Today, On 27th January, The Supreme Court on refused to entertain a petition challenging the ‘VIP Darshan’ system at Ujjain’s Mahakaleshwar Temple, stating it is not for the Court to decide. The bench said such temple management issues fall outside its judicial domain.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a widowed daughter-in-law qualifies as a dependant under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. This recognition allows her to legally seek maintenance from the estate left behind by her deceased father-in-law.
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the “creamy layer” principle should be implemented in SC and ST reservations. A PIL argues that allowing affluent SC/ST candidates to avail quota benefits violates equality and defeats the purpose of social justice.
Today, On 8th January, The Supreme Court has deferred to January 13 the hearing on petitions challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The pleas question the legality and transparency of the EC’s SIR process ahead of upcoming elections.
Today, On 6th December, Supreme Court rescheduled the Special Intensive Revision hearing for tomorrow. Senior Advocate Dwivedi highlighted the Election Commission’s powers and citizen-centric constitutional provisions, while CJI noted, “If we are able to take up at 12 then we will continue till lunch.”
The Delhi High Court directs Centre to verify claims that lawyers appointed to represent the government in the Supreme Court are yet to clear the AIBE. The Court heard a PIL challenging appointment of 650 lawyers for the Union.
The Supreme Court ruled that government policy decisions issued through circulars are binding and cannot be ignored without lawful amendment or justification. Any action taken in violation of such policy is arbitrary and breaches Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
A PIL in the Delhi High Court challenges the Centre’s appointment of over 650 advocates as government counsel, alleging many have not cleared the mandatory AIBE. The Court has asked the Centre to clarify the selection criteria before the next hearing on December 11.
The Delhi High Court has raised serious concerns over the hereditary allotment of lawyers’ chambers, questioning if preferential treatment violates Article 14. The court highlights blatant discrimination affecting first-generation and early-career lawyers in Delhi.
Today, On 28th November, Supreme Court has sought the Rajasthan government’s response to a petition challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025. The plea alleges the law contains arbitrary and unreasonable provisions that violate rights.
