The Committee termed Justice Varma's explanations to be "evasive and unsatisfactory".
The Lok Sabha on Wednesday referred the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. Though it was mentioned in the Lok Sabha Schedule of Business that Union Home Minister Amit Shah would move the motion to send the Bill - over which concerns have been raised by several minority organisations - to the JPC, the motion was moved by Minister of State Nityananda Rai. During the brief discussion, Congress MP KC Venugopal questioned the absence of Amit Shah. He said that the Bill was targeting minorities and demanded that it be withdrawn. Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav, opposing the Bill, stated that all opposition members are jointly opposing the FCRA Bill, which is anti-minority. Refuting this, Union Minister of Parliamentary Affairs of India Kiren Rijiju said that there is no single provision targeting the minority. The Minister said that India was not a "banana republic" and foreign funds can be sourced only as per the procedure established by the law. He asserted that the Bill was aimed at protecting all communities. The JPC, as per the motion, is to consist of 21 members nominated by the Lok Sabha Speaker and 10 members nominated by the Rajya Sabha Chairman. The report of the JPC is to be submitted in the first week of the winter session of the Parliament. In April, the Lok Sabha had deferred the debate on the Bill, which was introduced on March 25. This was seemingly in view of the then impending assembly elections in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, where various church groups raised concerns over the amendments. Major changes proposed by the Bill The Bill proposes to add Chapter IIIA, which introduces the 'designated authority' to which the foreign contribution of any person shall provisionally vest in cases where the certificate has been cancelled, surrendered, or has ceased. The designated authority is to be appointed by the Central Government. In case a person fails to obtain a fresh certificate or get it renewed or restored within the period specified, the foreign contribution and assets shall permanently vest with the designated authority. Such assets, which have been permanently vested, can be transferred to the ministry, department, or authority of the central or State government as prescribed. In case the asset is a place of worship, it shall be regulated in a manner to ensure that the religious character is maintained. Adding to this, any person whose foreign contributions or assets are vested in the designated authority shall have to share unhindered access to its books of account, electronic records, bank accounts, etc. The designated authority has been given all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit, in respect of summoning and enforcing attendance of any person, requiring the discovery or production of documents, receiving evidence etc. Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the designated authority can file an appeal before the District Judge within 90 days. Under Section 3, certain classes of persons are prohibited from accepting foreign contribution, including a media/news company or association. The amendment proposes to expand the scope by including "any person". An amendment to Section 48 has been proposed, which says that no investigation shall be initiated for any offence under the Act without the prior approval of the central government.
Though composite appeal is maintainable, it should be valued as two separate appeals and court fee should be paid accordingly.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation alleging disparity in judicial and administrative approaches to the demolition of unauthorized structures. Observing that it was a policy matter, the Court declined interference, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Union, States and Union Territories to formulate or revisit policies. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a PIL filed by Centre for Law and Good Governance impleading the Union and all States as respondents. The petitioner highlighted cases where authorities had allegedly permitted unauthorized structures to remain for decades, provided civic amenities and collected municipal taxes, only to initiate demolition proceedings years later. The petitioner contended that demolition, being an extreme measure, can't be carried out without a policy that reconciles the enforcement of planning laws with rights to shelter, livelihood and dignity. Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the right to shelter has been recognised as an aspect of the right to live with dignity, but that there were also judgments holding that the mere passage of time would not condone even compoundable unauthorized constructions. The counsel submitted that authorities sometimes provide water and electricity connections and collect municipal taxes from residents before, decades later, taking action against the very structures they had allowed to exist. The petitioner sought the constitution of a court-empowered committee to examine the issue and evolve an appropriate framework. Chief Justice Surya Kant, pointed out that the Supreme Court had already issued directions governing demolition proceedings. