CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS
1. The Supreme Court in Mahendra KC vs State of Karnataka and Ors held that a person’s mental health cannot be compressed into a one-size-fits-all approach. Individual personality differences manifest as a variation in the behaviour of people. How an individual copes up with a threat – both physical and emotional varies greatly because of the multifaceted nature of the human mind and emotions. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Rashid Wali Beg vs Farid Pindari held that a suit for permanent injunction in respect of a Waqf property has to be filed before the Waqf Tribunal and not the civil court. And also, the Waqf Tribunal will have the power to issue temporary injunctions under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Full Story
3. The Allahabad High Court in Durgesh Tripathi @ Ram vs State of UP and Anr held that a 35-year-old widow lady must understand the repercussions of having premarital sex with an unknown person. The court granted bail to the man accused of establishing a physical relationship with her on the false pretext of marriage. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur, held that failure on the part of the government to communicate a rejection of a detenu (a person held in custody) in a time frame is sufficient to vitiate (destroy the legal validity) the order of detention passed under the National Security Act. Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that authority making order shall communicate as soon as possible. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Sripati Singh (D) vs the State of Jharkhand held that the dishonour of cheques issued as security can also attract offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To hold the cheque issued as security cannot constitute an offence. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey vs Union of India gave direction to Central Government for appointing special teachers to teach special children with special needs. The directions included special training for teachers and a comprehensive approach towards special students. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Hariram Bhambhi vs Satyanarayan held that as per section 15A of the SC/ST Act, issuing a notice of court proceeding to the victim or a dependant is mandatory. The purpose of section 15A is to protect the rights of victims and witnesses. The right to notice and to be heard should never be violated. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Arjun Gopal vs Union of India held that only green crackers are friendly and allowed on Diwali. There is no total ban on firecrackers, but the ones which are harmful and made of hard chemicals like barium must not be used. If any lapse on the part of the government is seen, then it would be viewed strictly. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Azham Jahi Mill Workers Association vs National Textile Corporation Limited held that the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is vested. The right gets violated when the equals are treated unequally. The right is enforceable against the state. Classification is permitted if valid and satisfies two tests. Firstly the distinguishing rationale has to be objective and secondly, there must be reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in We are Sath vs Union of India held that whenever any offence is registered against any person, no relief can be granted without appreciating the facts of the case. If any foreign national is committing any offence under IPC or other Indian Law, there is bound to be an FIR or criminal proceedings against such foreign nationals. Full Story
3. Breaking: The Bombay High Court in Ship Drug Case granted bail to Aryan Khan and two other accused, namely Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha. Today, the High Court said that the case against the accused is not for consumption but conscious possession and plan to consume. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court in Prajeesh PS and Anr vs the State of Kerala held that the applicants should not be denied anticipatory bail once the purpose of arrest and interrogation are fulfilled. Arrest and detention cannot be taken as a luxury for the prosecution. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Pegasus Spyware petitions quoted a famous line from the novel 1984, If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself. The court said members of civilised society have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Every citizen of India ought to be protected against violations of privacy. But any form of surveillance by agencies in the national interest is acceptable. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Sughar Singh vs Hari Singh held that the specific performance is no longer a discretionary relief. Section 10(a) added by the 2018 amendment may not be retrospectively applicable but can be a guide on discretionary relief. Full Story
3. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurmeet Singh vs Vipan Kumar held that senior citizens are entitled to get their cases decided on a preferential basis. The expeditious trial is the right of every litigant. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Dr UN Bora vs Assam Roller Flour Mills held that vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied in a case of attempt. While dealing with a contempt petition, the court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the judgment which was allegedly violated. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Ramawatar vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that merely because an offence is covered under a special statute would not refrain any court or High Court from exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or section 482 of CrPC. Offences under SC/ST Act can also be quashed under section 482 CrPC and Article 142. Full Story
