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 RJD embraces the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Waqf Act's provisions, continuing its fight to protect minority rights and constitutional integrity.

SC Halts Waqf Act; RJD Pledges Legal Battle

RJD lauds the Supreme Court's pause on the Waqf Act provisions, reinforcing its commitment to defending minority rights and constitutional values amid legislative challenges.

The RJD embraces the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Waqf Act's provisions

The RJD celebrates the Supreme Court's temporary suspension of controversial Waqf Act provisions, pledging continued legal action to protect constitutional and minority rights.

The main opposition party in Bihar, Rashtriya Janata Dal, on Friday, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to put on hold key provisions of the Waqf Act till the next hearing, and said the "legal battle against the legislation will continue".
Talking to reporters here on Friday, RJD's Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha said, "The Waqf Act attacks the rights of minorities." It attacks the very soul of the Constitution. It is unconstitutional. The RJD will not allow this to happen, he said.
"Our legal battle against the new legislation will continue. We welcome the SC's decision of putting on hold key provisions of the Waqf Act till the next hearing," Jha said.
The SC on Thursday granted the Centre a week's time to file a response to the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan noted assurance of the Centre that till the next date of hearing (May 5), waqf, including 'waqf by user', which is declared by notification or registered, will neither be denotified nor its character changed.
The SC gave its observation while hearing a batch of petitions, including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi's plea and RJD's Manoj Jha, against the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 recently passed by Parliament.
"We thank the SC for putting on hold key provisions of the Waqf Act. Right from the beginning our leaders, Lalu Prasad Ji and Tejaswhi Yadav Ji, are clear that the RJD will not allow anyone to divide the society on the name of caste, creed and religion. This is not the fight to protect the soul of the constitution only, this is the fight to protect minorities in the country," said Jha.
There are several amendments in the Act, which go against the Constitution, he claimed.
"In the coming hearings, we hope that the points raised by us will be considered by the court," the RJD MP said.
"We hope for more relief," he said.
When asked about the meeting of leaders of 'Mahagathbandhan' held in Patna on Thursday and also on the prevailing confusion over the CM face in the assembly polls due in the state later this year, Jha said, "There is an appropriate time for everything. I must say one thing as you people know the sun rises in the east. It is a universal truth." "Similarly, this issue is also very clear. Now, I don't have to say much about this," Jha said.

Mamata Banerjee welcomes Supreme Court's order extending employment for 'untainted' teachers in West Bengal. Recruitment process by Dec 31.

Supreme Court Extends Relief for West Bengal Teachers

Mamata Banerjee lauds Supreme Court's decision extending employment for 'untainted' West Bengal teachers amid recruitment issues.

Mamata Banerjee welcomes Supreme Court's order extending employment for 'untainted' teachers

The Supreme Court extends employment for 'untainted' West Bengal teachers amid a recruitment scandal, excluding Group 'C' and 'D'.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court's order extending the services of untainted teachers whose appointments were earlier terminated, stating that there was now a "sense of relief".
In a major relief to West Bengal, the apex court extended the services of terminated school teachers who were found to be untainted in the recruitment process probed by the CBI.
She urged the educators not to worry, assuring them that the issue would be resolved.
"We are happy with the SC order... there is a sense of relief with the court order," Banerjee told reporters.
"I would request the teachers not to worry, the issue will be resolved," she added.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar took note of the state government's submission that academic functioning in several schools had been severely affected and that new recruitment would take time.
However, the top court clarified that its relief did not extend to Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees appointed in state-run and aided schools.
It directed the state government to start the recruitment process on or before May 31 and conclude it by December 31 this year.
The court asked the state government and its WBSSC (West Bengal School Service Commission) to file a compliance affidavit intimating it about the initiation of the recruitment process on or before May 31.
On April 3, the top court invalidated the appointment of 25,753 teachers and staffers in the state-run and aided schools, calling the entire selection process "vitiated and tainted".
It upheld a Calcutta High Court verdict of April 22, 2024, annulling the appointments and said the tainted candidates should refund their "salaries/payments received".

West Bengal teachers protest SC's temporary service extension post-2016 recruitment fiasco, seeking long-term solutions.

West Bengal Teachers Protest Supreme Court Ruling

West Bengal educators protest SC's ruling on 2016 WBSSC recruitment, seeking permanent service solutions beyond Dec 31.

WB Teachers protest Supreme Court's decision on WBSSC 2016 recruitment

West Bengal teachers protest SC's decision on 2016 recruitment, seeking permanent positions post-December. Demands rise.

