On January 8, 2026, arguments were presented on behalf of accused Sharjeel Imam in the major conspiracy case related to 2020 Delhi riots in Karkardooma Court, Delhi. His lawyer Ahmed Ibrahim said in the court that no conspiracy has been proved against Sharjeel and no conspiracy case has been made out in this case.

Consent of mind is necessary for conspiracy

In the court, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai heard the debate on framing of charges. Sharjeel Imam’s lawyer argued that ‘consent of the mind’ is necessary for the conspiracy, but there is no such evidence. He said that Sharjeel has no connection with the WhatsApp chats included in the charge sheet. No phone calls or chats linking him with his co-accused.

While giving clarification in the court, Sharjeel said, ‘The allegation of the police that Umar Khalid was my mentor is completely wrong. Omar Khalid is not my guru.

What arguments were given in favor of Sharjeel Imam?

• The entire case is based on WhatsApp chats, but Sharjeel is not associated with any chat.
• Sharjeel had no direct role in the riots, he has only been included on charges of conspiracy.
• They had distributed pamphlets against CAA, but it was against discrimination.
• The speech given on 13 December 2019 is not related to the violence of 15 December.
• There was no violence after leaving the Shaheen Bagh protest site.
• Did not go to any protest site from January 3 to January 13, then gave speeches in Aligarh, West Bengal and Bihar where no violence took place.
• He is in jail since January 28, 2020, hence not involved in any planning related to Trump’s visit to India (February 2020).
• Did not participate in any meeting or discussion that could lead to violence.
• The police showed a photo of a meeting in September 2019, but Sharjeel never spoke to Umar Khalid.
• Mention of violence is necessary for the conspiracy, but there is nothing like that in his speeches.
• No chat or call related to violence or conspiracy has been found.

Lawyer Ahmed Ibrahim said, ‘Consent is necessary for conspiracy, mere discussion is not enough.’ He told the court that Sharjeel has not even been called ‘top conspirator’.

Sharjeel Imam has been imprisoned for 6 years
This case is related to the North-East Delhi riots of 2020, in which 53 people were killed and hundreds were injured. The riots took place during the CAA-NRC protests. Police allege that this was a big conspiracy, in which many people including Umar Khalid were involved.

Sharjeel Imam has been made an accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Sharjeel is in jail since 28 January 2020. Recently, on January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court had rejected the bail plea of ​​him and Umar Khalid, but granted bail to the other 5 accused.

The Supreme Court will hear the petitions filed on behalf of many others including political parties on Monday (September 08, 2025) on behalf of the Election Commission on the petitions filed by political parties.

On June 24, the Election Commission had directed to conduct intensive special revision (SIR) of the state’s voter lists. The bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will consider the response of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) and other petitioners on the Election Commission’s remarks.

Election Commission should also give the option to apply online through online medium

The Election Commission has said that out of 7.24 crore voters included in the draft voter list, 99.5 percent have filed their eligibility documents in the SIR process. The Supreme Court is hearing several petitions including petitions filed by NGOs, workers and political parties since 22 August.

During the hearing, the bench then directed the Election Commission to provide the option to apply through the SIR process in Bihar, as well as to file the claim to the voters, as well as online medium.

‘Large -scale issue issue’

On September 1, the Supreme Court heard some applications filed by political parties to extend the deadline. During that time, the Election Commission told the bench that applications for claims, objections and improvements in the draft voter list prepared in Bihar under the SIR process can be given even after September 1, but these will be considered after the voter list is finalized.

It was said that claims and objections in the draft voter list can be filed in each assembly constituency till the last date of nomination form. The Supreme Court described confusion on Bihar SIR as a ‘issue of large -scale trust’ and directed the State Legal Services Authority to deploy legal volunteers to assist individual voters and political parties in registering claims and objections on the draft voter list published on August 1.

Election Commission protest against extending deadline

The Election Commission had opposed extending the September time limit to file claims and objections as per SIR Schedule. The Commission had said that after the Supreme Court’s 22 August order, only 22,723 claims were filed by August 30 and 1,34,738 objections were filed to exclude.

