While all the 28 villages under Kotia Gram Panchayat remain in Odisha territory, Andhra Pradesh has been claiming its rights over 21 villages. Odisha challenged this in the Supreme Court in 1968 and the court asked both States to maintain the status quo in 2006

The Odisha Government has filed a contempt of court petition against the Andhra Pradesh Government in the Supreme Court, challenging its notification to conduct panchayat elections in the disputed Kotia region in the state's Koraput district.

Odisha's Revenue and Disaster Management Minister Suresh Pujari said the petition was filed through the district collector of Koraput after the Andhra Pradesh Government issued a notification on October 10 to conduct Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections in the Kotia cluster of villages in Odisha territory.

"We have filed the contempt petition in the apex court after getting approval from Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi," Mr. Pujari told reporters, adding that according to a 2006 Supreme Court order, both States are to maintain the status quo.

While all the 28 villages under Kotia Gram Panchayat remain in Odisha territory, Andhra Pradesh has been claiming its rights over 21 villages. Odisha challenged this in the Supreme Court in 1968 and the court asked both States to maintain the status quo in 2006.

However, Mr. Pujari said Andhra Pradesh has violated the Supreme Court order by notifying panchayat elections there. He said contempt proceedings have been made against the Andhra Pradesh Government, making the State Election Commissioner, Chief Secretary, the Collector of the district concerned, and other officers engaged in the election management parties to the matter.

"We will also pray to the Supreme Court to direct the Andhra Pradesh Government to refrain from such illegal activities in the future," the Minister said.

In 2021 also, there was tension between the two States when Andhra Pradesh held panchayat polls in the disputed region, prompting Odisha to file a contempt petition in 2022.

Now, the Andhra Pradesh administration has again notified local body polls in the disputed villages of Phagunasineri, Ganjeipadar, and Phatusineri, an official said.

Mr. Pujari said Kotia is an integral part of Odisha, and the State is taking legal and administrative steps to uphold its rights.

Police told the court that Shokeen needs to be taken to Ahmedabad for identification and arrest of other persons allegedly involved in the incident

A court in New Delhi on Saturday (October 24, 2026) remanded content creator Amir Shokeen in five days’ police custody in a case related to alleged racial abuse of a youth from Tripura in a video that went viral on social media.

Shokeen was produced before Additional Sessions Judge Shilpi Jain after his one-day judicial custody granted on Friday (October 23, 2026) ended.

Police told the court that Shokeen needs to be taken to Ahmedabad for identification and arrest of other persons allegedly involved in the incident.

Delhi Police arrested Shokeen on Thursday (October 22, 2026) after taking suo motu cognisance of the video, which allegedly showed a youth from Tripura being subjected to racial remarks and humiliation.

The case is being investigated by the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of Delhi Police following a communication from the Special Police Unit for North Eastern Region (SPUNER).

According to police sources, the video was allegedly recorded in Ahmedabad around a month ago, and the roles of seven to eight people are under investigation.

The incident triggered widespread condemnation, with Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and Tripura Chief Minister Manik Saha calling for action against those involved.

Mr. Saha had directed Tripura Director General of Police to coordinate with Delhi Police, while Mr. Rijiju said the accused would face strict action.

The Tripura Students Forum Delhi had also sought an impartial investigation and the preservation of electronic evidence, including the original recording, metadata, account details and upload history.

While retaining provisions requiring prior intimation to the magistrate in cases of production after 5 p.m., court directs the State government to issue fresh guidelines 

The Kerala High Court has set aside guidelines pertaining to producing an accused before judicial officers after court hours. Earlier, an accused shall be produced before a judicial officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., and only under exceptional circumstances after 5 p.m.

A Division Bench of Justices V. Raja Vijayaraghavan and K.V. Jayakumar retained the provisions requiring prior intimation to the magistrate in cases of production after 5 p.m. The court directed the State government to issue fresh guidelines accordingly. 

The court was considering a public interest litigation (PIL) by lawyer P.S. Subeesh challenging the protocols issued by the State to be followed while producing accused persons before registered medical practitioners in hospitals or judicial officers for medico-legal examination.

The guidelines sought to regulate the circumstances and procedure to produce a mentally unstable or disturbed person or an accused before judicial officers, particularly outside court hours. The petitioner claimed that the guidelines restricted police officers from producing an accused before a magistrate, thus violating provisions of the Constitution which mandated production before a magistrate within 24 hours. 

The State contended that the guidelines only regulated the manner of production without affecting the rights of the accused. It emphasised that the protocol expressly allowed late-night production in exceptional circumstances, especially when the 24-hour limit was about to expire. 

The court narrated two different scenarios to examine the practical consequences of the guidelines. It stated that if an accused was arrested after 5 p.m., the investigating officer might hesitate to produce the accused immediately before a judicial officer with the guidelines in mind. The guidelines might encourage the police to wait until the following morning for the court hours to begin, which would delay the accused’s opportunity to seek legal assistance or oppose custody before a magistrate. 

The court also considered a scenario where a disclosure by the accused arrested at 4.30 p.m. could lead to recovery of evidence or stolen property. If the investigating officer was restrained by the guidelines to wait until court hours began again, it could derail the investigation in time-sensitive matters.