The teachers of state-run and state-aided schools in West Bengal-&nbsp; whose services were temporarily extended by the Supreme Court on Thursday- expressed dissatisfaction over what they termed as a "short-term relief." They asserted that only permanent reinstatement would bring them justice.
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the state government to initiate a fresh recruitment process by May 31 and complete it by December 31.
It also instructed the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) and the state government to file a compliance affidavit detailing the initiation of the recruitment process by the deadline.
Pankaj Roy, one of the nearly 26,000 teaching and non-teaching staff whose appointments through the 2016 SSC recruitment drive were annulled, told PTI, "With all respect to the Honourable Supreme Court, let&rsquo;s voice our dissatisfaction over the order which has allowed us to attend classes only till December 31.
What happens after that? The SC has asked the state to issue a fresh notification. We&rsquo;ve already made it clear that we will not sit for fresh exams after clearing the 2016 recruitment test as eligible candidates."
Roy, a political science teacher at a secondary school in North Bengal, had observed a three-day hunger strike last week outside the WBSSC office in Acharya Bhavan, demanding the publication of a list distinguishing &lsquo;tainted&rsquo; from &lsquo;untainted&rsquo; candidates from the 2016 recruitment batch.
He also urged the WBSSC to clarify to the apex court that eligible teachers should not be dismissed.
"The SC order doesn&rsquo;t even address the case of non-teaching candidates," he added.
"This omission, in our view, results from the state government and SSC&rsquo;s attempt to create division among protesting sacked staff," he added.
Dhritish Mondal of Jogyo Sikshak Manch (Eligible Teachers&rsquo; Platform) echoed the sentiment, saying, "We are not tainted candidates. This is even acknowledged in the SC order. Then why should our services be extended only till December 31? As per service rules, we should serve till we reach the superannuation age of 60. If the WBSSC knows who is tainted and who is not, why can&rsquo;t they tell the SC clearly?" Mondal emphasised that the teachers, who had qualified through the 2016 recruitment process and served diligently, were unwilling to sit for fresh exams.
"This short-term extension means little after all our hard work and years of service. We will continue our protests until we get justice in the truest sense," he said.
While 70 members of the Manch launched a sit-in protest in Delhi on April 16, over 100 others have been staging an indefinite demonstration at Esplanade in Kolkata since April 3.
Asked whether the teachers would resume classes from Saturday, the protesters said, "We will decide soon. If we do return to school, it will be solely in the interest of the students, who are suffering."
A member of the managing committee of Bishnupur High School in Bankura district said the institution faced serious academic disruptions after the dismissal of eight teachers.
"With today&rsquo;s development, we are trying to reach out to the affected teachers and request them to resume classes from Saturday," the member said.
Attempts to reach West Bengal Board of Secondary Education President Ramanuj Ganguly were unsuccessful, as he did not respond to calls.
On Thursday, in a significant relief to West Bengal, the Supreme Court extended the services of teachers found "untainted" by the CBI probe into the 2016 SSC recruitment scam.
A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that school education had been severely impacted following mass terminations and acknowledged that new recruitment would require time.
However, the relief was not extended to Group &lsquo;C&rsquo; and &lsquo;D&rsquo; non-teaching staff.
Earlier, on April 3, the apex court had invalidated the appointments of 25,753 teachers and staff in state-run and aided schools, calling the recruitment process "vitiated and tainted," and ordered the recovery of salaries from those deemed to have obtained appointments improperly.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar voices strong concern over the Supreme Court’s directive to the President on bill clearance, questioning judicial overreach and constitutional boundaries.

VP Dhankhar slams SC directive to President, warns of judicial overreach

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar voices strong concern over the Supreme Court&rsquo;s directive to the President on bill clearance, questioning judicial overreach and constitutional boundaries.

Voicing concern over a recent Supreme Court ruling prescribing a timeline for the President to decide on bills, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday said India had not bargained for a democracy where judges will legislate, perform Executive functions and act as a "super Parliament".
Last week, the Supreme Court had, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date such reference is received.
"There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, becomes law," Dhankhar said.
Addressing a group of Rajya Sabha interns, he said, "So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament, and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them".
Dhankhar said his worries were at a "very highest level" and he had never thought in "my life" that he will have the occasion to see it.
He reminded the audience that the President of India is a very elevated position. President takes oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Others, including ministers, the vice president, parliamentarians and judges take oath to abide by the Constitution.
"We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3). There it has to be five judges or more ...," he said.&nbsp;

Supreme Court of India to examine petitions on April 16 concerning anti-conversion laws and forced conversions, impacting interfaith marriage rights.

Supreme Court to Hear Religious Conversion Petitions

On April 16, the Supreme Court of India will address petitions challenging state anti-conversion laws and against coerced religious conversions, seeking to redefine India's legal and religious landscape.

Supreme Court of India to examine petitions concerning anti-conversion laws and forced conversions

The Supreme Court will hear petitions on April 16 challenging state anti-conversion laws and addressing coerced conversions, potentially shaping national policies.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on April 16, a batch of pleas relating to the issue of religious conversions in the country.
While some pleas have challenged the anti-conversion laws in several states, another petition has sought a relief against forced religious conversions.
The April 16 causelist on the apex court website shows the matter would come up before a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan.
During the hearing in one of the pleas in January 2023, the apex court observed religious conversions was a serious issue and should not be given a political colour.
It had sought the assistance of attorney general R Venkataramani on a plea seeking direction to the Centre and states to take stringent steps to control the alleged fraudulent religious conversions.
The plea sought a check on religious conversions through "intimidation, threatening, deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits".
The top court had in 2023 asked the parties challenging the anti-conversion laws of several states to file a common petition for the transfer of cases on the issue from the high courts to the apex court.
It noted there were at least five such pleas "before the Allahabad High Court; seven before the Madhya Pradesh High Court; two each before the Gujarat and Jharkhand High Courts; three before the Himachal Pradesh and one each before Karnataka and Uttarakhand High Courts".
There were also two separate petitions filed by the states of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh challenging the interim orders of the respective high courts staying certain provisions of their laws on conversion.
Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind also moved the apex court against the anti-conversion laws of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, and argued they were enacted to "harass" interfaith couples and implicate them in criminal cases.
The Muslim body said the provisions of all the local laws of the five states force a person to disclose their faith and, consequently, invade their privacy.

