Indian court tells Apple to 'cooperate' in antitrust case

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL for protection, audit of Sikh religious properties

Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. File

| Photo Credit: Subramanium S

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 20, 2026) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a slew of directions for protection, audit and regulation of Sikh religious and heritage properties across the country.A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi asked petitioner Charanjeet Singh, who appeared in person and argued his case, to raise his grievances before the Parliamentary Petitions Committee.Mr. Singh, who was also attached to a Delhi Sikh body, at one point bowed before the bench and urged it to issue notice. “I bow before you. Please issue a notice on my petition,” Mr. Singh said.The Chief Justice of India (CJI) said while the doors of the court are always open, the relief sought fell within the legislative domain. "The court is here for you; you may come whenever you wish. But these issues require amendments to the law, for which you must go to Parliament. You should approach the Petition Committee of Parliament," the CJI said."If we step in, it might appear as though there is interference in religious matters," the CJI said, while granting the petitioner the liberty to return to the Supreme Court if he remains dissatisfied with the Parliamentary response. The PIL sought a sweeping overhaul of how Sikh religious and heritage properties are managed across the country."Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to constitute a National Khalsayi Sikh Heritage Protection Authority for identification, preservation, audit and protection of all Khalsayi Sikh heritage properties across India,” it said. It also sought a direction to all State governments and the Union Territories (UTs) to prepare and submit to the court a “complete inventory of all Sikh religious, historical and endowment properties within their respective jurisdictions, including details of ownership, lease, transfer and encroachments”.It also sought a direction to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to conduct a special audit of all statutory bodies, boards, committees and trusts managing Sikh religious properties.It also sought a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate to inquire into cases “involving large-scale illegal alienation, undervaluation, misappropriation or laundering of proceeds derived from Sikh heritage properties”. Published - May 20, 2026 04:52 pm IST

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL for protection, audit of Sikh religious properties

Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. File

| Photo Credit: Subramanium S

Supreme Court refuses to recall directions to remove stray dogs from public institutions, warns of contempt for non-compliance

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 19, 2026) refused to modify its November 7, 2025 order directing all States and Union Territories to ensure the removal of stray dogs from high-footfall public institutions, including educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots, and railway stations, while clarifying that such dogs cannot be released back into these areas even after sterilisation.Stray dogs at the centre of a growing social divide A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria dismissed all applications seeking modification of its earlier directions and also rejected challenges to the 2025 standard operating procedure framed by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), pointing to the “alarming” rise in dog-bite incidents across the country.“Right to life with dignity encompasses the right to live freely without the threat of a dog-bite attack. The State cannot remain a passive spectator,” the Bench observed.The court said there had been a “discernible absence of efforts” on the part of States to augment sterilisation and vaccination infrastructure in compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.“Sterilisation and vaccination drives have taken place without planning. This defeats the very object of the framework. Had the States acted with due foresight, the present situation would not have assumed such alarming proportions,” the Bench added.Euthanasia for ‘rabid and dangerous’ dogsThe Bench directed all States and Union territories to undertake “decisive measures” to strengthen implementation of the ABC regime and ensure that every district has at least one functional Animal Birth Control centre staffed with trained personnel and equipped with adequate sterilisation and vaccination facilities.Dogs and laws: On street dogs and the Supreme Court orderThe Bench also permitted authorities to adopt measures permissible in law, “including euthanasia in case of rabid and dangerous dogs”, to mitigate threats posed to human life.Notably, the court directed that FIRs or coercive action should ordinarily not be initiated against municipal officials or authorities acting in implementation of its directions, unless allegations of mala fides or illegality are apparent on the face of the record.“Officials of municipal authorities, States, entrusted with implementation of directions of this court shall be entitled to due protection in the acts performed by them,” the Bench said, adding that High Courts could exercise their jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings initiated unjustifiably against designated officials.Liability for non-complianceThe court further directed all High Courts across the country to commence suo motu proceedings for overseeing compliance with its August and November 2025 directions. Chief Secretaries of the States have been directed to file status reports before the respective High Courts, while consolidated compliance reports are to be placed before the apex court in November this year.The Bench also referred to data indicating that 1,084 dog-bite incidents were reported in a single month in Sri Ganganagar in Rajasthan, while Tamil Nadu recorded more than two lakh such cases in the first four months of the year.“Any non-compliance with the directions of this court shall be viewed seriously. Contempt proceedings, disciplinary proceedings and tortious liability shall be initiated against States for non-compliance,” it cautioned.The suo motu proceedings were initiated last year in July amid mounting public concern over a spate of dog-bite incidents, including the death of a six-year-old girl. This had earlier prompted a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan to direct the mass capture, without release, of stray dogs across Delhi and neighbouring districts.The directive, however, drew sharp criticism from animal welfare groups, which warned that such measures would amount to cruelty and violate st

