CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS
1. In the case of M Kharkongor vs the State of Meghalaya, the Meghalaya High Court suggested that ‘flying army checker’ teams be deployed for surprise checks on Army vehicles after it emerged that they might allegedly be used to traffic drugs. Full Story
2. In the case of Laxmi Tunga vs the State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the regional head of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate questioning of Dr. SP Sinha, long-time advisor of the School Service Commission, during the course of the day. Full Story
3. In the case of State vs Ashabuddin, the Delhi High court held that merely because a person is a Muslim and governed by personal laws on various issues, he cannot be debarred from availing the rights of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Full Story
4. The Mumbai court granted 60 additional days to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to file chargesheet in the cruise ship drug case in which Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan is the prime accused. Full Story
1. In the case of Wokeflix through Megha Chaubey vs Union of India and Ors, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) has told the Delhi High Court that action taken by social media platforms against accounts should be proportionate to the offending content and taking down the account itself should be only the last resort. Full Story
2. The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to three Kashmiri students who were charged with sedition after raising pro-Pakistan slogans following Pakistan’s victory in a T-20 Cricket World Cup match against India. Full Story
3. In the case of WhatsApp LLC vs Competition Commission of India and Anr, the Delhi High Court expressed its concern regarding the privacy policies of social media companies like Facebook (now Meta), observing that the sharing and scraping of people’s personal data by these companies need to be examined. Full Story
4. In the case of HRAI vs Commissioner, State Excise & Ors, the Bombay High Court dismissed petitions by individuals hotels and restaurants and associations representing such establishments seeking concessions on license renewal fees for vending foreign liquor. Full Story
1. In the case of MV Chackochan & Ors. vs Union of India, the Kerala High Court held that the State government is empowered to invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) to acquire land for the Silverline project of the Kerala Rail Development Corporation Limited (K-Rail). Full Story
2. A plea was recently filed by the NGOs Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha (SANGRAM) and Muskaan Sanstha, along with two aggrieved transgender persons before the Bombay High Court seeking implementation of Supreme Court guidelines that mandate the inclusion of transgender persons in public sector employment. Full Story
3. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs Jayesh Vasdev Jeswani, a doctor accused of committing unnatural offences against a man was acquitted by a Mumbai court on the ground that the survivor man could not have recognised the doctor who was wearing a PPE kit. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed in the case of Anand Kumar Pandey vs The Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr, challenging the Delhi government’s decision on full resumption of physical classes in schools from April 1. Full Story
1. A plea was moved before the Telangana High Court in the case of Mohammed Sami Ullah Qureshi vs The Government of Telangana, challenging the making, releasing, and telecasting of certain ‘objectionable’ scenes in The Kashmir Files, which as per the plea, shows mass murders of Kashmiri Pandits by Muslims and exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir Insurgency. In addition, the plea has been dismissed as withdrawn. Full Story
2. In the case of Aditya Singh Deshwal vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Monday asked social media platform Twitter why it was not taking action and suspending accounts that post objectionable content about Hindu gods and goddesses when even accounts of former United States President Donald Trump was suspended. Full Story
3. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has moved the Supreme Court under the case of Munisa Bushra Abedi vs the State of Karnataka against the Karnataka High Court judgment, which held that the Hijab is not an essential religious practice (ERP) of Islam and, thereby, upheld the power given to colleges to ban wearing of Hijab in the college campus. Full Story
4. The Bombay High Court recently held in the case of Kasturi Sushma Khandekar vs the State of Maharashtra that the child raised by the mother was entitled to take her caste. Based on the Vigilance Enquiry Officer’s enquiry, a Bench of Justices GA Sanap and SB Shukre found that the petitioner, after her parents’ divorce, had been raised by her mother with her caste’s customs and traditions. Full Story
1. In the case of Court on Its Own Motion vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors, the Delhi High Court has yet again expressed its displeasure about the failure of authorities to come up with a common protocol to check mosquito breeding and the spread of dengue in the national capital. Full Story
2. In the case of National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled vs Department of Empowerment for Persons with Disabilities, the Supreme Court on Friday allowed disabled candidates to file provisional applications for admission to the Indian Police Service (IPS), the Indian Railways Protection Force Service (IRPFS) and the Delhi, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep Police Service (DANIPS) as their preferred cadre at the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Full Story
