The State submitted that there was concentrated telephonic communication between Sub-Registrar Justin Manikandan Subramanian, who registered the document, and document writer Jeyaprakash before and during the registration of the document

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by suspended Sub-Registrar Justin Manikandan Subramanian, one of the accused in the Palani math land sale case.

Justice K. Rajasekar cancelled the interim bail granted to him, and also dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by another accused, Jeyaprakash.

The court said the case under investigation by the CB-CID revealed that accused Anwardeen was actively involved in fabrication of records and was taking several steps to grab the property from 1998 onwards.

Anwardeen who had been arrested in the case disclosed various facts regarding the manner in which the sale deed came to be registered and the various acts done by the accused to force the Registration Department to conclude the registration.

It is said that Jeyaprakash, an associate of Anwardeen, was directed to influence the then Sub Registrar Balasundar. Since Balasundar did not accept their illegal acts, they mounted pressure on him, and obtained a court order to register the sale deed.

Due to the pressure mounted on him, Mr. Balasundar went on leave, after completing the initial registration process. He made an entry in the minutes book that the registration of the document had been objected to by the temple and the temple had filed a writ appeal.

The State submitted that there was concentrated telephonic communication between the petitioners, Sub-Registrar Justin Manikandan Subramanian, who registered the document, and document writer Jeyaprakash before and during the registration of the document.

Without considering the minutes and remarks recorded by the then Sub-Registrar, Justin Manikandan Subramanian completed the registration process by assigning the document number, which clearly revealed that he had not acted bonafidely, and acted intentionally to benefit the other accused.

During the course of the arguments, Jeyaprakash submitted that he was not a document writer.

The court said granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage would hamper the investigation. Earlier, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of one of the accused, K. Vellathurai.

The State submitted a status report on the progress made in the investigation in the case to a Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel. The court posted petitions seeking a CBI probe for hearing to August 12.

Meanwhile, Judicial Magistrate I, Dindigul, S. Packiaraj, granted the CB-CID till Friday the custody of the four arrested accused — D. Murugadass, who sold the land; K. Vellathurai and D. Sethupathi, both buyers of the land; and S. Anwardeen, who reportedly facilitated the deal.

The jurisdiction of the ED is inextricably intertwined with criminality. Attachment of property is merely an instrumentality employed in aid of prosecuting the offence of money laundering. It cannot, therefore, be artificially divorced from the criminal proceedings that give it life: High Court

In a setback to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 5) declared that the search and seizure actions under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be treated as independent civil proceedings detached from the criminal investigation that gives them birth.

“Proceedings under Section 17 do not arise spontaneously. They are consequential to the registration of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR). The ECIR itself is consequential to the existence of a predicate offence. The search, seizure, freezing and retention of property are therefore not isolated civil actions divorced from criminal proceedings; they constitute successive statutory steps flowing from the very registration of the predicate offence. To sever one link from the other would be to dismantle the legislative scheme itself,” the court observed.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while rejecting ED’s preliminary objection to hear the two petitions, filed by online gaming company Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. challenging ECIRs, on the criminal jurisdiction of the High Court.

The ED had contended that proceedings under Section 17 partake the character of civil actions and must therefore be challenged only before benches exercising civil writ jurisdiction of the court not under criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The proceedings under Section 17 — search, seizure, and freezing of properties — culminate in attachment and confiscation before the Adjudicating Authority, which are civil in nature, and such proceedings are entirely different from investigation into the offence of money laundering, the ED had argued.

Proceeds of crime

Rejecting ED’s argument, the court said that one cannot lose sight of the object with which the ED has been constituted while pointing that the PMLA is not designed merely to regulate property as it is enacted to identify, trace, preserve and ultimately confiscate proceeds of crime generated from criminal activity.

“The jurisdiction of the ED is thus inextricably intertwined with criminality. Attachment of property is merely an instrumentality employed in aid of prosecuting the offence of money laundering. It cannot, therefore, be artificially divorced from the criminal proceedings that give it life,” the court said.

The court further said that “the predicate offence is the skeleton; the ECIR is the flesh and blood that envelopes it. A skeleton without flesh may remain incomplete; but flesh and blood without a skeleton is an anatomical impossibility”. To hold that proceedings under the PMLA can survive independent of the predicate offence would be to breathe life into a body devoid of its skeletal frame, the court said.

