Supreme Court intervenes on heritage conservation, sports governance, and foreign accused policies—reinforcing cultural preservation, transparency in football, and stronger safeguards in criminal trials.
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (03 SEPTEMBER 2025)
SUPREME COURT SEEKS EXPERT REPORT ON PRESERVATION OF MYSURU HERITAGE STRUCTURES
Case Name: G. Satyanarayana Gouri Satya vs. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court has asked IIT Roorkee to submit a technical assessment on whether Mysuru’s historic Devaraja Market and Lansdowne buildings can be restored instead of demolished. The move comes after petitions opposed Karnataka’s decision to rebuild them, citing heritage conservation and cultural identity concerns.
Legal Framework
- Article 49, Constitution of India – State’s duty to protect monuments and heritage sites.
- Article 51A(f), Constitution of India– Fundamental duty of citizens to value and preserve cultural heritage.
- Judicial review – Court intervention in policy decisions affecting heritage conservation.
- Expert evaluation – IIT Roorkee appointed for an independent technical study.
Source: Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT DIRECTS AIFF TO BEGIN OPEN TENDERS FOR ISL 2025-26
Case Name: All India Football Federation vs. Rahul Mehra and Ors
The Supreme Court instructed AIFF to initiate a transparent tendering process for appointing a commercial partner to conduct the Indian Super League 2025-26. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, retired Supreme Court judge, has been tasked with overseeing the process to ensure fairness, timeliness, and continuity of football operations.
Legal Framework
- Article 142, Constitution – Court’s power to ensure complete justice.
- Principles of natural justice – Transparent and competitive process for public interest.
- Judicial supervision in sports governance – Oversight to prevent arbitrariness in federations.
- Sports law compliance – Ensuring adherence to national and international governance norms.
Source: Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT URGES POLICY TO PREVENT FOREIGN ACCUSED FROM FLEEING TRIAL
Case Name: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND vs. ALEX DAVID @ M.U. HENRY & ANR., SLP(Crl) No(s). 8629/2022
The Supreme Court closed proceedings after a Nigerian accused in a cybercrime case jumped bail and absconded, making extradition unlikely. While disposing of the matter, the Court emphasized the urgent need for a government policy to prevent foreign nationals on trial from evading Indian jurisdiction.
Legal Framework
- Sections 437–439, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Provisions on bail.
- Extradition Act, 1962 – Governs transfer of fugitives between India and other nations.
- Judicial recommendation for policy reform – To curb bail abscondence by foreigners.
- Executive responsibility – Union government urged to design preventive mechanisms.
Source: Supreme Court of India
Also Read: DELHI HIGH COURT DENIES BAIL TO UMAR KHALID
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and Legal Glossary and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.The LawGist ensures exam success with quality Blogs and Articles — Top Legal Picks (TLP), Current Affairs, Recent Supreme Court Judgments, and Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every Professionals and Aspirant’s first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org.
