A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court demanding the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, along with a declaration that decisions on matters pending before the Supreme Court cannot be taken unilaterally by the head of the constitutional body. The petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution. The plea in the court comes amid several media reports indicating that nearly 14 decisions were taken between October 2025 and August 2026 in the name of the EC despite recorded objections by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. A writ of quo warranto was sought by the petitioner, calling upon the CEC “to show under what authority he has acted, and continues to act, as though entitled individually to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body.”<h3>CEC position cannot be treated as institution</h3>The petition argued that Article 324(1) places the superintendence, direction and control of elections with “a Commission," not with an individual Chief Election Commissioner. Although Article 324(3) names the CEC as Chairman, this constitutional position cannot be treated as the institution itself. It also relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Under this provision, the Commission can regulate its own procedure by unanimous decision; its business should be conducted unanimously as far as possible, and any differences are settled by majority. One of the examples it cited is the alleged change to Form-6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, in July 2026. The revised form reportedly requires applicants to state whether they, their parents or their grandparents "exist" in the electoral roll used in the last Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The petition pointed to notes by Commissioners Joshi (May 16, 2026) and Sandhu (May 19 and August 13, 2026), who objected that the change was unauthorised and illegal because the Rules had not been amended."

The plea in the court comes amid several media reports indicating that nearly 14 decisions were taken between October 2025 and August 2026 in the name of the EC despite recorded objections by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court demanding the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, along with a declaration that decisions on matters pending before the Supreme Court cannot be taken unilaterally by the head of the constitutional body. The petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution. The plea in the court comes amid several media reports indicating that nearly 14 decisions were taken between October 2025 and August 2026 in the name of the EC despite recorded objections by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. A writ of quo warranto was sought by the petitioner, calling upon the CEC “to show under what authority he has acted, and continues to act, as though entitled individually to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body.” CEC position cannot be treated as institution The petition argued that Article 324(1) places the superintendence, direction and control of elections with “a Commission," not with an individual Chief Election Commissioner. Although Article 324(3) names the CEC as Chairman, this constitutional position cannot be treated as the institution itself. It also relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Under this provision, the Commission can regulate its own procedure by unanimous decision; its business should be conducted unanimously as far as possible, and any differences are settled by majority. One of the examples it cited is the alleged change to Form-6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, in July 2026. The revised form reportedly requires applicants to state whether they, their parents or their grandparents "exist" in the electoral roll used in the last Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The petition pointed to notes by Commissioners Joshi (May 16, 2026) and Sandhu (May 19 and August 13, 2026), who objected that the change was unauthorised and illegal because the Rules had not been amended."

The plea in the court comes amid several media reports indicating that nearly 14 decisions were taken between October 2025 and August 2026 in the name of the EC despite recorded objections by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

Petition in SC seeks suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, says Election Commission decisions must be collective

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Election Commission of India to finally resolve the ownership dispute over the All India Trinamool Congress name and its reserved “Flowers &amp; Grass” election symbol within roughly four months. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, was hearing a writ petition filed by former West Bengal Chief Minister and party founder Mamata Banerjee. She has challenged the ECI’s 17 September interim order that froze the original party name and symbol amid a factional split.The freeze came after the Commission concluded that two rival groups were each claiming to be the real Trinamool Congress: one led by Mamata Banerjee and the other by Ritabrata Banerjee (Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly), with Arup Roy as a key figure in the rebel camp. For the upcoming 6 October bye-elections (including Nandigram and Rejinagar), the ECI allotted temporary identities: the Mamata faction received “Mamata All India Trinamool Congress” and the “Football Player” symbol, while the rival faction received “Democratic Trinamool Congress” and the “Envelope” symbol. The Commission made clear these were only interim arrangements pending a full determination under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.During Monday’s hearing the court examined the pace of the proceedings. Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the Commission on the delay, noting that several weeks had already passed and that modern tools, including technology, should enable faster progress. The ECI’s counsel cited practical difficulties in collecting evidence and hearing both sides thoroughly. The court declined to go into the merits of the rival claims itself, stating those issues must be examined by the Commission. It also rejected a request for a longer period (such as six months) and instead fixed a tighter schedule based on timelines from earlier symbol disputes.The bench ordered both factions to complete their pleadings, affidavits, counter-affidavits and additional documents within four weeks. After that, the Election Commission has three months to deliver its final decision. In total, the Commission now has about four months to determine which side (if either) owns the original Trinamool Congress name and symbol. The ruling means the decision will stretch into early 2027 and will not be available before the municipal elections.The Ritabrata Banerjee-led camp is expected to file its detailed response and supporting material within the four-week window. The Supreme Court emphasised that parties’ cooperation would be important and clarified that it was expressing no opinion on the substance of the dispute, leaving all contentions open for the Election Commission to decide.

The Election Commission submitted details on past timelines to the Supreme Court in the dispute over the freezing of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) name and its “Flowers & Grass” symbol. The court has fixed a clear schedule that pushes a final decision into early 2027.

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Election Commission of India to finally resolve the ownership dispute over the All India Trinamool Congress name and its reserved “Flowers & Grass” election symbol within roughly four months. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, was hearing a writ petition filed by former West Bengal Chief Minister and party founder Mamata Banerjee. She has challenged the ECI’s 17 September interim order that froze the original party name and symbol amid a factional split. The freeze came after the Commission concluded that two rival groups were each claiming to be the real Trinamool Congress: one led by Mamata Banerjee and the other by Ritabrata Banerjee (Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly), with Arup Roy as a key figure in the rebel camp. For the upcoming 6 October bye-elections (including Nandigram and Rejinagar), the ECI allotted temporary identities: the Mamata faction received “Mamata All India Trinamool Congress” and the “Football Player” symbol, while the rival faction received “Democratic Trinamool Congress” and the “Envelope” symbol. The Commission made clear these were only interim arrangements pending a full determination under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. During Monday’s hearing the court examined the pace of the proceedings. Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the Commission on the delay, noting that several weeks had already passed and that modern tools, including technology, should enable faster progress. The ECI’s counsel cited practical difficulties in collecting evidence and hearing both sides thoroughly. The court declined to go into the merits of the rival claims itself, stating those issues must be examined by the Commission. It also rejected a request for a longer period (such as six months) and instead fixed a tighter schedule based on timelines from earlier symbol disputes. The bench ordered both factions to complete their pleadings, affidavits, counter-affidavits and additional documents within four weeks. After that, the Election Commission has three months to deliver its final decision. In total, the Commission now has about four months to determine which side (if either) owns the original Trinamool Congress name and symbol. The ruling means the decision will stretch into early 2027 and will not be available before the municipal elections. The Ritabrata Banerjee-led camp is expected to file its detailed response and supporting material within the four-week window. The Supreme Court emphasised that parties’ cooperation would be important and clarified that it was expressing no opinion on the substance of the dispute, leaving all contentions open for the Election Commission to decide.

The Election Commission submitted details on past timelines to the Supreme Court in the dispute over the freezing of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) name and its “Flowers &amp; Grass” symbol. The court has fixed a clear schedule that pushes a final decision into early 2027.

Supreme Court gives ECI four months to resolve TMC name, symbol dispute

The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep 18) questioned the efficacy of complete prohibition on liquor, pointing to five consequences it said are often associated with such bans, including loss of government revenue, the cost of enforcement, police corruption, illegal distilling and a resulting drug menace.A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observations while striking down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972. The provisions restricted the purchase of methanol and required manufacturers to add a bitterant and colourant before selling it to non-drug manufacturers.The rules were introduced after the 1991 Mumbai hooch tragedy, in which 93 people died after consuming spurious liquor containing methanol.While allowing petitions filed by several chemical manufacturers, including the Indian Chemical Council, the bench examined whether Maharashtra's safeguards actually addressed the risk of methanol being diverted for making illicit liquor.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/tirupati-laddu-ghee-adulterated-with-chemicals-says-ed-supplier-arrested-1789798536488">Tirupati Laddu ghee adulterated with chemicals, says ED, supplier arrested</a><h2>Gujarat's prohibition model under scrutiny</h2>The court referred to Gujarat while discussing the broader question of prohibition and its unintended consequences.“History bears eloquent testimony to the fact that a complete alcohol ban often drives the liquor trade underground, increasing the prevalence of unregulated, lethal brews,” the bench said.It noted that Gujarat has maintained a strict prohibition policy since its formation in 1960 but has nevertheless witnessed at least 10 major mass hooch tragedies, resulting in more than 600 deaths.The court also referred to recent incidents in Bhavnagar in Gujarat and Sagar in Madhya Pradesh, where around 13 and 15 people respectively died after consuming illicit liquor. “These should be a reminder for the authorities to wake up and act,” the bench said.<h2>SC rejects Maharashtra government's defence</h2>The Maharashtra government had defended the methanol-related rules as a measure to prevent diversion and reduce the possibility of fatal hooch tragedies. The Supreme Court, however, held that the requirement to add bitterant and colourant lacked a rational and proximate connection with that objective.“The state failed to indicate that this practice of putting such additives would discourage or rather dissuade continuous usage of methanol or affect its chemical composition so it cannot be used in making spurious liquor,” the bench said.The court also questioned how the measure would prevent the manufacture of illicit liquor using other adulterants.It stressed that while the prevention of methanol-related deaths was a legitimate public health objective, measures adopted by the state still had to meet constitutional standards of reasonableness and proportionality.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/nandigram-arrest-row-congress-cries-vendetta-rival-trinamool-says-warrants-must-be-executed-1789800390247">Nandigram arrest row: Congress cries vendetta, rival Trinamool says warrants "must be executed"</a><h2>Rules violate constitutional rights</h2>The bench said financial hardship or commercial inconvenience alone would not be enough to invalidate a law. But in this case, it found that the mandatory addition of colourant and bitterant failed the required constitutional test.The court held that Rules 18A and 18B violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It also rejected the Maharashtra government's plea seeking to retain the rules.<h2>Court suggests tighter methanol controls</h2>Instead of relying on mandatory additives, the Supreme Court suggested stronger controls over the methanol supply chain.These include verifying the licences of purchasers, monitoring consumption, reconciling stocks, ensuring unused methanol is returned, and tightening rules governing its transportation and storage.The bench also suggested dedicated tankers and tamper-evident seals to reduce the chances of diversion.The ruling comes against the backdrop of repeated hooch tragedies in several states, highlighting the continuing challenge of preventing methanol from entering illicit liquor networks.

The Supreme Court has raised fresh questions over complete liquor prohibition, pointing to five consequences often linked with such bans. The bench also cited Gujarat’s repeated hooch tragedies while examining Maharashtra’s methanol control rules.

The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep 18) questioned the efficacy of complete prohibition on liquor, pointing to five consequences it said are often associated with such bans, including loss of government revenue, the cost of enforcement, police corruption, illegal distilling and a resulting drug menace. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observations while striking down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972. The provisions restricted the purchase of methanol and required manufacturers to add a bitterant and colourant before selling it to non-drug manufacturers. The rules were introduced after the 1991 Mumbai hooch tragedy, in which 93 people died after consuming spurious liquor containing methanol. While allowing petitions filed by several chemical manufacturers, including the Indian Chemical Council, the bench examined whether Maharashtra's safeguards actually addressed the risk of methanol being diverted for making illicit liquor. Also read | Tirupati Laddu ghee adulterated with chemicals, says ED, supplier arrested Gujarat's prohibition model under scrutiny The court referred to Gujarat while discussing the broader question of prohibition and its unintended consequences. “History bears eloquent testimony to the fact that a complete alcohol ban often drives the liquor trade underground, increasing the prevalence of unregulated, lethal brews,” the bench said. It noted that Gujarat has maintained a strict prohibition policy since its formation in 1960 but has nevertheless witnessed at least 10 major mass hooch tragedies, resulting in more than 600 deaths. The court also referred to recent incidents in Bhavnagar in Gujarat and Sagar in Madhya Pradesh, where around 13 and 15 people respectively died after consuming illicit liquor. “These should be a reminder for the authorities to wake up and act,” the bench said. SC rejects Maharashtra government's defence The Maharashtra government had defended the methanol-related rules as a measure to prevent diversion and reduce the possibility of fatal hooch tragedies. The Supreme Court, however, held that the requirement to add bitterant and colourant lacked a rational and proximate connection with that objective. “The state failed to indicate that this practice of putting such additives would discourage or rather dissuade continuous usage of methanol or affect its chemical composition so it cannot be used in making spurious liquor,” the bench said. The court also questioned how the measure would prevent the manufacture of illicit liquor using other adulterants. It stressed that while the prevention of methanol-related deaths was a legitimate public health objective, measures adopted by the state still had to meet constitutional standards of reasonableness and proportionality. Also read | Nandigram arrest row: Congress cries vendetta, rival Trinamool says warrants "must be executed" Rules violate constitutional rights The bench said financial hardship or commercial inconvenience alone would not be enough to invalidate a law. But in this case, it found that the mandatory addition of colourant and bitterant failed the required constitutional test. The court held that Rules 18A and 18B violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It also rejected the Maharashtra government's plea seeking to retain the rules. Court suggests tighter methanol controls Instead of relying on mandatory additives, the Supreme Court suggested stronger controls over the methanol supply chain. These include verifying the licences of purchasers, monitoring consumption, reconciling stocks, ensuring unused methanol is returned, and tightening rules governing its transportation and storage. The bench also suggested dedicated tankers and tamper-evident seals to reduce the chances of diversion. The ruling comes against the backdrop of repeated hooch tragedies in several states, highlighting the continuing challenge of preventing methanol from entering illicit liquor networks.

The Supreme Court has raised fresh questions over complete liquor prohibition, pointing to five consequences often linked with such bans. The bench also cited Gujarat’s repeated hooch tragedies while examining Maharashtra’s methanol control rules.

‘Five evils’ of liquor ban: Supreme Court questions whether prohibition really works

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to give “precedence” to the hearing of a writ petition raising discrepancies in the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Delhi, including the removal of lakhs of over 47 lakh voters from the draft electoral roll, on Monday, September 21.A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant listed the petition filed by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, flagging that apart from the 47-plus lakh people removed in the draft roll, the Election Commission is preparing notices to 33 lakh people.&nbsp;The deletions came to light after the Election Commission published the draft roll on August 31.&nbsp;The bench agreed to take up the petition on Monday, when several other matters concerning Special Intensive Revision exercises are also listed.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-drone-firm-linked-to-trump-s-sons-signs-mou-with-pakistan-army-gets-initial-order-1789648161978">US drone firm linked to Trump’s sons signs MoU with Pakistan army, gets initial order</a>&nbsp;Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioner, told the court that the Election Commission had issued notices to 33 lakh people whose names were deleted. Bhushan questioned why the poll panel had not made public the names of people who were issued notices or the reasons cited for their exclusion from the roll.&nbsp;“What they have done is that they have not disclosed the names of people who have been issued notices or on what grounds they have been deleted,” Bhushan submitted.He also questioned the basis for identifying “logical discrepancies” and “unmapped” voters.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-treasury-rallies-global-financial-institutions-for-op-economic-outcast-to-isolate-iran-1789588781387">US Treasury rallies global financial institutions for Op Economic Outcast to isolate Iran</a>&nbsp;The Election Commission has said the deletions followed the identification of 43.32 lakh people who had either shifted from their recorded addresses or were absent during the revision exercise. It said another 2.82 lakh voters were found to be deceased and 1.41 lakh were registered at more than one place.&nbsp;Logical discrepancies refer to inconsistencies in voters’ personal details. These can include unusual age differences between family members, changes in parents’ names and entries supported only by Aadhaar, he said.Mapping involves checking voters’ details against older electoral records or voting records of family members from previous generations.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fed-raises-rates-for-first-time-in-3-years-kevin-warsh-defies-trump-as-inflation-mounts-1789583250156">Fed raises rates for first time in 3 years, Kevin Warsh defies Trump as inflation mounts</a>&nbsp;Bhushan, while describing the SIR process as “totally opaque”, urged the court to hear the matter at an early stage.“We will list it on Monday (September 21). Such matters will have precedence,” CJI Kant said.

The Election Commission has said the deletions followed the identification of 43.32 lakh people who had either shifted from their addresses or were absent during revision exercise. It said another 2.82 lakh voters were deceased and 1.41 lakh were registered at more than one place.

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to give “precedence” to the hearing of a writ petition raising discrepancies in the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Delhi, including the removal of lakhs of over 47 lakh voters from the draft electoral roll, on Monday, September 21. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant listed the petition filed by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, flagging that apart from the 47-plus lakh people removed in the draft roll, the Election Commission is preparing notices to 33 lakh people. The deletions came to light after the Election Commission published the draft roll on August 31. The bench agreed to take up the petition on Monday, when several other matters concerning Special Intensive Revision exercises are also listed. Also Read: US drone firm linked to Trump’s sons signs MoU with Pakistan army, gets initial order Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioner, told the court that the Election Commission had issued notices to 33 lakh people whose names were deleted. Bhushan questioned why the poll panel had not made public the names of people who were issued notices or the reasons cited for their exclusion from the roll. “What they have done is that they have not disclosed the names of people who have been issued notices or on what grounds they have been deleted,” Bhushan submitted. He also questioned the basis for identifying “logical discrepancies” and “unmapped” voters. Also Read: US Treasury rallies global financial institutions for Op Economic Outcast to isolate Iran The Election Commission has said the deletions followed the identification of 43.32 lakh people who had either shifted from their recorded addresses or were absent during the revision exercise. It said another 2.82 lakh voters were found to be deceased and 1.41 lakh were registered at more than one place. Logical discrepancies refer to inconsistencies in voters’ personal details. These can include unusual age differences between family members, changes in parents’ names and entries supported only by Aadhaar, he said. Mapping involves checking voters’ details against older electoral records or voting records of family members from previous generations. Also Read: Fed raises rates for first time in 3 years, Kevin Warsh defies Trump as inflation mounts Bhushan, while describing the SIR process as “totally opaque”, urged the court to hear the matter at an early stage. “We will list it on Monday (September 21). Such matters will have precedence,” CJI Kant said.

The Election Commission has said the deletions followed the identification of 43.32 lakh people who had either shifted from their addresses or were absent during revision exercise. It said another 2.82 lakh voters were deceased and 1.41 lakh were registered at more than one place.

Supreme Court agrees to hear plea against Delhi SIR on priority after deletion of 47 lakh voters

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday (September 1) quashed all FIRs registered against protesters of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) after the Centre moved the court seeking relief for those booked during the July student protests. Invoking its inherent powers to ‘do complete justice’ under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ordered the quashing of all FIRs related to the protests.&nbsp;Earlier in the day, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) announced that it was withdrawing its call for a protest march on September 5. The decision came after the Centre and four states urged the Supreme Court to quash cases filed against students who participated in protests over the alleged paper leaks in Delhi and other parts of the country.&nbsp;&nbsp;“As co-convenor of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), I want to state that in view of the positive assurances of the Government of India and the judicial sanctity bestowed upon them today, and in view of the order being passed by this Hon’ble Court, the CJP deems it appropriate to withdraw the call for the march on 5th September and looks forward to the compliance of today’s order,” CJP’s Saurav Das told the three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cockroach-janta-party-calls-off-september-5-march-in-new-delhi-after-centre-s-assurance-in-court-1788252271458">Cockroach Janta Party calls off September 5 march in New Delhi after Centre's assurance in Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;The court on Tuesday heard applications filed by the Delhi Police and the states of Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and West Bengal seeking the quashing of FIRs registered against students who participated in the July protests. On August 24, the CJP announced plans for a peaceful march from India Gate to the Delhi Police Headquarters on September 5, protesting what it described as the government’s failure to honour commitments made on July 25. During Tuesday’s hearing, the Centre assured the Supreme Court that it would fulfil its earlier commitment to provide compensation to the families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide.

