The Supreme Court of India on Thursday severely criticised the Karnataka High Court for its handling of the Renukaswamy murder case in which actor and prime accused Darshan Thoogudeepa was granted bail, and called it a “perverse exercise of judicial power”. The top court further vented its anger saying that a trial court judge could make such a mistake but it is not expected from a high court judge. It further questioned whether it is a common practice in the Karnataka High Court that bail orders are more like judgments of acquittal. The top court was hearing Karnataka government’s plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Darshan.

Actor Darshan is the prime accused in the case of kidnapping, torturing, and killing of 33-year-old Renukaswamy in June last year.&nbsp;<h2>‘It is, prima facie, a perverse exercise of judicial power’</h2>&nbsp;A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said on Thursday that they would not make the same mistake as the High Court. “We will not give any judgment for conviction or acquittal. We are a little serious because it is a case of murder and conspiracy,” the bench told counsel for actor Pavithra Gowda, the primary accused, while expressing its strong displeasure.“Don’t you think the High Court declared an order of acquittal,” the Supreme Court asked, upset over the language used by the High Court in its December 2024 bail order.“The manner in which the High Court dictated the order... very sorry to say. Does the High Court dictate the same kind of order in other cases too,” Justice Pardiwala asked“What is troubling is the reasoning given... especially saying ‘grounds of arrest were not furnished’ for a murder case.”“It is, prima facie, a perverse exercise of judicial power,” the apex court said.“A trial court judge making such a mistake is acceptable... but a high court judge!”&nbsp;<h2>SC questions state on why trial would be held on daily basis</h2>&nbsp;The Supreme Court also posed questions to the state on being told that the trial would be held on a daily basis. Justice Pardiwala asked why this case merited so much attention when other accused had been waiting their chance for years. The top court was later informed the trial would be completed in six months.&nbsp;Actor Darshan Thoogudeepa and 13 others are in prison charged with the murder of Renukaswamy, who was allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by the actor’s accomplices after he apparently sent obscene messages to Pavithra Gowda, a friend of Darshan.The police believe Darshan paid Rs 50 lakh to four men involved in the planning and execution of the gruesome crime.In April, there was public fury after the actor, told to attend every court hearing as part of his bail conditions, skipped appearance citing back pain and hours later was at a movie screening.There was another row earlier when photos from inside the jail showed Darshan and other accused lounging and smoking in lawn chairs in a garden. The actor was then transferred to another facility.

It was the second time in a week that the Supreme Court has rebuked the Karnataka High Court in the Renukaswamy murder case. Last week, the High Court was told that it had failed to exercise discretion in granting bail to actor and prime accused Darshan Thoogudeepa.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday severely criticised the Karnataka High Court for its handling of the Renukaswamy murder case in which actor and prime accused Darshan Thoogudeepa was granted bail, and called it a “perverse exercise of judicial power”. The top court further vented its anger saying that a trial court judge could make such a mistake but it is not expected from a high court judge. It further questioned whether it is a common practice in the Karnataka High Court that bail orders are more like judgments of acquittal. The top court was hearing Karnataka government’s plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Darshan.

It was the second time in a week that the Supreme Court has rebuked the Karnataka High Court in the Renukaswamy murder case. Last week, the High Court was told that it had failed to exercise discretion in granting bail to actor and prime accused Darshan Thoogudeepa.

‘Perverse exercise of judicial power’: Supreme Court blasts Karnataka HC over actor Darshan’s bail

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Jul 24) stayed the Bombay High Court’s ruling acquitting all 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case of 2006. The top court issued the order after Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh that the verdict could adversely impact trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).&nbsp;The top court noted that it was not staying the release of the 12 accused, who have already walked free earlier this week. The court also sent notices to all accused, seeking their replies on the state’s appeal.&nbsp;“We are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. Therefore, there will be a stay of the impugned judgment,” the court said in its brief order.&nbsp;Appearing for the Maharashtra government, Mehta urged that the court stay the effect of the high court verdict, not on the ground of opposing the release of the acquitted, but because certain observations by the high court may affect other pending trials of MCOCA. The bench accepted the contention, saying that the high court verdict shall not carry precedential value until further orders.&nbsp;This comes as the Maharashtra government filed an appeal, challenging the July 21 judgement by the Bombay High Court. The order overturned the convictions of 12 men by a MCOCA special court in 2015. Five of the accused were sentenced death penalty, while others were awarded life imprisonment.&nbsp;The high court had ruled that the prosecution “utterly failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt.” It added that the investigation had lapses in procedures, unreliable evidence, and violated of the constitutional rights of the accused.&nbsp;One of the biggest terror attacks in Indian history, 188 people were killed while 829 were injured after seven blasts in Mumbai’s crowded local trains. The bombs were planted in pressure cookers and exploded within six minutes. The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) determined that the attacks were carried out by the former members of the banned Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) with the aid of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

The Supreme Court of India stayed the ruling given Bombay High Court, which acquitted all 12 accused of 2006 Mumbai train blasts. The order noted that it was not staying the release of acquitted.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Jul 24) stayed the Bombay High Court’s ruling acquitting all 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case of 2006. The top court issued the order after Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh that the verdict could adversely impact trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The top court noted that it was not staying the release of the 12 accused, who have already walked free earlier this week. The court also sent notices to all accused, seeking their replies on the state’s appeal. “We are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. Therefore, there will be a stay of the impugned judgment,” the court said in its brief order. Appearing for the Maharashtra government, Mehta urged that the court stay the effect of the high court verdict, not on the ground of opposing the release of the acquitted, but because certain observations by the high court may affect other pending trials of MCOCA. The bench accepted the contention, saying that the high court verdict shall not carry precedential value until further orders. This comes as the Maharashtra government filed an appeal, challenging the July 21 judgement by the Bombay High Court. The order overturned the convictions of 12 men by a MCOCA special court in 2015. Five of the accused were sentenced death penalty, while others were awarded life imprisonment. The high court had ruled that the prosecution “utterly failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt.” It added that the investigation had lapses in procedures, unreliable evidence, and violated of the constitutional rights of the accused. One of the biggest terror attacks in Indian history, 188 people were killed while 829 were injured after seven blasts in Mumbai’s crowded local trains. The bombs were planted in pressure cookers and exploded within six minutes. The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) determined that the attacks were carried out by the former members of the banned Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) with the aid of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

The Supreme Court of India stayed the ruling given Bombay High Court, which acquitted all 12 accused of 2006 Mumbai train blasts. The order noted that it was not staying the release of acquitted.

Indian Supreme Court stays Bombay HC ruling to acquit 2006 Mumbai train blasts accused

A woman’s petition for an astonishingly large alimony, including a house in Mumbai, Rs 12 crore as maintenance and a high-end BMW car—in a marital dispute case nudged the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to observe that she is highly qualified and must earn her livelihood. When the Chief Justice asked the woman what she wanted, she said that she wants a house in Mumbai, Rs 12 crore as maintenance and a high-end BMW car. “But that house is in Kalpataru... one of the good builders. You are an IT person. You have done your MBA. You are in demand in Bengaluru, Hyderabad... Why don’t you work?” the Chief Justice said. “You had a marriage for just 18 months. And you also want a BMW?” he added, while remarking that she was practically asking for an alimony of Rs 1 crore for every month of her 18-month marriage.&nbsp;The woman replied, “But he is very rich. And he sought the nullity of the marriage, claiming that I am schizophrenic.”Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the husband, told the court, “She has to work also. Everything cannot be demanded like this.”“Do I look schizophrenic, my lords?” the woman asked.&nbsp;The Chief Justice then reminded the petitioner that she cannot claim properties belonging to her estranged husband’s father.The woman, who was representing herself, told the bench that her husband worked as a Citibank manager and also runs two businesses.“I wanted a child, but he didn’t give me a child. He filed for divorce, saying that I am schizophrenic,” she said. She also alleged that her husband forced her to quit her previous job.The court then went through the husband’s tax returns as his lawyers pointed out that his income had declined after he quit the job.&nbsp;The Chief Justice then told the woman to “be satisfied” with the flat and take up a “good job”.“Or you better take those 4 crore, find a good job in Pune, Hyderabad, Bangalore... there is a demand in IT centres,” he said.“Aap itni padi likhi hain. Aapko khudko maangna nahi chahiye aur khudko kama ke khana chahiye (You are highly educated, you must not ask and earn your livelihood),” the CJI said.&nbsp;

The CJI remarked that the woman was practically asking for an alimony of Rs 1 crore for every month of her 18-month marriage and then reminded the petitioner that she cannot claim properties belonging to her estranged husband’s father. 

A woman’s petition for an astonishingly large alimony, including a house in Mumbai, Rs 12 crore as maintenance and a high-end BMW car—in a marital dispute case nudged the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to observe that she is highly qualified and must earn her livelihood. When the Chief Justice asked the woman what she wanted, she said that she wants a house in Mumbai, Rs 12 crore as maintenance and a high-end BMW car. “But that house is in Kalpataru... one of the good builders. You are an IT person. You have done your MBA. You are in demand in Bengaluru, Hyderabad... Why don’t you work?” the Chief Justice said. “You had a marriage for just 18 months. And you also want a BMW?” he added, while remarking that she was practically asking for an alimony of Rs 1 crore for every month of her 18-month marriage. The woman replied, “But he is very rich. And he sought the nullity of the marriage, claiming that I am schizophrenic.” Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the husband, told the court, “She has to work also. Everything cannot be demanded like this.” “Do I look schizophrenic, my lords?” the woman asked. The Chief Justice then reminded the petitioner that she cannot claim properties belonging to her estranged husband’s father. The woman, who was representing herself, told the bench that her husband worked as a Citibank manager and also runs two businesses. “I wanted a child, but he didn’t give me a child. He filed for divorce, saying that I am schizophrenic,” she said. She also alleged that her husband forced her to quit her previous job. The court then went through the husband’s tax returns as his lawyers pointed out that his income had declined after he quit the job. The Chief Justice then told the woman to “be satisfied” with the flat and take up a “good job”. “Or you better take those 4 crore, find a good job in Pune, Hyderabad, Bangalore... there is a demand in IT centres,” he said. “Aap itni padi likhi hain. Aapko khudko maangna nahi chahiye aur khudko kama ke khana chahiye (You are highly educated, you must not ask and earn your livelihood),” the CJI said.

The CJI remarked that the woman was practically asking for an alimony of Rs 1 crore for every month of her 18-month marriage and then reminded the petitioner that she cannot claim properties belonging to her estranged husband’s father.&nbsp;

‘Kama ke khana chahiye’: CJI schools woman demanding house in Mumbai, Rs 12 crore and high-end BMW car in alimony

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the Uttar Pradesh government’s order directing all restaurants along the Kanwar Yatra route in Uttar Pradesh to display QR codes with the names of their owners. It directed all the restaurant owners to display their licence and registration certificates in line with the statutory requirements as required under the Food Safety and Standards Act and posted the matter for hearing after two weeks for compliance. The court passed the order on Trinamool Congress lawmaker Mahua Moitra and academic Apoorvanand Jha’s separate pleas challenging the state government order, saying it promoted religious profiling.&nbsp;Moitra and Jha said that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regulations do not permit QR coding. They cited a July 2024 Supreme Court order staying a similar direction of the Uttar Pradesh Police asking restaurant owners to display their names and those of their employees. The top court had then directed that no owner will be forced to display this information. Moitra and Jha’s pleas alleged that the fresh order was an attempt to “circumvent” the stay by introducing QR code requirements.&nbsp;A bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said they will at this stage only pass an order that all owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the license and registration certificates as required statutorily.When senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for one of the petitioners, sought a clarification on whether the names of owners and those of employees need not be displayed on QR code, the bench said, “All these issues are left open. We are not going into this issue. You may challenge it before the high court. In any case, it is infructuous. We are informed today [Tuesday] is the last day of Yatra, and in any case, it is likely to end...”&nbsp;<h2>‘It’s all about identity politics’</h2>&nbsp;Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi objected to the fresh order, saying it was all about identity politics. “This is the most divisive policy to ostracise a minority community during this Yatra, which alienates them. It sows the seeds of identity division, is a direct assault on secularism and is per se unconstitutional, violating right to equality, right to practice profession and right to life...”Singhvi further said that all the eateries along the Kanwar route strictly sell vegetarian food during this time of the year. “You can boycott a food based on the menu, not on the identity of the owner. Before issuing this order, they ought to have sought permission from court for modification of the stay,” Singhvi said.&nbsp;<h2>‘Devotees are highly sentimental; not a single owner approached the court’&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state government, said the QR code order has been issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act. He said that the direction last year from the police was stayed, and it was left open for the state to issue directions for maintaining food standards and quality.Rohatgi pointed out that not a single affected owner had approached the court and questioned the right of the petitioners to challenge the state’s direction. “These devotees are highly sentimental. They would not like to have food from a shop that used to serve non-vegetarian food until a month ago, using the same utensils. Last year, there was a law and order problem, and some shops were ransacked. We are simply applying the mandate under the Food Safety Regulations that require the display of the hotel’s name and photo identity.”&nbsp;<h2>‘Ultimately, the consumer is the king’</h2>&nbsp;The bench said the sentiments of devotees should not be affected. “At the same time, the livelihood of shop owners should not be affected too. The court has to strike a balance.” The court said consumers need to be given the choice to decide whether they would prefer to eat from a pure vegetarian hotel or one that serves vegetarian food during this period of the year. “We are concerned with consumers. It must be his choice. Ultimately, the consumer is the king. We need to prioritise the interest of consumers,” the bench said.&nbsp;The petitioners argued that the license displayed in shops provides for this information, whether a shop sells vegetarian or a mix of both. The court remarked, “It depends on a person’s conscience…If you are a vegetarian throughout the year without any change, then the question of indicating name will not arise. But during the Yatra, if someone stops at a hotel selling non-vegetarian food, that is now selling vegetarian food, that can be an issue for consumers. They should know. That flexibility should be given to consumers.”&nbsp;A large number of devotees travel from various places with “kanwars” carrying holy water from the Ganga to perform “jalabhishek” of Shivling during the Hindu calendar month of “Shravan”.Many believers shun the consumption of meat during the month and even avoid meals cooked with onion and garlic.

