Reports/ JudgmentsSupreme Court Decries Tactic Of Obtaining Bail By Offering Money Deposit & Later Challenging Condition As OnerousCase Title: KUNDAN SINGH Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, SLP(Crl) No. 9111/2025Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 686The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the practice of parties getting anticipatory/regular bail orders from courts...
Reports/ Judgments
Supreme Court Decries Tactic Of Obtaining Bail By Offering Money Deposit & Later Challenging Condition As Onerous
Case Title: KUNDAN SINGH Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, SLP(Crl) No. 9111/2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 686
The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the practice of parties getting anticipatory/regular bail orders from courts after voluntarily offering to deposit substantial amounts but later going back on the statements and approaching higher courts claiming that the condition imposed while granting bail was onerous or the concerned counsel did not have authority to make the statement.
"We strongly deprecate this practice...we have to be conscious of the sanctity of judicial process. We cannot allow parties to play tucks and tricks with the Court...we cannot permit parties to take advantage of a device resorted by them to secure orders of release", observed a bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh.
The Court noted that the practice of parties raising such claims before the Supreme Court was becoming "commonplace" and resulted in foreclosure of consideration of cases by High Courts on merits.
Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Wazahat Khan, Complainant Against Sharmistha Panoli, In FIRs Outside West Bengal Over Offensive Tweets
Case Title: WAZAHAT KHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 247/2025
The Supreme Court on Monday (June 23) stayed the arrest of Wazahat Khan, the man whose complaint led to the arrest of influencer Sharmistha Panoli, in the FIRs registered in states other than West Bengal in relation to his social media posts for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while issuing notice on Khan's writ petition seeking the consolidation of the FIRs registered in the States of Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana over his social media posts. The bench noted that Khan was arrested in two cases registered in West Bengal and is presently undergoing police custody in the FIR registered by the Golf Link Police Station, Kolkata, and was remanded to judicial custody in the other Bengal FIR.
Supreme Court Mulls Guidelines For Issuance Of OBC Certificates To Children Of Single Mothers Without Paternal Documents
Case Title: SANTOSH KUMARI Versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 55/2025
The Supreme Court proposed to lay down guidelines for grant of OBC (Other Backward Classes) certificates to children of single mothers, so that the same can be issued without insistence on documents from the paternal side.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and listed it for final hearing on July 22. The order summarized the issue raised thus,
"The present petition raises an important issue about issuance of OBC certificate to children of single mother where the mother belongs to OBC category. The claim of the petitioner is certificate should be issued on the basis of the certificate held by single mother. The grievance of the petitioner is that present guidelines seem to provide for...considering the OBC certificate issued to any paternal blood relative as the basis. According to the petitioner, this causes grave hardship to single mothers."
Supreme Court Stays Deportation Of Sri Lankan Tamil Immigrant
Case Title: BASKARAN @ MAYURAN AND ANR. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 16491-2025
The Supreme Court stayed a 2019 deportation order passed against a Sri Lankan Tamil immigrant and called for the response of Indian authorities on his request for permission to physically visit Switzerland Embassy for processing of a visa on humanitarian grounds.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and issued notice to the respondent-authorities.
Since nearly 5.5 years had elapsed since the impugned deportation order was passed, the bench was inclined to seek the authorities' response as to the current status.
'Hate Speeches Get Us Nowhere; Wounds Inflicted By Fire May Heal, But Not Those Caused By Words': Justice KV Viswanathan
Case Title: WAZAHAT KHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 247/2025
"Hate speeches get us nowhere", remarked Supreme Court judge Justice KV Viswanathan , while dealing with the plea of Wajahat Khan (complainant in Sharmistha Panoli's case), who is facing complaints/FIRs in multiple states over alleged offensive remarks in his old social media posts.
A bench of Justices Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh was considering Khan's plea for consolidation of the FIRs lodged against him over alleged hurting of religious sentiments through the social media posts.
Notably, the FIRs were lodged after Khan complained against influencer and law student Sharmistha Panoli, who was arrested and subsequently released on interim bail.