The judgment by a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said the law does not insist that only public servants or competent authorities were eligible to lodge complaints against electoral candidates

The Supreme Court has held in a judgment that ordinary private citizens can file criminal complaints against candidates for giving false information or concealing information while filing their nomination papers for an election.

The judgment by a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said the law does not insist that only public servants or competent authorities were eligible to lodge complaints against electoral candidates.

The court’s judgment empowers the vigilant citizen-voter with the locus standi to directly act against dishonesty in electoral politics, and ensure transparency in polls right from the stage of filing nominations. Candidates have to file personal affidavits along with their nominations. Senior advocate Sanjay Nuli, who appeared in the case, pointed out that these affidavits were part of legislative efforts to maintain the purity of elections and a healthy democracy. Voters must be educated and well-informed about the contesting candidates, including the latter’s assets, educational qualifications and criminal antecedents. Concealing personal information or filing false details to hoodwink the voters was a non-cognisable and bailable offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Section provides that a guilty party would be liable to face imprisonment for six months, fine or both.

Justice Datta interpreted that the rigour of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), that only a complaint lodged by a public servant must be taken cognisance of by a court of law, did not affect Section 125-A of the 1951 Act.

“If indeed it were the intention of the legislature that cognisance of any offence relating to the furnishing of false information by a candidate in an affidavit with intent of being elected in an election could only be taken if the complainant were a public servant, the same could have been provided by an amendment of Section 195 CrPC,” the court noted.

Section 125-A was inserted into the 1951 Act in August 2002. Although the legislature was presumably aware of Section 125-A when it amended Section 195 in April 2006, it did not stipulate that the restrictions of Section 195 should apply to Section 125-A.

“No court would be barred from taking cognisance of an alleged offence under Section 125-A, even on the complaint lodged by a private person. This interpretation is fortified by the absence of any provision in any enactment stipulating that a complaint in relation to an offence under Section 125-A can only be lodged by a public servant,” Justice Datta, who authored the judgment, held.

The apex court further pointed out that Section 125-A and its penalty for falsehood would prevail “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”.

According to CCB sources, the agency’s cybercrime wing had earlier questioned Rakesh Shetty in connection with the case

Rakesh Shetty, head of a Kannada news channel, has sought anticipatory bail in connection with the sting operation case being investigated by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) of the Bengaluru police.

On October 22, Mr. Shetty approached the CCH-66 City Civil and Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. The court has reserved its order for October 23. The CCB is expected to file objections to the application.

According to CCB sources, the agency’s cybercrime wing had earlier questioned Mr. Shetty in connection with the case.

The development comes days after former chief minister Siddaramaiah filed a complaint with Bengaluru city Police Commissioner Seemant Kumar Singh alleging that fake and malicious videos were being circulated on social media to tarnish his reputation.

The CCB detained two individuals in connection with the case and interrogated them regarding the circulation of a purported video.

Subsequently, Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy alleged that members of his party’s social media team were being targeted. He submitted a letter to Karnataka’s Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG&IGP) M.A. Saleem demanding Mr. Shetty’s arrest and accusing him of involvement in the sting operation.

The Bench emphasised the need to specify the repercussions of law enforcement and noted that prosecutions in Pune under the Act were not brought to the Court’s notice

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 22, 2026) permitted Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan to withdraw a plea challenging the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, to permit the filing of a petition. A Bench consisting of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna passed the order. The Court noted that the plea did not highlight the difficulties citizens face due to the law or its repercussions.

The Bench emphasised the need to specify the repercussions of law enforcement and noted that prosecutions in Pune under the Act were not brought to the Court’s notice.

The plea claimed that provisions of the Act could expose activities and conversions to liability without force, fraud, or coercion. The plea argued that this interferes with freedom of conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25 protects the right to make a choice regarding matters of faith and belief.

The petition challenged Sections 2(a), 3, 6, 7 and 9 of the Act. The plea alleged that these sections violate guarantees under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 21, 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution.

The petitioner contended that the State could enact measures to prevent conversions by force, fraud, or coercion. The plea argued that the Act went beyond that objective.

The plea stated that the provisions place restrictions on freedom of conscience, choice, speech, association, privacy, and autonomy. The petition alleges that the sections violate guarantees relating to equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, life and liberty, freedom of religion, and the management of affairs and protection of interests.

Releasing a book of evidence photographs, the YSRCP president Jagan Mohan Reddy alleges torn nomination papers, forged withdrawal letters and attacks on the party’s candidates

Former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister and YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy on Friday (October 23, 2026) said the party would approach the Supreme Court again with fresh evidence, alleging that its candidates in the local body elections were still being obstructed through intimidation, attacks, rejection of nominations and forged withdrawal letters. He also released a book, with photographs, documenting the alleged incidents.

Addressing a press conference at the party’s central office in Tadepalli, Mr. Jagan alleged that the situation had not improved despite the Supreme Court’s intervention over complaints that YSRCP candidates were prevented from filing nominations. He questioned whether the State Election Commission (SEC) and the police were implementing the court’s directions in letter and spirit.

