Today, On 16th April, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing before the Supreme Court, strongly opposed the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. He said allowing a state-appointed Collector to decide if a property is waqf makes the officer a “judge in his own cause”, which is unconstitutional.
![[Centre Vs. Supreme Court] How the Centre Pre-Empted Adverse Supreme Court Orders: Waqf Act, Sedition Law & Article 370 Cases Explained](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/image-242.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 8th April, The Central Government has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court concerning petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The caveat requests that no order be passed without first hearing the government’s side. This legal move ensures the Centre’s participation in any proceedings related to the Act. It reflects the government’s proactive stance amid growing legal scrutiny.
NEW DELHI: On Monday(30th Sept), the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in a criminal defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Atishi and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, which was initiated due to comments regarding the purported removal of voters’ names from the electoral rolls in the national capital.
General category candidates in Uttar Pradesh have appealed to the Supreme Court about the 69,000 teacher recruitment process, contesting the government’s reservation policies. Tensions have risen, leading to protests and clashes. The Allahabad High Court’s invalidated merit list has caused unrest among candidates. The Yogi Adityanath government has chosen not to challenge this decision.
![[Mathura Temple-Mosque Dispute] Hindu Litigants File Caveat in Supreme Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-20-2.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 6th August, Hindu litigants filed a caveat in the Supreme Court regarding the Mathura temple-mosque dispute to ensure their participation in any future hearings. This comes after the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea challenging the maintainability of 18 cases related to the dispute. The legal battle holds potential implications for the interpretation of the Places of Worship Act in India.
Byju Raveendran filed a caveat with the Supreme Court on August 3 against US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC, following an NCLAT order. The NCLAT had restored Byju’s board and overturned insolvency proceedings against the edtech company. This preemptive legal move aims to ensure a fair hearing before any potential challenge by Glas Trust.
Today (12th March):On March 18 (Monday), the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the plea of six rebel Himachal Pradesh Congress leaders contesting the decision of the Assembly Speaker to disqualify them as Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).
The decision, made by the Assembly Speaker under the anti-defection law, has sparked significant implications. The court proceedings are expected to address the constitutional crisis that arose from cross-voting during the Rajya Sabha election.