“A search undertaken under Section 17 of the PMLA is not an independent civil exercise; it is a consequence of the ECIR, a continuation of the investigative process and is a statutory measure adopted to secure the proceeds of crime during the pendency of investigation into the offence of money laundering,” the court clarified.

Grave consequences

Refusing to accept ED’s other contention that ECIR is a mere “internal administrative document”, not akin to a First Information Report, and hence cannot be challenged before the criminal jurisdiction of the court, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that an ECIR authorises search, seizure, attachment of property, deprivation of liberty, arrest under one of the most stringent penal statutes in the country and prosecution carrying grave consequences.

“To describe such a document (ECIR) as merely administrative, yet simultaneously permit it to unleash the full coercive apparatus of the criminal law is to embrace a contradiction that constitutional adjudication cannot countenance,” the court said.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister says there is no proposal to hold Special Session to push through women’s quota and delimitation Bills; Congress presses for Amit Shah’s statement, debate on donation row

The Rajya Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill even as the Opposition members walked out before the voting on the Bill. The Bill, passed in the Lok Sabha on Monday (August 5, 2026), is a Money Bill, and the Upper House returned it to the Lower House after a discussion. The Bill increases the number of Supreme Court judges to 37 from the present strength of 34.

The Bill replaces an Ordinance issued by the government in May. Opposition members questioned the “hurry” for bringing the Ordinance. “Why was this not brought as an Act straight to Parliament, have a debate and then amend it? Who would oppose? Nobody is opposing that judges should not be increased. But is it enough? Is it radical enough to change the situation in the country? Are 95,000 cases going to be decided because of these four judges?” asked Congress MP and senior lawyer Vivek Tankha, who initiated the debate.

When Mr. Tankha mentioned the fifth anniversary of the abrogation of Article 370, Deputy Chairman Harivansh objected and asked him to speak on the subject. The Opposition members started raising slogans, which later led to their walking out of the House after a brief period.

BJP MP Sangeeta Yadav said the increase in the number of MPs will help in addressing the issue of pendency of cases. Ms. Yadav said about 64 lakh cases are pending in various courts in the country and the Narendra Modi government is committed to address the problem. Trinamool Congress MP Menaka Guruswamy said there are 30% vacancies in all the High Courts. “Women constitute only 14% of all the High Court judges! The reality is that the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the women together make up under 20% of the judiciary. Between 2018 to 2026, this government appointed just 3% Scheduled Caste judges, 2% Scheduled Tribe judges and 12% OBC judges,” she said.

DMK MP R. Girirajan said a single dominant caste holds a large majority of positions in the higher judiciary. He added that roughly 76% to 80% of the High Court judges, appointed in recent years, belong to upper caste general categories, while marginalised groups remain severely unrepresented. Indian Union Muslim League MP Haris Beeran demanded a structural change in the judicial system. Mr. Beeran demanded that the salary of judges should be hiked and the retirement age of Supreme Court judges should also be increased. He walked out of the House soon after making a brief speech.

Answering the discussion, Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal said the increase in judges in the Supreme Court is a step to improve judicial efficiency. “We will adopt an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism using arbitration, mediation and conciliation to help reduce the pendency in cases,” Mr. Meghwal said, adding that the Union government is committed to working in coordination with the judiciary in this regard.

In a brief intervention, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiran Rijiju said the appointment notifications are done by the government, but the names are decided by the Collegium of the apex court. “If the Collegium does not send names from SC or ST, the government on its own cannot appoint anyone from SC or ST,” he added.

The Bill was later passed with a voice vote.

The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday transferred Gayathri, Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur in Kolar district, to Humnabad in Bidar district, citing “administrative reasons and in the interest of public service”.

The transfer comes on the heels of her alleged conduct in a road rage case involving her private car in Malur, a video of which went viral on social media. After registering a complaint against a youth, his mother and grandmother, she herself passed a judicial order permitting the jurisdictional police to delete from social media the viral videos containing a squabble involving her, her husband, the youth and his family members.

As the youth and his family filed a petition challenging the First Information Report (FIR) registered on the basis of her complaint, a single-judge Bench of the High Court last week stayed the FIR and made scathing remarks against her for acting as “a judge in her own cause” by adjudicating proceedings in the criminal case initiated on her complaint. The single judge also directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for taking action against her on the administrative side.

The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday transferred Gayathri, Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur in Kolar district, to Humnabad in Bidar district, citing “administrative reasons and in the interest of public service”.