3. In the case of Union of India vs Central Information Commission and Anr, the Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act applies to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) if the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Full Story
4. With nine impending retirements, one resignation and no new appointments so far in 2022, the Bombay High Court is facing an acute shortage of judges. The sentiment was reflected by Chief Justice (CJ) Dipankar Datta, who on two separate occasions bemoaned in open court about the vacant position in the chartered High Court and the strain of workload on other judges due to the same. Full Story
1. In the case of Arulmighu Palapattarai vs Pappayee, the Madras High Court on Friday took a serious view of a temple being constructed on a public road and stated that even if God encroaches upon public space, courts will direct removal since public interest and the rule of law must be safeguarded. Full Story
2. In the case of State of Uttarakhand vs Dr Sanjay Singh Chauhan, the Supreme Court has held that both AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) and allopathy doctors working in government hospitals are entitled to equal pay and discriminating between the two amounts to a violation of the right to equality under Article 14. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court on Friday emphasised the need to promote youth of Kashmir by ensuring their education. A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant further added that the Court would refrain from passing orders which could negatively impact the education of young Kashmiri students. Full Story
4. A public interest litigation has been filed before the Bombay High Court raising issues related to child marriages in Maharashtra and non-implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA). The petition filed through advocates Asim Sarode and Ajinkya Udane pointed out that a large number of child marriage go unreported, and the actual number of such marriages is much higher than the official figures. Full Story
1. A Kashmiri Pandit organisation has moved the Supreme Court by way of a curative petition seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the 1990 massacre of the Pandits in Kashmir. The plea filed by Roots in Kashmir has challenged an order of the top court passed in 2017 that had dismissed a plea for a probe into the violence. Full Story
2. In the case of Sanjay Gupta vs State of UP and Anr, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed a magistrate’s summons issued to Dainik Jagran Editor-In-Chief Sanjay Gupta for publishing an allegedly defamatory news item. Full Story
3. The Delhi court denied bail to former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case registered against him in connection with the Delhi Riots of February 2020. Full Story
4. In the case of Saroja vs Postmaster, the Kerala High Court recently came to the aid of a domestic help by ordering post office authorities to disburse a deposit of hers with full interest. The court also imposed costs of ₹5,000 on the Post Office authorities, which will be paid to the petitioner. Full Story
1. In the case of Jyoti Yadav vs Neeraj Yadav, the Delhi High Court has held that unfounded accusations of unchastity or extra-marital relationship is a grave assault on character, reputation and health of a spouse, which causes mental pain, and suffering and also amounts to cruelty. Full Story
2. In the case of B Muthuramalingam vs the Secretary, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reiterated recently that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee. Justice SM Subramaniam, while acknowledging that consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of the employee, stated that the question for consideration would only arise if an administrative decision is taken to prepare a panel of eligible persons. Full Story
3. The Mumbai City Civil Court refused interim relief to Bollywood actor Salman Khan in his defamation suit filed against Ketan Kakkad and others for allegedly making derogatory remarks against him and his family over a land sale transaction. Full Story
4. The Union Home Secretary wrote to states and union territories that looking at the overall improvement in the COVID-19 pandemic situation in the country, there is no further need to invoke the Disaster Management Act for containment measures. Full Story
1. In the case of Puran Chand Sharma vs the State of Haryana, a single-judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has referred a case to Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha for initiation of departmental action against Yamuna Nagar Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Arvind Kumar. Full Story
2. Members of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) on Tuesday unanimously passed a resolution to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to deal with sexual harassment complaints in accordance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Full Story
3. In the case of Subrata Pradhan vs the State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court recently dropped charges of rape and penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 against an accused owing to the absence of a medical examination report of the victim. Full Story
4. In the case of M/S NG Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain, the Supreme Court on Monday held that courts should be reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. Full Story
1. In Hinu Mahajan and Anr vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on a plea seeking recovery of damages from people involved in the destruction of public property that took place during the Delhi Riots of February 2020 as well as protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Full Story
2. In the case of Om Sehgal vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking recovery of the debt owed by Pakistan to India, which allegedly now amounts to over ₹1 trillion. Full Story
