SC Urges Centre to Scrap Abortion Time Limit for Rape Victims

Supreme Court tells government to rethink rigid 24-week cap as minor can't be forced into motherhood; law must evolve with times

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday took a firm stand on a sensitive case involving a 15-year-old rape survivor, refusing to entertain a petition against terminating her 30-week pregnancy. In a pointed directive to the Centre, the court emphasised that no minor should be compelled to become a mother, urging a rethink on the strict abortion time limit in such exceptional circumstances.

A bench led by Chief Justice Suryakant made these observations while hearing arguments in the matter. "The law should be such that it changes with time and adapts to the current situation," the bench remarked, pushing for amendments to ease restrictions for rape victims, especially minors.

Court Rejects Petition

The petition challenged the decision to allow termination at 30 weeks—roughly 7.5 months into the pregnancy—for the teenage victim. Sources familiar with the matter said the court dismissed it outright, prioritising the girl's well-being over procedural hurdles.

This comes amid growing debates on reproductive rights in India, where cases like this test the boundaries of existing laws.

AIIMS Weighs In on Risks

Medical experts from AIIMS had earlier flagged concerns, noting that at 30 weeks, the fetus is considered a 'viable life.' Their report indicated that abortion at this stage carries significant risks and may not always succeed.

After reviewing these inputs, the court suggested consulting the victim's parents to decide on continuing the pregnancy or not. Local authorities confirmed the girl was brought to medical attention following the assault, though specifics on the incident remain under wraps.

Current MTP Act Limits

Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, terminations are tightly regulated by gestation period.

Up to 20 weeks, a single registered medical practitioner's (RMP) opinion suffices. Between 20-24 weeks, two RMPs must agree, applicable to categories like minors, rape survivors, and women with disabilities.

Beyond 24 weeks, it's permitted only for substantial fetal anomalies, verified by a state-level medical board. This case pushed well past that threshold, highlighting the rigidity critics have long pointed to.

Push for Legal Change

The bench's call to the Centre marks a rare judicial nudge towards reforming the abortion time limit for rape cases. Officials in the health ministry were tight-lipped when approached late evening, but legal circles see this as momentum building for updates.

Activists tracking such matters say the law, unchanged in core aspects for decades, fails to account for trauma in minor rape cases reported late.

Broader Implications

For the victim, the decision rests now with her family, amid medical advice on viability risks. Initial reports from the hospital indicate ongoing consultations, with no final call yet.

This ruling could ripple out, influencing how courts handle similar pleas nationwide. In states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, where rape cases involving minors have surged, such directives carry weight.

Public reaction on social media leaned towards support for the court's compassionate stance, with calls echoing for the abortion time limit to be scrapped in trauma-induced pregnancies.

What's Next?

The Centre now faces pressure to revisit the MTP framework. Law ministry sources hinted at internal discussions, but no timeline was shared.

Meanwhile, the minor's case underscores the human cost of legal delays—rape reported months later often leaves victims trapped. As one senior advocate put it off-record, "Laws must breathe with society's realities."

A political controversy over a televised address by Narendra Modi has reached the Supreme Court of India, with a Congress MP filing a petition alleging violation of election norms. The plea questions the broadcast of the PM Modi speech on state-run platforms during an ongoing election cycle.

Who Moved Court

The petition has been filed by Congress MP T. N. Prathapan, who represents Kerala in Parliament. According to reports, Prathapan approached the apex court seeking directions against what he termed as misuse of government-controlled media for political messaging.

Allegations Raised

The petition alleges that the speech, delivered on April 18, was aired live on Doordarshan and Sansad TV both funded by the public exchequer. It claims that these platforms fall under government influence and should not be used for partisan communication during an active election period.

Prathapan has argued that such a broadcast violates the Model Code of Conduct, which restricts political campaigning using official resources.

Speech Content Disputed

The controversy centres on remarks made by the Prime Minister during the address, where several opposition parties were named and criticised. The petition states that parties such as the Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK and Samajwadi Party were directly targeted.

According to the filing, the PM urged voters to hold these parties accountable over their stance on the Women’s Reservation Bill, making the speech political in nature.

Timing of Address

The speech was delivered shortly after developments linked to the passage of the Women’s Reservation Bill, formally known as the 131st Constitutional Amendment Bill.

