India's stray dog crisis hit the Supreme Court on January 6-7, 2026, with Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria questioning dogs in schools, courts, and hospitals . Key Court Remarks Institutions aren't streets—vulnerable groups like kids face bites and threats. "Can anyone identify which dog is in a mood to bite?" Justice Nath asked, stressing prevention. Poor State Compliance States like UP, MP, Punjab, and Karnataka filed "disappointing" affidavits lacking shelter plans. Court warned of strict action on laggards. Divided Arguments Victims demand removals from homes and institutions amid thousands of bites yearly. Animal groups push CSVR protocol, citing feasibility issues for 5+ crore dogs. November Order Stands Strays from institutions must be sterilized, vaccinated, and sheltered—not released back. Hearing continues January 8. Connect  advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com https://wa.me/919136273395?text=Hi

Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in Delhi Riots Case: A Legal Perspective By Advocate Ganesh Mishra Practising in the Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court The recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case has once again brought the jurisprudence of bail in serious offences , particularly under special statutes, into sharp public and legal focus. Background of the Case Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots , and are being prosecuted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code along with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) . The allegations primarily relate to their purported role in planning, instigating, and coordinating activities leading to communal violence. While several co-accused have been granted bail at different stages, the Supreme Court declined to extend simi...

Supreme Court's Verdict on Circumstantial Evidence In the intricate tapestry of evidence law, where shadows of doubt can unravel convictions, the Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark ruling that reaffirms the sanctity of procedural rigor. On October 6, 2025, in Nazim and Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2018), a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.C. Sharma acquitted three appellants in a grisly child murder case, spotlighting the frailties of circumstantial evidence , the "last seen" theory, the absence of Test Identification Parades (TIP), and the pivotal role of scientific evidence . This decision, authored by Justice S.C. Sharma, serves as a clarion call for courts to tread cautiously, ensuring that suspicion never masquerades as proof. As India grapples with evolving forensic capabilities and witness vulnerabilities, this judgment underscores the enduring principles governing convictions built on inference rat...