The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to eight convicts in a case pertaining to the killing of 42 Muslim men from Uttar Pradesh’s Hashimpura in 1987 [Sami Ullah vs Zulfikar Nasir].

Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih took note of the fact that the convicts have been in jail since 2018 after the Delhi High Court reversed their acquittal in 2018.

Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for the accused, contended that High Court’s decision in 2018 was based on erroneous grounds and that the conduct of accused was exemplary during the pendency of the case.

Tiwari stated that the appeal against the 2018 High court judgment is pending before the apex court and was listed several times but not heard yet.

"....The Hon’ble High Court, on erroneous grounds, has reversed a well-reasoned and judicially sound judgment of the Ld. Trial Court that was unwarranted in the peculiar facts and evidence available on records of the case, after completely losing sight of the fact that just because two views were possible after appreciating the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses, a judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside," the bail plea said.

The Court after considering the submissions proceeded to grant bail to the convicts.

The incident happened on May 22, 1987, when Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) picked up 42 Muslim men from Hashimpura in Meerut district, put them on a lorry, drove them to a nearby canal, shot them and then dumped their bodies in the canl

In March 2015, a trial court in Delhi acquitted the 16 PAC personnel on grounds of insufficient evidence.

On October 31, 2018, a Delhi High Court bench comprising Justices S Muralidhar and Vinod Goel set aside the trial court’s judgement and convicted the accused.

Their appeals against the same are pending before the apex court.

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Friday raised concerns about the risks of unchecked free speech, stating that it could disproportionately favour those with greater resources and power.

He explained that in an unequal society, those with more access to wealth, influence and platforms can dominate public discourse, effectively silencing marginalized voices.

"In a society with inequality those with power will use their liberty to promote activities which are detrimental to those with less power. If speech is completely free, those with more resources and power will drown all other voices with their narrative," he said.

The former CJI was delivering the Constitution Day lecture at Kerala High Court on the topic "Fraternity under the Constitution - our quest for an inclusive society."

He noted that while free speech is a constitutional guarantee and aspiration, its unchecked exercise can foster hateful narratives. Such narratives, Chandrachud explained, disrupt societal equality.

"Free speech is a constitutional aspiration and guarantee but what would happen if that narrative becomes hateful? Liberty therefore will destroy equality," he said.

He added that similarly, if all were treated equally without recognising inherent differences and and maldistribution of resources in society, it will give those with resources the ability to benefit over those with less social and cultural capital.

"Equality will therefore destroy the liberty of lesser equals. Fraternity is the great stabilizing force in a democracy which works for all people," he added.

[Read live coverage below]

The Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case to examine the adverse effects of stay orders granted by courts on the pace of criminal trials.

The matter titled In Re: Adverse Effects of Stay Orders Granted by Appellate Courts on the Pace of Trials Despite Paramaters for Grant of Such Stays, Laid Down by this Hon'ble Court will be heard on December 9 by a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar.

Notably, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court had in February set aside a 2018 ruling of the apex court that had limited the life of interim stay orders granted by courts in civil and criminal cases to six months.

It had earlier too acknowledged the drawbacks of prolonging stay orders.

In the February judgment, the Supreme Court Court said that the pattern of pendency of cases in every court including High Courts is different and hence, any out-of-turn priority for certain cases is best left to the concerned court.

The Karnataka government on Friday urged the Karnataka High Court on Friday to cancel the interim medical bail granted to actor Darshan Thogudeepa, the prime accused in the Renukaswamy murder case.

Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar told single-judge Justice S Viswajith Shetty that five weeks have already passed since grant of medical bail to Darshan to enable him to undergo a surgery.

Yet, there was no update on when such surgery will take place, Kumar said.

Kumar further argued that Darshan was misusing the Court’s sympathy and therefore, the Court must ask him to surrender first and only then continue hearing the regular bail plea filed by him.

Kumar said that while Darshan’s counsel and doctors were claiming that his surgery had been delayed as his blood pressure levels were fluctuating, he himself had checked with another doctor and confirmed that in such cases, a patient is given medication to stabilise his blood pressure and get him ready for surgery.

“For five weeks, they are not doing anything. My submission is that the interim bail should be cancelled. And ask him (Darshan) to surrender and then consider his regular bail application. There is misuse of the sympathy shown by this Court,” Kumar said.

