Editorji is a popular short video news and information platform based in India. It was founded in 2018 by Vikram Chandra, one of India’s leading journalists, and has risen to prominence in the digital news space in a relatively short span of time. The platform is primarily designed for mobile devices, with applications available for Android and iOS.

ABOUT US:

about us editorji

Latest Video News: Editorji provides the latest news video headlines, latest videos clip from India and the World. Get all breaking news videos on Entertainment, Business, Coronavirus, Elections, Politics and more.

Latest Video News, Breaking News, Bollywood, Political, Sports, Business News | Editorji

+91 11 4035 6666 / info@editorji.com
3rd floor, Plot B, Khasara no 360, Sultanpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030
<a title="mail to us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Send Feedback</a>
<a title="Contact Us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Contact Us</a>

REACH US

Contact for any questions, suggestions, comments, feedback or advertisement on Editorji.com, we are always looking forward to hearing from you.

Contact Us for Feedback, Suggestions and Advertising 

Editorji content is better experienced in our app.

The Supreme Court has permitted the sale and use of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR for Diwali from October 18 to 21, under strict monitoring and time restrictions, balancing tradition with environmental concerns.

Supreme Court Allows Green Crackers in Delhi-NCR for Diwali

Supreme Court Allows Delhi-NCR Green Crackers

The Supreme Court has permitted the sale and use of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR for Diwali from October 18 to 21, under strict monitoring and time restrictions, balancing tradition with environmental concerns.

In a significant relaxation ahead of Diwali, the Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted the sale and bursting of green firecrackers in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) during the festival with certain conditions.
The court made it clear that use of green crackers will be confined to specific hours on the day before Diwali and on the festival day itself. However, the sale of green crackers will permitted from October 18 to 21.
Allowing the joint request of the Centre and Delhi government, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran relaxed the ban on green firecrackers.
&ldquo;We have to take a balanced approach, permitting it in moderation while not compromising with the environment,&rdquo; the CJI said.
"Sale of green crackers will be permitted from October 18 to October 21. Police authority to constitute patrolling teams to keep an eye that only permitted products with QR codes are to be sold. Violation notice to be attached for persons who violate the rules. Use of firecrackers shall be confined to 6 AM to 7 AM and 8 PM to 10 PM on the day before Diwali and on Diwali day," the CJI said while reading the order.
The bench also made it clear that no sale of firecrackers through e-commerce platforms will be permitted.
The bench said a total ban on firecrackers in the past had led to the smuggling of high-emission crackers and it caused even greater environmental harm.
&ldquo;Conventional firecrackers are smuggled, which cause more damage. We have to take a balanced approach,&rdquo; the CJI said while pronouncing the order.
It took note of data showing that despite earlier bans, the air quality index (AQI) in NCR districts did not show significant improvement, except during the COVID-19 lockdown period when overall industrial and vehicular activity was minimal.
The order referred to its landmark judgment in Arjun Gopal v. Union of India case and said that had led to the introduction of green crackers in 2018.
These eco-friendly firecrackers, developed with the assistance of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), reportedly reduce emissions of particulate matter and harmful gases by up to 30 per cent, the bench said.
&ldquo;Over the past six years, green crackers have substantially reduced emissions. NEERI has played a crucial role in this progress,&rdquo; the order said.
It said from October 14, 2024, to January 1, 2025, there was a complete ban on the manufacture of all firecrackers, including green ones.
It asked the Central Pollution Control Boards and state PCBs of NCR to monitor the pollution level during Diwali and file reports before it.
The order said patrolling teams will be conducting regular checks on cracker manufacturers and their QR codes have to be uploaded on the websites.
No crackers from outside Delhi-NCR can be sold here and if found, the licences of sellers will be suspended, it added.
The detailed order is awaited.
On October 10, the top court had reserved its orders on the pleas seeking permission to manufacture and sell green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the National Capital Region states and the Centre, had urged the apex court to permit bursting of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR on occasions like Diwali, Guru Purab and Christmas without any restrictions on the timing.
While reserving the order, the bench had said a complete ban on bursting of fire crackers in Delhi-NCR is "neither practical nor ideal" as such restrictions were often violated and balancing of equities is needed.
Vehement submissions were made seeking lifting of the blanket ban by Mehta, appearing for the Centre and NCR states. He also said that the children should be allowed to burst crackers on Diwali and other festivals without any time restrictions.
Questioning the blanket ban which has been in place since 2018 in Delhi-NCR, the bench asked the counsel for the authorities and others as to whether the ban has resulted in any tangible difference or led to decrease in the AQI, an indicator of pollution level.
"Has the air quality index improved or worsened since 2018? Was the pollution much less then compared to now," the CJI asked.
The solicitor general replied that according to data of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), pollution levels had remained "more or less the same", except during the COVID-19 lockdown period when industrial and vehicular activity was halted.
"Let the children celebrate for two days. It is only for festivals like Diwali, Gurpurab, and Christmas," the solicitor general urged, adding that "the child inside me is persuading the child in your Lordships and for a few days there should not be any time restrictions." The top court on September 26 permitted certified manufacturers to produce 'green' crackers with a condition that they will not sell them in prohibited Delhi-NCR without its approval.
It asked the Centre to take a fresh look at the absolute ban on the manufacture of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR.
A total of 16 districts in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana fall under the NCR along with Delhi.

The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking investigation and reforms over alleged toxic cough syrup deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, citing existing state mechanisms.

Cough syrup deaths: SC rejects PIL seeking CBI probe, nationwide drug safety review

The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking investigation and reforms over alleged toxic cough syrup deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, citing existing state mechanisms.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a PIL seeking an inquiry and systemic reform in drug safety mechanisms in the wake of deaths of children in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan allegedly due to consumption of toxic cough syrups.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran dismissed the PIL filed by lawyer Vishal Tiwari after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to it.
The top law officer said the petitioner reads the newspaper and rushes to the court.
The bench, which was initially of the view that the notice should be issued, later dismissed it.
Mehta said he was not appearing for any state at the moment but the seriousness with which states like Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh are taking actions cannot be undermined.
Moreover, there are proper law enforcement mechanisms in states, he added.
The bench asked Tiwari as to how many PILs he has filed so far in the top court and on being told that he has moved eight to 10 such pleas so far, the bench dismissed the instant petition.
"Dismissed," the CJI said.

The Supreme Court will hear a PIL on October 10 seeking a court-monitored probe and systemic reforms after child deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan allegedly caused by toxic cough syrups.