The transfer comes on the heels of her alleged conduct in a road rage case involving her private car in Malur, a video of which went viral on social media. After registering a complaint against a youth, his mother and grandmother, she herself passed a judicial order permitting the jurisdictional police to delete from social media the viral videos containing a squabble involving her, her husband, the youth and his family members.

As the youth and his family filed a petition challenging the First Information Report (FIR) registered on the basis of her complaint, a single-judge Bench of the High Court last week stayed the FIR and made scathing remarks against her for acting as “a judge in her own cause” by adjudicating proceedings in the criminal case initiated on her complaint. The single judge also directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for taking action against her on the administrative side.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed Delhi Police to install sanitary pad vending machines at all police stations in the Capital for women personnel and provide them with exclusive washrooms.

A Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia asked the Commissioner of Police to survey all police stations within six weeks to ascertain the availability of exclusive washrooms and sanitary pads and subsequently take appropriate steps.

“Based on the report of the survey, appropriate steps shall be taken by the police to provide each police station with the facility of a sanitary pad vending machine and also an exclusive washroom for women personnel,” the Bench said. The court asked the police to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken pursuant to the directions. It posted the matter for hearing on September 23.

The court passed the order on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to secure women police personnel’s right to access basic menstrual hygiene and sanitation facilities at the workplace.

The PIL, filed by NGO Justice for Rights Foundation, said ensuring such essential infrastructure for women police personnel was indispensable to fulfilling the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution, as these facilities are “an essential aspect of the right to live with dignity, health, privacy and humane working conditions”.

Relying on information obtained under the RTI Act, the petitioner asserted that despite thousands of women police personnel serving across hundreds of police stations in Delhi, sanitary pad vending machines were available only at a few locations. It also alleged a complete absence of budgetary allocation or policy for providing hygiene facilities and infrastructure.

“This omission on the part of the State transcends a mere administrative lapse.... The respondents’ failure to provide such basic infrastructure violates their dignity, health, privacy and safe working conditions, contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution,” the plea stated.

It sought directions to the authorities to install sanitary pad vending machines and incinerators in all police stations and units under Delhi Police, and ensure their continuous functioning and maintenance.

The plea also sought clean, functional, private and adequately equipped washrooms exclusively for women police personnel at all Delhi Police establishments.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a review of the safety and security mechanisms of Parliament, observing that such matters fall within the domain of the executive and the legislature.

A Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said the court could not issue directions on how Parliament should manage its administrative or operational affairs.

“These are not the functions of the court. How can any such direction be issued with respect to the functioning of Parliament?” the Bench remarked.

“These are not the functions of the court. How can any such direction be issued with respect to the functioning of Parliament? Do you think Parliament is incapable of taking care of its own security? What kind of a petition is this? Are we to issue directions on how its administrative and operational mechanisms should function?” the Bench told the petitioner’s counsel.

The petition, filed by Raj Singh, cited the 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament and the 2023 security breach, arguing that the existing framework required a fresh review.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that in a parliamentary democracy, Parliament is paramount and its safety required urgent attention.

However, the court questioned the selective focus on Parliament, pointing to broader public safety concerns. “Security concerns being faced by pedestrians, daily passengers or at railway stations are also important,” the Bench observed.

The plea also referred to increasing instances of demonstrations directed at lawmakers, including calls for citizens to march towards Parliament, and argued that the security framework must balance democratic freedoms with institutional integrity.

It sought directions to the Centre, along with the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretariats, to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing security mechanisms in light of evolving threats.

There is prima facie evidence to prove that the accused aided the commission of the crime and participated in the conspiracy as well, says court

The Kerala High Court has refused to suspend the sentence of Martin Antony, the second accused in the actor assault case of 2017.

The Division Bench of Justice V. Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar had earlier denied the suspension of sentence pleas by N.S. Sunil a.k.a Pulsar, Saleem, and Pradeep, the first, fifth and sixth accused respectively.

The court held that there was prima facie evidence to prove that the applicant had aided the commission of the crime and had participated in the conspiracy as well. The call detail records had shown that Antony was in constant contact with Sunil and had sent a message right before the fake accident, caused to allegedly stop and enter the survivor’s car.

Antony had contended that the prosecution had not adequately proved the charges against him, and that he was neither a passenger nor a witness or driver of the car in which the assault allegedly took place. He also contended that he had been arrested in 2017 and had undergone more than five years of imprisonment and had been serving his sentence since december 2025.

