The Supreme Court on Monday, 15 December 2025, questioned the DMK government in Tamil Nadu on its continued opposition to the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district, observing that such resistance to a Central education scheme was “not in the spirit of federal cooperation” [The State of Tamil Nadu vs. Kumari Maha Sabha].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan was hearing the DMK government’s appeal challenging a Madras High Court judgment that had directed the State to set up Navodaya Vidyalayas in every district.

During the hearing, the Court took exception to the State’s position when it was informed that one of the grounds for opposing the scheme was the alleged imposition of Hindi. The Bench asked the State to refrain from turning the issue into a political or linguistic dispute and instead focus on student welfare.

“We are federal society. Don’t convert this into a language matter. Don’t suppress an opportunity for rural students,” the Court told the State.

When the State’s counsel complained of Central “imposition” of schemes, Justice BV Nagarathna reminded Tamil Nadu of its constitutional position within the Union.

“Are you not part of our Republic?” she asked.

The Bench observed that education falls under the Concurrent List and that the Central government’s scheme was aimed at improving educational access and standards.

“There is nothing wrong in the Central government wanting to invest in education. Only meritorious students are admitted there. Why do you resist schools? Education is in the concurrent list. This is enhancing standards,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the State had serious objections to the Navodaya Vidyalaya scheme. He submitted that the Navodaya model required the State to provide 30 acres of land in every district and to maintain the schools for three years.

The Bench questioned the basis of the resistance and asked why Tamil Nadu was opposing a scheme meant to expand educational opportunities.

Wilson responded that Tamil Nadu already possessed a strong public education infrastructure and followed a two-language policy under a State law. He said the Navodaya Vidyalaya scheme envisaged a three-language formula, which conflicted with the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006.

The Court cautioned against politicising the issue.

“Don’t bring in politics into this. You are coming in the way of providing education to meritorious students. What is wrong in having more schools?” Justice Nagarathna demanded.

Wilson maintained that the scheme gave States the option to accept or reject participation and asserted that Tamil Nadu’s educational standards were higher than those of Navodaya Vidyalayas.

The Bench, however, appeared unconvinced.

When Wilson reiterated that Tamil Nadu’s refusal was rooted in its language policy, Justice Nagarathna said the matter could not be reduced to language politics.

“Why this mental block? If economically backward students are given the opportunity, why are you preventing that?” she asked.

Wilson argued that the State could not be compelled to provide land or financial support for a scheme that conflicted with its policies.

“They want to impose Hindi on us,” he said.

Justice Nagarathna responded that while the State’s language law would be respected, it could not be used to deny children educational opportunities.

“If you have a language policy, you say so, we will modify the scheme accordingly. But don’t suppress an opportunity for rural students,” she said.

The Court noted that the Union government had already sanctioned 650 Navodaya Vidyalayas across the country, with Tamil Nadu being the only State that had not cooperated.

Accordingly, the Bench directed Tamil Nadu to identify land required for establishing Navodaya Vidyalayas in each district within six weeks.

“We modify the interim order of stay granted by this Court on 11 December 2017 by directing the petitioner-State to identify the requisite extent of land necessary for establishing a Navodaya Vidyalaya in each district. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks and a status report shall be placed before this Court,” the order said.

The Court clarified that its directions were limited to initiating the process and did not amount to enforcing the entire scheme.

“We are just asking for an exercise. We are not laying any foundation stone today,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Wilson insisted that the State could not be compelled to provide resources for a Central scheme, adding that the Union government still owed Tamil Nadu ₹3,548 crore under another education programme, the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.

Justice Nagarathna said such disputes should be resolved through dialogue rather than confrontation.

“We are a federal society. You discuss all this with them. Don’t convert this into a language matter. If you come one step forward, they will also come one step forward,” she said.

Wilson reiterated that the Navodaya system amounted to thrusting the Hindi language on Tamil Nadu.

Justice Nagarathna clarified that the Court was not adjudicating on the language issue.

“We have said nothing on the language. There can’t be such an adversarial attitude. This is in the interest of the students,” she said.

The Court then directed representatives of the Tamil Nadu government and the Union Ministry of Education to hold consultations on implementing the scheme and posted the matter for further hearing after six weeks.

In its earlier judgment, the Madras High Court had held that Navodaya Vidyalayas did not violate the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act and that the State’s blanket refusal curtailed students’ right to choose educational institutions. It had directed the State to provide temporary accommodation for 240 students in each district within two months.

Tamil Nadu subsequently approached the Supreme Court, asserting that education policy fell within its exclusive domain and that its two-language policy was incompatible with the Navodaya model.

Justice Nagarathna concluded the hearing with a call for cooperation rather than confrontation.

“You can’t say ‘my State, my State’. This is a federal country. Don’t lose this opportunity. It’s an opportunity for your students,” she said.

Source: Bar and Bench

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

The post “Are You Not Part Of Our Republic? You Can’t Say ‘My State, My State’, Don’t Suppress Opportunity For Rural Students”: Supreme Court Rips Apart DMK Govt Over Not Establishing Navodaya Schools In TN appeared first on The Commune.

On 8 December 2025, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to an Assam college professor, Mohammed Joynal Abedin, who is accused of making “pro-Pakistan” remarks during this year’s Indo-Pak conflict and of posting obscene content on social media. According to the allegations, Abedin posted messages on Facebook stating, “We are with the brother of Pakistani citizens… we will be with them in future also,” and expressed support for the President of Turkey for backing Pakistani citizens.

