The Supreme Court has reserved orders on a plea by Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam challenging the Allahabad High Court’s direction to recover ₹5 lakh from her personal salary as compensation to a student whose National Security Act detention, over the Noida workers’ protest, the High Court quashed as based on a ‘concocted’ story. The State and the DM argued that the personal strictures and cost were unwarranted, and pressed for a stay. The student’s counsel opposed the plea.
The Supreme Court has described as a ‘red flag’ the three months taken so far by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to decide the disqualification petitions filed by Abhishek Banerjee against 20 Trinamool Congress MPs who broke away to join another party. Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned why the matter had not been concluded given its repercussions, but the Court declined to fix a deadline, keeping the plea alive to seek a progress update.
The Supreme Court has referred to a Constitution Bench the petitions challenging the 2023 law on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, under which the selection committee comprises the Prime Minister, a Union Minister and the Leader of Opposition. Justice Dipankar Datta prima facie doubted whether the process is independent, observing that a body must not only be independent but appear to be so, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held a Constitution Bench must authoritatively decide the question.
The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of a Patna High Court judgment that held certain acts alleged against the accused did not amount to an ‘attempt to rape’, but at most to outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 IPC. A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant observed that some of the High Court’s observations were offensive, and said it would hear the accused before deciding. The step follows the Court’s earlier correction of a similar Allahabad High Court verdict.
The Supreme Court has said it will examine whether the Bar Council of India, as the statutory regulator of the legal profession, has the power to control and regulate law colleges and universities. Hearing pleas concerning the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust and law institutions it has set up, the Court questioned how the BCI could be an expert body on legal education, observing that a regulator cannot itself run the institutions it is meant to regulate.
A fresh petition seeking the registration of an FIR against former judge Yashwant Varma over the cash-at-home controversy was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for urgent listing, the petitioners contending that the Registry was refusing to list it. The CJI did not expressly indicate anything on listing. Earlier pleas seeking an FIR and a CBI probe have been dismissed by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court respectively.
A member of the Bar Council of India has told the Supreme Court, in an affidavit, that important decisions have repeatedly been taken in the BCI’s name without deliberation among its members, including the August 13 action to bar the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 batch, which he says was never placed before the General Council. He also alleges the Attorney General and Solicitor General, ex-officio members, were not given notices or agendas of BCI meetings. The allegations are untested.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the 2018 amendment to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which inserted Section 18A to restore the bar on anticipatory bail and dispense with a preliminary enquiry before FIR and prior approval for arrest. The Court held that the amendment had already been upheld in Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2020), with sufficient safeguards, and that isolated instances of abuse are no ground to revisit a law approved by a three-judge Bench, abuse being addressable case by case.
Hearing a plea over the Special Intensive Revision of Delhi’s electoral rolls, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission and suggested practical safeguards, an FAQ-style guide for voters, Booth Level Officer assistance, and orientation for BLOs, on ‘logical discrepancy’ notices said to be issued to lakhs of voters. The petitioner alleged the notices were vague and burdensome and that shifted voters were being made to file the wrong form; the Commission maintained every notice states its reason and that no voter will be deleted without a hearing. Nothing was decided.
Hearing Carnatic musician TM Krishna’s challenge to the Centre’s circular on the singing of Vande Mataram and the extension of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act to it, the Supreme Court indicated it would examine the matter to the extent penal consequences are involved, observing that a person who believes that singing it infringes their rights under Articles 25 or 26 cannot be subjected to punishment, and that it is not for courts to declare what the National Song is. A remark by the Solicitor General drew strong objection from the petitioner’s counsel.