Category: Legal

JAMMU (February 23, 2026) — The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Monday reserved its verdict on a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Mehraj Malik under the Public Safety Act (PSA). A bench presided over by Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani concluded hearing final arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and the Union Territory administration. Malik, the first sitting legislator in the region to be booked under the stringent law, has been in custody since September 2025.

---

Grounds of Detention and Petitioner’s Arguments

Mehraj Malik, who represents the Doda East constituency and serves as the AAP’s Jammu and Kashmir unit president, was detained on 8 September 2025. The official dossier prepared by the Doda district administration accused him of “habitual confrontation” with government officials and using social media to “incite unrest” and “provoke the public.” These activities were deemed prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

During the proceedings, Malik’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Rahul Pant, argued that the detention was “punitive rather than preventive” and motivated by political vendetta. The counsel contended that the grounds provided in the 33-page dossier were legally flimsy and lacked a “solid foundation” for curtailing the personal liberty of an elected representative. The petition also seeks 5 crore rupees in compensation for the alleged violation of Malik’s fundamental rights.

Government’s Stance and Legal Thresholds

The Jammu and Kashmir administration, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, maintained that Malik’s actions posed a “grave threat to peace and tranquillity” in the Doda district. The government argued that the MLA’s repeated use of derogatory language against public functionaries and his mobilisation of villagers during administrative tasks necessitated preventive action under the PSA.

Under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, individuals can be detained without a formal charge or trial for up to two years. However, the High Court has historically quashed numerous PSA orders where the grounds of detention were found to be vague or where the procedural safeguards were not strictly followed.

Significant Timeline of the Case

• 8 September 2025: Malik is detained at a government guest house in Doda and subsequently moved to Kathua jail.
• 24 September 2025: A habeas corpus petition is filed in the High Court challenging the detention order.
• 18 December 2025: The petitioner’s side concludes over six hours of arguments over multiple sessions.
• 5 February 2026: The High Court directs the government to continue advancing its response.
• 23 February 2026: The court reserves its order after hearing the concluding submissions from the Union Territory administration.

The court’s decision is expected to set a critical precedent regarding the intersection of administrative authority and the civil liberties of elected officials in the Union Territory.

---

Sources

• Press Trust of India (PTI): “HC reserves order on MLA Mehraj Malik’s PSA case” (February 23, 2026)
• Greater Kashmir: “Detention under PSA: J&K Govt to respond to AAP MLA’s petition” (December 18, 2025)
• Article 14: “First J&K Legislator Held Under Draconian Detention Law” (October 30, 2025)
• Law Trend: “J&K High Court to Continue Hearing on AAP MLA Mehraj Malik’s PSA Detention” (February 5, 2026)

Legal Battle for AAP MLA Mehraj Malik This video provides a concise update on the High Court proceedings, featuring insights from the legal team and a summary of the arguments presented during the final hearings in February 2026.

NEW DELHI (February 23, 2026) — The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Lucknow District Election Officer to investigate the grievances of 91 residents of Akbar Nagar who were allegedly excluded from the Uttar Pradesh electoral rolls. The petitioners, represented by Sana Parveen and others, claim they were disenfranchised during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) following the demolition of their homes in September 2023. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the local administration must verify the claims and take remedial measures to protect the residents’ democratic rights.

---

Displacement and Loss of “Identifiable Abode”

The 91 petitioners were long-term residents of Akbar Nagar, a locality in Lucknow that saw large-scale demolitions in late 2023 as part of a riverfront development project. According to the petition, many of the affected individuals have been on the voter list since 2002, with younger family members appearing in subsequent revisions.

The primary obstacle to their inclusion in the current SIR process is the lack of a permanent residential address. Senior Advocate M. R. Shamshad, appearing for the residents, argued that the demolition of “unauthorised” structures—a move previously upheld by the judiciary—should not result in the loss of voting rights. The petitioners sought a directive allowing them to submit enumeration forms to Booth Level Officers (BLOs) despite their temporary lack of an “identifiable abode.”

Judicial Directive and High Court Liberty

Initially, the Supreme Court expressed reluctance to intervene, noting that a writ petition under Article 32 was not the ideal vehicle for resolving disputed factual matters regarding residence. However, recognizing the potential for mass disenfranchisement, the bench opted to refer the matter back to the district authorities for a factual inquiry.

