P.K. Krishnadas alleges UDF’s handling of ED’s demand for a criminal case against Pinarayi Vijayan has again exposed CPI(M)’s ‘symbiotic relationship' with Congress in Keralam

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national executive member P K Krishnadas on Friday said the Kerala High Court had blown the whistle on the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] and Congress “nexus” in Keralam by ordering the registration of an FIR under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against former Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter, T. Veena, and son-in-law and former Minister P.A. Mohamed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case. 

Mr Krishnadas told reporters in Thiruvananthapuram that the High Court had “thwarted” the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government’s bid to soft-pedal the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) “damning report” against Mr Vijayan and his family, which was sent to the State Police Chief for registration of an anti-corruption case. 

“The Congress sought to save Mr Vijayan from prosecution by ordering a meandering preliminary inquiry. The High Court slammed the move and censured the SPC for failing to register an FIR against Mr Vijayan and his family. The court also put paid to CPI(M)’s attempts to save Mr Vijayan from prosecution by aligning itself with Congress’s agitation in New Delhi seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan should apologise to the people for the faux pas”, he said

Mr Krishnadas said the UDF’s handling of the ED’s demand for a criminal case against Mr Vijayan has yet again exposed the CPI(M)’s “symbiotic relationship” with the Congress in Keralam. 

The Court suggested lakhs of voters seeking inclusion in the West Bengal electoral roll should be heard first, while appeals for exclusion are taken up last

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 9, 2026) orally suggested that lakhs of voters seeking inclusion in the West Bengal electoral roll deserved to be heard first, while appeals for exclusion pending before the Appellate Tribunals could be heard last.

An affidavit filed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the Supreme Court in September 2026 revealed that more than 22 lakh voters purged from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in West Bengal, on grounds such as “logical discrepancies,” had filed appeals challenging their exclusion.

The EC affidavit had said that 16.10 lakh appeals had been filed against inclusion. The poll body had said a total of 38.31 lakh appeals were filed in the tribunals in the State

The 19 Appellate Tribunals are struggling under a massive backlog, with 37.05 lakh of the 38.31 lakh appeals currently stuck in limbo. At the present pace, clearing the backlog will take more than 12 years, one of the petitioners, Congress leader Prasenjit Bose, has argued.

So far, the Appellate Tribunals, according to EC statistics, have disposed of only 3% of the total appeals filed, and 93% of these disposed-of appeals have resulted in the inclusion of electors in the electoral rolls.

In an oral mentioning, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Mr. Bose, and advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, representing five disentitled voters, said the disentitled voters in the State had already missed both the Assembly elections in May 2026 and the recent by-elections.

The lawyers said these voters should be allowed to cast their vote in the Municipal elections scheduled for November 2026, regardless of whether their appeals were pending before the tribunals.

“Over one lakh appeals were decided by the tribunals in the past six months, of which 93% have been ruled in favour of the deleted voters, ordering their re-inclusion in the voter list. Taking this fact into consideration, voters whose appeals for re-inclusion are pending should be allowed to vote in the municipal elections,” Mr. Bhushan said.

He said the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Howrah Municipal Corporation elections were coming up soon, and that voters in these areas whose appeals were pending before the tribunals should have their cases decided on a priority basis.

“We are already working on the issue of the pending appeals. We will find a via media (middle path) solution. There are appeals by persons seeking inclusion. They will be taken first... first will be for inclusions,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said orally.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the tribunals were “taking time” on the appeals. He remarked that the Court had received feedback intrinsically related to issues such as the architecture of the software, “which we need to thrash out” with the EC. “You see, technology, method and fairness has to match,” Justice Bagchi said, on the working of the Appellate Tribunals in West Bengal.

“But we have missed one election, we are going to miss another,” Mr. Sankaranarayanan said. Justice Bagchi said the Court understood the predicament. “We will make appropriate interventions,” he said.

The Court said the case would most likely be listed on October 16, 2026, on a priority basis, but said October 29, 2026, was a more convenient date.

When the Court asked the Delhi Police if it was going to file an appeal, the public prosecutor said a decision on the issue is yet to be taken, and sought 15 days to inform the Court about the decision

A Delhi Court on Friday (October 9, 2026) granted former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh time to file his reply to an appeal filed by four women grapplers against his acquittal in a sexual harassment case.

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh had on September 28 issued notices to Mr. Singh, the State, and former WFI assistant secretary Vinod Tomar.

On Friday (October 9, 2026), the judge granted Mr. Singh time to file a reply and posted the matter for October 28.

When the Court asked the Delhi Police if it was going to file an appeal, the public prosecutor said a decision on the issue is yet to be taken, and sought 15 days to inform the Court about the decision

Judge Singh said that once the arguments commence, the proceedings will be held in camera.

Mr. Singh was in the Court when the matter was heard.

On August 3, a magisterial court acquitted Mr. Singh, a former BJP MP, in the sexual harassment case filed by six women wrestlers, including world championship medallist Vinesh Phogat, citing lack of evidence. A criminal appeal filed on September 25 assailed Mr. Singh's acquittal.

According to the wrestlers' appeal, the acquittal was unsustainable in law, founded on a "manifestly erroneous and selective appreciation" of the evidence on record, proceeded on conjectures and surmises, and "failed to apply binding and well-settled principles of law."

