In a significant order invoking its extraordinary powers, the Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing the couple’s subsequent marriage and the victim’s own request to quash the case.

The bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar used its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside the conviction and sentence, observing that the parties are now married and living together as husband and wife. The court emphasised that allowing them to lead a peaceful life was appropriate in the special circumstances of the case.

Special Circumstances Cited

The apex court noted that the victim, after attaining adulthood, had married the accused and approached the Supreme Court herself seeking to have his conviction and sentence set aside. The man had also paid ₹10 lakh as compensation to her. 

“Looking at the special circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to use our broad powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to overturn the appellant’s conviction and sentence,” the bench stated. The accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act.

Background of the Case

The incident dates back to 2018 when the victim was a minor. According to the case details, she had been in a relationship with the accused. A trial court in 2019 sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for offences under the POCSO Act involving physical relations with a minor.

The victim later married another man, but her husband abandoned her shortly after details of her past relationship surfaced. Following his release on bail, the accused reconnected with the victim. The two reconciled and solemnised their marriage in 2024.

High Court Proceedings

After the marriage, the woman moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the proceedings and the sentence against her husband. While the High Court suspended the sentence, it rejected the plea to quash the conviction in 2021. The couple then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.

Victim’s Appeal Key to Ruling

Sources familiar with the matter said the victim’s consistent stand and her willingness to continue the relationship played a crucial role in the apex court’s decision. The court took into account that the couple had settled their differences and were leading a married life.

This development comes at a time when the judiciary has occasionally used Article 142 to do complete justice in cases involving unique humanitarian considerations, even as POCSO cases generally attract strict interpretation to protect minors.

Legal Experts React

Legal observers noted that while such orders are passed in exceptional situations, they do not dilute the overall protective intent of the POCSO Act. “Each case turns on its own facts,” one senior advocate remarked, requesting anonymity. “Here, the victim’s agency as an adult and the subsequent marriage appear to have weighed with the court.”

The ruling has drawn mixed reactions on social media, with some welcoming the pragmatic approach while others expressed concern over its implications for similar cases involving minors.

What Lies Ahead

With the conviction quashed, the couple can now move forward without legal overhang. The order is expected to bring closure to a case that has spanned several years across trial and appellate courts.

The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter once again highlights the tension between the stringent provisions of protective laws and the realities of individual lives, especially when the primary stakeholder—the victim—seeks reconciliation.

Bench rejects petition challenging Rajya Sabha nomination cancellation, says constitutional scheme bars interference once electoral process begins

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the cancellation of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, observing that judicial intervention in such matters would run contrary to the constitutional framework governing elections.

A bench comprising Justice P.K. Mishra heard arguments from senior advocates on both sides before concluding that the court's jurisdiction under Article 32 cannot be invoked in disputes arising during the ongoing election process.

Legal remedy barred

Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the contesting candidate, argued that the right to contest an election is statutory, not fundamental—a principle established in the Jyoti Basu case and reaffirmed in subsequent rulings.

Since no fundamental right stands violated, Rohatgi contended, a petition under Article 32 is not maintainable. Citing Article 329, he said courts cannot intervene under Articles 32 or 226 once the election process has begun and until results are declared. Any election-related grievance, he stressed, must be pursued through an election petition after the process completes.

Singhvi's intervention argument

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Natarajan, pushed back forcefully. He argued that while challenges to rejected nominations typically follow the election petition route, the Supreme Court can directly intervene in cases involving clear legal error.

Justice Mishra pressed Singhvi for precedents supporting such intervention after nomination rejection. Singhvi cited the Mohinder Singh Gill and Ashok Kumar cases, acknowledging the key question remained whether this case qualified under that exception.

The core legal error, Singhvi maintained, was that the returning officer had acted as if all legal requirements had been met when only a complaint existed—no cognisance, no chargesheet, no framed charges.

'Not a contest of perfect candidates'

Singhvi argued that excluding a candidate in this manner would limit voters' choices and raise questions about electoral fairness. "Elections are not meant to be contests only between 'perfect' candidates," he said. "Neither the Constitution nor reality supports that view."

He told the court that good governance requires elections to proceed smoothly and according to law, adding that the case was not dependent on the election result since the issue involved was much larger.

Overnight developments

Singhvi drew the court's attention to actions taken while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The election result was declared the previous night despite the court being scheduled to hear the case.

"This is the Supreme Court," Singhvi said. "When the court is seized of a dispute, its jurisdiction cannot be defeated by creating a fait accompli." He argued that actions taken overnight to render the hearing meaningless undermined the rule of law.

