Counting of first-preference votes underway in Jabalpur for the 23-member council; officials caution that preferential voting system could shift final rankings.

Initial ballot scrutiny completed in Jabalpur

The State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh election has entered its crucial next phase, with the official counting of votes currently underway at the council headquarters. The process follows the statewide polling that was successfully conducted on May 12, 2026, to elect 23 members to the apex regulatory body for lawyers in the state.

According to ground-level inputs from election officials, the counting is being executed in structured, multi-tier phases. By the conclusion of the third day of counting, ballots from 27 tehsils had been fully processed.

Early trends place Bhadauria ahead

Preliminary trends from the counting center indicate a highly competitive race among several veteran legal professionals. Senior advocate Rakesh Singh Bhadauria has emerged as the frontrunner in the initial phase, securing the highest number of first-preference votes counted so far.

However, election monitors have explicitly cautioned candidates and observers against treating these early leads as definitive. Given the vast volume of ballots yet to be processed, the current standings remain highly fluid.

High rejection rate raises eyebrows

Chief Election Officer S.K. Palo confirmed that out of the total 3,210 ballots scrutinized by the end of the current round, 3,091 votes were validated. Interestingly, a significant chunk of 119 ballots had to be outright rejected by the returning officers after they were found non-compliant with the strict voting guidelines laid down by the Bar Council.

Top 10 Candidates After Round 1:

┌─────────┬──────────────────────────┬────────────────┐

│ Ranking │ Candidate Name           │ Valid Votes    │

├─────────┼──────────────────────────┬────────────────┤

│ 1       │ Rakesh Singh Bhadauria   │ 216            │

│ 2       │ Shailendra Verma         │ 167            │

│ 3       │ Narendra Kumar Jain      │ 150            │

│ 4       │ R.K. Singh Saini         │ 142            │

│ 5       │ Dinesh Narayan Pathak    │ 141            │

│ 6       │ Manish Tiwari            │ 140            │

│ 7       │ Vijay Kumar Chaudhary    │ 121            │

│ 8       │ Dinesh Kumar Dixit       │ 99             │

│ 9       │ Hitoshi Jai Hardia       │ 94             │

│ 10      │ Khiladi Lal Gangore      │ 92             │

└─────────┴──────────────────────────┴────────────────┘

Complex preferential matrix in play

Sources familiar with the matter noted that the State Bar Council employs a proportional representation system via a single transferable vote mechanism. Because voters mark their preferences numerically, candidates who fall short of the primary quota in the first round can still rally in subsequent rounds.

As the lower-preference votes undergo systematic elimination and redistribution, the middle and lower tiers of the leaderboard are expected to experience heavy volatility before the final 23-member roster crystallizes.

Transparency measures and next steps

In an effort to maintain absolute transparency and eliminate counting-room disputes, the entire verification process is being livestreamed on YouTube for public viewing. Simultaneously, round-by-round statistics are being uploaded directly to the Bar Council’s official portal.

Local authorities have confirmed that the counting hall will remain closed during scheduled public holidays, with operations set to resume on the next working day. The final declaration of the elected council members is expected to take another few days as the elimination rounds progress.

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.

Chhattisgarh HC shifts to virtual hearings for summer vacation to save fuel

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha issues circular introducing video conferencing, employee work-from-home rotation, and car-pooling for judges to curb resource depletion.

In a significant move aimed at environmental conservation and resource optimization, the Chhattisgarh High Court has decided to alter its daily functioning. Prompted by recent guidelines from the Supreme Court, the high court administration has issued a circular transitioning its upcoming summer vacation sessions largely into virtual hearings to save fuel and cut administrative costs.

The directive, issued under the guidance of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, comes as a major relief to legal professionals and litigants facing intense summer heat across the state, eliminating the immediate need for physical presence in the courtroom.

Virtual by default

According to the official circular issued by the high court administration, judicial proceedings during the summer vacation will primarily be conducted through video conferencing. Registry officials confirmed that the decision is designed to minimize vehicular movement and reduce electricity consumption within the sprawling court complex in Bilaspur. However, recognizing infrastructure limitations, the administration has kept a window open for physical appearances. Lawyers who face technical difficulties joining virtually will be permitted to present their cases in person.

