Justice Alpesh Yashwant Kogje has taken charge as the new Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Governor Mangubhai Patel administered the oath at Lok Bhavan in Bhopal in the presence of Chief Minister Mohan Yadav and senior officials.

Justice Alpesh Yashwant Kogje on Thursday took oath as the new Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at a ceremony held at Lok Bhavan in Bhopal.Madhya Pradesh Governor Mangubhai Patel administered the oath of office and secrecy to Justice Kogje in the presence of Chief Minister Dr Mohan Yadav, Chief Secretary Ashok Barnwal, senior government officials, judges and members of the legal community.With his appointment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has received a permanent Chief Justice after nearly three months. Earlier, Justice Vivek Rusia was serving as the acting Chief Justice of the court.

Justice Kogje becomes 30th Chief Justice of MP High Court

Justice Alpesh Yashwant Kogje has become the 30th Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended his name for the post on August 31, 2026. Following approval from the President of India, the central government issued the official notification regarding his appointment.Justice Kogje is expected to formally assume charge at the Madhya Pradesh High Court from Friday.

Legal career began in Gujarat

Born on July 16, 1969, Justice Kogje completed his Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry in 1990 and earned his LLB degree in 1993.He began practising law in Gujarat the same year and went on to build a legal career spanning more than three decades.He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court on April 6, 2016, and became a permanent judge on March 15, 2018.

Experience in criminal law and government cases

Justice Kogje has been known for his expertise in criminal law. Before becoming a judge, he served in several important legal positions.He worked as an Assistant Government Pleader in 2001 and served as Additional Public Prosecutor from 2002 to 2007. In 2008, he was appointed as Standing Counsel for the Central Excise and Customs Department.He also served as Special Public Prosecutor for the Special Investigation Team and Special Counsel for the Special Task Force.During his legal career, he represented the Gujarat government in several important cases linked to the 2002 Godhra riots.

Key judgments during Gujarat High Court tenure

During his tenure as a Gujarat High Court judge, Justice Kogje dealt with several criminal, service, labour and environmental matters.In 2024, a bench headed by him rejected the bail plea of a man accused in his wife’s murder case, observing the seriousness of the allegations and the circumstances of the investigation.In another case related to custodial death in 2022, his bench denied bail and highlighted the seriousness of allegations against the accused.Justice Kogje has also been part of a bench that raised concerns over the protection of water bodies, including lakes and ponds, and the impact of unregulated land filling on the environment.

Nearly five-year tenure ahead

Justice Kogje will retire on July 15, 2031. As Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, he is expected to have a tenure of around four years and ten months.The Madhya Pradesh High Court will now function under his leadership as he takes charge of judicial administration and court proceedings.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed all writ appeals challenging the decision to revisit the selection process for the Primary Teacher Selection Test 2025, paving the way for verification of RCI qualification claims and preparation of a fresh merit list.

A division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma upheld the May 6, 2026 order of the single judge, which had directed the Madhya Pradesh Employees Selection Board to re-examine candidates who had claimed eligibility for 5% bonus marks on the basis of qualifications recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI).

The controversy affects the selection process for 13,089 primary teacher posts. According to the case details, a large number of candidates had received the additional marks after indicating in their online applications that they possessed the required RCI qualification. Subsequent verification raised questions over the eligibility of several candidates.

Bonus Marks Under Scrutiny

Under the recruitment rules, candidates holding an RCI-recognised special education diploma were eligible for an additional 5% bonus in the selection process.

The information provided in the case indicates that around 14,964 candidates claimed the RCI qualification and received the additional marks. However, RCI records reportedly showed that only about 5,271 candidates met the relevant qualification requirement.

The dispute arose because the online application system awarded the bonus marks when candidates selected “yes” against the RCI qualification field. The qualification documents were not verified at that stage.

Court Rejects ‘Mistake’ Argument

Some candidates approached the High Court arguing that they had mistakenly selected “yes” while filling out the application form. They sought removal of the bonus marks but requested that they should continue in the selection process on the basis of their actual examination scores.

The division bench, however, found no grounds to interfere with the earlier order. The court noted that candidates had been given opportunities to correct information submitted in their applications.

According to the court's reasoning as reported in the case, a candidate cannot seek to retain a benefit obtained from incorrect information after the result has been declared, particularly when opportunities had been available to rectify the information earlier.