2. In K Ruban vs State, the Madras High Court held that the sexual offences are of such a nature that we cannot expect any independent or eyewitness for the same. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is cogent, reliable and trustworthy, then the same can be relied upon by the court. Full Story
3. In the Lakhimpur Kheri case, the Supreme Court has directed UP police to protect witnesses and record their statements under section 164 CrPC. The court also directed police to record statements in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate. If the Magistrate is unavailable for any reason, the concerned District judge can look into the matter. Full Story
4. On dismissal of the request of re-joining by a professor in Jamia Milia Islamia, the Delhi High Court in Moharram Ali Khan vs Jamia Milia Islamia and Ors held that once the resignation is accepted, it cannot be revoked by the person who has given it. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in N Jayasree vs Cholamandalam held that a dependant mother-in-law of a deceased person can maintain a motor accident claim petition. Though it is uncommon in Indian society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependant upon them for maintenance. But in certain cases, legal representatives can be given a wider connotation. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in District Bar Association vs Ishwar Shandilya and Ors held that the Advocates and Bar Association cannot pressurise a Chief Justice to change the roster of a judge. The Bench said it is nothing but coming in the administration of justice and pressurising the judge! Full Story
3. The Rajasthan High Court in Sunil Kallani vs the State of Rajasthan held that anticipatory bail application of a person already in custody in connection to a criminal case will not be maintainable concerning another criminal case registered for the commission of similar or different offences. Full Story
4. The Madras High Court in K Ruban vs State held that in cases of POCSO, we cannot expect eye witnesses as such crimes occur in isolation or when a child is alone. If evidence of the child is trustworthy, cogent, and inspires the court’s confidence, then it can be the sole basis of the conviction of the accused. Full Story
1. Today, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said that I am looking for a harmonious relationship between the judiciary, executive and legislature. Politics is the essence of democracy, but there is no politics when it comes to the judiciary. We have a responsibility in the government of India to ensure that the judiciary is not only given full support but also give space for the judiciary to become robust. Full Story
2. Today, Justice DY Chandrachud, on the live streaming of proceedings, said that citizens are entitled to know what goes on in the courts. It is the basic right of the citizens to know. The truth is one, but the paths to truth are many, he added. It is important to nurture the young members of the bar to look forward in the next 50 years to what lies in the store. Full Story
3. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions filed by NEET aspirants challenging the Centre’s decision to grant OBC reservations of 27% in the NEET-AIQ while stressing that the OBC candidates were denied thousands of seats in the NEET-All India Quota in the previous years. Full Story
4. In the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors., the Supreme Court has issued notice on the issue which raises the question of whether a consultant doctor can be discriminated against an employee doctor at the time of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a hospital. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Vaishno Devi Construction vs Union of India held that the explanation under Order 21 Rule 16 of CPC removed the distinction between an assignment prior to decree and an assignment post the decree. There is no bar under Order 21 Rule 16 against assignees who acquired rights before the passing of decree from making an application to execute the decree. Full Story
2. The Delhi Court in NIA vs Mohd. Salman and Ors. held that suspicion cannot substitute evidence. The court discharged four men under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act saying that when there is no evidence on record to show that funds were originated from a terrorist organisation, the court cannot proceed merely on suspicion. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in V Nagarajan vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. held that period awaiting the receipt of a free certified copy does not extend the limitation period under section 61(2) of the Indian Bankruptcy Code for the party who has not applied the same. The act for applying for a certified copy is not just a technical requirement but an act of diligence. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association Case said that it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court is called up to fill up the vacancies in tribunals. If the government does not want tribunals, then abolish the Act! It is not a happy situation for the judiciary to look upon this matter. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Prasad vs the State Of Bihar held that a person against whom proclamation has been issued and the proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of CrPC have been initiated is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Full Story
2. On resuming physical hearings today (21st October 2021) at the Supreme Court, Justice DY Chandrachud said it felt so lonely to see the screen every morning. We are happy to see you all. It is good to see again the crowded corridors and intellectual faces bringing joy and sunshine. Full Story