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, "You cannot substitute powers vested in a state to enforce rule of law. These are policy decision calls. We can step in if state's policy is arbitrary or not accommodating due process." In its order, the Bench noted the petitioner's contention that governments across the country had, for decades, allowed unauthorized structures to remain unchallenged and, in some cases, facilitated their continued existence by providing water and electricity connections and collecting municipal taxes. The order noted that such situations arise in States and Union Territories including Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Delhi, while in other places unauthorized colonies constructed decades ago are allegedly ordered to be demolished, sometimes without adequate notice or any welfare scheme for affected families.. The Bench said it appreciated the concerns raised regarding families whose right to shelter could be adversely affected by demolition. However, the Court held that such questions essentially fall within the policy domain. “Fact situation may vary from state to state and may therefore warrant variation in policy,” the Court observed, declining to prescribe a uniform policy applicable across the country. The Court consequently disposed of the PIL, while granting the petitioner liberty to forward a copy of the petition to the Union Government, States and Union Territories. The Bench expressed hope that the competent authorities would give due consideration to the concerns raised, particularly the need to balance enforcement of planning and building laws with the impact of demolition on affected families. Case : Centre for Law and Good Governance v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 984/2026
LiveLaw is introducing a new feature —'Breaking News Alerts' — designed to keep our readers instantly updated on the most important judicial developments. With real-time coverage of urgent pronouncements and orders from the Supreme Court and High Courts, this feature ensures that critical updates reach you the moment they happen. Whether it's a landmark ruling or an urgent interim order, LiveLaw's Breaking News Alerts will deliver concise, authoritative updates right on the website, making sure you never miss a moment in India's fast-moving legal landscape. Follow Today's Breaking News Alerts Here
In the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court today orally indicated that it will remand the matter to the Allahabad High Court because the notice was not issued to all plaintiffs before deciding who represents the devotees of Lord Krishna. The Supreme Court is hearing the appeal filed by plaintiffs in suit no. 1 (filed seeking the removal of the mosque from the contested site) challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing the plaintiffs in suit no 17 to be treated as representatives of all devotees of Lord Krishna. At the outset today, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva asked Senior Advocate Shyam Divan(for the plaintiffs) if there is any development on the discussion regarding some settlement going on between the plaintiffs. Justice Kumar said: "On the last date, someone had appeared and said some discussion is going on amongst the plaintiffs in the suits, some sort of settlement on the site or at least looming large on the horizon." To this, Divan responded that he is not aware of any settlement talks. The bench then asked other parties if they are aware of any settlement talks. When no response was given, the Court stated it would adjourn the matter for two weeks on the request made by the respondents 9 to 13. Before adjourning, Justice Kumar orally stated that the High Court should have put notice to plaintiffs in suit 1 that it would be deciding the issue regarding representatives of Lord Krishna. The Judge also remarked that the application filed by plaintiffs in suit no. 17 was on something else and the High Court ultimately decided something else. He said: "One day we are told there is some settlement going on, [but] Mr Divan is not even aware...We have already indicated that we are inclined to send it back because the High Court didn't put notice to all the plaintiffs that this is what it was proposing to do. The notice was given to them, but the application was for something else. We are planning to send it back in any event." It may be recalled that the application in Suit No. 17 sought permission only to treat the defendants as representatives of the Muslim community. In July 2025, the High Court, while allowing the defendants in the suit to be treated as the representatives of the Muslim community, also allowed the plaintiffs in suit no. 17 to be treated as the representatives of all devotees. Suit number 17 was filed in the name of the deity Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman through next friend. The other plaintiffs in suit no.17 are Surendra Kumar Gupta, Mahabir Sharma and Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava. The High Court had allowed an application filed by the plaintiffs in suit no.17 under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC “in the manner that the plaintiff is permitted to sue in representative capacity on behalf of and for the benefit of all the devotees of Lord Shri Krishna...” There are 18 suits on the issue, which the Allahabad High Court has transferred to itself; 15 of them are consolidated, and the remaining are listed separately. Challenging this order of the Allahabad High Court, the plaintiffs in suit no.1, which is also filed in the name of the deity through next friend, approached the Supreme Court. The other plaintiffs in suit no.1 are Ranjana Agnihotri, Pravesh Kumar, Rajesh Mani Tripathi, Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Shivaji Singh, and Tripurapuri Tiwari. Case Details: BHAGWAN SHRIKRISHNA VIRAJMAN AND ORS. Versus ANJUMAN ISLAMIA, COMMITTEE OF SHAHI MASJID IDGAH AND ORS.| Diary No. 61169-2025 XI
