 The Supreme Court has delivered its opinion regarding the timelines within which the President and state Governors must act on bills presented for assent. The court clarified that there is no legally mandated fixed timeline to grant assent or return a bill, emphasizing that these constitutional authorities exercise their discretionary powers in accordance with the federal structure and principles of governance. 

SC Rules Timelines for Presidential and Governors’ Assent on Bills, No Fixed Deadline

Breaking: The Supreme Court has delivered its opinion regarding the timelines within which the President and state Governors must act on bills presented for assent. The court clarified that there is no legally mandated fixed timeline to grant assent or return a bill, emphasizing that these constitutional authorities exercise their discretionary powers in accordance with the federal structure and principles of governance. 


SC On Stray Dogs: The Supreme Court of India has ordered the removal of stray dogs from public premises including schools, hospitals, bus stands, and railway stations, directing authorities to capture, sterilize, vaccinate, and relocate them to designated shelters. Importantly, the court mandated that these dogs must not be released back into their original locations to prevent recurring public safety risks. 

SC On Strays: Dogs Removed from Premises Not to Be Released Back

SC On Stray Dogs: The Supreme Court of India has ordered the removal of stray dogs from public premises including schools, hospitals, bus stands, and railway stations, directing authorities to capture, sterilize, vaccinate, and relocate them to designated shelters. Importantly, the court mandated that these dogs must not be released back into their original locations to prevent recurring public safety risks. 


 SC On Strays: Dogs Removed from Premises Not to Be Released Back, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court also directed state governments, municipal authorities, and road and transport authorities to remove cattle from highways and expressways and rehabilitate them in shelters.


Breaking: Suprem Court of India orders to remove stray cattle from national, state highways

The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative justices signaled their willingness on Wednesday to undercut another key section of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 federal law enacted by Congress to prevent racial discrimination in voting.


US Supreme Court hears case on Voting Rights Act and race-based redistricting

The Supreme Court has granted the Centre four weeks to file its response on multiple petitions seeking the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. The move comes amid growing legal and political pressure following the abrogation of Article 370. Petitioners argue that continued delay violates democratic rights and constitutional principles. The next hearing is expected to set the tone for the Centre’s stand on the future of J&K’s political status.

SC Grants Centre Four Weeks to Respond on J&K Statehood Pleas

Bar Council of India suspended Advocate Rakesh Kishore from the Bar Council for making comments and reportedly throwing his sports shoe at the Chief Justice Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during the morning session at the Supreme Court on Monday, as per the statement released by the Bar Council of India.&nbsp;Security officials immediately intervened, escorted the 71-year-old advocate out of the courtroom and took him into the custody. According to a report by news agency ANI, another lawyer present in the courtroom revealed that while being escorted out of the courtroom, the accused uttered “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan”.&nbsp;As per NDTV, Chief Justice Gavai said while ignoring the incident, "I am the last person to be affected by such things," and continued the hearing.&nbsp;Advocate Rohit Pandey, former secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, told ANI, "Today's incident is a very sad one. If a lawyer has committed or attempted to commit assault in a court, we strongly condemn it. He is a member of our bar. We recently inquired and found out that he is a member of the 2011 Bar. But it is a very sad incident. He attempted this based on the comment made by the CJI in the case of Lord Vishnu matter. This is a very sad incident. We strongly condemn this, and if this incident is true, action should be taken."&nbsp;Meanwhile, the Delhi Police stated that while proceedings in Court No. 1, the advocate identified as Rakesh Kishore, took out his sports shoes and threw them at CJI Gavai at around 11:35 am. “He was picked up by the security personnel. He was handed over to the security unit of the Supreme Court. He is a resident of the Mayur Vihar area and a registered member of the Supreme Court Bar Association,” a senior police officer said, the Indian Express reported.<h3>Why did the advocate throw his show at CJI Gavai?</h3>Amid the initial probe, it was revealed that the advocate was unhappy with the CJI’s statement during a recent hearing of a plea demanding the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol in the Khajuraho Temple complex in Madhya Pradesh.&nbsp;“Now, the Delhi Police are coordinating with the registrar general of the Supreme Court, and the New Delhi District is probing the matter before taking any legal action,” the officer said.&nbsp;While heading a two-judge bench alongside Justice K Vinod Chandran, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, on September 16, dismissed a petition seeking the reconstruction of a damaged seven-foot Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari Temple in the Khajuraho complex.&nbsp;“This purely publicity interest litigation… Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation,” CJI Gavai told the petitioner.&nbsp;Clarifying his stance, CJI Gavai later said that he “respects all religions” and explained that his remarks were made in the context of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) being the authority responsible for the temple’s maintenance. “I believe in all religions, I respect all religions,” he stated.

A lawyer present in the courtroom said that while being escorted out of the courtroom, the accused advocate uttered “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan”.

Bar Council of India suspended Advocate Rakesh Kishore from the Bar Council for making comments and reportedly throwing his sports shoe at the Chief Justice Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during the morning session at the Supreme Court on Monday, as per the statement released by the Bar Council of India. Security officials immediately intervened, escorted the 71-year-old advocate out of the courtroom and took him into the custody. According to a report by news agency ANI, another lawyer present in the courtroom revealed that while being escorted out of the courtroom, the accused uttered “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan”. As per NDTV, Chief Justice Gavai said while ignoring the incident, "I am the last person to be affected by such things," and continued the hearing. Advocate Rohit Pandey, former secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, told ANI, "Today's incident is a very sad one. If a lawyer has committed or attempted to commit assault in a court, we strongly condemn it. He is a member of our bar. We recently inquired and found out that he is a member of the 2011 Bar. But it is a very sad incident. He attempted this based on the comment made by the CJI in the case of Lord Vishnu matter. This is a very sad incident. We strongly condemn this, and if this incident is true, action should be taken." Meanwhile, the Delhi Police stated that while proceedings in Court No. 1, the advocate identified as Rakesh Kishore, took out his sports shoes and threw them at CJI Gavai at around 11:35 am. “He was picked up by the security personnel. He was handed over to the security unit of the Supreme Court. He is a resident of the Mayur Vihar area and a registered member of the Supreme Court Bar Association,” a senior police officer said, the Indian Express reported. Why did the advocate throw his show at CJI Gavai? Amid the initial probe, it was revealed that the advocate was unhappy with the CJI’s statement during a recent hearing of a plea demanding the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol in the Khajuraho Temple complex in Madhya Pradesh. “Now, the Delhi Police are coordinating with the registrar general of the Supreme Court, and the New Delhi District is probing the matter before taking any legal action,” the officer said. While heading a two-judge bench alongside Justice K Vinod Chandran, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, on September 16, dismissed a petition seeking the reconstruction of a damaged seven-foot Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari Temple in the Khajuraho complex. “This purely publicity interest litigation… Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation,” CJI Gavai told the petitioner. Clarifying his stance, CJI Gavai later said that he “respects all religions” and explained that his remarks were made in the context of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) being the authority responsible for the temple’s maintenance. “I believe in all religions, I respect all religions,” he stated.