Six of the 10 accused were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, in 2025. Each accused was charged with two counts of gang rape, assault, use of criminal force on a woman with intent to disrobe, wrongful confinement, destruction of evidence, and taking and distributing obscene images.

The Court observed that Nintendo had used the mark since 1889 and had acquired considerable reputation and goodwill internationally as well as in India

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Bihar-based real estate company from using the name “Nintendo”, holding that it infringes the trademark rights of Japanese gaming giant Nintendo Co. Ltd..

Justice Jyoti Singh passed an interim order in favour of Nintendo Co. Ltd. on July 29 after finding that it is likely to mislead the public into believing that the real estate company is associated with the global video game maker.

Nintendo Co. Ltd., in its suit, stated that it was founded in Japan in 1889 and now a globally recognised developer and publisher of video games and gaming consoles, with registered trademark rights over the coined mark ‘NINTENDO’.

The company argued that the mark enjoys extensive reputation worldwide and in India through products such as the Nintendo Switch, Game Boy, Super Mario Bros., Pokémon and Donkey Kong franchises.

Nintendo submitted that it discovered in November 2025 that a company registered in Patna had incorporated itself as ‘Nintendo India Private Limited’. Its investigations revealed that the company was engaged in business of acquiring, managing and dealing in land and other immovable properties. Despite a cease-and-desist notice issued in February 2026, the dispute remained unresolved, prompting the Nintendo to approach the High Court.

The Court observed that Nintendo had used the mark since 1889 and had acquired considerable reputation and goodwill internationally as well as in India. It held that the defendants’ company name was “nearly identical/deceptively similar” to the Nintendo and was likely to cause confusion among members of the public and the trade.

“Looking at the formidable reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff (Nintendo) spanning over decades, it is prima facie evident that the adoption of the impugned name is with an objective of encashing on the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff so as to misrepresent to the public that Defendants No. 1-3 have some connection/affiliation/nexus with the Plaintiff and this is resulting in irreparable harm and injury to the Plaintiff,” the court said.

The Court restrained the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from using ‘Nintendo India Private Limited’ or the mark ‘NINTENDO’ in any manner until further orders.

Plea seeks coordinated inter-State mechanism for traffic and crowd management for safe passage of pilgrims, with routes used during the pilgrimage to have adequate access for emergency responders

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 4, 2026) sought the Union government’s response on a petition seeking the formulation of a standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure the safe and orderly conduct of the annual Kanwar Yatra.

This year’s pilgrimage began on July 30 and is scheduled to conclude on August 11.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta agreed to hear the plea, which has sought a coordinated inter-State mechanism for traffic and crowd management to ensure the safe passage of pilgrims participating in the yatra.

“Issue notice, returnable on August 25, 2026,” the Bench said.

The petition has also sought directions to ensure that routes used during the pilgrimage have adequate access for ambulances, fire services, police vehicles, and other emergency responders.

“Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Union of India, in consultation with the concerned state governments and competent authorities, to formulate a comprehensive national standard operating procedure for the safe and orderly conduct of the Kanwar Yatra, consistent with the Constitution and the existing statutory framework,”

It has further sought periodic reviews of the measures adopted for the pilgrimage, and the submission of compliance reports before the appropriate authorities in a manner prescribed by the court.

In July 2025, the apex court had prohibited the enforcement of directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments requiring eateries and food stalls along the Kanwar Yatra route to prominently display the names and other identity details of their owners and employees.

Any structural change in the design of the NEET-UG will be undertaken only in consultation with Health Ministry and the National Medical Commission

The Education Ministry has told the Supreme Court that a migration of the NEET-UG exam from pen-and-paper mode to Computer Based Testing (CBT) is under “active consideration by all stakeholders”. The affidavit, dated August 4, was served to parties late on Tuesday (August 4, 2026)

The affidavit is the first filed by the government in the apex court following the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leaks.

The government said the move to a computer-based mode, whether in a single stage or two stage examination on the pattern of the Joint Entrance Examination (Mains and Advanced), is being reviewed.

Any structural change in the design of the NEET-UG will be undertaken only in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Health Ministry and the National Medical Commission, the government said.

“The Union of India also remains committed to providing candidates with adequate advance notice of any change in the mode or design of the examination, so that any transition may be smooth, equitable and free of avoidable stress to the candidates,” the Ministry assured.

The government said it was creating an “institutional memory” bank drawn from experiences after every public examination.

A formal “Learnings Note” is prepared recording the challenges encountered, the actions taken and the practices to be carried forward, the government said.