The Supreme Court will, from September 22, hear a long-pending dispute concerning the constitutional power of State legislatures to impose an additional levy on sales tax, with a seven-judge Constitution Bench set to examine the scope of the States' taxing powers under the Seventh Schedule. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana posted the matter for hearing on September 22. The CJI stated that the 7-judge bench will commence the hearing at 2 PM, so that the hearings of other regular matters can be done during the forenoon session. The bench framed the issue in the case as follows - "Whether the imposition of a surcharge/additional tax/levy/cess, which is calculated on the basis of validly levied sales tax, is beyond the competence of the State Legislature?" The matter arises from Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Odisha, a civil appeal pending before the Supreme Court since 1994. The case concerns the validity of Section 5A of the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947, which imposed an additional tax on dealers based on their annual turnover. The provision, inserted by an amendment in 1997, prescribed an additional tax of 10% for dealers with an annual turnover between ₹10 lakh and ₹1 crore and 15% where the turnover exceeded ₹1 crore. The challenge raises a constitutional question whether a State legislature can impose an additional amount on sales tax when the levy is calculated with reference to the dealer's annual turnover, a measure of taxation that may fall within the Union's legislative domain. Under Article 246 of the Constitution, legislative powers are divided between Parliament and the State legislatures through the Union, State and Concurrent Lists in the Seventh Schedule. Entry 54 of the State List, as it stood at the relevant time, empowered States to impose taxes on the sale or purchase of goods, while Entry 82 of the Union List dealt with taxes on income other than agricultural income. The dispute has remained pending because of apparently conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court on the nature of such additional levies. In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983), the Supreme Court upheld a surcharge under the Bihar Finance Act, holding that the levy was in substance a sales tax and therefore fell within the State's legislative competence under Entry 54 of List II. The petitioners in Arjun Flour Mills, however, argued that Hoechst Pharmaceuticals proceeded on a concession that the levy was relatable to Entry 54. They relied on the seven-judge Constitution Bench judgment in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989), which struck down a cess and surcharge connected with royalty from mining, holding that the State could not impose a levy outside the field assigned to it by the Seventh Schedule. The Court subsequently considered another relevant decision, S. Kodar v. State of Kerala (1974), in which a five-judge Bench upheld an additional sales tax imposed under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970. The Court had rejected the argument that the tax was effectively a levy on income and held that the additional tax was imposed on the sale of goods. With these decisions raising questions about the proper test for determining the legislative character of an additional sales-tax levy, the Supreme Court on October 6, 1999 referred Arjun Flour Mills and S. Kodar to a seven-judge Bench. The case resurfaced before a seven-judge Bench in October 2023 along with several other matters requiring consideration by larger Benches. A Bench comprising then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the matter briefly on October 12, 2023 and directed that it be listed for further hearing. Case : Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Odisha | Civil Appeal No. 8763 of 1994.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 11) held that to prevent an award holder's enrichment of a bank guarantee while an award was under challenge, an interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 can be extended on an award debtor's application to preserve the efficacy of the challenge in Section 34. A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had allowed the Respondent-award debtor's Section 9 application which sought an interim relief against alleged unjust enrichment of a bank guarantee of about Rs. 3.5 crores by an Appellant-award holder during the pendency of a Section 34 application. The bench noted that there are precedents holdig that a post-award Section 9 application is maintainable in exceptional cases. “This Court, while holding the application to be maintainable, has sounded a note of caution that the threshold for grant of interim relief will be higher in case the application is moved by an Award Debtor and that a court may, in rare and compelling cases, permit the unsuccessful party to invoke Section 9 to prevent irreparable prejudice and to preserve the efficacy of the challenge under Section 34…the High Court was justified in observing that permitting the appellant to hold on the money pending Section 34 application, would be unjustly enriching the appellant…”, the Court observed. The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2002 between National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. and Ishvakoo India Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to which the respondent was provided Rs. 3.5 crores as Mobilisation Advance against bank guarantees. In 2005, the High Court disposed of a Section 9 application with the understanding that the appellant would not invoke the bank guarantees provided they were kept alive, and that if the arbitrator found the appellant entitled to recover the amount, the guarantees could be invoked. The respondent failed to keep the guarantees alive, leading to their invocation by the appellant in September 2017. The arbitrator, while passing the Award on December 5, 2017, dismissed the respondent's claims and remained oblivious to the fact that the bank guarantees had already been encashed. The respondent challenged the Award under Section 34 and, pending its disposal, filed a fresh Section 9 application seeking return of the amount. The Single Judge allowed the application and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 3.5 crores with the Registry, which order was upheld by the Division Bench, prompting the award holder to move to the Supreme Court. Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan held that the respondent had made out a rare and compelling case for Section 9 relief to prevent irreparable prejudice and unjust enrichment to an Appellant. [See Home Care Retail Marts Pvt Ltd v. Haresh N Sangavi, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 425] The Court stated that the Respondent-award debtor did fulfil in ample measure the necessary parameters for obtaining relief under Section 9, i.e., the existence of a prima facie case and balance of convenience, as holding of the money by the Appellant during the pendency of the Section 34 application would unjustly enrich the Appellant. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, with a direction to the Appellant to hand over the bank guarantee amount to the High Court's registry. “We grant 4 (four) weeks' time to the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 3.5 crores with the Registry of the High Court of Delhi. On deposit, the Registry of the High Court shall keep the same in a Fixed Deposit (FD), in any Nationalized Bank, on auto-renewal basis, till the disposal of the Section 34 application.”, the Court ordered. Cause Title: National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. Versus Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 791 Click here to download judgment Appearance: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora, AOR Ms. Mariya Shahab, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv. Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sourav Jindal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR
The Supreme Court on Wednesday paved the way for the constitution of the newly elected Bar Council of Kerala (BCK), allowing its elected members to approach the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court for co-option of two women members. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the Supreme Court had, in an order passed on August 4, authorised Chief Justices of High Courts to co-opt women members to State Bar Councils in order to ensure compliance with the prescribed representation requirements. The Bench said that, in view of the earlier order, the apprehensions raised by the petitioners regarding the constitution of the BCK stood addressed. During the hearing, the bench referred to a notice issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) on Tuesday directing all State Bar Councils to meet on August 16 and prepare a panel of four women members. The panel is to be submitted to the concerned High Court Chief Justice, who can then co-opt two women members to the State Bar Council. The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by three newly elected members of the Bar Council of Kerala, Naseer K.K., Nagaraj Narayanan and Pramod SK, challenging the BCI's June 30, 2026 order appointing a limited interim authority to administer the State Bar Council. Senior Advocate PV Dinesh, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the BCI lacked the power to appoint an ad-hoc authority to control the State Bar Council after elections had already been conducted and the results were notified. The petitioners had sought quashing of the BCI's June 30 order and a direction to allow the newly elected members of the Bar Council of Kerala to immediately convene and elect the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. It may be noted that in another petition, the Kerala High Court, on July 31, had stayed the operation of the BCI Chairman's June 30 order constituting a Limited Interim Authority for the Bar Council of Kerala. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that the inclusion of a former BCK chairman who was not a member of the newly elected Council prima facie raised concerns under the democratic scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961. Case : Naseer KK v Bar Council of Kerala | WP(c) 986/2026
Links to the reports of August 11 : Immediate FIR Must Be Registered For Every Missing Person, Irrespective Of Age Or Gender: Supreme Court Warns States 'Supreme Sacrifice' : Supreme Court Grants ₹10 Lakh To Shaurya Chakra Awardee's Widow West Bengal SIR | Can't Fix Timeline For Appellate Tribunals, Says Supreme Court; Seek Data On Appeal Disposals Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea For CBI Probe Against Fake Advocates & Curbs On Monetisation Of Judges' Remarks Supreme Court Issues Notice On Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Daughter's Plea To Bring His Mortal Remains From Japan Principles Of Judicial Review In Exam Evaluation Disputes : Supreme Court Explains Supreme Court Dismisses Activist Ravi Nair's Plea To Revive Defamation Case Against Nilanjana Bhowmick Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Supreme Court Explains Parameters To Decide Application For Additional Evidence Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Calcutta HC's Restrictions On Use Of Trinamool Bank Accounts Frozen By ED Delhi High Court Asks Supreme Court, High Court Judges To Share PAN Details Amid Dispute Over Taxability Of Judicial Allowance Consider Declaring Cancer As Notifiable Disease : Supreme Court To States No Inflexible Rule That Alibi Can Be Proved Only In Trial : Supreme Court Quashes S. 498A IPC Case Against BSF Personnel 4-Steps To Test If Criminal Case Can Be Quashed Based On Defence Material Before Trial : Supreme Court Explains Insider Trading Presumed When Person Having Confidential Information Trades; Loss Or Profit Irrelevant : Supreme Court Centre Defends Clinical Establishment Rule In Supreme Court, Says It Curbs Excessive Pricing Of Medical Services Supreme Court Directs Union To Consider Plea Seeking Mechanism To Block Illegal AI-Generated Or Doxed Content Supreme Court Restores Rape Case Acquittal As Forensic Evidence Contradicts Prosecution Version Supreme Court To Hear Bodh Gaya Temple Act Challenge After Sabarimala Reference Verdict; Posted In October
Trusted legal partner delivering expertise, justice, and client-focused solutions.