Sabarimala Reference: ‘Constitution entrusts religious reform to legislature not courts’

A special bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi has been constituted to hear TMC's plea. Supreme Court TMC Plea Hearing Live Updates: The Supreme Court will shortly hear a plea filed by the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) challenging the Calcutta High Court’s order dismissing its petition against the deployment of central government and PSU employees as vote counting supervisors and assistants in the West Bengal assembly elections. A special bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi has been constituted to hear the plea as counting of votes begins on May 4.Story continues below this ad Calcutta HC order: On April 30, Calcutta High Court had rejected TMC’s plea, which had challenged a communication issued by the additional chief electoral officer mandating that at least one among the counting supervisor or counting assistant at each counting table be a central government or central Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employee. “It is the prerogative of the office of the Election Commission of India to appoint the counting supervisor and counting assistant either from the State Government or the Central Government. This Court does not find any illegality for appointing counting supervisor and counting assistant from the Central Government/Central PSU employee instead of State Government employee,” the high court had said in its order. Live Updates© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd Tags: supreme court

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Delhi High Court, which said the BJP leaders' remarks did not incite communal violence or public disorder. File PhotoThe Supreme Court Wednesday cleared Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Parvesh Verma and BJP leader Anurag Thakur over complaints that they delivered hate speeches allegedly targeting those protesting the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in January 2020. Dealing with a plea filed by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and K M Tiwari, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld the findings of the Delhi High Court, which said the BJP leaders’ remarks did not incite communal violence or public disorder.“Upon a careful consideration of the material placed on record, including the alleged speeches, the status report dated February 26, 2020, submitted before the trial court, and the reasons recorded by the courts below, we are in agreement with the conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out,” the court said in its order. On August 26, 2020, a trial court dismissed their complaint against Verma and Thakur, holding that the same was not maintainable in law in the absence of prior sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the named accused. On June 13, 2022, the Delhi High Court rejected the pleas of Karat and Tiwari for registering First Information Reports (FIRs) against Verma and Thakur for hate speech, observing that “the statements were not directed against any specific community nor did they incite violence or public disorder.” The high court, while dismissing the appeal against this, agreed with this conclusion and said that in respect of offences falling within the ambit of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the power under Section 156(3) of CrPC to direct registration of an FIR and investigation could not be exercised in the absence of prior sanction. What Supreme Court said However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning of the trial court and the high court and said that the requirement of prior sanction arises only at the stage of the magistrate taking cognisance, not before.Story continues below this ad “The scheme of CrPC does not contemplate any embargo on the direction for registration of an FIR or the conduct of investigation at the pre-cognisance stage. To hold otherwise would amount to introducing a restriction not envisaged by the legislature. The process of criminal law is sequential: information of a cognisable offence must first be received; an FIR must then be registered; investigation must follow; a report under Section 173 of CrPC must thereafter be submitted; and it is only at that stage that the question of taking cognisance arises,” the apex court said. “The position of law, as crystallised by this Court, is unequivocal. Where information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory. The police, in such circumstances, have no discretion in the matter, either under the statutory scheme or by way of interpretative latitude,” the court said. “Investigating agencies, being creatures of statute, are bound by the duties and obligations cast upon them under the law. They cannot evade or dilute these statutory obligations by resorting to provisions which are inapplicable at the stage of investigation. Any such approach undermines the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.” “The criminal process is designed to protect both the rights of the accused and the interests of society. While the requirement of sanction serves as a safeguard against frivolous or vexatious prosecution at the stage of cognisance, it cannot be permitted to operate as a shield to prevent the very initiation of the investigative process where a cognizable offence is disclosed.”Story continues below this ad “Failure on the part of the authorities to perform their statutory duties at the thr

