-10-russian-diplomats-1788876362933">Moscow threatens ‘harsh’ retaliation after Hungary orders expulsion of 10 Russian diplomats</a><h2>‘It has to be on a pan-India basis’</h2>&nbsp;The bench said it was considering taking up the issue on a pan-India basis and may transfer the PIL pending before the Delhi High Court to itself.“We already have something in mind. It has to be on a pan-India basis. We may get it (petition before Delhi High Court) transferred here. We will take it day after tomorrow,” the court said.&nbsp;The matter was brought before the bench by court-appointed Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, who sought urgent directions for safety inspections and structural audits of PG accommodations, hostels and other student housing facilities in Delhi.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pa-c-k-of-lies-pakistan-s-ai-victory-video-claims-hits-on-32-iaf-bases-8-aircraft-2-s-400s-and-indian-parliament-1788792189590">Pa(c)k of lies: Pakistan’s AI ‘victory’ video claims hits on 32 IAF bases, 8 aircraft, 2 S-400s and Indian Parliament</a>&nbsp;“In view of the recent tragic incident, it is a very serious issue. We have inspected, completed and the last inspection is today at 2:30pm,” Sinha told the court.&nbsp;<h2>SG Tushar Mehta backs possibility of transferring Delhi HC proceedings</h2>&nbsp;Solicitor General Tushar Mehta backed the possibility of transferring the Delhi High Court proceedings, describing the collapse as a “horrific incident” and pointing to the PIL already pending there.&nbsp;The Satya Niketan building, which was being operated as a boys’ PG near Delhi University’s South Campus, collapsed on September 6 while repair work was reportedly underway.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-distances-itself-from-eiffel-tower-row-during-baps-delegation-visit-says-it-s-a-matter-between-two-entities-1788872186768">India distances itself from Eiffel Tower row during BAPS delegation visit, says it’s a matter between two entities</a>&nbsp;The apex court had earlier raised concerns over unsafe and unauthorised structures in Delhi-NCR following the Saket building collapse and Malviya Nagar hotel fire. It had ordered time-bound surveys and warned that officials could face personal accountability for failing to address violations.&nbsp;<h2>Delhi HC ordered MCD to conduct high-level inquiry</h2>&nbsp;The Delhi High Court separately ordered the MCD to conduct a high-level inquiry into the Satya Niketan collapse, including verification of construction permissions and identification of officials responsible for lapses.&nbsp;The PIL is now likely to be transferred to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/secret-reactor-in-syria-could-have-been-used-for-nuclear-weapons-says-iaea-after-finding-73-tonnes-of-natural-uranium-1788812570475">‘Secret reactor in Syria could have been used for nuclear weapons,’ says IAEA after finding 73 tonnes of natural uranium</a>&nbsp;The five deceased students killed in the building collapse hailed from Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh and had come to the national capital for their education.&nbsp;The MCD has since suspended five South Zone officials, including a Deputy Commissioner and engineering officials. The building owner Hariram Gupta, his wife Urmila and son Mahesh have also been arrested.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court bench said it was considering taking up the issue on a pan-India basis and may transfer the PIL pending before the Delhi High Court to itself. The matter was brought before the bench by court-appointed Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha.

After seven people were killed in the collapse of a building having paying guest (PG) facility in Delhi’s Satya Niketan, the Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it may expand its court-monitored exercise against illegal constructions and the unauthorised use of residential premises to examine the safety of student accommodation across the country. A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan said it would take up the matter on Thursday (September 10) after the court-appointed amicus curiae sought a time-bound safety audit of PG facilities, private hostels and other student accommodation in and around colleges across Delhi. Also Read: Moscow threatens ‘harsh’ retaliation after Hungary orders expulsion of 10 Russian diplomats ‘It has to be on a pan-India basis’ The bench said it was considering taking up the issue on a pan-India basis and may transfer the PIL pending before the Delhi High Court to itself. “We already have something in mind. It has to be on a pan-India basis. We may get it (petition before Delhi High Court) transferred here. We will take it day after tomorrow,” the court said. The matter was brought before the bench by court-appointed Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, who sought urgent directions for safety inspections and structural audits of PG accommodations, hostels and other student housing facilities in Delhi. Also Read: Pa(c)k of lies: Pakistan’s AI ‘victory’ video claims hits on 32 IAF bases, 8 aircraft, 2 S-400s and Indian Parliament “In view of the recent tragic incident, it is a very serious issue. We have inspected, completed and the last inspection is today at 2:30pm,” Sinha told the court. SG Tushar Mehta backs possibility of transferring Delhi HC proceedings Solicitor General Tushar Mehta backed the possibility of transferring the Delhi High Court proceedings, describing the collapse as a “horrific incident” and pointing to the PIL already pending there. The Satya Niketan building, which was being operated as a boys’ PG near Delhi University’s South Campus, collapsed on September 6 while repair work was reportedly underway. Also Read: India distances itself from Eiffel Tower row during BAPS delegation visit, says it’s a matter between two entities The apex court had earlier raised concerns over unsafe and unauthorised structures in Delhi-NCR following the Saket building collapse and Malviya Nagar hotel fire. It had ordered time-bound surveys and warned that officials could face personal accountability for failing to address violations. Delhi HC ordered MCD to conduct high-level inquiry The Delhi High Court separately ordered the MCD to conduct a high-level inquiry into the Satya Niketan collapse, including verification of construction permissions and identification of officials responsible for lapses. The PIL is now likely to be transferred to the Supreme Court. Also Read: ‘Secret reactor in Syria could have been used for nuclear weapons,’ says IAEA after finding 73 tonnes of natural uranium The five deceased students killed in the building collapse hailed from Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh and had come to the national capital for their education. The MCD has since suspended five South Zone officials, including a Deputy Commissioner and engineering officials. The building owner Hariram Gupta, his wife Urmila and son Mahesh have also been arrested.

The Supreme Court bench said it was considering taking up the issue on a pan-India basis and may transfer the PIL pending before the Delhi High Court to itself. The matter was brought before the bench by court-appointed Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha.

