The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday postponed the hearing of its five-judge Constitution bench on the legal issue concerning the scope of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and Delhi government over control of services in the national capital.
The Supreme Court on Thursday exercised its extraordinary constitutional powers and ordered the liquidation of grounded air carrier Jet Airways' assets. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) decision upholding the resolution plan of Jet Airways and approved the transfer of its ownership to Jalan Kalrock Consortium (JKC).
The Supreme Court of India has laid down guidelines for courts when ordering DNA tests to ascertain paternity. The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of all parties involved, including the child, parents, and other stakeholders. It also recognized the potential for infringement of privacy and the social stigma associated with illegitimate children. The court stressed that DNA tests should only be ordered when existing evidence is insufficient and when such tests are in the best interests of all parties involved.
Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar engaged in a heated exchange with Leader of the Opposition Rabri Devi in the Legislative Council, dismissing her as "inconsequential" without her husband, RJD president Lalu Prasad. The spat stemmed from RJD MLCs wearing badges promoting quota hikes passed during Tejashwi Yadav's tenure as Deputy CM, which Nitish Kumar perceived as an attempt to claim credit for the populist move. Kumar also remarked that Rabri Devi was only propped up by her husband when he was in trouble, referring to her becoming Chief Minister in 1997 while Lalu Prasad faced corruption charges. The war of words between the two rivals has intensified, with the RJD accusing Kumar of losing his mental balance and being unfit to rule.
The Mathura Shahi Masjid Eidgah Committee has approached the Supreme Court, requesting the court to prevent the central government from filing a response to a petition challenging the Places of Worship Act's constitutional validity. The committee accuses the BJP-led government of intentionally delaying its response. The court had previously issued a notice to the government in March 2021, but the government has yet to submit its reply despite numerous opportunities. The committee argues that the government's delay is intended to obstruct those opposing the challenge to the Places of Worship Act from filing their own responses. The petition also states that the pleas challenging the law's validity are scheduled for hearing on February 17, and closing the government's right to respond would serve justice. The Supreme Court previously issued a ruling in December 2022 that stopped courts from entertaining new lawsuits or issuing interim or final orders regarding the reclaiming of religious places, particularly mosques and dargahs. The ruling halted proceedings in 18 lawsuits filed by Hindu groups seeking surveys to confirm the original religious character of 10 mosques, including the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. This decision was made in response to six petitions, including one filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging various provisions of the Places of Worship Act. The 1991 law prohibits the conversion of places of worship and guarantees the preservation of their existing religious character as it stood on August 15, 1947. Notably, the dispute regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was excluded from this law. There are also several cross-petitions advocating for a strict enforcement of the 1991 law to uphold communal harmony and maintain the current status of mosques that Hindu groups seek to reclaim, claiming they were temples before being destroyed by invaders.
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it has to be alive to the fact that the concept of marriage has evolved and must accept the basic proposition that marriage itself is entitled to constitutional protection as it is not just a matter of statutory recognition.
The Supreme Court of India expressed its disapproval of "scurrilous and unfounded allegations" made against judges in a petition challenging the conferment of senior designations to lawyers. The court found the plea's averments, which insinuated that judges favor their relatives in bestowing senior advocate titles, to be unacceptable. The bench offered the petitioners four weeks to amend the petition, warning that it may take further action if the offensive allegations are not removed.
The bench will be headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and also comprise of Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud.
Sources said the Congress may consider opposing the bill when it is introduced in Parliament. The Aam Aadmi Party, which is in power in Delhi, has been seeking the support of various political parties on the matter.
Samajwadi Party leader and Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary has moved the Supreme Court seeking effective implementation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This move comes amidst several petitions challenging the law's validity, including those filed by the Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay. The Supreme Court, in December 2022, had restrained all courts from examining fresh suits and passing interim orders in pending cases seeking to reclaim religious places. The Act aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, but the dispute relating to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was kept out of its purview. The court has listed Choudhary's plea with other pending pleas for February 17.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will commence hearing on October 17 to examine the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act relating to illegal immigrants in Assam.
Rule of law prevents a government, brought to power by the strength of ballots, from betraying the trust of citizens and "lapsing into a government of caprice, nepotism and finally despotism", the Supreme Court said on Thursday.
The Tamil Nadu government has argued in the Supreme Court that Governor R N Ravi's repeated withholding of assent to bills passed by the state legislative assembly would lead to the failure of the democratic system in India. The top court has questioned the delay by the Governor in granting assent to several bills passed by the state assembly and asked why governors should wait for parties to move the court with their grievances. The court has also said that the Governor cannot refer bills passed by the legislature and re-adopted by it for presidential assent.
The bid to extend the tenure of the present chief secretary is the latest bone of contention between the Arvind Kejriwal government and Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, who have been involved in a series of run-ins over various issues.
The pleas raise the legal question of whether a husband enjoys immunity from prosecution for the offence of rape if he forces his wife, who is not a minor, to have sex.
Prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to infringement of the right to life under the Constitution, the Bombay high court said while urging a special court to expedite the trial in the 2018 Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.
The Supreme Court of India has directed the Odisha government to decide within six weeks on a plea for remission filed by Ravindra Pal alias Dara Singh, who is serving a life sentence for the murders of Australian missionary Graham Stuart Staines and his two sons in 1999. Singh, who has spent over 24 years in prison, claims to have "repented" his actions and seeks an opportunity to reform his character. The court issued the notice after Singh argued that he has already served more than the required period of sentence and that his right to liberty is being jeopardized by the delay in processing his plea.
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the government's decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which bestowed a special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, and said steps should be taken to conduct the election to the Assembly in the Union Territory by September 30 next year.