WBBSE appeals to the Supreme Court to allow some teachers to retain positions after 25,753 jobs were annulled due to flawed recruitment in 2016.

WBBSE Seeks Supreme Court Relief for Annulled Jobs

The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education requests Supreme Court intervention to allow 'deserving' candidates to remain post-annulment of 25,753 jobs due to flawed hiring in 2016.

WBBSE appeals to the Supreme Court to allow some teachers to retain positions

WBBSE urges the Supreme Court to let certain candidates retain roles after 25,753 jobs were annulled due to the flawed 2016 hiring process, upheld by a Calcutta High Court order.

The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) moved the Supreme Court on Monday seeking 'modification' in its order annulling over 25,000 jobs in schools last week, a high-level source in the education department said here.
In an appeal to the apex court, the Board&rsquo;s lawyer requested that either "deserving" candidates be allowed to attend their duties till the end of this academic year, or till a fresh recruitment process as directed by the court is completed, whichever is earlier, the source told PTI.
WBBSE President Ramanuj Ganguly, however, said, "I have no information or comments to offer." A large section of those whose appointments were cancelled used to work at the secondary level in schools.
Altogether 25,753 teaching and non-teaching staff of state-run and -aided schools lost their jobs after the Supreme Court found large-scale irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process and scrapped the entire panel on April 3.
Those who were rendered jobless claimed that the reason behind their plight was the inability of the School Service Commission (SSC), which appointed them, to differentiate between the candidates who secured employment through fraudulent means and those who did not.
SSC Chairman Siddhartha Majumdar told PTI on Monday the Commission will move the apex court soon to seek certain clarifications about the order and work as guided by it.
Education Minister Bratya Basu earlier said the Supreme Court was not satisfied with the submission of the SSC and it would seek guidance from the top court on this issue.
Describing the entire selection process of 2016 as &ldquo;vitiated and tainted&rdquo;, an apex court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar upheld a Calcutta High Court verdict dated April 22, 2024, annulling the appointments.

Mamata Banerjee pledges support for teachers affected by SC ruling annulling jobs, ensuring job continuity while addressing opposition party conspiracies.

Mamata Supports Teachers After SC Job Ruling

West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee promises support for teachers affected by the Supreme Court's job annulment, ensuring job continuity despite accusations against opposition parties.

Mamata Banerjee pledges support for teachers affected by SC ruling

Mamata Banerjee promises support for teachers affected by SC's job annulment ruling, ensuring job continuity while accusing opposition parties of conspiracy.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday assured full support to eligible candidates who lost school jobs following a Supreme Court order, asserting that her government will ensure they don't remain jobless or have a break in service.
The apex court had on April 3 invalidated the appointment of 25,753 teachers and staffers in state-run and aided schools in Bengal, calling the entire selection process "vitiated and tainted".
&ldquo;I will stand by those who have lost their jobs in an unjust manner. I don&rsquo;t care what others think. I will do everything to restore your dignity,&rdquo; Banerjee said here at a meeting with affected candidates and school staffers.
&ldquo;We have separate plans in place to ensure that the eligible candidates do not face any break in service. We will not allow them to remain jobless,&rdquo; she said.
Reiterating that the state government respects the Supreme Court ruling, Banerjee said the administration is taking proactive steps to handle the situation with "utmost care and fairness".
The chief minister also claimed that her name was being dragged into something about which &ldquo;I have no inkling&rdquo;, referring to discrepancies in the school job appointments.
&ldquo;I am ready to even go to jail if anyone wants to penalise me for standing with those who lost school jobs,&rdquo; Banerjee asserted.
&ldquo;There is a conspiracy to break the entire education system. A dirty game is being played by some people," she said, in an apparent reference to opposition BJP and the CPI(M).

University of Hyderabad's protest ends after Supreme Court halts land development, challenging Telangana's plans. Dialogue begins.

Hyderabad University Protest Ends with SC Ruling

UoHSU halts protest after Supreme Court blocks land development, demanding Telangana justify its urgency. Dialogue begins for resolution.

Hyderabad University protest ends as SC halts land development

UoHSU ends protest after SC halts development. Court challenges Telangana on ecological grounds. Dialogue initiated.

The University of Hyderabad Students' Union (UoHSU) has ended its indefinite protest and boycott of classes. This decision follows the Supreme Court's intervention halting any further development on the 400-acre land parcel bordering the university until further notice.
The protest, which included a boycott of classes, was initiated on April 1 by the UoHSU and several aligned unions, in opposition to the Telangana government's plans to develop the land in Kancha Gachibowli. The students cited concerns over ecological conservation as primary grounds for their protest.
Vice President of UoHSU, Akash Kumar, stated that the students resumed attending classes on Friday after the Supreme Court's stay order was issued on Thursday.
The apex court has asked the Telangana government to justify the "compelling urgency" behind the proposed clearing of tree cover on the contentious land adjoining the university.
In response to the Supreme Court's directive, the Telangana government has formed a committee of ministers tasked with engaging in discussions with the University of Hyderabad's executive committee, civil society groups, students, and other stakeholders.
The aim is to arrive at a resolution pertaining to the disputed land adjacent to the university.
The student body expressed their appreciation for the Supreme Court's ruling.
UoHSU President, Umesh Ambedkar, reiterated the union's commitment to their cause, declaring that they will continue to oppose the proposed land auction until the 400-acre parcel is officially transferred to the university.
Moreover, the student union is advocating for the removal of police personnel from the East Campus, which includes the disputed land, as well as other areas of the campus. This concern has also led to a petition being filed in the High Court, noted Akash Kumar.