The petitioner has contended that the timing of the address during an active election phase raises concerns about fairness and neutrality in public communication.

Demand for Action

In his plea, Prathapan has sought a directive from the court to the Election Commission of India to examine the matter and initiate action. He has urged the court to ensure that government platforms are not used to influence voters during elections.

Officials have not yet issued a detailed response on the petition. The matter is expected to come up for preliminary hearing in the coming days.

Political Context

The issue comes amid heightened political activity across states, where adherence to the Model Code of Conduct is under scrutiny. The use of state resources for political messaging has been a recurring concern raised by opposition parties in past elections as well. Observers note that such cases often test the balance between official communication and political campaigning.

What Lies Ahead

The Supreme Court’s response to the plea will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent on how government-controlled media can be used during elections.

If the court admits the petition, it may seek responses from the Centre and the Election Commission, potentially shaping guidelines for future broadcasts.

In a sharp development ahead of the West Bengal Assembly elections, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday pulled up Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, stating that her actions could undermine democratic processes. The observation comes barely a day before the first phase of polling, adding a new dimension to the high-stakes electoral battle.

The court noted that the matter at hand was not merely a Centre-versus-state dispute but involved alleged interference in an ongoing investigation by a constitutional authority.

Strong Judicial Remarks

During the hearing, the bench made strong oral observations, expressing concern over what it described as “direct intervention” by a sitting Chief Minister in an investigative process. The court said it had never anticipated a situation where a constitutional office-bearer would act in a manner that could potentially disrupt institutional functioning.

According to court proceedings, such actions, if proven, could set a troubling precedent and weaken democratic accountability mechanisms.

Probe Interference Concern

The remarks are linked to an ongoing investigation involving central agencies, where the court indicated that interference at the executive level raises serious institutional questions. Officials familiar with the matter suggested that the judiciary is closely monitoring the balance between governance and investigative autonomy. The issue has triggered wider debate in legal and political circles, especially in the context of electoral timing.

ED Issues Fresh Summons

Parallel to the court’s remarks, the Enforcement Directorate escalated its action against leaders of the ruling Trinamool Congress. The agency issued a fourth summons to candidates Sujit Bose and Rathin Ghosh, directing them to appear on April 24.

Both leaders are contesting the ongoing assembly elections, with Bose fielded from Bidhannagar and Ghosh from Madhyamgram. Sources indicated that the summons relate to financial irregularities under investigation.

Election Phase Details

West Bengal is set to witness a two-phase election across 294 assembly constituencies. The first phase of polling is scheduled for April 23, covering 152 seats, while the remaining 142 constituencies will vote on April 29.

Election officials confirmed that all logistical and security arrangements have been put in place to ensure smooth conduct of voting. Counting of votes is slated for May 4.

Political Reactions Build

While there has been no immediate formal response from the Chief Minister’s office regarding the court’s remarks, party leaders have termed the developments politically motivated. Opposition parties, however, have seized upon the court’s observation, calling it a serious indictment of governance practices.

Political analysts note that such judicial interventions, especially on the eve of polling, could influence voter perception in tightly contested constituencies.

Implications and Outlook

The timing of the Supreme Court’s remarks and the ED’s action places the ruling party under increased scrutiny during a crucial electoral phase. Experts say the developments highlight ongoing tensions between state leadership and central agencies, a recurring theme in Indian politics.

As voting begins, the focus will remain on whether these developments impact voter turnout or campaign narratives. The outcome of the West Bengal elections will not only shape the state’s political future but also influence broader national political equations.

Sabarimala case hearing Day 7: SC backs state reform powers

In the Sabarimala case hearing Day 7, the Supreme Court underscored the state’s authority to address social evils while examining religious freedom and women’s entry issues.

Hearing enters Day 7

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued the seventh day of hearings in the Sabarimala case, with a nine-judge Constitution bench deliberating key constitutional questions on religious freedom and social reform.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium resumed arguments, focusing on the scope of Articles 25 and 26 and the balance between individual rights and denominational autonomy.

Court on state role

During the proceedings, the Chief Justice observed that the state represents the will of the people and holds the authority to intervene when society seeks to eliminate social evils.

The bench indicated that constitutional principles could allow such intervention, especially when practices appear to conflict with fundamental rights.

