The manner in which the Indian Railways intended to carry out the eviction was rejected by a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka.

The Supreme Court said, "There shall be a stay on the directives given by the High Court."

The Court made it clear that just the High Court's instructions had been stayed and that we had not suspended the proceedings.

The Court additionally declared that no more building or development is permitted on the in dispute land.

The decision was made after it was noted that the impacted parties had owned the property in question for many years, with the majority of them claiming ownership and many having resided there for 60 or more years.

The first information report (FIR) against the journalists was the only request made in their appeal to the High Court, according to a bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, who observed that no such requests had been made in the case.

Relevantly, the Court added that Rawat was not a party to the proceedings and was not given a chance to be heard before the order was made.

"Even the appellant was not a party to the High Court's proceedings and was not given any hearing time. The High Court's rulings are unjustifiable and go against natural justice norms. The remarks made and the contested orders calling for a criminal inquiry against the appellant are accordingly reversed and annulled "The Supreme Court ruled.

Elections without OBC reservations would be improper, according to a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, even if a constitutional void in the form of unfilled seats cannot be tolerated.

"Such a command shall be suspended pending further orders. The government shall be free to grant delegation and financial powers so that local body management is not impeded. Subject to the restriction that the administrator shall not make any significant policy decisions, "the highest court mandated.

Additionally, the Bench gave notice of each application.

Even if pet owners consider their animals to be their children, according to a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan, animals are not human beings.

"Section 279 refers to anybody operating a vehicle in such a way as to risk human life, whereas Section 337 refers to jeopardising human life. Undoubtedly, a dog or cat is regarded like a kid or a part of the family by its owners, but fundamental biology teaches us that they are not people. Acts threatening human life or liable to cause harm or injury to another person are covered under Sections 279 and 337 "the bench was in session as of the order issued on December 20.