The court said the student failed to establish that wearing a headscarf was an essential religious practice and held that a uniform, non-discriminatory dress code can be enforced by the school.

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition by a minor student seeking permission to wear a hijab or headscarf along with the prescribed school uniform, holding that the petitioner did not provide sufficient factual or legal material to establish that wearing a headscarf was an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. 

A division bench of Justices J J Munir and Indrajeet Shukla delivered the judgment in a case concerning a student of Tagore Public School in Attarsuiya, Prayagraj. The student, who had completed Class X, had sought admission to Class XI in the same institution while continuing to wear a headscarf with the prescribed uniform. 

The student, through her mother, told the court that she had been wearing the headscarf while studying at the school from Classes VI to X. She argued that preventing her from continuing to wear it infringed her constitutional rights, including freedom of expression and religious freedom. The school administration, Uttar Pradesh government and CBSE opposed the plea. 

The bench, however, found that the petition did not establish the religious necessity claimed by the student. The court also referred to photographs from different classes and noted that no other girl in the school, including students from the same religious community, was wearing a headscarf. It observed that a mere assertion that a practice is essential to a religion is not sufficient to invoke the protection of Article 25. 

School Uniform Policy Upheld

The court held that a school can enforce a prescribed dress code when the policy is uniform, bona fide and non-discriminatory and is intended to maintain discipline and the institution's identity. The judgment also recognised the role of a common uniform in promoting equality and a religion-neutral atmosphere in educational institutions. 

The bench further held that the fact that the school had previously permitted the student to wear a headscarf did not create a permanent right to continue doing so. The dispute therefore turned not only on the student's individual preference but also on whether the claimed religious practice had the constitutional protection necessary to override the institution's uniform policy. 

Court Refers to Earlier Rulings

While deciding the petition, the Allahabad High Court considered earlier judgments involving religious attire and educational institutions. It referred in particular to the Karnataka High Court's 2022 full-bench judgment on the hijab issue, describing it as persuasive authority and finding no reason to take a different view on the question of whether wearing a hijab had been established as an essential religious practice. 

The bench also noted that the Karnataka judgment was later considered by the Supreme Court in Aishat Shifa v State of Karnataka, where a two-judge bench delivered a split verdict. As a result, the Allahabad High Court noted that there is no final authoritative Supreme Court ruling settling the issue of whether wearing a hijab constitutes an essential religious practice. 

The ruling comes in the context of continuing legal debate over the balance between individual religious expression and institutional dress codes. In this case, the High Court ultimately upheld the school's authority to enforce its uniform policy and dismissed the student's plea.

In a significant ruling reinforcing gender equality, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a married sister of an unmarried deceased government employee is equally entitled to compassionate appointment, observing that marriage does not sever a woman's relationship with her parental family.

Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal quashed a state government order dated September 19, 2019, which had denied compassionate appointment to a married woman solely on the ground of her marital status. The court directed the state authorities to reconsider the case and issue a fresh order within four weeks.

Marriage Not Ground for Disqualification

The High Court observed that depriving a married woman of compassionate appointment merely because she is married amounts to gender discrimination and violates the constitutional principles of equality.

The court stated that the traditional assumption that a daughter or sister ceases to be part of her parental family after marriage is outdated and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

It further noted that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to a bereaved family following the death of its earning member. Therefore, financial dependency and the family's need for assistance—not marital status—should be the determining factors.

Case Background

The case arose after Durgesh Mishra, who was serving as a District Public Prosecutor in Janjgir-Champa, died while in service on June 13, 2018. Mishra was unmarried.

Following his death, his elderly mother, Tara Mishra, applied for compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter, Amita Dubey, under the Chhattisgarh government's 2013 compassionate appointment policy.

However, the Home and General Administration Department rejected the application in September 2019, stating that the policy contained no explicit provision for granting compassionate appointment to a married sister.

Challenging the decision, the family approached the High Court.

Court Relies on Supreme Court Judgments

During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the Supreme Court had already clarified in earlier judgments, including Kulsum Nisha vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Saira Khatoon vs State of Bihar, that marriage alone does not end a daughter's or sister's relationship with her original family.

The petition also pointed out that the state's compassionate appointment policy allows the parents of an unmarried deceased government employee to recommend a sibling for appointment.

