This past week, or perhaps even the past two weeks, the spotlight was on Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who is emerging as one of the more outspoken voices on the Bench.

The most recent example of Justice Bhuyan's candour was at an event, where he observed that failure to disclose reasons in Collegium proposals concerning the appointment of judges does a great disservice to judges and goes against public interest.

There is no mandatory requirement for the Supreme Court Collegium to disclose reasons for its recommendations. However, during Justice DY Chandrachud's tenure as Chief Justice of India (CJI), the Collegium released detailed resolutions with a cursory mention of the particulars and reasons for each recommendation. That practice seems to have been done away with now under CJI Surya Kant.

Justice Bhuyan criticised this opacity, stating that it was creating space for undesirable candidates to enter the judiciary who then make unconstitutional remarks.

"I have noticed that the last three collegium resolutions contain no reasons whatsoever. Is this a step back from the principle of transparency?”  he asked.

In this regard, Justice Bhuyan cited the example of a controversial speech given by a former Allahabad High Court judge in 2024 at a VHP event, when he made certain veiled references against Muslims.

"...by withholding reasons, we also create space for individuals to enter the judiciary who may later describe groups of people (with references to their treatment of) ‘ants’ and make other remarks that are wholly unconstitutional and contrary to the values of the Constitution," remarked Justice Bhuyan.

Among other comments, the Allahabad High Court judge in question had reportedly said,

"In our country, we are taught not to harm even the smallest animals, not to kill ants. But in your culture, from a young age, children are exposed to the slaughter of animals. How can you expect them to be tolerant and compassionate?"

Justice Bhuyan took exception to such remarks as he reiterated that judicial appointments must follow proper discussions and reasons.

"What harm is caused if there is informed public debate on such decisions?” Justice Bhuyan asked.

Several other issues, all of which have occupied headlines of late, were also discussed by the Supreme Court judge recently.

On July 25, while delivering the Justice GP Singh 4th Memorial Lecture, Justice Bhuyan remarked that public spaces for accommodating divergent views are shrinking in India to the point where students peacefully protesting for their rights are being arrested and denied bail.

"People who come to voice their anguish over environmental degradation, which is a reality, are chased away as if they are criminals. Students protesting in campuses are arrested and they do not get bail for 30-40 days. They are suspended for which they have to go to the court. It takes time," he noted.

Speaking on the role of courts in protecting constitutional freedoms, Justice Bhuyan said that citizens were increasingly facing criminal action for exercising their right to protest. 

"It will not be an exaggeration to say that public space for expressing divergent opinion is shrinking in India. The right to express one's views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms of the citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalised," said Justice Bhuyan.

When the Supreme Court itself has been under fire for exhibiting what one may view as callousness towards protesting students facing police brutality, remarks from a sitting Supreme Court judge advocating for their rights was a welcome reprieve.

Justice Bhuyan also weighed in on the Ganga-Iftar boat case, in which 14 Muslim men were arrested in Varanasi in March this year for allegedly hurting religious sentiments after organising an iftar gathering on a boat in the middle of the holy river.

"There is no law prohibiting consumption of chicken over the Ganga river. They were arrested for that very reason and they had to remain in jail for 3 months," Justice Bhuyan said, criticising the arrests that kept the men in jail for 3 months before they were granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in May.

He also called for introspection by members of the judiciary.

"It amazes me when we go on ourselves patting our own backs by saying how powerful the Indian Supreme Court is, how great Indian Supreme Court is. It is not for us to make that comment. It is for the citizens to assess."

In the same lecture, Justice Bhuyan revisited the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling against punitive "bulldozer justice," saying that the judgment, though welcome, had come two years too late. He also referred to a recent Bombay High Court order refusing permission for a demonstration in solidarity with Palestine, calling the Court's observations "very amusing" and noting that petitioners had been questioned about their intentions despite India maintaining diplomatic relations with Palestine.

A brief look at Justice Bhuyan's work on the Bench and off it makes it amply clear that these statements are not one-offs intended to grab headlines.

Who is Justice Ujjal Bhuyan?

Justice Bhuyan was born on August 2, 1964 at Guwahati. His father Suchendra Nath Bhuyan was a Senior Advocate and a former Advocate General of Assam. After completing his schooling in Guwahati and graduating in Arts from Kirori Mal College, Delhi, he obtained his LL.B. degree from Government Law College, Guwahati and LL.M. degree from Gauhati University.

In 1991, he enrolled with the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. He practiced primarily before the Gauhati High Court and other courts and tribunals in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.

In 2010, he was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Gauhati High Court. A year later, he was appointed as Additional Advocate General, Assam.

On October 17, 2011, Justice Bhuyan was elevated to the Bench, first appointed as an additional judge and later in 2013 as a permanent judge of the Gauhati High Court.

In September 2019, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Bhuyan's transfer to the Bombay High Court.

The news was met with staunch opposition from the Bar in Gauhati. The Gauhati High Court Bar Association passed a resolution unanimously objecting to the transfer. The Association noted that Justice Bhuyan's seniority rank would fall once he shifts from the Gauhati High Court, where he was the third senior-most judge. The Bar members also emphasised that Justice Bhuyan had been discharging his judicial work in an exemplary manner and called on the Central government to return the Collegium proposal.

However, Justice Bhuyan's transfer was notified by the Centre soon thereafter, and he took oath as judge of the Bombay High Court on October 3.

After a 2-year stint at Mumbai, Justice Bhuyan was transferred to the Telangana High Court and was sworn in there on October 22, 2021. On June 28, 2022, he was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court.

Just over a year later, the Collegium recommended his elevation to Supreme Court and he was sworn in on July 14, 2023. Justice Bhuyan is currently halfway through his 6-year tenure which will end on August 1, 2029.

Important matters handled as High Court judge

In June 2020, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court headed by Justice Bhuyan granted relief to Republic TV's Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami, who had been embroiled in legal trouble for his comments on the gathering of migrant workers in Mumbai's Bandra on April 14 and the Palghar lynching incident. Goswami was accused of making incendiary and hateful statements that caused disharmony among communities.

The Bench said that there was no prima facie case against Goswami and suspended the FIRs against him. While doing so, the Bench said,

"India is now a mature democracy. Seventy years into our republic we cannot be seen to be skating on thin ice so much so that mere mention of a place of worship will lead to animosity or hatred amongst religious communities causing upheaval and conflagration on the streets. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate discussions and debates in the public domain."

At the Bombay High Court, Justice Bhuyan also headed another Division Bench which allowed a women who was the victim of domestic violence to terminate her 23-week-old pregnancy. This ruling came years before the Supreme Court passed its judgment in X v The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Delhi NCT Government & Anr, which is now the authoritative precedent for reproductive rights in India.

Much like the Supreme Court did two years later, Justice Bhuyan in his judgment at the Bombay High Court held that the mental health of the woman that needs to be taken into account while considering whether to allow termination of pregnancy older than 20 weeks.

In another important ruling at the Bombay High Court, a Bench headed by Justice Bhuyan held that a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of any corrosive substance will be considered as an 'acid attack victim' under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and would therefore be eligible for compensation.

As Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, Justice Bhuyan authored a ruling in Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana, which struck down the colonial-era Telangana Eunuchs Act, 1919. The law had permitted warrantless arrests and mandatory registration of transgender persons. Justice Bhuyan held that the Act was violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Important matters in Supreme Court

Since his elevation to the Supreme Court in 2023, Justice Bhuyan has mostly been on Benches lead by other senior judges, including CJI Surya Kant. It is only in the past month that he started leading a two-judge bench.

But even when he was the junior judge on the Bench, Justice Bhuyan did not hesitate to make his voice heard, sometimes through oral observations and sometimes through concurring or dissenting opinions in judgments.

One such case saw a Bench of himself and Justice BV Nagarathna expressing serious reservations about its own earlier judgment delivered by another Bench denying bail to activist Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots case.

The Bench opined that bail should be the rule and jail the exception even in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cases, especially considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. KA Najeeb, in which a three-judge Bench had ruled that the right to speedy trial and related rights under Article 21 would apply to UAPA accused as well.

"In that spirit, we make it clear that Najeeb is binding law and entitled to the protection of judicial discipline. It cannot be diluted, circumvented, or disregarded by trial courts, High Courts, or even by benches of lower strength of this Court," the Bench said.

The same Bench also delivered the verdict which quashed the Gujarat government’s premature release of 11 life convicts in the 2002 Bilkis Bano gang-rape case.

The Bench found that the Maharashtra government should have taken a call in the matter since the trial in the Bilkis Bano rape case took place in Maharashtra. The Bench also slammed the Gujarat government for "usurping" the power of the Maharashtra government in the matter.

This Bench also dealt with a petition which challenged the title of the film Ghooskhor Pandat on the ground that it equated “Pandat” (a caste within the Hindu society) with “Ghooskhor” (bribe-taker). Justice Bhuyan authored the judgment in the case in which he cited his previous judgment stated that 75 years into the life of the republic, India cannot afford to treat poetry, satire, films or other forms of art as automatic triggers for communal discord.

The judge also made it clear that no one can be permitted to target any particular community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region, especially public figures occupying high constitutional office.

"It is therefore constitutionally impermissible for anybody, be it the State or non-state actors, through any medium, such as, speeches, memes, cartoons, visual arts etc, to vilify and denigrate any community," the judgment said.

Justice Bhuyan has also spent time on a bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka. This Bench passed a verdict in 2024 holding that bail conditions enabling investigating agencies to constantly track the whereabouts of an accused are arbitrary and unlawful. The Bench ruled that it is not permissible for courts to order an accused to share his Google PIN location with the police authorities as a condition for the grant of bail stating,

"The investigating agency cannot be permitted to continuously peep into the private life of the accused enlarged on bail by imposing arbitrary conditions since that will violate the right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 21."

The same Bench in another case delivered a landmark verdict on the protection of free speech in India as it quashed a Gujarat Police case against Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Imran Pratapgarhi over a poem uploaded by him on social media.

The Bench stressed that courts must be at the forefront to protect the fundamental rights of citizens facing repercussions for exercising their right to freedom of expression. It also said that even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of that person to express the views must be respected and protected.

"The effect of spoke or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position," the Bench said.

Another significant ruling delivered by this Bench held that those accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) are also entitled to copies of documents that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) does not rely on for investigation or prosecution. It held that this is part of an accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The same Bench also delivered a ruling asserting that courts must not order takedown of media reporting of court proceedings without valid reason at the cost of public debate and impartiality.

"Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism," Justice Bhuyan said, while pronouncing the verdict.

Some of Justice Bhuyan's most outspoken moments on the Bench can be found in his dissenting (or partially dissenting) opinions in some major judgments.

In September 2024,  the Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in relation to the corruption allegations surrounding the now scrapped Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22. Kejriwal had filed two separate pleas before the top court - one challenging the legality of his arrest by the CBI and a second plea seeking bail.

A Bench of then Justice Surya Kant and Justice Bhuyan unanimously held that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader should be released on bail. However, the judges differed on the legality of the CM's arrest.

Justice Kant held that the CBI's arrest of Kejriwal after he was granted bail in the ED case was valid and in compliance with relevant procedural laws.

On the other hand, Justice Bhuyan differed from Justice Kant with respect to the necessity and the timing of the AAP leader's arrest. Justice Bhuyan criticised the CBI, saying that Kejriwal's arrest by the agency after he secured bail in the ED case was only to frustrate his release from prison. The judge also said that the CBI must dispel the notion that it is the Central government's "caged parrot" which engages in politically motivated targeted harassment.

"CBI must be seen above board and every effort must be made so that arrest is not in a high-handed manner," Justice Bhuyan said.

In 2025, in a case concerning the legality of retrospective environmental clearances (EC), Justice Bhuyan dissented from the majority verdict of then CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran which allowed a review petition, effectively permitting retrospective grant of ECs for projects.

Justice Bhuyan in his dissenting opinion said that the Court cannot be seen backtracking on the sound environmental jurisprudence that has evolved in this country, that too, on a review petition filed by persons who have shown scant regard for the rule of law.

“Before parting with the record, I would like to painfully observe that the deadly Delhi smog reminds us everyday about the hazards of environmental pollution," he added.

Other glimpses into Justice Bhuyan's judicial philosophy

Beyond his written judgments, Justice Bhuyan’s public addresses over the years offer a window into his judicial philosophy.

In March this year, while speaking at a Supreme Court Bar Association conference, Justice Bhuyan delivered what is perhaps his sharpest institutional critique. He said that a “more loyal than the king syndrome” within parts of the judiciary has contributed to prolonged incarceration of accused persons.

“Many within the judiciary suffer from this more loyal than the king syndrome. As a result, people continue to languish in jails for months and months together,” Justice Bhuyan said.

During his address, Justice Bhuyan raised concerns about prolonged detention under laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

“The PMLA is a potent weapon. But like any weapon, if it is overused, it will lose its potency,” he said.

A month later, while speaking at a book release event, Justice Bhuyan advocated for payment of compensation to individuals who undergo prolonged detention under strict statutes like PMLA only to be ultimately acquitted.

“Constitutional courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45 to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time,” Justice Bhuyan said.

Speaking at a seminar organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in February this year, Justice Bhuyan asserted that constitutional morality must prevail over popular morality. 

Illustrating the gulf between constitutional guarantees and lived reality, he shared a personal anecdote of how his daughter's Muslim friend was denied accommodation in Delhi once a prospective landlady learned her surname.

He stressed that courts must actively bridge these social divides, adding,

"This is a mirror to us showing how distant we still are from the benchmark of constitutional morality even after seventy five years into our republic.”

Judicial independence from executive overreach is a subject that Justice Bhuyan has spoken about on several occasions.

In January this year, Justice Bhuyan asserted that transfer of judges is an internal matter of the judiciary and that the government should have no role in the process. Justice Bhuyan cautioned that any departure from this principle compromises judicial independence and defeats the purpose of insulating the judiciary from outside influence.

In March 2026, Justice Bhuyan spoke candidly on the internal diversity and representation in the judiciary, highlighting the fact that not a single woman judge was elevated to the Supreme Court during the entire tenure of former CJI DY Chandrachud.

Interestingly, Justice Bhuyan has also countered the rigid view of judicial restraint, remarking that it is wrong to say that judges should not interfere with law-making.

“According to me, the criticism that unelected judges of constitutional courts should not interfere in the law making by the elected representatives of the people has no legal or constitutional basis. This is because the Constitution has mandated the Supreme Court the power to examine whether law made by the parliament conforms to the constitutional requirement and if not, to strike down such law by exercising the power of judicial review."