The apex court directed the owners of all restaurants and eateries to display their licence and registration certificates as required under the Food Safety and Standards Act. Ultimately, the consumer is the king. We need to prioritise the interest of consumers, the bench said.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the Uttar Pradesh government’s order directing all restaurants along the Kanwar Yatra route in Uttar Pradesh to display QR codes with the names of their owners. It directed all the restaurant owners to display their licence and registration certificates in line with the statutory requirements as required under the Food Safety and Standards Act and posted the matter for hearing after two weeks for compliance. The court passed the order on Trinamool Congress lawmaker Mahua Moitra and academic Apoorvanand Jha’s separate pleas challenging the state government order, saying it promoted religious profiling. Moitra and Jha said that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regulations do not permit QR coding. They cited a July 2024 Supreme Court order staying a similar direction of the Uttar Pradesh Police asking restaurant owners to display their names and those of their employees. The top court had then directed that no owner will be forced to display this information. Moitra and Jha’s pleas alleged that the fresh order was an attempt to “circumvent” the stay by introducing QR code requirements. A bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said they will at this stage only pass an order that all owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the license and registration certificates as required statutorily. When senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for one of the petitioners, sought a clarification on whether the names of owners and those of employees need not be displayed on QR code, the bench said, “All these issues are left open. We are not going into this issue. You may challenge it before the high court. In any case, it is infructuous. We are informed today [Tuesday] is the last day of Yatra, and in any case, it is likely to end...” ‘It’s all about identity politics’ Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi objected to the fresh order, saying it was all about identity politics. “This is the most divisive policy to ostracise a minority community during this Yatra, which alienates them. It sows the seeds of identity division, is a direct assault on secularism and is per se unconstitutional, violating right to equality, right to practice profession and right to life...” Singhvi further said that all the eateries along the Kanwar route strictly sell vegetarian food during this time of the year. “You can boycott a food based on the menu, not on the identity of the owner. Before issuing this order, they ought to have sought permission from court for modification of the stay,” Singhvi said. ‘Devotees are highly sentimental; not a single owner approached the court’ Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state government, said the QR code order has been issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act. He said that the direction last year from the police was stayed, and it was left open for the state to issue directions for maintaining food standards and quality. Rohatgi pointed out that not a single affected owner had approached the court and questioned the right of the petitioners to challenge the state’s direction. “These devotees are highly sentimental. They would not like to have food from a shop that used to serve non-vegetarian food until a month ago, using the same utensils. Last year, there was a law and order problem, and some shops were ransacked. We are simply applying the mandate under the Food Safety Regulations that require the display of the hotel’s name and photo identity.” ‘Ultimately, the consumer is the king’ The bench said the sentiments of devotees should not be affected. “At the same time, the livelihood of shop owners should not be affected too. The court has to strike a balance.” The court said consumers need to be given the choice to decide whether they would prefer to eat from a pure vegetarian hotel or one that serves vegetarian food during this period of the year. “We are concerned with consumers. It must be his choice. Ultimately, the consumer is the king. We need to prioritise the interest of consumers,” the bench said. The petitioners argued that the license displayed in shops provides for this information, whether a shop sells vegetarian or a mix of both. The court remarked, “It depends on a person’s conscience…If you are a vegetarian throughout the year without any change, then the question of indicating name will not arise. But during the Yatra, if someone stops at a hotel selling non-vegetarian food, that is now selling vegetarian food, that can be an issue for consumers. They should know. That flexibility should be given to consumers.” A large number of devotees travel from various places with “kanwars” carrying holy water from the Ganga to perform “jalabhishek” of Shivling during the Hindu calendar month of “Shravan”. Many believers shun the consumption of meat during the month and even avoid meals cooked with onion and garlic.

The apex court directed the owners of all restaurants and eateries to display their licence and registration certificates as required under the Food Safety and Standards Act. Ultimately, the consumer is the king. We need to prioritise the interest of consumers, the bench said.

SC refuses to stay UP’s Kanwar route QR code display order, tells eateries to comply

The Indian Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jul 15) ruled that the brutality or the gruesome nature of a crime is not sufficient grounds to award a death sentence. The top court was hearing a plea filed by a rape and murder accused of a 10-year-old girl. The man’s death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment without remission. The court held that the brutality of the offence cannot be the sole reason for imposing capital punishment, adding that the convict’s potential for reformation must also be assessed.&nbsp;A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta upheld the conviction of Jai Prakash for the rape and murder of the minor in 2018 in Dehradun, following which the Uttarakhand High Court awarded him a death sentence.According to witness testimonies, the appellant invited several children to his hut on July 28, 2018 and gave them Rs 10 each to buy chocolates. While he let other children go, the victim did not return with the rest. She was later found dead in the hut. An FIR was registered at Police Station Sahaspur by her father.&nbsp;The accused was booked under Sections 376(AB), 377, and 302 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence based on the witness testimonies, the body recovered, and DNA evidence.&nbsp;“We find the witnesses to be inspiring in confidence and the children’s deposition to be in a natural form,” the court noted, as quoted by LawBeat. “There is no infirmity in the chain of seizure or forensic examination. Taking a cumulative view of all circumstances, the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt,” it added.&nbsp;While the court did not interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts, it disagreed with the awarding of the death sentence. The bench observed that while the crime was undeniably grave, the courts below had relied solely on its brutality to award the death sentence.&nbsp;“No other circumstance came to be discussed in concluding that this case falls under the ‘rarest of rare’ category. Such an approach cannot be sustained,” the court said.The court also noted that the appellant came from an impoverished background. He did not attend school due to financial conditions and started working at the age of 12. He had good conduct in jail and did not suffer from any psychiatric disorders.&nbsp;“Taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the threshold under the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant,” the Court concluded.

 The bench observed that while the crime was undeniably grave, the courts below had relied solely on its brutality to award the death sentence.

The Indian Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jul 15) ruled that the brutality or the gruesome nature of a crime is not sufficient grounds to award a death sentence. The top court was hearing a plea filed by a rape and murder accused of a 10-year-old girl. The man’s death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment without remission. The court held that the brutality of the offence cannot be the sole reason for imposing capital punishment, adding that the convict’s potential for reformation must also be assessed. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta upheld the conviction of Jai Prakash for the rape and murder of the minor in 2018 in Dehradun, following which the Uttarakhand High Court awarded him a death sentence. According to witness testimonies, the appellant invited several children to his hut on July 28, 2018 and gave them Rs 10 each to buy chocolates. While he let other children go, the victim did not return with the rest. She was later found dead in the hut. An FIR was registered at Police Station Sahaspur by her father. The accused was booked under Sections 376(AB), 377, and 302 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence based on the witness testimonies, the body recovered, and DNA evidence. “We find the witnesses to be inspiring in confidence and the children’s deposition to be in a natural form,” the court noted, as quoted by LawBeat. “There is no infirmity in the chain of seizure or forensic examination. Taking a cumulative view of all circumstances, the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt,” it added. While the court did not interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts, it disagreed with the awarding of the death sentence. The bench observed that while the crime was undeniably grave, the courts below had relied solely on its brutality to award the death sentence. “No other circumstance came to be discussed in concluding that this case falls under the ‘rarest of rare’ category. Such an approach cannot be sustained,” the court said. The court also noted that the appellant came from an impoverished background. He did not attend school due to financial conditions and started working at the age of 12. He had good conduct in jail and did not suffer from any psychiatric disorders. “Taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the threshold under the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant,” the Court concluded.

&nbsp;The bench observed that while the crime was undeniably grave, the courts below had relied solely on its brutality to award the death sentence.

Brutality not sufficient grounds: Supreme Court commutes death penalty of man in child rape-murder case

The Supreme Court of India has scrapped the appointments of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians in Punjab state, citing serious irregularities in the recruitment process. In its verdict, the apex court set aside a September 2024 ruling by a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the appointments. The top court observed that the selection process was arbitrary and did not comply with the established rules and regulations. The SC also noted that the Punjab government failed to provide any valid justification for the appointments. The recruitment process began in October 2021, when the Punjab Director of Higher Education issued a public notice inviting online applications for assistant professor posts in various subjects and for librarians—just ahead of the state assembly elections.&nbsp;The selected 1091 teachers and 67 librarians had joined recently after being recruited under the 2021 process. The recruitment came under legal scrutiny after guest lecturers filed petitions alleging irregularities in the merit-based selection process and challenging the appointments.&nbsp;<h2>What was wrong with the recruitment process?</h2>&nbsp;The Supreme Court pointed out that the Punjab government replaced the University Grants Commission (UGC) selection process, which includes assessment of academic work and interviews, and instead held a single, written, multiple-choice test, claiming that it was more objective and less prone to manipulation.&nbsp;<h2>Selected candidates set up ‘1158 Front’</h2>&nbsp;The selected candidates formed a ‘1158 Front’ to seek appointment letters after some guest teachers in the state challenged their recruitment. In 2022, a single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the recruitment process.However, two years later, in 2024, a division bench of the high court okayed the process, following which all 1,158 selected candidates were given postings, and they joined various government colleges.However, on July 14, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set overturned the HC’s 2024 order and directed the Punjab government to start a fresh recruitment process as per the 2018 UGC regulations.&nbsp;The SC bench acknowledged that the quashing would “cause hardships” to the selected candidates, but also noted that a “challenge to the recruitment was made during the pendency of the process, and appointments were subject to the Court orders”.&nbsp;<h2>‘Politics behind recruitment process’</h2>&nbsp;The recruitment process was started by the then Congress government led by Charanjit Singh Channi, who lost the 2022 assembly elections, and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) came to power.The AAP government also faced pressure from ‘1158 Front’ and after the HC’s 2024 order, it gave postings to the candidates.The Supreme Court said that the recruitment “was motivated by political exigency in the form of the impending assembly elections in the state of Punjab".&nbsp;“The entire process… was followed not in the interest of the state or for the cause of higher education but for narrow political gains,” said the court.&nbsp;The AAP too had backed the process and supported the selection in court later. It argued that the state was empowered to have its own hiring procedures and was not bound by the Public Service Commission or University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations.&nbsp;The SC said that Punjab had voluntarily adopted the UGC regulations and was duty-bound to follow them and so it was required to make such appointments through the public service commission.&nbsp;<h2>Irregularities in hiring flagged&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;The initial proposal was limited to filling 177 posts for newly opened colleges on an urgent basis, but it was later expanded to include more posts of 931 assistant professors and 50 librarians. The added vacancies had already been referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission, which was later not made part of the “urgent” process.

The initial proposal was for filling up 177 vacant posts in the newly-opened colleges on an urgent basis, but later 931 posts of assistant professors and 50 librarians were included. The added vacancies had already been referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission.

The Supreme Court of India has scrapped the appointments of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians in Punjab state, citing serious irregularities in the recruitment process. In its verdict, the apex court set aside a September 2024 ruling by a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the appointments. The top court observed that the selection process was arbitrary and did not comply with the established rules and regulations. The SC also noted that the Punjab government failed to provide any valid justification for the appointments. The recruitment process began in October 2021, when the Punjab Director of Higher Education issued a public notice inviting online applications for assistant professor posts in various subjects and for librarians—just ahead of the state assembly elections. The selected 1091 teachers and 67 librarians had joined recently after being recruited under the 2021 process. The recruitment came under legal scrutiny after guest lecturers filed petitions alleging irregularities in the merit-based selection process and challenging the appointments. What was wrong with the recruitment process? The Supreme Court pointed out that the Punjab government replaced the University Grants Commission (UGC) selection process, which includes assessment of academic work and interviews, and instead held a single, written, multiple-choice test, claiming that it was more objective and less prone to manipulation. Selected candidates set up ‘1158 Front’ The selected candidates formed a ‘1158 Front’ to seek appointment letters after some guest teachers in the state challenged their recruitment. In 2022, a single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the recruitment process. However, two years later, in 2024, a division bench of the high court okayed the process, following which all 1,158 selected candidates were given postings, and they joined various government colleges. However, on July 14, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set overturned the HC’s 2024 order and directed the Punjab government to start a fresh recruitment process as per the 2018 UGC regulations. The SC bench acknowledged that the quashing would “cause hardships” to the selected candidates, but also noted that a “challenge to the recruitment was made during the pendency of the process, and appointments were subject to the Court orders”. ‘Politics behind recruitment process’ The recruitment process was started by the then Congress government led by Charanjit Singh Channi, who lost the 2022 assembly elections, and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) came to power. The AAP government also faced pressure from ‘1158 Front’ and after the HC’s 2024 order, it gave postings to the candidates. The Supreme Court said that the recruitment “was motivated by political exigency in the form of the impending assembly elections in the state of Punjab". “The entire process… was followed not in the interest of the state or for the cause of higher education but for narrow political gains,” said the court. The AAP too had backed the process and supported the selection in court later. It argued that the state was empowered to have its own hiring procedures and was not bound by the Public Service Commission or University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations. The SC said that Punjab had voluntarily adopted the UGC regulations and was duty-bound to follow them and so it was required to make such appointments through the public service commission. Irregularities in hiring flagged The initial proposal was limited to filling 177 posts for newly opened colleges on an urgent basis, but it was later expanded to include more posts of 931 assistant professors and 50 librarians. The added vacancies had already been referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission, which was later not made part of the “urgent” process.

