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

The Supreme Court granted divorce to Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Friday after it was informed that he and his estranged wife Payal had mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and settle all pending disputes through mediation. The top court was told that the couple had agreed to part ways amicably and had jointly filed an application under Article 142 of the Constitution, seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.&nbsp;&nbsp;Appearing for Abdullah, senior advocate Kapil Sibal informed a bench comprising Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe that the dispute had been settled. “The parties have embraced freedom. Article 142 filed, my lords may grant divorce,” Sibal submitted, as per Live Law.&nbsp;The bench was also informed that the joint application seeking divorce by mutual consent had been filed on July 22.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/215-academics-pen-open-letter-slam-priyanka-gandhi-s-cow-urine-expert-remark-on-iit-madras-director-v-kamakoti-1785420621340">215 academics pen open letter, slam Priyanka Gandhi’s ‘cow urine expert’ remark on IIT Madras director V Kamakoti</a>&nbsp;The marriage took place in September 1994, but the two have remained separated since 2009 due to differences. Abdullah is staying in Jammu and Kashmir while his wife and two children live in Delhi.&nbsp;Abdullah had filed a petition in the apex court challenging an order passed by the Delhi High Court that turned down his divorce plea. He approached the top court in 2024, and since then, several attempts to mediate the dispute have failed.&nbsp;<h2>‘All cases between them shall also be withdrawn’</h2>&nbsp;The bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said, “We will pass an order in terms of the agreement. All cases between them shall also be withdrawn.”&nbsp;Abdullah had challenged the December 12, 2023, judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, disputing his claim that Payal had deserted him and this amounted to mental cruelty for obtaining a decree of divorce.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/woman-poisons-husband-buries-body-in-12ft-deep-pit-in-gujarat-factory-tells-kin-he-went-to-work-in-australia-1785415792507">Woman poisons husband, buries body in 12ft deep pit in Gujarat factory, tells kin he went to work in Australia</a>&nbsp;The Delhi High Court found justification in the arguments made by Payal, who claimed that she did not settle in Kashmir due to security concerns and the education of children, who were attending school in Delhi.&nbsp;&nbsp;The HC upheld the earlier order of a Delhi court in August 2016, which faulted him for not making out any ground for cruelty against his wife.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ex-pm-manmohan-singh-gets-supreme-court-clean-chit-in-coal-block-scam-case-after-his-death-1785337284497">Ex-PM Manmohan Singh gets Supreme Court clean chit in coal block scam case after his death</a>&nbsp;The top court can issue a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution to annul the marriage between parties if there is “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” and no chance of reconciliation between the husband and wife.&nbsp;Earlier, the high court had directed Omar to pay his estranged wife a sum of Rs 1.5 lakh every month as interim maintenance towards her expenses and Rs 60,000 each to support the education of the two sons.&nbsp;

UntitleJammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had filed a petition in the apex court challenging an order passed by the Delhi High Court that turned down his divorce plea. He approached the top court in 2024, and since then, several attempts to mediate the dispute have failed.d Summary

The Supreme Court granted divorce to Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Friday after it was informed that he and his estranged wife Payal had mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and settle all pending disputes through mediation. The top court was told that the couple had agreed to part ways amicably and had jointly filed an application under Article 142 of the Constitution, seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. Appearing for Abdullah, senior advocate Kapil Sibal informed a bench comprising Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe that the dispute had been settled. “The parties have embraced freedom. Article 142 filed, my lords may grant divorce,” Sibal submitted, as per Live Law. The bench was also informed that the joint application seeking divorce by mutual consent had been filed on July 22. Also Read: 215 academics pen open letter, slam Priyanka Gandhi’s ‘cow urine expert’ remark on IIT Madras director V Kamakoti The marriage took place in September 1994, but the two have remained separated since 2009 due to differences. Abdullah is staying in Jammu and Kashmir while his wife and two children live in Delhi. Abdullah had filed a petition in the apex court challenging an order passed by the Delhi High Court that turned down his divorce plea. He approached the top court in 2024, and since then, several attempts to mediate the dispute have failed. ‘All cases between them shall also be withdrawn’ The bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said, “We will pass an order in terms of the agreement. All cases between them shall also be withdrawn.” Abdullah had challenged the December 12, 2023, judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, disputing his claim that Payal had deserted him and this amounted to mental cruelty for obtaining a decree of divorce. Also Read: Woman poisons husband, buries body in 12ft deep pit in Gujarat factory, tells kin he went to work in Australia The Delhi High Court found justification in the arguments made by Payal, who claimed that she did not settle in Kashmir due to security concerns and the education of children, who were attending school in Delhi. The HC upheld the earlier order of a Delhi court in August 2016, which faulted him for not making out any ground for cruelty against his wife. Also Read: Ex-PM Manmohan Singh gets Supreme Court clean chit in coal block scam case after his death The top court can issue a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution to annul the marriage between parties if there is “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” and no chance of reconciliation between the husband and wife. Earlier, the high court had directed Omar to pay his estranged wife a sum of Rs 1.5 lakh every month as interim maintenance towards her expenses and Rs 60,000 each to support the education of the two sons.

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had filed a petition in the apex court challenging an order passed by the Delhi High Court that turned down his divorce plea. He approached the top court in 2024, and since then, several attempts to mediate the dispute have failed.

Supreme Court grants divorce to Omar Abdullah after settlement with estranged wife Payal

The alleged Ram Temple donation theft has emerged as a major political flashpoint ahead of the upcoming Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav has intensified his attack on the BJP, accusing the ruling party of failing to protect devotees' donations while also linking the controversy to broader concerns over governance and exam paper leaks.

Meanwhile, the investigation into the alleged theft continues. The Supreme Court has directed the inclusion of a forensic auditor in the Special Investigation Team (SIT), while a special court has extended the judicial custody of the accused. The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust has also appointed a new administrator to oversee the temple's daily operations.

