Editorji is a popular short video news and information platform based in India. It was founded in 2018 by Vikram Chandra, one of India’s leading journalists, and has risen to prominence in the digital news space in a relatively short span of time. The platform is primarily designed for mobile devices, with applications available for Android and iOS.

ABOUT US:

about us editorji

Latest Video News: Editorji provides the latest news video headlines, latest videos clip from India and the World. Get all breaking news videos on Entertainment, Business, Coronavirus, Elections, Politics and more.

Latest Video News, Breaking News, Bollywood, Political, Sports, Business News | Editorji

+91 11 4035 6666 / info@editorji.com
3rd floor, Plot B, Khasara no 360, Sultanpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030
<a title="mail to us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Send Feedback</a>
<a title="Contact Us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Contact Us</a>

REACH US

Contact for any questions, suggestions, comments, feedback or advertisement on Editorji.com, we are always looking forward to hearing from you.

Contact Us for Feedback, Suggestions and Advertising 

Editorji content is better experienced in our app.

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked states and union territories to consider deputing additional staff to reduce the workload of booth level officers (BLOs) during the time-bound special revision of electoral rolls.

SC asks states, UTs to provide more staff to EC for SIR duty to ease pressure of BLOs

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked states and union territories to consider deputing additional staff to reduce the workload of booth level officers (BLOs) during the time-bound special revision of electoral rolls.

Taking note of a plea alleging extreme work pressure faced by booth level officers (BLOs) engaged in time-bound special revision of electoral rolls, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the states and union territories to consider deputing additional employees for reducing their working hours.
The top court was hearing an application by actor Vijay's party Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) seeking a direction to the poll panel to not take coercive actions under the Representation of the People Act against the BLOs for not performing the duty in a time-bound manner.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions of senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the TVK, that some instructions are needed to be issued as many BLOs, who are either teachers or Anganwadi workers, have died due to extreme pressure exerted by the EC officials.
Advocate Sankaranarayanan said, moreover, the poll panel officials are also registering FIRs against the BLOs if they fail to perform the duties assigned.
CJI Kant said that the state government may consider deploying additional staff so that the work pressure is eased.
&ldquo;In case they are facing hardships, including they being overburdened with their routine duties as well as the additional duties assigned by the Election Commission, the state government can obviate such hardships," the bench noted.
The state governments may consider the "desirability of deputing additional staff at the disposal of the EC so that the working hours can be proportionately reduced", an order issued by the court stated.
The bench said if any employee has any &ldquo;specific reason&rdquo; for seeking exemption from the SIR duty, the competent officer of the state government can consider such requests on a case-to-case basis and replace such an employee with another.
"However, it shall not be construed or understood as if they can withdraw the employees who have been assigned the duty if their substitutes are not provided,&rdquo; it said.
It further said states and the UTs, where the SIR is underway, &ldquo;shall be obligated to deploy the requisite work force at the disposal of the EC, though the strength of such employees can be increased as explained above."

The Supreme Court raised concerns over the legal status of Rohingyas in India, asking whether illegal entrants should receive privileges while citizens face poverty, and highlighted potential deportation and humanitarian issues.

SC questions legal status of Rohingyas, asks can intruders be given red carpet welcome

The Supreme Court raised concerns over the legal status of Rohingyas in India, asking whether illegal entrants should receive privileges while citizens face poverty, and highlighted potential deportation and humanitarian issues.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply questioned the legal status of Rohingyas living in India and asked whether &ldquo;intruders&rdquo; should be given a &ldquo;red carpet welcome&rdquo; while the country&rsquo;s own citizens grapple with poverty.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made sharp observations while hearing a habeas corpus (bring the person) petition filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda alleging disappearance of few Rohingyas from the custody of authorities here.
Now, the hearing in the case has been adjourned to December 16.
The counsel alleged certain Rohingyas were picked up by Delhi Police in May and there was no information about their whereabouts.
&ldquo;If they do not have legal status to stay in India, and you are an intruder, we have a very sensitive border in the north India side. If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome saying we would like to give you all facilities&rdquo; the CJI asked, adding, &ldquo;What is the problem in sending them back.&rdquo;
He said India is a country with a lot of poor people, and we should rather focus on them.
&ldquo;First you enter, you cross the border illegally. You dug a tunnel or crossed the fence and entered India illegally. Then you say, now that I have entered, your laws must apply to me and say, I am entitled to food, I am entitled to shelter, my children are entitled to education. Do we want to stretch the law like this,&rdquo; the CJI asked.
The petitioner referred to an apex court order of 2020 in which it was said that Rohingyas must be deported only according to procedure.
&ldquo;We also have poor people in the country. They are citizens. Are they not entitled to certain benefits and amenities? Why not concentrate on them? It is true, even if somebody has entered illegally, we should not subject them to third-degree methods&hellip;You are asking writ of habeas to bring them back,&rdquo; CJI Kant asked.
The bench said if repatriation is sought then it may give rise to &ldquo;logistical issues&rdquo;.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the plea has not been filed by an affected person and the petitioner has no locus to file such a plea.
On July 31, the top court, while hearing a batch of pleas concerning Rohingyas in the country, had said the first major issue to be dealt with in cases concerning Rohingyas is whether they are refugees or illegal entrants.
It said once that is decided, the other issues might be consequential.
&ldquo;The first major issue is simple, are they refugees or illegal entrants,&rdquo; Justice Kant observed.
The bench took note of the broad issues that arose for its consideration in the pleas relating to Rohingyas.
&ldquo;Whether the Rohingyas are entitled to be declared as refugees? If so, what protections, privileges or rights are they entitled to,&rdquo; the bench asked.
It said the second issue is if the Rohingyas are not refugees and are illegal entrants, whether the action of the Centre and states in deporting them was justified.
&ldquo;Even if the Rohingyas have been held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail, subject to such conditions as the court may deem fit to be imposed,&rdquo; it asked.
The court said the other issue raised in the petitions is whether the Rohingyas, who have not been detained and are living in refugee camps, have been provided basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation and education.
&ldquo;If the Rohingyas are illegal entrants, whether the government of India and the states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law,&rdquo; it noted.
The bench segregated the pleas in three groups &mdash; one relating to Rohingyas, another not pertaining to the issue of Rohingyas and one plea that it said pertains to a different matter altogether.
It said the three groups of matters would be determined separately and it would fix those for hearing on consecutive Wednesdays.
The bench indicated that on the point of those who were found to be illegal entrants and on the question of the State&rsquo;s responsibility to deport them, it could only lay down the principles.
On May 16, the apex court had rapped some petitioners who had claimed that 43 Rohingya refugees, including women and children, were dropped in the Andaman sea for deportation to Myanmar and said &ldquo;when the country is passing through a difficult time, you come out with fanciful ideas&rdquo;.
It had questioned the authenticity of the material placed before it by petitioner Mohammad Ismail and others and refused to stay any further deportation of Rohingyas, saying a similar relief was denied by the court earlier.
On May 8, the top court had said if the Rohingya refugees in the country were found to be foreigners under Indian laws, they would have to be deported.
The court had then referred to its earlier order and remarked that the identity cards issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) may not be of any help to them under the laws.

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Delhi-NCR’s worsening air quality on December 3, emphasizing regular monitoring and the need for long-term, expert-driven solutions to the region’s air pollution crisis.

