In recent months, several judicial decisions have sparked debate in India. From the bail of a sexual offender to environmental decisions, many of the recent courtroom developments made by our judges have ignited rage among most Indians as they question the judiciary.
Among the most talked about cases are the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the sentence of former Uttar Pradesh legislator Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, and judicial decisions related to the protection of the Aravalli Hills. Together, these cases have led the entire nation to question judicial accountability and public trust.
The Kuldeep Singh Sengar Release Order
On December 23, the Delhi High Court suspended the life sentence of former BJP legislator Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was convicted of rape and murder in the famous Unnao rape case in Uttar Pradesh that took place in 2017.
This order was passed by a division bench consisting of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. As reported by Live Law, the division bench, while pronouncing the order, said, “We are suspending the sentence. Personal bond of Rs. 15 Lakh with three sureties of like amount…Not to come within a 5 km radius of the residence of the victim. Directed to stay in Delhi during the pendency of the appeal.
Ensure that he is available for completing the remaining part of the sentence if in case he is found guilty. Directed not to threaten the victim survivor, or the mother…deposit his passport with the trial court. Directed to report to the local police station once a week, every Monday at 10 am…”
Further, Bar and Bench, in its article published on 29 Dec 2025, explains “The Division Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidynathan Shankar of the High Court held that he cannot be categorised as a public servant under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act or Section 376(2)(b) of the IPC.
The High Court further said Sengar cannot come within the four corners of Section 5(p) of the POCSO Act, which punishes a person in “a position of trust or authority” for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.”
It was reasoned that Kuldeep did not fit the definition of being a “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and that his case did not come under Section 5(c). Further, the bench clarified that the suspension does not mean that Sengar has been cleared of charges and that the appeal will still be reviewed on its merits.
However, this order has sparked nationwide outrage, including from the victim’s family. Since his release, there have been several protests against the bail of the Unnao rapist. This instance has raised a big question about the judicial decision and has prompted a plea filed by the CBI against the Delhi High Court order.
Read More: Post On Former Judge CS Karnan Being Jailed For Exposing Corruption In Judiciary Surfaces
Supreme Court’s Definition of Aravalli Hills
On November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court accepted a new definition of the Aravalli Hills, stating that an Aravalli hill comprises any landform that has a height of 100 metres or above the terrain surrounding it.
It further added that an Aravalli range is formed only if two such landforms lie within 500 metres of each other. The Supreme Court had accepted the recommendations of the MoEF&CC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change). This judgment was accepted by a bench of judges comprising the then Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justices N.V. Anjaria and K. Vinod Chandran.
As quoted by The Economic Times, the committee defined Aravallis as, “Any landform located in the Aravalli districts, having an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local relief, shall be termed as Aravalli Hills… The entire landform lying within the area enclosed by such lowest contour, whether actual or extended notionally, together with the Hill, its supporting slopes and associated landforms irrespective of their gradient, shall be deemed to constitute part of the Aravalli Hills.”
Further, the panel said, “Two or more Aravalli Hills …, located within the proximity of 500m from each other, measured from the outermost point on the boundary of the lowest contour line on either side forms Aravalli Range.”
“The area between the two Aravalli hills is determined by first creating buffers with a width equal to the minimum distance between the lowest contour lines of both hills … The entire area of landforms falling between the lowest contour lines of these Hills as explained, along with associated features such as Hills, Hillocks, supporting slopes, etc., shall also be included as part of the Aravalli Range,” quotes the ET report.
This definition has been met with protests and questions from across the nation, as many believe that excluding landforms below 100 metres, including low-lying ridges and groundwater zones, overlooks large stretches of the landscape that have ecological importance. Activists have raised concerns about this definition making the excluded land more vulnerable to exploitation.
Supreme Court’s ruling on the 100-metre height definition of the Aravalli has driven many activists to protest and call for the entire Aravalli system to be treated as an ecologically significant area that requires uniform protection.
Vikrant Tongad, an environmental activist, told the BBC, “The Aravalli range should not be defined by height alone, but by its ecological, geological and climatic role.” Further adding to this, he explained, “Any landform that is geologically part of the Aravalli system and plays a critical role in ecology or preventing desertification should be recognised as part of the range, regardless of its height.”
This new definition has escalated into a controversy involving debates all across India concerning the future of environmental protection and conservation. This has further placed the judiciary at the centre of debates over public trust and other environmental concerns.
These aren’t the only instances that have placed judicial decisions and controversies in front of the whole nation. Concerns surrounding the accountability of our nation’s judiciary came into the limelight with the controversy involving Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.
The Story Behind the Controversy
In March 2025, when a fire broke out in the residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, “jute sacks full of cash” were reportedly discovered “stashed in a corner of the outhouse.” This information was reported to higher officials for investigation.
Following this, an urgent collegium meeting was called by the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna.
According to a report by Live Law, at the time of the controversy, Senior Advocate Arun Bharadwaj presented the case before Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya, saying, “Today’s incident has pained many of us. Please take some steps on the administrative side so that these incidents do not happen in future and the truthfulness of judicial system is maintained…We are shaken and demoralized.”
Further, Justice Varma was transferred to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, and his judicial duties were withdrawn pending inquiry. However, this decision was met with concerns regarding the reputation of the judiciary, and a suggestion for Justice Varma’s in‑house inquiry was made.
A motion for removal under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, was introduced against Justice Yashwant Varma. The removal of the constitutional judge will require a two‑thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. Despite the court proceedings, Justice Varma has not been impeached yet.
These recent developments in the judiciary and its controversies have posed one question nationwide: How accountable is our judicial system? While courts continue to exercise their duties, some of these cases highlight a huge gap between judicial decisions and how the nation perceives them.
The entire nation is furious. India is fuming at the failing system, at the corruption taking place, and at offenders walking out on bail. And yet, stones are hurled at those who raise a voice. For a nation like ours, gaining public trust will require transparency and decisions that align not only with the interests of the nation but also ensure that justice is served.
Images: Google Images
Sources: The Economic Times, Live Law, Bar and Bench
Find the blogger: @shubhangichoudhary_29
This post is tagged under: judges, Indian judiciary, judicial accountability, Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, Unnao rape case, Kuldeep Singh Sengar, Aravalli Hills, environmental protection, judicial controversy, public trust, Indian courts, rule of law, judicial transparency, legal reforms, India news, constitutional law, high-profile cases, public outrage, justice system
Disclaimer: We do not hold any right, copyright over any of the images used; these have been taken from Google. In case of credits or removal, the owner may kindly email us.
Other Recommendations:
ResearchED: Is Allahabad High Court The New Madras High Court, Thanks To Its Outdated Judgements?