The initial proposal was for filling up 177 vacant posts in the newly-opened colleges on an urgent basis, but later 931 posts of assistant professors and 50 librarians were included. The added vacancies had already been referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission.

Over 1000 professors in Punjab lose jobs after long battle, SC criticises ‘political urgency’ behind hiring

The Supreme Court of India said in a landmark ruling that just registering a property does not automatically prove the ownership of the same. The apex court said the true ownership required much more documentation and not merely the registration. The decision came during the verdict of a case around a dispute where the appellant, despite having a property registration, was not recognised as the rightful owner due to various legal nuances surrounding the land transaction. Giving the judgment in the case, the SC said a registered document does not automatically establish legal ownership unless the title and possession of the property are in line with the law.The case said that in order to own a property, there is a need to prove the “legal possession" of the same - and that could be attained by further documentation.&nbsp;The ruling is against the commonly practised mechanism in the real estate world, where people assume that once a property is registered, the buyer automatically holds legitimate ownership rights. But the SC clarified the importance of due diligence, including verifying the legitimacy of the property’s title and ensuring that all relevant documentation is in place.&nbsp;The ruling said the actual physical;l control of the building is the vital element of ownership. A property might be registered, but if someone else has physical possession or there are disputes regarding the title, ownership could be contested. &nbsp;&nbsp;List of documents you must possess to prove ownership&nbsp;1. Sale Deed&nbsp;It is a crucial legal document that serves as proof of the transfer of property from seller to buyer.&nbsp;2. Mother Deed&nbsp;The Mother Deed traces the entire ownership of the property. It is particularly needed by banks when a buyer seeks a loan against the property. &nbsp;&nbsp;3. Sale and Purchase Agreement&nbsp;The Sale and Purchase Agreement is one of the most important documents when buying a flat. It has all the terms and conditions written that are agreed upon by both buyer and seller.&nbsp;Apart from these, the Building Approval Plan, Building Plan, Layout Approval, Possession Letter, Completion Certificate, Khata Certificate, Allotment Letter, Encumbrance Certificate, No Objection Certificates (NOCs), Identity and Address Proof, and Compliance under RERA (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 are also required.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The decision came during the verdict of a case around a dispute where the appellant, despite having a property registration, was not recognised as the rightful owner due to various legal nuances surrounding the land transaction. 

The Supreme Court of India said in a landmark ruling that just registering a property does not automatically prove the ownership of the same. The apex court said the true ownership required much more documentation and not merely the registration. The decision came during the verdict of a case around a dispute where the appellant, despite having a property registration, was not recognised as the rightful owner due to various legal nuances surrounding the land transaction. Giving the judgment in the case, the SC said a registered document does not automatically establish legal ownership unless the title and possession of the property are in line with the law. The case said that in order to own a property, there is a need to prove the “legal possession" of the same - and that could be attained by further documentation. The ruling is against the commonly practised mechanism in the real estate world, where people assume that once a property is registered, the buyer automatically holds legitimate ownership rights. But the SC clarified the importance of due diligence, including verifying the legitimacy of the property’s title and ensuring that all relevant documentation is in place. The ruling said the actual physical;l control of the building is the vital element of ownership. A property might be registered, but if someone else has physical possession or there are disputes regarding the title, ownership could be contested. List of documents you must possess to prove ownership 1. Sale Deed It is a crucial legal document that serves as proof of the transfer of property from seller to buyer. 2. Mother Deed The Mother Deed traces the entire ownership of the property. It is particularly needed by banks when a buyer seeks a loan against the property. 3. Sale and Purchase Agreement The Sale and Purchase Agreement is one of the most important documents when buying a flat. It has all the terms and conditions written that are agreed upon by both buyer and seller. Apart from these, the Building Approval Plan, Building Plan, Layout Approval, Possession Letter, Completion Certificate, Khata Certificate, Allotment Letter, Encumbrance Certificate, No Objection Certificates (NOCs), Identity and Address Proof, and Compliance under RERA (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 are also required.

SC said a registered document does not automatically establish legal ownership unless the title and possession of the property are in line with the law. The case said that in order to own a property, there is a need to prove the “legal possession" of the same.&nbsp;

Think you own your house? SC says registration alone means nothing - Here's the list of documents you need to prove property ownership

Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly prepared to testify before Congress about Jeffrey Epstein’s secret files, amid criticism against US Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice (DOJ), Daily Mail UK has reported.Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in Epstein’s sex trafficking network, has appealed her conviction to the US Supreme Court. The DOJ’s response is due by July 14.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-sounds-like-you-re-in-the-list-maga-turns-on-trump-s-fbi-chief-kash-patel-over-epstein-files-1752425713913">‘Sounds like you’re in the list’: MAGA turns on Trump's FBI chief Kash Patel over Epstein files</a><h2>‘She would welcome the chance to tell her story’</h2>A source close to Maxwell told Daily Mail that the 63-year-old former socialite is open to testifying before Congress. “She would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story,” the source said. “She remains the only person to be jailed in connection to Epstein and she would welcome the chance to tell the American public the truth.”The source added, “Despite the rumours, Ghislaine was never offered any kind of plea deal. No one from the government has ever asked her to share what she knows.”"This is a critical moment, a do or die moment. Ghislaine believes she has multiple grounds for appeal," the unnamed Department of Justice source added.<h2>Why is Maxwell appealing?</h2>Maxwell was convicted in 2022 for helping Epstein sexually abuse several underage girls over the span of a decade. She argues her prosecution violated a 2007 non-prosecution agreement granted to Epstein, which she claims should have protected her as well. She maintains that she is innocent and insists she should have never been charged.<h2>Claims of missing footage, no ‘client list’ raise more questions</h2>The Epstein scandal continues to cause political fallout. The DOJ recently claimed there is no ‘client list’ and that Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019. But critics have pointed out that video footage from inside the jail is incomplete, with key minutes missing and no view of Epstein’s cell door.This has fuelled conspiracy theories and angered Trump’s MAGA base, many of whom now accuse Pam Bondi of failing to keep her promise of transparency over the Epstein files.<h2>Trump, Elon Musk respond to Epstein ‘cover-up’ claims</h2>On Truth Social, Donald Trump hit back at Epstein-related allegations, writing, “For years, it’s Epstein, over and over again. Why are we not giving publicity to files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan and the losers and criminals of the Biden administration?”Meanwhile, Elon Musk has claimed the cover-up exists because Trump is mentioned in the Epstein files. However, a source close to Maxwell told Daily Mail this was a “false flag”, and that Trump had broken contact with Epstein early on.<h2>No new prosecutions expected, DOJ says</h2>The DOJ has also said it is unlikely anyone else will be prosecuted in relation to the Epstein case. That includes Prince Andrew, who settled a civil lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre, who had accused him of having sex with her while she was underage, a claim he has always denied. Giuffre died earlier this year in what has been described as suicide.Maxwell’s Supreme Court appeal is still pending, and the DOJ’s official response is expected by July 14. “Congressional hearings have been held into everything from JFK’s assassination to 9/11. The Epstein files rank up there with those cases,” the source told Daily Mail.

Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in Epstein’s sex trafficking network, has appealed her conviction to the US Supreme Court. The DOJ’s response is due by July 14.

Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly prepared to testify before Congress about Jeffrey Epstein’s secret files, amid criticism against US Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice (DOJ), Daily Mail UK has reported. Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in Epstein’s sex trafficking network, has appealed her conviction to the US Supreme Court. The DOJ’s response is due by July 14. Also read: ‘Sounds like you’re in the list’: MAGA turns on Trump's FBI chief Kash Patel over Epstein files ‘She would welcome the chance to tell her story’ A source close to Maxwell told Daily Mail that the 63-year-old former socialite is open to testifying before Congress. “She would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story,” the source said. “She remains the only person to be jailed in connection to Epstein and she would welcome the chance to tell the American public the truth.” The source added, “Despite the rumours, Ghislaine was never offered any kind of plea deal. No one from the government has ever asked her to share what she knows.” "This is a critical moment, a do or die moment. Ghislaine believes she has multiple grounds for appeal," the unnamed Department of Justice source added. Why is Maxwell appealing? Maxwell was convicted in 2022 for helping Epstein sexually abuse several underage girls over the span of a decade. She argues her prosecution violated a 2007 non-prosecution agreement granted to Epstein, which she claims should have protected her as well. She maintains that she is innocent and insists she should have never been charged. Claims of missing footage, no ‘client list’ raise more questions The Epstein scandal continues to cause political fallout. The DOJ recently claimed there is no ‘client list’ and that Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019. But critics have pointed out that video footage from inside the jail is incomplete, with key minutes missing and no view of Epstein’s cell door. This has fuelled conspiracy theories and angered Trump’s MAGA base, many of whom now accuse Pam Bondi of failing to keep her promise of transparency over the Epstein files. Trump, Elon Musk respond to Epstein ‘cover-up’ claims On Truth Social, Donald Trump hit back at Epstein-related allegations, writing, “For years, it’s Epstein, over and over again. Why are we not giving publicity to files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan and the losers and criminals of the Biden administration?” Meanwhile, Elon Musk has claimed the cover-up exists because Trump is mentioned in the Epstein files. However, a source close to Maxwell told Daily Mail this was a “false flag”, and that Trump had broken contact with Epstein early on. No new prosecutions expected, DOJ says The DOJ has also said it is unlikely anyone else will be prosecuted in relation to the Epstein case. That includes Prince Andrew, who settled a civil lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre, who had accused him of having sex with her while she was underage, a claim he has always denied. Giuffre died earlier this year in what has been described as suicide. Maxwell’s Supreme Court appeal is still pending, and the DOJ’s official response is expected by July 14. “Congressional hearings have been held into everything from JFK’s assassination to 9/11. The Epstein files rank up there with those cases,” the source told Daily Mail.

Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in Epstein’s sex trafficking network, has appealed her conviction to the US Supreme Court. The DOJ’s response is due by July 14.

Ghislaine Maxwell ready to reveal ‘truth’ about Epstein client list? Epstein’s ex faces ‘do or die’ moment as Supreme Court appeal looms

US President Donald Trump on Friday (June 27) called the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a "travesty for the rule of law", stressing that it is a "monumental victory for the Constitution". This comes after the US Supreme Court curbed the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions. Calling it an "amazing and a big decision", Trump further thanked Justice Barrett, Justice Barrett, Justice Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas, and said that they are "great people".Trump is speaking to the media at the White House following the US Supreme Court's decision on lower court's powers and birthright citizenship.He said that he would "promptly file" to press on with an effort to end birthright citizenship. He said that his administration “can now promptly file to proceed” with policies that had been enjoined nationwide.The US president lamented Trump that his administration has been “hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued than in the entire 20th century together – think about it, the entire 20th century, me”.He also attacked the "radical left judges", saying that the use of nationwide injunctions was “a grave threat to democracy” and a “colossal abuse of power”.In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by lower court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."However, the top court did not immediately rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship.Following the order, Trump took to Truth Social, calling it a "GIANT WIN" in the SCOTUS, adding that even the birthright citizenship hoax has been indirectly hit hard."GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ," he posted.&nbsp;

The US president lamented Trump that his administration has been “hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued than in the entire 20th century together – think about it, the entire 20th century, me”.

US President Donald Trump on Friday (June 27) called the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a "travesty for the rule of law", stressing that it is a "monumental victory for the Constitution". This comes after the US Supreme Court curbed the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions. Calling it an "amazing and a big decision", Trump further thanked Justice Barrett, Justice Barrett, Justice Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas, and said that they are "great people". Trump is speaking to the media at the White House following the US Supreme Court's decision on lower court's powers and birthright citizenship. He said that he would "promptly file" to press on with an effort to end birthright citizenship. He said that his administration “can now promptly file to proceed” with policies that had been enjoined nationwide. The US president lamented Trump that his administration has been “hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued than in the entire 20th century together – think about it, the entire 20th century, me”. He also attacked the "radical left judges", saying that the use of nationwide injunctions was “a grave threat to democracy” and a “colossal abuse of power”. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by lower court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." However, the top court did not immediately rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. Following the order, Trump took to Truth Social, calling it a "GIANT WIN" in the SCOTUS, adding that even the birthright citizenship hoax has been indirectly hit hard. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ," he posted.

The US president lamented Trump that his administration has been “hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued than in the entire 20th century together – think about it, the entire 20th century, me”.

