MORE COVERAGE
‘One tick, two wives’: Punjab & Haryana High Court rejects judiciary candidate Advocate Pradeep Kumar’s plea after he mistakenly declared ‘more than wife’ in application
| Satyaagrah | Law
After hearing the submissions of both sides, the High Court observed that the candidate himself had entered the wrong information and that he would have to prove otherwise.
Supreme Court of India led by BR Gavai halts key provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 after long Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha debates, sparking fears of judicial overreach
| Satyaagrah | Law
The consequences are obvious: grab land, squat till challenged, drag cases endlessly, and keep reaping the fruits of encroachment while the government is shackled.
CJI Bhushan R. Gavai’s collegium recommended his relative Raj Damodar Wakode for Bombay High Court, reviving anger over NJAC’s rejection and raising sharp questions on nepotism, secrecy, and whether India’s judiciary serves merit or family ties
| Satyaagrah | Law
Even when candidates such as Wakode are qualified and experienced, the true outrage is elsewhere: judicial appointments seem to mostly originate from a restricted set of families and networks.
In 1990, nurse Sarla Bhat was abducted, tortured, and murdered by JKLF terrorists during the Kashmiri Pandit exodus; now, 35 years later, the SIA has reopened her case, raiding Srinagar hideouts in a long-awaited push for justice and remembrance
| Satyaagrah | Law
SIA officers conducting a raid at a Srinagar residence on August 12, 2025, as part of the reopened investigation into Sarla Bhat’s 1990 murder.
Supreme Court crushed Saquib Nachan’s attempt to whitewash ISIS by claiming ‘Caliphate’ and ‘Jihad’ had no terror link, exposing his role in the Mumbai blasts, turning Padgha into a jihadi base, and son Shamil’s IED plot in Pune—terror ran in their blood
| Satyaagrah | Law
Dismissing the petition, the bench said that it was not inclined to entertain a blanket challenge to the notifications issued by the government under Section 35 of the UAPA in February 2015 and June 2018.
Supreme Court steps in to decide whether Rohingyas are ‘refugees’ or ‘illegal immigrants’, raising critical concerns about whether the judiciary is once again overstepping its constitutional limits and assuming the role meant for the government
| Satyaagrah | Law
The Indian government has maintained that the Rohingyas are illegal immigrants with no right to enter or stay in the country and, therefore, the government is deporting them.
In a saga of missing children, bones in drains, necrophilia confessions, and multiple death penalties, the Supreme Court in 2025 upheld Pandher and Koli’s acquittal, rejecting pleas by CBI, UP govt, and grieving families—justice drowned in Nithari
| Satyaagrah | Law
Police descended on the site and soon exhumed eight skeletons worth of bones and skulls from the foul sludge of the drain adjacent to D-5.
Justice Yashwant Varma, caught in a storm after firemen found piles of cash in his Delhi home, now challenges the SC's inquiry while hiding his identity, as the court questions his delay, his silence, and his refusal to explain how the money got there
| Satyaagrah | Law
“Why did you appear before the committee if you thought it had no power to investigate? You are a constitutional authority; you can't now say that you didn’t know,” Justice Datta asked.
NIA uncovers a chilling PFI hitlist of 950 names, yet SC grants bail in the cold-blooded murder of RSS leader Sreenivasan, dismissing it with “only one person is killed”—a shocking blow to justice as terror conspiracies are downplayed in open court
| Satyaagrah | Law
Despite NIA linking Yahya Thangal to the team that selected the Hindu leader for murder, Supreme Court dismissed conspiracy claims, citing lack of direct communication.
Madras HC’s split verdict on Thiruparankundram Hill—where ancient Hindu temples and Jain caves stand desecrated—ignites outrage as Islamists demand animal sacrifice and claim the sacred land as Waqf, sparking a battle for dharmic heritage
| Satyaagrah | Law
Justice Banu upheld the practice of animal sacrifice saying that it was practiced by both Hindus and Muslims, but Justice Srimathy ruled against it














