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.

The petition sought judicial directions from the apex court to the police to allow peaceful protests.

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) indicates that it will list a petition alleging that the Delhi Police is not allowing peaceful protests and marches to Jantar Mantar in the national capital following allegations of misconduct by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and seeking his removal.

Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, a counsel orally mentioned a petition against the capital’s police.

“The Delhi Police is not allowing students, ordinary citizens, party leaders, MLAs and MPs to peacefully protest,” the counsel submitted.

The petition sought judicial directions from the apex court to the police to allow peaceful protests.

He said the right to peaceful protest was recognised in the Constitution, endorsed by the court, as a fundamental right under Article 19.

“We will list the petition, and then you can argue,” Chief Justice Kant said.

The Court permitted 11 club members to move the Delhi High Court, after the High Court had earlier refused their plea on the ground that only the club could challenge the Centre’s decision

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) asked the Delhi High Court to consider a plea by 11 members of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, who had challenged the Centre's decision to take over the club's 27.3-acre premises and the subsequent eviction proceedings.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was told by senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the members, that the Delhi High Court had refused to entertain their plea on the ground that only the club could challenge the Centre's decision. Mr. Singh said the High Court had asked the members to get a clarification from the Supreme Court that they could also move the plea there.

The Court permitted them to move the High Court, subject to objections that may be raised by the other side regarding maintainability and other legal oppositions.

Mr. Singh, appearing for the 11 members, had earlier told the Bench that a Central government-nominated committee was presently managing the club, and that it could not fight a legal battle with the government.

On September 3, 2026, the Centre, in a separate case, told the Delhi High Court that it would not take any coercive action until September 16, 2026, against the club in relation to its eviction from the premises on Safdarjung Road.

The High Court was hearing pleas by club member Vijay Khurana and others, seeking a stay on the June 29, 2026, show-cause notice for eviction issued to the club's management by an estate officer of the Land and Development Office (L&DO).

Vipin Aggarwal and ten other club members, in their petition filed through lawyer Nitin Saluja, sought the quashing of the resumption notification issued by the L&DO on May 22, 2026, and the show-cause notice issued by the estate officer on June 29, 2026.

Litigant’s counsel chose to withdraw the plea after Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan said that it had been filed casually and for publicity without any research

The Madras High Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) dismissed as withdrawn a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by a lawyer, seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu government to abandon its plan to construct a new Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex on 25.55 acres of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) land at Pattinapakkam (Foreshore Estate) in Chennai.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan permitted the petitioner, R.S. Tamilvendan of Chennai, to withdraw the case without granting any kind of liberty. The litigant took the call after the judges said that the case had been filed “casually” and “for publicity” with no research on the matter and without raising valid grounds.

What did the Bench say?

During the course of the hearing, the Chief Justice asked: “How can you say that it is wastage of public money? It is for the government to construct [the Secretariat] wherever it wants. Please tell us, what is the power of the court to direct the government to construct a particular building at this place or that place? Where is that power? There may be hundreds of reasons, but where is the power?”

Justice Murugan said: “You have filed a public interest litigation petition to stall a project. See your affidavit. It runs for just two pages and has only two relevant paragraphs. You should have done some research, collected proper materials, and explained to the court why you are challenging the government’s decision; only then can this court consider your plea. Here, there are just two paragraphs.”

The Division Bench also recalled that it was not the first time that a case had been filed in the High Court challenging the government’s decision to shift the Legislative Assembly and Secretariat to a new location. They pointed out that the High Court had dismissed a similar case filed about a decade ago on the ground that courts could not interfere with the government’s policy decisions.

Even the Supreme Court had categorically held the same. “Therefore, we are asking the very first question as to from where do we get the power to issue a writ of mandamus to the government to abandon its plan?” the Chief Justice asked the petitioner’s counsel and said, the petitioner would have known about the previous decisions had he done some research.