Political fallout

The Congress party had fielded Natarajan for the third Rajya Sabha seat from Madhya Pradesh and claimed it had sufficient numbers to support her candidature. However, her nomination was rejected on June 9 after the BJP alleged she had failed to disclose a case registered against her.

A day earlier, BJP candidates Rajnish Agrawal, Tarun Chugh and Mahesh Kewat were elected unopposed to all three Rajya Sabha seats from the state.

Speaking at a Delhi press conference, Madhya Pradesh Congress chief Jitu Patwari termed the nomination cancellation unprecedented and questioned whether the country was moving towards autocracy. He claimed Congress needed 58 MLAs to win and had support from other legislators, while the BJP was short by 10 MLAs.

What lies ahead

With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, legal experts suggest Natarajan's options are now limited to filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act—a remedy that can only be pursued after the completion of the electoral process. The ruling reaffirms the judiciary's consistent position of maintaining distance from election disputes until the process reaches its natural conclusion.

The Supreme Court will take up Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's challenge against her Rajya Sabha nomination cancellation on Friday, even as the Election Commission maintains it hasn't received the petition copy.

 The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a Congress petition on Friday challenging the rejection of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha candidate Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination papers. The petition, filed digitally at 1:48 am on Wednesday night, alleges the Returning Officer's decision was "illegal, arbitrary, and biased."

 EC Yet to Receive Papers

The Election Commission of India has clarified that it hasn't received a copy of the petition so far. According to officials familiar with the matter, the poll body is likely to seek legal opinion before taking any decision. The EC's stance has only added to the political uncertainty, with Congress leaders expressing growing frustration over the delay.

 3 PM Deadline Today

Thursday afternoon's 3 pm cutoff carries enormous weight – it's the final window for nomination withdrawals. If the Commission remains silent or rules against Congress by then, BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat will be declared elected unopposed. Two other BJP candidates, Tarun Chugh and Rajneesh Agrawal, are already set to win without contest, which would hand the BJP all three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh.

Congress leaders are scheduled to meet President Droupadi Murmu later today to raise the matter. A high-level strategy meeting is also underway at the party's Delhi headquarters to map out legal and political responses.

 What Happens Next

Legal experts point to several possible outcomes. Former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat said if the EC finds an error by the returning officer, Natarajan's nomination could be restored, making the election contested again. If no relief comes from the Commission, the Congress candidate stays out of the race.

The 3 pm deadline is critical because any EC decision favouring Congress must arrive before the withdrawal window shuts. If that doesn't happen, the party may seek judicial review and interim relief from the Supreme Court – though filing a petition alone won't stop the election process unless the Court intervenes.

 Why Nomination Was Rejected

The dispute traces back to June 9, when Returning Officer Arvind Sharma rejected Natarajan's nomination following objections raised by BJP candidates. The BJP alleged that Natarajan failed to disclose a pending legal matter in Telangana in her election affidavit (Form 26).

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Congress before the Election Commission, argued that no criminal case exists against Natarajan. He explained that the Telangana matter is only a private complaint where a court issued a notice seeking explanation – no charges have been framed. Congress maintains that unless a court formally takes cognisance and frames charges, it cannot be treated as a pending criminal case requiring disclosure.

The party has termed the rejection "illegal" and described it as an attempt to "steal seats." With the clock ticking, this has now escalated into a political and constitutional battle involving the Election Commission, the Supreme Court, and the President's office.

Supreme Court defers hearing on Congress plea against cancellation of Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh.

The Supreme Court on Thursday deferred till Friday a hearing on a Congress petition challenging the rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh. The adjournment came after the Election Commission told the court it had not received a copy of the petition.

The development has intensified the political slugfest in the state, with the Congress accusing the poll panel and the Returning Officer of bias, while the BJP maintains the decision followed due process over non-disclosure of a pending case.

Nomination Rejected During Scrutiny

The controversy erupted on June 9 when Returning Officer Arvind Sharma rejected Natarajan’s papers during scrutiny. BJP’s Mahesh Kewat, one of the candidates for the third seat, had raised an objection, claiming the Congress leader failed to disclose details of a private complaint pending against her in a Hyderabad court in her election affidavit (Form 26).

Congress leaders, including senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the matter was merely a “show cause notice” issued on a private complaint and did not amount to a pending criminal case requiring disclosure. No FIR had been registered, and no cognizance had been taken by the court, they contended.

Congress Moves Supreme Court

Late on Wednesday night, the Congress filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking urgent intervention. During the brief hearing on Thursday, Singhvi pressed for immediate relief, pointing out that the last date for withdrawal of nominations was 3 pm on June 11. The Election Commission, however, sought time to examine the petition.

The apex court eventually listed the matter for Friday, with Congress requesting that the election process, including declaration of results, be stayed in the interim.