The former Chief Minister said the party had approached the Governor, the SEC and the Supreme Court with evidence of alleged electoral irregularities. The TDP has accused the YSRCP of distorting the Supreme Court’s order, and the State government told the court that the opposition itself contributed to the disturbances.

Limited relief

Mr. Jagan said the opportunity for re-nominations in several municipalities did not adequately address the alleged obstruction of candidates across the affected urban local bodies. In Rajampet municipality, which has 32 wards, the YSRCP could contest in only 14 wards, according to him. He said candidates were initially able to contest in just three wards and that permission for re-nominations in another 11 wards had not enabled the party to field candidates in the remaining 18 wards.

He also questioned the decision to permit re-nominations in only 11 of the 66 wards in Kadapa. With candidates already able to contest in two wards, the party would be in a position to contest in only 13 wards, he said. In Tirupati, the opportunity was limited to the remaining 18 wards, while in Mydukur, it covered all wards, he added.

The SEC on October 22 extended the nomination process in these four bodies till October 24, after finding that some willing candidates had been intimidated or attacked, or had their papers torn.

Mr. Jagan asked why the authorities had not extended the facility to all constituencies where candidates had allegedly been prevented from filing nominations. He alleged that selective relief would leave large sections of the electoral contest effectively uncontested.

He said the Supreme Court had called for the examination of complaints, documents and electronic evidence, deferred the final list till October 25 and directed police protection and security at nomination centres. Mr. Jagan urged the SEC to obtain the party’s complete list of candidates, along with the A and B forms issued by it, and ensure that the nominated candidates were given an opportunity to contest. He said the list could also be placed before the High Court and the Supreme Court if necessary.

Incidents cited

Mr. Jagan alleged that the obstruction took several forms, including summoning candidates to police stations, threatening them, placing them under preventive restrictions or arresting them in advance, confining party leaders to their homes and preventing candidates from entering nomination centres.

He further alleged that nomination papers were snatched and torn in the presence of officials, that candidates subjected to attacks were removed from nomination centres, and that cases were registered against victims and those assisting them. Other alleged irregularities included rejection of nominations during scrutiny, forged signatures on withdrawal papers and pressure on candidates to withdraw from the contest.

Citing specific incidents, Mr. Jagan alleged that a YSRCP candidate, Nagamani, in Ward 51 of Nandyal municipality had her signature forged to make it appear that she had withdrawn her nomination after it had initially been accepted. The TDP candidate was subsequently declared elected unopposed in the ward, he claimed.

In Nagari, he alleged that the nomination of YSRCP municipal chairperson candidate Balakrishna had been accepted and an acknowledgement issued, but the TDP candidate’s name alone appeared in the final list.

He also alleged that YSRCP MPTC candidates in Gorantla were prevented from contesting after a TDP leader snatched and tore their nomination papers inside an election officer’s room. In Chittoor district, the car of former Deputy Chief Minister K. Narayanaswamy was allegedly damaged.

Other incidents cited by him included an alleged attack on a candidate going to file a nomination in Dharmavaram, the tearing of ZPTC nomination papers in Vikotamandalam and an attack on YSRCP candidate Bellamkonda Narendra Chowdary in Chilakaluripet.

Mr. Jagan further alleged that women leaders of the TDP tore the nomination papers of a candidate from G.D. Nellore at the Chittoor Zilla Parishad office. In Tadimarri, he accused the police of entering the homes of relatives of a YSRCP leader and assaulting women, including a woman who was nine months pregnant.

He also cited the cases of Sameera, a candidate in Kanigiri who allegedly pleaded with the police to let her file her nomination, and Padmavathi, a ZPTC candidate from Dachepalli who was allegedly attacked and subjected to an attempt to pull at her sari. In Punganur, Dalit woman candidate Kamalamma was allegedly attacked and her nomination papers snatched. Mr. Jagan also alleged that police threatened Indiramma, the YSRCP’s municipal chairperson candidate in Jammalamadugu, by showing her a gun.

Nomination figures

Mr. Jagan also questioned what he described as a sharp discrepancy between the difficulties faced by candidates on the ground and the increase in nomination figures reported by the election authorities. According to figures cited by him, MPTC nominations had increased by 547% in a single day, while ZPTC nominations had risen by more than 468%. He alleged that the numbers required scrutiny in view of complaints that genuine candidates were being prevented from filing their papers.

He claimed that TDP workers had filed purportedly false nominations in the names of YSRCP candidates in Kondapuram, Mylavaram and Vemula. He questioned how nominations could be treated as genuine without the A and B forms required to establish a candidate’s authorisation to contest on behalf of the party.

MPTC, ZPTC polls

He extended the allegations to the MPTC and ZPTC elections, claiming that no MPTC nominations had been filed in 101 of the State’s 659 mandals and that fewer than five nominations had been filed in another 70 mandals. He said the nomination process for ZPTC elections remained pending in 227 of the 659 mandals.

Mr. Jagan also alleged that scrutiny had been used to eliminate opposition candidates in several urban local bodies. He named Dachepalli, Kanigiri, Badvel, Rajampet, Proddatur, Gooty and Nagari among the places where, according to him, chairperson candidates had been removed during scrutiny. He said candidates had been prevented from filing nominations in Gurazala, Piduguralla, Darsi, Rayachoti, Kamalapuram, Yerraguntla, Mydukur and Punganur.