Ram Temple Donation Theft Row Heats Up Ahead of UP Polls | Akhilesh Yadav Targets BJP 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave a clean chit to former prime minister Manmohan Singh in the coal block allocation scam case, nearly two years after his death. The order by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana brings a legal vindication to Singh, who died in December 2024 while his appeal against the summoning order remained pending before the apex court for more than a decade.&nbsp;The bench observed that although Singh was no longer alive, the legality of the order summoning him warranted judicial scrutiny.&nbsp;“Due to the unfortunate demise of the appellant, this appeal could be disposed of as infructuous. But with a view to consider the aspect of the learned special judge taking cognizance and summoning the appellant, we have gone through both closure reports filed by the CBI,” stated the order.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/anti-paper-leak-bill-passed-by-voice-vote-in-lok-sabha-amid-opposition-uproar-1785321067909">Anti-paper leak bill passed by voice vote in Lok Sabha amid opposition uproar</a>&nbsp;“Having regard to the relevant parameters consistently laid down by this court on acceptance of reports of investigating agency, we are satisfied that there was no reason for the learned judge to turn down closure reports of CBI and take cognisance. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. As a result, we accept the closure reports of CBI and close the matter,” the bench said.&nbsp;&nbsp;The case pertains to the alleged irregular allocation of the Talabira-II coal block in Odisha to Hindalco Industries during the UPA government’s tenure, when then PM Manmohan Singh also held the coal portfolio.&nbsp;&nbsp;In March 2015, Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar rejected the CBI’s closure report and summoned Singh, industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla, former coal secretary P C Parakh, Hindalco Industries, and company officials Shubhendu Amitabh and D Bhattacharya.&nbsp;They were summoned on charges including criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-student-is-idiot-or-andhbhakt-bjp-slams-rahul-for-remarks-in-lok-sabha-1785333593954">‘No student is idiot or andhbhakt’: BJP slams Rahul for remarks in Lok Sabha</a>&nbsp;The CBI had initially named Birla, Parakh, Hindalco Industries and others in its FIR but later filed closure reports, saying there was no prosecutable case.&nbsp;&nbsp;The trial court, however, refused to accept the reports and directed the agency to further examine Singh and senior PMO officials, including then-Principal Secretary T K A Nair and then-Private Secretary B V R Subramanyam, before summoning the accused.&nbsp;&nbsp;Singh challenged the summons in the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court had erred in taking cognisance despite the investigating agency finding no prosecutable case. He also questioned the absence of the mandatory sanction required to prosecute a public servant and denied any criminality in the coal block allocation decision.&nbsp;The apex court stayed the summons in April 2015, preventing him from facing trial.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/28-year-old-woman-phd-scholar-dies-of-electrocution-on-panjab-university-campus-1785326835442">28-year-old woman PhD scholar dies of electrocution on Panjab University campus</a>&nbsp;The appeal remained pending for over 11 years, and the Supreme Court has now disposed of the matter as infructuous, bringing to a close the proceedings against the former prime minister who died on December 26, 2024, at the age of 92.&nbsp;Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Singh’s legal representatives, urged the court to erase the adverse findings recorded by the trial court.Sibal submitted that the trial judge had effectively imposed vicarious criminal liability on the former prime minister despite two closure reports exonerating him. “One of the cases concerns Dr Manmohan Singh. We want the adverse comments and remarks against him to go. The trial court has imposed vicarious liability on him and summoned him despite two closure reports for want of evidence,” he argued.&nbsp;Senior advocate R S Cheema appearing for CBI pointed out that the impugned order also involved other accused and raised issues concerning the constitutional validity of provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submitted that some legal issues may survive independently.

In March 2015, Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar rejected the CBI’s closure report and summoned former prime minister Manmohan Singh, industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla, former coal secretary P C Parakh, Hindalco Industries, and company officials Shubhendu Amitabh and D Bhattacharya.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave a clean chit to former prime minister Manmohan Singh in the coal block allocation scam case, nearly two years after his death. The order by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana brings a legal vindication to Singh, who died in December 2024 while his appeal against the summoning order remained pending before the apex court for more than a decade. The bench observed that although Singh was no longer alive, the legality of the order summoning him warranted judicial scrutiny. “Due to the unfortunate demise of the appellant, this appeal could be disposed of as infructuous. But with a view to consider the aspect of the learned special judge taking cognizance and summoning the appellant, we have gone through both closure reports filed by the CBI,” stated the order. Also Read: Anti-paper leak bill passed by voice vote in Lok Sabha amid opposition uproar “Having regard to the relevant parameters consistently laid down by this court on acceptance of reports of investigating agency, we are satisfied that there was no reason for the learned judge to turn down closure reports of CBI and take cognisance. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. As a result, we accept the closure reports of CBI and close the matter,” the bench said. The case pertains to the alleged irregular allocation of the Talabira-II coal block in Odisha to Hindalco Industries during the UPA government’s tenure, when then PM Manmohan Singh also held the coal portfolio. In March 2015, Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar rejected the CBI’s closure report and summoned Singh, industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla, former coal secretary P C Parakh, Hindalco Industries, and company officials Shubhendu Amitabh and D Bhattacharya. They were summoned on charges including criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Also Read: ‘No student is idiot or andhbhakt’: BJP slams Rahul for remarks in Lok Sabha The CBI had initially named Birla, Parakh, Hindalco Industries and others in its FIR but later filed closure reports, saying there was no prosecutable case. The trial court, however, refused to accept the reports and directed the agency to further examine Singh and senior PMO officials, including then-Principal Secretary T K A Nair and then-Private Secretary B V R Subramanyam, before summoning the accused. Singh challenged the summons in the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court had erred in taking cognisance despite the investigating agency finding no prosecutable case. He also questioned the absence of the mandatory sanction required to prosecute a public servant and denied any criminality in the coal block allocation decision. The apex court stayed the summons in April 2015, preventing him from facing trial. Also Read: 28-year-old woman PhD scholar dies of electrocution on Panjab University campus The appeal remained pending for over 11 years, and the Supreme Court has now disposed of the matter as infructuous, bringing to a close the proceedings against the former prime minister who died on December 26, 2024, at the age of 92. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Singh’s legal representatives, urged the court to erase the adverse findings recorded by the trial court. Sibal submitted that the trial judge had effectively imposed vicarious criminal liability on the former prime minister despite two closure reports exonerating him. “One of the cases concerns Dr Manmohan Singh. We want the adverse comments and remarks against him to go. The trial court has imposed vicarious liability on him and summoned him despite two closure reports for want of evidence,” he argued. Senior advocate R S Cheema appearing for CBI pointed out that the impugned order also involved other accused and raised issues concerning the constitutional validity of provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submitted that some legal issues may survive independently.

In March 2015, Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar rejected the CBI’s closure report and summoned former prime minister Manmohan Singh, industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla, former coal secretary P C Parakh, Hindalco Industries, and company officials Shubhendu Amitabh and D Bhattacharya.

Ex-PM Manmohan Singh gets Supreme Court clean chit in coal block scam case after his death

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has threatened to resume nationwide protests after the Supreme Court allowed investigations into FIRs filed during the anti-exam paper leak agitation to continue. While the court directed authorities not to take coercive action against eligible student protesters and ordered the preservation of CCTV footage and electronic evidence, it did not order the withdrawal of existing cases.

CJP leaders allege that the interim order contradicts assurances given by the central government during negotiations that led to the suspension of protests. Founder Abhijeet Dipke accused authorities of targeting students, while party spokesperson Saurav Das warned of fresh nationwide demonstrations if the government's commitments are not honored. Meanwhile, several states have begun withdrawing cases against eligible student protesters.