CJI says the orders was prompted by concern for students, their future

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 9, 2026) refused to review its September 1 direction to quash FIRs against students and youth who participated in the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak protests and were subject to a brutal police crackdown on July 20 in the national capital.

The FIRs were quashed by the court using its extraordinary powers to administer complete justice under the Constitution.

“You have to appreciate… We do not use Article 142 in every situation. We did it concerned for their parents. These students have a long life. They have future prospects, we don’t want them entangled in court proceedings,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant addressed advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who appeared for the petitioner.

Mumbai resident and senior citizen L. Ramanathan, in a petition filed through advocate Linto K.B., questioned the judicial overpowering of the basic police function to investigate a crime.

“The police, while discharging its statutory functions of investigation, must be permitted to investigate offences freely, fairly and without extraneous interference which include interim judicial directions passed at an interlocutory stage. These interim directions have the effect of controlling, restraining, or micro-managing an ongoing investigation before its final outcome is tested on merits,” Mr. Nedumpara submitted.

Chief Justice Kant said there was a fine distinguishing line drawn in the September 1 order. Only criminal cases registered against innocent protestors and students have been quashed. The police were given liberty to continue with its investigation against hardened criminals.

Mr. Nedumpara urged the court to consider the “lurking danger” of the misuse of Article 32 jurisdiction to subserve “ulterior” ends.

“These petitions are filed asking the court to substitute the Executive and the Parliament… These petitioners think the court is their private property… The petitions [in the NEET-UG case]

Was filed without giving the government breathing time to resolve the issue. Manifestly with political agenda, and if not, with other extraneous considerations, the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 came to be invoked,” Mr. Nedumpara submitted.

The court however refused to entertain the petition, saying it was an indirect attempt to recall or review the September 1 order.

The Supreme Court had, on the urging of the Union government, taken the rare and extraordinary step to quash criminal cases registered against Gen Z protestors involved in nation-wide protests linked to the Cockroach Janta Party following the NEET-UG 2026 question paper leaks.

The court had clarified the order was not confined to Delhi, but extended to States and Union Territories which saw the protests. The court said the Centre would be at liberty to ensure that States or Union Territories did not register any fresh FIRs with respect to CJP protests held between July 20 and July 25.

The court had however allowed the Delhi Police to file a “fresh and specific” FIR against 2,873 individuals with criminal antecedents, who were spotted by facial recognition technology at the Central Delhi protest site. The court said the FIRs should not prejudice their rights, and should be given every opportunity to defend themselves.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu calls the High Court order ‘very reasonable’ and says there was no empirical data to justify breaching the 50% ceiling

The Supreme Court dismissed the Andhra Pradesh government’s plea against the High Court (HC) judgment on reservations for the Backward Classes (BCs) in elections to rural and urban local bodies (ULBs).

The HC had earlier this week set aside G.O. Nos. 105 and 1065 through which the government sought to provide 34% reservation to BCs in Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) and 33.33% quota in the ULBs, saying they exceeded the 50% threshold.

Hearing the special leave petition (SLP) filed by the State government on Friday (October 9, 2026), a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu turned down the State’s appeal, calling the HC order in the matter ‘very reasonable’.

Appearing for the State, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that there was no reason for the HC to reject as unreliable the data on the basis of which the percentages of reservation were determined by the State.

Justice Datta asked Mr. Rohatgi to tender an explanation as to how the HC erred in its judgment and on the relevance of the Unified Family Survey data.

The Supreme Court said the HC had rightly held that the reservations were beyond the 50% ceiling prescribed in the 1992 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgment, and there was no empirical data to justify the breach of that ceiling.

In a separate petition, a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said the elections could not be delayed on the ground that the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls was under way, and the existing rolls should be used if the situation warranted.

Supreme Court’s remarks came in an oral mention by senior lawyers against the ‘complete shutdown’ of Delhi ahead of Oct 10 protests

The Supreme Court of India on Friday (October 9, 2026) said the right to association and protest peacefully is a fundamental right of every citizen while reacting to a mention by senior lawyers of the apex court about the unprecedented “shutting down” of the national capital a day ahead of the CJP protests for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on October 10.

Making an impromptu oral mention before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, a battery of lawyers, led by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi, said the capital has been “heavily barricaded”, making free movement virtually impossible.

“What is happening in my country? Can we not protest peacefully anymore?” Mr. Sibal asked the Supreme Court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the courtroom, cut in to point out that “it is our country”.

“When I say ‘my’, I mean ‘our’,” Mr. Sibal responded.

Mr. Mehta said the measures were meant to prevent any unlawful incidents.

“There is no doubt about the fundamental right to association. The right has to be exercised in accordance with the laws governing association. You have to make an application for permission. If they do not grant permission or drag their feet, you come here,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench, said.

The judge said whether the “broad spectrum” measures taken by the police were disproportionate to what was required to keep the protest safe on October 10 needed to be looked into.

“Before us is a document which appears to impose a blanket ban on certain common facilities relating to transport, access to other essential facilities and designated places. That definitely affects ordinary citizens. We have a balance to make between the rights of a group of citizens who wish to protest and the rights of another group, perhaps a much larger group, who want access to common and essential facilities. The State stands between the two,” said Justice Bagchi.

The court asked the lawyers to get in touch with the protestors and verify if they had provided the police with the necessary details and sought permission.