He claimed that in 15 of the 23 urban local bodies, the electoral contest was proceeding without a YSRCP chairperson candidate, either because nominations had allegedly been obstructed or because candidates had subsequently been disqualified.

‘Shakuni’s dice’

Mr. Jagan contrasted the alleged restrictions on opposition candidates with the performance of his government, saying the YSRCP had implemented 95% of its manifesto promises and won in 86% of the constituencies it contested after presenting its record to voters. He accused the present government of creating obstacles to elections amid public questions over the implementation of the TDP-led coalition’s Super Six and Super Seven promises.

Invoking the Mahabharata, he compared the alleged manipulation of the electoral process to ‘Shakuni’ using dice to influence the outcome of a game. He accused the ruling party of using official machinery to shape the contest rather than seeking a verdict from voters.

He also recalled that the YSRCP government had provided 50% reservation for women in local bodies and said allegations of attacks on women candidates during nominations raised serious questions about their safety and political participation.

“If the government has done good work for the people, it should seek votes by presenting that record. Why obstruct nominations and influence elections through intimidation?” he asked.

Mr. Jagan demanded that the SEC, the Director General of Police (DGP) and district-level officials ensure that all eligible candidates could file nominations without fear, and that complaints and supporting evidence be examined comprehensively. He warned that failure to address the alleged irregularities at the nomination stage would raise concerns about the conduct of polling itself, and said voters, rather than administrative restrictions or intimidation, should determine the outcome of the elections.

Division Bench was considering appeals against a Single Bench order, which had refused to stay the reconstitution of the Waqf Board. 

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has refused to stay the reconstitution of the Kerala State Waqf Board. 

The Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji was considering appeals against a Single Bench order, which had refused to stay the reconstitution as well.  

The appeals were filed by former board chairperson K.S. Hamza and member C.K. Usman Haji. The court held that an interim stay could not be granted, as the new Waqf Board had taken charge. 

The court directed the petitioners to issue notice to the current board members.

The matter will be considered again on October 29. 

A meeting of senior ED officials that began in Kochi on Wednesday is expected to chalk out legal course of action in the wake of Supreme Court’s move to stay police probe based on Vigilance FIR against Pinarayi, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law Mohamed Riyas

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is likely to oppose the appeal to be filed by former Keralam Chief Minister and current Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court against the registration of an FIR by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) against him in the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL)-Exalogic pay-off case.

A meeting of senior officials of the central agency that began in Kochi on Wednesday (October 21, 2026) is expected to chalk out the legal course of action in the wake of the decision by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to stay the police investigation based on the VACB’s FIR against Mr. Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law and former Minister P.A. Mohamed Riyas in the case.

A Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court had directed the State Police to register the FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the three. This was on the basis of the information given by the ED to the Kerala Police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

Mr. Vijayan, his daughter and son-in-law were denied leave (permission) to appeal the Single Judge Bench order of October 9 by a Division Bench of the High Court on October 15, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

The ED had summoned Mr. Vijayan to appear for questioning at its office on Friday on Friday (October 23) in connection with the money-laundering case linked to the CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case. The central agency had earlier registered two Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) under the PMLA against Mr. Vijayan, Ms. Veena and Mr. Riyas in the pay-off case.

The ED is likely to wait till the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court delivers its verdict on the appeal filed by Mr. Vijayan against the FIR registered by the VACB under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before pursuing further action.

With the former Chief Minister unlikely to turn up for Friday’s questioning citing the apex court’s stay on the probe into the FIR and the ongoing Assembly session, the agency may have to serve him a fresh notice summoning him for questioning.

The ED has taken note of the Supreme Court’s decision not to record any opinions on the validity of the ECIRs registered against Mr. Vijayan, his daughter and Mr. Riyas while observing that there is no hurdle in proceeding with its probe into the money laundering angle in the pay-off case. The agency has considered the possible legal challenges against the probe as the apex court has given Mr. Vijayan and his family members to challenge the ECIR before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law.

The oral pronouncement in open court on October 21 had specifically dictated the time of stay as a week or seven days

In an update from its oral pronouncement, the Supreme Court has directed the investigation into the First Information Reports (FIRs) against former Keralam Chief Minister and current Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law and former Minister P.A. Mohamed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case to be extended to 10 days.

The oral pronouncement in open court on October 21 had specifically dictated the time of stay as a week or seven days. However, the subsequent published order mentions the period of the stay as 10 days.

“We direct that the investigation in the impugned FIRs shall remain stayed for a period of ten days from today, which, however, shall not be treated as a conclusive opinion expressed on interim relief, and the Division Bench [of the Kerala High Court] shall be entitled to fashion independently such relief in accordance with law,” the order read.

Allowing Mr. Vijayan and his co-petitioners in the Supreme Court to pursue their appeal against a Single Judge Bench order of October 9, 2026, directing the registration of FIRs under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the apex court noted that its observations were limited to the “locus of the appellants to prefer the appeal, and not an expression of opinion on merits”.