Ahmedabad Plane Crash : PIL Filed In Supreme Court For Grounding Of Air India's Boeing Fleet Till Safety Clearance
In the wake of the tragic Air India plane crash that took place in Ahmedabad on June 12, claiming 270 lives, a public interest litigation has been file before the Supreme Court seeking suspension of the airlines' Boeing fleet till appropriate safety and security audits are conducted.
The PIL, filed by Advocate Ajay Bansal, alleges that the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and civil aviation requirements are not being adhered to by commercial airlines. It seeks surprise safety audits across the entire Air India fleet and other commercial airlines operating in the country.
'Unfortunate Scenario' : Supreme Court Summons UP Jailer For Not Releasing Prisoner Despite Bail Order
Case Title: AFTAB Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
The Supreme Court took serious exception to the non-release of an accused person from Ghaziabad jail, despite a bail order passed by the top Court, on the alleged ground that a sub-section of a provision under which he was booked was not mentioned in the bail order.
Sensing "something fishy", the Court called what transpired "ridiculous" and a "travesty of justice", and proposed contempt action against the concerned authority if petitioner's averments were found to be true. At the same time, it warned the petitioner's counsel that if the allegation against the jail authorities was found to be untrue, consequences will follow for the petitioner - including withdrawal of the bail order.
Lawrence Bishnoi Interview Case : 'How Reporter Entered Jail?' Asks Supreme Court; Ex-Punjab DSP Withdraws Plea
Case Title: GURSHER SINGH SANDHU Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 9140/2025
In a plea filed by dismissed Punjab DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu against issuance of Section 41A CrPC notices, the Supreme Court today questioned how the ABP reporter, who conducted the interview of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi (accused in singer Sidhu Moosewala murder case), got inside the Punjab jail.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and dismissed it as withdrawn, noting that similar petition filed by Sandhu before the Punjab and Haryana high Court is listed for hearing on July 3.
'Pankaj Bansal' Judgment On Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest Applies Only Prospectively, Argues Karnataka Govt In Supreme Court
Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE TOWN POLICE STATION Versus HEMANTH DATTA @ HEMANTHA @ BABY AND ANR | SLP (Cal) 9295/2025
In a case filed by the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court is likely to consider the issue as to whether its judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish grounds of arrest to the accused in writing, is retrospective in application.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter yesterday and adjourned it to June 26.
The case assails decision dated 17.04.2025 rendered by the Karnataka High Court holding that the Supreme Court's judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India shall apply retrospectively to cases where arrest was made prior to 03.10.2023 (date of the judgment) and that the said arrests can be challenged on the ground of non-service of grounds of arrest.
Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Pay Rs 5 Lakh Interim Compensation To Prisoner Not Released Over Clerical Omission In Bail Order
Case Title: AFTAB Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the State of Uttar Pradesh for not releasing a prisoner from the Ghaziabad jail despite the bail order passed by the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs 5 Lakhs as provisional compensation to the accused, who was denied release for 28 days, over a clerical omission of a sub-section in the bail order and the release order. The bench observed that personal liberty cannot be denied on "useless technicalities" and "irrelevant errors", when the details of the case and the offences are otherwise clear from the bail order.
'Undermines Legal Profession's Autonomy' : Supreme Court Raises Concerns At Police Summoning Advocates Over Client Advice
Case Title: ASHWINKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 9334/2025
The Supreme Court expressed a prima facie view that summoning of legal professionals by prosecuting agencies/police in relation to client information or advice given is untenable and a threat to autonomy of the legal profession.
"Legal profession is an integral component of process of administration of justice. Counsels who are engaged in their legal practice have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals, and also due to statutory provisions. Permitting investigating agencies/police to directly summon defense counsel/advocates who advice parties in a given case would seriously undermine autonomy of legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to independence of administration of justice", the Court observed.
'God Knows How Many Prisoners Are Languishing In Your Jails Over Technicality': Supreme Court Slams UP Govt, Orders Judicial Enquiry
Case Title: AFTAB Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
"God knows how many are languishing in your jails over technicalities", the Supreme Court said today while heavily rebuking State of Uttar Pradesh for not releasing an accused over lack of particulars in the bail order.
The Court further directed a judicial enquiry by a sitting District Judge, which shall focus on why there was delay in the petitioner-accused's release and whether there was something "sinister" going on. Notably, an interim compensation of Rs.5 lakhs was also ordered to be paid by the state to the petitioner.
