The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a petition for the safe return of 26 Indian citizens allegedly detained in Russia and forced to fight in the Ukraine war. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M.

Pancholi, ordered Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to take instructions from the central government, given the seriousness of the matter. The petitioners' lawyer informed the court that these Indian citizens are trapped in extremely unsafe conditions on the battlefield and are being compelled to participate in military activities against their will. The petition filed in court seeks directions to the central government to take immediate diplomatic and consular steps through the Indian embassy in Russia.

It mentions providing consular access to these Indians under the Vienna Convention (1963) and bilateral agreements to accurately ascertain their current legal status and safety. The Solicitor General assured the bench that he would conduct a thorough investigation into the matter and inform the court with the government's instructions. The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for the end of this month.

The petition emphasizes that the Indian government should make all necessary efforts for the dignity, safety, and return of these citizens within the framework of international laws. This case has emerged amid ongoing reports of several Indians being stranded due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Following the Supreme Court's intervention, there is now hope that the central government will expedite the process of locating these youths and bringing them home safely. All eyes are on the response to be presented by the government in the upcoming hearing.

Publish with Us: Wish to feature your personal or organizational milestones, success stories, or press releases in Loktej English? Contact us, and we will guide you through our publication process.

Feedback & Corrections: We strive for accuracy. If you spot an error, have feedback, or object to the content of this article/press release, please notify us at loktejonline [at] gmail [dot] com. We will review the matter and rectify it at the earliest.

New Delhi, April 3 — Chief Justice of India (CJI) Suryakant participated in the self-enumeration process for 'Census 2027' at his residence.

The Census 2027 initiative confirmed this on social media, encouraging citizens to count themselves. The office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner stated that the Chief Justice successfully completed his self-counting for the first phase of Census 2027, which focuses on house listing and housing census. It further noted that by presenting an inspiring example of civic duty, the CJI registered details of his household through the secure self-enumeration portal.

Census 2027 highlighted that this marks a significant milestone in India's first fully digital census, empowering citizens with a convenient and transparent data collection process. The initiative expressed gratitude to the CJI for his active participation and support in this massive national campaign, urging everyone to also count themselves through the official census website to contribute to building a strong, data-empowered 'Developed India'. Earlier on Wednesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah also completed their self-counting.

On Friday, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla participated in the self-counting process as well. In a message on the social media platform 'X', Speaker Birla stated that the first phase of India's 'Census 2027' has begun, and he completed his self-registration at his residence in Delhi. Census 2027 is set to be India's first fully digital census, moving away from the traditional paper-based system that has been in place for over 150 years.

The process is being conducted in two phases under the Census Act of 1948, with the first phase, known as House Listing and Housing Census (HLO), focusing on collecting data related to housing conditions, household amenities, and properties. Citizens will need to answer 33 notified questions during this phase.

Surat, November 20. Following the historic decision delivered by the Supreme Court on November 7, the removal of stray animals from sensitive areas, including state and national highways across the country, has now become mandatory. The court has issued clear instructions to ensure safety, particularly in hospitals, schools, colleges, and crowded regions.

The court has explicitly stated that captured stray dogs will not be released back into their original locations. As per agency report, the Chief Secretaries of all states have been ordered to strictly enforce these directives and submit a report within three weeks. In light of these developments, a significant meeting was held on Wednesday under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner (Health and Hospital) of the Surat Municipal Corporation. The session was attended by officials from government and semi-government hospitals, railway and bus stations, district education officers, executive engineers, and deputy health officers.

During the meeting, it was decided that appropriate fencing or boundary walls would be constructed to secure the premises of all government and semi-government institutions, private schools, colleges, hospitals, as well as railway and bus stations in Surat city against stray dogs. The entry and exit points of these locations will be controlled and secured. To oversee the work and ensure proper implementation, nodal officers will be appointed in all institutions. Additionally, instructions were issued to organize IEC activities to raise public awareness.

It has been made mandatory to conduct inspections of every institution every three months to ensure that the number of stray dogs does not increase and that these premises do not become gathering spots for animals. The meeting also put forward a suggestion to prepare a comprehensive digital database of the entire campaign, which would facilitate continuous monitoring and effective action regarding the control of stray dogs in Surat. Following the Supreme Court order, the Surat Municipal Corporation has taken swift action and prepared a comprehensive action plan, prioritizing the safety of sensitive areas within the city.