Cough syrup deaths: SC agrees to hear PIL seeking CBI Probe, nationwide drug safety review

The Supreme Court will hear a PIL on October 10 seeking a court-monitored probe and systemic reforms after child deaths in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan allegedly caused by toxic cough syrups.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear on Friday a PIL seeking inquiry and systemic reform in drug safety mechanisms in the wake of deaths of children in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan allegedly due to consumption of toxic cough syrups.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran took note of the submissions of PIL petitioner and lawyer Vishal Tiwari that the plea needed an urgent hearing.
The bench agreed to hear the plea on October 10.
The plea seeks a court-monitored probe into the incidents and urges the constitution of a National Judicial Commission or Expert Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The PIL requests that all pending FIRs and investigations concerning the deaths of children caused by toxic cough syrups across states be transferred to the CBI.
It seeks a probe under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge to ensure fairness and uniformity.
The petition contends that separate state-level investigations have led to fragmented accountability, enabling repeated lapses that allow hazardous formulations to reach the market.
The petition comes amid reports from Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, where several children died allegedly after consuming a particular kind of cough syrup.
The plea seeks court's direction to the central government to identify the regulatory failures that allowed substandard medicines to reach the market.
It also urged the court to mandate toxicological testing of all suspect products through NABL-accredited laboratories before any further sale or export is permitted.&nbsp;

Supreme Court directs Election Commission to share details of 3.66 lakh excluded voters from Bihar’s final electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision exercise.

SC directs EC to furnish details of 3.66 lakh excluded voters from final Bihar electoral roll

Supreme Court directs Election Commission to share details of 3.66 lakh excluded voters from Bihar&rsquo;s final electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision exercise.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Election Commission to provide it with the details of 3.66 lakh excluded voters from the final electoral roll prepared after Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
The Election Commission informed the apex court that most of the names added are of new voters and that no complaint or appeal has been filed till now by any excluded voter.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the poll panel will submit whatever information it gets on excluded voters by Thursday (October 9), when it will conduct further hearing on the pleas challenging the SIR exercise.
The top court said everyone has the draft electoral roll and the final list has also been published on September 30, so the required data can be furnished through a comparative analysis.
Justice Bagchi told senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel, that court orders have resulted in more transparency and access to the electoral process.
The bench said that since it appears from the number of electors in the final list that there is an appreciation of numbers from the draft rolls, therefore, to avoid any confusion, the identity of add-ons should be disclosed.
"You'd agree with us that the degree of transparency and access has improved in the electoral process. It appears from the data that there was a 65 lakh deletion in the draft list which you published, and we said whoever is dead or moved is alright, but if you are deleting someone, please follow Rule 21 and the SOP.
"We also said that whoever is deleted, please put up their data in your electoral offices. Now the final list appears to be an appreciation of numbers and there is confusion in the general democratic process -- what is the identity of the add-ons, are they of deleted names or new names," Justice Bagchi said.
Dwivedi replied that most additions of names are of new voters and there were a few old voters, whose names were added after the draft roll was published.
"No complaint or appeal filed till now by any excluded voters," Dwivedi said.
On September 30, the EC, while publishing the final electoral list of the poll-bound Bihar, said that the total number of electors has come down by nearly 47 lakh to 7.42 crore in the final electoral roll from 7.89 crore before the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list carried out by the Election Commission.
The final figure has, however, increased by 17.87 lakh from 7.24 crore electors named in the draft list issued on August 1, which had removed 65 lakh voters from the original list on various accounts, including deaths, migration and duplication of voters.
While 21.53 lakh new electors have been added to the draft list, 3.66 lakh names have been removed, resulting in a net increase of 17.87 lakh.
On October 6, announcing the poll schedule, the EC said elections will be held in 121 seats of the 243-member Assembly on November 6, while the remaining 122 constituencies will go to polls on November 11. The counting of votes will be held on November 14.&nbsp;

A lawyer tried to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during Supreme Court proceedings on Monday. Security intervened immediately, and an inquiry into the incident has been initiated.

Lawyer tries to hurl shoe towards CJI Gavai in courtroom

A lawyer tried to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during Supreme Court proceedings on Monday. Security intervened immediately, and an inquiry into the incident has been initiated.

In a shocking breach of decorum, a 71-year-old lawyer allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe towards Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai during court proceedings on Monday.
"Don't get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me," the CJI, who remained unfazed during the incident, told lawyers and continued hearing the mentioning of cases.
According to lawyers, the incident occurred when a bench comprising the CJI and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the mentioning of cases by lawyers.
The lawyer, who was later identified as Rakesh Kishor (71), a resident of Mayur Vihar here, approached the dais, removed his shoe and tried to throw it towards the judges.
Alert security personnel present inside the courtroom immediately intervened and prevented the attack.
The lawyer was swiftly escorted out of the court premises.
As he was being taken away, the lawyer was heard shouting, "Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge" (will not tolerate insults to Sanatan Dharma).
According to sources, police are coordinating with the registrar general of the Supreme Court and conducting further investigation into the matter. Details about the exact motive behind the lawyer's act are awaited, police sources said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the act as "unfortunate and condemnable", calling it a result of misinformation and an attempt at cheap publicity.
"Today's incident in the chief justice's court is unfortunate and deserves condemnation. This is the result of misinformation in social media. It is really heartening that the chief justice of India reacted with magnanimity.... I only hope that this magnanimity is not treated by others as the weakness of the institution," the top law officer said.
"I have personally seen the chief justice visiting religious places of all religions with full reverence. The chief justice has also clarified this position. It is not understood what prompted one miscreant to do what he did today. It appears to be an act of some attention seeker wanting cheap publicity," Mehta added.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising termed the episode "an attack on the institution as a whole".
"I am not an eyewitness to the incident. What I know, I know from what the press has reported. It calls for investigation. I consider it to be an attack on the institution as a whole, not just the chief justice," she said.
"I do consider it to be a casteist remark against the chief justice.... It requires a legal response from the Supreme Court of India," Jaising added.
The incident could be linked to the lawyer's unhappiness over the CJI's remarks during a hearing last month concerning the restoration of a Vishnu idol in Khajuraho.
A bench headed by the CJI had dismissed the plea seeking directions to reconstruct and reinstall a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple, part of the UNESCO World Heritage Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh.
Terming the plea a "publicity interest litigation", the CJI had said, "This is purely publicity interest litigation.... Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation." Taking note of the online criticism of his comments, the CJI later said he respects "all religions".
"Someone told me the other day that the comments I made have been portrayed in social media.... I respect all religions," he said on September 18.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and Ladakh UT on a plea by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife challenging his detention under the National Security Act.