The court’s order outlined several key points:

• Factual Enquiry: The District Collector (acting as the District Election Officer) must ascertain whether the petitioners were previously included in the voter lists and evaluate their current eligibility.
• Remedial Action: If the grievances are found to be valid, the officer is directed to take immediate steps to include the displaced residents in the supplementary electoral rolls.
• Legal Recourse: The bench granted the petitioners the liberty to approach the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court should they fail to receive effective relief from the district administration.

Context of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

The order comes amid a broader national effort by the Election Commission of India to refine voter lists through the Special Intensive Revision process. The court has recently been involved in similar disputes elsewhere, including directing the deployment of judicial officers in West Bengal to oversee the adjudication of claims and objections.

In the case of Akbar Nagar, the bench emphasised that administrative inquiries into voter eligibility should not be hampered by the ongoing transition of residents into rehabilitation housing provided under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY).

---

Sources

• The Hindu: “Bulldozer demolition drive: Supreme Court asks district election officer to address issue of people lacking ‘identifiable abode’” (February 23, 2026)
• LawBeat: “Supreme Court rejects plea by Akbarnagar demolition-hit residents over UP SIR” (February 23, 2026)
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “SC directs Lucknow election officer to probe exclusion of 91 displaced residents from voter list” (February 23, 2026)
• Land Conflict Watch: “1,800 structures razed in Lucknow’s Akbar Nagar for riverfront project” (Updated June 2024)

NEW DELHI (February 23, 2026) — The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi High Court to pass an order on the bail application of Leena Paulose, the wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, within a three-week period. Paulose is a co-accused in the 200 crore rupee extortion case involving the wives of former Ranbaxy promoters. A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh issued the directive after noting that her bail petition has remained pending before the High Court for over a year.

---

Judicial Intervention Over Prolonged Delay

The apex court’s order follows a petition filed by Paulose seeking the “expeditious hearing” of her bail application. During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite regular listings, the matter had not reached a conclusion in the High Court.

While the Supreme Court had previously expressed reservations about litigants approaching the top court to “arrange the board” of High Courts, the bench acknowledged the significant duration of the pendency in this instance. The directive aims to ensure a timely judicial decision on Paulose’s custody status, which has continued since her arrest in September 2021.

Background of the Extortion Case

The case originates from an investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police. Authorities allege that Sukesh Chandrasekhar, while lodged in Rohini Jail, operated an organised crime syndicate to extort 200 crore rupees from Aditi Singh and Japna Singh, the spouses of Malvinder and Shivinder Singh.

Key allegations against Leena Paulose include:

• Syndicate Facilitation: The prosecution contends that Paulose was not merely an abettor but an active member of the syndicate, helping to manage and park the proceeds of crime.
• Financial Irregularities: Investigators allege the couple utilised hawala routes and shell companies to move funds. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) previously seized 16 luxury vehicles from Paulose’s Chennai residence, which were prima facie linked to the extortion money.
• MCOCA Charges: Due to the organised nature of the alleged crimes, the police invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), which carries a higher threshold for the granting of bail.

Concurrent Legal Proceedings

In July 2023, the Delhi High Court had previously rejected a bail plea from Paulose, citing the “sensitive nature” of the case and the rigorous requirements of Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The current proceedings relate to a fresh application for bail. Both Paulose and Chandrasekhar remain in judicial custody as they face multiple trials across various jurisdictions, including money laundering charges brought by the Enforcement Directorate.

---

Sources

• Verdictum News Desk: “Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Decide Bail Plea Of Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s Wife Within Three Weeks” (February 23, 2026)
• The Times of India: “Rs 200 crore extortion case: SC asks Delhi HC to decide bail plea of conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s wife” (February 23, 2026)
• The Hindu: “Supreme Court raps Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s wife plea seeking expeditious hearing” (September 3, 2025)
• SCC Online: “Delhi High Court refuses bail to Leena Paulose in 214 crore extortion case” (July 13, 2023)

NEW DELHI (February 23, 2026) — The Supreme Court on Monday orally observed that land acquisition cases finalised prior to 2018 cannot be reopened for the purpose of granting interest on compensation to farmers. A special bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, clarified that whilst solatium remains a right under the principle of parity, the payment of interest cannot be applied to cases where proceedings reached finality years before recent judicial shifts. The observation came during the commencement of an open-court hearing regarding a review petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

---

Judicial Balancing of Parity and Finality

The hearing focused on the NHAI’s challenge to a 2019 Supreme Court verdict in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which had struck down Section 3J of the National Highways Act. That section had previously denied farmers solatium and interest, a distinction the court had found discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that while the court previously rejected the NHAI’s plea to apply the Tarsem Singh ruling strictly prospectively, there must be a cut-off to prevent judicial chaos. “Pre-2018 matters cannot be reopened. Those matters which were pending in 2008 continue. If someone in the early 2020s filed an application saying they are entitled to parity on the basis of 2008, we can say yes as to solatium but not interest,” the Chief Justice remarked.

