The Supreme Court has refused to release 2020 Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam on bail. Umar and Sharjeel had sought bail citing that they had been in custody for more than 5 years, but the court refused it, citing their role as central in the case. However, the court has granted bail to the remaining five accused who filed the petition along with these two.

5 people got relief
Those who have got bail from the Supreme Court are Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Salim and Shadab Ahmed. These people had also argued that they had been in jail for more than 5 years. The bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and NV Anjaria has considered their role in the riots to be lesser than that of Sharjeel and Omar. On this basis he has been given concession.

The conditions of UAPA were taken care of
Apart from laws like IPC Arms Act, sections of UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prohibition Act) have also been imposed on all these accused. Section 43D(5) of UAPA imposes stringent conditions for bail. Under this, the accused has to prove that the allegations against him are prima facie false. All the accused had sought bail on the basis of Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Liberty). The court released 5 people without trial on the grounds that they had been in jail for a long time. But in the case of Umar and Sharjeel, Section 43D(5) of UAPA was applied.

‘Ask for bail after 1 year’
The Supreme Court has asked Delhi Police to conduct the case expeditiously in the lower court. The court has also said that after the examination of the main witnesses of the case, Sharjeel and Umar Khalid can file a bail application. If there is a delay in this, then after one year of this order both can demand bail from the trial court.

What is the matter?
In February 2020, 53 people were killed and hundreds were injured in clashes over anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests. It is alleged that these accused had conspired to instigate riots. Delhi Police has registered an FIR against them under sections of the IPC like rioting, illegal assembly, criminal conspiracy, and also under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Multiple FIRs are registered against most of the accused. Delhi Police has also argued that the attempt of the accused was to affect the integrity of the nation by spreading violence across the country.

Also read:-
Delhi Riots: No bail to Sharjeez Imam, Umar Khalid, Supreme Court said- ‘Right to life is in the Constitution, but…’

The Supreme Court has said that SC, ST, OBC and EWS candidates who have scored good marks in the selection process of government jobs are entitled to get a place in the list of unreserved category. The court has made it clear that general or open category seats are not for any particular social class. It is open to all. They should be filled on the basis of merit only.

In 2021, in the case Saurabh Yadav vs UP Government, the Supreme Court had ruled that on the basis of merit, a reserved category candidate can get a job from the general quota. Taking this system forward, the court has now made it clear that a merit-based list should be issued even in the initial stage of the selection process.

The decision can be understood in simple language like this:-

• If a reserved category candidate has scored more marks than the cut off fixed for general category in the initial stage, then he will get a place in the general list.
• If he gets more marks in the further stage also, he can get the job from the general list.
• If he gets less marks in the next stage then he can get a place back in the reserved category.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta and Augustin George Masih has said that reserved category candidates who have scored good marks should not be disadvantaged because of their category. This would be against the concept of social justice. This matter is related to the selection process for a total of 2,756 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Grade-II in Rajasthan High Court, District Courts of Rajasthan and Judicial Academy. This process, which took place in 2023, was in two stages – the first stage was a written examination of 300 marks, and the second stage was a computer-based typing examination of 100 marks.

After the declaration of the result of the written examination in May 2023, the Recruitment Commission prepared the list for typing test. The cut off for general category was around 196 marks, whereas in many reserved categories the cut off was much higher than this. In some cases it was even above 220. Due to this, many reserved category candidates who had secured more marks than the cut off of the general category could not make it to the preliminary selection list.

Due to high cut off of their category, these candidates did not get the opportunity to appear in the typing test. The matter reached Rajasthan High Court. The division bench there said that category wise shortlisting is wrong. The High Court said that Article 16(4) of the Constitution allows reservation for deprived sections. Arbitrary classification will harm its real purpose.

Now the Supreme Court has upheld the order of the High Court. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that reserved category candidates should get double benefits. The court said that a candidate avails the benefit of reservation only when he gets benefits like lower qualifying marks or age relaxation. Merely being a member of a reserved category cannot in itself be considered as availing the benefit of reservation.

The Supreme Court heard the case related to the definition of Aravalli Hills and Range on Monday (December 29, 2025) and stayed its old order. Chief Justice Surya Kant said, ‘It is necessary to consider whether controlled mining will be allowed in these 500 meter gaps. If so, what exact structural standards will be adopted to ensure that ecological sustainability is not affected?

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of this matter amid the controversy over the definition and range of Aravalli Hills. Along with CJI Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Augustine George Masih are also included in the bench. The court has put a stay on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court for the time being.

