Law & Justice This Week: Big Wins, Court Orders & Legal Milestones [August 11- August 17]

1. Stray dogs in Delhi NCR: The Supreme Court on August 14, reserved its order on a plea to stay court's August 11 order directing relocation of dogs from all localities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, NOIDA, Faridabad, Gurugram, as well as areas on the outskirts, to designated shelters/pounds. Court also asked the NGOs before it as to why they did not approach the court for compliance earlier. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that over 37 lakh cases of dog bites were reported in the country in a year. When court's August 11 order faced serious criticism, CJI BR Gavai, on August 13, agreed to look into the issue, and, a three judge bench was constituted to reconsider the decision.

Case Title: IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE”

Read more on SC's August 14 order here, on SG's submission here, on court's August 11 order here, and CJI's decision to reconsider the issue here

2. Bihar SIR: The Supreme Court on August 14 directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to make public, within four days, the names of approximately 65 lakh voters whose names appear in Bihar’s 2025 electoral rolls but are missing from the draft rolls prepared under the “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) process. On August 13, the Supreme Court flagged Aadhaar concerns but called wider document options “voter-friendly". On August 12, the ECI defended the SIRas a lawful, transparent voter list update to remove dead and shifted names, rejecting claims of mass exclusion.

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Anr

Read more on SC's direction to ECI here, SC's remark on voter-friendly document list here, and ECI's submissions here

3. 50 percent limit on women’s recruitment in Army JAG branch: The Supreme Court on August 11ruled that restricting women candidates to 50 percent of vacancies in the Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, even when they score higher than male candidates, violates the constitutional right to equality. Therefore, court struck down the 50% cap ordering merit-based selection with a common list.

Case title: Arshnoor Kaur & Anr vs The Union of India & Ors

Read more here

4. Old petrol, diesel cars in NCR: The Supreme Court of India on August 12 ordered no coercive action against owners of 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles plying in the Delhi NCR region. The Delhi government had moved the Supreme Court asking it to reconsider its 2018 end-of-life vehicle ban, whereby the NCR is required to phase out petrol vehicles that are over 15 years old and diesel vehicles that are over 10 years old. The Delhi government argued that the ban on old vehicles unjustly penalized middle-class individuals without any scientific backing.

Case Title: MC Mehta vs. Union of India

Read more here

5. Parallel proceedings under GST regime: The Supreme Court on August 14 held that parallel proceedings cannot be initiated by one tax administration if another has already commenced intelligence-based enforcement action. The ruling clarifies the interpretation of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which also finds an equivalent in State GST laws, and bars initiation of any proceedings on the same subject matter. Court underscored that where two proceedings overlap in terms of tax liability, deficiency, or obligation arising from the same contravention, Section 6(2)(b) is triggered

Case Title: M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd Vs Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr

Read more here

6. Deadlines on Governors: The Central government has told the Supreme Court that as timelines are conspicuously absent in Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution which deal with the exercise of discretion by the Governors and President to grant assent on Bills, any judicially imposed timeline would create an interpretative confusion and functional problem for constitutional functionaries. Moreover, government stated that a timeline hampers the Governor’s or President’s ability to safeguard constitutional compliance, it has been submitted that any judicial direction of imposition of any timeline would amount to an amendment to the Constitution.

Case Title: In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India

Read more here

7. Temple administration mismangement: Kerala High Court on August 1 dissolved the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Ashtamangalam Sree Mahavishnu–Sree Bhagavathy Temple in Punalur, Kollam, and directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to take over its administration. A temple devotee had moved the high court alleging that the committee had mismanaged temple affairs, violated rituals, and mishandled temple funds. The high court also directed the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to forward the devotees’ complaint to the vigilance wing of the TDB which shall complete its inquiry within three months and submit its report to the Devaswom Commissioner, who must then act in accordance with law.

Case Title: Jijendran S R vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others

Read more here

8. Justice Yashwant Varma ‘Cash-at-Home’ Scandal: Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on August 12 announced the formation of a three-member inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to examine allegations of judicial misconduct against the Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. The panel will be chaired by Justice Arvind Kumar, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice M. M. Shrivastava of the Madras High Court and Vasudeva Acharya, eminent jurist and Senior Advocate of the Karnataka High Court, as members. This announcement marks formal initiation of the constitutional process for possible removal of the judge at whose official residence piles of burnt cash were found.

Read more here

9. 3 year ban on new law colleges: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has imposed a three-year nationwide ban on the establishment of new Centres of Legal Education. The moratorium, approved under the Rules of Legal Education, Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium) with respect to Centers of Legal Education, 2025, will come into force shortly and remain in place until 2028. The near-total ban allows exceptions only for certain disadvantaged groups, remote areas, persons with disabilities, or statutory universities, all subject to strict eligibility and compliance conditions. THe move is aimed at halting what BCI calls the “unchecked mushrooming” of sub-standard law colleges.

Read more here