Mamata Banerjee expresses disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision on Bengal teacher recruitment, voicing political concerns and humanitarian issues, while ensuring state compliance.

Mamata Banerjee on SC ruling: Teacher Recruitment

CM Mamata Banerjee challenges the Supreme Court's decision on West Bengal teacher recruitment. She questions fairness and suspects political motives but confirms state compliance.

Mamata Banerjee expresses disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision on Bengal teacher recruitment

CM Mamata Banerjee opposes the Supreme Court ruling on teacher recruitment, alleging political motives and expressing humanitarian concerns, even as the state proceeds with compliance.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee expressed her personal disagreement with the Supreme Court's recent verdict on the teachers' recruitment controversy, despite her government's decision to abide by the ruling and restart the selection process.
She raised concerns about whether the BJP is aiming to destabilize the educational framework in Bengal.
"In my capacity as a citizen, I hold the right to disagree with this judgment, albeit while respecting the judiciary. I am articulating my stance from a humanitarian viewpoint.
Let there be no misinformation or confusion," she stated to the press today. Nonetheless, the state administration, she affirmed, will comply with the verdict and has directed the School Service Commission to initiate a new recruitment exercise.
The apex court confirmed the Calcutta High Court's decision to annul the appointments of over 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff associated with the West Bengal School Service Commission. The Supreme Court remarked that the recruitment process was compromised by manipulation and fraud, damaging its integrity and legitimacy.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, concluded there was no grounds to contest the High Court's ruling. The judgment highlighted that the appointments were attained deceitfully.
A significant element of the ruling underscored the impact on meritorious candidates who were overshadowed by those with tainted credentials.
Banerjee questioned the fairness of penalizing thousands for the misdeeds of a few. "The repercussions extend beyond 25,000 individuals, affecting numerous families," she remarked.
She also made a pointed reference to the recent cash seizure from Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma's home, stating, "When money is found at a judge's residence, he is merely transferred. Why weren't these candidates given a similar option? The initial judge who passed this ruling is now a BJP MP. This verdict, I believe, is a product of a BJP and CPM conspiracy," she alleged.

The Supreme Court's designation of West Bengal school recruitment as 'tainted' leaves 26,000 jobs in limbo, urging reform and accountability.

West Bengal School Recruitment Controversy

West Bengal's school recruitment process labeled 'tainted' by Supreme Court, casting 26,000 jobs into uncertainty, driving demands for reform.

SC verdict: Lawyer questions flawed process

Supreme Court's 'tainted' label of West Bengal's school recruitment process leaves 26,000 jobs uncertain, demanding reform.

Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya on Thursday said that when the whole process of recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff in West Bengal government-sponsored and aided schools has been termed "tainted" by the Supreme Court, it cannot be determined who was eligible and who was not.
Bhattacharya represented several candidates, who claimed to have been deprived of a fair selection process, before the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court in their challenge against the appointments of nearly 26,000 teaching and non-teaching staff.
The CPI(M)'s Rajya Sabha MP maintained that when the whole process is declared "tainted", it cannot be determined who was eligible and who was not.
"One must also think of the interest of those lakhs of candidates who had been deprived of a fair selection process for the jobs," Bhattacharya said.
Expressing dismay at the loss of jobs of 25,753 teaching and non-teaching staff, Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury claimed that this happened because the state government did not assist the apex court by presenting the case properly.
"The state government did not assist the Supreme Court by presenting documents before it properly," he said, claiming that the government did not work in the interest of these people who lost their jobs.
He alleged that the state was keen to "save those who were behind such recruitments."

The SC upheld the revocation of 25,000 teacher appointments in Bengal, citing fraud. The government is tasked to conduct a fresh recruitment process within three months, with special provisions for disabilities.

SC Invalidates 25,000 Bengal Teacher Appointments

The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court's decision to nullify over 25,000 teacher and non-teaching staff appointments in Bengal due to fraudulent processes. A fresh recruitment has been mandated within three months, with exceptions for disabilities.

The SC upheld the revocation of 25,000 teacher appointments in Bengal

The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court&rsquo;s revocation of 25,000 educational appointments in Bengal, citing fraud. A new selection process is mandated.

In a significant setback for the Mamata Banerjee government in West Bengal, the Supreme Court has upheld a Calcutta High Court decision to revoke the appointments of over 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff appointed through the West Bengal School Service Commission.
The Supreme Court determined that the selection process was compromised by manipulation and fraud, thus rendering its credibility and legitimacy ineffective.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, found no grounds to challenge the High Court's ruling.
The appointments, deemed fraudulent due to cheating, have been mandated for review.
The state government has been instructed to conduct a fresh selection process within three months. Those successful in this new process can retain their previously earned salaries, while those who do not qualify will have to return their salaries from their appointment in 2016. An exception was made for persons with disabilities, allowing them to remain in their current positions.
The Mamata Banerjee administration had appealed the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court, seeking to differentiate between honest and compromised candidates.&nbsp;
Central to the controversy are supernumerary posts established by the West Bengal government.
In 2016, more than 23 lakh candidates took the state-level selection test for 24,640 available posts. However, 25,753 appointment letters were issued, suggesting these additional posts facilitated illegal recruitments.
The recruitment scandal has been a major embarrassment for the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress government. Several prominent leaders, including a former education minister and a key aide to Mamata Banerjee, are currently imprisoned in connection with the case.
Senior BJP leader Amit Malviya described the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision as a significant "defeat" for Mamata Banerjee. He stated, "Mamata Banerjee's close aide, Partha Chatterjee, who served as the Education Minister and was apprehended with large sums of cash, is already jailed for his involvement in the scam. The Chief Minister, under whose oversight this fraud has impacted thousands of young careers, must also be held accountable and face trial."