NEET-PG : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Candidate Denied Admission Despite Paying Rs 27 Lakhs Fee; Allows Him To Attend Class
Case Title: KADAM GIRISH SHRIRAM Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 14738/2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 688
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 25) granted interim relief to a NEET-PG 2024 candidate, who was denied admission due to a delay in reporting to college despite paying the fees. The Court directed the medical college to allow the petitioner to attend the PG class from tomorrow onwards.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order in the peculiar facts of the case, directing ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Haldia, to admit the petitioner-candidate.
"The petitioner being duly counselled and having paid fees on or before 20.03.2025 should be permitted to attend the college in the seat allotted. We direct that respondent No.9-College to which the petitioner has been allotted a seat to permit him to attend the classes from tomorrow onwards", the Court ordered.
NEET-PG : Plea In Supreme Court Against Conversion Of Chandigarh UT Quota As All India Quota
Case Title: TANVI AND ORS. Versus A.K. ATRI AND ANR., Diary No. 33610-2025
Alleging that the decision to convert the Union Territory quota seats of Chandigarh as All India Quota seats is in violation of the judgment in Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, a contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court.
In Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, the Court held that residence-based reservation in PG Medical seats is impermissible as it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter on Tuesday and placed it before CJI BR Gavai for listing before the appropriate bench (comprising judges who passed the Tanvi Behl judgment).
"We can't do anything. It's only proper that being a contempt, it goes to the same judge...who is sitting on June 7...the admissions are over now, they can be reversed if there's breach", said Justice Viswanathan.
SCBA President Writes To CJI Seeking Relocation Of Judicial Museum For Lawyers' Use
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh has written to Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, requesting the relocation of the National Judicial Museum and Archive to the Additional Building within the Supreme Court campus and repurposing of the current museum space, the erstwhile Judges' Library, for use by Bar member
Singh reiterated the Association's objection to locating the museum in a high-security zone, which, he said, made it inaccessible to the public and was done without any consultation with the Bar.
Singh has proposed two measures: first, to downgrade the security status of the Additional Building Area within the Appu Ghar Complex to match that of chambers within the main campus, and second, to relocate the National Judicial Museum and Archive to the vacant spaces in this Additional Building Area.
The SCBA President noted that the land was originally allotted to Appu Ghar and was later reallocated to the Supreme Court for constructing lawyers' chambers after Appu Ghar's lease expired.
'Serving Operation Sindoor Won't Give Immunity' : Supreme Court Asks Black Cat Commando To Surrender In Dowry Death Case
Case Title – Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Case no. – Diary No. 33782 / 2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to grant exemption from surrender to a man convicted over 20 years ago under Section 304B of the IPC (dowry death) for killing his wife, rejecting his plea that he had served in Operation Sindoor and worked as a Black Cat Commando for the last 20 years.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vinod Chandran was hearing a special leave petition filed against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had dismissed the convict's appeal and upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. The petitioner had also filed an application seeking exemption from surrendering till the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
When the bench expressed disinclination from granting exemption, the petitioner's counsel said stating, “I can only leave with one line, I am a participant of Operation Sindoor. For the past 20 years I am a black cat commando posted my lord in Rashtriya Rifles.”
However, the bench was not moved by this plea, with Justice Bhuyan responding, “That doesn't give you immunity from committing atrocity at home. This goes to show how physically fit you are, and the manner in which alone you could have killed your wife, strangulated your wife.”
Supreme Court Stays Deportation Of Assam Woman Who Was Declared Foreigner
Case Title – Jaynab Bibi v. Union of India
Case no. – Diary No. 20270/2025
The Supreme Court today granted interim protection from deportation to a woman who has been declared a foreigner by Foreigner's Tribunal under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Gauhati High Court has upheld the Tribunal's order.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vinod Chandran issued notice returnable on August 25, 2025 in a plea challenging the High Court decision.
“Issue notice returnable on 25.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the standing counsel for respondent(s). In the meanwhile, petitioner shall not be deported and no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner” The Court ordered.