In this report, we take a look at 32 different instances between 2014 and 2025 in which courts granted relief to individuals described as radicals, including accused persons in cases involving rape, blackmail, terrorism-related offences, and alleged anti-national activities.

Cases Where Bail Was Granted

#1 Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Over Social Media Remarks – 8 December 2025

The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Mohammed Joynal Abedin, a college professor from Assam accused of making pro-Pakistan remarks during the Indo-Pak conflict and posting obscene content on social media. According to allegations, Abedin posted on Facebook stating “we are with the brother of Pakistani citizens” and “we will be with them in future also,” while also expressing support for Turkey’s President for siding with Pakistani citizens. The petitioner, employed at a government college, had already been suspended from his position and had spent 179 days in custody at the time of the bail grant. The Supreme Court considered the prolonged detention period while granting relief in this politically sensitive case.

#2 Delhi High Court’s Split Decision in Hizb-ul-Mujahideen Terror Funding Case – 12 August 2025

The Delhi High Court delivered differential bail orders in a case involving alleged terror-funding and secessionist activities linked to the proscribed organization Hizb-ul-Mujahideen operating in Jammu and Kashmir. The court granted bail to Syed Ahmad Shakeel, who had spent approximately six years and eleven months in custody, observing that with uncertainty surrounding trial completion, continued detention would no longer serve justice. However, the same bench denied bail to co-accused Shahid Yusuf, noting a prima facie case existed against him including direct links with known members of the banned organization and alleged receipt of funds intended for terrorist activity.

#3 Rajasthan High Court Suspends Life Sentences in 1992 Ajmer Rape Case – 9 August 2025

The Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentences of four convicts in the notorious 1992 Ajmer rape and blackmail case and granted them bail. Zameer Hussain, Iqbal Bhati, Salim Chisti, and Nafees Chisti were released from Ajmer Central Jail following the order. The case involved a gang that systematically raped and blackmailed school and college girls in Ajmer. A special POCSO court in Ajmer had sentenced six individuals to life imprisonment on 20 August 2024 for their involvement. The case has a lengthy legal history, with twelve individuals initially sentenced to life terms in 1998, followed by convictions of six more in 2024, making this one of India’s most prolonged cases of organized sexual exploitation.

VIDEO | Ajmer: Jaipur High Court grants bail to four accused, Nafees Chishti, Iqbal Bhati, Salim Chishti, and Syed Zameer Hussain, in the Ajmer 1992 blackmail case. They have been released from Ajmer Central Jail.

Speaking to PTI, Ashish Rajoria, representing the accused says,… pic.twitter.com/H00nqGYUK1

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) August 12, 2025

#4 Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Mosque Committee Chairman in Sambhal Violence – 25 July 2025

Justice Sameer Jain of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Zafar Ali, Chairman of the Shahi Jama Masjid Committee, in connection with violence that erupted in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. The violence occurred on 24 November 2024 when a court-ordered survey was being conducted in the mosque complex to ascertain whether a temple had previously existed at that site. Zafar Ali was arrested in March 2025 and had spent approximately four months in judicial custody before being granted relief.

#5 Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Alleged ISIS Module Leader After Two Years – 23 July 2025

The Kerala High Court granted bail to Syed Nabeel Ahmed, 36, the main accused in an alleged ISIS module case investigated by the National Investigation Agency, after nearly two years in custody. The NIA had alleged that Nabeel was radicalized in Qatar and, having earlier links with the Popular Front of India, was made the ‘Ameer’ (leader) of an ISIS module in Kerala. Accusations included plotting terrorist attacks, conducting reconnaissance of Hindu temples, and participating in a thirty lakh rupee robbery to fund ISIS activities. A division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar granted bail invoking the constitutional principle of equality, despite the serious nature of the allegations against the accused.

#6 Supreme Court Grants Bail to Former PFI General Secretary in UAPA Case – 21 May 2025

The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Abdul Sattar, former General Secretary of the banned organization Popular Front of India, in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Abdul Sattar had been arrested in Kerala on allegations of conspiring in the 2022 murder of RSS leader Srinivasan and for allegedly organizing violent protests and strikes following the ban on PFI. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail in this high-profile case involving the leadership of a banned organization marked a significant development in the legal proceedings against PFI members. The bail grant came despite serious allegations connecting the accused to both conspiracy to murder and organizing violent protests against government action.

#7 Supreme Court Upholds Bail for ISIS Sympathizer in UAPA Case – 14 May 2025

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision granting bail to Ammar Abdul Rahiman, who was booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for alleged ISIS links. The Court noted his three-year custody period, cooperation during investigation, and consistent court appearances as factors favoring bail. With over 160 witnesses listed and the trial ongoing, the Supreme Court found no reason to revoke bail granted by the lower court. However, strict conditions were imposed, including a bar on foreign travel without explicit permission.

#8 Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Alleged PFI Promoter Citing Non-Incriminating Evidence – 28 April 2025

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Mohammad Irfan Daulat Khan, an alleged Popular Front of India promoter in Malegaon, who was arrested for inciting anti-government sentiments. The court noted that audio clips and witness statements presented by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad were not incriminating and suggested Khan was actually spreading “good messages” like personality development and legal awareness. Bail was granted due to slow trial progress and on grounds of parity with co-accused who had already been released.

