CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS
1. The Supreme Court in Pradeep S Wodeyar vs the State of Karnataka held that the court is not under an obligation to give a reasoned order for taking cognizance under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code based on a police report. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Richa Dubey vs the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr gave 7 days to gangster Vikas Dubey’s wife to surrender for applying for bail in a cheating case. The petitioner (wife) is entitled to raise all pleas and contentions at the time of framing the charge, said court. Full Story
3. While speaking at the valedictory ceremony of the Constitution Day celebration held at Vigyan Bhawan, the CJI NV Ramana said that rebranding existing courts as commercial courts without creating special infrastructure will not have any impact on the pendency of the cases. One of the major issues is that states are not properly utilising the funds allocated by the central government. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in ITC vs Nestle said that anyone can have exclusive rights or monopoly over the laudatory (expressing praise) expression ‘Magic Masala’. The loyalty of the consumers lies with the brand names that is Maggi or Yipee. “Masala” and “Non-Masala” are subdivisions. The consumers are intelligent enough to identify between the two. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Hasmat Ali vs Amina Bibi and Ors held that if a second appeal does not involve a substantial question of law, then the High Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal. But for dismissing the appeal, the High Court has to record the reasons in writing. Giving a conclusion is necessary as it helps the adverse party understand why the appeal was not accepted. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in the Union of India and Ors vs Ram Bahadur Yadav held that it is a settled legal position that if any rule contemplates method and manner to adopt special procedure, it becomes mandatory on the part of authorities to exercise such power by adhering to the rule strictly. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in Kinri Dhir vs Veer Singh said that the claims raised by competing parents must necessarily be recognized as being subservient to the interest of the child. The welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration of the court. The petitioner is a mother who is separated from his 2-year-old child and has been given custody on a daily basis, which is hampering the child. The court said that such things can’t be ignored. Full Story
4. The Uttarakhand High Court in Karan Yadav vs CBI held that a person cannot be convicted only on the basis that he is absconding. The fact of absconding cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. The court also opined that the statement given under section 161 of the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon to record the guilt of the accused. Full Story
1. Justice AM Khanwilkar, while delivering the welcome address at the Valedictory Function of the Constitution Day 2021 celebrations, remarked that Indians have travelled to Mars since independence, but our legal system remains the same. Full Story
2. Former Supreme Court Justice MB Lokur, while speaking on the subject of the independence of the judiciary on Constitution Day, questioned why so many judges and Chief Justices were being transferred from High Courts. Full Story
3. Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court was speaking at The Leaflet’s Constitution Day talk titled “Undermining the Idea of India: Which Way Forward?” on the occasion of Constitution Day 2021. He reminded citizens that history will not judge us by highways, bridges or statues, but by how well we preserved the constitutional idea of India and saved it from being undermined. Full Story
4. In the case of Electrosteel Castings Limited vs UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the Supreme Court observed that bar under section 34 of SARFAESI Act on filing civil suit is attracted if allegations of ‘fraud’ are made without any particulars. Full Story
1. While hearing the case of Dr Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the vaccination against COVID-19 has huge merits, and even the WHO says so. Full Story
2. On the occasion of Constitution Day 2021, at an event organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana urged lawyers to protect the judiciary from targeted and motivated attacks. Full Story
3. In the case of CPIL vs Union of India, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central government and IPS officer Rakesh Asthana after briefly hearing CPIL lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, in a plea filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) challenging his appointment as Commissioner of Delhi Police. Full Story
4. While setting aside a 2014 judgement given by Allahabad High Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Chunni Lal, the Supreme Court held that two persons cannot be appointed to the same post of Deputy Collector. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs UOI held that directions to create special courts for the trial of criminal cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs does not mean or cannot be construed to transfer the case triable by Magistrate to the Court of Sessions. It is understood that directions exist, but the jurisdiction must be conferred as per the statute. The transfer of the case from Magistrate court to Sessions Court also results in loss of the right of appeal in Sessions court under section 374 of CrPC. Full Story
2. The Madras High Court in S Paul vs the Tahsildar and Anr held that conversion from one religion to another does not alter the caste of a person. Where both the petitioner and his wife belong to Scheduled Castes by birth, the petitioner, under converting to another religion, cannot claim an inter-caste marriage certificate. Full Story