On Wednesday, a Special Bench of the apex court comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana convened in the middle of Dussehra vacations to hear 82-year-old Mr. Vijayan, who voiced fears of imminent arrest, and his two family members.

Mr. Vijayan and the other two co-petitioners, represented variously by senior advocates Siddharth Luthra, N. Hariharan and Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, had submitted they were neither made parties nor heard by the Single Judge Bench before the registration of the FIR was ordered on October 9.

Setting aside the October 15 order of the Kerala High Court Division Bench refusing them leave to appeal the October 9 order, the apex court had directed the Division Bench to hear the appeals filed by Mr. Vijayan and the other two petitioners against the registration of the corruption FIR. Justice Bagchi reminded the State that no matter how low or high a person was, he was subject to the rule of law and principles of natural justice.

“We will not disturb the FIR, but we will stall the investigation… Further, we are sending this case back to the High Court for adjudication,” Justice Bagchi observed.

This violates corporate ethics, says founder of Belagavi-based company who has filed the complaint
A legal dispute over the use of the name ‘Anthropic’ has taken a new turn after US-based artificial intelligence company Anthropic PBC acknowledged in the Belagavi Commercial Court that a wholly owned subsidiary operates in India.

Belagavi-based Anthropic Softwares Private Limited has claimed to have registered the name of the company and brand much before the US-based firm, and has challenged the use of the company’s name by the American entity.

“In a written statement filed in the court, the company stated that Irina Ghose is the managing director of the India entity. This development raises questions about corporate conduct and the positions taken during the proceedings,” said Mohammad Ayyaz Mulla, Managing Director of Belagavi-based Anthropic Softwares Private Limited.

“For over 10 months, Anthropic India Private Limited resisted being impleaded in the case, maintaining that it was a separate legal entity and disputing the existence of a cause of action against it. More significantly, in an objection supported by an affidavit on oath, its Managing Director, Irina Ghose, denied that Anthropic India was directly or indirectly promoting Anthropic PBC’s business, calling the allegation baseless and requiring strict proof.

“Anthropic PBC’s subsequent written statement refers to its wholly owned Indian subsidiary and identifies Ms. Ghose as its managing director. We want to ask whether these positions, considered together, reflected the transparency and professional ethics expected of a global technology company. He said the court should examine whether procedural objections were being used to delay consideration of the core dispute over prior use of the ‘Anthropic’ name.”

Mr. Mulla alleged that repeated misdirected emails intended for Anthropic PBC had reached his company despite regular notifications, creating business disruption, brand confusion, and potential data-security risk, including the possibility of sensitive communications reaching unintended recipients. He said the continuing problem raised serious questions about whether customer confidentiality and corrective action were receiving adequate attention. He urged the US company to demonstrate its belief in corporate ethics through its behaviour.

Justice G. Arul Murugan winds up hearing oral arguments on applications filed by the Leader of the Opposition to reject the election petition and strike off pleadings

Tamil Nadu’s Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Udhayanidhi Stalin has contended before the Madras High Court that an election petition challenging his victory from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly constituency in the 2026 polls has been filed after the expiry of the statutory time limit of 45 days.

Appearing before Justice G. Arul Murugan, senior counsel P. Wilson urged the judge to reject the election petition at the threshold, without taking it up for trial, on the ground that it had been filed after the limitation period, prescribed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, ended.

The counsel said, the LoP had secured 62,992 votes as against his nearest rival candidate D. Selvam of the TVK, who got 55,852 votes. The election petition had been filed by P. Milany of Theni district, who had also contested from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency and secured 30 votes.

Highlighting that Mr. Udhayanidhi was declared elected on May 4, 2026, the counsel claimed the election petition challenging his victory ought to have been filed on or before June 17, 2026. Since the present petition had been filed on June 18, 2026, he argued it was barred by limitation.

LoP’s reasoning

The counsel contended that the principle of excluding the first day, under the General Clauses Act of 1897, for the purpose of calculating limitation period would not apply to election petitions. He underlined that Section 81 of the 1951 Act specifically uses the term “from the date of election of the returned candidate.”

“Normally, MiLord, Your Lordship knows that if a judgment is pronounced today, the limitation would begin only from the next day. But the 1951 Act is a special legislation and it specifically states that an election petition must be presented within 45 days from the date of the election of the returned candidate,” he said.

The counsel said, the Election Commission of India (ECI) had also sent a communication to the Registrar General of the High Court confirming that the election petitions with respect to the 2026 general elections must be filed in the High Court on or before June 17, 2026.

He relied upon a Supreme Court judgment in Youaraj Rai versus Chander Bahadur (2006) and argued that the top court, too, had categorically held that the limitation period for filing an election petition would begin from the date of election of the returned candidate.

It was brought to the notice of Justice Murugan that Section 86 of the 1951 Act makes it clear that an election petition barred by limitation must be dismissed by the High Court. The LOP also argued the election petitioner had failed to aver any acceptable material facts requiring the conduct of trial.

Election petitioner’s argument

On the other hand, the election petitioner’s counsel argued that the petition had been filed within the limitation period and the High Court Registry had rightly numbered the election petition after being convinced that it was filed within the 45-day period. He insisted on conducting a full-fledged trial.

