The court directed the club to approach the District Judge on learning that an appeal, along with an application for interim relief, was already pending there

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) refused to intervene in a challenge raised by the Delhi Race Club against an order to evict from an 84-acre premises on Lok Kalyan Marg.

A Bench headed by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the club to approach the jurisdictional District Judge, who is the appellate authority, for relief later that same day (August 25, 2026). The court directed the club to approach the District Judge on learning that an appeal, along with an application for interim relief, was already pending there.

The formal eviction order by the Estate Officer, Land and Development Office, Urban Affairs Ministry, was passed on August 11 under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The order followed a Delhi High Court Division Bench decision on May 27 to lift a stay on proceedings under the 1971 Act. A Single Judge of the High Court had earlier granted a stay in favour of the club.

The dispute concerns the club’s occupation of the 84-acre plot. The Centre had argued that the lease granted to the club in 1926 expired on December 31, 1994, and had not been renewed.

According to the Centre, the club has continued to occupy the premises without authorisation since the expiry of the lease. In March, the Centre issued a notice seeking peaceful possession of the land, stating that it was required for a “public purpose”.

Subsequently, on April 17, proceedings were initiated under the 1971 Act.

Delhi HC acquits man, saying the prosecution’s case lacked cogent evidence about the intention and knowledge as contemplated in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court said many spouses recently resorted to extreme violence that were incomprehensible some decades ago

The Delhi High Court has observed that the institution of marriage is quite paradoxical and if the issues between spouses are not resolved quickly, the “better half becomes a bitter half”.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav made the observations while allowing a man’s appeal against a trial court’s judgment sentencing him to three years of imprisonment for trying to kill his wife by allegedly forcing her to ingest Baygon spray, a well-known insect killer.

The court, in its August 24 verdict, acquitted Nafe Singh in the case, saying the prosecution’s case lacked cogent evidence about the intention and knowledge as contemplated in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is highly unsafe to act upon the kind of shaky evidence brought on record, the court said while granting the benefit of doubt to the man.

Mr. Singh and the woman got married in 2000 but relations soured within a year. According to the prosecution, during a matrimonial dispute in 2001, the husband first allegedly tried to force his wife to ingest insecticide from a tumbler, and when that failed, he poured it directly down her throat from the container.

An FIR was registered against the man and his mother. While his mother was acquitted by the trial court, Mr. Singh was convicted for the offence of attempt to murder.

The man denied the allegations levelled against him and contended that there was some matrimonial issue due to his wife’s desire to live with him in a separate house, leaving aside his widowed mother.

The court said one of the most beautiful relationships of humans, that of a husband and wife, becomes one of the most terrible when things go wrong in a matrimonial alliance.

“The institution of marriage is quite paradoxical and a world of extremities. The best, in no time, becomes worst if not handled carefully.

The better half becomes the bitter half if issues are not taken care of and resolved as soon as possible,” the court said.

The court said relationships can go in a totally different, undesirable and unexpected direction if not handled carefully and in time. “The institution of marriage derives its strength from faith, companionship and the trust which the parties repose in each other wherein both sides feel assured and protective,” it said.

‘Conflict zone’

“The troubles in this bond between the spouses not only affect the institution of marriage but the family as well and in turn society too. The relationship founded upon faith, trust and confidence gets transformed into a conflict zone where often, physical violence also creeps in,” the court said. It added that there are recent examples where the spouses have resorted to extreme levels of violence against each other that were incomprehensible some decades ago.

The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to rehabilitate and relocate the family of the Hathras gang rape and murder victim to Ghaziabad or Noida within three months, after finding “unnecessary resistance” on the State’s part in complying with its earlier directions. 

A Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Jaspreet Singh observed that the State’s February 22, 2025 decision offering to rehabilitate the family in Kasganj, Etah or Aligarh did not consider its request for relocation to Ghaziabad or Noida and was, therefore, “no decision in the eyes of law”. 

Such orders, the Bench said, lent credence to the family’s assertion that the State was treating the matter as “adversarial litigation” and was adamant about not granting it statutory benefits under the court’s orders. “We, therefore, see no reason to grant any further time to the State for reconsideration of the matter,” it said. 

The court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file a compliance affidavit. In case of non-compliance, he will have to appear before the court in person on November 30. 

The Bench noted that despite an earlier direction to consider the family’s request for relocation to Ghaziabad or Noida, the State’s subsequent decision did not even mention the request. 

Speaking to The Hindu, the victim’s elder brother said the judiciary had been providing them succour, but the government was delaying the relief. “It has been almost six years, but our life has not come back on track. As the districts offered by the government are adjoining or close to Hathras, we wanted to be rehabilitated to Delhi-NCR for safety,” he said. 