'GIANT WIN in SCOTUS': Trump lauds SC's ruling on limiting injunctions - Is it a win for birthright citizenship order?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised Karnataka’s ban on the Kamal Haasan-starrer Thug Life and said that mobs cannot dictate film screenings. It also transferred the case to itself and slammed the Karnataka High Court over its suggestion that the actor apologise to resolve the issue.&nbsp;The apex court also issued a notice in the case of the ban on the release of Kamal Haasan’s Tamil film Thug Life in Karnataka, while criticising groups that threatened to ban the film’s release over some controversial remarks made by the actor.&nbsp;<h2>‘Groups of hooligans cannot decide what gets screened in theatres’</h2>&nbsp;The court said that ‘groups of hooligans’ cannot be allowed to decide what gets screened in theatres, and the rule of law cannot be held hostage to mob threats, and warned.A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan strongly criticised groups that threatened to burn down theatres over Haasan’s remarks claiming “Kannada was born from Tamil.”&nbsp;“If someone has made a statement, you counter it with another statement. You cannot threaten to burn down theatres,” the bench remarked.It added that the people of Karnataka are free to disagree with Haasan, but fundamental rights must be protected.<h2>Why threaten to burn down cinemas?</h2>&nbsp;“If enlightened people of Karnataka and Bengaluru believe his statement was wrong, they can issue a statement saying so. Why threaten to burn down cinemas?”The top court transferred the plea filed by the film’s producer from the Karnataka High Court to itself and asked the state government to file its reply. It also questioned the role of the High Court, especially over suggestions that the actor apologise to resolve the issue.&nbsp;The top court remarked on the Karnataka High Court’s stance of asking for an apology from Haasan over his comment and stated that it had no business doing so.&nbsp;“There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say ‘express an apology’? That is not its role,” the court said.&nbsp;<h2>‘Once a film is cleared by CBFC, it must be released’</h2>&nbsp;It emphasised that once a film is cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it must be allowed to be released. “People can choose not to watch it. But we cannot allow threats and intimidation to decide if a film gets released,” the court added.The court also quoted past judgments, including the Bombay High Court verdict in the Mi Nathuram Boltoy play case, and the Imran Pratapgarhi ruling, to support the argument that differing views must be allowed in a democracy.Reiterating its role, the court said, “We are the custodians of the rule of law. That is what the Supreme Court is for.”&nbsp;The bench said that the rule of law demands that any film that has a CBFC certificate must be released, and the state has to ensure its screening.&nbsp;The court has asked the Karnataka government to file its counter-affidavit by Wednesday, and posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan strongly criticised groups that threatened to burn down theatres over Haasan’s remark that “Kannada was born from Tamil.” “If someone has made a statement, you counter it with another statement. You cannot threaten to burn down theatres,” it said.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised Karnataka’s ban on the Kamal Haasan-starrer Thug Life and said that mobs cannot dictate film screenings. It also transferred the case to itself and slammed the Karnataka High Court over its suggestion that the actor apologise to resolve the issue. The apex court also issued a notice in the case of the ban on the release of Kamal Haasan’s Tamil film Thug Life in Karnataka, while criticising groups that threatened to ban the film’s release over some controversial remarks made by the actor. ‘Groups of hooligans cannot decide what gets screened in theatres’ The court said that ‘groups of hooligans’ cannot be allowed to decide what gets screened in theatres, and the rule of law cannot be held hostage to mob threats, and warned. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan strongly criticised groups that threatened to burn down theatres over Haasan’s remarks claiming “Kannada was born from Tamil.” “If someone has made a statement, you counter it with another statement. You cannot threaten to burn down theatres,” the bench remarked. It added that the people of Karnataka are free to disagree with Haasan, but fundamental rights must be protected. Why threaten to burn down cinemas? “If enlightened people of Karnataka and Bengaluru believe his statement was wrong, they can issue a statement saying so. Why threaten to burn down cinemas?” The top court transferred the plea filed by the film’s producer from the Karnataka High Court to itself and asked the state government to file its reply. It also questioned the role of the High Court, especially over suggestions that the actor apologise to resolve the issue. The top court remarked on the Karnataka High Court’s stance of asking for an apology from Haasan over his comment and stated that it had no business doing so. “There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say ‘express an apology’? That is not its role,” the court said. ‘Once a film is cleared by CBFC, it must be released’ It emphasised that once a film is cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it must be allowed to be released. “People can choose not to watch it. But we cannot allow threats and intimidation to decide if a film gets released,” the court added. The court also quoted past judgments, including the Bombay High Court verdict in the Mi Nathuram Boltoy play case, and the Imran Pratapgarhi ruling, to support the argument that differing views must be allowed in a democracy. Reiterating its role, the court said, “We are the custodians of the rule of law. That is what the Supreme Court is for.” The bench said that the rule of law demands that any film that has a CBFC certificate must be released, and the state has to ensure its screening. The court has asked the Karnataka government to file its counter-affidavit by Wednesday, and posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan strongly criticised groups that threatened to burn down theatres over Haasan’s remark that “Kannada was born from Tamil.” “If someone has made a statement, you counter it with another statement. You cannot threaten to burn down theatres,” it said.

SC slams Thug Life ban, raps Karnataka High Court saying it has no role to demand apology

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dismissed the Delhi Waqf Board’s claim over a property in east Delhi’s Shahdara being used as a gurdwara since 1947. The Delhi Waqf Board had filed a petition challenging the 2010 order of the Delhi High Court that held that the property in Shahdara had been used as a gurdwara since 1947 and the waqf board could not establish it to be “waqf property”.&nbsp;The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the appeal moved by the Waqf Board against Delhi High Court’s decision to reject its plea in 2010.&nbsp;Justice Sharma said the Waqf Board should have given up the claim on its own. However, Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose, appearing for the Board, said the lower courts had held that a mosque was there, but “now some kind of gurdwara is there”.&nbsp;“Not some kind of. A proper functioning gurdwara. Once there is a gurdwara, let it be. A religious structure is already functioning there. You should yourself relinquish that claim, you see,” the court said while dismissing the appeal.&nbsp;As per the Waqf Board, the mosque in question in Shahdara was “Masjid Takia Babbar Shah”. It claimed that the mosque had existed since “time immemorial” and was dedicated for religious purposes.&nbsp;However, the defendant had argued that the property is not a waqf property, as the owner of the property, Mohd Ahsaan, had sold it to him in 1953. The Delhi High Court had ruled in favour of the defendant.&nbsp;“Defendant was admittedly in occupation of this property since 1947-48. It is also true that the defendant was not able to adduce any document of title to evidence the purchase of this property, yet this does not in any manner benefit the plaintiff, who has to establish his own case and prove it to enable him to obtain a decree of possession,” the Delhi High Court had said in its ruling.&nbsp;Further, the high court relied upon a 1979 Supreme Court decision in the Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan case, where the top court held that where a stranger who is a non-Muslim is in possession of a certain property, his right, title, and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list published under the Act.&nbsp;The order comes at a time when another bench of the top court has reserved its decision on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which expands government oversight in regulating waqf properties.

Justice Sharma said the Waqf Board should have given up the claim on its own. However, Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose, appearing for the Board, said the lower courts had held that a mosque was there, but “now some kind of gurdwara is there”.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dismissed the Delhi Waqf Board’s claim over a property in east Delhi’s Shahdara being used as a gurdwara since 1947. The Delhi Waqf Board had filed a petition challenging the 2010 order of the Delhi High Court that held that the property in Shahdara had been used as a gurdwara since 1947 and the waqf board could not establish it to be “waqf property”. The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the appeal moved by the Waqf Board against Delhi High Court’s decision to reject its plea in 2010. Justice Sharma said the Waqf Board should have given up the claim on its own. However, Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose, appearing for the Board, said the lower courts had held that a mosque was there, but “now some kind of gurdwara is there”. “Not some kind of. A proper functioning gurdwara. Once there is a gurdwara, let it be. A religious structure is already functioning there. You should yourself relinquish that claim, you see,” the court said while dismissing the appeal. As per the Waqf Board, the mosque in question in Shahdara was “Masjid Takia Babbar Shah”. It claimed that the mosque had existed since “time immemorial” and was dedicated for religious purposes. However, the defendant had argued that the property is not a waqf property, as the owner of the property, Mohd Ahsaan, had sold it to him in 1953. The Delhi High Court had ruled in favour of the defendant. “Defendant was admittedly in occupation of this property since 1947-48. It is also true that the defendant was not able to adduce any document of title to evidence the purchase of this property, yet this does not in any manner benefit the plaintiff, who has to establish his own case and prove it to enable him to obtain a decree of possession,” the Delhi High Court had said in its ruling. Further, the high court relied upon a 1979 Supreme Court decision in the Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan case, where the top court held that where a stranger who is a non-Muslim is in possession of a certain property, his right, title, and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list published under the Act. The order comes at a time when another bench of the top court has reserved its decision on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which expands government oversight in regulating waqf properties.

Justice Sharma said the Waqf Board should have given up the claim on its own. However, Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose, appearing for the Board, said the lower courts had held that a mosque was there, but “now some kind of gurdwara is there”.

Supreme Court rejects Delhi Waqf Board’s claim over Gurdwara in Shahdara

The US Supreme Court on Friday (May 30) allowed the Trump Administration to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua.&nbsp;The top court’s move has put some 532,000 immigrants at risk of deportation who came to the US under the “parole” program launched by former president Joe Biden.&nbsp;Under the parole program, 30,000 migrants from the four nations were allowed entry into the United States on the grounds of human rights.&nbsp;However, US President Donald Trump’s crackdown against immigration has sought to get rid of the legal protections, with the matter reaching the Supreme Court earlier this month. The Trump administration has asked the top court to lift a court order blocking it from ending those protections.&nbsp;The court put on hold the order given by US District Judge Indira Talwani that halted Trump’s move to end immigration “parole” given to foreign nationals. Issued in an emergency manner, the order was unsigned and did not provide any reasoning.&nbsp;<h2>‘Devastating consequences’</h2>&nbsp;Two of the court’s three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, expressed their dissent from the top court’s decision, warning of “devastating consequences” of upending the “lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending,” according to the document.&nbsp;“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today,” they wrote.&nbsp;The migrants under the Biden era programme “now face two unbearable options. On the one hand, they could elect to leave the United States and, thereby, confront ‘dangers in their native countries,’ experience destructive ‘family separation,’” and possibly forfeit any chance of remedy based on their claims, they said.&nbsp;“On the other, they could remain in the United States ... and risk imminent removal at the hands of Government agents, along with its serious attendant consequences.”&nbsp;The administration was acting on a flawed interpretation of immigration law, the lower courts that blocked Trump’s moves argued.&nbsp;On May 19, the Supreme Court also let Trump end temporary protection status granted to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States under the Biden administration. Trump invoked an obscure wartime law to deport hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador.

The top court’s move has put some 532,000 immigrants at risk of deportation who came to the US under the “parole” program launched by former president Joe Biden.

The US Supreme Court on Friday (May 30) allowed the Trump Administration to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. The top court’s move has put some 532,000 immigrants at risk of deportation who came to the US under the “parole” program launched by former president Joe Biden. Under the parole program, 30,000 migrants from the four nations were allowed entry into the United States on the grounds of human rights. However, US President Donald Trump’s crackdown against immigration has sought to get rid of the legal protections, with the matter reaching the Supreme Court earlier this month. The Trump administration has asked the top court to lift a court order blocking it from ending those protections. The court put on hold the order given by US District Judge Indira Talwani that halted Trump’s move to end immigration “parole” given to foreign nationals. Issued in an emergency manner, the order was unsigned and did not provide any reasoning. ‘Devastating consequences’ Two of the court’s three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, expressed their dissent from the top court’s decision, warning of “devastating consequences” of upending the “lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending,” according to the document. “The Court has plainly botched this assessment today,” they wrote. The migrants under the Biden era programme “now face two unbearable options. On the one hand, they could elect to leave the United States and, thereby, confront ‘dangers in their native countries,’ experience destructive ‘family separation,’” and possibly forfeit any chance of remedy based on their claims, they said. “On the other, they could remain in the United States ... and risk imminent removal at the hands of Government agents, along with its serious attendant consequences.” The administration was acting on a flawed interpretation of immigration law, the lower courts that blocked Trump’s moves argued. On May 19, the Supreme Court also let Trump end temporary protection status granted to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States under the Biden administration. Trump invoked an obscure wartime law to deport hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador.

The top court’s move has put some 532,000 immigrants at risk of deportation who came to the US under the “parole” program launched by former president Joe Biden.