The Supreme Court examines if Lokpal can handle judicial complaints under the Lokpal Act, focusing on jurisdiction rather than the allegations.

Supreme Court to Review Lokpal's Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court is assessing the Lokpal's jurisdiction concerning complaints against high court judges, focusing on legal scope over specifics.

Supreme Court to examine Lokpal's jurisdiction over judges

The Supreme Court will clarify Lokpal's authority over judicial complaints under the Lokpal Act. Emphasis is on jurisdiction, not allegations.

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has postponed until April 15 its examination of a suo motu case addressing the Lokpal's jurisdiction over allegations against a sitting high court judge. The case focuses on the scope of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, rather than reviewing the specifics of the allegations.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, and A S Oka is tasked with clarifying whether the Lokpal has the authority to investigate such complaints. "Our concern is strictly with the jurisdiction under the Lokpal Act," Justice Gavai emphasized.
Previously, on February 27, the Supreme Court had expressed concern over the Lokpal's January 27 decision, which it described as "very disturbing." That order was in response to two complaints against a serving additional judge of a high court.
Recognizing the importance of all perspectives, the court appointed senior advocate Ranjit Kumar as amicus curiae to aid its deliberations. Despite being offered legal assistance, the complainant opted to represent himself.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, highlighted that the core matter was a legal question regarding the Act's jurisdiction. "The analysis of a specific section of the Lokpal Act is required to ascertain the Lokpal's jurisdiction," he stated.
Justice Gavai pointed out that there are existing mechanisms for addressing complaints against judges.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal challenged the Lokpal's decision, raising a broader constitutional query. "The fundamental issue is whether a complaint can bypass constitutional authority," he argued, while SG Mehta referenced existing judgments relevant to the case.
&ldquo;This is not about the ability to file an FIR against a constitutional court judge,&rdquo; Mehta clarified, emphasizing that procedural matters such as police considerations and sanctions are not under discussion.
In a protective measure, the court assured the complainant that his identity would remain confidential in the records. "We acknowledge the issue you're raising," Justice Gavai assured him.
The contested Lokpal order, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice A M Khanwilkar, argued that judges fall under the "any person" category in Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act. The order, however, did not address the merits of the allegations, underscoring its focus solely on jurisdictional interpretation.

Supreme Court demands a CBI probe into alleged bank-builder misconduct, addressing EMI coercion claims by homeowners. Justices call for accountability and adherence to legal guidelines, with a follow-up hearing in two weeks.

Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe into Bank-Builder Nexus

The Supreme Court has directed a CBI investigation into alleged misconduct between banks and builders, addressing homeowner grievances over coercive EMI demands without possession of flats. Justice Surya Kant emphasizes accountability and order compliance.

Supreme Court orders CBI probe into bank-builder nexus scandal

The Supreme Court mandates a CBI investigation into alleged misconduct between banks and builders regarding homeowner grievances over EMI demands without possession.

In a significant judicial intervention, the Supreme Court has pledged a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations highlighting a collaboration between banks and builders.
This assurance comes as a response to grievances from a group of homeowners who have petitioned the court, alleging that banks are coercing them to pay EMIs despite delays in obtaining possession of their flats.
Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench handling the matter, emphasized that while the court refrains from labeling any institution as inherently good or bad, there is a clear necessity for a CBI investigation.
"Thousands of people are crying. We can't wipe their tears, but we can address their issues. Something very effective has to be done in a time-bound manner," he stated. The CBI has been directed to present a plan outlining their approach to the investigation.
In a landmark decision in July 2024, the Supreme Court had ordered that no coercive actions, including EMI recoveries, should be executed against homebuyers in the National Capital Region (NCR) who have not yet received possession of their properties. However, this order remains largely unimplemented.
The homeowners further claim that banks have unlawfully released loan funds directly to builders or developers, contravening Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines.
Allegedly, homebuyers were manipulated as intermediaries to secure these loans, and when they objected, banks initiated actions against them.
Justice Kant expressed skepticism regarding the operations of banks involved, stating, "We may not certify a single bank free from doubt... You see the conduct of public institutions!"
During the proceedings, when Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the financiers, argued against liability if a builder goes insolvent, Justice Kant retorted, "Your fault is that knowing not a brick has been laid at the site, you released 60 per cent! How can this be without quid pro quo?"
Mr. Singhvi proposed that banks could halt interest charges until possession is delivered, a suggestion the court dismissed.
Justice Kant underscored that the proposal would not resolve the systemic issues affecting countless people and that the Supreme Court consistently addresses these plights.
Expressing zero tolerance for reluctance in addressing these concerns, Justice Kant announced the appointment of an amicus curiae to assist with the extensive caseload. A follow-up hearing is scheduled in two weeks, promising further judicial examination of the matter.

