The courts in India are once again in the spotlight this week, with two high-profile legal battles drawing intense public scrutiny and raising questions about the nation’s response to both environmental and criminal crises. In New Delhi, the High Court is set to hear a plea demanding urgent, concrete action to tackle the city’s hazardous air pollution. Meanwhile, in Karnataka, the High Court has issued a decisive ruling in a murder case that has gripped the state, rejecting bail petitions from accused individuals—including a sitting MLA—amid allegations of procedural lapses in their extended detention.
Let’s start in the nation’s capital, where the air itself has become a matter of life and death. According to NDTV, the Delhi High Court will convene on Wednesday, December 3, 2025, to address a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Greater Kailash-II Welfare Association. The petition paints a grim picture: over the past several years, Delhi’s ambient air quality has repeatedly plunged into the ‘very poor,’ ‘severe,’ and even ‘hazardous’ categories, particularly during the winter months. For millions of residents—especially children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions—these toxic levels aren’t just numbers on a chart; they’re a daily threat to well-being.
The plea does not mince words in its indictment of government response. It alleges that authorities remained “virtually inactive” as the city’s air quality steadily deteriorated. Only after the Air Quality Index (AQI) crossed critical levels did officials issue so-called ‘Stage III’ steps—measures that, according to the petitioners, amounted to little more than “prescribing measures on paper without ensuring their actual implementation.” The result, the plea claims, has been a “reckless endangerment” of public health and a “complete disregard for the seriousness of the present public health emergency.”
What’s more, the petition highlights that experts sounded a “red alert” on November 21, warning that Delhi’s air had become “life-threatening.” Yet, in the eyes of the petitioners, no “commensurate, concrete, or effective action” followed. Multiple attempts to engage with authorities have reportedly fallen on deaf ears, with representations made to various government bodies yielding little more than frustration.
The list of respondents in the case reads like a who’s who of Delhi’s environmental governance: the Delhi government, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), the Central Pollution Control Committee (CPCC), the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and the Delhi Police have all been named. The PIL, which is set to be heard by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, seeks not just immediate relief but also long-term, scientific measures to finally bring the city’s pollution crisis under control.
Justice Sachin Datta, upon reviewing the plea, noted that its prayers fall squarely within the realm of public interest and accordingly referred the matter to the division bench with the PIL roster. The stakes could hardly be higher: Delhi’s pollution problem is not just a local issue but a national embarrassment, with global headlines routinely highlighting the capital’s struggles to breathe. For now, residents wait anxiously to see whether the court can spark the kind of meaningful action that has so far eluded policymakers.
But as one court prepares to tackle an environmental emergency, another has just ruled on a case that’s equally fraught—albeit for very different reasons. In Karnataka, the High Court has rejected petitions from five accused individuals—including MLA Byrathi Basavaraj—who sought bail on the grounds that their judicial custody had been improperly extended beyond the standard 90 days. The case, which centers on the murder of Shivaprakash, also known as Bikla Shiva, on July 15, 2025, has drawn widespread attention not only for its brutality but also for the political stature of those implicated.
According to reporting by The Hindu, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) invoked the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act (KCOCA) in the case, a move that allows investigators an additional 90 days to submit their final report. The accused—K. Kiran, Vimal Raj B., Pradeep, Madan R., and V. Samuel—argued that there were procedural lapses in the extension of their custody and that the public prosecutor had failed to annex the investigating officer’s report when seeking more time.
Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, however, found no merit in these arguments. In his order rejecting the petitions, he stated that “absence of annexing the report of the investigating officer would not denude the legal value to be attached to the report of the public prosecutor.” The High Court further concluded that the prosecutor’s report did, in fact, contain all the requirements stipulated by the KCOCA, including details about the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for needing to extend the detention of the accused beyond the initial 90-day period.
This ruling is significant for several reasons. First, it reinforces the judiciary’s willingness to uphold procedural integrity in cases involving serious organized crime, even when high-profile political figures are involved. Second, it underscores the latitude afforded to investigative agencies under special legislation like the KCOCA, which is designed to address the complexities of organized criminal activity—often involving powerful and well-connected suspects.
For the families of victims like Bikla Shiva, such decisions can be both a source of relief and frustration. On one hand, the court’s insistence on following due process may help ensure that investigations are thorough and not rushed to meet arbitrary deadlines. On the other, the extended detention of accused individuals—especially when those accused are public figures—can fuel perceptions of political interference or delay.
Both of these court cases, while vastly different in their particulars, highlight the critical role that India’s judiciary plays in navigating the country’s most pressing challenges. Whether it’s holding government agencies accountable for public health emergencies or ensuring that the wheels of justice don’t grind to a halt in complex criminal investigations, the courts are often the final arbiters when executive action falls short.
As Delhi’s residents await the outcome of the High Court’s pollution hearing, and as Karnataka continues to grapple with the fallout from a high-profile murder, these stories serve as a reminder that legal battles are not fought in a vacuum. They reflect—and shape—the broader struggles of a nation wrestling with questions of governance, accountability, and the rule of law.
In the end, the hope is that justice, in all its forms, will prevail—whether it’s the right to clean air or the right to a fair and timely investigation.