Supreme Court Refuses Bail On Medical Grounds To PFI Leader AS Ismail In UAPA Case
Case Title – AS Ismail v. National Investigation Agency Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9327/2025
The Supreme Court today declined to consider the plea for bail on medical grounds by Popular Front of India (PFI) leader AS Ismail, who is booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, however, issued notice to examine whether physiotherapy facilities available in Tihar Jail No. 3 could also be extended to Ismail, who is currently lodged in Tihar Jail No. 1.
“While we are not inclined to consider enlarging the petitioner on bail on medical grounds, considering the report of All India Institute of Medical Sciences dated 15.03.2025 (page 236 of the paper book), we are issuing notice to the respondent only to examine whether the physiotherapist facility, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner which is available in Tihar Jail-3, could also be made available to the petitioner who is currently lodged in Tihar Jail-1”, the Court ordered.
Courts Should Refrain From Staying Conviction Of Public Servants In Corruption Cases : Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Title – Raghunath Bansropan Pandey v. State of Gujarat
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 690
The Supreme Court recently refused to stay conviction of a public servant convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, noting that courts should refrain from staying conviction of public servants who have been convicted on charges of corruption.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale noted that there was no reason to interfere with the Gujarat High Court order which had only suspended the sentence but did not stay the conviction.
“This Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584 and Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. M.N. Sharma, (2008) 8 SCC 549 has categorically laid down that the Courts should refrain from staying conviction of public servants who have been convicted on charges of corruption. Ex facie, we find no justifiable reason to take a different view. That being the situation, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference”, the court held.
Supreme Court Notifies Guidelines For Retention And Destruction Of Administrative Records
The Supreme Court has notified the “Guidelines for Retention and Destruction of Records, 2025” to regulate the handling of administrative records in the Registry. The move addresses the absence of a uniform retention framework for administrative records.
While judicial records are already governed by Order LVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Chapter XXI of the 2017 Handbook on Practice and Office Procedure, no such system existed for non-judicial files.
'Mediation For Nation' Campaign To Start From July 1 To Settle Pending Cases Across Nation
A 90-day long Pan India mediation campaign titled 'Mediation For the Nation' will begin on July 1, 2025, and continue till September 30, 2025.
“MEDIATION 'FOR THE NATION' campaign is being launched across India to settle the pending cases and make people believe that mediation as a mechanism for dispute resolution is peoples' friendly, cost effective and speedy with ability to save relationships, time and money”, a joint press release by NALSA and MCPC stated.
The campaign has been conceptualised under the guidance of the Chief Justice of India and Justice Surya Kant, Judge, Supreme Court of India, who is also the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC).
Mere Recovery Of Weapon With Victim's Blood Group Not Enough For Murder Conviction: Supreme Court
Case Title – State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 691
The Supreme Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the acquittal of a murder accused, observing that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon matching the victim's blood group is not enough for a murder conviction.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the High Court's judgment dated May 15, 2015, which had set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court on the respondent.
“Wholly Untenable” : Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Of Law Student Under National Security Act
Case Title – Annu @ Aniket Through His Father As Next Friend Krupal Singh Thakur v. Union of India
Case no. – SLP (Crl) No. 9285/2025
The Supreme Court directed the immediate release of a 24-year-old law student from Madhya Pradesh who had been under preventive detention for nearly a year under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA).
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vinod Chandran observed that the grounds mentioned in the order, which include disruption of law and order did not satisfy the requirements of Section 3(2) of the Act.
“However, we are of the view that the reasons for which he has been taken into preventive detention does not satisfy the requirement of Sub Section(2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Preventive detention of the appellant, therefore, becomes wholly untenable”, the Court observed.
NEET-UG 2025: Supreme Court Refuses To Transfer Plea From Delhi High Court Over Exam Conduct
Case Details : ASSAD KHATRI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.|T.P.(C) No. 1746/2025
The Supreme Court today (June 26) refused to transfer to itself a writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the conduct of the NEET-UG 2025 exam. The Court observed that since the challenge was based on individual facts applicable to the petitioner himself, and not on any ground applicable generally across the board, the High Court was the appropriate forum to decide.
However, considering the concern raised by the petitioner that the seats would be filled up by the middle of July, the bench allowed him to seek advancement of the hearing.
