The Supreme Court has directed all States to actively consider classifying human-wildlife conflict as a "natural disaster" and to ensure payment of Rs 10 lakh ex gratia for every human death caused in such incidents. The Court said this uniform compensation is mandatory, as fixed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the CSS Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats scheme. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar passed the directions while considering the issues related to the Jim Corbett tiger park in Uttarakhand. NTCA to prepare Model Guidelines within six months The Court has directed the National Tiger Conservation Authority to frame Model Guidelines on Human–Wildlife Conflict within six months. All States must implement these guidelines within six months of their issuance. NTCA has been permitted to consult State Governments and the Central Empowered Committee during the drafting process. Compensation must be easy, inclusive and time-bound The Expert Committee's recommendations, accepted by the Court, require that every State establish compensation systems that are: • smooth and accessible • inclusive of crop loss, human injury or death and cattle loss • free of unnecessary procedural delays The Court emphasised that timely compensation is essential for maintaining public trust and community participation in conservation programmes. Coordination across departments to reduce conflict response time The judgment highlights the need for close coordination between Forest, Revenue, Police, Disaster Management and Panchayati Raj departments. The Court noted that delays in crisis situations often arise due to confusion over responsibilities and stated that each State must ensure swift and coordinated response mechanisms to manage conflict incidents. Classification as natural disaster to enable faster relief The Court recorded that some States, including Uttar Pradesh, have already notified human–wildlife conflict as a natural disaster. It directed other States to positively consider adopting the same approach. The Court explained that such classification enables faster disbursal of funds, immediate access to disaster management resources and clearer administrative accountability. "Notifying 'Human wildlife conflict' as a "natural disaster" (as has already been done by some states like Uttar Pradesh) should be actively considered by other states. All the States are directed to give ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10 lakh as fixed by the MoEF&CC under CSS-IWDH," the Court observed. The Court passed these directions while considering the ecological damage cased to the Jib Corbett tiger reserve in Uttarakhand due to illegal tree felling and unauthorised constructions. Also from the judgment - Supreme Court Issues Directions On Tiger Safaris, Directs States To Notify ESZs Around Tiger Reserves Case : In Re : Corbett Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112 Click here to read the judgment
Image By: Siddharth Anand The Patna High Court recently awarded compensation of ₹2 lakh to an accused who was illegally detained for six days despite a court order granting him bail. A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey directed the State to compensate the petitioner, who had been in custody for an alleged violation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The petitioner was granted bail, and the Special Excise Judge issued a release warrant on September 29, 2025, which was sent to the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Gaya, where the petitioner was lodged. Despite this, he remained in custody until his virtual production before the Court on October 4, 2025, resulting in six days of illegal detention. The Court summoned the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, to explain the lapse. The IG Prisons defended the delay, claiming that the petitioner's continued incarceration was “occasioned due to the intervening Durga Puja holidays.” However, the Court noted that the illegal detention for six days was an admitted fact and held as follows: “7. There being an admitted position that it is a case of unauthorized detention of the petitioner from 29.09.2025 until 04.10.2025 and this practice is going on without drawing much attention of the Department, this Court being a Constitutional Court cannot remain a silent spectator. The Court proceeded to grant compensation to the detenu, noting the admitted fact of his illegal detention. It first invited the Inspector General of Prisons to suggest a reasonable compensation amount, to which the officer proposed ₹10,000. However, the counsel for the petitioner strongly opposed this, contending that the case involved a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and sought compensation of ₹1 lakh. After considering several precedents from other High Courts, the Patna High Court held that the petitioner's continued detention was a serious violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It awarded ₹2 lakh in compensation to the petitioner for the unauthorized detention, which would eventually be recovered by the State from the officer responsible. The Court also directed the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services