#9 Kerala High Court Grants Bail in ISIS Module Recruitment Case – 9 April 2025

The Kerala High Court granted bail to Ashif and T S Shiyas, who were accused of forming an ISIS module and recruiting vulnerable youths in Kerala. The court observed that charges had not yet been framed in the case and the trial was unlikely to commence soon. Considering the prolonged detention and slow investigation process, the bench granted bail with strict conditions including provision of sureties, restrictions on movement, and monitoring of communications during the bail period. The decision reflected judicial concern about indefinite pre-trial detention in cases where the investigation and trial process moved at a glacial pace, potentially violating the accused’s fundamental rights while awaiting trial on serious terrorism charges.

#10 Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Ten PFI Members in RSS Leader Murder – 2 April 2025

The Kerala High Court granted bail to ten Popular Front of India members accused in the 2022 murder of RSS leader K S Sreenivasan in Palakkad. The court cited prolonged pre-trial detention and procedural lapses, including failure to provide arrest grounds to two of the accused, as reasons for granting relief. With trial proceedings stayed by the Supreme Court and over 1,000 witnesses involved, the court noted the improbability of a timely trial and granted conditional bail.

#11 Bombay High Court Grants Bail in PFI-Linked UAPA Case – 28 March 2025

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Shaikh Sadique Isaq Qureshi, arrested in 2022 for alleged links to the banned Popular Front of India under UAPA provisions. While the Anti-Terrorism Squad accused him of being part of a conspiracy to revolt against the government, the court noted that evidence only showed Qureshi gave speeches on legal awareness. The judges held that such activity could not be termed anti-national and found no direct link between his past record and the present charges. The court’s decision emphasized the distinction between legitimate legal awareness activities and genuine anti-national conspiracy, finding that the prosecution had failed to establish evidence of the latter despite invoking stringent anti-terror provisions.

#12 Bombay High Court Grants Conditional Bail to PFI District Functionaries – 17 February 2025

The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench granted conditional bail to Mohammad Nisar and Mohammed Abdul Karim, former district-level office-bearers of the banned Popular Front of India in Parbhani, who were arrested in 2022 by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad under UAPA and IPC charges. The accused were ordered to report daily at Parbhani’s Nanalpeth Police Station, remain within designated jurisdictions, and surrender their passports to authorities. The court issued a stern warning that any tampering with evidence or violation of bail conditions could lead to immediate cancellation of bail.

#13 Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes Patriotic Conditions for Pro-Pakistan Slogan Case Bail – 15 October 2024

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to Faizal alias Faizan, who was arrested after an FIR was registered at Misrod Police Station in Bhopal in May 2024 for allegedly raising pro-Pakistan slogans. Justice Paliwal granted bail on condition that Faizan furnish a personal bond of fifty thousand rupees and a solvent surety of the same amount. However, the bail came with unique conditions: to remain out on bail until trial completion, Faizan must raise the slogan “Bharat Mata ki Jai” twice every month and salute the national flag 21 times at a Bhopal police station.

#14 Delhi High Court Grants Bail to SIMI Member Based on Limited Role – 11 September 2024

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Mohammad Haneef, accused of involvement in the banned Students Islamic Movement of India outfit, noting his alleged role was limited to proofreading SIMI’s Islamic Movement magazine rather than authoring provocative content. The Court found that his name surfaced 22 days after the FIR was registered and that evidence pointed more to mistaken identity than direct incitement to violence or terrorism. With no specific criminal act attributed to him personally, and considering that co-accused were already out on bail, the Court allowed his release on a bond of fifty thousand rupees with conditions.

#15 Supreme Court Applies General Bail Principles to UAPA Cases – 13 August 2024 

The Supreme Court granted bail to Mohammad Shahabuddin, a former Bihar Police constable accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and held that the principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” also applies to special laws such as UAPA. Mohammad Shahabuddin had been arrested in 2022 on allegations of being linked with the Popular Front of India and for allegedly renting one floor of his house to members of the organization for unlawful activities. The Court noted that he had already been in custody for more than two years and the trial had not even begun.

#16 Bombay High Court Grants Default Bail Due to Procedural Lapses – 15 July 2024

The Bombay High Court granted default bail to Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan and Asif Aminul Hussain Khan Adhikari, accused of being members of the banned Popular Front of India, citing procedural lapses by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad. The court held that the fifteen-day extension granted for awaiting government sanction to file a chargesheet was not legally valid under the Criminal Procedure Code. The bench emphasized that administrative delays cannot override the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

#17 Supreme Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case Due to Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – 3 July 2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, arrested for allegedly smuggling counterfeit currency linked to a cross-border terror plot. The Court noted his four-year incarceration without charges being framed and the National Investigation Agency’s plan to examine 80 witnesses, which would delay the trial indefinitely. Emphasizing Article 21 and the right to a speedy trial, the Court held that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of the offence’s gravity.

#18 Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Alleged Indian Mujahideen Co-Founder – 10 May 2024

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Abdul Subhan Qureshi, alleged co-founder of Indian Mujahideen and former Students Islamic Movement of India member, citing nearly five years of pre-trial detention that exceeded half the maximum sentence for the offences charged under UAPA and IPC. The Court noted that co-accused were already on bail and the trial was far from conclusion, thus allowing relief under Section 436-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, with specific conditions to be set by the trial court.