The High Court agreed, observing that if a married brother is not excluded from consideration, denying the same benefit to a married sister solely because of her gender and marital status amounts to unconstitutional discrimination.

Changing Social Reality Recognised

The court acknowledged that many married daughters and sisters continue to financially support their parents and families, making the old presumption that marriage permanently shifts all responsibilities away from the parental home legally and socially untenable.

It stressed that compassionate appointment schemes should be interpreted in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and changing social realities.

Government Directed to Reconsider

Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the government's earlier rejection order and instructed the authorities to reconsider Amita Dubey's claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules.

The court directed the state government to complete the exercise and pass a fresh, reasoned order within four weeks.

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected rape convict Asaram's plea for interim medical bail, ruling that he would remain in judicial custody while permitting him to engage a trained caretaker of his choice round the clock based on recommendations made by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale passed the order after examining AIIMS' medical assessment, which concluded that Asaram did not require hospitalisation but would benefit from continuous medical assistance.

The court also granted him liberty to approach it again if his health condition deteriorates.

AIIMS Report Guides Court's Decision

The order was based on a comprehensive medical evaluation conducted by AIIMS following the Supreme Court's direction on July 21.

A team of specialists examined Asaram and submitted a report stating that while his ailments did not warrant admission to a hospital, he required regular medical monitoring and assistance.

Accepting the findings, the Bench directed jail authorities to permit Asaram to appoint a trained caretaker of his own choice for 24-hour assistance during his incarceration.

Appeal Against Conviction Pending

The interim bail application was filed during the pendency of Asaram's appeal against the Rajasthan High Court judgment that upheld his conviction in the 2013 rape case involving a minor devotee.

The case relates to allegations that the minor girl was confined inside Asaram's hut at his Jodhpur ashram in August 2013, where she was sexually assaulted and criminally intimidated.

A trial court had convicted Asaram along with two co-accused. Earlier this year, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed the conviction under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act.

State Opposes Interim Bail

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Rajasthan government, opposed the interim bail plea.

He argued that Asaram had recently travelled to Kashi Vishwanath and Ayodhya after being granted temporary medical bail, questioning the seriousness of his medical claims.

Mehta also submitted that Asaram had sought parole before another court and had subsequently been granted 20 days' parole, alleging that this fact had not been properly disclosed before the Supreme Court.

Defence Denies Suppression of Facts

Counsel representing Asaram denied any concealment, stating that the parole application had been filed earlier and was unrelated to the present medical bail request.

The defence maintained that the parole was not granted on medical grounds and therefore did not amount to suppression of material facts before the apex court.

Fresh Plea Permitted if Condition Worsens

While refusing interim medical bail, the Supreme Court disposed of the application in line with the AIIMS report.

However, the Bench clarified that Asaram would be at liberty to file a fresh application if his health condition worsens while his appeal against conviction remains pending before the court.

 A court in Madhya Pradesh's Ratlam has sentenced a woman to double life imprisonment for murdering her four-month-old twin children by drowning them in a water storage tank, while her husband has been awarded three years' rigorous imprisonment for concealing evidence by burying the bodies without informing the police.

The verdict was delivered by Eighth Additional District and Sessions Judge Nirmal Mandoriya, nearly one-and-a-half years after the shocking incident that had drawn widespread public attention.

Twins Found Dead in Water Tank

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on November 20, 2024, at a rented house in Ratlam's Ved Vyas Colony. Landlord Irshad Qureshi informed police after neighbours reported that tenant Pummy alias Muskan had raised an alarm claiming her infant twins, Hasan and Fatima, had fallen into a water storage tank.

Residents rushed to the house and found both four-month-old children inside the Sintex water tank. Their father, Aamir Qureshi, was not at home when the incident occurred. By the time the children were pulled out, both had died.

Bodies Buried Without Informing Police

Instead of reporting the deaths to police, Aamir allegedly took the bodies with the help of a friend and buried them at a local cemetery. After receiving information about the suspicious deaths, Manak Chowk police registered a case of unnatural death.

The following day, authorities exhumed the bodies and conducted post-mortem examinations, which confirmed that both infants had died due to drowning.

Investigation Pointed to Mother

During the investigation, police recreated the incident using a baby doll and examined whether the children could have accidentally fallen into the tank. Investigators concluded that the deaths were not accidental.