Debate on religious practice

A central issue remains whether temple customs constitute essential religious practices. Subramanium argued that courts must carefully assess such claims to ensure that superstition or external elements do not gain protection as religious rights.

He said any law interfering with religion must pass a strict scrutiny test and demonstrate a clear objective linked to social reform.

Key constitutional questions

The bench examined what qualifies as “social reform” and “social welfare” under the Constitution. Justice Bagchi raised concerns about the limits of legislative power in religious matters and whether general laws can directly interfere in such domains.

The court also discussed the meaning of “management” under Article 26, including whether internal debates within a religious sect fall within its scope.

Arguments by petitioners

Subramanium emphasised that freedom of religion under Article 25 includes belief, practice, and propagation. He noted that no two individuals practise religion identically, underscoring the personal nature of faith.

He further argued that while institutions function collectively, individual freedoms remain protected, and differing opinions within a sect are part of constitutional guarantees.

Background of dispute

The Sabarimala issue stems from a long-standing restriction on women aged 10–50 entering the Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, considered a “naishtika brahmachari”.

In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld the restriction. However, in 2018, the Supreme Court of India struck it down, allowing entry to women of all ages. The verdict triggered widespread protests and multiple review petitions.

Temple authorities and some devotees continue to oppose the entry, citing religious tradition and the deity’s nature.

Earlier hearing highlights

In the previous hearings, the court questioned whether touching an idol could be considered defilement and whether constitutional protections should extend to devotees barred based on birth or lineage.

The Centre had earlier argued that courts should refrain from interfering in religious practices, pointing to similar restrictions in other temples.

What lies ahead

The nine-judge bench is currently addressing seven broader constitutional questions, including the extent of judicial review in matters of religion and the interpretation of essential religious practices.

A verdict is expected soon, which could have far-reaching implications for religious freedoms and gender equality across India. Legal observers say the ruling may redefine how courts approach conflicts between faith and fundamental rights.

As the Sabarimala case hearing Day 7 concludes, the focus remains on how the Constitution will reconcile individual rights with religious traditions in one of the country’s most closely watched public interest cases.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised critical questions over religious restrictions at the Sabarimala temple, particularly the rationale behind barring women of a certain age group. During the ongoing hearing, the court asked how the mere act of touching a deity could render it impure, highlighting concerns over exclusion based on birth and gender.

A nine-judge Constitution bench is currently examining the broader legal and constitutional principles tied to the Sabarimala dispute, making it one of the most closely watched cases in recent India News Update cycles.

Bench Questions Traditions

The bench questioned whether constitutional morality should override practices that deny individuals the right to worship. It asked whether the Constitution should intervene when devotees are prevented from offering prayers solely due to their gender or biological factors.

The judges also sought clarity on how religious customs align with fundamental rights, particularly equality and non-discrimination.

Temple’s Legal Stand

Representing the Sabarimala temple, advocate V. Giri defended the restriction, stating that temple rituals are deeply rooted in the character of the presiding deity. He argued that Lord Ayyappa is considered a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate), and therefore, the temple’s practices are designed to preserve that religious belief.

According to the counsel, any deviation from established customs would contradict the core tenets of the faith.

Background of Dispute

The Sabarimala issue has remained a significant public interest story for decades. In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld a ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the temple, citing tradition.

However, in a landmark 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court lifted the ban, allowing women of all age groups to enter. The ruling triggered widespread protests and multiple review petitions, leading to the current constitutional bench hearing.

Multiple Cases Clubbed

The court is not only examining the Sabarimala case but also hearing around 66 related matters concerning religious freedoms and practices across faiths. These include issues where entry restrictions exist in various temples and places of worship.

Sources indicated that the outcome may set a broader precedent for how courts interpret the balance between religious autonomy and fundamental rights.

Government’s Position

During earlier hearings that began on April 7, the Centre opposed unrestricted entry, arguing that similar gender-based restrictions exist in several religious institutions. It maintained that courts should respect long-standing traditions unless they clearly violate constitutional principles.

Officials suggested that religious diversity in India requires a nuanced approach rather than uniform judicial intervention.

What Lies Ahead

The Constitution bench is expected to deliver its verdict soon, possibly as early as Wednesday. The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications on religious practices, gender rights, and constitutional interpretation.

Legal experts believe the ruling could redefine how courts handle faith-based customs in the future, making it a key development in national and international news discourse.