3. In the case of Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Monday disposed of a plea seeking the evacuation of Indian students from Ukraine after taking note of the fact that all students have been brought back to India. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court of India has delivered a split verdict in the case of Gangadhar Narayan Nayak vs State of Karnataka on the question of whether permission from a magistrate is needed by the police to probe the offence of revealing a victim’s identity under section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Full Story
1. In the case of Khurshidurehman S Rehman vs State of UP And Another, the Allahabad High Court recently reiterated that there is no law that penalises the non-fulfilment of poll promises made by political parties in their election manifesto. Full Story
2. While dismissing a bail application in a drugs case (Vikas Kumar vs State), the Delhi High Court recently held that courts need to be conscious of the legislative intent behind passing the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act when granting bail in such matters. Full Story
3. In the case of Women in Cinema Collective vs State of Kerala & Ors., the Kerala High Court issued a slew of directions with regard to the requirement of setting up Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in organisations and production units in the film industry and political parties. Full Story
4. In the case of The Selection Authority and Secretary vs Geetha Dattatreya Gokarn, the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has reiterated that caste certificate is different from income certificate and cannot be treated alike. Full Story
Courts closed today due to festival.
1. In the case of Maatr Foundation vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday issued notice to the State government on a public interest litigation petition (PIL) assailing the constitutional validity of the MP Bhiksha Vritti Nivaran Adhiniyam, which criminalises begging. Full Story
2. A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court in the case of Sajeeda Begum vs The State of Karnataka, challenging the Karnataka High Court’s Hijab judgment which held that Hijab is not an essential religious practice (ERP) of Islam and, thereby, upheld the power given to colleges to ban wearing of Hijab in the college campus. Full Story
3. In the case of Wing Commander Shyam Naithani vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court has held that High Courts have the power of judicial review over the orders and judgments of Armed Forces Tribunals. A Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla stated that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act excludes administrative supervision of the High Courts under Article 227(4) of the Constitution, but not judicial superintendence and certainly not jurisdiction under Article 226. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court recently declared that even when one parent of a minor born in India is not an Indian Citizen, the child is entitled to be issued an Indian Passport. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas further added that a minor who has acquired citizenship by birth as per section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 cannot be regarded as a stateless child because her mother is an American citizen. Full Story
1. In the case of Irfan Ur Rahim Khan vs Farha Khan, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that if there is a conflict between the personal law to which a minor is subject, and the consideration of a minors’ welfare, the latter must prevail. A Division Bench of Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Rajani Dubey took into account the children’s choice in a custody dispute while emphasising that children cannot be treated as a commodity in a battle between the father and mother. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court refused an early hearing of the appeals against the Karnataka High Court verdict, which effectively upheld the ban on wearing Hijab in educational institutions in the State. The matter was mentioned today by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, who said, “The urgency is this that there are several girls who have to attend colleges.” Full Story
3. While hearing the case of Saj Food Products Pvt Ltd vs State of Meghalaya & Ors., the Meghalaya High Court stated that the Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption granted to bread in the State cannot be extended to rusk as rusk is different from bread. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to implement 50% reservation for in-service doctors in super speciality courses in NEET-SS admissions for the academic year 2021-2022. Full Story
1. In the case of Smt Resham vs State of Karnataka and Ors, the Karnataka High Court (CJ Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit and Justice JM Khazi) has upheld the State Government Order (GO) of February 5, effectively empowering colleges to ban the wearing of Hijab (headscarves) by Muslim girl students in educational institutions in the State. Full Story
2. In the case of Piyush Kumar Anchal vs State of Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently echoed the legal principle that even an illegitimate son or daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment on the death of their father. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court, in the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. vs Union of India, granted interim relief to Malayalam news channel MediaOne, staying the central government’s decision to revoke the channel’s security clearance. Full Story