The Supreme Court mandates a comprehensive tree census in the Taj Trapezium Zone to enforce environmental laws effectively.

Tree Census Ordered in Taj Trapezium Zone

Supreme Court orders comprehensive tree census in Taj Trapezium Zone

The Supreme Court mandates a comprehensive tree census in the Taj Trapezium Zone to enforce environmental laws effectively.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Taj Trapezium Zone authority to appoint Forest Research Institute to carry out a tree census in the area.
A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and N Kotiswar Singh said penal provisions against violators couldn&rsquo;t be implemented sans data of existing trees.
The TTZ, an area of 10,400 square-kilometre approximately, spreads across Agra, Firozabad, Mathura, Hathras, and Etah districts in UP and Bharatpur district in Rajasthan.
&ldquo;This data can be made available through tree census. We direct TTZ authority to appoint Forest Research Institute at Dehradun as an authority to carry out tree census of all existing trees in the area of TTZ. The formal order shall be passed within a week,&rdquo; the bench said.
The apex court said the object of the UP Protection of Trees Act, 1976 was to protect the trees and not to fell or cut the trees.
Without a tree census there cannot be any effective implementation of the provisions of 1976 Act, it added.
The top court had previously outlined the need for a census of existing trees and a mechanism to keep a vigil to ensure trees in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) were not illegally felled.
The bench was hearing a plea over the unauthorised felling of trees in the TTZ when it said the census of existing trees in the area was required to check any illegal felling.
&ldquo;Prima facie, we are of the view that there needs to be a census of existing trees in the Taj Trapezium Zone and there needs to be a mechanism for keeping a vigil for ensuring that there is no unauthorised felling of trees,&rdquo; it had said.
The plea raises environmental concerns and underlines the need of preservation of historical monuments, including the UNESCO World Heritage Site The Taj Mahal, and its surrounding areas.
While hearing a separate plea in the matter on October 14, the top court said it would order demolition and restore the land or the highways to its original status, if its direction over compulsory afforestation in the TTZ was not complied with by the authorities.

The Supreme Court dismissed a rape case against a retired Army officer, citing no element of force in a 16-year relationship with the complainant.

Supreme Court Dismisses Army Officer Rape Case

Supreme Court dismisses rape case against former army officer

The Supreme Court dismissed a rape case against a retired Army officer, citing no element of force in a 16-year relationship with the complainant.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a rape case against a former Army officer, concluding that the 16-year-long consensual relationship between him and the complainant lacked any element of force.
The court found no merit in the woman's claim that she was coerced into the relationship by a promise of marriage that was never fulfilled.
The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, noted inconsistencies in the allegations made by the 39-year-old complainant, who is married but estranged from her husband.
The court observed that she had filed similar complaints against eight other men from 2014 to 2022, none of which led to convictions due to discrepancies and lack of cooperation on her part.
In this particular case, the court expressed skepticism over the claim that the complainant allowed the relationship to continue for 16 years under a false promise of marriage. The allegation that the officer drugged and raped the complainant three years into the relationship was also questioned, with the judges considering it illogical since there was already an established ongoing relationship.
The motivation behind the filing of the complaint appeared to be the former officer's impending marriage to another woman, leading the court to view the allegations as contradictory and not credible.
Further, the Supreme Court questioned the Delhi High Court's decision to not intervene when the accused sought quashing of the proceedings, indicating that earlier judicial action might have been warranted.

The Centre told the Supreme Court that imposing a life ban on convicted politicians is solely within Parliament’s domain, opposing a plea seeking such disqualification.

Centre opposes plea on life ban on convicted politicians, says decision lies with Parliament

The Centre told the Supreme Court that imposing a life ban on convicted politicians is solely within Parliament&rsquo;s domain, opposing a plea seeking such disqualification.