A lawyer present in the courtroom said that while being escorted out of the courtroom, the accused advocate uttered “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan”.

Bar Council of India suspends advocate who throws shoe at CJI BR Gavai in court

Thailand’s Supreme Court has ruled that former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra must serve one year in prison, declaring his stay in a police hospital does not count as time served. The 76-year-old, previously sentenced for corruption and abuse of power, had avoided jail due to health concerns. The ruling marks a pivotal legal moment for the Southeast Asian nation.

Thai court orders ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra to serve one year in prison

India's Supreme Court Has Raised Alarm Over Rampant Tree Felling In The Fragile Himalayan Region — After A Plea Blamed The Abuse For The Recent Landslide Havoc. Four Governments — Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Jammu And Kashmir, And Uttarakhand — Have Been Asked To Respond.

Concern over threat to Himalayan ecology

The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Centre and four northern states over the recent floods and heavy rains, raising alarm about illegal tree felling in the hills. The court also said the crisis is serious.


Supreme Court flags rampant tree felling in fragile Himalayas

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has warned that revoking tariffs imposed during his administration would turn the United States into a "third-world country." He defended his tariff strategy as essential for protecting American industries and jobs amid growing global economic competition.

Trump warns that tariff revocation would make U.S. a third-world country

President Trump is warning that the U.S. could crumble if the Supreme Court upholds a recent appeals court ruling that deemed his tariffs unlawful under the IEEPA. While these tariffs remain in place during the appeal, the decision may require the return of billions in revenue. Trump calls the ruling politically motivated and insists tariffs are vital for protecting American industries.

Trump fears tariffs will be blocked by U.S. Supreme Court

A U.S. appeals court has ruled that many of former President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which disrupted global trade, were unlawful — and has rejected his appeal, effectively upholding an earlier ruling against them. The Trump administration had taken the case to the Supreme Court after the initial August 29, 2025 ruling, which came in response to lawsuits filed by small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led states. They argued that Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the tariffs are now set to expire after October 14.

Trump faces heat: Appeal court rules against tariffs | What's next? 

The Nepal Supreme Court has refused to bar Naga Sadhus (naked ascetic monks) from entering the Pashupatinath and other Shiva temples, ruling that nudity in the name of religion cannot be regarded as obscene.


Nepal Supreme court: Nudity in devotion is not obscenity

Indian football is once again staring at uncertainty after FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) issued a stern notice to the All India Football Federation (AIFF). The global and continental bodies have set October 30, 2025, as the deadline for the federation to adopt a new constitution in line with international statutes and India’s updated sports governance framework. Failure to comply could lead to another suspension, a situation that would derail both the men’s and women’s national teams as well as domestic leagues.<h2>A familiar trouble</h2>This is not the first time Indian football has found itself in a governance crisis. In 2022, the AIFF was briefly suspended for what FIFA termed “third-party interference” after the Supreme Court of India appointed a Committee of Administrators to run the federation. Although that ban was lifted within days, the episode served as a reminder of how fragile football administration in the country has been. The current standoff stems from the pending approval of a revised constitution. The draft, prepared after years of deliberation and legal wrangling, needs both Supreme Court clearance and ratification by AIFF’s general body. Unless that happens before the deadline, India risks isolation from international football once again.<h2>What a ban would mean</h2>The consequences of suspension go beyond symbolism. The national teams would be barred from FIFA and AFC tournaments, clubs would lose their international slots, and development funding from Zurich would be halted. Perhaps most damaging, the already shaky Indian Super League (ISL) calendar would collapse further—players and coaches are already facing uncertainty after the league’s commercial partner froze the upcoming season due to disputes over media and commercial rights.&nbsp;While Indian football has made modest progress on the field—with rising attendances in some states, improved youth scouting, and increased foreign interest—the governance paralysis has repeatedly overshadowed the sport. Critics argue that prolonged litigation, political interference, and administrative infighting have left the game without clear leadership. FIFA and AFC, in their letter, underlined three key demands: a constitution that respects global football principles, a Supreme Court order endorsing it, and its adoption by the AIFF General Assembly. Any deviation, they warned, would invite sanctions.<h2>A race against time</h2>The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on August 28, a session that could determine whether the federation can resolve the impasse before the October deadline. For now, players, fans, and stakeholders remain anxious. Every delay deepens the risk of Indian football being pushed to the margins just as it struggles to grow.&nbsp;The crisis reveals a paradox: while Indian football dreams of breaking into Asia’s elite, its foundation is repeatedly shaken by boardroom battles. Without governance reform, financial stability, and institutional transparency, the sport will continue to swing between hope and crisis. The next two months will decide whether Indian football finally finds stability or slips into another cycle of suspension and recovery.

Sleeping giant in coma again? FIFA warns India of fresh ban

Indian football is once again staring at uncertainty after FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) issued a stern notice to the All India Football Federation (AIFF). The global and continental bodies have set October 30, 2025, as the deadline for the federation to adopt a new constitution in line with international statutes and India’s updated sports governance framework. Failure to comply could lead to another suspension, a situation that would derail both the men’s and women’s national teams as well as domestic leagues. A familiar trouble This is not the first time Indian football has found itself in a governance crisis. In 2022, the AIFF was briefly suspended for what FIFA termed “third-party interference” after the Supreme Court of India appointed a Committee of Administrators to run the federation. Although that ban was lifted within days, the episode served as a reminder of how fragile football administration in the country has been. The current standoff stems from the pending approval of a revised constitution. The draft, prepared after years of deliberation and legal wrangling, needs both Supreme Court clearance and ratification by AIFF’s general body. Unless that happens before the deadline, India risks isolation from international football once again. What a ban would mean The consequences of suspension go beyond symbolism. The national teams would be barred from FIFA and AFC tournaments, clubs would lose their international slots, and development funding from Zurich would be halted. Perhaps most damaging, the already shaky Indian Super League (ISL) calendar would collapse further—players and coaches are already facing uncertainty after the league’s commercial partner froze the upcoming season due to disputes over media and commercial rights. While Indian football has made modest progress on the field—with rising attendances in some states, improved youth scouting, and increased foreign interest—the governance paralysis has repeatedly overshadowed the sport. Critics argue that prolonged litigation, political interference, and administrative infighting have left the game without clear leadership. FIFA and AFC, in their letter, underlined three key demands: a constitution that respects global football principles, a Supreme Court order endorsing it, and its adoption by the AIFF General Assembly. Any deviation, they warned, would invite sanctions. A race against time The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on August 28, a session that could determine whether the federation can resolve the impasse before the October deadline. For now, players, fans, and stakeholders remain anxious. Every delay deepens the risk of Indian football being pushed to the margins just as it struggles to grow. The crisis reveals a paradox: while Indian football dreams of breaking into Asia’s elite, its foundation is repeatedly shaken by boardroom battles. Without governance reform, financial stability, and institutional transparency, the sport will continue to swing between hope and crisis. The next two months will decide whether Indian football finally finds stability or slips into another cycle of suspension and recovery.