As the hearing concludes, the Supreme Court’s observations on the Sabarimala issue remain central to debates on equality, religious freedom, and evolving social norms in India.

Supreme Court questions Sabarimala women entry ban, examines religious practices and constitutional rights in a major India News Update.

Nitin Sandesara repays ₹9,800 crore; Supreme Court closes all proceedings

In a rare NPA resolution, Nitin Sandesara settles dues at 180% of the original reference amount to ensure "complete quietus."

In a landmark development for India’s corporate legal landscape, the Supreme Court has formally closed all proceedings against businessman Nitin J. Sandesara after the total repayment of ₹9,800 crore to creditor banks. The move marks the end of a high-profile pursuit, concluding with a recovery that significantly exceeds the original claims made by financial institutions.

The Bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, moved to shut the files on cases spearheaded by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The court’s decision follows the successful verification of payments that effectively made every secured lender whole.

Beyond the original debt

The closure of the matter is anchored in a repayment figure that has surprised market observers. While the original reference amount in the case stood at ₹5,383 crore, the final realization for the banking system reached ₹9,800 crore.

This represents nearly 180% of the initial alleged default. Unlike typical Non-Performing Asset (NPA) resolutions where lenders often accept "haircuts" ranging from 50 to 70 percent, this case resulted in banks receiving substantially more than the principal amount contested.

Breakdown of the recovery

According to court filings and compliance reports, the recovery was structured through multiple channels to ensure full transparency. A sum of ₹3,507 crore was paid directly to the consortium of lender banks through various tranches.

An additional ₹1,192 crore was realized through liquidation processes. The single largest component, amounting to ₹5,111 crore, was deposited directly with the Supreme Court registry, as confirmed in a compliance order dated December 17, 2025.

Supreme Court sets precedent

Legal experts tracking the case noted that the Supreme Court described the resolution as a "new and positive standard" for corporate dispute settlements in India. The finality of the order ensures a "complete quietus" to the litigation.

The court's insistence on total accountability was evident during the final stages of the hearing. On April 2, when the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) sought a ten-day window to finalize its regulatory obligations, the Bench restricted the extension to just seven days.

Closing the final gap

The discipline of the repayment process was highlighted by the precision of the final settlement. By April 10, 2026, the balance remaining was reported as just ₹45,70,522—a marginal figure compared to the thousands of crores already cleared.

This final amount was deposited via a demand draft on April 13, 2026. This meticulous follow-through to the last rupee was a critical factor in the court’s decision to quash all outstanding FIRs and investigative proceedings.

Impact on corporate India

This resolution is expected to have a significant impact on how large-scale corporate defaults are viewed. By choosing to meet the full weight of the financial obligation rather than seeking protracted legal exits, the case offers a template for constructive resolution.

The outcome provides a clean slate for Nitin Sandesara, as the highest judicial authority in the land has now declared the matter settled. For the Indian banking sector, it represents a rare instance where the recovery far outpaced the initial stress on the books.

Future of NPA settlements

As the Indian business world observes this development, the focus shifts to how other stressed assets might be handled. The Sandesara case proves that complex disputes can end with the satisfaction of all stakeholders, including regulators and the judiciary.

With the Supreme Court’s final seal of approval, this chapter in India’s corporate history concludes as a benchmark for accountability. This latest news today serves as a reminder of the potential for the legal system to facilitate total recovery for public interest and national and international news coverage of Indian enterprise.

SC Notice to Centre on Muslim Inheritance Law Plea

Petition Alleges Gender Discrimination

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Union government’s response on a public interest litigation challenging the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, over provisions that allegedly discriminate against Muslim women in matters of inheritance.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notice to the Ministry of Minority Affairs after hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for petitioners Poulomi Pavini Shukla and the Nyaya Naari Foundation.

Constitutional Violations Flagged

The petition contends that existing inheritance rules under the Shariat Act grant Muslim women half or even less of the share given to male counterparts. This, the plea argues, violates Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality.

Bhushan submitted that succession is a civil matter and does not qualify as an “essential religious practice” protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. “This is a very important constitutional issue that requires consideration by this Court,” he told the Bench.

Court Tags With Pending Cases

The Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Panchol, tagged the matter with similar pending petitions. The court is already hearing cases filed by Muslim individuals seeking application of the Indian Succession Act instead of Shariat law in inheritance disputes.