After both sides concluded the oral arguments on applications filed by the LoP to reject the election petition and also to strike off certain pleadings from the election petition, the judge asked the counsel to submit their written submissions on October 26, 2026, when he shall reserve orders on those applications.

Magistrate court points out there is no specific evidence currently to show the accused is facing safety threats at the facility

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Angamaly, on Thursday (October 22, 2026) rejected a request by the authorities of the Borstal School at Kakkanad to shift 19-year-old Suhail Sajeev, the prime accused in the Nedumbassery drunk-driving case that claimed three lives, to the Viyyur Central jail citing security concerns.

The court pointed out that there is no specific evidence currently to show that the accused is facing safety threats at the facility. It stated that the accused has also not raised any concern over his safety at the Borstal School.

The court had rejected the bail applications of all four accused in the case on Saturday (October 17, 2026). The Nedumbassery police had earlier arrested Suhail, who allegedly drove the luxury car under the influence of alcohol, and three co-passengers, Ninav, 19; Ameer, 20; and Joel, 20.

The accident occurred around 1.45 a.m. on October 11, 2026 on the Airport Road near Athani. The three deceased, who had been working part-time at a commercial store, were returning after dinner when the speeding car hit their scooter. The luxury car was allegedly speeding at over 165 km per hour while ramming the two-wheeler from behind.

The victims included Gopika, 21, daughter of Pradeep Kumar and Sajitha of Mullankuzhi House, Edakurissi, Mannarkkad, Devika, 21, also known as Kukku, daughter of Santhosh Kumar and Saritha of Madakkimala, Kalpetta; and Iyas, 21, son of Ibrahim and Rukiya from Sullia, Karnataka.

The families of the victims had questioned the decision to send Suhail to the Borstal School, a detention facility for offenders aged 18 to 21, instead of a regular prison.

The Ernakulam Rural Police had denied allegations of preferential treatment to the accused, while pointing out that the court’s order specifically directed that the accused be remanded in the Borstal School.

They had cited Section 324 of the Kerala Prison Rules, which stipulates that steps should be taken to transfer prisoners below 21 years of age to Borstal Schools in order to prevent their character from being adversely influenced through association with prisoners belonging to other categories.

Order likely to be pronounced on Friday evening; AISA President said citizens don't need permission to hoist the national flag

The Delhi High Court on Thursday (October 22, 2026) reserved its verdict on a plea by All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a Delhi Police notice asking her to furnish a “peace” bond before a Special Executive Magistrate.

The order is likely to be pronounced on Friday evening (October 23, 2026).

During the hearing, Ms. Bora challenged the police notice saying citizens don't need permission to hoist the national flag. The submission was made while referring to the Delhi Police notice which said that Ms. Bora hoisted the national flag without seeking permission

"Question is does this (notice) have substance? We don't need permission to hoist the national flag. They need a class on law," senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Neha Bora, contended before Justice Subramonium Prasad.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing Delhi Police, raised objection on the maintainability of the petition.

Ms. Bora, who has been at the forefront of protests against the alleged irregularities in the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, has sought quashing of the notice and directions to the police not to take any coercive action against her.

The notice, issued on October 17 under Section 126 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asked the student leader to appear before the SEM (special executive magistrate) on October 19 and show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety "for keeping peace for a period of enquiry".

Section 126 empowers the SEM to enforce such bond signing if there is credible information that a person is likely to breach peace, disturb public tranquillity, or commit a wrongful act that may cause disturbance.

The AISA President was taken into preventive detention on October 16 when she was on her way to join the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) 'Lehra Do Tiranga' (wave the tricolour) march. She was released on October 17.

The Dindigul District Legal Services Authority and the Directorate of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy recently organised a free Siddha medical camp and an exhibition of medicinal and herbal products at the Dindigul Court Complex.

The event was inaugurated by Principal District and Sessions Judge V. Padmanabhan and the medical camp was presided over by Siddha Medical Officer Sivakumar. Nilavembu Kudineer was distributed to all the participants.

The court holds that the YSRCP has made out a prima facie case in its plea for more time to file nominations

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 21, 2026) held that the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) had made out a prima facie case in its plea for an extension of time to file nominations for the urban local body elections in Andhra Pradesh. The party had alleged that its candidates were met with violence and blocked from filing nominations.

The court directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to postpone the publication of the final list of candidates till October 25.

The SEC was directed to consider the representations of the party and its candidates, including evidence and material as well as electronic evidence, and to take a decision on extending the last date for filing nominations in urban local bodies wherever it is of the view that candidates were unable to file. The decision is to be taken by Thursday (October 22).

Wherever the SEC chooses to extend the time, the extension shall not be less than 48 hours from the publication of the decision, which is to be done by amending the election notification.

The Director General of Police (DGP) was directed to take all necessary steps to provide security, maintain CCTV footage and file a compliance report in the Supreme Court.

The SEC was also directed to take the necessary decisions and issue orders to remove apprehensions from the minds of the petitioner and all concerned, and to file a compliance report. Nominations are also to be permitted at district headquarters.