Indian football faces uncertainty after FIFA and the AFC set a deadline of October 30, 2025, for the AIFF to adopt a new constitution in line with international and national sports governance frameworks

A 21-year-old BBA student, Vaishnavi Sahu, was brutally mauled by three stray dogs, leaving her with severe facial injuries and 17 stitches on her cheek. The incident occurred in Shyam Nagar on August 20 while she was returning home from college.

The attack happened during chaos involving a fight between stray dogs and monkeys in the area. Vaishnavi was dragged to the ground, bitten multiple times, and sustained deep wounds to her face, body, and nose. Her condition has sparked public outrage and renewed debate over the growing threat of stray animals in urban areas.

A day after Supreme Court order, stray dogs attack student in Kanpur

The Supreme Court has modified its earlier August 11 order on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR. The bench stayed the blanket ban on releasing picked-up dogs, stating they must be vaccinated, dewormed, sterilised, and then released — except in cases of rabid or aggressive behaviour. Public feeding is now restricted to designated zones, and all states and UTs are now party to the case. What does this mean for civic bodies, animal lovers, and citizens?


Supreme Court modifies earlier directive, allows release of stray dogs after vaccination

The Supreme Court has modified its earlier August 11 order on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR. The bench stayed the blanket ban on releasing picked-up dogs, stating they must be vaccinated, dewormed, sterilised, and then released — except in cases of rabid or aggressive behaviour. Public feeding is now restricted to designated zones, and all states and UTs are now party to the case. What does this mean for civic bodies, animal lovers, and citizens?

India's top court: no feeding of stray dogs on streets, rabid dogs not to be released 

The central government has increased the fees for the renewal of registration for older vehicles. The move aims to discourage the renewal of vehicle registration for vehicles older than 15 years.&nbsp;According to reports, the fee for renewing registration for vehicles older than 15 years has become twice as expensive. The draft amendment was finalized on Thursday.&nbsp;For motorcycles older than 20 years, the renewal of the certificate of registration now costs Rs 2000. The fee was Rs 1000. For three-wheelers, the fee has been increased from Rs 3500 to Rs 5000.&nbsp;The cost of renewal of such imported two-wheelers or three-wheelers has been increased to Rs 20000. The fee for old imported cars has been increased to Rs 80000. Earlier, this fee was Rs 10000 and Rs 40000 for imported motorcycles and cars.&nbsp;A ministry&nbsp;official told News18 that the government wants to discourage the use of vehicles manufactured before the introduction of BS-II emission norms. It is because the government wants to bring vehicular pollution under control.&nbsp;The Supreme Court recently barred authorities from taking coercive action against petrol vehicles over 15 years old and diesel vehicles over 10 years old in Delhi and its surrounding areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here's the list of renewable fees. Motorcycle: Rs 2,000Three-wheeler/Quadricycle: Rs 5,000Light motor vehicle: Rs 10,000Imported motor vehicle (2 or 3 wheels): Rs 20,000Imported motor vehicle (4 or more wheels): Rs 80,000Other vehicles: Rs 12,000&nbsp;These fees don't include Goods and Services Tax (GST). Vehicles older than 15 years can be registered for up to 20 years from the date of first registration.

The central government has increased the fees for the renewal of vehicle registration for older vehicles. The move aims to discourage the renewal of vehicle registration for vehicles older than 15 years.

The central government has increased the fees for the renewal of registration for older vehicles. The move aims to discourage the renewal of vehicle registration for vehicles older than 15 years. According to reports, the fee for renewing registration for vehicles older than 15 years has become twice as expensive. The draft amendment was finalized on Thursday. For motorcycles older than 20 years, the renewal of the certificate of registration now costs Rs 2000. The fee was Rs 1000. For three-wheelers, the fee has been increased from Rs 3500 to Rs 5000. The cost of renewal of such imported two-wheelers or three-wheelers has been increased to Rs 20000. The fee for old imported cars has been increased to Rs 80000. Earlier, this fee was Rs 10000 and Rs 40000 for imported motorcycles and cars. A ministry official told News18 that the government wants to discourage the use of vehicles manufactured before the introduction of BS-II emission norms. It is because the government wants to bring vehicular pollution under control. The Supreme Court recently barred authorities from taking coercive action against petrol vehicles over 15 years old and diesel vehicles over 10 years old in Delhi and its surrounding areas. Here's the list of renewable fees. Motorcycle: Rs 2,000 Three-wheeler/Quadricycle: Rs 5,000 Light motor vehicle: Rs 10,000 Imported motor vehicle (2 or 3 wheels): Rs 20,000 Imported motor vehicle (4 or more wheels): Rs 80,000 Other vehicles: Rs 12,000 These fees don't include Goods and Services Tax (GST). Vehicles older than 15 years can be registered for up to 20 years from the date of first registration.

The move is taken after the Supreme Court barred the authorities from taking coercive actions against owners of vehicles older than 15 years.

Registration fees for vehicles older than 15 years increased. Check list

Supreme court orders action against street feeders, stray dogs to be sterilised and released 

