Superior Court Done monday (8 september 2025) To Journalist Shiva Langa The Gujarat government regarding the bail plea of Enforcement Directorate (Ed) Asked for answers. Justice Urykant And Justice Joymalya Bagchi Ki bench The Gujarat Gujarat High Court issued a notice on Langa’s petition challenging the refusal of granting bail, but questioned what kind of journalist he is.

The Supreme Court bench told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, “What kind of journalist is he?” With full respect, there are some very true journalists, but there are some people who sit on a scooter and say that we are journalists and what they actually do, everyone knows it.

Kapil Sibal replied that all these are allegations. He said, “In an FIR, he gets anticipatory bail, then another FIR is lodged and again gets anticipatory bail, but now he has been lodged a third FIR for income tax evasion.” There are many other allegations against him. ”

He said that there is also a background of this matter. The court issued a notice seeking answers from the officials. On July 31, the Gujarat High Court rejected Langa’s bail plea in the money laundering case on the grounds that if he was released on bail, the prosecution will be adversely affected.

The ED said on 25 February that it linked to alleged financial fraud money Laundering Langa has been arrested in connection with the investigation. Langa was first arrested in October 2024 in a case of GST fraud in October 2024.

Against Langa money Laundering The case of fraud, criminal embezzlement, fraud and allegations of incorrect damage of lakhs of rupees to some people by Ahmedabad Police has come up after two cases.

Also read: Nepal Gen-Z Protest: Smoke-Dhuan Nepali Parliament, protesters attacked, watch scary videos of attack on democracy

The hearing of the case related to the Special Register of Indian (SIR) has started in Bihar in the Supreme Court. During this time, senior Congress lawyer Kapil Sibal said that it is very important to decide whether Aadhaar can be recognized as evidence of citizenship or not. He said that some steps being taken by the Election Commission are not in line with the orders of the Supreme Court and it should be given immediate attention.

During the hearing, the judge asked Sibal, “We are unable to understand why you put so much emphasis on the basis of every hearing? Are you considering it as evidence of citizenship?” Kapil Sibal clarified, “We are not saying so, but the court order said that Aadhaar should also be recognized. Taking a decision on this basis should be part of the judicial process.” Kapil Sibal said in front of the court that it is necessary to decide whether the Aadhaar is valid or not. He also questioned the Election Commission and said that the action that the Commission is taking is wrong and the orders of the Supreme Court are not being followed.

During the hearing, the judge asked this question

During the hearing, the judge asked, “We are unable to understand why you are giving so much emphasis on the basis of every hearing? Are you considering it a proof of citizenship?” On this, Sibal clarified that his aim is not to present Aadhaar as a proof of citizenship. He said, “We are not saying so. But the court had earlier ordered that Aadhaar should also be accepted.”

Kapil Sibal gave this argument

Kapil Sibal further said that BLO (BOTH Level Officer) is not accepting this, while he has received its oral order. He told the court that it is necessary to give clear instructions in this case. He further said that the Election Commission has issued a ‘show cause’ notice to those officers who did not accept Aadhaar. He said that the court needs to give clear guidelines so that the order of the Supreme Court can be ensured.

Notice of notice

The judge asked to see the notice. Sibal read it and narrated it. After this, Election Commission lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi explained the situation to the court. He said that the order of the Supreme Court has been widely publicized and people are also uploading copies of Aadhaar online, but clarified that the Commission cannot consider Aadhaar as evidence of citizenship. The judge questioned the topic of the notice that no other documents other than 11 documents could be accepted for citizenship. Dwivedi said that he has to see this, because he does not have the notice of another party.

“Aadhaar will be considered a proof of identity”

The judge clarified that in addition to passport and birth certificate, no other documents of 11 documents can be considered as evidence of citizenship. Sibal proposed that Aadhaar should be declared as 12th document. The judge said, “Aadhaar is not a proof of citizenship, but under the Representation of the Public Representation Act, it can be recognized as evidence of identity.”