The petition

The YSRCP, led by former Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, had alleged that mass violence in the State prevented its candidates from filing nominations for the urban local body elections. It sought police protection for candidates, an extension of the deadline for filing nominations and the designation of additional and alternative nomination centres to enable candidates to submit their papers safely.

The plea, filed by party general secretary Lella Appireddy through advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, said several of its candidates were allegedly assaulted and physically prevented from reaching nomination centres during the nomination period, which began on October 16 and ended on October 18.

The High Court had dismissed the party’s application seeking an extension, holding that the deadline had expired and that extending it would amount to interference with the election process.

CJP leaders subsequently withdrew their petition after the court advised them to await the outcome of the hearing scheduled before the SEM later in the day

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (October 21, 2026) questioned Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka over allegedly breaking a barricade to enter Jantar Mantar, observing that authorities could insist on stricter proof when a person is accused of breaching peace for a second time.

Justice Subramonium Prasad made the oral observations while hearing the CJP leaders’ plea challenging the extension of their judicial custody by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM).

“The challenge to the denotification [of Jantar Mantar] is pending in the Supreme Court. Now, when you go there and you break a barricade...the chances of 10 or 20 more people in violation of Section 163 BNSS is very bright. Again, I’m not saying good, bad, indifferent,” the Judge remarked.

Section 163 of BNSS, empowers authorities to issue directions to prevent potential disturbances.

The Judge also observed that police permission for protests was not merely intended to restrict demonstrators but also to prevent unwanted elements from joining a gathering and spoiling its reputation.

“The police permission is just not to stop you. The police permission is also to prevent persons who are unwanted elements to join your group and spoil your name,” the court said. “We are seeing that happening outside our country. What started as a student’s protest has now gone into arson, looting, burning,” the court said.

The court noted it was dealing with petitioners who have given a bond and have broken the bond and asked whether authorities were not entitled to insist on stricter proof in such circumstances.

The Judge also questioned why the petitioners had approached the High Court when the order could be challenged before the appropriate appellate or revisional forum.

The court’s observations came during the hearing of the CJP leaders’ challenge to the SEM’s October 19 order extending their judicial custody by two days.

Mr. Das and Mr. Ranka were taken into custody on October 13 after they allegedly climbed over a locked gate to enter Jantar Mantar, which had been denotified as a designated protest site. They were initially remanded to five days of judicial custody.

During the hearing, the Judge also asked the petitioners’ counsel about their ages. After being told that they were 27 and 31, the judge questioned whether they could be classified as Generation Z

“...Because in the first protest in July-August, students were there. But now, its another cause. People remain the same, cause is changing. Next question will be who are you, what are you? What is your association? What is the purport of your association,” the court remarked.

The Judge explained that, “when there is a question of breach of peace, all these questions will assume importance. As to what is your motive”.

The CJP leaders subsequently withdrew their petition after the court advised them to await the outcome of the hearing scheduled before the SEM later in the day and approach the appropriate appellate court if their grievance persisted.

While permitting the withdrawal, Justice Prasad clarified that he had not made any observations on the merits of the matter.

‘We will not disturb the FIR, but we will stall the investigation. Further, we are sending this case back to the High Court for adjudication,’ the Bench said

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 21, 2026) stayed, for seven days, a Kerala Police investigation into a First Information Report (FIR) registered against former Keralam Chief Minister and current Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law and former Minister P.A. Mohamed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case.

A Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court had directed the State Police to register the FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the three of them. The basis of the High Court was information given by a Central agency, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), to the Kerala Police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

Mr. Vijayan, his daughter and son-in-law were denied leave (permission) to appeal the Single Judge Bench order of October 9 by a Division Bench of the High Court on October 15, compelling them to approach the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, a Special Bench of the apex court comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana convened in the middle of Dussehra vacations to hear 82-year-old Mr. Vijayan, who voiced fears of imminent arrest of him and his two family members.

Mr. Vijayan and the other two co-petitioners — represented variously by senior advocates Siddharth Luthra, N. Hariharan and Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi — submitted that they were neither made parties nor heard by the Single Judge Bench before the registration of the FIR was ordered on October 9.

Setting aside the October 15 order of the Kerala High Court Division Bench, the apex court directed the Division Bench to hear the appeals filed by Mr. Vijayan and the other two petitioners against the registration of the corruption FIR. Justice Bagchi reminded the State that no matter how low or high a person was, he was subject to the rule of law and principles of natural justice.

“We will not disturb the FIR, but we will stall the investigation… Further, we are sending this case back to the High Court for adjudication,” Justice Bagchi observed.

The Bench did not record any opinions on the validity of a subsequent Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against the petitioners. However, the court gave them liberty to challenge the ECIR before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law.

In the hearing, the State argued that the Supreme Court’s own 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary versus Union of India had termed the ED’s passing on of information or material regarding an alleged crime under Section 66(2) of the PMLA as a “direction” to the State to register an FIR.

Justice Bagchi said States cannot treat judgments as statutes. The Bench observed that Section 66(2) of the PMLA was not a “mandate”, but only an “intimation” of information or material with the ED to another agency. It was solely for the latter agency — the Kerala Police in this case — to decide if “any other law” applied, requiring the lodging of an FIR. The court made it clear that the ED and PMLA were not omniscient.