The 19-year-old woman was allegedly raped by four men from her village in September 2020 and died at a Delhi hospital a fortnight later. 

The court emphasised that the rehabilitation process must be meaningful and must safeguard the residents’ right to live with dignity, an integral component of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) granted residents of three jhuggi clusters near the Prime Minister’s residence at Lok Kalyan Marg six weeks to vacate their homes and relocate to alternative accommodation at Savda Ghevra.

A Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia also ordered the constitution of a monitoring committee, headed by a retired judicial officer, to oversee the rehabilitation of residents of Bhai Ram Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony.

The court emphasised that the rehabilitation process must be meaningful and must safeguard the residents’ right to live with dignity, an integral component of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court passed the order on appeals by the residents of the slums challenging a single-judge’s May 11 judgment, which had refused to interfere with their eviction.

The Centre had justified the eviction on the ground that the jhuggi clusters were situated in a protected zone adjoining an operational Air Force Station. According to the authorities, the removal of unauthorised structures was necessary to strengthen defence infrastructure and serve important public and security interests.

While rejecting the residents’ contention that their eviction violated the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, the Division Bench made it clear that the authorities must strictly comply with the assurances given to the Court regarding facilities at the relocation site.

The court noted that the commitments relating to schools, electricity, LPG connections, bus passes, dispensaries and other essential amenities at Savda Ghevra must be fully honoured.

The court also directed DUSIB to facilitate the transportation of the residents’ household belongings to their allotted accommodation.

The single judge had earlier granted the residents 15 days to vacate, noting that eviction notices had first been issued in October 2025 and that sufficient time had already elapsed.

The Centre had maintained that in-situ rehabilitation was not feasible because no suitable alternative accommodation was available in the vicinity. As a result, 717 residents from the three jhuggi clusters are to be relocated to Savda Ghevra.

The petition challenges the August 12 notification of the Home (Transport) Department, which amended the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to include this condition for licence grants, renewals, and permit holders

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) in the Bombay High Court against the Maharashtra government’s decision to make working knowledge of Marathi compulsory for auto-rickshaw, taxi, and app-based cab drivers.

The petition challenges the August 12 notification of the Home (Transport) Department, which amended the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to include this condition for licence grants, renewals, and permit holders.

The PIL is likely to be mentioned before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge on Wednesday (August 26, 2026). The petitioners include four civil rights groups and individuals.

The plea argues that the State has treated citizens from other states as outsiders, violating Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and the constitutional scheme of single citizenship. The petitioners state that they hold Marathi in respect and do not oppose the language’s promotion.

Many of them speak and understand functional Marathi in their daily work. However, they contend that language cannot be enforced by suspending licences and removing livelihoods. They also argue that the Constitution and the Motor Vehicles Act do not permit such a condition.

The notification provides that a driver who fails to satisfy the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) about his Marathi knowledge will have his licence suspended for three months initially, and permanently afterwards. This condition applies to new permits and renewals

The petitioners rely on a March 1, 2017 order of a division bench of the Bombay High Court, which quashed a November 2016 circular with a similar requirement for auto permits.

The PIL notes that the Transport Commissioner and Transport Minister have issued instructions for the implementation of the notification. Dedicated flying squads have been asked to check drivers, issue one-month notices, and suspend badges. According to a local newspaper report, on the first day of implementation, 522 rickshaw drivers were checked in the Vasai-Virar area, where many UP-Bihar migrants reside. Notices were issued to 61 drivers with warnings of licence suspension.

The petitioners state that they face checks, notices, suspensions, and cancellation of badges daily. They describe themselves as persons for whom driving is their only profession and source of income. Several petitioners are migrants from Uttar Pradesh.

They have stated that if their badges are suspended or cancelled, they and their families will be without income. The petitioners have filed the PIL for the community of approximately 9,65,000 rickshaw and taxi permit holders.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, in one of his letters, said the Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma —who is due to retire on September 26— has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion

Three letters from Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant in August questioned why his “fervent appeals” to transfer Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, despite “clear evidence” of favouritism, have been “ignored”.

In his first letter on August 2, Justice Mehta wrote to the CJI about the “grim and disturbing scenario” in his parent High Court in Rajasthan.

Justice Mehta, in this letter, said the Acting Chief Justice —who is due to retire on September 26— has exhibited total lack of leadership qualities and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion.

The Supreme Court Judge reminded the CJI that he had been making “fervent appeals” for appointment of a regular Chief Justice to the High Court since the beginning of the year 2026. “However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another State in my parent High Court has met with no positive response,” Justice Mehta wrote.