Supreme Court to Examine Delhi-NCR Air Pollution on Dec 3

SC to Address Delhi-NCR Air Crisis

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Delhi-NCR&rsquo;s worsening air quality on December 3, emphasizing regular monitoring and the need for long-term, expert-driven solutions to the region&rsquo;s air pollution crisis.

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear on December 3 a plea concerning the deteriorating air quality in the Delhi&ndash;National Capital Region, saying the issue needed to be monitored on a regular basis.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions of senior advocate Aparajita Singh, who is assisting the bench as an amicus curiae in the air pollution case, that there is an &ldquo;alarming situation in Delhi-NCR and it is a health emergency&rdquo;.
&ldquo;What magic wand can a judicial forum exercise? I know this is hazardous for Delhi-NCR. We all know the problem. The issue is what is the solution. We need to identify reasons and &hellip; the solutions can be given by the domain experts only. We hope and expect that long term solutions are found,&rdquo; the CJI said.
&ldquo;Tell me what can we direct? We issue some directions and get to breathe clean air immediately ... .Then we have to see what the solutions can be in each region. Let us see what the government has constituted in terms of committee. This matter is also listed ceremonial way during the Diwali season and &hellip;let us have regular monitoring,&rdquo; the CJI said.
On November 19, the court asked the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to consider directing schools in Delhi-NCR to postpone open-air sports events scheduled for November&ndash;December to &ldquo;safer months&rdquo; due to toxic air levels.
It had declined to impose year-round restrictions under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), an emergency framework that restricts polluting activities in severe conditions, and instead emphasised the need for long-term, sustainable solutions.

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of former Army officer Samuel Kamalesan, calling his refusal to take part in regimental temple duties “gross indiscipline” and inconsistent with the Army’s secular and disciplinary framework.

SC rejects Christian officer's appeal against termination of service from Army

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of former Army officer Samuel Kamalesan, calling his refusal to take part in regimental temple duties &ldquo;gross indiscipline&rdquo; and inconsistent with the Army&rsquo;s secular and disciplinary framework.

Describing the act as the "grossest kind of indiscipline", the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a former Christian officer's plea challenging his termination from the armed forces, after he allegedly refused to participate in regimental religious activities at the sanctum sanctorum of a temple at a place of his posting.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court decision that had upheld the Army's action, saying Samuel Kamalesan's conduct was incompatible with military discipline.
"What kind of message has he been sending? He should have been thrown out for this only. This is the grossest kind of indiscipline by an Army official," the CJI said.
"Leaders have to lead by example. You are insulting your troops," the bench said, adding, "When a pastor counselled you, you leave it at that. You cannot have your private understanding of what your religion permits. That too in uniform."
Appearing in the court for Kamalesan, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said his client was dismissed from service for a single act of refusal to enter the innermost sanctum of a temple at the place of his posting, saying it violated his Christian faith.
He maintained that the officer had otherwise participated respectfully in all multi-faith spaces and regimental events.
"Is this sort of cantankerous conduct permissible in a disciplined force?" the CJI asked, adding as to how a troop leader would refuse to accompany his soldiers into a place they considered sacred.
The bench also noted that the regiment also maintained a gurdwara, given the presence of Sikh soldiers.
"A gurdwara is one of the most secular places.... The manner in which he is behaving, is he not insulting other religions?" the CJI asked.
The senior lawyer said the appellant's fundamental right to practise a religion under Article 25 of the Constitution cannot be taken away just because he has donned the uniform.
"Article 25 protects essential religious features, not every sentiment.... Where in the Christian faith is entering a temple barred?" Justice Bagchi asked.
The bench pointed out that the officer had ignored even the advice of a local pastor, who reportedly said entering a "sarva dharma sthal" would not violate the Christian faith.
"You may be outstanding in 100 things, but the Indian Army is known for its secular approach.... You have failed to respect the sentiments of your own soldiers," the CJI said, in response to the submission that the penalty of dismissal from service may be done away with.
When the appellant's counsel said not issuing a notice would be a wrong message for the society, the bench said, "This will send a strong message."
Commissioned in 2017 into the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, Kamalesan was posted as the troop leader of the 'B' Squadron, comprising Sikh personnel.
The regiment maintained a temple and a gurdwara, but not a "sarva dharma sthal" or a church.
Kamalesan had claimed that he had accompanied troops to both places for weekly religious parades but refrained from entering the sanctum during "aarti, havan or puja", citing religious conscience.
The Army had said the officer repeatedly refused to attend mandatory regimental parades and senior officers made "multiple attempts" to counsel him on the importance of regimentation.
However, he refused and this weakened unit cohesion, a critical requirement for operational effectiveness, the Army had said.
The Army was satisfied that Kamalesan's further retention was "undesirable" and his dismissal was upheld by the high court.
It was held that regimental religious spaces, though rooted in history, serve a secular, unifying purpose, not a denominational one.

Tamil Nadu CM M K Stalin asserts fight for state rights continues, emphasizing Supreme Court advisory won’t affect April 2025 TN judgment and elected government must lead.

Tamil Nadu CM Stalin says 'no rest until amending Constitution to fix timelines for Governors'

Tamil Nadu CM M K Stalin asserts fight for state rights continues, emphasizing Supreme Court advisory won&rsquo;t affect April 2025 TN judgment and elected government must lead.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK President M K Stalin on Friday asserted that "there will be no rest" until amending the Constitution to fix timelines for Governors to clear Bills.&nbsp;
In his first reaction to the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on the Presidential Reference, he said, "Our fight for State rights and true federalism will continue."
In a statement, Stalin said that the Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion in its answer to the Presidential Reference will have no impact on the April 8, 2025 judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu.
In fact, the chief minister said that the Bench tendering the advisory opinion has reaffirmed several key principles. It includes an assertion that the elected government should be in the driver&rsquo;s seat, and there cannot be two executive power centres in the State. Constitutional functionaries must act within the constitutional framework &mdash; never above it, the Governor has no fourth option to kill the Bill or exercise a pocket veto (as was done by the TN Governor) and he has no option to withhold the Bill simpliciter, were among the reaffirmed principles, the CM asserted.
The top court also affirmed again that Governor cannot indefinitely delay acting on Bills. In cases of prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite delay by the Governor in considering a Bill, States can approach the Constitutional Courts and hold Governors accountable for their deliberate inactions.
The 9-Judge Bench in Ahmedabad St. Xavier&rsquo;s College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717 (Para 109) clearly held: "Advisory opinion of the Court would have no more effect than the opinion of the law officers."
The Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion delivered on November 20 has again rejected the Tamil Nadu Governor&rsquo;s theory of pocket veto and assertion that Bills can be killed or buried by the Raj Bhavan. The CM said, "Through our legal battle, we have now compelled Governors, including the Tamil Nadu Governor, who are at odds with the elected government across the country, to work in line with the elected government and be accountable for their deliberate inaction in response to the people&rsquo;s will through legislation."
It has also empowered Constitutional Courts to review their actions if they obstruct the passage of Bills indefinitely, and they cannot hide behind Article 361.
The CM, furthermore, said: "I believe that no constitutional authority can claim to be above the Constitution. When even a high Constitutional Authority breaches the Constitution, the Constitutional Courts are the only remedy, and the doors of the Court must not be closed. This would undermine the rule of law in our constitutional democracy and encourage breaches of the Constitution by Governors acting with political intent."
The DMK president dramatically added, "I have promises to keep, and until our people&rsquo;s will in Tamil Nadu is fulfilled through legislation, we will ensure that every constitutional apparatus functions in this country in accordance with the Constitution."
DMK MP and senior advocate P Wilson said on Thursday that the Supreme Court's "no timelines for Governors" was only an opinion and not a judgment. Hence, Wilson said such an opinion was not binding. It will also not have any impact on adjudication in the courts, the MP had told reporters.
It may be recalled that the Tamil Nadu government notified on April 12, 2025 as many as 10 Acts after the apex court judgment that said the bills adopted again by the Assembly and sent to the President by the Governor were deemed to have received assent.
The 10 bills cover state-run varsities, and a key aspect is the transfer of the powers to appoint VCs from the Governor-chancellor to the state government. It includes those to amend the Tamil Nadu Fisheries University Act, and the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act. A bill to amend the Universities laws, the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act, was among the other bills.
The Madras HC had granted interim stay on the operation of these amendment Acts and the government later preferred an appeal against it in the apex court. Days ago, the Raj Bhavan denied that Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi caused a delay in giving his assent to the bills passed by the State Assembly and it said, "81 per cent of the Bills" have been assented to by the Governor.
Taking exception to certain "unfounded and factually incorrect allegations" made in public domain that the Governor was delaying assent to the bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, and that his "actions were against the interests of the people," the Raj Bhavan said the official records of Raj Bhavan showed of the total bills received as on October 31, 2025 as much as 81 per cent were assented.
TN Governor RN Ravi and the DMK regime led by Stalin are at loggerheads over several policy issues, and the Dravidian model government has often accused the Governor of being "biased, acting politically at the behest of the BJP government at the Centre" and deliberately delaying Bills passed by the Assembly.