“The PMLA cannot be a ‘Super Administrator’, mandating everything everywhere. Every executive exercise of power [like the registration of an FIR] cannot be assumed by the PMLA,” Justice Bagchi observed.

Bench addresses ED

The judge advised the ED not to "extend" its statutory powers under the PMLA. Justice Bagchi said that while the ED had “full powers” to investigate hawala operators and former Chief Ministers under the PMLA, it would not “meddle in the statutory domains of other entities”.

The judge asked whether the police had even sought prior approval under Section 17A of the 1988 Act from the government for investigating a former Chief Minister.

Justice Bagchi asked whether the State had gone through the new criminal procedure provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The judge said that, unlike Section 156(3) of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 175(4) of the BNSS required the Magistrate to formally hear an accused public servant.

The Bench also “corrected” the State’s version that the probe under the FIR was “court-ordered”. “It is an investigation on the basis of information given by the ED,” Justice Bagchi said.

The apex court said all these issues discussed in the courtroom on October 21 must be looked into by the High Court Division Bench while hearing the appeals of the petitioners.

“We will maintain the FIR, but there will be no investigation until these issues are decided by the High Court,” Justice Bagchi said at the end of an hour-long hearing.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan relies upon a Supreme Court dictum that, in such cases, mens rea could not be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim

The Madras High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a Senior Deputy Manager (Human Resources department) of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) for having allegedly abetted the suicide of an employee by denying him leave, marking absent and initiating disciplinary proceedings.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan held that regular administrative actions such as initiation of disciplinary proceedings, marking an employee absent or rejecting leave applications in the course of performance of official duty by a HR professional, such as the present petitioner K. Swarnalatha, would not amount to abetment of suicide.

The judge agreed with senior counsel N.R. Elango, assisted by Priya Annie Zachariah, that the Government Railway Police (GRP) in Chennai ought not to have booked the abetment to suicide case against the petitioner just because a Junior Engineer in MTC had died by suicide.

The prosecution brought it to the notice of the court that the deceased employee, before taking the extreme step, had sent an e-mail to the Director General of Police as well as Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police naming the present petitioner and a few other MTC officials of being responsible for his death.

He had accused higher officials of harassing him and causing unbearable mental distress. However, Mr. Elango told the court the deceased employee had a history of erratic behaviour and conduct unbecoming of his official duties. His service record reflected multiple suspensions, postponed increments, numerous fines and warnings.

Further, stating that the deceased had a persistent record of unauthorised absence, the court was told that he had a long standing domestic dispute too and had written letters to various authorities including former Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on October 6, 2025 threatening to end his life

After recording the submissions, Justice Ilanthiraiyan relied upon the Supreme Court verdict in Abhinav Mohan Delkar versus State of Maharashtra (2026) wherein it was held that in cases of abetment to suicide, mens rea could not be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.

“What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test,” the top court had said.

In the present case, “there is a complete lack of proximate nexus between the actions of the accused and the unfortunate death of the employee to suggest that he was driven to suicide by the immediate actions of the management. Consequently, continuing the criminal proceedings on the strength of the FIR and the subsequent alteration report would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law,” Justice Ilanthirayan concluded.

Chief Justice’s Bench orders notices to the DGP, Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police and Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

The Madras High Court has sought the response of Director General of Police (DGP)/Head of Police Force (HoPF) as well as the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police to a public interest litigation petition alleging illegal offer of hookah services in some of the pubs and cafes in the city.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan ordered notices, returnable by November 19, to the two top police officers, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and the individual pubs and cafes named in the PIL plea.

B. Mughundhan, a 27-year-old advocate, had filed the case claiming he had witnessed the alleged illegality in at all those pubs and cafes. He contended the illegality on such a scale could not thrive in the heart of the city without the connivance of the officials concerned.

Illegal act

The petitioner stated the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products Act (COTPA), 2022 explicitly prohibits the serving of hookah in bars, pubs, cafes and similar establishments. Section 21A of the Act prescribes a maximum punishment of three years of imprisonment for running a hookah bar.

Yet, a significant number of pubs and cafes in the city had flagrantly disregarded the law and were offering hookah services. These establishments had also advertised about the services offered by them in the social media, the petitioner complained and produced some of the screenshots.

Further, relying upon a few photographs shot during his visit to the pubs and cafes, the litigant said, a coffee shop located in a residential area in Alwarpet offers hookah services in secrecy in a separate enclosure and uses the CCTV footage to conceal the instruments on spotting suspicious persons.

Another cafe at Teynampet provides a menu card containing the flavours of hookah offered by them but the staff take away the card immediately after the order gets placed. “The establishment also hires bouncers to intimidate and chase away suspicious persons,” the petitioner said.

He said, a cafe on Royapettah High Road in Mylapore poses to be a vegetarian lounge/restaurant offering pizza and pasta but ends up offering nothing but hookah services along with aerated drinks and water bottles only to unsuspicious and regular customers.

Listing out similar modus operandi followed by a cafe in Thousand Lights and a rooftop restaurant on Kodambakkam High Road in Nungambakkam, the advocate sought a direction to the police to crack down on all pubs, bars, restaurants and cafes which offer hookah services.