He said there was maladministration and malpractices both on the judicial and administrative side of the High Court under Justice Sharma.

The Supreme Court judge said cases were suddenly withdrawn and shifted to the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) without any justifiable cause. Justice Mehta said he was initially asked by the CJI to provide a list of these cases in writing, but was immediately thereafter assured that there was no need to place anything in writing, and suitable action would be taken. The next letter on August 10 informs that the CJI had asked Justice Sharma to respond to the shifting of cases, but no specific information was available on the reply or facts of these cases.

The apex court Judge’s letters further said judicial officers were called and humiliated to satisfy the “personal vendetta” of the ACJ. A full court meeting was held to designate a “large number of favoured advocates as seniors”, that too, on a working day. Justice Mehta said a fanciful plan for a multi-storied tower with almost 100 rooms was made to function as a guest house for the High Court. He called this a “sheer waste of public money”.

Justice Mehta said he has been receiving complaints from anguished judges of the High Court who said they were “frequently threatened” with retributive action, including transfer, by the ACJ, who claimed “closeness” with the CJI.

Justice Mehta said the CJI’s Bench had recently observed the growing trend of judges passing orders for extraneous considerations in the autumn days of their career. He termed this as attempts to “hit sixes” before retirement.

“It is indeed ironical that on one hand, the Chief Justice of India is flagging corrupt practices by judges in the eve [evening] of their careers, and here we have an ACJ indulging in these very activities with impunity,”one of the letters said.

In his last letter on August 17, Justice Mehta uses terms like “rampant nepotism and favouritism” against the ACJ.

He said it was “beyond comprehension” why “such a long rope” was given to a judge whose request for repatriation to the Rajasthan High Court was not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023.

Justice Sharma, who served in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was finally recommended for repatriation to Rajasthan High Court in a Supreme Court Collegium meeting on May 26, 2025. Justice Sharma was appointed Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan in September last year. He has been holding the post for over 10 months now.

“I have been repeatedly requesting you to take a decision for appointing a Chief Justice from another State to the Rajasthan High Court so that this unfortunate situation can be prevented. Continued ignorance of the request, in my opinion, is wholly against the interest of the institution,” Justice Mehta wrote to the CJI.

At one point, the apex court judge mulls whether putting his letter in the public domain may trigger an “inflow of information”.

Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan come to the rescue of thousands of depositors duped by fraudulent financial institutions which had promised high rate of interest

The Madras High Court has come to the rescue of thousands of depositors duped by fraudulent financial institutions by holding that attachment of properties under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act of 1997 (TANPID Act) would take precedence over the attachment of the same properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan ruled that the attachments made by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) by invoking the provisions of the PMLA could not be allowed prevail over the attachments made by a District Revenue Officer under the TANPID Act just because the former legislation was passed by the Parliament and the latter by the State legislature.

The verdict was passed while disposing of a case filed for expeditious sale of five properties belonging to Viswapriya (India) Limited, one of the many companies founded by R. Subramanian of the now-defunct Subhiksha chain of retail provision stores. The judges took note that 34 out of 1,240 depositors of Viswapriya Limited had died since most of them were senior citizens who had invested their retiral benefits.

Though the ED objected to the sale since it had also attached the same properties, the judges said, the Supreme Court had on April 12, 2019 stayed the proceedings initiated against Mr. Subramanian under the PMLA and therefore, as on date, the action initiated by the central agency had been put on hold. Even otherwise, the attachment under TANPID Act would prevail over the attachment under PMLA, they said.

Explaining the reasons, Justice Swaminathan said, Section 14 of TANPID Act categorically states that the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Further, the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the Act in 2011 after taking into account that it had been enacted to ameliorate the conditions of thousands of depositors who had fallen into the clutches of fraudulent financial establishments which had raised hopes of high rate of interest but duped the depositors.

The senior judge in the Bench also recalled that the Supreme Court in 2025 had held that central legislations such as the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act of 2002 and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act of 1993 could not be permitted to prevail over the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act of 1999. The top court had held that allowing central legislations to prevail over State legislations would offend the very principle of federal structure set out in Article 246 of the Constitution.

Further, Justice Swaminathan highlighted that Section 3 of the TANPID Act, dealing with attachment of properties, begins with a non-obstante clause ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force...’ whereas Section 5 of the PMLA, dealing with attachment of properties, does not have any non-obstante clause though a few other provisions of the central law do begin with such a clause.