As per the Schedule of the Election Commission for Bihar SIR on 24 June, the deadline for filing claims and objections on the draft voter list has ended on September 1 and the final voter list will be published on 30 September.

Confidential report will be submitted to district judges

The Supreme Court had asked political parties to give their reply on the Election Commission’s comments. The Supreme Court had said that the legal assistant will submit a confidential report to the concerned district judges and the data collected of the state will be considered on 8 September.

Also read:- Why did Lashkar demolish the headquarters Markaz Taiba in Pakistan, had the loss in Operation Sindoor?

Political rhetoric is going on about the result of the 2024 Maharashtra election. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has launched a scathing attack on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. He said that Rahul Gandhi had made wrong allegations against the Election Commission and the BJP government on the basis of data of CSDS.

Devendra Fadnavis said that now that CSDS has admitted that his data was wrong and he has apologized, then Rahul Gandhi should also apologize. However, Fadnavis taunted that Rahul Gandhi is ‘serial lire’, so it is useless to expect him.

He said, “It is true that the data was given by CSDS and on the basis of the same data, Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission and at the same time he had also accused our legitimately elected government. Today CSDS has admitted that his data was wrong and he has apologized for his mistake. He has withdrawn all his earlier data.”

Will Rahul Gandhi apologize- Devendra Fadnavis

The CM further said, “Now the question is whether Rahul Gandhi had made allegations on the basis of the same data. Now will he also apologize? I do not expect it, because Rahul Gandhi is a serial false. So he will lie every day. But one thing is clear that the truth has come to the public …”

#Watch Mumbai: Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis Says, “This is a fact that data was given by csds, and based on that data, rahul gandhi had made allegations on the election communication, and also he had acused uss of Legitimately elected government. pic.twitter.com/ihymhasxk8

– ANI (@ani) August 19, 2025

What happened in the case so far?

The opposition has been continuously accusing the Maharashtra elections of rigging. The matter also reached the Supreme Court. The petitioner claimed that about 76 lakh fake votes were cast after the voting ended on 20 November 2024. Earlier this petition was dismissed in the Bombay High Court. After this, the matter reached the Supreme Court, where the demand for cancellation of the election results was made.

Supreme Court verdict

The Supreme Court, while rejecting the demand of the petitioner, clearly stated that adequate evidence of fake voting was not produced before the court. Because of this, the election result cannot be canceled. The court also clarified that the democratic process cannot be questioned only by making allegations.

Hearing has started in the Supreme Court on the issue of tying the President and the Governor to take decisions on the Bills. The Constitution Bench of 5 judges headed by the Chief Justice has to reply in this regard by considering the Presidential Reference sent by the President. Inaugurating the debate, Attorney General R Venkarmani said that the Supreme Court cannot write the Constitution afresh.

What is the matter?

In April this year, a bench of 2 judges of the Supreme Court approved 10 Bills of the Tamil Nadu government pending with the Governor and the President. The court had also set a time limit for the decision of the Governor or the President. The court had said that if he does not take the decision in the stipulated time, the state government can come to the court.

Hearing of 5 judges

The President had sent 14 questions to the Supreme Court regarding this decision of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice BR Gawai has constituted a 5-judge bench for hearing them, the rest of its members are- Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.

Demand to return reference without thought

The Supreme Court first gave one hour of time lawyers from Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Both states are demanding that the Presidential References be returned without consideration. Senior advocate KK Venugopal from Kerala and Abhishek Manoj Singhvi from Tamil Nadu presented the side. Both said that a bench of the Supreme Court has given a decision on the Bills. The central government is trying to replace it indirectly through the Presidential References, so the Supreme Court should return the idea.

The judges did not agree

The bench of 5 judges did not agree with the talk of both senior lawyers. The Chief Justice said, ‘When the respected President has asked us some questions, we will have to answer them, but it is clear that we are answering legal questions. They are not talking about changing any old decision.