“You have not even made an attempt to do any research. When you come up with a public interest litigation petition, is it not your duty to work on all this?” Justice Murugan asked. The Chief Justice said: “In fact, such cases require the imposition of costs. You just want publicity, that’s all.” However, the Bench refrained from imposing costs, since the petitioner’s counsel chose to withdraw the case.

Justice A. Badharudeen orally states that there was a larger conspiracy in the alleged irregularities in the evaluation process of the examination conducted to appoint Chief (Industry and Infrastructure Division), in the Kerala State Planning Board

The Kerala High Court has orally enquired why the Kerala Public Service Commission was not cooperating with the investigation into the alleged irregularities in the Planning Board examination, on Monday.  Justice A. Badharudeen orally stated that there was a larger conspiracy in the alleged irregularities in the evaluation process of the examination conducted to appoint Chief (Industry and Infrastructure Division), in the Kerala State Planning Board. The court remarked that not evaluating questions worth 58 marks, by itself, was a violation of the law, and that it was a very serious allegation. 

The Commission had filed a writ petition seeking to quash the government’s sanction to prosecute its employees and the FIR registered by the Crime Branch in connection with the alleged irregularities.

The court, considering the maintainability of the petition, asked why the Commission did not give its statement to the Crime Branch if it had a case. The Commission contended before the court that questions numbered 9 to 18 were not forwarded to the examiners for any of the 228 candidates who participated in the exam, and that the issue was only a computer snag. The court orally observed that “the hopes of the young generation should be protected”, and that recruitment through the Commission must be free from any “influence or manipulation”.

The Commission, in its petition, had stated that it had taken measures to rectify the identified errors in the rank list and the evaluation process. It said the Economics questions had not been assigned to the appropriate evaluators, resulting in their non-evaluation. The Commission also maintained that its members were unconnected with the affairs of the State, and that as an autonomous, constitutional body, it was not under the control of the State government.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan accepts a request made by senior counsel Srinath Sridevan to hear the four applications one after the other

The Madras High Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) commenced hearing arguments on an application filed by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay to reject an election petition filed by a voter, S. Dinesh, challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency this year.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan is seized of three election petitions, including the one filed by another voter, T.N. Lakshmi Narasimhan, and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s losing candidate R.D. Shekar, filed against the Chief Minister’s victory in Perambur by a margin of 53,715 votes.

Apart from these three, one more election petition had been filed by DMK candidate S. Inigo Irudayaraj, challenging Mr. Vijay’s victory from the Tiruchi East Assembly constituency, which he had vacated after contesting and winning from both constituencies.

The judge accepted a request made by senior counsel Srinath Sridevan, representing the Chief Minister, to hear the arguments one after another on the applications filed for rejecting each of the four election petitions, as there were certain differences in each case despite overlapping pleadings.

He began hearing the plea to reject Mr. Dinesh’s election petition – filed through the latter’s counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan – first, and decided to take up the application to reject Mr. Narasimhan’s election petition thereafter, since they got numbered one after another.

Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, assisted by Pranjal Agarwal and Dixita Gohil, commenced his arguments to reject the first election petition and contended that there was no basis for the allegation of the Chief Minister not having made full and proper disclosure of his assets and liabilities.

He took the court through the evolution of the legal requirement of candidates disclosing their assets, beginning from the 170th Law Commission report submitted in 1999, which recommended such a measure for the first time and also a catena of judgments that were delivered on the issue thereafter.

However, since Mr. Sankaranarayanan could not conclude his arguments on Monday and sought time to continue his submissions some other day, the judge decided to hear him on Tuesday as well, before granting an opportunity to the election petitioner’s counsel Mr. Shanmuganathan to respond.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran said every woman in Delhi-NCR should feel safe even at 11 p.m., while hearing a suo motu case on recent rape cases in the region

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) said there was a need to create fear in the minds of goons committing crimes against women, while noting there was a feeling that women were not safe in the city, particularly in some vulnerable pockets.