CJP Threatens Fresh Nationwide Protest After Supreme Court Order on Student Protest Cases

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday barred any coercive action against students who participated in the recent protests over the NEET paper leak. The Court held that the allegations of police brutality across several states disclosed a prima facie case for an independent inquiry that is "scientific" and "evidence" based.&nbsp;While passing the order Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that a fresh constitutional framework is required to for &nbsp;evolving methods of crowd control.&nbsp;"Whoever has committed excess ... atrocities on innocent people, the law will take care of them. For that, there needs to be a completely independent and fair investigation," Kant said, according to legal website Live Law.&nbsp;<h2>Allegations of excessive force</h2>&nbsp;The court was hearing a bunch of petitions regarding allegations of excessive force used against students protesting across the country regarding examination irregularities, including the NEET paper leak.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/parliamentary-panel-summons-social-media-giants-after-pm-modi-video-removal-row-1785235426796">Parliamentary panel summons social media giants after PM Modi video removal row</a>&nbsp;In several of the petitions it has been alleged that the police used pellet guns, electric batons and lathi charged students to disperse them from wherever they gathered to protest.&nbsp;&nbsp;One of the petitions alleged that the use of pellet guns caused a 19-year-old boy to lose his eyesight. Another petition claimed that electric batons had caused life threatening injuries to a young protester.&nbsp;While some petitions were filed by the family members of the police officers too who alleged they were assaulted during the demonstrations.&nbsp;<h2>"Police had failed to follow the graded protocol"</h2>&nbsp;Appearing for one of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that police had failed to follow the graded protocol which required announcements through loudspeakers, the use of water cannons before force and carefully regulated deployment of tear gas away from the crowds and lathis. He also contended that several officers operated without identification badges.&nbsp;“We want responsibility to be placed up the ladder. Unless this Court does that, the police think they can get away.” said Sankaranarayanan suggesting that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) be constituted headed by a former CJI.&nbsp;

In several of the petitions it has been alleged that the police used pellet guns, electric batons and lathi charged students to disperse them from wherever they gathered to protest. 

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday barred any coercive action against students who participated in the recent protests over the NEET paper leak. The Court held that the allegations of police brutality across several states disclosed a prima facie case for an independent inquiry that is "scientific" and "evidence" based. While passing the order Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that a fresh constitutional framework is required to for evolving methods of crowd control. "Whoever has committed excess ... atrocities on innocent people, the law will take care of them. For that, there needs to be a completely independent and fair investigation," Kant said, according to legal website Live Law. Allegations of excessive force The court was hearing a bunch of petitions regarding allegations of excessive force used against students protesting across the country regarding examination irregularities, including the NEET paper leak. ALSO READ: Parliamentary panel summons social media giants after PM Modi video removal row In several of the petitions it has been alleged that the police used pellet guns, electric batons and lathi charged students to disperse them from wherever they gathered to protest. One of the petitions alleged that the use of pellet guns caused a 19-year-old boy to lose his eyesight. Another petition claimed that electric batons had caused life threatening injuries to a young protester. While some petitions were filed by the family members of the police officers too who alleged they were assaulted during the demonstrations. "Police had failed to follow the graded protocol" Appearing for one of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that police had failed to follow the graded protocol which required announcements through loudspeakers, the use of water cannons before force and carefully regulated deployment of tear gas away from the crowds and lathis. He also contended that several officers operated without identification badges. “We want responsibility to be placed up the ladder. Unless this Court does that, the police think they can get away.” said Sankaranarayanan suggesting that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) be constituted headed by a former CJI.

In several of the petitions it has been alleged that the police used pellet guns, electric batons and lathi charged students to disperse them from wherever they gathered to protest.&nbsp;

Allegations of police excess at CJP protests warrant independent probe, says SC

South Korea's Supreme Court has delivered what is being called the country's "Divorce of the Year." SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won has been ordered to pay 944 billion won to his former wife, Roh So-young, in one of the largest divorce settlements in South Korean history. The landmark ruling has drawn attention to Chey's massive stake in SK Group, South Korea's second-largest conglomerate. Analysts believe the billionaire may need to sell shares or use them as collateral to fund the record payment.

Chey Tae-Won to Pay 944 Billion Won to Wife | Wion News 

The Supreme Court on Friday told the central government to put an end to the “series of errors” surrounding the NEET-UG examination, saying, "this cannot go on like this”, and sought details on its plans to shift to computer-based testing and affirmed that it will closely monitor the steps being taken to prevent such incidents in the future.&nbsp;The top court said it would follow the progress of reforms and ensure that a strong institutional mechanism is created to protect the credibility of the country’s biggest medical entrance examination.&nbsp;A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe hearing the NEET paper leaks issue, told the Centre that they would be monitoring the issue “very closely” and would follow it up regularly.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-he-s-mulling-a-massive-bigger-than-ever-before-attack-on-iran-1784828958067">Trump says he’s mulling ‘a massive, bigger than ever before’ attack on Iran</a>&nbsp;The Court directed the Central Government to submit a detailed affidavit explaining the measures planned to prevent question paper leaks and strengthen the examination system.&nbsp;“Please tell us what you are doing to shift completely to an online mode. Please tell us how you will protect data when we shift to computer-based testing...We will see to it that everything is institutionalised,” it said.&nbsp;The Supreme Court made it clear that temporary solutions would not be enough and emphasised the need for a permanent mechanism to safeguard national-level examinations.&nbsp;“We cannot let this go on like this,” the top court said.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-flew-irgc-men-advisers-and-military-gear-to-yemen-to-bolster-houthis-for-red-sea-blockade-sources-1784820749435">Iran flew IRGC men, advisers and military gear to Yemen, bolstered Houthis for Red Sea blockade: Sources</a>&nbsp;Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said the government is committed to addressing students’ concerns and would go “10 extra miles” to ensure a fair examination process. He sought some more time to place a ‘holistic view’ before the court.&nbsp;The court has listed the matter on August 3.&nbsp;The NEET-UG paper leak controversy had raised serious concerns among students and parents over examination fairness. Lakhs of candidates appear in the exam every year for medical admissions and any breach affects students.&nbsp;<h2>SC agrees to hear petitions against police action on student protesters</h2>The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear two petitions alleging excessive police action against student protesters at Jantar Mantar and other places across the country over paper leaks. The top court is set to hear the petitions on Monday.The matter was mentioned before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-us-will-hold-iran-responsible-for-houthi-attacks-on-ships-in-red-sea-1784813106940">Trump says US will hold Iran responsible for Houthi attacks on ships in Red Sea</a>&nbsp;“There is urgency because this is happening on a daily basis. Police is using excessive force against children. It is just going on unabated. Some controls are necessary. The Court stands between us and the police,” he argued.Taking note of the submission, the Chief Justice said, “Let it be listed; we will entertain,” and directed that the petitions be listed for hearing on Monday.Earlier, on July 22, the Chief Justice of India had declined to take up a letter petition raising the issue of alleged use of force by police at protests.