#19 Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Ghazwa-e-Hind Case – 6 May 2024

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Muneer Alam, accused of receiving funds from the Popular Front of India for anti-national activities linked to establishing “Ghazwa-e-Hind” in India. The court noted that the chargesheet had already been filed and co-accused in the case had previously been granted bail. Observing that the trial would take considerable time due to multiple witnesses and citing prolonged detention since 3 July 2023, the court allowed bail under strict conditions, including mandatory monthly court appearances and movement restrictions.

#20 Telangana High Court Balances Security Concerns with Individual Liberty – 21 March 2024

The Telangana High Court granted conditional bail to seven individuals accused of involvement in terrorist activities linked to the banned Popular Front of India. Originally arrested by Nizamabad Police and later charged by the National Investigation Agency, the accused faced allegations of conspiracy to establish Islamic rule in India. The court balanced concerns of national security and individual liberty, citing insufficient evidence of direct terrorist acts and highlighting the accused’s prior social welfare work. Bail was granted with strict conditions, including non-interference in the trial and surrendering passports.

#21 Lucknow NIA Court Finds No Evidence Against Alleged PFI Member – 7 January 2023

The NIA Special Court in Lucknow granted bail to Abdullah Saud Ansari, a 27-year-old laborer arrested in September 2022 for alleged association with the banned Popular Front of India. Booked under sections of the Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Ansari was accused of being an active PFI member since 2017. However, the court found no substantial evidence linking him to any anti-national activity and noted procedural lapses in his detention. Bail was granted on a bond of fifty thousand rupees with two sureties.

#22 Chennai NIA Court Grants Bail to SDPI General Secretary – 17 October 2023

The NIA Special Court in Chennai granted conditional bail to Moin Mistri, the General Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India for Theni district, arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for alleged association with the banned Popular Front of India. The court found the prosecution’s claim that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with evidence as untenable due to his public and political position. It held that his association with PFI predates its ban and relied on precedent set in M. Mohd. Abbas v. State, granting bail with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation if conditions are breached. The decision recognized the distinction between lawful political activity and post-ban criminal association.

#23 Madras High Court Emphasizes Constitutional Rights in ISIS Case – 14 November 2023

The Madras High Court granted bail to Mohamed Irfan, a meat seller arrested under UAPA for alleged ISIS links, citing prolonged pre-trial detention since February 2022 without charges being framed. The court emphasized that indefinite detention violates constitutional and human rights, and suspicion alone is not sufficient grounds to deny bail. Irfan was ordered to stay in Chennai and appear daily before the trial court.

#24 Bombay High Court Grants Bail After Seven Years in ISIS Case – 28 June 2022

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Mohammad Raisuddin, accused of ISIS links in the 2016 Parbhani terror case, after spending nearly seven years in custody. The court noted prolonged trial delays and observed that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case strong enough to invoke Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA, which imposes stringent bail restrictions. Drawing parallels to a co-accused who had already been granted bail, the court emphasized the lack of material pointing to Raisuddin’s active role in the alleged offences.

#25 Bombay High Court Grants Bail in ISIS Parbhani Module Case – 13 August 2021

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, accused of being part of ISIS’s ‘Parbhani module’ planning attacks on police offices. Arrested in August 2016 under UAPA and IPC sections, he had spent five years in custody without trial commencement. The court quashed the special court’s earlier denial of bail, noting the trial hadn’t begun and over 150 witnesses were yet to be examined. Bail was granted with conditions including regular reporting to the National Investigation Agency and prohibition on contacting witnesses.

#26 Bombay High Court Upholds Bail Despite Serious ISIS Allegations – 23 February 2021

The Bombay High Court upheld a special NIA court’s decision to grant bail to Areeb Majeed, accused of joining ISIS and planning attacks in India. While it criticized the lower court’s observations about lack of prima facie evidence, it accepted the bail on grounds of prolonged pre-trial detention. Majeed had been in custody since 2014, and the trial involving over 150 witnesses was moving at a sluggish pace. The High Court stressed that his release with strict conditions would not pose a threat to society, affirming his right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

#27 Kerala’s First Bail Grant to Alleged ISIS Supporter – 9 July 2020

The NIA court in Kochi granted bail to Sheik Hidayathullah alias Firoz Khan, arrested during investigation into Indian links to the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. The court ruled that there was no material evidence showing he had actively associated with or supported ISIS as required under Sections 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This marked the first instance of bail being granted to an alleged ISIS supporter in Kerala, setting a significant precedent.

#28 NIA Court Grants Bail After Bombay High Court Directions – 17 March 2020

Areeb Majeed, arrested in 2014 for allegedly joining ISIS after traveling to Iraq, was granted bail by the special NIA court in Mumbai following directions from the Bombay High Court. Majeed argued that key prosecution witnesses had already been examined and many did not support the National Investigation Agency’s case. With over 200 witnesses remaining and trial delays mounting, the court found prolonged detention unjustified. However, the bail order was stayed until 27 March to allow NIA to appeal.

