The US Supreme Court has struck down the Trump administration’s sweeping global tariffs, ruling that presidents do not have inherent authority to impose broad trade levies. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the decision. President Donald Trump reacted at a White House briefing, calling the ruling deeply disappointing and criticising the justices. Trump said the decision was harmful to US economic interests and stated that the administration would pursue alternative legal tools on tariffs. He also claimed the court was influenced by foreign interests, without presenting evidence.


Trump Blasts Supreme Court's Judgement On Tariffs

As tensions escalate between US President Donald Trump and the Supreme Court of the United States over executive tariff powers, a larger question looms: what happens to America’s trade deals?

What Happens to U.S. Trade Deals Amid Trump’s Tariff Battle With Supreme Court?

The US Supreme Court struck down a broad set of tariffs imposed under President Donald Trump in a 6-3 decision. The ruling, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, marks a major development for US trade policy and executive authority. The decision is expected to have significant economic and political implications, with reactions emerging across markets and global partners.

Trump Announces Fresh 10% Global Tariffs: Supreme Court Delivers Blow 

The US Supreme Court struck down a broad set of tariffs imposed under President Donald Trump in a 6-3 decision. The ruling, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, marks a major development for US trade policy and executive authority. The decision is expected to have significant economic and political implications, with reactions emerging across markets and global partners.


Trump Announces Fresh 10% Global Tariff as Supreme Court's 6-3 Ruling Reshapes US Trade Strategy

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.


Supreme Court Slams States For Handing Out Freebies Ahead of Elections

India's Supreme Court sharply criticized major banks for failing to detect suspicious transactions in scams totaling ₹58,000 crore ($7 billion), questioning why systems like UPI frauds went unflagged despite RBI alerts. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna highlighted systemic lapses allowing cyber frauds to surge, with over 10 lakh victims last year alone.


Supreme Court Slams Banks on  $7 BN  Scam Losses 

India’s apex court, the Supreme Court of India, has permitted the termination of a 30-week pregnancy in a significant verdict. The ruling underscores judicial discretion in cases involving advanced-stage pregnancies, while reaffirming the court’s role in interpreting medical and legal safeguards under existing law.


India's Apex Court Permits 30-Week Pregnancy Termination | WION

Breaking: India's Supreme Court has stayed the UGC's new 2026 equity regulations, deeming them vague and prone to misuse amid challenges over discrimination against general category students.


Breaking: Supreme Court Stays UGC Equity Regulations 

India’s Supreme Court has delivered a landmark verdict reserving one seat in bar councils for differently-abled lawyers. The historic ruling strengthens disability rights and ensures greater representation for disabled legal professionals in the country’s justice system.


India: Supreme Court Delivers Key Verdict For Disabled Lawyers 

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Bengal government, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the state police on the Enforcement Directorate’s petitions seeking a CBI probe against them for allegedly obstructing raids at I-PAC premises last week and taking away evidence. In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government in West Bengaln and the Kolkata Police, the Supreme Court paused the FIRs registered against officers of the Enforcement Directorate in connection with their searches against the political consultancy firm I-PAC.&nbsp;The bench of Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi also sought replies from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel &amp; Training, CM Mamata Banerjee, and the Trinamool Congress government in Bengal on the central agency’s petition seeking the suspension of Bengal’s DGP Rajeev Kumar and Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, among others.&nbsp;The court has also sought a reply to the petition for a CBI probe in the matter.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-s-envoy-steve-witkoff-announces-launch-of-gaza-peace-plan-second-phase-1768412879217">Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff announces launch of Gaza peace plan second phase</a><h2>‘If not answered, it shall lead to lawlessness’: SC</h2>&nbsp;During the hearing, the top court said that there are larger questions that emerge in ED’s plea, and if not answered, it shall lead to lawlessness. The court posted the ED’s plea for a hearing on February 3 and directed the West Bengal police to protect CCTV footage of raids on I-PAC premises.&nbsp;“There are larger questions which emerge and if not answered shall lead to lawlessness. If central agencies are working bona fide to probe a serious offence, a question arises: Can they be obstructed by party activities?” the court said.&nbsp;The Supreme Court also said that it is “very much disturbed” by the chaos in the Calcutta High Court during a hearing related to the face-off between the ED and the Bengal government.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-sickening-repression-uk-working-with-allies-on-new-sanctions-against-iran-says-starmer-1768406707779">‘Sickening repression’: UK ‘working with allies’ on new sanctions against Iran, says Starmer</a>&nbsp;Rapping the Bengal government, the court said, “Necessary to examine issue so that offenders aren’t allowed to be protected under the shield of the state’s law enforcing agencies.”&nbsp;The court was hearing a petition filed by the ED over the alleged obstruction of its raids in Kolkata last week on I-PAC, a firm that provides political consultancy to the Mamata-led Trinamool Congress (TMC).&nbsp;The probe agency told the court that Mamata has a “shocking pattern” of barging into premises during proceedings by statutory authorities.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-avoid-travel-to-iran-india-s-mea-issues-fresh-advisory-as-security-concerns-grow-tensions-mount-1768386314816">India tells all nationals in Iran to leave, as security concerns grow, tensions mount amid unrest</a><h2>‘This is mobocracy,’ says Solicitor General Tushar Mehta</h2>&nbsp;Appearing for the central agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accused Banerjee of “theft” and said she took evidence from the residence of IPAC co-founder Pratik Jain. “This kind of act will encourage state police officers to aid and abet such cases,” he said, and demanded the suspension of top Bengal cops.“This is mobocracy,” Mehta told the court, describing the chaos in Calcutta High Court on January 9 when a battery of lawyers not linked to the case disrupted the proceedings, leading the judge to adjourn the hearing.&nbsp;The bench asked if the high court was converted into Jantar Mantar. Solicitor General Mehta said a WhatsApp message asked lawyers to come to the court at a specific time, leading to the chaos.Mehta said that “this is not the first time” that Mamata Banerjee has done this and urged the top court to settle the issue once and for all.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-labels-muslim-brotherhood-branches-in-egypt-lebanon-jordan-as-terrorists-egypt-saudi-arabia-hail-action-1768400130903">US labels Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan as ‘terrorists’; Egypt, Saudi Arabia hail action</a><h2>‘Election data is confidential, and it is all kept there’: Kapil Sibal</h2>&nbsp;Appearing for Banerjee, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the need for the ED to go to Bengal ahead of the Assembly polls. “The last development in the coal scam case took place in February 2024. What were they doing there in 2026. We all know IPAC takes care of elections in West Bengal. There is a formal contract between IPC and TMC,” he said.“Election data is confidential, and it is all kept there. There will be a lot of info on candidates, etc. Once you have info, how do we fight the election? Chairman (Banerjee) has the right to protect it and thus went there,” he said.

