He urges the court to vacate an interim stay imposed on the conduct of bypolls to the Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur constituencies

The non-conduct of bye-elections to five Assembly constituencies in Tamil Nadu for an indefinite period will deprive several lakhs of people in those constituencies of democratically elected MLAs to represent their interests, causes, and grievances, Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay has told the Madras High Court.

The submission has been made in a counter affidavit served upon advocate V.R. Shanmuganathan, representing public interest litigation petitioner K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli, who had obtained an interim stay on July 10, 2026, on the conduct of bypolls to the Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur constituencies

Urging the court to vacate the stay, the Chief Minister said that not conducting the bypolls may benefit the individuals who had lost the polls and filed election petitions with respect to those constituencies, but it would ultimately end up causing great harm to the voters who would go unrepresented in the Legislative Assembly.

Asserting that the petitioner’s case was actually against public interest, Mr. Vijay said that the litigant, not connected in any way to the elections in the five constituencies, appeared to have filed the case only to wage a proxy war on behalf of those who had lost the polls and filed election petitions to declare them as returned candidates.

The Chief Minister also said that there was no chance of the election petitioners getting declared as the returned candidates, especially when more than two candidates had contested in the 2026 general elections in all the five constituencies, which had subsequently fallen vacant due to the resignation of their respective MLAs.

It was also brought to the notice of the court that in four constituencies, except Karur, the MLAs had resigned much before the filing of the election petitions and hence, a distinction must be made with respect to the seats that fell vacant before and after the filing of the election petitions.

The Chief Minister said he got elected from the Perambur and Tiruchi East constituencies and chose to resign from the latter seat. The resignation was submitted on May 10, 2026, to the then Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and was accepted on the same day.

However, the DMK’s defeated candidate S. Inigo Irudayaraj had filed an election petition in the High Court with respect to Tiruchi East only on June 17, 2026, after the returned candidate had ceased to exist as per the law and could not be resurrected for the purpose of maintaining an election petition, Mr. Vijay added.

This was established from the number of people injured and killed in the Mundathikode explosion in April, says Central government and Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives

The Central government and the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives recently informed the Kerala High Court that the fireworks manufacturing unit at Mundathikode in Thrissur had deployed more workers than the permissible limit. This was established from the number of people injured and killed in the explosion that occurred in April 2026.

Fireworks items were being carried in the open, and the mandatory safety zones were not maintained between the various areas of manufacturing, the court was informed.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V.M. Syamkumar was considering reports by stakeholders in the incident on the progress on the steps taken to regulate the manufacture and sale of explosive fireworks, the inquiry into the explosion at Mundathikode, and the compensation given to the victims.

The Kerala government informed the court that an inquiry committee constituted by it would file a report on the fireworks explosion shortly.

An independent inquiry by the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur, was also underway to examine the circumstances leading to the incident and suggest measures to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.

The court was also informed that the Thrissur district administration had extended full cooperation to the inquiry by a single-member judicial commission headed by retired Justice C. N. Ramachandran Nair into the incident.

Chargesheet filed: police

Additionally, the police authorities reported that a chargesheet was filed with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The offences include negligent conduct with explosives, culpable homicide, causing grievous hurt, manufacturing, importing or using explosives in violation of the Explosives Act, and malicious use of explosive substances likely to endanger life or property.

Apart from the compensation paid to the affected families, a special campaign was also conducted by the District Mental Health Program to provide psychosocial counselling and intervention to the residents and families traumatised by the disaster.

A makeshift fireworks assembly unit in Mundathikode exploded in April 2026, killing 17 people, injuring more than 24 others, and damaging around 50 houses. The fireworks display was being organised by Paramekkavu and Thiruvambady Devaswom Boards, ahead of the annual Thrissur Pooram festival.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan raises the query during the hearing of a petition filed by the Minister to quash an assault case pending against him

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan of the Madras High Court on Friday (August 28, 2026) asked whether Tamil Nadu Finance Minister N. Marie Wilson was the King of England for him not to appear before a Puducherry Judicial Magistrate in connection with an assault case pending against him.

The judge posed the query during the hearing of a petition filed by the Minister to quash the charge sheet that had been filed against him by the Lawspet police in Puducherry in the assault case registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by his sister-in-law, Careline Claude.

When the petitioner’s counsel stated that the police appeared to have filed an additional charge sheet against the petitioner and his father but a copy of it had not been served on them, the judge retorted that the accused would be served with copies only when they attend the court proceedings.

“You are not going to the court. How will they give you a copy? When Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister of the country, he appeared before a court. You are just a Minister. Let us not give an impression that a Minister is above the law,” the judge told the counsel.

Initially, when the quash petition was listed for admission on July 9, 2026, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, who was holding the MP/MLA portfolio at the point of time, had referred the matter for mediation since it was represented that the complainant and the accused were close relatives.