3. The Karnataka High Court in Kumari D vs the State of Karnataka held that Article 21 of the Constitution gives a woman liberty to exercise her reproductive choice. The act of forcing a woman to bear with an unwanted intrusion on her body and endure the consequences of that intrusion would be a clear transgression of her inviolable fundamental right of personal liberty. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Vineet Jindal vs Salman Khurshid and Ors on ban on publication and sale of book ‘Sunrise over Ayodhya’ where there is a comparison of Hindutva with an Islamic state and Boko Haram; the court said if people don’t like the book, then they have an option not to buy it. If you don’t agree with the author, then don’t read it. If you are hurt with any passage or chapter, then skip it or don’t read it. The court cannot do anything in this regard. Full Story
1. The Karnataka High Court in Anil Kushalkar vs the State of Karnataka held that before exercising powers under section 482 CrPC, the High Court must give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. In case of heinous offences like rape, the proceedings cannot be quashed even if the parties have settled the dispute. Quashing such proceedings can have serious implications on society. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Devender Bhaskar vs the State of Haryana held that the question regarding equivalence of educational qualification is technical. It cannot be evaluated by the court using the power of judicial review. The eligibility criteria matters have to be considered by the recruiting authority. Judicial Review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed nor decide its equivalence with any other given qualification. Full Story
3. The Kerala High Court in Avinash vs the State of Kerala said that if police personnel or officer is not in uniform while on duty and the citizens ask them of their authority while performing duty, then such asking of question cannot be called as obstruction. Police must wear uniforms to make their identity clear which is also a matter of pride, respect and authority over citizens. Full Story
4. Breaking: CBI arrests Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and a private person for bribery. All the examinations that have been held between 11th to 15th November under Haryana Public Service Commission are under strict scrutiny after the arrest of three other officials caught red-handed for corruption in ongoing recruitment four days ago. All further examinations are postponed till further notice. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in State of UP vs Vikash Kumar Singh said that the Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to a competent authority directing it to grant relaxation in qualifying service for promotion. The court said that relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right. It is the discretion of the court concerning relaxation. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan vs Rajesh Kumar held that payment of the price is an essential requirement for constituting sale. The payment may be at a present date or a future date. But if it is executed without payment or no future date is provided for the payment, then it is not a sale. It is void in the eyes of the law. Full Story
3. The Bombay High Court in Dhyandev Kachruji Wankhede vs Nawab Malik said that the public has the right to comment about a person’s actions in an official capacity. The court refused to pass temporary injunction order against Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik from making statements against NCB’s Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede. The right to privacy has to be balanced with freedom of speech court added. Full Story
4. In a petition filed in Peter Myaliparampil vs Union of India for removing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s photograph from the COVID-19 vaccination certificate, the Kerala High Court has sent notice to the centre to file their counter in the matter. He claims that the national campaign was used as a media campaign for the PM. When government campaigns are done using government funds, then it should not personify a leader like PM as he is a leader of a political party as well. Full Story
1. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bal Raj vs Priya and Ors held that in case of default or breach of payment of maintenance, no court can impose civil imprisonment beyond one month. If the default persists even after the expiry of one month, then the aggrieved party can approach the magistrate again. Full Story
2. Addressing the 40th Convocation of the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, said that modern education is utilitarian. True learning must involve holistic learning, including the development of moral and ethical values. True education develops patience, mutual understanding and respect. Full Story
3. In the State of Maharashtra vs Jignesh Vyas and Ors, the Mumbai Court held that sending sexually explicit messages in the pre-marital period or in the consensual relationship and the woman not objecting to the same at that relevant point of time would not attract section 509 of IPC which is insulting the modesty of a woman. The court also opined that sending messages at this stage may delight the other one. It can give a feeling of belongingness and closeness. Full Story
4. The Allahabad High Court in Sonu Kushwaha vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that putting a penis in the mouth of the child attracts offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act that is penetrative sexual assault and does not attract aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors vs Pankaj Kumar held that informing or intimating a student through an SMS of his selection is sufficient and valid. The court said the requirement of a contact number in the application form is with a purpose to communicate with the student only. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs Swayam Prabha and Ors held that without giving an opportunity to be heard to the third party, no order of injunction can be passed concerning suit property that is directly affecting the third party. Full Story
3. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ajay Jatav vs State of MP and Anr., while referring to the judgment of Independent Thought vs Union of India, said that establishing a physical relationship with the wife being minor, that is under 18 years of age, would constitute rape. The age of consent has been changed from 15 to 18 in such cases. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Rajesh Jhunjhunwala and Ors vs The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited and Ors said that it would be our failure if we do not interfere with the perverse and unsustainable orders of tribunals functioning under its superintendence. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Courts exercise the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Meena Pawaia vs Ashraf Ali held that if a person was not earning or doing any job at the time of accident or death, then his income will be determined as per his educational qualification. His legal heirs shall be granted compensation according to this criterion under the Motor Vehicles Act. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in Bhavreen Kandhari vs Gyanesh Bharti and Ors held that freedom of movement is guaranteed under our Constitution. It should not be hemmed in by the lack of civic amenities. The basic amenities like the secure neighbourhood, clear and tree-lined footpaths and so on. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Manraj Enterprises held that the arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract and cannot award interest contrary to the terms of the contract. If parties had agreed that no interest shall be payable, then Arbitral Tribunal can’t award interest. Full Story
4. Breaking: On the occasion of Guru Purab, the three farm laws, namely:
- The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance & Farm Services Act 2020,
- The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act and
- The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act
have been decided to be repealed by the Central Government in the winter session of Parliament. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Attorney General for India vs Satish and Anr held that making the ‘skin to skin’ contact necessary for the offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act would make its section 7 absurd. Such interpretation will destroy the intent of the Act for which it was implemented. It is like if a person is wearing gloves while physical groping, then it would not be an offence as the element of skin to skin not attracted. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru vs Union of India held that the right to a meaningful life is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Denying inter-cadre transfer on the grounds of marriage cannot be baseless. It requires valid reasons to be denied. The court said this in the transfer of IAS husband-wife who requested their cadre to be the same for balancing personal life. Full Story
3. The Madras High Court in D Senthilkumar vs The Chief Secretary allowed the entry of 20,000 devotees for the Karthigai Deepam festival on Friday but on a condition that double vaccination certificates need to be produced for checking. The devotees will not be permitted to enter the Annamalaiyar temple, but they can witness the festival of lights from Girivalam (from the circumambulation of the holy mountain). Full Story
4. “Justice is the sum of all moral duty“, said Orissa High Court in X’ vs State of Odisha and Ors. In a gang rape case of a 20 years old victim carrying over 26 weeks of pregnancy, the court directed the state government to pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation. Offences like rape leave scars on the psyche of the victim and hurt society. Full Story
1. The Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, while hearing the Delhi Air Pollution case, made critical comments about TV debates over this issue. He said that they take statements said in court and interpret them out of context with hidden agenda. Debates taking place in news channels are pollutive than actual air pollution. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in Anil Kumar vs State held that the trauma a child suffers in sexual offences affects his or her growth when the mental psyche of the child is vulnerable. The court denied bail to a tuition teacher who sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl. The object of the POCSO Act was and is to protect the child from sexual offences. Full Story
3. Breaking: To ensure impartial and independent investigation, the Supreme Court in the Lakhimpur Kheri case appointed Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, former judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, to look into the matter. The SIT (Special Investigation Team)has also been reconstituted. Full Story
4. The Madras High Court in Leena Manimekalai vs Regional Passport Officer held that defamation is not a heinous crime. The passport cannot be impounded by the court under section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code referring to the judgement of Suresh Nanda vs Central Bureau of Investigation. The court, therefore, ordered the release of filmmaker Leena Manimekalai’s passport. Full Story
1. In Anun Dhawan and Others vs Union of India and Ors, the Supreme Court gave a last chance to the Central Government to formulate a pan India policy on community kitchens. It is the constitutional duty of a welfare state to ensure that no person dies of hunger. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Gurjant Singh vs the State of Punjab held that a criminal appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous merely because the convicted appellant served the sentence awarded by the trial court. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in Breathe Fine Lounge & Bar vs GNCTD permitted the service and sale of herbal hookas in restaurants and bars subject to adherence to COVID-19 protocols. The court said that the government and other authorities shall be restrained from interfering with the service of herbal hookas. Full Story
4. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Deepak Raj Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh said that people’s faith in the judiciary is the important facet of judicial administration. It is the duty of every lawyer, judge, legislator and executive to maintain and protect the faith of people in the independence of the judiciary. Full Story
