The Supreme Court has rejected the bail of a businessman arrested in the drug trafficking case at Mundra port. On Tuesday (May 13, 2025), the court dismissed the bail plea and allowed him to go to court for Bell after 6 months. This case is related to drug smuggling of Rs 21,000 crore. In this case, a Delhi businessman Harpreet Talwar Singh is arrested, whose petition was dismissed by the court. However, a bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh allowed the accused Harpreet Singh Talwar alias Kabir Talwar to go to court after six months for bail.

The bench termed the charge of financing terrorism against Harpreet Talwar as immature and directed the special court to list the case twice a month to complete the case soon. On April 23, 2025, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the bail plea.

Earlier, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had said that the income received from sales was used to fund Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist activities. Harpreet Talwar, who runs some club in the national capital, was arrested by the agency in August 2022.

Drug trafficking of Rs 21,000 crore at Mundra port is considered to be the largest drug trafficking in the country. On September 12, 2021, some containers reached Mundra port from Afghanistan via Iran, which had a semi-processed talc stones filled bags.

Based on intelligence information, the Revenue Intelligence Directorate examined the containers on September 13, 2021 and some bags were found to be heroin, resulting in a 2988.21 kg heroin worth Rs 21,000 crore. Investigators later found that this was the sixth and last batch that was stopped. Many people including Afghan citizens were arrested in connection with the case.

Also read:-
Kapil Sibal and SG Tushar Mehta, Attorney General said- Justice in your veins …

Colonel Sophia Qureshi was also mentioned in the Supreme Court on Friday (May 9, 2025) during the hearing of a petition related to the permanent commission of women military officers. Referring to Sophia Qureshi, a woman officer’s lawyer said that she too had to knock on the door of the Supreme Court in connection with the permanent commission. The court, while hearing the petition of women officials, asked the Center not to free women military officers from service, who have challenged the decision to refuse to give them a permanent commission (PC).

On the intervening night of May 6 and 7, India launched Operation Sindoor and destroyed the terrorist bases of Pakistan. At the army’s press conference, Colonel Sophia Qureshi gave briefing about Operation Sindoor with Wing Commander Vyomika Singh. The Supreme Court said that their morale should not be dropped in the current situation. A bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh listed the petitions filed by 69 officers for hearing in August, saying that they should not be freed from service until the next hearing.

Justice Suryakant said, ‘In the current situation, we should not make their morale to fall. They are talented officers, you can take their services elsewhere. It is not the time to be asked to wander around in the Supreme Court … ‘Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing by the Center, said that it was an administrative decision based on the policy of keeping the armed forces youth young.

He urged the Supreme Court not to ban him from freeing service and said that the Indian Army needs young officers and only 250 personnel are to be given permanent commission every year. Senior advocate Maneka Guruswami, appearing for Colonel Geeta Sharma, mentioned the case of Colonel Sofia Qureshi, who is one of the two female officers who informed the media about ‘Operation Sindoor’ on May 7 and 8.

Guruswami said that Colonel Qureshi had to knock the door of this court for similar relief related to permanent commission and now he has made the country proud. The bench said that the matter before the Supreme Court is completely legal and it has nothing to do with the achievements of the authorities.

The Supreme Court on February 17, 2020 said that the move to keep women completely out of the posts except staff appointments in the army cannot be defended and the step of not considering them without justification for command appointments cannot be maintained under the law.

The court had allowed the permanent commission (PC) of women officers in the army and described the government’s plea contrary to the principle of equality and contrary to the principle of equality, which was asked not to appoint at the headquarters, citing physical boundaries and social trends. The court then said that in the past, women officials have raised the value of the country and change the mentality of the government is necessary to end discrimination on the basis of gender basis in the armed forces.

Since the 2020 decision, the Supreme Court has passed several orders on the issue of permanent commission to women officials in the armed forces and similar orders were passed in the case of Navy, Indian Air Force and Coast Guard.

Also read:-
Dubey made of Chaubey: Supreme Court demonstrated the officer who split the house of the poor, said- it is necessary to send messages across the country

The Supreme Court has asked to hold the local body elections in Maharashtra as soon as possible. Due to the ongoing dispute over OBC reservation, since 2022, elections of many urban bodies including Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) were being postponed. Now the Supreme Court has asked the State Election Commission to issue the notification of elections in 4 weeks. Efforts should be made to complete the election process within 4 months.

Reservation from old system
The Supreme Court has also given clarity about OBC reservation in these elections. The court has said that in July 2022, the report of the Bantia Committee on reservation came. Petitions about him are still pending. Elections in many bodies were pending before the arrival of this report, so at present, reservation should be given only under the old system.

‘Need for democracy’
Justice Suryakant and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh expressed concern over the absence of local bodies in Maharashtra for a long time. Justice Suryakant said, ‘Local elections are very important in constitutional democracy. They should be organized at regular time. Government Babu should work instead of chosen public representatives, it is not appropriate.

