The Supreme Court has ruled that no cognizable offence was made out against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches during the 2020 protests.

The Bench upheld the Delhi High Court's view that the speeches did not target specific communities or incite public disorder.

While the Court set aside the HC’s observation that prior sanction is required for registering an FIR at the pre-cognizance stage, it found no merit in the plea to initiate criminal proceedings.

The Court concluded that after reviewing the material and status reports, the allegations did not warrant the registration of an FIR.

[Brinda Karat v. State of NCT of Delhi]

The Supreme Court has criticised the Union Government for failing to regularise daily-wage labourers at an ISRO subsidiary, despite final judicial orders issued years ago.

The Court observed that the "Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012" diluted previous directions by offering only temporary engagement instead of permanent status.

Emphasising that the State must act as a model employer under Article 14, the Court noted that India's space achievements rely on the indispensable contributions of Group C and D workers. Holding that authorities cannot bypass final judgments by framing inconsistent schemes.

The Court directed the immediate regularisation of the appellants with retrospective effect from September 2010.

[R. Iyyappan v. UOI]

The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of dowry death, questioning the Allahabad High Court’s decision to allow his release despite prima facie evidence.

The Bench noted that the deceased woman was found with strangulation marks and external injuries within seven years of marriage.

The Court emphasised that under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, a presumption of dowry death arises in such suspicious circumstances.

Criticising the High Court for passing a non-sustainable order, the bench directed the accused to surrender within a week and ordered the trial to be concluded within one year.

[Siddharth Maurya v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed Delta Corp’s plea seeking permission to operate electronic slot machines and casino-style amusement games at its five-star “The Deltin” hotel in Daman.

The Court held that no valid legal framework currently exists permitting such activities in the Union Territory.

A Division Bench observed that although amendments to the Goa gambling law were extended to Daman and Diu in 1998, the provisions were never formally enforced through the mandatory government notification.

As a result, operation of slot machines remains prohibited under the Public Gambling Act. The Court also rejected Delta Corp’s claims based on legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

[Delta Corp Ltd & Anr. v. UT Administration of Daman and Diu]

The Supreme Court has announced that the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) examination will not be held in 2026.

According to a notification issued by the Board of Examiners, the decision was taken after considering the current total strength of AoRs, which stands at nearly 4,000 members.

The Court noted that the schedule for the next examination will likely be announced in 2027. Under the Supreme Court Rules, only advocates who clear this qualifying exam are entitled to file cases before the apex court.

The last induction occurred on April 16, adding 205 new practitioners to the existing pool.

The Bombay High Court recently held that insurance companies cannot reject genuine health insurance claims merely because the claim was filed beyond the time limit prescribed in the policy.

A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande observed that such “time-bar” clauses restricting a policyholder’s right to claim benefits are hit by Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The Court directed United India Insurance Company to reimburse the claimant’s hospitalisation expenses along with 6% interest, holding that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive rights under an insurance contract.

[C.P. Ravindranath Menon v. United India Insurance Company]

The Supreme Court recently took serious note of repeated strike calls and court boycotts by the Gautam Buddha Nagar Bar Association in Noida and directed immediate action by the Allahabad High Court.

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the District Judge to submit details of all days on which lawyers abstained from work pursuant to strike resolutions.

The Court further directed the Allahabad High Court committee examining the issue to take prompt action in accordance with earlier Supreme Court rulings prohibiting lawyers’ strikes, observing that repeated abstentions were disrupting court functioning and affecting litigants.

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on an anticipatory bail plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera regarding a defamation and forgery case registered by the Assam Police.

The Bench heard arguments concerning allegations Khera made about the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma holding multiple foreign passports.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Khera, argued the case stems from "political vendetta" and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary for public statements.

Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Assam Police, contended Khera used "doctored" documents, requiring custody to identify accomplices and investigate potential foreign interference.

[Pawan Khera v. State of Assam]

The Supreme Court recently urged the Central Government to consider amending the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act to better address cases involving rape survivors, particularly minors.

The observations were made while hearing a plea concerning a 15-year-old rape survivor seeking termination of a pregnancy beyond the statutory limit.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that compelling a rape survivor to continue an unwanted pregnancy may lead to severe emotional trauma, humiliation and lifelong psychological impact.

The Court emphasised that the law should evolve with changing societal realities and suggested that rigid gestational limits may require reconsideration in rape-related pregnancies.

The Supreme Court recently questioned whether a non-believer or a person unconnected with a temple can claim a right of entry into religious places like Sabarimala.

The observations were made by a nine-judge Constitution Bench during hearings on petitions relating to women’s entry into places of worship and the broader scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked that the Court must examine whether such rights are being claimed by actual devotees or by persons having no connection with the faith or temple.

The remarks came while senior advocate Indira Jaising defended the 2018 judgment permitting entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple.

[Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association]