Explore Business Standard
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea against a home ministry circular on singing of national song Vande Mataram at official events, saying that a directive was not mandatory. A bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi termed the plea filed by one Muhammed Sayeed Noori as "premature" and based on "vague apprehension of discrimination". Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Noori, said they respect every religion in the country, but if people are compelled to sing the song irrespective of their religion and faith, some may find it a compulsion to participate in the "social demonstration of loyalty". Justice Bagchi asked if the circular specified any penal consequences for not singing the national song or if any person had been removed from the congregation for not singing it. "Penalty is there in case of disruption," Hegde said, "While there may be no legal sanction, there is always a huge burden for ..
Stating that the constitutional guarantee of just compensation cannot be diluted, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said solatium and interest in a land acquisition matter cannot be contingent on the magnitude of the financial burden. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while disposing of the National Highway Authority of India's (NHAI) plea seeking review of the apex court's February 4, 2025 verdict -- that the 2019 decision of the top court allowing grant of compensation and interest to farmers whose land was acquired under the NHAI Act would apply retrospectively. The bench said interest payable to the landowners will be according to the land Acquisition Act, which is nine per cent, and not the NHAI Act, which has a five per cent cap. The court said NHAI sought a review the decision on the grounds that financial liability from solatium and interest to those whose land was acquired by NHAI was not Rs 100 crore as was claimed but around Rs
Harish Rana, the first person in India to be allowed passive euthanasia, passed away on Tuesday at AIIMS-Delhi after more than 13 years in coma, sources said. The 31-year-old, who has been in a coma since 2013, was shifted from his Ghaziabad home to the palliative care unit at Dr BR Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on March 14. Three days before that, the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment on March 11 allowed passive euthanasia for Harish, who was a BTech student at the Panjab University who fell from a fourth-floor balcony in 2013 and suffered severe head injuries. He had been in a coma since, with artificial nutrition support and occasional oxygen support. His nutritional support was gradually withdrawn after he was admitted to hospital. The apex court had directed AIIMS-Delhi to ensure that life support is withdrawn with a tailored plan so that dignity is maintained. A specialised medical team headed by Dr Seema Mishra,
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that women Short Service Commission (SSC) officers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, who were denied Permanent Commission due to arbitrary assessment, are entitled to full pensionary benefits. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh held that the officers would be "deemed" to have completed the minimum qualifying service of 20 years required for a pension, even if they were released from service earlier. The judgment came on a batch of petitions, including those filed by Wing Commander Sucheta Edan and others, challenging the denial of Permanent Commission (PC) based on policy changes in 2019 and previous Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) rulings. Reading the operative parts of the judgment, the CJI said the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for women officers were often graded "casually" under the assumption that they would not be eligible for career progression or PC. "The A
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure over the "reluctance" shown by the CBI and the ED in probing the alleged large-scale banking fraud involving the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group and its firms, and directed them to conduct a "fair, dispassionate, transparent, and time-bound" investigation into the matter. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and directed all concerned financial institutions to "render full cooperation to the ED". Hearing a PIL filed by former bureaucrat E A S Sarma seeking a court-monitored investigation into alleged loan frauds exceeding Rs 40,000 crore by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) firms led by Anil Ambani, the bench permitted the central probe agencies to approach it in case there is any reluctance on the part of other government ...
The Supreme Court on Monday disposed of a plea filed by Gitanjali J Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, against the latter's detention under the National Security Act (NSA). A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale noted that the Centre revoked its order of Wangchuk's detention on March 14. The apex court said there was nothing left in the matter. Earlier, the top court had asked the Centre if there was any possibility for the government to relook at the detention of Wangchuk, considering his health condition. The Centre on March 14 said it had revoked with immediate effect the detention of Wangchuk under the NSA, nearly six months after he was arrested following violent protests in Leh that left four dead. Wangchuk was detained on September 26, 2025, two days after the protests over demands for statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution rocked Leh. More than 45 people, including 22 policemen, were injured in the protests.
Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has asserted that the goal of a Viksit Bharat by 2047 cannot be achieved through criminalisation of dissent, mindless arrests under the anti-terror law UAPA and "deep social fault lines". Speaking at the first national conference of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in Bengaluru on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan also lamented the poor representation of women in the higher judiciary. He contrasted it with the figure of more than 50 per cent women making it to the posts of judicial officers in district judiciary across the country. "But has it been replicated in constitutional courts? That is the question. That is where the scrutiny of the collegium system comes in. Why is it that when the assessment becomes subjective, women do not make the grade? Out of 287 SC judges since 1950, we had a total of only 11 women judges. Why? Starting with Fathima Beevi and now Justice Nagarathna, it is some two per cent," Justice Bhuyan said. He said that as per
The Supreme Court has directed all the states and Union territories to furnish updated details relating to jails, including the sanctioned capacity of each prison and steps taken to check overcrowding, by May 18. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also asked the states and UTs to provide details about the number of women's prisons within their jurisdictions and the facilities available in them, including the measures taken to ensure education and overall welfare of children living with the female inmates. The bench noted that senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, who is assisting the top court as an amicus curiae in a suo motu matter concerning inhuman conditions in jails, has drawn its attention to the fact that the statistics placed on record by the states and UTs pertain to 2023. The bench said that, having regard to the nature of issues involved and the necessity of an informed adjudicatory exercise, the availability of updated contemporaneous data was indispensable for
The Supreme Court has expressed its concern over the trend of people instantly uploading videos shot on mobile phone on social media and said that such activities pose a serious threat to a fair trial. The remark was made by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi on Friday. The bench was hearing a PIL that alleged that police upload videos and photographs of the accused on social media and create a bias in people's minds. The PIL argued that the court, in another case, had already asked the states to frame guidelines for media briefing by the police, and it would cover social media posts as well. The bench suggested the petitioner Hemendra Patel to await the outcome of those guidelines, and agreed with senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Patel, that every person nowadays with a mobile phone has become media. The senior counsel flagged the recent trend of police posting the images of accused persons being ...