Over 500,000 migrants at risk of deportation after US Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke their legal status

The Union government is likely to bring an impeachment motion against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the upcoming monsoon session after the three-member panel set up by the Supreme Court found credence in the allegations that wads of currency notes were found at his official residence when a fire broke out there on March 14.&nbsp;The report of the Supreme Court-appointed committee said several stacks of burnt notes, reportedly as high as 1.5 feet, were found scattered across the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi.The committee said in its report that the source of the money could not be accounted for by Justice Varma, and he only gave a “flat denial” and alleged a conspiracy against him.&nbsp;“The factum of the burnt cash having been found in the storeroom was undeniably established, and, therefore, the burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the said cash by giving a plausible explanation, which he failed to do except projecting a case of flat denial and raising a plea of conspiracy,” it concluded, as reported by India Today.The storeroom, where the cash was found, was in “covert” and “active” control of Justice Varma and his family, it said.&nbsp;On the judge’s conspiracy charge, the panel concluded that no outsider could have entered the storeroom as it was kept locked.&nbsp;The report also mentioned that the presence of a liquor cabinet close to the switchboard intensified the blaze and that the judge’s staff tried to remove the burnt cash from the storeroom after the fire.&nbsp;<h2>‘Sufficient substance in allegations against Justice Varma’</h2>&nbsp;The committee concluded in its report that there was “sufficient substance” in the allegations against Justice Varma and that they were serious enough to call for his impeachment.“Keeping in view the direct and electronic evidence on record, this committee is formally of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations, and the misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma,” the report said.&nbsp;The then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, had asked Justice Varma to resign, but he refused, sources said.The CJI had then written to the president and the prime minister, recommending his impeachment after the in-house inquiry panel indicted Varma, though its findings were not made public, say reports.

The probe panel report said that the source of the money could not be accounted for by Justice Varma, and he only gave a flat denial and alleged a conspiracy against him. The storeroom, where the cash was found, was in covert and active control of Justice Varma and his family, it said.

The Union government is likely to bring an impeachment motion against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the upcoming monsoon session after the three-member panel set up by the Supreme Court found credence in the allegations that wads of currency notes were found at his official residence when a fire broke out there on March 14. The report of the Supreme Court-appointed committee said several stacks of burnt notes, reportedly as high as 1.5 feet, were found scattered across the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. The committee said in its report that the source of the money could not be accounted for by Justice Varma, and he only gave a “flat denial” and alleged a conspiracy against him. “The factum of the burnt cash having been found in the storeroom was undeniably established, and, therefore, the burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the said cash by giving a plausible explanation, which he failed to do except projecting a case of flat denial and raising a plea of conspiracy,” it concluded, as reported by India Today. The storeroom, where the cash was found, was in “covert” and “active” control of Justice Varma and his family, it said. On the judge’s conspiracy charge, the panel concluded that no outsider could have entered the storeroom as it was kept locked. The report also mentioned that the presence of a liquor cabinet close to the switchboard intensified the blaze and that the judge’s staff tried to remove the burnt cash from the storeroom after the fire. ‘Sufficient substance in allegations against Justice Varma’ The committee concluded in its report that there was “sufficient substance” in the allegations against Justice Varma and that they were serious enough to call for his impeachment. “Keeping in view the direct and electronic evidence on record, this committee is formally of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations, and the misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma,” the report said. The then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, had asked Justice Varma to resign, but he refused, sources said. The CJI had then written to the president and the prime minister, recommending his impeachment after the in-house inquiry panel indicted Varma, though its findings were not made public, say reports.

The probe panel's report said that the source of the money could not be accounted for by Justice Varma, and he only gave a “flat denial” and alleged a conspiracy against him. The storeroom, where the cash was found, was in covert and active control of Justice Varma and his family, it said.

Cash row: Probe report indicts Justice Yashwant Varma, govt likely to bring impeachment motion

The supreme court of India questioned a petition alleging the forced deportation of 43 Rohingya refugees. The court cited lack of evidence and dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated.

Supreme Court dismisses Rohingya deportation claim as 'beautifully crafted story'

Indian President Droupadi Murmu questioned the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>, seeking opinion and consideration on 14 constitutional points over a month after the top court gave an order on April 8, setting a deadline for assent to bills by the President and Governors. The president said that the Constitution does not specify any such timeline.
Exercising her power under Article 143 (1), which is rarely used, President Murmu said that it appears that the questions of law raised by her are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to ask the opinion of the Supreme Court of India on them.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/colonel-sofiya-qureshi-who-co-led-operation-sindoor-briefing-was-once-lauded-by-supreme-court-9049044">Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who co-led Operation Sindoor briefing, was once lauded by Supreme Court</a>
<h2>What is Article 143 (1)?</h2>
Under Article 143 (1) of the Indian Constitution, the president can exercise their power to consult the Supreme Court.
According to the provision, &ldquo;If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.&rdquo;
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bitcoin-trading-in-india-is-a-refined-way-of-doing-hawala-business-supreme-court-9040543">Bitcoin trading in India is a refined way of doing Hawala business: Supreme Court</a>
<h2>Union government questions Supreme Court</h2>
The Supreme Court judgement, which was delivered by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in the case concerning the Tamil Nadu government and the governor, ruled that governors must act on bills within three months. It added that the President must do the same once a bill is referred. Following the verdict, the president invoked Article 143 (1) to clarify what the apex court believes are constitutional overreaches by the court.
President Murmu highlighted that Articles 200 and 201, which relate to the assent process by governors and the president, do not state any time limit. &ldquo;The exercise of constitutional discretion by governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, including federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers,&rdquo; she said.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/operation-sindoor-india-pak-news-a-sterling-success-president-murmu-lauds-valour-of-indian-armed-forces-9067794">'A sterling success': President Murmu lauds valour of Indian armed forces</a>
According to the Constitution, the governor can either grant assent ot return a bill, except money bills, for reconsideration by the assembly. If the bill is passed by the assembly again, the governor is bound to assent.
Article 201 does not fix any deadline for action when a bill is sent to the president for consideration. However, the Supreme Court ordered a three-month limit for the governor and the president to take action. According to the court, the governor must assent within a month if a bill is passed again by the state assembly.
Watch | India-Pakistan tensions: PM Modi briefs President Murmu on 'Operation Sindoor'
<iframe width="600" height="auto" style="width: 100%; aspect-ratio: 4/3;" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" class="external-video publive-iframes-block" src="https://cdn.thepublive.com/wion/static/kaltura_player/wion_video_player_iframe.html?thumbnail=wion/media/post_attachments/screenshot/0705_WION_MURMU_330PM/00000002.jpg&amp;videourl=https://vodakm.zeenews.com/vod/WION/0705_WION_MURMU_330PM.mp4/index.m3u8&amp;duration=372&amp;tags=pahalgam, india, j&amp;K, terror attack, operation sindoor, war" title="India-Pakistan tensions: PM Modi briefs President Murmu on 'Operation Sindoor' " id="PL_iframe_block-mape4kvd-9yvdb7jx-sm5zcmrg"></iframe>
President Murmu also objected to the court invoking Article 142, saying that 10 bills pending with the Tamil Nadu governor would be considered to have received assent.&nbsp;
&ldquo;The concept of a deemed assent of the president and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the powers of the president and the governor,&rdquo; she said.

President Murmu highlighted that Articles 200 and 201, which relate to the assent process by governors and the president, do not state any time limit. India news

Indian President Droupadi Murmu questioned the Supreme Court, seeking opinion and consideration on 14 constitutional points over a month after the top court gave an order on April 8, setting a deadline for assent to bills by the President and Governors. The president said that the Constitution does not specify any such timeline. Exercising her power under Article 143 (1), which is rarely used, President Murmu said that it appears that the questions of law raised by her are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to ask the opinion of the Supreme Court of India on them. Also read | Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who co-led Operation Sindoor briefing, was once lauded by Supreme Court What is Article 143 (1)? Under Article 143 (1) of the Indian Constitution, the president can exercise their power to consult the Supreme Court. According to the provision, “If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.” Also read | Bitcoin trading in India is a refined way of doing Hawala business: Supreme Court Union government questions Supreme Court The Supreme Court judgement, which was delivered by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in the case concerning the Tamil Nadu government and the governor, ruled that governors must act on bills within three months. It added that the President must do the same once a bill is referred. Following the verdict, the president invoked Article 143 (1) to clarify what the apex court believes are constitutional overreaches by the court. President Murmu highlighted that Articles 200 and 201, which relate to the assent process by governors and the president, do not state any time limit. “The exercise of constitutional discretion by governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, including federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers,” she said. Also read | 'A sterling success': President Murmu lauds valour of Indian armed forces According to the Constitution, the governor can either grant assent ot return a bill, except money bills, for reconsideration by the assembly. If the bill is passed by the assembly again, the governor is bound to assent. Article 201 does not fix any deadline for action when a bill is sent to the president for consideration. However, the Supreme Court ordered a three-month limit for the governor and the president to take action. According to the court, the governor must assent within a month if a bill is passed again by the state assembly. Watch | India-Pakistan tensions: PM Modi briefs President Murmu on 'Operation Sindoor' President Murmu also objected to the court invoking Article 142, saying that 10 bills pending with the Tamil Nadu governor would be considered to have received assent. “The concept of a deemed assent of the president and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the powers of the president and the governor,” she said.

Why did President Murmu invoke rarely used Article 143 (1), questioning Supreme Court?

India News | Colonel Sofiya Qureshi who was present in India's press briefing on Operation Sindoor was once praised by Supreme Court for her achievements

Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who co-led Operation Sindoor briefing, was once lauded by Supreme Court

Highlighting the lack of regulations for transactions in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin in the country, the Supreme Court has said that Bitcoin trading in India now is like a refined way of doing Hawala business. The top court lamented that the Centre has till now not come up with a clear regime on regulating virtual currency.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh made the remarks on Monday while hearing the bail application of one Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, who was arrested by the police for alleged illegal Bitcoin trade.
The bench said that while dealing with a case related to Bitcoin trade two years back, it had asked the Centre to apprise the court about the policy regime on the trade of virtual currency, but till now it has not received any response.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the accused, submitted that trading in Bitcoin is not illegal in India after the apex court quashed a circular of the Reserve Bank of India, and therefore his client was wrongly arrested. Justice Surya Kant told Rohatgi that though he personally does not understand much about Bitcoin, the court has been telling the Centre that if there is a regulatory regime, there will not be any problem.
Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/23268-in-bank-accounts-maruti-baleno-and-more-assets-of-supreme-court-judges-made-public-in-big-transparency-move-9039588">$23,266 in bank accounts, Maruti Baleno and more: Assets of Supreme Court judges made public in big transparency move</a> &ldquo;All I understand is that there are some genuine Bitcoin and some are fake Bitcoin,&rdquo; Justice Surya Jant said, and told Rohatgi, &ldquo;You see, trading in Bitcoin in India is like dealing with a refined way of Hawala business. There are no regulations at present.&rdquo;&nbsp; Rohatgi replied that he too does not understand much about the trade but highlighted that Bitcoin has enormous value, and one can walk into a showroom in a foreign country with just one bitcoin and buy a car. &ldquo;I checked on Sunday, the value of one Bitcoin was ₹82 lakh,&rdquo; Rohatgi said.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Gujarat government and the Enforcement Directorate, said they would like to file a detailed counter to the bail application as it was not about the bitcoin trade alone. The top court gave 10 days to the state and the ED to file their responses and listed it for hearing on May 19.
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/pakistan/pahalgam-terror-attack-what-pakistan-asked-for-at-unsc-meeting-and-did-not-get-9039055" target="_blank" rel="noopener">'Was LeT involved or not?&rsquo;: Pakistan faces tough questions at UNSC meeting over Pahalgam attack, council rejects &lsquo;false flag&rsquo; narrative</a> Bhatt has claimed that he was arrested by the police on August 14 last year, and since then he has been in custody. He has challenged the February 25 order of the Gujarat High Court denying him bail in the case. In January last year, the Centre informed the top court that it was yet to take a decision on a mechanism to regulate cryptocurrencies and effectively investigate related offences. On February 25, 2022, the top court asked the Centre to make its stand clear on whether cryptocurrency trade involving bitcoin or any other such currencies is legal in India or not. The top court was dealing with a case related to the quashing of multiple FIRs registered against an individual for allegedly duping investors across India by inducing them to trade in Bitcoin and assuring them of high returns.

India News: Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi replied that he too does not understand much about the trade but highlighted that Bitcoin has enormous value, and one can walk into a showroom in a foreign country with just one bitcoin and buy a car.

Highlighting the lack of regulations for transactions in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin in the country, the Supreme Court has said that Bitcoin trading in India now is like a refined way of doing Hawala business. The top court lamented that the Centre has till now not come up with a clear regime on regulating virtual currency. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh made the remarks on Monday while hearing the bail application of one Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, who was arrested by the police for alleged illegal Bitcoin trade. The bench said that while dealing with a case related to Bitcoin trade two years back, it had asked the Centre to apprise the court about the policy regime on the trade of virtual currency, but till now it has not received any response. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the accused, submitted that trading in Bitcoin is not illegal in India after the apex court quashed a circular of the Reserve Bank of India, and therefore his client was wrongly arrested. Justice Surya Kant told Rohatgi that though he personally does not understand much about Bitcoin, the court has been telling the Centre that if there is a regulatory regime, there will not be any problem. Also Read | $23,266 in bank accounts, Maruti Baleno and more: Assets of Supreme Court judges made public in big transparency move “All I understand is that there are some genuine Bitcoin and some are fake Bitcoin,” Justice Surya Jant said, and told Rohatgi, “You see, trading in Bitcoin in India is like dealing with a refined way of Hawala business. There are no regulations at present.” Rohatgi replied that he too does not understand much about the trade but highlighted that Bitcoin has enormous value, and one can walk into a showroom in a foreign country with just one bitcoin and buy a car. “I checked on Sunday, the value of one Bitcoin was ₹82 lakh,” Rohatgi said. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Gujarat government and the Enforcement Directorate, said they would like to file a detailed counter to the bail application as it was not about the bitcoin trade alone. The top court gave 10 days to the state and the ED to file their responses and listed it for hearing on May 19. Also Read | 'Was LeT involved or not?’: Pakistan faces tough questions at UNSC meeting over Pahalgam attack, council rejects ‘false flag’ narrative Bhatt has claimed that he was arrested by the police on August 14 last year, and since then he has been in custody. He has challenged the February 25 order of the Gujarat High Court denying him bail in the case. In January last year, the Centre informed the top court that it was yet to take a decision on a mechanism to regulate cryptocurrencies and effectively investigate related offences. On February 25, 2022, the top court asked the Centre to make its stand clear on whether cryptocurrency trade involving bitcoin or any other such currencies is legal in India or not. The top court was dealing with a case related to the quashing of multiple FIRs registered against an individual for allegedly duping investors across India by inducing them to trade in Bitcoin and assuring them of high returns.