The Court made the remarks while hearing a suo motu case over recent rape cases in Delhi-NCR. “We have to work together. We must ensure that every woman in Delhi-NCR should feel safe even at 11 p.m., whether travelling on the roads or the metro,” a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran said.

“What is important is to prevent a crime, not what you do after a crime is committed,” the Bench said, adding that the police needed to create fear in the minds of goons and anti-social elements prone to committing such crimes.

The Bench, which was hearing the suo motu case titled ‘In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR’, observed that “rape is something which is not at all acceptable to any society.”

The Court had, on September 28, 2026, taken suo motu cognisance of news reports about crimes against minor girls and women across Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR), observing that such cases underlined a systemic failure on the part of law enforcement authorities.

The Court took cognisance of the alleged gang rape of a 17-year-old girl at Aastha Kunj Park in Delhi, the gang rape and murder of a teenage girl in the Swaroop Nagar area of Delhi, and the sexual assault of a minor girl inside a moving sleeper bus, which law enforcement agencies failed to intercept while it travelled more than 47 km from Greater Noida to Delhi.

Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a woman’s challenge to a lower court order that had declined to proceed against her father-in-law over allegations of domestic violence

The Delhi High Court has held that a father-in-law cannot be held responsible under the Domestic Violence Act merely for failing to intervene in the conduct of his adult son.

Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a woman’s challenge to a lower court order that had declined to proceed against her father-in-law over allegations of domestic violence.

The woman had alleged that her father-in-law failed to take action against her estranged husband over his alleged involvement with another woman.

Examining the scope of Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, the High Court noted that the provision covers conduct causing or threatening physical or mental harm, including verbal, emotional and economic abuse. However, the Court stressed that the mere existence of a domestic relationship does not, by itself, attract the provisions of the Act.

Since the father-in-law had not participated in the alleged matrimonial misconduct, the Court said he could not be held liable simply because he had not exercised control over his adult son.

“A father cannot be made liable under the DV Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son,” the Court observed. in its August 19 order.

The Colombo Chief Magistrate cited a lack of evidence in a case where Opposition leader Namal Rajapaksa is already in remand custody over an alleged 2013 bribe linked to a stalled hotel project

A Sri Lankan court has refused to issue arrest warrants for two Indian directors of a company, in connection with an alleged bribery case for which Opposition leader Namal Rajapaksa is in remand custody.

Prosecutors from the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) had sought the arrest of Amit Katyal and Rajendra Prasad Gupta, directors at an Indian investment project, Krish Hotels.

The Colombo Chief Magistrate, on Friday (October 2, 2026), refused to issue the arrest warrants, citing a lack of evidence, and asked the CIABOC to file a report in court covering evidence for the warrants' issuance.

Janaki Siriwardena, the local agent of the Indian investment project, and Mr. Rajapaksa, a prominent Opposition leader, are currently in remand as suspects in the alleged bribery case. Mr. Rajapaksa, 40, the elder son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, has been accused of accepting a bribe of 70 million Sri Lankan rupees in 2013, in connection with the stalled hotel project. He was remanded in the case on September 29, 2026, until October 13, 2026.

According to the CIABOC, Mr. Siriwardena bribed Mr. Rajapaksa on several occasions to obtain key approvals for the project, which never got off the ground. Prosecutors alleged that Mr. Rajapaksa, as a powerful politician under his father's presidency at the time, had used his political weight to speed up the necessary approvals.

Mr. Rajapaksa, an international rugby player, has claimed the money was sponsorship for an international rugby event held in Colombo in 2014.

He has been in remand since September 4, 2026, in connection with a separate $2 million bribery case, and another remand order has been issued against him in a separate money laundering case.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has adjourned the matter by a week after it was reported that the passport authorities were yet to receive the police report

Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan has filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Office (RPO) in Chennai to expeditiously dispose of his passport application pending with the passport seva kendra (PSK) in Tambaram.