All India Football Federation (AIFF) has finally assented to communicate to the Supreme Court the dissatisfaction of Indian Super League (ISL) players and clubs over the postponement of the 2025-26 season of the league due to a row over extension of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) with Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL).&nbsp;With the case being argued by the nation's highest court, the AIFF has postponed the signing of the MRA, referring to observations made by the SC, which subsequently resulted in FSDL suspending the ISL's Season 2025-26. The AIFF held a meeting on Thursday among its legal representatives and the ISL clubs to settle the issue, during which they agreed to put the issues of the ISL clubs as well as the players before the Supreme Court.&nbsp;"A meeting was convened between the legal representatives of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) and the Indian Super League (ISL) clubs on Thursday, August 14, 2025. It has been decided by both the parties that the issues of the ISL clubs regarding the postponement of the 2025-26 ISL season, and the inconvenience being experienced by the players and other stakeholders will be taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court next week, for its benevolent consideration," AIFF said in an Instagram post.&nbsp;The AIFF recently quoted the SC observation as the reason for the delay in the MRA with FSDL, which suspended the upcoming ISL season. The national body of football stated that it tried to negotiate with FSDL for the extension of the MRA but could not seal the deal following the Supreme Court observation suspension.&nbsp;"As stipulated in the Master Rights Agreement, the All India Football Federation had, in time, initiated the process of seeking negotiations on terms of a possible renewal with FSDL on November 21, 2024. Subsequently, the senior officials of the AIFF and FSDL held meetings on February 5, 2025, in New Delhi and then on March 5, 2025, in Mumbai, for the terms of possible renewal of the Master Rights Agreement," said a statement by the AIFF.&nbsp;But in a letter written to the participant clubs, a copy of which is available with IANS, FSDL had stated that it is compelled to suspend ISL 2025-26 because it is "not able to properly plan, organise, or commercialise the 2025–26 ISL season" as no agreement has been made on the MRA, which was to end on December 8, 2025, with the AIFF. The FSDL alleged that the MRA with AIFF will conclude "around one-third of the way through a standard ISL season, which lasts from September to April" because the national federation has not provided a final answer to the proposal to extend the MRA.

ISL season delay heads to Supreme Court as AIFF, FSDL lock horns over MRA

All India Football Federation (AIFF) has finally assented to communicate to the Supreme Court the dissatisfaction of Indian Super League (ISL) players and clubs over the postponement of the 2025-26 season of the league due to a row over extension of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) with Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL). With the case being argued by the nation's highest court, the AIFF has postponed the signing of the MRA, referring to observations made by the SC, which subsequently resulted in FSDL suspending the ISL's Season 2025-26. The AIFF held a meeting on Thursday among its legal representatives and the ISL clubs to settle the issue, during which they agreed to put the issues of the ISL clubs as well as the players before the Supreme Court. "A meeting was convened between the legal representatives of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) and the Indian Super League (ISL) clubs on Thursday, August 14, 2025. It has been decided by both the parties that the issues of the ISL clubs regarding the postponement of the 2025-26 ISL season, and the inconvenience being experienced by the players and other stakeholders will be taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court next week, for its benevolent consideration," AIFF said in an Instagram post. The AIFF recently quoted the SC observation as the reason for the delay in the MRA with FSDL, which suspended the upcoming ISL season. The national body of football stated that it tried to negotiate with FSDL for the extension of the MRA but could not seal the deal following the Supreme Court observation suspension. "As stipulated in the Master Rights Agreement, the All India Football Federation had, in time, initiated the process of seeking negotiations on terms of a possible renewal with FSDL on November 21, 2024. Subsequently, the senior officials of the AIFF and FSDL held meetings on February 5, 2025, in New Delhi and then on March 5, 2025, in Mumbai, for the terms of possible renewal of the Master Rights Agreement," said a statement by the AIFF. But in a letter written to the participant clubs, a copy of which is available with IANS, FSDL had stated that it is compelled to suspend ISL 2025-26 because it is "not able to properly plan, organise, or commercialise the 2025–26 ISL season" as no agreement has been made on the MRA, which was to end on December 8, 2025, with the AIFF. The FSDL alleged that the MRA with AIFF will conclude "around one-third of the way through a standard ISL season, which lasts from September to April" because the national federation has not provided a final answer to the proposal to extend the MRA.

As the matter is pending before the country’s top court, the AIFF has postponed signing the MRA in light of the Supreme Court’s observations, prompting FSDL to put the 2025-26 ISL season on hold

 In a major development, the Supreme Court has issued a critical directive regarding Delhi’s nearly 1 million stray dogs. The Chief Justice of India has made a bold statement on the city’s responsibility and future handling of the growing stray population. Where will the capital house these animals? What does this mean for animal rights and public safety? Stay tuned for live updates, expert opinions, and legal insight on this evolving issue.


Supreme Court's Conflicting Judgment Over Stray Dog Rulings Sparks Row | WION India News

Two-time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar has been handed a fresh setback in the murder case of junior wrestler Sagar Dhankar on Wednesday (August 13) after India’s Supreme Court ordered him to surrender within a week. The apex court's order comes as a huge setback for Sushil Kumar, who won a bronze medal in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, followed by a silver medal in the 2012 London Olympics. He was granted bail in March and is the prime accused in the murder of Sagar Dhankar, which occurred in May 2021 at Delhi’s Chhatrasal Stadium.&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail of wrestler Sushil Kumar in a murder case and has ordered him to surrender within a week. The Olympic medallist had been booked in the murder of wrestler Sagar Dhankad and was granted bail by the Delhi High Court. <a href="https://t.co/Ww1ZIfBwSE">pic.twitter.com/Ww1ZIfBwSE</a>&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1955502827926905041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 13, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>Sushil Kumar ordered to surrender within a week</h2>“The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail of wrestler Sushil Kumar in a murder case and has ordered him to surrender within a week,” ANI was quoted as saying on Wednesday.&nbsp;The 42-year-old wrestler was on bail granted by the Delhi High Court on 4 March 2025, having been the prime accused in the Sagar Dhankar murder case.&nbsp;&nbsp;Justice Sanjeev Narula’s bench ordered Sushil’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of $570 along with two sureties of the same amount. It was the third bail Sushil had been granted since his capture in 2021. The first bail was granted to perform the last rites of his father, while the High Court granted him another bail to undergo surgery on his torn ligament.&nbsp;&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-rohit-sharma-to-virat-kohli-here-is-a-look-at-five-indian-batters-with-most-runs-in-asia-cup-odis-t20is-sachin-tendulkar-ms-dhoni-dhawan-1754123070628">From Rohit Sharma to Virat Kohli, 5 Indian batters with most runs in Asia Cup (ODIs + T20Is)</a><h2>What is the Sagar Dhankar murder case?</h2>On 4 May 2021, Sushil and his aides gave a harsh beating with hockey sticks to junior wrestler Sagar Dhankar at Delhi’s Chhatrasal Stadium. The dispute was triggered over a property issue, during which Sushil and his aides attacked Dhankar. The junior wrestler would later succumb to his injuries, after which Sushil Kumar went missing for 18 days.&nbsp;The two-time Olympic medallist was hiding from the Delhi police while on a run in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana.

The apex court's order comes as a huge setback for Sushil Kumar, who won a bronze medal in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, followed by a silver medal in the 2012 London Olympics.

Two-time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar has been handed a fresh setback in the murder case of junior wrestler Sagar Dhankar on Wednesday (August 13) after India’s Supreme Court ordered him to surrender within a week. The apex court's order comes as a huge setback for Sushil Kumar, who won a bronze medal in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, followed by a silver medal in the 2012 London Olympics. He was granted bail in March and is the prime accused in the murder of Sagar Dhankar, which occurred in May 2021 at Delhi’s Chhatrasal Stadium.

