Bengaluru: The city has been experiencing intermittent showers over the past few days. Temperatures in the city have dropped sharply as the Southwest monsoon has become active. Karnataka’s capital city is set to experience light rainfall on Wednesday, September 10, 2025. Cloudy skies are also expected in the city, which is expected to remain the same throughout the day.

The city woke up at 06: 09 AM. The minimum and maximum temperatures are expected to range from 21 degrees Celsius and 27 degrees Celsius, respectively. Bengaluru is expected to witness the sunset at 06: 26 PM. The weather department said that rain and cloudy skies will keep the temperatures mild and pleasant in the city.

Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre (KSNDMC) shared a weather report on X (formerly Twitter) for seven days and wrote, “Scattered light to moderate rain is likely across the state, with scattered heavy rain accompanied by thunderstorms and strong winds likely in the northern interior districts.”

Humidity levels may hover around 91 per cent, making the air feel damp, especially after rainfall. The rainfall can cause a temporary disruption of electricity. There will be a possibility of minor traffic snarls and uprooting of weak tree branches. The weather department has advised residents to stay indoors, close windows, and doors.

The Southwest Monsoon is a seasonal wind shift that brings heavy rainfall to South Asia, particularly India, from June to September. It is the monsoon period in India. The monsoon is characterised by a reversed wind pattern. During this time, winds usually blow from land to sea and from sea to land, bringing moisture and rainfall.

According to the IMD, the weather is expected to remain mostly cloudy with one or two spells of rain or thunderstorms each day. Humidity will stay in the 65–85 percent range, keeping conditions slightly muggy.

New Delhi, Sep 9: The Supreme Court has directed High Courts across the country to ensure that reasoned judgments are uploaded without delay after the pronouncement of operative orders.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta termed the delay a “matter of grave concern” after noting that the Punjab and Haryana High Court pronounced its decision on February 18, 2016, but uploaded the full judgment only on July 18, 2018 — a gap of about 2 years and 5 months.

“Over a period of time, it has been the practice of a few High Courts to pronounce the operative part of the order without the reasoned judgment and after a substantial length of time, the reasoned judgment is uploaded. This practice has been deprecated by this court in many of its judgments and orders,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench said.

Citing the apex court’s earlier ruling in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, it said: “Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise eyebrows, sometimes genuinely, which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system. For the fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly.”

The Supreme Court directed that its judgment be circulated to all High Courts, reiterating the guidelines laid down in the Anil Rai case requiring judgments to be delivered without delay.

“We hope that we may not have to come across any matter wherein there is a delay at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned order, more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is pronounced,” the bench observed.

Earlier in August, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra had voiced strong concern over long delays by High Courts in pronouncing judgments after hearings are concluded, warning that such a situation erodes “litigants’ faith in the judicial process”.

The Justice Karol-led Bench noted that it is “repeatedly confronted” with cases where proceedings are kept pending in the High Courts for over three months, and in some instances for more than six months or even years.

Disposing of a special leave petition (SLP) concerning a criminal appeal pending since 2008 in the Allahabad High Court, the apex court had termed it “extremely shocking and surprising” that the judgment was not delivered for nearly a year from the date when the appeal was heard.

Of the five accused named in the alleged abetment to suicide case of activist-advocate Sarita Khanchandani, two have approached the Additional Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. The pleas, however, have been strongly opposed by the deceased’s husband, Advocate Purshottam Khanchandani, who claimed that the accused have criminal antecedents and pose a high risk of tampering with evidence.

Accused Dhananjay Bodare, Shiv Sena (UBT) Kalyan district president, in his bail plea questioned the credibility of the suicide note recovered by Sarita’s family. Bodare described the note as “vague and omnibus,” alleging that it mentions several individuals collectively without assigning specific roles to any of them.

FPJ has accessed the detailed anticipatory bail application, which have challenged the suicide note alleging it to be‘so-called suicide note to be a vague and omnibus in nature’, which states:” Names of several individuals have been mentioned together in the notice without any details or attribution of acts. “

The ABA copy further reads, “The deceased, her husband, and daughter are all advocates by profession and well-versed with law. If there was any abetment, they would have produced the suicide note immediately. Instead, its discovery days later—after police initially refused to register abetment charges—raises serious doubts about its authenticity. The note appears to be an afterthought, fabricated to falsely implicate the applicant,” the plea argues.

The application further points out that initially, after the incident on August 28, no abetment offence was registered despite public allegations on social media by the family. The alleged suicide note was claimed to have been found on September 1, following a purported recovery of the deceased’s “lost mobile” and CCTV footage showing her writing in a diary.

Opposing the pleas, Advocate Purshottam Khanchandani, advocate Sarita’s husband,  alleged that Bodare and others, have allegedly  systematically harassed Sarita over a property dispute. He claimed that Bodare had allegedly illegally encroached on government land, built an unauthorized Shiv Sena Shakha, and attempted to capture part of Sarita’s property.

The objection states, “The accused deliberately created an atmosphere of fear and pressure, instigating Sarita to take the extreme step. They used political clout and even filed false cases under the Atrocities Act to force her to withdraw an FIR. They also defamed her through derogatory social media posts,” the reply reads.

The husband further alleged that Bodare rewarded co-accused Ulhas Falke by appointing him as Shakha Pramukh of the unauthorized shakha and used threats and nuisance to terrorize Sarita. The reply also cites Bodare’s alleged involvement in rioting, land encroachment, criminal intimidation, and violations under the Water Pollution Act.

The husband  asserted that custodial interrogation of the accused is essential for an effective probe, as they may possess vital evidence. He warned that granting anticipatory bail could allow them to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and derail the investigation.

“Bodare is one of the masterminds of this crime and has been absconding since the FIR was registered,” the reply reads.

Another accused, Raj Chandwani, also sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the FIR does not attribute any specific role to him and that his arrest would cause hardship to his family. His plea too was opposed by Khanchandani.

The court has reserved its order on the anticipatory bail pleas.