The Supreme Court clarified that governors and the president cannot be bound by fixed timelines to grant assent to state assembly bills, and the court cannot give deemed assent under Article 200.

Supreme Court rules no timelines for Governors, President to assent to state bills

The Supreme Court clarified that governors and the president cannot be bound by fixed timelines to grant assent to state assembly bills, and the court cannot give deemed assent under Article 200.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said no timelines can be imposed on governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by state assemblies.&nbsp;
The Supreme Court is also barred from giving deemed assent to the bills, the apex court said in its long-awaited judgment.
In its unanimous verdict, a five-judge Constitution bench also ruled that governors cannot sit over bills beyond the powers granted to them under Article 200. "We don't think governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies," said the bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai and also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar. Fixing timelines for governors in a democratic country like India is against the elasticity provided by the Constitution, the court added.
Reading out the operative part of the verdict, the CJI said governors have three options under Article 200 -- to grant assent to bills, refer them to the president or withhold assent and send them back to the assembly with his or her comments. "In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the governor, it would not be appropriate for this court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200," the bench said.
Deciding a plea of the Tamil Nadu government, a bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala in April this year fixed a three-month period for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by state assemblies. The five-judge bench agreed to deliberate on 14 crucial questions raised by President Droupadi Murmu on the apex court's April 8 verdict. Exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), President Murmu had said that in the present circumstances it appears questions of law have arisen and are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court. Article 143 (1) deals with the power of the president to consult the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, the bench said exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of the president/governor cannot be substituted in any manner under Article 142. "...we hereby clarify that the Constitution, specifically Article 142 even, does not allow for the concept of 'deemed assent' of Bills," it said. Article 142 grants immense power to the top court to pass any order for doing complete justice in any case.
"The first proviso to Article 200 is bound to the substantive part of the provision, and restricts the existing options, rather than offering a fourth option. Pertinently, the third option &ndash; to withhold assent and return with comments &ndash; is only available to the governor when it is not a money Bill," the bench said. It said governors enjoy discretion in choosing from these three constitutional options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers while exercising powers under Article 200.
"The discharge of the governor's function under Article 200, is not justiciable. The court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken," it said. However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite, the court can issue a limited mandamus for the governor to discharge function under the Constitution within a reasonable time, without making any observations on merits, the apex court said.
Referring to Article 361, it said there is an absolute bar on judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the governor to judicial proceedings. "However, it cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this court is empowered to exercise in situations of prolonged inaction by the governor under Article 200," it said. The bench clarified that while the governors continue to enjoy personal immunity, their constitutional office is subject to the court's jurisdiction.
"The decisions of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force. It is impermissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law," the bench said. It said the governor's legislative role under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority.
On September 11, the apex court reserved its verdict.

The Supreme Court addresses growing dog bite incidents in schools and hospitals, ordering stray dogs' relocation and highway monitoring.

Supreme Court Orders Relocation of Stray Dogs from Institutions

Supreme Court Acts on Rising Stray Dog Incidents

The Supreme Court addresses growing dog bite incidents in schools and hospitals, ordering stray dogs' relocation and highway monitoring.

The Supreme Court on Friday took note of the "alarming rise" in dog bite cases in institutional areas like educational centres and hospitals, and directed that such canines should be moved to designated shelters.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria passed a slew of directions in the stray dogs case, including asking the authorities to ensure removal of cattle and other stray animals from highways and expressways, and their relocation to designated shelters.
The bench directed the authorities to prevent the ingress of stray dogs into the premises of government and private educational institutions and hospitals, etc., to prevent dog bite incidents. It directed that stray dogs picked up from such institutions shall not be released back in the same place.
The bench asked the authorities, including the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), to undertake a joint drive to identify stretches of highways where stray animals are frequently found. It fixed the matter for further hearing on January 13.
On November 3, the apex court said it will pass interim directions to tackle the issue of the "grave menace" of dog bites in institutional areas, where employees feed and encourage stray dogs.
The apex court is hearing a suo motu case, which was initiated on July 28 over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital. It had expanded the scope of the stray dogs case beyond the confines of Delhi-National Capital Region, and directed that all states and Union territories be made parties in the matter.

The Supreme Court will issue directions on November 7 regarding the stray dogs issue in government and public sector institutions, following non-compliance with Animal Birth Control rules.

Supreme Court to Direct Institutions on Stray Dog Management

Supreme Court's Stray Dog Directions

The Supreme Court will issue directions on November 7 regarding the stray dogs issue in government and public sector institutions, following non-compliance with Animal Birth Control rules.