Also read-

‘Full arrangement of food, treatment and security …’, India told Belgium Court where and how will Mehul Choksi be?

After the sudden resignation of former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, the political atmosphere has become hot due to no strong information about him. Many parties, including the opposition Congress, are now attacked by the central government. In such a situation, now Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal targeted Union Home Minister Amit Shah on social media and asked whether Dhankhar Saheb is in the hospital or doing yoga.

Sibal jokingly wrote, “Missing Dhankhar … Amit Shah ji, I know that you stay away from untrue. Tell us so much that Dhankhar ji is in the hospital, doing yoga, or playing table tennis?”

Lapata dhankar

Amit shah ji:

Mujhe Maloom Hai Ke Aap Asatya Se
Door rehte hain

Hamein itna to bata dijiye ke dhankar ji kya:

hospital mein hain
ya
yoga kar rahe hain
aur
Table Tennis Khel Rahe Hain?

– Kapil Sibal (@Kapilsibal) August 26, 2025

A day earlier, Amit Shah reacted to the matter. He said that former Vice President Dhankhar has resigned citing his health reasons and no one needs to find anything in it. Shah also said that Dhankhar did a good job while in constitutional post.

Dhankhar is busy with yoga and table tennis

Recently there were reports that after suddenly resigned from the post of Vice President, Dhankhar is spending time with his family and doing regular yoga. Along with this, they have not forgotten to play table tennis.

Dhankar was fond of table tennis since he was the Governor of West Bengal. People close to him say that he does yoga daily and plays table tennis with his staff and close ones.

Preparation for election after sudden resignation

Dhankhar suddenly resigned as Vice President, citing health reasons on 21 July. His term was till 10 August 2027. Now the preparation for the election of his successor is in full swing.

The ruling NDA at the Center has declared Maharashtra Governor CP Radhakrishnan as the Vice -Presidential candidate. At the same time, the opposition coalition ‘India’ has fielded former Supreme Court Judge B Sudarshan Reddy against him. Elections are to be held on 9 September.

The Supreme Court will announce an important decision on Friday in which the disputed order has been challenged to hold all stray dogs from Delhi and four districts (Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad). This order was issued on 8 August and now the question is whether it will be stopped, revised or will be applicable.

Decision will be heard of three judges
A bench of three judges headed by Justice Vikram Nath (along with Justice Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjariya) will decide whether the order is completely banned or changes or retained.

August 8 order and its expansion
On August 8, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered that all stray dogs be caught and kept in permanent shelters in eight weeks and should not be released on the streets again. Later in written order it was extended to Faridabad. Also, a 5,000 capacity shelter was instructed to build in eight weeks.

Dispute and objection
Controversy immediately arose over this order. Many NGOs and animal welfare groups said that it is against the ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act’ and ‘Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules’. According to these rules, dogs have to be sterilized and vaccinated and left back to the same area, not to close in shelters on a large scale.

Chief Justice changed benches
After the criticism and in view of the new petitions, Chief Justice BR Gavai withdrew the case from the Pardiwala bench and handed over to a large bench of three judges (under the leadership of Justice Nath). The bench held a long hearing on August 14 and reserved the verdict, which will now be pronounced on Friday.

Court displeasure at hearing
During the hearing, the big bench reprimanded the Delhi government and the municipal corporations that they are not implementing their own rules. The court said that both the safety and animal welfare of humans are being affected. The court asked the Delhi government whether it would follow the law or not.

Arguments of government and opposition parties
Giving examples of attacks on children and deaths from dog bytes, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that immediate intervention is necessary. He said that dogs do not have to kill, but it is necessary to separate, sterilize and treat. At the same time, many senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddharth Luthra said on behalf of the NGOs that this order is illegal and invalid. He showed his statistics of the government that there was no death due to the recent dog byte in Delhi, which exposes the baselessness of the order.