“Having incorporated the non-obstante clauses in specific provisions, the omission to do so in the case of attachments appears to be deliberate and significant... An attachment passed under TNPID Act has the shield of non-obstante clause, whereas the attachment provision under PMLA is lacking in such armoury,” the judge wrote.

He ordered liquidation of the properties of Viswapriya (India) Limited attached under the TANPID Act and said: “The endeavor may be to ensure that within the next few months, the poor depositors are able to see the colour of the coin.”

The Delhi High Court on Monday said the affairs of ashrams associated with self-styled spiritual preacher Virender Dev Dixit require an inquiry, questioning who is now accountable for running the institutions following his death.

The court was hearing a matter related to allegations that several women and girls were being held in illegal confinement at the Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidyalaya ashram in Rohini. The litigation dates back to 2017, when the NGO Foundation for Social Empowerment approached the High Court alleging that minor girls and women were being confined there and were not being allowed to meet their parents. The High Court had earlier directed the CBI to submit a status report on allegations of rape against Mr. Dixit.

During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the Station House Officer of Vijay Vihar police station to register a missing person case and initiate a probe after women residing at the ashram informed the court that an inmate was missing while her belongings remained on the premises. The CBI also informed the court that Mr. Dixit, who had been absconding for a long time, was dead.

The Bench subsequently questioned who was responsible for running the ashrams and said society had a legitimate right to know what activities were being carried out there.

“Somebody should own the responsibility. We are not coming in way of anybody’s faith or spiritual beliefs. Everybody is free to practise that, provided it does not disturb public order,” the Bench said.

It said that if no individual or group came forward to take responsibility for the affairs of the ashrams, the State may have to step in.

The Bench said the manner in which the ashrams were being run required scrutiny. “Courts cannot interfere with their activities provided they are not disturbing public order. That is the only test. But nobody can be left unaccountable,” it said.

The missing woman’s parents, in their application, said she had spoken to them through a video call but refused to visit them despite her father being seriously ill and undergoing treatment in hospital. Their counsel alleged that women at the ashram were being drugged and that some inmates were minors.

The Bench also questioned the financial affairs of the ashram, asking what prevented the Income Tax Department from examining its accounts.

The police have been asked to complete the inquiry and place its findings before the court on August 31.

The court observed while granting interim protection to Physics Wallah founder Alakh Pandey against the unauthorised use of his name, image and other personality attributes for impersonation and monetisation.

The Delhi High Court has warned that personality rights cannot be invoked so broadly as to stifle caricature, satire or parody, particularly when such expression does not involve commercial exploitation.

The court observed while granting interim protection to Physics Wallah founder Alakh Pandey against the unauthorised use of his name, image and other personality attributes for impersonation and monetisation.

Mr Pandey had alleged that various online platforms and users were commercially exploiting his identity through social media posts, sticker packs, videos, websites and other content. He also claimed that some of the material was vulgar and sexually explicit.

In an interim order passed on August 5, Justice Anup J. Bhambhani said protection would be granted in respect of three categories of alleged violations, sexually vulgar content, unauthorised commercial exploitation of Pandey’s personality, and impersonation.

At the same time, the court cautioned against an overly broad understanding of personality rights. “In the opinion of this court, the concept of personality rights as has been claimed in the present matter may be over broad and therefore susceptible to misapplication,” the court observed.The judge said the court was mindful that personality rights should not be used to suppress information concerning wrongdoing or to wipe out an entire category of expression, including caricature, lampooning and parody, where such content does not amount to commercial exploitation of a person’s personality or publicity rights.

“Proceeding from this word of caution, in the present case, the court is persuaded to grant protection to the plaintiff limited only to 03 sets of violations complained of in the plaint,” the court said. It also directed online platforms to remove the offending content identified in its order.

A number of prominent public figures, including actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan and Salman Khan, Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, podcaster Raj Shamani, Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan and cricketer Abhishek Sharma, have approached the high court seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights.

The High Court has granted interim protection in those cases as well.

The bench said the portal was opened for all candidates for a specified period and reopening could trigger fresh claims

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to direct the reopening of CBSE's portal for the re-evaluation of class 12 answer sheets for students with complaints with the On-Screen Marking (OSM) system.

CBSE's OSM evaluation system is a digital grading method where teachers assess scanned copies of physical answer sheets on a computer instead of checking physical paper scripts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said the portal was opened for all candidates for a specified period and reopening could trigger fresh claims.

"Why should we direct them to open this window again for you? If you don't use the bus, you miss the bus. The window was open for everyone for a specified period," the CJI said.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted he was seeking only one week's time.

"The website crashed and many students could not apply for on-screen verification," he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBSE, told the apex court that 1.68 lakh students successfully applied during the notified window.