Satya Niketan building collapse: Supreme Court mulls pan-India safety norms for student accommodation

The Union government told the Supreme Court on Thursday that it is reconsidering the controversial University Grants Commission guidelines drawn up to address caste discrimination on campuses.&nbsp;Appearing for the Centre and the UGC, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that the government was examining the regulations and had not yet decided on the course it would take.&nbsp;“I’m not saying which way it will go, but we are reconsidering it,” Mehta told the court.&nbsp;The bench was hearing a group of petitions that challenge the UGC guidelines, primarily arguing that they refer to caste-based discrimination only against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBC communities while excluding those from the general category.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-sets-up-5-member-committee-to-probe-cops-use-of-force-violence-at-neet-protests-1787231068889">Supreme Court sets up 5-member committee to probe cops’ use of force, violence at NEET protests</a>&nbsp;The challenge also contends that the regulations are inconsistent with the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and could undermine the objective of ensuring equal opportunity in higher education.The petitioners have also raised concerns about the scope of the regulations and the possibility of their provisions being misused.&nbsp;On January 29, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India had stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2026, which were notified on January 13, saying they raise important questions that, if left unexamined, could have “very sweeping consequences” and “divide society”.The bench had issued notices to the Centre and the UGC and directed that the “2012 Regulations will continue in force till further orders”.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lot-of-boats-coming-through-strait-of-hormuz-says-trump-admits-to-nuisance-of-iranian-drones-1787166376313">‘Lot of boats’ coming through Strait of Hormuz, says Trump, admits to ‘nuisance’ of Iranian drones</a>&nbsp;The bench had said that “upon a prima facie consideration, it appears to us that some of the provisions of the Impugned Regulations suffer from certain ambiguities, and the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out”.The bench had also observed orally that the government must constitute a committee of eminent jurists to look into the issue.&nbsp;Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was also on the bench, said, “We should not go to a stage where we go to segregated schools as in the United States, where coloured children go to one school, and white boys and girls go to another school. The unity of India must be reflected in the educational institutions.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-slams-trump-s-economic-terrorism-irgc-warns-of-using-more-precise-and-destructive-weapons-1787234880288">Iran slams Trump’s ‘economic terrorism’; IRGC warns of using ‘more precise and destructive’ weapons</a>&nbsp;The court said there might be instances of economically well-off students from a caste harassing others within the same caste, and sought to know how the regulations address such a scenario.“This kind of situation can be exploited by the mischievous elements in the society,” the CJI had said.The petitioners, Mritunjay Tiwari, advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan, have primarily challenged section 3(1)(c) of the regulations.&nbsp;The UGC regulations arise from a 2019 petition filed in the Supreme Court by the mothers of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula, who died by suicide over alleged caste-based discrimination in 2019 and 2016, respectively. They had sought the enforcement of robust anti-discrimination mechanisms across higher education institutions.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lot-of-boats-coming-through-strait-of-hormuz-says-trump-admits-to-nuisance-of-iranian-drones-1787166376313">‘Lot of boats’ coming through Strait of Hormuz, says Trump, admits to ‘nuisance’ of Iranian drones</a>&nbsp;The court, meanwhile, granted the UGC four weeks to respond to the petitions challenging the regulations and directed it to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit addressing the issues raised by all the petitioners. It directed that copies of the UGC’s affidavit be furnished to all the petitioners, who will then have two weeks to file their rejoinders.The matter will now be taken up after four weeks.

The challenge contends that the regulations are inconsistent with the UGC Act, 1956, and could undermine the objective of ensuring equal opportunity in higher education. The petitioners also raised concerns about the scope of the regulations and the possibility of their misuse.

The Union government told the Supreme Court on Thursday that it is reconsidering the controversial University Grants Commission guidelines drawn up to address caste discrimination on campuses. Appearing for the Centre and the UGC, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that the government was examining the regulations and had not yet decided on the course it would take. “I’m not saying which way it will go, but we are reconsidering it,” Mehta told the court. The bench was hearing a group of petitions that challenge the UGC guidelines, primarily arguing that they refer to caste-based discrimination only against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBC communities while excluding those from the general category. Also Read: Supreme Court sets up 5-member committee to probe cops’ use of force, violence at NEET protests The challenge also contends that the regulations are inconsistent with the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and could undermine the objective of ensuring equal opportunity in higher education. The petitioners have also raised concerns about the scope of the regulations and the possibility of their provisions being misused. On January 29, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India had stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2026, which were notified on January 13, saying they raise important questions that, if left unexamined, could have “very sweeping consequences” and “divide society”. The bench had issued notices to the Centre and the UGC and directed that the “2012 Regulations will continue in force till further orders”. Also Read: ‘Lot of boats’ coming through Strait of Hormuz, says Trump, admits to ‘nuisance’ of Iranian drones The bench had said that “upon a prima facie consideration, it appears to us that some of the provisions of the Impugned Regulations suffer from certain ambiguities, and the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out”. The bench had also observed orally that the government must constitute a committee of eminent jurists to look into the issue. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was also on the bench, said, “We should not go to a stage where we go to segregated schools as in the United States, where coloured children go to one school, and white boys and girls go to another school. The unity of India must be reflected in the educational institutions.” Also Read: Iran slams Trump’s ‘economic terrorism’; IRGC warns of using ‘more precise and destructive’ weapons The court said there might be instances of economically well-off students from a caste harassing others within the same caste, and sought to know how the regulations address such a scenario. “This kind of situation can be exploited by the mischievous elements in the society,” the CJI had said. The petitioners, Mritunjay Tiwari, advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan, have primarily challenged section 3(1)(c) of the regulations. The UGC regulations arise from a 2019 petition filed in the Supreme Court by the mothers of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula, who died by suicide over alleged caste-based discrimination in 2019 and 2016, respectively. They had sought the enforcement of robust anti-discrimination mechanisms across higher education institutions. Also Read: ‘Lot of boats’ coming through Strait of Hormuz, says Trump, admits to ‘nuisance’ of Iranian drones The court, meanwhile, granted the UGC four weeks to respond to the petitions challenging the regulations and directed it to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit addressing the issues raised by all the petitioners. It directed that copies of the UGC’s affidavit be furnished to all the petitioners, who will then have two weeks to file their rejoinders. The matter will now be taken up after four weeks.

The challenge contends that the regulations are inconsistent with the UGC Act, 1956, and could undermine the objective of ensuring equal opportunity in higher education. The petitioners also raised concerns about the scope of the regulations and the possibility of their misuse.