Remote work transition

The optimization drive extends beyond the courtroom to court staff and administrative wings. Under the new protocol, employees of the high court as well as subordinate district courts will be transitioned to a partial work-from-home module. To ensure that daily judicial tracking and paperwork do not suffer, a strict 50 percent rotational attendance roster will be implemented. Officials staying back at home are mandated to remain reachable via phones and official communication channels throughout standard working hours.

Shared judicial transits

In an unusual step toward institutional accountability, the high court has proposed a comprehensive vehicle-pooling system. The plan covers judicial officers, registry staff, and ministerial employees across the state's legal framework. More notably, the circular includes an official request advising high court judges to adopt car-pooling measures while commuting to the court, setting a direct example of state-level fuel conservation from the top tier of the judiciary.

Technical setup expedited

Sources familiar with the matter said that the high court registry has already begun upgrading its digital bandwidth to avoid potential server crashes during high-volume virtual sessions. IT teams have been directed to run diagnostic tests on communication links connecting district court hubs with the main registry. The administration emphasized that the swift transition aims to balance institutional responsibility toward the environment without creating backlogs or disrupting the public's access to timely justice.

MP High Court fines lawyer ₹50,000 for suppressing facts to get relief

The Jabalpur bench pulled up the advocate for hiding a previous dismissal order while seeking interim relief from the Indore bench in a teacher recruitment case.

Taking a stern view of professional misconduct, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on an advocate for suppressing crucial facts to obtain a favorable order. The court observed that the counsel deliberately withheld information regarding a previously dismissed petition on the same subject matter to secure interim relief from a different bench.

Justice Vishal Dhagat, presiding over the matter, directed Advocate Dinesh Singh Chauhan to deposit the fine amount immediately with the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee. The court’s intervention came during the hearing of a cluster of petitions related to the primary teacher recruitment process.

Strategic concealment of orders

The matter came to light when the court was hearing arguments via video conferencing. During the proceedings, counsels appearing in related petitions pointed out a significant discrepancy. It was revealed that while the Jabalpur bench had already dismissed a petition on this specific issue on April 6, Advocate Chauhan moved a similar plea before the Indore bench.

By allegedly failing to mention the Jabalpur dismissal, the counsel managed to obtain an interim stay from the Indore bench on April 27. The court noted that such "forum shopping" or suppression of prior rulings undermines the judicial process and wastes the court's time.

Arguments dismissed by bench

Responding to the court’s observation, Advocate Dinesh Singh Chauhan argued that he was not the arguing counsel in the specific petitions that were dismissed earlier. He contended that since he wasn't the 'parokar' (advocate on record) for those dismissed cases, he could not be held responsible for "hiding" facts that were not part of his direct knowledge.

However, the court was not convinced. Justice Dhagat remarked that Chauhan had been appearing in several linked petitions involving the same recruitment issue through video conferencing. The bench noted that it was virtually impossible for a counsel deeply involved in the litigation cluster to be unaware of a major ruling passed just weeks prior.

Irregularities in appearance

The court also highlighted procedural lapses, noting that the advocate had been appearing in the matter without formally filing a ‘Vakalatnama’ (power of attorney) in certain instances. This lack of formal documentation, combined with the failure to disclose the April 6 order, was viewed as an attempt to bypass standard judicial transparency.

"The conduct of the counsel in not disclosing the earlier order passed by this court is unacceptable," the bench noted, emphasizing that advocates, as officers of the court, have a primary duty toward the truth.

Impact on recruitment litigation

The primary teacher recruitment in Madhya Pradesh has seen a wave of litigation over the past year. Legal experts suggest that this latest crackdown by the Jabalpur bench serves as a warning to litigants and lawyers who attempt to get conflicting orders from different benches (Jabalpur, Indore, and Gwalior) by withholding case histories.

