Counsel for Umar Khalid submitted that he had been permitted two weekly e-mulakats since the beginning of his incarceration and that the number had been reduced to one without any stated reason, despite there being no breach of prison rules on his part

A Delhi court has permitted activist Umar Khalid, an accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, to continue having two video meetings (e-mulakats) with his family every week.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court passed the order on July 13 while hearing an application filed by Mr. Khalid, who had sought restoration of the facility after it was reduced to one weekly e-mulakat from May 2026.

Counsel for Mr. Khalid submitted that he had been permitted two weekly e-mulakats since the beginning of his incarceration and that the number had been reduced to one without any stated reason, despite there being no breach of prison rules on his part.

The jail authorities opposed the plea, arguing that the Delhi Prison Rules provide for only one e-mulakat every week.

The Delhi Police opposed the plea, raising security concerns over regular communication.

The court, however, held that the supervised video meetings would adequately address those concerns while taking into account humanitarian considerations. It held that the accused had complied with prison regulations while availing the facility.

“Since the applicant has been using two e-mulakats in a week for the last six years and has not violated any rule of the Delhi Prisons Rules, the applicant is allowed to have two e-mulakats per week for the purpose of talking to his mother and other family members,” the court said.

Mr Khalid is facing trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots. He is in jail for around six years.

The riots, which took place amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), resulted in the deaths of 53 people and left more than 700 injured. The trial in the larger conspiracy case is ongoing.

Kunal Kamra had claimed that the Sahyog Portal was a tool used by the government for online censorship and the amended rules enabled the government to order the takedown of content without adequate safeguards

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 16, 2026) directed the Union government to file its affidavit in response to a petition filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's 'Sahyog Portal'.

Mr. Kamra, in his plea, also challenged an amendment to the Information Technology (IT) Rules that requires social media or online intermediaries to remove any objectionable content within 36 hours.

He had claimed that the Sahyog Portal was a tool used by the government for online censorship and the amended rules enabled the government to order the takedown of content without adequate safeguards.

Mr. Kamra's counsel, Navroz Seervai, on Thursday (July 16, 2026) mentioned the plea before a division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, claiming that it was an important matter, but the government, despite repeated directions, had not filed its affidavit.

He said the petition was filed in February this year and the court had ordered the government from time to time to file its affidavit, but it had not been done to date.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the Centre, said the affidavit would be filed by July 29.

The court agreed and posted the matter for hearing on August 14.

The Sahyog Portal, developed by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, was launched in 2024 to expedite the blocking of objectionable content uploaded online.

Mr. Kamra, in his plea, contended that the Sahyog Portal permits blocking and takedown of online content without prior notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice as well as the guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Sahyog Portal empowers a "unilateral takedown" of online content, he alleged.

The amended rules, the plea claimed, amounted to a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen under the Constitution.

The Sahyog Portal did away with issuing any notice to the originator of the content, affording a hearing to the affected party, or passing a reasoned order before blocking content on the internet, the plea stated.

It urged the high court to direct the government to suspend the Sahyog Portal's operation and to restrain any officer of the central or state governments from directing the blocking or takedown of any information without following the procedure mandated under the IT Act

Division Bench sets aside a single judge’s order to grant promotion to a Deputy Inspector General of Registration who ended up facing corruption charges after the inclusion of his name in the promotion panel

A government servant facing corruption charges cannot seek promotion as a matter of right just because his/her name had been included in the promotion panel prepared much before the framing of charges in departmental proceedings, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Second Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar made it clear that promotions must be given only to untainted officers and that mere inclusion of name in the panel of individuals eligible for promotion would not confer any right to get promoted.

“It is immaterial as to whether the disciplinary proceedings are initiated before or after preparation of the panel. The promotion panel is just a list of eligible officers. It is only procedural and cannot be construed as promotion. Thus, no right accrues. Right accrues only after issuance of an order of promotion,” the Bench wrote.

The verdict was passed while allowing a writ appeal filed by the Commercial Taxes and Registration department. The Bench set aside a single judge’s order to promote Deputy Inspector General of Registration V.A. Anand to the post of Additional Inspector General of Registration.

Authoring the verdict for the Division Bench, Justice Subramaniam said, a government employee need not be necessarily promoted just because no charges were pending on the day when his/her name was included in the promotion panel and corruption charges came to be framed only much later.