Verification of RCI Certificates

Following the High Court's decision, the Employees Selection Board will have to undertake verification of the RCI certificates claimed by candidates who received the bonus marks.

Candidates whose claims are found to be unsupported by valid RCI-recognised qualifications will face cancellation of their applications or removal of the corresponding benefit, as directed under the recruitment process.

The verification exercise is expected to have a direct impact on the existing selection list because the removal of bonus marks can change candidates' relative positions in the merit order.

Fresh Merit List Expected

The earlier single-bench order had directed the selection authority to provide candidates claiming RCI eligibility an additional opportunity to submit the relevant qualification documents. After verification, candidates who fail to establish the required qualification are to be excluded from the applicable benefit.

A revised merit list will subsequently be prepared.

The process could therefore affect the appointments already linked to the 2025 primary teacher recruitment examination, particularly where candidates' positions depended on the disputed bonus marks.

Impact on Other Candidates

The High Court also considered the impact of retaining wrongly awarded bonus marks on candidates who had correctly provided their qualifications.

If candidates who were not eligible for the additional marks were allowed to retain them, it could adversely affect the ranking of candidates who had followed the rules while submitting their applications.

The court consequently declined to grant relief that would allow disputed bonus marks to remain part of the selection process.

Recruitment Process to Be Reworked

With the appeals dismissed, the recruitment authorities will now proceed with the next stage of verification and merit revision.

The broad process will involve checking RCI qualification documents, identifying candidates who do not meet the eligibility requirements, removing the disputed bonus benefit and preparing a revised merit list. Further appointments will then be processed according to the revised ranking and applicable recruitment rules.

The High Court's decision brings the immediate legal challenge to the disputed bonus-mark provision to an end, while leaving the selection authority with the task of completing the verification and fresh merit exercise.

The Union government has notified the appointment of 30 judges to the Madras, Calcutta, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, significantly expanding the judicial strength of the four courts.

Madras High Court received the largest number of appointments with 15 judges, followed by Calcutta High Court with eight, Karnataka High Court with six and Madhya Pradesh High Court with one.

Of the 30 appointees, 23 are advocates and seven are serving judicial officers. Five advocates have been appointed as Judges of the Madras High Court, while the remaining 25 appointees will serve as Additional Judges.

The appointments were made by the President under constitutional provisions after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The names had earlier been considered and recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium. The government’s notification and court-wise distribution have been reported by LiveLaw and The Times of India.

Madras High Court: 15 appointments

The Madras appointments comprise eight advocates and seven judicial officers. The names and professional backgrounds were verified against the Supreme Court Collegium’s Madras High Court resolution.

Calcutta High Court: Eight Additional Judges

All eight appointees are members of the Bar. They took oath as Additional Judges on August 8, according to a Calcutta High Court appointment report. Their names were among those considered in the Collegium’s Calcutta High Court resolution.

Karnataka High Court: Six Additional Judges

All six Karnataka appointees were elevated from the Bar, as recorded in the Supreme Court Collegium’s Karnataka High Court resolution.

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Amit Lahoti appointed

Advocate Amit Lahoti has been appointed as an Additional Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his elevation on June 2, 2026, according to its official resolution.

What is an Additional Judge?

Article 224 of the Constitution permits the appointment of Additional Judges when a High Court faces a temporary increase in work or accumulated case arrears. Such appointments are made for a specified period under the terms of the presidential notification.

The latest appointments are expected to increase the available bench strength in all four High Courts. The complete sequence of Collegium recommendations can be accessed through the Supreme Court’s official Collegium resolutions page.

In a significant judgment on service law and disciplinary proceedings, the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a Central Bank of India employee, observing that unauthorized absence by itself does not justify removal from service.

Justice Anand Singh Bhurawat, hearing the matter as a single judge, ruled that before imposing a major penalty such as compulsory retirement, the employer must establish through a departmental inquiry that the employee intentionally and deliberately remained absent from duty. Without such a finding, the punishment cannot stand in law.

Bank Employee Challenged Retirement Order

The petitioner, Karan Khare, a Class IV employee and resident of Lashkar in Gwalior, has been serving with the Central Bank of India since 1998.

The bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against him after alleging that he remained absent from duty without authorization for 586 days. Based on the allegation, the bank issued an order on July 24, 2024, directing his compulsory retirement.

After his departmental appeal and review petition were rejected, Khare approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking relief.

Reasoned Orders Are Mandatory

During the hearing, the High Court emphasized that disciplinary authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and are therefore required to pass well-reasoned orders based on evidence and established facts.

