Koregaon-Bhima: SC stays Bombay HC order refusing extension of time to police to file chargesheet
New Delhi, Oct 29 : The Supreme Court Monday stayed the Bombay High Court order refusing extension of time to the state police for filing charge sheet in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case.
Recently, the Bombay High Court had set aside the lower court's order allowing extension of time to police to file its probe report against the rights activists in the violence case.
Taking note of the appeal of the Maharashtra government, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi stayed the high court order and issued notice to rights activists on the plea.
Earlier, the apex court had refused to interfere with the arrest of five rights activists by the Maharashtra Police in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and declined to appoint a SIT for probe into their arrest.
The Pune Police had arrested lawyer Surendra Gadling, Nagpur University professor Shoma Sen, Dalit activist Sudhir Dhawale, activist Mahesh Raut and Kerala native Rona Wilson in June for their alleged links with Maoists under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The arrests had followed raids at their residences and offices in connection with the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31 last year, which, the police had claimed, had led to violence at Bhima Koregaon the next day.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC refers petitions challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025 to Justice BR Gavai’s bench
Hearing scheduled for May 15
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed that the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, be listed before a bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai. The decision was announced by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, who noted that Justice Khanna is nearing retirement and the matter requires an early hearing.
The case titled In Re: Waqf Amendment Act was heard by a bench comprising CJI Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan. The CJI stated that although he had reviewed the counter-affidavit filed by the Union government and the rejoinders submitted by the petitioners, he did not wish to reserve judgment at the interim stage. With the consent of all parties, including Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi for the petitioners and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union, the matter was reassigned to Justice Gavai’s bench for hearing on May 15.
In previous hearings on April 16 and 17, the bench engaged in detailed discussions. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had raised strong objections to the omission of the ‘waqf by user’ provision, arguing that such waqfs — many centuries old — often lack formal registration documents. Solicitor General Mehta responded that the amendment was prospective and that registered waqf properties would not be affected.
The Court also took note of concerns about the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. CJI Khanna pointedly asked whether non-Hindus are similarly included in bodies overseeing Hindu religious endowments. In response to these concerns, the Court suggested interim directions to prevent any significant changes, including a proposal that only Muslims (barring ex-officio members) should serve on the Waqf Boards and Council. It also indicated that court-declared waqf properties should not be denotified during the pendency of the case.
The Union government, through SG Mehta, assured the Court that no fresh appointments would be made to the Waqf bodies and that the status of existing waqf lands would remain unaffected. These assurances were recorded by the Court.
The petitions, supported by a wide array of individuals and organisations including MPs from AIMIM, RJD, SP, TMC, CPI, DMK, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, and others challenge multiple provisions of the Amendment Act.
Meanwhile, BJP-led state governments of Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Maharashtra have filed intervention applications supporting the amendment.
The matter will now be heard on May 15 by the bench led by Justice Gavai.
_vb_42.jpeg)
