Sonam Raghuvanshi case: Supreme Court to shortly hear State’s plea challenging Sonam’s bail by the Meghalaya High Court.

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar

#SonamRaghuvanshi #SupremeCourt Sonam is accused for the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon last year. She was granted bail by a trial court, which was upheld by the High Court.

Read here: barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

#Breaking

Delhi High Court orders the government's Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to take a decision within 15 days on removing a YouTube video by Dhruv Rathee in which he allegedly said that Ram, Seeta and Krishna, consumed meat and alcohol.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma says any disregard of court's order will be taken seriously.

@dhruv_rathee @SachdevaAmita The Court passed the order after advocate Amita Sachdeva filed a plea in the High Court. Sachdeva took offence to a video uploaded by Rathee on YouTube on March 21, 2026, titled 'Can Hindus Eat BEEF? | Kerala Story 2 EXPOSED'.

Supreme Court to hear plea filed by the State of Meghalaya challenging a Meghalaya High Court order that upheld bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in the state #SupremeCourt SG Tushar Mehta: This is shocking. Shocking.

Delhi High Court will shortly hear a defamation case filed by journalist Anjana Om Kashyap against Khan Sir and several others for calling her and Aaj Tak “bikau patrakar,” “chatukar,” “dalli,” and accusing them of engaging in “dalaali” and operating a “fake news ki dukaan.”

@anjanaomkashyap #KhanSir Justice Tushar Rao Gedela to hear the matter.

[Arvind Malhotra vs High court of Himachal Pradesh]

Sr Adv Balbir Singh: My reply on 25.9.2025 was made and the recommendation was made on 23.9.2025. Collegium recommendation says two vacancies were there for promotee judges . 2 juniors were recommeded. I was interacted with on 19.9 and recommendation on 23.9 without having my reply.

Justice BV Nagarathna: These are matters where on judicial side we cannot say disclose this and disclose that. Merely because you are a senior does not mean you will be recommeded. Once collegium discusses, we cannot intervene. There is secrecg involved also... There is no rejection of your candidature. We don't know what does your recommendation say. It is about subjectice satisfaction of HC collegium ..can supreme court on judicial side ask them look into this and look into that. If this happens then where are we heading ?

Justice Joymalya Bagchi: We would have understood if HC collegium went against sc order etc. but this decision of HC has gone further and has been accepted by the supreme court. Justice Nagarathna: We cannot ask the collegium of HC to disclose any reasons etc.

Singh: But after my representation the supreme court had asked the HC to reconsider the petitioner

Justice Nagarathna: How can you say reconsideration is not done?

Justice Bagchi: Screening committee gives it to the recommendation body. Now you cannot challenge screening committee order.

Justice Nagarathna: There is no cause of action. In Karnataka, for 3 vacancies, 9 are called.. 3 are selected. So others cannot adopt this mode and manner..

Supreme Court hears the plea concerning lack of ladies bar rooms across court buildings in India

CJI Surya Kant: I have constituted an All India Judicial Infrastructure committee.

Adv: In Mathura, the ladies bar room is locked. Same situation is in Ghaziabad. 60 percent of courts should have ladies bar room immediately.

CJI: the young lawyer corpus funds is also important. CJI: the issues raised here touch upon larger questions of inclusiveness and long term sustainability of women lawyers in the legal profession. The petitioners have cited lack of ladies bar rooms and other facilities across High court , district court and other court buildings.

Delhi High Court to shortly pronounce its judgment in a plea filed by Telegram challenging the ban on the platform till June 22 in view of the NEET exams.

Justice Tejas Karia to pass orders at 10:30 AM.

#Telegram @telegram @durov The Court had reserved its verdict yesterday after hearing arguments from Telegram's lawyer, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Central government.

Read the detailed story here:

barandbench.com/news/how-can-w…

[Sabarimala gold theft case] Kerala High Court today recorded that the SIT has gathered “substantial and convincing materials” indicating the involvement of the accused in transactions relating to the removal and gold-plating of the Dwarapalaka idols in 2025. Division Bench of  Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice KV Jayakumar were informed by the SIT today that the investigation has reached its final stages.

Delhi High Court to hear today Telegram's challenge to the government order banning the platform till the NEET UG exams.

Justice Tejas Karia to hear the matter at 2:30 PM.
@telegram @durov @GoI_MeitY On June 17, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had asked for time to file a reply to Telegram's plea.

Mehta had said there were shocking activities on the platform and that despite repeated communication, Telegram failed to act.

Telegram opposed the argument and said it acted proactively to take down the content.

#BREAKING Sheetal Thakur vs Dhiraj Abraham

Supreme Court says Family Courts should ordinarily assess parents first and decide whether psychological evaluation of a child is necessary before directing such evaluation; lays down safeguards against unnecessary psychological assessment of children in custody and visitation disputes. Justice N Kotiswar Singh:

• Family Courts must first appoint a psychologist to assess the psychological condition of both parents, particularly the parent having present custody of the child, before deciding whether any psychological assessment of the child is required.

• No psychological assessment of the child should be conducted if the Family Court, based on the psychologist's report, finds such assessment unnecessary or undesirable.

• If an assessment of the child is required, it must be carried out by an independent child psychologist in consultation with the psychologist already treating the child, with minimum interaction so as not to disturb the child's mental condition.

• Family Courts must remain conscious that a child's psychological needs change with age and may require periodic review and assessment.

• Courts must examine concerns relating to parental alienation syndrome and false memory creation against the other parent, while ensuring the child is not exposed to influences that may foster such tendencies.

"Delhi will choke. God save us all if this is how you want Delhi to live."

Delhi High Court makes strong remarks over the Central government's plans to take over properties in the Lutyen's Delhi area, including the Delhi Gymkhana Club and the Polo Ground.

#DelhiGymkhanaClub Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the remarks while hearing a plea filed by the Indian Polo Association over the government's eviction notice.

#Breaking
“It’s not a small matter and not a standalone case.”

Delhi High Court orders removal of videos on social media platforms calling a sitting High Court judge "murderer" and blaming him for the death of 6 people in a building collapse in Saket on May 30.

Court passed the order after Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) filed a criminal contempt petition.

#Contempt #CriminalContempt The videos were uploaded by a person named Dr Kapil Kakar, who claims to be a psychologist and social activist.

He is also stated to be the maker of a series called 'Black Justice'.

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.