BJP Poised for Clean Sweep

Madhya Pradesh is electing three Rajya Sabha members on June 18. With Natarajan’s nomination out and the other two Congress candidates also reportedly facing issues, the BJP’s Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal, and Mahesh Kewat are now set for an unopposed victory if no last-minute changes occur. This would hand the saffron party all three seats without a contest.

Congress leaders have termed the rejection an attempt to “steal” the seat and undermine democracy.

 Protests and Political Fallout

The party has been protesting in Bhopal and Delhi. Madhya Pradesh Congress chief Jitu Patwari and Leader of Opposition Umang Singhar accused the Election Commission of acting as a “rubber stamp” for the BJP. Singhar questioned why the Commission intervened in cases involving BJP candidates in other states but remained silent here.

A delegation of Congress leaders, including Singhvi, also met Election Commission officials on Wednesday, urging them to overturn the Returning Officer’s decision. Separately, Congress MLAs are scheduled to meet President Droupadi Murmu in Delhi on Thursday to highlight the issue.

Senior leaders are also holding a meeting at the AICC headquarters to strategise the next steps, both legally and politically.

What Happens Next

Legal experts point out that the Election Commission has the authority to review the Returning Officer’s order. Former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat noted that if the Commission finds merit in Congress’s arguments, it could direct restoration of the nomination, potentially leading to fresh polling for that seat.

If the Commission does not intervene before the withdrawal deadline, the process will move forward with the remaining valid candidates. The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday could, however, introduce further twists, including possible interim relief.

The Congress has maintained that the rejection sets a dangerous precedent for disclosure norms in election affidavits, while the BJP has defended the scrutiny process as necessary for transparency.

As political temperatures rise in Bhopal and Delhi, all eyes remain on the apex court’s hearing tomorrow and any move by the Election Commission before the crucial 3 pm deadline on Thursday.

The outcome will not only decide the fate of one Rajya Sabha seat but also test the robustness of the electoral dispute resolution mechanism ahead of larger polls.

The Supreme Court of India reaches its highest working strength in history following the swift clearance and swearing-in of five new jurists, leaving the top court just one judge short of its newly revised maximum limit.

Historic Day At Tilak Marg

 The Supreme Court premises witnessed history on Tuesday morning as Chief Justice of India Surya Kant administered the oath of office to five newly appointed judges. The induction brings the working strength of the country’s apex court to an unprecedented 37, the highest since its inception in 1950.

The low vacancy rate marks a significant milestone for the Indian judiciary, which has long grappled with a massive backlog of litigations. The expansion follows an exceptionally swift turnaround by the executive, with the Centre clearing the recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium in less than four days.

Rapid Change In Sanctioned Limits

The appointments come on the heels of the Union Cabinet’s recent legislative push to expand judicial capacity. Just last month, the Centre promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, which effectively raised the court's maximum sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges.

Legal experts point out that the prompt execution of these selections highlights a rare, seamless coordination between the judiciary and the executive. However, court officials familiar with the roster indicate that the record-high bench strength of 37 will be short-lived. The apex court is slated to see two quick retirements later this month, with Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice JK Maheshwari reaching superannuation on June 16 and June 28, respectively.

Direct Elevation From The Bar

Among the new appointees, the spotlight remains firmly on Senior Advocate V Mohana. Her swearing-in marks only the second instance in the history of the Indian judiciary where a woman practitioner has been elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court bench, following Justice Indu Malhotra’s historic appointment in 2018.

With her induction, the Supreme Court now has two sitting women jurists, the other being Justice BV Nagarathna. Observers of the court note that the move injects crucial gender diversity into the higher echelon of law, especially as Justice Nagarathna is poised to break further ground as India’s first woman Chief Justice in late 2027.

Diverse High Court Experience Represented

The legal backgrounds of the other four judges show deep administrative and judicial expertise spanning multiple states.

• Justice Sheel Nagu: Elevated after a tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Enrolled in 1987, he rose through the Madhya Pradesh High Court and previously served on highly sensitive in-house judicial investigative panels.

• Justice Shree Chandrashekhar: Brings wide geographic experience, having moved from the Jharkhand High Court to the Rajasthan High Court, before heading the Bombay High Court as its Chief Justice.

• Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva: A former senior practitioner from Delhi who served extensively as a permanent judge in the national capital before his recent leadership role at the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

• Justice Arun Palli: Holds over a decade of judicial experience originating from Chandigarh, most recently serving as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Tackling The Massive Pendency Challenge

Court corridors are optimistic that the enhanced bench strength will directly alleviate the structural pressures slowing down the disposal of cases. National data systems recently indicated that pendency in the top court has climbed past the 93,000-case mark.