#29 Delhi Court Grants Bail in Arms Act Case Lacking Terror Evidence – 18 November 2015

Rehmat Pasha, a Hyderabad-based man arrested by Delhi Police’s Special Cell for suspected ISIS links and booked under the Arms Act, was granted bail after the court found no evidence of terror involvement. Despite the recovery of weapons, the court accepted that agencies had not established any anti-national activity connecting the accused to terrorism. Bail was granted on a personal bond of twenty-five thousand rupees and one surety of the same amount.

Cases Where Accused Was Acquitted

#30 Bombay High Court Acquits All Twelve in 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts – 21 July 2025

The Bombay High Court acquitted all twelve individuals who had been convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, overturning a 2015 special MCOCA court verdict that had sentenced five to death and others to life imprisonment. On 11 July 2006, terrorists carried out coordinated bomb blasts inside first-class compartments of Mumbai’s local trains on the Western Railway line at or near Matunga Road, Mahim, Bandra, Khar, Jogeshwari, Borivali, and Mira Road stations. According to official records, 187 people were killed, and 829 others were injured in one of Mumbai’s deadliest terror attacks.

#31 Supreme Court Acquits Akshardham Temple Attack Convicts – 16 May 2014

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Gujarat Police for poor investigation in the 2002 Akshardham temple terror attack case and acquitted all six accused, including three who had been given the death sentence by a lower court. A bench of Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice V. Gopala Gowda stated they were deeply disappointed with how carelessly the police handled investigation in such a serious case involving the country’s security. The attack on the Akshardham temple began on the afternoon of 24 September 2002 and continued until the morning of 25 September, killing 33 people and injuring 85. In July 2006, a special POTA court had sentenced Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri, Abdul Qaiyum Muftisaab Mohmed Bhai, and Achand Khan to death.

#32 Supreme Court Acquits Eleven in 1993 Surat Twin Blasts – 18 July 2014

The Supreme Court acquitted all eleven individuals convicted in the 1993 Surat twin blasts cases after reviewing the evidence. In 1993, two bomb blasts occurred in Surat—one in the Varachha area and one at the railway station. A schoolgirl named Alpa Patel died, and over 30 people were injured in the incidents. In 2008, a special TADA court in Surat had sentenced eleven people, including former Congress minister Mohammad Surti, to jail terms ranging from ten to twenty years. However, upon appellate review, the Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain convictions and declared all eleven accused not guilty, ordering their release.

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

The post From Pro-Pakistan Remarks To Terror Cases: 32 Instances Where Indian Courts Granted Bail Or Relief To Radicals appeared first on The Commune.

The DMK government in Tamil Nadu on Thursday, 4 December 2025, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court’s order quashing the prohibitory order issued by the Madurai District Collector in the Thirupparankundram region.

The Collector had invoked prohibitory measures after clashes reportedly broke out during the implementation of a High Court directive issued on Wednesday, which permitted devotees to visit the temple and light lamps at the Deepathoon (stone pillar).

Government sources told The New Indian Express that the State would seek an urgent hearing on Friday, 5 December 2025. However, according to the Supreme Court causelist available until 10:50 p.m. Thursday, the matter is not listed for Friday.

A lawyer associated with the case, who did not wish to be named, described the issue as “highly sensitive” and declined to share further details. The lawyer said, “Please wait until Friday at 10:30 a.m.”

Earlier on Thursday, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench quashed the State government’s prohibitory order, holding that it had been issued solely to circumvent the implementation of the court’s directive. The Bench also directed the Madurai City Commissioner of Police to provide protection for devotees lighting lamps at the Deepathoon located on the lower hilltop.

The State has now approached the apex court seeking to challenge the 4 December 2025 judgment.

(Source: The New Indian Express)

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

The post DMK Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Madras High Court Order That Allowed Hindus To Light Deepam Atop Thirupparankundram Hill appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised serious concerns over the validity and procedure of talaq-e-hasan, a form of triple talaq under which a Muslim man can divorce his wife by pronouncing “talaq” once every month for three months. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh made the observations while hearing multiple petitions challenging the practice.

The court, which had declared instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) “bad in law” eight years ago, revisited the broader issue of divorce among Muslims and questioned whether talaq-e-hasan could withstand constitutional scrutiny today.

“How is this allowed in modern society?” the Bench asked, seeking detailed submissions on all existing forms of divorce in Muslim personal law.

Case of Woman Denied Child’s School Admission

During the hearing, the court also took up the case of petitioner Benazir Heena, whose child’s school admission was delayed because her former husband did not sign the divorce documents. Her counsel told the court that her husband, Ghulam Akhtar, had divorced her through his advocate and subsequently remarried.

“She will indulge herself in polyandry because of her husband. In the 11-page talaq notice, the sign of the husband is missing. Talaq was pronounced by the husband’s advocate,” her counsel said.

Her husband’s lawyer argued that this was a common practice in Islam. In response, Justice Kant asked, “Can this be a practice? How are these new innovative ideas being invented?”

The Bench further criticised the practice of issuing divorce notices through lawyers instead of direct communication.

“What prevents the husband from directly communicating with her? He has such an ego that even for divorce, he cannot speak to her. How can you promote this in a modern society? It is the dignity of a woman,” the court remarked.

The judges added that if talaq is invoked under religious practice, procedures must be “followed as it is prescribed.”

Court Summons Husband, Seeks Details on School

The Bench also sought details of the school that denied admission to the child and expressed concern about the broader implications of such practices on Muslim women across the country.

