The Delhi High Court has sought the stand of the Centre and the Delhi government on a plea seeking completion of the statutory process for constituting the Delhi Waqf Board.

Justice Anish Dayal, on September 8, issued notice to the authorities on a petition seeking directions for constitution of the Board in accordance with the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

Counsel for the petitioner, Rizwan Ahmad, pointed out that the tenure of the previous Delhi Waqf Board expired on August 23, 2023, but no steps have been taken to constitute a fresh Board. An Administrator was appointed by the Delhi government on January 10, 2024, but the Board has not been constituted since then, he said.

The petitioner, Mohd Shahid, said Parliament has retained the statutory obligation to constitute a Waqf Board for every State and Union Territory even after the 2025 amendment. The continued failure of the authorities to constitute the Board was, therefore, a breach of their statutory obligation, the plea stated.

“Public charitable institutions, mosques, graveyards, educational institutions and other waqf establishments dependent upon proper statutory supervision have suffered irreparable prejudice. The beneficiaries of such waqfs, including worshippers and members of the Muslim community, have been deprived of the statutory safeguards envisaged by Parliament,” the petition stated.

It further submitted that executive authorities could not, through prolonged inaction, render a Parliamentary enactment ineffective. “Once Parliament has directed constitution of a statutory Board, the respondents are constitutionally bound to complete the statutory process within a reasonable period,” it stated, adding that failure to do so amounted to arbitrary executive inaction and violated the rule of law.

The matter will be heard next on December 10.

The court has directed the petitioner to register his divorce under the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorce Act, 2024

The Gauhati High Court had upheld the validity of ‘talaq-e-hassan’, a Muslim form of divorce where a husband pronounces the word ‘talaq’ once for three consecutive months.

While affirming its validity, the court directed petitioner Rakibul Bhuyan of Barpeta district’s Gelabil village to register his divorce under the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorce Act, 2024.

The petitioner said that his wife allegedly left him in 2018, two years after their marriage. After attempts at reconciliation failed, he pronounced talaq-e-hassan on March 22, April 26, and May 27, 2026.

He said that with the pronouncement of the third talaq, the marriage had broken. On June 2, he submitted an application to the sub-registrar-cum-marriage and divorce registrar in western Assam’s Barpeta under Section 12 of the 2024 Act.

His application was not accepted. The State government submitted in court that the 1935 version of the Act dealing with Muslim marriages and divorces had been repealed and the authority appointed under that law could no longer register the divorce.

The petitioner said that the marriage and divorce registrar could not have refused to register the divorce under the 2024 Act as ‘talaq-e-hassan’ was not prohibited in India.

Issuing the order on September 8, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that ‘talaq-e-hassan’ remained a valid form of divorce in the country and directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional marriage and divorce registrar under the 2024 Act to register the divorce.

“On such approach being made, the jurisdictional Marriage & Divorce Registrar shall consider the application of the petitioner and satisfy himself with regard to the fact as to whether the divorce was effected by the petitioner, who claims to have pronounced the same and also after identifying the petitioner to be the person pronouncing the divorce, proceed to decide as to whether the divorce would mandate a registration,” the order read.

The judge further said that if registration is refused, the petitioner could appeal under Section 17 of the 2024 Act.

Disposing of the petition, the judge also observed that the wife, who was not present in court despite notices being served, remained free to challenge the ‘talaq-e-hassan’ before an appropriate forum.

The action taken by the Palghar police appeared to be merely superficial and seemed to have been carried out in a manner that would ultimately benefit the accused, the High Court said

Five days after a group of people attacked staff at a private hospital over the treatment of an injured ‘Govinda’, Palghar Police in Maharashtra on Friday (September 11, 2026) arrested 14 persons, including a Shiv Sena MLA's son, even as the Bombay High Court termed the probe so far as “ridiculous and seriously flawed” and sought a report from a high-ranking official.

The action taken by the Palghar police appeared to be "merely superficial and seemed to have been carried out in a manner that would ultimately benefit the accused", the High Court said.

On the intervening night of September 5 and 6, Sena workers barged into Relief Hospital at Palghar where a few injured 'Govindas' who had participated in the Dahi Handi celebrations had been admitted.

Claiming that the hospital was charging exorbitant fees, they allegedly vandalised the property, threatened the doctors, assaulted staff members and forcibly took away one of the injured persons from the ICU.

Shiv Sena Palghar city chief Rahul Gharat was arrested in the case on September 7, following which he was suspended from the party.

A police official said another 14 persons were arrested on Friday (September 11), including MLA Rajendra Gavit's son Rohit. The police have registered a First Information Report against a total of 22 persons.

In the High Court, the bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata directed the Additional Inspector General of Police, Konkan division, to examine the investigation and submit a report on September 17 stating whether the action taken by the Palghar police was legally proper.

The bench questioned the "lackadaisical" manner in which the investigation had been carried out so far, from the preparation of the panchnama (spot inspection report) to the station case diary entries.