New Delhi, November 7 — The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the pilot killed in the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad could not be held responsible for the tragedy and advised his 91-year-old father not to carry the burden of blame. The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing a petition filed by the pilot’s father, Pushkaraj Sabharwal, and issued notices to the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

As per agency report, the court stated that the incident was purely accidental and noted that even the preliminary report did not attribute any fault to the pilot. The bench remarked that there was no reason for the petitioner to feel guilty, as the Air Accident Investigation Board’s (AAIB) findings made no allegations against his late son. The court also commented that a media report published by an American outlet had indulged in poor reporting aimed at unfairly blaming India.

Referring to the AAIB’s preliminary report issued on July 12, the court said it merely described the communication between the two pilots and did not suggest any culpability. It emphasized that the AAIB’s role was not to assign blame but to recommend preventive measures to avoid such tragedies in the future. The bench further stated that, if necessary, it would explicitly clarify that the pilot could not be held responsible for the accident.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on November 10 along with other petitions related to the incident. The June 12 crash had claimed 260 lives, prompting Pushkaraj Sabharwal and the Indian Pilots’ Association to approach the Supreme Court last month seeking a fair, transparent, and technically sound investigation under the supervision of a former Supreme Court judge.

New Delhi, October 27 : The Supreme Court on Monday permitted the central government to examine telecom operator Vodafone Idea Limited’s plea challenging additional demands related to adjusted gross revenue (AGR) up to the financial year 2016–17, stating that the issue falls under the Centre’s policy domain.

As per agency report, the bench comprising Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order while hearing Vodafone Idea’s writ petition seeking the cancellation of additional AGR-related claims raised by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). The company argued that these claims were unsustainable since the Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict had already clarified the outstanding liabilities on AGR dues.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, informed the court that the government now holds a 49 percent stake in Vodafone Idea and that nearly 200 million subscribers rely on the company’s services. He added that given these circumstances, the government was prepared to consider the issues raised by the company to ensure consumer interests are safeguarded.

The court noted that the petition sought to quash additional AGR demands for 2016–17 and requested further directions for a comprehensive reassessment of all outstanding dues. Observing the changed circumstances, including the government’s substantial equity stake and the potential impact on millions of customers, the bench said there was no impediment in allowing the Centre to reconsider the matter and take appropriate action.

The bench emphasized that the issue falls squarely within the government’s policy framework and therefore found no reason to prevent the Centre from reviewing it. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition with this observation.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Vodafone Idea, contended that the additional demand of Rs 5,606 crore for 2016–17 raised by the DoT was arbitrary, as the dues had already been settled following the 2019 Supreme Court ruling.

AGR refers to the revenue figure used to calculate the license fee and spectrum usage charges payable by telecom operators to the government. The AGR dispute primarily arose from the inclusion of non-telecom income in the calculation, which led to massive liabilities for operators such as Vodafone Idea and Bharti Airtel.

New Delhi, October 27 : The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its intent to transfer the investigation of all ‘digital arrest’ cases across India to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), citing the widespread nature of this emerging cybercrime. The court also sought details of all First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in various states and union territories related to such incidents.

As per agency report, ‘digital arrest’ is a form of online fraud in which scammers impersonate officials of government agencies or the police, falsely accuse victims of breaking the law, and extort money through threats and coercion.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to all states and union territories, taking suo motu cognizance of a case involving an elderly woman who was defrauded by cybercriminals through this method. The court adjourned the hearing to November 3.

The bench considered the submission of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the CBI and stated that many of these cybercrime and ‘digital arrest’ cases originate from foreign locations such as Myanmar and Thailand. The Supreme Court directed the CBI to prepare a comprehensive plan for investigating these cases effectively.

The court observed that it would monitor the progress of the investigation and issue necessary directions to ensure proper coordination. It also asked the CBI whether it required additional resources, including external cyber experts, beyond the existing police infrastructure to handle such complex cases.

Earlier, the apex court had taken note of the growing number of online frauds, particularly those involving fake judicial orders used to intimidate citizens through ‘digital arrests’. It had sought responses from the Centre and the CBI by October 17, remarking that such crimes strike at the very foundation of public trust in the judicial system.

The court took cognizance of a case from Ambala, Haryana, where a senior couple was allegedly subjected to a ‘digital arrest’ and extorted of Rs 1.05 crore through forged court and investigation agency documents. The bench stated that this was not a routine criminal case to be left to the police alone but one requiring coordinated efforts between central and state authorities to fully expose the criminal network behind it.

New Delhi, August 22 – The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that stray dogs cannot be fed on streets, directing municipal authorities in Delhi-NCR to set up designated feeding zones instead. The order was passed by a special three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, with Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria also on the panel.

The court instructed that feeding areas be identified in each municipal ward, taking into account the local stray dog population and density. It further ordered that notice boards be installed near the designated feeding sites, clearly stating that the area is meant for feeding stray dogs. Legal action will be taken against individuals found feeding dogs on streets in violation of these directives.

