Verdict

• The Supreme Court has provided constitutional backing to the Systemic Institutional Revision (SIR), affirming its validity as an administrative reform. • The ruling clarifies that previous adjudicatory proceedings against individual electors do not constitute a constitutional bar against systemic revisions of electoral rolls. • The court noted that the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), is rebuttable and does not permanently freeze voter rolls.

• The Congress party criticized a Supreme Court judgment on Wednesday that cleared the Election Commission (EC) regarding the Special Summary Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. • Congress alleges the ruling ignored "major flaws and contradictions" in the EC's process, which they claim has deprived millions of citizens of their right to vote. • The party clarified that the legal challenges brought by civil society and political groups focused on the EC's conduct rather than the legal validity of the SIR itself.

• The Supreme Court of India ruled on Wednesday that the Special Summary Revision (SIR) exercise conducted by the Election Commission supports the constitutional requirement for free and fair elections. • Petitioner Yogendra Yadav criticized the verdict, claiming that such powers could allow the BJP to decide who is eligible to vote. • The ruling is significant as it validates the Election Commission's processes for updating voter rolls, which critics argue can be manipulated to disenfranchise specific groups.

• The Supreme Court, led by CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. • The ruling follows a batch of petitions that challenged the validity of the SIR exercise across various Indian states. • The judgment is significant as it clarifies the extent of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) powers regarding the maintenance and revision of voter lists.

• The Department of Justice asked an appeals court to pause the $83 million verdict against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case, hoping for Supreme Court review. • DOJ argues the federal government, not Trump personally, should bear responsibility for the $83.3 million award. • The move highlights ongoing legal battles over presidential immunity and liability post-presidency.

One insider estimates Australians pay A$10 in fees per ticket, with fans bearing the burden of monopolised music tour schedules and inflated artist valuesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastAustralia is being urged to improve ticketing transparency after a US federal court found Live Nation Entertainment had a harmful monopoly over big concert venues.This week, a New York jury found the global entertainment giant and its subsidiary Ticketmaster liable for systematically stifling competition to extract excessive profits from concertgoers. The jury identified a baseline overcharge of US$1.72 for every ticket sold by Live Nation since 2010 – totalling an additional US$595m in 2025 alone. Continue reading...

Judgment will rule on whether spoils of some of Hancock Prospecting’s iron ore projects must be shared with family of her father’s business partnerGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastGina Rinehart faces the possibility of losing billions of dollars in riches from her Pilbara iron ore empire and her mantle as Australia’s wealthiest person when a long-awaited court verdict is delivered in Perth on Wednesday.The Western Australian supreme court judgment will rule on whether Rinehart must share the spoils of some of Hancock Prospecting’s most lucrative iron ore projects with the family of her late father’s business partner. Continue reading...

Tarot card reader Ashley Guillard, who falsely accused history professor Rebecca Scofield, plans to appealSign up for the Breaking News US email to get newsletter alerts in your inboxA self-proclaimed psychic who in TikTok videos falsely accused a University of Idaho professor of being involved in the murders of four of the school’s students in 2022 is appealing for relief after a civil court jury ordered her to pay $10m in damages to the educator.In a recent legal filing that she prepared herself, tarot card reader Ashley Guillard called the case brought against her by history professor Rebecca Scofield “fraudulent” and asked the federal court in Idaho where a jury delivered a verdict against her to set aside the judgment. Continue reading...

• A New Mexico jury found Meta liable for US$375 million in damages for failing to protect young people from online harm, including exploitation by sexual predators, in violation of state consumer protection laws. • This verdict follows a separate Los Angeles jury decision ordering Meta and Google to pay US$6 million to a 20-year-old woman over claims that their apps were addictive and caused mental health crises. • Multiple states have filed similar cases against Meta, signaling a broader accountability movement targeting major tech platforms' user engagement and safety practices.

The New Scientist Book Club enjoyed our February read, Tim Winton's far-future-set Juice. Head of books Alison Flood rounds up member thoughts