Ceremonial bench to commence shortly on the last working day of Justices JK Maheshwari and Pankaj Mithal
#SupremeCourt CJI: this is like a ceremonial constitution bench. (Smiles)

AG R Venkataramani: Most judges are regarded for compassion and creativity....the two judges are no exception.

NEET UG Paper Leak: Supreme Court to shortly hear pleas by various stakeholders seeking measures ranging from replacing the NTA to shifting NEET entirely to a computer-based format

Bench: Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

#NEET2026 SG Tushar Mehta: as directed, we have filed an affidavit. It’s filed by Dr. Radhakrishnan. He headed the commitee. The recommendations, suggestions etc. were to be implemented this year.

Court: we want to ask, you originally were part of the expert commitee, how much of monitoring has happened about the implementation? How did this failure occur? Despite your monitoring on the basis of HPC recommendation, if this incident has happened, then there would be a problem with the recommendation. Or the monitoring may not have happened.

Radhakrishnan: we had recommended 60 suggestions. In the first 60, mostly they have been implemented. A few are still in the process. In 2025 NEET UG was conducted satisfactorily. There were incidents of power failures in some centres, otherwise the recommendations were implemented and it worked.

[Regarding persistent delay in pronouncement of judgments by several high courts]

CJI Surya Kant: Amicus had filed four volume reports before this court compiling High Court wise data before us. All suggestions from HCs were also compiled for uniform judicial guidelines. We are of the view that this is a fit case under Article 142 for our intervention to pass uniform guidelines. #BREAKING CJI: 1. A matter where judgment is reserved, judgment to be pronounced within 3 months of reserving. Faster decisions in matters of personal liberty etc.

2. Bail application orders ideally within next day and if reserved then decision next day

3. Bail orders to be communicated to jail authorities

4. Undertrial to be released same day of bail or maximum the next day.

5. The trial court to inform HC of compliance.

[SIR JUDGMENT SUMMARISED]
Thread 👇

Supreme Court recognises Election Commission’s power to conduct Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act, while upholding the Bihar SIR.

The Court says EC can undertake a limited electoral inquiry into citizenship, but cannot finally determine citizenship. Deleted persons must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act #SIR #supremecourt @ECISVEEP Judgment in a nutshell👇

• Supreme Court holds that the Election Commission has power to conduct Special Intensive Revision under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act.

• The ruling arises from the Bihar SIR, but the legal principle laid down concerns the EC’s broader power to undertake SIR exercises.

• Court says SIR is a special statutory mechanism distinct from ordinary revision under Section 21(2) and Rule 25.

• Bench holds that free and fair elections depend on the integrity, accuracy and credibility of electoral rolls.

• Court finds the Bihar SIR was backed by legitimate constitutional purpose and was not merely an administrative exercise.

• SC holds that the SIR framework satisfies proportionality, given the safeguards of notice, hearing, objections, speaking orders and appeal.

• Court says inclusion in electoral rolls creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, not an absolute bar on verification.

• EC can examine citizenship only for deciding inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls, not to finally declare citizenship status.

• Deletion on citizenship doubts does not mean the person is declared a non citizen. Final adjudication lies with authorities under the Citizenship Act.

• EC must refer persons deleted from the 2003 Bihar roll on citizenship grounds to the competent authority within four weeks.

Supreme Court to resume hearing today pleas challenging the 2023 law that replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister on the panel appointing Election Commissioners.

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma The matter is adjourned. Tentatively posted on 30th July.

#SupremeCourt to pronounce today its verdict on the batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, a case that has triggered one of the most consequential constitutional debates on voting rights, citizenship verification and electoral integrity in recent years #SIR @ECISVEEP @_YogendraYadav @adrspeaks The challenge before the Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raises critical questions on the EC’s powers under Article 326, the Representation of the People Act and whether the revision exercise risked large-scale disenfranchisement ahead of elections #SIR

Supreme Court is hearing the plea filed by the Management Committee of Thakur Shri Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s move to take over the administration of the famed Vrindavan temple through a statutory trust framework.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan is leading arguments for the temple management Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Banke Bihari temple Goswamis, tells Supreme Court that the current Goswami representatives in the High Powered Committee do not enjoy the confidence of the larger Goswami community.

Divan says 197 Goswamis from the Sayanthok and 46 from the Rajbhog gave consent through a Google form endorsing the representatives elected in the June 13, 2025 General Body meeting.

“There is a communication gap between the committee and the Goswami members,” Divan submits, adding that traditional rituals followed “for centuries” are not being adequately conveyed before decisions are taken.