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan was hearing a plea by retired Air Force officers seeking action against the organisers of the Jantar Mantar protests for their alleged role in the July 20 demonstrations.

The plea alleged that statements made by leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) incited protesters.

During the hearing, CJI Kant stressed the need for restraint while dealing with demonstrations.

"We need to tread carefully so that these youngsters do not indulge in violence. The better course is to counsel them and pacify them. The most powerful tool is listening. Listen to them and understand why they are shouting," said CJI Kant.

The Supreme Court has been hearing a batch of petitions arising from the protests held at Delhi's Jantar Mantar and other parts of India over repeated question paper leaks.

The protests began in June following a call by the online collective Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which demanded the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over repeated question paper leaks.

The protests culminated in a "Sansad Chalo" march to Parliament on July 20 despite the Delhi Police stating that permission had not been granted for the march.

Clashes broke out during the march, with allegations that the police resorted to disproportionate force including lathi charges, tear gas and pellet guns to disperse the student protesters

Pradhan resigned on July 25, following which the protests were called off.

Notably, on July 28, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive action be taken against protesters and ordered the immediate release of minors detained by the police across different States.

The plea before the Court today was filed by retired Air Force officers seeking action against organisers of the protests.

The petitioner's counsel argued that while accountability has been sought from the government and the police over the events of July 20, no action has been taken against the organisers of the protest even after 15 days. He submitted that the organisers are continuing to make provocative public statements and should be held responsible for the resulting violence.

Organisers of public gatherings are routinely held accountable for lapses, the counsel argued.

"Even where there is a congregation, say a religious congregation, if there is an act of negligence, or even if there is a fire in the pandal, the organisers are held responsible. In fact, they are the first to be held responsible, be it an act of God, a stampede, or anything else. In the present case... if the Government is on the back foot, society cannot be on the back foot. The law cannot be on the back foot," the counsel submitted.

He further contended that allowing protesters to violate police-imposed conditions and attempt to march towards parliament despite permission being denied would set a dangerous precedent.

He also raised concerns over the security implications of the march, submitting that the authorities could not have known whether anyone in the crowd was carrying weapons.

"What if they had opened fire? They were not marching on a national highway. They were not marching on a railway line. They were marching towards the temple of democracy. Everyone must be held accountable," said the counsel.

CJI Kant said the priority should be to facilitate peaceful protests while ensuring that situations do not spiral out of control.

"What is important is to promote a peaceful march. If some incident takes place, the police also need to exercise a great deal of restraint to ensure that the situation does not go out of hand. Wherever such incidents take place, we need to deal with them very carefully," he said.

He also added that decisions on dealing with such situations should be left to the law enforcement authorities.

"But let us leave it to the wisdom of the law-enforcement agencies. They know better than you, and they know better than us, how to deal with this kind of situation," held CJI Kant.

Noting that another pending petition raised issues from the opposite perspective, the Court observed that both matters should be considered together.

It subsequently issued notice on the retired Air Force officers' plea and directed that it be tagged with the batch of pending petitions concerning the protests.

[Read Live Coverage]

A Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and B Pugalendhi made the observation after finding that a photocopy of a revenue record furnished to a government advocate appeared to have concealed an entry showing that a parcel of patta (privately owned) land was also a water spread area.

“Any false information given to the Government counsel directly interferes with the administration of justice. It would constitute contempt of Court,” the Court said.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by J Abdul Malik and J Siddiq Ali, residents of Thuvarankurichi village in Tiruchirappalli district. The petitioners alleged that a water channel had been blocked and encroached upon. They sought directions to the authorities to remove alleged encroachments in Sakkiliyankulam channel in Survey No. 33/1 and Karanthapadikulam in Survey Nos. 68 and 69/2.

During the hearing, the Government Advocate conceded that Survey Nos. 68 and 69/2 were water bodies. However, on the basis of written instructions received from the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, the government submitted that Survey No. 33/1 was patta land.

The petitioners then drew the Court's attention to the relevant A-Register extract. It showed that Survey No. 33/1 had been classified as a water spread area or “Neerpidipu”.

The Court clarified that a water spread area could also be patta land, but the rights of the patta holder over such land were limited.

It consequently directed the authorities to maintain the character of Survey No. 33/1 as a water spread area. Encroachments on the water bodies were ordered to be removed after giving the alleged encroachers notice and an opportunity of hearing. The exercise must be completed within 4 months.

However, the Bench did not leave the matter at that. It found that while the A-Register contained a remark identifying Survey No. 33/1 as a water spread area, the remarks column in the photocopy furnished to the government advocate was blank.

“While taking photo copy, this entry appears to have been concealed. This is nothing a short of misleading the Court,” the Bench observed.

The judges pointed out that courts frequently rely on submissions made by government counsel, who themselves rely on instructions received from the officials concerned.

The Court, therefore, directed the Registrar (Judicial) to call for an explanation from the Tahsildar of Marungapuri Taluk.

The report has been directed to be placed before the Bench on August 6. The Court said it would thereafter decide whether to initiate suo motu contempt of court action.

Advocate RR Kannan appeared for the petitioners.

Government Advocate P Rajagopalan represented the State authorities.

[Read Order]

As part of the transaction, Rainmatter, EAAA Alternatives and Omnivore also acquired a minority stake through secondary share purchases from certain existing shareholders,

Khaitan & Co advised Arboreal on this fundraise. The Firm's scope of work involved negotiations, marking up, finalisation and execution of transaction documents, and closing of the transaction.

The transaction team consisted of Hardik Bhatia (Partner), Nishant Chris Mathews (Principal Associate), Rhythm Chopra (Senior Associate) and Insaf Ahamad T K (Associate).

JSA Advocates & Solicitors advised EAAA Alternatives and Omnivore on this fundraise, on both the primary subscription and the associated secondary acquisitions from existing shareholders.

The transaction was led by Siddharth Mody (Partner), with Anurag Shrivastav (Partner), with support from Esha Himadri (Senior Associate), Associates Gavin Pereira and Damini Chouhan.

Anurag Shrivastav, Tanmayee Sahoo (Senior Associate), Associates Gavin Pereira and Prakhar Jain conducted due diligence.

Arboreal develops, manufactures and commercialises specialty food and nutraceutical ingredients through an integrated ingredient technology platform combining ingredient engineering, process research and development, formulation science and precision manufacturing. Its portfolio includes next-generation proteins, cocoa-based ingredients, natural zero-calorie sweeteners, functional fibres and other proprietary ingredient solutions designed for the food, beverage and nutraceutical industries.

The company plans to utilize the new capital to increase its manufacturing capabilities, enhance research and development efforts, and speed up the market launch of its next generation of functional ingredients.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advised Adani Energy Solutions on this QIP.

The transaction was led by Devaki Mankad (Partner, Regional Co-Head – Capital Markets – West), with support from Rishav Buxi (Principal Associate), Adwait Deshmukh (Senior Associate), and Associates Archit Jain, Arikta Shetty, Janhavi Deshmukh, Harsha Menon, Akshat Sharma and Sajal Soni.

Trilegal advised the placement agents, which included SBI Capital Markets Limited, ICICI Securities Limited, IIFL Capital Services Limited and Jefferies India Private Limited.

The transaction was led by Richa Choudhary (Partner) and Maitreya Rajurkar (Partner), with support from Avanti Kale (Counsel), Sanya Chaudhari (Senior Associate) and Associates, Samruddhi Varma, Harsh Handa, and Shreyansh Gupta.

A&O Shearman acted as the international legal counsel to the placement agents.

The transaction was led by Pallavi Gopinath Aney (Partner) and Kyungwon (Won) Lee (Partner), with support from Nabil Shadab (Senior Associate) and Shinjan Alok (Associate).

Adani Energy Solutions is one of India's leading integrated energy solutions providers, with operations spanning transmission, distribution, smart metering, centralized cooling and energy solutions. The Company is also India's largest private-sector transmission company.

The QIP was oversubscribed by more than three times. Proceeds from the QIP are proposed to be used towards funding the capital expenditure requirements of certain subsidiaries, repayment of certain borrowings availed by Adani Energy Solutions and its subsidiaries and to fund inorganic growth through unidentified acquisitions.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.

Morgan Lewis advised CMT on this transaction.

The transaction team consisted of Doug Kingston (Partner), Andrew Hamilton (Partner), Charles Condro (Associate) and Maha Ouni (Associate).

Khaitan & Co advised CMT on the Indian law aspects of the transaction, involving incentive plans for Indian employees.

The transaction team consisted of Monika Srivastava (Partner), Sanchit Agarwal (Partner) and Romit Kohli (Senior Associate), with assistance from Ritu Shaktawat (Partner) on direct tax aspects and Shabnam Shaikh (Partner) on regulatory aspects.

Cambridge Mobile Telematics (CMT) is the world’s largest telematics and AI company for safer mobility. The company’s AI-driven platform, DriveWell Fusion®, proactively identifies and reduces driving risk, leading to fewer crashes and injuries.

The new investors will accelerate CMT’s expansion in three key areas: scaling its global road safety platform, advancing AI models for real-time driving risk assessment and crash detection, and growing adoption of the new Universal Driving Score. 

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.

A July 23 circular had only ordered a one-time inspection of every college, to be completed within 6 weeks. A fresh circular, dated August 4, follows a court order as opposed to the oral remarks that prompted the July one.

On July 29, Justice Nyapathy Vijay of Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the disaffiliation of All Saints Christian Law College, Vizag, which was found running from about 4,762 square feet, a fraction of what its sanctioned intake of 720 students required. The College had tried to accommodate the extra students by running morning and afternoon shifts. Such an arrangement was already deemed impermissible by the BCI.

The fresh circular also follows a meeting of the Standing Committee on Legal Education under the chairpersonship of retired Justice Rajendra Menon.

Beyond the inspect-before-affiliating rule, the fresh circular adds requirements the July one didn't have. Universities must now verify a college's land ownership or lease documents, its capital funds and the registration of the trust or society running it. They can no longer keep giving repeated conditional affiliation to colleges with long-standing deficiencies and inspection reports can no longer just say a college is "satisfactory". They need specific findings, measurements and dated, geo-tagged photographs, the circular states.

Universities now have 6 weeks from August 4, not from July 23, to complete the inspection and file one report.

"The present directions are intended to ensure that affiliation is not reduced to a documentary formality and that every student admitted to a law course receives legal education in an institution possessing the faculty, infrastructure, library, academic environment and facilities required under law. The object is not to disrupt genuine institutions or prejudice students, but to ensure that every law degree recognised for enrolment as an advocate is earned through real teaching, qualified full-time faculty, adequate infrastructure and meaningful practical training," the August 4 circular said.

The circulars also note that the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment protects only students already admitted under interim court orders and says that this should not be read as permission for any other college to keep admitting students while it remains non-compliant.

Approval renewals will be withheld until BCI gets satisfactory reports and action can follow against both the concerned college and the university.

[Read Circular]

Project 39A is a criminal justice research and litigation centre at National Law University Delhi, which has drawn inspiration from Article 39A of the Constitution of India and works within the intersections of research, academia, litigation, legal aid, access to justice and criminal justice reform across the domains of the death penalty, undertrial incarceration, forensics, torture and mental health.

The National Law University, Delhi (NLUD) was established in 2008 under the National Law University Act, 2007 with the objective of imparting comprehensive and interdisciplinary legal education.

Project 39A welcomes original Articles and Blogs that contribute constructively to criminal law, policy and institutional reform. Its publication platform serves as a forum for public scholarship that informs legal debate, supports policy development and encourages critical engagement with contemporary issues surrounding the criminal justice system.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

A. Eligible Contributors and Publication Themes

• Project 39A welcomes contributions from a diverse pool of writers working on or engaging with the criminal justice system or allied fields, including but not limited to lawyers, students, academics, researchers, journalists and other practitioners from allied disciplines.

• Submissions can be centred around themes relevant to the criminal justice system, including but not limited to capital punishment, legal aid, access to justice, custodial violence, mental health, forensics and others. Submissions exploring other questions that lie within, intersect with, or emerge at the boundaries of the criminal justice system are also welcome.

B. Submission Format

• Submissions must present original arguments, supported by accurate legal authorities, empirical evidence or other reliable sources.

• Submissions should maintain high standards of academic integrity. Project 39A publishes for a diverse readership and contributors should write in simple language, explain technical concepts where necessary and communicate complex ideas without unnecessary jargon.

• Word Count: 800-1500 words for Blogs and 2500-3000 words for Articles. Exceptions may be made if deemed appropriate by the editors. Ensure that the title clearly communicates the topic and conveys the essence of the piece to the reader.

• Title: A clear, descriptive title.

• Formatting: Times New Roman, Size- 12, single spaced with 1-inch margins.

• Author Bio: 50-100 words, to be submitted as a separate section at the end of the document.

• Anonymised body text: The body of the submission should not contain the author’s name or other identifying details. It should appear only in the author bio.

• Author Photograph: Contributors are requested to submit a small headshot for the byline. This is optional but encouraged.

• Co-authorship is permitted for up to two authors.

C. Submission Process

• All submissions must be sent through the “Articles & Blog” section of Project 39A’s website (https://www.project39a.com).

• Contributors should use the “Submit an Article/Blog” section of the website, rather than sending submission by any other channel.

• Last date of submission is August 30, 2026.

D. Contact

• Questions regarding submissions or these Guidelines may be directed to the Editorial Team through the contact details published on the Project 39A website. Readers are strongly encouraged to carefully go through the submission guidelines prior to making queries, as the Project 39A team may not be able to respond to each and every single query.

• If the piece is accepted for publication, there may be a delay between acceptance and publication in the interests of managing copy flow. The Project 39A team aims to minimise this when a piece covers a very recent or urgent issue.

• Project 39A is currently active on social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter; and are open to tagging you on these platforms upon publication of the blog, subject to your prior intimation.

For further details and more comprehensive guidelines on the editorial process, requirements for style, language and referencing as well as the use of AI, ownership, copyright, licensing and use of images and audio-visual content, kindly refer to the detailed submission guidelines on the “Articles & Blog” section of Project 39A’s website - https://www.project39a.com

<Sponsored by the Brand>

Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari said that the remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked for settling a contractual dispute or claims arising out of the contract. He added that since the YouTuber's claim was based on an agreement with the platform, the writ petition was not maintainable.