‘Identification of backward’
The court also said that it is necessary to identify socially and politically backward classes and strengthen them, but after meeting all the legal needs, reservation can be given. During this time, the court also commented on the inequality in giving reservation.

‘Reservation railway box’
Justice Suryakant said, “Reservation has become a train box in which the passengers already sitting do not want to climb others.” The court said that the government should identify the officers of reservation benefits and make a place for them as well. It would be wrong to limit the benefit of reservation only to some sections.

Also read:-
How many judges relatives, how many SC-ST and OBC are in the recommendations of SC Collegium? Supreme Court revealed

The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing on the petitions filed on the Waqf Amendment Act on Monday (May 5, 2025). Now the court will listen to the case on 15 May. Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna said that there is a need to hear in detail in this matter. Now the case will be found in front of the next Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai. During this time, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta became an emotional about the retirement of CJI Sanjeev Khanna.

On May 13, Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna is retiring and on 14 May Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai will take oath as the new CJI. On behalf of the Center, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocates like Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

The status quo will remain, SG said
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that the status quo in the case would be maintained till the next hearing. The last hearing was held on 17 April, in which the court had told the government that the Waqf properties already registered or declared through notification, including Waqf by users, will neither be tested nor notified until the next hearing date, as well as no new appointment in the Waqf Board.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan heard the case. CJI Sanjeev Khanna told the Center that he did not go deep into the affidavit, but some points have been raised about the registration of Waqf by user and some controversial figures have also been given, which need to be considered. The Center filed a reply on 25 April.

What did CJI Sanjeev Khanna say on the center’s affidavit?
CJI Sanjeev Khanna said that there are some aspects that you have settled, but it requires clarification. He said, ‘I do not have to keep any decision or order safe in the interim phase. This case will have to be heard before the appropriate time and this matter will not be there before me.

New CJI Gawai will hear on 15 May
CJI Sanjeev Khanna asked both sides that if they all agree, then the matter sends the matter to the bench of Justice Gawai for hearing on Wednesday or any other day, but for this they have to give 2-3 days time. On this, Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the hearing could be held next week and the CJI listed the matter for May 15.

SG Tushar Mehta became emotional on retirement of CJI Sanjeev Khanna
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed to the decision of CJI Sanjeev Khanna, saying that he agrees to send the case to the bench of Justice Gawai, but is sad to remember about the retirement of CJI Sanjeev Khanna. CJI Sanjeev Khanna said to SG Mehta in a funny manner, ‘No, no I am waiting for it.’

Also read:-
Waqf Amendment Act: The interim order will come on the Waqf Amendment Act or not, the Supreme Court will decide today

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition in which a woman had demanded occupation of the Red Fort in Delhi, describing herself as a descendant of the Mughals. The court asked the petitioner why only the Red Fort, why the Taj Mahal and Fatehpur Sikri should not be occupied, they have also been built by the Mughals.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanyaj Kumar dismissed the petition of petitioner Sultana Begum and said that the petition is completely wrong. Sultana Begum claims that she is a widow of Bahadur Shah Zafar II’s super -grandson. The bench said, ‘Why only ask for Red Fort? Why not Fatehpur Sikri and Taj Mahal. The writ petition is completely wrong, so it is rejected.

Supreme Court rejected Sultana Begum’s lawyer
Sultana Begum’s petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on the basis of delay in December last year, on which her lawyer told the Supreme Court that the petition was dismissed on the basis of delay in the High Court and not on the basis of merit, so the Supreme Court should give the same concession and dismiss it on the basis of delay. However, the Supreme Court refused to accept his demand.

Sultana Begum filed a petition in the High Court in the year 2021, which was rejected by a single judge bench. 900 days later, the petitioners reached the High Court. Here the bench of Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the petition on the basis of a delay of two and a half years.

‘The British had taken away the Mughals’, the petitioner claims
The petitioner says that during the first freedom struggle in 1857, the British East India Company had denied Sultana Begum’s family illegally from property. After this, Bahadur Shah Zafar II was deported from the country and took the Red Fort from the capture of the Mughals. He says that and now the Government of India is illegal. Sultana Begum has demanded occupation of the Red Fort and compensation from the government.

What did the High Court say?
In its judgment of 2021, a single judge’s bench had said on the plea of ​​the petitioner, “Even if you assume that Bahadur Shah Zafar II was illegally denied the capture of the Red Fort by the East India Company, even after more than 164 years, how this petition was hearing, while the ancestors were always aware of this incident.”

After this decision of the single bench, Sultana Begum put a case before the Dividan bench of the High Court, but she took more than two and a half years in it. Because of this, the court refused to hear the petition and then she reached the Supreme Court.