The top court also said that it is “very much disturbed” by the chaos in the Calcutta High Court during a hearing related to the face-off between the ED and Bengal government. SG Tushar Mehta said a WhatsApp message asked lawyers to come to the court at a specific time, leading to the chaos.

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Bengal government, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the state police on the Enforcement Directorate’s petitions seeking a CBI probe against them for allegedly obstructing raids at I-PAC premises last week and taking away evidence. In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government in West Bengaln and the Kolkata Police, the Supreme Court paused the FIRs registered against officers of the Enforcement Directorate in connection with their searches against the political consultancy firm I-PAC. The bench of Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi also sought replies from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel & Training, CM Mamata Banerjee, and the Trinamool Congress government in Bengal on the central agency’s petition seeking the suspension of Bengal’s DGP Rajeev Kumar and Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, among others. The court has also sought a reply to the petition for a CBI probe in the matter. Also Read: Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff announces launch of Gaza peace plan second phase ‘If not answered, it shall lead to lawlessness’: SC During the hearing, the top court said that there are larger questions that emerge in ED’s plea, and if not answered, it shall lead to lawlessness. The court posted the ED’s plea for a hearing on February 3 and directed the West Bengal police to protect CCTV footage of raids on I-PAC premises. “There are larger questions which emerge and if not answered shall lead to lawlessness. If central agencies are working bona fide to probe a serious offence, a question arises: Can they be obstructed by party activities?” the court said. The Supreme Court also said that it is “very much disturbed” by the chaos in the Calcutta High Court during a hearing related to the face-off between the ED and the Bengal government. Also Read: ‘Sickening repression’: UK ‘working with allies’ on new sanctions against Iran, says Starmer Rapping the Bengal government, the court said, “Necessary to examine issue so that offenders aren’t allowed to be protected under the shield of the state’s law enforcing agencies.” The court was hearing a petition filed by the ED over the alleged obstruction of its raids in Kolkata last week on I-PAC, a firm that provides political consultancy to the Mamata-led Trinamool Congress (TMC). The probe agency told the court that Mamata has a “shocking pattern” of barging into premises during proceedings by statutory authorities. Also Read: India tells all nationals in Iran to leave, as security concerns grow, tensions mount amid unrest ‘This is mobocracy,’ says Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Appearing for the central agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accused Banerjee of “theft” and said she took evidence from the residence of IPAC co-founder Pratik Jain. “This kind of act will encourage state police officers to aid and abet such cases,” he said, and demanded the suspension of top Bengal cops. “This is mobocracy,” Mehta told the court, describing the chaos in Calcutta High Court on January 9 when a battery of lawyers not linked to the case disrupted the proceedings, leading the judge to adjourn the hearing. The bench asked if the high court was converted into Jantar Mantar. Solicitor General Mehta said a WhatsApp message asked lawyers to come to the court at a specific time, leading to the chaos. Mehta said that “this is not the first time” that Mamata Banerjee has done this and urged the top court to settle the issue once and for all. Also Read: US labels Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan as ‘terrorists’; Egypt, Saudi Arabia hail action ‘Election data is confidential, and it is all kept there’: Kapil Sibal Appearing for Banerjee, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the need for the ED to go to Bengal ahead of the Assembly polls. “The last development in the coal scam case took place in February 2024. What were they doing there in 2026. We all know IPAC takes care of elections in West Bengal. There is a formal contract between IPC and TMC,” he said. “Election data is confidential, and it is all kept there. There will be a lot of info on candidates, etc. Once you have info, how do we fight the election? Chairman (Banerjee) has the right to protect it and thus went there,” he said.