The bench was originally hearing a plea taken up suo motu (on its own) into the assault that occurred at a civic hospital in Thane in July, in which Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre is an accused, when senior counsel Ashok Mundargi informed it about the Palghar incident.

The BCCI has decided that a player must hold a passport of India to take part in tournaments that bodies under the BCCI organise

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (September 10, 2026) asked 12 holders of OCI cards, who have moved petitions against a rule of the BCCI that requires a passport of India for players in its tournaments, to add the Government at the Centre as a party. The Court issued notice to the Government and said the matter will be heard on October 14.

A bench of Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, who heads the court, and Judge Advait Sethna said the Government at the Centre should be a respondent in these petitions. The bench said this would help it know the stand of the Government. The bench said an order in this matter could have consequences.

The bench said, “If we pass an order and a consequence follows, and the Government seeks a recall, then what? If the Government says no holder of an OCI card can represent the country, it will help. You should implead the Government as a respondent.”

The petitions include Kavin Kartik and 11 minors. The minors were born in countries outside India. They acquired citizenship of those countries by birth. Their parents are nationals of India. The minors hold OCI cards, and reside in India, and play cricket.

The petitions are challenging a decision of the BCCI from April 2024. The BCCI has decided that a player must hold a passport of India to take part in tournaments that bodies under the BCCI organise. The BCCI has banned players with citizenship of another country from these tournaments. The BCCI said the decision aims to ensure citizens of India get chances for selection in teams of the country and teams across countries.

Advocates Kunal Cheema and Datta Mane appeared for the petitioners. They argued that the BCCI is an independent body, not the Government, and that the decision affects rights of people. Mr. Cheema said, “If children are not allowed to play now, what about their rights and development?”

The bench asked Mr. Cheema, “If citizens of India say OCI card holders get benefit and they lose rights, then what?” The bench pointed to players from Afghanistan who have settled in India and sought citizenship of India to play with the BCCI. The bench said it wanted to know the stand of the Government.

Mr. Cheema said the BCCI permits holders of OCI cards, and people from countries outside India, to play in the IPL. The bench asked him not to mix issues. The bench said, “The IPL is not the BCCI. It is a venture for money. Players in the IPL do not represent the country. We are not against the rights of a child to play and develop. We have not made up our mind. We want to know the version of the Government.”

The bench issued notice to the Government. It directed the Government to file an affidavit-in-reply, a document, to these petitions. The matter will be heard on October 14.

The court directed that Junaid Qureshi, son of Hashim Qureshi, be “taken into custody forthwith and handed over to the Nishat police”

A local court in Srinagar on Friday (September 11, 2026) denied bail and ordered immediate arrest of the son of Ganga airline hijacker Hashim Qureshi, as the accused allegedly attacked and left his father “critically injured” apparently during a family dispute on September 3 in Srinagar.  

“A person who would ordinarily look towards his children for care and protection in the later years of his life is, according to the material presently before the court, struggling with a serious injury allegedly sustained at the hands of one of them,” observed the court.  

The court directed that Junaid Qureshi, son of Hashim Qureshi, be “taken into custody forthwith and handed over to the Nishat police”.

Hashim Qureshi hit the global headlines in 1971 when he, along with an accomplice, allegedly hijacked “Ganga,” an Indian Airliner, and diverted it to Lahore in Pakistan, while it was heading to Jammu from Srinagar. Mr. Qureshi remained in a Pakistani jail before he shifted to Amsterdam and later returned to J&K in 2000.

On September 3, Hashim Qureshi sustained head injury allegedly during a family dispute with his son and was shifted to a private hospital in a “critical condition” in Srinagar. Mr. Qureshi has remained in the hospital since then, according to the family. 

The court said it examined the case diary and the hospital records, “showing Mr. Qureshi to be in a critical condition”. It said upon a prima facie viewing, the footage appears to depict the accused pushing the victim, whereafter the victim falls down the stairs and sustains an injury to his head.”

A First Information Report under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was lodged at the Nishat police station after the incident. Junaid Qureshi is director of the European Foundation for South Asian Studies, an Amsterdam-based policy research think tank, and would address the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva over human rights issues.

A bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna heard a petition

The Bombay High Court on Friday (September 11, 2026) declined to pass orders restraining Manoj Jarange Patil from holding a march to Mumbai. The court observed that India is a democracy and that the right to agitate is a right. The court issued a notice to the State and directed it to provide healthcare to Mr. Patil.

A bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna heard a petition. The petition sought directions regarding the “March to Mumbai” call given by Mr. Patil. The court questioned the basis for seeking orders when the persons had not arrived in Mumbai. “How can we stop someone from agitating or protesting?” the Chief Justice said.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, submitted that Mr. Patil had stated in a video that he would enter Mumbai and continue his protest even if permission was denied. Mr. Khandeparkar stated that Mr. Patil is in Jalna district, which is 500 km away. The advocate referred to an order passed by the High Court a year ago when persons had allegedly blocked roads in Mumbai.

