The court directed Patanjali Ayurved to stop publishing any such misleading advertisements in the future. The court said that it must ensure that it refrains from making casual statements in the press, India Today reported.

The petition alleges that Patanjali’s misleading advertisements disparage allopathy and make false claims about curing certain diseases.

IMA has further contended that the claims by Patanjali are unverified and are in direct violation of laws such as the Drugs and Other Magic Remedies Act, 1954, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The court also asked the Centre government to come out with workable recommendations in this regard and slated the hearing for February 5, 2024.

In 2021, the top court had passed a slew of directions to ensure that banned chemicals are not used in crackers ahead of Diwali. Green crackers are allowed.

The SC issued this clarification while hearing an application seeking directions to Rajasthan to comply with the 2021 order and minimise air and noise pollution during festive season. “At this juncture, no specific order will be necessary in as much as this court in the course of hearing the petitions has passed several orders, where steps have been indicated to minimise and avoid air as well as noise pollution. Hence the said orders will bind every state in the country, including the state of Rajasthan. Therefore, we make it clear that the state of Rajasthan would also take note of this and take all steps to minimise air and noise pollution, not only during the festival season, but even thereafter,” LiveLaw reported quoting the order of a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and M M Sundresh.

Justice Sundresh pointed out that there is a wrong perception that only the court has duties when it comes to environmental matters. “It is for everyone to manage air and sound pollution,” he noted.

In another hearing, a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia ordered an immediate ban on stubble burning in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana to combat Delhi’s severe air pollution. “We want this stopped altogether whether you take forceful action or give incentives against burning of stubble but you have to stop it. We are at zero level patience in these issues. This has to be sorted tomorrow so that it does not happen next year.”

The apex court expressed frustration over no visible improvement in Delhi’s air quality despite claims of a 40% reduction in farm fires. It also criticised the Delhi government for not taking action against neighbouring states though the ruling party is in power there.

It also asked the Delhi Pollution Control Board Chairperson to look into the non-operation of smog towers in the national capital.

There were two separate regular bail pleas and a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti had reserved its verdict on October 17 on both. On October 17, the top court told the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that if a bribe that was allegedly paid for tweaking the Delhi excise policy is not part of the predicate offence, it would be difficult to prove the money-laundering case against Manish Sisodia.

Supreme Court had told the federal agency that it cannot go on assumptions of bribe being paid and whatever protection is there under the law, needs to be granted.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested Manish Sisodia, an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader on February 26 for his alleged role in the Delhi liqour policy “scam”. The AAP leader has been in custody since then.

ED arrested Manish Sisodia in a money-laundering case stemming from the CBI FIR on March 9 after questioning him in Tihar jail.

“The judgment in Subramanian Swamy will have retrospective effect. Section 6A of the DSPE Act will be considered as having been not in force from the date of its insertion,” the constitution bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari said on Monday.

This means that senior government officials involved in corruption cases cannot demand protection from coercive measures for the period between September 2003 , when the impugned law was framed, and May 2014, when the SC judgment invalidated the need for prior sanction.

Section 6A of the DSPE Act required the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to obtain prior sanction from the central government to investigate corruption cases against an officer of the rank of joint secretary and above.

The bench further clarified that Section 6A was a procedural provision and that the 2014 decision on its validity had nothing to do with the applicability of Article 20(1), which lays down that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the alleged act.

The issue was first raised to the Supreme Court when the CBI approached it challenging a Delhi High Court order. A five-judge constitution bench in 2014 termed Section 6A a “discriminatory” provision that “impedes tracking down the corrupt senior bureaucrats”. Later in 2016, a two-judge bench in 2016 referred the questions whether there can be a deprivation of such immunity by a retrospective operation of a judgment of the Court, in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, to a larger bench.

“What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” the Supreme Court bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said after it was informed of an order by the High Court on Saturday.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Gujarat government, said Saturday’s order was passed only to fix a “clerical error”. “There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding,” he said, adding, “We as the state government will request the judge to recall the order,” NDTV reported.

The Supreme Court on Saturday flagged the delay by the high court in deciding the rape survivor’s petition, saying “valuable time” has been lost. The bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan then said they would hear the matter today. The Supreme Court criticised the “lackadaisical attitude” of the High Court and issued notices to the Gujarat government and others, seeking their responses to the woman’s plea.

The counsel for the 25-year-old’s victim told the Supreme Court that she approached the court on August 7 and the matter was heard the next day. The High Court on August 8 directed that a medical board be formed to look into the status of the petitioner’s pregnancy and her health condition.

In its report, the medical college ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated. The Supreme Court noted that the report was taken on record by the High Court on August 11 but “strangely”, the matter was listed 12 days later, “losing sight of the fact that every day’s delay was crucial and of great significance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case”.

“In such cases, there must be, not undue urgency, but at least a sense of urgency in such matters and not a lackadaisical attitude of treating it as any normal case and just adjourning it. We are sorry to say and make this remark,” the bench orally said.

Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, consent of a child below 18 years of age is immaterial and any person who attempts sexual activity with such an underage person would be guilty of sexual assault. Under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, sex with a girl below the age of 16 is rape even if she had given her consent.

There is a growing argument suggesting a potential redefinition of the term “Child” in Section 2(d). Lawmakers propose that any consensual sexual activity or related acts occurring after the age of 16 should not be subject to the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.