The apex court's order comes as a huge setback for Sushil Kumar, who won a bronze medal in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, followed by a silver medal in the 2012 London Olympics.

Setback for Sushil Kumar; SC orders Olympic medallist to surrender within a week in Sagar Dhankar murder case

Delhi Mayor Iqbal Singh on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court's order to relocate stray dogs in the National Capital Region (NCR) to shelters within eight weeks, saying the civic administration will make temporary and permanent shelters to implement the direction. BJP leader and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi called the order "a strange judgment", questioning the feasibility of the court's plan to tackle the stray dog menace.&nbsp;Mayor Iqbal Singh said the civic bodies will try to implement the order within six weeks, nearly two weeks before the Supreme Court's deadline.&nbsp;"I welcome the Supreme Court's order as the people of Delhi were facing a lot of problems. We will try our best to implement this order in the next 6 weeks," he said.&nbsp;Singh elaborated on how the administration plans to lock away stray dogs.&nbsp;"We don't have shelter homes, but we have 10 operational sterilisation centres. We can make temporary and permanent shelter homes. MCD and the Delhi government will ensure that no one faces problems due to stray dogs. We will make an action plan after holding meetings with our officers," he added.&nbsp;Gandhi alleged that the judgment was pronounced in anger.&nbsp;"It is not a doable order... This is a very strange judgment given by someone who is in anger. Angry judgments are never sensible," she said.&nbsp;She said that there were no government-run shelters in the national capital.&nbsp;"In how many shelters would you put 3 lakh dogs? You don't even have one. To make those shelters, you have to spend at least Rs 15 thousand crore," she claimed.&nbsp;Maneka Gandhi said that to implement&nbsp;the court's order, the local administration would have to build at least 3000 shelters.&nbsp;"This can't be done in two months... You'll have to employ 1.5 lakh people to just be sanitation workers, which will again cost crores... Firstly, when they go to get the dogs, there will be fighting in every street because feeders are not going to let the dogs go. Every day, there will be fights. Do we want this destabilisation situation? Other political parties will get into it to attack the BJP...When the dogs from here are displaced, dogs from nearby states will come to Delhi, as there will be more food here. Then, within a week, there will be another 3 lakh dogs in Delhi, and these will not be sterilised. Then will you start another sterilisation programme and spend hundreds of crores again?" she added.&nbsp;On Monday, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that all localities in the national capital be made stray dog-free. They ordered the authorities not to&nbsp;release captured animals on the streets.

Delhi Mayor Iqbal Singh on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court's order to relocate stray dogs in the National Capital Region (NCR) to shelters within eight weeks, saying the civic administration will make temporary and permanent shelters to implement the direction.

Delhi Mayor Iqbal Singh on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court's order to relocate stray dogs in the National Capital Region (NCR) to shelters within eight weeks, saying the civic administration will make temporary and permanent shelters to implement the direction. BJP leader and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi called the order "a strange judgment", questioning the feasibility of the court's plan to tackle the stray dog menace. Mayor Iqbal Singh said the civic bodies will try to implement the order within six weeks, nearly two weeks before the Supreme Court's deadline. "I welcome the Supreme Court's order as the people of Delhi were facing a lot of problems. We will try our best to implement this order in the next 6 weeks," he said. Singh elaborated on how the administration plans to lock away stray dogs. "We don't have shelter homes, but we have 10 operational sterilisation centres. We can make temporary and permanent shelter homes. MCD and the Delhi government will ensure that no one faces problems due to stray dogs. We will make an action plan after holding meetings with our officers," he added. Gandhi alleged that the judgment was pronounced in anger. "It is not a doable order... This is a very strange judgment given by someone who is in anger. Angry judgments are never sensible," she said. She said that there were no government-run shelters in the national capital. "In how many shelters would you put 3 lakh dogs? You don't even have one. To make those shelters, you have to spend at least Rs 15 thousand crore," she claimed. Maneka Gandhi said that to implement the court's order, the local administration would have to build at least 3000 shelters. "This can't be done in two months... You'll have to employ 1.5 lakh people to just be sanitation workers, which will again cost crores... Firstly, when they go to get the dogs, there will be fighting in every street because feeders are not going to let the dogs go. Every day, there will be fights. Do we want this destabilisation situation? Other political parties will get into it to attack the BJP...When the dogs from here are displaced, dogs from nearby states will come to Delhi, as there will be more food here. Then, within a week, there will be another 3 lakh dogs in Delhi, and these will not be sterilised. Then will you start another sterilisation programme and spend hundreds of crores again?" she added. On Monday, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that all localities in the national capital be made stray dog-free. They ordered the authorities not to release captured animals on the streets.

Supreme Court stray dog order: Maneka Gandhi claimed the administration will have to spend Rs 15000 crore to build and maintain dog shelters.

Maneka Gandhi's warning over Supreme Court order: 'Dogs from other states will come to Delhi'

On Thursday (August 8), the Supreme Court heard the petition of a stepmother who raised an Indian Air Force (IAF) officer, who was denied pension benefits after his death. The court said “why should 'mother' be a static expression? Why should adoptive parents not be entitled (to pension)?"&nbsp;The mother raised the deceased officer since the age of six, the court noted that a case should be viewed on facts to ascertain who played a role in nurturing and shaping the child’s life. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was quoted by news outlet Live Law, “(Mother) need not be a biological mother".&nbsp;While the IAF counsel said that the apex court itself has held that 'mother' includes only 'biological mother'. And said, “Regulations are clear and they have not been challenged.” Further adding that the if law-making authority could have included 'mother' should include 'stepmother'.&nbsp;During the hearing, Justice Kant also posed a hypothetical situation to the IAF counsel, he asked, “What will happen in a case where a mother abandons her child and his father, grandmother look after...then mother comes suddenly after 20-30 years saying I am entitled...on another hand, suppose mother dies due to complication at the time of delivery, stepmother comes in and raises the child...whom would you like to give the benefit?”&nbsp;He added, "Your definition can be flexible and on facts you can determine who has played role of mother. Why should 'mother' be a static expression? Why should adoptive parents not be entitled (to pension)?"&nbsp;The deceased officer's biological mother passed away, and his father married the petitioner. Thereafter, she has been the one looking after him. On April 30, 2008, the Air Force officer died due to ‘aluminium phosphide poisoning’. According to an internal enquiry, it was later termed as a case of ‘suicide’.&nbsp;&nbsp;Later in 2010, the Air Force Record Office, rejected the appellant's claim for ‘Special Family Pension’, she was not even granted the ordinary family pension due to income criteria.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

On Thursday (August 8), the Supreme Court heard the petition of a stepmother who raised an Indian Air Force (IAF) officer, who was denied pension benefits after his death.

