New Delhi, September 19, 2025 – The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order approving the state government’s decision to invite Booker Prize winner Banu Mushtaq as the chief guest for the Dasara festival inauguration at Chamundi Temple, Mysuru, on September 22. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected the petition after a brief hearing.
Senior Advocate PB Suresh, representing the petitioner, argued that a non-Hindu should not perform pujas, calling it a religious act and citing alleged past remarks by Mushtaq that hurt religious sentiments. Justice Nath repeatedly stated, “Dismissed,” and remarked, “We have said ‘dismissed’ three times. How many dismissals are required?” The plea was urgently listed yesterday after the petitioner noted the event’s proximity, with CJI BR Gavai agreeing to hear it today.
On September 15, the Karnataka High Court had dismissed similar petitions, stating that inviting Mushtaq, an accomplished Kannada author, lawyer, and activist whose anthology Heart Lamp won the International Booker Prize in May, did not violate constitutional values. The court emphasized that the state-organized Dasara festivities, not managed by a temple or religious body, have historically invited luminaries like scientists and authors, irrespective of religion. It ruled that Mushtaq’s participation, including lighting a sacred lamp or offering prayers, did not infringe any legal or constitutional rights.
The High Court noted the decision was made by a committee of elected representatives and officials, and no religious denomination’s rights were curtailed. The petitioners had argued that only Hindus should perform the rituals, but the state countered that the event’s secular nature allows non-discriminatory invitations.
New Delhi, September 18, 2025 – The Rohini District Court has quashed an ex-parte interim injunction issued on September 6 by a lower court, which had restrained journalists from publishing allegedly defamatory content about the Adani Group. District Judge Ashish Aggarwal allowed an appeal filed by four journalists—Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi—ruling that the original order was unsustainable due to the lack of a hearing opportunity for the defendants.
Judge Aggarwal observed that the articles and posts in question had been in the public domain for a substantial period, and the civil judge should have granted the journalists a chance to be heard before directing their removal. “While articles and posts spanning a substantial period were questioned by the plaintiff through the suit, the court didn’t deem it fit to grant opportunity of hearing to defendants before passing the impugned order,” the judge stated. He emphasized that without a hearing, declaring the content defamatory and ordering takedowns was premature, and restoration of removed material would be infeasible if later found non-defamatory.
The judge set aside the order without commenting on the merits of the case, noting that the trial court should decide after affording the defendants a hearing. Notably, another judge in the same court has reserved judgment on journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s similar appeal against the gag order.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the four journalists, argued that most impugned publications dated back to June 2024, with no emergent circumstances justifying the “extraordinary and exceptional relief” of an ex-parte injunction months later. “Why the rush? Why no notice could have been given to us for two days? Majority of publications are from June 2024 onwards. How have they explained the delay is their burden,” Grover contended. She criticized the lack of reasoning for deeming the articles unverified or defamatory, citing examples based on official Kenyan government statements and Swiss judgments.
Grover further described the order as a “blanket John Doe” injunction, leading to the removal of hundreds of videos and posts, including satirical content. “Is there any law in this country which can ask anyone, particularly the press, that you won’t write or question any entity? That is not what the law allows. Tsunami orders of takedown already happened… Would the heavens have fallen if notice had been given to me?” she submitted, underscoring the impact on freedom of speech and expression.
In response to Adani Enterprises’ counsel Vijay Aggarwal’s justification of the urgency—citing a recent August podcast share and ongoing “republications” via likes and retweets—the court orally queried, “Can you tell me what was the hurry that the order had to be passed?” Aggarwal argued it was a strategic campaign by the journalists, who are under NIA probe for alleged Chinese funding, and that ex-parte orders are legally recognized under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC. He noted the Supreme Court’s clearance of Adani in the Hindenburg report context and claimed the articles lacked details on favoritism allegations.
Grover also challenged Adani Enterprises’ locus standi, pointing out that Gautam Adani himself was not a party to the suit, questioning the company’s right to sue on his behalf.
The journalists were represented by advocates Vrinda Grover and Nakul Gandhi.
Mysore, September 15, 2025: The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by former MP Pratap Simha and others challenging the state government’s decision to invite Booker Prize-winning author Banu Mushtaq as the chief guest to inaugurate the world-renowned Mysore Dasara festival.
A division bench, led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi, heard three separate petitions filed by Pratap Simha, Bengaluru-based entrepreneur T. Gireesh Kumar, and R. Soumya, the national vice-president of Abhinav Bharat Party. The petitioners sought a directive to the state government to withdraw the invitation to Mushtaq for this year’s Dasara inauguration.
The court ruled, “The petitioners have failed to demonstrate how the participation of a person from a different religion in a state-organized event violates any legal or constitutional rights. Therefore, these petitions are dismissed. A detailed order will be issued later.”