Bitcoin trading in India is a refined way of doing Hawala business: Supreme Court

In a bid to enhance transparency, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/controversial-statements-by-indian-courts-on-sexual-abuse-cases-women-say-sensitisation-necessary-8964602" rel="dofollow">Supreme Court</a> on Monday uploaded statements of assets of as many as 21 of the 33 judges&nbsp;on its website, in accordance with a full-court decision to place the relevant details in the public domain. This document revealed a wide range of investments and movable assets of the Chief Justice of India and other judges.
The Supreme Court in a statement had said, "The full court of the Supreme Court of India has on April 1, 2025 decided that the statements of assets of the judges of this court shall be placed in the public domain by uploading the same on the website of this court. Statements of assets of judges already received are being uploaded. Statements of assets of other judges will be uploaded as and when the current statement of assets is received."
<h2>CJI Sanjiv Khanna</h2>
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has Rs 55.75 lakh (66,062 USD) in fixed deposits and bank accounts, over Rs 1.77 crore (2,09,740 USD) in his General Provident Fund (GPF) and Rs 1.06 crore (1,25,607 USD) in Public Provident Fund (PPF). He also has an LIC policy with an annual premium under Rs 29,625 (351 USD) and shares valued at about Rs 14,000 (165 USD)
Further, in a separate declaration, he reported additional bank and fixed deposit holdings amounting to roughly Rs 23.87 lakh (28,288 USD).&nbsp;&nbsp;A Public Provident Fund (PPF) valued at Rs 64.51 lakh (76,450 USD), and investments in shares and mutual funds totalling Rs 1.39 crore (1,64,710 USD) with his spouse/ jointly with family.
In terms of movable assets, CJI Khanna owns 250 grams of gold and 2 kilograms of silver, primarily acquired as gifts or through inheritance. He also owns a Maruti Swift car purchased in 2015. Additionally, he possesses 700 grams of gold, 5 kilograms of silver, and some diamond, pearl, and ruby jewellery pieces, largely received as family heirlooms or on special occasions.
CJI Khanna also has a two-bedroom DDA flat in South&nbsp;Delhi&nbsp;besides a four-bedroom flat in the Commonwealth Games Village, apart from 56 per cent share in a four-bedroom flat in Gurugram with his daughter holding the remaining 44 per cent, apart from a share in an ancestral house, dating from before Partition, in Himachal Pradesh.
Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/pakistan/pahalgam-terror-attack-what-pakistan-asked-for-at-unsc-meeting-and-did-not-get-9039055">'Was LeT involved or not?&rsquo;: Pakistan faces tough questions at UNSC meeting over Pahalgam attack, council rejects &lsquo;false flag&rsquo; narrative</a>
<h2>Justice BR Gavai</h2>
Justice BR Gavai who will take over as CJI on May 14, has Rs 19.63 lakh (23,266USD) in bank accounts and Rs 6.59 lakh (7,810 USD) in his PPF account. He has inherited a house in Amravati, Maharashtra, besides residential apartments in Mumbai and Delhi. He has inherited agricultural land in Amravati and Nagpur, according to the list. He has also declared liabilities to the tune of Rs 1.3 crore (1,54,081USD). In terms of movable assets, he declared gold ornaments and jewellery worth Rs 5,25,859 (6,233 USD)
Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/earth-will-be-incinerated-elon-musk-calls-mars-life-insurance-for-humanity-issues-warning-9039334">'Earth will be incinerated': Elon Musk calls Mars 'life insurance for humanity', issues warning</a>
<h2>Justice KV Vishwanathan: Richest SC judge</h2>
Justice KV Vishwanathan, who&nbsp;was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court in May 2023, has declared investments across shares, mutual funds, fixed deposits, and related instruments totalling over Rs 120.96 crore, with an additional Rs 6.43 crore (including inherited shares) and Rs 1.31 crore in other declarations. He also holds USD 500,000 twice under the RBI's Liberalised Remittance Scheme. His movable assets include multiple jewellery holdings totalling approximately 1,450 grams (gifts and inheritance) and two Toyota cars - a Hybrid Camry and an Altis&mdash;purchased in 2017.
<h2>Justice AS Oka</h2>
Justice AS Oka, who is due for retirement on May 24, has among his assets Rs 92.35 lakh in PPF, Rs 21.76 lakh in FD, a 2022 model Maruti Baleno car and a car loan of Rs 5.1 lakh. In terms of immovable property, he declared two residential flats in Maharashtra and an agricultural land in Thane.
Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/pakistan/pahalgam-terror-attack-indo-pak-war-cyril-radcliffe-drew-borders-that-led-to-partition-and-four-india-pakistan-wars-9038930">This man divided India for 40,000 rupees and caused all Indo-Pak wars | Story of the most unscientific border map</a>
<h2>Justice Vikram Nath</h2>
Justice Vikram Nath has declared a 2-BHK apartment in Noida, a bungalow in Allahabad, and inherited agricultural land in Uttar Pradesh. He also has Rs 1.5 crore in investments. He does not have any movable property or loan on his name. However, his wife or family has 1000 gms of gold, 1500 gms of silver and a Volkswagen Polo - 2016 model registered to their names.
<h3>Top Court's transparency process</h3>
The top court has also placed the complete process of appointments to the high courts and the Supreme Court, including the role assigned to the High Court Collegium, the role of and inputs received from the state governments, Union of India and consideration by the Supreme Court Collegium, on its website for the knowledge and awareness of the public.

India News | In a bid to enhance transparency, the Supreme Court on Monday uploaded statements of assets of as many as 21 of the 33 judges on its website

In a bid to enhance transparency, the Supreme Court on Monday uploaded statements of assets of as many as 21 of the 33 judges on its website, in accordance with a full-court decision to place the relevant details in the public domain. This document revealed a wide range of investments and movable assets of the Chief Justice of India and other judges. The Supreme Court in a statement had said, "The full court of the Supreme Court of India has on April 1, 2025 decided that the statements of assets of the judges of this court shall be placed in the public domain by uploading the same on the website of this court. Statements of assets of judges already received are being uploaded. Statements of assets of other judges will be uploaded as and when the current statement of assets is received." CJI Sanjiv Khanna Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has Rs 55.75 lakh (66,062 USD) in fixed deposits and bank accounts, over Rs 1.77 crore (2,09,740 USD) in his General Provident Fund (GPF) and Rs 1.06 crore (1,25,607 USD) in Public Provident Fund (PPF). He also has an LIC policy with an annual premium under Rs 29,625 (351 USD) and shares valued at about Rs 14,000 (165 USD) Further, in a separate declaration, he reported additional bank and fixed deposit holdings amounting to roughly Rs 23.87 lakh (28,288 USD). A Public Provident Fund (PPF) valued at Rs 64.51 lakh (76,450 USD), and investments in shares and mutual funds totalling Rs 1.39 crore (1,64,710 USD) with his spouse/ jointly with family. In terms of movable assets, CJI Khanna owns 250 grams of gold and 2 kilograms of silver, primarily acquired as gifts or through inheritance. He also owns a Maruti Swift car purchased in 2015. Additionally, he possesses 700 grams of gold, 5 kilograms of silver, and some diamond, pearl, and ruby jewellery pieces, largely received as family heirlooms or on special occasions. CJI Khanna also has a two-bedroom DDA flat in South Delhi besides a four-bedroom flat in the Commonwealth Games Village, apart from 56 per cent share in a four-bedroom flat in Gurugram with his daughter holding the remaining 44 per cent, apart from a share in an ancestral house, dating from before Partition, in Himachal Pradesh. Read More | 'Was LeT involved or not?’: Pakistan faces tough questions at UNSC meeting over Pahalgam attack, council rejects ‘false flag’ narrative Justice BR Gavai Justice BR Gavai who will take over as CJI on May 14, has Rs 19.63 lakh (23,266USD) in bank accounts and Rs 6.59 lakh (7,810 USD) in his PPF account. He has inherited a house in Amravati, Maharashtra, besides residential apartments in Mumbai and Delhi. He has inherited agricultural land in Amravati and Nagpur, according to the list. He has also declared liabilities to the tune of Rs 1.3 crore (1,54,081USD). In terms of movable assets, he declared gold ornaments and jewellery worth Rs 5,25,859 (6,233 USD) Read More | 'Earth will be incinerated': Elon Musk calls Mars 'life insurance for humanity', issues warning Justice KV Vishwanathan: Richest SC judge Justice KV Vishwanathan, who was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court in May 2023, has declared investments across shares, mutual funds, fixed deposits, and related instruments totalling over Rs 120.96 crore, with an additional Rs 6.43 crore (including inherited shares) and Rs 1.31 crore in other declarations. He also holds USD 500,000 twice under the RBI's Liberalised Remittance Scheme. His movable assets include multiple jewellery holdings totalling approximately 1,450 grams (gifts and inheritance) and two Toyota cars - a Hybrid Camry and an Altis—purchased in 2017. Justice AS Oka Justice AS Oka, who is due for retirement on May 24, has among his assets Rs 92.35 lakh in PPF, Rs 21.76 lakh in FD, a 2022 model Maruti Baleno car and a car loan of Rs 5.1 lakh. In terms of immovable property, he declared two residential flats in Maharashtra and an agricultural land in Thane. Read More | This man divided India for 40,000 rupees and caused all Indo-Pak wars | Story of the most unscientific border map Justice Vikram Nath Justice Vikram Nath has declared a 2-BHK apartment in Noida, a bungalow in Allahabad, and inherited agricultural land in Uttar Pradesh. He also has Rs 1.5 crore in investments. He does not have any movable property or loan on his name. However, his wife or family has 1000 gms of gold, 1500 gms of silver and a Volkswagen Polo - 2016 model registered to their names. Top Court's transparency process The top court has also placed the complete process of appointments to the high courts and the Supreme Court, including the role assigned to the High Court Collegium, the role of and inputs received from the state governments, Union of India and consideration by the Supreme Court Collegium, on its website for the knowledge and awareness of the public.

$23,266 in bank accounts, Maruti Baleno and more: Assets of Supreme Court judges made public in big transparency move

In a bid to enhance transparency in the judiciary the Supreme Court of India has uploaded the full process of appointing judges to both the high courts and the Supreme Court on its website.

India: Supreme Court publishes full details of judicial appointments

The three-member committee, which was set up to probe allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma after a huge pile of cash was recovered from the premises within his official residence, has submitted its report on the row to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. Justice Varma landed in the controversy after the discovery of a huge pile of burnt cash in the storeroom attached to his official bungalow in the national capital after the fire brigade had gone there to douse a blaze on March 14.&nbsp; After the row and several protests by lawyers, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he took oath as a judge in April. However, as per the Supreme Court&rsquo;s directions, he will not be assigned any judicial work.
&ldquo;The three-member Committee consisting of Mr Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Mr Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Ms Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, constituted for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Mr Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge, has submitted its report dated 03.05.2025 to the Chief Justice of India on 04.05.2025,&rdquo; the Supreme Court said in a press release issued on Monday (May 5).
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-you-all-desire-will-happen-assures-defence-minister-rajnath-singh-on-pahalgam-retaliation-9032695" rel="noopener" target="_blank">&lsquo;What you all desire will happen,&rsquo; assures defence minister Rajnath Singh on Pahalgam retaliation</a> While Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing, CJI Khanna constituted a 3-member committee in the last week of March to conduct an inquiry into the cash recovery episode.&nbsp; The investigators collected burnt notes from the scene of the fire, got videos of the firefighting tested at forensic labs, and asked Justice Varma and his staff to preserve their phones and call records. All judicial work was taken away from Justice Varma, who was the second senior-most judge of the Delhi High Court, before he was sent to Allahabad.&nbsp;
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-a-failed-state-gen-munirs-remarks-nonsensical-oppn-leader-asaduddin-owaisi-9032050" rel="noopener" target="_blank">&lsquo;Pakistan a failed state, Gen Munir&rsquo;s remarks nonsensical&rsquo;: Oppn leader Asaduddin Owaisi</a> The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, recommended to the Centre to repatriate Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court. He was shifted to Uttar Pradesh despite very strong opposition by the bar associations in Lucknow and Allahabad. In April, the Supreme Court rejected a petition seeking an FIR against Justice Varma, calling the plea &ldquo;premature&rdquo;.

India News: While Justice Yashwant Varma denied any wrongdoing, CJI Sanjeev Khanna constituted a 3-member committee in the last week of March to conduct an inquiry into the cash recovery episode.