Beyond regular civil and criminal appeals, the availability of 37 working judges will allow Chief Justice Surya Kant greater operational flexibility. The move is expected to clear the logistical bottlenecks that frequently delay the formation of five-judge Constitution Benches, which are vital for deciding complex statutory and civil rights questions.

Government cites April drone surveillance; says 44 vehicles seized, 12 arrests; next hearing on July 22

 The Madhya Pradesh government told the Supreme Court on Friday that a recent probe into alleged illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Wildlife Sanctuary found no evidence of fresh excavation, relying largely on drone imagery and ground inspections carried out after directions from the top court.

According to a sworn affidavit filed by the Gwalior circle forest conservator, teams inspected the sites identified in a Hindustan Times report and reviewed drone footage collected from the second week of April 2026. Initial reports indicated the pits mentioned in the newspaper were remnants of old mining activity and not the result of any new operations after the court’s earlier orders, the government said.

Drone surveillance cited

The affidavit said continuous drone monitoring since mid-April showed no new digging at the locations flagged in the media report. “The drone images were used to form a conclusion that after the court’s directions there was no fresh excavation,” the filing said, according to court papers submitted by the state.

Officials told the bench — comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, who heard the matter on Friday — that tractors seen carrying sand in some drone frames likely contained material from pre-existing trader stockpiles rather than newly excavated sand. The state added that action is being contemplated against traders for illegal storage and transportation where warranted.

Enforcement steps outlined

The government also gave a tally of enforcement measures taken so far. It said 12 persons have been arrested in connection with illegal mining and transportation; 44 vehicles suspected to be engaged in unauthorised sand movement have been seized; and eight vehicles have been formally confiscated (rajasat). Several FIRs and preliminary crime reports have been lodged against unregistered vehicles and other offences, the filing noted.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the state in court, assured the bench that stringent surveillance would continue across the Chambal sanctuary and that the government would take steps to prevent any recurrence of illegal sand extraction. He said necessary measures related to monitoring and supervision would be expedited.

Background to court action

The Supreme Court began pressing the three affected states after a Hindustan Times story on alleged continuing illegal sand mining in the sanctuary prompted the court to seek a formal reply from Madhya Pradesh on May 26. In earlier orders, the court had expressed concern that illegal mining in the Chambal had evolved into an organised network, criticising the operation of unregistered vehicles, vacancies in forest staff positions, and gaps in monitoring that could have exacerbated environmental harm.

In its detailed directions, the court had asked states to step up CCTV coverage, seize vehicles implicated in illicit mining, take action against those responsible, and file progress reports every two months.

State, centre to file fresh reports

The matter has been tagged for the next hearing on July 22, when the Supreme Court directed Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh — along with the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) — to present fresh factual reports on measures taken. Officials said the July listing will also consider updated surveillance data and enforcement outcomes.

On the ground, local forest officials in Morena and adjacent districts said patrolling has been intensified, with frequent night and early-morning checks aimed at intercepting unauthorised movements along riverine stretches. Sources familiar with enforcement work said the drone operation has been complemented by selective on-site inspections and checks of sand depots.

Public and environmental stakes

Environmentalists and residents in river-adjacent villages have long warned that unchecked sand mining damages riverine habitats, threatens species such as the gharial and Indian skimmer, and increases erosion risks. The court’s continued oversight reflects those concerns and the broader legal push to balance livelihood pressures against conservation obligations.

The state’s assertion that no fresh mining was detected will be scrutinised when parties return to court in July. For now, the government has promised accelerated monitoring and further legal action against alleged illegal storage and transporters of sand.

Supreme Court allows Vinesh Phogat to compete in Delhi trials on May 30–31, granting relief after WFI's petition — primary keyword: Vinesh Phogat

The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared an immediate path for Olympian wrestler Vinesh Phogat to take part in the Asian Games selection trials scheduled in Delhi on May 30–31, rejecting a last-minute petition by the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) that sought to block her participation.

Bench decision, timeline
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed WFI’s petition against a Delhi High Court order that had allowed Phogat to compete. The High Court’s direction, issued on May 22, required that the entire trial be video recorded and supervised by independent observers appointed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).

WFI had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Vinesh. The federation argued Phogat’s participation violated its rules on athletes returning from retirement, but the apex court refused to stay the high court order, effectively permitting her to enter the trials.

High-stakes selection
The Delhi trials on Saturday and Sunday will form the basis for final team selection for the Asian Games in Japan in September. Officials said selectors will evaluate performance across the two days and forward names to the IOA. With the Supreme Court’s clearance, Phogat is now eligible to contest in the 50kg category trials, according to sources familiar with the matter.