The Bench agreed with Additional Advocate General P.V. Balasubramaniam that the government was empowered to defer grant of promotion at any moment before the issuance of the promotion order and until the disposal of the departmental proceedings initiated for the charge of corruption.

He brought it to the notice of the court that pendency of charges framed against a government servant under Rule 17(b) (major penalties) of The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was a bar to be considered for promotion to a higher post.

“When the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 is that an employee facing charges under Rule 17(b) is not eligible for inclusion in the panel, it follows naturally that such persons, even after preparation of the panel and before actual promotion, are not entitled to promotion. The very purpose and object of the procedure contemplated is to ensure that tainted officials are not promoted to a higher post,” the Bench concluded.

The Kerala High Court has allowed the petition to remove Tenny Joppan, former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy’s personal assistant, from the solar financial fraud case.

Mr. Joppan had moved the High Court in an appeal to quash the entire charge and proceedings pending against him for offences under the Indian Penal Code, including criminal breach of trust, cheating, impersonation and fraud. 

The court noted that an amicable settlement had been reached between the complainant, Mallelil Sreedharan Nair, and Mr. Joppan. Reportedly, the settlement was reached as Mr. Nair did not want to continue with the dispute due to personal reasons.

Mr. Nair had alleged that Saritha S Nair and her associates had duped him of lakhs of rupees, promising a solar business partnership. Ms. Nair, the prime accused in the solar scam of 2013 and her former partner Biju Radhakrishnan, had allegedly cheated investors in a solar power company they had proposed. They allegedly persuaded investors by showing off their connections with the office of Chandy.

A court-mandated panel set up in 2014 after the death of an Arunachal student in Delhi; government records referred to a woman who could not be traced even though she had emailed a grievance to the panel

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (July 15, 2026) questioned if any concrete work is being done by the court-mandated monitoring committee set up to address problems faced by people from the northeastern States living across the country, including racial discrimination and targeted violence.

Justice Sanjay Kumar, heading a Division Bench, asked if the committee’s meetings were only meant to “consume cups of tea”.

“All talk, nothing seems to be done,” Justice Kumar said.

Untraceable complainant

The court’s oral observations were triggered when records submitted by the government referred to how the whereabouts of a woman who had sent a complaint to the committee remained a mystery.

Justice Kumar asked how the woman could remain untraceable with no means of communication, given that she had emailed her grievance to the committee. Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, representing the government, said it was the police who did the actual investigation, while the committee merely passed on the complaints it received.

The committee is made up of a wide variety of senior government officials, including some from the Home Ministry and other departments and bodies. It also includes representatives from the northeastern States, including the petitioner-advocate Alana Golmei.

Panel formed after tragic death
The panel was formed to “monitor, oversee, pursue and review” the implementation of the M.P. Bezbaruah Committee report of July 2014 following the tragic death of Nido Tania, a 19-year-old student from Arunachal Pradesh, in Delhi. Tania died from injuries suffered in an altercation after he was racially humiliated by a mob in January 2014.

The monitoring committee was tasked to keep a watch over initiatives taken by the government to curb and deal with incidents of racial atrocities and violence, and to monitor the actions taken when such incidents occurred.

The panel was further empowered to receive, consider, and entertain complaints from victims of racial abuse, and forward them to National or State Human Rights Commissions or the jurisdictional police stations for enquiry and necessary action.

A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel allowed the appeal preferred by the mutt against a Single Bench order that had directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed if the document was otherwise in order

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 15, 2026) allowed an appeal filed by Arulmigu Dhandapani Swamigal Madam (math) in Palani, and declared as “null and void” a controversial sale deed executed in favour of certain individuals with regard to 1.35 acres of land in Palani in Dindigul district.

A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel allowed the appeal preferred by the mutt against a Single Bench order that had directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed if the document was otherwise in order. It said the appellant was not made a party before the Single Bench and the Sub-Registrar did not consider the objections raised before registering.

In the appeal, the math said the Single Bench order was contrary to law and the facts of the case, and was liable to be interfered with. The Single Bench must not have allowed the writ petition at the admission stage without hearing all the necessary parties, it said.

The math said that without impleading the appellant as a party, filing the writ petition for the purpose of registering the property of the math was improper and illegal. The sale deed was executed between the parties as if a private trust property was sold. Allowing the writ petition behind the appellant’s back was improper, it added.

