According to reports, the petitioner created a disruption during the hearing and allegedly used inappropriate language against the Chief Justice inside the courtroom. The incident briefly interrupted the proceedings before security personnel stepped in to restore order.

The Bench took serious note of the petitioner's conduct, observing that such behaviour could not be tolerated inside the country's highest constitutional court. The judges emphasized that while every citizen has the right to seek justice and present arguments before the court, maintaining the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings is equally essential.

Following the disruption, the petitioner was taken into custody from the courtroom. The development drew the attention of lawyers and litigants present during the hearing, with proceedings resuming after order was restored.

The incident has sparked discussion within legal circles about courtroom discipline and the responsibility of litigants appearing before constitutional courts. Senior advocates have often maintained that disagreements with judicial observations or court orders must be expressed only through legal remedies and established judicial procedures rather than disruptive conduct.

The Supreme Court has consistently stressed that the administration of justice depends on maintaining the sanctity of court proceedings. Any attempt to obstruct hearings or engage in abusive behaviour inside a courtroom is treated seriously and may invite legal consequences.

While the petitioner was taken into custody, further legal proceedings regarding the incident are expected to follow in accordance with law. Details regarding any additional action or charges, if applicable, were not immediately available at the time of reporting.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a strong warning to police officers over procedural lapses during arrests, observing that such negligence can allow accused persons to secure relief on technical grounds. In a significant order, the Gwalior Bench directed the state's Director General of Police (DGP) to issue a fresh circular within one month to all station house officers and investigating officers, reiterating mandatory legal procedures during arrests.

The Division Bench remarked that while some police personnel wear the uniform of law enforcement, their conduct appears to benefit criminals when mandatory legal procedures are ignored.

Court Stresses Compliance with Arrest Procedures

The bench observed that every person taken into custody must be provided with the written grounds of arrest, as required under law and judicial guidelines. It noted that failure to furnish these reasons could result in courts questioning the legality of an arrest and granting relief to accused persons on procedural grounds.

The court further observed that if investigating officers fail to provide written grounds of arrest, such conduct may be viewed as a deliberate act that benefits the accused rather than a mere procedural lapse.

Fresh Circular Ordered for Police Officials

Expressing concern over repeated violations despite existing instructions, the High Court directed the DGP to circulate fresh directions to all police stations and investigating officers across the state within a month.

The court said the circular should clearly instruct officers to strictly comply with legal requirements while making arrests to ensure that criminal cases are not weakened because of avoidable procedural errors.

Concern Over Non-Compliance Despite Earlier Instructions

During the hearing, the bench also expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of an earlier circular reportedly issued by the Police Headquarters (PHQ), Bhopal, on February 13, 2026, following directions of the Supreme Court.

According to the court, despite those instructions, investigating officers at the field level continue to arrest accused persons without adequately communicating the written grounds of arrest, exposing criminal prosecutions to legal challenges.

The bench observed that such lapses undermine the criminal justice system and may enable offenders to obtain relief due to technical deficiencies in police procedure.

Case Related to NDPS Arrest

The observations came while the court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Dharmendra Lodhi, who challenged the arrest of his brother in an NDPS case registered at Basai Police Station in Datia district.

The petitioner argued that the arrest was illegal because the police had allegedly failed to provide written grounds for taking the accused into custody.

However, after examining the case records, the Division Bench found that the police had served a written notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and recovered approximately 86.850 kilograms of cannabis from the accused.

Holding that the legal requirements applicable in the case had been complied with, the court dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the arrest.

Strong Message to Law Enforcement

While rejecting the plea, the High Court used the opportunity to underline the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards during arrests.

The bench emphasised that the role of the police is to ensure effective prosecution of offenders while protecting the rights guaranteed under law. It cautioned that procedural negligence not only weakens investigations but also risks allowing accused persons to secure legal relief that could otherwise have been avoided through proper compliance.

The court's directions are expected to reinforce adherence to arrest procedures across Madhya Pradesh and strengthen accountability within the police force.