The Delhi High Court has directed the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) to act on a complaint filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) president Dhananjay against Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit over alleged casteist remarks made earlier this year, the JNUSU said on Tuesday.

In a statement, the students’ union said Dhananjay had approached the High Court seeking directions to the NCSC to act on his complaint filed on February 24, 2026, alleging that the remarks were casteist.

“Upon hearing the petition, the High Court directed the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to decide the complaint in a time-bound manner, preferably within the next eight weeks,” the statement said.

In February, the Vice-Chancellor, in a video interview, had said: “You cannot progress by being permanently a victim or playing the victim card. This was done for the Blacks; the same thing was brought for Dalits here.” The remarks drew criticism from teachers and students.

The JNUSU said it would continue to pursue the matter and seek accountability.

The High Court’s verdict is a fitting rebuke to the party’s attempts to derive political mileage, observes R&B Minister Janardhan Reddy

Minister for Roads and Buildings B.C. Janardhan Reddy on Tuesday said that using Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pleas for political gain was a reflection of the YSRCP’s political bankruptcy.

The Minister was reacting to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh’s verdict dismissing the PIL petition filed by YSRCP MLC Parvatha Reddy Chandrasekhar Reddy seeking a CBI investigation into the alleged irregularities in the Mega DSC-2025 teacher recruitment process, particularly the appointments made under the sports quota.

Speaking to the media, Mr. Reddy said the High Court’s verdict was a fitting rebuke to the party’s attempts to derive political mileage. The court’s decision thwarted the YSRCP’s conspiracy carried out in the name of DSC candidates.

He emphasised that the coalition government had implemented the DSC recruitment process with utmost transparency to ensure justice for the unemployed youth. The allegations made by the YSRCP were baseless and devoid of merit, he asserted. The Minister said that final results had been released only after thoroughly examining all the objections raised by the candidates.

Chief Justice’s Bench calls for suggestions to maintain a balance between protecting the environment and developing infrastructure

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, adjourned to August 20, 2026, the hearing on a batch of cases, including the one filed by CREDAI-Chennai chapter, challenging the ban imposed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on new construction approvals on 8,584.44 acres of land located within a distance of 1 km around the boundaries of Pallikaranai marsh land, a Ramsar site.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan said they were inclined to set aside the blanket ban imposed by the NGT even before the determination of the ‘zone of influence’ around the wetland. They, however, did not want the lifting of the ban by the court to be mistaken as licence for indiscriminate constructions around the marshland.

The judges insisted there must be a balance between the need to preserve the environment by protecting the sources of water to the wetland and the need for infrastructure development. They directed Additional Advocate General P.V. Balasubramaniam to come up with suggestions on areas where constructions could be permitted and those where they could be banned until the final determination of ‘zone of influence.’

The judges granted two weeks’ time to submit the suggestions and said they shall pass further orders after analysing the matter in detail.

Over the past two years, the Bombay High Court has heard multiple petitions seeking restrictions on immersion of PoP Ganesh idols in natural water bodies; the matter remains pending with interim orders issued for the upcoming Ganeshotsav festival

The Bombay High Court is hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed in 2024 seeking the effective implementation of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines against the immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) idols in natural water bodies. The matter has seen multiple hearings and interim orders over two years, with the case now pending ahead of this year’s Ganeshotsav.

The PIL was filed by Rohit Manohar Joshi along with clay-idol craftsmen. The petitioners have sought a prohibition on immersion of PoP idols in natural water bodies, irrespective of height, as well as action against idol-makers using PoP under the Water Pollution Act.

The CPCB guidelines and their legal status

The CPCB issued revised guidelines on May 12, 2020, prescribing that idols made of natural, biodegradable and eco-friendly material be encouraged, and that idols made of PoP be banned.

In June 2025, the CPCB told the Court that its guidelines were advisory rather than statutory, and that its expert committee had clarified the State Government could draft its own immersion policy. The Court expressed displeasure at this position.

“If you say you don’t have powers, then why did you issue such guidelines? If you say you don’t have powers, then withdraw these guidelines,” Justice Gadkari observed in July 2026. The Bench noted that other states, two High Courts (Madras and Telangana) and the National Green Tribunal had passed orders based on these guidelines.

Key developments in 2024

On August 30, 2024, the High Court directed the Maharashtra Government to inform all Sarvajanik Ganesh Mandals to mandatorily follow CPCB guidelines and refrain from installing PoP idols. The Bench expressed displeasure at the lack of implementation by municipal bodies.