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will issue directions on November 7 with respect to the stray dogs menace being faced in institutions, including government and public sector ones, where employees are supporting, feeding and encouraging the canines.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria was hearing the matter.
"Apart from recording the appearance and affidavits and everything, we will also be issuing some directions with respect to institutional menace which is being faced in government institutions, public sector institutions and other institutions where the employees are supporting, feeding and encouraging dogs in that area. For that, we will definitely be issuing some directions," Justice Nath said.
One of the advocates appearing in the matter urged the bench that they be heard prior to passing of directions on the issue.
"For institutional matters, we are not going to hear any arguments at all. Sorry," Justice Mehta said.
The bench noted that chief secretaries of most of the states and Union Territories were present before it.
It allowed the exemption application filed by the chief secretary of Kerala and noted that a principal secretary of the state was present in the court.
The bench said the Animal Welfare Board of India be made a party in the matter.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that most of the states and UTs have filed their compliance affidavit in the matter.
"List for orders on November 7," the bench said.
It said personal presence of the chief secretaries of states and UTs would no longer be required. However, the bench said their presence would again become necessary in case there was any default in compliance of the orders passed by the court.
While hearing the matter on October 27, the top court had directed the chief secretaries of states and UTs, except West Bengal and Telangana, to remain present before it on November 3 to explain why compliance affidavits were not filed despite the court's August 22 order.
The apex court on August 22 asked the states and UTs about the steps being taken for compliance of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
The bench had expressed displeasure over the non-compliance of its order and observed that by October 27, compliance affidavits were not filed by the states and UTs, except West Bengal, Telangana and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
It had made clear that the chief secretaries would have to appear in the court and explain as to why no compliance affidavits were filed by them.
On October 27, the top court had slammed the states and UTs, which had not filed their compliance affidavits in the matter, and said continuous incidents were happening and the country was being "shown as down" in foreign nations.
The apex court had earlier expanded the scope of the stray dogs case beyond the confines of Delhi-National Capital Region, and directed that all states and UTs be made parties in the matter.
It had directed the municipal authorities to file an affidavit of compliance with complete statistics of resources like dog pounds, veterinarians, dog-catching personnel, and specially-modified vehicles and cages available as on date for the purpose of compliance of the ABC Rules.
The bench had also impleaded the states and UTs in the matter while observing that application of ABC Rules was uniform all over India.
The apex court is hearing a suo motu case which was initiated on July 28 over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.

The Supreme Court has directed chief secretaries of all states and Union Territories, except West Bengal and Telangana, to appear on November 3 for not filing compliance affidavits in the stray dogs case.

SC summons chief secretaries of states, UTs over missing compliance affidavits in stray dogs case

SC Summons States in Stray Dog Case

The Supreme Court has directed chief secretaries of all states and Union Territories, except West Bengal and Telangana, to appear on November 3 for not filing compliance affidavits in the stray dogs case.

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the states and Union territories that have not filed their compliance affidavits in the stray dogs case, saying continuous incidents were happening and the country was being "shown as down" in foreign nations.
The apex court directed the chief secretaries of the states, except West Bengal and Telangana, to remain present before it on November 3 to explain why compliance affidavits were not filed despite the court's August 22 order.
The top court said except West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), none of the other states and UTs have filed their compliance affidavits.
"It is October 27 today. No response, nothing. And continuous incidents are happening. Your country is being shown as down in foreign countries," a three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria said.
It noted that pursuant to the August 22 order, only three compliance affidavits were filed.
"Notices have been issued to all the states and Union territories. As they have not responded, let the chief secretaries of all the states, other than... remain present before this court next Monday at 10.30 am along with their respective explanations as to why the compliance affidavits were not filed," it said.
The bench noted that during the hearing, there was no representation from states which have not filed their affidavits.
The top court was hearing a suo motu case relating to stray dogs.
On August 22, the apex court expanded the scope of the stray dogs case beyond the confines of Delhi-NCR, and directed that all states and UTs be made parties in the matter.
It directed the municipal authorities to file an affidavit of compliance with complete statistics of resources like dog pounds, veterinarians, dog-catching personnel, and specially modified vehicles and cages available as on date for the purpose of compliance of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
The bench also impleaded all the states and UTs in the matter while observing that application of ABC Rules was uniform all over India.
During the hearing on Monday, when one of the advocates referred to some guidelines, the bench said, "Let the authorities come and point that out." It said notices were issued to all the states and UTs on August 22, and it was widely reported as well.
"Your officers don't read newspapers? They don't read social media? They want a formal notice to be issued to them? The order (of August 22) mentioned everything. Everyone has reported it that all states and Union territories are being issued notices. Don't come up with all these excuses," the bench said.
The top court said once the authorities were aware of the development, they should have come forward as it was a matter of public interest litigation.
It also questioned the Delhi government as to why it has not filed its compliance affidavit.
The bench said it would direct the chief secretary of Delhi to appear before it as the compliance affidavit was filed by the MCD, and not the Delhi government.
"Ask your chief secretary to remain present on November 3 along with an explanation as to why no compliance affidavit has been filed till today. You are in Delhi, the order was passed in Delhi and in your presence, and nothing has happened," the bench told the counsel appearing for Delhi government.
The counsel said Delhi government would file an affidavit before the next date of hearing.
"You ask him (chief secretary) to remain present. He may file it on that day, he may come up with an explanation also. Otherwise, cost will be imposed along with any other coercive measure as the court may deem fit," the bench observed.
When one of the lawyers referred to cruelty against stray dogs, the bench said, "What about the cruelty to humans?"
One of the advocates said the maintenance departments of high-rise societies in Delhi-NCR should be impleaded in the matter.
"Make some sensible suggestions. Give a suggestion which is practical and which can be accepted and reasonable. Don't give an absurd kind of a proposition in court," the bench said.
The top court also said that it was gradually and slowly monitoring the issue so that ultimately, the objective was achieved.
The bench said the chief secretaries should remain present before it on November 3, otherwise "we will hold the court in auditorium".
In its August 22 order, the top court modified its earlier direction prohibiting the release of vaccinated stray dogs from pounds in Delhi-NCR, calling it "too harsh", and ordered the canines to be released post sterilisation and de-worming.
The bench had said that municipal authorities would continue to comply with its August 11 directions to pick up stray dogs from all localities in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Noida, Faridabad, and Gurugram, and immediately create dog shelters or pounds.
It said the August 11 direction prohibiting the release of the picked-up stray dogs shall be kept in abeyance for the time being.
It clarified that relocation should not apply to dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies and those displaying aggression.
A two-judge bench of the apex court on August 11 passed a slew of directions, including ordering the authorities in Delhi-NCR to start picking up stray dogs from all localities "at the earliest" and relocate the canines to dog shelters.
The suo motu case was initiated on July 28 over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.

The Supreme Court said it will not pursue contempt action against advocate Rakesh Kishore, who hurled a shoe at CJI BR Gavai on October 6.

Supreme Court Opts Out of Contempt Case After Shoe-Throwing Incident

SC Rejects Contempt in Shoe-Throwing Case

The Supreme Court said it will not pursue contempt action against advocate Rakesh Kishore, who hurled a shoe at CJI BR Gavai on October 6.

The Supreme Court on Monday said it is not inclined to initiate contempt action against a lawyer who had hurled a shoe towards Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, noting that the CJI himself refused to proceed against him.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said shouting slogans in court and hurling shoes are clear cases of contempt of court but it all depends on the judge concerned under the law whether to proceed or not.
"Issuing contempt notice will only give undue importance to the lawyer who had hurled shoe at the CJI and would increase the shelf life of the incident," the bench said, adding the incident should be allowed to die its own natural death.
The bench was hearing a plea of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against 71-year-old advocate Rakesh Kishore, who hurled the shoe towards the CJI on October 6 during court proceedings.
The top court said it will consider laying down guidelines to prevent such incidents. It asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to collate details of incidents like shoe-throwing incidents in different courts.
On October 16, the top court said the right to speech and expression cannot be exercised at the cost of others' dignity and integrity as it cautioned about the dangers of "unregulated" social media, saying incidents like the recent hurling of shoe towards the CJI are nothing but "money-spinning ventures".
On October 6, in a shocking security breach, Kishore hurled a shoe towards the CJI in his courtroom which prompted the Bar Council of India to suspend his license with immediate effect.
The CJI, who remained unfazed during and after the unprecedented incident during the court proceedings, asked the court officials and the security personnel present inside the courtroom to "just ignore" it and to let off the errant lawyer with a warning.
The incident has sparked widespread condemnation across different sections of society, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaking to the CJI.

Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai has recommended Justice Surya Kant as his successor. Justice Kant, currently the second senior-most Supreme Court judge, will assume office as the 53rd CJI on November 24 after CJI Gavai’s retirement.

Justice Surya Kant Nominated as Next Chief Justice of India

Justice Surya Kant: Next Chief Justice of India

Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai has recommended Justice Surya Kant as his successor. Justice Kant, currently the second senior-most Supreme Court judge, will assume office as the 53rd CJI on November 24 after CJI Gavai&rsquo;s retirement.

Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai has recommended to the Centre the name of Justice Surya Kant as the next CJI.
Justice Surya Kant, the second senior-most Supreme Court judge after the incumbent CJI Gavai, is set to become the 53rd chief justice of India on November 24 after CJI Gavai's retirement on November 23.
CJI Gavai, who was sworn in on May 14 this year, recommended to the Union law ministry to appoint Justice Surya Kant as the next CJI, sources said.
Justice Surya Kant, who was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on May 24, 2019, would have a tenure of over 1.2 years as the CJI. He is due to retire on February 9, 2027.
The retirement age of Supreme Court judges is 65 years.
According to the memorandum of procedure, a set of documents, which guide the appointment, transfer and elevation of Supreme Court and high court judges, states that appointment to the office of the chief justice of India should be the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office.
The Union law minister would, "at the appropriate time", seek the recommendation of the outgoing CJI for the appointment of his successor.
Conventionally, the letter is sent a month before the incumbent CJI retires on attaining the age of 65 years.
Justice Surya Kant, born in a middle-class family on February 10, 1962, in Hisar district of Haryana, became a top court judge on May 24, 2019.
Justice Surya Kant brings to the country's top judicial office a wealth of experience spanning two decades on the bench, marked by landmark verdicts on abrogation of Article 370, free speech, democracy, corruption, environment and gender equality.
Justice Surya Kant was part of the bench that kept the colonial-era sedition law in abeyance, directing that no new FIRs be registered under it until a government review.
In an order that underlined transparency in the poll process, he nudged the Election Commission to disclose the details of 65 lakh names excluded from the draft electoral rolls after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar.
Justice Surya Kant is also credited with directing that one-third of seats in bar associations, including the Supreme Court Bar Association, be reserved for women.
He upheld the One Rank-One Pension (OROP) scheme for defence forces, calling it constitutionally valid, and continues to hear petitions of women officers in the armed forces seeking parity in permanent commission.
Justice Surya Kant was on the seven-judge bench that overruled the 1967 Aligarh Muslim University judgment, opening the way for reconsideration of the institution's minority status.
He was part of the bench that heard the Pegasus spyware case, which appointed a panel of cyber experts to probe allegations of unlawful surveillance, famously stating that the state cannot get a "free pass under the guise of national security."
Justice Surya Kant was part of the bench that appointed a five-member committee headed by former Supreme Court Justice Indu Malhotra to probe the security breach during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 2022 Punjab visit, saying such matters required "a judicially trained mind."

The Supreme Court has permitted the sale and use of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR for Diwali from October 18 to 21, under strict monitoring and time restrictions, balancing tradition with environmental concerns.

Supreme Court Allows Green Crackers in Delhi-NCR for Diwali

Supreme Court Allows Delhi-NCR Green Crackers

The Supreme Court has permitted the sale and use of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR for Diwali from October 18 to 21, under strict monitoring and time restrictions, balancing tradition with environmental concerns.

In a significant relaxation ahead of Diwali, the Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted the sale and bursting of green firecrackers in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) during the festival with certain conditions.
The court made it clear that use of green crackers will be confined to specific hours on the day before Diwali and on the festival day itself. However, the sale of green crackers will permitted from October 18 to 21.
Allowing the joint request of the Centre and Delhi government, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran relaxed the ban on green firecrackers.
&ldquo;We have to take a balanced approach, permitting it in moderation while not compromising with the environment,&rdquo; the CJI said.
"Sale of green crackers will be permitted from October 18 to October 21. Police authority to constitute patrolling teams to keep an eye that only permitted products with QR codes are to be sold. Violation notice to be attached for persons who violate the rules. Use of firecrackers shall be confined to 6 AM to 7 AM and 8 PM to 10 PM on the day before Diwali and on Diwali day," the CJI said while reading the order.
The bench also made it clear that no sale of firecrackers through e-commerce platforms will be permitted.
The bench said a total ban on firecrackers in the past had led to the smuggling of high-emission crackers and it caused even greater environmental harm.
&ldquo;Conventional firecrackers are smuggled, which cause more damage. We have to take a balanced approach,&rdquo; the CJI said while pronouncing the order.
It took note of data showing that despite earlier bans, the air quality index (AQI) in NCR districts did not show significant improvement, except during the COVID-19 lockdown period when overall industrial and vehicular activity was minimal.
The order referred to its landmark judgment in Arjun Gopal v. Union of India case and said that had led to the introduction of green crackers in 2018.
These eco-friendly firecrackers, developed with the assistance of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), reportedly reduce emissions of particulate matter and harmful gases by up to 30 per cent, the bench said.
&ldquo;Over the past six years, green crackers have substantially reduced emissions. NEERI has played a crucial role in this progress,&rdquo; the order said.
It said from October 14, 2024, to January 1, 2025, there was a complete ban on the manufacture of all firecrackers, including green ones.
It asked the Central Pollution Control Boards and state PCBs of NCR to monitor the pollution level during Diwali and file reports before it.
The order said patrolling teams will be conducting regular checks on cracker manufacturers and their QR codes have to be uploaded on the websites.
No crackers from outside Delhi-NCR can be sold here and if found, the licences of sellers will be suspended, it added.
The detailed order is awaited.
On October 10, the top court had reserved its orders on the pleas seeking permission to manufacture and sell green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the National Capital Region states and the Centre, had urged the apex court to permit bursting of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR on occasions like Diwali, Guru Purab and Christmas without any restrictions on the timing.
While reserving the order, the bench had said a complete ban on bursting of fire crackers in Delhi-NCR is "neither practical nor ideal" as such restrictions were often violated and balancing of equities is needed.
Vehement submissions were made seeking lifting of the blanket ban by Mehta, appearing for the Centre and NCR states. He also said that the children should be allowed to burst crackers on Diwali and other festivals without any time restrictions.
Questioning the blanket ban which has been in place since 2018 in Delhi-NCR, the bench asked the counsel for the authorities and others as to whether the ban has resulted in any tangible difference or led to decrease in the AQI, an indicator of pollution level.
"Has the air quality index improved or worsened since 2018? Was the pollution much less then compared to now," the CJI asked.
The solicitor general replied that according to data of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), pollution levels had remained "more or less the same", except during the COVID-19 lockdown period when industrial and vehicular activity was halted.
"Let the children celebrate for two days. It is only for festivals like Diwali, Gurpurab, and Christmas," the solicitor general urged, adding that "the child inside me is persuading the child in your Lordships and for a few days there should not be any time restrictions." The top court on September 26 permitted certified manufacturers to produce 'green' crackers with a condition that they will not sell them in prohibited Delhi-NCR without its approval.
It asked the Centre to take a fresh look at the absolute ban on the manufacture of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR.
A total of 16 districts in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana fall under the NCR along with Delhi.

