A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta sought the response of the Union government and listed the matter for hearing after four weeks.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen directed the petitioner to place before the court logical evidence to establish the admissibility of the PIL.
Raising concerns of large-scale and irreversible disenfranchisement, Banerjee contended that the ongoing SIR poses a serious threat to the voting rights of lakhs of eligible electors and would severely undermine the level playing field among political parties ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
Raising concerns of large-scale and irreversible disenfranchisement, Banerjee has contended that the ongoing SIR poses a serious threat to the voting rights of lakhs of eligible electors and would severely undermine the level playing field among political parties ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
Observing that the Delhi High Court is already seized of the matter, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant granted liberty to advocate Narendra Mishra, the petitioner-in-person, to raise his grievances before the High Court.
The Orissa High Court has directed the State’s Health and Family Welfare Department to submit a detailed report within two weeks on the implementation status of the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) recommendations regarding the Patients’ Rights Charter in both government and private healthcare institutions across Odisha.
"In view of the statutory scheme under COTPA Act, 2003 and Rules, such matters are to be decided by expert bodies constituted under the Act after hearing parties," the court said.
The PIL also demands the quashing of alleged false FIRs filed in connection with the violence so that no innocent individual is prosecuted. It also demands disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the police officers responsible for the incident.
The government authorities have been asked to file their responses on affidavit within four weeks.
The PIL was filed by advocate Rajasimhan contending that the image of the author smoking glorifies it as a symbol of intellectual and creative expression.
