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 Supreme Court was moved on Wednesday by a public interest plea (PIL) seeking direction to the Central government to cancel any existing licences and halt the grant of new licences/permissions, to various companies in India, for export of arms and other military equipment to Israel
The Calcutta High Court on Friday raised questions on the role of Kolkata Police in relation to the ransacking of the emergency department of state-run RG Kar Medical College & Hospital.
The telecom equipment manufacturing sector has demonstrated exceptional growth, with total sales exceeding Rs 50,000 crore by Production linked Incentive (PLI) companies.
Prashant Bhushan informed that Anjali Bhardwaj, a member of Common Cause, and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) have filed the petition and he is the lawyer on their behalf.
The court also noted that there is no legal provision mandating that the returning officer should give a reasoned explanation for his decision on a complaint regarding discrepancies in the election affidavit of a candidate.