The top court said it would follow the progress of reforms and ensure that a strong institutional mechanism is created to protect the credibility of the country’s biggest medical entrance examination. It sought a detailed affidavit detailing measures planned to prevent question paper leaks.

The Supreme Court on Friday told the central government to put an end to the “series of errors” surrounding the NEET-UG examination, saying, "this cannot go on like this”, and sought details on its plans to shift to computer-based testing and affirmed that it will closely monitor the steps being taken to prevent such incidents in the future. The top court said it would follow the progress of reforms and ensure that a strong institutional mechanism is created to protect the credibility of the country’s biggest medical entrance examination. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe hearing the NEET paper leaks issue, told the Centre that they would be monitoring the issue “very closely” and would follow it up regularly. Also Read: Trump says he’s mulling ‘a massive, bigger than ever before’ attack on Iran The Court directed the Central Government to submit a detailed affidavit explaining the measures planned to prevent question paper leaks and strengthen the examination system. “Please tell us what you are doing to shift completely to an online mode. Please tell us how you will protect data when we shift to computer-based testing...We will see to it that everything is institutionalised,” it said. The Supreme Court made it clear that temporary solutions would not be enough and emphasised the need for a permanent mechanism to safeguard national-level examinations. “We cannot let this go on like this,” the top court said. Also Read: Iran flew IRGC men, advisers and military gear to Yemen, bolstered Houthis for Red Sea blockade: Sources Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said the government is committed to addressing students’ concerns and would go “10 extra miles” to ensure a fair examination process. He sought some more time to place a ‘holistic view’ before the court. The court has listed the matter on August 3. The NEET-UG paper leak controversy had raised serious concerns among students and parents over examination fairness. Lakhs of candidates appear in the exam every year for medical admissions and any breach affects students. SC agrees to hear petitions against police action on student protesters The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear two petitions alleging excessive police action against student protesters at Jantar Mantar and other places across the country over paper leaks. The top court is set to hear the petitions on Monday. The matter was mentioned before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. Also Read: Trump says US will hold Iran responsible for Houthi attacks on ships in Red Sea “There is urgency because this is happening on a daily basis. Police is using excessive force against children. It is just going on unabated. Some controls are necessary. The Court stands between us and the police,” he argued. Taking note of the submission, the Chief Justice said, “Let it be listed; we will entertain,” and directed that the petitions be listed for hearing on Monday. Earlier, on July 22, the Chief Justice of India had declined to take up a letter petition raising the issue of alleged use of force by police at protests.

The top court said it would follow the progress of reforms and ensure that a strong institutional mechanism is created to protect the credibility of the country’s biggest medical entrance examination. It sought a detailed affidavit detailing measures planned to prevent question paper leaks.

‘Can’t let this go on like this’: Supreme Court tells govt on NEET paper leak row

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 16) asked the Centre and education boards to reconsider introducing a third language from Class 9, saying the move would place unnecessary pressure on students as they prepare for their board examinations. The court suggested that the subject should instead be introduced from Class 6.&nbsp;"Third language should stop in Class 9, not start in Class 9," Justice Nagarathna said while hearing a case related to the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in Tamil Nadu.&nbsp;During the hearing, the apex court also advised the Tamil Nadu government not to oppose the Centre's three-language policy merely because it had been introduced by the Union government.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/do-not-deploy-indian-sailors-india-warns-shipping-firms-over-hormuz-amid-us-iran-tensions-1784198857211">'Do not deploy Indian sailors': India warns shipping firms over Hormuz amid US-Iran tensions</a>&nbsp;The remarks came while the court was hearing an appeal against a Madras High Court order directing the state government to facilitate the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in every district. The schools follow the three-language policy, which Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed, arguing that it is not in line with the state's long-standing two-language policy.<h3>Justice Nagarathna cites board exam pressure</h3>Justice Nagarathna referred to her own school education and said students in her school started learning a third language during middle school. She said this gave them enough time to become familiar with the language before entering secondary education.&nbsp;"In the middle school, the third language was started... The earlier, the better," she observed.Recalling her academic experience in the 1970s, the judge said students were introduced to Class 10 concepts as early as Class 8 because of the demands of board examinations.&nbsp;"And this was in 1976. You can just imagine what the pressure would be on children now," she said, adding that the burden of Class 10 examinations begins well before students reach secondary school.&nbsp;The observations come weeks after the Central Board of Secondary Education revised the implementation of its three-language policy following widespread objections from schools, parents and students.&nbsp;In a circular issued on May 15, CBSE directed affiliated schools to make a third language compulsory for Class 9 students from July 1, 2026, although its revised framework had proposed a phased rollout beginning from Class 6. Schools were also instructed to temporarily use Class 6 textbooks until dedicated learning material becomes available.

The Supreme Court asked the Centre and education boards to reconsider introducing a third language from Class 9, suggesting it should begin in Class 6 to reduce pressure on students ahead of board examinations.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 16) asked the Centre and education boards to reconsider introducing a third language from Class 9, saying the move would place unnecessary pressure on students as they prepare for their board examinations. The court suggested that the subject should instead be introduced from Class 6. "Third language should stop in Class 9, not start in Class 9," Justice Nagarathna said while hearing a case related to the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in Tamil Nadu. During the hearing, the apex court also advised the Tamil Nadu government not to oppose the Centre's three-language policy merely because it had been introduced by the Union government. Also Read: 'Do not deploy Indian sailors': India warns shipping firms over Hormuz amid US-Iran tensions The remarks came while the court was hearing an appeal against a Madras High Court order directing the state government to facilitate the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in every district. The schools follow the three-language policy, which Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed, arguing that it is not in line with the state's long-standing two-language policy. Justice Nagarathna cites board exam pressure Justice Nagarathna referred to her own school education and said students in her school started learning a third language during middle school. She said this gave them enough time to become familiar with the language before entering secondary education. "In the middle school, the third language was started... The earlier, the better," she observed. Recalling her academic experience in the 1970s, the judge said students were introduced to Class 10 concepts as early as Class 8 because of the demands of board examinations. "And this was in 1976. You can just imagine what the pressure would be on children now," she said, adding that the burden of Class 10 examinations begins well before students reach secondary school. The observations come weeks after the Central Board of Secondary Education revised the implementation of its three-language policy following widespread objections from schools, parents and students. In a circular issued on May 15, CBSE directed affiliated schools to make a third language compulsory for Class 9 students from July 1, 2026, although its revised framework had proposed a phased rollout beginning from Class 6. Schools were also instructed to temporarily use Class 6 textbooks until dedicated learning material becomes available.

The Supreme Court asked the Centre and education boards to reconsider introducing a third language from Class 9, suggesting it should begin in Class 6 to reduce pressure on students ahead of board examinations.