In a landmark judgment, the Gujarat High Court on Monday upheld the Ahmedabad City Sessions Court's 2022 verdict in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case, confirming the death sentence awarded to 38 convicts and life imprisonment till the end of natural life for 11 others. The division bench dismissed all appeals filed by the convicts while also affirming the trial court's findings.

The High Court further directed the Gujarat government to ensure compensation for victims by March 31, 2027. Families of those killed in the blasts will receive ₹10 lakh each, victims who sustained grievous injuries will be paid ₹5 lakh, while those with minor injuries will receive ₹1 lakh as compensation.

High Court Confirms Trial Court Verdict

The verdict marks the culmination of a long legal battle that began after the devastating serial blasts on July 26, 2008. The Ahmedabad City Sessions Court had, on February 18, 2022, sentenced 38 convicts to death and 11 others to life imprisonment until the end of their natural lives. The Gujarat government had sought confirmation of the death penalties, while the convicted individuals challenged the judgment before the High Court.

After hearing the appeals, the High Court upheld the trial court's order in its entirety.

2008 Blasts Claimed 56 Lives

The coordinated terror attack struck Ahmedabad on the evening of July 26, 2008, when 21 bomb blasts ripped through 20 locations across the city within a span of nearly 90 minutes, between 6:15 pm and 7:45 pm.

The explosions killed 56 people and injured more than 200 others. Investigators said improvised explosive devices were planted in bicycles, buses and cars, including vehicles parked near Civil Hospital and L.G. Hospital, where several casualties were reported.

Massive Trial Spanning More Than a Decade

The trial involved 78 accused, of whom 49 were convicted and 29 acquitted. According to the prosecution, the investigation included 35 FIRs, 548 charge sheets, examination of 1,163 witnesses, and nearly 6,000 documentary and material exhibits.

The court's judgment ran into approximately 7,000 pages, while the complete case record reportedly exceeded 7.8 lakh pages, making it one of India's most extensive criminal trials.

The accused faced charges under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Information Technology Act, the Arms Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Security Tightened Around High Court

Ahead of the verdict, authorities deployed extensive security arrangements at the Gujarat High Court. Entry to the court premises was allowed only after baggage screening, while personnel from the Crime Branch, local police, State Reserve Police (SRP), and the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad were stationed throughout the complex.

More than two dozen lawyers attended the proceedings, and security remained in place inside and outside Court No. 39, where the judgment was pronounced.

Prosecution's Case

During the trial, the prosecution alleged that several accused had attended training camps in Halol, Gujarat, and Kerala in early 2008, where they were allegedly trained in bomb-making and radicalised through extremist speeches. Investigators claimed the conspirators later executed the coordinated bomb attacks targeting crowded public places across Ahmedabad.

The investigation led to the arrest of 82 accused after police registered 20 FIRs in Ahmedabad and 15 in Surat. Officials stated that the case was substantially cracked within 19 days of the blasts.

The High Court's decision is one of the most significant judicial developments in the nearly 18-year-old terror case, reaffirming the convictions and sentences awarded by the trial court while bringing the prolonged appellate proceedings to a close.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the restoration of the X (formerly Twitter) account of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) after the Central government informed the court that it had no objection to unblocking the account. The order brought an end to a legal dispute over the suspension of the satirical group's social media presence, with its founder describing the decision as a significant victory for free speech and digital rights.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed the order after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that there was no longer any reason to continue blocking the account. The court subsequently directed that the account be restored.

Centre Explains Reason for Blocking

During the hearing, the Centre told the High Court that the account had been blocked as a precautionary measure ahead of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) to prevent posts that could potentially create panic or confusion among lakhs of students and their parents.

According to the Solicitor General, the restriction was imposed during the examination period due to concerns that certain posts could disrupt the conduct of the entrance test. Since the examination has concluded, the government stated that it no longer objected to restoring the account.

The submission paved the way for the court to direct the immediate unblocking of the social media handle.

