Puducherry Environment Protection Association v. Union of India — Environmental Protection case

The Supreme Court issued a judgment on May 16, 2025, declaring post-facto or retrospective environmental clearances granted by the Centre to building projects and constructions as illegal. A majority judgment on November 18, 2025, subsequently recalled that May verdict. The case concerns the validity of ex post facto environmental clearances under environmental protection law.

The National Green Tribunal is hearing a plea regarding dumping of municipal solid waste and construction debris in and around in-situ wetlands at Sectors 137 and 49 in Noida. The NGT has directed the UP Pollution Control Board to ensure action against the dumping despite prior directives to the Noida Authority.

The Supreme Court delivered a verdict against ex post facto environmental clearances, emphasizing that prior environmental approval must be obtained before project commencement and that public interest considerations must be prioritized in future projects. The Court recognized narrow constitutional exceptions for national defence, urgent healthcare facilities, and remote area connectivity.

IPS officer Deepak Gahlawat (2012-batch) was arrested by the CBI on allegations of demanding Rs 3 crore as bribe to influence an investigation into a fake drug manufacturing racket in Puducherry. The case emerged from a counterfeit medicine racket investigation that involved several politicians.

Former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Singh is accused of sexual harassment. Delhi Police registered an FIR and filed a chargesheet against him under IPC sections 354, 354A, 354D, and 506. The Delhi court has reserved its verdict, with judgment scheduled for August 3, 2026.

A civil motor accident claim arose following a collision involving a KSRTC bus driver and a car. The KSRTC bus driver was acquitted in criminal proceedings, but the Karnataka High Court had attributed 50% contributory negligence to the deceased car driver. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that a criminal acquittal cannot control civil MACT claims and the standards of proof differ between criminal and civil law.