According to officials familiar with the proceedings, the court agreed that the issue warrants constitutional scrutiny.

Uttarakhand UCC Cited as Precedent

The petition has invoked the Uniform Civil Code enacted in Uttarakhand in 2024 to highlight geographical discrimination. It argues that Muslim women in Uttarakhand now receive equal inheritance rights under the UCC, while those in other states remain bound by the unequal provisions of the Shariat Act.

This creates an unconstitutional classification based solely on location, the plea states.

 Key Reliefs Sought Before Apex Court

The petitioners have asked the court to declare Section 2 of the 1937 Act void to the extent it discriminates against Muslim women, arguing it violates Articles 13, 14, 15, and 21. They also want a ruling that inheritance rules under Shariat are not essential religious practices.

Interim directions have been sought to ensure uniform, gender-equal inheritance rights for Muslims across India until Parliament amends the law. The plea also requests the court to direct the Union government to amend succession laws in line with constitutional guarantees.

 Constitutional Questions at Core

Legal experts tracking the case say it raises fundamental questions about the intersection of personal laws and fundamental rights. Can religious personal laws governing succession withstand scrutiny under the Constitution’s equality framework? The answer may reshape inheritance rights for millions of Muslim women.

 What Happens Next

The Centre has been given time to file its response. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter alongside pending petitions in the coming weeks. Legal observers note that any judgment could have far-reaching implications for personal law reforms across the country.

As per sources, the government is yet to formulate its official stand on whether it supports amending the 1937 Act or defending its provisions as protected religious practice.

Supreme Court Declines Petition to Make Voting Mandatory in India

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down a plea seeking to introduce mandatory voting, making it clear that the matter falls squarely in the policy domain and cannot be enforced through judicial orders. The bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant held that democracy rests on voluntary participation and public awareness rather than legal compulsion.

Bench Rejects Petition

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi dismissed the petition filed by Ajay Goel at the admission stage itself. The court observed that it cannot issue directions for compulsory voting or impose penalties on citizens who abstain from polls.

CJI Emphasises Awareness

Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked during the hearing that democracy thrives on awareness and public participation rather than legal pressure. He noted that in a country governed by the rule of law, citizens are expected to exercise their franchise voluntarily. Forcing them through court orders would be inappropriate, the bench stated.

Voluntary Participation Key

The judges repeatedly stressed that while voting is an important democratic duty, the Constitution does not permit the judiciary to compel citizens to cast their ballots. The court advised the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities instead of seeking judicial intervention on a policy issue.

Practical Hurdles Cited

The bench highlighted several practical difficulties that would arise if mandatory voting were enforced. It pointed out that on election days many citizens, including judges and professionals, remain tied up with work commitments and may not be able to travel to their constituencies.

Impact on Daily Earners

The court expressed particular concern for economically weaker sections, especially daily wage earners who cannot afford to lose a day’s income. Forcing such citizens to vote could create unnecessary hardship, the judges observed, questioning the fairness of any such compulsion.

No Judicial Overreach

The petitioner had also urged the court to direct the Election Commission of India to constitute a committee that could recommend restrictions on government facilities for those who deliberately skip voting. The bench firmly rejected this demand, underlining that decisions on compulsory voting and related penalties belong to the legislature and the executive.

Approach Authorities Advised

The Supreme Court made it clear that the judiciary has no role in framing such policy. It advised the petitioner to take up his grievances with the government and the Election Commission through proper channels. The order brings to a close the latest attempt to convert the right to vote into a compulsory duty.

The development assumes significance at a time when discussions on electoral reforms continue across political circles. By refusing to entertain the plea for mandatory voting, the apex court has reiterated that the strength of Indian democracy lies in informed and willing participation of its citizens, not in enforced compliance. The issue of mandatory voting now remains firmly with the government and lawmakers to consider, if at all, through legislative debate and public consultation.

SC Flags Bengal SIR Risks Before Polls

The Supreme Court on Monday grilled the Election Commission over West Bengal's Special Intensive Revision (SIR), questioning outcomes if victory margins shrink to 2% with 15% voters sidelined ahead of the state Assembly elections. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard arguments in New Delhi, highlighting voters trapped between authorities as EC defended the process.