“We salute this woman who has chosen to fight for her rights. But there may be a poor woman who does not have resources. If she remarries, her earlier husband comes and says she is indulging in (polyandry)? Should a civilised society allow this kind of practice?” the court observed.

The Supreme Court directed that the husband be present at the next hearing, stating, “Let him come here and unconditionally provide what she wants.”

The matter has been posted for further hearing, with the court seeking complete information on the various forms of divorce recognised in Muslim personal law.

(Source: NDTV)

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

The post Talaq-E-Hasan: Islamists Resort To New Way To Divorce Wife appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Monday, 17 November 2025, dismissed a petition seeking restoration of civilian access to the Masjid-E-Aalishaan, a mosque located within the military quarters in Chennai, ruling that security considerations outweigh the demand for public entry.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with the April 2025 decision of a Madras High Court division bench, which had upheld the Army’s administrative order restricting civilians from entering the mosque.

“How can we allow that?” Supreme Court declines plea

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that civilians had been permitted to offer prayers at the mosque since 1877 and that restrictions were imposed only during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court was, however, unconvinced.

The Bench remarked, “There are security issues and so many things. How can we allow that?” while rejecting the special leave petition.

Army’s decision upheld by High Court earlier

Before the High Court, the petitioner had contended that the Army abruptly discontinued civilian access without valid justification. The division bench, however, pointed to the Station Commander’s communication in June 2021, where the request for entry was verbally declined and it was clarified that:

• The mosque is primarily meant for Army personnel
• Outsiders cannot be allowed inside under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937

The High Court held that decisions concerning access to a sensitive Defence installation fall squarely within the Army administration’s discretion and refused to intervene.

Supreme Court affirms the High Court’s reasoning

Agreeing with this view, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea and reaffirmed that security concerns govern entry into cantonment spaces.

The ruling effectively maintains the Army’s restrictions on civilian entry to Masjid-E-Aalishaan, bringing an end to the petitioner’s challenge.

(Source: LawBeat)

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

The post “There Are Security Issues. How Can We Allow That?” Supreme Court Rules In Favour Of Army, Rejects Plea For Civilian Access To Chennai Cantonment Mosque appeared first on The Commune.

Citing an “alarming rise of dog-bite incidents,” the Supreme Court on Friday issued a sweeping order directing that all educational institutions, hospitals, public sports complexes, bus stands, depots, and railway stations across India be properly fenced to prevent the entry of stray dogs.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria passed the order in the suo motu case concerning the stray dog menace. The Court said that it will be the responsibility of the concerned local self-government institutions to capture stray dogs from such public areas and shift them to designated dog shelters after vaccination and sterilisation, in line with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.

The bench further ruled that once picked up, the stray dogs must not be released back in the same area. “Permitting the same would frustrate the very purpose of liberating such institutions from the presence of stray dogs,” the Court observed.

The bench directed that local bodies conduct regular inspections to ensure that no stray dog habitats exist within the fenced premises.

After the pronouncement, senior advocates Anand Grover and Karuna Nundy urged the Court to consider their submissions before finalising the order. Nundy argued that “if dogs are removed, new dogs will occupy the same spot.” However, the bench declined to entertain the submissions and proceeded to finalise the order.

Directions to Remove Stray Cattle from Roads and Highways

The Court also issued parallel directions for the removal of stray cattle and other animals from highways and expressways across India. It upheld the directions previously issued by the Rajasthan High Court on this issue and ordered a coordinated national drive.

“A joint coordinated drive shall be undertaken to immediately remove all such animals found on highways/roadways/expressways, including cattle,” the Court stated. It added that such animals must be shifted to goshalas or shelter homes and warned that non-compliance would invite personal accountability.

“Chief Secretaries of all states/UTs shall ensure strict compliance with this. Otherwise, officers will be held personally responsible. Status to be filed in 8 weeks, indicating mechanism developed to carry out directions,” the bench directed.

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the stray dog menace on 28 July 2025, after a Times of India report titled “In a city hounded by strays, kids pay price”. Initially, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had issued interim directions on 11 August 2025, expressing concern over the rising incidents of dog bites and rabies.

That bench ordered the Delhi government and civic authorities to relocate stray dogs to shelters and barred their release back into localities. The directions also extended to Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad.

The Court warned that “if any individual or organization obstructed the authorities from picking up stray dogs, they would face legal consequences.” It even allowed authorities to create a dedicated force for this purpose.

However, the matter took a new turn when some lawyers approached Chief Justice BR Gavai, arguing that the August 11 order conflicted with earlier Supreme Court rulings. The case was then transferred to the three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath.

On 22 August 2025, this new bench stayed the earlier order, remarking that the previous direction “prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh.” Referring to Rule 11(9) of the ABC Rules, the Court clarified that sterilised and vaccinated dogs must ordinarily be released back to their original locality, except those “infected with rabies, suspected to be infected with rabies or exhibiting aggressive behavior.”

The bench also reiterated its earlier order prohibiting public feeding of stray dogs, directing civic bodies to create designated feeding spaces. It again warned that no individual or organization should obstruct municipal authorities carrying out animal control measures.

Further, the Court expanded the matter’s scope beyond Delhi-NCR, making it pan-India. Secretaries of Animal Husbandry Departments, municipal corporations, and local bodies in all States and Union Territories were made parties to ensure compliance with the ABC Rules.

