On Monday, the Delhi High Court directed the Secretary of the Ministry of Education to initiate a stakeholder consultation on whether attendance should be made mandatory in undergraduate and postgraduate institutions nationwide.

“The Secretary, Ministry of Education, responsible for higher education, is to begin stakeholder consultations on the issue of mandatory attendance in UG and PG courses. The process should commence within two weeks,” stated a bench comprising Justices Prathiba Singh and Amit Sharma in their order.

The court’s decision stems from a petition initially taken up by the Supreme Court in 2016 after a student at Amity Law University allegedly committed suicide after being barred from exams due to insufficient attendance. The case was transferred to the High Court in March 2017.

The court issued notices to the Centre, the National Medical Commission, and the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), emphasizing that the younger generation views mandatory attendance differently from traditional educational norms.

During the hearing, counsel for the Bar Council of India (BCI) noted that while BCI rules mandate attendance, the council is open to reviewing these norms and presenting them to its legal education committee, which sets guidelines for law colleges.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Centre, stated that large-scale consultations would be needed with stakeholders, including regulatory bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC), the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), and the National Council for Vocational Education and Training, as well as input from teachers and students.

UGC’s counsel mentioned that the new education policy allows certain relaxations and requested time to file a detailed affidavit. The National Medical Commission highlighted that while attendance requirements were relaxed during the pandemic, attendance remains mandatory for clinical training due to the nature of the medical profession.

The court also instructed the UGC and the Ministry of Education to issue a circular within two weeks, directing all educational institutions offering UG and PG courses to establish a grievance redressal mechanism.

Calling the student’s death “unfortunate” and a “systemic failure” on the part of the college, the court also asked Amity University’s counsel to provide instructions regarding ex gratia compensation for the deceased’s family. The next hearing is set for October 14.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a petition requesting a halt on India and Indian companies from providing arms and military assistance to Israel for its conflict in Gaza.

The Supreme Court ruled that it could not intervene in matters of foreign policy. It stated, “If the court were to halt arms exports to Israel, Indian companies may face lawsuits for breaching contractual obligations.” The bench, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, was hearing a petition filed by Ashok Kumar Sharma and others, represented by lawyer Prashant Bhushan. The petition sought to prevent the government from issuing or renewing licenses for Indian firms exporting military equipment to Israel.

The petitioners argued that Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to genocide, and therefore India’s arms exports would violate the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

In its order, the court emphasized that foreign affairs fall under the purview of the Union government and that the judiciary could not rule on allegations against Israel, a sovereign nation not subject to Indian jurisdiction. CJI Chandrachud noted, “Can we direct a ban on exports to Israel under the UN’s genocide convention? Such a directive would affect foreign policy, and we do not fully understand the impact.”

India and Israel maintain a close strategic partnership, particularly in defense technologies and military equipment, with Israel providing counter-terrorism tools, including surveillance and cybersecurity systems. The conflict in Gaza has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians, following a surprise attack by Hamas militants on Israel on October 7, 2023, which claimed around 1,200 lives.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Monday admonished a lawyer, asking him to lower his voice during a Supreme Court hearing. The incident occurred while the bench, which included Justices Manoj Misra and JB Pardiwala, was hearing the case involving the rape and murder of a Kolkata doctor.

The crime, which took place on August 9 in a seminar hall at the RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, has triggered nationwide protests.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, informed the court that he had videos and photographs showing the lawyer throwing stones during a protest related to the case, according to NDTV.

In response, lawyer Kaustav Bagchi, also a BJP leader, questioned how a senior counsel like Sibal could make such statements in court.

The Chief Justice then intervened, asking, “Are you trying to address the audience outside the court? I have been observing your behavior for the last two hours.”

He further urged Bagchi to lower his voice, saying, “Can you lower your pitch? Listen to the Chief Justice. You’re speaking to three judges, not a large audience watching through the video conferencing platform,” as quoted by NDTV.

Bagchi subsequently apologized to the court.

During the proceedings, the Chief Justice expressed his displeasure, remarking, “I am not accustomed to this style of advocacy where 7-8 people are speaking at the same time.”

The Supreme Court also addressed the ongoing doctors’ protest in response to the Kolkata case. Referring to the strike, CJI Chandrachud emphasized that protests should not come at the cost of fulfilling their duties. The court, hearing the matter suo moto, noted that if the doctors did not resume work, it could not prevent the West Bengal government from taking disciplinary action.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), investigating an alleged land scam in Jharkhand involving chief minister Hemant Soren, who was arrested and later released earlier this year, has uncovered that 1,800 acres of non-saleable tribal land were seized by a mafia through falsified records, according to sources familiar with the case.

The agency has received multiple complaints about land grabbing and identified proceeds of crime amounting to ₹3,000 crore, the sources said.

The case revolves around the alleged illegal acquisition of prime land designated as non-transferable under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act, a law aimed at protecting the land rights of tribal and marginalized communities. The land was reportedly acquired using fraudulent deeds and fake identities, with tampered records from circle offices and the Registrar of Assurances (RoA) in Kolkata, as well as circle offices in Jharkhand.

“Following the arrest of key figures like Soren, several bureaucrats, and intermediaries, we received additional complaints about land grabbing. Our investigation revealed that 1,800 acres of land were fraudulently acquired by the mafia in a similar manner. We estimate the total value of the proceeds of crime to be ₹3,000 crore,” an ED official stated, requesting anonymity.

The official further added that all complaints are being verified, and the investigation is ongoing.

So far, at least 25 individuals, including Soren, have been arrested. The ED has alleged that land grabbers, along with their collaborators in revenue offices, forged land records dating back to 1932.

Soren, who was arrested on January 31 and released on June 28, has denied the charges. However, in its March charge sheet, the ED accused the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader of illegally acquiring 8.86 acres of land in Ranchi, valued at ₹31 crore.

During searches last year, the ED recovered 11 trunks full of property documents and 17 original registers from the premises of an accused, Bhanu Pratap Prasad.

Earlier, land registration for properties in Bihar (before Jharkhand became a separate state) was conducted at the RoA in Kolkata. This practice continued until 1991, after which registration was moved to local offices in Bihar and Jharkhand.

According to a second ED official, the accused forged backdated deeds for targeted properties in Kolkata and inserted them into original registers at the RoA. They then obtained certified copies of these forged deeds and sold the properties through a coordinated effort, using fake stamps and seals to create the false documents.