SC Seeks Govt Response on Sonam Wangchuk's NSA Detention

SC Seeks Govt Reply on Wangchuk's NSA Detention

The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and Ladakh UT on a plea by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk&rsquo;s wife challenging his detention under the National Security Act.

The Supreme Court on Monday sought response from the Centre and Union Territory of Ladakh on a plea filed by Sonam Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo challenging the climate activist's detention under the National Security Act, and seeking his immediate release.
However, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria refused to pass any order on providing grounds of detention to Wangchuk's wife and posted the matter for hearing on October 14.
Wangchuk was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) on September 26, two days after protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and 90 injured in the Union territory.
Wangchuk is lodged in Jodhpur jail in Rajasthan.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wangchuk's wife, sought directions from the apex court that the grounds of detention should be served on her.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the grounds of detention have been served on the detenue (Wangchuk).
Mehta stated that there is no legal requirement for the grounds of detention to be given to the wife.
Sibal pressed for an interim order for the supply of grounds, saying detention order cannot be challenged without a copy.
Justice Kumar then said, "At this stage, we will not say anything." The bench, however, noted the submission of the Solicitor General that he would examine feasibility of supply of grounds of detention.
Mehta stated that the petitioner was trying to create a "hype" and an "emotive issue" that Wangchuk was denied medical relief and meetings with his wife.
In her plea filed through senior lawyer Vivek Tankha and lawyer Sarvam Ritam Khare, Angmo has also questioned the decision to invoke the NSA against Wangchuk, which allows detention without trial for up to 12 months.
Filing the habeas corpus (bring the person) writ, the spouse of the detained activist sought urgent listing of the plea and a direction to the Ladakh administration to "produce Sonam Wangchuk before this court forthwith".
It also sought immediate access to the detenue, and quashing of the preventive detention order.
The plea, which named the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ladakh UT administration, deputy commissioner of Leh, and the Jodhpur jail superintendent as parties, also sought a direction to them to "allow immediate access of the petitioner to her husband, both telephonic and in person".
The plea alleged that Wangchuk's detention was "illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional", violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
"Wangchuk, who has been an internationally acclaimed innovator, environmentalist, and social reformer, has always espoused Gandhian and peaceful methods to highlight the ecological and democratic concerns of Ladakh," it said.
On September 26, Wangchuk was detained by the deputy commissioner of Leh under Section 3(2) of the NSA, as he was recovering from a prolonged fast to highlight Ladakh's demand for constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule.
He was swiftly shifted to the Central Jail in Jodhpur without being provided medicines, personal belongings, or access to his family and counsel, the plea said.
No grounds of detention have been furnished till date, either to Wangchuk or to his family, the petition submitted.
His wife alleged that she has been kept under virtual house arrest in Leh, while students and staff of the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, Ladakh (HIAL), founded by Wangchuk, are facing harassment, intimidation, and intrusive investigations.
"The arbitrary transfer of Wangchuk to Jodhpur, the harassment of students and staff of HIAL, the virtual house arrest of the petitioner herself, and the false propaganda linking Wangchuk to foreign entities clearly demonstrate mala fide state action intended to suppress democratic dissent and peaceful environmental activism," the plea submitted.
Wangchuk's detention has also inflicted severe mental pain and anguish on the people of Ladakh, who revere him as their leader, it stated.
"A recent tragic incident has been reported where a member of the Ladakh Buddhist Association committed suicide, allegedly depressed after his (Wangchuk's) detention, underscoring the devastating psychological impact on the community," it said.
"Direct respondents to ensure that Sonam Wangchuk is provided with his medicines, clothes, food and other basic necessities forthwith," the plea said.
It also sought a direction to the authorities to place before the top court "the order of detention along with grounds of detention and all records pertaining thereto".
It sought a direction to the respondents to produce a medical report of Wangchuk, after immediate doctor consultation, before the court.
"Stop immediate harassment of HIAL and its members/students who have done no harm and are tirelessly working for the benefit of the ecology," the plea said.

The Congress welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim order staying contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, calling it a win for constitutional values and minority rights.

Congress hails SC order staying key provisions of Waqf (Amendment) Act as victory for minority rights

The Congress welcomed the Supreme Court&rsquo;s interim order staying contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, calling it a win for constitutional values and minority rights.

The Congress on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court order putting on hold several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act as a win for the constitutional values of justice, equality and fraternity, asserting that it goes a long way towards undoing the "mischievous intentions" underlying the original statute.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said the Supreme Court's interim order in the matter had reaffirmed its resolve to protect the rights of minorities -- a cause for which the Opposition stood united against the Modi government.
"The BJP had sought to bulldoze a divisive law, designed solely to inflame communal passions and reopen issues that India had long settled. The Congress party stands firm in defending the rights of every citizen, without fear or favour, as guaranteed by our Constitution," Kharge said on X, alleging that the BJP, in contrast, thrives on dividing society for narrow electoral gains.
Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said the Supreme Court order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 represents a substantial victory not just for the parties that opposed this arbitrary law in Parliament but all those members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee who submitted detailed dissent notes which were then ignored but now stand vindicated.
"The Order is an important one because it goes a long way towards undoing the mischievous intentions underlying the original statute," Ramesh said on X.
Counsels for the opposition parties had argued that the law would result in the creation of a structure where anyone and everyone could challenge the status of the property before the Collector, and the status of the property would be in limbo while in such litigation, he said.
Additionally, only a 'Muslim' practising for five years could donate to a waqf, Ramesh said.
"The intention behind these sections was always apparent -- to keep the voter base inflamed and create an administrative structure to indulge those seeking to foment religious disputes," he said.
"With this order, the Supreme Court has -- stayed the powers of the Collector; protected existing waqf properties from dubious challenges and; stayed the provision requiring proof of being a Muslim for five years until such times as rules are framed," he said.
"We welcome this order as a win for the constitutional values of justice, equality, and fraternity," Ramesh added.
Syed Naseer Hussain, Congress general secretary and a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that examined the Waqf law, thanked the Supreme Court for its interim order.
"The Hon'ble Bench has reaffirmed the constitutional safeguards that protect minority rights and struck a balance between reform and representation. From the very beginning, I on behalf of the Congress party had cautioned the government repeatedly against including the three clauses that have been stayed today," he said.
"I had pointed out that giving the Collector unbridled powers to entertain challenges, making someone prove they are a Muslim for 5 years (as a precondition to declaring their own property as waqf), and skewing representation on the Waqf Board were wrong and constitutionally unsustainable. They undermined the autonomy of the Waqf Board and reduced the rights of the community, who are at the end of the day Indian citizens with the same constitutional and fundamental rights as anyone else," he said.
They also left the waqf properties vulnerable to constant challenge by mischievous elements, Hussain said.
"Today's ruling vindicates our stand that any reform must be transparent, consultative, and faithful to the Constitution of India," the Congress leader said.
The Congress party remains committed to protecting the rights of minorities, upholding secular values and ensuring that community institutions like the waqf are managed with fairness, accountability and respect for constitutional principles, he said.
"Keeping in mind this is an interim order, we will continue our efforts to persuade the learned Bench of our arguments on the remaining clauses under challenge," Hussain said.
Congress' media and publicity department head Pawan Khera accused the government of making laws without any discussion and said the Supreme Court has to intervene to give relief.
"This is not happening for the first time, in the last 10-11 years, many such cases have come up where relief was given due to the judiciary. Any government, elected government, elected by the votes of the people, when makes a law without any discussion, without consultation, then this happens," he said.
The Supreme Court put on hold several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the clause that only those practising Islam for the last five years can dedicate a property as waqf, but refused to stay the entire law.
"We have held that presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of a statute and intervention (can be done) only in the rarest of rare cases," a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said in its interim order on the intensely debated issue.
The apex court also pressed pause on the powers given to a Collector to adjudicate the status of waqf properties and ruled on the contentious issue of non-Muslim participation in Waqf Boards, directing that the Central Waqf Council should not have more than four non-Muslim members out of 20, and State Waqf Boards not more than three of 11.