The three-member committee, which was set up to probe allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma after a huge pile of cash was recovered from the premises within his official residence, has submitted its report on the row to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. Justice Varma landed in the controversy after the discovery of a huge pile of burnt cash in the storeroom attached to his official bungalow in the national capital after the fire brigade had gone there to douse a blaze on March 14. After the row and several protests by lawyers, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he took oath as a judge in April. However, as per the Supreme Court’s directions, he will not be assigned any judicial work. “The three-member Committee consisting of Mr Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Mr Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Ms Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, constituted for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Mr Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge, has submitted its report dated 03.05.2025 to the Chief Justice of India on 04.05.2025,” the Supreme Court said in a press release issued on Monday (May 5). Also Read | ‘What you all desire will happen,’ assures defence minister Rajnath Singh on Pahalgam retaliation While Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing, CJI Khanna constituted a 3-member committee in the last week of March to conduct an inquiry into the cash recovery episode. The investigators collected burnt notes from the scene of the fire, got videos of the firefighting tested at forensic labs, and asked Justice Varma and his staff to preserve their phones and call records. All judicial work was taken away from Justice Varma, who was the second senior-most judge of the Delhi High Court, before he was sent to Allahabad. Also Read | ‘Pakistan a failed state, Gen Munir’s remarks nonsensical’: Oppn leader Asaduddin Owaisi The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, recommended to the Centre to repatriate Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court. He was shifted to Uttar Pradesh despite very strong opposition by the bar associations in Lucknow and Allahabad. In April, the Supreme Court rejected a petition seeking an FIR against Justice Varma, calling the plea “premature”.

Cash row: SC-appointed probe panel submits report on allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 1) refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial probe in the Phalagam terror attack that killed 26 people on April 22. The top court rebuked the petitioners, calling the PIL an "irresponsible petition" during a sensitive time in the country and asked if they intend to "demoralise" the security forces. They further said that it is a time when every Indian has joined hands to fight against terrorism.
"Be responsible before filing such a PIL. You have some duty towards the country also. This is the way you are trying to demoralise the forces in this hour of crisis and juncture? You are asking a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate. Since when have retired High Court and Supreme Court judges become experts in investigation? Tell us, since when have we acquired this expertise in investigation? We only decide disputes. Don't ask us to pass an order", said Justice Surya Kant.&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pahalgam-terror-attack-live-updates-indian-army-pakistan-army-pm-modi-subrahmanyam-jaishankar-shehbaz-sharif-9020474">Track all updates on Pahalgam Terror Attack&nbsp;</a>
The judge further added, "This is not the time. This is the crucial hour when each and every citizen of this country has joined hands to fight this terrorism...don't make any prayer which can demoralise our forces...it is not acceptable to us. Look at the sensitivity of the issue".
Earlier, the top court had condemned the Pahalgam attack as "an affront to the values of humanity". In a resolution, it said, "This diabolical act of mindless violence has shaken the conscience of all and is a stark reminder of the brutality and inhumanity that terrorism unleashes."
Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/hania-aamir-mahira-khan-and-other-pakistani-celebrities-instagram-accounts-blocked-in-india-after-pahalgam-attack-9019931">#Banned! Hania Aamir, Mahira Khan and other Pakistani Celebrities&rsquo; Instagram accounts blocked in India after Pahalgam attack</a>
<h2>What did the petitioners want?</h2>
The PIL was filed by Kashmiri local Junaid Mohd Junaid and two advocates-Fatesh Kumar Sahu and Vicky Kumar. In the plea, the petitioners prayed that an action plan be prepared by the Centre, Jammu and Kashmir administration, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for the safety of tourists.
Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cowardly-act-of-terrorism-indian-origin-uk-mp-priti-patel-condemns-pahalgam-terror-attack-9022026">'Cowardly act of terrorism': Indian-origin UK MP Priti Patel condemns Pahalgam terror attack</a>
The petitioners also sought directions for the Press Council of India to ensure that only "fair and true" reporting is allowed in connection with the attack, to maintain peace in the society. They also appealed to the top court to ensure the safety of J&amp;K students studying outside the UT. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh allowed withdrawal of the petition, and allowed the petitioners to approach the High Court with respect to the cause of J&amp;K students studying outside the UT.
Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/rubio-speaks-to-jaishankar-and-pak-pm-shehbaz-sharif-tells-islamabad-to-cooperate-in-unconscionable-pahalgam-attack-and-condemn-it-9020448">Rubio speaks to Jaishankar and Pak PM Shehbaz Sharif, tells Islamabad to cooperate in Pahalgam attack probe and condemn it</a>
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 1) refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial probe in the Phalagam terror attack that killed 26 people on April 22.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 1) refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial probe in the Phalagam terror attack that killed 26 people on April 22. The top court rebuked the petitioners, calling the PIL an "irresponsible petition" during a sensitive time in the country and asked if they intend to "demoralise" the security forces. They further said that it is a time when every Indian has joined hands to fight against terrorism. "Be responsible before filing such a PIL. You have some duty towards the country also. This is the way you are trying to demoralise the forces in this hour of crisis and juncture? You are asking a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate. Since when have retired High Court and Supreme Court judges become experts in investigation? Tell us, since when have we acquired this expertise in investigation? We only decide disputes. Don't ask us to pass an order", said Justice Surya Kant. Track all updates on Pahalgam Terror Attack The judge further added, "This is not the time. This is the crucial hour when each and every citizen of this country has joined hands to fight this terrorism...don't make any prayer which can demoralise our forces...it is not acceptable to us. Look at the sensitivity of the issue". Earlier, the top court had condemned the Pahalgam attack as "an affront to the values of humanity". In a resolution, it said, "This diabolical act of mindless violence has shaken the conscience of all and is a stark reminder of the brutality and inhumanity that terrorism unleashes." Read More | #Banned! Hania Aamir, Mahira Khan and other Pakistani Celebrities’ Instagram accounts blocked in India after Pahalgam attack What did the petitioners want? The PIL was filed by Kashmiri local Junaid Mohd Junaid and two advocates-Fatesh Kumar Sahu and Vicky Kumar. In the plea, the petitioners prayed that an action plan be prepared by the Centre, Jammu and Kashmir administration, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for the safety of tourists. Read More | 'Cowardly act of terrorism': Indian-origin UK MP Priti Patel condemns Pahalgam terror attack The petitioners also sought directions for the Press Council of India to ensure that only "fair and true" reporting is allowed in connection with the attack, to maintain peace in the society. They also appealed to the top court to ensure the safety of J&K students studying outside the UT. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh allowed withdrawal of the petition, and allowed the petitioners to approach the High Court with respect to the cause of J&K students studying outside the UT. Read More | Rubio speaks to Jaishankar and Pak PM Shehbaz Sharif, tells Islamabad to cooperate in Pahalgam attack probe and condemn it

'You want to demoralise our forces?': Supreme Court rebukes petitioners seeking judicial probe into Pahalgam attack

The BJP dug out an old video and shared a clip in response to the Congress party&rsquo;s criticism of party MP Nishikant Dubey over his remarks targeting the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India.
The BJP posted an old video of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi questioning judicial overreach after the Congress had been highly critical of BJP MP Nishikant Dubey&rsquo;s remarks against the Supreme Court. Posting a part of the former PM&rsquo;s interview, BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya said, &ldquo;Indira Gandhi - the Congress must know its own past.&rdquo;
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-questions-ecs-credibility-at-boston-event-bjp-slams-him-for-defaming-india-8986734" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rahul Gandhi questions EC&rsquo;s credibility at Boston event, BJP slams him for defaming India</a> In the clip, Gandhi is seen questioning the setting up of the Justice Shah Commission to probe the excesses and malpractices during the Emergency period. &ldquo;How does Mr. Shah know what is happening in the political world? What are the forces at work which want to destroy a developing economy? Is a judge competent to decide that? Then why have democracy? Why have elections? Why have political people in power?&rdquo; Gandhi says.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet publive-iframes-block publive-Twitter-block" contenteditable="false" width="600" height="400" id="PL_blockquote_block-m9relk0g-4ale1xpp-77ujt5c9">
Indira Gandhi &mdash; the Congress must know its own past. <a href="https://t.co/B9GjOE3ghk">pic.twitter.com/B9GjOE3ghk</a>
&mdash; Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) <a href="https://twitter.com/amitmalviya/status/1914161277163000268?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
 The &ldquo;Mr Shah&rdquo; referred to by Gandhi in her statement is former Chief Justice of India Jayantilal Chotilal Shah. The Janata Party government had set up the Shah Commission to look into the allegations of abuse of power and subversion of the law during the Emergency imposed by Gandhi. The Shah Commission report revealed how political and civil liberties were quashed during the 21 months of the Emergency.
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-detonates-hydrogen-bomb-creates-devastating-effect-without-using-nuclear-material-8986348" target="_blank" rel="noopener">China detonates hydrogen bomb, creates devastating effect without using nuclear material</a>
Dubey had criticised the Supreme Court after the top court had, in an order, set a timeline for the president to take decisions on bills sent by governors and put a stay on certain provisions of the Waqf law.
The Jharkhand MP had also targeted Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and held him responsible for &ldquo;all civil wars in the country&rdquo;. In a post on X, Dubey also said if the Supreme Court were to make the laws, there would be no need for the Parliament, and it should be shut down.
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-am-i-to-judge-stance-on-lgbtq-surrogacy-among-most-contentious-moments-of-pope-francis-papacy-8985804" rel="noopener" target="_blank">&lsquo;Who am I to judge&rsquo;: Stance on LGBTQ, surrogacy among most contentious moments of Pope Francis&rsquo; papacy</a>

India News: The Janata Party government had set up the Shah Commission to look into the allegations of abuse of power and subversion of the law during the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi.

The BJP dug out an old video and shared a clip in response to the Congress party’s criticism of party MP Nishikant Dubey over his remarks targeting the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India. The BJP posted an old video of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi questioning judicial overreach after the Congress had been highly critical of BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s remarks against the Supreme Court. Posting a part of the former PM’s interview, BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya said, “Indira Gandhi - the Congress must know its own past.” Also Read | Rahul Gandhi questions EC’s credibility at Boston event, BJP slams him for defaming India In the clip, Gandhi is seen questioning the setting up of the Justice Shah Commission to probe the excesses and malpractices during the Emergency period. “How does Mr. Shah know what is happening in the political world? What are the forces at work which want to destroy a developing economy? Is a judge competent to decide that? Then why have democracy? Why have elections? Why have political people in power?” Gandhi says. Indira Gandhi — the Congress must know its own past. pic.twitter.com/B9GjOE3ghk — Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) April 21, 2025 The “Mr Shah” referred to by Gandhi in her statement is former Chief Justice of India Jayantilal Chotilal Shah. The Janata Party government had set up the Shah Commission to look into the allegations of abuse of power and subversion of the law during the Emergency imposed by Gandhi. The Shah Commission report revealed how political and civil liberties were quashed during the 21 months of the Emergency. Also Read | China detonates hydrogen bomb, creates devastating effect without using nuclear material Dubey had criticised the Supreme Court after the top court had, in an order, set a timeline for the president to take decisions on bills sent by governors and put a stay on certain provisions of the Waqf law. The Jharkhand MP had also targeted Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and held him responsible for “all civil wars in the country”. In a post on X, Dubey also said if the Supreme Court were to make the laws, there would be no need for the Parliament, and it should be shut down. Also Read | ‘Who am I to judge’: Stance on LGBTQ, surrogacy among most contentious moments of Pope Francis’ papacy

BJP shares old clip of Indira Gandhi criticising judiciary amid row over MP’s remarks on SC

In a pretty scathing criticism the Indian vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar has issued a sharp rebuke to the judiciary saying that India cannot have a situation where the court directs the president. Now Dhankhar's criticism comes in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that sets a 3-month timeline for the president to decide on bills referred by the governors of the states. Watch in for more details!

Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar Condemns Supreme Court's Deadline To President

The Supreme Court of India is hearing a batch of petitions challenging key provisions of the newly enacted Waqf law. While petitioners argue the law violates fundamental rights, the Centre maintains it's focused on property administration. The top court is now weighing an interim stay on controversial clauses. Watch this report to know more!

Supreme Court Bars Non-Muslim Appointments To Waqf Bodies

Supreme Court of India proposes interim stay on part of Waqf Act

In a landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court has stated that the legal definition of "woman" refers to biological sex, effectively excluding trans women from certain legal protections. The decision has sparked intense debate over equal rights, gender identity, and legal recognition in the UK.

UK Supreme Court rules 'woman' defined by biological sex

Britain’s highest court has declared that transgender women are not legally women in a landmark judgement on Wednesday (Apr 16). Watch in for more details!

UK supreme court backs 'biological' definition of woman

The Supreme Court of India is set to hear a batch of 10 petitions challenging the newly enacted Waqf law. Petitioners claim the legislation violates fundamental rights, while the Centre argues it pertains solely to property management, not religion. A three-judge bench will take up the matter. Watch this report to know more!