The top court also said that it is “very much disturbed” by the chaos in the Calcutta High Court during a hearing related to the face-off between the ED and Bengal government. SG Tushar Mehta said a WhatsApp message asked lawyers to come to the court at a specific time, leading to the chaos.

I-PAC raids: SC raps Bengal govt, issues notice, stays FIRs against ED officials

Trump warns of ‘complete mess’ if Supreme Court rejects tariffs. US president speaks after saying that any country that does business with Iran will face 25% levy on trade with US.


Trump's tariffs: What happens if tariffs are ruled illegal by US Supreme Court? 

The Supreme Court of India has temporarily paused the order defining the Aravalli Hills, following petitions and legal scrutiny. The decision comes amid ongoing environmental and land-use debates, highlighting the tension between development and conservation.


Arvalli row: Supreme Court halts implementation of revised Aravalli definition

The Supreme Court has paused the bail of an accused in the Unnao rape case, following legal proceedings and public attention on the case. Authorities continue their investigation as the case remains under judicial scrutiny.

Breaking: Supreme Court Pauses Bail of Accused in Unnao Rape Case

The victim in the 2017 Unnao rape case on Sunday (Dec 28) said that she has faith that she will get justice from the Supreme Court and appealed to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to ensure her safety so she can fight her legal battle without fear. &nbsp;This comes after the Delhi High Court recently granted conditional bail to former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 rape case. &nbsp;Speaking during the protest organised by All India Progressive Women Association (AIPWA) in Delhi today, the Unnao rape victim claimed that Sengar had bribed officials, including the CBI Investigating Officer and Delhi High Court judge, and said her family had suffered severe consequences since Kuldeep Singh Sengar's bail. &nbsp;"I have faith that I will get justice in the Supreme Court. Kuldeep Sengar has bribed (Delhi HC) judge and a CBI Investigating Officer. My husband's job was snatched away, and my children and witnesses are under threat. Protection must be provided to those whom we name in front of the CBI. I request CM Yogi Adityanath to protect me in a way that I am able to fight my battle fearlessly," the rape victim said to ANI. &nbsp;The members of the All India Progressive Women Association (AIPWA) staged a protest in Delhi in support of the Unnao rape survivor, demanding justice and adequate protection for her and her family. Protesters raised slogans and held posters with written slogans such as "activist in jail, rapists on bail", "zero tolerance for rapists", "cancel Kuldeep Singh's bail" and many more.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/young-woman-s-body-found-in-noida-dumping-yard-with-hands-and-feet-tied-face-burnt-noida-police-crimes-in-india-criminals-1766933628786">Young woman’s body found in Noida dumping yard with hands and feet tied, face burnt</a>&nbsp;Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) appeal on December 29, challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to suspend the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case. &nbsp;A three-judge vacation bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant will hear the plea of the CBI. &nbsp;Sengar was convicted in December 2019 in the Unnao rape case and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 25 lakh. Though granted bail in this case, he will continue to remain in jail as he is serving a 10-year sentence in another CBI case related to murder.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) appeal on December 29, challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to suspend the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case.

The victim in the 2017 Unnao rape case on Sunday (Dec 28) said that she has faith that she will get justice from the Supreme Court and appealed to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to ensure her safety so she can fight her legal battle without fear. This comes after the Delhi High Court recently granted conditional bail to former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 rape case. Speaking during the protest organised by All India Progressive Women Association (AIPWA) in Delhi today, the Unnao rape victim claimed that Sengar had bribed officials, including the CBI Investigating Officer and Delhi High Court judge, and said her family had suffered severe consequences since Kuldeep Singh Sengar's bail. "I have faith that I will get justice in the Supreme Court. Kuldeep Sengar has bribed (Delhi HC) judge and a CBI Investigating Officer. My husband's job was snatched away, and my children and witnesses are under threat. Protection must be provided to those whom we name in front of the CBI. I request CM Yogi Adityanath to protect me in a way that I am able to fight my battle fearlessly," the rape victim said to ANI. The members of the All India Progressive Women Association (AIPWA) staged a protest in Delhi in support of the Unnao rape survivor, demanding justice and adequate protection for her and her family. Protesters raised slogans and held posters with written slogans such as "activist in jail, rapists on bail", "zero tolerance for rapists", "cancel Kuldeep Singh's bail" and many more. Also Read: Young woman’s body found in Noida dumping yard with hands and feet tied, face burnt Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) appeal on December 29, challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to suspend the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case. A three-judge vacation bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant will hear the plea of the CBI. Sengar was convicted in December 2019 in the Unnao rape case and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 25 lakh. Though granted bail in this case, he will continue to remain in jail as he is serving a 10-year sentence in another CBI case related to murder. (Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.)