The Supreme Court-appointed SIT has cleared Vantara, the Jamnagar-based zoological rescue and rehabilitation centre, after finding compliance with regulatory measures.

SC appointed SIT gives clean chit to Vantara

The Supreme Court-appointed SIT has cleared Vantara, the Jamnagar-based zoological rescue and rehabilitation centre, after finding compliance with regulatory measures.

The Supreme Court-appointed SIT probing the affairs of Vantara has given a clean chit to the zoological rescue and rehabilitation centre in Gujarat's Jamnagar.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale took the report on record and noted that authorities have expressed satisfaction on the issue of compliance and regulatory measures in Vantara.
The report was submitted on Friday and the top court perused it on Monday.
The apex court said it will pass a detailed order during the day after going through the report.
The top court constituted the SIT on August 25 to conduct a fact-finding inquiry against Vantara, in view of allegations of non-compliance with laws and acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants.
The top court constituted the four-member SIT headed by a former apex court judge while hearing two PILs alleging irregularities against Vantara on the basis of reports in the media and social media and diverse complaints from NGOs and wildlife organisations.
On August 14, the top court described as "completely vague" the plea filed by petitioner C R Jaya Sukin seeking to get a monitoring committee formed to return the captive elephants in Vantara to their owners.

The Supreme Court declined to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, citing a presumption of constitutionality, but suspended provisions restricting waqf creation to practising Muslims of five years and government officers deciding property disputes.

Supreme Court refuses to stay entire waqf law, stalls certain provisions

The Supreme Court declined to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, citing a presumption of constitutionality, but suspended provisions restricting waqf creation to practising Muslims of five years and government officers deciding property disputes.

The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the clause that only those practising Islam for the last five years can dedicate a property as Waqf, but refused to stay the entire law.
&ldquo;We have held that presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of a statute and intervention (can be done) only in the rarest of rare cases,&rdquo; a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said in its interim order on the intensely debated issue.
The apex court also pressed pause on the powers given to a collector to adjudicate the status of waqf properties and ruled on the contentious issue of non-Muslim participation in Waqf Boards, directing that the Central Waqf Council should not have more than four non-Muslim members out of 20, and State Waqf Boards not more than three of 11.
The CJI said the bench has considered the &ldquo;prima facie challenge&rdquo; to each section in the new law and found that &ldquo;no case was made out to stay entire provisions of the statute".
"However some sections need some protection,&rdquo; he said.
The bench made clear that its directions were prima facie and interim in nature and they would not prevent the petitioners or the government from advancing full arguments on the constitutional validity of the law at the stage of final hearing.
The detailed judgement is awaited.
CJI Gavai then referred to the provisions which have been interfered with or stayed by the interim order.
&ldquo;The requirement that a person has to be a practicing Muslim for the last five years before he can dedicate a property as waqf (Section 3(r)) has been stayed until the state governments rules are framed for examining whether a person is a practicing Muslim or not. Without any such rule/ mechanism, the provision will lead to an arbitrary exercise of power,&rdquo; the order said.
One of the most significant interventions came in relation to Section 3C, which had vested powers in designated government officers to determine the status of Waqf properties.
The bench stayed a proviso to Section 3C(2) of the law, which said a property would not be deemed Waqf until a government officer&rsquo;s report confirmed no encroachment.
It also stayed the operation of section 3C(3), which authorised the officer to declare a property as government land and alter revenue records.
The order stalled Section 3C(4), which required the state government to direct the Waqf Board to correct its records on the basis of the officer&rsquo;s findings.
&ldquo;Permitting the collector to determine the rights is against the separation of powers; the executive cannot be permitted to determine the rights of citizens,&rdquo; it said.
The bench clarified that until the title to a property is finally adjudicated under Section 83 by the Waqf Tribunal, and subject to appeal before the High Court, neither the possession of the Waqf nor its records would be disturbed. However, during the pendency of inquiry, no third-party rights could be created in such properties, it said.
On the non-Muslim participation in Waqf Boards, the bench declined to stay the provisions but imposed limitations.
While not striking down Section 23, which deals with the appointment of chief executive officers (CEOs), the bench said, &ldquo;As far as possible, efforts should be made to appoint the CEO, who is also the ex-officio secretary of the board, from the Muslim community.&rdquo; It, however, refused to interfere with the provision mandating registration of Waqfs, observing that it was not a new requirement and had existed under earlier legislations of 1995 and 2013.
According to the Act, Waqf refers to an endowment made by a Muslim for charitable or religious purposes, such as building mosques, schools, hospitals, or other public institutions. "Another defining feature of a Waqf is that it's inalienable- which means it cannot be sold, gifted, inherited or encumbered," it states.
On May 22, the Supreme Court reserved its orders on three key issues, including the power to denotify properties declared as "waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed", which cropped up during the hearing of pleas challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Apart from the issue of denotification, petitioners raised questions over the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contended that only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members. The third issue relates to a provision that says a waqf property will not be treated as a waqf when the collector conducts an inquiry to ascertain if the property is government land.
On April 25, the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs filed a preliminary 1,332-page affidavit defending the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and opposed any "blanket stay" by the court on a "law having presumption of constitutionality passed by Parliament".
The Centre notified the Act on April 8 after it got President Droupadi Murmu's assent on April 5.
The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 on April 3 and April 4 respectively.