WFI's stance
WFI had earlier disqualified Phogat from domestic competitions until June 26, 2026, citing anti-doping provisions and the federation’s rule that athletes returning from retirement must give six months’ notice. The federation also issued a show-cause notice accusing Phogat of indiscipline and conduct that, it said, harmed the image of Indian wrestling.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, WFI argued the Delhi High Court order undermined federation governance and the application of UWW (United World Wrestling) rules. WFI officials declined comment outside court but had maintained their position that policy and process must be followed uniformly.

Phogat’s response, background
Vinesh Phogat, a two-time Commonwealth Games gold medallist and a 2024 Paris Olympian, had announced her retirement after a controversial disqualification at the Paris Games but withdrew that decision in December 2025, saying she aimed for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

Phogat has been off the mat for roughly 18 months before ramping up training. She travelled to Gonda recently to take part in a National Ranking Tournament and posted videos alleging bias and mismanagement in domestic wrestling events. In earlier public statements, she accused former WFI president Brijbhushan Sharan Singh of sexual harassment and criticised the federation’s handling of competitions and refereeing — allegations that have been part of a broader controversy in Indian wrestling since 2023.

Legal and procedural safeguards
The Delhi High Court’s order emphasised transparency measures: continuous video recording of trials and oversight by SAI and IOA-appointed independent observers. The measures were intended to allay concerns raised by both sides about fairness and to ensure selections are based on performance rather than influence, a court official said.

Impact on team dynamics
Phogat’s participation has drawn attention within the wrestling fraternity and from political quarters: she is also a Congress MLA from Julana in Haryana. Selectors now face a sensitive task balancing legal directives, federation rules and on-ground performance. Coaches and rival athletes have expressed mixed reactions in private, with some welcoming the clarity and others cautioning about potential locker-room tensions ahead of the Asian Games.

What happens next
Trials will proceed in Delhi on May 30–31 under the supervision specified by the High Court. The SAI and IOA are expected to finalise observer appointments and confirm technical protocols later Friday, according to officials briefed on logistics. If Phogat performs to selectors’ expectations, she could be named in the Asian Games contingent to compete in Japan in September.

Legal avenues remain open for WFI to pursue its broader challenge on federation rules, but any further stay on these specific trials would require another urgent intervention — a step WFI did not take successfully before the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Agency tells Supreme Court it has ordered CCTV audits, forensic reviews and new posts for 2026 re-exam as part of wider reforms

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has told the Supreme Court it has launched a package of structural and security reforms after the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak controversy, saying CCTV audits, mock drills, forensic checks and new senior posts have been introduced ahead of the re-examination.

According to the affidavit filed in court on Friday, a High-Powered Steering Committee (HPSC) reviewed NEET-UG preparations at a meeting on April 17 and recommended a suite of measures to plug gaps before, during and after the test. The NTA said many of the recommendations are already in place or at an advanced stage of implementation for the re-exam scheduled later this year.

Tighter centre-level checks

The reforms include mandatory CCTV checks at all examination centres, with footage to be preserved for at least 90 days. The agency has also ordered detailed physical inspections of centres in the week leading up to exams, verification of power-backup systems and weather-based contingency plans, the affidavit said.

“Initial reports indicate the focus is on strengthening real-time monitoring and post-event forensic review,” a source familiar with the matter said, on condition of anonymity. The NTA also said emergency medical facilities will be required at identified larger centres, and that mock drills will be carried out to test readiness.

Forensic and post-exam reviews

In a notable change, the HPSC recommended routine forensic analysis of CCTV footage after examinations to identify anomalies or suspicious conduct that may not be apparent during live monitoring. The affidavit states the committee will reconvene after the re-examination to decide, in consultation with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, whether future NEET tests should move to a computer-based test (CBT) format or remain paper-and-pen (PPT).

Officials said the forensic audits aim to catch patterns — such as repeated camera blind spots, simultaneous irregular behaviour across centres or suspicious movement near exam halls — that would otherwise surface only after complaints. “These are additional layers of checks intended to create both deterrence and investigative capability,” an NTA official involved in operations told reporters.

Administrative restructuring

As part of broader governance reforms, the NTA has created 16 senior posts, adding director and joint-director level positions, and appointed two joint secretary-level officers as additional director generals to oversee technology operations and test security. A secretary-level officer assumed charge as director general of the NTA in March 2026, the affidavit added.

The agency said it has brought in experts from academic and administrative bodies — including IITs, the University Grants Commission (UGC), CBSE, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and IGNOU — to strengthen examination management and technical resilience.