1. Breaking: Supreme Court refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition filed by the Central Government against the order passed by Delhi High Court on the doorstep delivery of ration. The petition claims that the distribution of ration in such a way is against the provisions of the National Security Act. Now the broad question is whether a State Government can deviate from the mode of distribution provided under the Act or not. Full Story
2. Passing the buck to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not reasonable, remarked Chief Justice of India in Delhi Air Pollution matter. Do not give us lame excuses, said Supreme Court. If you’ll not hold liability or take emergent measures, it’ll compel us to hold an inquiry into revenue you are collecting and spending on popularity slogans instead of people welfare. Full Story
3. Advocate Vineet Jindal in Vineet Jindal vs Union of India & Ors files a petition in Delhi High Court against the publication and sale of the book ‘Sunrise Over Ayodhya‘ written by Congress leader and former Union Minister Salman Khurshid. He asserts that the book compares Hindutva to groups like ISIS and BOKO HARAM. The statement is not only defamatory but enrages the emotions of all followers of the Hindu religion, added the petitioner. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court in Salim Kumar vs State of Kerala and Ors held that consuming alcohol in a private place is not an offence unless it creates any nuisance. And merely because a person is found with odour or smell of alcohol does not mean that he is intoxicated. Full Story
1. In the case of Aditya Dubey (minor) and Another vs Union of India, the Supreme Court said that stubble burning by farmers cannot be blamed entirely for Delhi’s worsening air quality. Full Story
2. In the case of BK Enterprise vs the State of Manipur and Another, the Supreme Court deprecated the state of Manipur for lethargy and negligence on the State and Social Welfare Department part for not issuing the fresh tender process and Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) after 2018 for transporting rice and other micronutrients from Food Corporation of India’s depots in the state to offices of Child Development Project Officers. Full Story
3. The hearing of the matter relating to the Delhi pollution crisis witnessed an interesting exchange between the Chief Justice of India NV Raman and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as to how both of them have not received most part of their education from English medium. Full Story
4. In the case of Sadakat Kotwar vs the State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court observed that, in an attempt to murder cases (section 307 of the Indian Penal Code), the intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court set aside the recent Bombay High Court order which had directed the National Testing Agency to hold a fresh exam for two NEET UG aspirants over a mistake committed by the invigilator, which resulted in the mix-up of the test booklets and the OMR sheets in the case of National Testing Agency versus Vaishnavi Vijay Bopael and Others. Full Story
2. In the case of Suo Motu vS Travancore Devaswom Board, the Kerala High Court on Friday insisted on establishing spot booking counters at several prime locations so that pilgrims who do not own a phone or are not acquainted with online booking may not be at a disadvantage as compared to other devotees intending to visit Sabarimala this year. Full Story
3. In Newtech Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs the State of UP, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the retroactive application of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the ongoing real estate projects. Full Story
4. In the case of Union of India vs Ex Constable Ram Karan, the Supreme Court said that even if punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate, the court should not normally decide quantum and matter should be sent back. Full Story
1. In the case of Nandlal Lohariya vs Jagdish Chand Purohit, the Supreme Court observed that an advocate losing a case cannot be said to be a deficiency in service on his/her part. Full Story
2. Kapil Sibal tells Supreme Court that to demonstrate the lack of proper investigation by the SIT in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case, SIT has not challenged the Gujarat High Court’s decision to acquit Maya Kodnani. Full Story
3. In the case of the State of Bihar vs Pawan Kumar, the Supreme Court observed that the total ban on legal mining, apart from giving rise to illegal mining, also causes huge loss to the public exchequer. Full Story
4. Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter before a Bench regarding incidents in Tripura & FIRs and 41A notices issued to lawyers who went on a fact-finding mission. Full Story
1. Speaking at an event to celebrate Legal Services Day, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said that looking at the pendency of cases, the government is taking appropriate measures to ensure a proper infrastructure for the lower judiciary. He said it is disheartening to see an ordinary person struggling for justice. A person may sell off the property to get justice, but he doesn’t get a date. Full Story
2. The Allahabad High Court in Varun Tiwari vs the State of U.P held that if the charge sheet is not filed in the court within the stipulated time, then the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in Harish Kumar vs Sarita held that normal wear and tear are part of the relationship. They cannot be made ground to dissolve the marriage. Husband demanding dowry and consuming alcohol are not very serious allegations that can hamper the wife’s mental state for ending the relationship. The parties have two children, and they must realise their sense of responsibility and look at marriage as a sacrament. Full Story
4. The Allahabad High Court in Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi vs the State of U.P held that if the court does not agree with the protest petition, then the same can be treated as a complaint by the court; so that the informant can be allowed to produce evidence in support of his complaint made to the police. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar vs the State of Karnataka held that for the imposition of death sentence in rape cases, the low age of rape victim is not the only consideration for imposing the same. If low age would be the only consideration, then a death sentence would be the last resort in maximum cases. Capital punishment is given in rare of the rarest cases. Full Story