The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking investigation and reforms over alleged toxic cough syrup deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, citing existing state mechanisms.

Cough syrup deaths: SC rejects PIL seeking CBI probe, nationwide drug safety review

The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking investigation and reforms over alleged toxic cough syrup deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, citing existing state mechanisms.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a PIL seeking an inquiry and systemic reform in drug safety mechanisms in the wake of deaths of children in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan allegedly due to consumption of toxic cough syrups.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran dismissed the PIL filed by lawyer Vishal Tiwari after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to it.
The top law officer said the petitioner reads the newspaper and rushes to the court.
The bench, which was initially of the view that the notice should be issued, later dismissed it.
Mehta said he was not appearing for any state at the moment but the seriousness with which states like Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh are taking actions cannot be undermined.
Moreover, there are proper law enforcement mechanisms in states, he added.
The bench asked Tiwari as to how many PILs he has filed so far in the top court and on being told that he has moved eight to 10 such pleas so far, the bench dismissed the instant petition.
"Dismissed," the CJI said.

The Supreme Court will hear a PIL on October 10 seeking a court-monitored probe and systemic reforms after child deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan allegedly caused by toxic cough syrups.

Cough syrup deaths: SC agrees to hear PIL seeking CBI Probe, nationwide drug safety review

The Supreme Court will hear a PIL on October 10 seeking a court-monitored probe and systemic reforms after child deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan allegedly caused by toxic cough syrups.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear on Friday a PIL seeking inquiry and systemic reform in drug safety mechanisms in the wake of deaths of children in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan allegedly due to consumption of toxic cough syrups.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran took note of the submissions of PIL petitioner and lawyer Vishal Tiwari that the plea needed an urgent hearing.
The bench agreed to hear the plea on October 10.
The plea seeks a court-monitored probe into the incidents and urges the constitution of a National Judicial Commission or Expert Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The PIL requests that all pending FIRs and investigations concerning the deaths of children caused by toxic cough syrups across states be transferred to the CBI.
It seeks a probe under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge to ensure fairness and uniformity.
The petition contends that separate state-level investigations have led to fragmented accountability, enabling repeated lapses that allow hazardous formulations to reach the market.
The petition comes amid reports from Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, where several children died allegedly after consuming a particular kind of cough syrup.
The plea seeks court's direction to the central government to identify the regulatory failures that allowed substandard medicines to reach the market.
It also urged the court to mandate toxicological testing of all suspect products through NABL-accredited laboratories before any further sale or export is permitted.&nbsp;

Supreme Court directs Election Commission to share details of 3.66 lakh excluded voters from Bihar’s final electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision exercise.

SC directs EC to furnish details of 3.66 lakh excluded voters from final Bihar electoral roll

Supreme Court directs Election Commission to share details of 3.66 lakh excluded voters from Bihar&rsquo;s final electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision exercise.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Election Commission to provide it with the details of 3.66 lakh excluded voters from the final electoral roll prepared after Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
The Election Commission informed the apex court that most of the names added are of new voters and that no complaint or appeal has been filed till now by any excluded voter.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the poll panel will submit whatever information it gets on excluded voters by Thursday (October 9), when it will conduct further hearing on the pleas challenging the SIR exercise.
The top court said everyone has the draft electoral roll and the final list has also been published on September 30, so the required data can be furnished through a comparative analysis.
Justice Bagchi told senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel, that court orders have resulted in more transparency and access to the electoral process.
The bench said that since it appears from the number of electors in the final list that there is an appreciation of numbers from the draft rolls, therefore, to avoid any confusion, the identity of add-ons should be disclosed.
"You'd agree with us that the degree of transparency and access has improved in the electoral process. It appears from the data that there was a 65 lakh deletion in the draft list which you published, and we said whoever is dead or moved is alright, but if you are deleting someone, please follow Rule 21 and the SOP.
"We also said that whoever is deleted, please put up their data in your electoral offices. Now the final list appears to be an appreciation of numbers and there is confusion in the general democratic process -- what is the identity of the add-ons, are they of deleted names or new names," Justice Bagchi said.
Dwivedi replied that most additions of names are of new voters and there were a few old voters, whose names were added after the draft roll was published.
"No complaint or appeal filed till now by any excluded voters," Dwivedi said.
On September 30, the EC, while publishing the final electoral list of the poll-bound Bihar, said that the total number of electors has come down by nearly 47 lakh to 7.42 crore in the final electoral roll from 7.89 crore before the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list carried out by the Election Commission.
The final figure has, however, increased by 17.87 lakh from 7.24 crore electors named in the draft list issued on August 1, which had removed 65 lakh voters from the original list on various accounts, including deaths, migration and duplication of voters.
While 21.53 lakh new electors have been added to the draft list, 3.66 lakh names have been removed, resulting in a net increase of 17.87 lakh.
On October 6, announcing the poll schedule, the EC said elections will be held in 121 seats of the 243-member Assembly on November 6, while the remaining 122 constituencies will go to polls on November 11. The counting of votes will be held on November 14.&nbsp;

A lawyer tried to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during Supreme Court proceedings on Monday. Security intervened immediately, and an inquiry into the incident has been initiated.

Lawyer tries to hurl shoe towards CJI Gavai in courtroom

A lawyer tried to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during Supreme Court proceedings on Monday. Security intervened immediately, and an inquiry into the incident has been initiated.

In a shocking breach of decorum, a 71-year-old lawyer allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe towards Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai during court proceedings on Monday.
"Don't get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me," the CJI, who remained unfazed during the incident, told lawyers and continued hearing the mentioning of cases.
According to lawyers, the incident occurred when a bench comprising the CJI and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the mentioning of cases by lawyers.
The lawyer, who was later identified as Rakesh Kishor (71), a resident of Mayur Vihar here, approached the dais, removed his shoe and tried to throw it towards the judges.
Alert security personnel present inside the courtroom immediately intervened and prevented the attack.
The lawyer was swiftly escorted out of the court premises.
As he was being taken away, the lawyer was heard shouting, "Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge" (will not tolerate insults to Sanatan Dharma).
According to sources, police are coordinating with the registrar general of the Supreme Court and conducting further investigation into the matter. Details about the exact motive behind the lawyer's act are awaited, police sources said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the act as "unfortunate and condemnable", calling it a result of misinformation and an attempt at cheap publicity.
"Today's incident in the chief justice's court is unfortunate and deserves condemnation. This is the result of misinformation in social media. It is really heartening that the chief justice of India reacted with magnanimity.... I only hope that this magnanimity is not treated by others as the weakness of the institution," the top law officer said.
"I have personally seen the chief justice visiting religious places of all religions with full reverence. The chief justice has also clarified this position. It is not understood what prompted one miscreant to do what he did today. It appears to be an act of some attention seeker wanting cheap publicity," Mehta added.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising termed the episode "an attack on the institution as a whole".
"I am not an eyewitness to the incident. What I know, I know from what the press has reported. It calls for investigation. I consider it to be an attack on the institution as a whole, not just the chief justice," she said.
"I do consider it to be a casteist remark against the chief justice.... It requires a legal response from the Supreme Court of India," Jaising added.
The incident could be linked to the lawyer's unhappiness over the CJI's remarks during a hearing last month concerning the restoration of a Vishnu idol in Khajuraho.
A bench headed by the CJI had dismissed the plea seeking directions to reconstruct and reinstall a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple, part of the UNESCO World Heritage Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh.
Terming the plea a "publicity interest litigation", the CJI had said, "This is purely publicity interest litigation.... Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation." Taking note of the online criticism of his comments, the CJI later said he respects "all religions".
"Someone told me the other day that the comments I made have been portrayed in social media.... I respect all religions," he said on September 18.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and Ladakh UT on a plea by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife challenging his detention under the National Security Act.