After a few rounds of mediation sittings, Ms. Claude’s counsel, Mohammed Rafi, on August 20, 2026, informed the court that his client was not interested in proceeding further with the mediation and that she wanted to walk out of it. However, the Minister’s counsel objected to her decision.

He wondered how the complainant could walk out of the mediation process midway after having agreed to it during the initial hearing of the quash plea. However, Justice Lakshminarayanan replied that the court could not force an unwilling party to undergo the process of mediation.

The judge, thereafter, decided to hear the quash petition on merits and was told that the petitioner would have to withdraw the present petition and file a fresh petition challenging the additional charge sheet. He permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea after the counsel assured the court that the petitioner would appear before the magistrate.

Justices G. Jayachandran and E. Manoharan direct Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) to obtain instructions by September 10, 2026

The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 27, 2026) wanted to know whether the State government would be interested in acquiring a house in which Ramalinga Adigal alias Saint Vallalar resided at Veerasamy Pillai Street in Seven Wells, Chennai in the 1800s.

A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and E. Manoharan directed Special Government Pleader (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department) R. Bharanitharan to obtain instructions in this regard, from the officials concerned, by September 10, 2026.

The query was raised during the hearing of a batch of cases filed in 2024 against the proposed construction of Vallalar International Centre (VIC) on the Peruveli land, from where devotees take a glimpse of Arutperum Jothi, an ever-glowing lamp lit by Saint Vallalar, at Sathya Gnana Sabai in Vadalur, Cuddalore district.

Another Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar (since retired) and S. Sounthar had on October 10, 2024 passed an interim order restraining the HR&CE Department as well as the administrators of Sathya Gnana Sabai from constructing the VIC on the Peruveli land.

Now, appearing before the Division Bench led by Justice Jayachandran, the SGP said, the HR&CE department had decided to revise the construction plan and avoid any kind of construction on the Peruveli land so that there shall not be any obstruction in witnessing the Arutperum Jothi.

However, it had been decided to construct facilities such as Vivakara Salai (library) and Yoga Salai (meditation hall) on the peripheries of the Peruveli, without obstructing the visibility of Gnana Sabai, the law officer said. He stated that the government was yet to approve the revised proposal for construction.

Mr. Bharanidharan further informed the court that the HR&CE department proposes to fence 71.26 acres of land currently in possession of the Sathya Gnana Sabai in order to prevent further encroachments. Though a much larger tract of 80 Cawnies (approximately 105.8 acres) had been donated to the Sabai several decades ago, a considerable portion of it had been encroached over the years, the court was told.

Deciding to deal with the issue of encroachments separately, the judges asked the SGP to apprise the court by September 10, 2026 with respect to the government’s approval for the revised plan of constructions at Sathya Gnana Sabai and the government’s view on acquiring the Chennai house in which Saint Vallalar had resided, along with his brother, in the early 1800s.

The High Court is currently hearing 18 suits, clubbed together in 2023, that seek the removal of the Shahi Idgah, which they claim is an encroachment on the premises of the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura

The Mathura administration recently informed the Allahabad High Court that security arrangements were made at the disputed Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah premises amid concerns of ‘Kar Seva’.

‘Kar seva’ was called by Hindu religious leaders in Mathura for voluntary action to “liberate” the Krishna Janmabhoomi site.

The High Court bench of Justice Avnish Saxena, during the hearing of the Original Suit No. 4 of 2023, filed by the Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi Mukti Nirmaan Trust and others against the Shahi Masjid Eidgah Management Committee and others, noted that the court had received a report from the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Mathura, in a sealed cover.

“This Court has gone through the report and considered that the arrangements have been made by the administration pertaining to the alleged ‘Kar Seva’ and for keeping security at the premises. The report is classified and therefore, again kept in sealed cover,” the court order of August 25 stated.

The report had originally been called for by the High Court on July 17, after a plaintiff filed an application asking the Court to direct the State Government and local administration to prevent any individual or group from entering the disputed site to hold meetings, perform Kar Seva, or organise events that might disturb public peace.

The application was filed by Ashutosh Maharaj, who says he heads the Sri Krishna Janmbhumi Mukti Nirman Trust (Registered), Mathura, through his counsel, Advocate Reena N. Singh.

The Allahabad High Court is presently hearing 18 suits, clubbed together in 2023, that seek the removal of the Shahi Idgah, which they claim is an encroachment on the premises of the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura, known as the birthplace of the Hindu god Krishna. The plea alleged that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb demolished the Krishna temple and constructed the Shahi Idgah mosque over it.

A 1968 compromise agreement between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan (the temple’s management body) and the Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah had permitted both religious sites to function together.

That agreement is now being contested in the newer suits, with litigants arguing it was fraudulently obtained and legally invalid, and seeking removal of the mosque on the basis of their claimed right to worship there.

In December 2023, the High Court approved a plea for a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Idgah mosque, but the Supreme Court stayed that order in January 2024, and the stay has since been extended.