The lawyers said the CPI(M) party general secretary, M.A. Baby, has also moved the Supreme Court, highlighting the cancellation of trains, closure of guest homes, internet shutdowns and stopping students and youth from coming to Delhi to exercise their right to peaceful dissent. The senior lawyers said a Youth Congress plea in the Delhi High Court on the issue has been adjourned to October 12. They said the court was the final arbiter of citizens’ rights, and must intervene.

“You can’t shut down an entire city because you cannot handle a bunch of protestors,” senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan submitted.

Senior advocates Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sanjay Hegde, Prashant Bhushan, and Subhash Chandran pointed out that 57 metro stations have been shut down.

Justice Bagchi stressed that freedom of association is indeed a fundamental right, but it had to be verified whether permission for the protest had been obtained. The judge said that if not, the protest may prove to be illegal.

Mr. Sankaranarayanan said peaceful protests, even without permission, are not illegal unless an offence is committed during the protest.

Mr. Sibal said forcible, coercive and restrictive measures cannot be put in place by the state even before anything illegal has been done.

“Detention centres have been identified. YouTubers have been warned of action. There are heavy checks at the borders of Delhi,” he submitted.

Ms. Ramakrishnan asked the court whether it was legal for the police to go from home to home, guest house to guest house, cautioning people against participating in the protest.

The court was hearing the PIL, filed by advocate Chahat Raghav, seeking direction for constitution of an expert committee to formulate a binding SOP, making the use of body-worn cameras mandatory and continuous

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (October 7, 2026) asked the Centre to consider a representation a petition seeking standard operating procedures for police and rapid action force personnel to use ‘always-on’ body-worn cameras during crowd-control and protest-management duties.

The court asked the government to communicate its decision to the petitioner within six months, while disposing of the public interest litigation (PIL).

The court was hearing the PIL, filed by advocate Chahat Raghav, seeking direction for constitution of an expert committee to formulate a binding SOP, making the use of body-worn cameras mandatory and continuous (always-on) for every member of Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force deployed on crowd-control, protest-management or dispersal duty, from the commencement of deployment until stand-down.

The plea also sought a comprehensive regime governing the storage, integrity, retention and evidentiary use of footage recorded through such cameras.

During the hearing, the court asked how the absence of body-worn cameras affects the rights of public at large.

To this, senior advocate Akhil Sibal, representing the petitioner, said when violence occurs there are allegations and counter allegations of violence and the issue pertains to accountability as to who is perpetrating violence and the use of excessive force by police.

He said there has to be some way for fixing the accountability.

Mr Sibal said cameras are being used by police officials but they are used in a very sporadic way. He said use of cameras was essential because allegations of excessive force used by police or protestors running and doing violence keep surfacing.

“We need a system so that the allegations are not left to private persons who are videographing,” Mr Sibal added.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma submitted that there were guidelines for organising protests in which videography aspect was taken care of.

The petitioner said the plea has been filed in the backdrop of the July protests at Jantar Mantar involving the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.

The plea said in the July protests, the use of force by Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) upon student protesters was documented almost entirely through unofficial mobile-phone footage recorded by bystanders.

The case relates to a complaint alleging the sexual abuse of a minor girl in Madurai with a complaint filed in Madurai police jurisdiction

‘Gem Granites’ owner R. Veeramani (84), who has been arrested for sexually assaulting minor girls under the POCSO Act, was produced before a judicial magistrate of the Special POCSO Court in Chennai on Wednesday (October 7, 2026). 

The case relates to a complaint alleging the sexual abuse of a minor girl in Madurai with a complaint filed in Madurai police jurisdiction. 

The accused Veeramani was produced before the judicial magistrate S. Padma, who remanded him to judicial custody until October 21. 

Veeramani, who has been arrested in several other cases by the Chennai City Police, was arrested by the Madurai police and the relevant case details were handed over to the court.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan says banks cannot prevent defaulters, not facing any criminal charge, from going abroad

The mere fact that a citizen of the country either raises a loan from a bank or stands as a guarantor for a loan availed by someone else does not mean that he has mortgaged his constitutional and legal rights lock, stock and barrel with the bank, the Madras High Court has observed.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan made the observation while dismissing an application filed by Bank of Baroda to review his August 24, 2026 order revoking a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Kondepati Ganga Prasad who was a guarantor for a high value loan availed by GVR Infra Projects.

The judge highlighted that the right to travel freely across the world was a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution as declared by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978). In order to have a restriction of that right, it should be in accordance with law.

“The term ‘law’ under Article 21 implies a legislation. A letter written by the Manager of the bank to the Bureau Of Immigration cannot be treated as ‘law.’ If a nationalised bank is permitted to do this, then every private creditor or non-banking finance corporation would also be emboldened to approach the police for issuance of LOC to prevent their debtors from going abroad,” the judge wrote.

He went on to state: “God forbid the debtors from being thrown at the mercy of wolves of creditors. All these observations are made only to point out that the constitutional rights of the petitioner does not come to an end with the commencement of mortgage with the review petitioner’s bank.”

In the present case, the guarantor proposes to go abroad to earn and repay the amount after returning. However, the bank was insisting upon him to repay the money first and then go abroad. “This is a catch-22 situation. If the bank wants the money, the petitioner has to earn it. The petitioner, in his wisdom, has decided to go abroad to earn it. The bank says till he pays the amount, he should not be permitted to go abroad. This vicious circle has to be broken.”