On 20th, the Supreme Court had approved a uniform and scientific definition of the Aravalli hills and range. Also, a ban was put on granting new mining leases in the Aravalli region spread over Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat until the experts’ report came.

The CJI said that it should also be decided whether 1,048 hills out of 12,081 meet the 100 meter height criteria is factually and scientifically correct or not. It will also have to be determined whether geological investigation is necessary.

CJI Surya Kant said that thereafter, the Supreme Court proposes to constitute a high-level expert committee to assess the report for a comprehensive examination of the above mentioned questions. He said that at the same time, the areas to be excluded from the Aravalli region should be identified in detail and it should also be examined whether such exclusion increases the risk of erosion while compromising the ecological integrity of the Aravalli mountain range.

On behalf of the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that before constituting the committee, the honorable courts will have to determine which areas the committee will investigate. CJI Surya Kant said that we consider it necessary that the recommendations of the committee and the instructions of this court be kept in abeyance for the time being. This moratorium will remain in effect until the formation of the committee. Notice is issued for 21st January. SG Tushar Mehta said that notice has been issued to the states not to carry out any further mining activity.

Former forest conservation officer RP Balwan has also filed a petition in this regard. RP Balwan says that the height scale of 100 meters for the Aravalli hills will weaken the efforts to conserve this vast mountain range. The Aravalli range extends from Gujarat to Delhi and acts as a wall between the Thar Desert and the northern plains. Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav says that no new mining lease will be given until a management plan is prepared for sustainable mining in Aravali.

Also read:-
Unnao Rape Case: Big blow to convict Kuldeep Sengar from SC, stay on bail and suspension of sentence.

The Supreme Court on Monday (December 15, 2025) expressed concern over the dowry cases emerging in the country and said that the existing laws are both ineffective and prone to misuse and this evil is still widely prevalent. In the case the Supreme Court was hearing, a 20-year-old girl was burnt alive by her husband and mother-in-law after pouring kerosene oil on her for dowry.

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Emphasizing the need for collective effort by all to deal with dowry cases, the bench of Kotishwar Singh issued several directions to the High Courts, including ascertaining the number of pending cases (from oldest to newest) under sections 304-B ​​and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) so that they can be disposed of expeditiously.

Describing dowry as a social evil, the court said that because of it a 20 year old girl had to lose her life. The court said, ‘A young woman of only 20 was sent away from this world through a heinous and painful death. Simply because her parents could not fulfill the wishes of her in-laws in marriage. Was his importance only equal to a color TV, a motorcycle and Rs 15,000 in cash, which his family could not give?

Section 304-B ​​of the Indian Penal Code deals with dowry death, while Section 498-A deals with cruelty to a married woman by the husband or his relatives. This case is 24 years old, in which the Court, while giving its verdict, directed the Center and the States to consider necessary changes in the educational curriculum at all levels, and also directed to strengthen the constitutional position that both the parties to the marriage are equal to each other and no one is subordinate to the other.

The Supreme Court has given this order on the appeal of Uttar Pradesh Government against the decision of Allahabad High Court. In 2001, the High Court had acquitted two accused including a woman. Nasreen was married to Ajmal Baig. After marriage, Ajmal and his family started demanding dowry from Nasreen. They demanded a color TV, a motorcycle and Rs 15,000 in cash, for which they kept harassing him for years.

In the year 2001, Nasreen was harassed a lot by her husband and in-laws and finally they poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. By the time Nasreen’s maternal uncle arrived, Nasreen was dead. After this, the trial court sentenced Ajmal and his mother to life imprisonment with fine under sections 304B and 498A of IPC. Both of them challenged this decision in the Allahabad High Court, where the High Court gave relief on October 7, 2003, saying that Nasreen’s maternal uncle was not an eyewitness to the incident, hence his testimony cannot be accepted. After this, the UP government challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court accepted the appeals and reinstated the conviction of Ajmal and his mother in the case. However, the court did not sentence the 94-year-old woman convict to imprisonment. The court has directed Ajmal to surrender within four weeks to serve the life sentence given by the lower court. The court said that even though the accused in this case have finally been punished, there are many examples where this does not happen.

Also read:-
Bengal’s SIR draft list is here, check your name, list will come today in many other states including Rajasthan

On VIP darshan-puja in Shri Banke Bihari Temple of Vrindavan, the Supreme Court said that the deity is not being allowed to rest. When common devotees cannot visit, special pujas are organized for those who pay huge fees.