Supreme Court orders closure of FIRs registered over student protests from July 20 to 25 and quashes cases specified by Delhi Police, Bihar, Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday (September 1) quashed all FIRs registered against protesters of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) after the Centre moved the court seeking relief for those booked during the July student protests. Invoking its inherent powers to ‘do complete justice’ under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ordered the quashing of all FIRs related to the protests. Earlier in the day, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) announced that it was withdrawing its call for a protest march on September 5. The decision came after the Centre and four states urged the Supreme Court to quash cases filed against students who participated in protests over the alleged paper leaks in Delhi and other parts of the country. “As co-convenor of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), I want to state that in view of the positive assurances of the Government of India and the judicial sanctity bestowed upon them today, and in view of the order being passed by this Hon’ble Court, the CJP deems it appropriate to withdraw the call for the march on 5th September and looks forward to the compliance of today’s order,” CJP’s Saurav Das told the three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Also Read: Cockroach Janta Party calls off September 5 march in New Delhi after Centre's assurance in Supreme Court The court on Tuesday heard applications filed by the Delhi Police and the states of Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and West Bengal seeking the quashing of FIRs registered against students who participated in the July protests. On August 24, the CJP announced plans for a peaceful march from India Gate to the Delhi Police Headquarters on September 5, protesting what it described as the government’s failure to honour commitments made on July 25. During Tuesday’s hearing, the Centre assured the Supreme Court that it would fulfil its earlier commitment to provide compensation to the families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide.

The Supreme Court ordered closure of FIRs linked to student protests held from July 20-25 and quashed cases specified by five governments

Supreme Court quashes student protest FIRs, directs no further investigation

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) spokesperson Saurav Das told the Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 1) that the party was withdrawing its call for a September 5 march, following assurances given by the Centre in court and the subsequent orders expected from the bench. “As co-convener of the CJP, I want to state that in view of the positive assurances of the Government of India and the judicial sanctity bestowed upon them today, and in view of the order being passed by this Court, the CJP deems it appropriate to withdraw the call for the march on September 5 and looks forward to compliance with today's order,” Das was quoted as saying to the court.&nbsp;On August 24, the CJP had announced plans for a peaceful march from India Gate to Delhi Police Headquarters on September 5, protesting what it described as the government’s failure to honour commitments made on July 25. During Tuesday’s hearing, the Centre assured the Supreme Court that it would honour its earlier commitments to provide compensation to the families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/fake-branded-foods-worth-75-lakh-seized-in-fda-raids-across-mumbai-noida-1788246386094">Lay’s, Maggi, Kurkure among fake, expired food products seized in FDA raids in Mumbai, Noida</a>&nbsp;Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the bereaved families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide would receive compensation within three months. The Centre also urged the Supreme Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 to close all FIRs registered against NEET protesters between July 20 and July 25 across the country.&nbsp;&nbsp;The plea came a day after the Centre filed an application before the court seeking such relief. Meanwhile, Delhi Police told the Supreme Court on Monday evening that it no longer wishes to pursue 13 FIRs registered in connection with the CJP-led NEET protests in July, invoking Article 142 in the matter.

Cockroach Janta Party spokesperson Saurav Das told the Supreme Court that the outfit was withdrawing its September 5 march call after the Centre’s assurance

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) spokesperson Saurav Das told the Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 1) that the party was withdrawing its call for a September 5 march, following assurances given by the Centre in court and the subsequent orders expected from the bench. “As co-convener of the CJP, I want to state that in view of the positive assurances of the Government of India and the judicial sanctity bestowed upon them today, and in view of the order being passed by this Court, the CJP deems it appropriate to withdraw the call for the march on September 5 and looks forward to compliance with today's order,” Das was quoted as saying to the court. On August 24, the CJP had announced plans for a peaceful march from India Gate to Delhi Police Headquarters on September 5, protesting what it described as the government’s failure to honour commitments made on July 25. During Tuesday’s hearing, the Centre assured the Supreme Court that it would honour its earlier commitments to provide compensation to the families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide. Also Read: Lay’s, Maggi, Kurkure among fake, expired food products seized in FDA raids in Mumbai, Noida Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the bereaved families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide would receive compensation within three months. The Centre also urged the Supreme Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 to close all FIRs registered against NEET protesters between July 20 and July 25 across the country. The plea came a day after the Centre filed an application before the court seeking such relief. Meanwhile, Delhi Police told the Supreme Court on Monday evening that it no longer wishes to pursue 13 FIRs registered in connection with the CJP-led NEET protests in July, invoking Article 142 in the matter.

Cockroach Janta Party spokesperson Saurav Das told the Supreme Court the group was withdrawing its September 5 march call after the Centre’s assurance

Cockroach Janta Party calls off September 5 march in New Delhi after Centre's assurance in Supreme Court

The Special Lok Adalat at the Supreme Court of India resolved over 400 cases on its first day, on August 21, as part of Samadhan Samaroh 2026, Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonisation Across the Nation. Launched Friday under the leadership of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the Special Lok Adalat will run for two days, wrapping up on August 23. According to a Supreme Court press release, the initiative is designed to help parties reach amicable settlements in pending cases, giving litigants a chance to resolve disputes through discussion and mutual consent. "More than 600 cases were listed for settlement before 16 Special Lok Adalat Benches, each comprising two sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of India, along with senior advocates, Advocates-on-Record (AORs) and other advocates, with more than 400 cases being amicably settled. The benches facilitated dialogue between the parties and assisted them in exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement," it added.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/nia-court-rejects-bail-plea-of-pulwama-terror-case-accused-insha-jan-cites-ongoing-trial-1787374257492">NIA court rejects bail plea of Pulwama terror case accused Insha Jan, cites ongoing trial</a><h3>Dispute resolution methods</h3>The initiative includes matrimonial and property disputes, land acquisition and compensation cases, motor accident claims, tax matters, and service and labour disputes. Since the launch of the Samadhan Samaroh initiative on April 21, the cases had undergone a pre-settlement process with litigants and their counsel being involved to help the possibility of an amicable resolution. The Special Lok Adalat seeks to bolster consent-based dispute resolution and ease the strain of drawn-out litigation. The Supreme Court said the effort is part of its ongoing push to embed mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods more firmly within the justice system. Samadhan Samaroh 2026 will wrap up on August 23, once the Special Lok Adalat proceedings are complete.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/canada-gurdwara-knife-attack-man-stabs-two-a-day-after-release-from-prison-1787372355832">Canada gurdwara knife attack: Man stabs two a day after release from prison</a>

The Supreme Court said the effort is part of its ongoing push to embed mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods more firmly within the justice system.

The Special Lok Adalat at the Supreme Court of India resolved over 400 cases on its first day, on August 21, as part of Samadhan Samaroh 2026, Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonisation Across the Nation. Launched Friday under the leadership of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the Special Lok Adalat will run for two days, wrapping up on August 23. According to a Supreme Court press release, the initiative is designed to help parties reach amicable settlements in pending cases, giving litigants a chance to resolve disputes through discussion and mutual consent. "More than 600 cases were listed for settlement before 16 Special Lok Adalat Benches, each comprising two sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of India, along with senior advocates, Advocates-on-Record (AORs) and other advocates, with more than 400 cases being amicably settled. The benches facilitated dialogue between the parties and assisted them in exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement," it added. Also read: NIA court rejects bail plea of Pulwama terror case accused Insha Jan, cites ongoing trial Dispute resolution methods The initiative includes matrimonial and property disputes, land acquisition and compensation cases, motor accident claims, tax matters, and service and labour disputes. Since the launch of the Samadhan Samaroh initiative on April 21, the cases had undergone a pre-settlement process with litigants and their counsel being involved to help the possibility of an amicable resolution. The Special Lok Adalat seeks to bolster consent-based dispute resolution and ease the strain of drawn-out litigation. The Supreme Court said the effort is part of its ongoing push to embed mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods more firmly within the justice system. Samadhan Samaroh 2026 will wrap up on August 23, once the Special Lok Adalat proceedings are complete. Also read: Canada gurdwara knife attack: Man stabs two a day after release from prison

The Supreme Court said the effort is part of its ongoing push to embed mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods more firmly within the justice system.

Supreme Court's Special Lok Adalat settles over 400 cases on day one of Samadhan Samaroh 2026

The Supreme Court on Friday (Jul 17) made it clear that removing a person's name from the electoral roll does not mean they lose their Indian citizenship, stressing that the Election Commission's powers are limited to maintaining voter lists. Hearing a petition linked to West Bengal's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reiterated that while the Election Commission of India (ECI) has the authority to prepare and revise electoral rolls, it cannot decide questions of citizenship.<h2>SIR deletion doesn't equal losing Indian citizenship</h2>"Our judgment (on Bihar SIR) is clear. The Election Commission of India has full control over the electoral roll. However, that does not result in loss of citizenship per se. They have a corresponding duty to refer it to the ministry of the Central government department for adjudication of the citizenship status," the Chief Justice observed.The court issued notice on a petition alleging that lakhs of people in West Bengal have been denied access to welfare schemes after their names were deleted from the electoral rolls.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/sonam-wangchuk-attacked-on-day-20-of-hunger-strike-object-thrown-at-activist-alleged-cockroach-janta-party-s-abhijeet-dipke-watch-1784339088172">Sonam Wangchuk attacked on Day 20 of hunger strike? 'Object thrown at' activist alleges Cockroach Janta Party's Abhijeet Dipke | Watch</a><h2>Petition flags denial of ration, cash benefits</h2>The petition, filed by Prasenjit Bose of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee, argues that deletion from the electoral roll should not automatically lead to exclusion from government welfare schemes such as the Public Distribution System (PDS), the Annapurna cash transfer scheme and other social benefit programmes.Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the court that despite the Supreme Court's earlier clarification in the Bihar SIR case, the West Bengal government had issued multiple orders that effectively linked electoral roll deletion to the withdrawal of welfare benefits.He argued that nearly 3.4 million appeals filed by voters excluded during the SIR exercise remain pending before appellate tribunals, leaving affected persons without access to essential benefits."The consequences of deletion now... PDS, Annapurna, caste certificates, verification," Sankaranarayanan submitted, adding that people were being deprived of government entitlements before any final determination of their legal status.<h2>Supreme Court: ECI's role is limited</h2>Previously, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was part of the Bench along with Justice V Mohana, reminded the petitioner that the legal position had already been settled in the court's Bihar SIR judgment."We are conscious of this. In our Bihar SIR judgment, we have clarified that the ECI, as soon as it takes a decision over voting rights, cannot decide citizenship. The ECI has a corresponding duty to refer the matter to the Ministry for adjudication under the Citizenship Act," Justice Bagchi observed.When Sankaranarayanan argued that the court may not have anticipated that deleted voters would immediately lose access to welfare schemes, the Bench responded that the law governing the Election Commission's powers was already clear."Law is clear. ECI has control and superintendence over the electoral roll," the court observed.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/sonam-wangchuk-attacked-on-day-20-of-hunger-strike-object-thrown-at-activist-alleged-cockroach-janta-party-s-abhijeet-dipke-watch-1784339088172">Sonam Wangchuk attacked on Day 20 of hunger strike? 'Object thrown at' activist alleges Cockroach Janta Party's Abhijeet Dipke | Watch</a><h2>Plea seeks faster disposal of 3.4 million appeals</h2>The petitioner also urged the Supreme Court to ensure quicker disposal of the pending appeals. According to the plea, only 19 special tribunals are currently hearing challenges filed by voters whose names were marked under a category described as "logical discrepancy". The petition seeks an increase in the number of tribunals to at least 42, citing the huge backlog ahead of the West Bengal local body elections expected later this year.Sankaranarayanan also sought greater transparency in the functioning of the tribunals, requesting that they publish their standard operating procedures and upload their orders online. "There should be a mechanism to ensure transparency. Tribunals should have websites, put out their SOPs and put up their orders," he told the court.

The Supreme Court has clarified that removing a person's name from the electoral roll does not amount to loss of Indian citizenship, stressing that the Election Commission's role is limited to maintaining voter lists and that citizenship questions.

The Supreme Court on Friday (Jul 17) made it clear that removing a person's name from the electoral roll does not mean they lose their Indian citizenship, stressing that the Election Commission's powers are limited to maintaining voter lists. Hearing a petition linked to West Bengal's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reiterated that while the Election Commission of India (ECI) has the authority to prepare and revise electoral rolls, it cannot decide questions of citizenship. SIR deletion doesn't equal losing Indian citizenship "Our judgment (on Bihar SIR) is clear. The Election Commission of India has full control over the electoral roll. However, that does not result in loss of citizenship per se. They have a corresponding duty to refer it to the ministry of the Central government department for adjudication of the citizenship status," the Chief Justice observed. The court issued notice on a petition alleging that lakhs of people in West Bengal have been denied access to welfare schemes after their names were deleted from the electoral rolls. Also read | Sonam Wangchuk attacked on Day 20 of hunger strike? 'Object thrown at' activist alleges Cockroach Janta Party's Abhijeet Dipke | Watch Petition flags denial of ration, cash benefits The petition, filed by Prasenjit Bose of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee, argues that deletion from the electoral roll should not automatically lead to exclusion from government welfare schemes such as the Public Distribution System (PDS), the Annapurna cash transfer scheme and other social benefit programmes. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the court that despite the Supreme Court's earlier clarification in the Bihar SIR case, the West Bengal government had issued multiple orders that effectively linked electoral roll deletion to the withdrawal of welfare benefits. He argued that nearly 3.4 million appeals filed by voters excluded during the SIR exercise remain pending before appellate tribunals, leaving affected persons without access to essential benefits. "The consequences of deletion now... PDS, Annapurna, caste certificates, verification," Sankaranarayanan submitted, adding that people were being deprived of government entitlements before any final determination of their legal status. Supreme Court: ECI's role is limited Previously, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was part of the Bench along with Justice V Mohana, reminded the petitioner that the legal position had already been settled in the court's Bihar SIR judgment. "We are conscious of this. In our Bihar SIR judgment, we have clarified that the ECI, as soon as it takes a decision over voting rights, cannot decide citizenship. The ECI has a corresponding duty to refer the matter to the Ministry for adjudication under the Citizenship Act," Justice Bagchi observed. When Sankaranarayanan argued that the court may not have anticipated that deleted voters would immediately lose access to welfare schemes, the Bench responded that the law governing the Election Commission's powers was already clear. "Law is clear. ECI has control and superintendence over the electoral roll," the court observed. Also read | Sonam Wangchuk attacked on Day 20 of hunger strike? 'Object thrown at' activist alleges Cockroach Janta Party's Abhijeet Dipke | Watch Plea seeks faster disposal of 3.4 million appeals The petitioner also urged the Supreme Court to ensure quicker disposal of the pending appeals. According to the plea, only 19 special tribunals are currently hearing challenges filed by voters whose names were marked under a category described as "logical discrepancy". The petition seeks an increase in the number of tribunals to at least 42, citing the huge backlog ahead of the West Bengal local body elections expected later this year. Sankaranarayanan also sought greater transparency in the functioning of the tribunals, requesting that they publish their standard operating procedures and upload their orders online. "There should be a mechanism to ensure transparency. Tribunals should have websites, put out their SOPs and put up their orders," he told the court.

The Supreme Court has clarified that removing a person's name from the electoral roll does not amount to loss of Indian citizenship, stressing that the Election Commission's role is limited to maintaining voter lists and that citizenship questions.

Can deleted voters lose citizenship, ration benefits? Supreme Court BIG statement on ECI's role and SIR

A notice was issued to to the Union and the Uttar Pradesh Government on Monday (July 13) by the Supreme Court on several petitions seeking investigation into the alleged embezzlement of donations received for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).&nbsp;Notice was also sent to the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust and the Special Investigation Team was directed to file a status report on the developments so far. The composition of the SIT has also been sought in the report.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-champat-rai-a-vhp-veteran-ram-mandir-trust-chief-who-resigned-in-donation-theft-case-1782471794184">Who is Champat Rai, a VHP veteran, Ram Mandir trust chief who resigned in donation theft case?</a>&nbsp;A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the petitions. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the Centre and the State, said that the status report will be filed in a sealed cover.&nbsp;A request by SG to defer the issuance of notice to the temple trust was turned down by the court."Issue notice. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accepts notice. Issue notice to Teerth Kshetra trust. Let a status report be filed. We direct SIT constituted by State of UP to submit a status report before this court. The SIT shall also have member composition," the Court directed.&nbsp;<h2>What did the petitions seek?</h2>&nbsp;At least three petitions were heard today related to the alleged embezzlement of Ram temple donations. One of the petitions, filed by advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, arraigned Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India as respondents.&nbsp;The plea seeks registration of a regular case and an independent, time-bound investigation.&nbsp;Another petition was filed by RJD MP Sudhakar Singh who seeks a forensic audit of the entire finances of the temple trust and a CBI probe under the monitoring of the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

One of the petitions seeks a forensic audit of the entire finances of the temple trust and a CBI probe under the monitoring of the Supreme Court.

A notice was issued to to the Union and the Uttar Pradesh Government on Monday (July 13) by the Supreme Court on several petitions seeking investigation into the alleged embezzlement of donations received for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Notice was also sent to the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust and the Special Investigation Team was directed to file a status report on the developments so far. The composition of the SIT has also been sought in the report. ALSO READ: Who is Champat Rai, a VHP veteran, Ram Mandir trust chief who resigned in donation theft case? A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the petitions. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the Centre and the State, said that the status report will be filed in a sealed cover. A request by SG to defer the issuance of notice to the temple trust was turned down by the court. "Issue notice. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accepts notice. Issue notice to Teerth Kshetra trust. Let a status report be filed. We direct SIT constituted by State of UP to submit a status report before this court. The SIT shall also have member composition," the Court directed. What did the petitions seek? At least three petitions were heard today related to the alleged embezzlement of Ram temple donations. One of the petitions, filed by advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, arraigned Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India as respondents. The plea seeks registration of a regular case and an independent, time-bound investigation. Another petition was filed by RJD MP Sudhakar Singh who seeks a forensic audit of the entire finances of the temple trust and a CBI probe under the monitoring of the Supreme Court.