Court Had Earlier Sought Centre's Response

The matter had previously come up before the High Court on May 29, when the bench declined to grant immediate relief to the petitioner. At the time, the court observed that any decision on restoring the account required hearing the Union government's position because the issue involved broader legal and constitutional implications.

The court had also indicated that it would examine whether the social media platform could be directed to place the blocking order on record after receiving a comprehensive response from the Centre.

With the government withdrawing its objection during Tuesday's hearing, the court disposed of the matter by ordering restoration of the account.

Satirical Movement Gained Online Popularity

The Cockroach Janta Party is an online satirical collective that has gained visibility across social media platforms, particularly among younger audiences. Founded by Abhijit Dipke, who is based in Boston, the group uses humour and political satire to comment on issues including unemployment, institutional accountability, examination reforms and media freedom.

The movement gained momentum following remarks made during a Supreme Court hearing on May 15, when a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant expressed concern over unemployed law graduates turning towards social media activism and Right to Information (RTI) campaigns. The Chief Justice later clarified that the observations were directed at individuals entering professions using forged qualifications and fake degrees, and were not intended as criticism of unemployed youth.

Campaigns Around Examination Issues

The group has also organised demonstrations at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, demanding accountability over alleged examination paper leaks, including those related to NEET. Among its demands has been the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the handling of competitive examination controversies.

Following the High Court's order, Dipke described the restoration of the account as a "big win for free speech and digital rights," maintaining that satire and political commentary are essential components of democratic discourse.

The ruling is expected to contribute to the ongoing debate over the balance between government intervention on social media platforms and the protection of online freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday stayed the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, providing temporary relief to the Meghalaya government, which had challenged the bail order before the apex court.

The matter came up for hearing after the Meghalaya government moved the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Sonam. The state argued that the relief was granted because of a typographical error in the police documents and sought immediate intervention to prevent her release while the case is under trial.

The case relates to the alleged murder of Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi during the couple's honeymoon in Meghalaya in May 2025. Investigators have alleged that Sonam Raghuvanshi was the key conspirator in the murder and that the crime was carried out with the help of hired assailants. The allegations are currently being examined during the trial, and the accused has denied wrongdoing.

Earlier this week, the Meghalaya High Court had upheld a Shillong court's order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi after dismissing the state's appeal. The High Court had observed that the lower court's order did not warrant interference, although a detailed judgment is awaited.

Following the High Court's decision, the Meghalaya government promptly approached the Supreme Court, maintaining that the bail order stemmed from an error in the police records. According to the state, a typographical mistake in mentioning the relevant legal provision played a role in the grant of bail, and the issue required urgent correction.

During Friday's proceedings, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the bail order, meaning Sonam Raghuvanshi will continue to remain in custody until further directions from the court. The stay does not amount to a final decision on the merits of the bail dispute, and the matter will continue to be heard by the apex court.

The Raja Raghuvanshi murder case has attracted nationwide attention since the businessman from Indore was found dead in Meghalaya after the couple went missing during their honeymoon. The investigation led to the arrest of Sonam Raghuvanshi and other accused, with the Meghalaya Police filing a detailed chargesheet in the case.

The Supreme Court's interim order marks the latest legal development in the high-profile case. Further proceedings are expected as the court considers the Meghalaya government's plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the main accused.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed that the counselling report of a 12-year-old girl, allegedly sexually assaulted while living with her foster sister and brother-in-law in Baikunthpur, be submitted in a sealed cover. The court has also ordered that the girl and her nine-year-old brother remain under the care of child welfare authorities until the next hearing scheduled for July 2.

The matter reached the High Court after the girl's foster elder sister filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming that the two children had been unlawfully kept by child protection authorities. During the proceedings, however, the state informed the court that the children had been placed under protective care following serious allegations of physical abuse and sexual assault.

According to official records presented before the court, the nine-year-old boy is currently housed at the Child Welfare Centre in Baikunthpur, Koriya district, while the 12-year-old girl has been shifted to a government girls' home in Ambikapur for her safety.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal directed the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police to produce both children before the court during the hearing.