Animal welfare conditions in order
In the written order issued on 11 August, the shelter should not have cruelty with dogs, should not be hungry, congestion should be avoided, weak dogs should be kept away and veterinary-related conditions were also added. Also, adoption was allowed to adopt with the approval of the Animal Welfare Board, but there was a direction of “strict action” on leaving the adopted dogs on the road.

Why the matter started
The whole matter arose when a six -year -old girl died of rabies after a dog bites. The Pardiwala bench had said that the incidents of dog byte are showing “worrying patterns” and local bodies have failed to ensure safety of public places.

Chief Justice (CJI) Bhushan Ramakrishna Gawai has said that no senior advocate will be allowed to list the cases in his court according to urgency or mention of the case from August 11. CJI Gavai wants junior lawyers to get a chance. On Wednesday (August 6, 2025), CJI BR Gavai directed the court master to take out notice in this regard.

According to PTI report, CJI Gavai said, “There is a lot of demand that no case should be mentioned by senior advocates.” He asked the court personnel to issue a notice that from Monday, no senior lawyer would be allowed to list the case in his court and mention cases for hearing.

Chief Justice Gawai said, ‘No senior advocate i.e. senior advocate will be allowed to mention cases from Monday. Junior lawyers should be given an opportunity to do so.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was present in the court to mention a case, said that if it applies to all senior advocates then he has no problem. The Chief Justice said, “At least it will be followed in my court.” He said that it depends on other judges of the Supreme Court whether they adopt this method or not.

Usually, lawyers refer to their matters before the bench headed by the Chief Justice to make a list of cases and hear cases based on urgency.

Earlier, CJI BR Gawai had resumed the practice of listening to the lawyers immediately and verbal mention of cases for hearing, which was closed during the tenure of former Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna. Former CJI Sanjeev Khanna had asked the lawyers to immediately list cases and send them an email or written letter, prohibiting the process of listening to the cases and verbal mentioning for their hearing.

On Tuesday (July 29, 2025) on the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) in Bihar, the petitioners said in the Supreme Court that forms of 65 lakh people have not been submitted. Advocate Prashant Bhushan has said this in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms.

According to the PTI report, Prashant Bhushan said that the Election Commission has issued a statement saying that 65 lakh people have not submitted calculations during the SIR process, as they are either dead or permanently moved elsewhere.

He also said that these people will have to apply again to include names in the voter list. Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi The bench was hearing the case. To this, Justice Suryakant said, ‘The Election Commission of India is a constitutional authority and it is considered to be working according to the law. If there is a disturbance, then you attract the attention of the court to that, we will listen to you.

Justice Bagchi told Prashant Bhushan, ‘You are apprehensive that these about 65 lakh voters will not be included in the preliminary list. Now the Election Commission is doing the process of improving the voter list. We are monitoring this process as a judicial authority. If the names are removed on a large scale, we will intervene immediately. You bring 15 such people who have been said to be dead, but they are alive.

Kapil Sibal, who appeared on behalf of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha, said that the Election Commission knows who these 65 lakh people are and if they mention their names in the draft list, no one will have any objection. On this, Justice Suryakant said, “If there is no clearly mention of these names in the draft list, then you inform us.”

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, said that the calculation forms can be filled even after this draft list is published. The bench asked the petitioners and the Election Commission to file their written arguments by August 8.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, once again alleged that people are being excluded from the draft list to be published on August 1 by the Election Commission, so that they will lose their significant right to vote.

The Supreme Court said that the Election Commission is a constitutional authority and it is considered to be working according to the law, but if the special intensity of the voter list in Bihar Revision ,Sir) If the names of voters are removed on a large scale, then the court will intervene.

Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi Ki Bench of Election Commission in Bihar SIR To consider the petitions challenging the process Timeline Deciding, he said that the hearing on this issue will be held on August 12 and 13.