It said the law must be just and fair and should protect the human rights and dignity of all members of society.
The Centre told the Supreme Court on Wednesday any constitutional declaration made by it on pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage may not be a "correct course of action" as the court will not be able to foresee, envisage, comprehend and deal with its fallout.
The Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on former cricket administrator Lalit Modi while dismissing his petition seeking an order to BCCI to pay penalty of Rs 10.65 crore imposed on him by ED for violating Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
The Supreme Court of India has granted interim police protection to Discovery Communications India officials who have been receiving threats from followers of self-styled godman Asaram Bapu. The threats were triggered by the release of a documentary series titled "Cult of Fear: Asaram Bapu". The court has directed the Centre and several state governments to ensure the safety of the petitioners, including their offices.
The Supreme Court has expressed its dissatisfaction with the Delhi Police's handling of appeals against acquittals in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases. The court emphasized the need for serious and earnest prosecution, not just for the sake of it. This comes in the wake of a public interest litigation filed by a former Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee member, seeking justice for the victims of the violence.
The Supreme Court has directed a Maharashtra authority to respond to a man's plea for initiating contempt action against it after his properties were demolished for allegedly raising anti-India slogans during a cricket match. The petitioner, who hails from Sindhudurg district in the state, claims his house and shop were demolished on February 24 following an FIR against him, his wife, and his 14-year-old son for allegedly raising anti-India slogans during the India-Pakistan Champions Trophy match. The plea argues that the demolition violated the Supreme Court's November 13, 2024 verdict on demolition of properties, which barred demolition without a prior showcause notice and 15 days' time for the aggrieved party to respond. The petitioner seeks directions for initiating contempt proceedings against the chief officer and administrator of the Malvan Municipal Council.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the secular nature of the state does not prevent it from interfering with religious practices and attitudes when they impede development and the right to equality in the larger public interest. The court dismissed pleas challenging the 1976 amendment to the Constitution, which added the terms "socialist", "secular", and "integrity" to the Preamble, stating that Parliament's amending power extends to the Preamble as well.
The apex court bench, also comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, will assemble at 10.30 am to hear the two petitions.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that Pushpa Ganediwala, the former HC judge who had faced criticism for a series of controversial judgments in POCSO Act cases, is entitled to receive pension on par with a high court judge. Ganediwala was demoted as district sessions judge at the end of her additional judgeship in 2022 following an uproar over some judgments passed by her on the interpretation of what constitutes a sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. She had filed a petition challenging a communication issued by the HC registrar declaring that she was not eligible for pension of a HC judge. The court quashed the communication and directed the registry to fix her pension with 6% interest from February 2022.
Chief Justice Chandrachud said the court will allow the lead counsel from the petitioner's side to argue on all aspects and rest of the counsel can add on certain aspects, so that there are no overlapping arguments.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, will also hear a separate plea which has sought initiation of contempt action against the SBI alleging it "wilfully and deliberately" disobeyed the apex court's direction to submit details of the contributions made to political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6.
"The doctrinal error in the Krishna Iyer approach was, postulating a rigid economic theory, which advocates for greater State control over private resources, as the exclusive basis for constitutional governance," the CJI wrote in the 193-page judgment.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Justice (CJI) Sharad Arvind Bobde said that a larger bench will decide the pleas filed by 35 petitioners challenging Centre's decision.
The State Bank of India told the Supreme Court on Thursday it has provided all details of the electoral bonds in its possession to the Election Commission.
The Supreme Court verdict on mining royalty case will give a further jolt to the Indian mining industry and will have very large financial implications, as arrears may work out to the tune of more than Rs 1.5 lakh crore to Rs 2 lakh crore, industry players said on Wednesday. The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the power of states to levy tax on mineral rights and mineral-bearing land, and allowed them to seek refund of royalty from April 1, 2005 onwards. According to a senior mines ministry official, the verdict will have a very large financial impact on mining, steel, power and coal companies.
The Supreme Court of India has sought the Indian government's response to a petition filed by a Muslim woman seeking to be governed by the Indian succession law instead of Shariat. The woman, Safiya P.M., argues that she does not believe in Shariat and wants to be governed by secular law, including the Indian Succession Act of 1925. The court has asked the government to file a counter affidavit within four weeks.
The top court issued notices to Union ministries of law and justice and minority affairs as well as the National Commission of Women after taking note of the plea of Delhi-based woman Nafisa Khan challenging the practice of polygamy and 'nikah halala', and said that the matter will be taken up a five-judge Constitution bench.
The Supreme Court of India has issued pan-India guidelines on property demolition, emphasizing that no property should be demolished without a prior show cause notice and 15 days for the affected party to respond. The court strongly criticized 'bulldozer justice', stating that the Executive cannot demolish homes simply because individuals are accused of a crime. The verdict cites the importance of shelter as a fundamental right and highlights the unconstitutionality of demolishing houses based solely on accusations or convictions.
The Supreme Court of India directed the government to establish a legal framework to protect domestic workers and address their exploitation.
Kerala high court on Thursday held that freedom of speech and expression available to the press and media could not trample on the right to dignity, reputation and privacy available to the citizen, especially when reporting about criminal investigations or cases pending before various courts.
The Delhi high court on Friday directed the Centre to place its stand on Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs to decide over Rahul Gandhi's Indian citizenship.
Chief Justice of India-designate Sanjiv Khanna on Friday lauded CJI D Y Chandrachud for his "monumental" contribution, saying he worked on a mission to improve the apex court and pursued his goal of making it "a sanctuary of inclusivity", which was accessible to all.
© 2026 Rediff.com - Investor Information - Advertise with us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy - Sitemap - Feedback - About us - Terms of use - Grievances