The petitioner has sought a direction to both the RPO and the PSK to consider a representation made by him on September 1, 2026, for taking a time-bound decision on his application for the issuance of an Indian passport. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy adjourned the case by a week, after it was reported that the police were yet to submit their report to the passport authorities.

The petitioner was listed as the 18th accused in the case registered pursuant to the assassination of the former Prime Minister by a suicide bomber at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu on May 21, 1991. The case against him was tried before a Special Court for Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.

The trial court convicted him for offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act, the Passports Act, the Foreigners Act, as well as Indian Wireless Telegraph Act, and sentenced him to death. The conviction, as well as the death sentence, was confirmed by the Supreme Court on May 11, 1999.

The top court dismissed his review plea on October 8, 1999, and thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Governor had rejected his mercy petitions, under Article 161 of the Constitution, on October 27, 1999, and April 25, 2000. His mercy plea to the President, under Article 72 of the Constitution, was also rejected on August 12, 2011.

Perarivalan’s release
Aggrieved over it, he moved the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition, which was transferred to the Supreme Court in 2012, and the latter commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment on February 18, 2014. Thereafter, on September 9, 2018, the State Cabinet recommended his release from prison.

On January 25, 2021, the Governor forwarded the Cabinet recommendation to the President for determination and on May 18, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the Governor was bound by the advice of the State Cabinet, whether he likes it or not, and he ought not to have forwarded the recommendation to the President.

Taking into account the convict’s long incarceration for nearly 32 years, his satisfactory conduct in jail and also during the period when he was on parole, his chronic ailments and educational qualifications, the top court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order that he should be set at liberty forthwith.

Bar enrolment
After his release from prison, the petitioner completed his law degree and got enrolled with the Bar council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP) on April 27, 2026. Congress Member of Parliament R. Sudha, representing the Mayiladuthurai constituency, objected to such enrolment.

However, BCTNP enrolment committee chairman K. Balu replied that the Advocates Act, 1961, permits the enrolment of convicts after the cooling-off period of two years from their release and hence, there was no illegality in including the writ petitioner in the rolls of the bar council.

The Centre, too, had taken a similar stand in a counter affidavit filed in response to Ms. Sudha’s writ petition filed against the enrolment.

Court directs that a Deputy Collector be appointed to ensure better coordination and resolve complaints of devotees

The Kerala High Court has directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to ensure basic facilities for Sabarimala pilgrims at Erumely.

In addition, a Deputy Collector ought to be appointed to ensure better coordination and to resolve complaints of devotees. This followed a plea by Ayyappa Seva Sangam that works for the welfare of devotees at Erumely, seeking to improve amenities for the pilgrims.

In addition, steps must be taken to ensure that excessive parking fee is not collected. Moreover, drinking water and wash rooms must be provided to devotees. Parking centres that charge the rates as per the higher slab must arrange among others, CCTV surveillance and a mobile booking app for advance booking of parking space, apart from online payment facilities like UPI.

The court had said earlier that it was the TDB’s duty to ensure adequate facilities for pilgrims at all ‘edathavalams’, including at Erumely. The court also had issued directions to ensure safe and comfortable pilgrimage for devotees, and to prevent their exploitation by traders and others.

The court granted bail in anticipation of arrest to Suryakant Yewale, a Tehsildar in Pune

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1, 2026) recorded that Parth Pawar, son of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar and a Rajya Sabha MP, holds 99% stake in Ameida Enterprises LLP. The LLP bought 40 acres of land in Mundhwa in Pune from the government at a price below value, the court noted.

The court granted bail in anticipation of arrest to Suryakant Yewale, a Tehsildar in Pune. Police have named Mr. Yewale as an accused in the case. The case concerns allegations of irregularities in the purchase of the land in Mundhwa by Ameida Enterprises LLP.

The court asked why Mr. Pawar was not named as an accused. Police named Digvijay Patil, who holds 1% stake in the LLP, as an accused. On September 7, Justice Madhav Jamdar directed the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, to file an affidavit explaining why Mr. Pawar’s name had not been added as an accused.