On August 12, 2026, the Supreme Court signalled orally that it intends to send the matter back to the Allahabad High Court, since notice had not been given to all plaintiffs before a decision was made on who would represent devotees of Lord Krishna.

The matter will now be heard on September 18, 2026.

Earlier, the court had directed the Corporation to forthwith close down commercial activities entrusted to private persons in rooms or buildings constructed on the banks of the Vandiyur lake

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Madurai Corporation to file an affidavit explaining how permission was granted to sell eatables inside Vandiyur park when successive orders had been passed preventing commercial activities from being carried out within the park.

A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel had earlier directed the Corporation to remove the stalls put up on the pavement abutting the walls of Vandiyur park. The court had modified the timings and allowed Vandiyur park to remain open continuously from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. The court adjourned the hearing to September 1.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation petition filed by N. Manikandan of Madurai, who sought a direction to the authorities to close the food stalls functioning in the park and restrain visitors from bringing plastic materials into the park.

He also sought a direction to restrain the Corporation from installing amusement equipment such as a giant wheel inside the park and from collecting entry fees from visitors.

Earlier, the court had directed the Corporation to forthwith close down commercial activities entrusted to private persons in rooms or buildings constructed on the banks of the Vandiyur lake.

The court had also restrained the Corporation from collecting any fee from visitors for walking and sitting in the park and for children playing in the designated area. For the purpose of developing the park, existing trees or vegetation should not be cut, the court said.

The Bombay High Court ordered the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration to re-inspect five eateries operating on the premises of the Mumbai Cricket Association

The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) to conduct a fresh inspection of five eateries at the Mumbai Cricket Association’s (MCA) premises, whose licences were suspended. The court issued the order while balancing the MCA’s claim of hygiene compliance against the FDA’s request for time to file a reply.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) ordered the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) to re-inspect five eateries operating on the premises of the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA). The inspection is to determine if the suspended FSSAI licences of these establishments can be revoked.

The FDA had suspended the licences of Permit Room, Oriental Swing, Clubway & Pastry Counter, Mediterranean, and Pavillion following surprise inspections at the Sharad Pawar Indoor Cricket Academy and Recreational Centre in BKC.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad heard the MCA’s petition. Senior advocate Vikram Nankani, representing the MCA, argued that the premises are now over 98% compliant with hygiene norms. He contended that the licence suspension should not continue.

Additional Government pleader Priyabhushan Kakade, appearing for the FDA, sought time to file an affidavit-in-reply, stating the petitions were served late. He also noted that the MCA has the option to appeal the suspension order before the FDA Chief.

The Bench granted time to the FDA but observed that if the petitioners are currently compliant with hygiene standards, they cannot be prevented from operating until the FDA Commissioner decides on their appeal. Acting Chief Justice Ghuge pointed out to the FDA counsel that the MCA’s compliance claim should be acknowledged, but the authority could not leave them waiting for the appeal process to conclude.

To balance the interests, the court ordered the FDA to re-inspect the premises on Thursday afternoon. The inspection report, along with the FDA’s affidavit indicating the hygiene compliance status, must be submitted on Monday (August 24, 2026) morning.

For tournaments organised by the MCA in the interim, the bench ordered the petitioners to serve only tea and coffee to participants, and these beverages must be dispensed from vending machines. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on August 31.

Court noted a gap in inter-agency coordination and document-verification procedures that allowed foreign nationals to obtain Aadhaar cards fraudulently

The Bombay High Court has directed the Union government and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to consider amending the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, to enable prompt tracing and deportation of foreign nationals living illegally in India.

A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata on July 27 issued the order, which was made available on Tuesday. The court observed that foreign nationals had obtained Aadhaar cards through fraudulent means to claim Indian identity and conceal their true identity.

The Bench noted that multiple cases had come before the court of foreign nationals illegally entering India and fraudulently obtaining basic documents. The court said probe agencies had reported that such persons engaged in anti-national activities after securing these fraudulent documents.

The court observed a gap in inter-agency coordination and document-verification procedures. The Bench said that the availability of Aadhaar cards obtained through fraudulent means creates vulnerabilities across identity, immigration, and security systems.

The Bench opined that a concerted effort was needed by all State and Central agencies to trace and deport such foreign nationals on a priority basis. The court observed that time was of the essence and that delay in procedures should not benefit infiltrators.

Mumbai Police plea

The observations were made while dealing with a plea filed by the Crime Intelligence Unit of the Mumbai Police through the State. The plea sought a direction to the UIDAI to disclose the documents used by one Majid Khan Shah Hajrat Shah, alias Miraj Tahir Khan, to obtain an Aadhaar card.

The State alleged that Shah was an Afghan national who entered India on a visa valid up to 2018 and overstayed thereafter, violating visa norms and provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Passport Act, and the Foreigners Act.

The State petitioned the High Court to seek details of the documents Shah used to obtain an Aadhaar card. The UIDAI cited Section 29 of the Aadhaar Act, which prohibits disclosure of details regarding an individual’s Aadhaar card or documents. The UIDAI contended that such details could be provided to the investigating agency only upon a court order.