The Supreme Court has asked Justice Yashwant Verma, Judge of Allahabad High Court in the cash scandal, that the report of the inquiry committee should also be filed with its petition, after that the case will be heard. Justice Verma has also questioned the formation of a three -judge committee formed to investigate the case, on which the court asked him that if he had objections, why did he not come to court at the same time.

In the report of a three -judge committee, Justice Yashwant Verma was convicted of getting cash from the house, against which Justice Verma filed a petition and demanded that the report be declared invalid. Justice Yashwant Verma has also opposed this recommendation of former Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, in which he had asked to remove Yashwant Verma from the post immediately.

On Monday (July 28, 2025), a petition of Justice Yashwant Verma was found in front of a bench headed by Justice Dipankar Dutta. Justice Dipankar Dutta from Justice Verma said that he has not seen the report of the inquiry committee and he should have also filed a report along with his petition. He said that first report, then he will hear his petition.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of Justice Yashwant Verma. He said, ‘I will report to the court. You can postpone the hearing or first listen to the legal questions that we want to keep. On the recommendation of the removal of Justice Yashwant Verma from the post, Kapil Sibal said that the process of removing the judges from the post has been given in the Constitution and Judges Inquiry Act, it is not according to him to form an inquiry committee on behalf of the Chief Justice.

Kapil Sibal said that the power to remove judges has been given to the Parliament under Article 124 of the Constitution. The judge can be removed on the basis of misconduct or disability. Any other way has been given to remove a judge in the law or constitution of India. Prior to the report of the committee, the conduct of the judge is not discussed in Parliament either.

Kapil Sibal said that but the video was made public in this case, people started discussing, committee was also formed, which was wrong. Justice Dipankar Dutta, after hearing Kapil Sibal’s arguments, said, ‘So you say to the committee that you cannot investigate or come to court at the same time against the formation of the committee. Why now? ‘ He said that you are citing any letter from Chief Justice. He did not even put him on record. How will there be a hearing like this?

Justice Dipankar Dutta also told the petitioner that he is also opposing sending the report to the President and the Prime Minister. He said that the President appoints judges. If there are constitutional heads, then why is there being opposed to giving them information. Kapil Sibal said in the court that he will also keep the investigation report and the letter of the Chief Justice in the record. On the questions of Justice Dipankar, Kapil Sibal said that he was not opposing giving information to the President, but the money received from the house was from Justice Verma, why was it accepted. It should have been investigated whose money was there

(With input from Nipun Sehgal)

Kiren rijiju on kapil sibbal: Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju called him a “average lawyer”, calling him a scathing attack on senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal and said that he could not impose his personal agenda on Parliament. Rijiju’s statement came when Kapil Sibal said that the opposition should not support any impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Verma until the process of impeachment begins to investigate the alleged communal comment of Justice Shekhar Yadav.

Sibal is an average lawyer – Rijiju
Rijiju described Kapil Sibal as a very average lawyer and said that he considers himself a person to light up every subject, but it is not so. He said that many MPs have more understanding and knowledge than him.

Parliament belongs to everyone, not any one
The Union Minister said that Parliament runs through collective participation of all members and not with the intentions of any one lawyer-Sansad. We are working in the interest of the country, not to run someone’s agenda.

Parliament only right to remove judges
Rijiju also clarified that Parliament is the only platform to remove a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court. He said that no other institution can do this because Parliament is the highest elected institution of the country.

Government reversed Sibal’s allegations
Kapil Sibal has accused the government of saving Justice Shekhar Yadav and said that the petition filed by opposition MPs against him is pending since December 2024. Reacting to this, Rijiju said that Sibal’s behavior is biased and personal.

Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal has alleged that the Election Commission has always been a puppet in the hands of the Modi government. He claimed that the special intensive revision of the voter list in Bihar is a ‘unconstitutional’ step, which aims to ensure that majority governments remain in power.