Constitution cannot write again

The discussion on the Presidential Reference is usually beginning the Attorney General of the country. This time the same thing happened. Attorney General R Venkatarmani started the debate and said that the Supreme Court cannot write the constitution again. While supporting him, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that earlier the constitution was providing a provision to tie the President and the Governor within the time limit, but Dr. Ambedkar had advocated to remove him.

Important court question

The bench member Justice Narasimha stopped the Solicitor General and said, ‘The Supreme Court had to intervene in the Tamil Nadu case. After all, what to do if the governor stops MLAs for a long time? To this, Tushar Mehta replied, ‘This concern is justified, but not necessarily everything is resolved with the Supreme Court. The power to intervene in the jurisdiction of the President and the Governor has not given the power to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) said that the court’s time should not be wasted in such cases. This case is related to Tharoor’s 2018 statement in which he gave a controversial statement about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This comment was given by the bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice B.R. Was doing Gawai.

What did the court say?

According to the report of India Today, the bench was hearing the petition of Tharoor in which he has demanded the cancellation of the defamation proceedings against him in the Delhi court. When the case was discussed in the court on the case filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar, Babbar’s lawyer said that he has filed his reply, but the bench was not affected by it.

The court said, “You pay attention to more important matters. Why do you entice the court in such things?” The bench also clarified that it will hear the case of Shashi Tharoor next week. Along with this, another defamation case filed against Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi will also be heard.

When Rajiv Babbar’s lawyer demanded a separate list of both cases, the court strictly said, “Don’t tell us what to hear and how to order.”

What was the matter?

In fact, in November 2018, Shashi Tharoor made a controversial statement about PM Modi in a program. On that comment, BJP leader Rajiv Babbar had filed a defamation case alleging hurting religious sentiments and damaging the Prime Minister’s image.

What did the Supreme Court say before?

In October 2023, the Supreme Court issued a notice on the petition of Tharoor challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision, refusing to cancel the case. At that time the court had said, “Many times a metaphor narrates the truth in less words. Just as a picture speaks more than a thousand words, there is also a metaphor. I do not know why people are hurt by it.” Since then, the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings of the trial court, which brought Shashi Tharoor relief from the appearance. Now the Supreme Court will hear this case next week.

Also read-

‘Apologize to husband and wife and print in the newspaper’, the order of SC to IPS wife, strictly said- if you used their power …

Supreme Court CJI on Waqf Amendment Act: The Supreme Court heard the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 on Tuesday (May 20, 2025). The petitions were heard by a two -member bench headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai, including Justice Augustin George Christ along with CJI. While hearing the petitions, Chief Justice of India BR Gawai has drawn a Laxman Rekha, making a big comment about the constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament.

Hearing the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, the CJI told the petitioners, “There is a notion of constitutionality of laws after passing from Parliament and no law is constitutional, unless a concrete and concrete case is revealed in this regard, the courts cannot interfere in this regard.”

Central government appeals to Supreme Court

The central government has also made an appeal to the Supreme Court regarding this matter. The central government has told the Supreme Court to limit the hearing on the petitions challenging the validity of the law, including the rights of boards to de-detail the Waqf properties declared by the court, user and the deed. On behalf of the Center, Solitary General Tushar Mehta made this request before the bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Christ. However, on this demand of the central government, the petitioners’ counsel Kapil Sibal lodged an objection in the court.

Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi objected to the demand of the center

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, opposed the argument of the Center in the court, saying, “No important law cannot be heard in pieces.” Kapil Sibal, while arguing, said, ‘The amended law violates Article 25 of the Constitution, under which people gives people the right to follow religion, to conduct and propagate religion. Therefore, we will argue on all issues. He said, “The matter should be heard to issue an interim order.”

Colonel Sophia Qureshi Remark Row: Colonel Sophia Qureshi will be heard in the Supreme Court today (16 May 2025) on the disputed remarks. On Thursday (15 May 2025), the Supreme Court refused to ban the FIR of Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah. During the hearing, the Supreme Court had said that you are a minister and in such a sensitive time, a person sitting in a constitutional post should speak thoughtfully.