The fine of ₹50,000 is intended to act as a deterrent. The High Court has cleared that any attempt to mislead the registry or the bench by suppressing previous dismissals will be met with similar financial penalties and potential disciplinary action.

What lies ahead

The court has now consolidated the records to ensure that the primary teacher recruitment cases are heard on merit without further procedural manipulation. The Secretary of the Legal Services Committee is expected to submit a report once the fine is deposited. For the petitioner's side, the interim relief obtained from the Indore bench now stands under a cloud of scrutiny following these observations by the principal bench.

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.

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.

Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a stern stand against the alleged expulsion of disabled students from private schools in Jabalpur. The court made it clear that any form of discrimination against children is unacceptable and violates fundamental rights.

The division bench led by Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva ordered an immediate stay on the removal of such students and sought a detailed report from the District Education Officer (DEO).

Schools Under Scanner

The case involves allegations against Wisdom Valley School and GD Goenka School in Jabalpur. According to the petition, these institutions had reportedly asked special needs students to leave, triggering public concern.

Following complaints, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed, prompting judicial intervention. The court treated the matter with urgency, considering its wider implications for inclusive education.

Hearing and Orders

During Monday’s hearing, the court directed authorities to ensure that no disabled child is denied education. The DEO has been instructed to submit a comprehensive report covering all schools in Jabalpur that enrol children with disabilities.

The next hearing has been scheduled for April 29, where the court is expected to review compliance and further action.

Legal Framework Ignored

The petition highlighted gaps in the implementation of existing laws. Despite clear provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Right to Education Act, 2009, several schools have allegedly failed to comply.

These laws mandate inclusive education and require schools to provide necessary support, including trained special educators for differently-abled students.

Lack of Special Educators

One of the key concerns raised was the absence of “special educators” in schools. As per the petitioner, many institutions continue to operate without trained professionals equipped to handle children with special needs.

Officials indicated that this gap reflects weak enforcement rather than a lack of policy. The court has now sought clarity on how many schools are complying with these norms.

Rights Violation Highlighted

Advocate Shivendra Pandey, representing the petitioner, argued that forcing disabled students out of schools amounts to a direct violation of their fundamental rights.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and intervened promptly, signalling zero tolerance towards discriminatory practices in the education system.

Impact on Education

This Public Interest Story has broader implications for inclusive education across the state. The High Court’s intervention is expected to put pressure on private institutions to adhere strictly to legal mandates.

Education experts believe the order could strengthen enforcement mechanisms and improve accountability among school administrations. It also sends a strong message that equal access to education cannot be compromised.

What Lies Ahead

With the next hearing scheduled later this month, authorities are expected to compile detailed data on disabled students and facilities available in schools. The report will likely influence future directions in policy enforcement.

The controversy surrounding the marriage of Monalisa Bhosle, who gained attention during the Maha Kumbh, has taken a serious legal turn. An investigation by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) has revealed that Monalisa was a minor at the time of her marriage. Following this, a case has been registered against her husband, Furman Khan from Baghpat, under the POCSO Act, putting him at risk of arrest.

According to the commission’s findings, the marriage took place on March 11, 2026, in Kerala. However, official records from Maheshwar in Madhya Pradesh indicate that Monalisa’s date of birth is December 30, 2009. Based on this, she was approximately 16 years and 2 months old at the time of the marriage, contradicting earlier claims of her being an adult.

The investigation team, led by NCST Chairman Antar Singh Arya, examined documents across Kerala and Madhya Pradesh. A key discrepancy emerged between the birth certificate submitted during marriage registration in Kerala and the records maintained at a local health center in Maheshwar. The panel termed this inconsistency a serious irregularity.

Acting on the commission’s recommendations, an FIR has been registered at Maheshwar police station against Furman Khan under multiple charges, including abduction. Police officials have launched a detailed probe into the case, including possible involvement of a larger network.

The case has also sparked political and social debate. Advocate Pratham Dwivedi, who filed the complaint, has alleged a “Love Jihad” angle and questioned the role of certain political figures and organizations in facilitating the marriage. However, these claims have not yet been officially verified.