One of the petitions seeks a forensic audit of the entire finances of the temple trust and a CBI probe under the monitoring of the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya Ram mandir donation 'theft': Supreme Court issues notice to UP govt on pleas seeking CBI probe

Unusual scenes were witnessed in the Supreme Court on Friday as a petitioner, appearing in person, verbally abused Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and threw papers in the courtroom after which he was escorted out by security personnel. The petitioner, identified as Prabal Pratap was challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court when he created the ruckus.&nbsp;Pratap addressed the bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe as “judicial servant” and claimed that he was “sovereign”.&nbsp;“Mister judicial servant, I order you to order the registration of FIR against ACP Vikas Nagar Lucknow,” said Pratap as he appeared before the Bench&nbsp;The petitioner had challenged an Allahabad high court order dismissing his plea against the conversion of his application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into a private complaint case.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/watch-indian-diplomat-strongly-objects-to-misrepresented-map-of-india-at-dhaka-seminar-1783687664316">WATCH: Indian diplomat strongly objects to misrepresented map of India at Dhaka seminar</a>&nbsp;Taken aback by what Pratap said, Justices Viswanathan , asked the petitioner, You are ordering me?" "You are ordering us?" to which he replied "I am sovereign."&nbsp;The situation seemed to get even worse when the petitioner flung papers, probably of the case, into the air and abused the court.&nbsp;“Ye de dena CJI ko (give this to the CJI),” he said while using cuss words. He was immediately &nbsp;escorted out of the courtroom by security personnel.&nbsp;<h2>Court refrains from taking action</h2>&nbsp;Despite the petitioners rude action, the court decided not to take any action against him."We do not propose to take any action against him. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, we have perused the records. We find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed," ruled Justice Viswanathan.&nbsp;"He is very disturbed... it's all frustration. We only have sympathies for him," Justice Viswanathan remarked.&nbsp;However, the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association wrote to Chief Justice Surya Kant, seeking "strong and strict action" against those involved in the disruption.&nbsp;

The situation seemed to get even worse when the petitioner flung papers, probably of the case, into the air and abused the court.

Unusual scenes were witnessed in the Supreme Court on Friday as a petitioner, appearing in person, verbally abused Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and threw papers in the courtroom after which he was escorted out by security personnel. The petitioner, identified as Prabal Pratap was challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court when he created the ruckus. Pratap addressed the bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe as “judicial servant” and claimed that he was “sovereign”. “Mister judicial servant, I order you to order the registration of FIR against ACP Vikas Nagar Lucknow,” said Pratap as he appeared before the Bench The petitioner had challenged an Allahabad high court order dismissing his plea against the conversion of his application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into a private complaint case. ALSO READ: WATCH: Indian diplomat strongly objects to misrepresented map of India at Dhaka seminar Taken aback by what Pratap said, Justices Viswanathan , asked the petitioner, You are ordering me?" "You are ordering us?" to which he replied "I am sovereign." The situation seemed to get even worse when the petitioner flung papers, probably of the case, into the air and abused the court. “Ye de dena CJI ko (give this to the CJI),” he said while using cuss words. He was immediately escorted out of the courtroom by security personnel. Court refrains from taking action Despite the petitioners rude action, the court decided not to take any action against him. "We do not propose to take any action against him. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, we have perused the records. We find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed," ruled Justice Viswanathan. "He is very disturbed... it's all frustration. We only have sympathies for him," Justice Viswanathan remarked. However, the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association wrote to Chief Justice Surya Kant, seeking "strong and strict action" against those involved in the disruption.

The situation seemed to get even worse when the petitioner flung papers, probably of the case, into the air and abused the court.

Petitioner abuses Chief Justice inside Supreme court, flings case papers, judges pardon him

The union government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the country’s 20% ethanol blending programme in petrol is still an ongoing experiment the impact of which would become clear by the next year. The government’s statement in the top court comes amid concerns over the increased ethanol blending reducing fuel efficiency or damaging older vehicles.&nbsp;The government has tried to placate such fears by pointing out that there is no hard evidence to link E20 petrol to mechanical damage and that the policy would be beneficial for India’s energy security, farmers and the environment at large. Last week, the Union Oil Ministry had said that ethanol blending is a globally accepted practice and is successfully implemented in several countries, including the US, Brazil, and Japan.&nbsp;The Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by state-owned Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) challenging a Karnataka High Court order concerning ethanol allocation for the 2025-26 supply year.In its June 23 order, the High Court had directed Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) — BPCL, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation — to consider a request by a distillery seeking increase in its ethanol allocation before the tender process is finalised.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/50-biz-honchos-accompanying-japan-s-pm-to-delhi-eager-to-ride-on-india-s-growth-story-1782768835501">50 biz honchos accompanying Japan’s PM to Delhi, eager to ride on India’s growth story</a>&nbsp;BPCL told the court that the order could have wider implications for the government’s target of achieving 20% ethanol blending in petrol.&nbsp;<h2>‘Ethanol allocation process already completed in October 2025’</h2>&nbsp;Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R Venkataramani said the ethanol allocation process had already been completed in October 2025, with supply contracts finalised, and warned that reopening individual allocations could disrupt the nationwide programme.“The ethanol supply contracts had already been finalised in October 2025. Such petitions are pending before several high courts. This will impact the national policy,” he said.“The government is trying to experiment with 20% ethanol blending. We will have results of that by next year,” he added.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/yasin-malik-faces-trial-in-sarla-bhat-rape-murder-case-35-years-after-brutal-crime-instilled-fear-in-kashmiri-pandits-triggered-exodus-1782752930044">Yasin Malik faces trial in Sarla Bhat rape-murder case 35 years after brutal crime instilled fear in Kashmiri Pandits</a>&nbsp;Venkataramani argued that granting changes to one supplier’s allocation could prompt similar claims from others, leading to multiple litigations and affecting the supply chain.He said BPCL, which is coordinating the ethanol-blended petrol programme, had received cumulative supply offers of around 1,759 crore litres following the tender process.&nbsp;Venkataramani sought permission to file a transfer petition, arguing that the issue needed to be decided before October, when ethanol supply contracts would come up for renewal.“If I go before the division bench and then again to other high courts, it will be delayed,” he said.&nbsp;<h2>‘Ethanol blending a globally accepted practice’</h2>&nbsp;India achieved its target of blending 20% ethanol in petrol in 2025, five years ahead of schedule. Oil marketing companies started supplying ethanol-blended petrol across the country since April 1. The government has now set a target of increasing ethanol blending in petrol to 30% by 2030.&nbsp;Tuesday’s hearing came days after the Union Oil Ministry said the ethanol blending programme was “safe, consumer-friendly and economically beneficial”, rejecting concerns that the use of E20 fuel could impact vehicle insurance coverage.&nbsp;In a statement on June 24, the Ministry said claims suggesting that E20 fuel could invalidate insurance policies had been examined with stakeholders and were found to be incorrect.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-urgent-hearing-of-ram-temple-petitions-saying-heavens-are-not-going-to-fall-1782739148242">Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing of Ram Temple petitions, saying, 'Heavens are not going to fall’</a>&nbsp;“Ethanol blending is a globally accepted practice and is successfully implemented in several countries, including the US, Brazil, and Japan,” the ministry said.&nbsp;The ethanol blending programme helped India save more than Rs 1.4 lakh crore in foreign exchange by reducing crude oil imports, it added.&nbsp;“Ethanol blending plays an important role in enhancing India’s energy security, reducing carbon emissions and advancing India’s transition towards cleaner mobility,” the ministry said and reiterated that the programme would continue to be implemented in a “safe, transparent and consumer-centric manner” based on scientific evidence and consultations with stakeholders.&nbsp;

India achieved its target of blending 20% ethanol in petrol in 2025. Oil marketing companies started supplying ethanol-blended petrol across the country since April 1. The government has now set a target of increasing ethanol blending in petrol to 30% by 2030.

The union government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the country’s 20% ethanol blending programme in petrol is still an ongoing experiment the impact of which would become clear by the next year. The government’s statement in the top court comes amid concerns over the increased ethanol blending reducing fuel efficiency or damaging older vehicles. The government has tried to placate such fears by pointing out that there is no hard evidence to link E20 petrol to mechanical damage and that the policy would be beneficial for India’s energy security, farmers and the environment at large. Last week, the Union Oil Ministry had said that ethanol blending is a globally accepted practice and is successfully implemented in several countries, including the US, Brazil, and Japan. The Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by state-owned Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) challenging a Karnataka High Court order concerning ethanol allocation for the 2025-26 supply year. In its June 23 order, the High Court had directed Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) — BPCL, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation — to consider a request by a distillery seeking increase in its ethanol allocation before the tender process is finalised. Also Read: 50 biz honchos accompanying Japan’s PM to Delhi, eager to ride on India’s growth story BPCL told the court that the order could have wider implications for the government’s target of achieving 20% ethanol blending in petrol. ‘Ethanol allocation process already completed in October 2025’ Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R Venkataramani said the ethanol allocation process had already been completed in October 2025, with supply contracts finalised, and warned that reopening individual allocations could disrupt the nationwide programme. “The ethanol supply contracts had already been finalised in October 2025. Such petitions are pending before several high courts. This will impact the national policy,” he said. “The government is trying to experiment with 20% ethanol blending. We will have results of that by next year,” he added. Also Read: Yasin Malik faces trial in Sarla Bhat rape-murder case 35 years after brutal crime instilled fear in Kashmiri Pandits Venkataramani argued that granting changes to one supplier’s allocation could prompt similar claims from others, leading to multiple litigations and affecting the supply chain. He said BPCL, which is coordinating the ethanol-blended petrol programme, had received cumulative supply offers of around 1,759 crore litres following the tender process. Venkataramani sought permission to file a transfer petition, arguing that the issue needed to be decided before October, when ethanol supply contracts would come up for renewal. “If I go before the division bench and then again to other high courts, it will be delayed,” he said. ‘Ethanol blending a globally accepted practice’ India achieved its target of blending 20% ethanol in petrol in 2025, five years ahead of schedule. Oil marketing companies started supplying ethanol-blended petrol across the country since April 1. The government has now set a target of increasing ethanol blending in petrol to 30% by 2030. Tuesday’s hearing came days after the Union Oil Ministry said the ethanol blending programme was “safe, consumer-friendly and economically beneficial”, rejecting concerns that the use of E20 fuel could impact vehicle insurance coverage. In a statement on June 24, the Ministry said claims suggesting that E20 fuel could invalidate insurance policies had been examined with stakeholders and were found to be incorrect. Also Read: Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing of Ram Temple petitions, saying, 'Heavens are not going to fall’ “Ethanol blending is a globally accepted practice and is successfully implemented in several countries, including the US, Brazil, and Japan,” the ministry said. The ethanol blending programme helped India save more than Rs 1.4 lakh crore in foreign exchange by reducing crude oil imports, it added. “Ethanol blending plays an important role in enhancing India’s energy security, reducing carbon emissions and advancing India’s transition towards cleaner mobility,” the ministry said and reiterated that the programme would continue to be implemented in a “safe, transparent and consumer-centric manner” based on scientific evidence and consultations with stakeholders.

India achieved its target of blending 20% ethanol in petrol in 2025. Oil marketing companies started supplying ethanol-blended petrol across the country since April 1. The government has now set a target of increasing ethanol blending in petrol to 30% by 2030.

Ethanol blending is ongoing experiment, impact to be known by next year: Govt tells SC

The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to grant an urgent hearing to a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the embezzlement of public donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and said the matter will be listed after July 13, when the court’s summer vacation ends. The court observed that “heavens are not going to fall” if the matter is heard after the court resumes regular functioning.&nbsp;A vacation bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu dismissed the request for an expedited out-of-turn hearing and held that the petitions would be listed in due course once the Supreme Court resumes full regular functioning.&nbsp;When one of the petitioners seeking urgent hearing told the bench, “The matter is very serious,” Justice Sundresh asked him what the urgency is.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-least-five-killed-in-mass-shooting-in-northern-germany-s-stade-town-suspect-detained-say-police-1782735568424">At least five killed in mass shooting in northern Germany’s Stade town; suspect detained, say police</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;The counsel appearing for the petitioner said, “The urgency is the way the state is dealing with the matter casts doubts…”&nbsp;The bench, however, said the matter will be listed in the first week after the court reopens. “Heavens are not going to fall,” it said.&nbsp;The Supreme Court is operating on reduced strength and is scheduled to return to full operational capacity on July 13.&nbsp;<h2>Petitioners seek a court-monitored probe by the CBI and other agencies</h2>&nbsp;&nbsp;The petition, filed by two advocates, names the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the state of Uttar Pradesh, and the Union of India as respondents. The petition says there are allegations of dishonest misappropriation, diversion, and embezzlement of public donations intended for the construction of the Ram Temple. The petition sought a court-monitored investigation by the CBI and other agencies into the alleged misappropriation of donation funds. The petitioners argued that the probe being conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police did not inspire confidence and alleged that crucial evidence was not being preserved properly.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Uttar Pradesh government constituted a special investigation team (SIT) which is investigating the matter and has already submitted a preliminary report. The petition claims that the SIT lacks the necessary forensic and investigative resources for a complex financial probe and that it began its inquiry without registering an FIR.&nbsp;One of the petitioners told the bench that his apprehension is that electronic evidence, such as CCTV and DVRs, might be tampered with or corrupted.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/zero-tolerance-for-any-attempt-to-exploit-sanatan-faith-of-devotees-says-cm-yogi-after-arrests-in-ram-temple-donation-theft-case-1782473006937">‘Zero tolerance for any attempt to exploit Sanatan, faith of devotees,’ says CM Yogi after arrests in Ram temple donation theft case</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;But the bench told him, “You heard us earlier. We follow the same procedure.”&nbsp;One of the petitions cited media reports and said, “The allegations, as disclosed in these reports and other publicly available materials, prima facie disclose serious instances of dishonest misappropriation, diversion, embezzlement and breach of trust in relation to public donations and funds entrusted for religious and charitable purposes.”&nbsp;The plea comes amid an ongoing police investigation into alleged embezzlement of donations made to the Ram Mandir. As part of the probe, the statement of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust general secretary Champat Rai has been recorded.&nbsp;&nbsp;Earlier, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust said it was “shocked, hurt, and deeply saddened” by the allegations and reiterated its commitment to a fair investigation. The Trust also confirmed that it had received the resignations of Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra, adding that the matter would be discussed at its next meeting.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/fir-registered-in-ram-temple-donation-row-case-on-trust-member-s-complaint-1782397111943">FIR registered in Ram Temple donation row case; all 8 named accused in custody</a>&nbsp;Reassuring devotees, the Trust said all valuables personally offered to Lord Ram, including silver bricks and jewellery, were safe and fully accounted for. The Trust also confirmed that it had received the resignations of Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra, stating that the matter would be placed before its next meeting for consideration. Reassuring devotees, it added that all offerings made to Lord Ram, including silver bricks and jewellery, were safe and fully accounted for, expressing confidence that the truth would ultimately come out.&nbsp;<h2>All eight donation theft accused sent to 14-day judicial custody</h2>&nbsp;Meanwhile, an Ayodhya court on Monday remanded all eight accused in the Ram Temple donation embezzlement case to 14-day judicial custody. Earlier in the day, the eight accused were produced before the court after the expiry of their three-day police remand.&nbsp;The eight people accused of misappropriating the donations were arrested on Thursday night.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-ram-temple-donation-controversy-timeline-allegations-and-investigation-1782300937489">Ram temple donation controversy: Timeline, allegations and investigation</a>&nbsp;Police teams have conducted simultaneous searches at the residences of all eight accused as part of the ongoing investigation.&nbsp;In another development, the Faizabad Bar Association in Ayodhya has passed a resolution stating that none of its members would appear as legal counsel for the accused. The association also warned that any lawyer defying the resolution would be fined Rs 5 lakh.

The petition sought a court-monitored investigation by the CBI and other agencies into the alleged embezzlement of donations. The petitioners argued that the probe being conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police did not inspire confidence and that evidence was not being preserved properly.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to grant an urgent hearing to a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the embezzlement of public donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and said the matter will be listed after July 13, when the court’s summer vacation ends. The court observed that “heavens are not going to fall” if the matter is heard after the court resumes regular functioning. A vacation bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu dismissed the request for an expedited out-of-turn hearing and held that the petitions would be listed in due course once the Supreme Court resumes full regular functioning. When one of the petitioners seeking urgent hearing told the bench, “The matter is very serious,” Justice Sundresh asked him what the urgency is. Also Read: At least five killed in mass shooting in northern Germany’s Stade town; suspect detained, say police The counsel appearing for the petitioner said, “The urgency is the way the state is dealing with the matter casts doubts…” The bench, however, said the matter will be listed in the first week after the court reopens. “Heavens are not going to fall,” it said. The Supreme Court is operating on reduced strength and is scheduled to return to full operational capacity on July 13. Petitioners seek a court-monitored probe by the CBI and other agencies The petition, filed by two advocates, names the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the state of Uttar Pradesh, and the Union of India as respondents. The petition says there are allegations of dishonest misappropriation, diversion, and embezzlement of public donations intended for the construction of the Ram Temple. The petition sought a court-monitored investigation by the CBI and other agencies into the alleged misappropriation of donation funds. The petitioners argued that the probe being conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police did not inspire confidence and alleged that crucial evidence was not being preserved properly. The Uttar Pradesh government constituted a special investigation team (SIT) which is investigating the matter and has already submitted a preliminary report. The petition claims that the SIT lacks the necessary forensic and investigative resources for a complex financial probe and that it began its inquiry without registering an FIR. One of the petitioners told the bench that his apprehension is that electronic evidence, such as CCTV and DVRs, might be tampered with or corrupted. Also Read: ‘Zero tolerance for any attempt to exploit Sanatan, faith of devotees,’ says CM Yogi after arrests in Ram temple donation theft case But the bench told him, “You heard us earlier. We follow the same procedure.” One of the petitions cited media reports and said, “The allegations, as disclosed in these reports and other publicly available materials, prima facie disclose serious instances of dishonest misappropriation, diversion, embezzlement and breach of trust in relation to public donations and funds entrusted for religious and charitable purposes.” The plea comes amid an ongoing police investigation into alleged embezzlement of donations made to the Ram Mandir. As part of the probe, the statement of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust general secretary Champat Rai has been recorded. Earlier, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust said it was “shocked, hurt, and deeply saddened” by the allegations and reiterated its commitment to a fair investigation. The Trust also confirmed that it had received the resignations of Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra, adding that the matter would be discussed at its next meeting. Also Read: FIR registered in Ram Temple donation row case; all 8 named accused in custody Reassuring devotees, the Trust said all valuables personally offered to Lord Ram, including silver bricks and jewellery, were safe and fully accounted for. The Trust also confirmed that it had received the resignations of Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra, stating that the matter would be placed before its next meeting for consideration. Reassuring devotees, it added that all offerings made to Lord Ram, including silver bricks and jewellery, were safe and fully accounted for, expressing confidence that the truth would ultimately come out. All eight donation theft accused sent to 14-day judicial custody Meanwhile, an Ayodhya court on Monday remanded all eight accused in the Ram Temple donation embezzlement case to 14-day judicial custody. Earlier in the day, the eight accused were produced before the court after the expiry of their three-day police remand. The eight people accused of misappropriating the donations were arrested on Thursday night. Also Read: Ram temple donation controversy: Timeline, allegations and investigation Police teams have conducted simultaneous searches at the residences of all eight accused as part of the ongoing investigation. In another development, the Faizabad Bar Association in Ayodhya has passed a resolution stating that none of its members would appear as legal counsel for the accused. The association also warned that any lawyer defying the resolution would be fined Rs 5 lakh.