“In cases where permissions have been granted, they must be told that PoP idols are not to be installed. Where permission is not granted, let the authorities take an undertaking from the Mandals that they will not use PoP idols,” the Chief Justice said.

The Court suggested the State Government introduce a statutory mechanism with deterrent measures, including fines. “There is no deterrence, no fine. You need to introduce some penalty or at least put some fine, otherwise this will continue,” the Bench noted.

The January 2025 interim order

On January 30, 2025, the High Court issued an interim order against the manufacture, sale and immersion of PoP idols, prohibiting sale and immersion by artisans and vendors ahead of the Maghi Ganesh festival.

The June 2025 modification

On June 9, 2025, the High Court modified its January order. The Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne allowed the manufacture of PoP Ganpati idols, with the caveat that they could not be immersed in natural water bodies without the Court’s permission.

The Court directed the State Government to take a policy decision on immersion of PoP idols in light of the CPCB expert committee’s recommendations. “Such idols shall not be immersed in natural water bodies without the leave of this Court,” the Bench observed.

The State Government’s 2025 policy

On July 21, 2025, the Maharashtra Government formulated a policy permitting immersion of only idols above five feet in natural water bodies, with idols up to five feet to be mandatorily immersed in artificial ponds.

The Government told the Court that around 1.96 lakh idols were up to five feet and would be immersed in artificial tanks, while over 7,000 idols above five feet would be immersed in natural water bodies. It said civic bodies would remove the idols from natural water bodies the following morning.

The Court expressed concern. “Seven thousand is a huge number. Such a large number of idols going into natural water bodies can cause environmental hazard,” Chief Justice Aradhe observed.

The July 2025 interim order

On July 24, 2025, the High Court directed that PoP idols up to six feet in height must be “mandatorily” and “necessarily” immersed in artificial water tanks, an order effective until March 2026 for all festivals involving idol immersion.

The Court noted that the BMC had created 204 water tanks for 1.95 lakh Ganesh idols below five feet the previous year, but only 85,000 idols were immersed in these tanks, with the rest going into natural water bodies. “This Court has to make an endeavour that the impact of immersion of idols on the environment is kept to a bare minimum,” the Chief Justice said.

The Bench directed the State to constitute a committee to suggest reuse and recycling of PoP idols and examine scientific methods of faster, eco-friendly dissolution.

The manufacturers’ position

Manufacturers’ associations have opposed a complete ban, arguing that the CPCB guidelines lack statutory backing and that any restriction would require legislation. They have contended that their fundamental right to carry on business would be affected.

In July 2026, manufacturers suggested a compromise: symbolic immersion of large PoP idols by touching their feet to water, followed by transport to designated recycling facilities. The Court endorsed the suggestion and asked the State to consider it.

The commercial interest argument

On July 16, 2026, the Court questioned manufacturers on whether their commercial interests could override environmental concerns. “Can the interests of a group of persons override the interests of society?” Justice Gadkari asked.

Justice Khata observed that the core issue concerned larger idols immersed in natural water bodies. “We go abroad, we see good and clean water. The manufacturers must consider all this. Why can’t they be more conscious? They too must think of protecting the environment,” he said, adding that citizens have fundamental duties alongside fundamental rights.

The petitioner’s arguments

Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, representing the petitioner, has argued that PoP idols do not dissolve easily and that the colours used on them are toxic. He pointed out that alternatives to PoP had historically been used to make Ganesh idols, and that even the Lalbaugcha Raja idol had not always been made of PoP.

Desai argued that the Maharashtra Government’s 2025 policy, permitting immersion of PoP idols above six feet, was intended to operate only until March 2026, after which a complete ban was envisaged. He submitted that the State’s position was inconsistent with its own studies showing environmental damage.

In July 2026, Desai told the Court that the State was trying to protect “big mandals” by pressing for continued immersion of PoP idols above six feet in natural water bodies. He cited orders by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court and the Telangana High Court, which held that CPCB guidelines were binding.

The State Government’s position

Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe has argued that a complete ban on PoP idols this year is not practical, as preparations for the festival are already under way. The Government has sought continuation of the 2025 policy allowing PoP idols above six feet to be immersed in natural water bodies.

The Government told the Court that the number of PoP idols above six feet had fallen from 7,863 in 2024 to 4,194 in 2025, and argued that change must happen gradually, comparing the issue to vehicular air pollution. It also pointed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s appeal, in his Mann Ki Baat programme, urging devotees to use clay idols instead of PoP.