"For resolving the dispute raised in the writ petition, other remedies are available to the petitioner. Public law remedy under Article 226 is certainly not a remedy available for resolving such dispute. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to avail such remedy, as is available to her under law," it said.

The petition was moved by one Swati alias Smriti Negi for restoration of her YouTube channel. Her counsel said that her account was deleted from YouTube on account of three copyright strikes, without any notice or opportunity of hearing.

However, the Court said the relief sought by her cannot be granted in a writ petition.

"It is not in dispute that petitioner entered into an agreement with YouTube with certain terms and conditions. If YouTube finds that any one or more terms and conditions, settled between the parties, has been violated, then the account of the petitioner can be deleted," it added.

Though the petitioner argued that she did not violate any terms or conditions of the agreement, the Court asked her to avail any other remedy that may be available to her.

Advocate Shubhr Rastogi represented the petitioner.

Central Government Standing Counsel Saurabh Adhikari appeared for the Union government.

Standing Counsel Suyash Pant appeared for State.

[Read Order]

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya had initially proposed having Banerjee's eye condition assessed by a medical board at SSKM hospital to examine whether eye treatment could be availed in India.

The Court noted that Banerjee's choice of treatment has to be assessed against the fact that he is facing several criminal cases in which investigation is ongoing.

In this context, the Court indicated that it is not inclined to allow Banerjee's travel abroad without first getting his eye condition assessed in India to see if foreign travel is necessary.

Since Banerjee was not willing to get such an assessment done in India, the Court decided to dismiss his plea.

"In view of submission by the counsel for the applicant (on instructions) that he will not appear before the medical board as indicated by this court, this court finds the issue which is agitated by filing the application ought not to be kept pending further. Hence, present application is dismissed," the Court said.

Banerjee's plea for permission to travel abroad came against the backdrop of a string of FIRs registered against Banerjee after the BJP swept the West Bengal Assembly elections and came to power in the State on May 4.

Among other cases, Banerjee also faces FIRs for allegedly provocative comments made during election campaigns. Banerjee has filed petitions seeking to quash these cases and has secured interim protection in several of them.

As a condition for such interim relief in an election speech case, Banerjee was directed not to leave the country without the High Court's permission. Banerjee later sought permission to go abroad for eye treatment.

Last month, the High Court refused to immediately grant Banerjee permission to travel abroad. The High Court said that the grant of such permission would only be considered after the SSKM Hospital found that the eye treatment was not possible in Kolkata.

Banerjee later moved the Supreme Court against this order. On August 3, the top court said that the final decision should be left to the High Court and asked it to decide the matter within a week.

The matter was then heard by the High Court today.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John, representing Banerjee, today pointed out that he is only seeking permission to travel abroard for a limited time for medical purposes. As a Member of Parliament (MP) holding a diplomatic passport, his movement is always tracked, she said. He has family here and has travelled abroad and returned to India several times, she said.

She urged the Court to grant him permission for such travel this time as well, adding that strict conditions can be imposed.

The Court, however, questioned whether it is absolutely essential that Banerjee's eye treatment be received only abroad.

"There is another aspect. If this treatment can be administered in India, there is no need to go abroad. I will direct Department of Ophthalmology in SSKM - a three-member committee can check Banerjee and give a report. Whether you are ready to appear before SSKM board or no? If treatment is very urgent, it can be administered in our country also. In medical science, it is not like we (India) are lagging behind. We are also making advancements in medical science. Supreme Court judges are getting treated here in our country," Justice Bhattacharya observed.

John countered that the TMC leader has been continuously availing medical treatment at a hospital abroad (John Hopkins). She said that it is a matter of choice as to where Banerjee wants to go for his eye treatment, and that continuity in medical treatment is always advisable. She also placed on record a report from John Hopkins, indicating the treatments earlier administered to Banerjee.

She added that Banerjee had earlier developed a eye condition after some treatment in India was not properly carried out. On instructions, John said that Banerjee's application may be dismissed if the Court is not inclined to allow him to go abroad for the eye treatment.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumder, opposed Banerjee's plea. He contended that there was no medical emergency that required Banerjee to go abroad for eye treatment. He added that investigation is ongoing in several FIRs against Banerjee and his presence may be required.

John pointed out that there is only one case where the Court had placed an embargo on travel abroad.

The Court, however, was not persuaded to allow any foreign travel without Banerjee's condition first being assessed in India, to confirm that his eye condition cannot be treated adequately within the country.

Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharyya also appeared for Banerjee.

[Read Live Coverage]

Justice Arif Doctor ordered social media platforms and intermediaries to take down defamatory and abusive content against Gadkari.

The suit was filed by Gadkari against Meta, X, Google/YouTube, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Department of Telecommunications, and unknown users described as “Ashok Kumar/John Doe.”

The Court noted that the content flagged by Gadkari was vile and abusive.

"One such transcript appears on instagram reel. There are other content. The material which plaintiff seeks to pull down, I can only say that the same is absolutely vile and abusive. Such material should have no place on public platform, which is accessible to everyone including young. The applicant has made out a case for ad interim relief. Meta and google have appeared and they have agreed to take down the material set out in exhibit c. Their statement is accepted," the Court said in its interim order.

Hence, it directed that such content be taken down.

Further, if any such content comes to the knowledge of Gadkari in future, he can inform the intermediaries of the same who will then have to take necessary action.

"In the event certain further defamatory content come to the knowledge of the plaintiff, they shall inform the defendants who will take action," the Court said.

"There may be some content which may be fair," the counsel for Meta pointed out.

"I am not stopping any to fair criticism," Gadkari's lawyer said.

"I agree it is not about criticism," the judge too said.

"Any further abusive material or deep fake photographs, the same shall be communicated to defendant . In the event there ia grey area, they will have liberty to move court," the Court stated.

The court also urged Google and Meta to come up with a mechanism to take down content, without having to approach the court every time.

The matter will be heard again after 4 weeks.

Gadkari moved the Court seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions for the takedown of allegedly manipulated videos and images described in the plaint as AI-generated “defamatory content” and “deep fake content.”

According to the plea, the material falsely attributes personal responsibility to him for the E20 programme and contains insinuations that he and his family have derived undue pecuniary benefits from it.

According to the plea, the material falsely attributed personal responsibility to Gadkari for the E20 programme and alleged that he and his family benefited from it.

The petition specifically referred to claims that his son, Nikhil Gadkari, runs CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Limited, a company engaged in manufacturing ethanol and other products, and that this allegedly results in indirect benefit from ethanol blending of petrol.

Gadkari denied these allegations.

The suit relied on a series of posts, reels and videos that allegedly blame Gadkari for introducing or mandating E20 petrol and for vehicle damage said to have been caused by ethanol blends.

The plea said that defamatory the content insinuates corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of office by suggesting that his family has “derived undue pecuniary benefits from E20.

As per the plea, these imputations are false and amount to “documentary falsity,” since, according to official records cited in the suit, the programme is run by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

Gadkari stated that he was not seeking to restrain “fair, just and bona fide criticism” of policy or his public life.

However, he contended that the challenged content contains profane and abusive language and fabricated quotes and visuals, which he says falls outside the scope of legitimate political criticism or satire.

Advocates Sandeep S Ladda, Shivani Khanwilkar, Saloni Shah and Dhun Vinod Santosh appeared for Gadkari.

Team from Shardul Amarchand and Mangaldas appeared for Meta.

The earlier order had restricted the extraction and dissemination of audio and video recordings of court proceedings without prior permission. It had also stated that the directions would not affect reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets.

In the July 31 order, a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana noted that some confusion had nevertheless persisted over that clarification.

The Court, therefore, clarified,

"The order is not to be construed as imposing a blanket prohibition on the reporting of court proceedings by recognised news outlets. Such outlets may, therefore, continue to report on the proceedings and inform the general public of legal developments and judicial pronouncements, save that audio or video clips of the court proceedings shall not be utilised in the course of such reportage."

The Court, however, made it clear that while courtroom reporting remains unaffected, recognised news outlets must continue to comply with the restrictions imposed under its earlier interim order.

The clarification relates to the Court's July 24 interim order, which barred the extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, reposting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing and hosting of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission.

Such permission must now be obtained from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the Registrar General of the concerned High Court.

Even while issuing those interim directions, the Court had expressly stated that its order would not affect media reporting of court proceedings.

"It is clarified that this order shall have no bearing on the reporting of Court proceedings by recognized news outlets," it had said.

Additionally, the Court had directed the Union government to place before it a proposal, formulated in consultation with the nodal ministries, to give effect to the prayers in the petition.

It had also asked all High Courts to file status reports on the adoption of the Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings and explain the feasibility of continuous, uninterrupted live streaming.

The matter is listed for further hearing on September 18.

[Read Order]

Khaitan & Co advised BNP Paribas Cardif on this stake acquisition. The Firm provided end-to-end legal representation to BNP Paribas Cardif with respect to the deal including drafting, reviewing, commenting, marking-up and negotiating the Share Purchase Agreement and the Shareholders' Agreement; conducting the legal due-diligence exercise on the Target; and advising on regulatory related aspects.

The transaction team consisted of K Aishwarya (Partner), Shishir Jose Vayttaden (Partner), Niyati Dholakia (Principal Associate) and Ambreen Rahman (Associate). The following provided assistance:

Insurance law aspects: Aravind Venugopal (Partner) and Amrutha Alapati (Associate);

Transaction structure aspects: Mohit Kishore (Partner), Bhaskar Vishwajeet (Associate) and Jahnavi Yalavarthi (Associate);

Competition law aspects: Anisha Chand (Partner), Alisha Mehra (Principal Associate), Yatharth Vardhan Singh (Senior Associate), and Vrinda Bhardwaj (Associate);

Intellectual property law aspects: Nirupam Lodha (Partner), Shivangi Narang (Principal Associate) and Gautam Wadhwa (Senior Associate);

Employment law aspects: Vinay Joy (Partner), Aditya J Nair (Senior Associate), Shaaryl Dsouza (Associate) and Tanvi Uday Shetty (Associate);

Data privacy law aspects: Supratim Chakraborty (Partner), Himeli Chatterjee (Senior Associate) and Mayank Barman (Associate).

BNP Paribas Cardif intends to roll out its proven bancassurance strategy in India by partnering with Bank of Baroda and Union Bank of India to expand the availability of financial protection and savings products.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.

Trilegal advised PN Gadgil Jewellers and the placement agent Nuvama Wealth Management Limited on this QIP.

The transaction was led by Abhinav Maker (Partner), with support from Debarpita Pande (Senior Associate), Maniya Goyal (Senior Associate), Jayant Saxena (Senior Associate) and Varda Saxena (Associate).

PN Gadgil Jewellers is the third fastest growing jewellery brand amongst the select organised jewellery peers in India with a CAGR of 33.56, based on the revenue growth between Fiscal 2023 and Fiscal 2026. It is one of the largest jewellery brands in Maharashtra among the organised select players, in terms of the total number of stores, with 68 of its 77 stores in India, which is approximately 88% of the stores located in Maharashtra, as of April 2026.

The proceeds of the QIP are proposed to be used towards the opening of new stores and funding working capital requirements.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.

CMS INDUSLAW advised Axis Finance on this NCD issuance.

The transaction team consisted of Abir Lal Dey (Partner), Khushi Sharma (Associate) and Soham Dwibedi (Associate).

The team had also advised Axis Finance on their $45 million NCD issuance last month.

The issuance comprised a base issue of ₹100 crore and a green shoe option of up to ₹300 crore. The debentures were listed on the BSE Limited, with Catalyst Trusteeship Limited acting as the Debenture Trustee.

The successful issuance reinforces Axis Finance's continued access to the domestic debt capital markets and supports the diversification of its funding sources, enhancing its liquidity profile and funding flexibility. The proceeds will provide long-term capital to support the company's lending activities and asset-liability management strategy.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.

Legacy Law Offices advised Apar Advertisers as well as the Book Running Lead Manager, Pune E-Stock Broking Ltd, on this IPO. This also marks the BRLM’s first-ever IPO.

The transaction was led by Naman Anand (Counsel), with support from Priya Kataria (Associate Partner), Meghna Shukla (Associate), and Pavitra Balgi (Associate).

Amarendra Gogoi (Partner) and Pratishtha Gulati (Associate) advised on General Corporate aspects.

Apar Advertisers is engaged in the business of providing advertising services, with a primary focus on Out-of-Home (“OOH”) advertising media. Apar offers advertising services through various media formats, including hoardings, transit media such as railway and bus branding, kiosks, mall branding, and digital marketing platforms. In addition the Company undertakes media planning, campaign execution, and client management services.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for the platform and made the submission before a Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar.

The Court was hearing a batch of appeals filed by Indian Kanoon against the right to be forgotten verdict delivered by a single-judge on June 1.

Datar stated that Indian Kanoon is the only legal website against which the order is passed.

“My difficulty is this. I am the only legal website. Now there is this thing that I should completely remove the name-based facility. Now, all legal websites have full search facility, free search facility,” Datar said.

The Court was informed that IndianKanoon had filed other appeals against the judgement as well, but no notices have been issued in the matters, and the cases are listed for hearing in October. 

The Bench pointed out that the matters were adjourned to October as the counsel appearing for IndianKanoon took an adjournment. 

Datar said that the October date is very far away and the platform is facing serious trouble.

“Can your lordships take it on an earlier date? Similar cases are coming up in other courts and this is being cited as a precedent. I am having serious trouble. I have already deleted 80 judgments. So, I can come next week? On 13 [August], I can come before your lordships. 6 October is very far. And they [the orders] don’t include SCC Online. They don’t include any other legal website. I am the only person who has to remove all the judgments,” Datar stated.

The Court agreed to Datar’s request and listed the appeals for preliminary hearing on August 13.

Single-judge Justice Sachin Datta had on June 1 recognised a person's right to be forgotten and held that individuals could seek removal of their names from searchable versions of court records where the information was "no longer relevant" or served "no legitimate public purpose."

In its appeal, India Kanoon said that the single-judge misread the Supreme Court's privacy verdict in KS Puttaswamy v Union of India. It contended that the judgment's brief observations on a "right to be forgotten" were obiter dicta (things said in passing) and do not create an enforceable right for litigants to erase names from judicial records.

According to the plea, the "relevance" and "public purpose" test set by the single-judge is vague and could lead to inconsistent, arbitrary outcomes across courts.

As per the appeal,

"The present appellant contests the Impugned Judgment and the directions... on the basis that the recognition of a ‘right to be forgotten’ does not strike a careful balance between the right to information and the principle of open justice under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and individual claims to ‘right to privacy’ against public records/court records."