On Thursday (August 8), the Supreme Court heard the petition of a stepmother who raised an Indian Air Force (IAF) officer, who was denied pension benefits after his death. The court said “why should 'mother' be a static expression? Why should adoptive parents not be entitled (to pension)?" The mother raised the deceased officer since the age of six, the court noted that a case should be viewed on facts to ascertain who played a role in nurturing and shaping the child’s life. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was quoted by news outlet Live Law, “(Mother) need not be a biological mother". While the IAF counsel said that the apex court itself has held that 'mother' includes only 'biological mother'. And said, “Regulations are clear and they have not been challenged.” Further adding that the if law-making authority could have included 'mother' should include 'stepmother'. During the hearing, Justice Kant also posed a hypothetical situation to the IAF counsel, he asked, “What will happen in a case where a mother abandons her child and his father, grandmother look after...then mother comes suddenly after 20-30 years saying I am entitled...on another hand, suppose mother dies due to complication at the time of delivery, stepmother comes in and raises the child...whom would you like to give the benefit?” He added, "Your definition can be flexible and on facts you can determine who has played role of mother. Why should 'mother' be a static expression? Why should adoptive parents not be entitled (to pension)?" The deceased officer's biological mother passed away, and his father married the petitioner. Thereafter, she has been the one looking after him. On April 30, 2008, the Air Force officer died due to ‘aluminium phosphide poisoning’. According to an internal enquiry, it was later termed as a case of ‘suicide’. Later in 2010, the Air Force Record Office, rejected the appellant's claim for ‘Special Family Pension’, she was not even granted the ordinary family pension due to income criteria.

On Thursday (August 8), the Supreme Court heard the petition of a stepmother who raised an Indian Air Force (IAF) officer, who was denied pension benefits after his death.

'Mother' needn't only be biological: Supreme Court asks IAF to look into exclusion of stepmother from pension scheme

The Supreme Court of India rapped Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Monday over his “Chinese troops are thrashing Indian soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh” remark he made during the ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’. The top court, however, stayed proceedings against him in a criminal defamation case arising from the comment he made in reference to the India-China face-off in Arunachal Pradesh’s Tawang sector in December 2022.A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih also took strong exception to the Congress MP’s remarks claiming that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory has since been occupied by China and blaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government for the “surrender”.&nbsp;<h2>‘If you are a true Indian...’</h2>&nbsp;“How did you get to know that 2,000 sq km of Indian land has been taken over by the Chinese? If you are a true Indian... you won’t say all of this,” Justice Datta said about Gandhi’s remarks.“Were you there? Do you have any credible material,” the court asked Gandhi.The apex court questioned Gandhi’s choice of words and the platform he used to make his contentious statement.“Why do you have to say this in media or social media posts?” the bench asked&nbsp;Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-perverse-exercise-of-judicial-power-supreme-court-blasts-karnataka-hc-over-actor-darshan-s-bail-1753354674776/embed">https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-perverse-exercise-of-judicial-power-supreme-court-blasts-karnataka-hc-over-actor-darshan-s-bail-1753354674776/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was appearing for Rahul Gandhi, countered, “If he can’t say these things... how can he be the Leader of Opposition?”Justice Datta shot back, “Then why don’t you say such things in Parliament?”&nbsp;The apex court, however, issued a notice against Gandhi’s plea to quash the case after Singhvi pointed out apparent missteps in the filing of charges, including the police not allowing Gandhi a prior hearing before taking cognisance of a criminal complaint.&nbsp;The Allahabad High Court had in May rejected Rahul Gandhi’s plea challenging a February summons issued by a special court for elected representatives in Lucknow.&nbsp;Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-telangana-speaker-to-decide-on-defected-brs-mlas-disqualification-in-3-months-1753973312827/embed">https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-telangana-speaker-to-decide-on-defected-brs-mlas-disqualification-in-3-months-1753973312827/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Allahabad High Court judge Justice Subhash Vidyarthi overruled Gandhi’s argument that the special court should have verified the allegations before summoning him and observed that the freedom of speech does not include the right to make statements that ‘defame’ the Army.Gandhi had also argued the charges against him were politically motivated.&nbsp;The original complaint was filed by one Udai Shanker Srivastava, who alleged that Rahul Gandhi made derogatory remarks about the Army over the clash with the Chinese during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022.&nbsp;Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the complainant, opposed the stay and defended the trial court’s decision. The top court, however, said it would hear all objections after three weeks.

In May, the Allahabad High Court had rejected Rahul Gandhi’s plea challenging summons issued by a special court for elected representatives in Lucknow. The Supreme Court pulled up Rahul for his remarks about the Indian Army and said “a true Indian will not say all this”.

The Supreme Court of India rapped Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Monday over his “Chinese troops are thrashing Indian soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh” remark he made during the ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’. The top court, however, stayed proceedings against him in a criminal defamation case arising from the comment he made in reference to the India-China face-off in Arunachal Pradesh’s Tawang sector in December 2022. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih also took strong exception to the Congress MP’s remarks claiming that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory has since been occupied by China and blaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government for the “surrender”. ‘If you are a true Indian...’ “How did you get to know that 2,000 sq km of Indian land has been taken over by the Chinese? If you are a true Indian... you won’t say all of this,” Justice Datta said about Gandhi’s remarks. “Were you there? Do you have any credible material,” the court asked Gandhi. The apex court questioned Gandhi’s choice of words and the platform he used to make his contentious statement. “Why do you have to say this in media or social media posts?” the bench asked Also Read | https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-perverse-exercise-of-judicial-power-supreme-court-blasts-karnataka-hc-over-actor-darshan-s-bail-1753354674776/embed Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was appearing for Rahul Gandhi, countered, “If he can’t say these things... how can he be the Leader of Opposition?” Justice Datta shot back, “Then why don’t you say such things in Parliament?” The apex court, however, issued a notice against Gandhi’s plea to quash the case after Singhvi pointed out apparent missteps in the filing of charges, including the police not allowing Gandhi a prior hearing before taking cognisance of a criminal complaint. The Allahabad High Court had in May rejected Rahul Gandhi’s plea challenging a February summons issued by a special court for elected representatives in Lucknow. Also Read | https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-telangana-speaker-to-decide-on-defected-brs-mlas-disqualification-in-3-months-1753973312827/embed Allahabad High Court judge Justice Subhash Vidyarthi overruled Gandhi’s argument that the special court should have verified the allegations before summoning him and observed that the freedom of speech does not include the right to make statements that ‘defame’ the Army. Gandhi had also argued the charges against him were politically motivated. The original complaint was filed by one Udai Shanker Srivastava, who alleged that Rahul Gandhi made derogatory remarks about the Army over the clash with the Chinese during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022. Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the complainant, opposed the stay and defended the trial court’s decision. The top court, however, said it would hear all objections after three weeks.