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) appeal on December 29, challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to suspend the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case.

‘I have faith in Supreme Court’: Unnao rape case victim seeks protection from CM Yogi

The Supreme Court is set to hear the CBI's plea against the suspension of Kuldeep Singh Sengar's life sentence in the Unnao rape case on December 29. This high-profile case continues to draw national attention amid ongoing legal battles.

Unnao Rape Case: Supreme Court to Hear CBI Challenge to Sengar Sentence Relief Tomorrow

The Aravalli controversy shows no signs of cooling down, with debate raging over India’s ancient mountain range. Known for their ecological importance and historic legacy, the Aravallis are now under the spotlight again, as politics and environmental concerns collide. Congress party is planning a mega protest across Rajasthan and asks why the centre seems hell-bent in redrawing the boundaries of this mountain range.


Aravalli controversy: Cong asks why centre is pushing to redefine Aravalli range

The Aravalli mining controversy refuses to die down, with the Indian government dismissing public concerns over mining in the ecologically sensitive region. Environmentalists continue to demand stronger protections for the Aravalli hills.


Aravalli controversy: Indian govt rubbishes apprehensions over Aravalli mining 

Aravalli controversy: Indian govt claims no imminent threat to the Aravalli's ecology

Protests erupt across Rajasthan cities including Udaipur, Jodhpur, Sikar, and Alwar. Demonstrators have taken to the streets demanding attention to local issues, as authorities monitor the situation closely.

Aravalli Hills: Protesters Take to Streets in Udaipur, Jodhpur, Sikar, and Alwar

A recent Supreme Court ruling adopting a narrow 100-meter elevation rule to define the Aravalli Hills has sparked major debate and alarm, as experts warn it could strip protection from over 90% of the range, opening it to destructive mining, real estate, and severe ecological damage, including increased desertification, water scarcity, and pollution for Delhi-NCR, leading to widespread protests and calls for an immediate review. 


Government says over 90% Aravalli remains protected, mining is completely banned in Delhi-NCR

Aravalli row: Height rule sparks debate, experts warn of ecological risks

 There is growing controversy around the aravalli mountain range, ---
One of the oldest mountain systems in the world and a critical ecological shield for north and western india...

Aravalli  Hills: Supreme Court Ruling Triggers Aravalli Alarm

A Brazilian Supreme Court judge on Friday rejected a fresh appeal by jailed former president Jair Bolsonaro against his coup conviction, declaring it inadmissible. 


Brazil's Top Court Quashes Jair Bolsonaro's Appeal | Police Raid Homes of Bolsonaro's Allies 

The Supreme Court has called Delhi’s air pollution control measures a “total failure,” criticizing the government’s handling of rising pollution levels. Despite various initiatives, the city continues to face hazardous air quality. Watch to understand the court’s remarks, government response, and the implications for Delhi residents and public health. 