The petition sought a court-monitored investigation by the CBI and other agencies into the alleged embezzlement of donations. The petitioners argued that the probe being conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police did not inspire confidence and that evidence was not being preserved properly.

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing of Ram Temple petitions, saying, 'Heavens are not going to fall’

The Supreme Court of India on Friday said in a ruling that the right to walk on secured footpaths is a fundamental right and urged the government to bring a law that declares this right and recognises the duty of municipal authorities and local bodies to build, demarcate, and maintain necessary pedestrian infrastructure. The judgment came in a motor accident claim case related to the death of a five-year-old boy, who met with an accident while walking to school.&nbsp;“The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), read with Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1) (b), Article 19(1) (c) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The fundamental right to walk will take within its sweep the right to demarcated footpaths. These rights are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles,” a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar said.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-showed-desperation-for-deal-says-mojtaba-khamenei-hails-iranian-officials-efforts-1781808381038">‘Trump showed desperation for deal,’ says Mojtaba Khamenei, hails Iranian officials’ efforts</a>&nbsp;The top court said that the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths has a correlative duty. “If the road exists, there is a duty to ensure that there are demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for walkers. The duty bearers are the urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and even panchayats, who must endeavour to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths and other necessary pedestrian infrastructure, as walking is integral to life,” the bench said.&nbsp;<h2>Violation of right will entitle citizens to invoke legal remedies for restitution and compensation</h2>&nbsp;The court further said that “the violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths will entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation. “This remedy is independent of the remedies that are available under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988,” the bench added.&nbsp;The judgment came in a motor accident claim case related to a five-year-old boy’s death. The boy was walking toward his school with his father when a tanker hit him from behind, crushing his waist and lower body. The little boy succumbed to the injuries.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-not-merely-preparing-for-future-it-is-actively-shaping-it-pm-modi-tells-diaspora-in-paris-1781803373772">‘India not merely preparing for future, it is actively shaping it,’ PM Modi tells diaspora in Paris</a>&nbsp;On May 30, 2016, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) granted compensation of Rs 7.82 lakh, with 6 per cent interest per annum. After the insurance company appealed the decision, the high court reduced the compensation to Rs 4.70 lakh.The Supreme Court said that the high court “committed an error in reducing the compensation granted by the MACT” and enhanced it to Rs 11,44,628, and directed that it be paid within two months.The apex court also noted that “there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing” on the stretch of road where the accident happened.&nbsp;<h2>‘Wheels eclipsed imagination, created roads suitable for motorised vehicles’</h2>&nbsp;Pointing out that man started walking long before taking to wheels, the bench said, “The primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the Fundamental Right to Walk, a right that precedes the right to move on wheels and this precious right must extend to guaranteeing access to safe and well demarcated footpath.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/telegram-being-used-for-carrying-out-cyberattacks-circulating-child-porn-drug-trade-govt-tells-delhi-high-court-1781779733996">Telegram being used for carrying out cyberattacks, circulating child porn, drug trade: Govt tells Delhi High Court</a>&nbsp;“It is rather strange that we failed to focus on recognising and securing this ‘right to walk’. It may be because wheels eclipsed our imagination, and our municipal administration was busy creating roads that are suitable for motorised vehicles,” the court added.&nbsp;<h2>Phrase ‘pedestrian’ acquired pejorative shades: Top Court</h2>&nbsp;The bench noted that the phrase ‘pedestrian’ has acquired pejorative shades and added that it is emphasising the “freedom to walk subject to reasonable restrictions, only to ensure that access to common spaces—in both urban areas and rural areas is distributed in such a way that it is not a monopoly of the motorised class alone.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/former-pm-s-son-an-ex-rajya-sabha-mp-duped-of-rs-7-80-crore-in-cyber-fraud-1781784940388">Former PM’s son, an ex-Rajya Sabha MP, duped of Rs 7.80 crore in cyber fraud</a>&nbsp;On the need for a law on the subject, the court said, “The Act must protect, enhance, and provide quick remedies for violations, and also establish a full-time regulator to plan, enforce, and implement this precious right.”&nbsp;The Supreme Court directed its Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways for initiating the necessary legal framework.”

The Supreme Court said that the violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths will entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation, besides the remedies available under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday said in a ruling that the right to walk on secured footpaths is a fundamental right and urged the government to bring a law that declares this right and recognises the duty of municipal authorities and local bodies to build, demarcate, and maintain necessary pedestrian infrastructure. The judgment came in a motor accident claim case related to the death of a five-year-old boy, who met with an accident while walking to school. “The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), read with Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1) (b), Article 19(1) (c) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The fundamental right to walk will take within its sweep the right to demarcated footpaths. These rights are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles,” a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar said. Also Read: ‘Trump showed desperation for deal,’ says Mojtaba Khamenei, hails Iranian officials’ efforts The top court said that the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths has a correlative duty. “If the road exists, there is a duty to ensure that there are demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for walkers. The duty bearers are the urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and even panchayats, who must endeavour to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths and other necessary pedestrian infrastructure, as walking is integral to life,” the bench said. Violation of right will entitle citizens to invoke legal remedies for restitution and compensation The court further said that “the violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths will entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation. “This remedy is independent of the remedies that are available under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988,” the bench added. The judgment came in a motor accident claim case related to a five-year-old boy’s death. The boy was walking toward his school with his father when a tanker hit him from behind, crushing his waist and lower body. The little boy succumbed to the injuries. Also Read: ‘India not merely preparing for future, it is actively shaping it,’ PM Modi tells diaspora in Paris On May 30, 2016, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) granted compensation of Rs 7.82 lakh, with 6 per cent interest per annum. After the insurance company appealed the decision, the high court reduced the compensation to Rs 4.70 lakh. The Supreme Court said that the high court “committed an error in reducing the compensation granted by the MACT” and enhanced it to Rs 11,44,628, and directed that it be paid within two months. The apex court also noted that “there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing” on the stretch of road where the accident happened. ‘Wheels eclipsed imagination, created roads suitable for motorised vehicles’ Pointing out that man started walking long before taking to wheels, the bench said, “The primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the Fundamental Right to Walk, a right that precedes the right to move on wheels and this precious right must extend to guaranteeing access to safe and well demarcated footpath.” Also Read: Telegram being used for carrying out cyberattacks, circulating child porn, drug trade: Govt tells Delhi High Court “It is rather strange that we failed to focus on recognising and securing this ‘right to walk’. It may be because wheels eclipsed our imagination, and our municipal administration was busy creating roads that are suitable for motorised vehicles,” the court added. Phrase ‘pedestrian’ acquired pejorative shades: Top Court The bench noted that the phrase ‘pedestrian’ has acquired pejorative shades and added that it is emphasising the “freedom to walk subject to reasonable restrictions, only to ensure that access to common spaces—in both urban areas and rural areas is distributed in such a way that it is not a monopoly of the motorised class alone.” Also Read: Former PM’s son, an ex-Rajya Sabha MP, duped of Rs 7.80 crore in cyber fraud On the need for a law on the subject, the court said, “The Act must protect, enhance, and provide quick remedies for violations, and also establish a full-time regulator to plan, enforce, and implement this precious right.” The Supreme Court directed its Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways for initiating the necessary legal framework.”

The Supreme Court said that the violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths will entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation, besides the remedies available under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988.

Right to walk on secured footpaths a fundamental right, says SC; tells govt to frame law

The Supreme Court of India has stressed that courts should not compel individuals to remain stuck in “stale and frozen” marriages, urging the judiciary to end prolonged matrimonial disputes through effective relief when a relationship has irretrievably broken down. The top court made the observation while hearing a case of a married couple who had been living separately for more than 15 years.A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih said that keeping dead marriages alive through years of litigation serves little purpose and only deepens emotional distress. In a judgment delivered on June 2, the court observed that ending such relationships is often in the best interests of both the individuals involved and society as a whole.“It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time,” the bench noted.The court warned that prolonging a marriage that has ceased to exist would not only lead to “escalation of frustration in a dead relationship” but also create “sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life,” depriving individuals of the opportunity to rebuild their lives in a healthy and independent environment. It added that matrimonial litigation pending for years “needs to be put to end by granting effective release to the parties from a stale and frozen relationship.”The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage of two government doctors who had been living separately for over 15 years. While the husband had sought a divorce, the wife had filed an appeal. The court noted that repeated reconciliation efforts had failed and found no evidence that either party genuinely intended to resume married life. It also noted that both were financially independent and had no children.The court observed, “The parties have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the marriage.”The bench held that bringing the long-standing dispute to a close was necessary to ensure complete justice. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage and rejected the wife’s appeal.

The Supreme Court said courts should not keep “stale and frozen” marriages alive. Invoking Article 142, it dissolved a marriage after 15 years of separation, citing irretrievable breakdown and failed reconciliation efforts.

The Supreme Court of India has stressed that courts should not compel individuals to remain stuck in “stale and frozen” marriages, urging the judiciary to end prolonged matrimonial disputes through effective relief when a relationship has irretrievably broken down. The top court made the observation while hearing a case of a married couple who had been living separately for more than 15 years. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih said that keeping dead marriages alive through years of litigation serves little purpose and only deepens emotional distress. In a judgment delivered on June 2, the court observed that ending such relationships is often in the best interests of both the individuals involved and society as a whole. “It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time,” the bench noted. The court warned that prolonging a marriage that has ceased to exist would not only lead to “escalation of frustration in a dead relationship” but also create “sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life,” depriving individuals of the opportunity to rebuild their lives in a healthy and independent environment. It added that matrimonial litigation pending for years “needs to be put to end by granting effective release to the parties from a stale and frozen relationship.” The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage of two government doctors who had been living separately for over 15 years. While the husband had sought a divorce, the wife had filed an appeal. The court noted that repeated reconciliation efforts had failed and found no evidence that either party genuinely intended to resume married life. It also noted that both were financially independent and had no children. The court observed, “The parties have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the marriage.” The bench held that bringing the long-standing dispute to a close was necessary to ensure complete justice. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage and rejected the wife’s appeal.

The Supreme Court said courts should not keep “stale and frozen” marriages alive. Invoking Article 142, it dissolved a marriage after 15 years of separation, citing irretrievable breakdown and failed reconciliation efforts.

‘No sanctity left’: India’s Supreme Court urges judiciary to end ‘stale and frozen’ marriages

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

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday (May 15) delivered one of the judiciary’s sharpest public rebukes yet, using the startling phrase "youngsters like cockroaches" while expressing alarm over what he suggested was a growing ecosystem of fake degree holders, social media attackers and opportunistic activists targeting institutions. The unusually blunt remark came during a Supreme Court hearing on a plea saying the Delhi High Court has failed in implementing the Supreme Court's guidelines on the designation of senior advocates.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/media-house-deletes-story-after-pm-modi-rare-fact-checks-foreign-travel-tax-report-totally-false-cnbc-tv18-shut-down-global-travel-panic-1778899536032">Media house forced to delete story after PM Modi fact-checks misleading report on X: 'Totally false'</a><h2>Parasites, cockroaches and more: What did the CJI say?</h2>"There are already parasites of society who attack the system, and you want to join hands with them?" the CJI said, before escalating his criticism even further."There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment and don’t have a place in a profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking everyone…"Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-padma-jaiswal-why-it-took-nearly-two-decades-to-dismiss-the-ias-officer-for-a-2007-08-offense-wion-explains-1778830736127">Who is Padma Jaiswal? Why it took nearly two decades to dismiss the IAS officer for a 2007-08 offense | WION Explains</a><h2>Fake law degrees under Supreme Court scanner</h2>CJI Surya Kant said he harboured "serious doubts" about the genuineness of many law degrees held by some Delhi-based advocates, particularly those active on social media platforms.The CJI said he was waiting for an appropriate case to order an investigation into the law degrees of many Delhi lawyers. He also suggested that the Central Bureau of Investigation should probe the issue.The bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also referred to "thousands of fraudulent people wearing black robes". The CJI declined to entertain the plea and also criticised the language used online by a petitioner’s lawyer, warning that professional discipline was being undermined. "Let people understand the kind of language you are using on Facebook. I will show you what discipline in the profession means," the CJI said. The petitioner later chose to withdraw the plea.Notably, the lawyer had previously filed a writ petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision not to consider him for designation as a senior advocate. He subsequently filed a contempt petition, alleging non-compliance with an earlier Supreme Court order. However, the apex court had dismissed this contempt plea in December last year.

In one of the Supreme Court’s most blistering public remarks in recent memory, CJI Surya Kant warned of “parasites” attacking institutions. He then drew attention with his “cockroaches” comment about certain youngsters. Why prompted the statement?

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday (May 15) delivered one of the judiciary’s sharpest public rebukes yet, using the startling phrase "youngsters like cockroaches" while expressing alarm over what he suggested was a growing ecosystem of fake degree holders, social media attackers and opportunistic activists targeting institutions. The unusually blunt remark came during a Supreme Court hearing on a plea saying the Delhi High Court has failed in implementing the Supreme Court's guidelines on the designation of senior advocates. Also read | Media house forced to delete story after PM Modi fact-checks misleading report on X: 'Totally false' Parasites, cockroaches and more: What did the CJI say? "There are already parasites of society who attack the system, and you want to join hands with them?" the CJI said, before escalating his criticism even further. "There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment and don’t have a place in a profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking everyone…" Also read | Who is Padma Jaiswal? Why it took nearly two decades to dismiss the IAS officer for a 2007-08 offense | WION Explains Fake law degrees under Supreme Court scanner CJI Surya Kant said he harboured "serious doubts" about the genuineness of many law degrees held by some Delhi-based advocates, particularly those active on social media platforms. The CJI said he was waiting for an appropriate case to order an investigation into the law degrees of many Delhi lawyers. He also suggested that the Central Bureau of Investigation should probe the issue. The bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also referred to "thousands of fraudulent people wearing black robes". The CJI declined to entertain the plea and also criticised the language used online by a petitioner’s lawyer, warning that professional discipline was being undermined. "Let people understand the kind of language you are using on Facebook. I will show you what discipline in the profession means," the CJI said. The petitioner later chose to withdraw the plea. Notably, the lawyer had previously filed a writ petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision not to consider him for designation as a senior advocate. He subsequently filed a contempt petition, alleging non-compliance with an earlier Supreme Court order. However, the apex court had dismissed this contempt plea in December last year.

In one of the Supreme Court’s most blistering public remarks in recent memory, CJI Surya Kant warned of “parasites” attacking institutions. He then drew attention with his “cockroaches” comment about certain youngsters. Why prompted the statement?

'There are youngsters like cockroaches': What made CJI Surya Kant compare youngsters to pests? Supreme Court hearing turns explosive

The Supreme Court on Wednesday castigated West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee for barging in and interfering in an Enforcement Directorate search at the Kolkata residence of Pratik Jain, co-founder and director of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee, or I-PAC, in January as part of a money laundering investigation.&nbsp;The top court described the socio-political atmosphere in the poll-bound state as an “extraordinary situation,” while referring to the CM’s entry into the premises mid-raid and forcefully taking away a laptop, phone and files.&nbsp;The court observed that such an act by a sitting chief minister put democracy in jeopardy.&nbsp;“This is not a dispute between the state and the union. We never thought that in this country, a day will come when a sitting CM will walk into the office where some investigating agency is. The chief minister of any state cannot walk in in the midst of an investigation, put the democracy in peril, and then say that ‘don’t convert this into a dispute between the state and the union’. This is per se an act committed by an individual who happens to be the chief minister keeping the whole democracy in jeopardy,” said a bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/india-bound-ship-among-two-vessels-attacked-in-strait-of-hormuz-seized-by-iran-s-irgc-1776859709438">India-bound ship among two vessels attacked in Strait of Hormuz, seized by Iran's IRGC</a><h2>‘Court cannot shut its eyes to practical realities’</h2>&nbsp;The court told the counsels arguing on behalf of the West Bengal administration that they may argue on abstract legal principles, but the court cannot shut its eyes to the practical realities in the state.&nbsp;The Supreme Court also took note of the seven judicial officers, including three women, being held hostage for several hours inside the Kaliachak 2 Block Development Office (BDO) in Bengal’s Malda district by a crowd, which alleged deletion of names of genuine voters from the electoral rolls.&nbsp;“This is an extraordinary situation. Before the other bench where the FIR is under question, we have seen the situation that several judicial officers had been kept hostage. And you want the petitioner should have gone to a magistrate under section 200? We cannot shut our eyes to the reality of what’s happening. We cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is present in the state,” said the top court bench.The Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court was forced to intervene personally, placing group calls to the home secretary and the Director General of Police before the judicial officers were rescued late at night.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-there-will-be-consequences-india-warns-iran-after-attack-on-2-tankers-in-hormuz-1776597009259">‘There will be consequences,’ India warns Iran after attack on 2 tankers in Hormuz</a><h2>‘Constitution framers would have disapproved’</h2>&nbsp;The top court said the Constitution framers would have disapproved of the act.&nbsp;“You have taken us through the writings of HM Seervai, BR Ambedkar, but none of them would have conceived this situation in this country that one day a sitting Chief Minister will walk into the office during an ongoing investigation,” the court said.&nbsp;The stinging remark came a day before polling for assembly elections in the state.&nbsp;The ED had carried out searches at multiple locations, including Kolkata and Delhi, as part of a probe into alleged financial irregularities linked to I-PAC. The ED said its action is not politically motivated and that the search is evidence-based and not targeted at any political establishment.&nbsp;I-PAC has been the TMC’s political consultant.I-PAC co-founder Vinesh Chandel was also recently arrested by the ED for his alleged involvement in the coal scam.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria told the counsels arguing on behalf of the West Bengal administration that they may argue on abstract legal principles, but the court cannot shut its eyes to the practical realities in the state.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday castigated West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee for barging in and interfering in an Enforcement Directorate search at the Kolkata residence of Pratik Jain, co-founder and director of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee, or I-PAC, in January as part of a money laundering investigation. The top court described the socio-political atmosphere in the poll-bound state as an “extraordinary situation,” while referring to the CM’s entry into the premises mid-raid and forcefully taking away a laptop, phone and files. The court observed that such an act by a sitting chief minister put democracy in jeopardy. “This is not a dispute between the state and the union. We never thought that in this country, a day will come when a sitting CM will walk into the office where some investigating agency is. The chief minister of any state cannot walk in in the midst of an investigation, put the democracy in peril, and then say that ‘don’t convert this into a dispute between the state and the union’. This is per se an act committed by an individual who happens to be the chief minister keeping the whole democracy in jeopardy,” said a bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria. Also Read: India-bound ship among two vessels attacked in Strait of Hormuz, seized by Iran's IRGC ‘Court cannot shut its eyes to practical realities’ The court told the counsels arguing on behalf of the West Bengal administration that they may argue on abstract legal principles, but the court cannot shut its eyes to the practical realities in the state. The Supreme Court also took note of the seven judicial officers, including three women, being held hostage for several hours inside the Kaliachak 2 Block Development Office (BDO) in Bengal’s Malda district by a crowd, which alleged deletion of names of genuine voters from the electoral rolls. “This is an extraordinary situation. Before the other bench where the FIR is under question, we have seen the situation that several judicial officers had been kept hostage. And you want the petitioner should have gone to a magistrate under section 200? We cannot shut our eyes to the reality of what’s happening. We cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is present in the state,” said the top court bench. The Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court was forced to intervene personally, placing group calls to the home secretary and the Director General of Police before the judicial officers were rescued late at night. Also Read: ‘There will be consequences,’ India warns Iran after attack on 2 tankers in Hormuz ‘Constitution framers would have disapproved’ The top court said the Constitution framers would have disapproved of the act. “You have taken us through the writings of HM Seervai, BR Ambedkar, but none of them would have conceived this situation in this country that one day a sitting Chief Minister will walk into the office during an ongoing investigation,” the court said. The stinging remark came a day before polling for assembly elections in the state. The ED had carried out searches at multiple locations, including Kolkata and Delhi, as part of a probe into alleged financial irregularities linked to I-PAC. The ED said its action is not politically motivated and that the search is evidence-based and not targeted at any political establishment. I-PAC has been the TMC’s political consultant. I-PAC co-founder Vinesh Chandel was also recently arrested by the ED for his alleged involvement in the coal scam.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria told the counsels arguing on behalf of the West Bengal administration that they may argue on abstract legal principles, but the court cannot shut its eyes to the practical realities in the state.