The math said the Single Bench should have considered how the petitioner suppressed the fact that the possession of the property was in the the Thakkar’s hands. Hence, permitting to register the sale deed would create unnecessary trouble.

Meanwhile, Justin Manikandan Subramanian, the Sub-Registrar (in-charge) who registered the document, moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. He has been suspended. He said he had completed the process of registration on the basis of the order passed by the High Court. The Registration Department has also placed District Registrar Sasikala under suspension.

Justice K. Rajasekar sought the response of the Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department and posted the matter for hearing to July 17.

The Kerala High Court has ordered the arrest of Muvattupuzha Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) V.E. Abbas for failure to comply with the court’s order to reconsider an application to remove a parcel of land from the data bank for land conversion.

A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the Station House Officer, Muvattupuzha, to arrest Mr. Abbas and produce him before the court. It also ordered that Mr. Abbas could be released on bail if he executed a bond stating that he was ready to appear on his own.

The court further said that Mr. Abbas should not be represented by a government pleader but must engage his own counsel. His appearance before the court could be dispensed with if he files an affidavit showing reasons for his refusal to remove the land parcel from the data bank.

The High Court had ruled that an application for land conversion should only be rejected through an order explaining sufficient grounds. Earlier, the court had set aside an order by Mr. Abbas dismissing the application for land conversion and instructed him to reconsider the same as per law. The court noted that even though its order was communicated to the officer, he had not taken any action on it.

The Kerala High Court has banned the use of Thekkinkadu Maidan in Thrissur for political activities and gatherings. The court also held that the Cochin Devaswom Board (CDB) cannot allow the conduct of events by State government departments at the Maidan.

The CDB had informed the court that it had been facing an acute financial crisis and was unable to manage all the 409 temples under it effectively, and that it would be able to significantly improve its income if it did not require the court’s permission to let out the Maidan for religious, cultural or other events. The Board said the additional income would be used for the development of temples and the welfare of devotees.

It also sought permission to allow events related to the Devaswom department or temples under various Devaswom boards at the Maidan without any licence fee.

The court directed that no permanent or semi-permanent constructions should be allowed at the Maidan without its prior approval. It also prescribed conditions that must be included in agreements between programme organisers and the Board, such as proper waste management, regulation of sound levels, and a ban on the use of non-biodegradable materials, among others.

In 1990, the court had permitted the Board to grant temporary licences for seasonal businesses like sale of watermelons and exhibitions during Thrissur Pooram. In 2003, the court said the Maidan could be used only for activities that would not hurt the sentiments of devotees.

Permanent constructions were restricted at the Maidan in 2010, and the court had directed afforestation activities there. It had also intervened in 2022 to allow exhibitions on the Pooram ground to support the Board through the financial crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic and later to halt the installation of hoardings and structures that impeded the right of pedestrians.

Counsel for Umar Khalid submitted that he had been permitted two weekly e-mulakats since the beginning of his incarceration and that the number had been reduced to one without any stated reason, despite there being no breach of prison rules on his part

A Delhi court has permitted activist Umar Khalid, an accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, to continue having two video meetings (e-mulakats) with his family every week.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court passed the order on July 13 while hearing an application filed by Mr. Khalid, who had sought restoration of the facility after it was reduced to one weekly e-mulakat from May 2026.

Counsel for Mr. Khalid submitted that he had been permitted two weekly e-mulakats since the beginning of his incarceration and that the number had been reduced to one without any stated reason, despite there being no breach of prison rules on his part.

The jail authorities opposed the plea, arguing that the Delhi Prison Rules provide for only one e-mulakat every week.

The Delhi Police opposed the plea, raising security concerns over regular communication.

The court, however, held that the supervised video meetings would adequately address those concerns while taking into account humanitarian considerations. It held that the accused had complied with prison regulations while availing the facility.

“Since the applicant has been using two e-mulakats in a week for the last six years and has not violated any rule of the Delhi Prisons Rules, the applicant is allowed to have two e-mulakats per week for the purpose of talking to his mother and other family members,” the court said.

Mr Khalid is facing trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots. He is in jail for around six years.

The riots, which took place amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), resulted in the deaths of 53 people and left more than 700 injured. The trial in the larger conspiracy case is ongoing.

Bench observes that parents often resort to criminal proceedings to protect their so-called ‘honour’ when teenage girls elope with their partners

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) questioned the invocation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against teenagers involved in voluntary sexual relationships.