Further, Indian Kanoon has claimed the ruling unfairly singles it out among multiple legal databases, violating its right to equality under Article 14, and unreasonably restricts its freedom to conduct business under Article 19(1(g), since name-based search is central to how lawyers, litigants, and researchers use the platform.

Any redaction of records should originate at the level of court registries rather than being imposed on private platforms, the plea said.

As per the plea,

"Name-based searches are the easiest possible way to query and search legal databases. These name-based searches are the equivalent of searching for case history, case status, or judgments by way of ‘party name’ on this Hon’ble Court’s website. It serves an important purpose in case retrieval."

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar along with advocates Apar Gupta, Naman Kumar and Uzma Sheikh appeared for Indian Kanoon.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary said that advising victims of dowry harassment or matrimonial cruelty to adjust and compromise will embolden the perpetrators.

"Quite often a victim of dowry-related harassment is advised to adjust, compromise or save the marriage, despite repeatedly informing their families about the cruelty being inflicted upon her. This Court is of the view that seldom such advice may unintentionally embolden the perpetrators and expose the victim to continued abuse, ultimately resulting in tragic and irreversible consequences of even death of the victim," the Court said.

The Court made the observation on July 27 while dealing with a dowry death case of a woman and her 15-month-old daughter.

The Court noted that the victim had on several occasions told her family members about the persistent dowry demands of her in-laws and the harassment she was being subjected to by them. 

Such repeated complaints ought not to have been treated as ordinary matrimonial disagreements, the Bench said. It added that they should have been recognised as genuine cries for help, protection and timely intervention. 

“This Court is of the view that the facts of the present case serves as a reminder that whenever a daughter repeatedly approaches her family seeking assistance and expresses the harassment, fear and humiliation she is facing in her matrimonial home, her concerns deserve to be heard with empathy, seriousness and urgency. It is the moral as well as the social responsibility of the family to support her, believe her version and take all necessary steps to ensure her safety and dignity,” the Bench said.

The Court was dealing with criminal appeals moved by the victim’s husband, two brother-in-laws, mother-in-law and her father-law. They were convicted under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in 2016. 

In the case dating back to 2011, 25-year-old Meena Devi and her 15-month-old daughter were killed in connection with an unfilled dowry demand.

It was alleged that while ₹2.26 lakh were paid by the victim’s family members at the time of marriage, there was an additional demand of a motorcycle and ₹1 lakh.

The High Court ruled that the evidence clearly established the legal requirements for dowry death and domestic cruelty. It, thus, upheld the conviction.

Underscoring the need for urgent intervention in dowry death cases, the Court observed that while legal proceedings to secure justice are necessary and commendable, they cannot replace timely intervention that may prevent such deaths.

The present case is not merely about holding the accused accountable and convicting them as per law, rather it conveys a larger message that every plea for help made by a daughter must be treated with compassion, seriousness and prompt action, the Court emphasised.

“Timely intervention can prevent irreparable loss, whereas delayed remorse and litigation cannot bring back a life that has already been lost,” the Bench said.

The Court added that it is the shared responsibility of families, communities and society to ensure that no woman is compelled to suffer in silence and that every call for help is answered. 

"Families, relatives and society at large must recognize that every complaint of dowry harassment or domestic cruelty deserves immediate attention, so as to have meaningful and effective resolution, before it is too late," the Bench stated.

Though the Court upheld the conviction, it reduced the sentence of the accused from life imprisonment to the period already undergone.

It said the trial court had failed to record a reasoning for awarding the maximum punishment under Section 304-B of IPC.

Advocates Deepshikha Singh, Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Ghulam Mohammad Kamil, Kunwer Dhananjay Singh, Piyush Kumar Singh and Vyas Narayan Shukla represented the convicts.

[Read Judgment]

Justice Geetha KB made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the biological father of a Swamiji (Hindu monk) seeking the enhancement of motor accident compensation payable for the monk's death in a bike accident.

The Court held that the father was not the monk's legal representative to pursue such claims, since the monk had renounced his biological family when he took up monkhood.

Rather, after his death, the monk's legal representative would be his Math (the religious institution he headed).

"Where a deceased had severed ties with his biological family upon entering religious circles, it can be presumed that the religious institution shall be the legal representative of the deceased ... If the claim petition had been filed on behalf of the Math by its Administrative officer or any other responsible officer of the Math, definitely the claim petition would have been maintainable. However, in the present case, it is filed by the biological father ... Hence, claimant is not at all entitled for compensation," the Court ruled.

The case concerned the death of Pirayogi Gulshannath Gurupeer Harinathji Maharaj, a Hindu monk who died in December 2009 after his motorcycle collided with a truck.

The monk's biological father later approached a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation for the monk's death.

The claim was opposed by the insurer on the ground that the deceased had renounced worldly life, become a sanyasi and gone on to become the head (Matadeesha) of Kirawala Math. Therefore, the insurer contended that the monk's biological father could no longer claim to be his legal representative.

The tribunal accepted this contention and refused to grant the monk's father compensation under conventional heads such as loss of dependency. Instead, it awarded only a compensation of ₹50,000 towards loss of estate.

The father challenged this ruling before the High Court and sought additional compensation.

The High Court upheld the tribunal's order and dismissed the father's appeal. The Court agreed with the finding that the monk's biological father could no longer claim to be his legal representative.

"Once the person renounces the world and became Swamiji of the Math, then he severed his ties with his biological family. The Swamiji by severing all his connection with his biological family became Mathdeesha and accepted ascetic life. Thus, there is complete disassociation with his biological family in all respects," the Court explained.

The High Court went on to highlight that it was the monk's Math that can pursue the compensation claim, since it depended on his labour and service.

"He continued to serve the needs of Math and discharged managerial duties of Math. In such circumstances, the religious institution, being the recipient of the fruits of his labour and service, would stand in the position of legal representative and would be entitled to claim compensation," the Court said.

The Court, therefore, refused to enhance the compensation payable to the monk's biological father.

However, it retained the MACT's decision to award the father ₹50,000 as compensation under the head of 'loss of estate', since the insurer had not challenged this.

Advocate Bahubali N Kanabaragi represented the father of the deceased. The insurance company was represented by advocate SK Kayakamath.

[Read Order]

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe directed the Ministry to take into account eight principles laid down by the Court as well as the rules already operating in the field while framing the guidelines under Rule 17(2) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026.

Rule 17(2) of the 2026 Rules provides for guidelines to govern the imposition and collection of environmental compensation for violations of the Rules.

Besides that, the Court also laid down the following 8 principles:

I) Environmental compensation cannot be seen as a replacement for penalties levied against the erring polluter. It is restitutionary in nature and is paid in addition to the penalty or fine that the polluter is liable to pay.

II) The temporal extent of paying compensation by the polluter ends only when the damage caused is reversed.

III) The appropriate authorities of the State have a duty to undertake an exercise of valuing the damage caused by the polluter and collect such compensation required for restoration of the environment

IV) While determining the amount of environmental compensation, both tangible and intangible damage caused by the polluter must be considered.

V) Even if actual harm is not caused but is imminent or the actions/activities of the polluter have the potential to cause harm, the liability to pay compensation will come into place.

VI) Factors such as the financial capacity of the polluter, the cost involved in assessing the damage and loss suffered by individuals and the environment as well as the cost of remediation or restoration are also to be taken into account while valuing such compensation.

VII) Any environmental compensation levied must be proportional to the damage caused by the polluter and must have some rational nexus to the pollution caused.

VIII) All courts and tribunals must record reasons while determining environmental compensation, listing the factors considered, the valuation standard used to assess such damages and the formula or guidelines applied to quantify the compensation payable.

"In conclusion, we direct the MoEF&CC to take into account the above-referred principles for determination and imposition of environmental compensation, as also the Rules that operate in the field, to formulate the necessary guidelines to be issued under Rule 17(2) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026," the Court ordered.

The Court also directed the Ministry to file an affidavit placing on record the progress made in framing and issuing the regulations.

The Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 were notified on January 27 and came into force on April 1, superseding the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.

At the outset, the Court said its endeavour was to institutionalise solid waste management in the country.

It observed that making enforceable laws was only the beginning and that constitutional courts and tribunals must ensure that the statutory framework translates into an effective system of enforcement.

The Bench noted that the 2026 Rules provide for a Central Implementation Committee, which has since been constituted. The Committee is tasked with preparing guidelines for the imposition and collection of environmental compensation for violations of the Rules.

However, the Court stressed that the determination of such compensation should not be left to the discretion of regulatory bodies, tribunals or courts.

"There must be a structured regime through which people will know with clarity and certainty, as to, for which type of environmental violation, what consequential punitive action will follow," the Court said.

It then examined its earlier rulings on environmental compensation and laid down eight principles to govern its determination.

It also referred to existing mechanisms for determining environmental compensation under the Plastic Waste Management Rules and the rules governing hazardous waste.

These frameworks consider factors such as the nature of the violation, type and quantity of waste, environmental damage caused and repeat violations.

The Court said they could provide guidance while framing the new guidelines.

The matter will be heard next on September 29.

[Read Judgment]

He was speaking at the Delhi High Court during the launch of IBC Mantra: The Law and Practice of Insolvency and Bankruptcy, a free and open online commentary authored by Senior Advocate Tarun Gulati and Advocate Kumar Sambhav.

“You say something in court, sometimes even in passing, and before you even reach home, it is everywhere. It has found its way into Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and every other platform,” Justice Nath said.

He also contrasted the speed at which information travels today with the manner in which legal research was undertaken when he entered the profession. Young lawyers today, he said, have access to entire libraries on their laptops.

In the past, lawyers depended on physical libraries, which often had only one copy of the book they needed. If someone else had borrowed the book, they had to wait or try another library, he recounted.

Justice Nath was the chief guest at the event. Supreme Court Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Sachdeva, Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and former Supreme Court Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia were the guests of honour. Delhi High Court Bar Association President and Senior Advocate N Hariharan also addressed the gathering.

Justice Nath said that although legal research took longer in the past, the process was not necessarily a disadvantage. Lawyers often read much more than they had intended and, while searching for one proposition, discovered another that proved even more useful.

“Those accidental discoveries were among the great pleasures of legal research,” he said.

He added that while technology has unquestionably transformed legal research for the better, it has not diminished the need for quality legal scholarship.

“Information is available in abundance. What is much harder to find is perspective,” Justice Nath said.

The judge added that a good commentary does not merely state what the law is but explains why it has developed in a particular direction and identifies the principles underlying that development.

Turning to insolvency law, Justice Nath said the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) remains a relatively young statute despite having fundamentally reshaped India’s commercial law landscape over the past decade.

“Every few months, there is a fresh question before the courts, something the statute did not anticipate or a provision that two benches have read differently or an entirely new situation that was not anticipated,” he said.

Justice Nath added that a commentary could bring order to these developments by explaining how statutory provisions had been interpreted, where courts agreed and where the law continued to shift.

He also praised the authors for making the commentary freely accessible. He said every lawyer benefited from the labour of others, whether through a reasoned judgment, an academic paper, guidance from a senior or a commentary that brought clarity to an evolving field.

Justice Manmohan said that making the commentary freely accessible was a meaningful way of giving back to younger members of the legal profession.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said that the IBC should not be viewed as a mechanism for shutting down defaulting companies.

“A common misconception is that IBC is a corporate death warrant designed to shut down companies. It is not. The primary object of IBC is resolution, not liquidation. Liquidation, in fact, is the last resort,” he said.

Delhi High Court Chief Justice Upadhyaya described the IBC as one of the most significant economic and legal reforms in independent India. He said that it had fundamentally altered the treatment of financial distress by shifting the focus from prolonged recovery proceedings to timely resolution, preservation of enterprise value and balancing the interests of stakeholders.

Justice Dhulia, who wrote the foreword to the commentary, stressed the role of judicial interpretation in shaping legislation.

“Any law is as good as its interpretation. It is merely skeleton and flesh. The life and blood of a statute is given by interpretations,” he said.

Senior Advocate Hariharan said that modern insolvency law must distinguish genuine commercial failure from fraud and diversion of assets.

“Insolvency is not necessarily wrongdoing, and commercial failure cannot always be treated as culpability,” he said.

Senior Advocate Tarun Gulati said the commentary has been organised section-wise because lawyers ordinarily begin their research with the statutory provision. Explaining the decision to make it freely accessible, he said legal knowledge should not remain behind a price tag.

“Knowledge can never lie behind a price tag. The younger members of the Bar and the student community need access to content which they may not be able to afford,” Gulati said.

The online platform contains section-wise analysis of the IBC, case law, footnotes and a searchable database.

Kumar Sambhav delivered the vote of thanks

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran held that the conviction rested on an eyewitness testimony that was “shaky and highly improbable.”

Hence, the Bench set aside the conviction of one Arjun Jani, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of a woman in Odisha.

“A person taken into custody on mere suspicion from whom a confession; though not admissible was extracted employing third-degree methods, the trial court fails to evaluate the evidence properly and the High Court remains a moot spectator… cumulatively resulting in 22 years being erased out of a person’s life without any reliable evidence,” the Court said in its order.

The case arose from the murder of three women - Kamala, Sonbari and Ratanai - in Koraput, Odisha.

The prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on one eyewitness, who said she saw Jani strike Ratanai’s head through a gap in her door at around 1 am. She did not disclose the other two murders that night, and only spoke of all three deaths the following morning. Based largely on this testimony, the trial court convicted Jani of Ratanai’s murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the trial court’s verdict, Jani filed an before the High Court, but with a delay of 3,157 days. The High Court declined to condone this delay and dismissed his appeal without examining it on merits, even though Jani had by then already served over 12 years in prison.

He then moved the Supreme Court, again with a substantial delay of 3,703 days.

The Court first took up the question of this delay. It condoned the delay, calling the High Court’s earlier refusal “very disturbing.”

“The High Court, while declining to condone the delay, ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner was already undergoing sentence past 12 years. The High Court ought to have also considered that it was an appeal through jail. This itself was sufficient for the High Court to take a practical view or rather a sympathetic view of the matter,” that Bench had observed, noting that Jani had by then served almost 22 years.

It thus released Jani on bail on a personal bond of ₹10,000, after noting that jail authorities had certified his conduct in custody as satisfactory throughout his incarceration.

It also directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, to prepare a representation seeking remission of his sentence. With the delay condoned and Jani out on bail, his appeal came to be heard on merits.