The Supreme Court refused to urgently hear a plea seeking cancellation of the India vs Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 match, saying “match should go on” despite petition citing Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor.

Supreme Court Declines Urgent Hearing to Cancel India-Pakistan Match

SC Denies Urgent Request Against Cricket Match

The Supreme Court refused to urgently hear a plea seeking cancellation of the India vs Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 match, saying &ldquo;match should go on&rdquo; despite petition citing Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor.

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused urgent listing of a plea seeking cancellation of the cricket match between India and Pakistan in the upcoming Asia Cup.
The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi by a lawyer for urgent listing.
"What is the urgency? It's a match, let it be. Match is this Sunday, what can be done? the bench observed.
When the lawyer submitted that the cricket match is scheduled on Sunday and the petition would become infructuous if the matter is not listed on Friday, the bench said, "Match is this Sunday? What can we do about that? Let it be. Match should go on." The petition filed by four law students led by Urvashi Jain said organising a cricket match with Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor sends a message inconsistent with national dignity and public sentiment.
India and Pakistan meet on September 14 at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium for the 2025 Asia Cup.
"Cricket between nations is meant to show harmony and friendship. But after the Phalagam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, when our people died and our soldiers risked everything, playing with Pakistan sent the opposite message that while our soldiers sacrificing their lives, we are celebrating sports with the same country sheltering terrorists (sic)," the plea submitted.
The petitioners added, "It can also hurt the sentiments of the families of the victims who lost their lives in the hand of the Pakistani terrorist. The dignity of nation and security of citizens come before entertainment." The plea said a cricket match between the two countries was "detrimental to the national interests" and morale of the armed forces and the nation as a whole.

The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission to include Aadhaar as a 12th document for voter identification in Bihar’s electoral roll revision, while clarifying it is not proof of citizenship.

SC directs EC to include Aadhaar as 12th prescribed document for Bihar SIR

The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission to include Aadhaar as a 12th document for voter identification in Bihar&rsquo;s electoral roll revision, while clarifying it is not proof of citizenship.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Election Commission to include Aadhaar as a 12th prescribed document for establishing the identity of a voter in special intensive revision (SIR) exercise of electoral roll in poll-bound Bihar.
At the moment for Bihar SIR, there are 11 prescribed documents which electors have to submit with their enumeration forms.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, clarified Aadhaar will not be a proof of citizenship and the commission can ascertain the genuineness of Aadhaar card number submitted by an elector for inclusion in the electoral roll.
Observing nobody wants the EC to include illegal immigrants in the electoral roll, the bench said it should be clear that only genuine citizens will be allowed to vote and those claiming to be genuine on the basis of forged documents will be excluded from the electoral roll.
The bench asked the poll panel to issue necessary directions during the course of the day for acceptance of Aadhaar as a document for proof of identity.
The top court also sought EC&rsquo;s explanation on showcause notices it issued to poll officials for not accepting Aadhaar card from the voters.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for poll panel, submitted 99.6 per cent of the 7.24 crore voters in the draft roll had submitted documents and petitioners seeking inclusion of Aadhaar as 12th document would not serve any practical purpose.
The bench referred to provisions of Aadhaar Act of 2016 and the Representation of Peoples Act and said that it not a proof of citizenship but can be considered as a proof of identity.
On September 1, the top court, while hearing some applications filed by political parties for extension of deadlines, was informed by the poll panel that claims, objections and corrections in the draft electoral roll prepared in Bihar under the SIR exercise can be filed beyond September 1 but these would be considered once the electoral roll is finalised.
It said claims and objections in the draft roll can be filed till the last date of nomination forms in each assembly constituency.
The top court also termed the confusion over the Bihar SIR as "largely a trust issue" and directed the state legal service authority to deploy paralegal volunteers to assist individual voters and political parties in filing claims and objections to the draft roll, which was published on August 1.
The poll panel, which opposed any extension of the September 1 deadline for filing of claims and objections as per the SIR schedule, had submitted that post the top court's August 22 order, till August 30, only 22,723 claims had been filed for inclusion and 1,34,738 objections had been filed for exclusion.
According to the June 24 schedule of the poll panel for the Bihar SIR, the deadline for filing claims and objections to the draft roll ended on September 1, and the final electoral roll will be published on September 30.

The Supreme Court denies extension of interim bail for Vikas Yadav, serving 25-year term in 2002 Nitish Katara murder case, directing him to approach Delhi High Court for further relief.

SC Refers Vikas Yadav's Interim Bail Plea to Delhi HC

Vikas Yadav's Interim Bail Denied by SC

The Supreme Court denies extension of interim bail for Vikas Yadav, serving 25-year term in 2002 Nitish Katara murder case, directing him to approach Delhi High Court for further relief.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to extend the interim bail of convict Vikas Yadav, who is serving a 25-year jail term in the sensational 2002 Nitish Katara murder case.
A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma asked Yadav's counsel to move the Delhi High Court for extension or grant of fresh interim bail in the case.
During the brief hearing, the counsel insisted that instead of sending him to the high court, the top court itself hear his plea for bail extension.
When the bench hinted that it will reject the plea, the counsel for Yadav said that he will move the high court.
Earlier, the bench extended Yadav's interim bail by a week.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by Yadav against an August 22 order of the Delhi High Court which refused to extend his interim bail granted by the top court on July 29.
Last Monday, Justice N Kotiswar Singh recused himself from hearing the matter as soon as the hearing commenced. The bench, however, extended Yadav's interim bail by one week.
Yadav, 54, who has spent over 23 years in jail, also sought interim bail on the grounds that his marriage was fixed for September 5 and he had to arrange Rs 54 lakh, the fine imposed on him at the time of sentencing.
Yadav is the son of Uttar Pradesh politician D P Yadav. His cousin Vishal Yadav was also punished for the kidnapping and murder of business executive Katara.
The duo was against Katara's alleged affair with Vikas' sister Bharti Yadav as they belonged to different castes.
Another co-convict, Sukhdev Pehalwan, was given a 20-year jail term without any remission benefit. On July 29, the apex court ordered his release from jail, noting that he completed his 20-year sentence in March this year.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court seeks action from Centre, NDMA, and state governments after unprecedented landslides and floods in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Punjab, citing illegal tree felling as a key cause.