Also read:-
‘I marry my sister living in Pakistan so …’, CRPF jawan opened secret

Supreme court hearing on conversion: The Supreme Court agreed on Friday (May 2) to consider the petition challenging the constitutional validity of the revised law of 2024 in Uttar Pradesh on the illegal conversion case.

A bench of CJI Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan, Senior Advocate S.K. Considering the arguments of Muralidhar. Advocate S. Muralidhar said, “Some provisions of the revised ‘Religion Compression Prohibition Act’ amended in the year 2024 are unclear and extremely comprehensive and this ambiguity violates freedom of expression and religion.

Although Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna did not issue any notice on the PIL at present, he said that the matter will be heard on Tuesday (May 13, 2025) along with other pending petitions. The Supreme Court is hearing a public interest litigation filed by Lucknow resident Rukrakha Verma and others against the revised law.

Advocate filed questions on the revised law in the petition filed

The petition filed through advocate Purnima Krishna alleged that this law violates Article 14 (equality before law), 19 (speech and freedom of expression), 21 (life and personal freedom) and 25 (freedom of religion).

He claimed in the petition that sections 2 and 3 of the Act are vague, extremely comprehensive and unique standards, which makes it difficult to determine what is the crime in reality?

Punishable law should be clear and accurate- Advocate Purnima

The petition stated, “This ambiguity violates speech freedom and religious propagation, which makes it possible to implement it in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, while punishable laws should be accurate. Intelligent provisions provide high discretionary to the officers and violate constitutional principles by taking the risk of incorrectly prosecution against innocent persons.”

The petition also said, “The main concern in this is that the 2024 amendment expands the category of authorized persons to file a complaint without including procedural security measures.” It is noteworthy that many petitions challenging the validity of laws of various states on conversion in the Supreme Court are pending.

A family of 6 people being deported to Pakistan from Jammu and Kashmir has got interim relief. The Supreme Court has asked the government to confirm their papers. The court has said that punitive action should not be taken against them until this happens. The family claimed that it had documents like Indian Aadhaar, PAN and passport.

A bench of Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh has made it clear that the order is only for this case. It should not be seen as Nazir for other cases. The judges questioned how this family, which has been living in India on the basis of Pakistani passport, has been living here for more than 25 years.

In the petition of Ahmed Tariq Butik Butk, who is working in Bengaluru, it was said that he and the remaining 5 members of his family got a notice to go to Pakistan from Foreign Registration Office in Srinagar. On April 29, 5 people were arrested. Now he has been taken to the India-Pakistan border. From there, he will be sent to Pakistan at any time.

Ahmed Tariq Butt had described the arrest of his father Mashkur Butt, mother Nusrat Butt, elder sister Ayesha Tariq Butik, younger brother Abubakar Butt and other younger brother Omar Butt. It was said in the petition that in 1997, Mashkur Butt came to India from Mirpur in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. In the year 2000, the rest of the family members also came to India. Since then, those people have been living in Srinagar.

The petitioner had said that he, his sister and brothers studied in a school in Srinagar. He took an MBA degree from IIM Kerala and worked in Bangalore. He still lives in Bengaluru. Apart from documents like Aadhaar card and PAN card, his family members also have Indian passports. In this way, it is wrong to suddenly send them to Pakistan by calling them non-Indian.

The Supreme Court told the petitioner that he should have gone to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The documents are to be confirmed in Srinagar itself. Other such people are also filing a petition in the High Court itself. The Supreme Court made it clear that it is settling the petition. If the petitioner has any problem with the government order issued after examining the documents, then he should go to the High Court.

The petitioner had demanded cancellation of the notice sent to his family and to declare the arrest illegal. During the hearing, the Solicitor General present in the court said that the matter is to stay in India even after the visa period. The petitioner claimed that his family surrendered his Pakistani passport in India. Now those people are legitimate Indian citizens.

Also read:-
India-Pakistan Tension: Pakistani army firing on the border amid stress, Pak is preparing underground bunker on LOC

The Supreme Court has refused to hear the petition filed on the Pahalgam terror attack. The petition demanded the investigation of the incident to be conducted by the Judicial Commission headed by the former judge of the Supreme Court. The court asked the petitioner to take responsibility while reprimanding.

As soon as the lawyer appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh asked if he was really serious? Justice Surya Kant said, ‘How long did the judges become experts of investigation? Their job is to settle legal disputes.

Justice Surya Kant said, ‘Show some responsibility. You too become some duty towards the country. The whole country is united in the case. You should not say such things that are going to drop the morale of military forces. The petitioner said that he would not insist on this demand. Other things of the petition should be seen.

The judge said that first you file a petition and promote it, then in the court say that you will not insist on your demand? After this, the court read all the demands written in the petition. There were also demands like compensation to the victims, safety of tourists. The court said that there is no such thing in which the Supreme Court needs to intervene.