The bench stated that similar pending petitions in various High Courts may be transferred to the Supreme Court to formulate a uniform national policy.

On 27 October 2025, the Court summoned Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs, except West Bengal and Telangana, for failing to file affidavits on implementing the ABC Rules. On October 31, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested that the Chief Secretaries be allowed to appear virtually. The Court, however, refused, expressing displeasure at the states’ lack of compliance.

Justice Nath’s bench remarked that the Court was compelled to resolve issues that should have been addressed by local and state authorities. “The Chief Secretaries sat on the Court’s order and did not show respect for it,” the bench observed.

Next Steps

All states and union territories have been directed to file compliance reports within eight weeks, outlining mechanisms developed to enforce the fencing, animal relocation, and inspection requirements. The Court made it clear that failure to act will invite personal liability for senior officials.

The suo motu matter will be taken up again after the reports are filed.

(Source: LiveLaw)

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

The post “Alarming Rise In Dog Bites”: Supreme Court Orders Removal Of Stray Dogs From Schools, Hospitals, Stations appeared first on The Commune.

In a major development in the 2020 Delhi riots case, the Delhi Police is set to submit a 177-page affidavit to the Supreme Court claiming that the violence was not a spontaneous outburst but part of an organised “regime change operation” aimed at destabilising the Indian government and undermining national sovereignty.

CNN-News18 reported that the affidavit, filed in response to bail pleas by accused student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, outlines how investigators have compiled ocular, documentary, and technical evidence pointing to a deep-rooted conspiracy orchestrated along communal lines. “The plan was designed to weaponise public dissent against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and strike at the sovereignty and integrity of India,” the affidavit reportedly states.

According to the Delhi Police, the “organised and calibrated” violence in the national capital followed a nationwide pattern, mirroring similar outbreaks in states including Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Kerala, and Karnataka. The affidavit characterises the riots as part of a “synchronised attempt to destabilise the government through orchestrated violence.”

The police have also accused the accused persons of “abusing the judicial process” through “frivolous applications” and coordinated tactics to delay proceedings. “Such conduct amounts to a brazen abuse of process,” the affidavit asserts, arguing that these actions have obstructed justice and hindered the trial’s progress.

The Supreme Court is expected to examine the affidavit as part of ongoing hearings concerning bail and procedural delays in the larger conspiracy case. Delhi Police is being represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocates Rajat Nair and Dhruv Pande.

The riots, which took place in February 2020 amid protests over the CAA, left 53 people dead and hundreds injured. The Delhi High Court previously observed that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were among the earliest organisers of anti-CAA protests in December 2019, mobilising crowds through speeches, pamphlets, and WhatsApp networks — actions investigators allege evolved into a coordinated plan to incite violence.

While the Delhi Police has described Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the conspiracy, the accused have maintained that their activities constituted legitimate dissent protected by constitutional rights and bore no connection to the outbreak of violence.

(Source: News18)

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

The post “2020 Delhi Riots Were ‘Organised Regime Change Operation,’” Says Police In Supreme Court appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court of India has declined to intervene in the case of Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri, a young law graduate who sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for a 2020 Facebook post referencing the Babri Masjid.

The post in question stated: “Babri Masjid too will one day be rebuilt, just as the Sofian Mosque in Turkey was rebuilt.”

Hearing the matter, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said it found no reason to halt the trial and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue before the lower court.

The case originated from an FIR filed in 2020, alleging that Mansuri had uploaded an “objectionable” Facebook post about the Babri Masjid on August 5 that year. His plea challenging the summons was earlier dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, prompting him to move the Supreme Court.

After reviewing the post, the Supreme Court said it saw “no reason to interfere” and observed that the defences raised by the accused could be presented before the trial court. Following these remarks, Mansuri chose to withdraw his plea.

Background of the Babri Masjid Dispute

The Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya, was demolished in 1992 by Hindus who stated it had been constructed over a temple marking the birthplace of Lord Ram. The demolition triggered widespread communal riots and decades of legal disputes.

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that although the demolition was unlawful, the Hindu parties had successfully established exclusive possession of the outer courtyard of the disputed site. The Court granted the land to the deity Ram Lalla, paving the way for the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, while directing that five acres of alternative land be allotted to the Muslim parties for a new mosque.

Mansuri’s Arguments

In his petition, Mansuri argued that his Facebook post was an expression of opinion protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

He contended that the post contained no “vulgar or inflammatory language” and that he was being “wrongly targeted” for comments made by other users on the post. Mansuri claimed that third-party remarks were incorrectly attributed to him and formed the basis of the criminal case. One of the accounts responsible for the allegedly offensive comments, he said, was a fake profile run by someone else.

Mansuri also told the Court that he had already been detained under the National Security Act (NSA) for over a year because of the same post. The Allahabad High Court had later quashed his preventive detention in 2021, holding that there was no legal justification for it.

His counsel described the ongoing prosecution as “malicious, selective, and an abuse of criminal law.” The petition argued that the High Court had disregarded the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – a landmark ruling that outlines circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be quashed. Instead, the High Court had passed a “cryptic” order asking for a speedy trial without examining whether the FIR disclosed any offence, the plea said.