Vijay Shah said in the petition in the Supreme Court that my statement was misunderstood, while we have apologized for this. The media has overpowered over. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the controversial statement on Colonel Sophia Qureshi. An FIR was ordered against Vijay Shah. Shah challenged this order of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court took cognizance of Shah’s comments on Colonel Sophia Qureshi, an officer of the Indian Army, who informed the media about ‘Operation Sindoor’.

“What kind of statements are you making …”

The matter was given by Chief Justice of India BR. The bench of Gawai and Justice George Augustine Christ was sent for immediate hearing. The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the spirit of responsibility of Madhya Pradesh minister Shah, who had allegedly made derogatory remarks about Colonel Qureshi. Chief Justice of India BR Gawai condemned Shah’s comment about the female officer, saying, “What kind of statements are you making … A responsible minister of the government, that too when the country is going through such a situation … The person sitting in a constitutional post is expected to be restrained with the person sitting in a constitutional post. The minister should have a sense of responsibility in every sentence.”

‘Media unfortunately introduced the statement’

Through senior advocate Vibha Dutta Makhija, Shah has moved the Supreme Court to stay the FIR (FIR) filed against him on the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case on 16 May 2025. The Supreme Court advised the minister’s lawyers to inform the High Court, which had listed the case on 15 May. The High Court had taken cognizance of the minister’s comments. Makhija said in a verbal mention for early hearing that the media introduced the comments “unfortunately”.

‘Why should not fight your case in the High Court’

The High Court did not give the minister an opportunity to hear before passing the order to register an FIR to the police. At that time, Chief Justice Gawai asked why the minister should go directly to the Supreme Court and why not fight his case in the High Court itself. Chief Justice Gawai asked Makhija, “Any person is a minister, so it should be considered here?” Senior advocate said that Shah has publicly regretted and he has recording of it.

What did the High Court order to the DGP?

On Wednesday (14 May 2025), the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) to register a criminal case against Shah within four hours and warned the DGP to contempt action in case of any delay in compliance. A bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court Justice Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla said that prima facie it becomes a crime to promote enmity between different castes, religions and languages.

Justice yashwant varma case: The Supreme Court will hear on Friday (March 28, 2025) on the petition filed against Justice Yashwant Verma. The case is in the bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Ujjwal Bhuiyan. 4 petitioners from Mumbai have said that getting a large amount of money at the judge’s house is a criminal case. For this, instead of creating an investigation committee of 3 judges, other agencies including police should have asked for investigation.

The petition by lawyer Mathews Nedmara, Hemali Kurne, Rajesh Adrekar and Chartered Accountant Manisha Mehta has also opposed the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench’s decision in the 1991 case. It was said in that decision that the consent of the Chief Justice of India before the FIR against the High Court or Supreme Court judge is necessary. The petitioners have said that only the President and the governors have been exempted from the trial in the constitution. With its decision, the Supreme Court gave the judges separate special status from the common citizens.

Petitioners made them party

The petitioners have also made the party along with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, the Central Government, Delhi Police, Delhi Fire Department, ED, CBI and Income Tax Department. Apart from this, Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice GS Sandhavalia and Justice Anu Shivraman, members of the 3 -member inquiry committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have also been made side.

‘Treatment should be done like ordinary citizens with judges’

It has been said in the petition that the FIR should have been lodged immediately after receiving the burnt cash in the judge’s house on March 14 and the arrest should have been made but now the case has been handed over to the judges’ investigation committee, which is not correct. Just as an FIR is registered against common citizens in a criminal case, it should be done in this case as well. The Supreme Court cancels the comments made in the Veeraswami verdict of 1991 and register a case to the investigating agencies and ask them to investigate.

The petition claimed that due to giving separate status to the judges, he has survived the FIR even in serious cases like Poxo. These petitioners associated with an organization called National Liars Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms have reminded that Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill was introduced in Parliament in 2010 to investigate the corruption of judges and other wrong conduct, but that law could not be made.

Also read: ‘Justice Yashwant Verma will consider action on action’, meeting the collegium with High Court Bar Association