UGC caste discrimination guidelines being reconsidered: Centre tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court constituted a five-member High-Powered Expert Committee (HPEC) on Thursday to probe the allegations of excessive and disproportionate use of force by the security personnel against protesters at Jantar Mantar in Delhi and other states against the NEET paper leak.&nbsp;A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the committee would be headed by former apex court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy and will comprise former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court Judge Justice Shalinder Kaur, former CBI Director Rishi Kumar Shukla and retired Meghalaya DGP L R Bishnoi.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lot-of-boats-coming-through-strait-of-hormuz-says-trump-admits-to-nuisance-of-iranian-drones-1787166376313">‘Lot of boats’ coming through Strait of Hormuz, says Trump, admits to ‘nuisance’ of Iranian drones</a>&nbsp;“This HPEC (High-Powered Enquiry Committee) has been constituted bearing in mind a wide variety of considerations, including the individual expertise and experience of each of its members, as well as the diversity of the Committee, among other factors,” the bench said.&nbsp;“We are confident that the recommendations of the HPEC will be of invaluable assistance to this Court, and the Committee will be able to undertake a comprehensive assessment of all such issues as merit due contemplation,” it added.&nbsp;<h2>‘Preserve drone recordings, CCTV and bodycam footage’</h2>&nbsp;The court has ordered the preservation of CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-cam footage, and PCR call records related to the protest to ensure that crucial evidence is not tampered with during the investigation and that the sequence of events can be examined independently.&nbsp;The court also stressed protecting the personal data of protesters. It restrained the police from making such private information public.&nbsp;The committee will also consider allegations by authorities of violence against police personnel and damage to public property.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pakistan-gets-miffed-by-us-ambassador-sergio-gor-s-j-k-important-part-of-india-remark-issues-demarche-1787157507821">Pakistan gets miffed by US Ambassador Sergio Gor’s ‘J&amp;K important part of India’ remark, issues demarche</a>&nbsp;The top court said the enquiry by the committee shall not be a one-time exercise and asked the panel to undertake a continuous assessment of the issues and submit its interim findings periodically.&nbsp;The top court directed that the allegations of harassment and molestation, particularly those involving female protesters, be treated as a priority. Additionally, an inquiry will be conducted into the serious and severe injuries sustained by protesters following police action.&nbsp;Thousands of protesters, led by the Cockroach Janta Party, gave a call for a march on Parliament on July 20, the first day of the Monsoon Session, demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET paper leak issue.Police fired tear gas and used batons to disperse the protest, triggering clashes and a wave of detentions.&nbsp;<h2>Panel to probe allegations about use of excessive force</h2>&nbsp;The committee will investigate the allegations regarding the use of excessive force by police and other security agencies against protesters, including allegations concerning the use of pellet guns, electric batons, lathi-charges, and tear gas.&nbsp;It will also be considered whether the use of metallic pellets should be banned.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nato-prepared-to-defend-all-allies-after-reports-of-iran-mulling-attacks-on-us-targets-in-europe-1787141867863">NATO ‘prepared to defend all allies,‘ says official after reports of Iran mulling attacks on US targets in Europe</a>&nbsp;The committee will examine how to strike a proper balance between maintaining law and order during protests and peaceful gatherings and upholding the constitutional right of citizens to protest peacefully.&nbsp;The need for a system requiring police and security personnel to wear uniforms and clear nameplates during arrests or crowd control operations will be considered to ensure the identification and accountability of officers, the court said.Besides, the allegations of police monitoring and surveillance of protesters will also be investigated to determine whether such surveillance was consistent with their constitutional rights to privacy and peaceful assembly.

The Supreme Court ordered the preservation of CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-cam footage, and PCR call records related to the protest to ensure that crucial evidence is not tampered with during the investigation and that the sequence of events can be examined independently.

The Supreme Court constituted a five-member High-Powered Expert Committee (HPEC) on Thursday to probe the allegations of excessive and disproportionate use of force by the security personnel against protesters at Jantar Mantar in Delhi and other states against the NEET paper leak. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the committee would be headed by former apex court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy and will comprise former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court Judge Justice Shalinder Kaur, former CBI Director Rishi Kumar Shukla and retired Meghalaya DGP L R Bishnoi. Also Read: ‘Lot of boats’ coming through Strait of Hormuz, says Trump, admits to ‘nuisance’ of Iranian drones “This HPEC (High-Powered Enquiry Committee) has been constituted bearing in mind a wide variety of considerations, including the individual expertise and experience of each of its members, as well as the diversity of the Committee, among other factors,” the bench said. “We are confident that the recommendations of the HPEC will be of invaluable assistance to this Court, and the Committee will be able to undertake a comprehensive assessment of all such issues as merit due contemplation,” it added. ‘Preserve drone recordings, CCTV and bodycam footage’ The court has ordered the preservation of CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-cam footage, and PCR call records related to the protest to ensure that crucial evidence is not tampered with during the investigation and that the sequence of events can be examined independently. The court also stressed protecting the personal data of protesters. It restrained the police from making such private information public. The committee will also consider allegations by authorities of violence against police personnel and damage to public property. Also Read: Pakistan gets miffed by US Ambassador Sergio Gor’s ‘J&K important part of India’ remark, issues demarche The top court said the enquiry by the committee shall not be a one-time exercise and asked the panel to undertake a continuous assessment of the issues and submit its interim findings periodically. The top court directed that the allegations of harassment and molestation, particularly those involving female protesters, be treated as a priority. Additionally, an inquiry will be conducted into the serious and severe injuries sustained by protesters following police action. Thousands of protesters, led by the Cockroach Janta Party, gave a call for a march on Parliament on July 20, the first day of the Monsoon Session, demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET paper leak issue. Police fired tear gas and used batons to disperse the protest, triggering clashes and a wave of detentions. Panel to probe allegations about use of excessive force The committee will investigate the allegations regarding the use of excessive force by police and other security agencies against protesters, including allegations concerning the use of pellet guns, electric batons, lathi-charges, and tear gas. It will also be considered whether the use of metallic pellets should be banned. Also Read: NATO ‘prepared to defend all allies,‘ says official after reports of Iran mulling attacks on US targets in Europe The committee will examine how to strike a proper balance between maintaining law and order during protests and peaceful gatherings and upholding the constitutional right of citizens to protest peacefully. The need for a system requiring police and security personnel to wear uniforms and clear nameplates during arrests or crowd control operations will be considered to ensure the identification and accountability of officers, the court said. Besides, the allegations of police monitoring and surveillance of protesters will also be investigated to determine whether such surveillance was consistent with their constitutional rights to privacy and peaceful assembly.