According to the prosecution, Muskan became angry after her husband and mother-in-law ignored her request not to leave for a family funeral. She had reportedly expressed concern that she would be unable to manage both infants alone.

Police alleged that, in a fit of anger, she deliberately drowned one child in the water tank before repeating the act with the second infant. She later informed her husband over the phone that the children were missing.

Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence

Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Singh Chauhan told the court that although 16 of the 24 prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the chain of circumstantial evidence, forensic findings and investigation established the mother's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court convicted Muskan of murdering both children and sentenced her to two life terms, along with a fine of ₹10,000.

Her husband, Aamir Qureshi, was convicted for destroying evidence after secretly burying the bodies without informing law enforcement. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and fined ₹2,000.

The judgment brings closure to one of Ratlam's most disturbing child murder cases, where investigators relied heavily on forensic evidence and circumstantial proof after several witnesses retracted their statements during trial.

The legal proceedings in the high-profile Raja Raghuvanshi murder case have entered a crucial phase after prime accused Sonam Raghuvanshi surrendered before the trial court in Shillong in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions. Legal experts believe that if the trial progresses within the timeline prescribed by the apex court, the case could reach its conclusion by January 2027.

Sonam surrendered before the Shillong trial court on July 29, days after the Supreme Court directed her to do so while disposing of her interim bail plea. Following her surrender, she was sent back to judicial custody.

The development has also sparked legal debate over two key questions: whether the Supreme Court's six-month deadline for completing the trial will be counted from the date of its order or from the date of Sonam's surrender, and whether she can seek bail again before the expiry of six months.

Supreme Court's Timeline Under Discussion

According to legal experts, the Supreme Court's order dated July 23 laid down two important conditions.

First, Sonam was directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks from the date of the order. Secondly, the court observed that if the trial does not proceed at the expected pace or is not completed within six months, she would be free to file a fresh bail application.

Advocate Ashish S. Sharma said the wording of the Supreme Court's order suggests that the six-month period should be calculated from the date of the order itself rather than from the date of surrender.

If interpreted accordingly, the trial is expected to conclude by late January 2027, provided proceedings continue without unnecessary delays.

Fresh Bail Plea Still Legally Possible

Legal experts have clarified that the six-month condition is linked specifically to delays in the trial and does not completely bar Sonam from approaching the court earlier.

A fresh bail application may still be filed before the expiry of six months if new legal grounds emerge during the proceedings.

Such circumstances may include serious medical issues, significant new evidence arising during witness examination, or any other legally sustainable development that materially alters the case.

However, experts note that merely surrendering before the court ahead of the deadline would not automatically strengthen a future bail claim, though it may be viewed as cooperation with the judicial process.

Evidence Chain Will Be Crucial

The prosecution is expected to rely heavily on circumstantial, electronic and forensic evidence to establish the case against Sonam Raghuvanshi and the other accused.

Legal observers say the prosecution will have to demonstrate an unbroken chain of evidence that points exclusively towards the accused without leaving room for reasonable doubt.

The case reportedly includes CCTV footage, forensic material and other scientific evidence, all of which are expected to play a decisive role during the trial.

If these pieces of evidence are successfully proved in court and found to be interconnected, they could become the primary basis for conviction.

Why the Early Surrender Matters

Legal experts believe Sonam's decision to surrender before the expiry of the three-week deadline could carry procedural significance.

It demonstrates compliance with the Supreme Court's order and signals cooperation with the judicial process. It also allows the trial to move forward without delay, enabling procedural steps such as supply of documents, framing of charges and examination of witnesses to begin sooner.

While this does not guarantee any legal advantage regarding bail, her conduct during the proceedings may be considered by courts in future applications.

Case Enters Crucial Stage

With the accused now back in judicial custody and trial proceedings set to gather pace, the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case has entered its most significant phase.

The coming months will focus on the examination of witnesses, presentation of scientific evidence and arguments from both sides. If the trial proceeds within the timeframe envisaged by the Supreme Court, the case may witness its final judgment in early 2027.

 The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it may order an independent investigation into allegations of police excesses during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest over the alleged NEET paper leak, observing that democratic protests are legitimate but any unlawful acts by either protesters or authorities must be held accountable.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan, was hearing a batch of petitions alleging excessive use of force by police during the July 20 demonstration in the national capital.

CJI Questions Need for Independent Investigation

During the hearing, the Chief Justice noted that the allegations placed before the court disclosed a prima facie case warranting further examination.