The court observed that a punishment order must clearly explain why the employee's defence was rejected and how the authority concluded that the misconduct had been proved.

After examining the records, the Bench found that the bank's order did not record any finding that the employee's absence was wilful or deliberate. In the absence of such a conclusion, the punishment of compulsory retirement failed to meet the legal standard required under service jurisprudence.

Medical Records Were Submitted, Court Notes

Khare contended before the court that he had filed a complaint in 2019 alleging caste-based harassment by the then branch manager, following which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.

He also argued that he had been suffering from serious health problems during the period of absence and had submitted medical documents to the bank to explain his condition.

According to the petition, the bank neither conducted an independent medical verification nor properly examined the documents before treating his absence as unauthorized. Instead, it proceeded with disciplinary action without adequately considering his explanation.

Employee Cannot Be Punished Twice for the Same Period

The petitioner further argued that part of the period between 2019 and 2021, which formed the basis of the compulsory retirement order, had already been the subject of an earlier departmental inquiry.

He claimed that he had already received a minor penalty for that portion of the alleged misconduct. Therefore, imposing a second and much harsher punishment for the same period amounted to double punishment and was contrary to established service law principles.

The High Court took note of this submission while examining the fairness of the disciplinary process.

Fair Procedure Is Essential

Setting aside the compulsory retirement order, the High Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, fairness, and procedural compliance.

The court observed that serious penalties affecting an employee's career and livelihood cannot be imposed solely on allegations or assumptions. Authorities must conduct a proper inquiry, evaluate all available evidence, and record clear findings before taking such action.

The judgment reinforces the principle that employers, including public sector institutions, must ensure transparency, reasoned decision-making, and strict adherence to legal procedures while dealing with disciplinary matters.

In a significant ruling reinforcing the principle of equality before the law, the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to entertain a writ appeal filed by the state government after a delay of 951 days. The Division Bench held that the government cannot expect special treatment in matters of limitation and must be held to the same legal standards as any other litigant.

The court emphasized that procedural timelines exist to ensure fairness and certainty in the judicial process. Allowing excessive delays without sufficient justification would undermine the rights that have already accrued to the opposing party.

Government Blamed Former Education Officer

During the hearing, the state government argued that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period due to the negligence of former District Education Officer Hari Om Chaturvedi.

Government counsel informed the court that the Commissioner of Public Instruction had suspended the concerned officer on May 11, 2026, contending that disciplinary action against the official should be considered while deciding the plea for condonation of delay.

The state requested the court to excuse the delay and permit the appeal to proceed on merits.

Court Rejects Explanation

The High Court was not convinced by the government's justification. The Bench observed that merely initiating disciplinary proceedings against a negligent official cannot erase the legal consequences of prolonged inaction.

The judges stated that if a party has already acquired legal rights because of the government's failure to act within the statutory time limit, those rights cannot be taken away simply because the concerned officer has later been suspended or penalized.

The court reiterated that administrative lapses cannot become a routine ground for condoning extraordinary delays in litigation.

Call for Greater Accountability

The Bench also expressed concern over recurring delays by government departments in pursuing legal matters. It observed that negligence within the administrative machinery often results in avoidable financial losses to the state and unnecessary litigation.

The court stressed that responsibility for such lapses should not end with departmental action alone. It suggested that accountability should be fixed on erring officials, including the possibility of recovering financial losses from those responsible, to discourage similar negligence in the future.

According to the court, such measures would improve efficiency in government functioning and ensure greater respect for judicial timelines.

Approval and File Movement Caused Major Delay

Court records revealed that obtaining approval to file the writ appeal itself took nearly seven and a half months. Even after the necessary sanction was granted in December 2025, the case file reportedly remained pending for another five months before any further action was taken.

The writ appeal was eventually filed before the High Court in May 2026, by which time the total delay had reached 951 days.

Considering the prolonged and inadequately explained delay, the Division Bench refused to condone the lapse and dismissed the application, effectively rejecting the state's writ appeal.

The ruling serves as a reminder that government authorities are expected to exercise the same level of diligence and compliance with statutory deadlines as any private litigant. The judgment also reinforces the judiciary's consistent position that procedural negligence by public officials cannot be used to override the legal rights of other parties.