The Supreme Court ordered the preservation of CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-cam footage, and PCR call records related to the protest to ensure that crucial evidence is not tampered with during the investigation and that the sequence of events can be examined independently.

Supreme Court sets up 5-member committee to probe cops’ use of force, violence at NEET protests

The Supreme Court has announced it will set up a high-powered committee, headed by a former Supreme Court judge, to examine allegations of police excesses against student protesters during the July 20 CJP-led Parliament march in Delhi. The panel will also include a retired High Court Chief Justice, a former DGP, and an ex-CBI director. CJI Surya Kant said the committee will get full access to CCTV footage and video evidence, and will also examine complaints of sexual assault and online harassment faced by female protesters during the demonstrations.


Delhi student protests: 5-member team to probe police action | Former SC judge to head the panel

Pakistan's Supreme Court has ordered the immediate transfer of former PM Imran Khan to a hospital for medical treatment, rejecting the government's objections. Khan, who has been jailed in Rawalpindi's Adiala Jail since August 2023, must be moved within 48 hours and will remain at Shifa International Hospital until September 16. The order comes amid persistent rumours over Khan's deteriorating health.

Pakistan govt challenges Supreme Court's hospital relief for Imran Khan

The Supreme Court has been informed that 14 of the total 28 chief ministers face serious criminal charges, while more than 4,000 cases are pending against MPs and MLAs across the country. The disclosure came in a report submitted to the apex court on Monday by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, amicus curiae in a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against lawmakers.&nbsp;The PIL was filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/don-t-beg-pakistan-strictly-warns-its-umrah-pilgrims-tells-them-to-fully-comply-with-saudi-laws-1786991746961">‘Don’t beg,’ Pakistan strictly warns its Umrah pilgrims, tells them to fully comply with Saudi laws</a><h2>Which CM faces most charges?</h2>&nbsp;The report reveals that Telangana CM Revanth Reddy has the highest number of 89 charges against him. West Bengal CM Suvendu Adhikari is the next with 29 pending cases against him.Karnataka CM D K Shivakumar and Andhra Pradesh CM N Chandrababu Naidu both have 19 cases each, while Kerala CM V D Sathesan has 18 cases pending against him.&nbsp;Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren has 5 pending cases, Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis and Himachal CM Sukhvinder Singh have 4 each, TN CM C Joseph Vijay and Bihar CM Samrat Choudhary have 2 cases each, while four CM, including P S Tamang (Sikkim), Bhagwant Mann (Punjab), Mohan Charan Majhi (Odisha) and Bhajan Lal Sharma (Rajasthan) have one case each.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/vande-mataram-row-which-section-of-the-new-law-can-put-sonia-gandhi-in-the-dock-1786971951028">Vande Mataram row: Which section of the new law can put Sonia Gandhi in the dock</a>&nbsp;The report clarifies that figure of 4,192 is based on information received from High Courts and their websites, while adding that the Allahabad High Court did not submit a report, and its figure of 1,171 cases is from its website as of February 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha MPs also facing cases</h2>&nbsp;The report also reveals that 251 of the 543 Lok Sabha members and 75 of the 233 Rajya Sabha members also face criminal cases.&nbsp;In total, around 4,192 cases are pending against sitting MPs and MLAs, of which 519 have been pending for more than a decade, while investigations have not yet begun in 700 cases, of which 360 are stuck for more than three years without the chargesheet even being filed.&nbsp;<h2>95% of MPs from Kerala face charges</h2>&nbsp;The affidavit discloses that 95% of the MPs from Kerala face charges, which is the highest in the country.Kerala is followed by Telangana with 82% of its MPs facing serious charges. Then comes Odisha with 76%.Haryana and Chhattisgarh have the lowest tallies, with both having a single MP each facing charges.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/supreme-court-rejects-trump-s-renewed-appeal-to-block-e-jean-carroll-award-1786975184644">Supreme Court rejects Trump’s renewed appeal to block E. Jean Carroll award</a><h2>58% MLAs in Bengal, 57% in Keralam facing cases</h2>&nbsp;Among MLAs facing serious cases, West Bengal leads at 58%, with Kerala being a close second at 57%, and Andhra Pradesh at 56%, followed by Telangana (49%) and Odisha (45%).&nbsp;After the revelations, the amicus has pleaded with the apex court to designate special courts to expeditiously hold trials in these cases against both sitting and former lawmakers.&nbsp;He has also asked the Supreme Court to direct the jurisdictional High Courts in these cases to actively monitor the progress of these trials.

The amicus pleaded with the apex court to designate special courts to expeditiously hold trials in these cases against both sitting and former lawmakers. He also asked the Supreme Court to direct the jurisdictional High Courts to actively monitor the progress of these trials.