The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Panchauli was hearing the petition of the temple servants, who have opposed the instructions of the committee appointed by the court. The committee has asked to extend the darshan time for common devotees. However, at the end of the hearing the court issued a notice to the High Powered Committee. The case will be heard in January.

In the petition, Shri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Trust Ordinance, 2025 has been challenged. The temple’s service officer says that the management of the temple has been done under a special plan made in the year 1939 and the government has no authority over it.

According to the report of Live Law, senior advocate Shyam Diwan, counsel for the petitioner, said that there has been a change in the timing of darshan, which is an integral part of the rituals of the temple. On this, CJI Surya Kant asked that if the timing of darshan was increased then what was the problem in it. The petitioner says that if there is a change in the timing of darshan, it would also mean a change in the rituals inside the temple, including the resting of the deities.

CJI Surya Kant said, ‘After the temple closes at 12 noon, they do not allow the deity to rest even for a minute. At that time, they are harassed the most and special pujas are conducted for rich people by charging huge fees. During this time, those people who can pay a huge amount are invited and a special puja is organized for them.

Advocate Shyam Diwan told the CJI that your apprehensions are correct, but that is a different issue. CJI said, ‘The second thing is to end the practice of daily puja… Suppose there is a reduction of 10-15 thousand devotees in the original timing, but what difference will it make?’ Advocate Shyam Diwan said that we do not want a stampede-like situation. There is a need to control the number of devotees. Well that is a different issue.

He raised another issue and said that Dehri Puja is done at a special place at the feet of the Lord, but now it has been stopped. He suggested that the Dehri Puja between Guru and disciple should not be stopped. The court said that we make the temple management a party. Notice should be sent to the High Powered Committee and Uttar Pradesh Government through the District Magistrate of Mathura.

(With inputs from Nipun Sehgal)

Also read:-
‘How much more greedy can I be…’, this is what Chirag Paswan said in the conclave of ABP News

Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed concern over the comments being made on the cases pending in the court. He said that people start creating narratives about the judge’s comments during the hearing, but he is a very strong man, he is not affected by the comments made on social media. He made this comment while hearing the petition of former MP Prajwal Revanna. Revanna had requested to transfer the trials of the rape case against him.

Prajwal Revanna’s lawyers Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Dave, while referring to the comments of the judges during the trials, said that they have also made some objectionable comments against the lawyers, which need to be removed from the record. He requested for transfer of the trials, citing the comments of the judges as the basis of bias.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi was also hearing the hearing along with the CJI. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the judge’s comments cannot be the basis of bias. The bench said, ‘We have no reason to doubt that the judge will not be influenced by the fact that the petitioner was found guilty in the first case and will give his findings only on the basis of the evidence presented in the present trial.

According to Live Lock report, Chief Justice Surya Kant said that judicial questions are asked to test the strength of both the parties, it does not reflect the final opinion of the court. However, without understanding this, people jump to conclusions and start creating narratives based on the questions asked during the proceedings. CJI Surya Kant said, ‘But I am not influenced by all this… social media or whatever. If anyone thinks they can intimidate me then they are wrong. I am a very strong man.

This comment of CJI Surya Kant is also being seen as his reaction to the open letter in which former judges, lawyers and activists have expressed objection to his statement on Rohingyas. The CJI had asked whether infiltrators should be welcomed by spreading red carpet. He made this comment while hearing the case related to the disappearance of detained Rohingyas.

The lawyer had officially described the Rohingyas as refugees, on which the CJI had asked him to show when the Government of India had officially given them refugee status. He had said that if someone infiltrates into the country and then starts demanding rights like citizens, how will this work?

Also read:-
‘What kind of leader is he? If Mahua comes…’, Avinash’s mother gets angry at Tej Pratap in the assault case.

At present, the Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the Indigo flight crisis case. A lawyer presented his petition regarding the case before the bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant. The Chief Justice refused to put the case up for immediate hearing. He said that the Central Government is taking necessary steps in the matter. He also said that it is not the job of the court to run the airlines.

This petition regarding Indigo crisis is of a lawyer named Narendra Mishra. Citing the huge problems being faced by the passengers, intervention has been sought from the Supreme Court. The petitioner has demanded proper compensation and alternative travel facilities to the affected passengers.

On Monday, December 8, the petitioner presented the case before the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. He said that in the last few days, Indigo flights have been canceled without any information. Passengers are stranded at airports. This is a serious issue.

On this the Chief Justice said, ‘We understand that lakhs of people are stranded at the airport. They will have important work. There will be health related needs, but the Government of India has taken cognizance of the matter. It seems that timely action has been taken. Let’s see how the situation is after some time. There is no need for immediate hearing right now.

