The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned hearing on the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider, and Gulfisha Fatima all accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case and booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Manmohan deferred hearing till Monday, September 22, on the batch of special leave petitions (SLPs) after an adjournment was sought on the petitioners’ behalf. In the previous hearing, the Justice Kumar-led Bench expressed difficulty in taking up the batch of SLPs and directed that the matters be listed for hearing on September 19.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to several activists and student leaders in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the North-East Delhi riots. In its order passed on September 2, a Bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla observed, prima facie, that there was sufficient material on record to suggest that Imam and Khalid had masterminded the conspiracy.

The Justice Kaur-led Bench noted that Khalid and Imam had delivered inflammatory speeches on February 24, 2020, coinciding with the then US President Donald Trump’s State visit, which the prosecution alleged was deliberately timed to trigger riots on February 23 – 24 and draw international attention. “The alleged inflammatory and provocative speeches delivered by the appellants, when considered in totality, prima facie indicate their role in the alleged conspiracy,” the Delhi High Court said. In relation to Meeran Haider, it noted that she allegedly provided funds to the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia (AAJMI), where meetings of the JCC (JMI Coordination Committee) were held.

The Justice Kaur-led bench further noted the prosecution’s submission that the completion of the investigation against Haider did not constitute a material change in circumstances to justify bail, citing pending witness examination and the gravity of the alleged conspiracy.

According to the prosecution, Gulfisha Fatima used code words to instruct protesters to undertake actions in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy and received funds for it. The February 2020 Delhi riots, which broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.

-IANS

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Delhi Riots Case: SC Adjourns Bail Hearing Of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider And Gulfisha Fatima appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court has held that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) lacks the power to direct the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to initiate prosecution under the anti-money laundering law for alleged environmental violations.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the green tribunal has no power under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, to direct the prosecution of individuals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

“Though such power would be available to a PMLA court or to constitutional courts, it would not be available for exercise by the NGT, constituted to ensure effective and expeditious consideration of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests,” the CJI Gavai-led Bench said as it set aside the green tribunal’s direction to the ED to examine the petitioner, C.L. Gupta Export Ltd, a handicraft manufacturing and exporting company.

“We hence set aside the direction issued to the Enforcement Directorate; but say nothing on whether there is an offence made out or not, which at this stage is not within our ken,” it said. The apex court further noted that no FIR had been registered for any scheduled offence, nor was any complaint filed alleging such offences under the various environmental protection statutes scheduled under the PMLA.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court also set aside the ₹50 crore environmental compensation imposed by the NGT on the petitioner company for alleged violations, including illegal groundwater extraction and discharge of effluents into a Ganga tributary.

The bench observed that the NGT’s method of calculating the penalty based on the company’s revenue lacked a rational nexus with the alleged environmental damages and was inconsistent with legal principles laid down in earlier judgements of the apex court. “The methodology adopted by the NGT for imposition of penalty was held to be totally unknown to any principle of law. (R)ule of law does not permit the state or its agencies to extract a ‘pound of flesh’, even in environmental matters,” it added. However, the apex court upheld the NGT’s directions allowing continuous monitoring and audit of pollution control measures to ensure a “pollution-free compliance regime.” 

– IANS

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court Rules NGT Cannot Direct ED On Money Laundering, Strikes Down ₹50 Crore Penalty appeared first on The Commune.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “No Charges To Be Framed”: Supreme Court Halts Trial Against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Over Facebook Post On Operation Sindoor appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on 14 August expressed caution over an early hearing on a clutch of applications seeking a time-bound restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s (J&K) statehood.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran pointed to the “ground realities” and the recent Pahalgam terror attack as it acceded to the Centre’s request to list the matter after eight weeks.

“You will also have to take into consideration the ground realities. You cannot ignore what has happened in Pahalgam,” the CJI Gavai-led Bench told the applicants seeking an earlier hearing. The apex court was hearing applications arguing that the continued delay in restoring statehood is “gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism”. The applications contended that the failure to restore statehood within a time-bound framework amounts to a violation of federalism, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

“It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,” submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the “peculiar position” in J&K and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the “correct stage” to consider the matter. “These applications are not maintainable. We had assured two things: The election would be held, and thereafter, statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,” said SG Mehta.

“I don’t know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,” Mehta added. After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench sought the Union government’s stand on the matter and posted it for hearing after eight weeks.

In the ‘Article 370 of the Constitution’ verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on the Centre’s behalf that statehood would be restored to J&K. In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take “some time” for the restoration of statehood in J&K.

-IANS

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court Defers Early Hearing On J&K Statehood Restoration Case, Cites Ground Realities appeared first on The Commune.