4. While hearing the case of Kismatun vs State of NCT of Delhi Through Home Department and Ors, the Delhi High Court asked the Delhi Police to fairly conduct its investigation into the death of 23-year-old Faizan, who was allegedly beaten up and forced to sing the National Anthem by some policemen during the Delhi Riots of February 2020. Full Story
1. In the case of The Branch Manager OSL Hyundai vs Ruparanjan Das and Ors, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed a National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order which had held that damage to the car on account of rainwater during floods is covered by warranty. Full Story
2. The Gujarat High Court, while hearing the case of Bharatbhai Thobhanbhai Koyani vs Jayendrasinh Udesinh Gohil, took serious note of a plea seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against a police officer for allegedly detaining an advocate due to a previous grudge. Full Story
3. In the case of Rohit Kumar vs State of UT Chandigarh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently took note of the legal vacuum to govern live-in relationships and sought the Central government’s response on measures being taken to prevent adolescents with impressionable minds from living together. Full Story
4. In the case of CBI vs Sanjay Gupta & Ors, the Delhi court remanded former National Stock Exchange (NSE) head Chitra Ramkrishna to judicial custody for 14 days in connection with the NSE co-location scam. Full Story
1. The Allahabad High Court has restored a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a direction to hand over Mathura’s Shahi Masjid, which stands adjacent to Sri Krishna Temple, to Hindus. A Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prakash Padia restored the petition that had been dismissed in default on January 19, 2021. Full Story
2. In the case of Shobha vs the Chairman, Vitthalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, the Supreme Court on Friday held that the liability under the Employees Compensation Act of 1923 to pay the compensation and the interest on the same would arise from the date on which the deceased died and not from the date of the order of compensation by the commissioner. Full Story
3. The name of Justice Akil Kureshi will go down in history as the centre-piece around which discussions on supersession and non-elevation of judges, as well as the opacity of the collegium system, will take place. It is a shame that he will be remembered most because of this, given how highly his peers at the Bar and the Bench speak of his integrity and competence as a judge. Full Story
4. In the case of Sudip Sen & Ors. vs State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court recently set aside the conviction of five men on charges of gang rape and attempt to rape and instead found them guilty of assaulting a woman with intent to outrage her modesty under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code! Full Story
1. In the case of SK Nausad Rahaman vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that while crafting policy, the state cannot be oblivious (not aware of or concerned about what is happening around) to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life, which is a facet of Article 21. However, a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath emphasised that an employee has no fundamental right to posting or transfer. Still, the state should consider ‘family life‘ while crafting policy. Full Story
2. The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in the case of Mayavathi and Anr. vs State of Karnataka and Anr, filed against former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati, and BSP All India General Secretary, Sathish Chandra Mishra in a case registered against them for assault on public servant. Full Story
3. In the case of Manaank Mudaliar vs State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a petitioner accused of murdering his father on the ground that he suffers from schizophrenia with cannabis use disorder and that the investigation in the case is completed. Full Story
4. State Information Commissioner (SIC) Rahul Singh observed that most District Collector’s Offices in Madhya Pradesh have not been making proactive disclosures under section 4 (obligations of public authorities) of the Act. Therefore, the Madhya Pradesh Information Commissioner recently directed the offices of all the state’s District Collectors to have and comply with a 17-point manual regarding mandatory disclosures as part of the Right to Information Act. Full Story
1. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramji Lal Sharma and Another, the Supreme Court observed that in a murder case, once it is established and proved that all the accused gathered at the crime scene with a shared intention to kill, it is immaterial that some of them had not used any weapon to injure the victim. Full Story
2. Supreme Court, in the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. vs Union of India, issued notice to the central government on the appeal filed by Malayalam news channel “Media One” challenging the central government’s decision to revoke the broadcasting license of the channel on the ground of national security. Full Story
3. In the case of Ashlesh Biradar vs State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court stayed the order passed by the state government to shut down internet services in seven districts of West Bengal between March 7 and March 16. The state took the decision to prevent mass cheating in the upcoming State board exams. It sought to suspend internet services in Malda, Murshidabad, Uttar Dinajpur, Coochbehar, Jalpaiguri, Birbhum, and Darjeeling. Full Story
4. In the case of Ankit vs the State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently observed that misplaced sympathy while sentencing the accused for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) would defeat the objective and purpose of the law. Full Story
