Important cases in Supreme Court today: Child marriage verdict, regulation of OTT platforms, bail plea of ​​Bhavani Revanna

Important cases to be heard by the Supreme Court

• Opinion on child marriage:
  A major ruling is expected on a petition filed by the NGO ‘Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action’. The organization has argued that the Child Marriage Prohibition Act, which came into effect in 2006, is inadequately enforced, leading to the persistence of child marriage in several regions. Despite legal bans, reports indicate that millions of girls marry before the legal age of 18, often due to socio-economic pressures.

  A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala will pronounce the verdict. During the last hearing, the Supreme Court had urged the Center to ensure that a child marriage prohibition officer be appointed in every district and direct the Center to specify the policy steps it has taken for enforcement of the Child Marriage Act ban on child marriage.

  Prosecuting those involved in child marriage will not solve the problem, which has social dimensions, the Supreme Court said in July while reserving its verdict on the PIL filed by the NGO.

• Verdict on airfares:

  The court will also consider the powers of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) to regulate charges for non-aeronautical services at airports, including services such as lounges, parking and retail.

  The importance of this case lies in its potential impact on passenger costs. As air travel increases in India, there are concerns about the affordability of airport services, and the court’s ruling could clarify AERA’s authority, potentially leading to more transparent pricing structures that benefit consumers.

  The Delhi High Court in May this year observed that the aviation sector is highly competitive while observing that it would not be appropriate to issue directions for restricting airfares across the country.

  “If you look at any airline flying today, it’s a very competitive industry. The fare for an autorickshaw is higher than the fare of an airline today,” the Dlehi High Court had said.

• Plea for regulation of OTT platforms:

  Another important issue concerns a plea for the creation of a regulatory board for Over-The-Top (OTT) and streaming platforms in India. With the rapid growth of digital content consumption, concerns about content moderation, misinformation and inappropriate material have increased.

  Proponents of regulation argue that a structured oversight mechanism is essential to balance creative freedom with responsibility and ensure that content meets societal standards.

  “Unlike films shown in theaters, OTT content does not go through a certification process before release, which has led to an increase in explicit scenes, violence, substance abuse and other harmful content, often without proper warnings,” advocates Shashank Shekhar Jha and Apurva Arhati had said this in their plea filed in September.

• Case Sadhguru and Isha Foundation:

  The Supreme Court will review a police report related to the Isha Foundation, founded by spiritual leader Swami Jaggi Vasudev. The case came to prominence after a habeas corpus petition was filed by a father who alleged that his two daughters were being held against their will in the foundation’s ashram.

  The Isha Foundation strongly denied the allegations and stated that the two women, aged 42 and 39, live at the center of their own free will.

  The Madras High Court had allowed a police investigation, which the Isha Foundation had challenged in the Supreme Court. Earlier in October, the Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court’s order allowing police action against the Isha Foundation and transferred the case to itself.

• Plea against the acquittal of Gurmeet Ram Rahim:

  The Supreme Court will hear a plea by the Punjab government against the acquittal of Dera Sacha Sauda leader Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in a high-profile 2002 murder case. Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment along with four others, but the Supreme Court of Punjab and Haryana later overturned this decision.

• Abbas Ansari bail plea:

  The court will also hear a bail plea filed by Abbas Ansari, an MLA from Mau and son of late gangster and politician Mukhtar Ansari. The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the hearing on Abbas Ansari’s bail plea in connection with a case relating to the alleged illegal encounter with his wife in Chitrakoot jail.

• Bhavani Revanna’s bail plea:

  The Supreme Court will consider a petition by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Karnataka government challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Bhavani Revanna, mother of Prajwal Revanna, who is accused of sexual assault.

  The case involves kidnapping allegations in connection with one of the victims of her son’s alleged crimes.

• Plea of ​​Uttar Pradesh Congress chief Ajay Rai:

  Moreover, the Supreme Court will hear a petition by UP Congress chief Ajay Rai seeking cancellation of pending proceedings against him under the Gangster Act at a lower court in Varanasi.

• No bail warrant against Bollywood director Rajkumar Santoshi:

  The Supreme Court will hear Bollywood director Rajkumar Santoshi’s petition against the issuance of a bail order by a Delhi court.

  A person named Prashant Malik had filed a case against Rajkumar Santoshi. It is alleged that Prashant Malik had extended a loan of around Rs 70-75 lakh to Rajkumar Santoshi in 2018, which the latter did not return.

• Corruption case against former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa

  The Supreme Court will hear the petition filed by former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa in a corruption case. During the last hearing, the court asked Yeddyurappa to make the Karnataka government a party in his petition and issued notice to the state.

  The Karnataka High Court had filed a private complaint against BJP leader Yeddyurappa and his family members for allegedly taking bribes to give a government contract.

  Earlier, a local sessions court had dismissed the petition seeking inquiry into the corruption allegations against Yediyurappa as the then governor refused to approve it.