to issue guidelines within two weeks to prevent such violations in the future. In finally allowing the writ petition, the Court concluded: “12. Since we have come to know that this practice is going on in other jurisdictions of the Jail Superintendents in the State, the I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services is directed to issue appropriate guidelines to all the Jail Superintendents in the State of Bihar requiring them to strictly abide by the Constitutional Mandate and order of the Court without any exception. Such guideline shall be issued within a period of two weeks from today. The Respondent State of Bihar shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the petitioner within one month from today. Following the settled principle as discussed in the case of K.K. Pathak (supra), we direct that the amount so paid to the petitioner shall be realized from the erring official in accordance with law.” Cause Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Singh v. State of Bihar Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2761 of 2025 Appearance: Mr. Siddharth Harsh and Mr. Jitendra Kumar appeared for the petitioner. Mr. P.N. Sharma and Mr. Pranav Kumar appeared for the State. Click Here To Read/Download Order
Former Supreme Court judge Justice L Nageswara Rao is set to mediate a trademark dispute between India's leading whiskey-selling brands John Distilleries and Allied Blenders. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi today requested the former judge to facilitate the process of amicable settlement between the companies on a priority basis. The development came in John Distilleries' plea against the Madras High Court order which ruled in favour of Allied Blenders, the maker of Officer's Choice whisky, and ordered the removal of John Distilleries' 'Original Choice' trademark from the register of trademarks. In this order of November 7, the High Court held that Original Choice was deceptively similar to Officer's Choice and that its registration violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also confirmed that Allied Blenders' registration for Officer's Choice remains valid. The dispute arose as Allied Blenders filed a rectification petition before the trademark registry seeking removal of John Distilleries “Original Choice” trademark, claiming it was phonetically and visually similar to its mark and likely to confuse consumers. In turn, John Distilleries filed its own rectification plea against Allied Blenders' “Officer's Choice” mark, alleging that Allied Blenders had suppressed facts when seeking registration and that its 1990 registration application was filed before it had obtained ownership of the mark. In 2013, the IPAB dismissed both petitions, ruling that the marks were not deceptively similar. Both companies then approached the Madras High Court. Vide the impugned order, the High Court found that the IPAB (since defunct) erred in its 2013 order by comparing only the word elements of the rival marks instead of assessing the labels as a whole. Considering the long pendency of the case and the abolition of the IPAB, the Court decided to examine the marks itself instead of sending the matter back. The High Court first examined whether Allied Blenders' 1990 application for the trademark Officer's Choice was valid. It found no element of fraud in Allied Blenders' application and noted that the same was supported by proper board resolutions, an assignment agreement, and a subsequent deed of assignment with the original proprietor. On the other hand, the Court rejected John Distilleries' claim that its mark 'Original Choice' had co-existed peacefully with Officer's Choice. It held that the IPAB had failed to exercise its powers under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act to properly assess the validity of the registration. Referring to Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(2)(a) of the Act, the Bench emphasized that a trademark which lacks distinctiveness or is likely to deceive the public cannot be allowed to remain on the register. It was concluded that Original Choice lacked distinctiveness and was likely to deceive the public. Accordingly, the High Court ordered the rectification of the Original Choice trademark, set aside the IPAB's earlier dismissal of Allied Blenders' petition, and allowed Allied Blenders' writ petition in full. Appearance: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Harish Salve, Dr AM Singhvi and Shyam Diwan Case Title: M/S. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LIMITED Versus M/S. ALLIED BLENDERS AND DISTILLERS PVT LTD., SLP(C) No. 33238-33239/2025
The Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions regarding Tiger Safaris, the management of Tiger Reserves and the protection of sensitive tiger landscapes. Accepting the findings of the Expert Committee constituted after the Corbett Tiger Reserve violations came to light, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar has issued mandatory directives that all States must now implement within strict timelines. Tiger Safaris cannot be permitted inside core or critical tiger habitats The Bench relied on the statutory design of Sections 33(a) and 38-V of the Wildlife Protection Act, and its March 2024 ruling in T N Godavarman, to underline that "Tiger Safari shall not be permitted in the core or a critical tiger habitat area." Tiger Safaris only on degraded or non-forest land in buffer areas The Court directed that Tiger Safari shall be established on 'non-forest land' or 'degraded forest land' in buffer area provided that is not part of a tiger corridor. Tiger Safari shall be allowed only in association with a full-fledged rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers where conflict animals, injured animals or abandoned animals are housed for care and rehabilitation. Zoo-sourced tigers completely barred The Court endorsed the Expert Committee's detailed guidelines with additional mandatory conditions: • Only rescued or conflict tigers from the same Tiger Reserve or landscape may be housed. • Enclosure design must be approved by the CZA and must prevent any interaction between wild and captive animals. • Field Directors will have management control, supervised by the Chief Wildlife Warden. • All Safari earnings must flow back into the Tiger Conservation Foundation. • Carrying capacity norms must be developed. • Solar, hybrid and electric vehicles must be used and strictly regulated. • Zero discharge of waste water is mandatory. Nationwide mandate to notify Eco-Sensitive Zones for all Tiger Reserves The Court has directed that all Tiger Reserves must have notified Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) within one year. The Court endorsed the MoEF&CC's 2018 advisory stating that the minimum extent of ESZs must cover the entire buffer and fringe areas, with at least a one-kilometre radial cushion around critical habitat where the buffer is missing. The Court held that ESZs, traditionally notified around National Parks and Sanctuaries, must apply equally to Tiger Reserves, reinforcing the ecological shield around these landscapes. Once notified, the same restrictions as those under the 9 February 2011 ESZ Notification will apply. This includes a complete ban on mining within one kilometre of tiger habitats, buffer areas or ESZ boundaries, whichever is larger. "We were informed during the proceedings, that not all Tiger Reserves have notified ESZs. We are of the firm belief that ESZs cannot only be restricted to Sanctuaries or National Parks, and must include buffer and peripheral areas of Tiger Reserves as well. Therefore, all State Governments are hereby directed to notify ESZs around all Tiger Reserves, including buffer and fringe areas, no later than 1 year from the date of this judgment," the Court directed. Prohibited activities in buffer and fringe areas The Court approved the Expert Committee's list of prohibited activities, including: • commercial mining • sawmills • polluting industries • commercial firewood use • major hydroelectric projects • introduction of exotic species • hazardous substance production • low-flying aircraft and tourism aircraft • waste discharge into natural ecosystems • tree felling without approval Regulated activities, such as hotels, water use, road widening and night vehicular movement, will require adherence to strict wildlife safeguards and must be consistent with Tiger Conservation Plans. Resorts restricted; night tourism banned; silence zones mandated The Court issued specific directions on tourism near Tiger Reserves: • New eco-friendly resorts allowed only in buffers, never in corridors. • Homestays and community-run establishments to be encouraged. • Zero waste practices mandatory. • Mobile phone use banned in tourism zones of core habitats. • Vehicular carrying capacity to be enforced. • Night tourism banned entirely. • Roads passing through core areas must be closed from dusk to dawn, except for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the Court ordered that the entire Tiger Reserve, including its ESZ, must be notified as a Silence Zone under the Noise Pollution Rules within three months. Other pna-India directions To correct systemic weaknesses in tiger governance, the Court issued several pan-India directions: • All States must notify core and buffer areas within 6 months. • All States must prepare or revise Tiger Conservation Plans within 3 months. • Steering Committees for each Tiger Reserve must be constituted within 2 months and meet twice annually. • NTCA must monitor whether TCPs and Steering Committees are effectively functioning. • Community-based tourism models must replace mass tourism. The Court further held that Critical Tiger Habitats under the Wildlife Protection Act must be treated at par with Critical Wildlife Habitats under the Forest Rights Act, ensuring consistency in recognition of ecological value and rights of forest dwellers. It also directed that CAMPA funds should continue to support voluntary relocation and that additional dedicated funds must be earmarked to make core habitats inviolate. The Court passed these directions while considering the ecological damage cased to the Jib Corbett tiger reserve in Uttarakhand due to illegal tree felling and unauthorised constructions. Case : In Re : Corbett Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1112 Click here to read the judgment
The Court also issued comprehensive directions on tiger safari, eco-tourism etc., in the region.