‘Put democracy in jeopardy’: SC raps CM Mamata Banerjee for interfering in ED raid at I-PAC premises

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (Apr 13) made a pointed observation in the middle of the West Bengal electoral roll controversy, with a bench led by CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi stating that a person born in India holds not just a constitutional but a sentimental right to remain on the voter list and participate in electing a government. "Somewhere we are getting blinded by the dust and fury of an impending election," said the Justice.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-of-india-rejects-relief-for-deleted-voters-in-west-bengal-sir-process-1776089269403">SC rejects relief for deleted voters in West Bengal SIR process</a><h2>Born in India = Vote in India?</h2>"The right to remain on the roll and the right to vote in the country where you are born is something which is not only constitutional but also sentimental. It is the biggest expression of nationality and patriotism that you are in a participatory process to elect a democratic government. This is something we need to seriously think about," said Justice Bagchi.The remarks come just ahead of West Bengal's two-phase assembly elections on April 23 and April 29.<h2>What about illegal immigrants born in India?</h2>The court did not, however, clarify whether the same principle would cover those born to illegal migrants in India, a distinction that sits at the heart of the dispute over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls currently underway in the state.The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, declined to allow those cleared by appellate tribunals to vote immediately, insisting that the formal adjudication process must run its course first. "We will not entertain any plea for inclusion prior to adjudication on appeals," the bench said in its order, directing petitioners to seek out-of-turn hearings before the tribunals instead. "Let the tribunals decide the appeals, and we will determine the future course of action."Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-yashwant-varma-resigns-following-massive-cash-scandal-all-you-need-to-know-1775803006275">Justice Yashwant Varma resigns following massive cash scandal. All you need to know</a>Justice Bagchi drew attention to a specific scenario that he said would warrant judicial intervention: if a constituency sees 10 per cent of its voters deleted from the roll, but the winning margin is only 2 per cent, the court indicated it would take a closer look. Where victory margins are wide enough to absorb the deletions without affecting the outcome, the bench suggested it would be less inclined to intervene. "If in a constituency, the victory margin is 2% and the deletion is 10%, then we will consider such cases," he said.

What did the Supreme Court of India just say about voting rights ahead of West Bengal elections? The bench said being born in India carries not just a constitutional, but a “sentimental” right to vote—calling it the strongest expression of citizenship. Scroll down to read more.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (Apr 13) made a pointed observation in the middle of the West Bengal electoral roll controversy, with a bench led by CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi stating that a person born in India holds not just a constitutional but a sentimental right to remain on the voter list and participate in electing a government. "Somewhere we are getting blinded by the dust and fury of an impending election," said the Justice. Also read | SC rejects relief for deleted voters in West Bengal SIR process Born in India = Vote in India? "The right to remain on the roll and the right to vote in the country where you are born is something which is not only constitutional but also sentimental. It is the biggest expression of nationality and patriotism that you are in a participatory process to elect a democratic government. This is something we need to seriously think about," said Justice Bagchi. The remarks come just ahead of West Bengal's two-phase assembly elections on April 23 and April 29. What about illegal immigrants born in India? The court did not, however, clarify whether the same principle would cover those born to illegal migrants in India, a distinction that sits at the heart of the dispute over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls currently underway in the state. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, declined to allow those cleared by appellate tribunals to vote immediately, insisting that the formal adjudication process must run its course first. "We will not entertain any plea for inclusion prior to adjudication on appeals," the bench said in its order, directing petitioners to seek out-of-turn hearings before the tribunals instead. "Let the tribunals decide the appeals, and we will determine the future course of action." Also read | Justice Yashwant Varma resigns following massive cash scandal. All you need to know Justice Bagchi drew attention to a specific scenario that he said would warrant judicial intervention: if a constituency sees 10 per cent of its voters deleted from the roll, but the winning margin is only 2 per cent, the court indicated it would take a closer look. Where victory margins are wide enough to absorb the deletions without affecting the outcome, the bench suggested it would be less inclined to intervene. "If in a constituency, the victory margin is 2% and the deletion is 10%, then we will consider such cases," he said.

What did the Supreme Court of India just say about voting rights ahead of West Bengal elections? The bench said being born in India carries not just a constitutional, but a “sentimental” right to vote—calling it the strongest expression of citizenship. Scroll down to read more.

Supreme Court backs 'right to vote in the country where you are born,' says it's a 'sentimental' right

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking menstrual leaves for working women and female students across India and said that if menstrual leaves are made mandatory at workplaces, it would hinder job opportunities for women as firms won’t be willing to hire them anymore. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observations while refusing to entertain a plea seeking menstrual leaves for female students and working women.&nbsp;&nbsp;The top court, however, said that it would be “excellent” if private companies granted these leaves voluntarily, but making them compulsory would hurt women’s careers. “The moment you say compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs, nobody will take them in judiciary or government jobs, their career is over ...they will say - you should sit at home after informing everyone,” the CJI said as quoted by a LiveLaw report.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-not-laying-mines-allowed-ships-from-some-countries-to-cross-strait-of-hormuz-deputy-fm-1773341159965">‘Iran not laying mines, allowed ships from some countries to cross Strait of Hormuz’: Deputy FM</a>&nbsp;“Creating awareness and sensitisation is different... but the moment you bring in a law mandating menstrual leave, nobody will hire them (women),” he said, warning the petitioner, “You don’t know the mindset of employers. They will not hire women if we make such a law.”&nbsp;The Supreme Court also pointed out the likely impact of such measures on workplace perceptions and the professional growth of women.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/oil-tanker-with-indian-captain-went-dark-to-cross-high-risk-strait-of-hormuz-reach-mumbai-1773315721972">Oil tanker, with Indian captain, went ‘dark’ to cross high-risk Strait of Hormuz, reach Mumbai</a>&nbsp;“Such a law would also create a psychological fear or impression among working women... that they are less than men,” the Chief Justice opined.&nbsp;The CJI further said that pleas seeking such leaves to be made legal may have a bad influence.“They will call women inferior (and say) menstruation is something ‘bad’ happening to them.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pm-modi-speaks-to-pezeshkian-conveys-concerns-over-conflict-escalation-loss-of-lives-and-safety-of-indians-1773338727189">PM Modi speaks to Iran’s President Pezeshkian, conveys concerns over conflict escalation, loss of lives and safety of Indians</a>&nbsp;The Supreme Court bench urged the petitioner to think about employers being asked to grant more paid leaves.The court said that the competent authority may consider the representation and examine the possibility of framing a policy on menstrual leave after consulting all relevant stakeholders.The plea, reportedly filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, pointed out to the apex court that certain states, like Kerala, have already introduced a relaxation in schools, and so have some private companies for their women employees.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court pointed out the likely impact of such measures on workplace perceptions and the professional growth of women and urged the petitioner to think about employers being asked to grant more paid leaves.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking menstrual leaves for working women and female students across India and said that if menstrual leaves are made mandatory at workplaces, it would hinder job opportunities for women as firms won’t be willing to hire them anymore. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observations while refusing to entertain a plea seeking menstrual leaves for female students and working women. The top court, however, said that it would be “excellent” if private companies granted these leaves voluntarily, but making them compulsory would hurt women’s careers. “The moment you say compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs, nobody will take them in judiciary or government jobs, their career is over ...they will say - you should sit at home after informing everyone,” the CJI said as quoted by a LiveLaw report. Also Read: ‘Iran not laying mines, allowed ships from some countries to cross Strait of Hormuz’: Deputy FM “Creating awareness and sensitisation is different... but the moment you bring in a law mandating menstrual leave, nobody will hire them (women),” he said, warning the petitioner, “You don’t know the mindset of employers. They will not hire women if we make such a law.” The Supreme Court also pointed out the likely impact of such measures on workplace perceptions and the professional growth of women. Also Read: Oil tanker, with Indian captain, went ‘dark’ to cross high-risk Strait of Hormuz, reach Mumbai “Such a law would also create a psychological fear or impression among working women... that they are less than men,” the Chief Justice opined. The CJI further said that pleas seeking such leaves to be made legal may have a bad influence. “They will call women inferior (and say) menstruation is something ‘bad’ happening to them.” Also Read: PM Modi speaks to Iran’s President Pezeshkian, conveys concerns over conflict escalation, loss of lives and safety of Indians The Supreme Court bench urged the petitioner to think about employers being asked to grant more paid leaves. The court said that the competent authority may consider the representation and examine the possibility of framing a policy on menstrual leave after consulting all relevant stakeholders. The plea, reportedly filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, pointed out to the apex court that certain states, like Kerala, have already introduced a relaxation in schools, and so have some private companies for their women employees.

The Supreme Court pointed out the likely impact of such measures on workplace perceptions and the professional growth of women and urged the petitioner to think about employers being asked to grant more paid leaves.

‘Nobody will hire them’: SC turns down plea on menstrual leaves, says move will hamper career of women

The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on Tuesday (Mar 10) tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" for the '<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ncert-flags-judicial-corruption-and-over-53-million-pending-cases-in-new-class-8-social-science-book-1771912233327">Corruption in the judiciary</a>' chapter in its Class 8 Social Science textbook, "Exploring Society: India and Beyond" (Part II). In a statement issued on X, NCERT said that the entire book has now been withdrawn. This comes as the Supreme Court of India on February 26 ordered a "complete blanket ban is hereby imposed on any further publication re: printing or digital dissemination of the book.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/petrol-and-diesel-prices-in-india-unlikely-to-rise-for-now-but-can-increase-if-oil-prices-cross-this-mark-1773111685796">India to hike petrol and diesel prices? Your fuel cost can increase if crude oil crosses THIS mark. Details inside</a><h2>NCERT's unconditional and unqualified apology</h2>In a statement on X, NCERT said that the book in its entirety has been withdrawn. "The National Council of Educational Research and Training [NCERT] has recently published a social science textbook, "Exploring Society: India and Beyond," Grade 8 (Part II), which contained Chapter IV titled "The Role of Judiciary in our Society." The Director and Members of NCERT hereby tender an unconditional and unqualified apology for the said Chapter IV. The entire book has been withdrawn and is not available".Expressing regret for any inconvenience caused, NCERT reiterated its commitment to accuracy and sensitivity in educational materials. "NCERT remains committed to maintaining the highest standards of accuracy, sensitivity, and responsibility in educational content," it said.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞: 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 The National Council of Educational Research and Training [NCERT] has recently published a social science textbook, “Exploring Society: India and Beyond,&quot; Grade 8 (Part II), which contained Chapter IV titled “The Role of… <a href="https://t.co/mZY15aJTDo">pic.twitter.com/mZY15aJTDo</a>&mdash; NCERT (@ncert) <a href="https://twitter.com/ncert/status/2031199477558817038?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 10, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>What did the chapter 'The Role of Judiciary in our Society' say?</h2>The National Council of Educational Research and Training had, for the first time, added a section on corruption within the judiciary to its Class 8 Social Science textbook. The revised chapter, titled "The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society," still explained the hierarchy of courts and the idea of access to justice. It also addressed the system's vulnerabilities, including corruption and the massive backlog of cases.The book laid out the scale of the problem in stark numbers. It cites roughly 53,321,000 pending cases across courts - 81,000 in the Supreme Court, 62.4 lakh (62,40,000) in High Courts across India, and about 4.7 crore (4,70,00,000) in district and subordinate courts.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Why did NCERT withdraw an entire Class 8 textbook and issue an “unconditional apology”? The move comes after the Supreme Court imposed a blanket ban on the book. What exactly did the chapter say and why did it trigger such a strong response? Scroll down to read more.

The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on Tuesday (Mar 10) tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" for the 'Corruption in the judiciary' chapter in its Class 8 Social Science textbook, "Exploring Society: India and Beyond" (Part II). In a statement issued on X, NCERT said that the entire book has now been withdrawn. This comes as the Supreme Court of India on February 26 ordered a "complete blanket ban is hereby imposed on any further publication re: printing or digital dissemination of the book. Also read | India to hike petrol and diesel prices? Your fuel cost can increase if crude oil crosses THIS mark. Details inside NCERT's unconditional and unqualified apology In a statement on X, NCERT said that the book in its entirety has been withdrawn. "The National Council of Educational Research and Training [NCERT] has recently published a social science textbook, "Exploring Society: India and Beyond," Grade 8 (Part II), which contained Chapter IV titled "The Role of Judiciary in our Society." The Director and Members of NCERT hereby tender an unconditional and unqualified apology for the said Chapter IV. The entire book has been withdrawn and is not available". Expressing regret for any inconvenience caused, NCERT reiterated its commitment to accuracy and sensitivity in educational materials. "NCERT remains committed to maintaining the highest standards of accuracy, sensitivity, and responsibility in educational content," it said.

Why did NCERT withdraw an entire Class 8 textbook and issue an “unconditional apology”? The move comes after the Supreme Court imposed a blanket ban on the book. What exactly did the chapter say and why did it trigger such a strong response? Scroll down to read more.

NCERT withdraws controversial class 8 book, issues 'unconditional' apology for 'corruption in the judiciary' chapter

The Supreme Court has ordered a complete, blanket ban on the reprinting and digital dissemination of the NCERT’s newest Social Science textbook for Class 8, which includes a chapter, “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society,” also mentioning “corruption” in the judiciary. As an abundant caution, the court ordered a complete, blanket ban on the reprinting and digital dissemination of the book and said any attempt to circulate the book would be in defiance and breach of the top court’s direction. A three-judge Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order on Thursday while hearing a suo motu case registered over the matter.“We would like to have a deeper probe. We need to find out who is responsible… heads must roll! We won’t close the case,” the apex court said as it grilled Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing for the NCERT.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/share-revenue-with-news-publishers-or-face-legal-action-minister-ashwini-vaishnaw-warns-platforms-1772103925985">‘Share revenue with news publishers or face legal action,’ minister Ashwini Vaishnaw warns platforms</a>&nbsp;<h2>Bench orders immediate seizure of all copies in circulation, seeks compliance report</h2>&nbsp;The bench called it a “deep-rooted conspiracy against the judiciary”, ordered an immediate seizure of the copies in circulation, and called for a compliance report on the seizure of books in two weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;The NCERT, in coordination with Union and State departments, are directed to ensure that copies of the book, hard or soft, in circulation are immediately seized and away from public access, even from digital platforms, the Bench said.It would be the personal responsibility of the NCERT Director and school principals, it added.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-treasury-sanctions-over-30-individuals-and-entities-for-enabling-illicit-iranian-petroleum-sales-1772043577579">US Treasury sanctions over 30 individuals and entities for enabling illicit Iranian petroleum sales</a><h2>‘Thankful to the media for bringing this out’: CJI</h2>&nbsp;CJI Surya Kant thanked the media “for bringing this out” as the issue was first brought to notice in media reports.“I was getting hundreds and hundreds of calls and had taken cognisance even before (Kapil) Sibal mentioned it yesterday,” CJI Surya Kant said.“We all must stand together and defend the independence of the judicial institution,” he said.&nbsp;The Solicitor General said a notice has been published in the media and a copy placed on record. According to the press release, the Department of School Education and Literacy said the distribution of the book has been held back until further orders. That chapter would be rewritten, it said while tendering an apology.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/suicide-bomber-blows-himself-up-near-pakistan-checkpost-4-cops-dead-1772038584936">Suicide bomber blows himself up near Pakistan checkpost; 4 cops dead | Video</a><h2>Show cause notice issued to Dept. of School Education, NCERT Director</h2>&nbsp;“We deem it appropriate to issue show cause notice to Dept. of School Education secretary, Dr. Dinesh Prakash Sakhlani (NCERT Director) as to why suitable action under contempt of court act or in accordance with any other provisions of law against them or those found responsible for introducing the offending chapter,” the CJI said.&nbsp;The Supreme Court said it will consider later whether the apology has been tendered genuinely or to wriggle out of the spot when substantial damage has been done.&nbsp;<h2>Publish an unconditional apology: SG</h2>&nbsp;The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the current apology is not enough and an unqualified and unconditional apology will be published.&nbsp;The individuals who prepared the chapter would not be associated with any preparation of any chapter or any work in any ministry, the SG added.&nbsp;<h2>‘Fundamentally wrong to expose students to biased misconceptions at this tender age’</h2>&nbsp;CJI Surya Kant said the necessity has arisen for judicial intervention to safeguard the pedagogical sanctity. “Students are only beginning to navigate the nuances of life, it is fundamentally wrong to expose them to biased misconceptions at this tender age.”“There is a need to appreciate the manifold and onerous responsibilities by the judiciary,” the CJI said.“We have to keep in mind that the subject book will not remain confined to students only, the contents are bound to travel from students, teachers to parents and including the next generation too. It may have a lasting impact on judicial independence. Such misconduct falls within criminal contempt; if it proves to be deliberate, it will amount to scandalising the institution and bring it to disrepute,” he added.&nbsp;<h2>Text does not mention judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional values: CJI</h2>&nbsp;CJI Kant said that with just one stroke of the pen the publication washed off the illustrious history of the Supreme Court and High Courts and does not mention any substantive contributions of these institutions towards protecting the democratic values.&nbsp;“If this is allowed to go unchecked, it will erode the sanctity of the judiciary in the eyes of the public and more importantly the impressionable minds of the youth,” he said.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-shocking-unacceptable-says-minister-govt-initiates-action-against-bsnl-director-over-prayagraj-visit-row-1772027947359">‘Shocking, unacceptable,’ says minister; govt initiates action against BSNL director over Prayagraj visit row</a><h2>‘Heads must roll; we want to know persons behind this’: CJI</h2>&nbsp;The Chief Justice said the court wants to know who the persons behind this are.“Heads must roll. There must be a deeper probe into this issue. Who are the persons behind this? We want to know. We must,” CJI Kant states.&nbsp;Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the text is extremely lopsided as it has not been highlighted that the judiciary is the protector of the Constitution. “How we do legal aid, etc., not mentioned,” Justice Bagchi said.