Justice Shetty however, asked how the State could ask for cancellation of interim bail midway through the arguments on Darshan’s regular bail plea.

“You could have filed an application to cancel the bail. Now that arguments have commenced (on the regular bail plea), how can you say that surrender first and then hear the bail application,” the Court said and directed Kumar to continue with his arguments.

The dead body of 33-year-old auto-driver Renukaswamy was found on June 9. It is alleged that he died owing to injuries sustained in an attack carried out on Darshan's instructions. The actor allegedly called upon his fans to accost and kidnap Renukaswamy for making derogatory comments against his partner Pavithra Gowda on social media.

Darshan was arrested on June 11 and was lodged in the Ballari Prison.

Darshan and his co-accused then applied for regular bail from the High Court challenging an order of the sessions court in Bengaluru that rejected their bail applications on October 14 this year.

The High Court on October 30 granted him medical bail for six weeks to undergo surgery.

Kumar today took the Court through the call records of all the accused persons in the case and said that the call logs showed that Darshan, his co-accused and partner Pavithra Gowda and the other accused were all in regular touch with each other since June 6, three days before Renukaswamy was allegedly killed.

Kumar further said that the chargesheet indicated that after Renukaswamy sent Gowda lewd messages on Instagram, she gave him her manager’s number and claimed it was her personal number. She then asked him for his number and his residential address. Darshan, Gowda, her manager Pavan and all other accused in the case then made a plan to get Renukaswamy from his hometown Chithradurga to Bengaluru.

“On June 6, there are calls between accused persons. On June 8, accused number four, six, and seven followed the deceased. They accosted the deceased near a petrol pump and there accused number 8 also joined them. All of them then forced Renukaswamy to get inside a vehicle. They told him that accused number one and two (Darshan and Gowda) wanted to see him and they will let him go after that,” Kumar said.

Kumar told the Court that the above chain of events meant the offence of kidnapping stood established. The SPP also said that the prosecution had several eye witnesses who could attest to such kidnapping.

Darshan’s counsel, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh had earlier told the Court that all evidence against him in the case was fabricated by the prosecution.

Gowda’s counsel had told the Court that she was not involved in the incident at all and that she was not a party to any conspiracy to either abduct or kill Renukaswamy.

The High Court will hear further arguments in the case on December 9.

A Kolkata court on Friday awarded death sentence to the accused who raped and murdered a minor girl in the Jaynagar area of West Bengal in October 2024.

The body of the nine-year-old girl was discovered in the Mahismari area of Jaynagar in the early hours of October 5.

A court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) today awarded death penalty to the accused.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee shared the news on her X handle.

She said that the accused has been sentenced to death by the Baruipur court in Kolkata within 62 days of the heinous incident.

"Conviction and capital punishment in such a case in just over two months is unprecedented in the history of the state. I congratulate the state police and all those involved in the prosecution process for this outstanding achievement. The Govt has zero tolerance towards offences against women and will continue to ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied," the tweet stated.

Earlier, the High Court had directed the postmortem examination of the body to be conducted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Kalyani.

The High Court had also directed the police to invoke the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act in the case.

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed former Chhattisgarh bureaucrat Anil Tuteja to withdraw his plea challenging legality of his arrest by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam [Anil Tuteja and Another v. Union of India and Others].

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih granted permission to Tuteja to prefer a bail plea instead.

However, while allowing withdrawal, the Court took exception to the ED's conduct in the matter regarding how Tuteja was summoned and thereafter arrested.

"Learned counsel for petitioners seeks permission to withdraw and file petition for applying for bail. This deserves to be accepted. The disturbing feature of this case is that the petitioner was sitting at the CBI office in Raipur. He was summoned to appear at 12 pm. Another summon was served when he was at ACB officer and then he was asked to appear in ED office at 4:30 pm and interrogated all night and arrested at 5 am. The facts are glaring. ASG says remedial measures taken by ED and a press release issued so that such occurrences do not occur," the Court noted.

The Court then recorded that the plea is being withdrawn for Tuteja to apply for bail.

"If such a plea (for bail) is filed then let it be decided expeditiously," the Court said in its order.

The Court was hearing a plea by Tuteja challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal to quash cases of cheating, forgery, bribery and others offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and money laundering case registered by the ED.

