1. Supreme Court Grants Bail to Three Accused in Sambhal Mosque Violence Case
The Supreme Court has granted bail to Mohammad Danish, Faizan, and Nazir, who were arrested in connection with violence during the Archaeological Survey of India’s inspection of the Sambhal Masjid in Uttar Pradesh. A Bench headed by Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan observed that the investigation in the case was complete and the chargesheet had already been filed, leaving no justification for continued custody. The Court held that, at this stage, bail was appropriate considering the completion of the probe.
2. CJI Shoe-Throwing Incident: Supreme Court Moots Preventive Guidelines; No Action Against Lawyer for Now
The Supreme Court declined to initiate action against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who recently attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during court proceedings. The Court, however, clarified that the issue is “not closed” and emphasised the need for preventive guidelines to safeguard courtroom dignity and prevent such disruptions from recurring. The Bench underscored that while immediate punitive steps are deferred, institutional safeguards must be strengthened going forward.
3. Digital Arrest Scams: Supreme Court Seeks FIR Details from States; Considers CBI Probe
The Supreme Court directed all States to furnish details of FIRs registered in connection with the rising number of digital arrest scams, in which scammers impersonate law enforcement officials to extort money from citizens. The Court also considered entrusting the Central Bureau of Investigation with the probe, while questioning whether the agency has adequate resources to investigate such cases nationwide. Emphasising the gravity and widespread nature of these scams, the Bench signalled the need for coordinated enforcement and stronger preventive mechanisms.
4. CJI BR Gavai Recommends Justice Surya Kant as Next CJI
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has recommended Justice Surya Kant to succeed him as the next Chief Justice of India upon his retirement on November 23. Justice Kant, currently a senior judge of the Supreme Court, is set to assume office and will have a notably long tenure of over 14 months as CJI. The recommendation has been forwarded to the Union Law Ministry in accordance with established convention.
5. Supreme Court Allows Amicable Settlement in False-Promise-to-Marry Rape Case
The Supreme Court has held that a rape case based on allegations of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage can be settled amicably in appropriate circumstances. The ruling came as the Court closed proceedings after the complainant and the accused informed the Court that they had mutually resolved the dispute. The Bench emphasised that such settlements may be considered when the relationship was consensual and the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the case. Still, it clarified that this discretion does not extend to cases involving coercion or force.
6. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Filed Under NALSA Scheme Without Convict’s Consent
The Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal filed through legal aid without the convict’s permission, calling it a misuse of the legal process. A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale emphasised that legal aid mechanisms cannot override an individual’s autonomy, and appeals cannot be filed merely due to NALSA directives unless the convicted person expressly agrees. Since the convict had not consented to the appeal, the Court dismissed it, underscoring that legal aid must be exercised responsibly and with due authorisation.
7. Preference Shareholders Not Financial Creditors Under IBC: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that holders of cumulative redeemable preference shares do not qualify as financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, cannot initiate corporate insolvency proceedings under Section 7. The Court emphasised that, even when entitled to redemption, preference shareholders remain part of a company's capital structure and cannot be equated with lenders providing financial debt. The judgment clarifies that redemption rights do not convert such shareholders into creditors, reaffirming the corporate law distinction between share capital and debt obligations.
8. Is Every Lawyer an Advocate? Supreme Court Answers
The Supreme Court recently clarified that not every lawyer qualifies as an “advocate” under Indian law, reviving a long-standing distinction between a law graduate and a practising advocate. The judgment, authored by Justice K Vinod Chandran for a Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, arose from a suo motu case concerning the summoning of lawyers by investigative agencies. The Court observed that in-house lawyers are not “advocates” under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It reiterated that a law degree does not automatically confer the right to practice law, distinguishing legal education from the legal profession.
9. Supreme Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction After Noting Sex Was Consensual, Survivor Married Accused
The Supreme Court recently quashed the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act after observing that the survivor had since married the accused and had a child with him. The Court noted that upholding the conviction would disrupt the family’s peace and cause irreparable harm to both the wife and the child, emphasising the importance of considering the family's lived realities and welfare in such cases.
10. Lawyers Can't Be Summoned Over Advice to Clients Unless Exceptional Circumstances Exist: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that, as a general rule, investigating agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate cannot summon lawyers for advice provided to their clients. The Court clarified that lawyers may be summoned only under exceptional circumstances outlined in Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhinayam, cautioning against using legal professionals as a backdoor means to access privileged communications.