Meanwhile, film director Sanoj Mishra, who was earlier accused by Monalisa, has called the revelations a vindication of his stance. He stated that his intention was only to bring out the truth.

Authorities in both Kerala and Madhya Pradesh are continuing their investigation, and further developments are expected. The case has brought attention to serious concerns such as child marriage, document manipulation, and potential legal violations.

Sabarimala row: SC asserts judicial review over religious practices

In the ongoing Sabarimala row, the Supreme Court and Centre differ on courts’ role in assessing religious practices and alleged discrimination

Hearing Continues in SC

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued hearing the long-standing Sabarimala row, focusing on whether courts can examine religious practices and label them as superstition. The proceedings, before a nine-judge Constitution bench, saw sharp exchanges between the Centre and the judiciary on the scope of judicial review.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that secular courts lack the expertise to determine what constitutes superstition in matters of faith. However, the bench maintained that constitutional courts retain the authority to examine such practices, especially where fundamental rights are involved.

Govt vs Court Stand

Presenting the Centre’s position, Mehta said religious practices vary widely across India’s diverse communities and should not be judged by courts using a uniform standard. He cautioned that labelling practices as superstition could lead to unintended consequences in a plural society.

The bench, however, pushed back. Justice Amanullah observed that courts have the power of judicial review and cannot be excluded entirely from examining religious practices. “The final determination cannot rest solely with the legislature,” the court noted during the exchange.

Debate on Discrimination

A key issue in the Sabarimala row remains alleged discrimination against women. The bench repeatedly underlined that constitutional guarantees of equality cannot be ignored.

Justice B. V. Nagarathna questioned whether denying entry to women on the basis of menstruation could be equated with untouchability, which is abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution.

The government countered that the Sabarimala tradition cannot be equated with caste-based untouchability and argued that not all religious restrictions violate fundamental rights.

Essential Religious Practice

The hearing also revisited the doctrine of “Essential Religious Practice” (ERP), which determines whether a practice qualifies for constitutional protection.

Mehta argued that courts should refrain from deciding what is essential to a religion, as this would require interpreting scriptures and beliefs—tasks beyond judicial competence.

The bench acknowledged the complexity but indicated that courts may still examine practices if they conflict with public order, morality, or health.

Background of Case

The Sabarimala row dates back decades, centred on the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, where women aged 10 to 50 were traditionally barred from entry.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in a 4:1 majority verdict, allowed entry of women of all ages, calling the ban unconstitutional. The ruling triggered widespread protests across Kerala.

Subsequently, over 50 review petitions were filed, leading to the current hearings before a larger bench examining broader constitutional questions.

Wider Constitutional Questions

The present proceedings extend beyond Sabarimala and include issues such as women’s entry into mosques, Parsi fire temples, and practices in other religions.

The bench is examining how Articles 25 and 26—guaranteeing religious freedom—interact with Articles 14, 15, and 17, which ensure equality and prohibit discrimination.

Judges indicated that while religious autonomy is protected, it cannot override constitutional morality in cases of clear discrimination.

What Lies Ahead

The hearings are scheduled to continue until April 22, with different sets of petitioners presenting arguments in phases. A final ruling is expected to clarify the balance between religious freedom and fundamental rights.

The outcome of the Sabarimala row is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases across India, shaping how courts interpret faith-based practices in the context of constitutional values.

As the debate unfolds, the case remains a significant public interest story and a key India News Update, closely tracked across legal and policy circles.

A men's rights group in Indore plans a symbolic 'Putra Hanta' Holika Dahan featuring the faces of 11 women accused of child murder, reigniting discussions about vigilante justice and legal due process.

In a controversial pre-Holi development, a men's rights organization in Indore has announced a symbolic 'Putra hanta' (son-killer) Holika Dahan scheduled for March 2, featuring the effigies of 11 women accused in high-profile child murder cases across India . The event, planned by the Indore-based group Paurush, places Bengaluru AI CEO Suchana Seth at the center of the effigy, alongside ten other accused mothers from various states .