'Why introduce in Class 9?': SC flags board exam stress, backs third language from Class 6

The Madras High Court just hit pause on politics as usual. It stayed bypolls to 5 assembly seats and told the Election Commission not to notify polls till July 31, citing pending election petitions. In a landmark move, the court also invoked a 1967 Supreme Court judgment that could make resignations and defections way more expensive politically. The message is clear: quit after winning and you may have to wait. This order could directly change how parties and MLAs play the defection game going forward


Madras High Court Stays Bypolls to 5 Seats

A major immigration ruling has sparked fierce political debate in the United States after the Supreme Court allowed the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for Haitians and Syrians. Democrats condemned the decision, calling it “painfully cruel” and arguing it will not make America safer or stronger. The ruling is being viewed as a significant legal and political victory for President Donald Trump, while immigrant advocacy groups warn of serious consequences for affected communities.


US SC allows ending TPS for Haitians & Syrians 

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 29) permitted wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the selection trials for the 2026 Asian Games, scheduled to be held on May 30 and 31. A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard the appeal filed by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) against the Delhi High Court’s earlier order allowing Phogat to compete. During the hearing, the apex court indicated that preventing her from participating at this stage would be unfair.&nbsp;“Today at this stage, the high court having passed the order, the hope and expectations have risen. To tell her to go back home and we can’t do anything, will not be proper. We are very bold in telling you this," the bench told the counsel appearing for the WFI.&nbsp;The matter has been listed for further hearing next week.<h3>WFI’s challenge against Delhi High Court order</h3>The legal dispute began after the Delhi High Court granted Vinesh Phogat permission to appear in the Asian Games selection trials. The High Court noted that the WFI’s selection rules did not consider athletes returning after maternity leave and termed the policy restrictive in nature.&nbsp;Also Read -<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/outstanding-performance-pm-narendra-modi-congratulates-u23-wrestlers-for-historic-asian-championships-1780046843145"> 'Outstanding performance': PM Narendra Modi congratulates U23 wrestlers for historic Asian Championships</a>&nbsp;In its May 22 ruling, the court directed that Phogat be allowed to compete in the trials set for May 30 and 31. It also ordered the entire process to be video-recorded and supervised by independent observers appointed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).&nbsp;The High Court stressed that motherhood should not become a disadvantage in the professional careers of women athletes. It further pointed out that earlier selection frameworks had given authorities flexibility to accommodate iconic athletes in exceptional circumstances.&nbsp;Also Read - <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/french-open-2026-watch-osaka-dazzles-in-golden-bomber-jacket-for-round-2-at-roland-garros-1780034470538">French Open 2026 | Osaka dazzles in 'golden bomber jacket' in Round 2</a><h3>Court criticises WFI remarks</h3>The bench also took exception to remarks made by the WFI in a show-cause notice issued to Phogat, where her disqualification from the Paris Olympics was allegedly referred to as a “national embarrassment.”&nbsp;The court described those comments as “deplorable", “ex-facie misconceived" and “ought to have been avoided".&nbsp;Phogat had challenged the federation’s eligibility criteria, arguing that the qualification timeline overlapped with her pregnancy and post-partum recovery, effectively denying her a fair chance to compete.&nbsp;Earlier this month, the WFI declared her ineligible for domestic tournaments until Jun 26, citing anti-doping rules applicable to athletes returning from retirement. Despite the restriction, she took part in the National Open Ranking Tournament in Gonda.&nbsp;A former World Championships medallist, Vinesh Phogat, was also among the prominent faces of the wrestlers’ protest in 2023 against former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.&nbsp;In Aug 2024, she suffered heartbreak at the Paris Olympics after being disqualified from the final due to being 100 grams overweight during the official weigh-in on the morning of the bout.&nbsp;With inputs from agencies

The Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi High Court’s order allowing Vinesh Phogat to participate in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials scheduled for May 30 and 31, dismissing the challenge filed by the WFI.

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 29) permitted wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the selection trials for the 2026 Asian Games, scheduled to be held on May 30 and 31. A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard the appeal filed by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) against the Delhi High Court’s earlier order allowing Phogat to compete. During the hearing, the apex court indicated that preventing her from participating at this stage would be unfair. “Today at this stage, the high court having passed the order, the hope and expectations have risen. To tell her to go back home and we can’t do anything, will not be proper. We are very bold in telling you this," the bench told the counsel appearing for the WFI. The matter has been listed for further hearing next week. WFI’s challenge against Delhi High Court order The legal dispute began after the Delhi High Court granted Vinesh Phogat permission to appear in the Asian Games selection trials. The High Court noted that the WFI’s selection rules did not consider athletes returning after maternity leave and termed the policy restrictive in nature. Also Read - 'Outstanding performance': PM Narendra Modi congratulates U23 wrestlers for historic Asian Championships In its May 22 ruling, the court directed that Phogat be allowed to compete in the trials set for May 30 and 31. It also ordered the entire process to be video-recorded and supervised by independent observers appointed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). The High Court stressed that motherhood should not become a disadvantage in the professional careers of women athletes. It further pointed out that earlier selection frameworks had given authorities flexibility to accommodate iconic athletes in exceptional circumstances. Also Read - French Open 2026 | Osaka dazzles in 'golden bomber jacket' in Round 2 Court criticises WFI remarks The bench also took exception to remarks made by the WFI in a show-cause notice issued to Phogat, where her disqualification from the Paris Olympics was allegedly referred to as a “national embarrassment.” The court described those comments as “deplorable", “ex-facie misconceived" and “ought to have been avoided". Phogat had challenged the federation’s eligibility criteria, arguing that the qualification timeline overlapped with her pregnancy and post-partum recovery, effectively denying her a fair chance to compete. Earlier this month, the WFI declared her ineligible for domestic tournaments until Jun 26, citing anti-doping rules applicable to athletes returning from retirement. Despite the restriction, she took part in the National Open Ranking Tournament in Gonda. A former World Championships medallist, Vinesh Phogat, was also among the prominent faces of the wrestlers’ protest in 2023 against former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. In Aug 2024, she suffered heartbreak at the Paris Olympics after being disqualified from the final due to being 100 grams overweight during the official weigh-in on the morning of the bout. With inputs from agencies

The Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi High Court’s order allowing Vinesh Phogat to participate in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials scheduled for May 30 and 31, dismissing the challenge filed by the WFI.