Supreme Court slams authorities as Delhi chokes 

On November 25, 2025, a Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order upholding the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, holding that the officer had placed his personal religious belief above a lawful command. The Court termed this “clearly an act of indiscipline”.The Supreme Court upheld the Army’s decision to terminate Lieutenant Kamalesan in 2021 after he refused to participate in religious rituals at his Regiment’s mandir and gurdwara. Describing him as a “misfit”, the Court affirmed that discipline and cohesion in the armed forces cannot be compromised for individual interpretation of faith.Commissioned in 2017, Lieutenant Kamalesan was posted to a Sikh Squadron of the Third Cavalry. He faced disciplinary action for refusing to enter the inner sanctum of the Regimental mandir and gurdwara during mandatory religious parades.Kamalesan reportedly argued that entering these places went against his Christian beliefs and that he was also acting out of respect for the religious sentiments of his Sikh troops. He claimed his men were not offended and that it did not affect his relationship with them, as reported by Bar and Bench.The Army, however, stated that the officer persisted with his refusal despite counselling by senior officers and even by Christian clergy. Eventually, when all remedial measures failed, he was terminated from service in 2021. There is little doubt that his conduct vitiated the environment in the unit, undermined cohesion, and risked affecting troop morale. His dismissal, therefore, was inevitable.<h2>Unbecoming conduct</h2>Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kamalesan, argued that his client had committed only a “single infraction”. He stated that entering the sanctum violated his faith and that joining the Army did not mean surrendering one’s religious identity.However, the argument that “only one person” objected ignores the fundamental reality of military command. That “one person” was the Commanding Officer — the fulcrum of discipline,morale, and regimental tradition. He is not merely an individual but the embodiment of institutional authority within a unit.More importantly, the decision to dismiss Kamalesan was not taken by one individual. It was reviewed and endorsed at multiple levels of command, backed by legal opinion from the Judge Advocate General’s branch.Justice Bagchi pointed out that a Christian Pastor had counselled Kamalesan and clarified that entering the sanctum did not violate the essentials of Christian faith. Yet, the officer persisted with his personal interpretation. To this, Sankaranarayanan replied that the conversation with the Pastor was limited to the Sarva Dharma Sthal and not to a temple or gurdwara.Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasised the higher responsibility of leadership in uniform. He observed that a leader must always lead by example and questioned whether the officer’s conduct did not amount to insulting the very soldiers he commanded.The Supreme Court was unequivocal in its assessment. It described Kamalesan’s conduct as “gross indiscipline” and stated that even if he was otherwise a competent officer, he was “a misfit for the Indian Army” given the gravity of responsibility entrusted to the armed forces.<h2>Third Cavalry: The regimental context</h2>Third Cavalry is among the most distinguished armoured regiments of the Indian Army. It traces its lineage to the 7th Irregular Cavalry raised in 1841 and the 17th Cavalry raised in 1846. The Regiment earned lasting fame as the “Patton Wreckers” during the Battle of Asal Uttar in the 1965 war, where its Centurion tanks halted Pakistan’s armoured thrust.At that historic juncture, the Regiment was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Salim Caleb, a Christian officer who led his troops with exemplary valour, earning both the Maha Vir Chakra and battle honours for the unit.Third Cavalry’s soldiers have traditionally been drawn from Jats, Rajputs, and Sikhs. Over its history, the Regiment has been commanded by Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Christian officers alike. Colonel (later Brigadier) Kutab Hai, a Muslim officer, once commanded the Sikh Squadron and actively led religious observances at the Gurdwara.Regimental traditions, religious customs, and the culture of soldiering are painstakingly taught to every officer on arrival. Kamalesan was no exception. Despite this, he chose to elevate hispersonal belief system above institutional requirements. His termination would undoubtedly have followed exhaustive counselling and multiple opportunities for course correction.<h2>The ethos of the Indian Army</h2>The Indian Army is defined as much by its ethos and traditions as by its combat capability. While the organisation is vast, its true strength lies in the unit—the soul of the Army.There exist class-based regiments such as the Sikh, Rajput, Jat, Dogra and Gorkha Regiments, each sustaining places of worship aligned with the faith of their soldiers. There are also mixed-class regiments such as the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry and Jammu and Kashmir Rifles that maintain mandirs, masjids, and gurdwaras within the same unit.Older armoured regiments such as the Third Cavalry are fixed-class formations, where each sabre squadron reflects a specific class composition. Newer regiments are mixed-class. The Armoured Corps today contains a healthy blend of both, allowing commanders to leverage the strengths of each.Religion within the armed forces acts as a binding force, particularly in combat. In war, faith provides strength in moments of extreme stress. The war cry of the regiment and shared religious identity often become rallying points under fire. Faith strengthens fraternity, and fraternity fuels operational success.It is, therefore, misleading to treat participation in regimental religious observances as coercion. Instead, it is a professional obligation rooted in leadership, trust, and shared identity.Though the Army employs rigorous psychological and leadership assessment through the Services Selection Board, Kamalesan’s rigidity appears to have escaped detection. His case underlines the need for closer scrutiny of such traits during selection and training.All officers in the Indian Army are free to practise their religion in private. However, in public military life, they adopt the religion of the troops they command. This practice is neither symbolic nor optional; it is foundational to leadership in uniform.In my own Regiment, which comprised Jats, Muslims and Rajputs, all officers and JCOs participated in both mandir and masjid functions without exception. This was not a matter of faith but of duty.The fundamental right to practise religion cannot be interpreted to undermine discipline and regimental unity. In the armed forces, religion unites rather than divides. Regimental places of worship are not merely spiritual spaces; they are centres of identity, tradition, morale, and cohesion.To quote Lieutenant General Hasnain, “In uniform, personal belief cannot be allowed to overshadow institutional duty.”The enduring bond between officer and soldier is strengthened when officers actively participate in the cultural and religious life of their men. This shared participation forges trust and reinforces mutual respect.The Supreme Court’s verdict, describing Kamalesan’s actions as the “grossest kind of indiscipline”, upholds this foundational military principle. The Army functions in a deeply secular manner, but its secularism is not based on detachment from religion. Rather, it derives its strength from inclusiveness and shared participation.An officer who distances himself from the religious practices of his troops weakens morale and disrupts regimentation—the soul of the Army. It is for this reason that an officer assumes the identity of his unit, and the religion of the men becomes paramount over personal belief.It is this timeless tradition that was upheld in the case of Lieutenant Kamalesan.Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Kamalesan reportedly argued that entering these places went against his Christian beliefs and that he was also acting out of respect for the religious sentiments of his Sikh troops.