State and district coordination

To tighten on-ground coordination, State-Level Coordination Committees (SLCCs) and District-Level Coordination Committees (DLCCs) were formed across the country. The NTA told the court that 18 SLCCs and 621 DLCCs were operational before the May 3 exam and comprise officials from local administration, police, intelligence agencies, the National Informatics Centre (NIC) and the testing agency.

The committees are intended to improve surveillance, logistics and rapid response during examinations, the NTA said. Local police and district administrations will oversee centre security while NIC teams assist with technical links and timely transfer of CCTV data.

Public reaction and significance

The NEET-UG 2026 leak and subsequent cancellation sparked widespread public concern and legal scrutiny, prompting petitions by groups including the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) and the United Doctors Front (UDF) seeking a structural overhaul of the examination body. Petitioners had argued that systemic lapses, not isolated incidents, were to blame.

Education experts said the NTA’s moves are aimed at restoring confidence but warned implementation will be key. “Policy changes matter only if executed consistently across thousands of centres,” said an education administrator who declined to be named. “Mock drills, forensic audits and state coordination can help, but transparency about findings will be crucial.”

What’s next

The HPSC is due to meet again after the re-examination to assess the effectiveness of the measures and recommend whether a permanent shift to a CBT model is warranted. The Supreme Court will continue to monitor progress through affidavits and hearings, according to registry filings.

With the re-exam looming, the NTA faces the twin task of demonstrating operational readiness on the ground and convincing students and stakeholders that the safeguards will prevent a repeat of the disruption that upended this year’s admission cycle.

Delhi AIIMS four-member team conducts second post-mortem at Bhopal AIIMS; family says funeral likely this evening

A four-member team from Delhi AIIMS began a second post-mortem on the body of actress Twisha Sharma at Bhopal AIIMS on Sunday, officials said, as tight security remained in and around the hospital morgue. The development comes amid competing claims from the actress’s natal and marital families and fresh legal and investigative moves, including a direction for possible CBI involvement.

Second post-mortem underway
According to hospital sources, the AIIMS team reached Bhopal late Saturday night and started the judicial procedure early Sunday morning. Police and hospital security personnel were deployed around the mortuary and adjacent corridors to manage access. The entire process is to be video-recorded, as ordered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Family statement on funeral
Major Harshit, Twisha’s brother, told reporters that the family plans to perform the last rites at Bhadbhada crematorium at 5 pm today, subject to completion of post-mortem formalities. He declined to comment on whether the actress’s husband or in‑laws would attend. The family has also sought swift transfer of the case to the CBI, a demand vocalised by Twisha’s father, Navnidhi Sharma.

Court and probe developments
The case drew national attention after the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance and listed the matter for hearing before a bench led by the Chief Justice on Monday. Earlier, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered a second post-mortem, directing that it be led by the AIIMS director and that the police keep the body under safe custody until the procedure is complete.

On Saturday, Bhopal district court sent Twisha’s husband, identified as Samarth Singh, to seven days’ police remand after his production before the magistrate. The court also ordered seizure of his passport. Police said a look-out notice had been issued earlier amid concerns of possible flight from the country.

Sequence of events
Initial police records show Twisha, a 28-year-old actor and daughter-in-law of retired judge Giribala Singh, returned to her residence in the Katara Hills area of Bhopal on the night of May 12. CCTV from the parlour showed her arriving around 6 pm. Samarth told investigators that the couple went for a stroll and later watched television; he said Twisha spoke on the phone with family and then went to another room. He said he later fell asleep and woke to find her missing.

Samarth and family accounts
In statements to police, Samarth said the couple’s relationship had been “normal” after marriage in December 2025 but that Twisha’s behaviour had changed after pregnancy was confirmed on April 17. He said she had travelled to Ajmer and Delhi briefly in April and returned to Bhopal on April 30. Samarth claimed Twisha had left a mark of distress in calls with her mother on the night in question and that his mother discovered Twisha hanging from an elastic exercise band on the terrace.

Police said CPR was administered and Twisha was taken to AIIMS Bhopal, where doctors declared her dead. Investigators, however, maintain that statements are being cross-checked and that Samarth’s account contains inconsistencies. “We are probing the sequence of events on May 12 and will examine all forensic leads,” an officer familiar with the probe said.

Legal fallout
The Bar Council of India on May 22 suspended Samarth’s right to practice; the BCI chairman confirmed the order. In the state High Court, the in‑laws’ request to hand over the body to the husband on religious grounds was rejected. The court has issued notices to multiple parties, including retired judge Giribala Singh, whose anticipatory bail the father has challenged.

State and central involvement
Chief Minister Dr. Mohan Yadav said the state government had written to the Centre for CBI assistance; officials told reporters the state has conveyed willingness for central investigation. The father’s delegation met the chief minister on May 20 seeking an independent probe; the CM reportedly assured cooperation.