SC Seeks Govt Response on Sonam Wangchuk's NSA Detention

SC Seeks Govt Reply on Wangchuk's NSA Detention

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and Ladakh UT on a plea by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk&rsquo;s wife challenging his detention under the National Security Act.

The Supreme Court on Monday sought response from the Centre and Union Territory of Ladakh on a plea filed by Sonam Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo challenging the climate activist's detention under the National Security Act, and seeking his immediate release.
However, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria refused to pass any order on providing grounds of detention to Wangchuk's wife and posted the matter for hearing on October 14.
Wangchuk was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) on September 26, two days after protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and 90 injured in the Union territory.
Wangchuk is lodged in Jodhpur jail in Rajasthan.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wangchuk's wife, sought directions from the apex court that the grounds of detention should be served on her.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the grounds of detention have been served on the detenue (Wangchuk).
Mehta stated that there is no legal requirement for the grounds of detention to be given to the wife.
Sibal pressed for an interim order for the supply of grounds, saying detention order cannot be challenged without a copy.
Justice Kumar then said, "At this stage, we will not say anything." The bench, however, noted the submission of the Solicitor General that he would examine feasibility of supply of grounds of detention.
Mehta stated that the petitioner was trying to create a "hype" and an "emotive issue" that Wangchuk was denied medical relief and meetings with his wife.
In her plea filed through senior lawyer Vivek Tankha and lawyer Sarvam Ritam Khare, Angmo has also questioned the decision to invoke the NSA against Wangchuk, which allows detention without trial for up to 12 months.
Filing the habeas corpus (bring the person) writ, the spouse of the detained activist sought urgent listing of the plea and a direction to the Ladakh administration to "produce Sonam Wangchuk before this court forthwith".
It also sought immediate access to the detenue, and quashing of the preventive detention order.
The plea, which named the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ladakh UT administration, deputy commissioner of Leh, and the Jodhpur jail superintendent as parties, also sought a direction to them to "allow immediate access of the petitioner to her husband, both telephonic and in person".
The plea alleged that Wangchuk's detention was "illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional", violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
"Wangchuk, who has been an internationally acclaimed innovator, environmentalist, and social reformer, has always espoused Gandhian and peaceful methods to highlight the ecological and democratic concerns of Ladakh," it said.
On September 26, Wangchuk was detained by the deputy commissioner of Leh under Section 3(2) of the NSA, as he was recovering from a prolonged fast to highlight Ladakh's demand for constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule.
He was swiftly shifted to the Central Jail in Jodhpur without being provided medicines, personal belongings, or access to his family and counsel, the plea said.
No grounds of detention have been furnished till date, either to Wangchuk or to his family, the petition submitted.
His wife alleged that she has been kept under virtual house arrest in Leh, while students and staff of the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, Ladakh (HIAL), founded by Wangchuk, are facing harassment, intimidation, and intrusive investigations.
"The arbitrary transfer of Wangchuk to Jodhpur, the harassment of students and staff of HIAL, the virtual house arrest of the petitioner herself, and the false propaganda linking Wangchuk to foreign entities clearly demonstrate mala fide state action intended to suppress democratic dissent and peaceful environmental activism," the plea submitted.
Wangchuk's detention has also inflicted severe mental pain and anguish on the people of Ladakh, who revere him as their leader, it stated.
"A recent tragic incident has been reported where a member of the Ladakh Buddhist Association committed suicide, allegedly depressed after his (Wangchuk's) detention, underscoring the devastating psychological impact on the community," it said.
"Direct respondents to ensure that Sonam Wangchuk is provided with his medicines, clothes, food and other basic necessities forthwith," the plea said.
It also sought a direction to the authorities to place before the top court "the order of detention along with grounds of detention and all records pertaining thereto".
It sought a direction to the respondents to produce a medical report of Wangchuk, after immediate doctor consultation, before the court.
"Stop immediate harassment of HIAL and its members/students who have done no harm and are tirelessly working for the benefit of the ecology," the plea said.

The Congress welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim order staying contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, calling it a win for constitutional values and minority rights.

Congress hails SC order staying key provisions of Waqf (Amendment) Act as victory for minority rights

The Congress welcomed the Supreme Court&rsquo;s interim order staying contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, calling it a win for constitutional values and minority rights.

