Earlier, the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel was used for live streaming court hearings and public interest cases. However, after the hack, a video titled “Brad Garlinghouse Reacts to SEC’s $2 Billion Fine! XRP Price Prediction” was live-streamed. The video featured Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple Labs, discussing the future price prediction of Ripple’s cryptocurrency XRP (XRP). The Supreme Court’s YouTube channel used to live stream court proceedings, particularly those related to the Constitution Bench. In 2018, under the leadership of then-Chief Justice UU Lalit, the court unanimously decided to live broadcast hearings of the Constitution Bench for public view. Since then, the Supreme Court has live-streamed several public interest litigations and significant cases. This step was taken to enhance the transparency of the judiciary, allowing citizens to directly watch the proceedings of the highest court.

Full details of the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel hacking incident are not yet available. According to The Indian Express, a senior official stated that there were some issues in accessing the channel, after which the Supreme Court’s IT team immediately took the matter seriously and referred it to the National Informatics Centre (NIC). The NIC team is currently investigating the matter to determine how the hacking occurred and how the channel’s security was compromised.

This incident has raised questions about the digital security of important institutions like the Supreme Court. While digital platforms are being used to promote transparency in the judiciary, such incidents expose security vulnerabilities. Strengthening the security of YouTube channels and other digital assets of government institutions has become even more important after this incident.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court declined to intervene. The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, stated that the court cannot interfere in the foreign policy of the country. The court made it clear that any such intervention could have far-reaching implications on India’s international relations. The Chief Justice noted that while the petitioners might have concerns about the conflict in Gaza, directing the government on foreign policy matters could set a dangerous precedent. He explained, “We are not in a position to understand the broader implications of our directives on foreign policy. It is not the court’s role to interfere in such sensitive matters.”

The court further explained that Indian companies involved in the export of arms and military equipment to Israel are bound by contractual obligations. These contracts, the court observed, cannot be easily broken without facing legal consequences. The bench noted that companies could be sued for breaching these agreements if they stop their supplies. The petitioners, represented by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, had argued that Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to genocide. However, the court maintained that it is not the judiciary’s role to interfere in international relations or dictate the country’s foreign policy. The bench used the example of India’s oil imports from Russia, stating, “Would it be proper for the court to direct the government to stop importing oil from Russia or withdraw investments from the Maldives? These are not issues where the court should intervene.”

The PIL was filed by Ashok Kumar Sharma and others, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. The petitioners sought a directive from the court to cancel the licenses of Indian firms exporting arms to Israel, based on allegations of human rights violations and war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. The petition emphasized the moral and ethical responsibility of the Indian government to stop aiding Israel in its military endeavors.

However, the Supreme Court reiterated that matters of foreign policy fall under the purview of the executive, not the judiciary. The court’s decision highlights its reluctance to intervene in decisions that could affect India’s diplomatic relations and contractual obligations with other nations.

Earlier, Kejriwal was arrested in connection with an alleged excise duty scam. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested him from his residence on March 21. Shortly after his arrest, the Delhi High Court rejected his plea for interim protection, which ruled out immediate relief for him.

Following his arrest, on July 12, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in the money laundering case. The Supreme Court directed a larger bench to examine three crucial questions regarding the necessity of Kejriwal’s arrest. This bench will address these questions to determine if his arrest is warranted.

Although the Supreme Court granted interim bail in the money laundering case, Kejriwal remains in judicial custody due to the ongoing CBI case. The CBI has charged him with corruption, and the investigation is still ongoing.

During the next hearing on August 27, the court will review the supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI, which will determine the future course of action in the case. Meanwhile, the extension of Kejriwal’s judicial custody indicates that further investigation and legal proceedings are needed. The proceedings in this case could have significant political and social implications, as it involves a major political party and its leader. Therefore, all eyes are on the upcoming court hearing in this case.

In recent years, the issue of electoral bonds has emerged as a contentious topic in Indian politics, sparking debates on transparency, accountability, and the influence of money in elections. Introduced in 2018, the financial program stipulated that only political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and garnering at least 1% of votes in the preceding Lok Sabha or state legislative assembly elections qualify for electoral bond reception.

The concept of electoral bonds was introduced with the intention of promoting clean and transparent political funding. Under this scheme, individuals and corporate entities can purchase bonds from specified branches of authorized banks and donate them to the political party of their choice. The identity of the donor remains anonymous, ostensibly shielding them from any potential reprisals or pressure.

Proponents of electoral bonds contend that the anonymity provided by the scheme encourages greater participation in the political process and reduces the influence of black money in elections. However, unlike traditional forms of political funding, where contributions are disclosed to the Election Commission and made publicly available, the identity of donors who contribute through electoral bonds remains confidential. This opacity, critics argue, undermines the principles of accountability and openness in the democratic process. In the fiscal year 2022-23, the BJP reportedly garnered close to ₹1300 crore via electoral bonds, a figure approximately seven times higher than the amount received by the Congress through the same means during that time frame.

Political parties play a crucial role in the political process. Knowing about their funding helps voters make informed choices. Economic inequality affects people’s involvement in politics. Access to information can sway policymaking and lead to favors exchanged between parties. The Electoral Bonds scheme violates the right to information under Article 19(a).

 CJI Chandrachud,” said, “The Constitution doesn’t ignore potential misuse; the double proportionality standard must be applied. Clause 7(4) of the scheme favors informational privacy as it provides anonymity to contributors, but no nexus to balancing measures was observed.” CJI : There’s a possibility that contributions above ₹ 20,000 might be mere support, not for favors. The Union of India failed to prove that Clause 7(4) is the least restrictive way to limit the right to information. Amending Section 29(1)(c) of the RPA and IT Act is deemed unconstitutional. The Electoral Bonds scheme is invalidated as unconstitutional.