Taking note of this gap, the Bench observed that it was imperative for the UIDAI to take steps to carve out exceptions or incorporate separate procedures to deal with issues such as human trafficking and border infiltration.

The court said that the petitions filed by the State reflected the magnitude of the problem. The Bench directed the concerned department of the Central government to consider effecting necessary amendments to the Aadhaar Act to assist investigating agencies in promptly tracing, deporting, and preventing the re-entry of such persons.

The Bench issued directives to the UIDAI and the State police to carry out investigations against Shah and others. The authorities were directed to verify his citizenship and immigration status and initiate proceedings under the Foreigners Act, the Passport Act, and the Citizenship Act against those found to be living illegally in India.

Authorities were directed to initiate deportation proceedings against Shah and other co-accused within four weeks. The court directed the authorities to impose restrictions or ban their re-entry into India in accordance with the law.

The Bench ordered that these persons be blacklisted, with their photographs circulated among all police stations, concerned authorities, and service providers across the State to restrain their entry or stay in India.

A further directive was issued to investigate and trace those persons possessing false documents and the manner in which the Aadhaar was obtained. The Bench disposed of the petition with these observations.

The court has set November 3 as the deadline for the two governments and other authorities concerned to submit detailed affidavits in response to a PIL plea by Congress leader Debabrata Saikia

The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam and Nagaland governments and other authorities concerned to submit detailed affidavits by November 3 on eastern Assam’s devastating floods, in response to an August 17 petition filed by Congress leader Debabrata Saikia.

Mr. Saikia is a former MLA from Nazira, one of the worst-affected Assembly constituencies in Sivasagar district. Flash floods caused by extremely heavy rainfall along the Assam-Nagaland border hit Sivasagar in July. Adjoining Charaideo and Jorhat districts also suffered extensive damage.

“Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar observed that the concerns I had raised in the public interest litigation (PIL) were genuine and noted that I have been pursuing the issue of illegal mining in the Dikhow River over the past eight years,” Mr. Saikia said on Wednesday (August 26, 2026).

Scrutiny of contributing factors
His petition seeks judicial scrutiny into the factors that contributed to the floods, including alleged illegal mining in the Dikhow riverbed, activities in the Nagaland catchment areas, and the release of water from upstream dams.

Mr. Saikia alleged that the July floods, which claimed more than 80 lives and affected lakhs of people across Sivasagar, Charaideo, Jorhat, and Golaghat districts, were aggravated by prolonged administrative inaction despite earlier warnings and court directions.

He cited his PILs in 2018 and 2019 before the Gauhati High Court, which raised an alarm over alleged illegal and unscientific sand and stone mining in the Dikhow River, particularly in areas along the Assam-Nagaland border.

The former MLA said the High Court, in 2019, sought measures to be undertaken against illegal mining and the constitution of a dedicated Mines and Minerals Task Force Battalion. The court repeated the directions in 2022.

“These directions were not effectively implemented, and illegal mining continued in the riverbed,” he said, referring to a January 12 report of the State’s Water Resources Department. This report had warned that continued excavation could alter the course of the river and lead to severe consequences.

“The Assam government must answer why it ignored judicial orders for eight years,” Mr. Saikia said, alleging that the continued mining activities weakened the river’s natural protective features and contributed to the scale of the flooding.

His PIL also raised concerns over alleged open-cast coal mining in Nagaland’s Mon, Mokokchung, and Wokha districts, and the possible impact of water released from Nagaland’s Doyang Hydro Electric Project on the downstream areas of Assam.

The court emphasised the need to examine why recurring floods continue to cause widespread loss and hardship in Assam, seeking details of the measures taken by the authorities to prevent such incidents.

The court directed the club to approach the District Judge on learning that an appeal, along with an application for interim relief, was already pending there

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) refused to intervene in a challenge raised by the Delhi Race Club against an order to evict from an 84-acre premises on Lok Kalyan Marg.

A Bench headed by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the club to approach the jurisdictional District Judge, who is the appellate authority, for relief later that same day (August 25, 2026). The court directed the club to approach the District Judge on learning that an appeal, along with an application for interim relief, was already pending there.

The formal eviction order by the Estate Officer, Land and Development Office, Urban Affairs Ministry, was passed on August 11 under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The order followed a Delhi High Court Division Bench decision on May 27 to lift a stay on proceedings under the 1971 Act. A Single Judge of the High Court had earlier granted a stay in favour of the club.

The dispute concerns the club’s occupation of the 84-acre plot. The Centre had argued that the lease granted to the club in 1926 expired on December 31, 1994, and had not been renewed.

According to the Centre, the club has continued to occupy the premises without authorisation since the expiry of the lease. In March, the Centre issued a notice seeking peaceful possession of the land, stating that it was required for a “public purpose”.

Subsequently, on April 17, proceedings were initiated under the 1971 Act.

