The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 seeking restoration of a blocked WhatsApp account, holding that there is no fundamental right to use the messaging app. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the maintainability of the plea and suggested users could opt for indigenous alternatives such as Arattai by Zoho. The petitioner, a doctor who relied on WhatsApp professionally, later withdrew the plea, with liberty to pursue civil or other legal remedies, amid wider discussions on digital platform accountability and user rights in India.
The Madras High Court condemned the seven-year closure of the Arulmighu Mariamman Temple in Karur, calling it a “dereliction of constitutional duty.” The temple had been shut due to caste tensions, denying Scheduled Caste devotees access. Justice B. Pugalendhi ruled that citing law and order concerns cannot justify violating Articles 14 and 25, which guarantee equality and religious freedom. The court criticized police and district officials for failing to find constitutional solutions and directed the HR&CE Department to act under Section 64 to ensure fair access. It warned that caste-based denial of entry would invite strict legal action.
The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the Governor’s and President’s powers in assenting to state Bills. The reference follows the Court’s April 2024 judgment setting timelines for assent, which sparked debate on judicial overreach. Fourteen key constitutional questions have been referred, including whether Governors’ and the President’s actions are justiciable, if courts can set timelines, and the scope of Article 142. The outcome will shape federalism, separation of powers, and the legislative process, influencing how state laws are enacted in India.
The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the roles of Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The case follows a Tamil Nadu ruling that set timelines for assent and raised debates on judicial power. Key questions include whether Governors and the President must follow ministerial advice, if their discretion is justiciable, and whether courts can set timelines. The outcome will shape federal relations, legislative processes, and the balance between executive and judicial powers.
The Supreme Court of India is hearing Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, a key case on alleged government surveillance using Pegasus spyware. Pegasus can secretly access smartphones and was reportedly used to target journalists, politicians, and activists. Petitioners argue this violates privacy and free speech rights. The government denied wrongdoing, citing national security and existing surveillance laws. Finding its response inadequate, the Court set up an independent Technical Committee to investigate. The case raises questions on privacy, legality, and oversight, and its outcome will shape India’s digital rights and surveillance framework.
The Supreme Court has raised “serious doubts” over the Election Commission’s decision to conduct a ‘special intensive revision’ of Bihar’s electoral rolls just months before the 2025 Assembly elections. A bench questioned the timing, legal basis, and impact on voters, warning that eligible citizens could be disenfranchised without time to appeal. The Court also asked why Aadhaar is excluded as valid ID, suggesting it should be allowed. It sought clarity on the legal authority for such a revision, as only ‘summary’ and ‘intensive’ revisions are recognized. The case will shape future electoral roll practices in India.