The Supreme Court has been informed that 14 of the total 28 chief ministers face serious criminal charges, while more than 4,000 cases are pending against MPs and MLAs across the country. The disclosure came in a report submitted to the apex court on Monday by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, amicus curiae in a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against lawmakers. The PIL was filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Also Read: ‘Don’t beg,’ Pakistan strictly warns its Umrah pilgrims, tells them to fully comply with Saudi laws Which CM faces most charges? The report reveals that Telangana CM Revanth Reddy has the highest number of 89 charges against him. West Bengal CM Suvendu Adhikari is the next with 29 pending cases against him. Karnataka CM D K Shivakumar and Andhra Pradesh CM N Chandrababu Naidu both have 19 cases each, while Kerala CM V D Sathesan has 18 cases pending against him. Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren has 5 pending cases, Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis and Himachal CM Sukhvinder Singh have 4 each, TN CM C Joseph Vijay and Bihar CM Samrat Choudhary have 2 cases each, while four CM, including P S Tamang (Sikkim), Bhagwant Mann (Punjab), Mohan Charan Majhi (Odisha) and Bhajan Lal Sharma (Rajasthan) have one case each. Also Read: Vande Mataram row: Which section of the new law can put Sonia Gandhi in the dock The report clarifies that figure of 4,192 is based on information received from High Courts and their websites, while adding that the Allahabad High Court did not submit a report, and its figure of 1,171 cases is from its website as of February 2024. Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha MPs also facing cases The report also reveals that 251 of the 543 Lok Sabha members and 75 of the 233 Rajya Sabha members also face criminal cases. In total, around 4,192 cases are pending against sitting MPs and MLAs, of which 519 have been pending for more than a decade, while investigations have not yet begun in 700 cases, of which 360 are stuck for more than three years without the chargesheet even being filed. 95% of MPs from Kerala face charges The affidavit discloses that 95% of the MPs from Kerala face charges, which is the highest in the country. Kerala is followed by Telangana with 82% of its MPs facing serious charges. Then comes Odisha with 76%. Haryana and Chhattisgarh have the lowest tallies, with both having a single MP each facing charges. Also Read: Supreme Court rejects Trump’s renewed appeal to block E. Jean Carroll award 58% MLAs in Bengal, 57% in Keralam facing cases Among MLAs facing serious cases, West Bengal leads at 58%, with Kerala being a close second at 57%, and Andhra Pradesh at 56%, followed by Telangana (49%) and Odisha (45%). After the revelations, the amicus has pleaded with the apex court to designate special courts to expeditiously hold trials in these cases against both sitting and former lawmakers. He has also asked the Supreme Court to direct the jurisdictional High Courts in these cases to actively monitor the progress of these trials.

The amicus pleaded with the apex court to designate special courts to expeditiously hold trials in these cases against both sitting and former lawmakers. He also asked the Supreme Court to direct the jurisdictional High Courts to actively monitor the progress of these trials.

14 of 28 CMs face serious criminal charges; 4,192 cases pending against MPs and MLAs, Supreme Court told

The Supreme Court has told Karnataka to follow the CWMA's order and release enough Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu says it hasn't received its fair share this year, while Karnataka says it's already increased the water flow after recent rains. The court will hear the case again around August 24 to check on the latest situation.


Cauvery row: Supreme Court directs Karnataka to comply with CWMA order 

The Supreme Court has told Karnataka to follow the CWMA's order and release enough Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu says it hasn't received its fair share this year, while Karnataka says it's already increased the water flow after recent rains. The court will hear the case again around August 24 to check on the latest situation.

Cauvery row: Supreme Court asks Karnataka to comply with CWMA's order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a crackdown on digital arrest scams and issued a number of directions for strengthening the fight against cyber fraud. The apex court also asked the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to prepare and circulate a standard operating procedure for bank accounts linked to cybercrimes and directing states and Union Territories to speed up grievance redressal and money recovery mechanisms for victims.&nbsp;A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also asked the Centre to set up an Inter-Departmental Committee for consult banks and financial intermediaries on ways to prevent digital arrest scams and help recover the defrauded money to victims.&nbsp;The bench was hearing a suo motu matter, ‘In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents.'&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/did-trump-snub-pakistan-ex-us-general-says-pak-qatar-compromised-mediators-1785852825375">Did Trump snub Pakistan? Ex-US General says Pak and Qatar ‘compromised’ mediators</a><h2>SC tells RBI: Prepare SOP on cyber fraud, mule accounts</h2>&nbsp;The Supreme Court directed the Reserve Bank of India to prepare and circulate an SOP for dealing with bank accounts linked to cyber frauds, including mule accounts.It also asked the RBI to provide copies of the SOP to the Registrars General of all high courts, allowing the guidelines to be made available across the judiciary.&nbsp;<h2>States, UTs told to act on grievance, money recovery</h2>&nbsp;The court directed all states, Union Territories and law enforcement agencies to ensure the expeditious adoption and operationalisation of grievance redressal and money restoration modules developed for victims of cyber-enabled financial frauds.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/arrogance-leads-to-destruction-mk-stalin-slams-cm-vijay-over-son-udhayanidhi-s-arrest-1785846477229">‘Arrogance leads to destruction’: MK Stalin slams CM Vijay over son Udhayanidhi’s arrest</a>&nbsp;The top court also asked states and UTs to increase public awareness about these grievance redressal and money restoration mechanisms so that citizens know where and how to seek help after being duped.&nbsp;The Registrars General of all high courts were directed to apprise courts about the grievance redressal and money restoration modules, ensuring that victims are made aware of the remedies available to them.&nbsp;<h2>Court asks for state-wise, bank-wise fraud data</h2>&nbsp;Seeking greater accountability in the handling of cyber fraud complaints, the Supreme Court asked the authorities to submit a report providing state-wise and bank-wise details of grievances registered and disposed of under the cyber fraud redressal mechanism.&nbsp;The data will provide a view of how complaints are being handled across states and banking institutions.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-signs-deal-to-boost-production-of-patriot-thaad-missile-interceptor-systems-1785769944181">US signs deal to boost production of Patriot, THAAD missile interceptor systems</a>&nbsp;The bench also directed authorities to take steps to ensure the expeditious disposal of matters relating to the freezing of bank accounts in cases involving cyber fraud investigations.&nbsp;The directions come a week after the apex court suggested that the Centre consider formally defining “digital arrest” in criminal law and treating it as a standalone offence carrying stringent punishment.