Delhi HC acquits man, saying the prosecution’s case lacked cogent evidence about the intention and knowledge as contemplated in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court said many spouses recently resorted to extreme violence that were incomprehensible some decades ago

The Delhi High Court has observed that the institution of marriage is quite paradoxical and if the issues between spouses are not resolved quickly, the “better half becomes a bitter half”.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav made the observations while allowing a man’s appeal against a trial court’s judgment sentencing him to three years of imprisonment for trying to kill his wife by allegedly forcing her to ingest Baygon spray, a well-known insect killer.

The court, in its August 24 verdict, acquitted Nafe Singh in the case, saying the prosecution’s case lacked cogent evidence about the intention and knowledge as contemplated in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is highly unsafe to act upon the kind of shaky evidence brought on record, the court said while granting the benefit of doubt to the man.

Mr. Singh and the woman got married in 2000 but relations soured within a year. According to the prosecution, during a matrimonial dispute in 2001, the husband first allegedly tried to force his wife to ingest insecticide from a tumbler, and when that failed, he poured it directly down her throat from the container.

An FIR was registered against the man and his mother. While his mother was acquitted by the trial court, Mr. Singh was convicted for the offence of attempt to murder.

The man denied the allegations levelled against him and contended that there was some matrimonial issue due to his wife’s desire to live with him in a separate house, leaving aside his widowed mother.

The court said one of the most beautiful relationships of humans, that of a husband and wife, becomes one of the most terrible when things go wrong in a matrimonial alliance.

“The institution of marriage is quite paradoxical and a world of extremities. The best, in no time, becomes worst if not handled carefully.

The better half becomes the bitter half if issues are not taken care of and resolved as soon as possible,” the court said.

The court said relationships can go in a totally different, undesirable and unexpected direction if not handled carefully and in time. “The institution of marriage derives its strength from faith, companionship and the trust which the parties repose in each other wherein both sides feel assured and protective,” it said.

‘Conflict zone’

“The troubles in this bond between the spouses not only affect the institution of marriage but the family as well and in turn society too. The relationship founded upon faith, trust and confidence gets transformed into a conflict zone where often, physical violence also creeps in,” the court said. It added that there are recent examples where the spouses have resorted to extreme levels of violence against each other that were incomprehensible some decades ago.

The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to rehabilitate and relocate the family of the Hathras gang rape and murder victim to Ghaziabad or Noida within three months, after finding “unnecessary resistance” on the State’s part in complying with its earlier directions. 

A Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Jaspreet Singh observed that the State’s February 22, 2025 decision offering to rehabilitate the family in Kasganj, Etah or Aligarh did not consider its request for relocation to Ghaziabad or Noida and was, therefore, “no decision in the eyes of law”. 

Such orders, the Bench said, lent credence to the family’s assertion that the State was treating the matter as “adversarial litigation” and was adamant about not granting it statutory benefits under the court’s orders. “We, therefore, see no reason to grant any further time to the State for reconsideration of the matter,” it said. 

The court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file a compliance affidavit. In case of non-compliance, he will have to appear before the court in person on November 30. 

The Bench noted that despite an earlier direction to consider the family’s request for relocation to Ghaziabad or Noida, the State’s subsequent decision did not even mention the request. 

Speaking to The Hindu, the victim’s elder brother said the judiciary had been providing them succour, but the government was delaying the relief. “It has been almost six years, but our life has not come back on track. As the districts offered by the government are adjoining or close to Hathras, we wanted to be rehabilitated to Delhi-NCR for safety,” he said. 

The 19-year-old woman was allegedly raped by four men from her village in September 2020 and died at a Delhi hospital a fortnight later. 

The court emphasised that the rehabilitation process must be meaningful and must safeguard the residents’ right to live with dignity, an integral component of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) granted residents of three jhuggi clusters near the Prime Minister’s residence at Lok Kalyan Marg six weeks to vacate their homes and relocate to alternative accommodation at Savda Ghevra.

A Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia also ordered the constitution of a monitoring committee, headed by a retired judicial officer, to oversee the rehabilitation of residents of Bhai Ram Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony.

The court emphasised that the rehabilitation process must be meaningful and must safeguard the residents’ right to live with dignity, an integral component of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court passed the order on appeals by the residents of the slums challenging a single-judge’s May 11 judgment, which had refused to interfere with their eviction.

The Centre had justified the eviction on the ground that the jhuggi clusters were situated in a protected zone adjoining an operational Air Force Station. According to the authorities, the removal of unauthorised structures was necessary to strengthen defence infrastructure and serve important public and security interests.

While rejecting the residents’ contention that their eviction violated the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, the Division Bench made it clear that the authorities must strictly comply with the assurances given to the Court regarding facilities at the relocation site.

The court noted that the commitments relating to schools, electricity, LPG connections, bus passes, dispensaries and other essential amenities at Savda Ghevra must be fully honoured.

The court also directed DUSIB to facilitate the transportation of the residents’ household belongings to their allotted accommodation.