The Centre has opposed in the Supreme Court a plea seeking a life ban on convicted politicians, saying imposing such a disqualification was solely within the domain of Parliament.
In an affidavit filed in court, the Centre said the prayer in a plea, seeking the same, amounted to re-writing of the statute or directing Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner which was wholly beyond the powers of judicial review.
"The question whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament," the affidavit said.
By confining the operation of penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence was ensured while undue harshness was avoided, it added.
There was, said the Centre, nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time and it was a settled principle of law that penalties were limited either by time or by quantum.
"It is submitted that issues raised by the petitioner have wide ranging ramifications and clearly fall within the legislative policy of Parliament and the contours of judicial review would be suitably altered in such regard," the affidavit said.
The plea in the top court filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeks a life ban on convicted politicians aside from the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country.
In its affidavit, the Centre underlined the apex court had consistently held that the legislative choice over one option or the other couldn't be questioned in courts over its efficacy or otherwise.
Under Section 8 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the period of disqualification was six years from the date of conviction or in case of imprisonment, six years from the date of release, it added.
"The disqualifications made under the impugned sections are limited by time as a matter of parliamentary policy and it would not be appropriate to substitute the petitioner's understanding of the issue and impose a lifetime ban," it said.
The Centre said as a matter of judicial review, the court could declare the provisions to be unconstitutional, however, the relief sought by the petitioner effectively sought to read "life-long" instead of "six years" in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act.
It said lifetime disqualification was the maximum that could be imposed under the provisions and such a discretion was "certainly within the power of Parliament".
"However, it is one thing to say that a power exists and another to say that it must necessarily be exercised in every case," the Centre argued.
The affidavit said the impugned laws were "constitutionally sound" and "did not suffer from the vice of excess delegation" aside from being intra vires the powers of Parliament.
While imposing any penalty, it said, Parliament considers the principles of proportionality and reasonability as for instance, the entirety of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or penal law provide for imprisonment or fines up to certain limits and the rationale behind it was that the punitive measures would co-relate with the gravity of offence.
There were numerous penal laws that prescribe imposing restrictions on the exercise of rights and freedoms, which in most cases are time-specific, it said.
The Centre said the petition failed to make the crucial distinction between basis of disqualification and effects of disqualification.
"It is true that the basis of disqualification is conviction for an offence and that this basis remains unchanged so long as the conviction stands. The effect of such conviction lasts for a fixed period of time. As stated above, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time," it said.
The affidavit said the petitioner's reliance on Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution was totally misplaced.
Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution deals with disqualifications for membership of either house of parliament, legislative assembly or legislative council.
The Centre said Clause (e) of Articles 102 and 191 were enabling provisions that confer on Parliament the power to make laws governing disqualification and it was in exercise of this power that the 1951 Act was enacted.
"The Constitution has left the field open to Parliament to enact such further law governing disqualifications as it deems fit. Parliament has power both to determine the grounds for disqualification and the duration of disqualification," it said.
The Centre said the grounds for disqualification in the articles included holding of an office of profit, unsoundness of mind, insolvency and not being a citizen of India.
"It is submitted that these are not permanent disqualifications," it added.
The apex court on February 10 sought responses of the Centre and the Election Commission on the challenge to constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of Representation of People Act.

The Supreme Court emphasizes media accountability, urging journalists to exercise caution while reporting, as it quashes a defamation case against Times of India journalists.

Media must exercise utmost caution before publishing any statement, news or opinion: SC

The Supreme Court emphasizes media accountability, urging journalists to exercise caution while reporting, as it quashes a defamation case against Times of India journalists.

The Supreme Court has said persons working in key positions in the media must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions and observed the right to freedom of speech and expression was paramount.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan reiterated that the power of the media in shaping public opinion was significant and the press possessed the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed.
The bench's observation came when it quashed a defamation case against English daily Times of India's editorial director and other journalists, who were accused of publishing alleged defamatory contents over the authenticity of certain paintings to be auctioned by Bid &amp; Hammer - Fine Art Auctioneers.
"We find it necessary to emphasise that right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is paramount. At the same time, it is reiterated that those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions," the bench said in its February 18 judgement.
The top court quoted English writer Bulwer Lytton as saying, &ldquo;The pen is mightier than the sword&rdquo;.
Given the vast reach, the court said, a single article or report could resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments.
It has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring, it added.
"This highlights the critical need for accuracy and fairness in media reporting, especially when dealing with matters having the potential to impact the integrity of individuals or institutions. Keeping these aspects in mind, publication of the news articles must be done in public interest and with good faith," said the bench.
The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the journalists against a Karnataka High Court order, which dismissed their petition challenging the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them.
The were facing charges of under Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC.
The complainant (art auction house) alleged that the defamatory news item that was printed, published and circulated by all the accused persons had caused readers to view the complainant with suspicion and also fostered an unjustifiable and unfounded public opinion that its works offered for sale through public auctions could be fake.
The top court however observed procedural irregularities in the magistrate&rsquo;s summoning order and said the complainant failed to produce any witness to prima facie establish the alleged imputations had lowered its reputation.
"No material has also been placed before us to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that any damage or loss was actually caused, due to the alleged news articles published in the newspapers," it said.
The bench added, "Irrespective of the same, at this stage, remanding the matter for fresh examination of witnesses before issuance of summons would serve no useful purpose, given the remote likelihood of securing witnesses. It would only prolong the litigation yielding little to no benefit especially, since the auction has already concluded and more than a decade has passed."

The Supreme Court granted influencer Ranveer Allahbadia protection from arrest after multiple FIRs were filed against him for his controversial comments on "India's Got Latent."

Supreme Court grants Ranveer Allahbadia interim protection from arrest, criticizes his remarks

The Supreme Court granted influencer Ranveer Allahbadia protection from arrest after multiple FIRs were filed against him for his controversial comments on "India's Got Latent."

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim protection from arrest to influencer Ranveer Allahbadia in multiple FIRs related to his alleged objectionable remarks on a YouTube show.&nbsp;
However, the court strongly criticized his comments, stating, "There is something dirty in his mind which has been vomited on the YouTube show."
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh directed that no further FIRs be registered against him for his remarks on India&rsquo;s Got Latent and restrained him and his associates from airing further episodes until further notice.
Senior advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing Allahbadia, argued that the influencer faced death threats and sought protection from coercive action.&nbsp;
The court agreed and instructed Allahbadia to deposit his passport at the Thane police station, prohibiting him from leaving the country without prior approval.
The bench also ordered Allahbadia to cooperate with ongoing investigations in Maharashtra and Assam.&nbsp;
The Maharashtra Police&rsquo;s cyber cell has summoned him for questioning on February 24, following allegations that he had been unresponsive to investigative agencies.
The Supreme Court, expressing strong disapproval of his remarks, questioned whether popularity gave anyone the right to use offensive language and disregard societal norms.