Questioning whether an impartial inquiry was required, the Bench remarked, "Why should there not be an independent probe into these allegations?"

The petitions allege that protesters, including students, women, advocates and media personnel, were subjected to excessive police force during the march, resulting in serious injuries.

Court Stresses Accountability for All Sides

The Bench observed that protests are an essential part of a democratic society and cannot, by themselves, justify the use of excessive force.

At the same time, the court emphasised that anyone who violated the law during the demonstrations—including protesters or officials—must face legal consequences.

The judges noted that once an appropriate legal framework is established, every individual responsible for violence or excesses should be held accountable.

High-Powered Committee Under Consideration

The Supreme Court indicated that it is considering the constitution of a high-powered committee to investigate incidents of violence not only in Delhi but also in other states where similar allegations have emerged.

The proposed panel may also examine broader issues relating to crowd management and policing during public demonstrations.

Uniform Protest Protocol Suggested

During the proceedings, the Bench highlighted the need for a nationwide protocol governing public protests and police crowd-control measures.

The court observed that demonstrations across the country have evolved significantly in recent years and existing procedures may require revision to balance public order with constitutional rights.

At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that law enforcement agencies often face difficult situations where peaceful protests may be infiltrated by violent elements, complicating crowd-control operations.

The judges said all stakeholders, including governments, police authorities and petitioners, should assist the court in developing a balanced framework.

Families of Injured Police Personnel Move Supreme Court

In a related development, the families of four Delhi Police personnel injured during the July 20 violence have also approached the Supreme Court.

The application has been filed on behalf of ACP Kailash Singh Bisht, ASI Sandeep, Constable Dheeraj and ASI Hemendar Rathi, who were injured while performing law-and-order duties during the protest.

The petition seeks directions to ensure that police personnel deployed during public demonstrations receive adequate protection of their right to life and personal liberty.

It also requests the court to frame comprehensive guidelines for safeguarding both male and female police personnel while handling protests and to ensure accountability for those allegedly responsible for attacks on law enforcement officials.

Case Expands Beyond Police Action

The latest application broadens the scope of the ongoing proceedings, which initially focused on allegations of police excesses against protesters.

The Supreme Court is now examining issues relating to the rights, responsibilities and safety of both demonstrators and police personnel, while also considering broader institutional reforms for managing public protests across the country.

The matter is expected to come up for further hearing as the court considers the framework for an independent inquiry and nationwide guidelines.

The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Chhattisgarh Kranti Sena chief Amit Baghel in the Balodabazar violence case, providing significant relief to him and two co-accused, Ajay Yadav and Dinesh Verma. The apex court, however, directed Baghel not to enter Raipur district for the next three months as a condition of his bail.

The order clears the way for Baghel's release from jail after he had earlier secured bail in a separate case related to an alleged objectionable remark against a revered figure of the Sindhi community.

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order

The bail plea was argued by senior advocate P.B. Suresh along with advocate Harshvardhan Parganiha.

During the hearing, the Chhattisgarh government opposed the bail, arguing that several other accused in the case had remained in jail for nearly seven months, whereas Baghel's period of custody was comparatively shorter. The state contended that this was one of the reasons the Chhattisgarh High Court had rejected his bail plea.

The Supreme Court disagreed, observing that the duration of custody alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail. It subsequently set aside the High Court's earlier order.

Court Questions Continued Detention

The defence argued that the state had described Amit Baghel as the alleged "kingpin" of the violence but had failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.

The Supreme Court noted that the chargesheet had already been filed and the investigation was complete, with all relevant documents placed on record. The bench observed that an accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely once the investigation has concluded.

According to the defence counsel, the court remarked that continued incarceration was not justified after completion of the investigation.

High Court Had Earlier Denied Relief

About two months ago, the Chhattisgarh High Court had rejected the bail applications of Amit Baghel, Ajay Yadav and Dinesh Verma.

The High Court had observed that the accused allegedly incited a crowd of nearly 7,000 to 8,000 people, resulting in widespread violence that caused an estimated loss of ₹13–14 crore to government and private property. It had also taken note of alleged attacks on police personnel and disruption of law and order while refusing bail.

Background of the Case

The case relates to the violence that erupted during a protest held at Dussehra Maidan in Balodabazar on June 10, 2024.