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan observed that parents often resort to criminal proceedings to protect their so-called “honour” when teenage girls elope with their partners.

“How can the state prevent the elopement of a girl and a boy? POCSO concerns the sexual assault and exploitation of children,” the court observed.

Noting that teenage is a period of vulnerability, the court asked if relationships between those in the age group of 15-18 years attracted the penal provisions of POCSO. “It is the age of experimentation,” the Bench said.

The top court made the observation while hearing a suo motu case concerning the right to privacy of adolescents.

The case had been initiated in the wake of the Calcutta High Court’s controversial ruling of 2023, which called for adolescent girls to “control” their sexual urges instead of getting entangled in relationships.

The High Court verdict was later set aside by the top court in 2024 after a suo motu case was registered on the right to privacy of adolescents, and a slew of directions were passed.

The top court said that the suit could not be taken up for hearing until the Telangana government complied with the requisite procedural formalities4

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) declined to take up a suit filed by the Telangana government under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking to restrain Andhra Pradesh from proceeding with preparatory and project-related activities for the proposed Polavaram–Banakacherla/Nallamalasagar Link Project, citing procedural deficiencies in the filing.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the suit could not be taken up for hearing until the Telangana government complied with the requisite procedural formalities.

“This matter cannot be taken up by the court today as there are some deficiencies and formalities to be fulfilled by the petitioner...,” the Bench observed.

The apex court clarified that the matter would be listed by the Registry in accordance with the applicable rules once the procedural requirements were complied with.

Appearing for the Telangana government, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the procedural defects would be cured and requested that the matter be listed thereafter.

The dispute concerns Andhra Pradesh’s proposal to divert surplus waters from the Godavari River at the Polavaram reservoir to the drought-prone Banakacherla region in Rayalaseema. The State has projected the project as a major initiative to improve irrigation, augment drinking water supply and recharge groundwater in water-scarce areas.

Telangana has consistently opposed the proposal, contending that it would encroach upon its lawful share of Godavari waters and contravene the award of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal. According to the State, the tribunal’s award continues to govern the allocation of the river’s waters among the basin States, and any unilateral diversion by Andhra Pradesh without following the prescribed legal process would be impermissible.

Monday’s suit is not Telangana’s first attempt to challenge the project before the Supreme Court. In January, the State withdrew a writ petition after the apex court expressed a prima facie view that it was not maintainable. A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, disposed of the petition while granting Telangana liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law, including the institution of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, which deals with disputes between States.

The Chief Justice had observed that a suit under Article 131 would be a “more comprehensive and effective” remedy since the controversy essentially involved an inter-State water dispute.

“Ultimately, at the end of the day, it is a water dispute... and you apprehend that their project might affect your share of the Godavari water,” the Bench had told Mr. Singhvi.

Telangana has further contended that the proposed project is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which envisages cooperative federalism and the equitable utilisation of shared water resources following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State.

Saeed, designated a global terrorist by India and the United States, is also considered the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks

A special NIA court has issued a non-bailable warrant against Hafiz Saeed, the Pakistan-based chief of the proscribed terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, in connection with a case pertaining to the ongoing probe into the Pahalgam terror attack.

The order was passed by the Special Judge of the NIA Court on July 8, two days after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed a supplementary chargesheet against Saeed in the Pahalgam terror attack case.

Saeed, designated a global terrorist by India and the United States, is also considered the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.

The supplementary chargesheet, filed before the special NIA court in Jammu, charges the 76-year-old Saeed in both his personal capacity and as the chief of the proscribed Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and its proxy front, The Resistance Front (TRF). He has been booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

According to the court order, the NIA informed the court that absconding terrorist Saeed, a resident of Sargodha in Pakistan's Punjab province, is an accused in Pahalgam terror attack and has been deliberately evading arrest. The agency sought the issuance of an open-dated non-bailable warrant against him to initiate further proceedings in the matter and take legal action against him at any further investigation.

Arrest and custodial interrogation of the accused (Saeed) are necessary for a fair, complete and effective investigation. As such non-bailable warrant of arrest is issued against him and is forwarded it to the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), NIA Jammu, for execution in accordance with law," the order said.

On April 22 last year, terrorists killed 26 people, mostly tourists, at Pahalgam in south Kashmir.

Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order passed on July 9, held that Abhishek Sharma had established a prima facie case for protection of his personality and publicity rights.

The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to Indian cricketer Abhishek Sharma against the unauthorised use of his name, image and likeness, restraining social media accounts and online sellers from exploiting his personality through AI-generated content, deepfakes and unauthorised merchandise.

Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order passed on July 9, held that Mr. Sharma had established a prima facie case for protection of his personality and publicity rights.

Mr Sharma had filed the suit against various defendants, including unidentified persons, several Facebook, Instagram and X accounts.

The plea said that several social media accounts had been circulating AI-generated and morphed images depicting the cricketer in fabricated and obscene situations, while others allegedly spread false rumours through manipulated videos and captions. The plaintiff also alleged that several online merchants were selling T-shirts, jerseys, posters and photo frames carrying his name and likeness without authorisation.

The court noted that Mr. Sharma is a “prominent player of the Indian National Team and is widely recognised as a rising and influential figure in international cricket also having attained the No. 1 position in ICC Men’s T20 International rankings”.

Several public figures, like actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan and Salman Khan, Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary and podcaster Raj Shamani had earlier approached the high court seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights. The high court granted them interim relief.

Recently, the High Court also protected the personality rights of politician Shashi Tharoor, cricketer Gautam Gambhir and actors Sonakshi Sinha, Vivek Oberoi, Arun Kapoor, Varun Dhawan and Allu Arjun by granting interim relief.

Bombay High Court upholds co-operative court's power to implead developer in society dispute stating that courts cannot give a narrow meaning to language to circumscribe the power of impleadment

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Co-operative Court can implead a person not covered under Section 91(1)(a) to (e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, if their presence is required for complete adjudication of the dispute. The Court, however, stated that this power cannot be exercised to expand the scope of the dispute or bring matters outside the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction. Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Court that directed the impleadment of a developer as a party to a dispute filed by members of a co-operative housing society.

The petitioners had challenged resolutions passed by the Society's Special General Body and Managing Committee accepting a settlement proposal with the developer. The petitioners contended that the resolutions reduced the Society's entitlement to land. The dispute was instituted only against the Society and its former office bearers. The developer sought impleadment on the ground that the petitioners had made allegations of collusion against it. The Co-operative Court allowed the application. The Co-operative Appellate Court affirmed this order in revision.

The petitioners submitted that the developer was a stranger to the dispute and did not fall within any of the categories of persons specified under Section 91(1)(a) to (e) of the Act. The developer argued that Section 94(3)(c) conferred discretion upon the Co-operative Court to add any person whose presence was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. The Court held that Section 94(3)(c) operates independently of Sections 91(1) and 94(3)(a). The provision contemplates two categories of persons: those who ought to have been joined as parties and those whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. The first category would ordinarily comprise persons falling under Section 91(1)(a) to (e). The second category is not confined to such persons.

The Court stated that courts cannot give a narrow meaning to language used in Section 94(3)(c) to circumscribe the power of impleadment to only such persons who are enumerated under Section 91(1)(a) to (e) or only a pendente-lite purchaser. If the Legislature intended to restrict impleadment only to persons covered by Section 91(1) or pendente lite purchasers under Section 94(3)(a), it would not have used the expression "any person whose presence before the Co-operative Court may be necessary," the Court observed. The Court clarified that impleadment under Section 94(3)(c) does not mean that the Co-operative Court acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate rights between the impleaded person and the parties to the dispute. Such impleadment is only to facilitate effective adjudication of the issues already involved. The power under Section 94(3)(c) must be exercised sparingly and cannot be used to introduce subject matters beyond the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court or to throw the dispute outside its statutory jurisdiction, the Court cautioned.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the petitioners had alleged collusion between the Society and the developer in passing the impugned resolutions. The Court held that the developer's presence was necessary to enable the Co-operative Court to effectively adjudicate the challenge to the resolutions. The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Court directing impleadment of the developer as a party to the dispute.

Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, in an oral mentioning, said the elections were due on August 31, and it would be “seemingly impossible” to prepare for the polls while the massive SIR exercise was on.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) agreed to an oral plea by the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) to urgently list its application seeking an extension of the deadline for the conduct of elections to 369 wards across five city corporations in Bengaluru from August 31 to December 31, citing “severe logistical challenges” due to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Karnataka.

Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, in an oral mentioning, said the elections were due on August 31, and it would be “seemingly impossible” to prepare for the polls while the massive SIR exercise was on.

The case may be listed on July 17 for a detailed hearing and orders.

Application filed by the Chief Commissioner of the GBA follows stringent observations made by the court in a May 20 hearing, accusing the local body of even employing “delaying tactics” to postpone civic polls in Bengaluru. The time limit for the civic polls had earlier been June 30. The court, on May 20, had said this would be GBA’s “last chance”, and specifically barred further extensions of time for the conduct of the elections.

In its applications filed on July  9, the GBA said the whole administrative machinery and human resources of the five city corporations were fully engaged in the SIR exercise. The SIR has claimed the services of 8872 booth level officers, 938 booth level officers’ supervisors, 28 election registration officers, 75 assistant election registration officers, besides nodal officers, observers, trainers, resource persons, etc. Personnel had been drawn from municipal corporations, GBA and other bodies.

The Chief Commissioner, who is also the District Election Officer, said SIR entailed house-to-house enumeration by each booth level officer, followed by at least three visits for households which were vacant.

The application said Bengaluru alone accounted for over 1.03 crore voters, constituting approximately 1/6th of the 5.54 crore total voters in the State. The electorate was spread across approximately 40 lakh residences, requiring the absolute and undivided commitment of booth level officers, staff and officers of the GBA, the five city corporations and other departments. August 5 is the date of publication of the draft electoral roll.

Post the publication of the draft roll, each electoral registration officer in Bengaluru would be deciding close to one lakh claims of inclusion/exclusion in the electoral roll by September 25. The process was expected to prove to be a unique administrative challenge in Bengaluru due to the frequent intra-city migration and shifting of residences of voters. The final electoral roll is scheduled to come out on October 7.

“SIR is an extremely manpower intensive exercise... The GBA faces severe logistical challenges in executing a robust election by August 31 owing to the overlapping of SIR and the election to the five city corporations of Bengaluru,” the application said.

The court ordered the status report ought to be filed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) sought a status report from the Delhi Police into an alleged incident of assault on an apex court lawyer followed by threats against him in the national capital.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the police to provide the lawyer protection of life and liberty.

Supreme Court Bar Association president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, produced photographs of the injured lawyer, Pankaj Sharma, in court, saying “if this could happen to a Supreme Court lawyer in Delhi, how safe is a common citizen in this country?”

Attorney General R. Venkataramani, who was present in the court room, said the incident raised serious concerns.

Mr. Sharma accused the Delhi Police of inaction and dereliction of duty. The lawyer said he was attacked July 11, resulting in grievous injuries on his head.

“The Delhi Police under the influence of the accused, who is close to a local politician, is neither taking suitable action against the culprits nor providing security to the Petitioner, though the accused again tried to assault the petitioner and his family members on July 12,” the petition submitted.

Mr. Singh said the police were not even registering an FIR against the accused. Finally, when the police did file an FIR after “much persistence”, it was only for offences like ‘simple assault’ though the petitioner had received injuries dangerous to life.

“The case highlights a systemic failure where law enforcement agencies have deliberately downplayed targeted violence against an officer of the court. The police inaction directly violates the petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the petition submitted.

The court ordered the status report ought to be filed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police.

“A member of our Bar was beaten at his house. He has stitches on his head.. He has 11 years’ standing. No one was arrested,” Mr. Singh submitted.

The court listed the case for hearing on July 16.

Division Bench holds that finding of Ernakulam Sessions Court is reasonable and that there are no grounds to justify suspension of petitioner’s sentence

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) rejected the plea for suspension of sentence by N.S. Sunil, a.k.a ‘Pulsar’ Suni, the first accused in the actor assault case of 2017.

A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan and K.V. Jayakumar held that the finding of the Ernakulam Sessions Court was reasonable and that there were no grounds to justify the suspension of the petitioner’s sentence. The court considered the nature of the offence, the manner of commission, the seriousness of the crime, the sentence imposed by the sessions court, and the criminal history of the accused in 11 crimes. It also assessed his alleged involvement in another criminal case while he was on bail in this case and the violation of the conditions of bail imposed by the court while deciding on the suspension of sentence. 

Mr. Sunil had contended that he had undergone eight years' imprisonment and that the sessions court had not considered vital contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence. He also argued that it would take several years for the court to dispose of the pending appeals by the other accused and the State in this matter, and that Mr. Sunil should be released on bail after his punishment is suspended. 