2. Speaking at an award ceremony, an eminent jurist and constitutional expert – Fali S Nariman, said that great cases are not won because of their inherent strength or weakness. It is just an illusion. Advocacy plays a crucial role in it. The way an advocate portrays a case in court matters. Law is cultivating a cult of humility. Talk less and devote more time to the case at hand. Be smart but never too smart, and you will excel in whatever you do, he added. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in State of Chhattisgarh vs Sal Udyog Private Limited held that in an arbitration appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is no embargo on the party from raising an additional ground for setting aside an arbitration award. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Dinesh Mahajan vs Vishal Mahajan held that mere apprehension of threat to life without filing a complaint is not reasonable ground to transfer a case. The court relied upon the judgment of Puneet Dalmia vs Central Bureau of Investigation. Full Story
1. The Delhi Court, in the Uphaar fire tragedy case that took place in the year 1997, sentenced Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and others to 7 years imprisonment for tampering evidence. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pankaj Sharma also imposed a fine of Rs. 2.25 crores each. After thinking overnights and nights, I have concluded that they deserve punishment, said the judge. Full Story
2. Today, the legal revolutionist Dr NR Madhava Menon has been posthumously conferred Padma Bhushan by the President of India, Ram Nath Kovind. He has served as a member of the Law Commission for two terms and was also a member of the committee on Criminal Justice Reforms. He is the one who set up National Law University, Bangalore introducing 5-year BALLB programme. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in the Lakhimpur Kheri case showed no confidence in the UP Judicial Commission constituted by the government of Uttar Pradesh to monitor the probe by SIT (Special Investigation Team) into the incident. To ensure there is no mix up of the evidence in the case, the SC is inclined to appoint a former judge of a different High Court to monitor this probe. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Court on its own motion vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. issued summary of suggestions for increasing court security after the gun firing incident at Rohini Court. It includes digitalised ID cards for advocates, Commissioner of Delhi Police to frame a team for periodic security checks, no baggage inside court premises without proper scanning and more. Full Story
1. Recently released Tamil movie Jai Bhim is gaining popularity due to its real and social story. The theme of the movie rotates around police indiscipline. It is a courtroom drama based on a real-life case handled by a former judge of Madras High Court, Justice Chandru. He was an activist with the left movement for nearly 20 years. He says that if a lawyer understands politics, it will be easy for him to understand the working of law and the political machine that operates the law. He added in his interview that the reason for indiscipline is inherent in its colonial origin. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in State Of Kerala & Anr. vs M/S Popular Estates held that the intervention of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not merely called for because of a different view about the High Court’s judgment is possible. Even if two views are possible, the view was taken by the High Court being a plausible one, it would not call for interference by the Supreme Court. Full Story
3. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurpreet Singh and Others vs the State of Punjab held that “turban” is a religious symbol. Posting a video of a 65-year-old person without a turban being beaten up amounts to hurting the religious sentiments. Prima facie, the case is made out under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Court on its own motion vs State said that the procedure of age verification of juveniles must be completed within 15 days from the date the Juvenile Justice Board issues directions for the same. The court also directed educational institutions and concerned authorities to help and aid in priority to the investigating officer in ascertaining the age. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in the State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Dr Saleem ur Rehman held that the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a substantive offence. If the investigation of an offence under the Act is coupled with a non-cognizable offence, then there is no need for sanction from the Magistrate to investigate for the same. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Atrey vs Union of India & Ors held that while adjudging the seniority of candidates selected in the same selection, placement in the order of merit can be adopted for determining seniority, but where selection has been done by different authorities, the principal of initial date of appointment may be valid in determining seniority. Full Story
3. While speaking at the inauguration of virtual courtrooms in Orissa, Justice DY Chandrachud said that virtual courts are the new symbol and image of the Indian judiciary. According to National Prisons Portal, around 5 lakh inmates are inside prisons as of today. We can make use of technology in court procedures. We can prevent delays in communication orders of bail. Technology is to make life simpler and not complicated. Full Story
4. While speaking at a book launch Finding a Straight Line Between Twists and Turns by Aseem Chawla, Justice Ravindra Bhat said that the retirement age for SC judges should not be more than 65 years. It is enough, I think, we too would like to rest, he added. Full Story
Diwali. Courts closed today.