According to the prosecution, inflammatory speeches delivered during the protest allegedly provoked the crowd, which later broke through barricades and entered the Collectorate and Superintendent of Police (SP) office premises.

The mob allegedly vandalised government property, torched the Collectorate building and several vehicles, and attacked police personnel with stones, sticks and iron rods, leaving multiple officers injured.

Police subsequently registered cases against Amit Baghel, Ajay Yadav, Dinesh Verma and several others in connection with the violence.

The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has sharply questioned the state government over a fresh proposal seeking ₹191.24 crore to restore Shivpuri's Sankhya Sagar Lake, observing that responsibility must first be fixed for the alleged failure of an earlier ₹111-crore sewerage project.

Hearing a matter concerning the discharge of untreated sewage into Sankhya Sagar Lake inside Madhav National Park, the court termed the findings of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) "shocking" and directed the state to identify officials responsible before seeking additional public funds.

Court Questions Fresh Funding

During the hearing, the SIT submitted a report recommending a fresh allocation of ₹191.24 crore for measures aimed at preventing sewage from entering the lake and improving wastewater management.

The court, however, questioned the rationale behind the proposal, noting that nearly ₹111 crore had already been spent on laying sewer lines and constructing a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), yet the project had reportedly failed to become operational.

The bench observed that seeking fresh funding without establishing accountability for the earlier expenditure was unjustified.

List of Responsible Officials Sought

The High Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary of the Urban Administration Department to appear personally on July 27 with all relevant records in a sealed cover.

The court also sought a detailed list of officials allegedly responsible for the failed project and indicated that the issue of approving any fresh budget would only be considered after accountability had been established.

Recovery from Guilty Officials

During the proceedings, the state's counsel informed the court that if any officials were found responsible during the investigation, the government would initiate action to recover the financial loss incurred in the project from them.

The bench emphasized that public money could not be repeatedly spent on the same project without fixing responsibility for previous failures.

Former Official Asked to Respond Independently

The court also declined to accept an affidavit filed by former official Alka Upadhyay through the government's counsel.

It directed that she must present her defence either personally or through her own legal representative, instead of being represented by the state.

Questions Over Administrative Inaction

Madhav Tiger Reserve Deputy Director Hari Om, who was present during the hearing, informed the court that information regarding former officials was being collected.

The bench responded that the issue was not limited to past officials, but also concerned the continuing environmental damage to the lake. It questioned why no action had yet been initiated against officials currently responsible for monitoring the project.

The court granted the officer 15 days to initiate appropriate action.

Municipal Officer Pulled Up

The court also questioned Shivpuri Municipal Council Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) Yashwant Rathore, who produced photographs showing sewage flowing directly into Sankhya Sagar Lake.

When asked about monitoring reports, the CMO reportedly failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The court observed that responsibility could not simply be shifted to subordinate officials, including the sanitary inspector.

The CMO assured the bench that he would personally supervise future monitoring of the sewage management system.

Next Hearing on July 27

The matter will now be heard on July 27, when the Additional Chief Secretary is expected to submit the complete project records along with the list of officials allegedly responsible for the failed implementation.

The High Court is also expected to consider whether criminal proceedings and financial recovery should be initiated against those found accountable for the alleged wastage of public funds.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Central and Delhi governments on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking urgent intervention to safeguard the health of climate activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar for the past 18 days.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notices to both governments after the matter was mentioned for urgent hearing. The petition, filed by activist-lawyer Rakesh Kumar Saini, has been listed for further hearing on Thursday.

PIL Raises Concern Over Deteriorating Health

According to the petition, Wangchuk has lost around 8.25 kilograms since beginning his indefinite fast and is reportedly experiencing recurrent episodes of low blood sugar, dizziness, severe weakness and muscle loss.

The plea warns that his condition is deteriorating rapidly and urges immediate intervention to protect his life while respecting his democratic right to protest.

The court has sought responses from the Centre and the Delhi government before taking further action in the matter.

Fast Linked to Education and Ladakh Demands

Wangchuk began the indefinite hunger strike on June 28 after claiming that the Centre did not respond to his demands within the deadline he had set.

His key demands include the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and constitutional safeguards for Ladakh through Sixth Schedule status and full statehood.

