Page 35 - Supreme Court

SC issues notice to Centre on plea to declare 'Ram Setu' national monument

The Supreme Court on Friday sought response from the Centre on a plea by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy seeking a direction to the government to "expeditiously" decide his representation to declare 'Ram Setu' as a national monument. 'Ram Setu', also known as Adam's bridge, is a chain of limestone shoals between Pamban Island, off the south-eastern coast of Tamil Nadu, and Mannar Island, off the north-western coast of Sri Lanka. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta agreed to hear Swamy's plea and issued notice to the Centre. It posted the matter for hearing after four weeks. In his plea, Swamy has referred to the January 19, 2023 order passed by the apex court in the matter. On January 19, 2023, the Centre had told the top court that it was looking into the issue pertaining to declaring 'Ram Setu' as a national heritage monument. The top court was then hearing Swamy's plea on the issue. "The solicitor general states that the process is currently underway in

Doctors, psychologists and activists oppose lowering age of consent to 16

Several doctors, psychologists, rights activists and lawyers on Thursday opposed attempts seeking lowering of legal age of consent from 18 to 16 years, with NHRC member Priyank Kanoongo terming the move a "time bomb", which, if "not defused", will "explode inside families". At a roundtable held here on the sensitive subject, many doctors argued that at 16, a human brain is "not mature enough" to take decisions related to healthy sexual relationship or weather its psychological impact, and for such girls it also carries the risk of teenage pregnancies and "concomitant health hazards". The Supreme Court has been urged by amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Jaising, who is assisting the top court in the 'Nipun Saxena vs Union of India' case, recently filed her written submissions challenging the blanket criminalisation of sexual activity involving adolescents aged 16 to 18 under the Protection of Children from

CJI B R Gavai to swear in new Supreme Court judges on August 29

Chief Justice of India B R Gavai will on Friday administer oath to Bombay High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi who were elevated to the Supreme Court on August 27. With their elevation, the apex court is set to regain its full working strength of 34 judges, including the CJI. Justice Pancholi will be in line to become the CJI in October 2031 after Justice Joymalya Bagchi's retirement on October 2, 2031. He would assume the CJI's office on October 3, 2031, and retire on May 27, 2033. On August 25, the apex court collegium recommended to the Centre the names of Justices Aradhe and Pancholi for elevation as top court judges. Collegium member and Supreme Court's Justice B V Nagarathna, however, registered a strong dissent to the apex court collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Pancholi to the top court, saying his appointment would be "counter-productive" to the judiciary. Justice Nagarathna, the only woman judge in t

AIFF, FSDL respond to SC's resolution, ISL 2025 likely to start in December

The AIFF informed the court that the tender process would be completed by October 15, 2025, providing certainty for stakeholders

SC gets two new judges, Justice Pancholi in line to become CJI in 2031

Bombay High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi were on Wednesday elevated as judges of the Supreme Court, the government said. Their names were recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on Monday and their appointments were announced by the Union law ministry on Wednesday. Once the two take oath, the top court will function with its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges, including the chief justice of India (CJI). Justice Pancholi will be in line to become the CJI in October 2031 after Justice Joymalya Bagchi's retirement on October 2, 2031. He would assume the CJI's office on October 3, 2031, and retire on May 27, 2033. Born on April 13, 1964, Justice Aradhe was appointed as an additional judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on December 29, 2009, and as a permanent judge on February 15, 2011. He was transferred to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and took oath on September 20, 2016. He was appointed as the acting chi

SC orders probe after NCLAT judicial member claims 'approached for favour'

The Supreme Court has ordered an inquiry into the claims of a judicial member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) of being "approached by one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary". Sources privy to the development said the inquiry will be conducted by the apex court's secretary general with the top court deciding the future course of action on the basis of the outcome. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, the judicial member of the Chennai-based NCLAT, alleged being approached by a member of higher judiciary for a favourable order in a case which was pending before him. He recused himself from hearing the matter and even recorded the incident in a two-paragraph order passed on August 13. "We are anguished to observe, that one of us, Member (Judicial), has been approached by one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary of this country for seeking an order in favour of a particular party. Hence, I recuse to hear the matter (sic)," the NCLAT order