In a conversation with ‘PTI’, the former Law Minister also alleged that every Election Commissioner is ahead of each other in collusion with this government. Taking a dig at the special intensive revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar, he said that the Election Commission (EC) does not have the right to decide on citizenship issues.

The puppet of the government’s hand as soon as he comes to power

The Election Commission says that this revision that is being done after 22 years will remove ineligible people, ‘duplicate’ entries from the voter list and according to the law, the eligible people of voting will be included in it. When asked about the opposition’s attack on the Election Commission on SIR, Sibal said, “Ever since this government came to power, this (Election Commission) has been a puppet in the hands of the government for a long time.”

He said that the less said about the conduct of the Election Commission, the better. On SIR, he said, ‘According to me it is a completely unconstitutional process. The Commission does not have the right to decide on citizenship issues and that too like a block level officer ‘

Grand of winning elections in Bihar

The senior advocate said, ‘I have been saying that they (BJP) somehow adopt all possible tactics to win elections. Actually, this entire process of special intensive revision is the process of maintaining majority governments in the coming time.

He said, ‘This is the intention, because if you remove the names of poor people, marginalized people, tribals, then you will make sure that the majority party always won. Therefore, this exercise is another way to ensure this and it is very worrying.

No trust in Election Commission

Sibal said that he has always said that he does not believe in the freedom of the Election Commission, because this institution has not displayed the freedom that is expected to him. On the interim order of the Supreme Court, Sibal refused to comment and said that he is a lawyer in the matter.

He said, “Hopefully, whatever the court has said, the Election Commission will keep it in mind, so that this dispute does not move forward.” Referring to the upcoming monsoon session of Parliament, Sibal said that the issue of SIR is more important than any other issue in the discussion today.

Maharashtra election issue is also important

He also said that the issue of Maharashtra is also very important, because the Election Commission has not yet clarified how there was a sudden increase in the number of voters in the same constituencies, where the BJP has won.

Sibal’s remarks came from the Supreme Court a few days after the Supreme Court instructed the Election Commission to consider Aadhaar, voter ID and Ration Card as a valid document. Elections are to be held in Bihar later this year.

Decision of constitutional institution final

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, describing the SIR as a “constitutional order”, considered the arguments of senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission and allowed the Election Commission to continue this process in Bihar.

Describing the right to vote in a democratic country, it said, ‘We cannot stop a constitutional institution from doing what it should do. Also, we will not allow him to do what he should not do.

Also read:- Fake visas, hawala and foreign chats … What was found in the ED raid in the Dunky Root case?

Arshad Madani on Udaipur Files: The petition filed against the film ‘Udaipur Files’ in the Delhi High Court was heard on Wednesday. On behalf of Maulana Arshad Madni, President of Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, senior advocate Kapil Sibal made arguments before the bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Aneesh Dayal. The petition claimed that the film hurts the religious sentiments of a particular community and is going to spread hatred in the society.

Film scenes objectionable- Sibal
Kapil Sibal said that there are scenes in the film which incorrectly reflect the Muslim community and this can promote religious fanaticism in the society. He requested the court that publicly displaying such a film is a violation of the basic principles of the Constitution.

Censor board claims- disputed scenes removed
The lawyer of the censor board informed the court that all those scenes have already been removed from the film which could be considered objectionable. Now there is nothing in the film that hurts the spirit of a community.

Court directive – The entire film should be shown to the petitioner
The Chief Justice clarified that freedom of expression does not mean that religious sentiments were hurt. He directed that the petitioner’s lawyers should be screened for the entire film so that it can be decided whether there is some objectionable left in the film.

Arshad Madani expresses satisfaction, next hearing tomorrow
Maulana Arshad Madani said that the court proceedings were satisfactory. He also said that the censor board and the filmmaker accepted our objections and claimed that the disputed scenes have been removed from the trailer. He hoped that after the screening, the court would give a decision that will maintain the dignity of the Constitution and respect the religious sentiments of Muslims.