The Chief Justice questioned the basis for seeking orders. “Merely on apprehensions and experiences you cannot say like this. It is for the agencies to look into this,” the Chief Justice said. The bench questioned how it could pass orders on the basis of these apprehensions. “Just because there were experiences you cannot speculate. Orders cannot be passed on speculations. But if situation arises, Court will look into it,” the Chief Justice observed.

The Court emphasised the right to protest. “But if someone is protesting... They know this is democracy. How can we stop someone from agitating or protesting? Why should we pass orders based on your speculations and apprehensions and make observations?” the Chief Justice said. “We can only issue notice at this stage but we are not inclined to entertain this PIL or petition which is based on speculations... We will not make observations to what was made a year ago. Those were made because situation warranted but at present there is no situation as of now. Why should we apprehend anything? Even he is a person. Right to agitate is a right,” he added.

Maharashtra Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe informed the Court that the Ganesh festival would commence on September 14 and pointed out that the State had not granted permission for the protest by Mr. Patil. The Court asked the Advocate General to clarify whether the State has the capability and whether the government would address a situation if it arises.

To this, AG said that without permission, protest cannot happen and that the government will take care of the situation. Chief Justice responded: “Don’t expect anything unless the situation arises. We can only say that a protest or rally must happen in accordance with law.. If the State has no capability, High Court has the capability to..”

The Court issued notice on the plea and directed the State to provide healthcare to Mr. Patil to ensure nothing happens to him from the strike.

Court directs Kochi Corporation and Kochi Commissioner of Police to report on steps taken to address concerns regarding roads, streetlights and footpaths

The Kerala High Court has criticised the State authorities for failing to improve roads, footpaths, and curbing irresponsible driving by heavy vehicles.

Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the Kochi Corporation and the Kochi Commissioner of Police to report on the steps taken to address the concerns regarding roads, streetlights and footpaths. Additionally, the court directed the National Highways Authority of India to file a statement regarding the status and conditions of highway construction on the Edapally-Chavakkad stretch.

The amicus curiae informed the court that heavy vehicles, including private buses, were using the public roads “recklessly”, posing a threat to every road user.

The court noted a recent incident where a private bus employee allegedly accosted travellers in a car. The police informed the court that necessary action was taken against the employee regarding the incident.

Regular campaigns

The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic) apprised the court that regular campaigns would be conducted to curtail traffic incidents in the city, especially concerning heavy vehicles. The police would subject private bus drivers and employees to police verification, and “character certificates” would be issued appropriately. The court observed that heavy vehicles had a responsibility to conduct themselves carefully and ensure that other road users are unharmed.

The court expressed dissatisfaction, noting that despite recorded assurances from the authorities concerned, road safety was not given due importance, particularly at zebra crossings, pedestrian areas, and other points of high population density.

The Supreme Court on September 10, 2026 rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Sumit Roy in the Salboni land scam case where West Bengal govt land was allegedly sold and the sale proceeds deposited in the party’s account

The West Bengal CID on Thursday (September 10, 2026) detained TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee’s personal assistant Sumit Roy, soon after the Supreme Court refused his anticipatory bail prayer in a land scam case, officials said.

Mr. Roy was picked up by CID officers from Mr. Banerjee’s Kalighat residence here in connection with alleged illegal sale of government land in Salboni, they said.

The TMC MP’s aide had been summoned to the State CID headquarters on several occasions in the past regarding the case, after the Supreme Court earlier stayed his arrest and directed him to cooperate with the investigation.

Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Mr. Roy.

A Bench comprising Chief justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also vacated its earlier order of August 6 by which it had stayed the arrest of Mr. Roy.

The Bench heard the submissions of senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Mr. Roy, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State government before declining relief to the accused.

On August 3, the Calcutta High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Mr. Roy in connection with the alleged government land fraud case being investigated by Salboni police.

The case was registered under penal provisions relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy.

The solicitor general had strongly opposed the grant of interim relief, saying Mr. Roy’s custodial interrogation was necessary.

The High Court bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh had declined to grant pre-arrest bail in the case.

The State counsel had told the High Court that the investigation had unearthed forged title deeds relating to government land.

The prosecution alleged that government land had been transferred with the complicity of local political leaders and influential persons.

The Supreme Court on September 10, 2026 rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Sumit Roy in the Salboni land scam case where West Bengal govt land was allegedly sold and the sale proceeds deposited in the party’s account

The West Bengal CID on Thursday (September 10, 2026) detained TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee’s personal assistant Sumit Roy, soon after the Supreme Court refused his anticipatory bail prayer in a land scam case, officials said.

Mr. Roy was picked up by CID officers from Mr. Banerjee’s Kalighat residence here in connection with alleged illegal sale of government land in Salboni, they said.

