The Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition raising concerns over mercury leakage from waste residue at the Union Carbide site.

The Bench directed the petitioner to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court with its supporting scientific evidence.

The petitioner relied on an IIT Hyderabad report alleging that current incineration trial reports failed to accurately detect high mercury concentrations, risking groundwater contamination at the Pithampur disposal site.

The Bench observed that since the High Court has monitored the matter for two decades, it is the appropriate forum to examine expert deliberations on the safety of the disposal process.

[Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti v. UOI & Ors.]

The Union Government revoked the detention of activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA) to restore peace and foster dialogue in Ladakh.

Released from Jodhpur Central Jail after nearly six months in preventive custody, the Ministry stated the move aims to build mutual trust and start constructive dialogue with stakeholders. 

This decision precedes a Supreme Court hearing on a habeas corpus petition filed by his wife. During prior proceedings, the Court had questioned the administration's interpretation of Wangchuk’s speeches and flagged procedural concerns regarding the evidence provided.

The revocation effectively ends the legal challenge to his continued confinement.

[Dr. Gitanjali Angmo v. UOI]

Hamid Dabholkar, son of rationalist Dr. Narendra Dabholkar, has moved the Supreme Court to uphold the 2018 verdict allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple.

Representing the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, the applicants argue that excluding women based on menstruation violates constitutional equality and scientific temper. The application warns that by defining "essential religious practices," the Court risks acting as a theological authority like a "Dharmashastri."

They urge the Court to dismiss review petitions, asserting that biological characteristics must not justify social exclusion.

A nine-judge Constitution Bench is set to commence a marathon hearing on the matter starting April 7, 2026.

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary, expressing concern that the activity is threatening endangered aquatic wildlife, particularly the Gharial.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted reports indicating that rampant mining was occurring even in protected areas meant for gharial conservation.

The Court observed that such activities were forcing gharials to relocate from their habitats. 

The matter has been placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for appropriate directions and further consideration by a suitable bench.

The Supreme Court observed that it cannot impose its views on legal education policy while hearing a PIL seeking to reduce the integrated LL.B. course duration from five years to four.

The Bench noted that such changes require broad consultation among academicians, jurists, and the BCI, rather than judicial diktats.

Petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay argued that the current five-year structure creates an excessive financial burden and discourages talent compared to other professional courses. The Court questioned why universities haven't initiated these changes independently if they are opposed to the length.

The matter is listed for further consideration in April 2026.

[In re: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI]

The Karnataka High Court held that merely storing child sexual abuse material on a mobile phone can attract offences under Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, even if the material was not transmitted or shared.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against an accused whose phone allegedly contained sexually explicit images and videos of children.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish and observed that the law criminalises even preparatory conduct such as storage or possession of such material.

[Sri Binoj P J v. State by Karnataka Commercial Street Police Station]

The Haryana government informed the Supreme Court that it will not grant sanction to prosecute Ashoka University faculty member Ali Khan Mahmudabad for social media comments regarding "Operation Sindoor."

Terming the decision a "one-time magnanimity," the State has officially closed the criminal proceedings. A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi cautioned Mahmudabad to be more prudent in the future, noting that sensitive situations require responsible communication from learned individuals.

The case involved FIRs registered under the BNS for posts discussing military action and mob lynching.

The Court had previously granted Mahmudabad interim bail and stayed the trial in 2025.

[Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State of Haryana]

Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court Chief Justice rejected his administrative request to transfer the excise policy case.

Filing under Article 32, Kejriwal expressed "reasonable apprehension" of bias, arguing that Justice Sharma’s recent stay on his discharge order and her direction to defer PMLA proceedings, despite the ED not being a party, showed a lack of judicial detachment.

He further noted that the Supreme Court had previously set aside several of Justice Sharma's judgments in related excise matters.

The move follows Delhi High Court Chief Justice’s March 13 ruling that any decision on recusal must be taken by the judge herself.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that falsely branding an individual as having links with terrorists or acting as an overground worker is ex facie defamatory as it lowers their reputation in society.

Justice Sanjay Dhar held that while media houses enjoy freedom of speech, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions, including defamation laws.

The Court refused to quash proceedings against the newspaper's editor, noting the statutory presumption of responsibility for published content.

However, the court quashed the case against the owner, stating there was no evidence of his direct involvement in selecting the specific defamatory article.

[Sanjay Gupta & Anr. v. Prem Kumar]

The Jharkhand High Court refused to grant bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, holding that mere delay in the trial or prolonged incarceration cannot by itself justify bail in cases involving serious offences affecting national security.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary emphasised that the stringent restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA must be respected when the allegations appear prima facie true.

The Court observed that delay in trial in grave offences cannot override the statutory bar on bail.

[Kundan Kumar v. National Investigation Agency]

The Bombay High Court held that courts cannot rely on forensic reports such as chemical analysis or DNA reports unless the expert who prepared the report is examined as a witness.

The Court observed that failure to examine the forensic expert deprives the accused of the opportunity to cross-examine the scientific evidence, which is essential for a fair trial.

Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court stated that relying solely on reports without examining their authors is a serious procedural error.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and directed the trial court to examine the concerned forensic experts.

[State of Maharashtra v. Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi]

The Delhi High Court observed that repeatedly summoning child sexual assault victims during trial or bail proceedings causes significant psychological distress and re-traumatisation.

The Court emphasized that the POCSO Act mandates child-friendly procedures to protect minors from unnecessary appearances. Holding that once a victim's views on bail are recorded, their continued presence should be avoided in every hearing.

The Court suggested using video conferencing to record testimonies to minimize physical court visits.

This ruling came while addressing a petition by three minors who were summoned multiple times, with one even facing a bailable warrant for non-appearance due to emotional distress.

[Minor Child K & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors.]

Yes. While taking a screenshot/photograph is not a 'crime' in itself, sharing it without consent can trigger severe legal consequences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Under Section 66E of the IT Act, capturing or publishing private images without consent is illegal. Furthermore, if the message contains intimate content, Section 77 of the BNS (Voyeurism) applies, carrying a jail term of up to three years & fine. 

However, sharing a screenshot/photograph with authorities as evidence for harassment or a crime is legal under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Intent and content define the legality.

The Supreme Court authorized District Judges nationwide to nominate women members to the Executive Committees of Bar Associations to ensure 30% gender representation.

A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued this directive to address instances where sufficient women members are available but are unable to contest elections.

This move follows reports that several Bar Associations, including specialized bodies like Tax and RERA bars, have failed to meet the 30% mandate.

The Bench directed 14 non-compliant High Courts to ensure the quota is implemented across all jurisdictions, including Taluka and District levels, to foster gender diversity within legal leadership.

[Deeksha N Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.]