Justice Lakshminarayanan also said, no business venture gets started with an intention to create a loss but such was the nature of life that not every business ends up successful. The bank, while issuing the loan, was well aware that all loans were not going to be repaid and some were bound to become sticky or Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).

“I should point out that the Bank of Baroda, for the very purpose, has a separate branch called the stressed accounts branch. This shows that the number of sticky accounts with the Bank of Baroda is so high that it requires special attention of a team of officers,” he added.

The judge recorded the submission of the bank’s counsel that it had not lodged any criminal complaint of fraud against the guarantor either with the Central Bureau of Investigation or the State police. Even the bank officials who were responsible for clearing the loan in favour of the private company had not been prosecuted.

“The bank has not done so because it is very well aware that it was the business decision taken by the managerial authorities at that relevant point of time to clear the loan in favour of the petitioner. When there is no fraud, either at the instance of the petitioner or at the instance of the managerial staff of the bank, for the mere fact that the petitioner is a defaulter, he cannot be forced to stay within the four corners of this country in order to ensure that the amounts are re-paid,” the judge concluded.

Only organisations whose activities do not affect nation’s secular fabric can receive foreign funds, says the Madurai Bench, rejecting an appeal by a charitable trust for registration under the Act

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Madurai) has said religious organisations, whose activities would not affect the nation’s secular fabric and social amity, are entitled to obtain Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration. But organisations engaged in converting people of one religious faith to another shall be denied FCRA registration.

The court was hearing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust in Kodaikanal in Dindigul district. The appellant, a trust founded in 2021 and registered under Section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, sought certificate of registration under the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. The appellant’s application was rejected. Challenging the same, the appeal was filed.

The appellant submitted the trust had established a Zen Meditation Centre at Kodaikanal and its activities cannot be labelled as religious. On its part, the Centre submitted the policy of the government is to check the inflow of foreign funds that may be deployed for carrying out conversion and other activities which would harm the secular fabric of the country. In the instant case, the author of the trust was an ordained Christian priest addressed as Rev. Fr. Ama Samy SJ.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi said, “One cannot forget the fact that Christianity is a messianic religion. Their theological and religious mission is to bring everyone within the fold of Jesus Christ. There is a saying ‘a leopard will not change its spots’. Unlike Hinduism which is inclusive, the Abrahamic religions are inherently exclusive. The devout Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that theirs is the one true and complete revelation because that is what their Holy books say of themselves”.

Rule 9 of FCR Rules, 2011, states the application must be in Form FC-3A. Form FC-3A requires the applicant to disclose the nature of the organisation. “The appellant trust claims to subscribe to Zen Buddhist philosophy. On the own showing of the appellant, they are a religious organisation. The authority rightly states that Zen Buddhism is a variant of Mahayana Buddhist School. Every Buddhist school will come under the broad umbrella of Buddhism. Zen can be no exception. Since the appellant’s application did not correctly identify its nature as religious, the application was rightly negatived,” the court said.

The judges said te appellant need not have been so coy. Section 12 of the FCRA bars only an unregistered religious organisation from accepting foreign contributions. An organisation having a definite religious programme is entitled to apply for a certificate of registration from the central government under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. “But one has to make a clean breast of everything. One cannot keep any card up one’s sleeve. This is no game of hide and seek”, they added.

“It is necessary to make a clear distinction between a religious organisation and a cultural or educational entity. An organisation primarily engaged in the systematic teaching of Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, Yoga and allied Indian Knowledge Systems through structured classes, residential courses, publications, research and preservation of manuscripts cannot be classified as religious institutions. Indian Knowledge Systems would fall under the category of education or culture”, the bench said.

Zen philosophy is of Chinese origin. Organisations like the appellant trust cannot therefore claim any right to be registered under FCRA. “We are a pluralist nation. Unlike the USA, we are not a melting pot but a salad bowl, a beautiful metaphor credited to Justice Ruma Pal. This status quo would be upset, if one religious group gains ascendancy”, the court said.

If foreign funds are freely allowed inside to facilitate conversion activities, the sovereignty of the nation would be imperilled. “We hasten to clarify that we do not accuse the appellant of having any such agenda. Section 12(4)(a)(ii) of the Act specifically refers to conversion from one religious faith to another. This provision applies to all religious organisations. A fundamentalist Hindu Organisation engaged in Ghar Wapsi cannot be registered under FCRA. The statutory regime which was put in place during UPA rule (2010) is intended to subserve secular objects”, the bench said.

When the statute envisages a frank disclosure of all the details, any misrepresentation would entail rejection of the application itself. Though the applicant is engaged in religious programmes, they wrongly projected themselves as non-religious. “That is why, the respondent authority had to say ‘Illa Samy’ (No Sir) to Rev. Fr. Ama Samy (which name literally translates as ‘Yes’), the court said.

It said an application seeking FCRA registration should correctly disclose the nature of the applicant. Failure to do so will result in rejection of the application. Even if all the details are in order, the authority is still at liberty to negative the request. This is because there is no right as such to receive foreign contributions. It can at best be a privilege.

The authority must however correctly classify the applicants. Persons and organisations engaged in upholding the civilisational heritage of India have to be classified as educational or cultural. If the programmes of the applicant pertain to worship and rituals, they will fall under the religious category, the court said and dismissed the appeal.