Court denies pre-arrest bail to Bhopal lawyer wanted for wife's death; cops declare bounty for info

The suspicious death of 33-year-old model and actress Twisha Sharma has taken a critical turn as a Bhopal court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of her absconding lawyer-husband, Samarth Singh.Following the court’s decision on Monday (May 18, 2026), the Bhopal Police officially announced a cash reward of ₹10,000 for any information leading to his arrest.The court earlier granted anticipatory bail to Samarth’s mother, retired judge Giribala Singh, who is also an accused in the case.Twisha was found hanging at her marital home in Bhopal’s Katara Hills area on May 12, just months after her December 2025 marriage to Samarth, whom she met on a dating app in 2024.While a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probes the case, her family alleges she was systematically tortured and murdered over dowry, charges denied by Ms. Singh.Misrod Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Rajneesh Kashyap, who is heading the SIT, said efforts were underway to trace Samarth.During the tense courtroom hearing, Samarth’s counsel opposed arrest by raising questions about Twisha’s mental health, a statement that was strongly countered by the deceased woman’s family lawyer.He cited severe risks of evidence tampering.After hearing arguments, Sessions Court Judge Pallavi Dwivedi turned down the pre-arrest bail application of Samarth.While the court had previously granted anticipatory bail to Twisha’s mother-in-law, Ms. Singh, it flatly denied similar relief to Samarth.Reacting to the development, the woman’s grief-stricken father, Navnidhi Sharma, told PTI Videos that the rejection was only a partial step towards justice and the actual victory would only come when both are punished, demanding the immediate arrest of both the husband and the retired judge.“Rejection of the anticipatory bail plea was not our victory. Our victory will be when both are punished,” he said.He expressed deep fears that the influential family would use money and power to secure relief from the Madhya Pradesh High Court if they were not locked up immediately.The legal battle intensified on Monday (May 18, 2026) as the contents of Samarth’s bail plea surfaced on social media, claiming Twisha was a psychiatric patient and drug addict whose hands and feet would tremble without access to narcotics.To counter the dowry allegations, the retired judge attached online transaction slips ranging from ₹5,000 to ₹50,000, claiming they regularly provided for Twisha’s needs.However, Twisha’s family has fiercely rubbished these allegations, presenting a different timeline of events and describing Twisha as a jolly and happening girl who drastically changed after marriage, losing 15 kilograms due to relentless mental torture.Her cousin, Meenakshi, spoke to various media houses alleging that the harassment peaked when Twisha lost her work-from-home job and became pregnant, and her husband refused to acknowledge the child.The local investigation has already come under severe scrutiny as ACP Kashyap confirmed that while the preliminary AIIMS Bhopal post-mortem points to a “hanging suicide, the family claims multiple injury marks on her body indicate murder”.In an admission of a lapse in the local probe, Kashyap confirmed that the investigation officer failed to send the rope allegedly used in the hanging to AIIMS during the autopsy and said that action would be taken against the erring officer.He made it clear that the SIT is strictly probing the case based on the dowry and abetment sections in the FIR, regardless of the husband’s claims.“In the bail petition, allegations regarding Twisha being a drug addict have been mentioned, but we are strictly investigating the case according to the sections mentioned in the FIR,” Kashyap told PTI.The plea also claimed she had been undergoing psychiatric treatment and mental health counselling.Addressing a press conference after the court ruling, Ms. Singh claimed Twisha suffered from psychological illness and depression.She said Twisha’s death was like a “nigh

Indian court tells Apple to 'cooperate' in antitrust case

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL for protection, audit of Sikh religious properties

More in Politics

Slew of road reforms planned for ULBs in A.P., standardised road lane markings made mandatory

MP Shabari appeals to Chief Minister to release funds for land acquisition

Kerala’s UDF govt scraps K-Rail project launched by LDF

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL for protection, audit of Sikh religious properties

Discussion (0)

Supreme Court refuses to recall directions to remove stray dogs from public institutions, warns of contempt for non-compliance

Court denies pre-arrest bail to Bhopal lawyer wanted for wife's death; cops declare bounty for info