The bench posed stark hypotheticals during the hearing. What if a candidate wins by just 2% but 15% of electors fail to vote due to deletions, they asked. Sources indicated the Court stressed election integrity, urging clarity on SIR's potential fallout in tight races.

Justice Bagchi remarked sharply that this isn't a state versus EC fight. Voters stand squeezed between constitutional bodies, he observed, after EC noted tribunals rejected 47% of challenged notices. Courts intervene to enable polls, not halt them, the judge clarified.

EC published Bengal's SIR list on April 9, axing 90.83 lakh names from 7.66 crore voters recorded in October 2025. Now, 6.76 crore remain—an 11.85% cut overall. Scrutiny covered 60.06 lakh names, with 27.16 lakh struck off, according to officials.

Deletions peaked near the Bangladesh border. North 24 Parganas shed 3.25 lakh from 5.91 lakh under review, while South 24 Parganas lost 2.39 lakh out of 8.28 lakh. Officials cite rigorous verification drives for the scale.

TMC leaders confronted EC on April 8. MP Derek O'Brien led the delegation to Delhi, later alleging rude dismissal in just five minutes over SIR concerns. EC sources countered that O'Brien interrupted the Chief Election Commissioner and issued threats, escalating tensions.

SIR's second phase swept 12 states and UTs, purging 6.08 crore names from an initial 51 crore, leaving 44.92 crore on rolls. Uttar Pradesh alone saw 2.04 crore cuts, a 13% drop to 13.39 crore, with Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, and others following.

These deletions spark fears of widespread disenfranchisement, especially in border districts facing maximum disruption. Critics question the timing before polls, while EC insists clean rolls enhance credibility. Public interest stories like this dominate latest news today across India news updates.

The Court hearing continues as EC weighs safeguards against low-turnout victories. Final voter lists remain frozen, and Bengal Assembly polls push ahead amid national and international news scrutiny from English news portals in India.

Govt Seeks Scrapping of PIL as SC Hears Sabarimala Case Day 3

A nine-judge Constitution bench continues hearing on women’s entry into religious places; Centre argues PIL concept has outlived its utility.

Nine-Judge Bench Resumes Hearing  

The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Constitution bench convened for the third consecutive day on Thursday to hear cases relating to discrimination against women at religious places. The lead matter remains the ban on women’s entry into Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, alongside four other sensitive religious practices. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is examining petitions that have remained pending for over 26 years.

Centre Calls PIL Outdated  

In a sharp submission before the court, the central government questioned the very utility of public interest litigation. Written arguments filed by the government stated that “the time has come to not only define PILs, but to eliminate them altogether.” The government argued that PIL was conceived when poverty and illiteracy prevented large sections from accessing courts. With e-filing and technological advancements, the Centre claimed, such constraints no longer exist, making PIL redundant.

SG Mehta Challenges Previous Verdicts  

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, went a step further. He told the bench that the Supreme Court’s decisions decriminalising adultery and consensual homosexual acts were “not sound law.” According to Mehta, those rulings were based on personal interpretations of “constitutional morality” and should not be treated as binding precedents for 1.4 billion Indians. He cited a Harvard Law Review article to argue that democratic majority viewpoint must prevail.

Court Questions Devotee Status  

As the hearing progressed, Justice B.V. Nagarathna raised a critical question. She asked Mehta who the original petitioners in the Sabarimala case were. The solicitor general replied that the petition was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association. Justice Nagarathna then observed, “They are not devotees. If someone who is not a devotee and has nothing to do with the temple challenges it, can the court hear such a writ petition?” The query pointed to a fundamental debate on locus standi in religious matters.

Five Cases Under Scrutiny  

The nine-judge bench is not limiting itself to Sabarimala. The hearings cover five specific issues: entry of women into Sabarimala temple, female circumcision in the Dawoodi Bohra community, women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women’s entry into the Agiyari (fire temple), and questions of gender discrimination in Muslim personal law. Each matter involves competing claims of religious freedom and constitutional rights to equality.

26-Year Legal Battle  

The legal fight over Sabarimala dates back nearly three decades. In 2018, a five-judge bench by a 4:1 majority lifted the ban on women of menstruating age entering the temple. More than 50 review petitions followed, leading the court to refer the matter to a larger nine-judge bench. Hearings are scheduled from April 7 to April 22. Supporters of the review petitions are presenting arguments from April 7 to 9, while opposing parties will get their turn from April 14 to 16.