The TMC MP’s aide had been summoned to the State CID headquarters on several occasions in the past regarding the case, after the Supreme Court earlier stayed his arrest and directed him to cooperate with the investigation.

Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Mr. Roy.

A Bench comprising Chief justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also vacated its earlier order of August 6 by which it had stayed the arrest of Mr. Roy.

The Bench heard the submissions of senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Mr. Roy, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State government before declining relief to the accused.

On August 3, the Calcutta High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Mr. Roy in connection with the alleged government land fraud case being investigated by Salboni police.

The case was registered under penal provisions relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy.

The solicitor general had strongly opposed the grant of interim relief, saying Mr. Roy’s custodial interrogation was necessary.

The High Court bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh had declined to grant pre-arrest bail in the case.

The State counsel had told the High Court that the investigation had unearthed forged title deeds relating to government land.

The prosecution alleged that government land had been transferred with the complicity of local political leaders and influential persons.

Petition highlights urgent need for standardized investigative protocols and dedicated courts to combat systemic failures in child kidnapping cases

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 10, 2026) sought a response from the Centre and the States on a PIL seeking a uniform nationwide mechanism for the investigation of kidnapping and abduction cases involving children, including time-bound probes, specialised investigating procedures and dedicated courts for speedy trials.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notices to the Centre, the States, Union Territories, Union Ministries of Education, Law and Justice and Home Affairs, and the Law Commission on the plea filed by advocate and petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

The petition, filed through advocate-on-record Ashwani Kumar Dubey, referred to systemic failures in the handling of cases involving missing, kidnapped and abducted children and seeks judicial intervention to ensure prompt and coordinated action by investigating agencies.

“Direct the Centre and States to formulate ‘Standard Questionnaires’, ‘Special Investigation Procedure’ and to ensure that investigation of kidnapping and abduction shall be done by the officer not below the rank of ACP/SHO in order to ensure time-bound investigation,” the plea said.

It also sought directions to establish special courts like MLA-MP courts to decide the cases of kidnapping and abduction within a year.

“Direct the Centre and States to assess the entire property of kidnappers, abductors and family members, and accordingly invoke the provisions of money laundering, benami property and black money,” it said.

It also sought directions to the governments to take steps to confiscate movable and immovable property of perpetrators and their family members involved in kidnapping and abduction.

“Direct and declare that sentences in kidnapping and abduction shall be consecutive, not concurrent, in order to create a deterrent,” it said.

The PIL said that police authorities often fail to promptly register FIRs and delays in investigation can significantly reduce the chances of recovering abducted children while increasing their vulnerability to trafficking, sexual exploitation, forced labour, illegal adoption and other forms of exploitation.

Referring to several recent incidents in the petition, the plea alleged that organised networks involved in child trafficking and illegal adoption operate across State boundaries, requiring greater coordination among police forces and specialised agencies.

It also cited National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)-related data and incidents from Delhi, Hyderabad, Rajasthan and other parts of the country to say that the problem requires a uniform institutional response.

A key grievance raised in the petition is the alleged practice of registering complaints regarding missing children merely as “gumshuda” or “missing persons” reports instead of FIRs.

According to the petition, such practices can delay the commencement of a full-fledged criminal investigation.

The top court was hearing a plea by Dilip S. Ghumare, a judicial officer from Maharashtra, challenging a Bombay High Court order initiating contempt proceedings against him for committing an “inexcusable act with impunity” in open court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 10, 2026) said a judicial officer raising his voice at judges in court amounted to “gross indiscipline”, while declining to stay criminal contempt proceedings against a senior Maharashtra judicial officer accused of an “outrageous” and “unpardonable” outburst in a packed courtroom.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea by Dilip S. Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Adviser in Maharashtra’s Department of Law and Judiciary, challenging the Bombay High Court’s September 1 order initiating contempt proceedings against him.

“A judicial officer cannot shout against the judges in a court... He should repent for his words. This is gross indiscipline. Even a senior bureaucrat does not dare to raise his voice in the court,” the Bench observed.

The contempt proceedings stem from an incident in which Mr. Ghumare allegedly raised his voice in the courtroom and blamed the Bombay High Court administration for vacant judicial posts. The High Court had said that the officer’s “unwarranted outburst” and “aggressive demeanour” amounted to “contempt ex facie” under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

On Thursday (September 10, 2026), senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Mr. Ghumare, sought a stay on the contempt proceedings, pointing out that his client had already tendered an apology and subsequently sought voluntary retirement.

Mr. Singh told the Bench that Mr. Ghumare was required to serve a three-month notice period and had since been posted nearly 1,000 km away in a Naxalite-affected region. He argued that the officer had merely pointed out that only 385 of 1,100 sanctioned judicial posts had been filled and that it was for the High Court to process the remaining appointments.

The Bench, however, declined to stay the contempt proceedings, but restrained the High Court from passing a final order. It also issued notice on the officer’s plea and listed the matter for September 28, allowing the High Court proceedings to continue in the meantime.