In the affidavit, the DGP stated that he has directed Pune Police to carry out an investigation into the case and that he will monitor progress. The court accepted the statement. Justice Jamdar said that a person who owns 99% shares in the partnership firm is not an accused, but a person who owns 1% shares is an accused. The Judge said Mr. Pawar is the son of the Deputy Chief Minister. The judge expressed surprise over this.

Mr. Yewale denied a role in the transaction, and said that he was implicated. The Judge said Mr. Yewale passed orders as an authority under the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Judge added that there was no allegation that Mr. Yewale passed orders in favour of someone for a consideration that law does not permit. The Judge then granted bail to Mr. Yewale.

The Election Commission of India says its role in the case is non-adversarial and that it would act in whichever way the court interprets the law

The Madras High Court on Thursday (October 1, 2026) reserved its judgment on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that seeks to restrain the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying byelections in the Tiruchi East, Ambasamudram, Perundurai, Viralimalai, and Karur constituencies until the disposal of election petitions related to those constituencies.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan deferred their verdict after senior counsel Dama Sheshadri Naidu, assisted by ECI standing counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan, said that the role of the Commission in the present case was non-adversarial and that it would act in whichever way the court interprets the law.

When the judges asked whether the ECI had taken a decision either in favour of conducting the bypolls or against it, Mr. Naidu replied: “No MiLords. We have not taken any decision formally. Under Section 151A (of the Representation of the People Act, 1951), we have six months’ time. Before we could take the decision, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this court.”

The PIL petition was filed by K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli, through his counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan, who stated that the Tiruchi East constituency fell vacant because Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay had won from two seats and resigned from this seat after retaining Perambur. Pursuant to the resignation, DMK candidate S. Inigo Irudayaraj had filed an election petition challenging the Chief Minister’s victory from Tiruchi East.The other four constituencies fell vacant because the MLAs had resigned. Nevertheless, election petitions had been filed in respect to all those four constituencies and hence, bypolls should not be conducted for them in order to avoid an anomalous situation of each of those constituencies being represented by two candidates if the election petitions get allowed after the conduct of bypolls, he argued.

Justice Diwakar noted that only 16 full court meetings had been convened over the past 10 years, even though the Chief Justice is required to convene a full court meeting once every three months

Allahabad High Court Justice Vinod Diwakar has questioned the quality of deliberations in full court meetings, observing that the concurrence or dissent of individual judges is not recorded in their proceedings.

In an 80-page judgment dated September 28 in the case of Pappu Met alias Pappu vs State of UP and another, Justice Diwakar also said there was an impression that the last two full court meetings were "stage-managed in the manner of a government whipping its members through a confidence vote".

He also noted that only 16 full court meetings had been convened over the past 10 years, even though the Chief Justice is required to convene a full court meeting once every three months, excluding the summer vacation.

The judge further called for a recalibration of the Chief Justice-centric model of High Court administration, emphasising the need for a more deliberative, institutionally balanced, and participative approach, coupled with stronger institutional accountability.

A full court is a forum comprising all judges of a High Court that deliberates on important institutional and administrative matters.The observations came in a judgment arising from four cases in which the judge flagged issues such as delays in the subordinate judiciary, non-compliance with directions on bail and broader concerns relating to judicial discipline.

Examining the administrative functioning of the High Court, Justice Diwakar referred to the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which require the Chief Justice to convene a full court meeting once every three months, excluding the summer vacation.

However, he observed that only 16 full court meetings had been convened over the past 10 years.

"No matter of general policy, no matter affecting the powers and status of the court, and no annual report on the administration of justice has been placed before the full court during this period," the judgment said.

It further noted that the annual reports on the administration of justice had neither been placed before the full court nor forwarded to the government as required under the rules.