He urges the Court to either accept the four representatives proposed by the Goswamis or conduct fresh elections. Alternatively, he suggests expanding the Goswami representation in the committee by adding three more members.

Divan also opposes changes made to temple darshan timings by the committee’s September 19, 2025 order, saying rituals and timings followed “since time immemorial” should not be disturbed.

[Ajay Kumar Shyamkishor vs Registrar General]

Supreme Court hears plea challenging minimum viva voce cut-off in judicial service recruitment

Adv Prashant Bhushan: The number of people finally selected are often only one-fourth or one-fifth of the total candidates. One of the major reasons for candidates not being selected is that they fail to meet the cut-off. Sometimes they fail the written examination cut-off, but very often they fail the interview cut-off. In this case, the petitioner secured very high marks in the written examination. In fact, one of them secured the third highest marks in the written exam and was awarded 18 out of 50 in the interview. The minimum qualifying mark was 20. That is why, My Lords, we are before this Court.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi: what we are saying is that in panel interviews, the panelists are not aware of the written marks obtained by the candidates.

Bhushan: It may not be a ground, I am not saying that. But they are aware that the interview has a minimum cut-off. Suppose out of 100 marks, unless a candidate is awarded 40 marks, that candidate cannot be selected. The panelists know that.... this is a larger issue which perhaps this Court now needs to revisit. Unfortunately, there are several decisions of different Benches. Some judgments say minimum cut-off marks in interviews cannot be prescribed. Others say they can be prescribed.

There are also judgments following the Kothari Commission recommendations which state that interview marks should ordinarily be restricted to 12.5 percent. Cases like Ashok Yadav deal with this aspect. Here, the interview component itself is 20 percent, and within that 20 percent, the qualifying threshold is 40 percent.

There are also recommendations that where written examination marks are higher, the interview component should be kept lower, around 12 percent. But in judicial service examinations, candidates are appearing after a minimum of seven years of practice. Therefore, the larger question is whether there should at all be a minimum cut-off for interviews. SC: It is not that we are unwilling to examine the issue. But a larger judicial services matter is already pending before a three judges bench. There are issues relating to judicial service recruitment already pending consideration. You may assist the Court by collating comparative information and preparing a chart regarding practices followed across different States.

Bhushan: At least one argument can always be made that States have their own services and therefore some degree of variation may exist. However, in at least three cases, this Court has observed that where only one-fourth of the vacancies are ultimately filled, that itself demonstrates a problem with the selection process.

CJI: In some of the HC we came to know on administrative side.. suppose a person from north qualified and appears in the southern court.. and then sometimes they are marked low due to language barrier. But your case is not that.

Supreme Court to hear the suo motu case focussing on alleged bias and irregularities in the probe into Twisha Sharma's death #TwishaSharma #SupremeCourt CJI Kant: We are slightly pained. We request media not take statements of friends or relatives etc. the mother in law is a former district judge and it is unfortunate that it is being said judiciary is detailing the trial..

Sr Adv Siddharth Dave: I appear for the accused. My section 161 statement is in newspaper today

CJi: We are against the narrative that is being created. That is why learned CBI should take it over. We beleive the state police and judiciary

SG Mehta: This former judge has been giving interviews in some or other channel maligning the deceased. We requested her so many times to record her statement she does not want to do it. We were okay to go to her place also. But she is not cooperating.

[ED vs. Mamata Banerjee]

Supreme Court to resume hearing today ED’s writ petition against former West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and other State officials for their alleged interference in its probe and searches at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and its co-founder Pratik Jain.

@MamataOfficial The hearing is adjourned.

Court: we will hear it after partial working days.

Book launch: “The Constitution is my home” by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising.

CJI Surya Kant and Justice BV Nagarathna to shortly address the event. Sr. Adv. Indira Jaising: CJI told me that has has been called out by the Prime Minister in relation to the BRICS judicial forum meeting.

Supreme Court hears pleas on formulating nationwide safety norms and uniform admission guidelines for ICUs and critical care units across India.

Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan The court had recently directed States and Union Territories to prepare time-bound action plans to implement guidelines on minimum standards for ICUs.

Read👇

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

Stray dogs case: Supreme Court to shortly pronounce verdict in its suo motu case to manage stray dog population across the country.

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria The Court had reserved its verdict on January 29 after hearing the final leg of submissions made by various States, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).

Read 👇

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

BCI Chairman, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra requests CJI led bench to constitute another
High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee similar to the one headed by former Supreme Court Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to oversee bar council election disputes
#SupremeCourt Sr Adv Kumud Lata Das: Let BCI not be a member of this committee.