The Bench also advised Mr. Ghumare to appear before the High Court and tender an unconditional apology. “Our advice to you is that you should go back to the High Court and seek an unconditional apology. Let the High Court consider your request,” it said.

The controversy arose during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed in 2013 by RTI activist Vihar Durve concerning the creation and filling of posts in fast-track courts dealing with offences against women and minor girls.

The High Court, which had earlier found affidavits filed by Mr. Ghumare “unsatisfactory”, was examining an August 27 affidavit on 179 new posts for fast-track courts. When Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan P. Kakade was unable to provide a clear response to the Bench’s queries, it asked Mr. Ghumare to clarify the position.

Instead of responding, Mr. Ghumare allegedly “launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone (bordering on shouting)” and blamed the court administration, the High Court said, noting that the incident took place in a packed courtroom.

Describing his conduct as “manifestly unbecoming of any judicial officer”, a Division Bench of Justices Ajey S. Gadkari and Kamal R. Khata said Mr. Ghumare’s remarks amounted to a “deliberate and unwarranted assault upon the dignity and authority” of the court.

Advocate General Milind Sathe was called upon to assist the court. While distancing himself from Mr. Ghumare’s conduct, he requested the Bench to consider an apology from the officer, who was present in the courtroom.

The High Court, however, refused to accept the apology, observing that doing so in the circumstances would send a “deeply troubling message” to the public.

“To permit this would convey to the public at large a deeply troubling message: that one can commit an otherwise inexcusable act with impunity in open Court and then sheepishly, in a theatrical manner, not meaning a word of it, offer an apology,” the Bench had said.

The High Court on Tuesday asked the Delhi government to submit its response on implementing the action plan for elimination of rabies in stray dogs in the national capital.

The court also asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to submit their status reports on steps taken by them to vaccinate and sterilise stray dogs.

During the hearing, a Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was informed that the amicus curiae, appointed to assist the court in the matter, has prepared an action plan for dog-mediated rabies elimination from India by 2030.

The court was informed that the MCD held four camps in Anand Vihar ward in August and September during which 43 dogs were caught, sterilised and vaccinated and released to their respective areas.

The court was also informed that NDMC also conducted camps during which 28 dogs were caught, 615 dogs were vaccinated and school awareness programmes were held.

The court directed that the MCD and NDMC mention in their status reports as to how many dogs were caught and also ensure that at least one ward from their areas is rabies-free.

The authorities submitted that they will continue holding the camps and will make at least one ward rabies-free and that all dogs will be vaccinated and sterilised.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on October 5.

The Bench passed the order on a suo motu case initiated by the court pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions passed on May 19. The SC had directed the State governments and Union Territories to augment infrastructure to deal with stray dogs and other animals, and asked all the High Courts to register a suo motu case to ensure compliance of its August 22, 2025, and November 7, 2025, directions.

The appellant, a 38-year-old Muslim woman from Raipur, had sought the quashing of the impugned order dated January 18, 2022, passed by the Idara- E-Shariya Islami Court, by which it had “passed the decision of giving Triple Talaq/Divorce to the petitioner”

No religious institution or private body can be permitted to assume the authority of a Court, said the Chhattisgarh High Court in a recent order after a woman challenged a self-styled Shariya court "order" stating that she had been granted divorce under Muslim personal law.

“..this Court observes that religion may guide an individual's conscience and personal faith, but no religious institution or private body can be permitted to assume the authority of a Court established by law or to use religious belief as a means of determining or enforcing the legal status and rights of an individual. The rule of law and the constitutional framework remain paramount,” the court said in its order.

The appellant, a 38-year-old Muslim woman from Raipur, had sought the quashing of the impugned order dated January 18, 2022, passed by the Idara- E-Shariya Islami Court, by which it had “passed the decision of giving Triple Talaq/Divorce to the petitioner”. She also challenged the very existence of the so-called Idara-E Shariya Islami Court.

She argued that the existence of such a body was in violation of the Constitution, Fundamental Rights to Life & Liberty, & The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 {specifically Section 2 (c ) }, where absolutely no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner/Muslim Women following the 'Shariyat Law' which is not applicable in India as provided by the Constitution of India.

Informing the court that while criminal proceedings against her husband under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provisions relating to cruelty were on, she was shocked to learn that the Idara- E-Shariya Islami Court had purported to exercise such authority and pass an order affecting her marital status. This, she informed the court, had happened despite her having already approached the competent authorities and set the machinery of law into motion.

During the hearing, the counsel for the State submitted that the Indian constitutional and legal framework did not recognise any parallel judicial system based on religion.

Informal bodies, alternatively styling themselves as "Sharia Courts," "Darul Qaza," or "Courts of Kazi, have absolutely zero statutory recognition, judicial authority, or power to adjudicate civil and matrimonial disputes.

