The 74-year-old senior advocate had given up practice following his courtroom spat with then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.
The Supreme Court of India has reserved its interim orders on three key issues related to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the power to denotify waqf properties, the composition of waqf boards, and the provision regarding government land. The court heard arguments from both the petitioners, who challenged the validity of the amended law, and the Centre, which defended the Act as a secular concept. The petitioners sought interim orders to prevent the implementation of certain provisions while the court considers the legal challenges.
Underscoring the 'presumption of constitutionality in favour of law', the Supreme Court on Tuesday said petitioners challenging the waqf law needed a 'strong and glaring' case for interim relief.
The Supreme Court of India began hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, asked both sides to address whether the court should entertain the petitions or relegate them to the high court. The hearing is underway with senior advocate Kapil Sibal arguing for the petitioners. The act, which was passed by Parliament following heated debates, has been challenged by various parties including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind.
This came a day after he argued before the top court as petitioner in-person in a matter related to the abrogation of Article 370, which accorded a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and was revoked by the Centre on August 5, 2019.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution which bestowed special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar was hearing a matter relating to the maintenance of the temple.
According to the cause list for December 11, Monday, uploaded on the apex court website, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud would deliver the verdict.
Merely because an educational institution is regulated by a statute does not take away from it the character of a minority institution, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday as it commenced hearing the vexed question of minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
In Hindu mythology, the 'Raghu clan', to which Lord Ram belonged, believed in the principle that you must never break your promise even if you have to lose your life keeping it.
There is nothing "fundamentally inconsistent" with a minority institution being an institution of national importance (INI), the Supreme Court said on Wednesday while hearing arguments on the vexed issue of minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
Dhavan took to Facebook to disclose that he has been removed from further participation in the Ayodhya case on the 'nonsensical' ground that he is unwell.
The mere fact that some part of administration of an educational institution is also looked after by non-minority officials does not "dilute" its minority character, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday while hearing the hugely disputed minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
"This has to be deprecated. This is something which should not be happening," a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.
Was the decision taken by the Centre on August 5, 2019 to abrogate the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution, which bestowed a special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, constitutionally valid? The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its verdict on Monday on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370.
National Conference leader Mohammed Akbar Lone on Tuesday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court reiterating his oath as Lok Sabha MP, saying he will preserve and uphold the Constitution and protect the country's territorial integrity, an undertaking that irked the Centre which claimed it added "insult to injury to the nation".
Bhushan was earlier this month held guilty of contempt of court by the Supreme Court for two of his tweets, the first one posted on June 29, related to his comment/post on a picture of CJI Bobde on a high-end bike.
Rajeev Dhavan had created a flutter in the packed courtroom on Wednesday when he tore the pictorial map provided by senior lawyer Vikas Singh, representing AIHM.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether Parliament could have enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, which divided the erstwhile state into two Union territories, during the subsistence of President's rule in 2018-2019.
The Supreme Court said on Thursday the surrender of Jammu and Kashmir's sovereignty to India was "absolutely complete" with the accession of the former princely state in October 1947, and it was "really difficult" to say that Article 370 of the Constitution, which accorded special status to the erstwhile state, was permanent in nature.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would not reopen its decision on granting reservation in promotions to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as it was for the states to decide how they implement it.
'Whether Lord Ram is a historical person is not the subject before the court.' 'The court was asking every time if can anyone show the exact birthplace of Lord Ram on the basis of documents.' 'I have shown that on the basis of documents. And these documents are not (based) on my beliefs.'
A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde at the outset said that it will only deal with the issues referred to it by a five-judge bench on November 14 in the Sabarimala case, and asked the lawyers to convene a meeting on January 17 to decide on 're-framing' or adding additional issues to be deliberated upon by it.
The apex court in November 2009, had issued contempt notice to Bhushan and Tejpal for allegedly casting aspersions on some sitting and former top court judges in an interview to a news magazine.
The Delhi government has sought opinion over the issue of powers of the Lt Governor to appoint a chief secretary from eminent lawyers Rajeev Dhavan and Indira Jaising, who have supported its stand asserting that the LG has no independent discretion in the matter.
A person has a right to practise religion but the question is whether it can be taken to a school which has a prescribed uniform, the Supreme Court observed on Monday while hearing the Karnataka hijab ban row.
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that candidates belonging to the Other Backward Class category are required to be adjusted against the general category who were more meritorious than the last of the general category candidates appointed.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether there is any authentic figure regarding the dropping out of students from educational institutions in Karnataka because of the hijab ban and the subsequent judgment by the high court on the issue.
The SC took note of the fact that the Ministry of Defence has refused to accept the representation of private firm Envitech Marine Consultants Pvt Ltd that the decommissioned aircraft carrier be preserved.
'We are aggrieved about the ruling and there is no other way of putting it across to the Supreme Court and entire society that wrong has been committed and which requires correction.'
A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was informed by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was representing the petitioners, that they want to withdraw the plea as several petitions on the same issue are pending before the apex court and they don't want 'this to be entangled' with them.
'The decision by this Hon'ble Court, whichever way it goes, will impact future generations.'
The matter is pending for a long time and it be listed before the appropriate bench on September 10, the bench said in a hearing conducted through video conferencing.
The Supreme Court kept in abeyance the disqualification proceedings before the Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly till July 11 and sought responses to pleas by rebel MLAs questioning the legality of notices seeking their disqualification.
Here is a timeline of the second-lengthiest case in the apex court history:
The apex court had asked the activist to file his response to the allegations by Delhi Police he made hate speeches including certain objectionable remarks against the court during the protests against CAA.
The AAP dispensation had argued before the apex court bench that it possessed both the legislative and executive powers.
The apex court had earlier refused to stay the Centre's decision to grant 10 per cent quota in jobs and admissions to poor candidates in the general category.
Today, in big cases when bail applications are about to come up for hearing, TV reports are shown which are very "damaging for the accused who has filed the bail application", he said.
The SC issued notice to the Centre on the batch of pleas seeking stay on the operation of the law.