Mishra: this is very very bad

Das: Don't raise your voice against me. You only want to make the women members subservient to you. Please don't shout at me. You are virtually a permanent chairman..from 2010 to 2026 you are the only one who can become the BCI Chairman

Mishra: these are absurd allegations.

Supreme Court today to pronounce judgment in a narco-terror case from J&K, where the accused has spent nearly five years in custody despite no contraband being recovered directly from him
#SupremeCourt Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: this case raises an important question concerning the interface between Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. More particularly, the issue concerns the propriety of smaller benches progressively hollowing out the constitutional force of a larger bench decision without ever expressly disagreeing with it.

Then, after narrating the facts and the submissions, and also referring to two judgments in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and gumfisha Fatima v. State, we have said in para 26:

There are two judgments of this Court which we need to deal with before proceeding ahead. These two judgments, Gurwinder Singh and gulfisha Fatima, have taken a somewhat divergent view from the clear, distinctive trajectory taken by this Court for grant of bail even under special enactments like TADA, UAPA, and NDPS.

Supreme Court hears the Kuldeep Singh Sengar case

SG Tushar Mehta: CBI appeal is listed before the Delhi High Court

Sr Adv N Hariharan: I am in the position to show that the prosecutrix is not a minor. The AIIMS board says she was not a minor. All reports are in his favour still he is in jail.

SG: The main conviction is under 376(1) IPC for remainder of his life

CJI: Prayer was only to suspend the sentence. There are issues which require consideration. SG: it has to be seen whether MLA is a public servant for the POCSO

Justice Bagchi: we do not endorse the hyper technical conclusion of the high court. This is a penal legislation which protects children from sexual exploitation.. section 21 of IPC and prevention of corruption of act..

SG: MLA is in a dominant position.

CJI: HC has suspended the sentence. We have stayed by it. Now there is suspense whether order is illegal, erroneous etc. Now in this area..HC will be reluctant to hear the main appeal.

Supreme Court to resume hearing today petitions challenging a 2023 law which excluded the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel to appoint the CEC and other election commissioners.

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma Retd. IAS SN Shukla argues on behalf of Lok Prahari: we have challenged not only section 6,7,8 and also the appointments made there under. The basis is not just the judgement in Anoop Baranwal but proven legal infirmities based on governments own records that I have obtained through RTI.

Supreme Court remarks on women empowerment and patriarchal mindset in a divorce case between an Army officer (husband) and a dentist (wife) - Thread 🧵

The couple was granted divorce by the family court and the high court on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife for starting her own dental clinic away from Kargil, where her husband was posted.

The wife approached the Supreme Court not disputing the divorce, but seeking expungement of findings on cruelty and desertion.

Court: In the present world, where women are making strides in leaps and bounds, merely because the husband was an Army Officer posted in a remote location, the expectation that the wife could not even think of pursuing her career in Dentistry, is indicative of regressive and feudalistic mindset. Court: It must be emphasised that a well-educated and professionally qualified woman cannot be expected to be confined within the rigid boundaries of matrimonial obligations alone. Marriage does not eclipse her individuality, nor does it subjugate her identity under that of her spouse.

Court: The expectation that a woman must invariably sacrifice her career and conform to traditional notions of an obedient wife meant for cohabitation, irrespective of her own aspirations or the welfare of the child, reflects a line of reasoning that is archaic, ultra-conservative, and cannot be countenanced.

Punjab minister Sanjeev Arora has approached Punjab and Haryana High Court against his arrest by ED in money laundering case.

A Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry is hearing the matter. It is absolutely illegal. It is absolute case of political vendetta: Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, representing Arora, submits.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta’s two books — “The Bench, the Bar and the Bizarre” and “The Lawful and the Awful” — will be launched shortly

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant will preside over the event. Union Home Minister Amit Shah will attend as Chief Guest, while Attorney General for India R Venkataramani will be the Guest of Honour @AmitShahOffice #TusharMehta @Rupa_Books #SupremeCourt SG Mehta's book launched by Union Home Minister Amit Shah , CJI Kant and AG R Venkataramani

During mentioning, lawyer tells Calcutta HC his client's name has been excluded from voter list after SIR.

Judge: I cannot list all matters in a single day, sir ... Please wait. Come on 9th

Lawyer: He is a cancer patient.

Judge: Cancer patient? What will happen to the SIR? Is there any relation between SIR and the cancer patient? Court later takes up another petition challenging another person's exclusion after SIR.

Lawyer: Despite having birth certificate, my school certificate, appointment letter, they have deleted my name.

Judge: What is your prayer?