Sharma was found hanging at her in-laws' residence in Bhopal's Katara Hills area on the night of May 12. Her in-laws' side of the family described the death as suicide, while her birth family alleged foul play and demanded an independent investigation. Questions raised over the initial post-mortem led the Madhya Pradesh High Court to order a second post-mortem examination, to be conducted by a medical board at AIIMS Delhi. The CBI took over the investigation on May 25, following the High Court's directions, and has since been working through scientific evidence, digital records and other material gathered during the probe.

According to reports, the CBI is expected to present the AIIMS medical board's final forensic report before the court at Tuesday's hearing. The 11-page report, submitted to the agency in a sealed cover on July 10, is reported to have found skin tissue on a gymnastics belt with a metal ring recovered from the scene, with the pattern reportedly matching an injury on Sharma's neck. CBI officials said the medical board deliberated on the case for nearly a month, consulting both national and international medical literature before arriving at its findings, describing the conclusion as scientifically grounded and intended to serve the interests of truth and justice in the case.

Sharma's husband, Samarth Singh, and her mother-in-law, retired judge Giribala Singh, remain in judicial custody in connection with the case and have appeared at recent hearings via video conferencing from jail. The court has previously directed that relevant investigation documents be shared with the defence, in keeping with the accused's legal right to access case material and consult counsel — a point courts have stressed even in high-profile cases, where the accused remain legally presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Sharma, who worked as a model before her marriage, had married Singh in December last year. The circumstances of her death, and the competing accounts from her birth family and in-laws, have kept the case under close public and media scrutiny in Madhya Pradesh over the past two months, with Tuesday's hearing expected to be a significant step in determining the investigation's next direction.

In a significant relief for senior medical officers in Madhya Pradesh, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the state government's order retiring Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) Dr. Madhav Prasad Hasani at the age of 62, ruling that he is entitled to continue in service until the age of 65.

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, while hearing the matter, held that Dr. Hasani falls within the category of medical officers eligible for the enhanced retirement age and directed that he be allowed to remain in service up to 65 years.

Retirement Order Challenged

Dr. Hasani had approached the High Court challenging the state government's order dated January 30, 2026, under which he was scheduled to retire on July 31, 2026, after attaining the age of 62.

In his petition, he argued that he had joined government service as a contractual Rural Medical Officer in 1999 and his services were regularised in 2005. He contended that he had continuously served in clinical healthcare before later being assigned administrative responsibilities, including the posts of Chief Block Medical Officer and CMHO.

Reference to Earlier Judgments

The petitioner maintained that the Madhya Pradesh government had already increased the retirement age of medical officers to 65 years to address the shortage of experienced doctors in public healthcare.

His counsel also relied on previous High Court judgments, including the case of Dr. Kantilal Sahu, where similarly placed medical officers were granted the benefit of the enhanced retirement age.

State Government's Stand

Opposing the petition, the state government argued that the benefit of retirement at 65 years is subject to specific conditions prescribed under the applicable service rules. According to the government, Dr. Hasani did not satisfy all the eligibility criteria required to claim the extended service period.

Court Recognises Continuous Medical Service

After examining the submissions from both sides, the High Court observed that Dr. Hasani had been rendering medical services continuously since 1999 and that the facts of his case were substantially similar to those decided in earlier judgments.

The court further noted that the government's decision to increase the retirement age of medical officers was intended to ensure the continued availability of experienced doctors in the state's healthcare system.

Holding that the January 30 retirement order was legally unsustainable, the court quashed the order and directed that Dr. Hasani be permitted to continue in service until he attains the age of 65.

Relief Granted

With the petition allowed, the High Court has directed the Madhya Pradesh government to take all necessary administrative steps to implement the order and ensure Dr. Hasani continues in service in accordance with the revised retirement age.

The ruling is expected to serve as an important precedent for similarly placed medical officers seeking the benefit of the state's enhanced retirement policy.

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.

Indore bench issues notices to Centre and state government over PIL highlighting infrastructure deficit, shortage of teachers and alleged misuse of funds; next hearing on August 17

The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a strict view of the state's ailing education system, issuing notices to the central and state governments on a public interest litigation (PIL) that highlights severe deficiencies in government schools across the state.

The division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi, hearing the matter on Wednesday, directed both governments to file their responses by August 17.

The PIL was filed by social worker and advocate B.L. Jain from Sendhwa. Advocate Abhishek Tuganawat, appearing for the petitioner, informed the court that the state's education system is in a deep crisis, with millions of students being denied even the basic facilities guaranteed under the Constitution and the Right to Education Act.

