‘Mother has preference over grandparents’: Court orders in-laws to hand over 5-year-old

New DelhiAug 18, 2026 11:59 AM IST The court said the search was 'not above board' and the Rs 32.62 lakh payment was not voluntary, noting that the assessee could not have been made to pay a 100% penalty. (AI-generated image)Questioning why an official’s claim should be accepted without any verification, the Madras High Court recently referred to mythological figures such as Harishchandra and Yudhishthir and said that such people have become “extinct”. The court made the observation while flagging a missing Document Identification Number (DIN) on a search warrant issued to a jewellery firm and found that its Rs 32.62 lakh payment during the search was “not voluntary”. Justice G R Swaminathan was hearing a petition filed by a Kanniyakumari-based firm M/s Bhima Enterprises which is involved in manufacturing and wholesale of jewellery. The firm challenged the August 15, 2023 search authorisation and sought a refund of Rs 32.62 lakh, claiming that the amount was collected through coercion.“Harishchandras and Yudhishthiras have become an extinct species. The veracity of any claim should be open to verification. Axioms alone can defy the demands for proof. No stand of an official can be taken as an axiom,” the court said on August 5. Harishchandra and Yudhishthir are Indian mythological figures known for steadfastly upholding truth and righteousness. The case followed a GST search at the firm’s premises on August 16, 2023, under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Following the search, the officials seized gold ornaments weighing 3,808.386 grams, valued at Rs 2.22 crore, and gold bullion weighing 5,478.940 grams, valued at Rs 3.20 crore, citing discrepancies in the firm’s stock. Firm disputed Rs 32 lakh payment The firm said it was compelled to pay Rs 13.37 lakh on August 16 and Rs 19.24 lakh on August 17, taking the total to Rs 32.62 lakh. The department disputed this and maintained that the payment was voluntary, saying the firm had paid after realising its tax liability. It also claimed to have received credible information about alleged tax evasion and said it had issued search warrants and inspection notices on August 15. Justice G R Swaminathan held that displaying the Document Identification Number (DIN) on the search warrant was mandatory.The high court examined under what circumstances a payment made during search proceedings could be legitimately treated as voluntary. Referring to safeguards laid down by the Gujarat High Court in Bhumi Associates vs Union of India, the court said a taxpayer must first ascertain the liability in writing before making payment under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. “Mere description of the payment as voluntary is insufficient,” the court said, adding that the basis of the taxpayer’s ascertainment must be recorded in the taxpayer’s own words. It also said that the officials must inform a taxpayer, whose goods have been seized, that provisional release could be sought by executing a bond and furnishing security. The taxpayer could then make a conscious choice between seeking release or making payment, it added.Story continues below this ad “Any payment not made in the manner laid down herein would be treated as involuntary and the assessee can seek refund of the same,” the court added. Court flags missing DIN The court also found fault with the absence of a DIN on the August 15, 2023 search authorisation. The department cited technical difficulties for not generating the DIN initially. But the court said the record did not show what the technical difficulty was or what attempts had been made to generate the number. A DIN was later generated on August 25, 2023, but was not shared with the petitioner, the court noted. The court held that displaying the DIN was mandatory and if it could not initially be generated for an exception recognised by the relevant circular, the reason had to be recorded in the communication, the omissi