The Supreme Court today issued notice on the petition filed by former Church of South India (CSI) Bishop A Dharmaraj Rasalam seeking quashing of the money laundering case against him in the Karakonam CSI Medical College corruption case. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the notice returnable in four weeks and directed that trial court proceedings shall remain stayed in the meantime. “Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meantime trial court proceedings shall remain stayed”, the court ordered. During the hearing, Justice Nath asked, “Why should the Bishop do all these things?” Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar for the petitioner submitted that “there is no case at all.” He said there were closure reports on each of the predicate offences. He argued that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could not continue without predicate offences. He said there were five closure reports and added that the ECIR “strangely” annexed two of those closure reports. The court then proceeded to issue notice and stay the trial. Justice Nath said, “Don't do all this.” Justice Mehta then humorously responded, “But if they (litigants) don't do all this who will engage Supreme Court lawyers!” The Kerala High Court on March 24 refused to quash the charge sheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate against Rasalam in the alleged Karakonam CSI Medical College corruption case. Rasalam has been arrayed as the second accused by the ED, and the matter is before the Special Court dealing with PMLA cases. The allegation is that in 2019, Rasalam and others collected over Rs. 7 crore from parents of aspiring students by offering admission to Karakonam CSI Medical College. Multiple complaints were filed by parents alleging that officers of the college collected large sums of money on the pretext of granting admission to MBBS and PG courses, but the admissions were not given. The Crime Branch conducted investigation and filed a final report in 2021 before the magistrate's court stating the allegations are false and malicious. However, the High Court dismissed Rasalam's petition seeking quashing of the chargesheet in the money laundering case, leading him to approach the Supreme Court. Case no. – Diary No. 28457 / 2025 Case Title – A Dharmaraj Rasalam v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court on Monday posted to December 2 the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the Madras High Court's order which stayed the operation of State amendments taking away the Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors of State-run Universities. A matter was before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The State has also filed a petition seeking to transfer to the Supreme Court the public interest litigation pending before the Madras High Court. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the case will have to await the outcome of the Presidential Reference relating to the timelines fixed for Governor to grant assent to Bills. Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi, for the State, submitted that the case has nothing to do with the Presidential Reference (The amendments in question came into operation on the basis of the "deemed assent" declared by the Supreme Court in the TN Governor case). Senior Advocate P Wilson, also for the State, submitted that the High Court's stay has resulted in many Universities functioning without VCs. " Out of 22 universities, 14 are head-less. I am unable to do anything in the state. Ex-parte stay was granted. Presidential reference decision has no impact on this. Question is who can be the appointing authority...There's some urgency here," he said. Justice Kant said that the Court can allow the State to seek urgent decision by the High Court in 7-10 days. Ultimately, the matter was posted to December 2. To recap briefly, the subject amendments took away the power to appoint VCs from the Governor and vested it in the state government. Recently, on May 21, the High Court stayed the said state amendments, which were brought in pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment in the TN Governor case (which defined the scope of powers of the Governor). Tamil Nadu government seeks transfer of the PIL from the High Court to the Supreme Court, as similar cases are already pending before the latter. One of these pertains to Tamil Nadu government's challenge to 3 notifications unilaterally issued by the Governor for constituting search-and-selection committees for the appointment of VCs in Bharathiar University, Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University and Madras University. During a hearing in January, 2025, a bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala orally indicated in this case that if the issue regarding appointment of VCs was not resolved by the next date, then the Court would resolve it. Background The PIL before the High Court challenges a series of legislative amendments passed by the State of Tamil Nadu, whereby powers of appointing the Vice-Chancellor were transferred from the Governor to the state government. The writ-petitioner (respondent No.1 before Supreme Court) claims that the 12 amendments brought in by the state government were repugnant to the Central Law ie, the UGC Regulations. As per him, the UGC Regulations mandate that the Vice-Chancellors be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel recommended by the Search