Author: Anvita Dwivedi

The Supreme Court on October 12, 2026, clarified that it has neither approved nor rejected the modified Form 6 declaration introduced by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, explained that its earlier judgment upholding the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the Bihar SIR did not adjudicate upon the validity of the particular modified declaration now under challenge, because that version was not in existence when the judgment was delivered. The clarification came during…

The Supreme Court has reiterated that once the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement is established, a referral court must ordinarily refer the dispute to arbitration rather than undertake an extensive examination of contested questions that fall within the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. In Shubham Equipment Private Limited and Another v. Rothwell Water Company Limited and Others, the Court examined whether disputes arising under a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between an Indian company and a South Korean company should be referred to arbitration in Mumbai, as stipulated in those agreements, or be governed…

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has struck down the State’s 2019 amendment increasing reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment and higher education from 14 per cent to 27 per cent, holding that the enhanced quota was not supported by sufficient empirical material or exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the constitutional framework governing reservations. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf delivered the decision on October 9, 2026, while deciding a large batch of connected petitions, including Ashita Dubey and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. The judgment restores the earlier…

A contempt petition has been filed before the Supreme Court alleging that senior government and transport officials failed to comply with the Court’s October 9 directions concerning the operation of Delhi Metro and railway services ahead of the proposed October 10 demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi has sought contempt action against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Chairperson D. Thara. The petition alleges that station closures and train cancellations continued despite the Court’s direction that public transport should not be completely prohibited and must instead…

The Supreme Court has stayed the trial in criminal defamation complaints filed by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri and his nephew Rajpal Poswal against TV Today Network Limited, the media company associated with Aaj Tak and the India Today group. The proceedings arise from a news broadcast aired in 2011 concerning a gang rape and abduction case, in which the person accused of the crime was described as the brother-in-law of Bidhuri’s nephew. The Supreme Court’s intervention follows the Delhi High Court’s refusal to discharge the media company from the criminal proceedings in November 2025. The stay is an interim procedural…

“Can you return all those who crossed the border in the 1970s?” The Calcutta High Court on Thursday put this pointed question to the State while examining the continued detention of a man suspected of being a Bangladeshi national, bringing into sharp focus the constitutional limits on detention and deportation in cases where nationality itself remains disputed. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya questioned how a person could be kept in custody for nearly two months merely on the basis of an allegation concerning his nationality and emphasised that, before the State takes the irreversible step of deporting a person, it must establish…

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the proposed October 10 protests in Delhi raises a fundamental constitutional question: can the State prevent a potential law-and-order problem by imposing restrictions so extensive that ordinary citizens are deprived of access to essential public transport? The Court’s answer, at least at the interim stage, was clear. Public order may justify regulating movement, but it cannot automatically justify bringing the city’s transport network to a complete halt. The Bench insisted that the authorities reconsider the proposed shutdown of Delhi Metro stations and cancellation of train services, directing that services be permitted to operate in a…

The Supreme Court on October 9 dismissed the Andhra Pradesh government’s challenge to the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment that struck down the State’s decision to provide enhanced reservation for Backward Classes in rural and urban local body elections. A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision, observing that it had adopted a reasonable approach in scrutinising the material relied upon by the State to justify the enhanced quota. The proceedings turned on a fundamental question of constitutional governance: whether the objective of securing adequate political representation for Backward Classes…

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the Madras High Court’s dismissal of a public interest litigation challenging the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker’s decision to drop disqualification proceedings against 21 AIADMK legislators who voted in favour of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s government during a confidence motion, despite an earlier party directive requiring them to oppose it. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana refused to entertain the petition filed by P.V. Selvakumar, observing that the matter had to be examined in the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the…

The Supreme Court on Thursday witnessed a pointed discussion on one of the most difficult questions in criminal jurisprudence: how far should judicial compassion extend when the crime is exceptionally brutal and the possibility of rehabilitation is weighed against the demands of deterrence, public safety and the rights of victims. During the hearing of a remission matter, a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu questioned whether the Supreme Court’s repeated willingness to commute death sentences into life imprisonment, even in grave cases, may at times go too far. Justice Datta observed that the Court would eventually have…