As per agency report, the order comes in response to increasing reports of unpleasant incidents arising from the unregulated feeding of stray dogs, which the court observed was causing difficulties for the public. Each municipal authority has been directed to establish a helpline for reporting violations, and complaints received through the helpline must be acted upon promptly.

The bench also modified its earlier order of August 11, which had imposed a ban on releasing stray dogs from shelters. It clarified that captured dogs must undergo sterilisation, deworming, and vaccination before being released back into the same area from where they were taken. However, this will not apply to rabies-infected dogs or those suspected of aggressive behaviour.

The Supreme Court reiterated that civic bodies in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Noida, Faridabad, and Gurugram must continue removing stray dogs from public areas and ensure their proper care. The court emphasised that the problems arising from stray dogs in Delhi-NCR are largely the result of municipal inaction in implementing animal birth control rules.

The matter originated from a suo motu case taken up on July 28 following media reports of rising rabies cases, particularly among children, due to dog bites in the national capital. The earlier order of August 11 had sparked widespread protests across the country, leading to the matter being referred to the three-judge bench for review.

New Delhi, June 19 : The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Karnataka government to take action against anyone obstructing the screening of the film Thug Life starring Kamal Haasan, asserting that movies, stand-up comedy, or poetry readings cannot be banned just because someone's sentiments are hurt.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan observed, “In India, there is no end to hurt sentiments. If a stand-up comedian says something, there is outrage, vandalism, and protests. Where are we headed? Should a film be banned, a comedy act stopped, or a poem reading canceled just because of such protests?”

The apex court accepted Karnataka’s assurance that it would provide adequate security to cinema halls screening the film.

The bench stated, “The state has filed an affidavit clearing the way for the film’s screening... We believe it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of this matter. We do not find it appropriate to issue directions or impose penalties. However, we direct the State of Karnataka that if any person or group obstructs the screening or resorts to coercion or violence, the state must immediately take action under criminal and civil law, including providing compensation.”

The court also questioned the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) for asking veteran actor Kamal Haasan to apologize over his remark that Kannada originated from Tamil.

The bench asked, “Can a film be stopped simply because of an opinion? Should stand-up comedy or poetry be banned because someone doesn’t agree with the viewpoint?”

Responding to the court’s questions, the KFCC counsel said that they did not issue any threat but had merely circulated a letter requesting Haasan to consider apologizing due to widespread protests in the state.

The counsel admitted that a mob had entered their office, after which they issued the letter. To this, Justice Bhuyan asked if the KFCC had filed a police complaint. “You succumbed to mob pressure. Did you go to the police? No. That means you had no complaint against them — you were just trying to protect yourself.”

The KFCC lawyer assured the court that they would comply with any orders passed.

Representing Rajkamal Films International Ltd., one of the producers of the film, the counsel said that although they had already suffered losses of around ₹30 crore, they had no objection if the state provided security for the screenings.

The Supreme Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by M Mahesh Reddy, seeking directions to allow the screening of Thug Life in Karnataka. The film’s release was stalled in the state following backlash against Haasan’s comments.

Earlier, on June 17, the court had come down heavily on the Karnataka government for not allowing the film to be screened, stating that “mob rule cannot be allowed to dictate terms in a democracy.”

New Delhi, May 30 – The Supreme Court of India has ordered that the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses (NEET-PG) 2025, scheduled for June 15, must be conducted in a single shift instead of two. The directive was issued on Friday by a bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, which also included Justices Sanjay Kumar and N. V. Anjaria.

As per agency report, the court emphasized that conducting the examination in two separate sessions could lead to discrepancies and arbitrary outcomes. The bench observed that the difficulty level of two different question papers can never be truly identical, thus creating potential unfairness for candidates.

The court further directed the concerned authorities to make necessary arrangements to ensure that the exam is held in one session and that complete transparency is maintained throughout the process. The decision came while hearing a petition that challenged the notification to conduct NEET-PG 2025 in two shifts.

This ruling aims to maintain fairness and uniformity in one of the country’s most competitive medical entrance exams.

New Delhi, May 14 — Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Wednesday in a solemn ceremony held at the Rashtrapati Bhavan’s Durbar Hall. President Droupadi Murmu administered the oath of office, which Justice Gavai took in Hindi. Following the ceremony, he touched his mother Kamal Tai Gavai’s feet to seek her blessings.

Justice Gavai succeeds Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who retired on Tuesday upon reaching the age of 65. Appointed as a Supreme Court judge on May 24, 2019, Justice Gavai will hold office as Chief Justice for a little over six months, with his tenure concluding on November 23, 2025.