Current status

The matter remains pending before the Court. On June 9, 2026, the Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne said it would not permit any PoP idol to be immersed in natural water bodies, and directed the State to take a decision on the matter within three weeks.

The Court observed that while it is good that people believe in God, they must also be taught to respect nature. Justice Khata remarked: “We have to protect the environment for our next generation and the next to next generation.”

The case is listed for further hearing.

The Bench sought clarification from the State on why the autopsy and ADR reports had not been given to the father since the incident

The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 3, 2026) asked the Mumbai Police why it had not registered a First Information Report (FIR) in the death of Disha Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, despite her father raising a suspicion of murder. The court also noted that the post-mortem and accidental death reports had not been provided to the family for five years.

A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande heard a petition filed by Satish Salian. The petitioner sought the registration of an FIR against the police’s finding of suicide. The Bench questioned the police’s decision to register only an Accidental Death Report (ADR) and not an FIR.

The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Nilesh Ojha, stated that the police had shown a photo of the body to the father, not the body itself. The police sent Disha’s body for post-mortem three days after her death, while Sushant Singh Rajput’s autopsy occurred within 24 hours.

Ojha submitted a report from forensic experts hired by the family. The report stated that the post-mortem findings were questionable. It noted the absence of injury marks consistent with a 14-floor fall and found the body’s landing position to be approximately 10 feet from the building, instead of directly underneath. The petitioner also alleged that photographs of blood stains were “photoshopped”.

The State’s Chief Public Prosecutor, Shishir Hiray, informed the court that on June 8, 2020, Disha had attended a small gathering at a friend’s home. He said that statements from friends recorded during the investigation supported the suicide narrative. He added that after public protest regarding the initial findings, a second inquiry was conducted, but the conclusion remained unchanged.

Court was hearing an application filed by Himachal Pradesh arguing that the 10 km radius restriction imposed in Uttarakhand should not apply to it; “conscious of the extent to which we are laying down parity,” says SC

The Supreme Court orally clarified on Tuesday (August 4, 2026) that a direction banning mining activities within a 10 km radius of the Asan wetland conservation reserve, a Ramsar site in Uttarakhand, would apply to other wetland conservation reserves across the country for the sake of parity.

“Wherever it is a community or a wetland conservation reserve, Asan [directions] will be applied. Wetlands are in a different category… We are conscious of the extent to which we are laying down parity. It is not that it [directions] would apply to Madhya Pradesh or would apply to West Bengal only…” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed.

The court was hearing an application filed by Himachal Pradesh arguing that the 10 km radius restriction imposed in Uttarakhand should not apply to it.

Himachal Pradesh said the Asan reserve did not come within its territory. Its counsel said there was no need for a buffer zone outside the reserve area, unlike in the case of national parks and sanctuaries.

The trigger for the Himachal Pradesh plea was a pending petition in the State High Court arguing that since Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh were adjoining States, the February 14, 2014 direction of the apex court would extend to the latter also.

Chief Justice Kant said there was no argument on the fact that the Himalayan terrain passed through both the adjoining States.

The apex court, however, said whether the Asan reserve was located in Himachal Pradesh or not was a question of fact.

The Bench directed the standing committee of the National Board of Wildlife or the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change to determine the fact.

The top court underscored that if the wetland conservation reserve was found to be in Himachal Pradesh, the February 14, 2024, ban on mining in Uttarakhand would extend to Himachal Pradesh too.

If, on the other hand, the reserve is not found to be in the Himachal Pradesh territory, the decision on whether or not to allow mining would be taken by the competent authority in accordance with the law.

“The entire Himalayan terrain has to be governed by the same set of directions. The only exception can be if an expert committee says the wetland reserve is not in your State,” the CJI addressed Himachal Pradesh.

On February 14, 2024, the apex court passed an interim order that “no mining activities would be carried out within 10 km radius of the Asan wetland conservation reserve without the project proponent obtaining permission from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife and/or MoEF&CC. The additional reason that weighs with us in issuing this direction is due to the importance given to the wetland, which was declared to be Ramsar site under the Ramsar Convention”.

The top court said that the entire industrial area in Pali is located along the river bank and in the long run, the State authorities may have to consider relocating industries away from the river

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 4, 2026) suggested that the Rajasthan government prepare a 20-point resolution plan to deal with the issue of contamination in the Jojari, Bandi and Luni rivers in the State.