Next Phase of Arguments  

Chief Justice Surya Kant made it clear that courts remain cautious while entertaining PILs. “The situation has changed over two decades from 2006 to 2026. Notices are issued only when there is a solid basis,” he observed. The bench is expected to continue hearing detailed submissions on whether secular courts can decide what constitutes superstition within a religion. A final verdict from the nine-judge bench could reshape the law on religious practices and public interest litigation in India for decades to come.

Amit Jogi Gets Life Term In Jaggi Murder Case After 20 Years

Chhattisgarh High Court says discrimination among accused with similar evidence not permissible; Amit Jogi, son of former CM Ajit Jogi, convicted in 2003 murder of NCP leader Ramavatar Jaggi

Life Term For Amit Jogi

In a significant development in Chhattisgarh’s high-profile Ramavatar Jaggi murder case, the state High Court on Wednesday sentenced Amit Jogi – son of former chief minister Ajit Jogi – to life imprisonment. A special division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Verma delivered the verdict, overturning the 2007 trial court order that had acquitted him.

The court observed that when all accused face similar charges and evidence, no single accused can be deliberately treated differently. “Discrimination among accused on identical evidence is not permissible unless a concrete and separate reason for acquittal is proven,” the bench noted.

Court’s Strong Observation

The division bench made it clear that acquitting one accused while convicting others on the same set of evidence is legally untenable. Sources indicated that the judges found no exceptional ground to spare Amit Jogi when 28 other accused had already been held guilty. The ruling effectively closes a legal loophole that had kept the former CM’s son out of prison for nearly two decades.

The 2003 Murder Case

Ramavatar Jaggi, a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader and close associate of former Union minister Vidyacharan Shukla, was shot dead in Raipur on June 4, 2003. The murder sent shockwaves through Chhattisgarh’s political circles. Following allegations of bias and dissatisfaction with the initial police probe, the state government handed over the investigation to the CBI.

The central agency subsequently charged 31 accused, including Amit Jogi, with murder and criminal conspiracy. Two accused – Baltu Pathak and Surendra Singh – turned government witnesses during the trial.

Previous Acquittal Overturned

On May 31, 2007, a special court in Raipur had granted Amit Jogi the benefit of doubt and acquitted him. The victim’s son, Satish Jaggi, challenged this acquittal before the Supreme Court. The apex court stayed the trial court’s order and later transferred the case back to the Chhattisgarh High Court for a fresh, detailed hearing.

Two years ago, the division bench had already dismissed appeals filed by other convicts in the case, upholding their life sentences. The Supreme Court then accepted a CBI appeal and directed the High Court to re-examine Amit Jogi’s role comprehensively.

Conspiracy Allegations

Appearing before the High Court, Satish Jaggi’s counsel B.P. Sharma argued that the murder conspiracy was “sponsored by the then state government.” He alleged that critical evidence was destroyed under government influence once the CBI probe began. “In such a case, evidence alone is not decisive – the conspiracy must be uncovered,” Sharma had submitted.

According to officials familiar with the proceedings, the bench found merit in the argument that all accused operated with a common intention, making selective acquittal unjustified.

Other Convicts Named

Among the 28 individuals earlier convicted in the Jaggi murder case are two former CSPs (superintendents of police), a former police station in-charge, Yaaya Dheber – brother of former Raipur mayor Ejaz Dheber – and shooter Chiman Singh. The High Court has now added Amit Jogi to the list of those serving life terms.

What Lies Ahead

Legal experts tracking the case say Amit Jogi is likely to appeal the verdict before the Supreme Court. His legal team had earlier maintained that the CBI’s chargesheet lacked direct evidence against him. However, with the High Court’s categorical ruling on discrimination in evidence, any further appeal faces an uphill climb.

The Jaggi murder case remains one of Chhattisgarh’s most politically sensitive trials. For now, the family of Ramavatar Jaggi has welcomed the verdict, calling it “justice after 20 years of waiting.” This latest news today underscores how courts are scrutinising selective acquittals in high-profile murder cases. As an India news update, the ruling reinforces the principle that identical evidence must lead to identical outcomes – regardless of the accused’s political background. For readers of any English news portal India, this verdict stands as a landmark on evidentiary fairness in criminal law.