The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a Class 8 NCERT social science textbook chapter referring to corruption in the judiciary and imposed a complete ban on its publication, reprinting, and digital circulation.

The Court ordered the seizure of all physical copies and directed that no instruction be imparted based on the book. 

It issued a show-cause notice to the NCERT Director and the Secretary of School Education, Ministry of Education, asking why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated.

The Court observed that the content may amount to criminal contempt if it deliberately scandalised the judiciary.

The Supreme Court closed its 2021 suo-motu proceedings on river pollution, holding that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) should ensure continuous monitoring.

The Court observed that despite numerous orders, cleaning rivers remains a firm challenge as implementation often fails to meet expectations.

The Court observed that the NGT, as a specialised environmental tribunal, is better equipped to oversee compliance and sewage treatment. The Bench further held that parallel proceedings in multiple forums can create confusion and hinder uniformity.

The Court directed the CPCB and other relevant authorities to submit regular status reports to the NGT to ensure proper implementation of environmental laws and standards.

The Supreme Court held that a document cannot be termed forged merely because it is not traceable in official records after several years.

The case arose from an FIR alleging that the appellants submitted a forged letter from an Executive Magistrate to establish title in a property dispute.

The Allahabad HC had refused to quash the case. Setting aside that order, the Court observed that a document qualifies as forged only if it satisfies the ingredients of Section 464 IPC relating to making a false document.

It held that non-traceability alone does not establish forgery and quashed the criminal proceedings.

[Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. v. Ecstasy Reality Pvt. Ltd]

The Supreme Court held that Rooh Afza is classifiable as a fruit drink under the UPVAT Act and taxable at the concessional rate of 4%, rejecting the State’s decision to tax it at 12.5% under a residuary entry.

The dispute arose after tax authorities treated the product as a “non-fruit syrup/sharbat” based on its regulatory description.

The Court observed that marketing or licensing labels do not determine tax classification. It held that the product’s composition, essential character, and commercial identity must guide classification.

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the Allahabad HC judgments.

[M/s Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P.]

The Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Union government and the State of Uttar Pradesh on a PIL alleging that housing societies are obstructing the installation of private EV charging stations.

The Bench agreed to examine the plea filed by Rachit Katyal, a resident of Nirala Estate Phase-3 in Greater Noida (West).

The petitioner contended that despite the Ministry of Power’s 2024 EV Charging Infrastructure Guidelines recognising residents’ rights to install private chargers in allotted parking spaces (subject to safety norms), his housing society and facility manager failed to act on his request.

The Court has sought responses on ensuring uniform implementation of EV charging norms in group housing societies.

[Vedanta Ltd. v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.]

The Kerala High Court questioned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) over granting certification to The Kerala Story 2 - Goes Beyond.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that Kerala is a secular State living in harmony and asked whether the CBFC considered the possible communal impact of portraying events as widespread across the State. The Court said it would personally watch the film before deciding three petitions seeking a stay on its release and cancellation of certification.

The judge noted that since the movie claims to be “inspired by true events” and includes ‘Kerala’ in its title, public apprehensions cannot be ignored.

The matter will be heard again after a special screening for the Court.

[Sreedev Namboodiri v. UOI & Ors & connected cases]

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday asked Advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya to approach the Union Government to seek an amendment of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, instead of repeatedly challenging the use of Aadhaar in West Bengal’s electoral roll revision.

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi said that since Section 23(4) statutorily recognises Aadhaar as an identity document, the Court must uphold it.

Allegations of large-scale fake Aadhaar cards, the Bench observed, require legislative or executive intervention, clarifying that Aadhaar proves identity, not citizenship.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday stayed a February 17 judgment of the Kerala High Court that had quashed the LDF government’s Nava Kerala Citizen Response Programme and its authorisation of ₹20 crore for the initiative. 

The High Court had held the funding and implementation violated the Rules of Business and amounted to a “colourable exercise of executive power,” noting the timing close to assembly elections and alleged political use of public funds.

The Supreme Court’s interim order directs the State to file a report on expenditure at an appropriate stage, keeping the scheme alive while the appeal proceeds.

[State of Kerala v. Mubas]

The Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea seeking a ban on the film Yadav Ji Ki Love Story.

The petitioner claimed the title stereotyped the Yadav community and objected to the portrayal of a Hindu girl from the community falling in love with a Muslim man.

The Court said the title carries no negative adjective or defamatory expression against the community and found the apprehensions unfounded.

It held that none of the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) were attracted and refused to interfere.

The Supreme Court of India criticised several High Courts for regularly granting interim relief in writ petitions while declining to explore alternate legal remedies.

The Court observed that this approach undermines statutory grievance mechanisms and disrupts the balance of judicial review.

It emphasised that where alternative remedies exist, High Courts should enforce their use rather than routinely acceding to interim measures.

The apex court said interim relief should not be a substitute for substantive adjudication and urged lower courts to insist on exhaustion of available legal remedies before granting temporary orders.

[Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors.]

The Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognisance of references to “corruption in the judiciary” in a new NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the Court will not permit any attempt to defame or denigrate the institution.

Senior advocates raised concerns when mentioning that the chapter presents corruption and case backlog in a selective manner to school students. 

The Court noted that the content caused concern among members of the Bench and Bar and assured that appropriate steps would be taken after examining the issue.

The Supreme Court held that NCLT & NCLAT lack jurisdiction to look into the legality of properties attached under the Prevention of Benami Property Transactions Act,1988, even if such properties are involved in Insolvency proceedings.

The court emphasised that the Benami Act is a special law that supersedes the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The case involved two corporate debtors whose properties were attached. The NCLT and NCLAT dismissed the challenges to these attachments, stating that appropriate legal remedies exist under the Benami Act. The Supreme Court upheld their decisions & dismissed appeals with costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs.

[S Rajendran v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and ors.]