Committee and by vesting this power in the State Government, the amendments were overriding the role of the Chancellor. The High Court heard the matter on May 21, when the Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department (TNHED) informed that the state's transfer petition was likely be taken up by the Supreme Court in 2-3 days and urged that the case before the High Court be deferred. The State Advocate General also opposed the prayer for stay, pointing out that the Supreme Court has ruled against staying of legislation as a matter of course unless found to be ex facie illegal. Notably, the TNHED also contended that the Gazette notification relied on by the writ-petitioner(s) was a forged one and not the one passed by the State. It suggested that a CB-CID enquiry be conducted to investigate how such a forged gazette was filed before the Court. The High Court, however, rejected the plea for deferment, heard the writ-petitioners and ordered stay of the subject amendments. The present petition was filed through AoR Misha Rohatgi. Case Title: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. Versus K VENKATACHALAPTHY @ KUTTY AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 17220/2025 and T.P.(C) No. 1511/2025
The Supreme Court today issued notice and ordered status quo on the Communist Party of India's challenge to the Madras High Court's directions for the removal of permanent political flagpoles from public places across Tamil Nadu. The matter was heard by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. “Issue notice and status quo”, Justice Vikram Nath said. The CPI has approached the Court against the High Court's Full Bench order of August 13. The Full Bench had declined to adjudicate the issue after noting that the Supreme Court had already dismissed an SLP filed against a March order of a Division Bench which had affirmed an earlier single bench order directing the removal of permanent flagpoles. In its SLP, CPI has argued that the Supreme Court's earlier dismissal was in limine and therefore did not attract the doctrine of merger. The party has contended that the High Court could still have examined the merits. It has also submitted that the sweeping directions issued by the High Court amounted to “impermissible judicial legislation” and violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c). The CPI has further said that the High Court issued its directions without hearing political parties. The single bench had directed all political parties, communal organisations and other groups in the State to remove permanent flagpoles erected in public places, including national highways and government-owned land. The court had fixed a 12-week deadline and directed authorities to take action, after notice, if the directions were not complied with, with liberty to recover removal costs from the concerned parties. The court had held that there was no law permitting the grant of licences for permanent flagpoles in public spaces and that police and revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue No-Objection Certificates for such installations. The court had also observed that such flagpoles often caused inconvenience to commuters and affected traffic. While barring permanent flagpoles in public places, the single bench clarified that political parties could erect temporary flagpoles on private patta land during campaigns, dharnas and public meetings, subject to rules, and must remove them after the event. It added that organisers should clean the area and restore it to its original condition. The court had also directed the State to frame rules for installing flagpoles on private land. Case no. – Diary No. 53681 / 2025 Case Title – Communist Party of India v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2025, asserting that the statute violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 25 and 300A of the Constitution. “the structure of the Rajasthan Act is only to create fear in the minds of people and dissuade people from conversions. Further, it is only a tool for harassment of the minority communities and create a chilling effect”, the plea states. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta today issued notice returnable within four weeks in the writ petition filed though advocate Amit Pai. The petition submits that the new law imposes an absolute prohibition on religious conversion through Section 3, which bars conversion by “misrepresentation, misinformation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, online solicitation, marriage or pretext of marriage or by any other fraudulent means”. The petition argues that because the definitions of these expressions are vague and overbroad blurring the distinguishing features of a wilful conversion and a forceful conversion, the prohibitions in Section 3 effectively criminalise legitimate religious propagation protected by Article 25. The plea argues that the provisions create a chilling effect on the exercise of religious freedom allowing ordinary religious activity, persuasion or discussion to be treated as unlawful. The petition challenges the definition of “conversion”, which excludes a return to “ancestral religion”, saying this creates an impermissible classification based on the religion of one's forefathers. It also challenges the definitions of “allurement”, “force”, “coercion”, “misinformation” and “online solicitation”, stating that each term has been expanded in a way that criminalises legitimate