Questioning whether the full court was functioning as a meaningful collegiate forum, Justice Diwakar said its rationale was founded on the principle of "mutual recognition" of the individual views of judges.

He observed that recording resolutions without reflecting the views of individual judges failed to fully serve the institutional purpose of the forum.

The judgment also noted that the minutes of committees constituted by the Chief Justice had never been communicated to the full court, creating an impression that their functioning was independent of the High Court itself.

Justice Diwakar further observed that the allocation of work was not linked to performance and that there were "no defined, codified and notified parameters" governing consideration for elevation and promotion.

"Above all, decisions taken on the administrative side attract no accountability and are not subjected to audit by any independent agency," the judgment said, referring to the need to fix accountability in cases of proven favouritism, partisanship or other extraneous considerations.

The judge cautioned that failure to address these issues with restraint could erode institutional discipline and undermine the rule of law.

He directed the registrar (compliance) of the High Court to place the judgment before the Chief Justice "for His Lordship's kind perusal and for such further steps as His Lordship may deem fit and appropriate in respect of the issues noticed herein".

The Goa Bench of the HC also questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) on the provisions empowering it to delete names without a hearing, saying it was “very perturbed by this”

The draft roll under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) cannot be the basis for deletion of names from the voter list, the Bombay High Court has said, holding that administrative software systems cannot supersede statutory laws.

The Goa Bench of the HC also questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) on the provisions empowering it to delete names without a hearing, saying it was “very perturbed by this”.

The Division Bench of Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar and Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing a petition on Wednesday (September 30, 2026) filed by six members of a family over deletion of their names from the voter list.

Petitioners Paresh Salgaonkar and his family members told the Court that they had moved to a new house in the same Santa Cruz Assembly constituency and were instructed by the BLO (Booth Level Officer) to submit Form 8 for change of address.

At the time of processing these forms, they said, errors showed up since no record of their Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) was found, and as such, the only option available in the ERONET software was “reject”.

ERONET (Electoral Registration Officers’ Network) is a web-based form-processing and electoral roll management system developed by the ECI.

Mr. Salgaonkar said that the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer informed them that their EPICs had been deleted from the rolls and consequently, their Form 8 applications could not be processed.

“The only recourse available was to submit Form 6 since there was no option in ERONET for reviewing or restoring the deleted EPICS,” the petitioners said, adding that Form 6 was applicable only to first-time electors seeking fresh inclusion of their names in the voter list.

Since they were existing electors, they were required to apply under Form 8 to seek a change of address within the same Assembly constituency, the petitioners said.

The Court ruled that the draft roll cannot be the basis for deletion of voters’ names.

“Otherwise, Form 6, 7 or 8 have no meaning. Form 6, 7 and 8 are specifically for either a person who is a new voter, a person who has lost the right to vote, or a person who is shifting,” the court said.

The Court told the ECI that the “software system did not allow” it to accept Form 8. “He was never a new voter. He was an existing voter. He became new for your system,” the Court said.

The Bench questioned the ECI on the provisions empowering it to delete names without a hearing.

The judges said, “Show us from the Act…what empowers you to delete without hearing?… Your officers were helpless, and they just decided to throw it on the system. So, they recorded it in the order, saying that the system has rejected. We are very perturbed by this…we are just wondering how many more who have not come to court.”

The Bench said that once a Form 8 is received, the authority must “apply its mind and see whether this person has really moved (to a new address)”.

The judges said such actions will take lakhs of citizens off the rolls. “Here there is only one family. Take a situation where there are so many people who have shifted residence,” the Bench said.

The petition further said it noticed from June 2025 that Maharashtra RTOs registered vehicles without installation of a Vehicle Location Tracking Devices; it said authorities renewed vehicles without verifying installation or operation of the devices

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 29, 2026) issued a notice to Maharashtra, seeking the State’s reply to a petition that links the installation of Vehicle Location Tracking Devices (VLTDs) to the issue of women’s safety. The petition alleged that Regional Transport Offices (RTOs) are registering buses, cabs, autorickshaws and others public vehicles to carry passengers even without the devices.

