The Supreme Court issued notice today on a plea filed by two convicts, Bipinchand Kanaiyalal Joshi and Pradip Ramanlal Modhiya, challenging their conviction and life sentence in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape and murder case.

The Bench sought responses from the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra regarding the 2017 Bombay High Court judgment that upheld their sentences.

The petitioners were among the eleven convicts whose 2022 remission by the Government of Gujarat was recently quashed by the Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction, resulting in their return to custody.

The Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on May 5, 2026.

[Bipinchand Kanaiyalal Joshi @ Lala Doctor v. State of Gujarat]

A Special CBI Court in Delhi has returned the 2016 chargesheet in the Antrix-Devas corruption case, ruling it lacks territorial jurisdiction.

Special Judge Atul Krishna Agarwal noted that most alleged conspiratorial acts occurred in Bengaluru, allowing the CBI to refile there. The decision followed an application by former ISRO official Veena Sri Ram Rao.

The decade-old case involves allegations that ISRO officials colluded with Devas Multimedia to lease S-band spectrum at "throwaway prices," allegedly causing a ₹578 crore loss.

This procedural shift follows the 2022 quashing of a US $560 million arbitral award, adding a new chapter to the long-standing legal saga.

[CBI v. K.R.S. Murthi & Ors.]

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Baramulla/Bandipora has directed IndiGo to pay ₹1.19 lakh to a couple whose checked-in baggage was lost during a flight from Saudi Arabia to Srinagar.

The Bench awarded ₹89,000 for the loss of valuables, ₹20,000 for mental agony, and ₹10,000 for litigation costs.

The complainants alleged that the airline's negligence in bundling group baggage without individual tags resulted in the loss.

Rejecting IndiGo's defense, the Commission ruled that failing to trace or adequately compensate for lost luggage constitutes a deficiency in service, ordering payment within 30 days.

[Mohammad Maqbool Hakeem v. IndiGo Airlines]

The Supreme Court recently addressed a recruitment dispute involving a constitutional law question in a Chandigarh law officer exam. The question asked which Constitutional Schedule is immune from judicial review.

While the official key marked "Ninth Schedule" as correct, a candidate argued "None of the above" was the right answer following the I.R. Coelho judgment.

The Court noted that even High Court judges held divergent opinions on this, hence law graduates cannot be expected to reach a single conclusion where judicial opinion is divided.

Consequently, the Court recognized both answers as correct and directed the appointment of both contesting candidates.

[Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court issued a summons to Republic TV's Arnab Goswami in a defamation suit filed by the Congress party over claims that the party operated an office in Turkey.

The Court refused to grant an interim injunction, noting that the broadcast aired in May 2025. The suit alleges that Goswami misrepresented the Istanbul Congress Centre as a party office during a broadcast concerning Operation Sindoor.

While Republic TV previously called the use of the image an editorial error, the Congress party argued that the content remains online.

The Court has scheduled the next hearing for May.

[Indian National Congress v. Arnab Goswami & Ors.]

Baramulla Consumer Commission held Physics Wallah guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for failing to provide a student access to a NEET coaching course.

Despite receiving a fee of ₹35,000, they did not grant the student batch access or allow participation in classes.

The Commission noted that the institute failed to appear or respond to notices, even as it continued to send fee demand messages to the complainant.

Directing refund of the fee, the Commission awarded ₹50,000 as compensation for academic loss and mental agony, along with ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

[Irshad Rashid Dand v. Physics Wallah Pvt. Ltd.]

Delhi Consumer Commission held Apple guilty of deficiency in service for failing to disclose essential conditions for its “Find My” feature.

The Commission observed that the message “iPhone findable after power off” misled users into believing the device remained traceable automatically after being switched off. In reality, the feature requires the “Find My” function to be pre-activated and the device to be connected to a network.

The Commission noted the absence of any disclaimer informing users of these preconditions.

While Apple argued it has no legal dutThe y to trace stolen phones, the Court focused on the misleading communication that created a false sense of security.

[Shan Mohmmed v. Apple India]

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on framing mandatory guidelines for High Courts to ensure the timely delivery of verdicts.

During the hearing, the Court considered suggestions from an amicus curiae proposing a three-month deadline for pronouncing reserved judgments.

The draft guidelines suggest that High Courts should display details of cases pending judgment for over three months on their websites for public transparency. The Court emphasized that these measures aim to enhance institutional accountability and protect the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

High Courts must now respond to these proposals before a final order is released. 

[Pila Pahan @Peela Pahan & Ors. v State of Jharkhand & Anr.]

The Supreme Court declared Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, unconstitutional for limiting maternity benefits to adoptive mothers of children under three months old.

The Court held that an adoptive mother’s need to bond with and care for a child remains constant regardless of the child's age.

Finding no rational nexus for the age-based distinction, the Court ruled it a violation of Articles 14 and 21. Mandating a uniform 12-week maternity benefit for all legal adoptive and commissioning mothers from the date of the child's handover.

The Court urged the Union to legislate paternity leave as a social security benefit.

[Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. UOI]

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed an order of the Collector rejecting landowners’ request for a reference under Section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 in a land acquisition dispute in Pahalgam.

The Court found that authorities failed to prove that the landowners were informed about the acquisition award or paid compensation.

It was observed that the right to seek a reference challenging compensation becomes meaningful only after the landowner has knowledge of the award and receives payment.

Calling the Collector’s order “grossly misconceived and misplaced,” the Court directed authorities to treat the application as valid and forward it to the Principal District Judge, Anantnag.

[Ghulam Mohammad Rah & Ors v. UT of J&K & Ors.]

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.