New DelhiAug 18, 2026 05:20 AM IST A video of the policeman firing the AK-47 had surfaced, prompting questions.The Bihar Police has told the Supreme Court that a constable working in the District Intelligence Unit (DIU) “had fired…4 rounds from his AK-47 in the air” after he “got trapped in the crowd” of protesters that had hit the streets in Siwan on July 25, following the bandh call by various parties as the ‘Jantar Mantar’ protests in the state turned violent, but no one was injured. In a counter affidavit filed in the top court, ADGP (Law and Order) K Suhita Anupam said that “in Siwan, on 25.07.2026, protestors of AISA and RYA (student and youth wing of CPI(ML)) gathered at Gandhi Maidan and began marching towards JP Chowk. At around 12:30 pm, protestors started pelting stones on the police force. The hooligans from Mairwa Road and Gopalganj Road joined the stone pelters. In the stone pelting, 20 police personnel including Superintendent of Police Siwan, 2 Sub-Divisional Police Officers, 2 Inspectors, 2 Sub-Inspectors, 13 Constables got injured. In the violence, two police vehicles and a large number of traffic trollies were damaged. Water cannon and tear gas shells were used to control the law and order situation. For the incidents, 6 FIRs were registered against 82 persons, out of which 17 persons were arrested”.The affidavit filed on August 11 added that “as the deployed force was inadequate, all the officers and personnel working in different sections and lines were called to supplement the police force. Near JP Chowk, Constable…working in the District Intelligence Unit (DIU), got trapped in the crowd and fired 4 rounds from his AK-47 in the air. No one was injured”. It further said that in Hathi Chowk, about 1.5-2 km from JP Chowk, another assistant sub-inspector fired 2 rounds from his 9mm pistol to disperse the mob. Two fired cartridges of .315 bore and 1 fired cartridge of 7.65 mm were recovered from the place of incident. “Three protestors suffered minor firearms injuries” and they “were given best possible treatment in Sadar Hospital, Siwan, and were immediately shifted to Medanta Hospital in Patna for best treatment. All the injured persons were released after their injuries healed,” the affidavit read. The State Police said that “the injuries to protestors were neither caused by AK-47, nor the persons were located at the place where the constable fired from AK-47. Ballistic examination is being carried out to ascertain the type of weapon, distance of fire, angle of fire etc”. It added that the constable who fired the AK-47 “has been put under suspension for undesired conduct and departmental proceedings…has been initiated against him”. The State pointed out that “as AK-47 is a platoon-level weapon, it is to be used in special operations, not in law and order situations”. A detailed instruction regarding “use of AK 47 has been issued by the Director General of Police” on August 1 and added that “similar orders have been issued at earlier occasions as well”. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 26 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with the daily newspaper, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of I

New DelhiAug 18, 2026 04:21 AM IST A three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also sought to know whether there is any conflict of interest in the power under Section 17(4) of the Act to appoint Chairperson and Members of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to respond whether the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, which replaced the Civil Liability for Nuclear Liability Act of 2010, would preclude constitutional courts from determining a “fair and just” monetary compensation in case of a nuclear mishap. A three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also sought to know whether there is any conflict of interest in the power under Section 17(4) of the Act to appoint Chairperson and Members of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice to the Centre and AERB on these two issues.The court was hearing a plea which said that the government’s move to cap the liability of private nuclear operators under the Act in case of a nuclear disaster will encourage the operators to cut corners. Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi said the Act caps the highest liability of the operator at Rs 3,000 crore and the government’s residual liability at Rs 4,500 crore. Referring to nuclear disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, Bhushan contended that the real cost would be several times higher. The CJI, said that “only because Parliament imposed a cap, it does not bar the courts”. To the court’s remark that the limit may be only to make the project more attractive to foreign investors, Bhushan said it might lead to the operators cutting corners. “If there is a nuclear accident in the country, questions will be raised. And if those accidents are on account of corners cut by the plant operators, in the belief that their liability is capped at Rs 100 crore to Rs 3,000 crore … it’s a very very serious issue,” he said. Bhushan said the SC decisions had in the past laid down this principle that if somebody operates a hazardous industry, then if there is an accident from that industry, the person who runs it will have absolute and unlimited liability, “That principle has been clearly violated”. Also, AERB itself runs some nuclear plants, and it also plays a significant role in regulating them. “This is a violation of the principles laid down of the independence of the regulatory body by all international conventions”. Responding to a query from the court about nuclear energy, Bhushan said the government had assessed India’s potential of solar power and said it is 3,343 gigawatts (GW) using 6% of wasteland, which his 14 times the peak power demand of 256 GW. He submitted that solar power can be built in three months and its per-capita unit cost is one-fifth that of nuclear energy. “It has no hazard whatsoever,” he said.