Supreme Court seeks Centre, states’ response over Himalayan disasters, cites illegal tree felling

The Supreme Court seeks action from Centre, NDMA, and state governments after unprecedented landslides and floods in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Punjab, citing illegal tree felling as a key cause.

Considering the unprecedented landslides and flooding in states like Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court on Thursday sought the stand of the Centre, National Disaster Management Authority and others, and observed "illegal felling of trees led to the disasters".
Observing a balance ought to be struck between &ldquo;development and environment&rdquo;, a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran also issued notices to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI) as well as the governments of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab.
&ldquo;We have seen unprecedented landslides and floods in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. From the media reports it is noticed that in the flood a huge number of wood was flowing along. Prima facie it appears that there has been illegal felling of trees. Thus issue notice to respondents,&rdquo; the CJI said.
The bench granted advocates Akash Vashishtha and Shubham Upadhyay, appearing for petitioner Anamika Rana, to serve the notice and the copy of the petition at the central agency.
The CJI during the hearing asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the court in connection with another case, to take note of the grim situation and ensure remedial steps.
&ldquo;Please take note of this. It appears to be a serious issue. A large number of wooden logs are seen to be falling around&hellip; it shows illegal felling of trees. We have seen pictures of Punjab. Entire fields and crops are inundated&hellip;Development has to be balanced with mitigating measures,&rdquo; the CJI said.
&ldquo;We have interfered with nature so much...that nature is giving back now. I will speak to the secretary of the environment ministry today itself and he will speak to the chief secretaries (of the states),&rdquo; the law officer said.
Such situations cannot be permitted, Mehta added.
The petitioner's counsel said there instances of people being trapped in tunnels and on the verge of &ldquo;near death situations&rdquo;.
The CJI said he noticed the seriousness of the issue and posted the matter after two weeks.
The plea, filed through lawyer Akash Vashishta, has sought framing of action plan and SIT inquiry into the reasons of landslides and flash floods besides the measures to ensure that such disasters do not recur.
&ldquo;The Central and state governments, in spite of having dedicated Disaster Authorities, have no plan in place to prevent or mitigate the losses due to these disasters whose frequency has increased alarmingly of late,&rdquo; it said.
It said the ministries of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Jal Shakti have failed in their duty to protect the &ldquo;pristine Ecology and the Rivers of the Himalayan region from degradation&rdquo;.
&ldquo;The Petition is being filed bona fide in the larger public interest to ensure and to uphold the Constitutional Right to Life (Article 21) and access to justice of the residents of these Himalayan States,&rdquo; it said.
Seeking appropriate directions, the plea sought constituting an independent expert committee to carry out geological, geo-technical or environmental/ecological investigation into all road/highway projects where landslides have occurred and assess the causes of floods and flash floods in the rivers, rivulets, streams, water courses, channels in the Himalayan states, particularly Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand besides Jammu and Kashmir.
The plea also sought a direction to the Centre and others to ensure emergency relief, rescue, safety, first-aid for affected citizens.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre on Subramanian Swamy’s plea seeking expeditious decision on declaring Ram Setu a national monument.

Supreme Court Reviews Day on Declaring 'Ram Setu' a National Monument

Supreme Court Reviews Ram Setu, Monument Status Sought

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre on Subramanian Swamy&rsquo;s plea seeking expeditious decision on declaring Ram Setu a national monument.

The Supreme Court on Friday sought response from the Centre on a plea by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy seeking a direction to the government to "expeditiously" decide his representation to declare 'Ram Setu' as a national monument.
'Ram Setu', also known as Adam's bridge, is a chain of limestone shoals between Pamban Island, off the south-eastern coast of Tamil Nadu, and Mannar Island, off the north-western coast of Sri Lanka.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta agreed to hear Swamy's plea and issued notice to the Centre.
It posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.
In his plea, Swamy has referred to the January 19, 2023 order passed by the apex court in the matter.
On January 19, 2023, the Centre had told the top court that it was looking into the issue pertaining to declaring 'Ram Setu' as a national heritage monument.
The top court was then hearing Swamy's plea on the issue.
"The solicitor general states that the process is currently underway in the Ministry of Culture, but if the petitioner would so desire, he may also submit any additional material or communication as he may wish within a period of two weeks," the apex court had noted in its January 2023 order.
The court had asked the Centre to take a decision on the issue and granted Swamy the liberty to move before it again if he was dissatisfied and disposed of his interim application on the issue.
The fresh plea filed by Swamy said no response or decision taken was conveyed either to him or to the apex court till date.
It said the Centre is duty-bound to protect 'Ram Setu' from any form of misuse, pollution or desecration.
"It is also important to note that this archeological site is a matter of faith and 'shradha' of people treating Ram Setu as a pilgrimage and all these archaeological studies and scientific findings are foundational evidence supplementing the existence of the man-made monument as a pilgrimage for worshippers," the plea said.
It said after the January 19, 2023 order, Swamy had made a representation to the government on January 27, 2023 with all the accompanying documents.
The plea said the petitioner had again written a fresh representation to the government on May 13, 2025.
It has sought a direction to the Ministry of Culture "to decide the representation of the petitioner in an expeditious manner/time-bound manner in compliance of order of this court dated January 19, 2023".

The Supreme Court asked five influencers, including Samay Raina, to issue an unconditional public apology for mocking people with disabilities.

Supreme Court Demands Apologies from Influencers for Disrespecting Disabilities

Supreme Court Acts on Disabilities Mockery

The Supreme Court asked five influencers, including Samay Raina, to issue an unconditional public apology for mocking people with disabilities.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked five social media influencers, including "India's Got Latent" host Samay Raina, to display their unconditional apology on their podcast or show for ridiculing persons suffering from disabilities and rare genetic disorders.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which asked the Centre to frame guidelines to curb speeches offending or ridiculing disabled, women, children and senior citizens, said freedom of speech and expression can't be applicable to commercial speech hurting sentiments of other communities.
It said the court would consider imposing a penalty for offending disabled persons by social media influencers, including Raina at a later stage.
The five are accused of making fun of disabled and those suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) and visual impairment.
Except Sonali Thakkar alias Sonali Aditya Desai, who was exempted from physical appearance subject to her undertaking that an unconditional apology will be aired in her programme, the rest of the social media influencers were present in the court.
The bench told Attorney General R Venkataramani that the guidelines for social media regulations should not be a knee-jerk reaction to one incident but based on broad based parameters incorporating views of all stakeholders.
The top court also pulled up Raina for his affidavit giving an apology and said he initially tried to defend himself and tried to look innocent.
On July 15, the top court asked the five social media influencers, including Raina, to appear before the court in a case seeking action against them for ridiculing persons suffering from disabilities.

