Tag: Supreme Court

Films

‘Jana Nayagan’: Supreme Court Declines to Entertain Plea, Asks Madras High Court to Decide Matter

Tanisha Cardozo

Written by Intern Rency Gomes, Team Allycaral

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a plea filed by K V N Productions LLP, the producer of actor-turned-politician Vijay’s upcoming film Jana Nayagan, and directed that the matter be decided by the Madras High Court. The plea challenged an interim stay imposed by the High Court on a single-judge order directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant censor clearance to the film.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing the matter. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the production house, argued that prolonged uncertainty and continued publicity surrounding the case were causing prejudice to the producers. He urged the apex court to intervene and set aside the interim stay to allow the film’s certification process to move forward.

However, the bench declined to examine the merits of the case, noting that the issue was already pending before the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court observed that it would be appropriate for the High Court to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law rather than for the apex court to intervene at this stage.

With this observation, the Supreme Court refused to grant any relief to the producers, leaving it to the Madras High Court to decide on the validity of the interim stay as well as the broader issue concerning CBFC clearance for Jana Nayagan. The decision keeps the certification process on hold until the High Court delivers its ruling.

Social

Goa Animal Federation Demands Immediate Mass Sterilization of Community Dogs Following Supreme Court Relief

Tanisha Cardozo

On a warm Sunday afternoon at Azad Maidan, Panaji, a large crowd of dog lovers, activists, and concerned citizens gathered under the banner of the Goa Animal Federation (GAF) in a unified show of support for humane community dog management. The event, which served both as a protest and a thanksgiving to the Supreme Court of India, was attended by several hundred animal lovers, all echoing one central demand: mass sterilization and vaccination of community dogs must begin immediately across Goa.

Prominent voices in Goa’s animal welfare movement—including Advocate Norma Alvarez, singer Hema Sardesai, K.D. Row, Prakash Kamat, Dexter Braganza, and Fidoli Pereira—were present, alongside GAF members and NGO representatives. They extended heartfelt gratitude to the Supreme Court for its recent revised order, which offers a humane, scientific, and sustainable framework to address the stray dog issue across India.

According to GAF, Goa currently has a sterilization capacity of 15,000 dogs per year, a number maintained largely by private NGOs. However, to effectively manage the stray dog population, Goa must reach a target of 50,000 dogs sterilized annually. Only then can the state hope to reach an 80–90% sterilization rate within the next three years, which would naturally reduce the population over the next 5–6 years due to the dogs’ life cycle.

“This is a public safety, animal welfare, and community health issue. Without aggressive government intervention, we’re delaying the solution,” said a GAF spokesperson.

Beyond sterilization, the GAF has also called on the government to:

  • Install at least two animal body incinerators in Goa for safe and hygienic disposal
  • Fulfill its long-standing promise of a 24×7 ambulance and veterinary clinic for stray animals

These facilities, they argue, are essential for upholding humane standards while addressing public health concerns and ensuring dignity for animals—even in death.

The Goa Animal Federation, which includes major animal welfare organizations across the state, reiterated its commitment to a lawful, scientific, and compassionate approach in line with the Supreme Court’s directives.

Their goal is clear: ensure Goa sets an example for the rest of the country in resolving the stray dog issue not through violence or fear, but through compassion, planning, and responsibility.

“Dog lovers aren’t just emotional people—they are citizens fighting for a sustainable, safe, and humane solution,” the press release concluded.

Human Interest

Supreme Court: Marriage Means Mutual Dependence, Not Complete Independence

allycaralgoa

In a recent observation, the Supreme Court of India highlighted the essence of marriage as a relationship of mutual dependence and shared responsibility.

The court remarked, “Don’t marry if you want complete independence.” This statement underscores that marriage, by its very nature, is a bond that thrives on interdependence between partners.

The bench pointed out that while individual freedom is important, marriage requires a balance where couples support and depend on each other in various aspects of life. The observation comes amid deliberations in a marital dispute case, sparking wider discussions on the dynamics of relationships in modern society.

Legal experts suggest that the court’s view aligns with the traditional understanding of marriage as a partnership, though it also raises debates about how independence and individuality can coexist within committed relationships.

This statement has already prompted strong public reactions, with some agreeing that shared responsibilities are vital, while others argue that modern marriages must respect personal independence alongside interdependence.

As conversations continue, the court’s words serve as a reminder that marriage is not just a union of individuals, but of lives intertwined with mutual respect, care, and reliance.

National

Supreme Court Extends Stray Dog Shelter & Vaccination Order Nationwide

allycaralgoa

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has extended its earlier order on stray dogs—originally applicable only to Delhi-NCR—to the entire nation.

The Court has directed that stray dogs should be taken to shelters, vaccinated, and then released back into the same area they were picked up from. This aims to ensure better animal welfare while addressing concerns of public safety.

At the same time, the Court has banned feeding of stray dogs in public spaces, cautioning that those who violate this directive will face appropriate legal action.

The ruling reflects an attempt to strike a balance between protecting citizens from stray dog attacks and ensuring humane treatment of animals.

Animal welfare activists have welcomed the vaccination mandate but expressed concern over the feeding ban, suggesting that designated feeding zones could be a more compassionate solution.

The decision is expected to significantly impact urban local bodies, NGOs, and citizens who engage in stray animal care across India.

Business

HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan Moves Supreme Court Over “Frivolous” FIR by Lilavati Hospital Trustees

allycaralgoa

New Delhi/Mumbai: In a high-profile legal face-off, HDFC Bank’s Managing Director and CEO, Sashidhar Jagdishan, has moved the Supreme Court of India challenging an FIR filed against him by the trustees of Mumbai’s prominent Lilavati Hospital.

The complaint, which Jagdishan has termed “frivolous and malicious”, stems from an ongoing dispute involving pending payments that the hospital reportedly owes to the bank. Jagdishan’s legal counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, told the Supreme Court that the FIR had no legal foundation and was merely an attempt to apply pressure during financial recovery proceedings.

“The FIR is nothing but a pressure tactic, meant to intimidate the bank and its officials because they are trying to recover dues lawfully,” Rohatgi said during the hearing.

According to sources familiar with the case, HDFC Bank had issued multiple reminders and initiated standard recovery procedures regarding the hospital’s financial obligations. In response, the hospital trustees reportedly lodged an FIR implicating Jagdishan, which includes allegations that legal experts have described as tenuous and retaliatory in nature.

Rohatgi also expressed frustration that despite multiple attempts, the matter was not taken up by any of the three benches of the Bombay High Court, leaving Jagdishan with no option but to approach the apex court.

The Supreme Court is now expected to consider whether the FIR amounts to harassment and whether it should be quashed or stayed. Legal experts are closely watching the case, as it could set a precedent in disputes involving banks and institutional borrowers, especially in matters of alleged retaliatory legal actions.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for corporate governance, bank-client relations, and the limits of legal redress in commercial disputes.