The 'Putra Hanta' Concept: Mythological Twist with Modern Accusations

The organization plans to burn the effigy at 4 PM on March 2 at the Mahalakshmi Nagar Mela Ground. Drawing from the mythological story of Hiranyakashipu and Holika, where the demon king's sister perished in fire while trying to kill devotee Prahlad, this symbolic version reverses the narrative to target accused mothers .

According to Paurush president Advocate Ashok Dashora, the effigy will prominently feature Suchana Seth's face at the center. Seth, a Bengaluru-based AI startup CEO, is currently on trial for the alleged murder of her four-year-old son in Goa in January 2024 .

"The central face in the effigy will be that of Suchana Seth," Dashora stated, alleging that she had refused to allow her son to meet his father despite court directions . Seth's estranged husband, Venkataraman, is an Indonesian national of Indian origin.

The Horrific Cases Behind the Effigy

The organization has compiled a list of 11 accused women from across India, with two already sentenced to death by lower courts while others face ongoing trials .

The accused women featured include:

- Suchana Seth (Bengaluru/Goa): Accused of killing her four-year-old son in a Goa hotel, allegedly dismembering the body and packing remains in a suitcase 

- Seema, Muskan, Priyanka, Durgavati: From Uttar Pradesh in various child murder cases

- Bharti and Sharanya: From Tamil Nadu; notably, Sharanya was recently convicted by a Kerala court for throwing her one-and-a-half-year-old child into the sea 

- Sanju: From Rajasthan

- Jyoti Rathore: From Gwalior

- Poonam: From Haryana

- Sunita Sharma: From Gujarat

In Seth's case, police allege she gave her son an overdose of cough syrup and smothered him before attempting to transport the body in a trolley bag from Goa to Bengaluru . The case, which completed two years in January 2026, has seen slow trial progress with only two witnesses examined so far .

Organization's Rationale: Social Awareness or Sensationalism?

Milind Agarwal, a member of Paurush, defended the event as an attempt to expose "harmful social attitudes" and draw attention to cases involving accused mothers .

"We are doing this for social awakening and to highlight family issues," Agarwal said, urging families affected by legal disputes, particularly those involving child custody and visitation, to participate in the programme .

The organization also used the platform to criticize existing child custody laws, claiming that some fathers receive only three hours per month to meet their children, with several unable to see their children for five to seven years due to legal disputes .

Paurush, active in Indore since 2011 and formally registered in 2018, claims to provide counseling and free legal assistance to families affected by dowry cases, domestic violence disputes, maintenance claims, and child custody matters .

Legal Context: High Court Precedent Raises Questions

This is not the organization's first attempt at such symbolic burning. During Dussehra last year, Paurush had proposed burning the effigy of Sonam Raghuwanshi, a woman accused of murder. However, Raghuwanshi's mother approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which stayed the event .

The High Court had observed that such acts are "not acceptable in a democratic society" and emphasized the importance of due process and legal principles, noting that actions should not be allowed until guilt is established by a court of law .

This legal precedent raises questions about the proposed 'Putra hanta' Holika, particularly since several of the women featured, including Suchana Seth, are still undergoing trial and have not been finally convicted .

The Broader Debate: Vigilante Justice vs. Expression

The event has drawn attention ahead of Holi celebrations, with the sensitive theme likely to attract both support and criticism. While the organization frames it as a social awareness initiative, critics may view it as undermining the presumption of innocence—a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence.

Legal experts point out that in Seth's case, she has denied murder, claiming the child "died suddenly" and blaming circumstances surrounding her estranged marriage . The trial continues, with key witnesses including the investigating officer and autopsy doctor yet to testify .

What Happens Next?

As March 2 approaches, all eyes are on whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court's previous observations will impact this year's event or if the 'Putra hanta' Holika will proceed as planned. The organization remains firm in its commitment, having already prepared the effigy and decorated the venue at Mahalakshmi Nagar Mela Ground .

For now, Indore awaits a Holika Dahan that promises to be anything but traditional—one that places accused mothers, rather than mythological demons, at the center of the fire.