The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission to permit online claim submissions for 65 lakh excluded voters in Bihar’s electoral roll revision, ensuring transparency and wider participation.

Bihar SIR: SC allows excluded voters to submit claims with Aadhaar, other 11 prescribed docs

The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission to permit online claim submissions for 65 lakh excluded voters in Bihar&rsquo;s electoral roll revision, ensuring transparency and wider participation.

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to allow excluded voters to submit claims through online mode besides making physical submissions in the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise of electoral roll in poll-bound Bihar.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi allowed claim forms to be submitted along with Aadhaar card number and any one of the 11 acceptable documents in the SIR.
Expressing surprise over political parties not coming forward in filing objections related to 65 lakh excluded voters, the top court directed the chief electoral officer of Bihar to implead them in the court proceedings.
"All the political parties shall file the status report by the next date of hearing on the claim form they had facilitated in filing by excluded voters," the bench said as it posted the matter for September 8.
The bench directed the election officials to furnish an acknowledgement receipt to the booth level agents of the political parties, who submit the claim forms of excluded voters physically.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel, urged the court to give the ECI a 15-day window to show there was no exclusion.
"The political parties are making hue and cry and things are not bad. Repose faith in us and give us some more time. We will be able to show you there are no exclusions," Dwivedi said.
The ECI informed the bench that around 85,000 individual voters who were excluded in draft rolls had submitted their claim forms and over 2 lakh new voters had come forward to register their names in the electoral rolls under the SIR exercise in the state.
On August 14, the top court directed the poll panel to publish by August 19 details of the 65 lakh voters excluded from the draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar to enhance "transparency" in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voters&rsquo; list and allow Aadhaar as an acceptable document for identity proof.
Observing that the EC should put at rest the &ldquo;narrative being built&rdquo; against it, the bench had also ordered that the details should include reasons for their non-inclusion during the ongoing SIR exercise. "Transparency will create voter confidence." The revision of the voters&rsquo; list in Bihar--the first since 2003--has sparked a huge political row. The SIR's findings have reduced the total number of 7.9 crore registered voters in Bihar, from before the exercise, to 7.24 crore.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court modified its August 11 order on stray dogs, allowing sterilised and vaccinated canines to be released back in the same area, excluding rabid or aggressive dogs.

Supreme Court Adjusts Order on Stray Dogs in Delhi-NCR

Supreme Court Adjusts Order on Stray Dogs

The Supreme Court modified its August 11 order on stray dogs, allowing sterilised and vaccinated canines to be released back in the same area, excluding rabid or aggressive dogs.

The Supreme Court on Friday modified its August 11 direction prohibiting release of stray dogs from dog shelters in Delhi-NCR, and said the picked up canines should be sterilised, vaccinated and released back in the same area.
A three-judge special bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, however, said municipal authorities shall continue to comply with the direction asking them to start picking up and rounding stray dogs from all localities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, Noida, Faridabad and Gurugram.
The apex court said the August 11 direction prohibiting the release of picked up stray dogs shall be kept in abeyance for the time being.
"The dogs that are picked up shall be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated and released back in the same area from which they were picked up," the bench, also comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, said.
The bench clarified this relocation shall not apply to dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies and those that display aggressive behaviour. It said such dogs shall be sterilised and immunised but under no circumstances should they be released back into the streets.
The bench said as far as possible, dogs infected or suspected to be infected with rabies and showing aggressive behaviour be kept in separate pounds or shelters after sterilisation and immunisation.
The bench directed the municipal authorities to forthwith commence an exercise for creating dedicated feeding spaces for stray dogs in each municipal wards.
"The feeding areas shall be created and identified keeping in view the population and concentration of stray dogs in a particular municipal ward," the bench said.
It said notice boards shall be placed near designated feeding areas mentioning that stray dogs shall only be fed in such areas.
"Under no conditions shall the feeding of stray dogs on the streets be permitted," the bench said.
It said persons found feeding stray dogs on the streets shall be liable to be proceeded with under relevant legal framework.
"The aforesaid directions are being issued in view of the reports regarding untoward incidents caused by unregulated feeding of stray dogs and to ensure that practice of feeding dogs on the roads and in public places is eliminated as the said practice creates great difficulties for the common man walking on the streets," the bench said.
It said each municipal authorities shall created a dedicated helpline number for reporting incident of violation of these directions.
It said on such a report being received, appropriate measures be taken against the individual or organisation concerned.
The top court passed the order on the interim prayer seeking a stay on some of the directions passed on August 11 by a two-judge bench.
The bench delivered its order in a suo motu case initiated on July 28 over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
The bench on Friday said no individual or organisation shall cause any hinderance or obstruction in the effective implementation of its directions.
"In case any public servant acting in compliance of the aforesaid directions is obstructed, then the violator shall be liable to face prosecution for obstructing the public servant acting in discharge of official duty," the bench said.
The apex court expanded the scope of the matter pan India and impleaded all the states and Union Territories as parties.
It also transferred to itself the pleas pending before different high courts on the issue concerning stray dogs.
The bench said it has asked its secretary general to get details from the high courts regarding similar pending matters and all those matters be transferred to the top court so that a "final national policy or decision is taken with regard to this problem".
It said each individual dog lover and each NGO that has approached the top court shall deposit Rs 25,000 and Rs two lakh respectively with the registry within seven days, failing which they shall not be allowed to appear in the matter any further.
"The amount so deposited shall be utilised in the creation of the infrastructure and facilities for the stray dogs under the aegis of the respective municipal bodies," the bench said.
It said desirous animal lovers shall be free to move application to the municipal bodies concerned for adoption of stray dogs and it shall be the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the adopted canine do not return to streets.
It directed the municipal authorities to file affidavit of compliance with complete details about resources, dog pounds, veterinarians, dog catching personnel, specially modified vehicles and cages available for the purpose of compliance with the Animal Birth Control Rules.
The bench posted the matter for hearing after eight weeks.
Widespread protests were reported across the country following the apex court's August 11 order.
Later, the matter came up for hearing on August 14 before a three-judge special bench which observed the "whole problem" of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR was a result of the "inaction" of local authorities which did "nothing" in implementing the Animal Birth Control Rules on sterilisation and immunisation of canines.