While the single-judge bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad declared the January 18, 2022 order issued by the Idara-E-Shariya Islami Court without legal authority, it refrained from adjudicating on the constitutional validity of Talaq-e-Hasan, noting that the larger issue remained pending before the Supreme Court.

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday (September 8, 2026) reserved orders in an interim application seeking modification of the order directing the police chief to take action against the ‘erring police officials’ who prevented Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) legislators from entering the Assembly the previous day. 

The judge said the order would be pronounced in a day or two. Appearing for the government, the Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy presented contentions to modify the order stating that police were not at fault and acted as per the direction of the Chief Marshal of the Assembly. The Advocate General read out provisions of Rule 316 of the Assembly Business stating that in case of necessary situation, the Chief Marshal of the Assembly can take the assistance of the police in ensuring smooth conduct of the Assembly. 

The Advocate General contended that the photographs presented by the BRS party, which filed the writ petition alleging that police prevented its legislators from entering the Assembly, presented only one side of the picture. Senior counsel Gandra Mohan Rao, appearing for the petitioners, argued there was no need to modify the order as the judge said only ‘erring police officers’ should acted upon. If no officer was found to be at fault, naturally there would not be action against anyone, he said. 

The petitioner claimed that fancy seat covers and accessories replace safety equipment in vehicles, jeopardising the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 9, 2026) said that the high occurrence of deaths and life-altering injuries in road accidents due to deliberate negligence in using seat belts, observing child safety measures and the absence of first aid kits is highly deplorable.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant asked the Union Road Ministry to consider a petition filed by Jothydev Kesavadev, a doctor and researcher represented by advocate Wills Mathews, who said fatalities could be effectively prevented by simple but largely ignored and weakly enforced measures like adherence to seat belts, child seats and rear seat belts required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court said the issue clearly came within the ambit of the enforcement powers of the Executive, and not within the judiciary’s realm.

“How can the Supreme Court look into the case of every citizen, every driver in the country… For example, we have prescribed a life sentence, for the entire life till death, in murder cases. Has that prevented murder?” Chief Justice Kant asked.Mr. Mathews submitted that fancy seat covers and other accessories replace safety equipment in vehicles. He said the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution was at stake.

“This is the job of the law enforcement authorities. They have to implement and give effect to the rules,” CJI Surya Kant noted.

Mr. Mathews said his client had sent a representation to the government on February 16, highlighting the issue, but had not received any response.

“I am helpless,” he submitted.

The Bench recorded in its order to the Ministry to receive and examine the records presented by the petitioner.

The Supreme Court Bench was hearing a suo motu case concerning NCERT’s Class 8 social science book, which contained ‘offending’ content on ‘corruption in the judiciary’

The judiciary is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism, the Supreme Court has said while cautioning that such criticism be voiced through the appropriate forum and in a fair, rational mechanism.

The observations by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana came while closing suo motu proceedings pertaining to the contents of the Class 8 NCERT textbook which referred to ‘corruption in the judiciary’.

The Supreme Court said the distinction lies not between criticism and silence, but between responsible discourse and uninformed assertion.

The judiciary is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism, the Supreme Court has said while cautioning that such criticism be voiced through the appropriate forum and in a fair, rational mechanism.

The observations by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana came while closing suo motu proceedings pertaining to the contents of the Class 8 NCERT textbook which referred to ‘corruption in the judiciary’.

The Supreme Court said the distinction lies not between criticism and silence, but between responsible discourse and uninformed assertion.

“The Judiciary, as an institution, is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism. Fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy, contributing to institutional accountability and self-correction.

“What is required, however, is that such criticism be voiced through the appropriate forum and in a fair, rational mechanism, and not find its way, without verification, into a school curriculum meant for impressionable minds,” the Bench said in its September 1 order, whose contents were later made available.

The Supreme Court took note that the controversial chapter has been replaced based on the revisions suggested by an expert panel constituted by the Centre.

The Bench was hearing a suo motu case concerning NCERT’s Class 8 social science book, which contained “offending” content on corruption in the judiciary.

The Supreme Court had earlier modified its March 11 order that had directed the Centre, States and others to disassociate from three academicians following a row over the controversial chapter on corruption in the judiciary.

The Supreme Court, which considered the explanation given by the three academicians, had left it open to the Centre, States, Union Territories, public universities and institutions that receive funds from the Central or State governments to take an independent decision on the issue without being influenced by its observations made in the March 11 order.

It had also recalled a part of the March 11 order that had recorded that the three academicians — Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar — had “deliberately and knowingly” misrepresented the facts to project a negative image of the Indian Judiciary to Class 8 students.

The Bench had passed the order while hearing an application filed by the three academicians, who explained their stand and said that no individual had the sole say in the drafting of the content and it was a collective process.

The Court had also observed that its comments were made in the context of the contents and not the individuals.

On March 11, acting tough against the three experts involved in the drafting of the controversial chapter in the National Council of Educational Research and Training’s (NCERT) social science book for Class 8, the Court had directed the Centre and all States to disassociate from them.

