On Monday (October 06, 2025) in the Supreme Court, a lawyer created a ruckus in front of Chief Justice BR Gawai. He also tried to remove the shoe in front of the CJI. When the security personnel tried to get him out, he also raised the slogan of ‘Hindustan’, ‘Sanatan will not bear the insult of Sanatan’. This incident took place around 11 am. After this incident, the Chief Justice asked the lawyers present in the court to continue work. He said that he is not affected by such things.

Was the lawyer angry with CJI’s comment?

CJI Gavai recently commented in the case related to the re -installation of the seven -feet tall statue of Lord Vishnu in Khajuraho, which was strongly opposed. Dismissing the petition related to this case, the CJI said, ‘Go and ask God to do something. You say that you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So now go and pray. It is an archaeological site and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) will have to be given permission, etc.

I respect all religions: CJI

This comment by the Chief Justice created a ruckus on social media and many users accused the Chief Justice of hurting religious sentiments. Speaking on the dispute in the open court two days later, Chief Justice Gavai said that he had no intention to disrespect him. He said, ‘I respect all religions … It happened on social media.’

Solicitor General supported CJI

Representing the Central Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while supporting the Chief Justice, said that reactions to incidents are often exaggerated on social media. He said, ‘We have seen this … Newton has a rule that says that every action has a similar response, but now every action is having an unbearable response on social media, sir.’

It is believed that the lawyer who carried out the incident was also angry with this incident and he took this step in charge.

The Supreme Court will order on Monday (September 15, 2025) on the Waqf Amendment Act case. The court reserved the order on 22 May on the issue of interim relief in the case. The bench of Chief Justice BR Gawai and Augustin George Christ heard for 3 consecutive days.

During the hearing, the court had told the petitioners that the law made from Parliament is considered constitutional till the final decision is taken. A very strong base will be required to stop its provisions.

Opposition to things like preventing Waqf Board from claiming

The petitioner side has opposed things such as making the registration of Waqf by user mandatory, in the dispute of the Waqf Board with the government, to be in the hands of a government official, to make non -Muslims members members in the Waqf Board, the possibility of religious activity in ancient monuments, the condition of being a Muslim for 5 years and the Waqf Board on the tribal land to stop the Waqf Board. They have been described as discrimination from Muslims and interference in religious matters.

On the other hand, the Central Government cited the law to enact a law after following the entire process on behalf of Parliament. The Center said that it would not be right to stop the sections of the law before the final hearing. Those who have brought the petition here are not personally affected. He is not a representative of the entire Muslim community. The law has been made in public interest. The discrepancies of the old Waqf law have been removed.

This condition placed for waqf

The government said that Waqf is not an essential part of Islam. It cannot be given the status like fundamental rights. The registration of Waqf by user was also kept necessary in the 1923 law. People who have not registered for 102 years, are still protesting. If the property is not their, then it should be used in social interest.

The Center also argued that earlier only Muslims could do Waqf, but in 2013, the provision of the property of non -Muslims was also made. To improve this, a condition has been laid for at least 5 years to be a Muslim. Constitution also gives protection to the land of tribals.

Indication of prohibiting law provisions

Limited members in the Waqf Board will be non -Muslims, whose role will also be very limited. There will be no difference from new Waqf law on religious activities in ancient monuments. It should be noted that during the initial hearing of the case, the bench headed by the then Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna had indicated to stop some provisions of the law, but on April 17, the central government itself assured the court that there would be no appointment in the Waqf Board or Waqf Council at present.

Also, registered or declared Waqf by user (Waqf) properties will not be denotified. Now the order of the court will decide whether the Waqf Amendment Act will be fully applicable or not.

Also read:- Employee provoked with being fired from job in Hyderabad

People are being made aware: EC

The Election Commission has told the Supreme Court that it has issued advertisements in all the big newspapers of the country from time to time to deliver information to the voters. Press release is also being released regularly. People were made aware by sending SSS. Booth level officials (BLO) tried to confirm people from house to house, people who will become 18 years of age on 1 October 2025, their form is also being taken in advance. Due to the elderly, disabled or any other reason, the helpless voters are being fully assisted.

The Supreme Court asked him sharp questions on Wednesday (July 29, 2025) on Wednesday (July 29, 2025), not credible by the Supreme Court, describing the in-house committee report as invalid. During the hearing, the Supreme Court reacted sharply to the arguments given by Justice Yashwant Verma.

The petition also opposed the sending recommendation to the President on behalf of former Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna for the removal of Justice Yashwant Verma from the post, on which the Supreme Court looked very strict. The court said that the office of the Chief Justice is not a post office. He wrote his recommendation after seeing the report. Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Augustin George Christ were hearing the bench case.

According to the report of the bar and bench, on behalf of Justice Yashwant Verma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal opposed making the video of the burnt cash being made public at the petitioner’s house. He said that the atmosphere was already made against him. This was done by the Chief Justice of India itself. He not only did this, after the report of the committee, he also sent the recommendation to the President to remove the judge from the post.

