A writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeks to quash 14 actions of the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, allegedly taken over the past ten months despite recorded objections by the two other Election Commissioners, raising questions about the collective functioning of the poll body. Mumbai: A writ petition […]
The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to social-media commentator Ajeet Bharti in an SC/ST Atrocities Act case over a video allegedly containing caste-based slurs aimed at MP Chandrashekhar Azad, holding that a prima facie case of caste-based humiliation is made out and that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the Act applies. New […]
The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the appointment of Justice Kaushik Goswami, currently an Additional Judge, as a Permanent Judge of the Gauhati High Court. The decision was taken at the Collegium’s meeting held on September 23, 2026.
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to commentator Ajeet Bharti in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding the plea not maintainable in view of the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the special law, and that an offence was prima facie made out. The case arises from an FIR alleging casteist and derogatory remarks; the allegations are untested and Bharti is presumed innocent. A detailed order is awaited.
The Supreme Court has indicated that the Election Commission should decide, expeditiously and on a day-to-day basis, the dispute over the Trinamool Congress name and symbol, on Mamata Banerjee’s plea challenging the ECI’s interim order freezing the symbol amid a rift with a rival faction. Kapil Sibal argued the interim order left the party without an effective remedy in the middle of an election; the Court, noting the bye-election was under way, focused on securing an early final decision.
Responding to the Union’s reliance on the ‘constitutional trust’ placed in the Prime Minister to defend the 2023 Election Commissioners’ appointment law, Justice Dipankar Datta questioned whether that trust had been honoured in practice. Pointing to the criminal antecedents of many elected representatives and drawing on Ambedkar and the Manoj Narula judgment, he observed that one is forced to ask whether the trust has been ‘betrayed in practice’. The remarks are prima facie observations in a matter now referred to a Constitution Bench.
A Supreme Court advocate has written to the Attorney General for India seeking his consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging wilful disobedience of Supreme Court judgments on the functioning of the Election Commission. The request, based on a news report of internal objections by two Election Commissioners, remains at the consent stage; no contempt case has been filed, the allegations are untested, and the ECI has denied any rift.
The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of paragraphs 27 to 33 of the Allahabad High Court judgment that had directed the recovery of ₹5 lakh from the personal salary of Noida DM Medha Roopam, and recorded strictures against her, over a student’s quashed NSA detention. Issuing notice on her plea and a connected State petition, the Court stayed the strictures until the matter is heard on merits, and listed it for October 7.
In their opinion on the challenge to the 2023 law on the appointment of Election Commissioners, the two judges of the Supreme Court differed on the threshold question of whether the matter should go to a Constitution Bench. Justice Dipankar Datta held that the Centre’s prayer for a reference was unwarranted, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that Article 145(3) made a five-judge Bench mandatory. By a joint order, they placed the matter before the CJI.
The Supreme Court has orally observed that the Lok Sabha Speaker is expected to expeditiously decide the Tenth Schedule disqualification petitions filed by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee against 20 party MPs who have sought to break away. Invoking the three-month norm laid down in Keisham Meghachandra Singh, the Court declined to issue directions but asked the Solicitor General to propose a timeline. The rebel MPs said they would file replies within four weeks.