SC questions governors' authority to withhold assent to money bills

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said Article 207 requires a governor's nod for introducing a money bill. So there's no scope for withholding by the governor once introduced

SC probe into Vantara: Why RIL-backed wildlife project is under scrutiny

Vantara, Anant Ambani's wildlife project in Jamnagar, is under Supreme Court probe - here's what it is and why questions are being raised

SC orders probe into allegations of illegal animals acquisition in Vantara

The Supreme Court directed the SIT to complete its inquiry and submit a report by September 12. The matter was listed to be heard next on September 15

Commercial, prohibited speeches not part of fundamental rights, says SC

Commercial and prohibited speeches are not covered under the fundamental right, the Supreme Court on Monday said as it asked five social media influencers, including "India's Got Latent" host Samay Raina, to display their unconditional apology in their podcasts or shows for ridiculing persons with disabilities and rare genetic disorders. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the degree of repentance should be higher than the degree of offending and made it clear that the court would consider imposing a penalty on the influencers for offending disabled persons by social media influencers, at a later stage. "It is like purging contempt," Justice Kant said while asking the influencers to apprise the court on how much penalty they were willing to pay, which in turn can be utilised in the treatment of people suffering from rare genetic disorders like spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The five influencers are accused of making fun of the disabled and those suffering from SM

SC collegium recommends HC Chief Justices Aradhe, Pancholi for top court

The Supreme Court collegium on Monday recommended to the Centre, the names of Bombay High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi for elevation as top court judges. Justice Pancholi, upon becoming a top court judge, would be in line to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in October 2031 after Justice Joymalya Bagchi's retirement. The five member collegium comprising CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J K Maheshwari and B V Nagarathna met on Monday afternoon to hold deliberations. "The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on August 25, 2025 has recommended elevation of the following chief justices of the high Ccourts, as judges in the Supreme Court: (i) Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice, High Court of Bombay (PHC: High Court of Madhya Pradesh), (ii) Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Patna, (PHC: High Court of Gujarat)," said a statement uploaded on the apex court

Hope SC sets deadline for restoration of statehood to J-K: CM Omar

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Monday expressed hope that the Supreme Court will set a deadline on the restoration of statehood to the Union territory after it hears the case in October. The apex court on Monday refused to advance the date of hearing on pleas seeking restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, saying the matter is already listed on October 10. "I do not know who went to the Supreme Court for an urgent hearing. We also want there should be no delay in this decision," Abdullah told reporters on the sidelines of a function here. He said his government has been after the restoration of statehood for the last ten months since the it took over. "Our first decision in the first cabinet meeting was to pass a resolution on statehood. In my first meeting with the prime minister, the first thing I did was to handover the cabinet resolution on statehood to him," he said. "We have been waiting, but we have not had any benefit. Unfortunately, the SC is no

SC tells Samay Raina, others to apologise for remarks on differently abled

Top court observed that humour cannot breach sensibilities; penalty for comedians in the insensitive remarks case to be decided at next hearing

Supreme Court halts police action against Sanjay Kumar in voter rolls case

Supreme Court seeks response from the Election Commission and the Maharashtra government; says no coercive action until further hearing

SC decides to appoint amicus over 'ecological imbalance' in Himachal

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to appoint an amicus curiae to assist it in a matter over the ecological imbalance in Himachal Pradesh. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a suo motu case over the ecological and environmental conditions in Himachal Pradesh. On July 28, a different bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the state might "vanish in thin air" if the situation did not change. On Monday, Himachal Pradesh's advocate general and additional advocate general informed the bench about a report being filed by the state on August 23. The top court posted the matter after four weeks. Observing the situation in the state had deteriorated, the apex court in July said climate change was having a "visible and alarming impact" on the state. The top court was then dealing with a petition against an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which declined to entertain a plea challenging the state's June 2025 notification declaring certain ar