It had directed the Centre to form a committee of domain experts within a week for the purpose of finalising the curriculum of the NCERT’s legal studies for not only Class 8 but also higher classes.

On February 26, the Supreme Court imposed a “blanket ban” on any further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the NCERT’s Class 8 social science textbook that contained the “offending” contents on corruption in the judiciary, saying they have fired a gunshot and the Judiciary is “bleeding”.

The habeas corpus petition was mentioned for urgent hearing before a Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia which allowed it to be listed during the day.

The Delhi High Court on Monday (September 7, 2026) agreed to grant urgent hearing on a plea by Hindutva influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj against his arrest in connection with the alleged assault on the father of a student activist during a protest at Jantar Mantar.

The habeas corpus petition was mentioned for urgent hearing before a Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia which allowed it to be listed during the day.

Advocate Umesh Sharma mentioned the matter on behalf of Mr. Bhardwaj, and said “the person is in custody for last three days, I am praying that the habeas corpus petition be listed today”.

On Sunday (September 6), Mr. Bhardwaj was produced before a duty magistrate through video conferencing and sent to one-day judicial custody in the case.

Mr. Bhardwaj was detained in Bulandshahr on September 4, hours after the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) staged a protest outside the Parliament Street police station here demanding his arrest over the alleged assault.

Delhi Police has added provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and criminal intimidation to the FIR against Mr. Bhardwaj over the alleged assault on Sanjay Kumar, the father of a teenage student activist, during the CJP-led protest at Jantar Mantar in June. A POCSO case has also been registered against him.

Following his arrest, he was produced at the residence of a sessions judge here on September 5 who allowed the Delhi Police's plea seeking one-day custodial interrogation of the accused.

The police action follows outrage over an interview in which Mr. Bhardwaj claimed he had “cracked the skull” of the student activist's father during the June 23 protest and escaped arrest because of his political connections.

“I cracked the skull... Do you know which section this crime attracts? Section 307. He needed 60 stitches,” Mr. Bhardwaj had said in the interview.

The student had earlier alleged that she received rape threats, verbal abuse and morphed images after speaking out against the alleged assault on her father and filing a police complaint.

Ansiba had approached High Court challenging an order of Magistrate Court, which had refused to register a case based on her complaint against a video allegedly containing sexually coloured and defamatory statements regarding her

The Kerala High Court has directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, to independently examine woman actor Ansiba Hassan’s complaint against fellow actors Lakshmipriya and Shwetha Menon, the president and vice-president of the Association of Malayalam Movie  Artistes (AMMA) respectively, and determine whether the matter prima facie required a police investigation.

Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed Ms. Hassan’s plea and directed the Magistrate to also consider whether a police investigation is required to collect evidence which cannot be secured by the complainant. 

Ms. Hassan had approached the High Court challenging an order of the Magistrate Court, which had refused to register a case based on her complaint against a video allegedly containing sexually coloured and defamatory statements regarding her. She stated that a teaser video of an interview with Ms. Lakshmipriya was published on a social media platform, allegedly containing sexually coloured remarks against Ms. Hassan, in the early hours of June 26.

Ms. Hassan claimed that these remarks were intended to outrage her modesty and insult her dignity as a woman. She said she tried to prevent the release of the full interview by immediately filing complaints with the police and the Keralam Home Minister, who reportedly told her that an investigation had been initiated. Later, on June 26, the full interview was released, allegedly with remarks by Ms. Lakshmipriya portraying Ms. Hassan as a “woman of immoral character who clandestinely invites men to her room for illicit activities”.

When the matter was considered by the Magistrate, the SHO Palarivattom had stated that six witnesses had been examined and that there was no evidence to prove her allegations. Ms. Hassan contended before the High Court that the Magistrate had erred in concluding that her allegations only disclosed the offence of defamation. She claimed that the Magistrate ignored her complaint that the accused, Ms. Lakshmipriya, deliberately published sexually coloured remarks against her through social media.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising urged a three-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant to list the marital rape petitions for hearing in November

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 7, 2026) said it will await the stand of the central government on a batch of petitions concerning the criminalisation of marital rape before fixing a suitable date for hearing on the issue.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising mentioned a petition related to the prosecution of a husband for martial rape before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, urging that the batch be listed for a date in November.

Ms. Jaising, who appeared for the wife, said although the matters are scheduled to come up for hearing on Wednesday (September 9), the Centre was yet to file a substantive reply and that the parties were also yet to exchange the petitions.

"Union has not filed a reply, except a preliminary objection. I am asking for a fixed date of hearing in November. We have not exchanged the petitions. We don't know the commonality or differences," the senior counsel said.

"Matter is listed on Wednesday (September 9). Union will appear. We will see what they say, and then we will fix a suitable date accordingly," the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said.

The court was told that the batch pertains to constitutional validity and interpretation of the provisions concerning martial rape in the criminal law.