3. In an online lecture on the topic “Becoming an Advocate”, the Constitutional jurist Mr Fali S Nariman said that it is an unfortunate disease we are inflicted with. Young lawyers are suffering a lot due to the virtual functioning of courts. It would be so good if the court can as early as possible resume physical hearings. Full Story
4. Mumbai Court today extended the judicial custody of Aryan Khan till October 30. The order was passed by the Special Court of Sessions under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Full Story
1. The Bombay High Court in Subhash Mishrilal Jain vs Laxman Kondiba Aswar held that a mere allegation that the accused abused the complainant does not invoke section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 504 comes into play when it is an intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace. Full Story
2. The Kerala High Court in Unnikrishnan vs State of Kerala held that there cannot be any graver crime than a father committing rape with his daughter. When the protector himself has become a predator, then who shall protect, said court. Charged with raping a daughter under refuge and fortress is worst than the gamekeeper becoming a poacher and treasury guard becoming a robber. Full Story
3. The Madras High Court in State vs Earlam Periera set aside the acquittal of a school teacher for sexually assaulting a minor student of 4 years on the ground that a four-year-old child cannot be expected to give cogent (convincing) evidence regarding sexual assault. Full Story
4. The Karnataka High Court in Ezazur Rehman vs Saira Banu held that a Muslim ex-wife being unmarried is liable to be maintained by her husband beyond the Iddat period if she is not capable of maintaining herself. Dissolution of marriage does not per se annihilate all duties and obligations. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Shoraj Singh vs Charan Singh held that the purpose of providing a schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC, is to expedite and not scuttle the hearing. The court also said that period of 90 days for filing a written statement in civil suits is a directory. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in Abhishek vs NCT of Delhi held that the right to seek default bail under section 167(2) of CrPC is a fundamental right and not merely a statutory right. It is an indefeasible right of the accused. The court issued directions to ensure that custody of an undertrial must not extend mechanically. Full Story
3. The Kerala High Court in Safir vs Sajid explained the difference between Bond and Agreement. The court said that for an instrument to be a bond, a distinguishing feature must have been created in the instrument itself. Whereas the subsequent document giving the nature of the obligation and conditions of the contract shall be a mere agreement. Full Story
4. The Bombay High Court in Godrej Properties Ltd. vs Goldbricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. held that an arbitral tribunal cannot pass an ex-parte order merely on an interim application as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act mandates sufficient advance notice for any hearing. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Randheer Singh vs the State of UP held that there is no doubt that invocation of section 482 CrPC should be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure ends of justice. The purpose of section 482 CrPC is to ensure that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate weapons of harassment. Full Story
2. Justice Ravindra Bhatt, at the Fourth Round Table conference on the implementation of the Juvenile Justice System, said that “All the children in the child care institutions are not there for reasons of their own. If a child comes from a family where he sees that petty crime is the order of the day, he will follow it. In that case, we cannot find fault in the child. It is our job to restore the child with the rest of the world”. Full Story
3. The Madras High Court in Eternal Word Trust vs State of Tamil Nadu held that the protection of children is the paramount duty of the state. The interests of the minor can not at any stage be compromised. The court said that any type of negligence by authorities regarding children homes must be strictly viewed. Full Story
4. After a long litigious journey, the CBI court in CBI vs Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim ordered him to life imprisonment for the murder of one Ranjeet Singh. The Baba is already convicted for rigorous imprisonment for 20 years for the rape of two women. Full Story
1. The Karnataka High Court in Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust and State of Karnataka held that while taking cognizance of a private complaint under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code certain procedure has to be followed by the Magistrate. Even after following the procedure, if the Magistrate is not convinced about the sufficient material of taking cognizance, he may hold an inquiry or direct investigation under section 202 CrPC. Full Story
2. The Bombay Sessions Court in Asiya Anwar Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra upheld the two-year detention of an HIV prostitution victim, observing that she is likely to pose a danger to society as HIV can be easily transmitted through sexual intercourse. Full Story
3. The Bombay High Court in Devram Sawleram Mundhe vs the State of Maharashtra held that moral values are imparted and taught in schools as propounded by the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi then nothing to worry about students being adversely influenced by bars in their vicinity. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Progressive Schools Association vs the State of Rajasthan held that it is open to school management to initiate proper and necessary action for recovery of outstanding or due fees, if any. But if parents seek indulgence for just reasons, then the school may consider that request. Full Story
Dusshera today. Public holiday. Courts closed.
1. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed, held that the date of receipt of assessment order has no relevance in computing the limitation period for the revision by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Full Story
2. In the Cruise Ship Drug case, senior advocate Amit Desai who is appearing for Aryan Khan, said that none of the recoveries mentioned in the Panchnama was from Aryan. The lawyer said we adopt and believe in reformation. They are kids and not peddlers. They have learnt a lesson. Lets us not make them suffer. Full Story
3. The Kerala High Court again reiterated the sufferance of sexual assault victims. It is so bad to hear that a victim who is sexually assaulted gets harassed by police officials. Despite the guidelines to authorities, the things are not effectively implemented. The implementation of a victim compensation scheme and whether the procedure is followed properly or not, need to be given a close look. Full Story
4. The Central Government on Tuesday notified Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Rules, 2021. The Act has allowed medical termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks in certain and special cases. The category may include sexual assault survivors, rape victims, minors and so on. And if the termination needs to do beyond 24 weeks, then the Act provides for the constitution of the medical board, which shall opine on it. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in K Anusha vs Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd, held that mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution does not in itself compose contributory negligence. For contributory negligence, some act or omission material to the incident must be present. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Dipali Biswas and Ors vs Nirmalendu Mukherjee and Ors held that the objections as to the method of execution must be raised in earlier rounds of litigation. The court does not help dormant people. Therefore a judgment debtor cannot be allowed to raise objections in instalments. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Ram Dattan (dead) by LRs vs Devi Ram and Ors held that there is no limitation in a usufructuary mortgage under section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act. Once a mortgage is always a mortgage, reiterated court. Full Story
4. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pankaj Rajput vs Kirti Rajput held that there is no need for a cooling-off period when there is no chance of settlement in the petition of mutual divorce under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. If the waiting period can prolong the matter and agony of parties, then there is no need for it, said the court. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Nasib Singh vs the State of Punjab held that retrial in a criminal case can be directed only under exceptional circumstances and not casually or normally. Reversing of the trial results in wiping of evidence taken on record. It is a complete U-turn that cannot be taken in general. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel held that no relief can be claimed against a third party where the proceedings are going on between a husband and wife under Hindu Marriage Act. Amendment to any suit can be made when it becomes necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. Full Story
3. In Bechai (dead) vs Jag Ram, the Supreme Court held that a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable against only a review order. Once the High Court has refused to entertain the review petition, there is no question of challenging the main order. Full Story
4. In an event organised by the Thane District Court, Justice Abhay Oka said that presently the Indian judiciary is facing a credibility crisis. Members of the legal profession should work towards restoring the faith of the country’s citizens. The legal work must be done uninterruptedly and without any flaws. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Prashant Singh Rajput vs the State of MP held that anticipatory bail granted by the court ignoring material aspects including the nature and gravity of the offence is liable to be cancelled. The court needs to be ensured that whether the correct principles for granting bail have been applied or not. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Sanatan Pandey vs the State of Uttar Pradesh held that the court shall not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not cooperating with the investigating agency and absconding in a case of non-bailable nature, and also when proclamation has been issued against him. Full Story
3. Followed by the dissatisfaction with the investigation done by UP police, the prime accused Ajay Mishra Teni’s son in the Lakhimpur Kheri case has been sent to police custody for three days by the Supreme Court. The CJI said that the case is of section 302 IPC, treat him the same way we treat other persons in other cases. Full Story
4. Justice Rohinton Nariman said to Supreme Court on Sunday to strike down the penal provision of sedition in IPC and the offending portions of the UAPA. He said that the sedition law was “set up by a colonial master to suppress free speech in a colony“, and it continued to be misused. There is a chilling effect on free speech. If you are booking persons, including journalists, under these laws, which come with large sentences and no anticipatory bail, people would not speak freely with their minds. Free speech is a fundamental right of all, including fair criticism. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in V Prabhakara vs Basavaraj K (Dead) by LR and Another held that excluding a sibling from a will does not create suspicion as to its genuineness. A testamentary court is not a court of suspicion but that of conscience. It has to consider relevant material instead of adopting ethical reasoning. It may create a suspicion if it is surrounded by other circumstances creating an inference. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Nasib Singh vs the State of Punjab held that a conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside merely on the ground that there was some possibility of a joint or separate trial. For setting aside, it is necessary to prove that the rights of the parties were prejudiced. Full Story