As per agency report, Justice Gavai has served on several constitution benches of the Supreme Court that delivered significant verdicts. He was part of the five-judge bench that unanimously upheld the central government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370, which granted special status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.

He was also among the five judges who struck down the electoral bonds scheme used for political funding, and had participated in the majority verdict that upheld the demonetization decision of 2016, which invalidated ₹500 and ₹1,000 currency notes.

Justice Gavai also sat on a seven-judge bench that ruled, by a 6:1 majority, in favor of allowing states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes for targeted reservation benefits, especially for communities lagging behind in social and educational terms.

In another landmark judgment delivered under his leadership, the court held that no property should be demolished without issuing a show-cause notice, directing that a 15-day window be provided for affected parties to respond.

Born on November 24, 1960, in Amravati, Maharashtra, Justice Gavai enrolled at the Bar on March 16, 1985. He has previously served as standing counsel for several civic bodies and institutions, including the Nagpur and Amravati municipal corporations and Amravati University. In August 1992, he was appointed as an assistant government pleader at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, later becoming the government pleader in January 2000.

Justice Gavai was appointed as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court in November 2003 and became a permanent judge in November 2005. In the Supreme Court, he has also headed benches related to forest, wildlife, and environmental matters.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and senior Union Ministers including Rajnath Singh, Amit Shah, J. P. Nadda, and Arjun Ram Meghwal were present at the oath-taking ceremony. Former President Ram Nath Kovind and several former judges also attended the event, congratulating Justice Gavai on assuming the country’s highest judicial post.

New Delhi, April 29 – The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to make public any report related to the "security and sovereignty" of the country and questioned what was wrong in using "spyware against terrorists." A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh indicated that while individual concerns about privacy could be addressed, the technical committee’s report was not something meant for public debate.

As per agency report, the court asserted that it would not touch any report concerning national security but said individuals wishing to know whether they were affected could be informed. It emphasized that while personal concerns must be dealt with, such sensitive documents should not become topics for street-level discussions.

The court also mentioned it would have to assess to what extent the findings of the technical panel could be shared with individuals. Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, representing one of the petitioners, argued that the critical issue was whether the government possessed spyware and whether it had been used.

He remarked that if such spyware existed, there was nothing to stop its continued use today. In response, the bench stressed the need for responsible handling of the situation and assured it would consider how much of the report could be disclosed.

The court stated that the existence of spyware was not itself wrong; the real concern was about who it was used against. It made it clear that compromising national security was unacceptable and that while private citizens had a constitutionally protected right to privacy, actions aimed at terrorists did not fall under such protection.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, referenced a U.S. district court judgment where WhatsApp had disclosed hacking activities. He noted that even when experts had earlier reviewed the situation, no direct hacking was confirmed, but now evidence provided by WhatsApp was available. Sibal argued that the redacted portions of the findings should be shared with affected individuals so they could be informed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that investigations should not be conducted merely to gather information without a specific allegation or evidence. He reiterated that there was nothing wrong with using spyware against terrorists, who could not claim a right to privacy.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for another petitioner, argued that the technical committee’s report should be made public without any redactions.

Following the arguments, the Supreme Court scheduled the next hearing for July 30.

Earlier, a technical panel appointed by the Supreme Court to investigate the alleged unauthorized use of Pegasus spyware found malware in five out of 29 examined phones by August 25, 2022, but could not conclusively determine whether Israeli spyware was used. Reviewing the findings submitted by former Supreme Court judge R.V. Raveendran, the court had noted that the central government had not cooperated with the Pegasus investigation.

In 2021, the Supreme Court had ordered an inquiry into allegations that Israeli spyware Pegasus was used by Indian agencies for surveillance targeting politicians, journalists, and activists, and had appointed technical and supervisory committees to oversee the investigation.

New Delhi, April 3 – In a significant step towards enhancing transparency in the judiciary, judges of the Supreme Court of India have agreed to publicly disclose their assets upon assuming office. This decision was taken during a full court meeting of the apex court, and the asset declarations will be made available on the official website of the Supreme Court.

As per agency report, the declaration of assets by judges will be on a voluntary basis. However, the initiative reflects a broader commitment to accountability and openness in the functioning of the judiciary.

So far, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, along with 30 other judges of the Supreme Court, have submitted their asset declarations. The Supreme Court's website states that judges should declare their assets at the time of taking charge and also report the acquisition of any substantial property thereafter to the Chief Justice.

The website notes that the asset declarations, including those by the Chief Justice of India, are part of a voluntary transparency initiative and will be accessible to the public. This move is seen as a progressive step in building trust in judicial institutions and ensuring greater public confidence in the system.