While dismissing his petition, the High court held that the gravity of the offences committed by the accused “extended beyond the individual victim and struck at the dignity, bodily autonomy, and sense of security of women.”

Six of the accused were convicted by the sessions court, and each was awarded 20 years’ imprisonment on two counts of gang rape, 10 years’ imprisonment for assault and use of criminal force on a woman with the intent to disrobe her, and one year’s simple imprisonment for wrongful confinement. The sessions court had also found them guilty on the charges of destruction of evidence and taking and distributing obscene images. 

State’s plea pending

A petition by the State is pending before the High Court seeking increased punishments for the convicted persons and challenging the acquittal of four of the accused, including actor Dileep. The survivor’s plea to re-investigate the alleged leak of the memory card containing visuals of the crime is also under consideration of the High Court.

The Bench further prohibited the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) from allowing any structural alterations to be made to the disputed structure without the prior permission of the apex court.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) refrained from restoring status quo ante after the Madhya Pradesh High Court declared that the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex was a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and barred Friday namaaz at the site.

The court reasoned that it did not want to “create tension” in a “very sensitive” issue.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, as an alternative, asked the State of Madhya Pradesh to identify an open space near the disputed site for the Muslim community to offer namaaz on Fridays between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. as an ad hoc measure till the case is finally decided by the top court.

The Bench further prohibited the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) from allowing any structural alterations to be made to the disputed structure without the prior permission of the apex court. The court issued formal notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union government.

“Let us not pass any order which creates tension. We are ready to hear the case on a day-to-day basis and resolve the issue. We request both sides to have patience. It is only a matter of a few days,” Chief Justice Kant assured the Muslim appellants.

Urging the court to pass an interim order of status quo, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, for the appellants, said “fraternity” seemed to be the “most forgotten word” in recent times. He said statues like the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 were enacted to stop exactly situations like this from emerging when religious places from antiquity were at risk of losing their identity.

“The 1991 Act was meant to stop this eye-for-an-eye… Somebody has sought a survey of the Taj Mahal. This would never stop unless the 1991 Act is strictly adhered to… Ayodhya was a one-time exception,” Mr. Singhvi submitted.

He said the Bhojshala had once been a site to showcase harmony with namaaz held along with Basant Panchami.

Senior advocate Huzeifa Ahmadi, also for the appellants, said the declaration was made on a writ petition. Facts were highly disputable and the persons who prepared the ASI reports banked by the High Court were not cross-examined, he said.

Mr. Ahmadi said the High Court’s judgment had acknowledged the disputed site as a centuries’ old mosque, and the balance of convenience lay in favour of status quo ante.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government side, said the High Court decision was in May. The appeals have come up after two months now.

“We have ensured that both communities keep calm,” Mr. Mehta said.

The Chief Justice made a request to the senior advocates, reminding them that the issue was “very sensitive”, and comments made in court should not be misinterpreted outside.

“If namaaz has been offered for the past 800 years, why should it be stopped now? If parties have been worshipping jointly since a settlement arrived at in 1995, why cannot it be continued till Your Lordships decide?” senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, also for the appellants, said.

On May 15, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar district was a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati. It had simultaneously quashed a decades-old ASI order that had allowed the Muslim community to offer Friday prayers at the site. The High Court had also said that the Centre and the ASI could decide on the Bhojshala complex’s administration and management.

The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument the Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex is protected by the ASI.

Access to justice cannot wait for office hours in the background of credible reports of late-night arrests, early morning demolition drives and deportation or executive actions undertaken during weekends or holidays

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) agreed to consider framing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to allow citizens to knock on the doors of the courts any time, day or night, in cases affecting life and liberty, including illegal detentions, imminent demolition of homes, deportations, custodial violence or other state actions.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing a petition filed by an apex court advocate, Maheravish Rein, who said the courts cannot afford to close especially in the background of credible reports of late-night arrests, early morning demolition drives and deportation or executive actions undertaken during weekends or holidays.

“The absence of a structured and institutionalised mechanism ensuring continuous judicial accessibility may result in irreversible consequences before affected persons are able to approach constitutional courts… The protection of liberty cannot remain dependent upon the temporal boundaries of court schedules. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the Constitution cannot fall silent at night, nor can the protection of liberty await the morning bell of the courts,” Ms. Rein submitted.