The Delhi High Court has already dismissed a similar challenge, he said.

The top court was hearing a plea challenging the manner in which CBSE introduced the OSM system for evaluation of answer sheets.

It alleged that the introduction of digital scanning resulted in several irregularities, including certain pages of answer sheets not being scanned, illegible scans and answers or pages not being evaluated.

In May 2025, FSSAI issued an advisory to all food business operators, asking them to discontinue the usage of “100%” on food product labels, packaging, and promotional content

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) not to cancel for the time being ITC Ltd.’s licence over failure to comply with directives asking the conglomerate to remove all “100%” claims in relation to its product, ‘Aashirvaad M.P. Chakki Atta’.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted interim protection to ITC on its petition challenging the FSSAI advisories and notices to discontinue the usage of the term “100%” for its product or face suspension of FSSAI License.

“Since the issue regarding jurisdiction is to be decided and the courts will be closed, till the next date of hearing, no decision regarding cancellation of the license will be taken,” Justice Sharma said as it listed the case for hearing on September 9.

Justice Sharma also said that she would pass an order on Monday, August 31, on the maintainability of a separate petition by AWL Agri Business Limited against FSSAI.

AWL Agri Business Limited received FSSAI notices over allegedly misleading label declarations and claims, including that of being “100% Veg” and “Cholesterol Free – For Healthy Lifestyle”, for its product, ‘Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil’.

During the hearing, FSSAI’s counsel objected to the maintainability of ITC’s petition in Delhi, contending that the latest improvement notice was issued in Kolkata.

In May 2025, FSSAI issued an advisory to all food business operators, asking them to discontinue the usage of “100%” on food product labels, packaging, and promotional content.

Subsequently, on August 10, a fresh notice called upon ITC to clarify within 30 days why no action should be taken against it for failing to comply with the advisory.

The notice asserted that the claims “100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” on the label and “Made from 1005 M.P. Wheat only” in the advertisement were misleading and impermissible under the regulations.

Three days later, the Central Licensing Authority on Kolkata issued an improvement notice directing ITC “to remove the claim/term of 100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” along with “0% Maida” on “Aashirvaad M.P Chakki Atta” across all labels and advertisements.

The improvement notice asked the company to submit a compliance report within 15 days or face suspension of FSSAI license.

ITC, in its petition, stated that the improvement notice was issued prior to even before the expiry of the 30 days granted to it by FSSAI to respond to the allegations, and was effectively a final order of prohibition.

ITC also alleged that the notice was non-speaking, mechanical, and without any application of mind, and that the threat of suspension of licence was completely arbitrary and grossly disproportionate.

Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice K. Rajasekar said the reasons for recommending the repeal of the Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994, defied logic

The Madras High Court has ordered that the State authorities should not grant permission for the felling or removal of rosewood trees on private lands until a writ petition challenging the repeal of the Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994, and the Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Rules, 1995, is disposed of.

In an order dated August 14, 2026, Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice K. Rajasekar said the reasons for recommending the repeal of the Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994, defied logic, as the original Act itself indicated that rosewood was a rare species endemic to southern India and almost impossible to regenerate except by natural growth.

The judges were hearing the writ petition challenging G.O. (Ms.) No. 88, Environment, Climate Change and Forests (FR.4) Department, dated June 9, 2025, in which the government accepted the proposal of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) for repealing the Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994, and the Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Rules, 1995.

T. Mohan, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner T. Murugavel, pointed out that the impugned G.O., in fact, enabled the uncontrolled removal of rosewood on various patta lands. He argued that the order had been issued only with a vested interest.

The Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994, itself was enacted with the object of preserving rosewood. The preamble of the Act clearly showed that rosewood was one of the important wood species endemic to the forests of southern India, especially in Tamil Nadu.

“It is also indicated in the preamble that rosewood is a rare species which is almost impossible to regenerate except by natural growth. Therefore, only in that context, in order to preserve rosewood trees, the Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994, came to be enacted,” he pointed out.

Now, the impugned G.O. has been passed as though it is intended to increase the green cover, as mandated under the National Forest Policy, by promoting tree cultivation on private lands and also to encourage farmers to take up the plantation of rosewood trees in large numbers on their patta lands, in view of the competitive and remunerative price of rosewood trees. Therefore, a recommendation has been made by the PCCF to repeal the 1994 Act, he argued further.

Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Special Government Pleader, submitted that a detailed counter affidavit would be filed after going through the various proposals in this regard and examining what transpired even after the Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994, came into force. He sought some more time. The amici curiae were advocates C. Mohan, M. Santhanaraman, and Rahul Balaji.

