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‘All cases between them shall also be withdrawn’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 All cases between them shall also be withdrawn.”&nbsp;Abdullah had challenged the December 12, 2023, judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, disputing his claim that Payal had deserted him and this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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Madras High Court Stays Bypolls to 5 Seats

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


US SC allows ending TPS for Haitians & Syrians 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court continued hearing petitions linked to the Sabarimala temple entry controversy on Day 13 of the proceedings, with discussions centering on religious freedom, constitutional rights, and the role of faith in Indian society. Justice Nagarathna observed that Indians remain deeply connected to religion and spirituality, adding that India continues to function as a single civilisation bound by certain constants. The hearing once again brought focus to the long-running debate surrounding women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple and the balance between tradition and equality.


Supreme Court Examines Faith, Equality And Tradition In Sabarimala Case

The United States Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling on the Voting Rights Act, a decision that could reshape how elections are regulated across states and impact voter access and electoral oversight.

The ruling has reignited debates over federal authority, state control, and voting protections in a deeply divided political climate.

What changes does this ruling bring—and who benefits most?

U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Ruling On Voting Rights Act

The debate over birthright citizenship in the United States is heating up as the Supreme Court of the United States prepares to weigh in on the issue. Recent polls show 64% of Americans oppose ending the policy, though many Republicans favour a change. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for immigration, constitutional rights, and upcoming elections, making it a defining legal and political moment.


US Supreme Court Poised to Rule as Birthright Citizenship Debate Heats Up

Tariff refund: Trump tariff refund begins Monday as $166 billion payouts start— who qualifies and how to claim, all the details are here. The tariff refund Trump policy is finally moving from courtrooms to cash flow. Starting Monday, April 20, 2026, businesses can begin claiming refunds from a massive $166 billion tariff pool, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that US President Donald Trump imposed certain import tariffs without constitutional authority. The refund system, managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, opens at 8 a.m., marking the first real opportunity for importers to recover billions paid under disputed trade measures.



Trump Administration Launches Tariff Refund System as First Step in Paying Back Billions

In a significant relief for voters in West Bengal, the Supreme Court of India has extended the deadline for filing appeals by those excluded from voter lists. The decision gives affected individuals more time to challenge their exclusion and ensure their right to vote is protected. The move is being seen as crucial ahead of upcoming electoral processes, offering a fair chance for many to be included in the democratic system.

India: Supreme Court Extends Deadline for West Bengal Voters to File Appeals 

A woman cannot be treated as "untouchable" for three days a month and cease to be considered untouchable on the fourth day, Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna underlined on Tuesday (April 07) while hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places.&nbsp;Justice Nagarathna made these remarks while sitting on a nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing a cluster of cases regarding the entry of women into religious places, primarily centred on the Sabarimala Temple.&nbsp;&nbsp;The bench is adjudicating a batch of review petitions challenging the 2018 verdict, which had originally lifted the ban on women of menstruating age (10–50 years) from entering the shrine. Justice Nagarathna, the lone woman on the bench, expressed doubts about the application of Article 17 in the case, noting that the article was made a fundamental right in the context of the long history of untouchability.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-warns-iran-whole-civilisation-will-die-tonight-pezeshkian-says-14-million-ready-to-sacrifice-1775565468333">Trump warns Iran ‘whole civilisation will die tonight’; Pezeshkian says 14 million ready to sacrifice</a>&nbsp;"Article 17, in the context of Sabarimala, I don't know how it can be argued. Speaking as a woman, there can't be a three-day untouchability every month, and on the fourth day, there is no untouchability," she said.&nbsp;Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Government, requested the court to uphold the traditional restrictions, arguing that the issue falls within the "domain of religious faith and denominational autonomy." He cautioned against applying Western concepts like "patriarchy" to Indian religious traditions.&nbsp;Taking strong exception to this line of reasoning, Mehta said, "One opinion in Sabarimala says Article 17 applies to women, you are treating them as untouchables, I have a very strong objection to it."

Justice Nagarathna made these remarks while sitting on a nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing a cluster of cases regarding the entry of women into religious places, primarily centred on the Sabarimala Temple. 