The top court directed the RBI to prepare and circulate an SOP for dealing with bank accounts linked to cyber fraud. The court earlier suggested the Centre consider formally defining “digital arrest” in criminal law and treating it as a standalone offence carrying stringent punishment.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a crackdown on digital arrest scams and issued a number of directions for strengthening the fight against cyber fraud. The apex court also asked the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to prepare and circulate a standard operating procedure for bank accounts linked to cybercrimes and directing states and Union Territories to speed up grievance redressal and money recovery mechanisms for victims. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also asked the Centre to set up an Inter-Departmental Committee for consult banks and financial intermediaries on ways to prevent digital arrest scams and help recover the defrauded money to victims. The bench was hearing a suo motu matter, ‘In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents.' Also Read: Did Trump snub Pakistan? Ex-US General says Pak and Qatar ‘compromised’ mediators SC tells RBI: Prepare SOP on cyber fraud, mule accounts The Supreme Court directed the Reserve Bank of India to prepare and circulate an SOP for dealing with bank accounts linked to cyber frauds, including mule accounts. It also asked the RBI to provide copies of the SOP to the Registrars General of all high courts, allowing the guidelines to be made available across the judiciary. States, UTs told to act on grievance, money recovery The court directed all states, Union Territories and law enforcement agencies to ensure the expeditious adoption and operationalisation of grievance redressal and money restoration modules developed for victims of cyber-enabled financial frauds. Also Read: ‘Arrogance leads to destruction’: MK Stalin slams CM Vijay over son Udhayanidhi’s arrest The top court also asked states and UTs to increase public awareness about these grievance redressal and money restoration mechanisms so that citizens know where and how to seek help after being duped. The Registrars General of all high courts were directed to apprise courts about the grievance redressal and money restoration modules, ensuring that victims are made aware of the remedies available to them. Court asks for state-wise, bank-wise fraud data Seeking greater accountability in the handling of cyber fraud complaints, the Supreme Court asked the authorities to submit a report providing state-wise and bank-wise details of grievances registered and disposed of under the cyber fraud redressal mechanism. The data will provide a view of how complaints are being handled across states and banking institutions. Also Read: US signs deal to boost production of Patriot, THAAD missile interceptor systems The bench also directed authorities to take steps to ensure the expeditious disposal of matters relating to the freezing of bank accounts in cases involving cyber fraud investigations. The directions come a week after the apex court suggested that the Centre consider formally defining “digital arrest” in criminal law and treating it as a standalone offence carrying stringent punishment.

The top court directed the RBI to prepare and circulate an SOP for dealing with bank accounts linked to cyber fraud. The court earlier suggested the Centre consider formally defining “digital arrest” in criminal law and treating it as a standalone offence carrying stringent punishment.

Supreme Court orders crackdown on digital arrest scams, setting up of panel

Karnataka Chief Minister DK Shivakumar on Sunday said that the people of the state have a history of setting aside political differences and standing united to protect its interests.

The remarks were made at the all-party meeting convened to chalk out the state's legal and political strategy on the Cauvery water-sharing dispute with Tamil Nadu, in the wake of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee's (CWRC's) direction to release 3,500 cusecs of water daily for 15 days, which was later upheld by the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA).

Karnataka-Tamil Nadu tussle over Cauvery waters reach Supreme Court

The Tamil Nadu government on Monday moved the Supreme Court against Karnataka, accusing its neighbouring state of failing to release its share of Cauvery water in accordance with directions issued by the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC).&nbsp;The petition was filed on the instructions of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay after Karnataka allegedly failed to release the required amount of Cauvery water despite repeated directions from the river authorities.&nbsp;At its 139th meeting held on July 28, the CWRC reviewed the hydrological and meteorological conditions in the Cauvery basin and directed Karnataka to ensure the release of 3,500 cusecs of water per second at Biligundlu for 15 days, from July 29 to August 12, by releasing water from the Krishnaraja Sagar (KRS) and Kabini reservoirs.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/30-year-stronghold-fell-in-30-days-prashant-kishor-says-verdict-a-message-to-bjp-top-leadership-1785761106814">‘30-year stronghold fell in 30 days;’ Prashant Kishor says verdict a message to BJP top leadership</a>&nbsp;The CWMA subsequently reaffirmed CWRC’s decision during its 54th emergency meeting on July 30 after reviewing the basin’s water availability and rainfall conditions.&nbsp;The Tamil Nadu government has said that the inflow recorded at Biligundlu between July 29 and August 2 ranged just between 158 and 550 cusecs, far below the mandated 3,500 cusecs.&nbsp;Tamil Nadu further said that Karnataka had sufficient water available in its reservoirs to comply with the release order. As of August 3, the Krishnaraja Sagar reservoir held 23.078 thousand million cubic feet (TMC) of water, Kabini 18.610 TMC, Harangi 7.827 TMC and Hemavathi 28.022 TMC.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-eroded-india-s-faith-bit-by-bit-indian-envoy-defends-putting-indus-waters-treaty-in-abeyance-1785679387240">‘Pakistan eroded India's faith bit by bit’: Indian envoy defends putting Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance</a>&nbsp;The combined storage in the four reservoirs stood at 77.537 TMC, including 67.517 TMC of utilisable water.&nbsp;The state contended that there was no practical difficulty before Karnataka that prevented it from releasing Tamil Nadu’s rightful share of water on a proportional basis.&nbsp;It also pointed to heavy rainfall in the catchment areas of the KRS and Kabini reservoirs, which has significantly increased inflows.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/madrasas-shouldn-t-exist-they-produce-jihadists-taslima-nasreen-wants-bangladesh-to-be-secular-nation-1785687296945">‘Madrasas shouldn’t exist, they produce jihadists’: Taslima Nasreen wants Bangladesh to be secular nation</a>&nbsp;Based on the proportional sharing formula, Tamil Nadu claimed it was entitled to receive 26.954 TMC of water at Biligundlu, substantially higher than the 4.536 TMC directed by the CWMA for the current period.&nbsp;Since Karnataka had failed to release even the quantity ordered by the CWMA, Tamil Nadu said the state government, acting on the advice of senior legal counsel, decided to move the Supreme Court.&nbsp;The petition seeks appropriate directions to ensure Karnataka complies with the Cauvery authorities’ orders and that Tamil Nadu receives its rightful share of Cauvery water within the stipulated timeframe.

Tamil Nadu has contended that there was no practical difficulty before Karnataka in releasing its rightful share of water on a proportional basis. It also pointed to heavy rainfall in the catchment areas of the KRS and Kabini reservoirs, which has significantly increased inflows.