On November 25, 2025, a Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order upholding the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, holding that the officer had placed his personal religious belief above a lawful command. The Court termed this “clearly an act of indiscipline”. The Supreme Court upheld the Army’s decision to terminate Lieutenant Kamalesan in 2021 after he refused to participate in religious rituals at his Regiment’s mandir and gurdwara. Describing him as a “misfit”, the Court affirmed that discipline and cohesion in the armed forces cannot be compromised for individual interpretation of faith. Commissioned in 2017, Lieutenant Kamalesan was posted to a Sikh Squadron of the Third Cavalry. He faced disciplinary action for refusing to enter the inner sanctum of the Regimental mandir and gurdwara during mandatory religious parades. Kamalesan reportedly argued that entering these places went against his Christian beliefs and that he was also acting out of respect for the religious sentiments of his Sikh troops. He claimed his men were not offended and that it did not affect his relationship with them, as reported by Bar and Bench. The Army, however, stated that the officer persisted with his refusal despite counselling by senior officers and even by Christian clergy. Eventually, when all remedial measures failed, he was terminated from service in 2021. There is little doubt that his conduct vitiated the environment in the unit, undermined cohesion, and risked affecting troop morale. His dismissal, therefore, was inevitable. Unbecoming conduct Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kamalesan, argued that his client had committed only a “single infraction”. He stated that entering the sanctum violated his faith and that joining the Army did not mean surrendering one’s religious identity. However, the argument that “only one person” objected ignores the fundamental reality of military command. That “one person” was the Commanding Officer — the fulcrum of discipline, morale, and regimental tradition. He is not merely an individual but the embodiment of institutional authority within a unit. More importantly, the decision to dismiss Kamalesan was not taken by one individual. It was reviewed and endorsed at multiple levels of command, backed by legal opinion from the Judge Advocate General’s branch. Justice Bagchi pointed out that a Christian Pastor had counselled Kamalesan and clarified that entering the sanctum did not violate the essentials of Christian faith. Yet, the officer persisted with his personal interpretation. To this, Sankaranarayanan replied that the conversation with the Pastor was limited to the Sarva Dharma Sthal and not to a temple or gurdwara. Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasised the higher responsibility of leadership in uniform. He observed that a leader must always lead by example and questioned whether the officer’s conduct did not amount to insulting the very soldiers he commanded. The Supreme Court was unequivocal in its assessment. It described Kamalesan’s conduct as “gross indiscipline” and stated that even if he was otherwise a competent officer, he was “a misfit for the Indian Army” given the gravity of responsibility entrusted to the armed forces. Third Cavalry: The regimental context Third Cavalry is among the most distinguished armoured regiments of the Indian Army. It traces its lineage to the 7th Irregular Cavalry raised in 1841 and the 17th Cavalry raised in 1846. The Regiment earned lasting fame as the “Patton Wreckers” during the Battle of Asal Uttar in the 1965 war, where its Centurion tanks halted Pakistan’s armoured thrust. At that historic juncture, the Regiment was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Salim Caleb, a Christian officer who led his troops with exemplary valour, earning both the Maha Vir Chakra and battle honours for the unit. Third Cavalry’s soldiers have traditionally been drawn from Jats, Rajputs, and Sikhs. Over its history, the Regiment has been commanded by Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Christian officers alike. Colonel (later Brigadier) Kutab Hai, a Muslim officer, once commanded the Sikh Squadron and actively led religious observances at the Gurdwara. Regimental traditions, religious customs, and the culture of soldiering are painstakingly taught to every officer on arrival. Kamalesan was no exception. Despite this, he chose to elevate his personal belief system above institutional requirements. His termination would undoubtedly have followed exhaustive counselling and multiple opportunities for course correction. The ethos of the Indian Army The Indian Army is defined as much by its ethos and traditions as by its combat capability. While the organisation is vast, its true strength lies in the unit—the soul of the Army. There exist class-based regiments such as the Sikh, Rajput, Jat, Dogra and Gorkha Regiments, each sustaining places of worship aligned with the faith of their soldiers. There are also mixed-class regiments such as the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry and Jammu and Kashmir Rifles that maintain mandirs, masjids, and gurdwaras within the same unit. Older armoured regiments such as the Third Cavalry are fixed-class formations, where each sabre squadron reflects a specific class composition. Newer regiments are mixed-class. The Armoured Corps today contains a healthy blend of both, allowing commanders to leverage the strengths of each. Religion within the armed forces acts as a binding force, particularly in combat. In war, faith provides strength in moments of extreme stress. The war cry of the regiment and shared religious identity often become rallying points under fire. Faith strengthens fraternity, and fraternity fuels operational success. It is, therefore, misleading to treat participation in regimental religious observances as coercion. Instead, it is a professional obligation rooted in leadership, trust, and shared identity. Though the Army employs rigorous psychological and leadership assessment through the Services Selection Board, Kamalesan’s rigidity appears to have escaped detection. His case underlines the need for closer scrutiny of such traits during selection and training. All officers in the Indian Army are free to practise their religion in private. However, in public military life, they adopt the religion of the troops they command. This practice is neither symbolic nor optional; it is foundational to leadership in uniform. In my own Regiment, which comprised Jats, Muslims and Rajputs, all officers and JCOs participated in both mandir and masjid functions without exception. This was not a matter of faith but of duty. The fundamental right to practise religion cannot be interpreted to undermine discipline and regimental unity. In the armed forces, religion unites rather than divides. Regimental places of worship are not merely spiritual spaces; they are centres of identity, tradition, morale, and cohesion. To quote Lieutenant General Hasnain, “In uniform, personal belief cannot be allowed to overshadow institutional duty.” The enduring bond between officer and soldier is strengthened when officers actively participate in the cultural and religious life of their men. This shared participation forges trust and reinforces mutual respect. The Supreme Court’s verdict, describing Kamalesan’s actions as the “grossest kind of indiscipline”, upholds this foundational military principle. The Army functions in a deeply secular manner, but its secularism is not based on detachment from religion. Rather, it derives its strength from inclusiveness and shared participation. An officer who distances himself from the religious practices of his troops weakens morale and disrupts regimentation—the soul of the Army. It is for this reason that an officer assumes the identity of his unit, and the religion of the men becomes paramount over personal belief. It is this timeless tradition that was upheld in the case of Lieutenant Kamalesan. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Kamalesan reportedly argued that entering these places went against his Christian beliefs and that he was also acting out of respect for the religious sentiments of his Sikh troops.&nbsp;