Financial Implications and the 32,000 Crore Rupee Burden

The NHAI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that a blanket retrospective application of the 2019 judgment would impose an insurmountable financial burden on the public exchequer. According to reports from Business Standard and The Hindustan Times, the Solicitor General stated the potential liability is estimated at approximately 32,000 crore rupees.

The Solicitor General argued that earlier judicial impressions—which suggested a smaller impact of around 100 crore rupees—had been surpassed by a flood of new claims. He emphasized that reopening long-disposed cases would contravene the doctrine of immutability, which ensures that once a judgment attains finality, it remains unalterable.

Background and Statutory Context

The legal dispute centers on the period between 1997 and 2015, during which the National Highways Act operated without the provision for solatium (an additional 30 percent compensation) or interest on delayed payments.

• The 2019 Ruling: The Supreme Court declared the exclusion of these benefits unconstitutional, ruling that landowners under the NHAI Act should receive parity with those covered by the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
• The NHAI Review: The authority is now seeking to limit the scope of this retrospective relief, specifically to prevent the revival of claims where land acquisition was completed and compensation was accepted without protest before 2018.

The bench has directed the parties to file written submissions and has listed the review plea for a detailed hearing in two weeks.

---

Sources

• The Hindustan Times: “Pre-2018 land acquisition cases can’t be reopened for grant of compensation with interest: SC” (February 23, 2026)
• Business Standard: “Pre-2018 Nhai land cases can’t be reopened for interest claims: SC” (February 23, 2026)
• Lawtext: “Solatium and Interest Entitlement – Retrospective or Prospective Application of Law” (February 15, 2026)
• Supreme Court of India: Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2019) 9 SCC 304]

NEW DELHI (February 23, 2026) — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the Andhra Pradesh government’s decision to appoint a one-member committee to review administrative lapses in the Tirumala laddu controversy. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi ruled that the state-appointed administrative inquiry does not conflict with the ongoing criminal proceedings, allowing both processes to continue independently and in accordance with the law.

---

Judicial Observations on “Overlapping” Probes

The petitioner had argued that the appointment of a separate committee, led by retired IAS officer Dinesh Kumar, undermined the authority of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) previously constituted by the Supreme Court. However, the bench found these apprehensions to be without “solid foundation.”

CJI Surya Kant stated, “Such an administrative enquiry cannot be called as overlapping with the criminal proceedings which led to the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet.” The court noted that the scope of the two investigations is well-demarcated: the SIT handles the criminal aspect, whilst the state committee is tasked with fixing responsibility for administrative failures.

Arguments and State Cabinet Decision

The controversy, which first emerged in late 2024, involves allegations of adulterated ghee being used in the preparation of ‘prasadam’ laddus at the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, submitted that the petition was intended to derail departmental proceedings.

The state cabinet, chaired by Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, had decided on February 3 to form the committee to identify individuals responsible for the alleged quality lapses. Swamy’s plea had also assailed public statements made by the Chief Minister regarding the row, but the court declined to interfere with the executive’s right to conduct internal reviews.

Background on the Investigation

Recent developments in the broader case include a chargesheet filed by the CBI-led SIT in the Nellore ACB court. According to reports from The Times of India, the forensic analysis indicated that the ghee samples drawn from certain tankers were “synthetic” and blended with vegetable oils, rather than containing animal fats as initially alleged. The court’s decision today ensures that the departmental inquiry into how such supplies were procured can proceed alongside these judicial findings.

---

Sources

• The New Indian Express: “SC refuses to entertain plea challenging committee’s review of SIT report on Tirumala laddu row” (February 23, 2026)
• Bar and Bench: “Tirupati laddu case: Supreme Court rejects Subramanian Swamy’s plea against State probe panel” (February 23, 2026)
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “SC rejects plea against panel reviewing SIT report on Tirumala laddu row” (February 23, 2026)
• The Times of India: “CBI chargesheet rules out mixing of animal fats in Tirupati laddu ghee” (January 31, 2026)