The Tamil Nadu government on Monday moved the Supreme Court against Karnataka, accusing its neighbouring state of failing to release its share of Cauvery water in accordance with directions issued by the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC). The petition was filed on the instructions of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay after Karnataka allegedly failed to release the required amount of Cauvery water despite repeated directions from the river authorities. At its 139th meeting held on July 28, the CWRC reviewed the hydrological and meteorological conditions in the Cauvery basin and directed Karnataka to ensure the release of 3,500 cusecs of water per second at Biligundlu for 15 days, from July 29 to August 12, by releasing water from the Krishnaraja Sagar (KRS) and Kabini reservoirs. Also Read: ‘30-year stronghold fell in 30 days;’ Prashant Kishor says verdict a message to BJP top leadership The CWMA subsequently reaffirmed CWRC’s decision during its 54th emergency meeting on July 30 after reviewing the basin’s water availability and rainfall conditions. The Tamil Nadu government has said that the inflow recorded at Biligundlu between July 29 and August 2 ranged just between 158 and 550 cusecs, far below the mandated 3,500 cusecs. Tamil Nadu further said that Karnataka had sufficient water available in its reservoirs to comply with the release order. As of August 3, the Krishnaraja Sagar reservoir held 23.078 thousand million cubic feet (TMC) of water, Kabini 18.610 TMC, Harangi 7.827 TMC and Hemavathi 28.022 TMC. Also Read: ‘Pakistan eroded India's faith bit by bit’: Indian envoy defends putting Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance The combined storage in the four reservoirs stood at 77.537 TMC, including 67.517 TMC of utilisable water. The state contended that there was no practical difficulty before Karnataka that prevented it from releasing Tamil Nadu’s rightful share of water on a proportional basis. It also pointed to heavy rainfall in the catchment areas of the KRS and Kabini reservoirs, which has significantly increased inflows. Also Read: ‘Madrasas shouldn’t exist, they produce jihadists’: Taslima Nasreen wants Bangladesh to be secular nation Based on the proportional sharing formula, Tamil Nadu claimed it was entitled to receive 26.954 TMC of water at Biligundlu, substantially higher than the 4.536 TMC directed by the CWMA for the current period. Since Karnataka had failed to release even the quantity ordered by the CWMA, Tamil Nadu said the state government, acting on the advice of senior legal counsel, decided to move the Supreme Court. The petition seeks appropriate directions to ensure Karnataka complies with the Cauvery authorities’ orders and that Tamil Nadu receives its rightful share of Cauvery water within the stipulated timeframe.

Tamil Nadu has contended that there was no practical difficulty before Karnataka in releasing its rightful share of water on a proportional basis. It also pointed to heavy rainfall in the catchment areas of the KRS and Kabini reservoirs, which has significantly increased inflows.

Tamil Nadu moves Supreme Court against Karnataka for failing to release Cauvery water

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it might lay down guidelines on when and where the state could use pellet guns during crowd control and law-and-order situations. The use of pellet guns during the July 20 CJP protest at the Jantar Mantar had triggered backlash. The observation comes days after the Supreme Court was hearing a plea about the use of metallic pellet ammunition against civilians during the protest.&nbsp;A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said that a police officer using excessive force will not be protected, as well as hardened criminals who were hiding under the guise of students will also not be spared. "We would like to lay down a complete protocol on how and where it can be used," the Bench remarked. The bench decided to form a committee to probe issues arising from the Jantar Mantar protests and examine concerns about the use of excessive force during the Jantar Mantar protest.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-punish-canada-wildfire-smoke-air-quality-1785750258341">Trump vows to punish Canada over wildfire smoke, says they'll 'find out soon'</a>The petition was filed by former Central Information Commissioner and retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad, and two protesters who had allegedly sustained pellet injuries during the 'Sansad Chalo' on July 20. It sought a complete ban across India on wholly or partly metallic pellet ammunition for civilian crowd control, as such weapons pose a risk to eyes and other vital organs.&nbsp;The court earlier, responding to the plea, declined to impose a blanket ban as the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) guidelines allow pellet guns in “exceptional circumstances”. Anyone seeking blanket prohibition would have to challenge that regulation. However, it said that the allegations of misuse could be observed on a case-to-case basis. The court had asked the authorities to preserve the ammunition log of the Rapid Action Forces (RAF) deployed during the protest.The court observed that it remains committed to addressing the issues raised in the petition. The matter is listed for August 19, where the court will accommodate the Centre's response and continue discussions on the proposed protocols for the use of pellet guns for crowd control.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said it may frame guidelines on the use of pellet guns for crowd control after the Jantar Mantar protest, while ordering a probe into alleged excesses.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it might lay down guidelines on when and where the state could use pellet guns during crowd control and law-and-order situations. The use of pellet guns during the July 20 CJP protest at the Jantar Mantar had triggered backlash. The observation comes days after the Supreme Court was hearing a plea about the use of metallic pellet ammunition against civilians during the protest. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said that a police officer using excessive force will not be protected, as well as hardened criminals who were hiding under the guise of students will also not be spared. "We would like to lay down a complete protocol on how and where it can be used," the Bench remarked. The bench decided to form a committee to probe issues arising from the Jantar Mantar protests and examine concerns about the use of excessive force during the Jantar Mantar protest. Also Read: Trump vows to punish Canada over wildfire smoke, says they'll 'find out soon' The petition was filed by former Central Information Commissioner and retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad, and two protesters who had allegedly sustained pellet injuries during the 'Sansad Chalo' on July 20. It sought a complete ban across India on wholly or partly metallic pellet ammunition for civilian crowd control, as such weapons pose a risk to eyes and other vital organs. The court earlier, responding to the plea, declined to impose a blanket ban as the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) guidelines allow pellet guns in “exceptional circumstances”. Anyone seeking blanket prohibition would have to challenge that regulation. However, it said that the allegations of misuse could be observed on a case-to-case basis. The court had asked the authorities to preserve the ammunition log of the Rapid Action Forces (RAF) deployed during the protest. The court observed that it remains committed to addressing the issues raised in the petition. The matter is listed for August 19, where the court will accommodate the Centre's response and continue discussions on the proposed protocols for the use of pellet guns for crowd control.

The Supreme Court said it may frame guidelines on the use of pellet guns for crowd control after the Jantar Mantar protest, while ordering a probe into alleged excesses.