On merits, the Court first examined Jani’s remission history, and found that his applications for early release had been rejected six times, most recently in September 2025, despite the State’s own record acknowledging that both the remission policy in force at the time of the offence and the current 2022 policy favoured his case.

The Court found that these rejections were, in substance, driven by apprehensions of a “law and order situation” arising from local opposition to his release and indicated that this could not justify withholding the exercise of the remission power.

The Bench then turned to the evidence on which Jani’s conviction rested. It found the eyewitness’s account riddled with inconsistencies. Her path to the neighbour’s house passed directly by the spot where the other two victims’ bodies were later found, yet she claimed not to have noticed them that night.

She gave differing versions of when and to whom she first disclosed what she had seen, and the neighbour she fled to did not ask why she had arrived trembling with fear in the middle of the night. No relatives or co-residents of the three victims were examined as witnesses, and no one in the locality claimed to have been woken despite three people being bludgeoned to death that night.

“The eyewitness testimony alone resulted in the conviction of the accused, which is not impermissible, but only when the testimony is believable, credible, consistent with the other circumstances and inspires the confidence of the Court,” the Court observed.

The Bench also noted that a prosecution witness had admitted Jani was beaten to extract a confession, one that could not, in any event, be relied on as evidence. The investigating officer could not explain how he had zeroed in on Jani in the first place, and the physical evidence proved similarly weak - stones allegedly used as weapons showed no blood stains, either visually or on forensic testing, and several witnesses contradicted the officer’s own account of where these stones were recovered.

Given that three women had been killed in similar fashion, the Court considered whether this could point to a pattern of serial killings, and summoned the local police station’s SHO to check for comparable incidents around that time. However, no such case came to light.

In view of these shortcomings, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove Jani’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It therefore acquitted him and cancelled his bail bond.

It also directed the District Legal Services Authority at Koraput to assist in Jani's rehabilitation and resettlement, with support from the District Collector’s office.

[Read Judgment]

Further, it was announced that contracts of Legal Aid Defence Counsel in others States and Union Territories shall not be renewed upon completion of their existing contractual tenure.

"The District Judges of the concerned districts shall assign legal aid matters to the members of the Bar, preferably young lawyers," NALSA said in a communication to the State Legal Services Authorities.

Lawyers, particularly in Punjab, had been on strike for nearly a month against LADCS, alleging that the scheme created a parallel State-funded criminal defence system which was affecting the practice of independent advocates.

The decision to not renew contracts of LADCS counsel any further comes a day after the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, along with leaders of various Bar associations from Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh met Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath, the executive chairperson of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).

CJI is reported to have assured the lawyers that a fresh scheme would be formulated after due consultation.

"It was further announced that the allocation of legal aid cases would thereafter be made by the District & Sessions Judges to members of the Bar in consultation with the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana and the concerned Bar Associations, until a new framework is put in place," the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana said on Monday.

The strike was initially resorted to by lawyers in district courts.

Pertinently, Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association also joined the striking lawyers later and suspended work at the High Court. Lawyers also staged protests at the High Court to express solidarity with the trial court lawyers.

The strike was eventually called off on July 31 after various meetings were held between the bar bodies and High Court judges.

Eventually, the High Court last month issued a circular to address some of the grievances highlighted by the protesting lawyers.

With the process for fresh appointments of counsel under the LADCS put now on hold, courts in the region have resumed normal functioning.

The markets regulator disposed of the interim order-cum-show cause notice issued on June 19, 2024 without passing any further directions.

SEBI noted that the open offer had since been completed and that the Burman Group had assumed control of REL. Therefore, the principal issue underlying the proceedings had already been resolved.

“Consequently, where the alleged irregularity has already been cured and the corrective steps have been fully implemented, the very object of a remedial direction stands satisfied,” the July 31 order said.

The proceedings were initiated against REL, Saluja and directors Malay Kumar Sinha, Hamid Ahmed, Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Ranjan Dwivedi and Preeti Madan.

The dispute arose after MB Finmart Private Limited, Puran Associates Private Limited, VIC Enterprises Private Limited and Milky Investment & Trading Company, collectively referred to as the Burman Group, announced an open offer for REL in September 2023.

The Burman Group, which then held 21.54 per cent in REL, proposed to acquire a further 26 per cent at ₹235 per share for a total consideration of about ₹2,116 crore.

Between October 2023 and June 2024, REL made several representations to SEBI objecting to the proposed offer and raising concerns about the acquirers. The Burman Group, in turn, complained to SEBI about the alleged absence of cooperation from REL.

SEBI subsequently asked REL to apply to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) and SEBI for the regulatory approvals required to proceed with the offer.

However, REL maintained that SEBI lacked jurisdiction over the issue and that the Burman entities were not “fit and proper” persons. This prompted SEBI to issue its interim order alleging violations of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations and the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements Regulations.

The interim order directed REL and the directors to furnish an undertaking that the company would apply for the necessary regulatory approvals, facilitate the Burman Group’s compliance with takeover regulations and constitute a committee of independent directors.

During the proceedings, 4 independent directors claimed that Saluja had misled them and dominated the REL board. Saluja disputed the allegations and maintained that the committee of independent directors functioned independently after obtaining legal advice.

SEBI declined to determine these competing claims. It said that the personal motives attributed to Saluja fell outside the scope of the proceedings and that the contentions did not require adjudication at this stage.

The regulator noted that the open offer was completed on February 13, 2025 and the post-offer advertisement was issued on February 18, 2025. The Burman entities thereafter assumed control and were reclassified as promoters of REL.

Relying on Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) rulings, SEBI stressed that directions under Sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act are preventive and remedial, rather than punitive.

Since all three directions contained in the interim order had been addressed and the open offer completed, SEBI concluded that no further directions were warranted.

[Read Order]

A Division Bench of Justice Jusgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Sanjiv Berry passed the order in a plea moved by Jairath Dyeing and Finishing which said that its case before the DRT was reserved for final orders on April 06 but no order has been pronounced till date.

The Court asked the DRT-III to submit a report with regard to the case before August 17.

"In addition to the above, DRT-III, Chandigarh, shall also submit a report giving details of those cases in which orders have been reserved for more than three months and have not been pronounced as yet," the Bench directed further.

Jairath Dyeing and Finishing, a proprietorship engaged in manufacture and export of knitted cloth and readymade garments, had filed a securitization application before DRT-III in March.

The plea challenged Indian Bank's decision to sell the properties mortgaged by the proprietorship in relation to a cash credit facility sanctioned to it in 2011.

The loan account had earlier been classified as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) as the proprietorship failed to pay the outstanding dues.

The Court was told that the securitization application was heard on April 06 and the case was adjourned to April 18 for pronouncement of final order but till date neither the final order has been passed nor there is any update about the status of the case.

The plea alleged that this was not a solitary case of delay in DRT-III Chandigarh but in most of the reserved cases, the judgment is not pronounced for a period of three or more months. However, it also said that the decisions in some cases come within a week.

It was also submitted that in certain cases where the judgments are reserved after final arguments, the tribunal suddenly fixes them for re-hearing.

"In the DRT-III, Chandigarh, there is grave arbitrariness and inconsistency in the passing of the final judgment, where the final arguments have been heard and the judgment has been reserved," the plea said.

Advocate Pankaj Gupta represented the petitioners.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with Central Government Counsel Prajwal Chauhan represented the Union government.

[Read Order]

In his new role, Mahapatra will handle SEBI’s Corporation Finance Investigation Department as well as its Recovery and Refund Department.

Mahapatra joined SEBI in April 1999 and has worked across several departments during his tenure.

These include the Market Regulation Department, Investigation Department, Enquiries and Adjudication Department, Market Intermediaries Regulation and Supervision Department, Corporation Finance Department and Investment Management Department.

He has also served at SEBI’s Eastern Regional Office in Kolkata.

Mahapatra has been a member of various domestic policy-making and advisory committees dealing with matters of mutual interest and cooperation with international regulators.

He holds a Master’s degree in Business Administration from Utkal University, Odisha.

[Read Press Release]

A Bench of Justices Milind N Jadhav and Nandesh S Deshpande passed the order on August 3 in the petition filed by 21 young advocates practising before the Court. The petition seeks effective implementation and augmentation of the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1981 and payment of stipends to junior lawyers.

The Court noted that while the 1981 Act vests statutory powers to administer a welfare fund and extend financial assistance, the mechanism appears to have fallen short.

“The issue is undoubtedly in the domain of the State and the Bar Council of the concerned State, but requires to be done in present times, primarily for the reason that it is the bounden duty of all stakeholders to ensure that the young advocates at the Bar who join this profession find their feet and, rather entrench their feet in the first two or three years of their practice, so that they do not wither away from the profession due to any reason, and more specifically on account of financial aspects/constraints which go to the root of the matter."

The petitioners relied on a October 15, 2024 circular issued by Bar Council of India recommending a minimum monthly stipend of ₹20,000 in urban areas and ₹15,000 in rural areas to junior advocates assisting seniors and law firms. 

However, they complained that the BCI measure remained only on paper.

“Grievance is expressed before us that, across the board, this recommendation and the order passed by BCI remain a paper tiger, without having any teeth for their implementation, thereby leading to large-scale unrest amongst junior lawyers who have joined the Bar with the hope and aspiration of practicing at the Bar and rendering justice,” the Court remarked.

The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Sarika Tyagi v Union of India, where the apex court called for a self-sustaining fund to provide a stipend-cum-honorarium to first-generation and disadvantaged young advocates.

The petitioners pointed out welfare measures undertaken for the benefit of lawyers in Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Puducherry.

The Court ordered the Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee, the State government and the BCMG to file an affidavit within three weeks.

In that affidavit, they must spell out what measures they are taking or plan to take to extend financial assistance or stipends, or any comparable scheme, for junior advocates practising in the State.

Advocate Asim Sarode appeared for the petitioner lawyers. 

Additional government pleader Tejas Kapre appeared for State of Maharashtra.

[Read order]

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Manmohan said that outboarded cadets with benchmark disabilities of 40 per cent or more can avail the benefit of the provision and apply for government employment accordingly.

Section 34 of the RPwD Act requires at least 4 per cent of vacancies in government establishments to be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities.

“Insofar as Section 34 of the RPwD Act is concerned, every appropriate government has to make reservation of not less than 4 percent of the total number of vacancies in each group of posts which is to be filled with persons with benchmark disability, that is, 40 per cent and above. We find that outboarded cadets would also be entitled to the said provision and may make their applications for employment accordingly,” the Court said.

The Bench also considered the position of outboarded cadets whose disabilities fall below the 40 per cent benchmark and who would therefore not get the benefit of Section 34 of RPwD Act.

For such cadets, “a suitable scheme must be prepared and extended to them,” the Court said.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman, appearing for the Central government, said that he would seek instructions on the issue.

The Court was hearing a suo motu case initiated to examine the difficulties faced by military cadets who suffer disabilities during training and are consequently outboarded. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a report published by The Indian Express.

During the hearing, ASG Venkataraman informed the Court that pursuant to its earlier directions, the Ministry of Defence has extended Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) benefits to invalidated cadets. Their medical expenses would, therefore, be taken care of throughout their lives.

Senior Advocate Rekha Palli, who is assisting the Court as amicus curiae, meanwhile highlighted a disparity in the monthly disability benefits paid to different categories of trainees. The Court was told that an officer trainee or Army cadet receives ₹12,240 per month plus dearness allowance, whereas a jawan trainee or recruit before attestation receives ₹18,000 per month.

Venkataraman informed the Court that the 8th Pay Commission has been constituted and would consider enhancement of the ex gratia payments made to outboarded cadets.

The Court accordingly permitted affected cadets to make representations before the Pay Commission regarding their grievances.

"In these circumstances, liberty may be reserved to the concerned persons to make representations and ventilate their grievances before the 8th Pay Commission. It is submitted that the 8th Pay Commission would consider the matter from all aspects and angles and accordingly enhance the ex gratia payment paid monthly to the outboarded cadets," the Court added.

The Bench also directed the department to reconsider the recommendations of the Sabharwal Committee Report in light of the proceedings before it.

“We expect certain favourable recommendations would be emanating from the respondent Department,” the Court said.

The Court further recorded its appreciation for States and Union Territories that have treated outboarded cadets as ex-servicemen for the purpose of employment.

The matter will be heard next on September 8.

[Live Coverage]

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra also directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to increase mandatory third-party insurance period for new private cars from three years to four years and for new two-wheelers from five years to six years.

The Bench issued a slew of directions after finding that nearly 56 per cent of vehicles on Indian roads do not have valid insurance. The Court said this defeats the very purpose of compulsory motor insurance and leaves accident victims and their families waiting years for compensation.

“It is shocking to learn that nearly 56% of vehicles plying on Indian roads remain uninsured… The consequent effect is that the statutory safeguard of victim compensation is often delayed, if not defeated,” it said.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by National Insurance Company against a Telangana High Court judgment directing it to compensate the family of a man who died in a road accident while travelling in his own insured vehicle.

While dismissing the appeal, the Court expanded the proceedings to address larger issues relating to uninsured vehicles, road safety and motor insurance across the country.

Order in a nutshell

- Consider no insurance no fuel on pilot basis;

- Link number plate recognition cameras with the VAHAN database to detect uninsured vehicles;

- Handheld devices or mobile apps for traffic police to instantly verify insurance status;

- Increase the mandatory third-party insurance period for private cars from 3 years to 4 years and for two-wheelers fro 5 years to 6 years;

- Strictly enforce enhanced penalties for driving uninsured vehicles;

- Simplify motor insurance into a four-layer policy;

- A public verification system allowing citizens to check and report about uninsured vehicles.

To elaborate

Fuel supply

To improve compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) and IRDAI to develop a pilot project under which fuel supply may be linked to a vehicle’s valid insurance status. It noted that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas had, in principle, expressed no objection to the proposal.

According to the Court, such a system could help identify uninsured or unregistered vehicles while encouraging owners to renew their insurance before using their vehicles on public roads.

Automatic enforcement

The Court directed that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras installed on highways and city roads be integrated with the VAHAN database and the Insurance Information Bureau so that uninsured vehicles can be automatically identified and issued e-challans.

It also directed States to equip traffic police with handheld devices or mobile applications linked to these databases, enabling officers to instantly verify a vehicle’s insurance status and issue challans wherever required.

The Bench further called for strict implementation of enhanced penalties for driving uninsured vehicles once the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are notified.

Under the amended provision, a first offence will attract a fine of three times the vehicle’s annual insurance premium or ₹5,000, whichever is higher, while subsequent offences will attract five times the premium or ₹10,000, whichever is higher.