According to the petition, out of the sanctioned 2.89 lakh teaching posts in the state, 1.15 lakh positions remain vacant — nearly 40 per cent of the total sanctioned strength. The situation is so dire that 1,895 schools in the state do not have a single teacher posted.

Citing the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report for 2025, the petition stated that out of 83,514 schools in the state, approximately 5,000 have dilapidated and unsafe buildings. Around 3,400 schools lack toilet facilities, while nearly 10,000 schools do not have electricity. Boundary walls are missing in 40,000 schools, and thousands of schools do not have access to clean drinking water. Several schools continue to operate in makeshift huts.

The petition further pointed out that more than 59,000 schools in the state do not have computer facilities, even as the government talks about digital education. Over the past decade, the number of students from Class 1 to Class 12 in government schools has declined by more than 22 lakh, even as the state's population has grown — a clear indicator of the declining trust in the government education system.

The petitioner also brought to the court's attention that the Supreme Court, in January 2026, had directed all government and private schools to ensure separate toilets for boys and girls and provide free sanitary pads for girl students. Despite these directives, many schools are yet to comply.

The PIL also raised the issue of alleged misuse of government funds, claiming that adequate expenditure is not being made on basic necessities like education and health, while large amounts are being spent on other heads. Corruption in construction and repair works was also flagged.

The court has sought responses from both governments by August 17, when the matter will be heard next.

In a significant ruling on matrimonial financial dependency, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected a Bhopal-based woman's petition seeking interim maintenance from her husband. The court observed that maintenance provisions are fundamentally designed to support a spouse in actual financial distress, rather than penalizing an estranged partner.

Invoking William Shakespeare’s classic play The Merchant of Venice, a single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Jain remarked that the woman's financial demand appeared to be an attempt to extract "a pound of flesh" from the husband, which the court could not permit under the law.

The High Court passed the order while upholding an earlier ruling by a Bhopal Family Court, which had flatly dismissed the woman's plea for interim alimony and litigation expenses during the pendency of their divorce proceedings.

Income of ₹1.25 Lakh Per Month Deemed Sufficient

The couple married on November 4, 2022, but separated within a year in 2023. Following their estrangement, the husband moved the Family Court seeking a divorce, prompting the wife to file an application for interim financial assistance.

On February 18, 2026, the Family Court ruled that the woman was not entitled to maintenance while the divorce suite was contested. Challenging this decision in the High Court, the woman argued that her financial situation had deteriorated. She disclosed that while she previously earned an annual package of nearly ₹20 lakh—compared to her husband’s declared income of over ₹30 lakh—her current yearly earnings had dropped to approximately ₹14 lakh, making her eligible for spousal support.

However, upon evaluating her salary slips and employment records, the High Court noted that her current monthly take-home income sits comfortably at around ₹1.25 lakh, translating to roughly ₹14.81 lakh per annum.

No Children, Minor Income Disparity

Dismissing the plea, the bench underlined that the woman’s salary is objectively sufficient to maintain a standard of living comparable to her matrimonial life. The court highlighted key factual parameters dictating its stance:

• No Dependents: The couple does not have any children from their brief marriage, eliminating any additional childcare costs.

• Comparable Financial Standing: The income disparity between the husband and wife is not massive or disproportionate enough to trigger an economic dependency argument.

The High Court reiterated that the statutory goal of maintenance is to prevent destitution and offer a safety net to an economically weaker partner. It clarified that the law cannot be leveraged to provide an unfair financial advantage to a spouse who is already highly skilled, gainfully employed, and completely self-reliant.

Concluding that the Family Court’s initial assessment was legally sound, Justice Jain’s bench dismissed the revision petition, confirming that independent income of this bracket invalidates claims of financial vulnerability.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday vacated the interim stay on an arrest warrant issued against Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and Member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee, paving the way for the execution of the warrant issued by the Bhopal MP-MLA Court.

The case stems from an alleged defamatory remark made by Banerjee during an election rally in Kolkata in November 2020. According to the complaint, Banerjee referred to BJP leader Akash Vijayvargiya as a “goon” while addressing a public gathering. Claiming that the statement damaged his reputation, Vijayvargiya filed a defamation complaint before the MP-MLA Court in Bhopal in 2021.

Following the filing of the complaint, judicial proceedings began in the lower court. During the course of the trial, the court directed Banerjee to appear before it. However, after repeated instances of non-appearance, the MP-MLA Court issued an arrest warrant against the TMC leader.