Earlier, Wangchuk had indicated that discussions with the Centre on Ladakh-related issues had shown progress and suggested that the remaining issues could be resolved during the Monsoon Session if the government initiated dialogue.

According to organisers, Wangchuk has been consuming only water and salt during the fast.

Support Grows for Protest

Meanwhile, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has announced a one-day mass hunger strike on July 16 in solidarity with Wangchuk and students supporting the protest.

CJP founder Abhijit Dipke shared an appeal attributed to Wangchuk, stating that instead of urging him to end the fast, people should ask the government why dialogue has not begun.

The protest at Jantar Mantar has continued to draw supporters from civil society, student organisations and activists.

History of Similar Protests

Wangchuk has previously undertaken several hunger strikes and protest marches demanding constitutional protections for Ladakh.

His past campaigns include an eight-day fast in Leh in 2023, the 'Delhi Chalo Padyatra' in 2024, another hunger strike in Delhi later that year, and a 35-day fast in 2025.

Following protests in Leh in September 2025, Wangchuk was arrested under the National Security Act and remained in custody for nearly six months before being released in March 2026.

Court to Hear Matter Again

With concerns mounting over Wangchuk's health, the Delhi High Court is expected to hear the matter again on Thursday after receiving preliminary responses from the governments.

The outcome of the hearing could determine whether any immediate medical or administrative intervention is directed while the protest continues.

A 65-year-old woman has been arrested in Karnataka's Chikkaballapur district for allegedly performing a black magic ritual inside a courtroom in an attempt to secure a favourable verdict in a pending family civil dispute. The incident, which reportedly took place on July 9, came to light after court officials reviewed CCTV footage and lodged a police complaint.

The accused, identified as Manjula, was produced before a local court after her arrest and has been remanded to 14 days of judicial custody. Police said they are also investigating whether any other person was involved in the alleged act.

Mustard Seeds Found on Judge's Desk

According to the police, the incident occurred at around 9:40 am inside the courtroom of the First Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class in Chikkaballapur.

Investigators alleged that the woman entered the courtroom during working hours and scattered white mustard seeds, believed to have been used in a ritual associated with black magic, on the judge's chair and the dais.

Court staff later noticed the mustard seeds on the judge's desk, prompting officials to examine CCTV footage installed inside the courtroom.

CCTV Footage Led to Identification

The court administration stated that CCTV footage allegedly captured the woman entering the open courtroom and placing the mustard seeds around the judge's chair.

Following the discovery, the Chief Administrative Officer of the court lodged a formal complaint with the Chikkaballapur Town Police, based on which a criminal case was registered.

Police subsequently traced and arrested the accused.

Investigation Underway

Officials said preliminary questioning indicated that the woman allegedly believed the ritual would influence the outcome of a family-related civil case pending before the court.

Police, however, are continuing their investigation to determine whether she acted alone or if anyone encouraged or assisted her in carrying out the alleged ritual.

Authorities have not disclosed additional details about the pending civil case.

Similar Incident Reported in Delhi

The incident has drawn comparisons with a case reported last year at Delhi's Tis Hazari Court, where a doctor facing a murder trial allegedly scattered rice grains inside a courtroom before proceedings began.

The act disrupted court proceedings for nearly 20 minutes, with some lawyers describing it as an attempt at black magic or witchcraft. The presiding judge imposed a ₹2,000 fine on the accused and remanded him to court custody for one day before he paid the penalty.

Case Under Judicial Process

The Karnataka Police have said the investigation remains in progress and further action will depend on the evidence collected during the probe.

Meanwhile, the accused will remain in judicial custody as investigators examine all aspects of the case, including the motive behind the alleged ritual and whether it involved any larger conspiracy.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing on the Meghalaya government's plea challenging the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the high-profile Raja Raghuvanshi murder case. The matter will now be heard on July 21.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice S. Chandrasekhar directed the Meghalaya government to produce a copy of the grounds of arrest that were served on Sonam at the time of her arrest.

The bail dispute revolves around whether the investigating agency complied with the legal requirement of furnishing the accused with the grounds of arrest. The trial court had granted bail to Sonam after observing that the mandatory arrest grounds were not properly supplied. The Meghalaya High Court later upheld that decision.

State Challenges Bail Order

The Meghalaya government has argued before the Supreme Court that Sonam was informed about the grounds of her arrest and that the controversy arose solely because of a typographical error in the arrest documents.