The state informed the Bench that the siblings, who had lost their parents, had been living with a woman they regarded as their elder sister and her husband. During their stay, the children were allegedly subjected to physical and mental abuse. Unable to bear the alleged harassment, they reportedly fled the house and sought shelter with an acquaintance.

The matter was subsequently reported to the police and the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), which arranged counselling for the children and placed them under protection.

During the counselling sessions, the girl allegedly disclosed that her foster brother-in-law had sexually assaulted her. Authorities also learned that her younger brother had allegedly been subjected to repeated abuse. Based on the complaint, police registered a case against the accused and arrested him. The investigation is continuing.

While hearing the matter, the High Court observed that the welfare and psychological well-being of the children must remain the highest priority. In compliance with the court's directions, Koriya Collector Roktima Yadav, Ambikapur Additional Collector Ram Singh Thakur and officials of the Women and Child Development Department produced the siblings before the Bench.

The court directed that the counselling of the children be conducted at the State Judicial Academy instead of inside the courtroom. The sessions were held under the supervision of senior advocate Naushina Ali, Director of the State Judicial Academy.

Following the interaction with the children, the counsellor has been instructed to submit her findings to the High Court in a sealed envelope. Until further orders, both siblings will continue to stay in child welfare institutions to ensure their safety and well-being.

The case will come up for further hearing on July 2, when the High Court is expected to consider the sealed counselling report and decide the next course of action.

Supreme Court Revisits Aravalli Hills Definition, Stays Its Own Order

The long‑standing dispute over the Aravalli Hills took a fresh turn as the Supreme Court of India on December 29, 2025, halted the implementation of its earlier order that had redefined the range’s boundaries.

The apex court decided to take suo motu cognizance of potential consequences arising from its November 20, 2025 ruling, which had fixed specific parameters for identifying the Aravalli range.

A new bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice J.K. Maheshwari, and Justice A.G. Masih reviewed the matter, emphasizing the ecological sensitivity of the region spread across Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi NCR.

Court Questions Previous Parameters and Raises Environmental Concerns

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the government. The bench questioned whether the previous definition—classifying only hills above 100 meters in height and within 500 meters of each other as part of the Aravallis—could lead to exclusion of critical ecosystems from protection.

The Chief Justice asked whether such a narrow interpretation could allow areas vulnerable to illegal mining to fall outside the conservation corridor. “If the distance between two ridges is 700 meters but both are vital to the landscape, can we simply say they are not part of Aravalli?” questioned the bench.

Expert Committee to Be Formed

Acknowledging these ecological and legal complexities, the Supreme Court announced the formation of an expert committee comprising specialists from environmental science, geology, and policy fields. This body will reassess the contours and criteria that define the Aravalli range.

The bench clarified that until the committee submits its report, the November 2025 definition will remain stayed, and no new guidelines will be implemented. The next hearing is scheduled for January 21, 2026, where fresh recommendations will be discussed before framing a uniform interpretation.

Mining and Environmental Impact Under Scrutiny

Recent reports highlight the persistent issue of illegal mining across Aravalli regions. Between 2018 and 2025, over 71,000 illegal mining cases were registered in Rajasthan alone, with more than 4,000 FIRs from Aravalli districts. These figures underline ongoing challenges despite existing restrictions.

The court’s latest intervention rekindles the debate over balancing development and conservation in one of India’s oldest mountain ranges. The government has also stated that while new mining leases remain suspended, all active ones must strictly adhere to environmental norms until further direction from the court.

What Lies Ahead

The Supreme Court’s decision brings momentary relief for environmental advocates while setting a precedent for nuanced judicial review. The upcoming hearing in January 2026 will likely shape the future of mining regulations and eco‑protection measures across Aravalli states.

As the matter stands, the Aravalli Hills remain at the center of India’s sustainability conversation—reflecting the delicate balance between industrial progress and natural preservation.