Despite the warning, Nedumpara insisted that an FIR must be filed in connection with the case. The bench, however, remained firm on the need for maintaining courtroom etiquette and respectful references to judges.

(With inputs from Deccan Herald)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally

The post “Have Some Decorum, He’s Still A Judge”: Chief Justice Of India Warns Lawyer While Dismissing Petition Against High Court Judge Yashwant Varma Who Faces Impeachment For Hoarding Piles Of Cash At His Home appeared first on The Commune.

‘Justice for the Nation, Reflections on 75 years of the Supreme Court of India’ is published by Thomson Reuters and was launched by the Honourable President of India in November 2024. This work is a compilation of essays created to honour the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court and addresses various subjects related to the Supreme Court’s involvement with constitutional and other rights. It features contributions from judges of the Court, distinguished practitioners, learned jurists, and respected academicians. It serves as a reflection on the jurisprudence of the Court and its influence across various aspects of constitutional and social life in India.

The book starts with Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s essay ‘Bending the Arc of Indian History Towards Justice: 75 Years of the Supreme Court’, which presents a significant analysis and serves as an appropriate summary from one of the foremost authorities on the topics of Constitution. In this essay, he emphasizes the constitutional responsibilities of the apex court and elaborates on its establishment, which was rooted in idealism, aiming to act as a safeguard against injustice and tyranny. Justice Chandrachud articulates how the framers of the Constitution, through Article 32 and Article 226, envisioned a direct connection between citizens and the higher judiciary. He particularly clarifies the function of Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 and discusses its broader scope compared to Article 32. In the initial rulings concerning the interpretation of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court adopted a textual perspective regarding personal liberty and individual autonomy. Subsequently, particularly following the emergency period (1975-77), the apex court embraced a broader interpretation of rights, placing greater emphasis on individual liberties and dignity over strict textual readings of the Constitution. This shift has led to the emergence of a wide array of derivative rights, particularly stemming from Article 21, which has also facilitated the rise of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) as a significant legal instrument where the requirement for locus standi is relaxed. This essay further explores themes such as gender justice, religious rights, disability rights, and environmental rights, democratic reforms, and live streaming of the judicial proceedings. Overall, the essay is a gripping narration by a scholar judge that captivates reader’s mind. It tells us whether through its function as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, serving as the court of last resort, enhancing the administration of justice throughout the nation, or acting as a platform for public accountability, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in shaping the democratic future of India. 

Justice R. V. Raveendran’s essay ‘Role of Constitutional Courts’ delves deeper into the judiciary’s function as a ‘sentinel on the qui vive’. He warns of the necessity for courts to exercise restraint when conducting judicial reviews, particularly concerning policy issues that remain solely within the purview of the Executive. Justice M. N. Venkatachiliah refers to ‘judicial review as an adjunct of limited government’ and elaborates on the principle of proportionality, which mandates that the administration should not be more drastic than necessary to achieve the intended outcomes. The judicial review process continues to be informed by the ‘Wednesbury principles’, which help to ensure its stability.

Justice A. K. Sikri discusses ‘the dark matter of the Indian Constitution,’ elucidating the distinction between the two schools of constitutional interpretation: the textualist and the living constitutionalist. He delves on the manner in which the Supreme Court has addressed constitutional ambiguities through significant rulings that are rooted in the moral principles of the Constitution and the changing desires of the populace. He attributes the landmark Keshavanand Bharti case as ‘the foundational moment of the living constitutionalist approach.’ 

A key theme present in all these illustrative contributions is the role of the Apex Court in defining and maintaining the constitutional values of India. These themes resonate in the chapters that follow. Fali S. Nariman presented his insightful analysis of the Preamble’s values shortly before his demise. K. K. Venugopal and Ankur Talwar have explored the basis and influence of the basic structure doctrine, where they describe this doctrine as ‘auxiliary precaution a judicial check on the power of the electoral majority’. The Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, elaborates on how the Court’s role in constitutional governance is supported by lawyers who prioritize principle over power. Madhavi Goradia Diwan asserts that without provocative thought & the freedom to disagree, human intellect will suffer stagnation. 

The volume comprises a collection of twenty stimulating essays that offer insights into the institutional evolution of the Supreme Court and its shifting relationship with other branches of State. They reflect on the Court’s operations in the past, analyse its current state, and envision its future course of actions. In this process, it showcases a vivid, complex and colourful journey from various viewpoints. The honourable Supreme Court of India has not only delivered a succession of judgements but also stands as a testament to the living stories of aspirations, dreams, and resilience of the Indian populace. It’s landmark judgements have influenced daily lives of almost all the Indian citizens and even beyond, as the judgements have acted as precedents for Courts in other countries too. Peruse this volume to understand and appreciate the remarkable trends in the jurisprudence of the Court over the last seventy-five years.