Allowing the Special Government Pleader to file a better counter affidavit in this regard, the judges said such a recommendation by the PCCF defied logic and kept the impugned G.O. (Ms.) No. 88 of the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department in abeyance. “Further, till the writ petition is disposed of, the authorities shall not grant any permission for felling or removal of rosewood trees on any private lands,” the judges said.

The State of Goa, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had insisted that Tarun Tejpal should surrender before his appeal is listed for hearing in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) directed journalist Tarun Tejpal to surrender in two weeks in a 2013 rape case in which he has been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe said the appeal would be heard once the certificate of his surrender is filed in the Supreme Court on or before September 22, 2026

The State of Goa, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that Tejpal should surrender before his appeal is listed for hearing in the Supreme Court.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Tejpal, said his client’s appeal ought to be listed first.

On August 24, Justice Aradhe, while adjourning the case to Tuesday (August 25, 2026), had concluded that “until and unless, suitable orders are passed on the application seeking exemption from surrender, the appeal cannot be listed before the court. Therefore, the prayer made to list the matter before the court, without considering the application seeking exemption from surrender, cannot be accepted”.

Mr. Mehta had opposed the plea while citing the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Mr. Mehta had argued that the Rules were mandatory in nature that until and unless the appellant surrendered, Tejpal’s appeal should not be listed before the Supreme Court.

The top law officer however submitted daily that the Supreme Court had the power to even do away with the requirement of surrender.

On August 20, Tejpal had moved the Supreme Court challenging the August 6 order of the Bombay High Court against his conviction in a 2013 sexual assault case. Earlier, the Goa government had appealed the top court seeking an enhanced sentence for the former editor of Tehelka, contending that the case warranted imprisonment for life.

The Bombay High Court had convicted Tejpal of rape and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years while overturning his acquittal by the trial court five years ago. Tejpal was convicted of raping a junior colleague inside a hotel elevator in 2013. The 62-year-old journalist had claimed he was a political victim.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan agree that the shops would serve as a compound wall for the playground

The Madras High Court has permitted the Cuddalore City Municipal Corporation to proceed with the construction of 110 shops on the peripheries of a 15-acre public playground, known as Manjakuppam ground/Thangaraj Maidanam, utilising the funds sanctioned by the State government last year under the Kalaignar Nagarpura Mempattu Thittam 2025-2026.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed against the construction after recording the submission of the corporation counsel P. Srinivas that the shops would serve as a compound wall for the playground, as they could be accessed only from the roadside and not from the playground.

The counsel told the court that only 4% out of the 15 acres would be utilised for the construction of the shops and the rest of the land would be maintained as the playground. He also said, 50% of the construction work was already completed and the revenue generated from renting out the shops would be utilised for providing better infrastructure facilities at the playground.

N. Anandakumar, a resident of Cuddalore city, had filed the PIL petition, apprehending that the corporation might change the character of the playground if it was allowed to construct commercial shops on the peripheries. He also said, the Cuddalore district munsif court had passed a decree in 1995 for maintaining the playground as such without putting it to use for other purposes.

However, not in agreement with the apprehensions raised by the petitioner, the judges wrote: “The entire construction of the shops would only remain as a compound wall to the playground, and the apprehensions raised by the petitioner that in view of the construction of these shops, the nature of the playground would get lost and the public would get affected, in our considered opinion, is misplaced.”

The judges said, though the corporation ought to have constructed the shops in a commercial place, they do not see any hindrance or damage being caused to the playground in view of the submissions made by Mr. Srinivas. It disposed of the case with a direction to the corporation not to resort to any further construction on the playground and retain it for the use of the general public.

“...we accordingly direct that every penny of donation must come to the donation boxes or online temple treasury and any impediment created by ‘sevayats’ or anyone else shall be viewed very seriously,” the Supreme Court said

Taking strong view of the allegations of siphoning away of donations at the Shri Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) directed that every penny donated must land in donation boxes or online into the temple treasury.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana took note of submissions by senior advocate Maninder Singh, who submitted a status report by the high-powered committee overseeing the functioning of the temple.

Mr. Singh placed on record photographs and said there are very serious issues and there is urgency in this.

"There is a video. Three people are standing in front of ‘golak’ (traditional donation box) collecting the money from the devotees and putting it in their polythene bags," he said.

Taking strong view of the submission, the Bench said, "Let there be no doubts and we accordingly direct that every penny of donation must come to the donation boxes or online temple treasury and any impediment created by 'sevayats' or anyone else shall be viewed very seriously. The management committee to introduce transparent mechanism for the temple treasury." The Bench was dealing with pleas by the management committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari ji Maharaj Temple.

