1. Supreme Court: Limit Needed on Intervention Applications in Places of Worship Act Challenge
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the increasing number of intervention applications in the case challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Various political parties and leaders, including the Congress Party, CPI(ML), Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, and Asaduddin Owaisi, have sought to intervene in the matter. The Court indicated that there should be a reasonable limit to such applications to prevent unnecessary delays and procedural complications.
2. Supreme Court Fines States, UTs ?5,000 for Non-Compliance with Domestic Violence Act
The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed a ?5,000 fine on several states and union territories for failing to report their compliance with directives regarding the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court directed the defaulting states and UTs to submit their compliance affidavits within four weeks, warning that the penalty would be doubled in case of further delay. The ruling came in the case We the Women of India v. Union of India & Ors.
3. Supreme Court: States Must Consider Remission of Convicts, Even Without Application
The Supreme Court ruled that states and union territories with policies for permanent remission of convicts are obligated to implement them, even if the convict or their family makes no application. Additionally, the Court directed those states and UTs that do not have a remission policy to formulate one within two months. This decision aims to streamline the remission process across the country.
4. Supreme Court Condemns Ranveer Allahbadia’s Remarks on India’s Got Latent
The Supreme Court strongly criticised podcaster Ranveer Gautam Allahbadia for his remarks on the online show India’s Got Latent, calling them "very dirty" and indicative of a "depraved mind." Allahbadia’s counsel acknowledged the offensive nature of the comments but questioned whether they constituted a criminal offence. The Court's observations come amid growing scrutiny of online content and its legal implications.
5. Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance After Lokpal Claims Jurisdiction Over High Court Judges
In a major development, the Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case following Lokpal’s assertion that it can entertain complaints against High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Lokpal had redacted the judge’s name and the concerned High Court before making its decision public. The Supreme Court’s intervention raises critical questions about the jurisdiction of anti-corruption bodies over the judiciary.
6. AoRs Cannot Shift Blame on Clients or Instructing Advocates: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) cannot evade responsibility by blaming clients or instructing advocates for inaccuracies in petitions or affidavits. The Court emphasised that an AoR must independently verify the factual accuracy of documents before filing them. It warned against the practice of AoRs merely lending their names to petitions without due diligence, stating that such conduct undermines the integrity of legal proceedings.
7. Supreme Court Criticizes MBBS Eligibility Rule Requiring "Both Hands Intact"
The Supreme Court criticised the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines that mandate having "both hands intact" for MBBS eligibility, calling it a discriminatory and ableist requirement. While acknowledging that it cannot override expert medical opinions, the Court stressed the need for flexibility and reasonable accommodation for aspiring doctors with disabilities. It urged the NMC to revisit the criteria to ensure inclusivity without compromising medical education standards.
8. Supreme Court Cites Manipur Riots While Rejecting Are-Katika Community's Plea for SC Status
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea from the Telangana State Are-Katika (Khatik) Sangh seeking All-India Scheduled Caste (SC) status for the Are-Katika community. The Court cautioned against judicial interference in such classifications, citing the Manipur High Court’s 2023 directive on Meitei ST status, which had triggered widespread unrest. It emphasised that decisions on SC/ST classifications must be handled by the legislature and executive, not the judiciary.
9. Dowry Demand Not Essential for Invoking Section 498A IPC: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that a demand for dowry is not a prerequisite to invoke Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on cruelty to a wife. The Court clarified that even in the absence of an explicit dowry demand, the provision applies if acts of physical violence or mental distress are demonstrated. It emphasised that cruelty under Section 498A is a broader concept that includes various forms of abuse beyond dowry-related harassment.
10. Foreigners Tribunal Cannot Review Its Own Orders: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that a Foreigners Tribunal lacks the power to reopen and review its own decisions. The verdict overturned an Assam High Court judgment that upheld such a move. The Court's decision came in a case where a woman, previously declared an Indian citizen by the tribunal, faced a review order challenging that status. This ruling reinforces the principle that tribunals must adhere to their final determinations without self-review.
