The Supreme Court has declined to impose a media gag in the Dharmasthala mass burials case, directing a Karnataka trial court to decide the temple administration’s injunction plea within two weeks.

The plea, by Harshendra Kumar D, sought to stop allegedly defamatory reporting after claims by a former sanitation worker.

The High Court had lifted an earlier blanket gag, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court said such orders restrict free speech and should be rare, adding that defamation can be addressed through legal remedies like damages.

The trial court will now reconsider the issue.

[Harshendra Kumar D v Kudla Rampage And Ors.]

The Supreme Court has admitted appeals by Google, the CCI, and Alliance Digital India Foundation challenging an NCLAT order that partly upheld findings of Google abusing its dominant position in the Android ecosystem.

Originally from a 2020 CCI probe, the case involved allegations that Google imposed unfair Play Store policies and promoted Google Pay through the mandatory Google Play Billing System.

The NCLAT upheld core findings under Section 4 of The Competition Act, it set aside certain directions and reduced the penalty from ₹936.44 crore to ₹216.69 crore. The matter will now be heard in November. 

[Alphabet v. Competition Commission of India]

On his last working day before retirement on August 10, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia reflected on the Supreme Court’s unique diversity, saying he would miss “Hindustan”- the court’s lawyers and litigants from every part of India.

Born in 1960, Justice Dhulia began at the Allahabad High Court, later served in Uttarakhand, was Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, and joined the apex court in May 2022.

Known for his patient, empathetic approach and love of literature and Urdu ghazals, colleagues praised his sharp legal mind and human touch.

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the time limit for completing assessments under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.

Justice BV Nagarathna held that the 12-month limit under Section 153(3) applies even when the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is involved, making delayed assessments invalid.

However, Justice Sanjay Karol disagreed, stating that Section 144C has its own independent timeline, and applying Section 153 would disrupt assessments in complex cases.

Due to the disagreement, the matter is now referred to a larger bench for a final decision.

The Supreme Court has withdrawn its August 4 order removing an Allahabad High Court judge from criminal jurisdiction after Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai sought reconsideration.

Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan deleted the critical remarks but maintained that the High Court’s order entertaining a criminal case for recovery of ₹7.23 lakh instead of directing civil proceedings was “perverse” and legally unsustainable.

Justice Pardiwala clarified that the aim was not to embarrass the judge but to correct a serious judicial error.

The matter will return to the High Court before a different judge, with roster allocation left to its Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court has raised a pressing question: in elections with only one candidate, should voters be stripped of the NOTA (None of the Above) option?

A bench observed that a substantial NOTA vote in such cases could represent an “invisible will” against the sole contender. 

Hearing a PIL under Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act and Rule 11 of the Conduct of Election Rules, the court observed that discontent may exist even without rival candidates.

The Election Commission said it had no objection if the law permitted. The court adjourned the case, awaiting the Union’s affidavit, and allowed ADR’s intervention.

[Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy V UOI & Anr.]

The Supreme Court urged the Indian Air Force to adopt a flexible approach in granting family pensions, holding that ‘mother’ for welfare schemes need not mean only the biological mother.

Hearing a plea by a stepmother who raised a deceased Airman from age six, Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh questioned why the definition couldn’t reflect who actually performed the role of a mother. 

The Court noted pension benefits should be determined case-by-case and adjourned the matter to September 18 for the IAF to reconsider.

The Armed Forces Tribunal had earlier rejected her claim.

[Jayashree Y Jogi V UOI & Ors.]

The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order refusing to suspend a convict's 4-year fixed-term sentence without applying settled law.

Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan cited Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, which mandates liberal suspension of fixed-term sentences unless exceptional circumstances exist. The HC had dismissed the plea solely citing the offence's heinous nature.

Calling this "one more" disappointing order, the bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration within 15 days.

The appellant was convicted under POCSO, IPC, and SC/ST Act provisions.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre on a plea by retired Army officer SG Vombatkere challenging Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging it is a repackaged form of the suspended sedition law under Section 124A IPC.

The petition contends that the provision’s vague and sweeping language criminalises a wide range of speech, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.

The petition argues that Section 152 permits arbitrary State action, has a chilling effect on free expression, and fails tests of proportionality and necessity.

The Bench sought the government’s response and tagged the matter with related cases.

[SG Vombatkere v Union of India]

The Supreme Court has clarified that Parliament can initiate the process to remove a judge even if the Chief Justice of India (CJI) does not recommend it.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih ruled that the powers of Parliament under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, are not restricted by the CJI’s opinion or the outcome of an in-house inquiry.

The Court emphasised that the in-house mechanism is merely an internal, non-statutory process without legal force.

Therefore, MPs are free to bring a motion for judicial removal independently.

The Supreme Court has ruled that charitable societies receiving public donations can be treated as constructive trustees and may be sued under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, even if they are not formally registered as trusts. 

The Court clarified that Section 92 applies to entities managing property for public, religious, or charitable purposes, and such suits can be filed when there is alleged misuse or breach of trust.

It emphasized that the provision is meant to protect public interest through representative actions, and procedural requirements under Section 92 must be fulfilled for such cases to proceed.

[Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra]

The Supreme Court has re-listed a matter in which it had criticised Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court for holding that criminal prosecution could be used as an alternative means to recover money in civil disputes.

On August 4, a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed that Justice Kumar not be assigned criminal matters until retirement and should sit with a senior judge.

However, Supreme Court judges have reportedly taken exception to this direction.

The matter, earlier disposed of, is now listed for hearing on Friday. Meanwhile, Justice Kumar's roster has been altered, and criminal cases reassigned to Justice Dinesh Pathak.

The Supreme Court has held that the practice of hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran is inhuman and must be stopped.

A bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai, with Justices K Vinod Chandran and KV Viswanathan, directed the Maharashtra government to phase out the practice within six months.

The Court noted the violation of human dignity and constitutional promises of social justice, citing Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union and People of India for Democratic Rights.

The state must introduce an e-rickshaw scheme and rehabilitate rickshaw pullers, with the Court making clear that lack of funds is no excuse for delay.

[T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Supreme Court, while hearing review pleas in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, criticised the Enforcement Directorate for acting beyond legal limits and noted its conviction rate is below 10% in over 5,000 PMLA cases.

The Supreme Court rebuked the ED, saying it cannot act like a crook and its conduct must be within the four corners of the law.

Emphasising the need to safeguard liberty and ED’s credibility, the bench questioned years-long custody without trial, asking, “If acquitted after 5–6 years, who compensates?”

The ASG blamed trial delays on the accused’s tactics and investigative challenges. Another SC bench recently voiced similar concerns over ED’s extended pre-trial detentions under the money laundering law.