Advocate S. Sudarshan, representing Pratap Simha, argued that Mushtaq had made statements against Hindu traditions and Kannada culture. He further contended that the chief guest for Dasara is expected to visit the Chamundeshwari temple as per protocol, which Mushtaq had not followed. “Mushtaq does not believe in applying turmeric and vermilion. Dasara is a Hindu festival, not a secular one,” Sudarshan stated.
The bench responded, “What constitutional or legal right do you have to question Mushtaq’s selection? Following protocol is a personal matter.”
Advocate Ranganath Reddy, appearing for another petitioner, argued, “Hindu worship cannot be separated from Agama Shastra. The question is whether a non-Hindu can inaugurate Dasara. If Mushtaq clarifies her belief in Hindu deities, we have no objection.”
Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty, representing the state government, countered, “Pratap Simha should be fined. When he was an MP, Nisarga Ahmad inaugurated Dasara, and no objections were raised then. Bhanu Mushtaq, a Booker Prize winner, was chosen to inaugurate Dasara, a state festival, in line with Article 15 of the Constitution. The Dasara committee, comprising leaders from all parties, recommended the guest to the Chief Minister.”
Shetty further argued, “Those creating a Hindu-Muslim divide should face strict action. Dasara is a secular festival, but it is being portrayed as a religious event.”
When Simha’s counsel noted that Nisarga Ahmad had written poetry about Kannada and never made anti-Kannada remarks, the bench remarked, “Vijayadashami signifies the victory of good over evil and is celebrated across the country.”
When Simha’s counsel attempted to continue the argument, the bench warned, “We have passed our order. Should we impose a fine? Such arguments cannot be made in this court.”
Puttur, September 5, 2025: The Karnataka High Court has granted conditional bail to Shrikrishna J. Rao (21), son of BJP leader P.G. Jagannivasa Rao, in a high-profile sexual exploitation case registered at the Puttur Women’s Police Station. Rao, a resident of Bappalige, Puttur Kasaba village, was released from Mangaluru Prison on September 4, 2025, after completing legal formalities following the court’s order on September 3, 2025.
Case Background
Rao was arrested on July 5, 2025, following a complaint by a 21-year-old woman, a recent graduate from a Mangaluru-based college, who alleged that Rao sexually exploited her under a false promise of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy. The case, registered under Crime No. 49/2025, invoked Sections 64(1) (rape) and 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The complainant and Rao, former high school classmates, were reportedly in a relationship since their school days.
High Court Judgment
In the Criminal Petition No. 11663 of 2025, heard before Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, Rao’s counsel, Senior Advocate P.P. Hegde, argued that the relationship was consensual, supported by the complainant’s acknowledgment of an affair and frequent visits to Rao’s residence. The counsel emphasized that the investigation was complete, with Rao’s blood sample sent for forensic analysis, and highlighted his status as an engineering student in judicial custody for two months.
The Additional State Public Prosecutor, Rashmi Jadhav, countered that the relationship was not consensual, citing the complainant’s pregnancy and allegations of forcible physical relations. However, Justice Magadum noted that the complainant’s statements in the FIR suggested a consensual relationship, which required further examination during a full trial. The court found that continued judicial custody would violate Rao’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, given the completion of the investigation and filing of the final report.
Bail Conditions
The court granted bail on the following terms:
Rao must furnish a bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the same amount.
He is prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses.
He must appear before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Puttur, on all hearing dates unless exempted for genuine reasons.
He cannot leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission until the case is resolved.
Context and Implications
The case had garnered significant attention due to Rao’s father, P.G. Jagannivasa Rao, a BJP leader and member of the Puttur City Municipal Council, who was also briefly arrested for allegedly aiding his son’s evasion after the complaint was filed on June 24, 2025. The complainant gave birth to a baby boy on June 28, 2025, and DNA tests were conducted on the victim, her child, and Rao on August 20, 2025, to establish paternity, with results pending from the Forensic Science Laboratory in Bengaluru.
New Delhi, September 3, 2025: On September 2, 2025, three judges of a five-judge Presidential Reference Bench of the Supreme Court—Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice P.S. Narasimha—orally observed that Governors cannot indefinitely delay granting assent to Bills passed by State legislatures. The remarks were made during a hearing involving the States of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, which raised concerns about gubernatorial delays impeding the constitutional process.
The bench emphasized that Governors, as constitutional authorities, cannot obstruct the functioning of the Constitution or delay the legislative process without justification. “No organ can impair the functioning of the Constitution,” Justice Narasimha stated. The judges underscored that Governors must act with urgency, as legislation reflects the “sovereign will” of the people and addresses the pressing needs of the time.