Vinesh Phogat set for Asian Games trials after Supreme Court upholds Delhi HC order

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the government’s retrospective imposition of 28% Goods and Service Tax (GST) on online gaming companies, backing its tax demands on past transactions in a ruling that could have major financial implications for the sector.The case arose from GST notices issued to real-money gaming companies who challenged whether 28% GST could be levied on the full face value of bets placed through their platforms.&nbsp;A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that such a GST levy was constitutionally valid and could not be said to violate the Constitutional scheme governing GST. The levy is supported by statutory authority under the GST Act, the court held.&nbsp;It also clarified that online gaming platforms cannot be treated merely as intermediaries or facilitators, holding instead that they supply “actionable claims” that are taxable under the GST framework.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/undeclared-chemical-weapons-from-former-president-assad-era-found-in-syria-1779829277892">Undeclared chemical weapons from former president Assad-era found in Syria</a>&nbsp;It proceeded to uphold CGST rules that empowered the levy of GST on the full value of bets placed through online gaming platforms as well as casinos.&nbsp;On the question of whether the online games in question could be termed as a betting activity or were skill-based games, the top court held that even skill-based games acquire the character of betting and gambling for GST once money is staked on uncertain outcomes.&nbsp;The apex court also set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment in favour of online gaming platform, Gameskraft. It restored the September 2022 show-cause notice issued to Gameskraft, which had demanded around ₹21,000 crore in GST.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/no-krishan-nagar-or-ram-gali-in-lahore-pak-succumbs-to-extremists-pressure-makes-u-turn-on-renaming-plan-1779817989012">No Krishan Nagar or Ram Gali in Lahore: Pak succumbs to extremists’ pressure, makes U-turn on renaming plan</a>&nbsp;The Court, however, clarified that the final decision in the matter is left to the concerned GST authorities.The gaming industry had pleaded that GST could only be levied on gross gaming revenue, which is the amount retained by platforms after deducting winnings. The companies argued that taxing the entire stake or deposit amount was disproportionate and commercially unviable.&nbsp;The controversy intensified after the GST Council decided in 2023 to impose 28% GST on the full face value of online gaming, casinos and horse racing. Gaming companies, however, argued that the levy could not be applied retrospectively for the period before October 1, 2023.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rs-5-fish-rice-meals-no-liquor-vends-near-schools-and-temples-among-cm-suvendu-s-new-initiatives-in-bengal-1779811152626">Rs 5 fish-rice meals, no liquor vends near schools and temples among CM Suvendu’s new initiatives in Bengal</a>&nbsp;The demands against the industry initially stood at around ₹1.12 lakh crore. With interest and penalties, the potential exposure was estimated to be much higher. Some later reports placed the total exposure at around ₹2.5 lakh crore.&nbsp;Gameskraft had challenged the notice before the Karnataka High Court, which ruled in its favour, holding that rummy is a game of skill and that the company was not supplying actionable claims in the manner alleged by the tax department.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/govt-sets-up-high-level-committee-to-examine-unnatural-demographic-changes-in-country-1779803278173">Govt sets up high-level committee to examine ‘unnatural’ demographic changes in country</a>&nbsp;The GST department appealed to the Supreme Court. In September 2023, the Supreme Court stayed the Karnataka High Court ruling.&nbsp;The gaming companies were represented by Senior Advocates Harish Salve, AM Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Arvind Datar, Dhruv Mehta, Balbir Singh, Sajan Poovayya, V Sridharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Vikram Nankani, Tarun Gulati, Abhishek Malhotra, Sanjay Jhanwar, Jay Savla and Vivek Reddy.

On the question of whether the online games in question could be termed as a betting activity or were skill-based games, the top court held that even skill-based games acquire the character of betting and gambling for GST once money is staked on uncertain outcomes.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the government’s retrospective imposition of 28% Goods and Service Tax (GST) on online gaming companies, backing its tax demands on past transactions in a ruling that could have major financial implications for the sector. The case arose from GST notices issued to real-money gaming companies who challenged whether 28% GST could be levied on the full face value of bets placed through their platforms. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that such a GST levy was constitutionally valid and could not be said to violate the Constitutional scheme governing GST. The levy is supported by statutory authority under the GST Act, the court held. It also clarified that online gaming platforms cannot be treated merely as intermediaries or facilitators, holding instead that they supply “actionable claims” that are taxable under the GST framework. Also Read: Undeclared chemical weapons from former president Assad-era found in Syria It proceeded to uphold CGST rules that empowered the levy of GST on the full value of bets placed through online gaming platforms as well as casinos. On the question of whether the online games in question could be termed as a betting activity or were skill-based games, the top court held that even skill-based games acquire the character of betting and gambling for GST once money is staked on uncertain outcomes. The apex court also set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment in favour of online gaming platform, Gameskraft. It restored the September 2022 show-cause notice issued to Gameskraft, which had demanded around ₹21,000 crore in GST. Also Read: No Krishan Nagar or Ram Gali in Lahore: Pak succumbs to extremists’ pressure, makes U-turn on renaming plan The Court, however, clarified that the final decision in the matter is left to the concerned GST authorities. The gaming industry had pleaded that GST could only be levied on gross gaming revenue, which is the amount retained by platforms after deducting winnings. The companies argued that taxing the entire stake or deposit amount was disproportionate and commercially unviable. The controversy intensified after the GST Council decided in 2023 to impose 28% GST on the full face value of online gaming, casinos and horse racing. Gaming companies, however, argued that the levy could not be applied retrospectively for the period before October 1, 2023. Also Read: Rs 5 fish-rice meals, no liquor vends near schools and temples among CM Suvendu’s new initiatives in Bengal The demands against the industry initially stood at around ₹1.12 lakh crore. With interest and penalties, the potential exposure was estimated to be much higher. Some later reports placed the total exposure at around ₹2.5 lakh crore. Gameskraft had challenged the notice before the Karnataka High Court, which ruled in its favour, holding that rummy is a game of skill and that the company was not supplying actionable claims in the manner alleged by the tax department. Also Read: Govt sets up high-level committee to examine ‘unnatural’ demographic changes in country The GST department appealed to the Supreme Court. In September 2023, the Supreme Court stayed the Karnataka High Court ruling. The gaming companies were represented by Senior Advocates Harish Salve, AM Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Arvind Datar, Dhruv Mehta, Balbir Singh, Sajan Poovayya, V Sridharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Vikram Nankani, Tarun Gulati, Abhishek Malhotra, Sanjay Jhanwar, Jay Savla and Vivek Reddy.

On the question of whether the online games in question could be termed as a betting activity or were skill-based games, the top court held that even skill-based games acquire the character of betting and gambling for GST once money is staked on uncertain outcomes.

‘Skill, chance irrelevant if money staked’: SC upholds retrospective 28% GST levy on online gaming companies

The Supreme Court of India is set to hear the Twisha Sharma case today, with a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant reviewing allegations of possible institutional bias in the initial investigation. The case has drawn significant attention after Twisha’s family accused her in-laws of misleading the probe. The court is expected to examine whether the investigation was conducted fairly and whether further judicial oversight is required

Supreme Court To Hear Twisha Sharma Case Amid Allegations Of Bias In Probe

In a key judgment, the Supreme Court of India refused to recall its order passed on November 7 last year on removing stray dogs from public places. Most importantly, it also allowed killing of dangerous stray dogs. 