New DelhiApr 29, 2026 11:51 PM IST The court observed that the case involved a romantic relationship that lasted nearly three years, which was given a criminal colour after it ended. (File Photo)A Delhi court Wednesday acquitted a man, who was in a relationship with a woman from another faith, in a rape case lodged in August 2025 while noting that the relationship between the couple was a consensual one. The man was in judicial custody from September to mid-April before his acquittal.The court observed that the case involved a romantic relationship that lasted nearly three years, which was given a criminal colour after it ended. “… it is clear there existed a consensual relation between the prosecutrix and the accused, which perhaps went sour for some reason, which probably triggered the lodging of the present FIR. These facts clearly show that there is considerable unexplained delay in reporting the matter to police and, thus, the false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out,” said Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vishal Pahuja of Tis Hazari Court in his judgment dated April 13 which was recently made public. “All the evidence brought on record by the prosecution shows that the prosecutrix entered into a relationship with the accused due to love and affection. The prosecutrix willingly consented to have sexual intercourse with the accused with whom she was in love, not because he promised to marry her but because she also desired it,” the judge said. “.. the prosecutrix alleged that the accused committed rape upon her in December 2022 and thereafter repeatedly till June 2025 but she did not raise any issue till lodging of the FIR in August 2025. Prosecutrix failed to give any plausible explanation as to why she waited so long to lodge the complaint against the accused… Lodging an FIR after unreasonable delay without any plausible reasons or grounds is very fatal to the case of the prosecution,” he added. As per the complainant’s case, she met the accused in December 2022 after which they became friends. It was alleged that on December 9 that year, the accused established physical relations with her on the “false pretext of marriage”.Story continues below this ad The complainant had further alleged that in May last year, she became pregnant after which the man administered some medicine to her which caused miscarriage. The man was booked on charges of rape, rape repeatedly on the same woman and causing miscarriage without woman’s consent. On the miscarriage charge, the court held that the prosecution provided no medical evidence to support their claim. “… medical documents only prove the pregnancy status of the prosecutrix but nowhere it reflects the name of the accused as the person responsible for the pregnancy of the prosecutrix. PW1, during her cross examination, admitted that no medical document reflects the name of the accused as the father of the baby,” ASJ Pahuja said. “Now if the accused had given the pills to the prosecutrix or caused her abortion, the same would have been stated by the prosecutrix during her medical examination but it is not the case herein… admittedly, no medical evidence has been adduced on record to establish that miscarriage of the prosecutrix happened due to consumption of any medicine. No doctor to this effect has been examined by prosecutrix to corroborate the claim of prosecutrix,” he added.Story continues below this ad “The prosecutrix, being a… matured lady of 27 years, cannot be assumed to be so naive that she was not aware of the probable consequences of the acts [to which] she was giving her consent to establish physical relations. It is not the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was blackmailed by the accused through any means or she was under any kind of threat, rather she always willingly entered into friendship and then into physical relationship with the accused,” the Judge said. The court also noted that the prosecution has not examined the mother of th

New DelhiApr 29, 2026 06:27 PM IST On Wednesday, the apex court started to hear the submissions from the respondents in the case. (File Photo)On the 10th day of the Sabarimala case hearing, some interesting remarks, including on gender discrimination, diversity and other notable subjects, came from the nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

1. Responding to senior advocate Indira Jaising’s argument that the prohibition on women’s entry reflected discrimination, Justice Nagarathna said, “No, you are not prevented because you are a scheduled caste woman, but because you belong to the 10 to 50 group.”2. When senior advocate Indira Jaising argued that she is claiming the right to non-discrimination based on gender and her right to enter as a scheduled caste, Justice BV Nagarathna asked, “Who is claiming this right? Is a devotee claiming the right or a non-devotee at whose instance? A person who has nothing to do with this temple is somewhere in North India. This temple is in South India. Is claiming a right of entry that also has to be addressed.” Justice Joymalya Bagchi said you are being prohibited from entering as an age-banned.3. Justice Bagchi responded and said, “No, you are being prohibited from entering as an age-banned, among women. So there is an intersectional exclusion”.
2. While deliberating on the freedom of conscience in reference to denominations, Justice Nagarathna said, “See, freedom of conscience was not given to us on January 26, 1950. Yes, that is something which demands civilisation, with the evolution of the spiritual aspect of man, through the passage of years and years and years and years, it is something which has been evolving. She continued, “Constitutionally, it has been circumscribed by certain aspects. Now the question is what has been evolved by man over the civilisation, how much of that has to be protected, and at the same time, protection of that, how far it will sort of intrude into the other aspects, which are the riders of the freedom, that is the whole essence of this debate.”
3. Emphasising the constitutional recognition of diversity, Justice Nagarathna underscored, “What is unique in India… is diversity is our strength, and what Section Article 26 (b) does is to recognise the diversity. We are strong because we are diverse, and diversity is our strength.”Story continues below this ad To bring about a recognition of the diversity in denominations, Article 26 (b) protects it. By giving such protection, there is also a unity developed in the country…that is how we should look at it, she added. Sabarimala in Supreme Court The Supreme Court is hearing the pleas concerning discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple, and the scope of religious freedom under the Constitution. The Supreme Court nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is hearing the case and includes Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. On September 28, 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, lifted the age restriction on women visitors and struck down as unconstitutional Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, which allowed the exclusion of women on the grounds of custom.Story continues below this ad Questions for consideration There are seven questions for consideration before the Supreme Court: What is the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India? What is the interplay between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26? Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, apart from public order, morality and health? What is the scope and extent of the wo