In May, the Allahabad High Court had rejected Rahul Gandhi’s plea challenging summons issued by a special court for elected representatives in Lucknow. The Supreme Court pulled up Rahul for his remarks about the Indian Army and said “a true Indian will not say all this”.

Supreme Court raps Rahul Gandhi over ‘Chinese troops thrashing Indian soldiers in Arunachal’ remark

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Telangana High Court's order that had stayed disqualification proceedings against 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLAs who defected to the Congress. The court asked Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar to decide on the MLAs' disqualification within three months.&nbsp;BRS working president KT Rama Rao hailed the Supreme Court's decision, saying the CJI (BR Gavai) ensured that the democratic structure of the country wasn't eroded by malicious methods.&nbsp;"I hope Rahul Gandhi, who in his ‘Panch Nyay’ advocated for stronger anti-defection laws and automatic cancellation upon defection, will welcome this decision. I dare you to stand by your preachings, Mr Gandhi!” Rao wrote on X.&nbsp;He said that he hoped that the ruling Congress wouldn't use the Speaker's post to "make a mockery of the Indian constitution". He said the 10 MLAs had switched to the Congress illegitimately.&nbsp;The Congress enjoys a majority in Telangana with 64 MLAs in the 119-strong assembly. The BRS has 39 MLAs. Even if these 10 MLAs are disqualified, the Congress government will remain safe.&nbsp;BRS MLC Dasoju Sravan told The Indian Express that the Supreme Court's ruling was a tight slap on the face of "perpetrators of injustice and those who do not abide by the Constitution”.&nbsp;Reddy declared in March on the floor of the Telangana assembly that there would be no bypolls even if BRS legislators defected.&nbsp;The Congress told the newspaper that it had been prepared for the bypolls for three months. It also welcomed the court verdict.

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Telangana High Court's order that had stayed disqualification proceedings against 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLAs who defected to the Congress.

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Telangana High Court's order that had stayed disqualification proceedings against 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLAs who defected to the Congress. The court asked Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar to decide on the MLAs' disqualification within three months. BRS working president KT Rama Rao hailed the Supreme Court's decision, saying the CJI (BR Gavai) ensured that the democratic structure of the country wasn't eroded by malicious methods. "I hope Rahul Gandhi, who in his ‘Panch Nyay’ advocated for stronger anti-defection laws and automatic cancellation upon defection, will welcome this decision. I dare you to stand by your preachings, Mr Gandhi!” Rao wrote on X. He said that he hoped that the ruling Congress wouldn't use the Speaker's post to "make a mockery of the Indian constitution". He said the 10 MLAs had switched to the Congress illegitimately. The Congress enjoys a majority in Telangana with 64 MLAs in the 119-strong assembly. The BRS has 39 MLAs. Even if these 10 MLAs are disqualified, the Congress government will remain safe. BRS MLC Dasoju Sravan told The Indian Express that the Supreme Court's ruling was a tight slap on the face of "perpetrators of injustice and those who do not abide by the Constitution”. Reddy declared in March on the floor of the Telangana assembly that there would be no bypolls even if BRS legislators defected. The Congress told the newspaper that it had been prepared for the bypolls for three months. It also welcomed the court verdict.

BRS working president KT Rama Rao hailed the Supreme Court's decision.

Supreme Court asks Telangana Speaker to decide on defected BRS MLAs' disqualification in 3 months

A Supreme Court of India bench, comprising&nbsp;Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, said on Wednesday that even if there had been lapses in the in-house probe procedure in the Justice Yashwant Varma case, they wouldn't impact Parliament's action against the Allahabad High Court judge.&nbsp;The court reserved its verdict on Justice Varma's plea challenging the report of the Supreme Court's three-judge in-house probe panel, which recommended initiating impeachment proceedings against him.&nbsp;"Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what the CJI says; it acts independently," the bench observed.&nbsp;Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered from Justice Varma's official&nbsp;house. He was a&nbsp;sitting judge of the Delhi High Court at that time. Former CJI Sanjeev Khanna, after conducting an internal probe, forwarded a recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate the impeachment process.&nbsp;Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the in-house inquiry was procedurally flawed and that the CJI had no authority to recommend impeachment. He argued that the power to recommend a judge's removal rests solely with Parliament.&nbsp;The apex court, however, said that the in-house procedure empowers the Supreme Court to make a recommendation.&nbsp;"This is just a recommendation of which the Supreme Court has power", Justice Datta said.&nbsp;To this, Sibal responded, “Then why go to Parliament? Implying if the Court has already acted upon the issue by recommending impeachment, why does it have to go to the Parliament for a deeper probe?”&nbsp;The bench also remarked that the in-house procedure empowers the committee to assess misconduct and, if warranted, recommend further action. "The CJI is not a post office," the bench noted. "If there is serious material against a judge, the Chief Justice is within his authority to act", it added.

A Supreme Court of India bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, said on Wednesday that even if there had been lapses in the in-house probe procedure in the Justice Yashwant Varma case, they wouldn't impact Parliament's action against the Allahabad High Court judge.

A Supreme Court of India bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, said on Wednesday that even if there had been lapses in the in-house probe procedure in the Justice Yashwant Varma case, they wouldn't impact Parliament's action against the Allahabad High Court judge. The court reserved its verdict on Justice Varma's plea challenging the report of the Supreme Court's three-judge in-house probe panel, which recommended initiating impeachment proceedings against him. "Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what the CJI says; it acts independently," the bench observed. Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered from Justice Varma's official house. He was a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court at that time. Former CJI Sanjeev Khanna, after conducting an internal probe, forwarded a recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate the impeachment process. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the in-house inquiry was procedurally flawed and that the CJI had no authority to recommend impeachment. He argued that the power to recommend a judge's removal rests solely with Parliament. The apex court, however, said that the in-house procedure empowers the Supreme Court to make a recommendation. "This is just a recommendation of which the Supreme Court has power", Justice Datta said. To this, Sibal responded, “Then why go to Parliament? Implying if the Court has already acted upon the issue by recommending impeachment, why does it have to go to the Parliament for a deeper probe?” The bench also remarked that the in-house procedure empowers the committee to assess misconduct and, if warranted, recommend further action. "The CJI is not a post office," the bench noted. "If there is serious material against a judge, the Chief Justice is within his authority to act", it added.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the in-house inquiry was procedurally flawed.

