The suicide note of former Arunachal Pradesh chief minister, Kalikho Pul, has landed the apex court in a bit of a dilemma, with its decision to judicially hear as a writ petition the letter written by his widow, Dangwimsai Pul, backfiring today, as we had reported.

The case of the suicide note of Arunachal Pradesh ex-chief minister Kalikho Pul took a dramatic turn today, with the Supreme Court closing the matter on the judicial side after senior counsel Dushyant Dave impassioned pleas for Pul’s widow, Dangwimsai Pul.

With the last batch of Supreme Court elevations having been made only in May 2016 with four new judges (who had been recommended in December 2015), the collegium’s latest recommendations of five new Supreme Court judges were cleared by the president yesterday.

After the Supreme Court slapped him with suo motu contempt charges, Calcutta high court Justice CS Karnan has written a letter dated yesterday to the Supreme Court, vowing to file a criminal case against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and another Supreme Court judge under the SC / ST Atrocities Act for allegedly victimising him because of his caste.

The Supreme Court has accepted the review petition of its controversial Uphaar fire tragedy sentencing verdict, which had seen the two accused escape without any additional jail time.

A seven apex court judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar, with justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, PC Ghose and Kurian Joseph have today withdrawn all judicial and administrative work from Calcutta high court judge Justice CS Karnan, according to PTI.

Supreme Court Justice Dipak Misra recused himself yesterday from hearing the writ petition by three petitioners, including by one Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access (IDIA) scholar who is an orphan, against the Bar Council of India (BCI) surprise resurrection of an age limit on studying law.

The hearing of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) reform case before Justice Dipak Misra-led bench this afternoon in Supreme Court room number 2, as expected, did not lead to any tangible outcome.

In the midst of the Supreme Court’s hearing on appeals filed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala against the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s 2007 Order yesterday (4 January), witnessed witty exchanges between Tamil Nadu’s senior counsel, Shekhar Naphade, and Karnataka’s senior counsel, Fali S. Nariman.

Latest comments