The three-judge bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi called it a deep-rooted conspiracy against the judiciary, ordered an immediate seizure of the copies in circulation, and called for a compliance report on the seizure of books in two weeks.

The Supreme Court has ordered a complete, blanket ban on the reprinting and digital dissemination of the NCERT’s newest Social Science textbook for Class 8, which includes a chapter, “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society,” also mentioning “corruption” in the judiciary. As an abundant caution, the court ordered a complete, blanket ban on the reprinting and digital dissemination of the book and said any attempt to circulate the book would be in defiance and breach of the top court’s direction. A three-judge Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order on Thursday while hearing a suo motu case registered over the matter. “We would like to have a deeper probe. We need to find out who is responsible… heads must roll! We won’t close the case,” the apex court said as it grilled Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing for the NCERT. Also Read: ‘Share revenue with news publishers or face legal action,’ minister Ashwini Vaishnaw warns platforms Bench orders immediate seizure of all copies in circulation, seeks compliance report The bench called it a “deep-rooted conspiracy against the judiciary”, ordered an immediate seizure of the copies in circulation, and called for a compliance report on the seizure of books in two weeks. The NCERT, in coordination with Union and State departments, are directed to ensure that copies of the book, hard or soft, in circulation are immediately seized and away from public access, even from digital platforms, the Bench said. It would be the personal responsibility of the NCERT Director and school principals, it added. Also Read: US Treasury sanctions over 30 individuals and entities for enabling illicit Iranian petroleum sales ‘Thankful to the media for bringing this out’: CJI CJI Surya Kant thanked the media “for bringing this out” as the issue was first brought to notice in media reports. “I was getting hundreds and hundreds of calls and had taken cognisance even before (Kapil) Sibal mentioned it yesterday,” CJI Surya Kant said. “We all must stand together and defend the independence of the judicial institution,” he said. The Solicitor General said a notice has been published in the media and a copy placed on record. According to the press release, the Department of School Education and Literacy said the distribution of the book has been held back until further orders. That chapter would be rewritten, it said while tendering an apology. Also Read: Suicide bomber blows himself up near Pakistan checkpost; 4 cops dead | Video Show cause notice issued to Dept. of School Education, NCERT Director “We deem it appropriate to issue show cause notice to Dept. of School Education secretary, Dr. Dinesh Prakash Sakhlani (NCERT Director) as to why suitable action under contempt of court act or in accordance with any other provisions of law against them or those found responsible for introducing the offending chapter,” the CJI said. The Supreme Court said it will consider later whether the apology has been tendered genuinely or to wriggle out of the spot when substantial damage has been done. Publish an unconditional apology: SG The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the current apology is not enough and an unqualified and unconditional apology will be published. The individuals who prepared the chapter would not be associated with any preparation of any chapter or any work in any ministry, the SG added. ‘Fundamentally wrong to expose students to biased misconceptions at this tender age’ CJI Surya Kant said the necessity has arisen for judicial intervention to safeguard the pedagogical sanctity. “Students are only beginning to navigate the nuances of life, it is fundamentally wrong to expose them to biased misconceptions at this tender age.” “There is a need to appreciate the manifold and onerous responsibilities by the judiciary,” the CJI said. “We have to keep in mind that the subject book will not remain confined to students only, the contents are bound to travel from students, teachers to parents and including the next generation too. It may have a lasting impact on judicial independence. Such misconduct falls within criminal contempt; if it proves to be deliberate, it will amount to scandalising the institution and bring it to disrepute,” he added. Text does not mention judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional values: CJI CJI Kant said that with just one stroke of the pen the publication washed off the illustrious history of the Supreme Court and High Courts and does not mention any substantive contributions of these institutions towards protecting the democratic values. “If this is allowed to go unchecked, it will erode the sanctity of the judiciary in the eyes of the public and more importantly the impressionable minds of the youth,” he said. Also Read: ‘Shocking, unacceptable,’ says minister; govt initiates action against BSNL director over Prayagraj visit row ‘Heads must roll; we want to know persons behind this’: CJI The Chief Justice said the court wants to know who the persons behind this are. “Heads must roll. There must be a deeper probe into this issue. Who are the persons behind this? We want to know. We must,” CJI Kant states. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the text is extremely lopsided as it has not been highlighted that the judiciary is the protector of the Constitution. “How we do legal aid, etc., not mentioned,” Justice Bagchi said.

The three-judge bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi called it a deep-rooted conspiracy against the judiciary, ordered an immediate seizure of the copies in circulation, and called for a compliance report on the seizure of books in two weeks.

Supreme Court orders blanket ban on NCERT textbook, says ‘heads must roll’

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant took note of the mention of ‘corruption in the judiciary’ in a revised NCERT textbook chapter and informed members of the Bar on Wednesday that the Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of it and asserted that he would not let anyone defame the institution. “I will not allow anyone on earth to defame the institution. Howsoever high they be, nobody is above the law. Do not worry… I know how to deal with it,” the CJI said in open court after some senior advocates urged the court to intervene.Senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the issue before a bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, saying the Bar was “deeply disturbed”.&nbsp;<h2>‘Have already passed the order, taking matter suo motu’</h2>&nbsp;“We are compelled to urgently mention this matter since we, at the Bar, are deeply disturbed. Children in Class 8 are being taught about ‘corruption in judiciary’. It is a part of the NCERT curriculum and their textbook,” Sibal submitted.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pm-modi-greeted-by-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-as-he-lands-in-israel-1772017052730">PM Modi greeted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on landing in Israel, to address Knesset</a>&nbsp;The CJI responded that he was already aware of the development. “I am fully aware of it. I can assure you…it definitely concerns the entire institution. All stakeholders, judges in high courts are equally perturbed and have brought it to my notice. I am receiving lot of calls and messages,” he said.“I have already passed the order on the administrative side. We are taking the matter suo motu,” he added, indicating that the top court would initiate proceedings on its own motion.&nbsp;The CJI described the development as “deep-rooted,” adding that it appeared to be “a calculated and conscious step”.&nbsp;<h2>‘Not a word about corruption in bureaucracy or politics’</h2>&nbsp;Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that while the chapter mentioned corruption in the judiciary, there was “not a word” about corruption in other sectors like the bureaucracy or politics.Responding, Justice Bagchi observed that “constitutional morality, as envisaged in the basic structure, is missing”.“I can assure you we will take appropriate steps,” the CJI reiterated.&nbsp;Supreme Court Bar Association President Senior Advocate Vikas Singh later said in a remark to the media that the instance is completely shocking and merits action. "This is completely shocking... Do they have a sub-chapter with regard to the 40 % MLAs and MPs who have a serious criminal background? ... This kind of a message, if they want to give, they should give it about these MLAs and MPs... Corruption in the judiciary is far less than what it is in the executive and in politics,” he said.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a> | Delhi: On the Supreme Court taking suo moto cognisance of the issue of Class 8 students being taught ‘corruption in the Indian judiciary’ in their NCERT curriculum, President of Supreme Court Bar Association, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh says, &quot;This is completely… <a href="https://t.co/i1eYOAliWQ">pic.twitter.com/i1eYOAliWQ</a>&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/2026605435781001658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-shocking-unacceptable-says-minister-govt-initiates-action-against-bsnl-director-over-prayagraj-visit-row-1772027947359">‘Shocking, unacceptable,’ says minister; govt initiates action against BSNL director over Prayagraj visit row</a><h2>Chapter raises corruption at various levels and massive backlog of cases as challenges</h2>&nbsp;The controversy is about the newly released social science textbook for Class 8 by NCERT, which includes a section on “corruption in the judiciary” as part of a chapter titled “The role of the judiciary in our society."&nbsp;The chapter lists “corruption at various levels of the judiciary” and a “massive backlog” of cases as among the challenges faced by the judicial system. It provides approximate figures of pending cases—around 81,000 in the Supreme Court, over 6.2 million in high courts, and nearly 47 million in district courts.The section states that judges are bound by a code of conduct governing their behaviour both inside and outside court, refers to internal accountability mechanisms, and mentions complaints received through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS). It notes that over 1,600 such complaints were received between 2017 and 2021.&nbsp;It also explains the constitutional mechanism for the removal of judges through impeachment by Parliament after due inquiry and states that instances of corruption and misconduct can negatively affect public confidence. The textbook also emphasises the need for transparency and accountability and quotes former CJI B R Gavai on the importance of swift and decisive action to preserve faith in the institution.&nbsp;<h2>‘Shortage of judges, complex legal procedures, and inadequate infrastructure reasons for backlog’</h2>&nbsp;The previous edition of the textbook, based on the 2005 National Curriculum Framework, covered the structure and role of the judiciary and issues like delay in disposal of cases but did not mention corruption in the judiciary.NCERT keeps revising textbooks, and the new books for Classes 1 to 8 have already been rolled out.&nbsp;The revised Class 8 textbook, with a chapter titled ‘The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society’, also cites shortage of judges, complex legal procedures, and inadequate infrastructure as reasons for the heavy backlog.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant described the development as deep-rooted, adding that it appeared to be a calculated and conscious step. The Chief Justce also assured appropriate action on the subject.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant took note of the mention of ‘corruption in the judiciary’ in a revised NCERT textbook chapter and informed members of the Bar on Wednesday that the Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of it and asserted that he would not let anyone defame the institution. “I will not allow anyone on earth to defame the institution. Howsoever high they be, nobody is above the law. Do not worry… I know how to deal with it,” the CJI said in open court after some senior advocates urged the court to intervene. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the issue before a bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, saying the Bar was “deeply disturbed”. ‘Have already passed the order, taking matter suo motu’ “We are compelled to urgently mention this matter since we, at the Bar, are deeply disturbed. Children in Class 8 are being taught about ‘corruption in judiciary’. It is a part of the NCERT curriculum and their textbook,” Sibal submitted. Also Read: PM Modi greeted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on landing in Israel, to address Knesset The CJI responded that he was already aware of the development. “I am fully aware of it. I can assure you…it definitely concerns the entire institution. All stakeholders, judges in high courts are equally perturbed and have brought it to my notice. I am receiving lot of calls and messages,” he said. “I have already passed the order on the administrative side. We are taking the matter suo motu,” he added, indicating that the top court would initiate proceedings on its own motion. The CJI described the development as “deep-rooted,” adding that it appeared to be “a calculated and conscious step”. ‘Not a word about corruption in bureaucracy or politics’ Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that while the chapter mentioned corruption in the judiciary, there was “not a word” about corruption in other sectors like the bureaucracy or politics. Responding, Justice Bagchi observed that “constitutional morality, as envisaged in the basic structure, is missing”. “I can assure you we will take appropriate steps,” the CJI reiterated. Supreme Court Bar Association President Senior Advocate Vikas Singh later said in a remark to the media that the instance is completely shocking and merits action. "This is completely shocking... Do they have a sub-chapter with regard to the 40 % MLAs and MPs who have a serious criminal background? ... This kind of a message, if they want to give, they should give it about these MLAs and MPs... Corruption in the judiciary is far less than what it is in the executive and in politics,” he said.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant described the development as deep-rooted, adding that it appeared to be a calculated and conscious step. The Chief Justce also assured appropriate action on the subject.&nbsp;

‘Will not let anyone defame institution’s integrity’: SC takes suo motu cognisance of ‘corruption in judiciary’ mention in NCERT book

In an unprecedented move, citing “extraordinary circumstances,” the Supreme Court of India on Friday told the Calcutta High Court to appoint judicial officers for helping West Bengal in carrying out the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise. The top court observed that an unfortunate blame game has been going on between the West Bengal government and the Election Commission over the voter roll revision drive. The judicial officers can look into claims and objections, the&nbsp;Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipin Pancholi said.&nbsp;“There is an unfortunate scenario of allegations and counter-allegations, which shows a trust deficit between two constitutional functionaries... that is the state government and the Election Commission. Now, the process is stuck at the stage of claims and objections of the people who have been included in the discrepancy list,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-will-contribute-10-billion-to-board-of-peace-others-have-pledged-7-billion-announces-trump-1771526027108">US will contribute $10 billion to Board of Peace, others have pledged $7 billion, announces Trump</a><h2>‘Had to pass an extraordinary order due to extraordinary circumstances’&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;&nbsp;The Supreme Court told the Calcutta High Court to free up some serving and even former judicial officers in the rank of district judge for SIR work. The top court said it had to pass an “extraordinary order” due to “extraordinary circumstances”.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-this-is-tax-money-supreme-court-slams-poll-eve-freebie-culture-questions-fiscal-logic-1771496414543">‘This is tax money’: Supreme Court slams poll-eve freebie culture, questions fiscal logic</a>&nbsp;The Supreme Court also directed the State Election Commissioner, chief secretary, police chief, and other top officers to hold a meeting with the high court chief justice on Saturday to work out the finer details of the plan.&nbsp;“The state is obligated to provide Group A officers to perform the duty of SDO, SDM. There is a dispute among the party about the rank of the officials provided by the state government to perform the function of ERO and AERO. It is nearly impossible for this court to determine the status and rank of officials now deployed by the ECI given by the state,” the Supreme Court said.&nbsp;<h2>‘Spare some serving &nbsp;judicial officers along with former judicial officers’</h2>&nbsp;"In order to ensure fairness in adjudication of genuineness of documents submitted and consequent inclusion or exclusion in voter list... We are left with hardly any other option but to request the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to spare some serving judicial officers along with some former judicial officers in the rank of ADJ or district judges, who can then in each district help in disposing or revisiting the claims under the logical discrepancy list,” the court said.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iaea-chief-calls-for-urgent-us-iran-deal-warns-nuclear-material-still-there-in-large-quantities-1771521937555">IAEA chief calls for urgent US-Iran deal, warns nuclear material ‘still there, in large quantities’</a>&nbsp;“A situation is being created where judicial officers have to intervene... We were expecting cooperation by the state. Is this the level of communication from the state? For the February 9 order, you responded on February 17. You are saying the state government is examining the officers. Examining, how? You should have written that 8,500 officers are sent. We are not microobservers. We are disappointed to see this. We thought states would cooperate. We don’t want private explanations,” the CJI said.

The Supreme Court told the Calcutta High Court to free up some serving and even former judicial officers in the rank of district judge for SIR work and said it had to pass an “extraordinary order” due to “extraordinary circumstances."

In an unprecedented move, citing “extraordinary circumstances,” the Supreme Court of India on Friday told the Calcutta High Court to appoint judicial officers for helping West Bengal in carrying out the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise. The top court observed that an unfortunate blame game has been going on between the West Bengal government and the Election Commission over the voter roll revision drive. The judicial officers can look into claims and objections, the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipin Pancholi said. “There is an unfortunate scenario of allegations and counter-allegations, which shows a trust deficit between two constitutional functionaries... that is the state government and the Election Commission. Now, the process is stuck at the stage of claims and objections of the people who have been included in the discrepancy list,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said. Also Read: US will contribute $10 billion to Board of Peace, others have pledged $7 billion, announces Trump ‘Had to pass an extraordinary order due to extraordinary circumstances’ The Supreme Court told the Calcutta High Court to free up some serving and even former judicial officers in the rank of district judge for SIR work. The top court said it had to pass an “extraordinary order” due to “extraordinary circumstances”. Also Read: ‘This is tax money’: Supreme Court slams poll-eve freebie culture, questions fiscal logic The Supreme Court also directed the State Election Commissioner, chief secretary, police chief, and other top officers to hold a meeting with the high court chief justice on Saturday to work out the finer details of the plan. “The state is obligated to provide Group A officers to perform the duty of SDO, SDM. There is a dispute among the party about the rank of the officials provided by the state government to perform the function of ERO and AERO. It is nearly impossible for this court to determine the status and rank of officials now deployed by the ECI given by the state,” the Supreme Court said. ‘Spare some serving judicial officers along with former judicial officers’ "In order to ensure fairness in adjudication of genuineness of documents submitted and consequent inclusion or exclusion in voter list... We are left with hardly any other option but to request the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to spare some serving judicial officers along with some former judicial officers in the rank of ADJ or district judges, who can then in each district help in disposing or revisiting the claims under the logical discrepancy list,” the court said. Also Read: IAEA chief calls for urgent US-Iran deal, warns nuclear material ‘still there, in large quantities’ “A situation is being created where judicial officers have to intervene... We were expecting cooperation by the state. Is this the level of communication from the state? For the February 9 order, you responded on February 17. You are saying the state government is examining the officers. Examining, how? You should have written that 8,500 officers are sent. We are not microobservers. We are disappointed to see this. We thought states would cooperate. We don’t want private explanations,” the CJI said.

The Supreme Court told the Calcutta High Court to free up some serving and even former judicial officers in the rank of district judge for SIR work and said it had to pass an “extraordinary order” due to “extraordinary circumstances."