A woman cannot be treated as "untouchable" for three days a month and cease to be considered untouchable on the fourth day, Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna underlined on Tuesday (April 07) while hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places. Justice Nagarathna made these remarks while sitting on a nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing a cluster of cases regarding the entry of women into religious places, primarily centred on the Sabarimala Temple. The bench is adjudicating a batch of review petitions challenging the 2018 verdict, which had originally lifted the ban on women of menstruating age (10–50 years) from entering the shrine. Justice Nagarathna, the lone woman on the bench, expressed doubts about the application of Article 17 in the case, noting that the article was made a fundamental right in the context of the long history of untouchability. Also Read: Trump warns Iran ‘whole civilisation will die tonight’; Pezeshkian says 14 million ready to sacrifice "Article 17, in the context of Sabarimala, I don't know how it can be argued. Speaking as a woman, there can't be a three-day untouchability every month, and on the fourth day, there is no untouchability," she said. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Government, requested the court to uphold the traditional restrictions, arguing that the issue falls within the "domain of religious faith and denominational autonomy." He cautioned against applying Western concepts like "patriarchy" to Indian religious traditions. Taking strong exception to this line of reasoning, Mehta said, "One opinion in Sabarimala says Article 17 applies to women, you are treating them as untouchables, I have a very strong objection to it."

Justice Nagarathna made these remarks while sitting on a nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing a cluster of cases regarding the entry of women into religious places, primarily centred on the Sabarimala Temple.&nbsp;

'A woman cannot be untouchable for three days a month,' says SC Justice Nagarathna in Sabarimala hearing

The Supreme Court of Nepal has issued a show cause order in the writ petition filed, calling for the release of CPN (UML) Chair and former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli from detention. The apex court has also sought a written response from the government over the reasons behind the arrest of Nepali Congress leader and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak. Oli was detained at his residence on Saturday after the newly elected government decided to implement the report of the inquiry commission formed to investigate the September 8 and 9 protests and subsequent incidents.


Nepal Supreme Court Questions KP Sharma Oli Detention, Seeks Explanation

In a landmark decision, India’s top court has allowed passive euthanasia for a 32-year-old man who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for the past 13 years after a fall. The ruling permits doctors to withdraw life support, recognising the constitutional right to die with dignity in exceptional circumstances.

The court noted that the man’s condition is medically irreversible and that continuing life support would not improve his health. The decision came after a detailed medical evaluation and consent from the family, marking one of the rare cases where withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment has been legally permitted.

India: Top Court Allows Passive Euthanasia For Man In Vegetative State

Donald Trump has issued warnings to multiple countries about imposing higher tariffs, escalating global trade tensions. Analysts say this move signals a tougher stance on trade negotiations, potential retaliation, and economic realignment across key international markets. Businesses and investors worldwide are closely monitoring policy changes, trade disputes, and the potential impact on supply chains, exports, and import prices. Stay updated for developments and reactions.


Trump's Invokes Section 122 For Tariffs: Hardens Stance, Warns Countries

WhatsApp has informed India's Supreme Court that it will fully comply with NCLAT directions regarding user data privacy by March 16, 2026. The platform will stop forcing users to accept data-sharing with parent company Meta for non-core services, ensuring that data sharing is not a condition for using the app. This follows a legal battle over the 2021 privacy policy. 


India Codifies Counter-terror Doctrine, 'Prahaar' Aims to Future-proof India’s Security

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling complicates the U.S.-China trade negotiations, curtailing one of President Trump’s key negotiating tools just ahead of his anticipated meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. How will this legal shift affect trade strategy, tariffs, and international diplomacy? Experts weigh in on the implications for global markets and U.S. economic policy.

US-China Trade: Supreme Court Ruling Resets US-China Trade Dynamics | Trump Negotiation Challenge

Donald Trump has unveiled a fresh tariff push following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The president cites narrower yet effective legal avenues to continue his tariff-driven policies—but do they carry the same weight as IEEPA? Experts weigh in on the legal strategies and potential impact on the U.S. and global economy.

Tariffs Remain Central to Trump Agenda | Legal Path for New Duties 

The US Supreme Court, in a 6–3 ruling, struck down president Donald Trump’s tariffs imposed under the international emergency economic powers act, or IEEPA. Within hours, trump signed an executive order ending all IEEPA tariffs. But the tariff regime did not disappear. Instead, the administration moved quickly to replace them with a global 15 percent tariff under section 122 of the trade act of 1974, later increased to 15 percent.


Trump's 15% Tariff May Lower Trade Costs Short-term

On Saturday, President Donald Trump announced he would raise the temporary US import tariff from 10% to 15% for all countries, following the Supreme Court’s ruling against his signature tariff program under the economic emergency law.

Trump's Tariff Strategy Faces Reset: New Dawn In The Tariff Saga

supreme-court

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

supreme court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madras High Court Stays Bypolls to 5 Seats

US SC allows ending TPS for Haitians & Syrians

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

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