According to the state, the document mistakenly mentioned Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103(1), which deals with murder. The government has maintained that the incorrect section number was a clerical mistake and did not prejudice the accused or invalidate the arrest procedure.

The Supreme Court is now expected to examine whether the procedural requirements under law were substantially complied with despite the drafting error.

Earlier Refusal to Stay Bail

In an earlier hearing, the apex court had declined to immediately suspend Sonam's bail, even while expressing reservations about the manner in which the High Court dealt with the issue.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu had observed that, at first glance, the case did not appear to be one where the grounds of arrest had been completely withheld from the accused.

However, the court chose not to grant interim relief because Sonam had already been released on bail, had spent time in judicial custody, and sought time to file her response to the Meghalaya government's petition.

Typographical Error at Centre of Dispute

During the previous proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, submitted that the mention of the wrong statutory provision was merely a typographical error.

He argued that the magistrate had explained the grounds of arrest while granting transit remand and that records supporting the procedure were available. He also contended that Sonam's earlier bail applications on merits had been rejected, and relief was subsequently granted only on the technical issue of the incorrect section number.

The Supreme Court had questioned whether a clerical mistake in citing the legal provision alone could justify granting bail, particularly when the accused had allegedly been informed about the allegations.

Background of the Murder Case

The case stems from the murder of Raja Raghuvanshi, a transport businessman from Indore, who married Sonam Raghuvanshi on May 11, 2025.

Soon after their wedding, the couple travelled to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. They went missing on May 23, triggering a large-scale search operation.

On June 3, 2025, Raja's body was recovered from a deep gorge in Meghalaya. The investigation later uncovered an alleged conspiracy behind the murder, leading to the arrest of several accused, including Sonam, who investigators identified as the alleged principal conspirator.

She was arrested and remained in custody before securing bail on procedural grounds.

Meanwhile, Raja Raghuvanshi's family has repeatedly demanded a CBI investigation, alleging that the case involves multiple states and requires an independent probe. Sonam has denied allegations that she attempted to flee the country after her release and has maintained that she continues to cooperate with the investigation.

The Supreme Court's hearing on July 21 is expected to determine whether the bail granted on procedural grounds can withstand judicial scrutiny.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider petitions challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's verdict that declared the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar as a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati. However, the apex court directed the petitioners to first rectify technical defects in their filings before the matter is formally listed for hearing.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan heard an urgent mention by the Muslim side seeking an early hearing in the matter.

CJI Seeks Removal of Technical Defects

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for the Muslim petitioners, requested the court to list the matter urgently, citing its significance.

Responding to the request, Chief Justice Surya Kant instructed the petitioners to immediately remove the technical defects in the petitions. He assured the parties that once the deficiencies are rectified, the appeals would be listed before an appropriate Bench for hearing at the earliest.

The petitions challenge the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment delivered earlier this year on the long-running Bhojshala dispute.

Hindu Side Files Caveat

The Hindu side has already filed a caveat before the Supreme Court, ensuring that no interim or final order is passed without hearing its arguments.

With both parties now before the apex court, the decades-old religious and legal dispute has entered a new phase of judicial scrutiny.

What the High Court Had Ruled

On May 15, 2026, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati (Vagdevi).

The court set aside the 2003 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) arrangement that had permitted Hindus to offer prayers on Tuesdays and Muslims to offer namaz on Fridays.

It also directed that the management and administration of the monument be vested with the Central Government and the ASI.

Court Relied on Historical and ASI Evidence

The Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi based its verdict on archaeological findings, historical records and the ASI survey.

According to the judgment, the evidence indicated that the structure was originally a Hindu temple and a centre for Sanskrit learning established by King Bhoj in 1034 AD. The court observed that this predates claims regarding the construction of a mosque at the site by several centuries.

The High Court had also criticised the ASI for alleged lapses in protecting and maintaining the heritage monument.

Additional Directions in the Judgment

Apart from declaring the site a temple, the High Court had suggested that the Madhya Pradesh Government consider allotting alternative land within Dhar district for the construction of a mosque, subject to legal procedures and an application by the Waqf Board.

The court had also recommended that the Central Government examine the possibility of bringing back the original Vagdevi idol, currently housed in a museum in London, and consider reinstalling it at the Bhojshala complex.

The legal battle will now continue before the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear the matter after procedural formalities are completed.