Tamil Nadu, represented by Senior Advocates A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, argued that Governors “cannot assume to be royalty in a Republic,” while West Bengal, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, stressed the need for collaborative, not combative, functioning among constitutional offices. “When the Constitution mandates that a Governor should act with immediacy, why should he hold back Bills? Legislation is a sovereign act. It cannot wait,” Sibal argued.
Sibal further contended that allowing Governors absolute power to withhold Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution, as argued by the Centre, would lead to “absurdity” and disrupt the constitutional framework. “States cannot go in search of political solutions to coax Governors’ assent,” he said, warning that unchecked gubernatorial delays could jeopardize the “future of India.”
Background of the Presidential Reference
The hearing stems from a Presidential Reference filed in May 2025, questioning the three-month deadline imposed by a two-judge Supreme Court bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case on April 8, 2025. The earlier ruling addressed the delay by the Tamil Nadu Governor in granting assent to 10 State Bills since 2020, mandating that Governors and the President decide on Bills within three months, failing which the Bills would be “deemed” to have received assent and become law.
The current bench expressed reservations about imposing a “general” three-month deadline for all cases. Justice Vikram Nath questioned, “What happens if the three-month limit is not followed? Why is it only ‘deemed assent’? Why not ‘deemed withholding’ or ‘deemed referral to the President’?” He also raised concerns about whether setting such timelines would require constitutional amendments, as they might overstep judicial authority.
Chief Justice Gavai noted that different Bills have varying exigencies and timelines, making a uniform deadline potentially impractical. “A broad brushstroke of a general timeline applicable to all cases may amount to judicial overreach,” he remarked. Justice Narasimha suggested that time limits could be prescribed on a case-by-case basis, considering specific circumstances.
Arguments and Counterarguments
Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, explained that the three-month deadline in the Tamil Nadu case was set due to the “endemic and repetitive” nature of gubernatorial delays, citing similar issues in Kerala and other states. He argued that Bills are crafted to address the “felt necessity of the times” and cannot be stalled indefinitely.
Sibal elaborated on the Governor’s role, stating, “The Governor is not a postman. He has certain discretion. If he feels a Bill requires consideration by the President, he can consult lawyers and refer it. He can also send it back to the Assembly with suggestions for amendments. But he cannot sit back and do nothing.” He emphasized that Governors, as part of the Executive, must deliver the will of the Legislature to the people through a collaborative and amicable process.
The Centre’s argument, defending the Governors’ discretion under Article 200, was met with skepticism by the bench and the states, who argued that such powers must not undermine the constitutional scheme.
The hearing continues as the bench deliberates whether to uphold, modify, or set aside the three-month deadline, with significant implications for the balance of power between Governors and State legislatures.
New Delhi, September 2, 2025: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven other accused in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case linked to the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The verdict was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur at 2:30 PM.
The other accused whose bail pleas were rejected include Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed. All had challenged trial court orders denying them bail in the case, which stems from FIR 59 of 2020, registered by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the UAPA, 1967.
Arrest Details of the Accused
Name of Accused
Date of Arrest
Sharjeel Imam
January 28, 2020
Umar Khalid
September 13, 2020
Athar Khan
June 29, 2020
Khalid Saifi
February 26, 2020
Mohd. Saleem Khan
June 24, 2020
Shifa ur Rehman
April 26, 2020
Meeran Haider
April 1, 2020
Gulfisha Fatima
April 4, 2020
Shadab Ahmed
June 11, 2020
Key Arguments from the Defense
During the hearings, Umar Khalid, represented by Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, argued that mere membership in WhatsApp groups without sending messages does not constitute criminal activity. Pais contended that no incriminating evidence, such as money or weapons, was recovered from Khalid. He also challenged the prosecution’s claim of a “secret meeting” on February 23-24, 2020, asserting it was a public gathering, not clandestine as alleged.
Khalid Saifi, represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John, questioned the applicability of UAPA based on “innocuous messages” and the prosecution’s attempt to weave narratives from them. John argued, “Can UAPA, on the basis of innocuous messages or their attempt to make stories out of such messages, become a reason to deny me bail or even a ground to prosecute me under UAPA?” She also sought bail on grounds of parity, noting that co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal were granted bail by the High Court in June 2021.
Sharjeel Imam, represented by Advocate Talib Mustafa, maintained that he was “completely disconnected” from the co-accused and had no involvement in any conspiracy or related meetings. Mustafa highlighted that the prosecution’s allegations against Imam were limited to a speech delivered in Bihar on January 23, 2020, with no subsequent overt acts linking him to the riots.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, strongly opposed the bail pleas. Mehta argued that the accused intended to “globally defame the nation” by orchestrating riots on a specific date, coinciding with the visit of then-US President Donald Trump on February 24, 2020. He stated, “If you are doing something against the nation, you better be in jail till you are acquitted or convicted.” The prosecution described the riots as a “clinical and pathological conspiracy,” rejecting claims of spontaneous violence.
