CJI’s ‘Cockroach’ Remarks and the Need for Judicial Restraint
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recently made remarks reportedly comparing social media critics and people who “attack the system” to “parasites of society,” and unemployed young people to “cockroaches” who become activists, media figures, or online critics and “attack everyone.” Though he later said he was misquoted, the language used by holders of the country’s highest constitutional office carries obligations different from ordinary political speech.
Judge With Civil Rights Record Shifted to Lower Rank After Govt Request
The Supreme Court collegium has reportedly altered its earlier recommendation on the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan, a senior High Court judge known for pro-civil rights rulings, following a request from the Union government. This suggests that the judiciary’s internal decisions remain vulnerable to executive pressure, and the collegium has willingly accommodated that pressure rather than defending its own independence.
3 in 4 Prisoners in India are Undertrials, Mostly Poor and Marginalised
Over 500,000 people are currently locked up in Indian prisons. Nearly three-fourths of them are undertrials, people who have not been convicted of any crime, as noted by IndiaSpend. Most are poor, young and come from historically disadvantaged castes. The question is not how many, but why they are still there, and who keeps them there.
Supreme Court to Review UAPA Bail Denials in Delhi Riots Case
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether several individuals accused in the 2020 Delhi riots “conspiracy” case, including Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, who have been in jail for over three years, should be granted bail. The Court will examine how the right to liberty should be upheld in the face of serious criminal allegations, especially under laws like the UAPA that impose strict limits on bail.
Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 Partially Stayed by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked certain parts of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, a law that governs how Muslim religious and charitable properties are managed in India. The Court’s interim order, delivered on Sept. 14, comes in response to widespread legal challenges from political leaders and Muslim organisations. The judges noted that it is rare for courts to pause the implementation of a law passed by Parliament, and such action is taken only when there is a strong legal basis.
Supreme Court Order Shows No Verdict Carrying Death Sentence Can Be Final
The Supreme Court has ordered a fresh hearing on the punishment imposed on a man convicted for the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl, setting aside its 2017 judgment that upheld the death penalty. It sets a much-needed precedent where the top court will be willing to review irreversible penalties in light of evolving legal safeguards and human rights obligations.
ED Summons Lawyers for Giving Legal Advice to Accused
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) recently summoned two senior advocates over legal opinions given to a client under investigation, then withdrew the summons following widespread criticism from legal bodies across India for violating attorney-client privilege and undermining the independence of the legal profession. The move also suggests that once the ED opens an investigation, legal advice given to the accused itself becomes grounds for suspicion.
Supreme Court Pushes Centre to Defend Waqf Amendment
During the Supreme Court’s hearing on the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna posed pointed questions to both the government and the petitioners. The Act, which came into force recently, has been challenged by several petitioners who argue that it infringes on religious freedoms and the administrative autonomy of the Muslim community.
Supreme Court Sets Timelines for Governors, President on State Bills
The Supreme Court has ruled that governors and the President must adhere to specific timelines when deciding on state bills, affirming its power of judicial review to prevent political obstruction in legislative processes.
UP Govt Ordered to Compensate for Illegal Home Demolitions
The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government and the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay 1 million (10 lakh) rupees in compensation to six individuals whose homes were unlawfully demolished in 2021. The court condemned the demolitions as a violation of constitutional rights and ordered the payment to be made within six weeks.
Court Affirms Right to Express Views, Even If Controversial
The Supreme Court has observed that protecting freedom of speech and expression, even when what is said is unpopular or disliked, is essential and must be respected in a healthy democracy. The observation came in a case involving Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, who was accused of promoting enmity through a poem shared in a social media post.
Does the Law See Sexual Assault on a Child as Attempted Rape?
The Supreme Court has decided to take up a case on its own – called a “suo motu” action – to review a controversial ruling made by the Allahabad High Court, that actions such as grabbing a child’s breasts, breaking the string of her clothes and trying to drag her to a secluded spot do not qualify as either rape or an attempt to commit rape.
Supreme Court Calls Govt’s House Demolitions in Uttar Pradesh ‘Shocking’
On March 24, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh government for the demolition of houses in Prayagraj, describing the act as shocking and deeply troubling.
Delhi High Court Judge Denies Allegations of Cash Recovery
Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court has strongly denied allegations that large amounts of burnt cash were discovered in a storeroom at his official residence following a fire on the night of March 14.
Judge Cash Row: Probe Ordered Against Delhi High Court Justice Varma
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has ordered a formal inquiry into the alleged discovery of a large amount of cash at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court—a matter that has raised serious questions about judicial integrity.
Judge Calls for Greater Representation for Women in Legal Profession
At a recent seminar, Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna drew attention to the lack of adequate representation of women in the legal profession, judiciary and political leadership roles in India. She also called for ensuring at least 30 percent reservation for women advocates in legal panels representing state and central governments, as well as in the panels advising public sector units.
Court Tells Gujarat Police to Learn What Free Speech Is
The Supreme Court told the Gujarat Police to respect freedom of speech and expression, especially 75 years after the Constitution came into force. The police had registered a case against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, accusing him of posting content that allegedly incited unrest. The Court made this remark while reserving its verdict on Pratapgarhi’s petition seeking to quash the case.
Court Says Social Media Users Must Be Heard Before Blocking Posts
The Supreme Court has sought a response from the central government regarding a petition challenging the practice of taking down social media posts without prior notice or a fair hearing for the content creator. The petition, filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), argues that this practice violates principles of natural justice and the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Allows Judicial Review of Legislative Punishments
The Supreme Court has ruled that laws and major decisions made by a legislature can be challenged and reviewed by the judiciary, explaining that judicial immunity applies only to how lawmakers conduct internal debates or voting procedures, even if there are claims of procedural mistakes.
Supreme Court: Police Must Inform Accused of Arrest Reasons
The Supreme Court on Feb. 7 mandated that police must immediately inform the accused of the grounds for their arrest. The Court stated that failing to do so violates fundamental rights and invalidates the arrest.