The Supreme Court today (Thursday, April 25) set up a committee under Justice (retired) AK Patnaik to inquiry into advocate Utsav Bains’ allegations that there was a conspiracy to frame Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in sexual harassment case.
The bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjeev Khanna also directed CBI Director, Director of Intelligence Bureau and Delhi Police Commissioner to assist Justice Patnaik in the probe.
The court, however, clarified that Justice Patnaik will not go into the issue of sexual harassment allegations against the CJI. The court has instituted an in-house inquiry committee of three sitting judges to look into the allegations of sexual harassment made against Chief Justice of India.
“This inquiry only focuses on the contents of affidavit and what is alleged therein,” the bench stated.
The next hearing will be held after Justice Patnaik submits the inquiry report, the bench said.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1556195266657{border-top-width: 10px !important;border-right-width: 10px !important;border-bottom-width: 10px !important;border-left-width: 10px !important;padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #c1c1c1 !important;border-radius: 10px !important;}”]Meanwhile, Justice NV Ramana, who is part of the 3-member inquiry panel headed by Justice SA Bobde, has opted out of the panel, PTI quoted sources as saying.
The development comes a day after a former apex court woman employee, who levelled the allegations against the CJI, wrote a letter to the panel expressing reservation over the inclusion of Justice Ramana.
The woman was supposed to appear before the panel on Friday.In a letter to Justice Bobde, she also raised questions over the presence of only one woman apex court judge — Indira Banerjee — in the panel to examine her allegations against the CJI which is not in accordance with the Vishaka Guidelines.
“I would humbly suggest that since I was posted in the CJI’s residence office, I know that Justice Ramana is a close friend of the CJI and is like a family member to him. Justice Ramana is a frequent visitor to the residence of the CJI.
Because of this I fear that my affidavit and evidence will not receive an objective and fair hearing,” she wrote in the letter, according to PTI. The woman had also asked the panel to allow her to appear before it along with a lawyer and the proceedings of the committee be video recorded so that there can be no dispute about what transpired in the inquiry.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In the pre-lunch hearing, the bench hit out at what it said were “systematic” attempts to influence the course of justice delivery and said, “time has come when we have to tell the rich and powerful of this country – you cannot run this court”.
The remarks were made by Justice Mishra at the end of an hour-long hearing into an affidavit filed by lawyer Utsav Singh Bains that claimed he has proof of a powerful lobby of fixers, disgruntled employees and corporate figures at work to frame CJI Ranjan Gogoi. Mr. Bains said he was approached by a person called ‘Ajay’, who enticed him with money. The man had claimed to be a relative of the former court staffer who has levelled sexual harassment allegation against the Chief Justice.
The special bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said it is anguished with the way the judiciary has been treated for the past three-four years. “The way this institution is treated in last few years we must say that we will not survive if this will happen,” the SC bench said.
“Don’t think Supreme Court can be run by any remote power from any corner of the earth, whether by political power or economic power,” Justice Mishra fumed. “This is a systematic game…So many things have not come out…People of this country must know the truth. The Supreme Court cannot be run by money power or political power. When somebody tries to clean up the system, he is killed or maligned. This will stop,” Justice Mishra said.
The court asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta not to interfere when he sought a special investigation team probe into Bains’ allegations.
“Leave it to us… We want to tell the rich and the powerful of this country that you cannot play with fire… That you are playing with fire when you play with this court… What do the powerful of this country think? That they can run this court?” Justice Mishra said.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising voiced her apprehensions about leaving the probe into Bains’ allegations to the government.
“Don’t provoke us anymore… This is your institution, not ours. We, judges, come and go. This is the court made by the likes of Fali Nariman, Nani Palkhiwala and K. Parasaran… But every other day we hear of bench-fixing, every day wrong practices are made in the court… Whenever we start hearing a big case, letters are written… Whenever big cases or big persons are involved, this happens in this court… People are trying to this court, its registry with money power… So many things are going on,” Justice Mishra retorted, according to a report by The Hindu.
As a stakeholder in and officer of the court, Jaising urged the Bench to “probe the credentials of this person [Utsav Bains]”. “My Lords have to see if he has come to the court with clean hands,” she said.
Jaising also voiced her concern about whether the probe into the ‘larger conspiracy’ would consume the allegations raised by the woman against the CJI. Her allegations were being examined separately by a committee of three apex court judges. “Your Lordships cannot investigate her defence,” she submitted.
Justice Mishra responded, “This Bench will not enquire into her allegations. Our job is to find out if somebody approached Utsav Bains to file a false case; whether they are two former Supreme employees or others; whether there are fixers involved; whether a conspiracy was hatched after bench-fixing attempt failed.”
Justice Mishra, however, added that if the allegations against the woman were proved, then she would seem to have no defence. “Mr. Bains does not know this Ajay… He may not be a brother of the woman complainant… We do not know what will come out of all this, but we will find out the truth,” he said.
Bains had filed an affidavit following the unprecedented hearing on Saturday during which Justice Gogoi had said some “bigger force” was behind the sexual harassment allegations as they wanted to “deactivate” the CJI’s office.
On April 20, CJI Gogoi had convened an “extraordinary” sitting of the court following reports about sexual harassment allegations levelled by a former woman staffer against him. He had then termed the charges as unbelievable and an attempt by a “bigger force to undermine the independence of the judiciary and deactivate the office of the CJI.”
LPG Aadhaar authentication mandatory for subsidy from October 1
Biometric Aadhaar authentication will be required for subsidised domestic LPG refills from October 1. Here is what changes for consumers who have and have not completed the process.
Biometric Aadhaar authentication will become a requirement for domestic LPG consumers seeking to book refills at the regulated retail selling price with applicable subsidy from October 1, 2026.