Kanishk Shekhar is a columnist & also teaches students preparing for Civil Services Exam.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post ‘Justice For The Nation’: A Book About The Supreme Court Through The Eyes Of Its Defenders appeared first on The Commune.

In a significant setback for the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, the Supreme Court of India has rejected its Special Leave Petition, effectively upholding a pivotal ruling by the First Bench of the Madras High Court. This judgment puts a firm stop to the construction of commercial complexes using temple funds and properties.

Good News! Advocate B. Jagannnath of Madras High Court does it again.

The @tnhrcedept which is present in Hindu Temples by FRAUD (and only by FRAUD) went on appeal against an order of Hon'ble 1st Bench of Madras High Court secured by Advocate Jagannath – where the… pic.twitter.com/NUGo3S25Uv

— trramesh (@trramesh) May 26, 2025

Case Overview

On 9 January 2025, the First Division Bench of the Madras High Court, headed by the Chief Justice, delivered a landmark decision that nullified the tender process for building a commercial complex on land and with funds belonging to Sri Nandeeswarar Temple in Nandivaram village, Chengalpet District. The court emphasized that under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, surplus temple funds must only be used for clearly defined religious or charitable purposes, not for commercial development.

The case originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by temple devotee P. Baskar, who challenged the legality of the proposed commercial project. Represented by Advocate B. Jagannath, the petitioner argued that the HR&CE Act restricts the use of temple funds to activities like promoting Hindu religious practices, feeding devotees (annadhanam), and supporting the poor through free marriages—citing Sections 36(1), 36(A), 36(B), and 66(1) of the Act.

The Bench also considered a contempt petition (Cont. P. 3306 of 2024) against HR&CE officials for allegedly defying a court-issued interim stay, which had earlier barred any progress on the construction. The High Court extended the stay and consolidated both matters for hearing.

Government representatives—including the HR&CE Commissioner, Chengalpet District Collector, and other officials—were represented by Government Pleader Edwin Prabhakar and Special Government Pleader Arun Natarajan. During proceedings, the SGP informed the court that a five-member trustee board was being constituted, and assured that the commercial space would exclude alcohol, meat, and tobacco vendors, focusing only on temple-related products.

Despite these assurances, Advocate Jagannath asserted that the legality of such a commercial undertaking couldn’t be justified, as the HR&CE Act does not permit the use of temple funds for such purposes. He maintained that the absence of a direct provision for commercial construction rendered the project unlawful.

Court’s Observations

The Bench concurred with the petitioner’s arguments and noted the lack of a feasibility study or economic assessment from the HR&CE Department. It observed that investing surplus funds in fixed deposits could yield better financial returns—about 7.5%—without compromising legal compliance.

In its judgment, the court annulled the tender notice and directed that any existing structures on the property be repurposed strictly in line with the HR&CE Act—such as facilities for free marriages or annadhanam sheds. With that, the court concluded the writ petition and the associated contempt case.

Wider Impact

This verdict is seen as a major victory for devotees and a serious blow to unauthorized use of temple assets. It reinforces that temple funds must strictly be used for religious and charitable functions as outlined by law. The ruling also has broader implications, potentially influencing similar cases—such as proposed commercial ventures at temples in places like Thiruvannamalai.

This decision is being widely celebrated as a crucial measure in safeguarding temple resources from mismanagement and ensuring adherence to the legal framework governing religious institutions in Tamil Nadu.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court Rejects TN HR&CE’s Plea On Nandeeswarar Temple; Upholds Madras High Court’s Ban On Commercial Use Of Temple Funds appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court of India recently declined to intervene in the case of a Sri Lankan Tamil national who is currently detained, stating that India cannot act as a shelter for refugees from across the globe.

During the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta, who led the bench alongside Justice K Vinod Chandran, remarked that with a population of 140 crore, India cannot accommodate people from every country seeking refuge. “Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore. This is not a Dharmshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over,” he said, questioning whether the country should bear the responsibility of hosting global refugees.

The court was reviewing an appeal challenging a Madras High Court order that directed the petitioner—a Sri Lankan Tamil—to leave India immediately after serving a seven-year sentence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the man, who had entered India on a visa, feared for his life if returned to Sri Lanka. He further stated that the petitioner had been in detention for nearly three years with no steps taken toward deportation, and that his wife and children reside in India.