Public access

The Bench also proposed a pilot project that would allow citizens to verify a vehicle’s insurance status. It said the system would enable passengers, employers and others to check whether a vehicle has valid insurance and report uninsured vehicles.

The Court further directed MoRTH to continue implementing pilot projects for barrier-less tolling using ANPR technology, observing that reducing queues at toll plazas would also improve road safety.

Insurer reforms

To simplify motor insurance products, the Court approved a broad four-layer policy structure for private vehicles.

Under the new framework, third-party insurance will remain the mandatory base policy. Three optional add-ons will then be available - legal liability cover for occupants or pillion riders, personal accident cover for the owner, driver and occupants and own damage cover for the insured vehicle.

Consumer choice

The Court directed that every person purchasing motor insurance be provided with a standard customer option form, both online and offline, allowing them to opt for additional insurance covers.

It also made it mandatory for insurers to provide a consumer-friendly information sheet explaining what is covered under the mandatory policy and what protection is available through the optional covers.

The Bench further directed IRDAI, in consultation with insurers, to prepare uniform policy wordings for the optional covers while leaving pricing to individual insurance companies. Insurance companies have also been directed to prominently display the benefits of comprehensive motor insurance policies on their websites in an easy-to-understand format.

Longer insurance period

The Court directed IRDAI to increase the mandatory third-party insurance period for new private cars from three years to four years and for new two-wheelers from five years to six years.

It noted that despite the earlier directions requiring three-year and five-year third-party insurance for new vehicles, a large number of vehicles continue to remain uninsured. The Bench said extending the insurance period by one year was necessary in the interest of road safety and directed IRDAI to issue the necessary directions immediately.

Compensation claims

The Court also sought to address delays in motor accident compensation claims.

It directed State police authorities to promptly file detailed accident reports along with all relevant documents in pending accident cases relating to accidents before March 31, 2022.

It also directed police to ensure timely service and production of witnesses before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals so that compensation claims can be decided expeditiously.

The Court's reasoning

The Bench said compulsory insurance is intended not only to compensate victims but also to spare them prolonged litigation after road accidents.

“The object behind mandatory insurance under Section 146 of the MVA is not just that victims of road accidents are compensated, it is also that they are not drawn into prolonged litigation,” it said.

The Court referred to a parliamentary committee report stating that 16.54 crore of the country’s 30.48 crore registered vehicles are uninsured. It also noted that India records more than 4.8 lakh road accidents every year and reiterated that road safety is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

While these directions applied to the system at large, the appeal before the Court concerned one family’s decades-long wait for compensation.

The Court upheld the Telangana High Court’s decision directing National Insurance Company to compensate the family of a man who died in a road accident while travelling in his insured vehicle.

The insurer had argued that the deceased’s comprehensive policy did not cover the owner’s personal risk because no additional premium had been paid. Rejecting the contention, the High Court had held that a comprehensive policy covered the owner travelling in the vehicle and awarded compensation of ₹10,00,500 with 7.5 per cent interest.

Affirming that view, the Supreme Court said courts dealing with motor accident claims should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Referring to an IRDAI circular dated November 16, 2009, it held that a comprehensive or package policy covers occupants of the vehicle, including the owner.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The Court directed all stakeholders to file compliance affidavits on its broader directions by August 14. The matter will next be listed on August 18 to consider compliance.

Notably, the accident that gave rise to this case took place in July 1996 - nearly three decades before the family’s compensation claim was finally settled by the Supreme Court.

[Read Judgment]

Through four petitions, the elections of Indian National Congress (INC) MLAs Sebastian MJ, Sajeev Joseph and Manoj Moothedan have been challenged. These matters briefly came up before the Court on Monday, before different Benches.

Two petitions have been filed - one by Abesh Alosious and one by Viji George - challenging the election win of MLA Sebastian MJ from the Poonjar constituency.

Sebastian had won the seat by defeating Kerala Congress (M)'s Sebastian Kulathunkal by a margin of 6,693 votes.

The petitions were listed before Justice S Manu, who granted two weeks time to cure certain defects flagged in the petitions by the Court's Registry.

The election petition against MLA Sajeev Joseph's win from the Irikkur constituency has been filed by Kerala Congress (M) candidate Mathew Kunnappally. Kunnappally had lost to Joseph by a margin of 42,426 votes.

The petition challenges the election on the ground that Joseph's nomination paper was not properly accepted.

Justice Easwaran S on Monday granted time to cure the defects in the petition and listed the case for consideration on August 5, Wednesday.

The petition challenging the victory of MLA Manoj Moothedan from the Perumbavoor constituency was listed before Justice G Girish. The petition was filed by one Seena.

Moothedan had secured 75,088 votes to win the constituency, defeating Kerala Congress (M) candidate Basil Paul, who had secured 46,654 votes.

The Court has sought Moothedan's response on the petition and posted the matter next on September 25, 2026.

Seven other MLAs are also facing challenges to their poll victories.

The elections of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) State President Rajeev Chandrashekhar, BJP leader V Muraleedharan, CPI(M)’s C Ravindranath and NK Akbar, Congress MLAs Rajan J Pallan and Reji Cheriyan and Independent candidate V Kunhikrishnan have been challenged. These petitions too are pending before the High Court.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was told that the committee's terms of reference are to formulate a mechanism for a comprehensive audit of the existing NEET PG admission system involving various stakeholders, identify lacunae and gaps in the system and propose practical, implementable solutions.

The Court was hearing a plea challenging the decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the NEET-PG 2025 examination.

Appearing for the Central government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati placed before the Court an office order issued by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The order stated that the committee would work under the chairmanship of DGHS D Loveneesh G Krishna, with Dr. Praveen Kumar Dass, Assistant Director General (ME), as Member Secretary.

The committee also includes representatives from the National Medical Commission (NMC), the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the National Board of Examinations (NBE), among other officials from the Health Ministry.

On being asked how long the exercise would take, ASG Bhati submitted that the committee would require 8 weeks to submit its report after calling for suggestions from stakeholders.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand asked whether the Court would consider appointing an amicus curiae, to which ASG Bhati responded that Senior Advocate Maninder Singh was already appointed amicus in the matter.

The Court directed the committee to call for suggestions from stakeholders and submit its report within 8 weeks, listing the matter thereafter for further hearing.

Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput appeared for the petitioners.

The pleas before the top court challenge a notice issued on January 13 by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), which stated that the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile cut-off was taken in accordance with directions issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Under the revised criteria, the cut-off score for the general category is 103, as against 276 earlier. For the SC/ST/OBC category, it is minus 40, down from 235.

According to the petitioners, the decision allows candidates with no demonstrable merit to become eligible for postgraduate medical admissions.

As per the plea, the reduction of minimum qualifying standards in postgraduate medical education is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 (right to equality and against arbitrariness and discrimination) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

According to the petition, the move abolishes merit at the apex level of medical education, institutionalises sub-standard competence, and poses a direct and foreseeable threat to patient safety and public health.

On the last date of hearing, the Court said that the decision to decrease the cut-offs was a serious issued that warranted its interference.

[Updates from the hearing]

Justice Jyoti Singh found that the Japanese company had established a prima facie case for an ex parte interim injunction.

“Looking at the formidable reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff spanning over decades, it is prima facie evident that the adoption of the impugned name is with an objective of encashing on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff so as to misrepresent to the public that defendants No. 1-3 have some connection/affiliation/nexus with the plaintiff,” the Court said.

Nintendo told the Court that it was founded in Japan in 1889 and initially manufactured playing cards before expanding into electronic entertainment and video games. Its products include the Game Boy, Nintendo DS, Wii, Nintendo Switch and Nintendo Switch 2. It also owns popular gaming franchises such as Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda, Pokémon and Donkey Kong.

The company said ‘Nintendo’ was a coined expression that formed its house mark, corporate name and the most prominent part of its brand identity. It had applied to register the NINTENDO word mark in India in 1983 in Class 28 and was subsequently granted registration.

Nintendo India Private Limited, on the other hand, was registered with the Registrar of Companies in Patna. According to documents placed before the Court, it was engaged in acquiring, managing and dealing in land and other immovable properties.

Nintendo said it learnt about the company in November 2025. It sent a cease-and-desist notice in February 2026 but initially received no response.

Nintendo informed the Court that one of the directors had recently responded by email. She stated that the disputed company name had never been used by her for conducting business, that she did not intend to use it and that she was willing to suffer a decree of permanent injunction. The remaining defendants did not appear before the Court.

The Court observed that Nintendo had acquired the level of reputation in India required under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The provision permits a registered proprietor to restrain the use of its mark even in relation to dissimilar goods or services, subject to the statutory requirements being satisfied.

The Court added that Nintendo did not need to have its trademark formally declared a “well-known trademark” to invoke Section 29(4).

It found the name ‘Nintendo India Private Limited’ deceptively similar to ‘Nintendo Co Ltd’ and Nintendo’s registered marks. Such similarity was likely to cause confusion among members of the public and trade, despite the defendants operating in the real estate sector, the Court held.

Accordingly, the Court restrained the company, its directors, unidentified defendants and anyone acting on their behalf from using ‘Nintendo India Private Limited’ or the NINTENDO mark in any manner amounting to trademark infringement.

Nintendo was represented by advocates Pravin Anand, Saif Khan and Sugandha Yadav.

[Read Order]

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the order in a suo motu case initiated last year on the issue.

Among other directives, the Court ordered the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) within four weeks for dealing with mule accounts (bank accounts used by criminals to receive, transfer or launder illicit money, many a time without the knowledge of the account holder).

The Court passed the directions after considering a status report filed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.

The report detailed steps taken by various ministries, regulators, investigating agencies, banks and intermediaries pursuant to the Court's earlier interim orders dated December 10, 2025 and February 9, 2026.

The Court noted that the latest status report reflected encouraging progress in tackling digital arrest scams. According to the report, complaints received on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) relating to digital arrest scams declined from 1,23,672 in 2024 to 58,249 in 2025, and further to 16,377 up to June 30, 2026.

The corresponding amount lost to such frauds had also reduced substantially. However, the Bench observed that continued monitoring of the issue remains necessary.

The Court also noted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered ten digital arrest cases and several connected matters. In one investigation alone, the CBI identified 238 victims, tracked 67 first-layer bank accounts, uncovered transactions worth about ₹80 crore and conducted searches at 93 locations across 16 States.

The Court further noted the Inter-Departmental Committee's suggestion that the CBI should consider lowering the existing ₹10-crore threshold for taking over digital arrest cases and consider aggregating cases involving the same organised network to meet the threshold.

The Court said that the progress made was appreciable, but proceeded to issue the following directions for the wider adoption and faster implementation of the steps take to tackle digital scams.

Directions issued

1. RBI was directed to prepare and circulate, within four weeks, an SOP for dealing with mule accounts and accounts linked to money laundering and cyber-enabled fraud. The SOP is also to be furnished to the Registrar General of every High Court.

2. The Court directed all States, Union Territories and law enforcement agencies to expeditiously operationalise (i) the Grievance Redressal Module and (ii) the Money Restoration Module. These mechanisms were introduced under the MHA's January 2 SOP governing the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and Cyber RMS. The States were also directed to create public awareness about digital arrest scams and the mechanisms in place to report and tackle them.

3. Registrar Generals of all High Courts were directed to inform courts and adjudicating authorities dealing with bank account freezing in cyber fraud cases about these grievance mechanisms. This is so that affected persons may be encouraged to use them before pursuing other legal remedies, without affecting their statutory or constitutional rights.

4. The Bench further directed States that are yet to notify State Cyber Crime Coordination Centres to do so within four weeks and to adopt the e-Zero FIR mechanism in consultation with Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre.

5. The Court also instructed authorities to ensure the expeditious disposal of bank account freezing cases arising out of cyber-enabled financial fraud.

6. The Inter-Departmental Committee shall consult with banks and intermediaries regarding technological measures that may be adopted to (i) prevent digital arrest scams; (ii) assist in the recovery of defrauded amounts; (iii) facilitate investigation of digital arrest cases; and (iv) ensure cooperation and compliance with all applicable statutory obligations and legal requirements.

7. The Court recommended that all State Legal Services Authorities must immediately undertake public awareness initiatives on the prevention of digital arrest scams, cybercrime awareness, cybersecurity, and the assistance available for recovery of defrauded amounts.

8. The Court asked the Inter-Departmental Committee to examine a proposal for a shared liability and victim compensation framework.

9. The Court also asked the Committee to continue examining whether the threshold of monetary loss for CBI investigation of digital arrest scams should be lowered and whether organised frauds can be aggregated for the purpose of meeting the threshold.

10. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, in consultation with the concerned intermediaries, shall examine a proposal relating to time-based restrictions on telecom services for audio and video calls.

In its order today, the Court also recorded that a data-sharing memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the RBI Innovation Hub and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre had been executed on May 11, 2026.

It noted that a cybercrime grievance redressal mechanism portal now covers 1,23,590 branches of 69 banks, while the Money Restoration Mechanism Portal has 57 participating banks across all 36 States and Union Territories. According to the status report, money has been restored in 36,290 cases involving an aggregate amount of ₹18.05 crore.

It further recorded that the Telecommunications (Radio Equipment Possession Authorisation) Rules, 2025, have been notified, and the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2025 are at the final stage of notification.

These rules are meant to to curb the misuse of telecom infrastructure, including illegal radio equipment, SIM cards and identity fraud that facilitate cyber-enabled offences.

The matter has been directed to be listed next on September 16 when a fresh consolidated status report is to be filed.

The next report is also to include State-wise and bank-wise data indicating the grievances registered on the grievance reporting mechanisms and the number of such complaints that are disposed of, the number of summary money restoration orders issued and completed and the amount of money so restored.

[Live Coverage]

IDIA is a non-profit, student-run movement that seeks to empower underprivileged and marginalised children through legal education.

The bootcamp will be conducted by distinguished alumni of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore, who will share their experience and insights from academic, professional, and research pursuits.

Event Details

Sessions: The bootcamp will consist of eight sessions conducted across two days. These sessions will cover mooting and alternative dispute resolution, legal writing and academic research, CV building and internships, careers in corporate law, careers in litigation and advocacy, careers in public policy and postgraduate studies and fellowships.

Speakers: The sessions will be led by NLSIU alumni who have excelled in various fields of law and higher education, both in India and abroad.

Eligibility: The bootcamp is open to all law students and aspirants interested in learning more about law school and legal careers.