On August 20, the High Court had refused to quash the cases lodged in connection with the scam.

The top court had on September 10 issued notice on appeal filed against High Court order.

Notably, the Supreme Court had in April quashed a money-laundering case against Tuteja and others in connection with the liquor policy scam.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had said in that matter that there was no predicate offence and hence, money laundering case under PMLA could not have been registered by the ED.

In his present plea, Tuteja challenged the registration of the second case, contending that it was based on the same material as the first case.

During the hearings, the apex court raised questions on the hurried approach of ED in issuing summons to Tuteja during the pendency of the probe by Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).

"Please see how ED acted. You summoned to him to appear at 12 noon. Those summons were actually served after 12 noon. Those persons were at ACB office and in that office only you summon them to appear in ED office at 5:30 PM. How can you do this? Why should ED officers accompany these persons from ACB to ED office? Why they are accompanying and what was the hurry? This is not the way to arrest a person," Justice Oka had remarked during one of the previous hearings.

The Court also raised concerns over ED interrogating Tuteja for one whole night.

In response, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for ED, had informed the Court of the remedial circular enacted by the agency to ensure that such approach is not followed again.

Tuteja eventually withdrew the plea to seek bail before the appropriate forum.

[Read live coverage below]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Friday upheld the order of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitting real estate giant Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). (Sunil Kumar Sharma, Suspended Board of Directors of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Anr.)

A bench of NCLAT led by Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Members Barun Mitra, Member and Arun Baroka said

"After answering all the issues, we are of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere in order of NCLT dated June 3."

The NCLT admitted JAL to CIRP on June 3 on pleas filed by ICICI Bank and the State Bank of India (SBI). The tribunal cited the company’s significant debt burden as ground to admit the pleas.

JAL faces a total debt of over ₹50,00 crore with multiple lenders having exposure. ICICI Bank alone claims over ₹3,000 crore including interest in dues.

The insolvency process stems from an initial plea filed by ICICI Bank in 2018 followed by a similar plea filed by SBI in 2022.

Efforts to reduce debt have included the sale of cement plants including a proposed ₹5,666 crore deal with Dalmia Bharat. However, the transaction remains incomplete, raising uncertainties.

In March-April 2024, the National Asset Reconstruction Company of India (NARCL) made a ₹10,000 crore bid for JAL's debt but lenders deemed the valuation unsatisfactory.

The case subsequently reached NCLAT a week thereafter.

On June 11, NCLAT while refusing to pass an interim halting the CIRP, urged the banks to consider the erstwhile management's One Time Settlement (OTS) plan. However, the talks did not yield any fruitful outcome as a result of which the appellate tribunal continued hearing the appeal.

The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) assured the NCLAT on June 10 that JAL’s 25,000 employees and ongoing projects would not be affected as the company would operate as a going concern during the process.

Despite this, Sunil Kumar Sharma, a suspended director of JAL, sought a stay, arguing that the insolvency process threatens multiple infrastructure projects in India and abroad. It was further contended that there was no acknowledgement of debt to ICICI Bank as an OTS proposal was made and even an upfront amount was paid before NCLT pronounced its judgment.

In the judgment, NCLAT found that JAL had made an OTS offer after the NCLT reserved its judgment in May 2024, and also paid ₹ 200 Crores as upfront. Furthermore, even during pendency of this appeal, a revised OTS proposal was submitted, however the same came to be rejected by the lenders.

"The OTS having been submitted by the Corporate Debtor offering upfront amount and the total amount, it does not lie in the mouth of the Corporate Debtor (JAL) to contend that no default has been committed," the judgment said.

According to the judgment, the OTS proposal submitted in June to the ICICI Bank, lenders have offered to give upfront payment of ₹500 Crore. (200+300) and total amount of ₹16,016 Crore, which in itself constitutes a clear acknowledgement of debt.

"Hence, we are of the view that the findings returned by the Adjudicating Authority on the debt and default are based on materials on record and are affirmed by us," the order said.

JAL was represented by Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manju Singhvi, Senior Advocate and Abhijeet Sinha.

ICICI Bank was represented by Senior Advocates Krishnendu Datta and Sanjiv Sen with Madhav Kanoria, Srideepa Bhattacharyya, Aishwarya Gupta and Neha Shivhare from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the results declared by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination, 2023 [Shreya Ormaila Versus State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.].