CJI’s Directives on Electoral Bonds

1. The Electoral Bonds Scheme, along with the provision to Section 29(1)(c) as amended by Section 139 of the Income Tax Act and Section 13(b) as amended by the Finance Act 2015, is found to violate Article 19(1)(a).
2. The issuing bank is instructed to cease the issuance of electoral bonds immediately.
3. The State Bank of India (SBI) is directed to provide details of political parties receiving electoral bonds, including purchase particulars such as date, purchaser name, and denomination, to the Election Commission of India (ECI) by March 6. Additionally, SBI is mandated to disclose details of parties receiving contributions via Electoral Bonds, along with specifics of each encashed bond.
4. By March 13, the ECI is tasked with publishing the provided information on its official website.
5. Electoral Bonds not utilized by political parties are to be returned and refunded to the purchasers.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reflects a commitment to safeguarding the constitutional principles of equality and fairness. By invalidating the electoral bonds scheme, which facilitated anonymous and untraceable donations to political parties, the court has taken a decisive stand against the potential for undue influence and corruption in the political sphere.

By Kashish Jain

The High Court’s decision on December 14, permitting the survey and setting the modalities, faced a setback as the Supreme Court suspended its implementation. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta expressed concerns about the Hindu devotees’ application for the survey being “vague.” Additionally, the court noted pending legal issues, including the Order 7 Rule 11 application and the lack of clarity in the request for a local commissioner’s appointment. The matter of transferring the case is also awaiting resolution.

While the Supreme Court clarified it was not imposing a complete stay, it specifically halted the implementation of the survey commission order. The court issued a notice to Hindu devotees, seeking their response to the plea filed by the Shahi Idgah Masjid trust. The case is scheduled for further hearing on January 23.

Senior advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, representing the Masjid trust, argued against the High Court’s decision, highlighting the issue of maintainability already pending before the court. The Masjid trust challenges the survey, arguing it should not be a “fishing exercise.” It contends that Hindu devotees’ claims are barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991 and previous court judgments endorsing settlement agreements between Temple and Mosque trusts in 1973 and 1974.

The Mosque Committee argues that Hindu devotees lack substantial evidence for their claim regarding Lord Krishna’s birthplace under the Idgah Mosque. It asserts that a survey cannot be conducted to “find evidence,” barred by the 1991 Act and settlement agreements.

The legal complexities continue, with over a dozen petitions pending before the Allahabad High Court. The dispute centers on the Hindu side’s claim that the mosque, constructed by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, replaced a temple on 13.37 acres of Lord Krishna’s birthplace.

Advocate Reena N. Singh, representing Bhagwan Sri Krishna Lalla Virajman, clarified that the Supreme Court’s intervention temporarily stayed the survey but not the trial at the Allahabad High Court. The next hearing on January 23 will likely bring further clarity to this contentious and historical legal battle.

By Yashasvi Raghav

It’s been over 8 months that Sisodia has kept behind the bars as it was on 26^th of February that CBI arrested the AAP leader for his alleged involvement in the scam whereas ED made an arrest against him on March 9^th over money laundering case. As per the probe agencies, the new policy favored those who were ineligible for the liquor licenses for the monetary benefits.

It was by Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti the bail was denied to the prominent AAP leader as they continued to reserve their 17^th October verdict. Even though the Supreme Court of India on Monday has come up with denying of the bail to Manish Sisodia as they have found certain aspects still doubtful regarding both the corruption and money laundering case of scrapped Delhi excise policy, the court has ordered to wind up the case within 6 to 8 months of period. The Court has stated that if the trail moves in a sloppy manner then he can reapply for the bail in 3 months. As per the guardians, there are various questions that have not been answered and raise the concern.

The apex court said that until the petitioners prove that the caste enumeration is wrong, it will not stay the Bihar government’s decision to conduct the survey. A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti accepted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s demand for seven days to file a reply on the future results of the caste census, appearing for the Central Government. Expressing concern about the possible danger of the caste survey, Mehta said before the bench that it could have some possible effects. However, he did not elaborate on the possible impact. Data gathering has been completed.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, asked the bench to restrain the Bihar government from releasing the caste census data. The bench said that the work of collecting data regarding caste enumeration has been completed, and now the work of its analysis is pending, and it is a very challenging task. The bench said that the Bihar government has already said that the data already submitted will not be published. On Rohatgi’s demand for a stay, the bench said that first it has to be told that the survey is prima facie not correct, and only then can the order of the Bihar government be stayed.

The next hearing will be on August 28.Senior advocate Shyam Dewan, appearing on behalf of the Bihar government, demanded not to impose any kind of ban on the order of the Patna High Court. After hearing the arguments of all the parties, the bench said that the next hearing of the case would be on August 28. Significantly, during the last hearing, the bench said, What is the harm in conducting a caste survey? Also, the Bihar government had said before the court that it would not release individual data and that only collective data would be released.

The Patna High Court dismissed the petition.On August 1, the Patna High Court dismissed all the petitions challenging the caste enumeration. The High Court had said in its order that the government can get the count done if it wants. The Patna High Court said in its decision that this work of the state government is in accordance with the rules and is completely legal. The state government can get the count done if it wants. The High Court had deemed the caste-based survey in Bihar valid.Soon after this, the Nitish government issued an order regarding the caste census.

Petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court against this decision of the Patna High Court.The last hearing was held on August 18.A petition was filed in the Supreme Court to stay the decision of the Patna High Court. The last hearing on this petition was held on August 18. During this, the court said that the survey work in Bihar had been completed.The data is also being uploaded online. After this, a demand was made on behalf of the petitioner not to release the details of the caste census, but the Supreme Court rejected this demand as well, and the hearing of the case was postponed till August 21.

Harshit Sankhla