Justice Dipankar Datta said the file has to be studied by puisne judge on the Bench, Justice Sheel Nagu

The Supreme Court re-scheduled by a day an appeal filed by the State of Punjab against a State High Court order for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into corruption allegations linked to Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann’s office.

Justice Dipankar Datta, heading a Division Bench before which the case came up for hearing on Thursday (October 8, 2026), said the case file was still to “reach” the puisne judge, Justice Sheel Nagu, who was the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court before his appointment to the apex court. Justice Nagu wanted to go through the case file once it reached him.

Senior advocates Vikas Singh and Shadan Farasat, appearing for the State government, sought an interim order to stay the High Court direction. But Justice Datta pointed out that it was premature to seek an order even before both judges on the Bench had the case file. The case was listed for October 9.

In an oral mentioning, Mr. Singh had said the High Court order of October 5, for a CBI probe and report within two months, violated the very basic principles of federalism.

He said that sending a Central agency into the poll-bound State, where general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act stood withdrawn since November 8, 2020, was erroneous.Mr. Singh said the High Court had erroneously directed registration of an FIR into decisions of public servants on transfers, tenders and policy without the previous approval mandated by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The State of Punjab, in its appeal before the apex court, said the High Court direction for a CBI probe suffered from errors such as treating information shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA as a direction that makes registration “inevitable”, contrary to the 2022 decision of the apex court in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case.

The High Court had directed the CBI to probe corruption allegations linked to Chief Minister Mann’s office. The allegations were raised by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against public servants and private individuals linked to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government include corruption in transfers and postings, policy manipulation, cash for tenders, and other serious irregularities.

Pronouncing its order on a public interest litigation case, the High Court Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra had said that, on a cumulative assessment of the material placed on record in the petition, the court was of the view that a fair and transparent investigation was required into the issue.

The petitioner in the High Court, advocate Nikhil Saraf, had argued that no action had been forthcoming despite communications from the ED under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 to the Punjab government.

The court also issued a notice to Delhi’s Deputy Chief Minister on the plea seeking for independent probe into incident during road inspection

The Delhi High Court on Thursday (October 8, 2026) sought response of the city police and Deputy Chief Minister Parvesh Verma on a plea seeking an independent probe into the incident where the leader allegedly slapped an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) worker.

Justice Sachin Datta issued a notice on the petition and asked the police to file a status report and posted the matter for further hearing on November 17. The court also asked Mr. Verma to submit his reply to the plea.

During the brief hearing, the counsel for the police raised objection to the maintainability of the petition, which also sought police protection for petitioner Sahib Singh and his family members.

Mr. Verma, who is the Public Works Department (PWD) Minister of Delhi, had allegedly slapped a man during a road inspection in Tilak Nagar on September 27.

The petition, filed through advocate Onkar Roy, stated that immediately Mr. Sahib Singh submitted a written complaint before the SHO, Police Station Vikas Puri, seeking appropriate legal action.

Following the event and the initiation of legal proceedings, Mr. Sahib Singh stated that his private mobile number was circulated, following which he began receiving repeated abusive, threatening and intimidating calls, and WhatsApp and social media messages from unknown numbers and accounts.

The petitioner sought protection of his life and liberty, preservation of CCTV and electronic evidence, and an independent investigation into his allegations of assault, threats, and police inaction.

“In view of the continued threats to the petitioner and his family, the acts concerning the conduct of police personnel and the apprehension regarding independence of investigation by the local police, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this court seeking protection of his life and liberty....,” the plea said.

Mr. Sahib Singh stated that on the day of the incident, he was recording the proceedings on his mobile phone when Mr. Verma allegedly became agitated over questions concerning the quality of road construction.

The petitioner alleged that he was slapped, abused and threatened, after which his mobile phone containing the video recordings was forcibly snatched and damaged. He said the incident was recorded and streamed on social media platforms.

He additionally claimed that while a member of Mr. Verma’s security team pushed him and assisted the Minister in leaving the spot, the police officials present there did not intervene.

The plea was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma on October 8

Indian Youth Congress moves the Delhi High Court over Delhi police’s refusal to allow its Jantar Mantar protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the SIR exercise. The Court has agreed to hear the plea tomorrow.

The plea was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma on Thursday (October 8, 2026).The court said the plea will be listed on Friday (October 9, 2026), and in case it does not happen, the petitioner can again mention the matter.

The Indian Youth Congress (IYC) approached the court, challenging Delhi Police's order denying them permission to hold the protest at Jantar Mantar.

They are demanding the resignation of Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Court was considering a petition by headmistress of a Kollam school seeking to disqualify school manager for allegedly denying her entry for wearing a churidar instead of a sari

“A citizen’s attire is their choice, and nobody can insist that it conform to society’s customs, especially when there is no law backing it,” the Kerala High Court has observed.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a petition by the headmistress of Eeswara Vilasom High School, Kottarakara, Kollam, seeking to disqualify the school’s manager for allegedly denying her entry into the school for wearing a churidar instead of a sari. She also sought police protection for her remaining tenure at the school.

The court observed that it did not need to direct his disqualification since an inquiry was in progress against the manager. The court directed the Station House Officer, Kottarakara, to ensure that the manager did not impede the petitioner from discharging her duties as the headmistress.