In doing so, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey rejected an argument that the candidates were not informed sufficiently in advance about the need to answer questions in a particular serial order for the main exam.

The candidates before the Court argued that this lapse had led to confusion during the exam and that their answer sheets were eventually not evaluated because they did not follow the serial order.

The Court, however, did not view this as sufficient basis to set aside the exam results, observing that exam candidates were only entitled to be informed of the exam's syllabus, not the examination pattern.

“In the opinion of this Court, there was no need to notify the pattern of examination and they had the right to know the syllabus 'only.' The pattern of the Main examination and the questions to be asked in that examination are within the exclusive domain of the examination conducting body. The instructions were laid down in the Question-Answer Booklet and the petitioners should have read them over carefully before proceeding to write answers,” the Court held.

The case concerned the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2023 conducted by the CGPSC last year to fill 49 posts in the State Judiciary.

The controversy began after the CGPSC declared the Main Examination results in October 2024, shortlisting 151 candidates for the Viva-Voce.

Several candidates, including the petitioners, discovered that their answer sheets were excluded from evaluation. The CGPSC cited the failure to comply with an instruction requiring answers to be written sequentially in designated spaces as the reason for this exclusion.

Aggrieved by the exclusion of their answer sheets and the lack of clarity regarding the new examination pattern, the petitioners approached the High Court.

They contended that the CGPSC's actions were arbitrary and contrary to established principles of transparency and fairness in the recruitment process.

They further argued that the sudden imposition of a serial order for answering questions was arbitrary and amounted to a "change in the rules of the game" midway through the recruitment process.

The State authorities rebutted these claims, contending that candidates were provided detailed instructions in the Question-cum-Answer Booklet. It argued that there was no deviation from established rules, as the examination process was conducted in accordance with prescribed norms. 

After considering the rival contentions, the Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the rules of recruitment were altered midway. The Court held that the pattern of evaluation was within the discretion of the CGPSC and aligned with the original advertisement.  

“The ultimate object of the selection process is to secure the most suitable candidates and CGPSC succeeded in it. The candidates, who could not answer the questions in proper space, cannot be treated as suitable persons for the post of Civil Judge,” the Court added.

The Court further observed that the instructions to answer in a serial order were explicitly provided in the Question-cum-Answer Booklet. The candidates had an obligation to read and follow these instructions and cannot shift blame to the authorities, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions and held that the CGPSC’s actions were lawful and in line with established procedures.

Advocates Nupoor Sonkar, Harsh Dave, Anand Dadariya, Siddhant Das and Ishan Verma appeared for various petitioners.

Government Advocate Dilman Rati Minj represented the State.

Advocates Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Ashish Tiwari, Prasoon Kumar Bhaduri, Manoj Paranjpe, and Shashwat Mishra represented the High Court (administrative side).

Advocate Dr. Sudeep Agrawal appeared for the CGPSC.

[Read order]

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to a plea to secure the service conditions of those who are part of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) set up under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) [Janaki Chaudhari and Anr v. Ministry of WCD and Ors].

The petition highlights that members of ICCs under the PoSH Act are not sufficiently protected, particularly in private sectors, making it difficult for such committees to deal with sexual harassment complaints independently and without fear.

ICC members dealing with sexual harassment complaints in private workplaces often risk having their services arbitrarily terminated if they do not give rulings that are favourable to the company, the plea says.

Among other prayers, the petitioners have urged the Court to order the Centre to declare ICC members in the private sector as 'public servants', so that their service conditions are secured at par with the protection enjoyed by public-sector ICC members.

After noting that the issues raised in the plea were sensitive, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan on Friday asked the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development and the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs to file their responses.

The plea has been filed by a former corporate executive and former ICC member, Janaki Chaudhari, along with Olga Tellis, a journalist whose petition on the plight of pavement dwellers had led to the Supreme Court's 1985 landmark verdict on the fundamental right to shelter.

ICCs set up under the PoSH Act are committees endowed with quasi-judicial powers similar to civil courts, which are required to conduct impartial inquiries into sexual harassment cases and provide unbiased recommendations to employers.

However, the petitioners argue that ICC members in the private sector have not been provided with sufficient safeguards to enable them to act without fear and favour while conducting inquiries into allegations of sexual harassment.

