The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea seeking directions to the Union government to issue national identity cards to persons included in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam and to start the appeal process for those excluded from it.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi also directed that the petition, filed by the Assam State Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, be tagged with a related pending matter.

"Issue notice. Tag with pending plea," the CJI said.

A response has thereby been sought from the Central government, the office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, the State of Assam and the office of the State Coordinator.

The National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam was compiled as part of an exercise to identify genuine Indian citizens and detect illegal migrants in the State.

Conducted under the supervision of the Supreme Court, the updated NRC was published on August 31, 2019, after requiring applicants to prove that they or their ancestors were present in India before the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, as stipulated under the Assam Accord.

Of the over 3.3 crore applicants, around 19.06 lakh people were excluded from the final list. However, the final NRC has not yet been formally notified by the Union government. Although the 2019 list has been treated as final by bodies such as the Foreigners' Tribunals, NRC certificates are yet to be issued to those included, and rejection slips are yet to be issued to those left out from the list.

This means that those excluded from the list are still awaiting the opportunity to challenge their exclusion before Foreigners' Tribunals.

The petition filed by the Assam State Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind seeks directions to rectify this state of affairs, so that those in the NRC list are issued certificates recognising their inclusion and so that those excluded from it are able to challenge the same before Foreigners' Tribunals.

During yesterday's hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that the legal position on the grant of certificates to those included in the NRC was not in doubt.

"Rule 13 is clear that NRC certificate shall be given," he said.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench that nothing had moved on the ground since the final register was published.

"Nothing is being done. People are suffering. Those excluded, they should be able to appeal. But nothing," he submitted.

The petition filed by the Assam State Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind highlights that the NRC exercise cost more than ₹1,600 crore but has now come to a standstill.

Follow-up steps that are yet to be taken include issuing national identity cards to included persons under Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, read with Rule 13 of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, and starting the appeal process for excluded persons, the plea points out.

The petitioner has said this inaction leaves genuine citizens whose names appear in the NRC under a cloud, subject to continuing uncertainty and arbitrary treatment.

[Live Coverage]

The Kerala High Court recently observed that although the terms 'chest' and 'breast' are distinct, a child victim's statement that an accused grabbed his chest with sexual intent must be understood as referring to the 'breast' for the purpose of constituting sexual assault under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. [Aboobacker v State of Kerala & anr]

Justice A Badharudeen observed that while there is a clear medical and anatomical distinction between the terms, the expression 'chest' is commonly used as a synonym for 'breast' in cases involving sexual offences.

The judge observed that while there is a clear medical and anatomical distinction between the terms, the expression 'chest' is commonly used as a synonym for 'breast' in cases involving sexual offences.

He explained that when a child says that an accused grabbed his chest with sexual intent, the only meaning that can reasonably be drawn is that the accused touched the child's breast amounting to sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.

The Court made the observation in an appeal filed by a 58-year-old man convicted under the POCSO Act.

"Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant merely relying on the medical and anatomical difference between "chest" and "breast" has no significant and is set at rest. Therefore, the evidence available would show that the appellant/accused had committed the offence defined under Section 7, sexual assault punishable under Section 8," the Court added.

The appeal arose from a case involving the sexual assault of a 12-year-old boy in Malappuram district,

In May 2022, when the child had gone to a nearby shop to purchase a mosquito repellent, the accused approached him from behind and grabbed his stomach and chest.

He caught hold of the child's hand and offered him ₹50 to accompany him to a vacant house.

The child managed to escape, ran home and narrated the incident to his parents, following which a crime was registered under the POCSO Act.

Subsequently, a special POCSO court found the accused guilty of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(l) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 7 years of rigourous imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000.

Aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court in appeal.

The accused argued that merely touching a child's chest would not amount to sexual assault and added that the prosecution had failed to establish repeated acts of sexual assault against the child, which was necessary to attract the offence of aggravated sexual assault.

The Court rejected the accused's first contention by clarifying that in the context of sexual assault, the use of the term 'chest' must be understood as referring to the 'breast' for the purpose of Section 7.

However, it found merit in the accused's contention that the conviction for aggravated sexual assault could not be sustained as the prosecution had failed to establish that the offence was committed more than once or repeatedly against the child.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the special court and instead convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

Consequently, it reduced his sentence from 7 years to 3 years rigourous imprisonment and reduced the fine from ₹50,000 to ₹5,000.

Advocates TU Sujith Kumar and Winston KV appeared for the convict.

Public Prosecutor MA Shihab appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted relief to a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) officer who spent over 25 years fighting for the service benefits which he claimed were wrongly denied after his dismissal from service [Prakash Kumar Dixit v. Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran came down heavily on the authorities for repeatedly failing to comply with earlier court directions, saying the officer’s career had been ruined by the way the case was handled by the authorities who acted with callous indifference.

“A promising career in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was sacrificed by the departmental authorities at the altar of callous indifference to the directions of the High Court and brazen pen-pushing,” it noted.

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against one Prakash Kumar Dixit, who joined the CRPF as an assistant commandant in 1986.

He was removed from service in 1995 after being found guilty of handing over charge without approval and remaining absent without sanctioned leave for 420 days.

Dixit challenged his dismissal before the Delhi High Court. After several rounds of litigation spanning nearly two decades, the High Court in 2011 set aside the disciplinary authority’s order and directed the authorities to reconsider the punishment. A division bench of the High Court later ordered that he be reinstated pending such reconsideration, a direction that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014.