Banerjee subsequently approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the warrant. In his petition, he argued that he is an elected Member of Parliament and posed no risk of absconding. He also contended that the trial court had not adequately considered his application seeking exemption from personal appearance.

Taking these submissions into account, the High Court had earlier granted interim protection and stayed the execution of the arrest warrant. However, during the latest hearing, the court noted that despite being provided sufficient opportunity, there was no effective representation on behalf of the petitioner.

As a result, the High Court withdrew the interim relief and lifted the stay order. With this development, the arrest warrant issued by the Bhopal MP-MLA Court has become enforceable once again.

Defamation Case Background

The dispute traces back to a political speech delivered during an election campaign in West Bengal. Akash Vijayvargiya, BJP leader and son of senior BJP leader and Madhya Pradesh minister Kailash Vijayvargiya, alleged that Banerjee’s remarks were defamatory and harmed his public image.

The complaint was filed under relevant provisions dealing with defamation, and the matter has been under judicial consideration for several years.

Legal Implications

Legal experts believe the High Court’s decision does not amount to a finding on the merits of the defamation allegations. Instead, it relates to procedural compliance and Banerjee’s failure to effectively pursue his challenge against the warrant.

With the stay now removed, authorities may proceed in accordance with the directions of the trial court. Banerjee retains the option of seeking further legal remedies before a higher judicial forum.

Anticipatory bail rejected a day earlier; husband Samarth Singh on CBI remand till May 29

A team of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers on Thursday questioned retired judge Giribala Singh for over six hours at her residence in the Kolar Hills area, as her arrest in the Twisha Sharma death case appeared imminent.

The questioning began around 10:30 am, barely 24 hours after the Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelled her anticipatory bail in a late-night order. Sources familiar with the matter said the former judge was being confronted with digital evidence and forensic reports.

Heavy Security, Barricades Outside Residence

The retired judge’s house has been virtually sealed. Personnel from the Kolar Hills and Bag Sevania police stations have been deployed outside, and barricades have been put up around the property. Officials from both police stations were also seen entering the premises.

According to local authorities, the heavy security is a precautionary measure to manage the growing crowd of onlookers and media personnel that has gathered in the upscale locality.

3D Camera Used to Map Crime Scene

Investigators brought a high-intensity 3D camera inside the house to conduct a 360-degree forensic mapping of the entire premises. The technology is typically used to prepare scientific evidence for court.

Initial reports indicate that the camera was also positioned on the balcony to scan neighbouring rooftops and terraces. The CBI is trying to determine whether the spot where Twisha died was visible from any adjoining property.

What the High Court Said

In a strongly worded 17-page order issued late Wednesday, the High Court noted that the lower court had failed to properly examine the case diary and evidence. The court observed that multiple injury marks were found on the body, which the accused side could not explain satisfactorily.

“The trial court did not consider the seriousness of the case. It was not appropriate to grant relief to the accused,” the order stated, according to legal sources.

The court also took note of WhatsApp chats that allegedly show the mother-in-law and husband pressuring Twisha over her character and demanding an abortion.

Husband on CBI Remand Till May 29

Meanwhile, Twisha’s husband Samarth Singh remains in CBI custody after the agency was granted his remand until May 29. Officials are questioning him about the sequence of events on the night of May 12, when Twisha died under suspicious circumstances at their home.

Investigators are also looking into his ten-day disappearance. Police have confirmed that Singh had switched off his mobile phone and hid in Jabalpur while on the run. “He kept changing locations and avoided direct contact with people,” an official said.

The Case So Far

Twisha Sharma, an actress and model who had worked with several multinational brands and appeared in two Telugu films, died on the night of May 12. While her in-laws have maintained it was a suicide, her family has alleged murder.

A second post-mortem was conducted by a team from Delhi AIIMS at the Bhopal AIIMS on May 24. The final report, including histopathology and viscera analysis, is still awaited. Her last rites were performed later that evening at the Bhadbhada crematorium.

What Happens Next

With the CBI team expected to leave the residence at any time, officials said a medical examination will likely precede a formal arrest. The agency is also examining call detail records and CCTV footage from the area.

The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the matter on May 25, with the Chief Justice expressing concern over questions being raised about the judiciary’s impartiality. For now, all eyes remain on the Kolar Hills residence, where a former judge’s fate hangs in the balance.