In the army, religion unites and does not divide

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared Texas to proceed with its newly redrawn congressional map despite ongoing legal challenges. Supporters claim the map reflects population growth, while critics argue it undermines minority representation. This video breaks down the ruling, the political implications, and what it means for future elections.

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Texas to Use Redrawn Congressional Map

The Supreme Court slammed Maharashtra’s prison authorities for a shocking lapse, repeatedly failing to produce an undertrial before the trial court. The accused, held in custody for over four years, was absent on 55 of 85 scheduled trial dates.&nbsp;While granting bail, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra expressed astonishment at this blatant disregard for the judicial process, calling it a serious violation of fundamental rights. The Court ordered the Head of Maharashtra’s Prison Department to launch a full inquiry and take strict action against the officials responsible.&nbsp;The court ordered, “We direct the Director General of Prisons, State of Maharashtra or whoever is the designated Head of Department of Prisons, to conduct a personal inquiry into the matter and fix responsibility and take action against the persons concerned. It is made clear that if any attempt is made to protect or shield any person, the Director General of Prisons/Head of Department of Prisons to whom we are entrusting the inquiry, shall be personally held responsible for the same.”&nbsp;The Supreme Court observed that the undertrial’s repeated absence from court hearings not only violated his fundamental rights but also denied him the crucial opportunity to raise complaints about mistreatment inside the prison.&nbsp;The court further stated, “We are shocked at the conduct of the State authorities.The production of an accused before the Court is not only to ensure speedy trial but more importantly, as a safeguard so that the prisoner is not abused otherwise, and he comes directly in contact with the Court so as to air his grievances if any, against the authorities. We find that there has been grave infraction of such fundamental safeguard, which is appalling and shocking. We deprecate the same.”&nbsp;The Court further directed the prison authorities to file a compliance report via an affidavit personally affirmed by the designated officer within two months. The matter is scheduled to be listed on 3 February 2026 for the Court to consider the personal report of the Director General of Prisons or the Head of the State Prison Department.

The Supreme Court ordered the Head of Maharashtra’s Prison Department to launch a probe and take strict action against the officials responsible. It also directed the prison officials to file a compliance report via an affidavit personally affirmed by the designated officer within two months.

The Supreme Court slammed Maharashtra’s prison authorities for a shocking lapse, repeatedly failing to produce an undertrial before the trial court. The accused, held in custody for over four years, was absent on 55 of 85 scheduled trial dates. While granting bail, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra expressed astonishment at this blatant disregard for the judicial process, calling it a serious violation of fundamental rights. The Court ordered the Head of Maharashtra’s Prison Department to launch a full inquiry and take strict action against the officials responsible. The court ordered, “We direct the Director General of Prisons, State of Maharashtra or whoever is the designated Head of Department of Prisons, to conduct a personal inquiry into the matter and fix responsibility and take action against the persons concerned. It is made clear that if any attempt is made to protect or shield any person, the Director General of Prisons/Head of Department of Prisons to whom we are entrusting the inquiry, shall be personally held responsible for the same.” The Supreme Court observed that the undertrial’s repeated absence from court hearings not only violated his fundamental rights but also denied him the crucial opportunity to raise complaints about mistreatment inside the prison. The court further stated, “We are shocked at the conduct of the State authorities.The production of an accused before the Court is not only to ensure speedy trial but more importantly, as a safeguard so that the prisoner is not abused otherwise, and he comes directly in contact with the Court so as to air his grievances if any, against the authorities. We find that there has been grave infraction of such fundamental safeguard, which is appalling and shocking. We deprecate the same.” The Court further directed the prison authorities to file a compliance report via an affidavit personally affirmed by the designated officer within two months. The matter is scheduled to be listed on 3 February 2026 for the Court to consider the personal report of the Director General of Prisons or the Head of the State Prison Department.