India: Supreme Court Allows Killing of Rabid Stray Dogs, Refuses to Recall Order

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (May 19) dismissed a bunch of applications seeking modifications to its directions issued in November last year on stray dogs. In that order, the court had directed authorities to pick up stray dogs from public places such as hospitals, bus stands, schools and railway stations.The court had also said that the dogs must not be released back to the same place after vaccination or sterilisation. The Court also dismissed applications challenging the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria had heard the matter.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-local-authorities-not-doing-what-they-should-do-sc-reserves-order-on-pleas-challenging-removal-of-delhi-ncr-stray-dogs-1755150377585">SC reserves order on pleas challenging removal of Delhi NCR stray dogs</a><h2>What the Supreme Court said?</h2>Live Law reported that the dismissal of the applications mean that the stray dogs picked up by authorities from the premises of public places must be confined to shelters. In the latest order, the Court referred to reports about "deeply disturbing incidents" of dog attacks against children. "The menace of dog bites has extended to public places of critical areas including airports and residential areas," the Court noted, after referring to various news reports. The Court said that the problem had a "staggering dimension" and the "continued recurring of such incidents" reflected a deficiency in implementation of the directions. The Court directed that erring officials, who fail to carry out the directions, will be liable to contempt and disciplinary action.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/no-dog-left-behind-7-stolen-pets-trek-17km-in-homeward-bound-escape-from-china-s-meat-market-their-story-is-breaking-the-internet-watch-video-1774330849117">No dog left behind: Tiny Corgi leads pack of 7 stolen dogs on miraculous 17km journey home</a><h2>What was last year's order?</h2>On August 11, a two-judge bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan issued directions for the shifting of all stray dogs from the National Capital Territory of Delhi to dog shelters with immediate effect. The bench observed that cases of dog bites have risen to an "extremely grim" situation. The bench warned of strict action against an individual or organisation in case of any kind of obstruction in the relocation drive that might also prompt the court to initiate contempt proceedings. On November 7, 2025, as an interim measure, the Court directed States and the NHAI to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas like hospitals, schools and educational institutions across the country. It also ordered fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks to prevent stray dog bites, and directed that dogs picked up from such institutional areas should not be released back into the same premises.

The Supreme Court of India refused to recall its order barring stray dogs picked up from public places from being released back after sterilisation. The court cited rising dog attacks and directed authorities to shift such dogs to shelters.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (May 19) dismissed a bunch of applications seeking modifications to its directions issued in November last year on stray dogs. In that order, the court had directed authorities to pick up stray dogs from public places such as hospitals, bus stands, schools and railway stations. The court had also said that the dogs must not be released back to the same place after vaccination or sterilisation. The Court also dismissed applications challenging the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria had heard the matter. Also Read: SC reserves order on pleas challenging removal of Delhi NCR stray dogs What the Supreme Court said? Live Law reported that the dismissal of the applications mean that the stray dogs picked up by authorities from the premises of public places must be confined to shelters. In the latest order, the Court referred to reports about "deeply disturbing incidents" of dog attacks against children. "The menace of dog bites has extended to public places of critical areas including airports and residential areas," the Court noted, after referring to various news reports. The Court said that the problem had a "staggering dimension" and the "continued recurring of such incidents" reflected a deficiency in implementation of the directions. The Court directed that erring officials, who fail to carry out the directions, will be liable to contempt and disciplinary action. Also Read: No dog left behind: Tiny Corgi leads pack of 7 stolen dogs on miraculous 17km journey home What was last year's order? On August 11, a two-judge bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan issued directions for the shifting of all stray dogs from the National Capital Territory of Delhi to dog shelters with immediate effect. The bench observed that cases of dog bites have risen to an "extremely grim" situation. The bench warned of strict action against an individual or organisation in case of any kind of obstruction in the relocation drive that might also prompt the court to initiate contempt proceedings. On November 7, 2025, as an interim measure, the Court directed States and the NHAI to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas like hospitals, schools and educational institutions across the country. It also ordered fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks to prevent stray dog bites, and directed that dogs picked up from such institutional areas should not be released back into the same premises.

The Supreme Court of India refused to recall its order barring stray dogs picked up from public places from being released back after sterilisation. The court cited rising dog attacks and directed authorities to shift such dogs to shelters.

'Menace of dog bites...': Supreme Court refuses to change order on removing stray dogs - What it said

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (May 18) reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in cases filed under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court delivered the ruling while granting bail to a Jammu and Kashmir man accused in a high-profile narco-terror case linked to cross-border drug trafficking and terror financing.A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted relief to Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has been facing trial in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The top court directed Andrabi to surrender his passport and mark attendance at a local police station every 15 days.The case was registered in 2020 under various sections of the UAPA and the IPC. According to the NIA, Andrabi was allegedly part of a cross-border syndicate involved in smuggling heroin from Pakistan into Jammu and Kashmir and using the proceeds to fund terrorist activities. They added that Andrabi and co-accused Abdul Momin Peer had travelled to Pakistan in 2016-17 and maintained links with terror operatives of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.The Supreme Court observed that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes strict conditions for granting bail, cannot be used to justify indefinite incarceration and must remain subject to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution that guarantee personal liberty and protection against arbitrary detention.“Bail the rule and jail the exception is a constitutional principle flowing from articles 21 and 22, and the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law,” the bench said. “We have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Of course, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to the facts of that particular case,” it added.The bench also clarified that the landmark 2021 KA Najeeb judgment remains binding law and cannot be diluted by lower courts. In that case, the apex court had ruled that a prolonged delay in the trial can be a valid ground for granting bail even under the UAPA.The court also expressed disapproval of a two-judge bench ruling in the Gulfisha Fatima case related to the Delhi riots, saying it failed to properly follow the principles laid down in the KA Najeeb verdict.

The Supreme Court observed that “bail is the rule, jail the exception” even under UAPA, granting bail to a J&K man accused in a narco-terror case linked to cross-border trafficking.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (May 18) reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in cases filed under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court delivered the ruling while granting bail to a Jammu and Kashmir man accused in a high-profile narco-terror case linked to cross-border drug trafficking and terror financing. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted relief to Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has been facing trial in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The top court directed Andrabi to surrender his passport and mark attendance at a local police station every 15 days. The case was registered in 2020 under various sections of the UAPA and the IPC. According to the NIA, Andrabi was allegedly part of a cross-border syndicate involved in smuggling heroin from Pakistan into Jammu and Kashmir and using the proceeds to fund terrorist activities. They added that Andrabi and co-accused Abdul Momin Peer had travelled to Pakistan in 2016-17 and maintained links with terror operatives of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen. The Supreme Court observed that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes strict conditions for granting bail, cannot be used to justify indefinite incarceration and must remain subject to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution that guarantee personal liberty and protection against arbitrary detention. “Bail the rule and jail the exception is a constitutional principle flowing from articles 21 and 22, and the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law,” the bench said. “We have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Of course, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to the facts of that particular case,” it added. The bench also clarified that the landmark 2021 KA Najeeb judgment remains binding law and cannot be diluted by lower courts. In that case, the apex court had ruled that a prolonged delay in the trial can be a valid ground for granting bail even under the UAPA. The court also expressed disapproval of a two-judge bench ruling in the Gulfisha Fatima case related to the Delhi riots, saying it failed to properly follow the principles laid down in the KA Najeeb verdict.