What happens next
Police said Samarth will be questioned further, including on the spot where the incident occurred and on movements from the day in question up to his arrest. Investigators plan to recreate timelines and collate CCTV and call data records. The second post-mortem report — expected later Sunday — could shape the next legal steps, including the family’s decision on where final rites will be held.

Hearings are scheduled in both the High Court and local courts on Monday and Tuesday: the High Court will continue its oversight while a Bhopal district court will hear an application to cancel Giribala Singh’s anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made strong observations on the growing menace of stray dog attacks across the country and said that dangerous and rabies-infected stray dogs can be euthanised in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the safety and lives of citizens are of utmost importance and said that the right to live with dignity also includes the right to live free from the fear of stray dog attacks.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria dismissed all petitions seeking withdrawal of the court’s November 2025 directions regarding stray dogs. The bench made it clear that public safety cannot be compromised and warned that officials failing to implement the directions could face contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier directions to remove stray dogs from public places such as schools, hospitals, bus stands, railway stations and highways. The court said the animals should be shifted to shelters or Animal Birth Control (ABC) centres and should not be released back onto the streets without proper procedures. It also upheld restrictions on feeding stray dogs on roads and public places.

During the hearing, the court referred to several incidents of dog attacks reported from different states. It noted that in Rajasthan’s Sri Ganganagar alone, 1,084 dog bite cases were reported within a month, including several incidents involving small children suffering serious facial injuries. In Tamil Nadu, nearly two lakh dog bite cases were recorded in the first four months of the year. The court also cited an incident in Surat where a German tourist was attacked by a stray dog. The bench observed that such incidents are creating fear among citizens and weakening public trust in urban administration.

The apex court issued nine key directions to states and civic authorities. It directed all state governments to strictly implement the rules framed by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). Every district must have at least one fully functional Animal Birth Control centre, while densely populated cities should establish additional centres based on requirement.

The court further stated that euthanasia may be carried out in cases involving rabies-infected or highly aggressive stray dogs where human life is at risk. It also directed authorities to ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines and medicines in hospitals and healthcare centres.

The Supreme Court also assigned responsibility to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to address the issue of stray animals on highways. It directed NHAI to take necessary measures to remove stray animals from highways through coordinated efforts with local authorities and monitoring mechanisms.

The bench observed that municipal officials and civic authorities implementing court orders should receive legal protection and should not ordinarily face FIRs or punitive action while carrying out their duties. However, it warned that failure to comply with court directions would invite contempt proceedings.

The court also referred to its January 2026 hearing in the matter, during which it had remarked that its observations should not be taken lightly. At that time, the bench had stated that if a stray dog attack results in serious injury or death, responsibility could also be fixed on dog feeders along with municipal bodies. The court had observed that local administrations were clearly failing in handling the situation.

The matter first came before the Supreme Court in July 2025 when the court took suo motu cognisance of rising stray dog attacks and deaths across India. In August 2025, the court had ordered authorities in Delhi-NCR to capture all stray dogs and shift them to shelters within eight weeks. Following protests from animal rights groups, the court later modified the order and allowed non-aggressive and non-rabid dogs to be released back into their original areas after sterilisation and vaccination.

Centre Asserts No Constitutional Mandate for Judge in EC Appointment Panel 

The Central government has told the Supreme Court that the Constitution does not require the inclusion of a judge in the selection committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners, describing it as a policy matter best left to Parliament.

The submission came during hearings on petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The law, which took effect on January 2, 2024, replaced an interim arrangement ordered by the apex court that had included the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the panel.

Shift from Interim Order

In its March 2023 judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case, the Supreme Court had directed that appointments be made by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the CJI until Parliament enacted a law. The government maintained that this direction was only a stopgap measure. Once Parliament legislated on the issue, the interim arrangement ceased to apply.

Under the 2023 Act, the selection panel consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This change has drawn criticism from petitioners who argue it gives the executive an upper hand and could compromise the Election Commission’s independence.

Government’s Defence in Court

Senior law officers appearing for the Centre presented several key arguments. They emphasised that the Constitution is silent on the composition of the appointment committee, leaving it to the wisdom of the legislature. Judicial representation, they said, is not a constitutional compulsion but a legislative choice.

The government further contended that the independence of the Election Commission is adequately protected through constitutional provisions, including a fixed tenure, safeguards against arbitrary removal, and other legal protections. Officials noted that no evidence has been presented showing that elections were compromised due to the government’s role in appointments.