The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing on the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, until April, citing the need for a three-judge bench. 

Supreme Court adjourns hearing on Places of Worship Act until April

<div class="flex max-w-full flex-col flex-grow">
<div class="min-h-8 text-message flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 whitespace-normal break-words text-start [.text-message+&amp;]:mt-5" dir="auto" data-message-author-role="assistant" data-message-id="2c79f9ba-b61f-4c8c-a958-98e656060ff9" data-message-model-slug="gpt-4o">
<div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden first:pt-[3px]">
<div class="markdown prose w-full break-words dark:prose-invert light">
The Act, which maintains the religious status of sites as of 1947, is being challenged for allegedly violating fundamental rights.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Supreme Court on Monday postponed the hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to April.&nbsp;
The Act maintains the religious character of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947.&nbsp;
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar scheduled the matter for the week beginning April 1, stating that a three-judge bench is required. Since only a two-judge bench was available that day, the hearing could not proceed.
In the morning session, the bench clarified, "It won't be taken today. It's a three-judge bench matter. We are in a two-judge bench combination today." CJI Khanna later remarked that the hearing would likely take place "sometime in March."&nbsp;
Additionally, he expressed concern over the increasing number of petitions and intervention applications related to the Act, stating that there should be a limit on such filings.
Later, the court issued a brief order dismissing all new petitions regarding the case while allowing petitioners to file applications raising fresh arguments within ongoing proceedings.&nbsp;
Several political and religious organizations, including the Indian National Congress, CPI(ML), AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, and the management committees of the Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah mosques, submitted applications opposing the pleas that challenge the Act. These intervenors argued that admitting such petitions could lead to a flood of litigation against mosques across India.
The Supreme Court is currently handling multiple petitions that either challenge the Places of Worship Act or call for its strict implementation. The constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act has been contested, with petitioners arguing that these provisions violate fundamental rights such as equality and freedom of religion, as well as the principles of secularism and rule of law enshrined in the Constitution&rsquo;s Preamble.&nbsp;
The Act prohibits changing the religious nature of any place of worship and imposes penalties for violations.
On December 12, the Supreme Court had barred all courts nationwide from issuing any interim or final orders&mdash;including survey directives&mdash;on pending cases concerning existing religious structures. It further ruled that no new lawsuits related to such claims can be filed while the apex court is hearing the challenges to the 1991 Act.
Petitioners challenging the Act include Maharaja Kumari Krishna Priya (daughter of the Kashi Royal Family), BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, former MP Chintamani Malviya, retired army officer Anil Kabotra, advocates Chandra Shekhar and Ashwini Upadhyay, religious leaders Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati and Devkinandan Thakur Ji, and Varanasi resident Rudra Vikram Singh.
The Hindu petitioners argue that the Act unjustly denies Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs the right to reclaim and restore their places of worship that were allegedly desecrated by invaders.
One plea stated, "The Act excludes the birthplace of Lord Rama but includes the birthplace of Lord Krishna, though both are incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the creator and equally worshipped all over the world."&nbsp;
The petitions further assert that the Act effectively bars citizens from approaching the courts, thereby denying them their fundamental right to seek judicial remedies.

Supreme Court questions pre-election freebies fearing discouragement from work ethic. Focus on balanced welfare & employment.

Supreme Court's Take on Political Freebies

Supreme Court questions creation of 'parasite' class through freebies

Supreme Court questions pre-election freebies fearing discouragement from work ethic. Focus on balanced welfare &amp; employment.

In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court of India raised serious concerns over the practice of political parties promising freebies ahead of elections. The court suggested that such practices might discourage people from working, potentially fostering a "class of parasites" in society.
During discussions on the right to shelter for homeless urban individuals, Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih noted that people were receiving provisions and financial aid without contributing labor.
Justice Gavai specifically mentioned schemes like Maharashtra's 'Ladki Bahin', which provides women aged 21-65 with Rs 1,500 monthly if their annual family income is under Rs 2.5 lakh. He criticized these pre-election promises, stating they detract from motivating people to join the workforce and engage in nation-building.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan suggested people are willing to work if given opportunities. However, Justice Gavai countered with an example from his agricultural background in Maharashtra, where announced freebies prior to elections led to a shortage of laborers for farmers.
The court emphasized the necessity for balance. Although there is consensus on addressing homelessness, there is also a need to consider the broader implications of distributing freebies.
Attorney General R Venkataramani mentioned the government's efforts in finalizing an urban poverty alleviation mission to address issues like homelessness.
The court cautioned against political rhetoric when a petitioner argued that the government's compassion was skewed towards the wealthy. Justice Gavai dismissed these claims, reiterating the impartiality required in addressing such issues.
This hearing is part of ongoing deliberations on the matter, with attention also drawn to previous criticisms by the Supreme Court over free ration distribution. A similar sentiment was echoed by another bench in December, which questioned the prolonged provision of such benefits without creating sustainable employment solutions.
The debate over freebies also extends to political arenas. The Delhi High Court refrained from hearing a petition against promises made by political parties ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections, suggesting the petitioner approach the Supreme Court instead. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has frequently criticized parties like AAP and Congress for allegedly using freebies to secure votes, while those parties argue the funds effectively improve citizens' lives amid rising inflation and unemployment. The Supreme Court is set to revisit the matter in six weeks.

supreme court

Categories