The petitioner claimed that the manager threatened her against wearing a churidar to school and allegedly instructed the security personnel to deny the petitioner’s entry if she wore a churidar. Later, she had to seek police help to enter the school premises, as the security personnel allegedly stopped her. She cited a circular issued by the Directorate General of Education, stating that she was entitled to wear a churidhar to school. 

The court was informed that the District Educational Officer, Kottarakara, visited the school after the alleged incident and produced a prima facie report to the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam, for disciplinary action against the manager.

Manager refutes charges

The manager, however, denied the allegations and claimed that the headmistress was derelict in her duty and that she had been issued several notices.

However, the court stated that it would not make any observation on this contention, since it was for the authority concerned to do the needful. 

The petition had raised concerns over pharmaceutical companies allegedly offering doctors expensive gifts, overseas trips, and other incentives to encourage the prescription of particular drugs

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 8, 2026) directed the Union government to constitute an expert committee to examine whether pharmaceutical companies should be brought under a legally enforceable framework to curb unethical marketing practices.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Centre to constitute the committee in line with its earlier directions and observations.

“We have directed the Union of India to constitute the committee and give its recommendations in terms of our previous directives and observations. The matter will be placed before the Court on January 29, 2027, to show compliance with the orders of the Court,” Justice Mehta said, reading out the operative part of the order in open court.

The top court issued the directions while hearing a petition filed by the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives’ Associations of India (FMRAI), seeking a statutory mechanism to regulate pharmaceutical marketing and check alleged unethical practices involving medical professionals.

The petition had raised concerns over pharmaceutical companies allegedly offering doctors expensive gifts, overseas trips, and other incentives, besides resorting to aggressive promotional practices, to encourage the prescription of particular drugs.

Earlier, in an affidavit filed before the Court, the Union government had said that the existing Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024, was functioning satisfactorily in addressing unethical marketing practices. It, however, acknowledged a regulatory gap when it came to bringing pharmaceutical companies within a statutory framework.

The government had also outlined its previous attempts to give statutory backing to rules governing pharmaceutical marketing, informing the Court that efforts made between 2013 and 2018 had raised questions over the appropriate legal authority and how such regulations could be enforced.

The Centre subsequently constituted a high-level committee headed by Dr. V.K. Paul, Member (Health), NITI Aayog, in September 2022. The committee favoured continuing with a voluntary code, with stronger safeguards, instead of making it legally binding.

This led to the introduction of the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024, which brought in additional disclosure requirements, an Ethics Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices (ECPMP), and stricter provisions governing gifts, physician samples, and continuing medical education. It also laid down timelines for dealing with complaints, along with audit and referral mechanisms, and provided for an Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices (ACPMP).

The committee will now examine whether the existing voluntary code needs statutory backing and make its recommendations to the Centre.

The Bench will take up the matter again on January 29, 2027, to examine compliance with its directions.

The petition before the top court had claimed that, though termed as ‘sales promotion’, in fact, direct or indirect advantages are offered to doctors (as gifts and entertainment, sponsored foreign trips, hospitality, and other benefits) in exchange for an increase in drug sales.

It had contended that such unethical promotion could influence doctors’ prescribing practices and adversely affect patients, leading to the over-prescription of medicines, the use of unnecessarily high doses, treatment for longer than required, and the prescription of an excessive number or irrational combination of drugs.

A Bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar said the interim order prioritises the faith and sentiments of worshippers over management hurdles

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 8, 2026) passed an interim order that the Udayasthamana pooja must be held in accordance with the age-old practices of the famed Guruvayur Sri Krishna Temple in Kerala.

A Bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar said the faith and sentiments of worshippers must be given precedence over management hurdles.

The petitioners led by P.C. Hary and members of traditional managing families, represented by senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, had challenged decisions by the Guruvayur devaswom managing committee to alter or reschedule the Udayasthamana Pooja on Vrishchikam Ekadasi.

The management, represented by senior advocates C.A. Sundaram, V. Giri and advocate Rohini Musa, had argued that the performance of the rituals during Ekadasi was faced by logistical challenges posed by the massive influx of devotees on that particular day.

“I have myself stood for seven hours,” Justice Kumar said, indicating it was part of the devotional expression. The court said it would list the main appeal in December for final hearing.The petitioners had moved the apex court after the Kerala High Court had dismissed their pleas for a direction to the temple devaswom to ensure the conduct of the Udayasthamana pooja on Vrishchikam Ekadasi. In October last year, the apex court had passed a similar order allowing the conduct of the pooja on the Ekadasi day which fell in the month of November.

Mr. Hary had argued that the pooja was a sacred and integral part of the temple’s ritualistic tradition.

“Until 2023, the Udayasthamana pooja was invariably performed on Vrishchikam Ekadasi day, and it is only during the last two years, 2024 and 2025, that the respondents have attempted to alter this well-established religious practice. Such arbitrary decisions by the respondents strike at the very root of the traditional practices of the temple, which have been observed for several centuries. The Udayasthamana pooja on Vrishchikam Ekadasi is not merely symbolic but a series of nearly 15-18 poojas that are conducted from sunrise to sunset,” the petitioners had submitted.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana set aside elections in 50 wards – 28 in Patiala district and 22 in Moga.