The Supreme Court has given special instructions to provide relief to Booth Level Officers (BLOs) who are complaining of extra work pressure in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 4, 2025) directed the state government to provide more number of employees to the Election Commission so that there is not too much work pressure on them.

The Supreme Court gave this order while hearing the application of Tamil Nadu party TVK. The court has said that wherever needed, the state government should give more number of employees to the Election Commission for SIR. This will reduce the work pressure on employees. The court also said that the applications of those who are facing problems in doing the work of SIR due to personal reasons should be considered by the competent authorities and the decision should be taken according to the facts of each case. The Supreme Court said that if an employee wants any specific relief then he can come to the court.

The court said that SIR is an essential work related to elections. Government employees will have to do it. The court also said that if the state government has provided approximately one lakh 30 thousand employees, then what is the problem in providing another 30-40 thousand employees. The court has asked to register an FIR against the BLO who was negligent in his work. The court said that this had been happening earlier also. It is important to complete such a process within a time limit.

Booth Level Officers (BLOs) in many states have complained of work pressure regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists going on across the country. BLO officers have also demonstrated in West Bengal regarding this and a case of suicide of a BLO officer has also come to light in Moradabad, UP. The BLO also mentioned in the suicide note that he was under work pressure.

(With inputs from Nipun Sehgal)

Also read:-
Big step of Supreme Court on acid attack: Victims of acid attack can get the status of disabled, also indicated for continuous hearing of pending cases.

Petitioner RJD MP Manoj Jha has raised questions on the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) regarding the voter list. He has said that this process is inappropriate in practice. He said that for this the voter will have to provide his birth certificate or any such document which proves that one of his parents is an Indian. He said that if a voter’s father did not vote in the 2003 elections and died before that, then how would citizenship be proved.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of petitioner Manoj Jha before the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. While presenting his point of view, he also raised questions on the scope of powers of Booth Level Officers (BLO). He asked, ‘Can the BLO decide whether a person is mentally challenged or not and can he decide whether a voter is an Indian citizen or not?’

According to the report of Live Law, Kapil Sibal said that it does not come under the jurisdiction of BLOs to decide whether a voter is an Indian citizen or not, because the BLOs who have been appointed are only school teachers. Kapil Sibal said, ‘Deploying a school teacher as a BLO to determine citizenship is, substantively and procedurally, a dangerous and unfair proposal.’

Kapil Sibal said that the rules being implemented are similar to the rules of the Foreigners (Citizens) Act, where the onus is on the person to prove that he is not a foreigner. Giving an example, he said, ‘The enumerator will ask the voter, tell me when was your father born? Give me proof of this… How will I be able to prove this?

He said, ‘How will I fulfill this responsibility when my father did not vote as per the 2003 voter list or he died before that?’ Chief Justice Surya Kant said on this, ‘But if your father’s name is not in the list and you also did not work on it… then perhaps you missed it…’ The court will now hear the matter on December 2.

While hearing the petitions filed to challenge the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list going on across the country, the Supreme Court has expressed concern over the issue of infiltrators. During the hearing on Wednesday (November 26, 2025), the Supreme Court asked whether any non-Indian should also be given the right to participate in the elections because of being an Aadhar card holder. The court said that the purpose of Aadhaar is to provide social welfare benefits to all people, but it cannot give the right to vote.

The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that Aadhaar does not provide proof of full citizenship, hence we had said that it can be included only as a document in the documents required for SIR.

CJI Surya Kant said, ‘If Aadhaar gives someone the right to get ration, should he also be given the right to vote? Suppose a person from a neighboring country lives here to work?

The court made it clear that Aadhaar cannot be considered an indisputable document of citizenship. Its objectives are limited. The court also refused to accept the suggestion that the Election Commission should work like a post office and automatically accept every Form 6 application. The court said that the Election Commission has the right to determine the authenticity of the documents given along with Form 6 for registering names in the voter list. The bench said that the Election Commission is not a post office.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for some petitioners, said that the SIR process is affecting democracy. He said that the SIR process is an unconstitutional burden on common voters, there are many voters who cannot read and write and if they do not fill the form, they will be removed from the voter list. He urged the court that if someone is removed from the list, then a fair and impartial process should be used.

Kapil Sibal said that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, but it does give the possibility that the card holder may be a citizen. If you want to snatch Aadhaar then go through this process and let this process be proved correct in the court.