On this argument of Kapil Sibal, the court considered the plea to consider against making the video public, but said that there is no meaning in this matter now. The petitioner should have said this earlier. The bench justified the recommendation of the Chief Justice and said, ‘The office of the Chief Justice is not a post office. The person sitting there has some responsibility towards the country. He wrote his recommendation after looking at the report. His accountability is also made towards the people of the country.

The bench said that if there are any documents in front of the CJI of India that a judge has committed misconduct, he can inform the President and the Prime Minister. The Supreme Court also asked Justice Yashwant Verma why he appeared before the in-house committee and did not challenge him there. Now when he prepared the report, you are objecting. The court told Justice Verma that he should have come first against the committee’s report. The court reserved the verdict after hearing all the arguments.

Think what will happen if a person files an appeal in the court in the name XXX? It may be that on the very first day, Judge Sir reprimanded the appeal court. But if a judge has done the same thing himself? Yes, such a surprising case has come to light, in this case, the High Court judge himself has filed a petition in the Supreme Court named XXX. Actually, these judges are Justice Yashwant Verma, who are facing a proposal in the case of cash sack found at their residence. In such a situation, there is also a question whether a common man can also file a petition in this way?

When and why the name of this method is used

Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Augustine George Christ heard this petition by Justice Yashwant Verma. His name has been written in this petition. This method is used to hide the identity of female petitioners victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault in court records. It is also used to hide the identity of adolescents and minors in the controversies of married custody. Because the court says that they should not tell the name of the rape victim in the judgment.

What is in Justice Verma’s appeal?

Justice Verma, in a petition called XXX, appealed to declare the report of the Internal Investigation Committee invalid, in which he was found guilty for the recovery of cash. Justice Verma has also requested that Sanjeev Khanna’s recommendation of May 8 should also be canceled. In this, an appeal was made against him to start impeachment proceedings in Parliament.

Why petition filed as XXX

Justice Verma has filed a petition for approval not to reveal his identity. In this petition, he has said that if his petition is not approved, he may have to face irreparable losses. That is why he sought approval to register in the name XXX in his petition, so that his identity could be hidden.

ALSO READ: The world’s first lipstick was made of deer fat, this company presented in the market

Chief Justice BR Gavai said on Sunday (July 27, 2025) that rights without knowledge are not of any use. He emphasized the importance of making citizens aware of their rights. Addressing the Northern Regional Conference of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Justice Gawai also said that there is a need to remove the discrepancies of the past and return Kashmir to its old form, where all communities lived with harmony.

He said, ‘Judges and lawyers together have to ensure justice for the last citizen of the country. Nalasa works in this direction. We are trying to take the work of Nalasa to the remote areas of the country, whether it is Ladakh, Northeast or Rajasthan. Unless people have knowledge of their rights, these rights have no meaning.

Dialogue between judges and lawyers

Giving clear reference to the situation of Kashmir’s last 35 years, the Chief Justice said that there have been some discrepancies which need to be removed. He said, ‘There have been some discrepancies, but we have to work to overcome them. This dialogue between judges and lawyers will provide a new approach. I am confident that this program will help in the reconstruction of traditional Kashmir, where all communities, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs live together.

Justice Gawai said that Nalsa should continue his work to ensure that the last resident of the country’s remote region gets justice contained in the Constitution. He said, ‘Through the constitution of the country, we have promised ourselves to justice at political, social and economic level. It is our responsibility to implement justice according to its true spirit. The legal fraternity should be committed to the true values of the Constitution.

Political justice by ‘one person, one vote’

Justice Gawai said that while Babasaheb BR Ambedkar brought political justice through ‘one person, one vote’, the creation of the Constitution had talked about social division and difficulty in moving from one section to another.

Recalling his previous visits to Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Justice Gavai said that he received immense love and affection from the people of both the central regions. He said, “I feel as if I have come to my hometown. I am grateful to you for the love and affection that is raining on me. I have roamed all parts of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

Sufi tradition promotes secularism

Justice Gawai said that the Sufi tradition here promotes secularism inherent in the Constitution of India. People of all religions come here to the dargahs, temples and other religious places. On the issues raised by the representatives of Ladakh, Kashmir and Jammu, he said that although he does not have the right to consider them, he will convey this to the concerned authorities including the collegium.

Also read:- AID is equipped with AI ‘Arad’ Assault Rifle, cannot miss target

The Samajwadi Party reached the Supreme Court against the vacancy of its district office in Pilibhit, UP. The court said that while in power, it had cheated the government building with fraud and then kept the rules on hold. Now when it is being evacuated, all the rules are missing.

What is the matter?

In 2005, the residence of Executive Engineer of Pilibhit Nagar Palika Parishad was given to Samajwadi Party on a minor rent as the Samajwadi Party government in the state. The party made it a district office. On 12 November 2020, the Nagar Palika Parishad revoked the allocation against the rule. Despite this, the party did not give up possession. Now the action to vacate the place has been started.

What else did the Supreme Court say?

A bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, refusing the hearing, said that the party should speak in the civil court of Pilibhit. The lawyer presented for the Samajwadi Party argued that the party has paid full fare for the building. To this, the court said, ‘Have you ever heard that the fare of the government building between the city is 115 rupees? Do you want us to believe it? ‘ The court said that what has happened in this case, instead of allotment, it would be right to say ‘occupied by fraud’.

