'My argument was straightforward: If the Constitution allows this reservation and SC/ST and OBC candidates are already getting reservation in private institutions -- backed by Constitution Bench orders -- then not extending the same to EWS candidates directly violates the 103rd Amendment and Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality.'
The Supreme Court has agreed to list for final hearing the pleas challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The Supreme Court has announced that a nine-judge bench will begin final hearings on petitions related to discrimination against women in religions, including the Sabarimala Temple case, starting April 7.
The Sabarimala temple women's entry issue has resurfaced in Kerala, leading to a political debate between the ruling CPI(M) and the opposition Congress, as the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider review petitions related to its 2018 verdict.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan accused Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar of omitting portions of the state cabinet-approved policy address, specifically criticizing the Union Government's fiscal policies and the pending status of state bills.
The father had approached the Supreme Court in 2024 seeking passive euthanasia for his son. The court had then declined to grant relief.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the actions of governors and the President in granting, withholding, or reserving assent to bills are not subject to judicial review, emphasizing the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a governor has discretion under Article 200 to refer a state bill to the President or return it to the legislature, and is not bound by the advice of the council of ministers. The court clarified that a governor cannot simply withhold a bill.
The Supreme Court's opinion on the presidential reference can impact on any number of cases if and when governors, if not the President, take a literary view of the Supreme Court's 'ppinion' on their 'discretionary powers' without reference to the rider on 'reasonable time', points out N Sathiya Moorthy.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that no timelines can be imposed on governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by state assemblies, clarifying the extent of their powers under Article 200 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for January 21 on pleas challenging the Election Commission's decision to allot the 'bow and arrow' symbol to the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena. The court will also hear arguments on a similar dispute concerning the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) on January 22.
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Governor can reserve a bill for consideration of the President even in the second instance, when the bill is again sent by the state assembly to him whether in its amended or unamended form.
The Supreme Court of India has expressed concern over a growing trend of litigants and lawyers making scandalous allegations against judges when court rulings are unfavorable. The court cautioned against such conduct, emphasizing the duty of lawyers to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.
Supreme Court judge Surya Kant expressed his reluctance to order urgent listing of cases on the same day, except in extreme circumstances, highlighting the workload and sleep deprivation of judges.
The Madhya Pradesh high court has dismissed a petition filed by Shah Bano Begum's daughter seeking to stop the release of the Hindi film Haq, inspired by her mother's famous legal battle, holding that a person's right to reputation or privacy is not heritable.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition seeking a stay on the release of the Hindi film 'Haq', which is inspired by the life and legal struggle of Shah Bano Begum. The court found the petition devoid of merit, clearing the way for the film's release.
'Repeated adjournments are one of the largest contributors to lengthy litigation cycles.'
The Supreme Court of India has stayed several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, citing potential violations of the Constitution. The court emphasized that laws should only be stayed in rare cases where provisions are manifestly unconstitutional or violate fundamental rights.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra said the detailed order referring the case to a larger bench will be uploaded on the apex court website later in the day.
The Supreme Court Monday hinted that it was contemplating referring to a constitution bench for adjudication the Delhi government's petition against the Centre's recent ordinance on control of services.
Calling itself the "custodian of the Constitution", the Supreme Court on Thursday asked if it could "sit idle" if a constitutional functionary like governor failed to discharge duties, as it reserved its verdict on the presidential reference on grant of assent to bills.
The Centre told the Supreme Court that governors are not indefinitely sitting on bills passed by state legislatures, and that barring a few exceptions, most have acted in a way which the apex court would have perhaps desired. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that a Governor is "not a rubber stamp" and has a duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
The Centre has argued before the Supreme Court that state governments cannot use writ jurisdiction to challenge the actions of the President and Governor regarding bills passed by state assemblies, particularly concerning fundamental rights violations. The President seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on whether states can file writ petitions under Article 32 and the scope of Article 361.
The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a five-judge Constitution bench a suit filed by the Kerala government raising the issue of ceiling on net borrowing.
Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, India's 52nd chief justice and its first Buddhist one, has played a key role in shaping the judicial landscape, penning about 300 verdicts, including landmark rulings on constitutional issues, liberty, and perhaps most important against the executive's 'bulldozer justice'.
BJP-ruled states argued in the Supreme Court that governors and the President have autonomy in assenting to bills passed by state assemblies, asserting that courts cannot mandate assent.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding a presidential reference on whether fixed timelines can be imposed on governors and the president for acting on bills passed by state legislatures. The court is considering objections to the maintainability of the reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a Governor cannot send bills to the President for consideration if the state assembly has already cleared them for a second time. The court was questioning the Centre over the powers of the Governor when it comes to granting assent to bills.
The SC has sought a response from the Centre on a plea seeking the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.
A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to commence hearing from October 31 a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the electoral bond scheme for political funding of parties.
Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was on Wednesday sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court is examining the extent to which courts can intervene when governors delay or refuse to act on bills passed by state assemblies. The court questioned the Centre on whether judicial review is barred in cases of gubernatorial inaction, sparking debate on the balance of power between states and the central government.
The Centre has opposed the imposition of fixed timelines on governors and the President for decisions on bills passed by state legislatures, arguing that such constraints were intentionally omitted by the Constitution's framers.
The Supreme Court has questioned the practice of Governors withholding assent to bills indefinitely, stating that it renders the constitutional provision of 'as soon as possible' meaningless.
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
A Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, would fix the timelines on July 29 and commence hearing on the presidential reference in mid-August.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has recommended Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai as the next CJI. Justice Gavai, the second most senior Supreme Court judge, will become the 52nd CJI on May 14, 2024, after CJI Khanna's retirement on May 13. Justice Gavai has served on several important Constitution benches and has been a part of landmark verdicts, including the one upholding the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370.
In a first, the Supreme Court on Tuesday began live-streaming its Constitution bench proceedings.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday took note of the Eknath Shinde faction's claim about the Uddhav Thackeray camp stalling the proceedings before the poll panel where the former's application staking claim over the Shiv Sena and its symbol is pending, and said it will consider listing its plea before a Constitution bench.
The Tamil Nadu government has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Presidential reference concerning the Governor's powers to assent to bills, arguing it is an 'appeal in disguise' to overturn settled law.
© 2026 Rediff.com - Investor Information - Advertise with us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy - Sitemap - Feedback - About us - Terms of use - Grievances