Although Dixit was reinstated in 2015 with retrospective effect from the date of his original dismissal, the authorities simultaneously placed him under deemed suspension while reconsidering the punishment.

On reconsideration, the disciplinary authority concluded that removal from service was excessively harsh and decided instead to impose a minor penalty of reduction by one stage for three years without cumulative effect and without affecting his pension.

However, that decision never came into effect. Following movement of the file between different government departments, the disciplinary authority’s view was overturned and Dixit was removed from service once again through a fresh order passed in 2018.

Dixit challenged the fresh removal before the Delhi High Court. In 2019, the High Court set aside the 2018 order, restored the disciplinary authority’s decision imposing only the minor penalty and directed that his reinstatement would relate back to his original dismissal in 1995.

It also directed that he be granted consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation and promotion. The Supreme Court upheld that judgment in 2020.

Despite the High Court and Supreme Court's judgments favouring Dixit, he alleged that the authorities failed to implement its directions in their true spirit.

While they promoted him as deputy commandant after convening a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the promotion was granted only notionally from 2021 by treating the three-year minor penalty as having commenced from the second removal order passed in 2018.

Claiming that this defeated the High Court’s directions, Dixit initiated contempt proceedings before the Delhi High Court.

A single-judge hearing the contempt case held two senior CRPF officers guilty of contempt and granted them six weeks to purge the contempt by promoting Dixit to the post of inspector general from the date his immediate junior was promoted.

The Union government challenged that order before a division bench, which held that Dixit was not entitled to promotion as inspector general because he did not satisfy the eligibility conditions. Dixit then approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Dixit argued that once the High Court had substituted his dismissal with a minor penalty, the penalty necessarily related back to his original termination in 1995. Treating it as commencing only in 2018 had wrongly deprived him of promotions, back wages and higher pensionary benefits.

The Union government contended that the disciplinary proceedings had ultimately culminated in a finding of guilt and therefore the three-year penalty could operate only from the second termination order passed in 2018. It also argued that Dixit was not entitled to further promotions.

The Supreme Court rejected the contention. It held that the minor penalty necessarily related back to the original termination in 1995 and not the second removal order passed in 2018.

The Bench directed that Dixit be granted promotion as deputy commandant from the date his batchmates became entitled to promotion, along with consequential back wages, revised pensionary benefits and arrears.

It also closed the contempt proceedings on the condition that the Union government pay Dixit ₹10 lakh towards the costs of litigation within two months.

[Read Judgment]

Every law firm operating in India will have to register under the Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2026 released by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for public consultation.

The draft proposes inserting a separate chapter titled “Registration of Law Firms” into the Advocates Act, 1961. Sources familiar with the development told Bar & Bench that law firms operating across multiple States would have to register with the Bar Council of India, in addition to the concerned State Bar Councils.

The draft defines a law firm as a partnership, limited liability partnership, company or any other body consisting of advocates and engaged in the practice of law.

A partner or owner of the firm may apply to the BCI for registration on payment of the prescribed fee. The BCI will maintain a register of law firms and annually furnish the list to the Central or State government.

The BCI would also be empowered to prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates and law firms. It said that the move would provide statutory recognition to Indian law firms for the first time.

The BCI said it particularly wanted to encourage advocates practising at the State, district and taluka levels to form and register law firms. At present, it noted, the law firm model was largely concentrated in metropolitan cities.

The proposed amendments also seek to incorporate a framework for regulating foreign lawyers and foreign law firms directly into the Advocates Act.

The BCI would be empowered to register foreign lawyers and law firms for prescribed areas of practice and to renew, suspend or cancel such registrations. It may also allow them to operate temporarily in India on a “fly-in and fly-out” basis.

However, rules concerning the registration and fly-in fly-out practice of foreign lawyers would require the prior approval of the Central government.

The draft retains reciprocity as a central condition. Where a foreign country prevents Indian citizens from practising law or subjects them to unfair discrimination, citizens and law firms from that country may be barred from practising in India.

Registration as a foreign lawyer or law firm would not amount to enrolment as an advocate on a State roll.

The permitted areas of practice would be prescribed by the BCI. However, foreign lawyers and law firms would continue to be barred from appearing before Indian courts, tribunals, authorities or other forums where only advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act are entitled to practise.

The only express exception concerns appearance before an arbitral tribunal in an international commercial arbitration where foreign law governs the substance of the dispute.

Therefore, foreign lawyers would not be permitted to practise Indian law, undertake Indian litigation or claim the rights available to advocates enrolled in India.

“The doors of India would be opened up for foreign law firms in phased manner only i.e. in a way which could suit the Indian Law Firms,” it added.

On the entry of foreign law firms, the BCI disclosed that a committee headed by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Managing Partner Cyril Shroff and comprising representatives of reputed Indian law firms had submitted a report on the issue. The BCI said that it would consider the report before proceeding further.

The proposed framework largely codifies the regulatory approach adopted by the BCI through its 2023 Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, which were amended in 2025.

Stakeholders have been invited to submit their suggestions on the draft by 3 pm on July 31. The proposals will acquire statutory force only if enacted by parliament and brought into operation by the Central government.

[Read Proposal]