Certificates: All participants will receive a Certificate of Participation issued by IDIA Karnataka upon completion of the program.

Registration Fees:

• One Day: ₹500

• Both Days: ₹800

(The option for fee waiver is available for IDIA Scholars on the Registration Link.)

Registration Link

Link to the Brochure

Contact Information: For any queries, please feel free to email idia@nls.ac.in.

Additionally, the Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan referred the issue of the methodology for transfer of votes under the single transferable vote system in Bar Council elections to the high-powered committee headed by retired Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia for fresh consideration.

The Court said the mechanism for nominating the two additional women members had emerged after discussions in open court with representatives of various State Bar Councils.

"In our considered opinion, such a mechanism will infuse objectivity, independence and transparency in the functioning of the State Bar Councils," observed CJI Kant.

The Court accordingly directed,

"We accordingly direct that the two women members to be co-opted to every State Bar Council shall be chosen from amongst a former woman Judge of the jurisdictional High Court or a senior woman member of the Bar having fair standing in the concerned State."

It added that while making the nominations, the Chief Justice of the jurisdictional High Court may take into account all relevant factors, including regional representation and the peculiar circumstances of the State.

The Court also clarified that participation by a woman advocate in the Bar Council elections would not disqualify her from being considered for co-option.

Considering the urgency of constituting the State Bar Councils, the Court requested the Chief Justices of all jurisdictional High Courts to complete the nomination process at the earliest.

"Having regard to the urgency of the matter, we request the Hon'ble Chief Justices of the jurisdictional High Courts to undertake the exercise at the earliest so that the State Bar Councils can be formally constituted and their Executive Committees can also be constituted without delay," said the Court.

On the issue of transfer of votes under the single transferable vote system, the Court noted that there were divergent views requiring further examination.

"As regards the second issue, it appears to us that there are divergent opinions which require detailed consideration by the High-Powered Committee headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia," said the Court.

Accordingly, the Court requested the Justice Dhulia committee to consider the issue afresh. It also permitted interested members of the Bar to submit their suggestions and views before the Committee within one week.

The directions come as part the Supreme Court's continuing efforts to ensure 30 per cent representation for women in State Bar Councils.

In December 2025, the Court held that the 30 per cent reservation for women in State Bar Councils was "non-negotiable." It directed that where elections had already been completed or notified, any shortfall in women's representation would be made up through co-option instead of disturbing the electoral process.

Additionally, the Court had asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to place a proposal on how the co-option mechanism would operate.

[Read Live Coverage ]

Abhimanyu's mother had moved before the Court in 2024 over the delay in the commencement of the trial proceedings in relation to the killing of her son in campus violence. The Court had on January 24, 2025, directed the sessions judge to complete the trial within nine months.

However, the trial proceedings did not commence within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the sessions judge moved the High Court seeking an extension of the deadline. The victim's mother too approached the Court seeking directions for expeditious disposal of the case.

In an order passed on August 3, Justice Kauser Edappagath clarified that the sessions judge allowed an extension of four months. He made it clear that no further extension would be granted.

"The learned Judge is directed to positively frame charge on 06.08.2026 and schedule the case for trial immediately. The case shall be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of framing of charge," the order stated.

Abhimanyu, a 21-year-old student, was fatally stabbed during a political clash at Maharajas College in Ernakulam on July 1, 2018.

The accused, allegedly associated with a religiously-motivated student organisation 'Campus Front', had attacked Abhimanyu and four other SFI activists following a dispute over campus poster placements. The attack resulted in Abhimanyu's death while others sustained grievous injuries.

Following the incident, Ernakulam Central Police Station registered a first information report (FIR) under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code including Section 143 (unlawful assembly), Section 147 (rioting), Section 302 (murder), and Section 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), among others. 

It filed a charge sheet in September 2018. The case was later committed to the Principal Sessions Court at Ernakulam where it has remained pending for more than seven years.

Abhimanyu's mother was represented by advocates Devika KR and KS Arun Kumar.

[Read Order]

Advocate Ashok Chaitanya, who filed criminal contempt of court case against Das, Kejriwal and other AAP leaders, said that the offending social media posts have been removed.

Chaitanya told a Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja today that even though the material appeared to have been deleted, he has digital records with him. 

“They [respondents] appear to have deleted the material which I have placed reliance on. But I recorded. That is available with me… I may be allowed to place the electronic record,” he requested the Court.

The Bench allowed the request.  

While Chaitanya did not specify in Court about which contemnors he was referring to, when Bar & Bench contacted him, he said he was referring to Das, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Gopal Rai.

However, Bar & Bench found that the posts were still available online. 

One of the main grounds in Chaitanya’s contempt case is a post made by Das on X and AAP leaders’ response to that post. 

On April 9, Das raised allegations of conflict of interest on Justice Sharma’s part as she was hearing the CBI’s challenge to Kejriwal, Sisodia and others’ discharge in the excise policy case. Das said that Justice Sharma’s son and daughter were empanelled by the Central government before the High Court and the Supreme Court. 

On this X post, Kejriwal asked, “Is this true? V v explosive”. Bharadwaj and Rai also quoted the tweet to raise questions of impartiality.

The original post by Das as well as the quote tweets by Kejriwal, Bharadwaj and Rai are still available. 

The Court today also heard the suo motu contempt initiated against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders. 

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari appeared for Kejriwal and said that the material which formed the basis of the initiation of the contempt proceedings has not been shared with them.

The counsel appearing for Sisodia, Bharadwaj, Sanjay Singh and Durgesh also made the same submissions. 

The Court then directed its registry to supply the material to the respondents and asked them to file their replies within four weeks. The matter will be heard next on September 21.

The case against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Durgesh Pathak was initiated on May 14 by the High Court suo motu after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma took note of their social media posts and letters written to her and published online regarding their refusal to participate in the Excise policy case proceedings.

Justice Sharma was hearing the CBI's challenge to the Rouse Avenue Court order discharging Kejriwal, Sisodia and everyone else in the excise policy case.

However, Kejriwal and others refused to participate in the hearings citing bias and conflict of interest on the part of the judge.

Justice Sharma then initiated contempt case against them which is now being heard by the bench headed by Justice Chawla.

Meanwhile, Chaitanya filed the criminal contempt case after getting consent from the Delhi government's Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal), Sanjeev Bhandari. 

As per the plea, Kejriwal, Das, Bharadwaj and Rai "initiated a concerted and orchestrated campaign on the social media platform X, publishing and amplifying content containing serious, unfounded and scandalous allegations against Justice Sharma.

Justice Ramkumar Choubey said the prosecution must prima facie establish a continuing unlawful activity, involvement of an organised crime syndicate or commission of the offence on behalf of such syndicate, together with the other essential requirements incorporated in Section 111. 

In the order passed on July 31, the Court observed that it has come across several matters where this penal provision was being invoked by the police without examination of foundational ingredients of the offence of organised crime.

“In many such cases, the provision has been added merely because the accused persons have criminal antecedents. However, criminal antecedents, by themselves, cannot automatically justify the invocation of Section 111 of the BNS unless the ingredients of the offence contemplated therein are otherwise fulfilled,” the Court said.

It was dealing with the bail of an accused in a case of attempt to murder. The police invoked Section 111 against the accused after it was found that he has a criminal history of two cases. Two other accused were found to have criminal antecedents of ten and four cases each.

Considering the material on record, the Court said the allegations did not disclose that the present case formed part of any “continuing unlawful activity”. It added that the alleged act in the present case was not committed by the accused persons as members of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of any syndicate. 

The Court also found that none of the offences previously registered against the co-accused were committed together by them. It further noted that superintendent of police’s approval for Section 111 did not disclose whether charge-sheets were submitted against the accused persons and the cognizance of the offence was taken against them. 

“The order proceeds substantially on the existence of mere criminal antecedents, without adverting to the statutory requirements incorporated in Section 111 of the BNS. Thus, it is clear that none of the offence of “organised crime” was committed by the applicant and co-accused persons after coming into force of Section 111 of BNS w.e.f. 01.07.2024,” it added.

Thus, the Court said addition of Section 111 of BNS at this stage appeared to be wholly unwarranted. On other aspects of the case, the Court noted that the complainant had turned hostile in the trial and a co-accused, alleged to have caused firearm injury, was granted bail.

Therefore, the Court granted bail to the accused, who had been in custody since December 15, 2025. 

Advocate Ravinandan Dwivedi represented the accused.

Panel Lawyer Ravindra Rajpoot appeared for State.

[Read Order]

Justice Kauser Edappagath allowed the bail applications filed by accused Lenin Raj, Amal SP, Vaisakh and Rahul A.

The development comes a day after the Court granted bail to nine other accused persons in the same case.

The matter concerns an incident from May 27. ED officials had conducted a search at former CM and CPI(M) leader Pinarayi Vijayan's residence, where Vijayan and his daughter, Veena Thaikkandiyil resided.

The search was part of the central agency's investigation into the CMRL case involving allegations against Exalogic, the IT company owned by Thaikkandiyil.

After the search, a crowd of around 300 persons are said to have surrounded the ED officials' convoy and attacked the vehicles with stones, bricks, sticks and iron rods causing damage.

Subsequently, the Museum Police registered a case invoking various provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 109 (attempt to murder), along with Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

14 accused persons who were arrested in the matter have now secured bail. One, Harikrishnan was the first to get bail from a trial court. The State has challenged this trial court order before the High Court and sought the cancellation of Harikrishnan’s bail. This appeal remains pending. 

Yesterday, the Court granted bail to nine other accused, observing that even though the allegations were serious, they had remained in custody for over two months. The Court further noted that the investigation was almost complete and none of the bail applicants had any serious criminal antecedents. Thus, their continued detention was not required, the Court opined while granting them bail.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that Meta must remove the video posted by Jan Chaupal Post from Facebook and Instagram. 

The Court also restrained Jan Chaupal Post and another social media account from publishing or republishing the videos till further ordes. 

“It appears appropriate to direct the defendant number 1 [Meta] to take down the following URLs… in 36 hours. Defendants 2 and 3 are restrained from republishing or publishing the videos until further orders,” Justice Gedela ordered. 

Shervani is a five-time member of parliament (MP) from Uttar Pradesh and served as Union Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare from1996 to 1997 and thereafter as Union Minister of State for External Affairs till 1998. 

He filed a defamation suit in the High Court, stating that Jan Chaupal, which claims to be a journalistic platform, published AI-generated videos on their Instagram and Facebook pages. The first video alleged that Shervani used Ahmed to crush a strike in his factory in 1985. The second video alleged that bonding between Ahmed and Shervani grew after that the SP leader helped Ahmed tighten his criminal hold over Allahabad. 

Shervani argued that the allegations made in the videos are false and that Jan Chaupal never asked for his version or comments, which is a violation of the Press Council of India (PCI) norms. 

The Court was informed that the videos have garnered lakhs of views and thousands of likes on social media platforms. 

After considering, the High Court passed the interim injunction order and directed the removal of the videos. 

Advocates J Amal Anand, Abhishek Singh and KV Vibu Prasad appeared for Saleem Iqbal Shervani. 

Stalin was taken into custody by the police this morning over a case concerning remarks about actress Trisha.

Advocate General (AG) Vijay Narayan told the Court that the State does not intend to keep Stalin in custody and that he was detained only in interest of women.

"He will be let out today itself on station bail," the AG told Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan.

The Court was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by Stalin, who had made certain remarks during a rally held at Thanjavur on the Cauvery water issue. The remarks were made in response to a section of the crowd chanting 'Trisha Trisha'. Stalin apparently responded with sexual innuendo.

The remarks did not go down well with the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) and other opposition parties who demanded action. Subsequently, a complaint was filed by TVK at Thanjavur and a first information report (FIR) was lodged against Stalin for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Information Technology Act and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

Stalin then moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. However, the police detained him on Tuesday morning before the petition could be heard by the Court.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale examined the report and said that it will hear Bapu's plea for medical bail on August 6, Thursday.

"The first part of the report at says it’s (hospitalisation) is not required. Then it says round the clock (medical attention). We will keep it (for hearing day after," the Court remarked.

The medical report was submitted after the top court on July 21 ordered the director of AIIMS to constitute a team of doctors to conduct a thorough examination of Asaram.

The bail plea was filed a part of Asaram's appeal challenging the Rajasthan High Court's decision to uphold his conviction for sexually assaulting a minor devotee in Jodhpur in 2013.

The case involves allegations that a devotee of Asaram Bapu, then a minor, had been wrongfully confined in the godman's ‘kutiya’ (thatched house) at his ashram in Jodhpur's Manai in August of 2013 and subjected to penetrative sexual assault and criminal intimidation. 

A trial court convicted Asaram Bapu and two co-accused, hostel warden Sanchita Shilpi and school director Sharad Chandra, prompting them to move an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court.

In May this year, the High Court upheld Asaram Bapu's conviction for rape and related offences under Sections 370(4), 342, 509, 506, 354A and 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code, Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Asaram sought interim bail on medical grounds while his appeal remains pending.

His plea said that he has developed “acute internal bleeding”.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for State of Rajasthan, said on July 17 that just 3 months ago, Asaram undertook journeys to Kashi Vishwanath and Ayodhya after getting bail on medical grounds.

"He got the bail on the ground that he was in vegetative state. But now he is roaming around," the SG said.

On July 17, the Court indicated that it was not inclined to grant such interim relief without hearing the State's response in detail or unless Asaram's health condition clearly warrants it.

The Supreme Court then found it fit to order a comprehensive medical examination of Asaram.

Pursuant to that AIIMS submitted a report after conducting a thorough medical examination of Asaram.

Senior Advocate DS Naidu appeared for Asaram Bapu.

[Read Live Coverage]

A Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar registered a public interest litigation (PIL) petition after examining a Dainik Bhaskar report alleging that various large properties had been entered in the Waqf Gazette and uploaded on the Umeed Portal as Waqf assets despite revenue records indicating otherwise.

“The prima facie inclusion of educational institutions, places of worship, judicial residences and numerous residential and commercial properties within the Waqf records, despite the apparent position emerging from the revenue records, raises concerns extending beyond individual disputes concerning title or possession,” the Bench said.

In an interim order passed on July 27, the Court ordered that status quo be maintained regarding the ownership and legal status of properties falling within Khasra Nos. 482, 485 and 490 as well as the properties mentioned in the news report. 

It restrained any mutation, transfer, lease, licence, construction, demolition or other action altering their physical or legal status on the basis of the disputed entries.