Access to justice cannot exist merely in theory. Constitutional remedies must be practically accessible at all times.

“The present institutional framework of courts largely restricts access to judicial remedies to designated court hours, working days and limited vacation benches. As a result, individuals facing urgent violations of liberty and fundamental rights often encounter significant practical difficulty in obtaining immediate judicial protection during nights, weekends, public holidays and court recesses,” Ms. Rein submitted.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a part of the Bench, said there was a difference in approach in accessing justice during office hours and after office hours. The judge said a “graded approach” to access to justice after court hours cannot be interpreted as a denial of justice.

The judge pointed out that courts never “close-up” when there was digital access to justice through e-filing. “A letter, an email or a phone call would be enough to activate the justice system,” Justice Bagchi said.

Ms. Rein agreed with Justice Bagchi that technological advancements, including digital filing, electronic court records and virtual hearing infrastructure had significantly enhanced the capacity of courts to provide remote access to justice.

“However, these technological capabilities have not yet been integrated into a uniform institutional framework enabling emergency judicial access for urgent constitutional matters outside regular court hours,” she submitted.

The Bench noted that an SOP could indeed be put in place to reduce the “response time” to urgent requests for justice in cases of life and liberty.

“Maybe the response from the court should come within an hour of such an urgent mention,” Chief Justice Kant noted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the preparation of an SOP should be undertaken by the apex court on its administrative rather than judicial side. The Chief Justice responded that State High Courts did not come within the administrative ambit of the Supreme Court in a federal set-up, indicating that the petition may have to be heard and orders passed on the judicial side.

The appeal challenged the single-judge judgment that allowed individuals to seek removal of personal information from search engine results, including legal databases, where such information is ‘no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose’

Legal database platform India Kanoon has approached the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) challenging its recent judgment recognising the “right to be forgotten”, arguing that the ruling failed to “strike a careful balance between the right to information and the principle of open justice”.

The appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. Appearing for the platform, advocate Naman Kumar sought a short adjournment in view of lawyers abstaining from work. The Bench listed the matter for further hearing on July 21.

The appeal challenged the single-judge judgment of May 29, 2026 that allowed individuals to seek removal of personal information from search engine results, including legal databases, where such information is “no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose”. The judgment also laid down a framework governing de-indexing of judicial records from search engines and masking of personal identifiers from publicly accessible court records.

In the plea filed through advocate Indumugi C., India Kanoon has argued that the single-judge ruling has framed an arbitrary standard for de-indexing and disabling name-based searches. “Litigants claiming ‘privacy’ from search engines and legal databases have to prove that the information contained therein is no longer relevant and serves no legitimate public purpose. However, the factors of “relevance” and “legitimate public purpose” are arbitrary, broad, and unclear,” the plea argued.

Continued public function

India Kanoon further argued that “judicial and public records serve a continuing public function and cannot be obliterated merely based on individual request”.

It argued that while the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in K.S. Puttaswamy case recognised the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life, it did not establish a “right to be forgotten” in the Indian context.

The mere fact that there was a brief discussion by way of obiter in Puttaswamy about the right to be forgotten is insufficient to be the legal basis for extending a ‘right to be forgotten’ to individual litigants,” the plea said.

Indian Kanoon said it is a free legal database that provides access to Indian laws (both Central and State), reported and unreported judgements, daily orders of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and various tribunals.

The platform’s users most commonly enter party names to find and apply cases. Such users include litigants, students, researchers, lawyers, and even judges themselves. “If individual litigants are given the impetus to seek deletion of their names, i.e., redaction of case names from the petitioner’s database, it has a direct adverse impact on the usability and utility of the petitioner’s legal search engine, thereby impairing the petitioner’s freedom to carry out its business,” it added.

The single-judge ruling came while hearing over 30 petitions filed by a diverse group of individuals, including persons who had been acquitted of criminal charges, parties to matrimonial disputes, persons whose proceedings had been quashed or settled, and individuals whose names appeared incidentally in judicial records.

The petitioners shared a common grievance that the continued availability and name-based searchability of judicial records bearing their names in the digital public domain causes “disproportionate and continuing harm to their reputations, dignity, and life prospects”.

The single-judge ruling held “that persons, who have been acquitted, discharged, or whose proceedings have been quashed are entitled to have that legal determination reflected in their digital identity/persona”.