The Supreme Court issued contempt notices to 51 private hospitals in Delhi, including Sir Ganga Ram and Fortis Escorts, for failing to provide free treatment to patients from weaker sections.

These hospitals, which received land at concessional rates, are mandated to reserve 10% of Inpatient Department (IPD) and 25% of Outpatient Department (OPD) services for indigent persons.

The Bench observed that several facilities violated a 2018 Court order despite government directives.

Consequently, the Court appointed the Secretary of Health, GNCTD, as a Nodal Officer to oversee enforcement and warned that land allotments may be withdrawn if non-compliance persists.

[UOI v. Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust]

The Supreme Court invoked Article 139A of the Constitution to transfer three criminal revision petitions from the Allahabad High Court to itself.

The High Court had reserved judgment in 2020 but failed to pronounce a verdict for six years, stalling a 1994 murder trial.

The Bench observed that such prolonged delays cause irreversible prejudice and deny the right to speedy justice. The Court noted that the case raises substantial questions regarding judicial accountability and the credibility of the criminal process.

Directing the High Court to transmit all records within three weeks for final disposal.

[Jaideep Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors.]

The Supreme Court ruled that an employer must personally pay the penalty for delaying compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the compensation amount is covered by insurance.

The Court clarified that the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) arises from the employer’s own default and cannot be shifted to the insurance company.

The case arose after an employee died in a work-related accident and compensation was not paid within the statutory period.

While the insurer may pay compensation and interest, the Court held that the penalty must be borne by the employer to ensure timely payment and maintain the deterrent purpose of the law.

The Supreme Court has issued nationwide directions to all States and Union Territories to expand and strengthen open prisons (Open Correctional Institutions) to address overcrowding in jails.

The Court noted that many prisons in India operate at over 120% capacity, which undermines the dignity and rights of prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It directed governments to establish more open prisons, frame clear eligibility criteria for inmates, and ensure proper infrastructure and rehabilitation opportunities.

The Court emphasised that open prisons help in reformation, social reintegration, and reducing recidivism, while also easing the burden on conventional prisons.

The Supreme Court has clarified that a High Court does not lose its power to hear contempt petitions just because its original order was later affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal.

This arose in a dispute over a 2007 Madras High Court order regarding the Corporation of Chennai's absorption of employees. The Madras High Court had refused to hear contempt, saying its order had 'merged' with the Supreme Court’s affirmation. 

The Supreme Court ruled that although the Doctrine of Merger applies, it does not strip the High Court of contempt jurisdiction.

Therefore, the contempt petition must be reconsidered by the High Court.

[United Labour Federation v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi]

The Supreme Court has stayed a Delhi HC ruling that struck down the Indian Coast Guard's rank-based retirement policy.

The High Court had declared different retirement ages (57 for Commandants and below, vs. 60 for higher ranks) as unconstitutional. However, the Apex Court intervened, noting that such a change could disrupt the structure of other uniformed forces.

It has directed the Central Government to form an expert panel to re-examine the Coast Guard's recruitment and retirement framework.

For now, the existing age limits will continue until the next hearing in April 2026.

[UOI v. Cheeli J Ratnam]

The Supreme Court recently observed that delivering a judicial decision based on non-existent, AI-generated case laws constitutes misconduct rather than a mere legal error.

The Bench took note of an Andhra Pradesh trial court order that cited several "hallucinated" judgments in a property dispute.

The Court emphasized that using synthetic or fake precedents directly impacts the integrity of the adjudicatory process.

Consequently, the Bench stayed the trial court's proceedings and appointed an amicus curiae to help examine the legal consequences and accountability for such technological lapses in the judiciary.

The matter will be heard next on March 10.

[Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.]

A former NCERT Senior Associate Fellow has moved the Supreme Court of India, challenging a passage in the Class 8 textbook Social and Political Life – III, prescribed since 2007, for allegedly portraying the judiciary in a distorted manner.

The plea follows the Court’s recent suo motu action over content in the new Class 8 book Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Vol. 2).

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant had earlier issued a contempt notice to NCERT authorities over references to “corruption in the judiciary.”

The present petition challenges a line stating that “recent judgments tend to view the slum dweller as an encroacher,” arguing that it presents eviction jurisprudence without adequate constitutional context.

[Dr Pankaj Pushkar v. UOI & Anr.]

Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna said press freedom in India may be legally guaranteed but can be economically constrained in subtle ways.

Speaking at the IPI India Award event in Delhi, she warned that the gravest threats to media independence may not stem from direct censorship under Article 19(2), but from economic regulations under Article 19(6).

She noted that ownership rules, licensing laws, advertising policies, taxation and antitrust regulations can indirectly influence editorial choices.

A media house may be legally free to criticise the government, she said, yet financially pressured in ways that make such criticism costly or unsustainable.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday questioned a husband’s claim that he earns only ₹9,000 per month and cannot pay ₹12,000 as monthly maintenance to his wife.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta remarked that such a salary was “difficult to swallow,” asking who earns ₹9,000 in present times.

The Court indicated it may summon the employer to verify the claim.

The matter stems from the wife’s plea seeking enhancement of alimony after lower courts awarded ₹6 lakh as full and final settlement. Orders have been reserved.

The Supreme Court recently rebuked a West Bengal judicial officer for filing a forgery case against his brother via a Magistrate instead of lodging a police complaint.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta termed the action as the grossest abuse of juridical office, observing that the officer should be sent home. 

The Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings, noting that the judge leveraged his official status to influence a personal dispute.

Further emphasizing that judges must act as ordinary citizens in private matters rather than bypassing standard police procedures. 

[Jai Prakash Singh v. Nandlal Singh]

The Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court order that had revived an injunction claim against Saregama India Limited in a copyright dispute over sound recordings of seven films, including Salangai Oli and Sankara Bharanam.

The High Court had held that the declaration of copyright ownership sought by Sreedevi Video Corporation was barred by limitation, but allowed the suit to proceed on the limited issue of injunction.

Saregama argued that once the declaration claim was time-barred, no injunction could survive as it was consequential to the title.

Accepting the plea for interim relief, the Court stayed further proceedings. The matter will be heard in April 2026.

[Saregama v. Sreedevi Video Corporation]

The Supreme Court has raised concerns about the uneven implementation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 across different States and Union Territories.

The Court noted that several states have not framed the rules required under Section 4 of the Act, which are necessary for Muslims to formally opt to be governed by Shariat law in personal matters like marriage, inheritance, maintenance, and guardianship.

This gap means the declaration process under Section 3 cannot work in many places.

The Bench has directed all States/UTs to report their status and compile a consolidated update before the next hearing scheduled on March 18.

[Gohar Sultan v. Sheikh Anis Ahmad & Anr.]