The single judge had earlier granted the residents 15 days to vacate, noting that eviction notices had first been issued in October 2025 and that sufficient time had already elapsed.

The Centre had maintained that in-situ rehabilitation was not feasible because no suitable alternative accommodation was available in the vicinity. As a result, 717 residents from the three jhuggi clusters are to be relocated to Savda Ghevra.

The petition challenges the August 12 notification of the Home (Transport) Department, which amended the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to include this condition for licence grants, renewals, and permit holders

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) in the Bombay High Court against the Maharashtra government’s decision to make working knowledge of Marathi compulsory for auto-rickshaw, taxi, and app-based cab drivers.

The petition challenges the August 12 notification of the Home (Transport) Department, which amended the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to include this condition for licence grants, renewals, and permit holders.

The PIL is likely to be mentioned before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge on Wednesday (August 26, 2026). The petitioners include four civil rights groups and individuals.

The plea argues that the State has treated citizens from other states as outsiders, violating Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and the constitutional scheme of single citizenship. The petitioners state that they hold Marathi in respect and do not oppose the language’s promotion.

Many of them speak and understand functional Marathi in their daily work. However, they contend that language cannot be enforced by suspending licences and removing livelihoods. They also argue that the Constitution and the Motor Vehicles Act do not permit such a condition.

The notification provides that a driver who fails to satisfy the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) about his Marathi knowledge will have his licence suspended for three months initially, and permanently afterwards. This condition applies to new permits and renewals

The petitioners rely on a March 1, 2017 order of a division bench of the Bombay High Court, which quashed a November 2016 circular with a similar requirement for auto permits.

The PIL notes that the Transport Commissioner and Transport Minister have issued instructions for the implementation of the notification. Dedicated flying squads have been asked to check drivers, issue one-month notices, and suspend badges. According to a local newspaper report, on the first day of implementation, 522 rickshaw drivers were checked in the Vasai-Virar area, where many UP-Bihar migrants reside. Notices were issued to 61 drivers with warnings of licence suspension.

The petitioners state that they face checks, notices, suspensions, and cancellation of badges daily. They describe themselves as persons for whom driving is their only profession and source of income. Several petitioners are migrants from Uttar Pradesh.

They have stated that if their badges are suspended or cancelled, they and their families will be without income. The petitioners have filed the PIL for the community of approximately 9,65,000 rickshaw and taxi permit holders.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, in one of his letters, said the Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma —who is due to retire on September 26— has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion

Three letters from Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant in August questioned why his “fervent appeals” to transfer Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, despite “clear evidence” of favouritism, have been “ignored”.

In his first letter on August 2, Justice Mehta wrote to the CJI about the “grim and disturbing scenario” in his parent High Court in Rajasthan.

Justice Mehta, in this letter, said the Acting Chief Justice —who is due to retire on September 26— has exhibited total lack of leadership qualities and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion.

The Supreme Court Judge reminded the CJI that he had been making “fervent appeals” for appointment of a regular Chief Justice to the High Court since the beginning of the year 2026. “However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another State in my parent High Court has met with no positive response,” Justice Mehta wrote.

He said there was maladministration and malpractices both on the judicial and administrative side of the High Court under Justice Sharma.

The Supreme Court judge said cases were suddenly withdrawn and shifted to the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) without any justifiable cause. Justice Mehta said he was initially asked by the CJI to provide a list of these cases in writing, but was immediately thereafter assured that there was no need to place anything in writing, and suitable action would be taken. The next letter on August 10 informs that the CJI had asked Justice Sharma to respond to the shifting of cases, but no specific information was available on the reply or facts of these cases.

The apex court Judge’s letters further said judicial officers were called and humiliated to satisfy the “personal vendetta” of the ACJ. A full court meeting was held to designate a “large number of favoured advocates as seniors”, that too, on a working day. Justice Mehta said a fanciful plan for a multi-storied tower with almost 100 rooms was made to function as a guest house for the High Court. He called this a “sheer waste of public money”.

Justice Mehta said he has been receiving complaints from anguished judges of the High Court who said they were “frequently threatened” with retributive action, including transfer, by the ACJ, who claimed “closeness” with the CJI.

Justice Mehta said the CJI’s Bench had recently observed the growing trend of judges passing orders for extraneous considerations in the autumn days of their career. He termed this as attempts to “hit sixes” before retirement.

“It is indeed ironical that on one hand, the Chief Justice of India is flagging corrupt practices by judges in the eve [evening] of their careers, and here we have an ACJ indulging in these very activities with impunity,”one of the letters said.

In his last letter on August 17, Justice Mehta uses terms like “rampant nepotism and favouritism” against the ACJ.

He said it was “beyond comprehension” why “such a long rope” was given to a judge whose request for repatriation to the Rajasthan High Court was not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023.

Justice Sharma, who served in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was finally recommended for repatriation to Rajasthan High Court in a Supreme Court Collegium meeting on May 26, 2025. Justice Sharma was appointed Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan in September last year. He has been holding the post for over 10 months now.