The Supreme Court will pronounce its order on August 22 on pleas seeking a stay on the August 11 directive to permanently relocate stray dogs from streets to shelters in Delhi-NCR.

Stray dogs row: Supreme Court to deliver order today

The Supreme Court will pronounce its order on August 22 on pleas seeking a stay on the August 11 directive to permanently relocate stray dogs from streets to shelters in Delhi-NCR.

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce on August 22 the order on a plea to stay its August 11 direction to permanently relocate stray dogs from streets to dog shelters in Delhi-NCR.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria had on August 14 reserved its order in the matter.
A two-judge bench of the apex court had on August 11 passed a slew of directions, including ordering the authorities in Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) to start picking up stray dogs from all localities "at the earliest" and relocate the canines to dog shelters.
The bench passed the order in a suo motu case initiated on July 28 over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
Widespread protests were reported across the country following the apex court's August 11 order.
Later, the matter came up for hearing on August 14 before a three-judge special bench which said the "whole problem" of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR was a result of the "inaction" of local authorities which did "nothing" in implementing the Animal Birth Control Rules on sterilisation and immunisation of canines.
The special bench, which was constituted to hear the suo motu case and some other pleas concerning stray dogs, had reserved its verdict on the interim prayer for a stay on certain directions issued on August 11.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, had referred to data and said in 2024, India reported around 37.15 lakh dog bites cases -- nearly 10,000 per day.
Mehta had also referred to a media report and said the World Health Organisation, using government and other authentic sources, reported 305 dog-bite related deaths last year.
The lawyers appearing for several organisations had urged the special bench to stay some of the directions passed by the two-judge bench.
On August 11, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had directed the authorities in Delhi-NCR to start relocating all stray dogs from streets to shelters and asked the authorities to initially start by creating a shelter to house 5,000 dogs.
It had warned of strictest action against those who obstructed the exercise and directed immediate creation of dog shelters or pounds and report about it within eight weeks.

The Supreme Court refused urgent listing of a plea challenging the MCD notification on picking up stray dogs, noting that orders in the matter are already reserved.

Supreme Court Declines Urgent Hearing on Delhi's Stray Dog Roundup

Supreme Court Skips Urgent Discussion on Stray Dogs

The Supreme Court refused urgent listing of a plea challenging the MCD notification on picking up stray dogs, noting that orders in the matter are already reserved.

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused urgent listing of a plea challenging a notification issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi with regard to picking up of stray dogs.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi declined to accord urgent hearing after a lawyer mentioned that an application has been filed in this regard.
The application submitted that MCD issued the notification despite orders having been reserved by the apex court.
The whole problem of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR is because of "inaction" of local authorities, the top court had said on August 14 while reserving its order on the interim prayer seeking a stay on the August 11 directions passed by the apex court.
A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria had reserved its order in the matter.
A two-judge bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had on August 11 directed authorities in Delhi-NCR to start picking up stray dogs from all localities "at the earliest" and relocate the animals to dog shelters.
The bench had directed the authorities to immediately create dog shelters and report to it about the creation of such infrastructure within eight weeks.
It had said stray dogs would be detained in shelters and not be released on streets, colonies or public places.
The apex court had passed a slew of directions on August 11 while hearing a suo motu case initiated on July 28 over stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has dismissed Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against an in-house panel report that found him guilty of misconduct in the cash recovery row, stating his conduct doesn’t inspire confidence.

Supreme Court Upholds Allahabad Judge Misconduct Verdict

Supreme Court Dismisses Judge's Misconduct Plea

The Supreme Court has dismissed Justice Yashwant Varma&rsquo;s plea against an in-house panel report that found him guilty of misconduct in the cash recovery row, stating his conduct doesn&rsquo;t inspire confidence.

Observing that procedure was scrupulously followed, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma's plea seeking invalidation of an in-house inquiry report finding him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said Justice Varma's conduct does not inspire confidence and his plea should not be entertained, a major upset for the judge at the centre of controversy since March when a huge cache of half-burnt cash was found following a fire in the storeroom of his official residence in Delhi.
Justice Varma had also sought quashing of the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
The top court said the then CJI and the in-house committee scrupulously followed procedure except for uploading of the video footage and the photographs.
"We have held that it was not required to do so (upload the photos and videos of the fire-fighting operation on the SC website) as per the procedure. But having said so, we have held that nothing turns on it, because at the opportune moment, you did not question it. And there is also no relief claimed in the writ petition in so far as the uploading is concerned," Justice Datta read from the judgement.
The apex court held that in-house procedure and the judges committee appointed by the then CJI adhered to the stipulated procedure and sending of the report to the prime minister and president with recommendation for his removal was not unconstitutional.
Pointing that the in-house procedure of the apex court had legal sanctity, the bench said it is not a parallel mechanism outside the constitutional framework.
The court also found no violation of Justice Varma's fundamental rights.
It granted liberty to Justice Varma to raise his contentions in any impeachment proceedings if initiated against him.
The top court had earlier told Justice Varma that his conduct did not inspire confidence and also defended the CJI's authority to act on any judicial misconduct, saying he cannot be merely a "post office but has certain duties to the nation".
It also dismissed a petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma on the ground of "abuse of process of the Court".
While reserving its verdict on July 30, the court had also asked Justice Varma why he chose to move the apex court after an in-house committee found him guilty of misconduct.
In his petition, Justice Varma submitted that the inquiry "reversed the burden of proof", requiring him to investigate and disprove the charges levelled against him.
Alleging that the panel's findings were based on a preconceived narrative, he said the inquiry timelines were driven solely by the urge to conclude proceedings swiftly, even at the expense of "procedural fairness".
The petition contended that the inquiry panel drew adverse findings without affording him a full and fair hearing.
A report of the inquiry panel probing the incident had said Justice Varma and his family members had covert or active control over the store room where a huge cache of half-burnt cash was found following a fire incident, proving his misconduct which is serious enough to seek his removal.
The three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court conducted the inquiry for 10 days, examined 55 witnesses and visited the scene of the accidental fire. It started around 11.35 pm on March 14 at the official residence of Justice Varma who was then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.

supreme court

Categories