The Supreme Court observed that “bail is the rule, jail the exception” even under UAPA, granting bail to a J&amp;K man accused in a narco-terror case linked to cross-border trafficking.

‘Bail is rule, jail is exception’ even in UAPA cases: SC grants bail to narco-terror accused

The Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC) party claimed in the Supreme Court on Monday that voter deletions in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls impacted the results in certain assembly constituencies in the recent West Bengal election. The claim was made during a hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymlaya Bagchi.&nbsp;&nbsp;TMC leader and senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted that the BJP’s winning margin over the TMC in 31 constituencies was less than the number of persons deleted in the SIR adjudication process.He further said that in many cases, the deletions and the loss margin were almost the same.&nbsp;Banerjee pointed out that one TMC candidate lost by 862 votes in a constituency where over 5,432 voters were removed from the rolls for adjudication. He claimed that the vote gap between the TMC and the BJP was nearly 32 lakhs, and nearly 35 lakh appeals were pending before the appellate tribunals.&nbsp;He also referred to an earlier observation made by Justice Bagchi that if the winning margin was less than the number of deleted voters, then the matter may require judicial examination.&nbsp;<h2>EC cites data, says TMC won 5 seats with highest deletions</h2>&nbsp;However, the Election Commission referred to its own data to claim the reverse. It said some constituencies that saw the highest number of voter deletions in the Malda and Murshidabad belt voted in favour of the Trinamool.It said Sujapur recorded 1.50 lakh deletions followed by Raghunathganj with 1.30 lakh, Samserganj with 1.25 lakh, Ratua with 1.23 lakh and Suti with 1.20 lakh, but all five were won by the Trinamool Congress.The BJP eventually won 207 of the state’s 294 seats.&nbsp;<h2>File fresh applications regarding claims: Top court</h2>&nbsp;The Supreme Court bench said that former chief minister Mamata Banerjee and others can file fresh applications regarding their claims.&nbsp;“Whatever you want to say about results...which may have materially affected because of deletions which are under adjudication...that requires an independent Interlocutory Application (IA),” Justice Bagchi said.Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy told the bench that at the present rate, the appellate tribunals will take at least 4 years to dispose of the appeals. The CJI said that the priority will be to ensure that appeals are decided expeditiously.&nbsp;“We indicated to you...subsequent event: you are at liberty to file an IA. Mr Naidu (the EC lawyer)’s objection will come as a counter. We will look into it and pass the order. On pendency of appeals - report from Hon’ble CJ required...to take stock in what timeline they can be resolved,” Justice Bagchi added.

Trinamool Congress MP and senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted in court that the BJP’s winning margin over the TMC in 31 constituencies was less than the number of deletions and that the vote gap between TMC and BJP was nearly 32 lakhs, while nearly 35 lakh appeals were pending.

The Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC) party claimed in the Supreme Court on Monday that voter deletions in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls impacted the results in certain assembly constituencies in the recent West Bengal election. The claim was made during a hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymlaya Bagchi. TMC leader and senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted that the BJP’s winning margin over the TMC in 31 constituencies was less than the number of persons deleted in the SIR adjudication process. He further said that in many cases, the deletions and the loss margin were almost the same. Banerjee pointed out that one TMC candidate lost by 862 votes in a constituency where over 5,432 voters were removed from the rolls for adjudication. He claimed that the vote gap between the TMC and the BJP was nearly 32 lakhs, and nearly 35 lakh appeals were pending before the appellate tribunals. He also referred to an earlier observation made by Justice Bagchi that if the winning margin was less than the number of deleted voters, then the matter may require judicial examination. EC cites data, says TMC won 5 seats with highest deletions However, the Election Commission referred to its own data to claim the reverse. It said some constituencies that saw the highest number of voter deletions in the Malda and Murshidabad belt voted in favour of the Trinamool. It said Sujapur recorded 1.50 lakh deletions followed by Raghunathganj with 1.30 lakh, Samserganj with 1.25 lakh, Ratua with 1.23 lakh and Suti with 1.20 lakh, but all five were won by the Trinamool Congress. The BJP eventually won 207 of the state’s 294 seats. File fresh applications regarding claims: Top court The Supreme Court bench said that former chief minister Mamata Banerjee and others can file fresh applications regarding their claims. “Whatever you want to say about results...which may have materially affected because of deletions which are under adjudication...that requires an independent Interlocutory Application (IA),” Justice Bagchi said. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy told the bench that at the present rate, the appellate tribunals will take at least 4 years to dispose of the appeals. The CJI said that the priority will be to ensure that appeals are decided expeditiously. “We indicated to you...subsequent event: you are at liberty to file an IA. Mr Naidu (the EC lawyer)’s objection will come as a counter. We will look into it and pass the order. On pendency of appeals - report from Hon’ble CJ required...to take stock in what timeline they can be resolved,” Justice Bagchi added.

Trinamool Congress MP and senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted in court that the BJP’s winning margin over the TMC in 31 constituencies was less than the number of deletions and that the vote gap between TMC and BJP was nearly 32 lakhs, while nearly 35 lakh appeals were pending.

Mamata claims SIR influenced Bengal election results; Supreme Court says file fresh plea

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

UGC caste discrimination guidelines being reconsidered: Centre tells Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karnataka-Tamil Nadu tussle over Cauvery waters reach Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu moves apex court against Karnataka’s failure to release Cauvery water

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court grants divorce to Omar Abdullah after settlement with wife Payal

Ram Temple Donation Theft Row Heats Up Ahead of UP Polls | Akhilesh Yadav Targets BJP

Ex-PM Manmohan Singh gets SC clean chit in coal block scam case after his death

CJP Threatens Fresh Nationwide Protest After Supreme Court Order on Student Protest Cases

Allegations of police excess at CJP protests warrant independent probe, says SC

Chey Tae-Won to Pay 944 Billion Won to Wife | Wion News

‘Can’t let this go on like this’: Supreme Court tells govt on NEET paper leak

'Why introduce it in Class 9?': SC questions CBSE's three language policy

Madras High Court Stays Bypolls to 5 Seats

US SC allows ending TPS for Haitians & Syrians

Vinesh Phogat set for Asian Games trials after SC upholds Delhi HC order

Supreme Court upholds retrospective 28% GST levy on online gaming companies