The Supreme Court of India bench led by Surya Kant questioned arguments by J. Sai Deepak against judicial review of codified religious practices. The CJI stressed that once the State acts, courts cannot be completely excluded from reviewing its actions, even in matters of faith.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that safe road travel is part of the Right to Life and issued strict nationwide highway safety directions. It warned that administrative or financial excuses cannot justify failure to protect human lives on roads.
Supreme Court of India ruled ad hoc employees without proper recruitment cannot be regularised under State policy. Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar upheld Haryana notifications, modifying earlier High Court decision.
Delhi High Court rejected plea by EWS candidates seeking parity in relaxations with SC, ST, OBC categories. Bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held policy decisions fall within legislative and executive domain.
The Union government notified enforcement of The Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023, granting 33% reservation for women in legislatures. Effective April 16, measure mandates quota in Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
Madras High Court refused to direct National Company Law Tribunal to urgently hear plea by Karti P Chidambaram. Court held constitutional courts should avoid fixing timelines except in exceptional circumstances.
Supreme Court of India declined plea seeking guidelines on Ashoka Chakra display on national flag. Bench led by Surya Kant advised petitioner to pursue constructive steps, leaving decision to authorities.
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said India is not a religious state and highlighted the historical context of the term “Hindu.” He noted the Constitution embraces all faiths, describing “Hindu” as a geographical identifier linked to people beyond Indus.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Delhi High Court to initiate contempt action against Arvind Kejriwal over recusal pleas. He termed allegations unfounded, stressing institutional respect and warning that yielding would set a harmful precedent for judicial independence.
The Supreme Court directed that Teesta Setalvad’s plea for passport release be heard by a three judge bench. Noting her bail was granted by a similar bench, the court held parity in bench strength was appropriate for consideration.