‘Unfortunate blame game’: Supreme Court tells Calcutta HC to appoint judicial officers for Bengal SIR

India's Supreme Court has once again criticised pre-poll freebies, this time taking issue with plans to provide free electricity ahead of the Tamil Nadu state elections. In its observations on Thursday (Feb 19), the court said that even states that are not financially doing well are offering such freebies. &nbsp;It slammed indiscriminate free electricity and other benefits by revenue-deficient states, warning that such largesse harms economic development and work culture. But we have been here before. The apex court has often been reluctant to make any specific ruling to regulate the matter, leaving it to the election body and parliament. It leaves a grey area that often allows pre-election freebies to thrive, possibly affecting election outcomes for years now. Here is an analysis.<h2>What the Indian Supreme Court said on pre-election freebies</h2>The court agreed that freebies might be appropriate for poor people, but said that when they are given to everyone, it amounts to appeasement. It called for a re-examination of policies that are affecting progress.“Most of the states in the country are revenue deficit states and yet they are offering such freebies,” said the court.“The economic development of the nation will be hampered by this kind of largesse distribution. It is the state’s duty to provide welfare, but those who are enjoying freebies, is that not something which needs to be examined?,” it added.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-people-get-freebies-why-work-apex-court-8715346/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-people-get-freebies-why-work-apex-court-8715346/embed</a><h2>Why Indian Supreme Court made observation on freebies during elections</h2>Over the years, it has become very common in Indian states to offer various freebies — services and products — ahead of elections, including direct cash transfers into people's bank accounts. The court said that, as a welfare state, it is acceptable to give concessions to poor people, but even states without adequate income are offering universal freebies.The Supreme Court bench, chaired by Chief Justice Surya Kant, was hearing a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation. The company had challenged the 2024 central electricity reforms, which mandate strict financial discipline for power-distribution firms.Issuing notice to the Centre in the case, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure that such freebies are being offered not only in Tamil Nadu, but across the nation.&nbsp;Chief Justice Surya Kant said the court is aware of what happened in the recent state elections, including direct money transfer programmes.&nbsp;The court observed that, instead of spending money on development projects, states are using funds for large-scale freebies and salaries.<h2>Who will work if government gives freebies? Supreme Court's sharp rebuke&nbsp;</h2>If food, bicycles and electricity are given free of cost, who will go to work, the court asked."If you start giving free food from morning to evening, then free cycles, then free electricity, who will work? And what will happen to the work culture?”It is fine if people who cannot afford to pay are given some concessions in electricity rates. But if it is given to everyone, what culture are we creating, asked the court, adding that those who can pay should be made to pay.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-this-is-tax-money-supreme-court-slams-poll-eve-freebie-culture-questions-fiscal-logic-1771496414543">‘This is tax money’: Supreme Court slams poll-eve freebie culture, questions fiscal logic</a>&nbsp;The court said: It is understandable that you want to provide, as part of a welfare system, for those who cannot pay electricity charges. But without drawing a distinction between those who can afford and those who cannot, if you start distributing… will it not amount kind of an appeasing policy?”<h2>Freebies politics: This is not the first time that the Indian top court took up the matter</h2>The Chief Justice also reminded that the various political parties offering freebies ahead of elections are currently under its examination.Pre-poll largesse has become a malice in Indian politics, and the Supreme Court has been cognizant of the matter in the past few years.In February 2025, the apex court criticised election-time free rations and cash transfers, saying they discourage people from working and risk creating dependency. During the hearing, the court questioned whether schemes like 'Ladli Behna' announced around elections were fostering a culture where people are unwilling to work.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-criticises-freebies-says-people-not-willing-to-work-8715261">Supreme court criticises freebies, says people not willing to work</a>&nbsp;In January this year, it said the issue of pre-poll freebies, including the distribution of cash and other goods, is an important matter requiring serious examination.In January, 2022 the Supreme Court described the promise of freebies during election campaigns as a serious issue. At the time, it sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission on regulating the practice.In the Subramaniam Balaji case of 2013, the court declined to strike down welfare schemes involving distribution of goods like televisions and laptops. But it acknowledged concerns about freebies. It left the regulation of such promises to the Election Commission and Parliament.

India's Supreme Court slammed pre-election freebies, this time in a case on free electricity in Tamil Nadu. The top court has targeted such schemes in cash or kind, warning they harm fiscal discipline, economic development and work culture

India's Supreme Court has once again criticised pre-poll freebies, this time taking issue with plans to provide free electricity ahead of the Tamil Nadu state elections. In its observations on Thursday (Feb 19), the court said that even states that are not financially doing well are offering such freebies. It slammed indiscriminate free electricity and other benefits by revenue-deficient states, warning that such largesse harms economic development and work culture. But we have been here before. The apex court has often been reluctant to make any specific ruling to regulate the matter, leaving it to the election body and parliament. It leaves a grey area that often allows pre-election freebies to thrive, possibly affecting election outcomes for years now. Here is an analysis. What the Indian Supreme Court said on pre-election freebies The court agreed that freebies might be appropriate for poor people, but said that when they are given to everyone, it amounts to appeasement. It called for a re-examination of policies that are affecting progress. “Most of the states in the country are revenue deficit states and yet they are offering such freebies,” said the court. “The economic development of the nation will be hampered by this kind of largesse distribution. It is the state’s duty to provide welfare, but those who are enjoying freebies, is that not something which needs to be examined?,” it added. https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-people-get-freebies-why-work-apex-court-8715346/embed Why Indian Supreme Court made observation on freebies during elections Over the years, it has become very common in Indian states to offer various freebies — services and products — ahead of elections, including direct cash transfers into people's bank accounts. The court said that, as a welfare state, it is acceptable to give concessions to poor people, but even states without adequate income are offering universal freebies. The Supreme Court bench, chaired by Chief Justice Surya Kant, was hearing a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation. The company had challenged the 2024 central electricity reforms, which mandate strict financial discipline for power-distribution firms. Issuing notice to the Centre in the case, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure that such freebies are being offered not only in Tamil Nadu, but across the nation. Chief Justice Surya Kant said the court is aware of what happened in the recent state elections, including direct money transfer programmes. The court observed that, instead of spending money on development projects, states are using funds for large-scale freebies and salaries. Who will work if government gives freebies? Supreme Court's sharp rebuke If food, bicycles and electricity are given free of cost, who will go to work, the court asked. "If you start giving free food from morning to evening, then free cycles, then free electricity, who will work? And what will happen to the work culture?” It is fine if people who cannot afford to pay are given some concessions in electricity rates. But if it is given to everyone, what culture are we creating, asked the court, adding that those who can pay should be made to pay. Also read: ‘This is tax money’: Supreme Court slams poll-eve freebie culture, questions fiscal logic The court said: It is understandable that you want to provide, as part of a welfare system, for those who cannot pay electricity charges. But without drawing a distinction between those who can afford and those who cannot, if you start distributing… will it not amount kind of an appeasing policy?” Freebies politics: This is not the first time that the Indian top court took up the matter The Chief Justice also reminded that the various political parties offering freebies ahead of elections are currently under its examination. Pre-poll largesse has become a malice in Indian politics, and the Supreme Court has been cognizant of the matter in the past few years. In February 2025, the apex court criticised election-time free rations and cash transfers, saying they discourage people from working and risk creating dependency. During the hearing, the court questioned whether schemes like 'Ladli Behna' announced around elections were fostering a culture where people are unwilling to work. Also read: Supreme court criticises freebies, says people not willing to work In January this year, it said the issue of pre-poll freebies, including the distribution of cash and other goods, is an important matter requiring serious examination. In January, 2022 the Supreme Court described the promise of freebies during election campaigns as a serious issue. At the time, it sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission on regulating the practice. In the Subramaniam Balaji case of 2013, the court declined to strike down welfare schemes involving distribution of goods like televisions and laptops. But it acknowledged concerns about freebies. It left the regulation of such promises to the Election Commission and Parliament.

India's Supreme Court slammed pre-election freebies, this time in a case on free electricity in Tamil Nadu. The top court has targeted such schemes in cash or kind, warning they harm fiscal discipline, economic development and work culture

Indian Supreme Court slams freebies before elections, and it's not the first time. But can anything be done about it?

The Supreme Court of India sharply criticised political parties and state governments on Thursday for announcing “irresponsible” freebies that strain public finances and asked how states, many of which are revenue deficit, could afford large subsidy commitments without prior fiscal planning. The top court also questioned the timing and fiscal logic of such decisions while hearing a matter related to electricity subsidies.A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi asked how governments could afford large subsidy commitments without prior fiscal planning when many states are already running revenue deficits. The bench warned that such unchecked largesse could hamper the nation’s economic development.&nbsp;<h2>‘Why people will work anymore if direct cash transfer schemes are announced’</h2>&nbsp;&nbsp;The apex court observed that it was aware of instances in several states where welfare schemes were announced suddenly ahead of elections. The court also asked why people will work anymore if direct cash transfer schemes are announced.“If governments continue to provide free money, electricity, and other amenities, who will ultimately bear the cost?” the court said, adding that the burden of freebies will ultimately fall on taxpayers.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-no-country-can-deprive-iran-tehran-s-atomic-energy-chief-reiterates-nuclear-enrichment-rights-amid-tensions-with-us-1771488124694">‘No country can deprive Iran’: Tehran’s atomic energy chief reiterates nuclear enrichment rights amid tensions with US</a>&nbsp;The bench made the remarks while hearing a writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Company Ltd challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity Amendment Rules, 2024.The court specifically asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to explain why a free-electricity scheme was announced all of a sudden, leaving power distribution companies (DISCOMs) scrambling to adjust tariffs and budget calculations. The court noted that had the subsidy been announced in advance, DISCOMs could have factored it into tariff planning and financial projections. Sudden decisions create arbitrariness and disrupt regulatory processes, it said.&nbsp;It also pointed out that last-minute subsidies make it difficult for the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and power distribution firms to accurately price electricity and maintain financial stability.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-is-manav-vision-pm-narendra-modi-unveils-groundbreaking-ai-framework-at-india-ai-impact-summit-2026-explained-1771482004727">What is MANAV Vision? PM Narendra Modi unveils groundbreaking AI framework at India AI Impact Summit 2026 | Explained</a>&nbsp;<h2>‘Distributing freebies in this manner will hinder country’s economic development’</h2>&nbsp;CJI Surya Kant said that “distributing freebies in this manner will hinder the country’s economic development. It is the state’s duty to provide facilities to those who cannot afford education or basic living. But those who are enjoying themselves are pocketing the freebies first... Isn’t this something the government should pay attention to? We know of a state where electricity is free, but even if you are a big landlord, you turn on the lights. If you need any facility, you have to pay for it. This is tax money. We’re not just talking about Tamil Nadu.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/poland-bans-entry-of-chinese-vehicles-at-army-locations-fears-data-acquisition-1771439288398">Poland bans entry of Chinese vehicles at army locations, fears data ‘acquisition’</a>&nbsp;“We want to ask why schemes are being announced just before elections. All political parties, sociologists, and ideologies need to rethink this. How long will this continue? States are running at a loss, yet they’re still giving them away for free. If you collect 25% of revenue annually, why can’t it be used for the state’s development?” the CJI asked.&nbsp;CJI Surya Kant also asked whether it was in the public interest for governments to absorb the full cost of such subsidies. The CJI cautioned that extending benefits indiscriminately, without clear eligibility criteria, could amount to an appeasement-driven approach rather than targeted relief.“Why don’t you make budget proposals and give justification that this is my outlay on unemployment of people,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi added.

CJI Surya Kant asked whether it was in the public interest for governments to absorb the full cost of such subsidies and cautioned that extending benefits indiscriminately, without clear eligibility criteria, could amount to an appeasement-driven approach rather than targeted relief.

The Supreme Court of India sharply criticised political parties and state governments on Thursday for announcing “irresponsible” freebies that strain public finances and asked how states, many of which are revenue deficit, could afford large subsidy commitments without prior fiscal planning. The top court also questioned the timing and fiscal logic of such decisions while hearing a matter related to electricity subsidies. A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi asked how governments could afford large subsidy commitments without prior fiscal planning when many states are already running revenue deficits. The bench warned that such unchecked largesse could hamper the nation’s economic development. ‘Why people will work anymore if direct cash transfer schemes are announced’ The apex court observed that it was aware of instances in several states where welfare schemes were announced suddenly ahead of elections. The court also asked why people will work anymore if direct cash transfer schemes are announced. “If governments continue to provide free money, electricity, and other amenities, who will ultimately bear the cost?” the court said, adding that the burden of freebies will ultimately fall on taxpayers. Also Read: ‘No country can deprive Iran’: Tehran’s atomic energy chief reiterates nuclear enrichment rights amid tensions with US The bench made the remarks while hearing a writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Company Ltd challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity Amendment Rules, 2024. The court specifically asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to explain why a free-electricity scheme was announced all of a sudden, leaving power distribution companies (DISCOMs) scrambling to adjust tariffs and budget calculations. The court noted that had the subsidy been announced in advance, DISCOMs could have factored it into tariff planning and financial projections. Sudden decisions create arbitrariness and disrupt regulatory processes, it said. It also pointed out that last-minute subsidies make it difficult for the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and power distribution firms to accurately price electricity and maintain financial stability. Also Read: What is MANAV Vision? PM Narendra Modi unveils groundbreaking AI framework at India AI Impact Summit 2026 | Explained ‘Distributing freebies in this manner will hinder country’s economic development’ CJI Surya Kant said that “distributing freebies in this manner will hinder the country’s economic development. It is the state’s duty to provide facilities to those who cannot afford education or basic living. But those who are enjoying themselves are pocketing the freebies first... Isn’t this something the government should pay attention to? We know of a state where electricity is free, but even if you are a big landlord, you turn on the lights. If you need any facility, you have to pay for it. This is tax money. We’re not just talking about Tamil Nadu.” Also Read: Poland bans entry of Chinese vehicles at army locations, fears data ‘acquisition’ “We want to ask why schemes are being announced just before elections. All political parties, sociologists, and ideologies need to rethink this. How long will this continue? States are running at a loss, yet they’re still giving them away for free. If you collect 25% of revenue annually, why can’t it be used for the state’s development?” the CJI asked. CJI Surya Kant also asked whether it was in the public interest for governments to absorb the full cost of such subsidies. The CJI cautioned that extending benefits indiscriminately, without clear eligibility criteria, could amount to an appeasement-driven approach rather than targeted relief. “Why don’t you make budget proposals and give justification that this is my outlay on unemployment of people,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi added.

CJI Surya Kant asked whether it was in the public interest for governments to absorb the full cost of such subsidies and cautioned that extending benefits indiscriminately, without clear eligibility criteria, could amount to an appeasement-driven approach rather than targeted relief.

‘This is tax money’: Supreme Court slams poll-eve freebie culture, questions fiscal logic

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 16) made observations about relationships before marriage while considering a bail application in a case involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage. A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of a man accused of engaging in a physical relationship with a woman after allegedly promising to marry her. The prosecution claimed that the accused was already married at the time and subsequently entered into another marriage.&nbsp;During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna said that individuals must exercise caution before entering into intimate relationships before marriage. She said that, in her view, a man and woman remain strangers until they are legally married, regardless of how close they may appear. The judge advised that one should not place complete trust in promises made before marriage.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/j-k-administration-orders-reopening-of-14-tourist-destinations-after-security-review-1771242638648">J&amp;K administration orders reopening of 14 tourist destinations after security review</a>&nbsp;The court was informed that the two had connected in 2022 through a matrimonial website. According to the prosecution, the accused assured the woman of marriage, following which they developed a physical relationship, including trips to Dubai. It was further alleged that intimate videos were recorded without the woman’s consent and that she was later threatened with their circulation.&nbsp;The prosecution said that the woman eventually discovered the man was already married and had gone on to marry another woman in Punjab in January 2024. Justice Nagarathna questioned the decision to travel abroad before the marriage had taken place. When government counsel explained that the pair had met on a matrimonial platform with the intention of marrying, the bench observed that if the woman was particular about marriage, she ought not to have undertaken such travel beforehand.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-impact-summit-2026-leaders-from-20-nations-to-attend-summit-in-india-1771238695920/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-impact-summit-2026-leaders-from-20-nations-to-attend-summit-in-india-1771238695920/embed</a>&nbsp;The court suggested that the dispute appeared to arise from a consensual relationship and suggested that such matters may not warrant a full criminal trial. The bench proposed referring the parties to mediation. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on Wednesday (February 18).

'Be very careful before...': India's top court questions pre-wedding intimacy in bail hearing

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 16) made observations about relationships before marriage while considering a bail application in a case involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage. A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of a man accused of engaging in a physical relationship with a woman after allegedly promising to marry her. The prosecution claimed that the accused was already married at the time and subsequently entered into another marriage. During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna said that individuals must exercise caution before entering into intimate relationships before marriage. She said that, in her view, a man and woman remain strangers until they are legally married, regardless of how close they may appear. The judge advised that one should not place complete trust in promises made before marriage. Also Read: J&K administration orders reopening of 14 tourist destinations after security review The court was informed that the two had connected in 2022 through a matrimonial website. According to the prosecution, the accused assured the woman of marriage, following which they developed a physical relationship, including trips to Dubai. It was further alleged that intimate videos were recorded without the woman’s consent and that she was later threatened with their circulation. The prosecution said that the woman eventually discovered the man was already married and had gone on to marry another woman in Punjab in January 2024. Justice Nagarathna questioned the decision to travel abroad before the marriage had taken place. When government counsel explained that the pair had met on a matrimonial platform with the intention of marrying, the bench observed that if the woman was particular about marriage, she ought not to have undertaken such travel beforehand. https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-impact-summit-2026-leaders-from-20-nations-to-attend-summit-in-india-1771238695920/embed The court suggested that the dispute appeared to arise from a consensual relationship and suggested that such matters may not warrant a full criminal trial. The bench proposed referring the parties to mediation. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on Wednesday (February 18).

Supreme Court warns against pre-marital physical relationships while hearing bail plea in rape-on-promise case. The matter has been sent to mediation

