The Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant bail on medical grounds to former chairman of the outlawed Popular Front of India (PFI) E Abubacker in a case registered against him under anti-terror law UAPA. Abubacker, who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) during a massive crackdown on the organisation in 2022, had approached the high court after the trial court rejected his bail application. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal said it was not inclined to release Abubacker at this stage after looking at the medical report. According to the central anti-terror agency, the PFI, its office bearers and members hatched a criminal conspiracy to raise funds for committing acts of terror in various parts of the country and were organising camps to indoctrinate and train their cadre for this purpose. In his plea, Abubacker claimed he is in his 70s, has Parkinson's disease, and had also undergone surgery for treatment of cancer. He contended that on merits a
Banks' move comes in response to a recent Supreme Court ruling that mandates financial institutions to only sanction loans against properties if the borrowers present valid certificates
Supreme Court judge Justice K V Viswanathan on Thursday recused himself from hearing coal scam cases, paving way for a fresh three-judge bench to decide a crucial issue arising from previous orders that barred the high court from entertaining appeals. The apex court passed two orders in 2014 and 2017 restricting the accused from approaching the high court and had directed that appeals against trial court proceedings in the coal scam cases could only be filed in the top court. The intent behind the orders was to expedite trial processes by preventing delays and to stall the proceedings by the accused seeking relief in high courts. While taking up the pleas seeking modification of its earlier orders, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and Viswanathan, at the outset, said a fresh bench will be set up to decide the issue in the week commencing February 10. Justice Vishwanathan said he was in the Common Cause (the NGO which had filed the PIL in coal
The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will hear on February 13 the appeals filed by the Gujarat government and several other convicts in the 2002 Godhra train burning case. A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar made it clear that no adjournment will be given in the matter on the next date of hearing. On February 27, 2002, 59 people were killed when the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Gujarat's Godhra, triggering riots in the state. Several appeals have been filed in the apex court challenging the October 2017 verdict of the Gujarat High Court which had upheld the conviction of several convicts and commuted the death penalties of 11 people to life term. The Gujarat government had in February 2023 told the apex court that it will be seeking death penalty for the 11 convicts whose sentences in the case were commuted to life imprisonment by the high court. When the matter came for hearing on Thursday, a lawyer, appearing for a convict, submitted that no
The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Enforcement Directorate for submitting that rigorous bail conditions in money laundering cases will apply to women despite a statutory exception explicitly provided under the law. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, while hearing the bail plea of Shashi Bala, a government school teacher accused in a money laundering scam involving the Shine City Group of Companies, called the ED's submissions "contrary to statute" and emphasised that such arguments would not be tolerated. "We will not tolerate conduct... to make submissions contrary to statute," the bench said and granted bail to Bala in the case, saying she had been in custody since November 2023 and there was little likelihood of her trial concluding anytime soon. "If people who appear for the Union of India do not know basic provisions of law, why should they appear in the matter," the bench said on Wednesday. The ED argued that the stringent bail ...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said availability of public toilets is an important duty of the state governments and Union territories and steps need to be taken to ensure that such facilities are accessible to all. Issuing a slew of directions on a PIL filed by a lawyer, the apex court asked all the high courts, state governments and UTs to ensure availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, persons with disabilities (PwDs), and transgender persons in all court premises and tribunals across the country. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan while hearing the plea said public health is of paramount importance and creation of adequate public toilets also protects the privacy and removes the threat to women and transgender persons. "The High Courts shall oversee and ensure that these facilities are clearly identifiable and accessible to Judges, advocates, litigants, and court staff. "For the aforesaid purpose, a committee shall be constituted in each of
The SC bench scheduled compliance reviews for Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, and Jammu & Kashmir on February 10
Saying it adversely impacted the lives and livelihoods of untainted candidates, several petitioners moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday against a verdict nullifying the appointment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff in government and aided schools in West Bengal. A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard about 124 petitions challenging the verdict of the Calcutta High Court. The CJI acknowledged the arguments and reiterated the need for a balance between addressing illegalities and protecting untainted appointees and said the segregation of cases, wherever possible, may be prioritised to protect innocent candidates. Referring to the high court's verdict, the bench said, "It only said that when there were so many irregularities, it became impossible to know who were genuinely appointed and who were the ones who manipulated the process." One common point argued was that the majority of untainted selected candidates, who were adversely impac
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Centre on a PIL alleging an "enormous rise" in cyber crimes and "nuisance" of unsolicited calls in the country. Observing government agencies were doing their bit, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued a notice to the Department of Telecommunications. "Yes, we understand the problem is there. Let the Centre respond, the bench said, noting the PIL of one Gowrishankar from Bengaluru. The plea sought a direction to telecom network operators to implement the calling name presentation service (CNAP). The service, which facilitates identification of the caller's name and is usually displayed in the caller ID section of the phone, may help recipients to make informed decisions about calls and combat spam calls.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Centre and the poll panel on Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh's plea against the recent amendments, including no public access to CCTV, to the 1961 election rules. A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar took note of the submissions of senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Ramesh, and issued notices on the plea. The bench said it would hear the plea in the week commencing March 17. Singhvi said amendments to the 1961 Conduct of Election Rules were made "very cleverly" and barred any access to CCTV footage claiming it would reveal the identity of the voter. He said voting choices were never revealed and the CCTV footage couldn't reveal votes. The senior lawyer urged the bench to ask the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Centre to file their responses before the next date of hearing else they would come and say "reply is needed to be filed" on tha
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Punjab government for a copy of the health reports of farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on an indefinite fast, to be examined for an opinion from the medical board of AIIMS. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh wondered how a person, who had been on fast for nearly 50 days had his health parameters improving and asked the Punjab government chief secretary to submit Dallewal's test reports during the course of the day with apex court registrar. It directed the apex court registrar to communicate the reports to the AIIMS director for an opinion on Dallewal's test reports from the medical board. The top court also noted the Punjab government's submission that authorities are in deliberations with the protesting farmers and they are hopeful of a solution. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Punjab government, said some progress has been made in connection with the shifting of Dallewal to a makeshift hospital,
The Supreme Court would hear a matter related to the health of farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on an indefinite fast pressing for demands, and other pleas on January 15. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh would hear a plea filed on behalf of Dallewal for a direction to the Central government for implementing a proposal, including a legal guarantee of MSP on crops, made to the protesting farmers in 2021 after the farm laws were repealed. The top court had asked the Centre why couldn't the government say its doors were open and it would consider the genuine grievances of farmers protesting over demands, including the legal guarantee of minimum support price for crops. The apex court would also hear a plea seeking contempt action against the Punjab government authorities for not complying with its directions issued over moving Dallewal to a hospital on December 20 last year. On December 12, 2024, Dallewal wrote to several religious leaders for urging the .
Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh's writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, will come up for hearing in the apex court on Wednesday. The matter will come up for hearing before the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on January 15, according to the cause list uploaded on the Supreme Court website. The Congress had filed the writ petition in the Supreme Court last month challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and expressed hope that the apex court will help restore the "fast eroding" integrity of the electoral process. The government has tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV camera and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. AICC general secretary Jairam Ramesh, who has filed the petition, had said, "The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding.
In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman can be given the right to maintenance from her husband even after she has not complied with the decree to cohabit with her spouse if she has valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with him. A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar settled the legal dispute over the question whether a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stands absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of law if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home. The bench said there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the circumstances of the case. It said the question as to whether noncompliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by a wife would be sufficient in itself to deny her maintenance, owing to Section 125(4) of CrPC has been addressed by several high courts but no consistent view is ...
All eyes are on the Supreme Court which will examine the law on appointing members of the Election Commission as its validity has been challenged for not having the chief justice of India as a member of the selection panel. The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, which came into force in December 2023, was first used to appoint Gyanesh Kumar and S S Sandhu as Election Commissioners in March 2024 to fill up the vacancies created following the resignation of Arun Goel and retirement of Anup Chandra Pandey. With Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar demitting office on February 18 on attaining the age of 65, the law will be applied for the first time to appoint a CEC. Before the new law on the appointment of CEC and ECs came into force, the election commissioners were appointed by the President on the government's recommendation. And as per convention, the senior-most Election Commissioner was ...
The apex court emphasised that the responsibility to act on this rests with the legislature and the executive
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice on a plea by the Sambhal's Jama Masjid management committee, and ordered status quo with regard to a private well located near the entrance of the mosque. A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed that no steps be taken regarding the well without its permission and instructed the authorities to file a status report within two weeks. The plea filed by the Committee of Management of Shahi Jama Masjid challenged a November 19, 2024 order by the Sambhal Senior Division Civil Judge that allowed the appointment of an advocate commissioner to survey the mosque. It was argued that the survey led to violence and loss of life, prompting the urgent intervention of the top court. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the Committee of Management, emphasised the historical significance of the well, stating, "We have been drawing water from the well since time immemorial." Ahmadi raised concerns over a notic
SC mandates consolidation of all such cases by next hearing on March 18
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed petitioners, who dropped out of their courses between November 5 and November 18, 2024, to register for the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)-Advanced. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih passed the order while hearing the pleas against bringing down from three to two, the attempts given to JEE-Advanced aspirants. The apex court noted the joint admission board (JAB), entrusted to conduct the JEE-Advanced exam, had issued a press release on November 5 last year which said students who appeared for the class 12 examination in academic years 2023, 2024 and 2025 would be eligible to appear for the JEE-Advanced. The bench further said on November 18, 2024, another press release was issued restricting the eligibility to only two academic years -- 2024 and 2025. "If the students, acting on the said representation (of November 5), have dropped from their course with an understanding that they would be entitled to appear for JEE ...
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to examine pleas challenging the delimitation clause in the 2023 Nari Shakti Vandan Act which reserves one-third seats for women in Lok Sabha and state assemblies. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and P B Varale was not inclined to entertain the petitions filed by one Jaya Thakur and the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) under Article 32 of the Constitution. The bench pointed out Jaya Thakur's petition challenged the bill, which had become the Act, whereas the NFIW challenged the delimitation clause of the law. While Thakur's plea was dismissed as infructuous, the court was not inclined to examine NFIW's plea under Article 32 saying it could move the high court or any other appropriate forum. The NFIW challenged the constitutional validity of Article 334A (1) or Clause 5 of the 2023 Act where it rendered delimitation of constituencies a prerequisite to the implementation of the Act. On November 3, 2023, the top court while hearing ...