In response, Justice Datta asked what legal grounds the petitioner had to seek permanent residence in India, pointing out that the right to settle in India under Article 19 of the Constitution is reserved for citizens. He also clarified that there was no breach of Article 21 since the man’s liberty was curtailed in accordance with due legal procedure.

When the counsel emphasized that returning to Sri Lanka posed a serious threat to the petitioner’s safety, the judge remarked, “He can seek refuge in another country.”

This stance aligns with the Court’s earlier decision where it refused to halt the deportation of Rohingya refugees.

The petitioner had been arrested in 2015 by the Q Branch along with two others on suspicion of being members of the LTTE. In 2018, a trial court convicted him under Section 10 of the UAPA and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. The Madras High Court later reduced the sentence to 7 years in 2022 but ordered that he be deported after completing his term, and held in a refugee camp in the interim.

The petitioner contended that his past as an LTTE fighter had led to his name being blacklisted in Sri Lanka, making him vulnerable to arrest and torture if returned. He also cited his wife’s poor health and his son’s congenital heart condition as reasons to remain in India.

(With Inputs From Live Law)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post ‘India Not A Dharmshala’: SC Refuses To Halt Deportation Of Sri Lankan Tamil Convicted Under UAPA appeared first on The Commune.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post President Murmu Invokes Article 143 To Challenge Supreme Court’s Ruling On President & Governor’s Assent To Bills appeared first on The Commune.

In a significant 6:1 ruling, the Supreme Court announced on 1st August 2024 that subclassification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) is permissible, allowing for separate quotas for the most marginalised within these communities.

The Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, overturned a 2005 decision that determined state governments could not create subcategories of SCs for reservation purposes. This ruling upholds the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes Act of 2006 and the Tamil Nadu Arundathiyars Act.

CJI Chandrachud stated that having a quota within a quota does not compromise quality, emphasizing that SCs and STs often struggle to progress due to systemic discrimination. The court asserted that subclassification does not violate the equality principle outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court stipulated that states must justify their basis for subclassification with quantifiable and demonstrable data. CJI Chandrachud emphasized that “States cannot act according to their whims or political expediency, and their decisions are subject to judicial review.” 

Emphasis On Need For Policy To Identify Creamy Layer Among SC/ST

Justice BR Gavai, aligning with the majority, stressed the state’s responsibility to provide preferential treatment to the most disadvantaged communities. He noted that only a small number within the SC/ST categories benefit from reservations and acknowledged the historical oppression faced by specific groups.

Justice Gavai called for a policy to identify the creamy layer among SCs and STs before allowing subclassification, stating, “This is the only way to achieve true equality.” Justice Vikram Nath concurred, indicating that the creamy layer principle should apply to SCs as to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The ruling emphasized the need to exclude the ‘creamy layer’ within SCs from the reservation benefits, which currently apply only to OBCs.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Manoj Misra, Pankaj Mithal and Satish Chandra Sharma. Six judges supported subclassification, while Justice Trivedi dissented. Four judges who favoured subclassification explicitly stated, “Creamy layer exclusions should also apply to SCs.”

Justice Gavai remarked, “The state must develop a policy to identify the creamy layer among SCs and STs to exclude them from affirmative action benefits. This is essential for achieving genuine equality as defined by the Constitution.”

He argued the children of SC individuals who have benefited from reservations, should not be equated with those whose families have not received such advantages. Justice Gavai emphasized that the criteria for identifying creamy layers among SCs and STs must differ from those used for OBCs.

In support, Justice Vikram Nath said the creamy layer principle for OBCs also applies to SCs. Justice Pankaj Mithal stated that reservations should only be available for the first generation, indicating that if a first-generation individual attains a higher status through reservations, their descendants should not qualify for further benefits.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma agreed with Justice Gavai, suggesting that identifying the creamy layer among SC/STs should be a constitutional priority for the state. In a previous 2018 ruling, the Supreme Court acknowledged that creamy layer exclusions could be applied to SCs and STs, emphasizing that the purpose of reservations is to enable backward classes to advance and compete equally with other citizens.

In her dissent, Justice Bela Trivedi argued that states subclassifying SCs/STs violates Article 341 of the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to compile the SC/ST list. She contended that Article 341 was designed to prevent political influence in classifying SCs/STs.

Justice Trivedi stated, “Castes can only be added or removed from the Presidential list through a law enacted by Parliament. Subclassification amounts to altering the Presidential list.” She further cautioned that granting preferential treatment to a subclass within the Presidential list could deprive other groups within the same category of their rightful benefits.

(With inputs from Live Law)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post SC Permits Subclassification Of SCs/STs for Targeted Quotas In A Landmark 6:1 Ruling appeared first on The Commune.