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Madras High Court’s ruling restricting the offering of namaz at the dargah located on Thirupparankundram Hills in Tamil Nadu, holding that Muslims cannot offer daily prayers at the site. The apex court also described the Madras High Court’s decision as a “very, very balanced order”. The top court also upheld the high court’s direction permitting namaz only during Ramzan and on Bakrid at the dargah, while affirming the ban on animal sacrifice within the premises. The Supreme Court ruling came on an appeal filed by a practising Muslim, Imam Hussain, challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment.&nbsp;A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale declined to interfere in the matter.&nbsp;Appearing for Imam Hussain, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said there has never been a law and order problem in the area. Justice Kumar responded that had there been no law and order issue, there would not have been a meeting of the Peace Committee. “It seems to be a very, very balanced order,” Justice Kumar said.&nbsp;“We do not propose to interfere with the order. Without expressing any opinion on the rights of the parties, the impugned order stands upheld,” the bench observed.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/first-year-law-student-kills-girl-in-class-shoots-self-in-punjab-s-tarn-taran-1770632612292">First-year law student kills girl in class, shoots self in Punjab’s Tarn Taran</a><h2>What is the Thirupparankundram Deepam row?</h2>&nbsp;There have been many disputes over religious practices at the hill, which is considered sacred by multiple communities. A plea was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging a Madras High Court’s order which allowed the lighting of a lamp on the Thirupparankundram hill in Tamil Nadu subject to clearance from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and police.In his plea, the original petitioner, Rama Ravikumar, mentioned the high court’s directions as an “unlawful" dilution of binding civil court decrees recognising the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple’s ownership and control of the hill and as an “impermissible judicial intrusion" into an essential religious practice.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/unnao-rape-case-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-kuldeep-sengar-s-appeal-against-conviction-1770637292043">Unnao rape case: Supreme Court refuses to hear Kuldeep Sengar’s appeal against conviction</a>&nbsp;<h2>‘Devotees of another faith permitted access, usage rights, but Hindu…’</h2>&nbsp;&nbsp;Ravikumar contended that although the high court acknowledged the temple’s right to light Deepam at the ‘Deepathoon’ (stone pillar), it rendered that right conditional by subjecting it to administrative discretion.The high court has exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing fresh substantive restrictions despite the final decree conclusively recognising the temple’s proprietary rights over the hill, he submitted.Alleging hostile discrimination, the petitioner said that devotees of another faith are permitted access and usage rights up to the Nellithope area, but Hindu worship at the hilltop has been subjected to layered administrative controls without authority of law.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/two-american-pilots-jailed-in-african-country-for-landing-to-refuel-their-plane-1770628145643">Two American pilots jailed in African country for landing to refuel their plane</a>&nbsp;On January 6, a division bench of the Madras High Court made it clear that the spot on which the stone pillar is located belongs to the Sri Subramania Swamy Temple.The appellants failed to produce “formidable evidence” to show that Agama Sastra of Saivites prohibits lighting the lamp at a place that is not straight on top of the deity in the sanctum sanctorum, the court had observed.In its order, the high court had said the ‘Devasthanam’ (temple management) must light the lamp at the ‘Deepathoon’.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale also upheld the Madras High Court’s direction permitting namaz at the dargah only during Ramzan and on Bakrid, while affirming the ban on animal sacrifice within the premises.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Madras High Court’s ruling restricting the offering of namaz at the dargah located on Thirupparankundram Hills in Tamil Nadu, holding that Muslims cannot offer daily prayers at the site. The apex court also described the Madras High Court’s decision as a “very, very balanced order”. The top court also upheld the high court’s direction permitting namaz only during Ramzan and on Bakrid at the dargah, while affirming the ban on animal sacrifice within the premises. The Supreme Court ruling came on an appeal filed by a practising Muslim, Imam Hussain, challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale declined to interfere in the matter. Appearing for Imam Hussain, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said there has never been a law and order problem in the area. Justice Kumar responded that had there been no law and order issue, there would not have been a meeting of the Peace Committee. “It seems to be a very, very balanced order,” Justice Kumar said. “We do not propose to interfere with the order. Without expressing any opinion on the rights of the parties, the impugned order stands upheld,” the bench observed. Also Read: First-year law student kills girl in class, shoots self in Punjab’s Tarn Taran What is the Thirupparankundram Deepam row? There have been many disputes over religious practices at the hill, which is considered sacred by multiple communities. A plea was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging a Madras High Court’s order which allowed the lighting of a lamp on the Thirupparankundram hill in Tamil Nadu subject to clearance from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and police. In his plea, the original petitioner, Rama Ravikumar, mentioned the high court’s directions as an “unlawful" dilution of binding civil court decrees recognising the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple’s ownership and control of the hill and as an “impermissible judicial intrusion" into an essential religious practice. Also Read: Unnao rape case: Supreme Court refuses to hear Kuldeep Sengar’s appeal against conviction ‘Devotees of another faith permitted access, usage rights, but Hindu…’ Ravikumar contended that although the high court acknowledged the temple’s right to light Deepam at the ‘Deepathoon’ (stone pillar), it rendered that right conditional by subjecting it to administrative discretion. The high court has exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing fresh substantive restrictions despite the final decree conclusively recognising the temple’s proprietary rights over the hill, he submitted. Alleging hostile discrimination, the petitioner said that devotees of another faith are permitted access and usage rights up to the Nellithope area, but Hindu worship at the hilltop has been subjected to layered administrative controls without authority of law. Also Read: Two American pilots jailed in African country for landing to refuel their plane On January 6, a division bench of the Madras High Court made it clear that the spot on which the stone pillar is located belongs to the Sri Subramania Swamy Temple. The appellants failed to produce “formidable evidence” to show that Agama Sastra of Saivites prohibits lighting the lamp at a place that is not straight on top of the deity in the sanctum sanctorum, the court had observed. In its order, the high court had said the ‘Devasthanam’ (temple management) must light the lamp at the ‘Deepathoon’.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale also upheld the Madras High Court’s direction permitting namaz at the dargah only during Ramzan and on Bakrid, while affirming the ban on animal sacrifice within the premises.

‘Very, very balanced’: Supreme Court upholds Madras HC order on Deepam row, backs curbs on namaz

The Supreme Court on Friday (Feb 06) ordered medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 17-year-old girl while stating that it cannot compel a minor to continue a pregnancy. The apex court asked Mumbai's JJ hospital to undertake the medical termination of pregnancy of a minor while following all necessary protocol to ensure well-being.&nbsp;A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the girl had become pregnant while being in a relationship with a neighbourhood boy and sought to medically terminate her pregnancy.&nbsp;The bench underlined that the court had considered the fact that the right of the minor child continue the pregnancy was "illitimate" as she herself was minor. “what has to be considered in the instant case is the right of the minor child to continue a pregnancy which is ex facie illegitimate in as much as she is a minor and has to face this unfortunate situation of having the pregnancy owing to a relationship that she had.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/punjab-aap-leader-lucky-obero-shot-dead-outside-gurdwara-in-jalandhar-1770378229022">Video | AAP leader Lucky Oberoi shot dead outside gurdwara in Punjab's Jalandhar</a>&nbsp;It further stated that the issue is not whether the relationship was consensual or whether it was the case of sexual assault "Ultimately, the fact is that the child to be is not legitimate and secondly, the mother to be of the child does not want to bear the child, it observed.&nbsp;The bench also took note of the report of the medical board of the hospital stating no threat to the life of the child and the mother in case of the completion of pregnancy.&nbsp;"If the interest of the mother is to be taken note of, then her reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman, much less a minor child, to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so," the bench said.&nbsp;The Supreme Court's decision is considered a significant ruling as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) (Amendment) Act, 2021, allows abortion up to 20 weeks with the opinion of a single doctor. In certain special cases, including minors, rape survivors and women with disabilities, abortion is allowed between 20 and 24 weeks with the opinion of two doctors.

The Supreme Court has allowed the termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 17-year-old girl, stating that courts cannot compel any woman, especially a minor, to carry a pregnancy to term.

The Supreme Court on Friday (Feb 06) ordered medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 17-year-old girl while stating that it cannot compel a minor to continue a pregnancy. The apex court asked Mumbai's JJ hospital to undertake the medical termination of pregnancy of a minor while following all necessary protocol to ensure well-being. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the girl had become pregnant while being in a relationship with a neighbourhood boy and sought to medically terminate her pregnancy. The bench underlined that the court had considered the fact that the right of the minor child continue the pregnancy was "illitimate" as she herself was minor. “what has to be considered in the instant case is the right of the minor child to continue a pregnancy which is ex facie illegitimate in as much as she is a minor and has to face this unfortunate situation of having the pregnancy owing to a relationship that she had.” Also Read: Video | AAP leader Lucky Oberoi shot dead outside gurdwara in Punjab's Jalandhar It further stated that the issue is not whether the relationship was consensual or whether it was the case of sexual assault "Ultimately, the fact is that the child to be is not legitimate and secondly, the mother to be of the child does not want to bear the child, it observed. The bench also took note of the report of the medical board of the hospital stating no threat to the life of the child and the mother in case of the completion of pregnancy. "If the interest of the mother is to be taken note of, then her reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman, much less a minor child, to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so," the bench said. The Supreme Court's decision is considered a significant ruling as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) (Amendment) Act, 2021, allows abortion up to 20 weeks with the opinion of a single doctor. In certain special cases, including minors, rape survivors and women with disabilities, abortion is allowed between 20 and 24 weeks with the opinion of two doctors.

The Supreme Court has allowed the termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 17-year-old girl, stating that courts cannot compel any woman, especially a minor, to carry a pregnancy to term.

'Can’t force a woman to continue pregnancy': SC allows minor to terminate 30-week pregnancy

In a landmark judgment towards ensuring women's health in India, the Supreme Court on Friday (Jan 30) declared menstrual hygiene a fundamental right as an integral part of the Right to Life and the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The apex court directed all states and union territories to ensure that girl students in private and government schools are provided biodegradable menstrual sanitary pads for free.&nbsp;The top court has issued a series of binding orders to states, Union Territories and schools to ensure dignity, health and equality for girls and women.&nbsp;A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan pronounced the judgment on a plea seeking free sanitary pads and adequate sanitation facilities for the schoolgirls.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-is-kevin-warsh-likely-to-be-nominated-by-trump-for-federal-reserve-chair-1769766980929">Who is Kevin Warsh likely to be nominated by Trump for Federal Reserve chair</a>&nbsp;“Before parting with the issue, we want to say that this pronouncement is not just for stakeholders of the legal system. It is also meant for classrooms where girls hesitate to ask for help. It is for teachers who want to help but are not able to due to the lack of resources. Progress is measured by how we protect the vulnerable”, Justice Pardiwala underlined before parting with the judgment. The Court directed the pan-India implementation of the Union's national policy, 'Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls' in schools for adolescent girl children from Classes 6-12. The two-judge bench also issued directions to ensure that schools are equipped with functional and hygienic gender-segregated toilets.<h2>What is Article 21?</h2>Article 21 is the bedrock of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except through a fair legal procedure. Beyond mere survival, the Supreme Court interprets this right as the "right to live with human dignity," a broad umbrella that now includes health, privacy, and menstrual hygiene. By anchoring these essentials in Article 21, the judiciary ensures that the state cannot infringe upon the fundamental dignity required for a meaningful life.

The apex court directed all states and union territories to ensure girl students in private and government schools are provided biodegradable menstrual sanitary pads for free.

In a landmark judgment towards ensuring women's health in India, the Supreme Court on Friday (Jan 30) declared menstrual hygiene a fundamental right as an integral part of the Right to Life and the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The apex court directed all states and union territories to ensure that girl students in private and government schools are provided biodegradable menstrual sanitary pads for free. The top court has issued a series of binding orders to states, Union Territories and schools to ensure dignity, health and equality for girls and women. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan pronounced the judgment on a plea seeking free sanitary pads and adequate sanitation facilities for the schoolgirls. Also Read: Who is Kevin Warsh likely to be nominated by Trump for Federal Reserve chair “Before parting with the issue, we want to say that this pronouncement is not just for stakeholders of the legal system. It is also meant for classrooms where girls hesitate to ask for help. It is for teachers who want to help but are not able to due to the lack of resources. Progress is measured by how we protect the vulnerable”, Justice Pardiwala underlined before parting with the judgment. The Court directed the pan-India implementation of the Union's national policy, 'Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls' in schools for adolescent girl children from Classes 6-12. The two-judge bench also issued directions to ensure that schools are equipped with functional and hygienic gender-segregated toilets. What is Article 21? Article 21 is the bedrock of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except through a fair legal procedure. Beyond mere survival, the Supreme Court interprets this right as the "right to live with human dignity," a broad umbrella that now includes health, privacy, and menstrual hygiene. By anchoring these essentials in Article 21, the judiciary ensures that the state cannot infringe upon the fundamental dignity required for a meaningful life.

The apex court directed all states and union territories to ensure girl students in private and government schools are provided biodegradable menstrual sanitary pads for free.

Menstrual hygiene is fundamental right: Supreme Court orders free pads for school girls

The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 29) made observations on the role of trade unions in India’s industrial slowdown, with Chief Justice Surya Kant saying that aggressive unionism had contributed to the shutdown of many industrial establishments across the country. Questioning whether trade unions had aided or obstructed economic progress, the Chief Justice said several legacy industries collapsed due to confrontational union practices, calling them “flag-bearing unions.” He observed that a culture of work resistance and forceful leadership had undermined industrial growth.&nbsp;While recognising that labour exploitation remains a reality, the Chief Justice suggested that constructive reforms, such as skill enhancement and heightened awareness of individual labour rights, should have been emphasised rather than disruptive collective actions. These remarks came from a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other trade unions. The plea sought welfare safeguards for domestic workers, including their coverage under minimum wage laws.&nbsp;At the beginning of the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed hesitation in taking up the petition, warning that regulating household employment could trigger extensive litigation against individual families. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioners, pointed out that countries such as Singapore require domestic workers to be registered and guarantee minimum pay, along with weekly rest days. Responding to this, the Chief Justice warned that welfare measures, though well-meaning, could sometimes backfire. He noted that imposing minimum wages without accounting for market demand might deter households from hiring domestic help, potentially leaving workers worse off.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pregnant-delhi-police-swat-commando-dies-after-husband-murders-her-with-dumbbell-chilling-phone-call-reveals-final-moments-of-delhi-police-officer-1769683713095">Pregnant Delhi Police SWAT commando dies after husband murders her with dumbbell. Chilling phone call reveals final moments of Delhi Police officer</a>&nbsp;When Ramachandran argued that collective bargaining had proven effective and clarified that the petitioners were registered unions, the Chief Justice reiterated his concerns about trade unions. This prompted the senior counsel to request restraint in making broad generalisations. The Court then turned its attention to employment agencies, which the Chief Justice described as the primary source of exploitation. Citing an example, he revealed that when the Supreme Court hired workers through an agency at ₹40,000 per person, the workers received only ₹19,000.&nbsp;He further observed that agency-driven employment weakens the trust-based relationship traditionally shared between households and domestic workers, potentially leading to wider social consequences. The Chief Justice also cautioned that enforcing minimum wages through union pressure could expose households to prolonged legal disputes.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-s-petroleum-minister-hardeep-singh-puri-speaks-to-wion-india-energy-week-1769684778969/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-s-petroleum-minister-hardeep-singh-puri-speaks-to-wion-india-energy-week-1769684778969/embed</a>&nbsp;In reply, Ramachandran argued that paying meagre wages amounted to bonded labour, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bandhua Mukti Morcha. He contended that excluding domestic workers from minimum wage protections violated Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the bench declined to entertain the petition, holding that the reliefs sought effectively amounted to directing the legislature, an action beyond judicial authority. The plea was disposed of with a suggestion that state governments independently assess and address the grievances raised by domestic workers’ unions.

'Flag bearing unions': CJI Surya Kant criticises trade union practices hurting industry growth

The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 29) made observations on the role of trade unions in India’s industrial slowdown, with Chief Justice Surya Kant saying that aggressive unionism had contributed to the shutdown of many industrial establishments across the country. Questioning whether trade unions had aided or obstructed economic progress, the Chief Justice said several legacy industries collapsed due to confrontational union practices, calling them “flag-bearing unions.” He observed that a culture of work resistance and forceful leadership had undermined industrial growth. While recognising that labour exploitation remains a reality, the Chief Justice suggested that constructive reforms, such as skill enhancement and heightened awareness of individual labour rights, should have been emphasised rather than disruptive collective actions. These remarks came from a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed by Penn Thozhilargal Sangam and other trade unions. The plea sought welfare safeguards for domestic workers, including their coverage under minimum wage laws. At the beginning of the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed hesitation in taking up the petition, warning that regulating household employment could trigger extensive litigation against individual families. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioners, pointed out that countries such as Singapore require domestic workers to be registered and guarantee minimum pay, along with weekly rest days. Responding to this, the Chief Justice warned that welfare measures, though well-meaning, could sometimes backfire. He noted that imposing minimum wages without accounting for market demand might deter households from hiring domestic help, potentially leaving workers worse off. Also Read: Pregnant Delhi Police SWAT commando dies after husband murders her with dumbbell. Chilling phone call reveals final moments of Delhi Police officer When Ramachandran argued that collective bargaining had proven effective and clarified that the petitioners were registered unions, the Chief Justice reiterated his concerns about trade unions. This prompted the senior counsel to request restraint in making broad generalisations. The Court then turned its attention to employment agencies, which the Chief Justice described as the primary source of exploitation. Citing an example, he revealed that when the Supreme Court hired workers through an agency at ₹40,000 per person, the workers received only ₹19,000. He further observed that agency-driven employment weakens the trust-based relationship traditionally shared between households and domestic workers, potentially leading to wider social consequences. The Chief Justice also cautioned that enforcing minimum wages through union pressure could expose households to prolonged legal disputes. https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-s-petroleum-minister-hardeep-singh-puri-speaks-to-wion-india-energy-week-1769684778969/embed In reply, Ramachandran argued that paying meagre wages amounted to bonded labour, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bandhua Mukti Morcha. He contended that excluding domestic workers from minimum wage protections violated Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the bench declined to entertain the petition, holding that the reliefs sought effectively amounted to directing the legislature, an action beyond judicial authority. The plea was disposed of with a suggestion that state governments independently assess and address the grievances raised by domestic workers’ unions.

The Supreme Court criticised aggressive trade unionism for industrial stagnation and declined a plea seeking minimum wages for domestic workers

The Supreme Court of India stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, on Thursday amid the row across the country. The move comes after the notified new UGC regulations on January 23 were challenged by several petitioners for being arbitrary, exclusionary, discriminatory and violating the Constitution as well as the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.&nbsp;According to a report in the news agency ANI, the apex court stated that, for now, the 2012 UGC regulations will continue to apply. It also noted that Regulation 3 (C) (which defines caste-based discrimination) is vague, and it can be misused. "The language needs to be re-modified," the Court said.&nbsp;The newly notified regulations, aimed at checking caste-based bias in higher education, mandate colleges and universities to set up dedicated committees and helplines to handle grievances, particularly from students belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC), the Scheduled Tribes (ST) and the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).&nbsp;Issued by the UGC on January 13 as an update to its 2012 guidelines, the rules have drawn sharp criticism from general category students, who fear the framework could result in discrimination against them. On Wednesday, students, mostly from the general category, held a protest at Delhi University’s North Campus, calling for the immediate rollback of the newly announced UGC equity regulations.<h3>Dharmendra Pradhan assures no discrimination&nbsp;</h3>The protesting students claimed that the new regulations foster discrimination on campuses instead of equality. They underscored that there was stringent provision for the representation of general category students.&nbsp;However, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on Tuesday assured that there would be no discrimination in its implementation and the law would not be misused. Pradhan told news agency ANI, "I assure everyone there will be no discrimination and no one can misuse the law."&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-stays-ugc-equity-regulations-2026-amid-nationwide-uproar-what-next-then-1769675731721">Supreme Court stays UGC equity regulations 2026 amid nationwide uproar: What next then?</a> &nbsp;

The newly notified regulations, aimed at checking caste-based bias in higher education, mandate colleges and universities to set up dedicated committees and helplines to handle grievances, particularly from students belonging to the ST, SC and OBCs.

The Supreme Court of India stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, on Thursday amid the row across the country. The move comes after the notified new UGC regulations on January 23 were challenged by several petitioners for being arbitrary, exclusionary, discriminatory and violating the Constitution as well as the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. According to a report in the news agency ANI, the apex court stated that, for now, the 2012 UGC regulations will continue to apply. It also noted that Regulation 3 (C) (which defines caste-based discrimination) is vague, and it can be misused. "The language needs to be re-modified," the Court said. The newly notified regulations, aimed at checking caste-based bias in higher education, mandate colleges and universities to set up dedicated committees and helplines to handle grievances, particularly from students belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC), the Scheduled Tribes (ST) and the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Issued by the UGC on January 13 as an update to its 2012 guidelines, the rules have drawn sharp criticism from general category students, who fear the framework could result in discrimination against them. On Wednesday, students, mostly from the general category, held a protest at Delhi University’s North Campus, calling for the immediate rollback of the newly announced UGC equity regulations. Dharmendra Pradhan assures no discrimination The protesting students claimed that the new regulations foster discrimination on campuses instead of equality. They underscored that there was stringent provision for the representation of general category students. However, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on Tuesday assured that there would be no discrimination in its implementation and the law would not be misused. Pradhan told news agency ANI, "I assure everyone there will be no discrimination and no one can misuse the law." Also read: Supreme Court stays UGC equity regulations 2026 amid nationwide uproar: What next then?

The newly notified regulations, aimed at checking caste-based bias in higher education, mandate colleges and universities to set up dedicated committees and helplines to handle grievances, particularly from students belonging to the ST, SC and OBCs.

Supreme Court stays UGC equity regulations 2026 amid nationwide uproar: What next then?