religious and social activity. The petition challenges the meaning of “convincing for conversion”, defined as making a person agree to adopt another religion. It says that persuasion cannot be equated with force and that this restriction directly interferes with the right to propagate religion under Article 25 and the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a). “professing or propagating a religion are within the meaning of the fundamental right of “freedom of speech and expression” protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and cannot be restricted by the State unless such propagation or professing of a religion falls foul of the parameters specified in Article 19(2). Thus, any propagation or profession of a religion – which may result in conversion of another person's religion – cannot be restricted unless it is within the meaning of “in the interest of sovereignty, integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.”, the plea states. The petitioner also challenges the provision treating inter-faith marriage as conversion through a deeming fiction in the Explanation to Section 3(1). The plea also challenges the penal framework under Section 5, which prescribes mandatory minimum sentences ranging from seven years to life imprisonment, and fines from five lakh to twenty-five lakh rupees. The petition states that punishments for “mass conversion”, defined as involving “two or more persons”, and enhanced sentences when the person converted is a woman, a person with disability, or belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, are arbitrary and disproportionate. The petition argues that this creates an unreasonable classification and violates Article 14. It submits that the statute prescribes penalties comparable to those for serious offences under the NDPS Act, POCSO Act or offences of rape and murder, despite lacking any comparable justification. The petition challenges Sections 8 and 9, which require persons intending to convert and religious priests conducting conversion ceremonies to give prior declarations to the District Magistrate. The petition contends that the inquiry powers given to the District Magistrate, including entertaining objections from any person or organisation, violate privacy and create avenues for harassment. “It is submitted that apart from being a direct affront to the right to privacy and the right to choose one's religion and faith that has been guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, this provision becomes a tool of harassment of those who seek to convert willfully”, the plea states. The petition further contends that penal consequences for failure to submit declarations, ranging from seven to fourteen years, are excessive and unconstitutional. The petition also challenges Section 14, which places a reverse burden on the accused to prove that a conversion did not occur by prohibited means, stating that this violates the guarantee of fair procedure under Article 21. The petition further assails provisions allowing confiscation and demolition of property. It challenges Section 5(6), Section 10(3), Section 12 and Section 13, arguing that powers to forfeit property, freeze accounts or demolish premises “used for unlawful conversion” have no nexus with the purpose of preventing forceful conversions and violate Article 300A as they permit deprivation of property without adequate safeguards. The petition notes that even property owned by persons unconnected to the alleged offence may be confiscated. It says the demolition provision, which allows action within seventy-two hours of a show cause notice, is arbitrary and inconsistent with Supreme Court directions in the In Re: Demolition of Structures matter. The petitioner submits that the Act cannot be justified as a measure to maintain “public order” because the State has not shown any data or material indicating that religious conversions in Rajasthan disturb public order. The plea states – “objects sought to be achieved by the Rajasthan Act are to “prevent unlawful conversion” or forceful conversion – which cannot be understood to mean a ground of “public order” as has been defined by this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the issue of “public order” neither being reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, nor there being any data about the disturbance of “public order” by means of conversions across the State, it is submitted there is absolutely no nexus of the restriction on the fundamental right under Article 25 within the permissible grounds of “public order, morality and health” It also argues that the Act lacks legislative competence to enact the law under Entry 1 (Public Order) of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The petition seeks a declaration that the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2025 is unconstitutional and void. Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhavan along with Advocate Amit Pai appeared for the Petitioner. Related news – Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Challenging Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Law; Petitioners Flag Provisions Allowing Confiscation & Demolition Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 1108/2025 Case Title – Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan
The Court orally said that the matter is of a nature that requires unusual orders.
Trusted legal partner delivering expertise, justice, and client-focused solutions.