Exchange in the Supreme Court

During the hearing, Mansuri’s lawyer maintained that the post contained no vulgar language, asserting that any objectionable content was written by another user.

He told the Bench, “My post doesn’t have any vulgarity. The vulgarity is there in some other person’s post.”

Justice Surya Kant responded that the Court would not make any comment on the post’s content, saying, “Please don’t invite any comment from us.”

The counsel urged the Bench to at least review the post before making a decision, leading to a brief exchange.

“See my post at least,” the lawyer said. “We have seen your post,” Justice Kant replied.

The counsel disagreed, insisting, “My lords have not seen it.”

Justice Kant repeated firmly, “We have seen it. We have read it many times.”

When the lawyer again said, “My lordships have not seen the post,” Justice Kant warned, “Don’t say that we have not seen it. How can you say we have not seen it? If you behave like this, you must face the consequences.”

The lawyer then reiterated that the charges were based on comments from other people, not on Mansuri’s own words. Justice Kant, however, maintained the Court’s position and refused to interfere.

Petition Withdrawn

Eventually, Mansuri’s counsel said he would withdraw the petition to avoid any remarks from the Court that might affect his defence during trial. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal, making it clear that the trial would proceed in the lower court.

The Bench also noted that Mansuri could raise all his arguments regarding free speech and alleged wrongful prosecution during the trial.

(Source: LawChakra)

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

The post ‘Let Trial Decide’ – Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Quash Case Over Facebook Post That Said ‘Babri Masjid Will Be Rebuilt Like Sofian Mosque’ appeared first on The Commune.

The wife of slain Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader and prominent Dalit activist Armstrong has approached the Supreme Court seeking to support the demand for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into her husband’s murder.

Porkodi, Armstrong’s wife, filed an intervention application in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, which challenges the Madras High Court’s order that quashed the state police’s chargesheet and transferred the investigation to the CBI.

On 10 October 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order quashing the chargesheet but did not stay the CBI investigation, allowing the central agency to continue its probe.

In her application, Porkodi stated that the case has a bearing on the “national conscience” and urged the Court to ensure a CBI investigation under the monitoring of a Supervisory Committee headed by a former Supreme Court Judge, similar to the arrangement in the Karur stampede case. She also sought witness protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

“Formation of supervisory committee is needed due to the fact that various important facts were deliberately omitted in the charge-sheet which have clear nexus with the motive and intent with which this dastardly crime has happened. Various facts which goes to the root of the matter and requires a fair relook in the nature of de-novo investigation since the earlier investigation has been prima facie found deficient and impartial by the High Court,” Porkodi stated in her application.

The intervention follows the September 24 order of the Madras High Court, delivered by Justice P. Velmurugan, in a petition filed by Armstrong’s brother, Keynos. The Court had then directed a CBI probe after finding major shortcomings in the investigation by the State Police, citing procedural lapses and material contradictions in the chargesheet.

Porkodi noted that she had also filed a separate petition before the Madras High Court questioning the State Police’s investigation, but with the case now pending before the Supreme Court, the High Court was unlikely to issue further orders in her plea.

Armstrong, who was a well-known Dalit leader and the BSP’s Tamil Nadu president, was hacked to death on July 5, 2024, outside his residence in Perambur, Chennai, by a group of armed assailants.

(Source: LiveLaw)

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

The post Armstrong Murder Case: Slain BSP Leader’s Wife Moves Supreme Court For Monitored CBI Investigation, Says Tamil Nadu Police Suppressed Crucial Evidence appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Monday, 27 October 2025, expressed serious concern over the growing menace of stray dogs across India, observing that the recurring incidents of attacks had damaged the country’s global image.

“Continuous incidents are happening. Your country is being shown as down in the eyes of foreign nations. We are also reading news reports,” Justice Vikram Nath remarked during the hearing. When a counsel highlighted instances of cruelty against dogs, the bench countered, “What about the cruelty towards humans?”

The bench, which is hearing a suo motu case on the issue, noted that several states had failed to comply with its earlier directions. Taking exception to the lapse, the court said, “Your officers don’t read newspapers? Were they not aware of our orders?” It then directed the Chief Secretaries of all states except West Bengal, Delhi and Telangana to remain present before it for failing to file compliance affidavits.

The judges also expressed frustration at the growing number of parties seeking to intervene in the matter. “Also if all RWA wants to be party… how many crores of parties we will have here before us. Make suggestions which are reasonable,” the bench said.

The ongoing case originated in late July after reports of fatal stray dog attacks and rabies-related deaths in the Delhi-NCR region. In its first significant order on 11 August 2025, a two-judge bench had instructed authorities to capture all stray dogs in the NCR and keep them permanently in shelters. The directive drew strong criticism from animal welfare organisations, who termed the move both unworkable and inhumane.

On 22 August 2025, a newly constituted three-judge bench revisited the order, calling it “too harsh,” and expanded the scope of the case to include all states and Union Territories. The bench also decided to transfer similar cases pending before various high courts to the Supreme Court, with the aim of developing a unified national policy in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.

The matter will next be taken up on 27 October 2025, when the apex court is expected to review compliance reports and suggestions from the states.

(Source: News18)

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

The post “What About Cruelty Towards Humans? Your Country Being Shown Down In The Eyes Of Foreign Nations”, Says Supreme Court On Stray Dog Menace appeared first on The Commune.