**

What This Mean: **

The Supreme Court threw out a request to file a police case against Justice Yashwant Varma after charred cash was found at his home. The court pointed out that the Chief Justice had already sent the internal investigation report—along with the judge’s response—to the President and Prime Minister. The people pushing for legal action were told to try other official channels first before coming back to the court.

What This Mean: This isn’t just about burnt money—it’s about how allegations against judges are handled. The Supreme Court’s decision signals that internal processes (like the CJI’s inquiry) take priority over immediate police involvement, which could set a precedent for future complaints against sitting judges. For the public, it’s a reminder of the tightrope between judicial accountability and protecting the institution’s independence.

** The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who was arrested over controversial social media posts related to *Operation Sindoor*. While allowing his release, the court criticized his choice of words as "dog whistling"—a term for coded language that signals divisive messages to specific groups. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) will now probe the case, where Mahmudabad faces charges of endangering national integrity under India’s new criminal code.

What This Mean: ** This isn’t just about one professor’s bail—it’s a flashpoint in India’s ongoing debate over free speech, legal boundaries, and political rhetoric. The court’s sharp "dog whistling" remark suggests skepticism about the intent behind Mahmudabad’s posts, but the bail grant also hints at due process concerns. With an SIT now involved, the case could set a precedent for how India’s new laws handle inflammatory speech, especially in polarized times. Watch this space.

** The Supreme Court has given anticipatory bail to Puja Khedkar, a former IAS trainee accused of gaming the civil services exam system. She allegedly faked OBC and disability status to secure reserved seats—a claim the Delhi Police and UPSC strongly oppose, arguing she submitted bogus documents and even used multiple names to skirt the rules.

What This Mean: ** This isn’t just about one person’s bail—it’s a spotlight on how privilege and fraud can undermine India’s hyper-competitive civil services. If the accusations hold, it’s a slap in the face to candidates who play by the rules, and it raises uncomfortable questions about how often such scams slip through. The courts backing her bail (for now) adds another layer to a saga that’s as much about fairness as it is about the law.

** The article highlights a new requirement for aspiring judges: they must now have at least three years of experience as advocates (lawyers) before becoming eligible for judicial service. This change aims to ensure that judges have substantial practical legal experience before taking the bench.

What This Mean: ** This rule could reshape who gets to be a judge—prioritizing seasoned lawyers over fresh law graduates or those with less courtroom experience. It’s a move toward ensuring judges are well-prepared for the complexities of the job, but it might also narrow the pool of candidates. For legal professionals, it means more time building a practice before aiming for the bench. For the public, it could mean more experienced judges—but whether that translates to better justice remains to be seen.

** A judge speaking at their farewell event made headlines by claiming their transfer to the Madhya Pradesh High Court was an act of harassment, rather than a routine administrative move. The remarks hint at deeper tensions or grievances within the judiciary, though no specific details about the alleged harassment were provided.

What This Mean: ** Judges rarely air grievances publicly, especially about transfers—which are usually framed as neutral decisions. This outburst suggests possible dysfunction or internal conflicts in India's judicial system, raising questions about transparency and fairness in how judges are assigned. For the public, it’s a reminder that even the courts aren’t immune to workplace disputes or power struggles.