1. In the case of Janak Vyas vs State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed two public interest litigation (PILs) petitions filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Girish Mahajan and citizen Janak Vyas challenging rules for the election of speaker and deputy speaker of Maharashtra Assembly. Full Story
2. A Sessions Court in Mumbai rejected two applications filed by Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut seeking transfer of proceedings between her and lyricist Javed Akhtar from the Andheri Magistrate to another Magistrate. Full Story
3. In the case of Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane vs State of Karnataka and Ors, the Karnataka High Court recently permitted a woman to retain custody of her child despite orders of a Canadian court that granted custody to the father. However, a Division Bench of Justices Alok Aradhe and S Vishwajith Shetty granted the father visitation rights and directed that he will be permitted to contact the child and be informed of her development. Full Story
4. In the case of Sharjeel Imam vs The State of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on the bail plea of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam in cases related to the Delhi Riots of February 2020. Full Story
1. In the case of Bhagwati Transformer Corp. and Ors vs Government of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court refused to put a stay on the order of the Delhi Government through which it had prohibited any discount or rebate on the sale of liquor in the national capital. Full Story
2. The Court was hearing a matter concerning an arbitrator’s fee dispute between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and Afcons during which the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana expressed the need for changes in the system of arbitration in India, specifically in the area of arbitrators‘ fees. Full Story
3. In the case of Bank of Baroda vs M/s. Karwa Trading Company and Anr., the Supreme Court has held that a borrower cannot redeem the mortgaged property put for public auction by the bank by only paying the reserve price for the auction or by paying the highest bid amount. Full Story
4. In the case of Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni vs Karnataka State Law University, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Law University to conduct offline examinations for students of 3 years LLB Course, studying in the 2nd and 4th semester, twice – once from March 7 onwards and next from May 16 onwards. Full Story
1. Gujarat High Court heard a plea by the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association (GHCAA) challenging the demand notices issued to a large number of its member. The court ordered that no coercive action should be taken against lawyers in relation to notices issued to them by the Central Goods and Service Tax Department (CGST Department) demanding payment of service tax/GST. Full Story
2. In the case of Sushil Bhatt vs Moon Beverages Ltd. & Ors., the National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently held two bottling businesses in Uttar Pradesh responsible for the products of Coca Cola and PepsiCo, to pay a total of about ₹25 crores as environmental compensation for illegal extraction of groundwater. Full Story
3. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the case of Mujeeb Ur Rehman vs Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, seeking the adoption of virtual hearings as a norm in courts across the capital. The Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL and informed the petitioner that the issue is being looked at on the administrative side. Full Story
4. In the case of Savina Crasto vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Bombay High Court directed Ola, Uber, and other cab aggregators to apply for a license from the Maharashtra government under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 and Motor Vehicle Aggregators Guidelines of 2020 before March 16 this year. Full Story
1. In the case of Asianet Digital Network (P) Ltd. vs Star India Private Limited, allegations have been raised by Asianet Digital Network on Star India Private Limited and its subsidiaries for abuse of dominant market position. Therefore, in relation to the allegations, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) last week ordered the Director-General (DG) to carry out an investigation into Star India Private Limited and its subsidiaries. After the investigation, members Ashok Kumar Gupta, Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi found prima facie violations of the provisions of the Competition Act and asked the DG to submit an investigation report within 60 days. Full Story
2. While hearing a plea for bail under POCSO Act, the Karnataka High Court has directed that the investigation officer or the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) must inform a minor survivor’s parents, caregiver, or guardian and lawyer (if appointed), if the accused files for bail or if there is any other application by the accused or the prosecution in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Full Story
3. Supreme Court was hearing the special leave plea filed by a wife who categorically denied suffering from paranoid schizophrenia as alleged by her husband and stayed a judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty after the wife refused to get medical treatment for an alleged mental illness. Full Story
4. In the case of X vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, the Delhi High Court cancelled the bail of a man accused of raping a mentally-challenged 37-year-old woman suffering from a bipolar mental disorder, episodic mania and psychotic features. Full Story