Under the exception clause of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, now repealed and replaced by the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, the wife not being minor, is not rape.

Even under the new law, exception 2 to section 63 (rape) says that "sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape".

The Supreme Court had on January 16, 2023 sought the Centre's response on a clutch of petitions assailing the IPC provision which provides protection to a husband against prosecution for forcible sexual intercourse if the wife is an adult.

Later, it also issued notice to the Centre on a similar plea challenging the BNS provision on the issue.

The newly enacted laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, came into effect from July 1, 2024, replacing the IPC, CrPC and the Evidence Act.

One of the pleas is related to the Delhi High Court's split verdict of May 11, 2022, on the issue. The appeal has been filed by a woman, who was one of the petitioners before the Delhi High Court.

While delivering a split judgement, High Court judges Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C. Hari Shankar had concurred on granting the petitioners a certificate of leave to appeal in the Supreme Court as the matter involved substantial questions of law which required a decision by the top court.

While Justice Shakdher, who headed the division bench, favoured striking down the marital rape exception for being "unconstitutional" and said it would be "tragic if a married woman's call for justice is not heard even after 162 years" since the enactment of the IPC, Justice Shankar said the exception under the rape law is not "unconstitutional and was based on an intelligible differentia".

The concept of intelligible differentia distinguishes people or things grouped together from those that are left out.

The Karnataka High Court has earlier said exempting a husband from the allegations of rape and unnatural sex with his wife runs against Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.

The set of pleas are PILs filed against the IPC provision and have challenged the constitutionality of the marital rape exception under Section 375 IPC (rape) on the grounds that it discriminates against married women who are sexually assaulted by their husbands.

The top court issued notice on the Maharashtra government’s appeal challenging the bail granted to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre in connection with the alleged assault on three municipal doctors in Thane

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 7, 2026) said that those who assault doctors and hospital staff “do not deserve to roam on the streets even for a minute”, prompting a Maharashtra corporator accused of attacking three municipal doctors in Thane to withdraw his plea after the Bench indicated that it could examine the cancellation of his bail.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre challenging the Bombay High Court’s July 18 order staying the bail granted to him by the trial court, as well as its August 7 order imposing stringent conditions on his release, including that he remain outside Maharashtra until the commencement of the trial.

“This is their modus operandi. These people do not deserve to roam on the streets even for a minute,” the Bench remarked, indicating that it intended to issue notice on the Maharashtra government’s appeal challenging the grant of bail to Mr. Mhatre.

The court also referred to a recent incident in Palghar, where 17 Shiv Sena workers were booked for allegedly assaulting staff at a hospital on September 5 following a dispute over the treatment of a 19-year-old man injured during a Dahi Handi celebration.

“We are going to issue notice on the State’s appeal. Yesterday, again the same group of people have assaulted doctors and hospital staff in Palghar,” the Bench said, adding that there appeared to be a “propensity to do these things”.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mr. Mhatre, clarified that those booked in the Palghar incident were not the same persons accused in the Thane case. He then sought permission to withdraw Mr. Mhatre’s plea, saying he wanted to “put a quietus to this here”.

“The writing on the wall is clear. Therefore, I would want to withdraw,” Mr. Rohatgi said.

Justice Nath, however, said the court needed to send a larger message against attacks on medical professionals. “A message needs to go, not only to these people but to everyone, as a deterrent. Such people do not deserve to roam freely on the streets even for a minute,” he said.

Accordingly, the Bench issued notice on the Maharashtra government’s appeal challenging the bail granted to Mr. Mhatre and three other accused and directed that it be listed on September 28. It also allowed Mr. Mhatre to withdraw his petitions.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had indicated that it was inclined to cancel Mr. Mhatre’s bail, observing that those who had “no respect for the medical fraternity” should not be enlarged on bail. It had, however, decided to await a formal plea from the Maharashtra government seeking cancellation of the bail.

The case stems from an alleged assault on three doctors at the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation-run Shastri Nagar Hospital in Dombivli, Thane district, on July 6.

Mr. Mhatre and others allegedly attacked the doctors after they advised that a pregnant woman be shifted to another hospital as all beds in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) were occupied.

The Bombay High Court subsequently initiated suo motu proceedings and, on July 18, stayed the bail granted to Mr. Mhatre and the other accused by the trial court. They surrendered the following day and were lodged at Aadharwadi Jail in Kalyan.

On August 7, however, the High Court granted bail to Mr. Mhatre and some of the other accused, subject to stringent conditions. It directed them to remain outside Maharashtra until the commencement of the trial, while allowing them to enter the State for the framing of charges. They were also directed to stay away from the complainant doctors.

The High Court had further directed the Maharashtra government to provide adequate protection to the three doctors who were allegedly assaulted.

“In a rule of democracy, the principle is that an elected representative is by the people and for the people. If an elected representative is accused of assaulting his own voters, such a situation is bound to dent the fabric of democracy,” the High Court had observed.