The petitioner raised the issue of students studying out of Jammu and Kashmir. On this, the court said that this thing has not been written anywhere in your petition. If you have something to say about the students, then you go to the High Court. The petition in the Supreme Court was filed by the petitioners named Fatesh Sahu, Junaid Mohammad and Vicky Kumar. Apart from the Center and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, CRPF, NSA and NIA were also made sides.

Also read:-
Pahalgam Terror Attack: Revealed in the FIR of Pahalgam attack, firing with Pakistani weapons, Besaran Valley will reach NIA Chief

The Supreme Court has refused to cancel the FIR against two members of Tamil Nadu Tauheed Jamaat. Both are accused of praising Afzal Guru, convicted of Parliament attack, commenting on the clothes of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and using objectionable language against the Supreme Court and High Court judges.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in their judgment on April 22, added three priests lodged in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu against two members of Tauheed Jamaat and said that Rahmatullah and Jamal Mohammed gave a very objectionable hate speech in a protest rally in Madurai on 17 March 2022.

The bench said, “The language used by the petitioners in its speeches is extremely objectionable and certainly reveals the required details of the alleged crimes, therefore, there is no scope for this court to use writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India regarding the cancellation of objections.”

The bench noticed the things said in many of the elements lodged against both of them in Bangalore and Tamil Nadu in Bangalore and Tamil Nadu. The bench said, ‘The petitioners praised Afzal Guru, who was a terrorist and the mastermind of the attack on the Indian Parliament. He also commented against the decision of Ayodhya Ram temple; The costume of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh; Festivals of Christians; The practice of Hindus to consume their bodies; Attempted the religious practice of Sikhs to keep saber with them and to connect it with the hijab worn by Muslim women.

The bench said that both of them also condemned the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the hijab case. The court said that on the basis of a haaftening speech, a sub -inspector posted at Thalkulam police station in Madurai city lodged a complaint, after which an FIR was lodged for promoting enmity between two groups on March 18, 2022, instigating a community against another group and other crimes for other crimes.

A similar FIR was also registered in Thanjavur on this day. On the complaint of a lawyer, another FIR was lodged on 19 March 2022 in Vidhansodh police station, Bengaluru. The two members of the Tamil Nadu Tauheed Jamaat filed a petition in the apex court to connect the two of the Tamil Nadu elements together and cancel the FIR of Bengaluru.

Also read:-
Supreme Court’s big move against builder-bank alliances who damaged thousands of buyers, asked CBI to register 7 primary cases

The Supreme Court has reprimanded Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for making derogatory statements for freedom fighter Veer Savarkar. The court has said that if he gives such a statement, he will start action by taking cognizance of him. However, the court has stopped the summons issued from the ACJM court of Lucknow, giving interim relief to Rahul.

Rahul’s argument
A bench of Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Manmohan issued a notice to the UP government and complainant Nripendra Mishra asking them to reply on the plea of ​​Rahul. On behalf of Rahul, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that he is not accused of spreading disharmony in the society. It is wrong to have a case in UP for a statement given in Maharashtra. The complainant is not directly affected by his statement.

Supreme court warning
On this, the court said, ‘You are taking some legal points. Based on them, we are issuing notice, but do you understand that you made the statement in Maharashtra. There people worship Savarkar. You should assure us that such irresponsible statements will not be given in future. On such a statement, we will start hearing by taking cognizance ourselves. On this, Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that he has understood this.

‘Your grandmother has also praised’
Citing a letter written by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to the Secretary of Veera Savarkar memorial on behalf of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Justice Dipankar Dutta said, ‘Your grandmother also wrote a letter praising Savarkar. Collect information about the history-geography of freedom fighters.

‘Will Gandhiji also be called a servant?’
The judge said, ‘Mahatma Gandhi also used to write himself’ your loyal servants’ in a letter sent to the British Viceroy. Will anyone call him a servant of the British because of that? Many judges of the High Court also write themselves servants in their correspondence. Does it become a servant by writing like this? ‘ The court warned Rahul that insults of freedom fighters will not be tolerated. Those who brought us freedom should not humiliate them.

This is the case?
Nripendra Pandey, a lawyer from Lucknow, has filed a case against Rahul Gandhi for Section 153 (A) and 505 of the IPC. It has been told that in a press conference in Akola, Maharashtra on 17 December 2022, Rahul called Veer Savarkar a servant and a pensioner of the British. In the press conference, pre -prepared leaflets were also given to journalists. This shows that with the intention of spreading hatred in the society with complete preparation, Rahul gave that controversial statement. The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court refused to cancel the summons issued against Rahul on 4 April.

Also read:-
In Veer Savarkar insult, Rahul Gandhi again gave relief to the Supreme Court.