The Supreme Court has ordered fresh elections in 50 municipal wards in Punjab after a fact-finding commission found "widespread obstruction during the nomination process" in the local body polls.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana set aside elections in 50 wards – 28 in Patiala district and 22 in Moga.

The top court passed the order after accepting the findings of a one-member commission headed by former High Court judge Nirmaljit Kaur.

The local body elections took place on December 21, 2024.

The commission was appointed on March 24, 2025, and it submitted its report on November 18, 2025.

"The principal finding of the Commission is of widespread obstruction during the nomination process, whereby nomination papers were snatched, torn or destroyed, and candidates were assaulted, detained or threatened.”

"We accept the recommendations and direct that fresh elections be conducted in the relevant 50 wards. The entire process of re-election shall be completed within six weeks," the Bench said in the September 28 order which was uploaded last night.

The apex court noted the submission of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Punjab government, that the State has no objection to the commission's recommendations.

The top court asked the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to nominate at least two or three senior members of the high court bar to act as 'Observers' in the re-election process.

"The filing, scrutiny/submission of nomination forms, allocation of symbols, polling, etc. shall be videographed in the presence of the said Observers. The recordings shall be duly preserved and handed over to the Monitoring Committee.

"The State of Punjab shall furnish to the Monitoring Committee, before the filing of nominations begins, a ward-wise list of the officers/officials deployed on election duty. Further, the list of police officers on duty in the rank of DSP and above shall also be furnished," the Bench said.

The apex court said that any complaint concerning interference with, or obstruction of, the re-election process by any person, including any official, may be made to the Monitoring Committee.

"The honorarium payable to the Monitoring Committee as well as the Observers shall be fixed by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

"The honorarium as well as the incidental expenses of the Monitoring Committee and the Observers shall be borne by the Government of Punjab, which shall also provide them with the necessary secretarial, transportation, logistical, and security support," the Bench said.

The Bench said a report be submitted to the Chief Justice of the High Court after completion of the entire re-election process.

"The re-election process shall be deemed to be completed only upon the Chief Justice of the High Court being satisfied, on the basis of the report submitted, that they were conducted in a free and fair manner," the Bench said.

Several candidates who were allegedly not allowed to file their nomination papers, or those who were aggrieved by the election of mayor and deputy mayor in Patiala municipal body, moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

On January 10, 2025, the High Court allowed the elections in the Patiala Municipal Corporation, saying the deferment in some wards would not be an impediment.

Aggrieved by the order, the candidates moved the apex court.

The top court directed Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, to file a detailed affidavit within three weeks setting out the arrangements made for the library

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) sought a detailed affidavit from the Union government on the proposed relocation of the 135-year-old Central Secretariat Library in Delhi, which houses over 8.5 lakh books, as part of the Central Vista redevelopment project. The court sought details of the space earmarked for the library, along with its layout plans.

The court’s suo motu intervention comes amid reports that the library, currently housed in the Shastri Bhawan complex, was directed on September 17 to vacate the premises by September 30 as part of the redevelopment project. The Central Public Works Department (CPWD) had asked the library, along with other offices in the complex, to remove all furniture and electronic equipment ahead of demolition and reconstruction work.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva directed Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, to file an affidavit within three weeks setting out the arrangements made for the library. It also stressed the need to preserve its valuable books, paper records, and archival material.

“It is a library that dates back to 1891, with writings from 1702. It’s fine to say we should cut down on paper, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take care of the valuable papers you already have. You are allotting two rooms in that Kartavya Bhavan, that’s it?”, the Bench remarked

The Bench also pointed out that the space provided for the library should accommodate its entire collection, including over two lakh books from its regional languages section that have remained packed in boxes at an office complex in R.K. Puram for nearly 15 years after being shifted there during the construction of the Delhi Metro.

Ms. Bhati apprised the Bench that an area of approximately 5,200 sq. ft., spread across two floors, was being planned for the library, as against its existing space of 4,144 sq. ft. She submitted that the instructions received from the government addressed the concerns raised by the court.

“We have taken instructions. Notice may not be necessary. A bigger space across two floors is being planned,” she submitted.

‘Give detailed plan’

The Bench, however, insisted that the Centre place its response on record through a proper affidavit giving an undertaking. It asked the law officer to furnish the complete layout plans, including details of the area that would actually be available for storing books after accounting for conference rooms and other amenities.

“Give a detailed plan... If you are having conference rooms and what not, [tell us] the actual storage areas for these books. You have to tell us if there is enough area. You have all these trappings there. The area for the actual book storage will go down drastically,” the Bench said.

Ms. Bhati agreed to file a detailed affidavit setting out the particulars of the space that would be allotted to the library, along with the complete layout plans. The court also appointed senior advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan as amicus curiae to assist in the matter and posted the case for further hearing on November 16.

Spread over four floors and nearly 5,500 sq. m. of Shastri Bhawan, the Central Secretariat Library houses more than 8.5 lakh books, including rare volumes, official records and gazetteers. Its collection is regularly accessed by government officials as well as students preparing for competitive examinations.

Established in 1891, the library was originally located in Calcutta and was known as the Imperial Secretariat Library. Following the decision in 1911 to shift the capital of British India to Delhi, it was relocated to the Old Secretariat Building in Civil Lines. It was later housed in North Block before being shifted to Shastri Bhawan in 1969.