The Supreme Court ordered the Head of Maharashtra’s Prison Department to launch a probe and take strict action against the officials responsible. It also directed the prison officials to file a compliance report via an affidavit personally affirmed by the designated officer within two months.

Supreme Court expresses shock as Maharashtra prison authorities fail to produce accused on 55 dates out of 85; orders probe

Top court suggests ‘impartial and autonomous authority’ to vet content; it says that like free speech, rights of victims of online abuse have to be protected, and wants ‘preventive mechanisms’ in place


Supreme Court asks government to regulate abusive online content 

The Supreme Court of India is deliberating on accountability and regulation of social media platforms. The discussion focuses on addressing misinformation, online abuse, privacy concerns, and the responsibilities of digital platforms to ensure safe and responsible content.

SC: Independent, Autonomous, Neutral Body Needed 

Social media creators in India might soon face tighter government regulation after a recent Supreme Court ruling. The court raised concerns over the lack of accountability in user-generated content (UGC) on platforms like YouTube and Instagram, particularly after a controversial show, India's Got Latent, sparked legal challenges over its obscene and offensive content.&nbsp;The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed dissatisfaction with the current "self-regulation" model adopted by media companies and online platforms. While the Indian government is working on new guidelines, the court emphasised the need for an independent, neutral, and autonomous body to oversee and regulate online content.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/unveiling-vikran-1-india-s-first-commercial-private-rocket-launched-know-about-payload-and-orbital-adjustments-1764235551607">Unveiling Vikram-1: India's first commercial private rocket launched. know about payload and orbital adjustments</a>&nbsp;The court pointed out that the current system of self-regulation by platforms and content creators was ineffective. "If self-regulation works, why do violations continue?" asked CJI Kant. He stressed that while freedom of speech is fundamental, it shouldn't come at the cost of harmful or "perverse" content being spread unchecked. The court also raised concerns over the lack of age verification measures and the failure of warnings or disclaimers to prevent exposure to inappropriate content.&nbsp;The case arose from multiple FIRs filed against popular YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani for content deemed offensive in the India's Got Latent show. The Supreme Court has been scrutinising this issue as part of a broader debate on online obscenity and the need for stronger regulatory measures. As the government works to finalise new guidelines, the Supreme Court suggested that an expert committee should study the issue further, inviting public suggestions before implementing changes.&nbsp;This move, if enforced, could significantly impact content creators, requiring them to be more mindful of the content they post online. For now, social media creators are on alert as they wait to see how the regulations evolve.

Are you a social media creator? Brace for control, as Indian top court asks govt on regulation mechanisms

Social media creators in India might soon face tighter government regulation after a recent Supreme Court ruling. The court raised concerns over the lack of accountability in user-generated content (UGC) on platforms like YouTube and Instagram, particularly after a controversial show, India's Got Latent, sparked legal challenges over its obscene and offensive content. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed dissatisfaction with the current "self-regulation" model adopted by media companies and online platforms. While the Indian government is working on new guidelines, the court emphasised the need for an independent, neutral, and autonomous body to oversee and regulate online content. Also Read: Unveiling Vikram-1: India's first commercial private rocket launched. know about payload and orbital adjustments The court pointed out that the current system of self-regulation by platforms and content creators was ineffective. "If self-regulation works, why do violations continue?" asked CJI Kant. He stressed that while freedom of speech is fundamental, it shouldn't come at the cost of harmful or "perverse" content being spread unchecked. The court also raised concerns over the lack of age verification measures and the failure of warnings or disclaimers to prevent exposure to inappropriate content. The case arose from multiple FIRs filed against popular YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani for content deemed offensive in the India's Got Latent show. The Supreme Court has been scrutinising this issue as part of a broader debate on online obscenity and the need for stronger regulatory measures. As the government works to finalise new guidelines, the Supreme Court suggested that an expert committee should study the issue further, inviting public suggestions before implementing changes. This move, if enforced, could significantly impact content creators, requiring them to be more mindful of the content they post online. For now, social media creators are on alert as they wait to see how the regulations evolve.

The Supreme Court calls for a neutral, independent body to regulate social media content. Creators may face tighter government oversight to curb obscene or harmful content

Are you a social media creator? Brace for control, as Indian top court asks government on regulation mechanisms

The Supreme Court has issued an advisory opinion clarifying the powers of the President and Governors in India. The opinion addresses constitutional interpretations, the scope of executive authority, and the limits of discretionary powers.

Supreme Court's Advisory Opinion on President, Governor Powers

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