A Division Bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata asked the State to file a reply within 14 days. The matter may be listed after the said duration.

Om Auto Tech, a distributor of Vehicle Location Tracking Devices (VLTDs) that meet AIS-140, filed the petition.

Atal Dubey, counsel for the petitioner, said the Union Government set up the Nirbhaya Fund after a gang rape in Delhi in December 2012. A project under the fund tracks vehicles that carry passengers, he said. Each bus, cab and vehicle that carries passengers has a tracking device and a panic button. If a passenger presses the panic button, an alert with the location of the vehicle reaches the monitoring centre of the State and the response system for emergencies. Help can be then sent.

Elaborating on the system, Mr. Dubey said the device can protect a passenger if it is operational inside the vehicle and if records of the Government link it to the vehicle. If either condition fails, the panic button connects to nothing, he stated. This affects women who travel in these vehicles and press the panic button in a situation of distress, he added.

The petition further said it noticed from June 2025 that RTOs registered vehicles without installation of a VLTD. It said authorities renewed vehicles without verifying installation or operation of the VLTD. The petitioner told the Transport Commissioner who then issued directives in July and August 2025 for compliance with installation of VLTD. However, the RTOs flouted the condition, the petition said.

The petition said officers of RTOs under the Transport Department acted in violation of the Motor Vehicles framework. They approved and registered at least 10 vehicles without verifying the presence and condition of a VLTD that meets AIS-140. They renewed fitness certificates of vehicles without ensuring the validity and operation status of the devices. The actions defeated the regime for safety, obstructed the business of the petitioner, and undermined the framework of regulation, the plea said.

The petition said rule 125H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, after an amendment on October 25, 2018, mandates installation of the VLTD. It sought a direction to the respondents to implement the mandate.

It also sought action against officers who approved registration and renewal of vehicles that carry passengers without verifying installation of the VLTD.

Justice P.B. Balaji refuses to reject election petition filed against the victory of Esakki Subaya but strikes off petitioner’s plea to declare the runner-up, V.P. Durai of Congress, as the returned candidate

The Madras High Court has cleared the decks for the conduct of byelections in two more constituencies in Tamil Nadu, by rejecting an election petition with respect to the Perundurai constituency and striking off a plea to declare the runner-up in the Ambasamudram constituency as the returned candidate.

Justice P.B. Balaji on Thursday (October 1, 2026) refused to reject an election petition filed by a voter challenging the victory of Esakki Subaya from the Ambasamudram Legislative Assembly constituency, but struck off the relief sought by the election petitioner to declare the runner-up, V.P. Durai of the Congress party, as the winner.

The judge dismissed an application filed by Mr. Subaya, who had won as an All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) candidate but resigned from his MLA post before joining the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), to reject the election petition preferred by S. Kanthimathinathan.

He, however, allowed another application filed by the resigned MLA to strike off the relief sought by the election petitioner Kanthimathinathan under Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to declare Mr. Durai, who had lost by 10,245 votes, as the returned candidate after allowing the election petition.

The judge agreed with senior counsel Satish Parasaran, for Mr. Subaya, that when there were more than two candidates who had contested in an election, the runner-up could not automatically be declared as the elected candidate if the election petitions get allowed and that the only course open would be to order fresh elections.

“In the present case, I am conscious of the fact that despite being the returned candidate, the first respondent (Mr. Subaya) has resigned from his MLA post and the electorate remains unrepresented as on date. But, for the prayer sought for invoking Section 84 of the R.P. Act, read with Section 101 of R.P. Act, the Election Commission would be clearly well within its right to conduct a fresh election,” Justice Balaji wrote.

He also said: “The relief sought for under Section 84 of R.P. Act by the first respondent is impeding such conduct of a fresh election, which has left the constituency headless and clearly resulting in failure of the democratic process... In such view of the matter, I do not see why this Court should not exercise power under Order VI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code and strike off the relief sought for under Section 84 of R.P. Act.”