'CJI not post office': Why Supreme Court said this in Justice Yashwant Varma case

In a significant development, the Supreme Court is set to examine the absurd ban on older petrol and diesel vehicles in the National Capital Region (NCR) on Monday. The move comes in response to a petition filed by the Delhi government, contesting the complete ban on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years. In response to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) decision, the government argues that the age restriction ban lacks scientific backing.&nbsp;The matter will be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran. A key issue to be addressed is whether Bharat Stage VI (BS-VI) compliant vehicles should still be subjected to arbitrary end-of-life restrictions based solely on age.&nbsp;In its petition, the Delhi government has requested a thorough investigation by the Centre and CAQM to evaluate the actual environmental benefits of age-based restrictions versus emission-based criteria, according to a report by HT.<h3>Why was Delhi’s old vehicle ban policy banned?</h3>The existing ban was first imposed in 2015 by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which barred diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years from operating in Delhi-NCR. "The vehicles that are more than 15 years old will not be permitted to be parked in any public area, and they shall be towed away and challenged by the police under the law. This direction would apply to all vehicles without exception, i.e., two-wheelers, three-wheelers, four-wheelers, light vehicles, and heavy vehicles, irrespective of whether commercial or otherwise," the NGT stated in its order on November 26, 2014.&nbsp;However, the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018, indicating alarming air pollution levels in Delhi-NCR and a need to protect public health. In response, the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) prohibited the fuel stations from supplying petrol and diesel to these "end-of-life" vehicles from July 1, 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, the policy was put on hold just two days after facing public backlash. Later, officials indicated challenges in logistics and gaps in infrastructure, particularly tracking and enforcing the complete ban effectively.&nbsp;Ahead of the review of the Supreme Court on the End-of-Life (EoL) vehicle policy, Delhi environment minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa stated last week that pollution levels of vehicles should be determined based on their usage rather than their age.&nbsp;"There are many vehicles that have aged, but because they haven't been used much, their pollution levels are lower. There are so many new vehicles whose age is less but have been used a lot; so we believe that the parameter to determine pollution levels must be the use of the vehicle instead of its age," Sirsa told news agency ANI.&nbsp;The Delhi government indicated that the current complete ban affects middle- and lower-income groups that depend solely on used vehicles for essential mobility.

The Delhi government has pledged a thorough investigation in its petition to the Centre and CAQM to evaluate the actual environmental benefits of age-based restrictions versus emission-based criteria.

In a significant development, the Supreme Court is set to examine the absurd ban on older petrol and diesel vehicles in the National Capital Region (NCR) on Monday. The move comes in response to a petition filed by the Delhi government, contesting the complete ban on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years. In response to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) decision, the government argues that the age restriction ban lacks scientific backing. The matter will be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran. A key issue to be addressed is whether Bharat Stage VI (BS-VI) compliant vehicles should still be subjected to arbitrary end-of-life restrictions based solely on age. In its petition, the Delhi government has requested a thorough investigation by the Centre and CAQM to evaluate the actual environmental benefits of age-based restrictions versus emission-based criteria, according to a report by HT. Why was Delhi’s old vehicle ban policy banned? The existing ban was first imposed in 2015 by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which barred diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years from operating in Delhi-NCR. "The vehicles that are more than 15 years old will not be permitted to be parked in any public area, and they shall be towed away and challenged by the police under the law. This direction would apply to all vehicles without exception, i.e., two-wheelers, three-wheelers, four-wheelers, light vehicles, and heavy vehicles, irrespective of whether commercial or otherwise," the NGT stated in its order on November 26, 2014. However, the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018, indicating alarming air pollution levels in Delhi-NCR and a need to protect public health. In response, the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) prohibited the fuel stations from supplying petrol and diesel to these "end-of-life" vehicles from July 1, 2025. However, the policy was put on hold just two days after facing public backlash. Later, officials indicated challenges in logistics and gaps in infrastructure, particularly tracking and enforcing the complete ban effectively. Ahead of the review of the Supreme Court on the End-of-Life (EoL) vehicle policy, Delhi environment minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa stated last week that pollution levels of vehicles should be determined based on their usage rather than their age. "There are many vehicles that have aged, but because they haven't been used much, their pollution levels are lower. There are so many new vehicles whose age is less but have been used a lot; so we believe that the parameter to determine pollution levels must be the use of the vehicle instead of its age," Sirsa told news agency ANI. The Delhi government indicated that the current complete ban affects middle- and lower-income groups that depend solely on used vehicles for essential mobility.

The Delhi government has pledged a thorough investigation in its petition to the Centre and CAQM to evaluate the actual environmental benefits of age-based restrictions versus emission-based criteria.

Supreme Court to review blanket ban on older petrol, diesel vehicles in Delhi-NCR—Here's why it was banned?

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

SC Rules Timelines for Presidential and Governors’ Assent on Bills, No Fixed Deadline

SC Rules Timelines for Presidential and Governors’ Assent on Bills, No Fixed Deadline

SC On Strays: Dogs Removed from Premises Not to Be Released Back

SC On Strays: Dogs Removed from Premises Not to Be Released Back

SC On Strays: Dogs Removed from Premises Not to Be Released Back, Rules Supreme Court

Breaking: Suprem Court of India orders to remove stray cattle from national, state highways

US Supreme Court hears case on Voting Rights Act and race-based redistricting

SC Grants Centre Four Weeks to Respond on J&K Statehood Pleas

Bar Council of India suspends advocate who throws shoe at CJI BR Gavai in court

Thai court orders ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra to serve one year in prison

Concern over threat to Himalayan ecology

Supreme Court flags rampant tree felling in fragile Himalayas

Trump warns that tariff revocation would make U.S. a third-world country

Trump fears tariffs will be blocked by U.S. Supreme Court

Trump faces heat: Appeal court rules against tariffs | What's next?

Nepal Supreme court: Nudity in devotion is not obscenity

Sleeping giant in coma again? FIFA warns India of fresh ban

A day after Supreme Court order, stray dogs attack student in Kanpur

Supreme Court modifies earlier directive, allows release of stray dogs after vaccination

India's top court: no feeding of stray dogs on streets, rabid dogs not to be released

Registration fees for vehicles older than 15 years increased. Check list

Supreme court orders action against street feeders, stray dogs to be sterilised and released

ISL season delay heads to Supreme Court as AIFF, FSDL lock horns over MRA

Supreme Court's Conflicting Judgment Over Stray Dog Rulings Sparks Row | WION India News

SC orders Sushil Kumar to surrender within a week in Sagar Dhankar murder case

Maneka Gandhi's warning on SC order: 'Dogs from other states will come to Delhi'