Permission petition against Allahabad High Court order

Explain that in June, the Supreme Court had rejected another special permission petition filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court on behalf of the Samajwadi Party, in which the party president of Pilibhit district was stopped from filing any writ petition further regarding the dispute of eviction of the party from the party office in Pilibhit. The court clarified that the Samajwadi Party can move the High Court.

Also read:- Real Estate Fraud: ED’s big action in 1100 crore builder-broad fraud, two promoters of this company arrested

Justice Yashwant Verma has reprimanded the petitioner who reached the Supreme Court seeking to register an FIR in the cash case. The petitioner repeatedly called Justice Yashwant Verma as ‘Verma’. Annoyed by this, Chief Justice BR Gavai said, ‘He is not your friend. Do not forget that he is still an honorable judge of the High Court. His name cannot be taken in this way.

Advocate Mathews Nedumpra had earlier filed a petition for an FIR against Justice Verma 2 times. For the first time, the Supreme Court said that the Chief Justice has formed an in -house committee of 3 judges for investigation. Then for the second time he said that the report of the committee has been sent to the President and the Prime Minister.

Request for early hearing from Chief Justice BR Gawai

Nedumpra, who reached the Supreme Court for the third time, requested Chief Justice BR Gavai to hear soon. Nedumpra said, ‘Verma himself has created such a situation that FIR is necessary.’ Chief Justice BR Gawai was enraged at this.

He said, ‘How are you addressing them? He is still Justice Verma. On this, Nedumpra said that in his eyes, Justice Verma is not worthy of such respect. The Chief Justice refused to put the case immediately and said, “Do not teach the court right and wrong.”

Petition filed in Supreme Court

Let us know that last week, Justice Yashwant Verma has approached the Supreme Court and filed a petition against the committee’s decision. In the petition, Justice Verma has said that the committee did not give him a proper opportunity to present his case. Worked on the basis of predetermined thinking and gave his conclusion. There was a need to investigate whose cash it was? But instead of conducting proper investigation, the committee asked him to prove that the cash is not their.

Justice abhay s ka: Supreme Court Judge Justice Abhay S Oka is retiring on Friday. This will be his last working day, but just before that Justice Oka’s mother passed away. Justice Oka recently mentioned the mother at the farewell ceremony organized by the Advocates on Records Association. He had said that I will spend time with my mother after retirement, but now this will not happen. Justice Oka also set a big example. He returned to work a few hours after his mother’s death.

Actually, Vasanti Oka, mother of Justice Oka, was admitted to a hospital. He breathed his last in the hospital itself. Justice Oka informed this to Chief Justice BR Gawai and then left for Mumbai from Delhi. He attended the mother’s funeral. After this, he returned to Delhi in a few hours. Justice Oka had to pronounce some important decisions on Thursday, which he deferred for Friday. Now they will pronounce decisions on the last day of their work.

Justice Oka will tell 11 decisions on the last day

Justice Oka is retiring on Friday and this is also his last working day. They will also work on the last day and will give 11 big decisions. According to the news of ‘Bar and Bench’, Justice Oka said, “I never thought about retirement, so hearing as many decisions as possible since January.” Justice Oka said that he did not like the word retirement.

Justice Oka wanted to spend time with mother after retirement

Justice Oka said at the farewell ceremony just before the mother’s death, “I could not give time to my mother for many years, now I will stay with her after retirement.” But just before her retirement, a mountain of sorrows broke on the family just before her retirement.

Supreme Court on Law Student: The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that the youth cannot appear in the judicial service examination i.e. Judicial Service Examination as soon as it is Bachelor of Law and it is mandatory for candidates applying for admission level posts to advocate minimum three years. This decision will have far -reaching impact on the candidates of judicial service.

Minimum three years advocacy mandatory

A bench of Principal Justice BR Gawai and Justice Augustine George Christ reiterated the importance of court experience for future Justices. Principal Justice, while giving the verdict, said, “The appointment of new Bachelor of Law has led to many difficulties, as many High Courts have said. Practical experience in the court is necessary to ensure judicial efficiency and capacity. ”The bench said that the minimum three -year advocacy is mandatory for the posts of the lower class cadre to appear in the Judicial Services Examination for the posts of Civil Justice.

Waiting for detailed decisions right now

This decision came on a petition filed by the All India Justice Association. Principal Justice said that practical challenges have arisen by allowing the new Bachelor of Law to directly enter the judiciary, as reflected in the reports submitted by various High Courts. Waiting for detailed decisions.

Apart from this, the work time done as a law clerk for judges will also be added. Also, after the judge is elected, he will have to undergo one year training before hearing in the court. The requirement of minimum practice will not be applicable, where the High Court has already started the appointment process of Civil Judge Junior Division. Along with this, such recruitment procedures, which were postponed due to pending this case, will now be according to the revised rules.

Also read –

BJP leader told Rahul Gandhi ‘Mir Jafar’, said- ‘Mark-e-Pakistan’

Education loan information:
Calculate Education Loan Emi