1. The Supreme Court in Chairman, TANGEDCO vs Priyadarshini, held that the principle of preferential candidates would apply where there is a tie between a preferential candidate and a general candidate. And the person who is to be treated as a preferential candidate then can be given a mark over a general candidate. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Dayle De’Souza vs the Government of India held that the burden on the accused to prove his innocence under section 22C(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 shifts only when the prosecution has satisfactorily established the ingredients of this section. Else, the onus won’t shift. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Badrilal vs Suresh and Ors held that a will could be revoked by any agreement made after making of the will. It can be revoked only by the modes prescribed under section 70 of the Indian Succession Act. Full Story
4. The Chhattisgarh High Court in Dr Manish Tiwari vs the State of Chhattisgarh said that making a statement like, “Madam, if you want to take a leave, come and meet me alone” is not a sexually coloured remark. Such a statement would not attract section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, said High Court. Full Story
1. Yesterday, the National Investigation Agency convicted 9 persons as guilty of serial blasts at Narendra Modi’s rally in Gandhi Maidan, Patna, in the year 2013. Out of nine, four are awarded capital punishment (death penalty). Full Story
2. At the inauguration of virtual e-courts at Allahabad High Court, Justice DY Chandrachud said that delay in communicating bail orders is a serious deficiency in our criminal justice system. We are now working on strengthening the interoperable criminal justice system. Judges play a significant role in changing the mindset regarding the use of technology. Full Story
3. In Dinesh Mahajan vs Vishal Mahajan, the Supreme Court held that mere apprehension of threat to life is not sufficient ground to transfer a case under section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code, without lodging/filing a complaint or verifying the said ground. Full Story
4. The Karnataka High Court in Lokanath vs the State of Karnataka held that whenever a crime occurs, if the victim person is SC/ST, then every time provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be invoked unless the motive behind the crime is casteist. Full Story>
1. The Supreme Court judge Justice DY Chandrachud commented on a recent advertisement of Dabur, which showed a lesbian couple celebrating the sacred festival of “Karva Chauth”. The ad has to be withdrawn on the ground of public intolerance. On this, Home Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Narottam Mishra, opined that we might see two men taking “Feras” in the future. This is objectionable, he said. Full Story
2. Justice Chandrachud speaking on the Empowerment of Women through Legal Awareness by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), said that legal awareness of women’s rights is not merely a matter for women. The origin must be in the changing of mindset – both of men and women. True freedom for women is truly intersectional. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sunita held that it is not permissive to rewrite the contract while interpreting the terms of the insurance policy. The terms of the insurance policy have to be strictly construed. The accident benefit can be claimed only if the accident occurred when the policy was in force. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Bhoopendra Singh vs the State of Rajasthan and Anr held that it’s necessary to consider the seriousness and gravity of the crime. It is relevant to consider the role attributed to the accused while granting bail. Full Story
- October 2021 Law News
- September 2021 Law News
- August 2021 Law News
- July 2021 Law News
- June 2021 Law News
- May 2021 Law News
- April 2021 Law News
- March 2021 Law News
- February 2021 Law News
- January 2021 Law News
- December 2020 Law News
- Article 334A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 332A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 330A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