The dispute follows a rebellion within the TMC parliamentary party after 20 of its Lok Sabha MPs announced that they had joined or merged with the NCPI, a Tripura-based political outfit, and sought separate recognition in the House

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) agreed to hear a plea filed by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee contending that Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla was delaying disqualification proceedings under the anti-defection law against 20 rebel party MPs who have aligned themselves with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI).

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notice to the Secretary General, Lok Sabha and the MPs in question. Mr. Banerjee has sought a time-bound decision on disqualification of 20 rebel MPs

In fact, the Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, had initially issued notice to the Speaker, who is arraigned as the first respondent in the petition.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Speaker, said there was no need to issue notice to the Speaker, who is a Constitutional authority.

Justice Bagchi indicated that the Speaker was a tribunal while hearing petitions seeking disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. The petition concerned completion of disqualification proceedings within reasonable time. Moreover, the Speaker’s status as a Constitutional authority should be respected by the issuance of formal notice by the court.

Mr. Mehta, however, prevailed, saying he was personally present in the court room to represent the Speaker.

Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, for the Trinamool Congress leader, said formal notice was required as there were other respondents arraigned in the petition.

The court proceeded to issue notice to the Secretary General and MPs Kakori Ghosh Dastidar, Sudip Bandyopadhyay, Satabdi Roy, Prasun Banerjee, Rachana Banerjee, Jagadish Chandra Barma Basunia, Partha Bhowmick, Arup Chakraborty, Adhikari Deepak Dev, Sayani Ghosh, Bapi Haldar, Md Abu Taher Khan, Kalipada Saren Kherwal, Asit Kumar Mal, June Maliah, Mitali Bag, Khalilur Rahaman, Mala Roy, Sharmila Sarkar and Yusuf Pathan.

The TMC leader said he had met Speaker Birla on August 12 over the issue after sending a written reminder on July 27.

The dispute follows a rebellion within the TMC parliamentary party after 20 of its Lok Sabha MPs announced that they had joined or merged with the NCPI, a Tripura-based political outfit, and sought separate recognition in the House.

The rebel MPs have subsequently been treated as an NCPI group in Parliament and have participated in NDA parliamentary activities.

The TMC has maintained that the MPs were elected on its symbol and that their decision to align with another political formation amounts to voluntarily giving up membership of the party, attracting disqualification under the anti-defection law. The rebel camp has maintained that its move constituted a valid merger.

Holding that custodial interrogation of the TMC leader in connection with the three cases is not necessary, the court directed the police not to take any coercive steps against him till November 30

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) directed the police not to take any coercive steps against TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee in three criminal cases against him till November 30, holding that custodial interrogation is not necessary.

The court directed the Diamond Harbour MP not to travel abroad without permission of the High Court.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya clarified that the permission granted to Mr. Banerjee by the Supreme Court for going abroad for three weeks for medical reasons would not be curtailed by this order.

Holding that custodial interrogation of the TMC leader in connection with the three cases is not necessary, the court directed the police not to take any coercive steps against him till November 30.

Justice Bhattacharyya directed the police to file a progress report on the investigation in the three cases when the matter will be taken up for hearing again on November 23.

Mr. Banerjee was directed to cooperate with the investigation and comply with notices issued in connection with the three cases.

Justice Bhattacharyya directed that at least 48 hours’ prior notice be given to Mr. Banerjee for appearance before the investigators in the cases.

He directed that the police authorities concerned may move this court for variation or vacation of the order if Mr. Banerjee does not cooperate with the investigations.

The court also directed that Mr. Banerjee will not go abroad without permission from this court.

Mr. Banerjee's lawyer mentioned that the Supreme Court has on August 10 permitted him to travel abroad for medical reasons.

The State's lawyer submitted that the apex court order granting permission to Mr. Banerjee to travel abroad applies only to the petition that was before it.

Mr. Banerjee's lawyer stated before the court that the MP has not gone abroad yet, as he requires a doctor's appointment and also that his personal bank account and debit and credit cards were frozen by a private bank.

"The order passed today shall not in any way curtail the right of the petitioner to go abroad for treatment in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on August 10, 2026, for treatment, subject to compliance of conditions mentioned in the said order," Justice Bhattacharyya clarified.

A prayer for stay of operation of this order by the additional advocate general was declined by the court.

The High Court had on June 30 granted interim protection to Banerjee from coercive steps by the police in connection with three FIRs lodged against him at Bhowanipore, Bishnupur and Kalitala police stations.