The government has said the measure is aimed at ensuring that subsidised LPG reaches eligible households and at preventing the diversion of subsidised domestic cylinders for commercial and industrial use.
What changes from October 1
Consumers who have already completed biometric Aadhaar authentication will not have to repeat the process. Their LPG refills will continue as before.
For consumers who have not completed the authentication, refill booking at the regulated price with subsidy will be enabled after the authentication is completed.
As of September 19, 2026, 27.43 crore active domestic LPG consumers, or 89.9 per cent of the total, had completed biometric Aadhaar authentication, according to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry.
How to complete Aadhaar authentication
Consumers who have not yet completed the process can do so through several channels.
Authentication can be completed during LPG delivery, at the distributor’s showroom or through the mobile applications of the three state-owned oil marketing companies.
Indane customers can use IndianOil ONE, Bharatgas customers can use HelloBPCL, while HP Gas customers can use HP PAY.
What if consumers do not complete authentication
The government has clarified that consumers who are unwilling or unable to complete biometric Aadhaar authentication can still receive LPG.
However, they will have to register their choice through the available digital channels of their oil marketing company, such as its consumer portal, mobile app, WhatsApp chatbot or IVRS.
Such consumers will be supplied LPG at the applicable market price without subsidy, in 5-kg or 10-kg cylinders, subject to local availability.
Why the government is introducing the requirement
According to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry, linking each LPG connection to an Aadhaar-authenticated consumer is intended to prevent diversion of subsidised domestic cylinders and remove duplicate or ineligible connections.
The government has also said the measure is intended to make subsidy delivery more targeted and transparent.
Authentication deadline and progress
Consumers were initially asked to complete biometric Aadhaar authentication by June 30, 2026. The deadline was subsequently extended several times, with September 14 being the final extended deadline mentioned by the ministry.
The nationwide authentication drive has been underway since October 2023. The government said more than 12 crore SMS and WhatsApp messages had been sent as part of the outreach campaign.
The government has urged consumers who have not yet completed the process to do so before October 1.
LPG Aadhaar authentication becomes mandatory for subsidised domestic LPG refills from October 1. Consumers who have already completed biometric authentication need not do it again. Those who haven’t can still get LPG, but at the applicable market price without subsidy.
The BJP has defended the Election Commission amid a political row over reported differences among Election Commissioners concerning decisions linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
BJP MP Sambit Patra said discussions and exchanges of views within the poll panel should be seen as part of the democratic process rather than as evidence of institutional dysfunction.
According to the BJP’s position, disagreement during official deliberations reflects the fact that members of an institution are able to put forward their views before decisions are taken.
BJP defends EC deliberations
Patra said that if the three Election Commissioners discuss and debate issues among themselves, such exchanges should not be characterised as dictatorship. He described such deliberations as a sign of a healthy democracy.
The BJP’s response came amid reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on multiple occasions over decisions and orders associated with the SIR exercise and electoral rolls.
The Election Commission has said that differences in views and observations are a normal part of deliberations within an institution. It has maintained that decisions, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously.
Row centres on SIR process
The controversy comes against the backdrop of the ongoing political debate over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Opposition parties have raised concerns over the reported differences within the poll panel, while the BJP has sought to counter those arguments by pointing to the role of discussion and deliberation in institutional decision-making.
Patra also said the BJP’s understanding of the matter was based on media reports rather than access to the Election Commission’s internal documents. He said the documents, as reported, indicated that the SIR process was finalised after democratic deliberations and consensus.
What the Election Commission has said
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections indicate a breakdown in its functioning.
It has maintained that differing opinions during deliberations are part of normal institutional functioning and that the decisions eventually taken by the commission were unanimous.
IIT Bombay professor Suryanarayana Doolla has been sent on leave amid the ongoing controversy following the death of 20-year-old student Sahil Wakode, with protests on the campus seeking action against the professor.
Doolla, a faculty member in IIT Bombay’s Department of Energy Science and Engineering, had been involved in the examination incident concerning Wakode. The student was allegedly found using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination and had uploaded the question paper to an AI platform to seek answers, according to the institute.
Why Suryanarayana Doolla is at the centre of the controversy
Doolla was the course instructor and examination invigilator during the examination and was involved in reporting the alleged examination malpractice to the institute’s authorities.
IIT Bombay has said Wakode was subsequently counselled by the instructor and the Head of Department and was assured that the examination incident would not adversely affect his academic career. The institute has also maintained that no disciplinary action had been initiated against the student before his death.
Wakode’s family, however, alleged harassment and caste-based discrimination. Mumbai Police registered a case based on the family’s complaint, with Doolla among those named. The allegations remain subject to investigation.
Student protests at IIT Bombay
Following Wakode’s death, students began protesting on the IIT Bombay campus and demanded action against Doolla.
IIT Bombay Director Professor Shireesh Kedare met the protesting students on September 20 and signed an 18-point charter of demands. The demands included action against Doolla.
Doolla was subsequently removed from the post of Dean Students Welfare amid the protests. The latest action comes as the controversy surrounding Wakode’s death and the allegations against the professor continue to be investigated.
Faculty members back Doolla
While students have demanded action against Doolla, IIT Bombay’s Faculty Forum has backed the professor, saying he was performing his duties as an invigilator and had followed the institute’s prescribed procedure after detecting the alleged examination malpractice.
The controversy involves the examination incident, allegations made by Wakode’s family and the police investigation into his death. The allegations against Doolla have not been established as facts and remain part of the ongoing investigation.
APN News is today the most watched and the most credible and respected news channel in India. APN has been at the forefront of every single news revolution. The channel is being recognized for its in-depth, analytical reportage and hard hitting discussions on burning issues; without any bias or vested interests.