The Jojari river passes through Jodhpur, the Bandi river flows through Pali, and the Luni river runs through Balotra. The Bandi and Jojari rivers merge with the Luni river near Balotra city.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the aim should be to find a lasting solution to the problem.

The top court said that the entire industrial area in Pali is located along the river bank and in the long run, the State authorities may have to consider relocating industries away from the river.

"Let the state come out with a resolution plan," it said.

The apex court was hearing a suo motu case concerning contamination in the Jojari river and had also flagged the issue of pollution in the Bandi and Luni rivers.

During the hearing, the Bench interacted virtually with the Rajasthan Chief Secretary, who told the court that the State acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.

"We are willing to submit a detailed action plan after due consultation with the stakeholders," the Chief Secretary said, adding that all efforts would be made to prevent contamination and pollution in the State's rivers.

Observing that multiple agencies were involved, the bench suggested that the chief secretary constitute a group of officers who would consult and work with the high-level ecosystem oversight committee and prepare a 20-point resolution plan.

"We will require the Chief Secretary to hold a meeting under the chairmanship of the high-powered committee and come back with a 20-point resolution plan," it said.

The Bench said there was a need to evolve a permanent monitoring mechanism for all the rivers in the State.

"We have no intention of destroying the employment which these companies generate, but not at the cost of the environment," it said.

The Bench said it would pass further orders on August 7.

The top court in November last year constituted a high-level ecosystem oversight committee to detect the fundamental maladies in the system, to supervise the remedial measures required to arrest further pollution and to give long-term suggestions for reversal of the damage already caused.

The apex court had last year said that contamination in the Jojari, Bandi and Luni rivers reflected a sustained "systemic collapse" of regulatory vigilance and "utter administrative apathy" stretching over nearly two decades.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismisses anticipatory bail plea after recording the submission by the A-G that Thanjavur police do not intend to remand Mr. Udhayanidhi in judicial custody and that he would be let out on station bail after questioning.

The anxiety over the arrest of the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Udhayanidhi Stalin on Tuesday (August 4, 2026) came to an end within a few hours in the afternoon after Advocate General (A-G) Vijay Narayan informed the Madras High Court that the Thanjavur police do not intend to remand him in judicial custody.

Appearing before Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, the A-G said, though the police had arrested Mr. Udhayanidhi and taken him to Thanjavur, he would be let out on station bail after being questioned in connection with an “objectionable remark” which he had made during a public speech in Thanjavur on Monday.

The judge recorded the A-G’s submission and disposed of an anticipatory bail petition filed by the LoP with a direction to the police to release him on station bail by the end of the day. The judge directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and appear for inquiry whenever he gets summoned.

The Thanjavur Town East police had arrested Mr. Udhayanidhi from his residence in Chennai pursuant to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) on Monday on the basis of a complaint lodged by the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) women’s wing office-bearer Bairavi Sankar.

According to the complainant, the Leader of the Opposition had made a highly derogatory and lewd remark in reference to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and a film actor while delivering a public speech after a demonstration organised by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in connection with Cauvery water issue in Thanjavur.

Hence, the police had registered the FIR for the offences under Sections 61 (criminal conspiracy), 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman), 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), 296b (uttering obscene words in a public place), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The police had also invoked Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 67 of the Infomation Technology Act, 2000 since the complainant had claimed that a video clip of the speech was shared by the DMK IT wing on its social media accounts. The FIR had been booked against the DMK IT wing office-bearers too.

However, in his advance bail plea, Mr. Udhayanidhi denied having made a derogatory or indecent statement against any person or that he used any word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of any woman. He claimed an out of context interpretation had been given to his speech for political purposes.

The lawyer told the court that the students had emailed the NTA and also visited its office, but received no response.

Six NEET-UG candidates approached the Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 4, 2026) alleging discrepancies between the answers they had marked in their OMR sheets during the examination and the copies of those sheets made available by the National Testing Agency (NTA).

The plea was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, seeking an early hearing before the commencement of the counselling process.

The lawyer told a Bench comprising Chief Justice Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana that the case pertains to six students who secured more than 600 and 650 marks but claim that the OMR sheets uploaded by the NTA differ from the answers they had actually marked during the examination.

He also told the court that the students had emailed the NTA and also visited its office, but received no response.

The Bench then agreed to list the matter for hearing.

The NEET-UG 2026 exam, originally held on May 3, was cancelled following a paper leak and was re-conducted on June 21 by the NTA.