SC restrains court from taking note of chargesheet against Ashoka professor

The Supreme Court on Monday restrained the trial court from taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed by Haryana SIT in the FIR against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who was booked for social media posts on Operation Sindoor. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also restrained the trial court from framing any charges in the case. The SIT, constituted by the top court to investigate the two FIRs registered against Mahmudabad over his contentious social media posts, informed the bench that in one of them it has filed a closure report while in one a chargesheet was filed on August 22 after it was found that some offences were made out. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, termed the filing of the chargesheet as "most unfortunate" and said they have booked him under section 152 of BNS (sedition), whose validity is under challenge. The bench asked Sibal to go through the chargesheet and prepare a chart of the alleged offences, saying

Death sentence can be challenged under Article 32 for procedural lapses: SC

Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the court to reopen sentencing in cases of capital punishment on grounds of breach of procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court said on Monday while agreeing to hear again a death row convict's plea. Vasant Sampat Dupare, who belongs to Nagpur, was convicted of raping and killing a four-year-old in April 2008. He lured her with chocolates and crushed her head with stones to avoid identification of the body. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta allowed the convict's plea filed under Article 32 noting that there had been a breach of procedural safeguards. It also cited the 2022 Manoj Vs Madhya Pradesh judgement in which the top court issued several guidelines and mandated the trial courts to collect the accused's psychiatric and psychological evaluation report before awarding death. "We hold that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers this court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage whe

SC refuses to advance hearing on pleas seeking J-K statehood restoration

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to advance the date of hearing on pleas seeking the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, saying the matter is already listed on October 10. On August 14, a bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai had sought within eight weeks the Centre's response on a separate plea seeking restoration of statehood to the union territory. I am seeking early listing of a contempt petition relating to abrogation of Article 370. Statehood was to be granted to Jammu and Kashmir, a lawyer told the bench also comprising Justice N V Anjaria. It is listed already on October 10, the CJI said on Monday while refusing to advance the date of hearing. We are in the midst of a constitutional bench hearing (the bench is hearing a presidential reference on fixing timelines for governors and the president), Justice Gavai said. While seeking the Centre's response, the bench had earlier said, "You also have to take into consideration the ground realities you cannot igno

Crime victims, their heirs can file appeal against acquittal of accused: SC

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that victims of crime, including their legal heirs, can file an appeal against acquittal of the accused. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on a par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction. "We find the victim has every right to prefer an appeal as against a conviction for a lesser offence or for imposing inadequate compensation or even in the case of an acquittal ...as stated in the proviso to Sec 372 of CrPC," the bench said. The top court in its August 22 judgment said the right of victims of crime to file appeal in a higher court against acquittal of the accused, or award of lenient punishment "cannot be circumscribed". Expanding the ambit of "victims of crime" for the purpose of filing an appeal, the apex court said their legal heirs could continue prosecution of such appeals in case the appellant-victim dies during the pendency of .

SC judgment on house demolitions reaffirmed citizens' rights: CJI Gavai

Chief Justice of India B R Gavai has said he was glad that the Supreme Court's ruling against the demolition of houses of accused persons without following due procedure of law upheld the rights of citizens. He was part of the SC bench that last year slammed instant bulldozer justice' and laid down pan-India guidelines on demolition of properties, saying the executive could become a judge and declare an accused as guilty and demolish his house. Speaking at a felicitation function organised by the Goa High Court Bar Association in Panaji on Saturday, the CJI also explained the reasoning behind his landmark judgment on the creamy layer in the reserved category. Pointing out to the speeches by earlier speakers during the felicitation, which referred to his historic judgments, CJI Gavai said, I am really happy that we could do something as a custodian of the Constitution for protecting the rights of citizens whose houses were demolished without following the procedures of law. He said