India's Supreme Court hears petitions on Waqf (Amendment) Act

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday expressed its intention to issue an interim order granting a stay on some parts of the amended Waqf law, but put it on hold at the last minute after the Central government and the states requested more time to furnish their arguments on the three points raised by the court.&nbsp; The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan, was hearing a bunch of over 70 petitions challenging the Waqf Act. The bench earlier considered referring the pleas to one high court but later heard a battery of senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre. &ldquo;Normally we don&rsquo;t pass such interim orders, but this is an exception,&rdquo; said Justice Khanna. At this point, the centre and the states objected against an interim order and sought more time. The bench will hear the matter again at 2 pm on Thursday (April 17). CJI Khanna also raised concerns over the way some properties have been classified as Waqf. &ldquo;We have been told the Delhi high court building is on Waqf land, Oberoi Hotel is on Waqf land&hellip; We are not saying all Waqf-by-user properties are wrongly registered, but there are some genuine areas of concern too,&rdquo; he observed.
During the hearing, the judges raised three points, indicating their intention to pass an interim order and putting some provisions of the amended law on hold.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bengal-violence-families-recall-murshidabad-horror-say-we-have-become-refugees-in-our-own-land-8965406">Bengal violence: Families recall Murshidabad horror, say, &lsquo;We have become refugees in our own land&rsquo;</a>
The court&rsquo;s three concerns were: the validity of &lsquo;Waqf by user&rsquo; properties declared earlier by court decrees which now may become void; having non-Muslims as majority members in Waqf Council; and pending enquiry by the collector on disputed Waqf property, the declaration that the same will not be treated as Waqf property.
&ldquo;The properties declared by courts as waqfs should not be de-notified as waqfs, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed, while the court is hearing the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025,&rdquo; the bench said. The top court went on, &ldquo;All Members of the Waqf boards and central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.&rdquo;
The apex court said when a public trust was declared to be a waqf 100 or 200 years ago, it couldn&rsquo;t suddenly be taken over by the waqf board and declared otherwise. &ldquo;You cannot rewrite the past,&rdquo; the bench said.
<h2>Waqf by user&nbsp;</h2>
Sibal mentioned &lsquo;Waqf by user&rsquo;&mdash;a provision under which a property is treated as Waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes, even without formal documentation. The new law adds an exemption: this won&rsquo;t apply to properties that are in dispute or are government land.
Sibal said that &lsquo;Waqf by user&rsquo; is an integral part of Islam. &ldquo;The problem is, if a waqf was created 3,000 years ago, they will ask for the deed,&rdquo; he said. The CJI asked SG Mehta to focus on the &lsquo;Waqf by user&rsquo; provisions in the new law. &ldquo;Are you saying that if a &lsquo;Waqf by user&rsquo; was established by a (court) judgment or otherwise, today it stands void?&rdquo;&nbsp; He mentioned that many mosques part of Waqf were built in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries and it is impossible to present documents for them.
The court then asked, &ldquo;How will you register such Waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment, order or decree as void,&rdquo; the bench said.
<h2>&lsquo;Will Muslims be on Hindu Boards? Say it openly&rsquo;: SC to Centre</h2>
The court then flagged the provision to include non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council and asked the government if it would allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards.
The CJI asked: &ldquo;Mr Mehta, are you saying you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly&rdquo;.
The Chief Justice, however, noted that the positive points in the law must be highlighted.&nbsp;
The Centre recently notified the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which got the assent of President Droupadi Murmu on April 5 after its passage in both houses of Parliament. Among those who challenged the law are leaders of the opposition parties including the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, DMK, CPI and BJP ally Janata Dal United. Religious organisations and NGOs like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board have also filed their objections.&nbsp;
Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-develops-star-wars-style-laser-weapon-to-destroy-drones-missiles-joins-elite-list-watch-8958583">India develops &lsquo;Star Wars&rsquo;-style laser weapon to destroy drones, missiles, joins elite list | WATCH</a>
The Centre, on April 8, filed a caveat in the Supreme Court and sought a hearing before any order was passed in the matter. A caveat is filed by a party to ensure that no orders are passed without hearing it.
After the conclusion of hearing, CJI Khanna expressed concern over the violence that has broken out in West Bengal against the amendments to Waqf Act. &ldquo;One thing is very disturbing is the violence that is taking place. If the matter is pending here it should not happen,&rdquo; the CJI said.

India News: During the hearing, the Supreme Court judges raised three points, indicating their intention to pass an interim order and putting some provisions of the amended law on hold.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday expressed its intention to issue an interim order granting a stay on some parts of the amended Waqf law, but put it on hold at the last minute after the Central government and the states requested more time to furnish their arguments on the three points raised by the court. The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan, was hearing a bunch of over 70 petitions challenging the Waqf Act. The bench earlier considered referring the pleas to one high court but later heard a battery of senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre. “Normally we don’t pass such interim orders, but this is an exception,” said Justice Khanna. At this point, the centre and the states objected against an interim order and sought more time. The bench will hear the matter again at 2 pm on Thursday (April 17). CJI Khanna also raised concerns over the way some properties have been classified as Waqf. “We have been told the Delhi high court building is on Waqf land, Oberoi Hotel is on Waqf land… We are not saying all Waqf-by-user properties are wrongly registered, but there are some genuine areas of concern too,” he observed. During the hearing, the judges raised three points, indicating their intention to pass an interim order and putting some provisions of the amended law on hold. Also read | Bengal violence: Families recall Murshidabad horror, say, ‘We have become refugees in our own land’ The court’s three concerns were: the validity of ‘Waqf by user’ properties declared earlier by court decrees which now may become void; having non-Muslims as majority members in Waqf Council; and pending enquiry by the collector on disputed Waqf property, the declaration that the same will not be treated as Waqf property. “The properties declared by courts as waqfs should not be de-notified as waqfs, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed, while the court is hearing the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025,” the bench said. The top court went on, “All Members of the Waqf boards and central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.” The apex court said when a public trust was declared to be a waqf 100 or 200 years ago, it couldn’t suddenly be taken over by the waqf board and declared otherwise. “You cannot rewrite the past,” the bench said. Waqf by user Sibal mentioned ‘Waqf by user’—a provision under which a property is treated as Waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes, even without formal documentation. The new law adds an exemption: this won’t apply to properties that are in dispute or are government land. Sibal said that ‘Waqf by user’ is an integral part of Islam. “The problem is, if a waqf was created 3,000 years ago, they will ask for the deed,” he said. The CJI asked SG Mehta to focus on the ‘Waqf by user’ provisions in the new law. “Are you saying that if a ‘Waqf by user’ was established by a (court) judgment or otherwise, today it stands void?” He mentioned that many mosques part of Waqf were built in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries and it is impossible to present documents for them. The court then asked, “How will you register such Waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment, order or decree as void,” the bench said. ‘Will Muslims be on Hindu Boards? Say it openly’: SC to Centre The court then flagged the provision to include non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council and asked the government if it would allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards. The CJI asked: “Mr Mehta, are you saying you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly”. The Chief Justice, however, noted that the positive points in the law must be highlighted. The Centre recently notified the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which got the assent of President Droupadi Murmu on April 5 after its passage in both houses of Parliament. Among those who challenged the law are leaders of the opposition parties including the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, DMK, CPI and BJP ally Janata Dal United. Religious organisations and NGOs like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board have also filed their objections. Also Read | India develops ‘Star Wars’-style laser weapon to destroy drones, missiles, joins elite list | WATCH The Centre, on April 8, filed a caveat in the Supreme Court and sought a hearing before any order was passed in the matter. A caveat is filed by a party to ensure that no orders are passed without hearing it. After the conclusion of hearing, CJI Khanna expressed concern over the violence that has broken out in West Bengal against the amendments to Waqf Act. “One thing is very disturbing is the violence that is taking place. If the matter is pending here it should not happen,” the CJI said.

SC withholds order for interim stay on parts of Waqf Act after Centre, states seek time

Britain&rsquo;s highest court has declared that transgender women are not legally women in a landmark judgement on Wednesday (Apr 16).
The United Kingdom&rsquo;s Supreme Court ruled that a woman is defined by &ldquo;biological sex&rdquo; under the equality legislation. It noted that trans individuals would not be disadvantaged by the significant decision that could impact sex-based rights across Scotland, England and Wales.&nbsp;
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/army-called-in-uk-to-clear-trash-birmingham-declares-major-incident-as-waste-crisis-escalates-8960980">Army called in UK to clear trash? Birmingham declares 'major incident' as waste crisis escalates</a>
The judgment related to whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is protected as a woman under the Equality Act. The verdict marks the end of a long-running legal battle.
The top court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which argued that sex-based protections should only apply to people who are born female. It challenged guidance issued by the Scottish government that said a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate was legally a woman. It had accompanied a 2018 law aimed at increasing the proportion of women on public sector boards.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/former-uk-minister-says-bangladesh-arrest-warrant-politically-motivated-smear-campaign-8962042">Former UK minister says Bangladesh arrest warrant &lsquo;politically motivated smear campaign&rsquo;</a>
The Supreme Court&rsquo;s ruling in favour of For Women Scotland came following an appeal last November. The group had lost in the Scottish courts.
<h2>What did the court say?</h2>
&ldquo;The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms &lsquo;women&rsquo; and &lsquo;sex&rsquo; in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,&rdquo; Deputy President of the Supreme Court Patrick Hodge said.
&ldquo;But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another - it is not,&rdquo; he added.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/why-uk-passed-emergency-law-to-save-its-last-virgin-steel-plant-the-british-steel-bill-explained-8955843">Why UK passed emergency law to save its last virgin steel plant? The British Steel Bill: Explained</a>
Scottish legal critics said that its definition could affect single-sex services for women like refuges, hospital wards, and sports.
However, transgender campaigners had highlighted that if the court ruled in favour of For Women Scotland, it could lead to discrimination against those with gender recognition certificates, especially regarding employment issues.
Watch | UK wildfires: 24,500 hectares of land scorched this year, as per satellite data
<iframe width="600" height="auto" style="width: 100%; aspect-ratio: 4/3;" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" class="external-video publive-iframes-block" src="https://cdn.thepublive.com/wion/static/kaltura_player/wion_video_player_iframe.html?thumbnail=wion/media/post_attachments/screenshot/1504_UK_1230PM/00000002.jpg&amp;videourl=https://vodakm.zeenews.com/vod/WION/1504_UK_1230PM.mp4/index.m3u8&amp;duration=107&amp;tags=uk, wildfires, satellite data" title="UK wildfires: 24,500 hectares of land scorched this year, as per satellite data" id="PL_iframe_block-m9jxtxl6-dlo3yidx-1ngcc6sn"></iframe>
&ldquo;The correct interpretation of the EA (Equality Act) as referring to biological sex does not cause disadvantage to trans people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate,&rdquo; Hodge said.
&ldquo;Trans people have the rights which attach to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.&rdquo;

The court noted that trans individuals would not be disadvantaged by the significant decision that could impact sex-based rights across Scotland, England and Wales. World

Britain’s highest court has declared that transgender women are not legally women in a landmark judgement on Wednesday (Apr 16). The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court ruled that a woman is defined by “biological sex” under the equality legislation. It noted that trans individuals would not be disadvantaged by the significant decision that could impact sex-based rights across Scotland, England and Wales. Also read | Army called in UK to clear trash? Birmingham declares 'major incident' as waste crisis escalates The judgment related to whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is protected as a woman under the Equality Act. The verdict marks the end of a long-running legal battle. The top court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which argued that sex-based protections should only apply to people who are born female. It challenged guidance issued by the Scottish government that said a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate was legally a woman. It had accompanied a 2018 law aimed at increasing the proportion of women on public sector boards. Also read | Former UK minister says Bangladesh arrest warrant ‘politically motivated smear campaign’ The Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of For Women Scotland came following an appeal last November. The group had lost in the Scottish courts. What did the court say? “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘women’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” Deputy President of the Supreme Court Patrick Hodge said. “But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another - it is not,” he added. Also read | Why UK passed emergency law to save its last virgin steel plant? The British Steel Bill: Explained Scottish legal critics said that its definition could affect single-sex services for women like refuges, hospital wards, and sports. However, transgender campaigners had highlighted that if the court ruled in favour of For Women Scotland, it could lead to discrimination against those with gender recognition certificates, especially regarding employment issues. Watch | UK wildfires: 24,500 hectares of land scorched this year, as per satellite data “The correct interpretation of the EA (Equality Act) as referring to biological sex does not cause disadvantage to trans people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate,” Hodge said. “Trans people have the rights which attach to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.”

UK’s Supreme Court says trans women are not legally women in landmark ruling

Supreme Court of India to hear 10 petitions challenging new Waqf law

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

‘Perverse exercise of judicial power’: Supreme Court blasts Karnataka HC over actor Darshan’s bail

Supreme Court stays Bombay HC ruling to acquit 2006 Mumbai train blasts accused

CJI schools woman demanding house in Mumbai, Rs 12 crore and BMW car in alimony

SC refuses to stay UP’s Kanwar route QR code display order

Supreme Court commutes death penalty of man in child rape-murder case

Over 1000 professors in Punjab lose jobs, SC criticises ‘political urgency’

Think you own your house? SC says registration alone means nothing

Ghislaine Maxwell ready to reveal ‘truth’ about Epstein client list?

'GIANT WIN in SCOTUS': Trump lauds Supreme Court's ruling to limit injunctions

SC slams Thug Life ban, raps Karnataka HC for seeking apology from Kamal Haasan