The Congress on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court order putting on hold several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act as a win for the constitutional values of justice, equality and fraternity, asserting that it goes a long way towards undoing the "mischievous intentions" underlying the original statute.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said the Supreme Court's interim order in the matter had reaffirmed its resolve to protect the rights of minorities -- a cause for which the Opposition stood united against the Modi government.
"The BJP had sought to bulldoze a divisive law, designed solely to inflame communal passions and reopen issues that India had long settled. The Congress party stands firm in defending the rights of every citizen, without fear or favour, as guaranteed by our Constitution," Kharge said on X, alleging that the BJP, in contrast, thrives on dividing society for narrow electoral gains.
Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said the Supreme Court order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 represents a substantial victory not just for the parties that opposed this arbitrary law in Parliament but all those members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee who submitted detailed dissent notes which were then ignored but now stand vindicated.
"The Order is an important one because it goes a long way towards undoing the mischievous intentions underlying the original statute," Ramesh said on X.
Counsels for the opposition parties had argued that the law would result in the creation of a structure where anyone and everyone could challenge the status of the property before the Collector, and the status of the property would be in limbo while in such litigation, he said.
Additionally, only a 'Muslim' practising for five years could donate to a waqf, Ramesh said.
"The intention behind these sections was always apparent -- to keep the voter base inflamed and create an administrative structure to indulge those seeking to foment religious disputes," he said.
"With this order, the Supreme Court has -- stayed the powers of the Collector; protected existing waqf properties from dubious challenges and; stayed the provision requiring proof of being a Muslim for five years until such times as rules are framed," he said.
"We welcome this order as a win for the constitutional values of justice, equality, and fraternity," Ramesh added.
Syed Naseer Hussain, Congress general secretary and a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that examined the Waqf law, thanked the Supreme Court for its interim order.
"The Hon'ble Bench has reaffirmed the constitutional safeguards that protect minority rights and struck a balance between reform and representation. From the very beginning, I on behalf of the Congress party had cautioned the government repeatedly against including the three clauses that have been stayed today," he said.
"I had pointed out that giving the Collector unbridled powers to entertain challenges, making someone prove they are a Muslim for 5 years (as a precondition to declaring their own property as waqf), and skewing representation on the Waqf Board were wrong and constitutionally unsustainable. They undermined the autonomy of the Waqf Board and reduced the rights of the community, who are at the end of the day Indian citizens with the same constitutional and fundamental rights as anyone else," he said.
They also left the waqf properties vulnerable to constant challenge by mischievous elements, Hussain said.
"Today's ruling vindicates our stand that any reform must be transparent, consultative, and faithful to the Constitution of India," the Congress leader said.
The Congress party remains committed to protecting the rights of minorities, upholding secular values and ensuring that community institutions like the waqf are managed with fairness, accountability and respect for constitutional principles, he said.
"Keeping in mind this is an interim order, we will continue our efforts to persuade the learned Bench of our arguments on the remaining clauses under challenge," Hussain said.
Congress' media and publicity department head Pawan Khera accused the government of making laws without any discussion and said the Supreme Court has to intervene to give relief.
"This is not happening for the first time, in the last 10-11 years, many such cases have come up where relief was given due to the judiciary. Any government, elected government, elected by the votes of the people, when makes a law without any discussion, without consultation, then this happens," he said.
The Supreme Court put on hold several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the clause that only those practising Islam for the last five years can dedicate a property as waqf, but refused to stay the entire law.
"We have held that presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of a statute and intervention (can be done) only in the rarest of rare cases," a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said in its interim order on the intensely debated issue.
The apex court also pressed pause on the powers given to a Collector to adjudicate the status of waqf properties and ruled on the contentious issue of non-Muslim participation in Waqf Boards, directing that the Central Waqf Council should not have more than four non-Muslim members out of 20, and State Waqf Boards not more than three of 11.

The Supreme Court-appointed SIT has cleared Vantara, the Jamnagar-based zoological rescue and rehabilitation centre, after finding compliance with regulatory measures.

SC appointed SIT gives clean chit to Vantara

The Supreme Court-appointed SIT has cleared Vantara, the Jamnagar-based zoological rescue and rehabilitation centre, after finding compliance with regulatory measures.

The Supreme Court-appointed SIT probing the affairs of Vantara has given a clean chit to the zoological rescue and rehabilitation centre in Gujarat's Jamnagar.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale took the report on record and noted that authorities have expressed satisfaction on the issue of compliance and regulatory measures in Vantara.
The report was submitted on Friday and the top court perused it on Monday.
The apex court said it will pass a detailed order during the day after going through the report.
The top court constituted the SIT on August 25 to conduct a fact-finding inquiry against Vantara, in view of allegations of non-compliance with laws and acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants.
The top court constituted the four-member SIT headed by a former apex court judge while hearing two PILs alleging irregularities against Vantara on the basis of reports in the media and social media and diverse complaints from NGOs and wildlife organisations.
On August 14, the top court described as "completely vague" the plea filed by petitioner C R Jaya Sukin seeking to get a monitoring committee formed to return the captive elephants in Vantara to their owners.

The Supreme Court declined to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, citing a presumption of constitutionality, but suspended provisions restricting waqf creation to practising Muslims of five years and government officers deciding property disputes.

Supreme Court refuses to stay entire waqf law, stalls certain provisions

The Supreme Court declined to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, citing a presumption of constitutionality, but suspended provisions restricting waqf creation to practising Muslims of five years and government officers deciding property disputes.

The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the clause that only those practising Islam for the last five years can dedicate a property as Waqf, but refused to stay the entire law.
&ldquo;We have held that presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of a statute and intervention (can be done) only in the rarest of rare cases,&rdquo; a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said in its interim order on the intensely debated issue.
The apex court also pressed pause on the powers given to a collector to adjudicate the status of waqf properties and ruled on the contentious issue of non-Muslim participation in Waqf Boards, directing that the Central Waqf Council should not have more than four non-Muslim members out of 20, and State Waqf Boards not more than three of 11.
The CJI said the bench has considered the &ldquo;prima facie challenge&rdquo; to each section in the new law and found that &ldquo;no case was made out to stay entire provisions of the statute".
"However some sections need some protection,&rdquo; he said.
The bench made clear that its directions were prima facie and interim in nature and they would not prevent the petitioners or the government from advancing full arguments on the constitutional validity of the law at the stage of final hearing.
The detailed judgement is awaited.
CJI Gavai then referred to the provisions which have been interfered with or stayed by the interim order.
&ldquo;The requirement that a person has to be a practicing Muslim for the last five years before he can dedicate a property as waqf (Section 3(r)) has been stayed until the state governments rules are framed for examining whether a person is a practicing Muslim or not. Without any such rule/ mechanism, the provision will lead to an arbitrary exercise of power,&rdquo; the order said.
One of the most significant interventions came in relation to Section 3C, which had vested powers in designated government officers to determine the status of Waqf properties.
The bench stayed a proviso to Section 3C(2) of the law, which said a property would not be deemed Waqf until a government officer&rsquo;s report confirmed no encroachment.
It also stayed the operation of section 3C(3), which authorised the officer to declare a property as government land and alter revenue records.
The order stalled Section 3C(4), which required the state government to direct the Waqf Board to correct its records on the basis of the officer&rsquo;s findings.
&ldquo;Permitting the collector to determine the rights is against the separation of powers; the executive cannot be permitted to determine the rights of citizens,&rdquo; it said.
The bench clarified that until the title to a property is finally adjudicated under Section 83 by the Waqf Tribunal, and subject to appeal before the High Court, neither the possession of the Waqf nor its records would be disturbed. However, during the pendency of inquiry, no third-party rights could be created in such properties, it said.
On the non-Muslim participation in Waqf Boards, the bench declined to stay the provisions but imposed limitations.
While not striking down Section 23, which deals with the appointment of chief executive officers (CEOs), the bench said, &ldquo;As far as possible, efforts should be made to appoint the CEO, who is also the ex-officio secretary of the board, from the Muslim community.&rdquo; It, however, refused to interfere with the provision mandating registration of Waqfs, observing that it was not a new requirement and had existed under earlier legislations of 1995 and 2013.
According to the Act, Waqf refers to an endowment made by a Muslim for charitable or religious purposes, such as building mosques, schools, hospitals, or other public institutions. "Another defining feature of a Waqf is that it's inalienable- which means it cannot be sold, gifted, inherited or encumbered," it states.
On May 22, the Supreme Court reserved its orders on three key issues, including the power to denotify properties declared as "waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed", which cropped up during the hearing of pleas challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Apart from the issue of denotification, petitioners raised questions over the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contended that only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members. The third issue relates to a provision that says a waqf property will not be treated as a waqf when the collector conducts an inquiry to ascertain if the property is government land.
On April 25, the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs filed a preliminary 1,332-page affidavit defending the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and opposed any "blanket stay" by the court on a "law having presumption of constitutionality passed by Parliament".
The Centre notified the Act on April 8 after it got President Droupadi Murmu's assent on April 5.
The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 on April 3 and April 4 respectively.

supreme court

Categories