“I have been repeatedly requesting you to take a decision for appointing a Chief Justice from another State to the Rajasthan High Court so that this unfortunate situation can be prevented. Continued ignorance of the request, in my opinion, is wholly against the interest of the institution,” Justice Mehta wrote to the CJI.

At one point, the apex court judge mulls whether putting his letter in the public domain may trigger an “inflow of information”.

Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan come to the rescue of thousands of depositors duped by fraudulent financial institutions which had promised high rate of interest

The Madras High Court has come to the rescue of thousands of depositors duped by fraudulent financial institutions by holding that attachment of properties under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act of 1997 (TANPID Act) would take precedence over the attachment of the same properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan ruled that the attachments made by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) by invoking the provisions of the PMLA could not be allowed prevail over the attachments made by a District Revenue Officer under the TANPID Act just because the former legislation was passed by the Parliament and the latter by the State legislature.

The verdict was passed while disposing of a case filed for expeditious sale of five properties belonging to Viswapriya (India) Limited, one of the many companies founded by R. Subramanian of the now-defunct Subhiksha chain of retail provision stores. The judges took note that 34 out of 1,240 depositors of Viswapriya Limited had died since most of them were senior citizens who had invested their retiral benefits.

Though the ED objected to the sale since it had also attached the same properties, the judges said, the Supreme Court had on April 12, 2019 stayed the proceedings initiated against Mr. Subramanian under the PMLA and therefore, as on date, the action initiated by the central agency had been put on hold. Even otherwise, the attachment under TANPID Act would prevail over the attachment under PMLA, they said.

Explaining the reasons, Justice Swaminathan said, Section 14 of TANPID Act categorically states that the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Further, the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the Act in 2011 after taking into account that it had been enacted to ameliorate the conditions of thousands of depositors who had fallen into the clutches of fraudulent financial establishments which had raised hopes of high rate of interest but duped the depositors.

The senior judge in the Bench also recalled that the Supreme Court in 2025 had held that central legislations such as the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act of 2002 and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act of 1993 could not be permitted to prevail over the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act of 1999. The top court had held that allowing central legislations to prevail over State legislations would offend the very principle of federal structure set out in Article 246 of the Constitution.

Further, Justice Swaminathan highlighted that Section 3 of the TANPID Act, dealing with attachment of properties, begins with a non-obstante clause ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force...’ whereas Section 5 of the PMLA, dealing with attachment of properties, does not have any non-obstante clause though a few other provisions of the central law do begin with such a clause.

“Having incorporated the non-obstante clauses in specific provisions, the omission to do so in the case of attachments appears to be deliberate and significant... An attachment passed under TNPID Act has the shield of non-obstante clause, whereas the attachment provision under PMLA is lacking in such armoury,” the judge wrote.

He ordered liquidation of the properties of Viswapriya (India) Limited attached under the TANPID Act and said: “The endeavor may be to ensure that within the next few months, the poor depositors are able to see the colour of the coin.”

The Delhi High Court on Monday said the affairs of ashrams associated with self-styled spiritual preacher Virender Dev Dixit require an inquiry, questioning who is now accountable for running the institutions following his death.

The court was hearing a matter related to allegations that several women and girls were being held in illegal confinement at the Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidyalaya ashram in Rohini. The litigation dates back to 2017, when the NGO Foundation for Social Empowerment approached the High Court alleging that minor girls and women were being confined there and were not being allowed to meet their parents. The High Court had earlier directed the CBI to submit a status report on allegations of rape against Mr. Dixit.

During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the Station House Officer of Vijay Vihar police station to register a missing person case and initiate a probe after women residing at the ashram informed the court that an inmate was missing while her belongings remained on the premises. The CBI also informed the court that Mr. Dixit, who had been absconding for a long time, was dead.

The Bench subsequently questioned who was responsible for running the ashrams and said society had a legitimate right to know what activities were being carried out there.

“Somebody should own the responsibility. We are not coming in way of anybody’s faith or spiritual beliefs. Everybody is free to practise that, provided it does not disturb public order,” the Bench said.

It said that if no individual or group came forward to take responsibility for the affairs of the ashrams, the State may have to step in.

The Bench said the manner in which the ashrams were being run required scrutiny. “Courts cannot interfere with their activities provided they are not disturbing public order. That is the only test. But nobody can be left unaccountable,” it said.

The missing woman’s parents, in their application, said she had spoken to them through a video call but refused to visit them despite her father being seriously ill and undergoing treatment in hospital. Their counsel alleged that women at the ashram were being drugged and that some inmates were minors.

The Bench also questioned the financial affairs of the ashram, asking what prevented the Income Tax Department from examining its accounts.

The police have been asked to complete the inquiry and place its findings before the court on August 31.

The court observed while granting interim protection to Physics Wallah founder Alakh Pandey against the unauthorised use of his name, image and other personality attributes for impersonation and monetisation.