1. Breaking: Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi has resigned from the post of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India. Lekhi, who was appointed to the post in March 2018, has not given any reason for his resignation in the letter. In a letter addressed to the Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, Lekhi has only mentioned that he is tendering his resignation from the post of ASG with immediate effect. Full Story
2. While hearing the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India and Ors, a Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna asked Upadhyay, who is also a BJP leader, how many such petitions he has kept ready to be filed; as he has already filed many Public Interest Litigations (PILs) for the ban of liquor. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court has expressed shock at the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting protection from arrest to former Punjab Director General of Police (DGP) Sumedh Singh Saini in cases pending against him or likely to be registered against him in the future. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said that the order was unprecedented and the court wanted to know how protection can be granted for future cases which are not registered yet. Full Story
4. In the case of Loop Telecom and Trading Limited vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that if a party to a contract was equally or more responsible for any illegality concerning the defendant, then the claim of restitution will fail. A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath further added that in such cases, claims for restitution under section 65 of the Indian Contract Act will fail, even though the illegality has to be determined on a case-to-case basis. Full Story
1. A sessions court in Mumbai, while hearing a domestic violence case, clarified that a domestic violence complaint can also be filed against the relatives of the victim who do not live with the survivor in the same house. The Additional Sessions Judge, UM Padwad, further stated that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is not limited to reliefs only against those who reside with the survivor. Full Story
2. In the case of Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the State government to construct and develop Amaravati as the capital city and capital region of the Andhra Pradesh State within the next six months. The full bench of the court also held that the legislature had no legislative power to pass any law for a change of capital, bifurcating or dividing the capital city. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court of India has invited tenders from agencies for providing services of monkey scarers to be deployed at residential bungalows of judges of the top court. A notice inviting tender has been published on the website of the Supreme Court. Full Story
4. The matter related to the evacuation of Indians stuck in Ukraine was kept before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana by Senior Counsel AM Dar. Furthermore, the Supreme Court mused how it could give directions to stop the war and seek the assistance of Attorney General KK Venugopal in the concerned matter. Full Story
1. In the case of Shivanand vs Basavva, the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be enhanced under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice M Nagaprasanna further added that the maintenance awarded under section 125 of CrPC can be enhanced under section 127 of CrPC but not an award under the Domestic Violence Act. Full Story
2. The Gujarat High Court, while hearing an appeal against an order of an Additional District Judge in the case of Ayeshaben vs Huriben Ismail Ali, stressed on the importance of courts providing grounds and reasons for an order while stating that proper reasoning is the heartbeat of court orders. Full Story
3. In the case of Dhondiba Anna Jadhav and Anr vs the State of Karnataka, the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently ruled that a complaint regarding sex-selection of foetus under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act can be made only by the ‘appropriate authority’ under the Act. Full Story
4. In the case of Saratha vs The Member Secretary, the Madras High Court strongly recommended the State government to provide a specific percentage of separate reservation for the Third Gender (TG) or transgender persons in matters of future public employment. Justice MS Ramesh further added that State’s decision to combine transgender persons who identified as females, with the 30% vacancies reserved for women candidates, without extending a special reservation for the TGs, is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and the direction contained in Supreme Court’s NALSA judgment. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Nandu Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that motive is of greater importance in a criminal case. In the absence of motive in the case depending on circumstantial evidence, it weighs the case in favour of the accused. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Tulesh Kumar Sahu vs the State of Chattisgarh held that merely because the stolen article has been recovered from the accused, he cannot be convicted solely on the basis of that. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Lingeswaran vs Thirunagalingam held that extension of the limitation period on equitable grounds is not feasible. The statutory provision may cause hardship to the party, but the court does not have any option in this regard. Full Story
4. The Gujarat High Court in Ayeshaben Ahmed Adam Alinatha vs Huriben Ismail held that an order of court must be a ‘speaking order’. The reasoning is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It also avoids uncertainty in the cause of justice. Full Story
- February 2022 Law News
- January 2022 Law News
- December 2021 Law News
- November 2021 Law News
- 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