Considering the urgency of the matter, the bench allowed the petitioner to mention it before the Delhi High Court Chief Justice for a possible early hearing.
If 'Pankaj Bansal' Can't Apply Retrospectively, How Arrest Was Quashed In That Case? Asks Supreme Court In Karnataka's Plea
Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE TOWN POLICE STATION Versus HEMANTH DATTA @ HEMANTHA @ BABY AND ANR | SLP (Cal) 9295/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Karnataka raising the issue whether the judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish grounds of arrest to the accused in writing, has retrospective application and whether it applies to offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh, while hearing the matter for admission, observed that the outcome of the case Mihir Rajesh Shah v. The State of Maharashtra, in which judgment was reserved by the Supreme Court in April, will address the issues raised in the present matter as well.
Supreme Court Declines Plea Seeking Handover Of Mahabodhi Mahavihara At Gaya To Buddhists; Allows To Approach HC
Case Details: SULEKHATAI NALINITAI NARAYANRAO KUMBHARE Vs THE UNION OF INDIA| D No. 19102/2025
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking to hand over the management of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara at Bodh Gaya, Bihar to Buddhists.
The petitioner also challenged the Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949, as per which the temple is managed by a management committee consisting of four Buddhists, four Hindus and one district collector.
A partial working days bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed the petition, giving the petitioner liberty to approach the High Court.
Case Details : M/S ALANKAR GRANITES v THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ORS.| SLP(C) No. 16999/2025
The issue whether a stone crusher unit can operate in the Eco Sensitive Zones (ESZ) notified around protected forests can be raised before the Kerala High Court, the Supreme Court observed recently, while allowing the withdrawal of a petition.
A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh was hearing a special leave petition filed by M/s Alankar Granites challenging the order of the Kerala High Court, which vacated its earlier stay on the stop memos issued against the stone crushing unit.
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Challenging Pricing For Consular Passport & Visa Services Provided By Third-Party Vendors
Case Details : RAGHAVENDRA BAGAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.| Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16610/2025
The Supreme Court is set to consider the validity of the Union's recent policy of having uniform pricing for Consular Passport and Visa Services, irrespective of whether the applicant avails of other Value Added Services.
The bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh was hearing the plea filed by a petitioner who is a citizen of India, residing in Oman.
The petitioner has moved against the Delhi High Court's order of dismissing his PIL, which challenged the Union's policy changes regarding the pricing of Consular Passport and Visa Services (CPV services) by third-party providers.
Supreme Court Seeks Madras HC Registry's Explanation For Not Listing Anticipatory Bail Application Citing Bar Under SC/ST Act
Case Title : S. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR v STATE OF TAMIL NADU | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO(S). 33621/2025
The Supreme Court on Monday sought an explanation from the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, for the non-listing of an anticipatory bail plea filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice NK Singh was hearing the Special Leave Petition filed challenging the Registry's refusal to list the petition before the bench on the ground that anticipatory bail was barred under Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 .
The Court observed that it is ultimately for the bench to decide whether a matter is maintainable or not.
The petitioner contended that the Registry cannot decide the maintainability of a petition as it was a matter of judicial discretion. However, by the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the petitioner got arrested.
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Tamil Nadu MLA Jegan Moorthy In Abduction Case
Case Details : M. Jegan Moorthy Vs The Inspector Police| SLP(Crl) No. 009477 - / 2025
The Supreme Court today granted anticipatory bail to "Poovai" Jegan Moorthy, MLA of KV Kuppam, Tamil Nadu, in the case alleging his involvement in the abduction of a minor boy.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice NK Singh was hearing the challenge against the Madras High Court's order dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by Moorthy in connection with the alleged abduction of a minor boy. The bench agreed to issue notice in the matter and granted anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court Declines Lalit Modi's Plea To Direct BCCI To Indemnify ₹10.65 Cr FEMA Penalty
Case Title: LALIT KUMAR MODI Versus BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 14199-2025
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a writ petition filed by former IPL Chairman Lalit Kumar Modi against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), seeking indemnification for a ₹10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
The matter was listed before the partial court working days bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, which at the outset observed that the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) is not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in certain limited functional public duties like organizing sports events.