The Delhi High Court has warned that personality rights cannot be invoked so broadly as to stifle caricature, satire or parody, particularly when such expression does not involve commercial exploitation.

The court observed while granting interim protection to Physics Wallah founder Alakh Pandey against the unauthorised use of his name, image and other personality attributes for impersonation and monetisation.

Mr Pandey had alleged that various online platforms and users were commercially exploiting his identity through social media posts, sticker packs, videos, websites and other content. He also claimed that some of the material was vulgar and sexually explicit.

In an interim order passed on August 5, Justice Anup J. Bhambhani said protection would be granted in respect of three categories of alleged violations, sexually vulgar content, unauthorised commercial exploitation of Pandey’s personality, and impersonation.

At the same time, the court cautioned against an overly broad understanding of personality rights. “In the opinion of this court, the concept of personality rights as has been claimed in the present matter may be over broad and therefore susceptible to misapplication,” the court observed.The judge said the court was mindful that personality rights should not be used to suppress information concerning wrongdoing or to wipe out an entire category of expression, including caricature, lampooning and parody, where such content does not amount to commercial exploitation of a person’s personality or publicity rights.

“Proceeding from this word of caution, in the present case, the court is persuaded to grant protection to the plaintiff limited only to 03 sets of violations complained of in the plaint,” the court said. It also directed online platforms to remove the offending content identified in its order.

A number of prominent public figures, including actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan and Salman Khan, Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, podcaster Raj Shamani, Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan and cricketer Abhishek Sharma, have approached the high court seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights.

The High Court has granted interim protection in those cases as well.

The bench said the portal was opened for all candidates for a specified period and reopening could trigger fresh claims

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to direct the reopening of CBSE's portal for the re-evaluation of class 12 answer sheets for students with complaints with the On-Screen Marking (OSM) system.

CBSE's OSM evaluation system is a digital grading method where teachers assess scanned copies of physical answer sheets on a computer instead of checking physical paper scripts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said the portal was opened for all candidates for a specified period and reopening could trigger fresh claims.

"Why should we direct them to open this window again for you? If you don't use the bus, you miss the bus. The window was open for everyone for a specified period," the CJI said.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted he was seeking only one week's time.

"The website crashed and many students could not apply for on-screen verification," he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBSE, told the apex court that 1.68 lakh students successfully applied during the notified window.

The Delhi High Court has already dismissed a similar challenge, he said.

The top court was hearing a plea challenging the manner in which CBSE introduced the OSM system for evaluation of answer sheets.

It alleged that the introduction of digital scanning resulted in several irregularities, including certain pages of answer sheets not being scanned, illegible scans and answers or pages not being evaluated.

In May 2025, FSSAI issued an advisory to all food business operators, asking them to discontinue the usage of “100%” on food product labels, packaging, and promotional content

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) not to cancel for the time being ITC Ltd.’s licence over failure to comply with directives asking the conglomerate to remove all “100%” claims in relation to its product, ‘Aashirvaad M.P. Chakki Atta’.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted interim protection to ITC on its petition challenging the FSSAI advisories and notices to discontinue the usage of the term “100%” for its product or face suspension of FSSAI License.

“Since the issue regarding jurisdiction is to be decided and the courts will be closed, till the next date of hearing, no decision regarding cancellation of the license will be taken,” Justice Sharma said as it listed the case for hearing on September 9.

Justice Sharma also said that she would pass an order on Monday, August 31, on the maintainability of a separate petition by AWL Agri Business Limited against FSSAI.

AWL Agri Business Limited received FSSAI notices over allegedly misleading label declarations and claims, including that of being “100% Veg” and “Cholesterol Free – For Healthy Lifestyle”, for its product, ‘Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil’.

During the hearing, FSSAI’s counsel objected to the maintainability of ITC’s petition in Delhi, contending that the latest improvement notice was issued in Kolkata.

In May 2025, FSSAI issued an advisory to all food business operators, asking them to discontinue the usage of “100%” on food product labels, packaging, and promotional content.

Subsequently, on August 10, a fresh notice called upon ITC to clarify within 30 days why no action should be taken against it for failing to comply with the advisory.

The notice asserted that the claims “100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” on the label and “Made from 1005 M.P. Wheat only” in the advertisement were misleading and impermissible under the regulations.

Three days later, the Central Licensing Authority on Kolkata issued an improvement notice directing ITC “to remove the claim/term of 100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” along with “0% Maida” on “Aashirvaad M.P Chakki Atta” across all labels and advertisements.

The improvement notice asked the company to submit a compliance report within 15 days or face suspension of FSSAI license.

ITC, in its petition, stated that the improvement notice was issued prior to even before the expiry of the 30 days granted to it by FSSAI to respond to the allegations, and was effectively a final order of prohibition.

ITC also alleged that the notice was non-speaking, mechanical, and without any application of mind, and that the threat of suspension of licence was completely arbitrary and grossly disproportionate.