Supreme Court may frame guidelines on pellet gun use after Jantar Mantar protest

The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that Delhi and other state governments have the liberty to withdraw cases against protesters who backed the Cockroach Janta Party's demand of Dharmendra Pradahan's resignation as education minister over NEET paper leak. A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the clarification on its July 28 order in which it said that police can continue prosecution of those protestors with criminal antecedents.&nbsp;The court also said that "criminal antecedents" would refer only to those involved in grave and serious offences.&nbsp;"It is clarified that the NCT of Delhi and any other state shall be at liberty to close or withdraw FIRs against protesters. The expression 'criminal antecedents' is clarified to include grave and grievous offences," the court said.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/what-s-happening-in-nepal-how-did-a-local-clash-turn-into-communal-violence-wion-decodes-1785748080755">What’s happening in Nepal? How did a local clash turn into communal violence? WION Decodes</a>&nbsp;The Court made the clarification after petitioners pointed out that the withdrawal of FIRs was a commitment made by the Union to the Cockroach Janata Party leaders to end the protests.&nbsp;One of the petitions sought action against police officials who allegedly used excessive force on protesters, while another set of petitions sought action against protesters due to whom police officers sustained injuries.&nbsp;<h2>PM Modi's video message</h2>&nbsp;Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a video message on July 31 said he would like to forgive those who "abused" him and his late mother at the Jantar Mantar protests held in Delhi against the NEET paper leak&nbsp;"What happened at Jantar Mantar has been seen by the country and the world, said Modi adding &nbsp;"Some misguided youngsters used language that has no place in any civilised society. I was abused, and even my late mother was abused."&nbsp;He further said that it is the duty of the society to show these youngsters the right path rather than lodging cases against them and putting them behind bars.&nbsp;"Abuses never solve anything, let's guide the misguided and let's work together", in this direction, Modi further said.&nbsp;

The Court made the clarification after petitioners pointed out that the withdrawal of FIRs was a commitment made by the Union to the Cockroach Janata Party leaders to end the protests.

The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that Delhi and other state governments have the liberty to withdraw cases against protesters who backed the Cockroach Janta Party's demand of Dharmendra Pradahan's resignation as education minister over NEET paper leak. A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the clarification on its July 28 order in which it said that police can continue prosecution of those protestors with criminal antecedents. The court also said that "criminal antecedents" would refer only to those involved in grave and serious offences. "It is clarified that the NCT of Delhi and any other state shall be at liberty to close or withdraw FIRs against protesters. The expression 'criminal antecedents' is clarified to include grave and grievous offences," the court said. ALSO READ: What’s happening in Nepal? How did a local clash turn into communal violence? WION Decodes The Court made the clarification after petitioners pointed out that the withdrawal of FIRs was a commitment made by the Union to the Cockroach Janata Party leaders to end the protests. One of the petitions sought action against police officials who allegedly used excessive force on protesters, while another set of petitions sought action against protesters due to whom police officers sustained injuries. PM Modi's video message Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a video message on July 31 said he would like to forgive those who "abused" him and his late mother at the Jantar Mantar protests held in Delhi against the NEET paper leak "What happened at Jantar Mantar has been seen by the country and the world, said Modi adding "Some misguided youngsters used language that has no place in any civilised society. I was abused, and even my late mother was abused." He further said that it is the duty of the society to show these youngsters the right path rather than lodging cases against them and putting them behind bars. "Abuses never solve anything, let's guide the misguided and let's work together", in this direction, Modi further said.

The Court made the clarification after petitioners pointed out that the withdrawal of FIRs was a commitment made by the Union to the Cockroach Janata Party leaders to end the protests.

'Delhi, state govts at liberty to close FIRs' against CJP protesters, SC clarifies

The investigation into the alleged Ram Mandir donation theft case has intensified after the Supreme Court directed the formation of a new Special Investigation Team (SIT). The newly constituted SIT has begun a comprehensive probe and has already served notices to more than 100 people directly or indirectly linked to the Ram Mandir.

The fresh investigation is being supervised by senior police officials and focuses on uncovering the financial trail behind the alleged theft. Investigators are examining bank accounts, land records, property documents, and financial transactions connected to the accused and their relatives. The relatives of the eight accused, who remain in judicial custody, have also been served notices as part of the expanded investigation.

Ram Mandir Donation Theft Probe Intensifies | New SIT Questions 100+ People After SC Order

The Cauvery water dispute has taken a fresh political turn after Karnataka Chief Minister DK Shivakumar urged Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay to postpone their proposed meeting scheduled for August 3.

The development follows a directive from the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) ordering Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu. Karnataka has argued that deficient rainfall, drought conditions, and concerns over drinking water supplies make it difficult to comply with the order.

The issue has triggered political reactions in both states. Karnataka has called an all-party meeting to discuss its next legal and political strategy, while protests have intensified over the water-sharing dispute. In Tamil Nadu, political parties have also stepped up pressure over the handling of the Cauvery issue.

Cauvery Water Dispute Escalates: Karnataka Urges Tamil Nadu CM Vijay to Postpone Talks

supreme-court

Supreme Court, News on Supreme Court, stories on Supreme Court, articles on Supreme Court, Supreme Court stories at Wion, Supreme Court news, Supreme Court latest news

supreme court

Dangeroud clash looms in Delhi as police ban CJP protest

CJP protests: Delhi metro to shut entry, exit at 57 stations from 9 pm on Oct 9

CJP protests: Mobile net to be suspended in 4 km radius of central Delhi

CJP protest: Supreme Court rejects plea for 'free hand' to Delhi Police

SC questions closure of 57 Delhi Metro stations, asks Centre to resume services in regulated manner

SC asks Centre to frame mechanism against unethical pharma marketing practices

CJI agrees to examine plea seeking recall of split verdict on CEC selection law

Ex-CJI BR Gavai and former judges slam SC judge Ujjal Bhuyan’s remarks on EC

SC refuses ex parte order against CEC, seeks response from Election Commission

Row over Milan Pradhan's interim bail: Congress candidate is an accused in 2007 murder case

India mulls banning social media accounts for minors as SC steps in | Gravitas

SC agrees to hear petition challenging Gyanesh Kumar's functioning, SIR exercise

Supreme Court suggests adding unpaid e-challans to electricity bills

Supreme Court: No criminal consequences for not singing Vande Mataram

Ram Temple donation theft caught on CCTV 105 times, charge sheet before Sept 25

Supreme Court may visit NTA office, seeks report on Nandan Nilekani's progress

Satya Niketan tragedy: SC mulls pan-India safety norms for student accommodation

UGC caste discrimination guidelines being reconsidered: Centre tells apex court

SC sets up 5-member panel to probe cops’ use of force, violence at NEET protests