Earlier, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs had sought to allay concerns that no space had been provided for the library under the redevelopment project. “Contrary to a few reports, it is clarified that space for the Central Secretariat Library has been provided for in the Kartavya Path redevelopment plan. The necessary process for construction of the library is underway,” the Ministry said in an October 1 post on social media platform X.

The Ministry, however, did not specify where the library would be housed under the redevelopment plan.

The development comes after senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, made an oral mentioning before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant that the 2003 resolution was withdrawn the following year

A seven-judge Constitution Bench may not commence hearing on October 6 questions touching upon whether legislative privilege can stifle free speech, arising out of a 2003 Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution to arrest editors of The Hindu for an editorial criticising then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.

The Bench may convene on Tuesday (October 6, 2026), as scheduled, for the sake of formality, but would not proceed to hear the reference on merits.

The development came after senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, made an oral mentioning before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant that the 2003 resolution was withdrawn the following year.

Mr. Ramachandran said the order of reference to the Constitution Bench does not reflect this particular fact about the withdrawal of the resolution.

“It is not noticed [in the court’s order of reference in August],” Mr. Ramachandran submitted.

‘Academic exercise’

He said the referral order does not quite either party having mentioned the withdrawalbof the resolution in 2004 by the Legislative Assembly.

He urged the Chief Justice to consider his preliminary objections against hearing the referral on the merits, saying it would only be an academic exercise.

Chief Justice Kant said the court did not want to get into a prolonged academic exercise, particularly when several other part-heard matters were pending.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for the petitioners, said the fact was indeed mentioned, but may not have been noticed.

Mr. Sibal said the Tamil Nadu issue specifically “may be dead”, but the larger question of legislative privilege versus free speech was very much alive and relevant.

Chief Justice Kant suggested the case could be kept formally open in the court, to be taken up when an occasion arises in future.

The case

The case travelled back to 2003 when The Hindu had published the editorial, prompting the Assembly Speaker at the time to pass a resolution in the House accusing the daily of having “distorted the proceedings of the Assembly, commented contrary to the events in the Assembly”.

The resolution had said the comments made in the editorial “amounts to breach of privilege of the entire House” under Article 194 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and immunities to Members of State legislatures. The Tamil Nadu State Assembly had passed a resolution to arrest the editorial staff of The Hindu.

Shortly after the resolution, the police raided The Hindu’s Chennai office, attempting to arrest its senior editors. In November 2003, N. Ravi, the then Editor of The Hindu, approached the Supreme Court.

When the case came up for hearing, senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the newspaper, had argued against the invocation of Article 194(3) to choke Press freedom enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The apex court had also examined the larger legal issue whether a critical speech or publication would constitute a breach of legislative privilege.

However, a Division Bench of Justices Y.K. Sabharwal and B.N. Krishna had, on December 8, 2003, referred the tussle between legislative privilege and free speech to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The Bench had noted that the petitions and intervening applications, by journalists and the Press Council of India, raised “substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Articles 194(3), 19 and the interplay between these two Articles and Article 21 of the Constitution”.

A year later, on December 8, 2004, the five-judge Bench heard Mr. Salve’s submission that the apex court had given contradictory opinions in a 1959 judgment in Pandit MSM Sharma versus Shri Krishna Sharma and a Presidential Reference of 1964 about the interplay between free speech and the scope of legislative privileges.

The five-judge Bench had further referred the case to a seven-judge Bench for an authoritative settlement of the law. Mr. Salve had submitted that the legal issue had wide ramifications and would crop up again in the future. He had argued that legislative privilege was to be used as a shield to protect speech of Members on the floor of the House from legal action, Article 194 was not meant to be wielded as a sword.

The next order in the case was passed 19 years later, on October 12, 2023, when the Union government was impleaded as a party by a seven-judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud in which the current CJI, Justice Kant, was a member. The Attorney General of India was requested to assist the apex court in the case. The petitions came up again on February 2, 2024 to hear a procedural application for change of advocate-on-record.

The case had come up before Chief Justice Kant, on August 12, 2026, after a hiatus of over two years.

"The batch is divided into two parts, one is the northeast Delhi riots, and another is for Jamia Millia riots," the bench said while pronouncing the verdict

The Delhi High Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) dismissed a batch of petitions seeking a SIT probe into the 2020 riots in the national capital and the 2019 violence that broke out in Jamia Millia Islamia following anti-CAA protests.

A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain said, "For the reasons mentioned in the judgment, all the petitions are dismissed".

"The batch is divided into two parts, one is the northeast Delhi riots, and another is for Jamia Millia riots," the bench said while pronouncing the verdict.

A detailed judgment is awaited.

The court had reserved its verdict on the batch of petitions on July 24.

In the northeast Delhi riots matter, the court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking directions for setting up a special investigation team (SIT), commission of inquiry or a fact-finding committee, for medical treatment, grant of compensation and registration of FIRs against the erring police officers.

Some of the pleas also demanded that political leaders be booked for alleged hate speech, and the formation of a SIT to probe the violence and FIRs against police officers.

A communal clash broke out in northeast Delhi on February 24, 2020, amid citizenship law protests, leaving at least 53 people dead and around 700 injured.

The other petitions were related to the violence that broke out in Jamia Millia Islamia following anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests in December 2019.

The petitioners have claimed that there was a need for an SIT that was independent of the police and the central government to probe the alleged brutalities committed on the students by the police force.