The judge, however, said, the election petition that had challenged the victory of Mr. Subaya on the ground of having allegedly indulged in electoral corrupt practices must go for trial.

Justice Balaji’s order striking off the relief sought under Section 84 of the R.P. Act assumes significance in light of the fact that Ambasamudram was one of the five constituencies where byelections had been stalled by the first Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that conduct of bypolls pending the plea under Section 84 might end up in an anomalous situation of those constituencies being represented by two individuals.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on July 10, 2026, restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying bypolls to Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur, while passing interim orders on a public interest litigation petition filed by K. Venkatachalapathy from Tirunelveli.

After the grant of the interim order, the ECI filed a counter affidavit before the Division Bench stating that it, too, does not intend to conduct bypolls to those five constituencies.

However, after the filing of the counter affidavit, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the High Court on September 8, 2026, rejected the election petition filed against the victory of S. Jayakumar, who had won from the Perundurai constituency as an AIADMK candidate but resigned from his MLA post before joining the TVK.

Hence, in the written submissions filed before the first Division Bench during the final hearing on the PIL petition, the ECI urged the Bench to exempt Perundurai alone from its interim stay order.

The ECI told the court that byelection could be conducted for the Perundurai constituency if the Supreme Court does not grant any stay and if the Division Bench exempts that constituency alone from the five constituencies where bypolls had been stalled.

During the hearing of the PIL petition on Thursday, senior counsel G. Masilamani, representing Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, brought Justice Balaji’s order to the notice of the Division Bench and said, the ECI would have to now conduct byelections to both the Perundurai and Ambasamudram constituencies.

He said, even with respect to the rest of the three constituencies, the ECI “could not fold its hands and say it shall not conduct bypolls merely because the election petitioners with respect to those constituencies had sought a declaration under Section 84 of the R.P. Act.”

After hearing the arguments advanced by all the counsel, the Division Bench reserved its judgment on the PIL petition filed through advocate V.R. Shanmuganthan.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan call for a status report on the appellations that had been removed so far and those that are yet to be removed

The Madras High Court on Thursday (October 1, 2026) took up a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) petition to enforce a series of directions it had passed over the years to ensure the removal of caste appellations from the names of streets, roads, and localities across Tamil Nadu.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the State government to submit a status report within four weeks, listing out the references that had been removed so far and those that were yet to be removed.

The suo motu PIL petition was taken up on the basis of the latest order passed by Justice N. Ramesh on August 11, 2026 – his maiden order after being elevated as a judge of the High Court. In his order, the single judge had lamented the existence of such appellations.

After coming across a First Information Report (FIR), in which Sendhamangalam police in Namakkal district had referred to a place as ‘Pallar Street,’ the judge had wondered how such appellations continued to exist despite a series of judicial directions and government orders passed since 1978.

The judge had told State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan that a Government Order issued in 1978 had insisted upon all local bodies to identify caste appellations in the names of streets and roads and remove them. Thereafter, the High Court, too, had issued a series of directions since 2018.

Justice Ramesh had said that the naming of a street or a road after a caste had serious consequences, as the residents of those places get identified by their caste, and those names get reflected in every other official document, such as their ration cards, Aadhaar cards, driving licences, and so on.

Highlighting the constitutional imperative to create a casteless society, the judge had also said that it was in that direction that Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the High Court had recently ordered the removal of caste appellations from the names of all schools and colleges located across Tamil Nadu.

Justice Ramesh had also referred to the Tamil Nadu government recently renaming the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department as Social Justice Department in order to avoid reference to a caste and said, the exercise would remain incomplete unless all caste appellations were removed completely from the names of streets and roads.

Since he had come across the FIR during the hearing of a bail petition, the judge had directed the High Court Registry to register a suo motu case with respect to the deletion of caste appellations from the names of streets and roads and place it before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.