The court issued notices to several departments overseeing health, education, public distribution and consumer affairs, as well as the state chief secretary, directing them to respond within eight weeks on the its directions

The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, has taken suo motu cognisance of issues concerning Gen Z, Gen Alpha and Gen Beta, expressing concern over junk food, excessive screen time, paper leaks, inadequate infrastructure in rural schools and the possible erosion of basic learning skills in the age of artificial intelligence.

A Single Bench of Justice, Anoop Kumar Dhand, on Monday (August 24), banned the sale of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt (HFSS) food items in school canteens and within 50 metres of school gates. The prohibited items include carbonated drinks, chips, trans-fat-containing bakery products and other junk food.

The court directed every school to constitute a School Food Safety and Nutrition Committee within four weeks, comprising teachers, parents and student representatives. Details of the committees are to be uploaded to the Education Department's website.

Within eight weeks, school canteens must mandatorily display menu boards carrying information on the calorie count, ingredients and nutritional value of food items, and implement a traffic-light labelling system.

The court issued notices to several departments overseeing health, education, public distribution and consumer affairs, as well as the state chief secretary, directing them to respond within eight weeks on the its directions.

The State government has been asked to file an affidavit within six weeks detailing steps taken to implement the 2020 regulations on safe and balanced food in government, aided and private schools.

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay’s plea claims that an FIR lodged against him by the Ghaziabad Police in an alleged road rage case was based on concocted allegations against him and was an attempt to harass him for his independent journalistic works

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) ordered the Uttar Pradesh Police to restrain from taking any coercive action against Abhishek Upadhyay, an independent journalist who flagged the alleged misapprorpiation of Ayodhya’s Ram Temple donations, in an FIR regarding a road rage case.

Appearing before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, senior advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for Mr. Upadhyay submitted that his client had committed the “unpardonable sin of exposing the Ram Mandir donation issue”.

“I do not want any other relief other than a fair investigation,” Mr. Rai submitted.

The senior advocate, who is also the newly-elected Supreme Court Bar Association president, said the police had not even handed over to the journalist a copy of the FIR and CCTV footage, which would help him defend himself in a court of law.

The court ordered the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to provide Mr. Upadhyay with the copies of the FIR and CCTV footage, and file a compliance report in the Supreme Court on the next date of hearing on September 7.

The court said the interim protection against police action would extend to any other FIRs filed in the interregnum against Mr. Upadhyay in order to give him “breathing space and time”.

“We can protect you for the time being. Meanwhile, he can approach the jurisdictional High Court. We appreciate that you have an imminent apprehension of repetitive FIRs against you,” Chief Justice Kant said.

The court said the allegation against Mr. Upadhyay was that his SUV had hit a two-wheeler, following which he had shouted caste-based abuses at the scooterist.

“If this was done, it will amount to an offence. If it is a concocted story, you need breathing space and time to make out a case,” Chief Justice Kant said.

In an oral mentioning on August 24, Mr. Upadhyay’s counsel submitted that his client was being accused by the police of other serious offences, including under the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Mr. Upadhyay claimed that the FIR was based on concocted allegations against him and was an attempt to harass him for his independent journalistic works.

In the plea, he had contended that the FIR copy was not supplied to him and that the police were forcing nearby shopkeepers to delete the CCTV visuals of the relevant time.

The court observed while granting interim protection to Physics Wallah founder Alakh Pandey against the unauthorised use of his name, image and other personality attributes for impersonation and monetisation.

The Delhi High Court has warned that personality rights cannot be invoked so broadly as to stifle caricature, satire or parody, particularly when such expression does not involve commercial exploitation.

The court observed while granting interim protection to Physics Wallah founder Alakh Pandey against the unauthorised use of his name, image and other personality attributes for impersonation and monetisation.

Mr Pandey had alleged that various online platforms and users were commercially exploiting his identity through social media posts, sticker packs, videos, websites and other content. He also claimed that some of the material was vulgar and sexually explicit.

In an interim order passed on August 5, Justice Anup J. Bhambhani said protection would be granted in respect of three categories of alleged violations, sexually vulgar content, unauthorised commercial exploitation of Pandey’s personality, and impersonation.

At the same time, the court cautioned against an overly broad understanding of personality rights. “In the opinion of this court, the concept of personality rights as has been claimed in the present matter may be over broad and therefore susceptible to misapplication,” the court observed.

The judge said the court was mindful that personality rights should not be used to suppress information concerning wrongdoing or to wipe out an entire category of expression, including caricature, lampooning and parody, where such content does not amount to commercial exploitation of a person’s personality or publicity rights.