The Court also directed the District Collector of Jodhpur to preserve all revenue records and conduct a physical verification of the land with photographs and GPS particulars. 

The Chief Executive Officer of the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf has been directed to produce the complete original record relating to the inclusion of the properties in the Waqf Gazette and on the Umeed Portal.

The District Minority Welfare Officer has also been asked to explain the alleged data-entry exercise conducted for the Umeed Portal.

Dainik Bhaskar on June 27 is stated to have published a report referring to Khasra Nos. 482, 485 and 490 in Jodhpur (Rural) which were recorded in revenue records in the name of the concerned revenue authority, but have allegedly been denoted to be Waqf property in the Waqf Gazette and on the Umeed Portal.

The Bench noted that the properties allegedly shown as Waqf assets include Sohanlal Manihar School, Shah Govardhanlal Kabra College, Kabra Matrushri Kala Mandir, Agarwal Bagichi, Agarwal Mahavir Temple, Satguru Kabir Ashram, Goureshwar Mahadev Temple, Maru Lohar Sikligar Temple, Joonagar Nyati Bagichi, two Nyati Bhawans, Geeta Bhawan, numerous residential and commercial properties.

Such properties also included the official residences of sitting Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and former Jharkhand Chief Justice Prakash Tatia.

The Court emphasised that public records such as revenue records, statutory registers and digital databases have significant legal consequences and that conflicting entries about the same property cannot be allowed to continue without scrutiny.

“Where properties standing recorded in such records in favour of a public authority or other persons are subsequently reflected in the Waqf Gazette or on the Umeed Portal as Waqf properties, any such entry must necessarily trace its foundation to authority of law and to due observance of the procedure prescribed under the Waqf Act, 1995 and other applicable laws,” it said.

It added that any unilateral entry affecting the legal character of property without adherence to the Waqf Act and without notice to affected parties would raise serious concerns of arbitrariness and deprivation of property without following the process of law.

The Court also noted that while the Constitution of India protects religious rights, it does not permit the State to confer a proprietary character upon property merely on account of a religious claim.

"Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion, while the constitutional scheme neither permits the State to confer a proprietary character upon property merely on account of a religious claim nor allows an otherwise lawful religious endowment to be disturbed except in accordance with law," it said.

Considering the nature and magnitude of the properties involved, the Court issued notice to the Union government, State government and local authorities in Jodhpur.

Advocates Moti Singh and Abhishek Mehta have been appointed as amici curiae to assist the Court.

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on August 11.

[Read Order]

The matter was mentioned this morning, whether the students' counsel urged the Court to take up the matter at the earliest

Responding to a query on whether there was any urgency involved in the case, the petitioners' counsel pointed out that the NEET counselling process was already in progress and that the plea concerned only six students.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan agreed to list the plea for hearing.

"We will list it," said CJI Kant.

The petitioners' counsel today submitted that all six students had secured more than 600–650 marks in the NEET exams. He contended that the alleged discrepancies in their OMR sheets could significantly affect their admission prospects.

Seeking an urgent hearing, the counsel told the Court that the students had repeatedly approached the NTA to resolve the issue but received no relief.

"We have sent a number of emails. We even visited the NTA office. The officer directly said, 'Go to the Supreme Court. We don't bother about this,'" submitted the counsel.

The petition comes at a time when the Supreme Court is examining structural reforms to the conduct of NEET following the 2026 paper leak controversy. The top court recently stressed the need to institutionalise reforms within the NTA instead of relying on ad hoc measures.

The NTA had earlier released scanned copies of candidates' OMR answer sheets and provided a window for candidates to challenge any discrepancies in the recorded responses before the results were finalised.

In recent days, the Bombay High Court issued notice on a petition alleging a mismatch between a candidate's expected and declared score. The Delhi High Court has also been moved by a student claiming that his score changed multiple times on the NTA portal.

[Read Live Coverage]

The Court was dealing with a case where a woman (petitioner) wished to undergo in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to conceive a child.

She and her husband had earlier stored samples of their gamates (eggs and sperm) at an IVF clinic, which she wished to use to have a child. However, her husband later filed for divorce and withdrew consent for the use of his sperm.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj on July 28 observed that the Court cannot compel the husband to consent to the use of his stored sperm for conception by IVF.

However, the Court said it would examine whether the law permits alternative solutions to ensure that his wife's right to motherhood can be protected, including through sperm donor-assisted conception.

"This is not purely legal. We can't look at it technically. These are newer technologies which keep coming. There are newer issues. We have to try and solve the problem and give them some recourse," the judge said.

Appearing for the petitioner-wife, advocate Parveez Ahamed MR submitted that both spouses had entered into a second marriage and had undergone seven to eight IVF procedures after they were unable to conceive naturally. The husband already had a child from his previous marriage, whereas the petitioner (wife) remained childless.

The petitioner's counsel stated that her eggs and the husband's sperm remain stored at the IVF clinic. However, fertilisation cannot proceed because the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (ART Act) requires the husband's consent, which he withdrew after matrimonial disputes arose.

Counsel argued that the petitioner faces an irreversible loss because the divorce proceedings may continue for years.

"By the time the divorce proceedings conclude, I might lose my last chance," the petitioner's counsel submitted.

He added that if the husband was unwilling to permit the use of his sperm, the petitioner should at least be allowed to proceed with donor sperm.

The husband opposed the wife's plea. The Bench, in turn, asked whether the husband's objection was limited to the use of his sperm or whether he opposed his estranged wife becoming a mother altogether.

"What is the problem? Wife having a child with your sperm or from a donor?" Justice Govindaraj asked.

The Court added that if the wife is permitted to conceive through a donor before the divorce proceedings are over, the estranged husband could be insulated from all legal or maintenance obligations arising from the birth of the child.

Addressing the woman's counsel, the Court said,

"You will have no claim for any property or any other right. You will not have any claim against (the husband) for any property or maintenance, or otherwise. You won't have any claim whatsoever."

The Court also indicated that if required, it could consider issuing directions to clarify that the child born out of IVF would not have succession or maintenance claims against the husband.

The husband's counsel sought time to obtain instructions from his client upon the Court making this suggestion.

Appearing for the Union of India, Assistant Solicitor General Sadhana Desai submitted that the ART Act recognises only two categories of persons who are eligible to undergo IVF - commissioning couples and eligible single women in specified circumstances.

Since the parties continue to be legally married, she argued that the petitioner cannot independently seek donor-assisted IVF treatment outside the statutory framework.

The ASG also cautioned that permitting such relief without legislative backing could create complications regarding parentage, birth registration and other legal consequences under the ART and surrogacy laws.

"I totally understand that there is a very urgent requirement, but it should be backed by some provision of the statute," she submitted.

Justice Govindaraj, however, observed that courts are often called to decide on issues that the legislature may not have forseen.

"These are newer technologies which keep coming. New issues keep coming up. How do we solve that? As a policy matter or by interpretation? We'll have to try and solve the problem and give them some recourse," the judge said.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that any relief granted must be anchored in the statutory framework.

The Court also encouraged the parties to explore an amicable resolution, before adjourning the matter to another date.

Here is how the case progressed through the courts.

2023: From the Supreme Court to the trial court

The case's origins lie not with the police, but with the Supreme Court. Wrestlers had staged a protest at Jantar Mantar and moved the Supreme Court seeking registration of an FIR against Singh.

The Court, comprising then CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, agreed on April 25, 2023 to hear the plea, with the CJI remarking that the allegations were serious.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta initially told the Court that a preliminary inquiry would be required before any FIR could be registered.

Two days later, on April 28, 2023, the SG informed the Court that the Delhi Police would register an FIR by the end of the day, and the Court recorded this submission in its order.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the wrestlers, pressed for the probe to be monitored by a retired judge and flagged a threat perception concerning one of the survivors, a minor.

The Court directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to assess the threat and file an affidavit on the security provided to her.

Following the FIR, police filed a chargesheet against Singh on June 15, 2023 under Sections 354 (outraging modesty), 354A (sexually coloured remarks), 354D (stalking) and 506(1) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The trial court took cognisance of the chargesheet and issued summons to Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar, WFI's suspended assistant secretary, on July 7, 2023.

Two weeks later, on July 20, 2023, the Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Singh, with conditions barring him from inducing complainants or witnesses and from leaving the country without the court's permission.

A minor wrestler had also levelled allegations against Singh at this stage but later withdrew her complaint, leading police to file a cancellation report in the case against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

The trial court closed the case against Singh in the matter.

Amid the fallout, the Centre suspended the WFI on December 24, 2023 just three days after its newly elected body, headed by Sanjay Singh (seen as close to Brij Bhushan), took charge citing governance and procedural lapses. The IOA was asked to constitute an ad hoc committee to run WFI's affairs.

2024: Charges framed, WFI suspension lifted globally

On May 10, 2024, the trial court framed charges against Singh, holding there was sufficient material under Sections 354 and 354A for harassing five wrestlers, and under Section 506(1) with respect to two of them.

Co-accused Vinod Tomar, former WFI Assistant Secretary, was charged with criminal intimidation for allegedly threatening one of the victims.

Internationally, the United World Wrestling had already lifted its own suspension of WFI in February 2024, prompting the IOA to dissolve the ad hoc committee though a single judge of the Delhi High Court restored it in August 2024, leading WFI to appeal.

2025: WFI suspension revoked, POCSO case closed

The Ministry of Sports revoked WFI's suspension by an order dated March 10, 2025, restoring its recognition as the National Sports Federation for wrestling.

The Delhi High Court's Division Bench disposed of WFI's pending appeal on this basis on March 11, 2025.

Separately, the Delhi Police filed a cancellation report in the minor wrestler's case under the POCSO Act and on May 26, 2025, the Patiala House Court accepted it and closed the matter, the girl and her father having expressed satisfaction with the investigation.

2026: Trial concludes with acquittal

Meanwhile, Singh's own petition to quash the FIR and the charges framed against him remained pending before the Delhi High Court. On January 29, 2026, the Court pulled him up for repeated adjournments, noting no arguments had been made in the plea since it was filed in August 2024, and adjourned it to April 21 while clarifying there was no stay on the trial.

The trial continued and verdict was reserved on July 2, 2026, with Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwini Panwar of the Rouse Avenue Courts fixing August 3 for pronouncement.

On Monday, the ACJM acquitted both Singh and Tomar.

Singh's lawyers termed it an "honourable acquittal."

In an order passed on July 31, a division bench of acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad directed all benches of ITAT strictly adhere to the 90-day outer limit prescribed by Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 to pronounce decisions.

The Court was was hearing a petition filed by a Mumbai-based litigant, one Rajesh R Hemrajani. 

Hemrajani claimed that his appeal had been fully argued thrice but remained undecided and was released twice by the judge after the statutory period for pronouncement expired. 

“Our judicial conscience is shocked by the above stated information. It cannot be countenanced that a matter closed for judgment, is released without a judgment even when Rule 34 (of ITAT Rules) mandates a decision within 90 days. How far would the litigants tolerate the rigours of litigation, when an Appeal is released on multiple occasions. In the present case, the Appeal has been finally argued on the 3rd occasion, and the time-line is to expire shortly. We have taken a serious note of this aspect,” the High Court recorded. 

The petition concerned an appeal heard first by a bench comprising judicial member Rahul Chaudhary and accountant member Vikram Singh Yadav. It was closed for judgment on July 1, 2025 but not decided within the deadline of 90 days. 

A reconstituted bench led by Justice CV Bhadang reserved the matter on November 26, 2025, yet again failed to deliver a judgment within 90 days, and released it on February 27, 2026.

The High Court bench recorded how Hemrajani was exasperated by the two hearings that yielded no result. It noted that his appeal is now reserved for judgment for the third time by another bench (judicial member Beena Pillai and accountant member Arun Khopdia) since May 13, 2026. The 90-day period is set to expire on August 13, 2026. 

Taking note of the same, the High Court directed the judgement in Hemrajani’s case to be delivered before August 13. 

It further ordered all income tax appellate tribunals to follow the ITAT rules by fixing a pronouncement date within 60 days of conclusion of hearing. Even in exceptional circumstances, judgments should be delivered by the 90th day, the Court underlined. 

The Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court has been asked to circulate the order to all ITAT benches for compliance.

Advocates Dhruv Janssen Sanghavi, Anirudh Srinivasan and Prajyot Sawardekar appeared for Hemrajani.

Advocate Subir Kumar and Ashita Aggarwal appeared for the Income Tax Officer.

[Read order]

According to a notice dated August 1, the acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge earmarked judges across Maharashtra to exclusively conduct trials under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and Other Specified Examinations Act, 1982. 

The notice lists judicial officers posted in districts including Beed, Chandrapur, Dhule, Gadchiroli, Gondia, Jalgaon, Jalna, Kolhapur, Nashik, Osmanabad, Parbhani, Pune and Sangli as special fast-track courts for such offences. 

It further extends the special designation to courts in Satara, Solapur, Thane, Wardha, Yavatmal, Washim and Nandurbar.

The High Court has also designated a judge each from the City Civil and Sessions Court in Mumbai and the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Mumbai.

Judicial officers and districts named:

• Beed – MS Pathare

• Chandrapur – R S M Shaikh

• Dhule – BM Potdar

• Gadchiroli – NA Pathan

• Gondia (Tirora) – AS Agrawal

• Jalgaon – DA Sarnayak

• Jalna (Badnapur) – GN Langhe

• Kolhapur – AS Pansare

• Nashik (Satana) – CU Shipkule

• Osmanabad (Tuljapur) – VV Nivghekar

• Parbhani – MD Gautam

• Pune (Anti-Corruption Court) – USM Al Amoodi

• Pune (Pimpri-Chinchwad) – RR Sherekar

• Sangli – VA Adya

• Satara – AA Nikam

• Solapur – SP Shilwant

• Thane (Bhiwandi) – AA Kore

• Wardha – MY Doiphode

• Yavatmal – AM Shah

• Washim (Risod) – PV Sapakal

• Nandurbar – VB Shitole

• Mumbai – AA Nandgaonkar

• Mumbai (Vikhroli) – PV Hingne

Earlier on July 24, ACJ Ghuge had designated Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate SV Pawar in Aurangabad and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gulshan Kolte in Nagpur to hear paper leak cases in special fast-track courts. 

These decisions are aimed at expediting criminal proceedings in cases involving unfair means in public examinations, amid growing concern over paper leaks and organised cheating rackets in the state.

These courts have been set up pursuant to directions from the Union Law Ministry where trials are required to be completed within three months

[Read Notice]