Instead, they suggest the introduction of more lenient legal provisions within the Act. This is to differentiate between cases involving teenage relationships after 16 years of age. In addition, it includes sexual assault cases involving children below the age of 16.

Petitioner-advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal pleaded with a bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud that many boys, who are just over 18 years of age, have been stigmatised on being arrested for indulging in consensual sex with girls who are in the 16-18 age group. He pleaded for decriminalisation of consensual sex between over 16-year-old girls and boys who are in the age group of 16-20 years.

The CJI-led bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notice to the Union government when Singhal argued about the importance of extending the Romeo-Juliet law to India to decriminalise consensual sex between 18-19-year-old boys with girls of 16-18 years of age.

“This grey area of law, a legislative vacuum, needs to be filled by guidelines on how statutory rape laws would operate by assessment of consent of 16+ to 18-year-olds before indicting the consenting adults,” he said.

“In most foreign countries, the laws of statutory rape reprieve adults in consensual sex with minors if difference in their respective biological ages is 3 to 4 years. Called Romeo Juliet Clause, it treats consensual sex partners as Romeo and Juliet on the lines of William Shakespeare’s play ‘Romeo & Juliet’ recognizing that there isn’t much difference in capacity, competence and maturity of a 16-17 year old and a 20-21 year old and are treated as adults,”
Singhal argued.

The PIL petitioner quoted a study conducted for the Union Ministry of Health, according to which 10% of women in the age group of 25-49 years had their first sexual intercourse before the age of 15, and 39% had their first sexual intercourse before the age of 18 years.

“It is clear that underage sex is widely prevalent in India. Those who get caught get hauled for statutory rape; millions have consensual sex before turning 18. It is ironical that while contraceptives are provided, consensual sex is criminalized – that too when pregnancy occurs! Such legislative practice fails to make laws consistent with social realities, ” he said.

Requesting the SC to use its omnibus powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to evolve a set of binding guidelines and principles, the petitioner said one of the components of such guideline could be a mandate to police to drop rape charges against a teenage adult if the underage girl makes a statement before a magistrate under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code that the sexual relationship was consensual.

According to reports, the Collegium recommended the appointment of advocate Sibo Sankar Mishra and judicial officer Ananda Chandra Behera as judges in Orissa High Court.

In its resolution published on the Supreme Court website, the Collegium noted that government gave good inputs on personal and professional side for both the candidates.

With respect to advocate Mishra, the resolution noted that he has a standing of 30 years at the Bar and is an advocate-on-record in Supreme Court for the Odisha government.

Mishra is specialised in civil, criminal and service law. He is an Advocate-on-record for Odisha in the Supreme Court and is counsel for the Union of India and High Court of Orissa in the Supreme Court. He has a sizeable practice at the Bar which is reflected in his average professional income.

Ananda Chandra Behera has served as a judicial officer in various capacities in Odisha.

The handbook contains a list of 43 gender-unjust terms that should be avoided by judges and the legal community in their orders, judgments, pleadings and submissions. The handbook suggests alternative words and phrases. The SC looked inward and sought to begin the clean-up from within the system.

Calling language critical to the life of the law, the CJI in his foreword to the 30-page handbook said many words or phrases used in legal discourse by both lawyers and judges, reflect archaic ideas with patriarchal undertones. The handbook red flags words such as prostitute, whore, keep, mistress, slut, fallen woman, provocative clothing, woman of loose morals/easy virtue/promiscuous woman/wanton woman.

Prepared by a panel headed by Calcutta High Court judge Moushumi Bhattacharya, the handbook also points out common but incorrect reasoning patterns based on gender stereotypes. Common stereotypes about women are those based on their so-called inherent characteristics; on gender roles; and related to sex, sexuality, and sexual violence. For example. one stereotype is that women are overly emotional, illogical and cannot take decisions. But gender does not determine or influence a person’s capacity for rational thought, it reasons.

Incorrect language and their alternatives in the handbook

Adulteress: Woman engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage
Affair: Relationship outside of marriage
Bastard: Non-marital child or child whose parents were not married
Biological sex/biological male/biological female: Sex assigned at birth
Born a girl/boy: Assigned female/male at birth
Career woman: Woman
Carnal intercourse: Sexual intercourse
Chaste woman: Woman
Child prostitute: Child who has been trafficked
Dutiful wife/faithful wife/good or obedient wife: Wife
Eve-teasing: Street sexual harassment
Fallen woman: Woman
Forcible rape: Rape
Hooker: Sex worker
Housewife: Homemaker
Indian woman/Western woman: Woman
Marriageable age: A woman who has attained the legal age required to marry
Prostitute: Sex worker
Provider/Breadwinner: Employed or earning
Unwed Mother: Mother

The lawyer, appearing for the petitioner Yakub Shah, told the bench that 100 houses have been bulldozed. “There are 70-80 houses left. Whole thing will become infructuous. They conducted the exercise on a day when Uttar Pradesh courts were closed,” he said. The court has put the demolition drive on hold for 10 days and issued a notice to the Centre on the pleas against the demolition and posts case after one week, according to reports.

Around 100 houses were demolished in the Nai Basti area, which is predominantly inhabited by a minority population.

“Structures illegally constructed on railway land are being removed following due process. The land is required to transform the line from Mathura to Vrindavan from narrow gauge to broad gauge,” Nitin Garg, the Divisional Work Engineer of Railways said, according to a report by Times of India.