The plea explains that while dealing with sexual harassment complaints, ICCs may sometimes have to make decisions that may run counter to the commercial interests of the company to which the parties belong.

On account of this, undue pressure may be exerted on ICC members by the company, thereby making their work environment unsafe.

"The right to a safe environment extends not only to victims of sexual harassment but also officers of the Internal Complaints Committees who are tasked with the statutory duty to pass orders against sexual harassment at the workplace. To discharge such duties, ICC Members must be able to act without fear or favour," the plea states.

The plea further argues that the ICC members in the government sector have a greater degree of job security when compared to ICC members in the private sector. This is a discriminatory approach, the petitioners argue.

The PIL also flags concern over the lack of any grievance redressal mechanism for ICC members, and seeks remedial measures.

Moreover, it seeks the establishment of a commission to review the current deficiencies in the PoSH Act with regard to the protection of ICC members.

The petition was filed through Advocate Munawwar Naseem and drawn by Advocate Abha Singh.

[Read Order]

Umar Khalid, who is an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, on Friday argued before the Delhi High Court that there was no allegation of violence or raising of funds against him.

The argument was made by Khalid's counsel Senior Advocate Trideep Pais before the Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur. He concluded his arguments in the plea today

He submitted that like other accused in the case, he was also pressing for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration as an undertrial.

It was also submitted that Khalid was claiming parity with the four co-accused already granted bail in the case.

Pais also referred to the allegations against Khalid and said,

"No recovery whatsoever from me or at my instance by way of disclosure. There is no mention of me in the FIRs [of 2020] violence. No physical evidence retrieved from me or anyone else to show my complicity in any violence. No allegation of procurement, receipt or raising of funds. No allegation of terrorist act or any violent act on my part. The only FIR [of violence] I was roped in, I have been discharged."

Pais said the sole overt act on Khalid's part was a speech he had given in Amravati, Maharashtra.

"It does not call for violence. I was thousands of miles away from Delhi. There is no reaction by the crowd. It is a speech invoking Gandhian principles of non-violence and saying that we should protest against this law [Citizenship Amendment Act]," he argued.

He added nobody had bothered to listen to the speech but instead the prosecution only relied upon a selective clip "that suited some kind of an outrage a politician wanted to market".

With regard to the conversations of WhatsApp groups cited as evidence by the Delhi Police, Pais said he was part of three groups but no message was sent by him on two of them.

He then addressed the conversations he had in the third group.

"I only shared the location of a protest site when someone asked for it," he said regarding one message cited against him.

"When I was in Bihar, I got a call from a senior officer of Delhi Police to make request for calling off a protest at the police headquarters as he said the situation was critical and President Donald Trump was visiting Delhi ... I shared this message on the group," Pais submitted.

On the meetings where Delhi Police says the conspiracy took place, Pais said,

"In the alleged meeting of criminal conspiracy, the members were not even at the same place. They are randomly reading CDRs and comparing the location of accused and saying 'okay these people are there'. In another meetings, there are more people who are not even accused."

Pais said activist Yogendra Yadav and other persons were also present but they have not been made accused.

There is an allegation of participating in the meetings and no allegation of criminality, Pais added.

"The three statements which support the meeting, they do not say there is any preparation for violence."

On the claim of the meeting being a secret, Pais said the picture of the meeting was there on Facebook and there was nothing secretive. He added that the co-accused, who were part of the meeting, have already been granted bail.

Pais also submitted that the prosecution allegation that there were flurry of calls between the people who were part of the group does not answer what was said by them during the calls.

"Many people had made calls, some of them were made accused, some were not," he added.

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and charged with criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly as well as several other offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

He has been in jail since then. This is the second time he has approached the High Court for bail.

The trial court had first denied bail to him in March 2022. He then approached the High Court. which also denied him relief in October 2022, prompting him to file an appeal before the top court.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court sought the response of the Delhi Police in the matter. His plea before the top court was then adjourned 14 times.

On February 14, 2024, he withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court  citing a change in circumstances.

A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal was slated to hear the matter on February 14 when Khalid's counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, informed the Court that the bail plea was being withdrawn.

"We wish to withdraw due to a change of circumstances and move the trial court for appropriate relief," Sibal had said.

On May 28, the trial court rejected his second bail petition leading to the present appeal before the High Court.