Case Background
The 2020 North-East Delhi riots, which left 53 dead and over 700 injured, erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). The accused, including Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, and Natasha Narwal, are alleged to be the masterminds behind the violence.
The bail pleas, pending since 2022, faced delays due to judicial recusals and adjournments.
Related Developments
On the same day, a coordinate bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankardismissed the bail plea of co-accused Tasleem Ahmed, reinforcing the stringent application of UAPA in this case.
The court’s decision highlights the challenges of securing bail under UAPA’s rigorous provisions, with ongoing scrutiny of the trial’s progress and the accused’s prolonged incarceration.
New Delhi, September 2, 2025: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed, one of the accused in a high-profile Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case alleging a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The decision was pronounced by a division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.
Tasleem Ahmed was arrested on June 19, 2020, and has been in custody since then. During the hearings, the bench had previously questioned the Delhi Police on the duration an accused can remain in jail, noting that it has been five years since the riots. The verdict was reserved on July 9 after arguments from Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing Ahmed, and Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad for the Delhi Police.
Pracha highlighted the significant delay in the trial, emphasizing that his client had not sought even a single adjournment before the trial court and had concluded arguments on charges in just 10-15 minutes on a single day. Despite this, Ahmed has been in jail for five years. He argued, “Forget speedy trial, my bail application is not being heard. It is not about the trial. I am forced to… I can’t think of a better word. I am compelled to give up my rights even when arguing my bail due to the burden. That is the effect of overburdening of the system. I am making a statement at the bar that if I took even one adjournment, my bail may be cancelled.”
In response, SPP Amit Prasad contended that delay alone cannot justify granting bail under Section 43D(4) of UAPA. He further argued that the High Court cannot grant interim bail while hearing an appeal against the trial court’s rejection of bail, unless there are emergent reasons.
The case originates from FIR 59 of 2020, registered by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It pertains to an alleged conspiracy in the communal violence that erupted in North-East Delhi in February 2020, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries.
A coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court is scheduled to pronounce orders today at 2:30 PM on bail pleas filed by co-accused including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima.
New Delhi, August 16, 2025: In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court of India conducted a manual recount of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) votes within its premises, marking a historic first in Indian judicial history. The court overturned the 2022 Gram Panchayat election result for Buana Lakhu village in Panipat, Haryana, declaring Mohit Kumar as the duly elected Sarpanch, replacing Kuldeep Singh, who had held the position for nearly 33 months.
The case arose from significant vote-counting errors at Booth No. 69, where 254 votes cast for Mohit Kumar were erroneously credited to Kuldeep Singh. Out of a total of 3,767 votes, the corrected tally showed Mohit Kumar leading by 51 votes. Initially, Kuldeep Singh was declared the winner and assumed office. However, the Returning Officer ordered a recount after noticing irregularities, which favored Mohit Kumar. Kuldeep challenged this in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which ruled that post-declaration corrections required an election petition.
Mohit approached the Election Tribunal, which in April 2025 ordered a recount for the disputed booth. Kuldeep obtained a stay from the High Court, prompting Mohit to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. In July 2025, the apex court directed that all five EVMs used in the election be presented to its Registrar (OSD) for a recount under video surveillance, with both parties present. The Registrar’s report, reviewed on August 11, confirmed Mohit’s lead, leading the court to void the original result.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N. Kotiswar Singh ordered the Panipat Deputy Commissioner to issue a fresh notification within two days, declaring Mohit Kumar as Sarpanch. Mohit was sworn in on August 14, 2025, stating, “Justice was delayed but ultimately delivered. The truth has won, and the entire village is rejoicing.”
The Supreme Court clarified that the Registrar’s recount findings are final, though other related disputes may be addressed by the Election Tribunal.
Nagpur, August 16, 2025: After over 18 years, a Nagpur court acquitted eight men accused of organizing meetings and distributing pamphlets linked to the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). Judicial Magistrate A.K. Bankar ruled that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of the accused’s participation in unlawful activities, stating, “Mere possession of literature or documents allegedly connected to an unlawful association, without proof of active intent or participation, does not meet the legal threshold.”
The acquitted individuals, booked in 2006 under Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), were in their 30s at the time of their arrest. Police had claimed to possess confidential information linking them to SIMI and alleged that incriminating materials were recovered from their residences. However, the prosecution could not substantiate these claims with records or credible witness testimony. Independent witnesses did not corroborate the police’s case, and allegations of one accused being sheltered by others remained unproven.
This acquittal adds to concerns raised by rights advocates about the misuse of stringent anti-terror laws, particularly against young Muslim men, leading to prolonged incarcerations with weak evidence. A similar case in Surat in 2021 saw 122 individuals acquitted in a 2001 SIMI-related case due to lack of proof. The Nagpur court’s decision underscores the need for robust evidence to justify charges under laws like the UAPA.