Court’s Queries and Concerns

During hearings earlier this month, the Supreme Court bench, including Justice Dipankar Datta, raised pointed questions. The court examined why a Cabinet Minister should be part of the panel and observed that the current structure might reduce the Leader of Opposition’s role to a mere formality, creating a 2:1 majority for the executive.

The bench also reflected on whether it could direct Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner, noting the separation of powers. In one hearing, it described Parliament’s long delay in enacting a law on the subject—until nudged by the court—as the “tyranny of the elected.”

Parallel Concerns in Other Appointments

The debate has gained added resonance with recent developments in the selection of the CBI Director. On May 12, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi reportedly raised objections during a high-level meeting at the Prime Minister’s residence, alleging lack of full access to candidate details and describing the process as a formality. He emphasised that the Leader of Opposition cannot be treated as a “rubber stamp.”

Though the CBI selection involves a different committee that includes the CJI, the episode has fuelled broader discussions on transparency and balance in high-level appointments.

Background and Significance

The Election Commission of India plays a pivotal role in upholding the world’s largest democracy. Any perceived dent in its institutional autonomy often sparks intense debate. The 2023 law was passed after the Supreme Court’s interim directive, with the Centre arguing it provides a clear statutory framework while retaining necessary safeguards.

Petitioners, including organisations like the Association for Democratic Reforms, have contended that removing the CJI tilts the balance towards the executive, potentially affecting public trust in the electoral process.

What Lies Ahead

The Supreme Court has not yet delivered a final verdict and has asked for relevant records to be preserved. Further hearings are expected as the matter touches upon core issues of institutional independence, separation of powers, and the limits of judicial intervention in legislative matters.

For now, the government remains firm that Parliament has exercised its legitimate authority. How the court eventually balances these constitutional questions will be closely watched by political parties, legal experts, and citizens alike, given the critical importance of free and fair elections to India’s democratic fabric.

'Paisa Interest Litigation': SC slams misuse of PILs in Sabarimala hearing

The Supreme Court has questioned the motives of the Indian Young Lawyers Association’s 2006 petition, noting that PILs are increasingly becoming tools for personal gain.

In a stinging critique of the current judicial landscape, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have largely devolved into "Paisa Interest Litigation" or "Publicity Interest Litigation." The bench, which is currently deliberating on critical questions surrounding religious freedom, expressed serious reservations about how such petitions are being leveraged in the modern era.

The verbal observations came during the ongoing hearing of the Sabarimala temple matter, which has triggered a broader debate on the intersection of individual rights and centuries-old religious traditions.

Bench questions 2006 petition motive

The top court’s scrutiny was specifically directed at the Indian Young Lawyers Association, which had filed the original petition in 2006 challenging the age-old ban on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple in Kerala. Justice Surya Kant, part of the bench, noted that the association seemed to have little to do with the actual devotees or the ground reality of the shrine at the time.

"It has become more of a Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation, and now Money Interest Litigation," the bench remarked, highlighting a growing trend where litigations are filed based on newspaper reports rather than substantive personal or community injury.

Concerns over 'proxy' litigation

Sources familiar with the proceedings said the court expressed concern over whether the original petitioners were truly "aggrieved parties." The bench noted that the 2006 PIL was largely constructed around media reports. The judges suggested that organizations should perhaps focus more on the welfare of their own members rather than seeking judicial intervention in complex religious customs where they may not have a direct stake.

This line of questioning shifts the focus back to the locus standi—the right to bring a lawsuit to court—which has been a point of contention in the Sabarimala case for years.

The Sabarimala legal timeline

To understand the weight of these remarks, one must look back at the 2018 verdict. A five-judge bench, in a 4:1 majority, had previously lifted the ban on women of menstruating age, calling the practice unconstitutional. However, that decision led to a massive wave of review petitions and sparked a nationwide debate on whether the court should interfere in "essential religious practices."

The current nine-judge bench was subsequently formed to address larger issues, including whether a person who does not belong to a particular religion can challenge its practices through a PIL.

Focus on religious freedom

The court is currently dealing with a massive bundle of petitions that go beyond just Sabarimala. The scope has expanded to include the entry of women into mosques, the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and the rights of Parsi women married outside their faith.

Legal experts suggest that the court’s latest comments on "Paisa Interest Litigation" signal a stricter approach toward entertaining PILs in the future. The bench indicated that while the doors of the court are open to the marginalized, they should not be used as a platform for political or financial maneuvering.

Impact on future filings

The proceedings on Tuesday have sent a clear message to the legal fraternity. Local authorities and legal observers in the capital believe this could lead to a tightening of the rules governing PIL admissions.

The hearing is expected to continue through the week, with the bench likely to further define the boundaries of judicial overreach in matters of faith. For now, the "paisa interest" remark stands as a stern warning against the commercialization of the judicial process.