3. In Urvashi Aggarwal & Ors. vs Inderpaul Aggarwal, the Supreme Court held that ability and capability of the mother to maintain children does not absolve the father from his liabilities. The mother cannot be burdened with the entire expenditure. A father has an equal duty to maintain his children. Full Story
4. The Central Government has today approved the transfers of Chief Justices in 13 High Courts. The president exercising his power conferred under Article 143 is pleased to appoint the judges as Chief Justices of High Courts. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools vs Justice For All held that if Article 21A, that is right to education, need become a reality, then the needs of the underprivileged section to receive online education cannot be denied. Their right must be protected. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in National Federation of Societies for Faster Justice and Ors. vs HC of Uttarakhand held that virtual hearing cannot be made a norm. This method of virtual hearing was adopted to meet the extraordinary crisis that emerged in the pandemic of COVID. The public has the right to witness the court hearing, as said in the Swapnil Tripathi case. Full Story
3. Central Bureau Investigation is not a solution to every problem, said Supreme Court in Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. The bench expressed dissatisfaction and unhappiness with the UP police investigation. The police have yet not arrested the prime accused and has only issued summons. Full Story
4. CBI court in CBI vs Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim held Ram Rahim guilty for the murder of Ranjeet Singh. The Baba is already convicted for 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the rape of two women. Now the court will hear the matter on October 12 for deciding on the sentence. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI said that if an accused charged for the non-bailable offence has not been arrested during the investigation, it would be contrary to the principle of granting bail to him for suddenly directing his arrest merely because the charge sheet has been filed. Full Story
2. No custodial interrogation is required in Cruise Ship Drug Case, said Bombay High Court. The court said now we do not want to inquire in knowing why police took so much time to investigate. Drug abuse is becoming like a malignant tumour, said Advocate Sethna on behalf of NCB. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Estate Officer vs Colonel HV Mankotia (Retired) held that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits if no settlement or amicable resolution could arrive between the parties. If Lok Adalat fails in making parties reach a mutual solution, then it has to return the matter to the court. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in the Lakhimpur Kheri case asks the Uttar Pradesh government for a status report. The CJI termed the case as unfortunate and asked for actions taken after FIR, arrests made and of investigation how far done. Due to miscommunication, it has become a suo motu case, but we are looking towards it, said CJI. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Garg Builders vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited held that a lawful agreement to refer the matter to arbitration can be made a condition precedent before going to courts, and doing so does not violate section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. Full Story
2. If a woman is exercising her sexual autonomy through a wilful sexual relationship with her partner, then it cannot be presumed that she has given her consent for violating her reproductive rights. The exercise of a woman sexual autonomy does not give her partner the right to exploit her sexually. Full Story
3. The Karnataka High Court in the State of Karnataka vs Santhosh held that a person can be held guilty of rape only after examining all the witnesses as desired by the prosecution. If the trial court is erred (be mistaken or incorrect) on its part in examining, then the same conviction can be set aside by the appellate court. Full Story
4. The Delhi Court in State vs Gaurav Sahni held that mere use of abusive language does not amount to an assault. But if it is coupled with some gesture that can create apprehension in the mind of others that criminal force is about to inflict (cause something painful) on him, then it can be termed as assault. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Vipan Kumar Dhir vs the State of Punjab held that while granting bail to the accused, the accused’s conduct and gravity of the offence committed are considerable factors. It is essential to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster (support or strengthen) the administration of the criminal justice system, said the court. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in Sushil Kumar vs State denied giving bail to former Olympic wrestler Sushil Kumar in the Chhatrasal Stadium murder case. It was alleged that Sushil Kumar was the main culprit of the heinous crime. Therefore his bail plea stands rejected. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court for reservation in promotion in Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors, SLP of 2011, said that quantifiable data need to be placed before the court by the centre to show the adequacy of representation in reservations in promotion. The AGI made reliance on the BK Pavitra case that reservation in promotion is a matter of policy. It is the subject matter of the state government to decide. If the subjective satisfaction is tainted by illegalities, then it may be subject to judicial review opined AGI. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Geo Varghese vs the State of Rajasthan held that if a school teacher has reprimanded a student for his indisciplined act and as a result, he commits suicide, then the act of reprimanding cannot be alleged to be abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in K Karuppuraj vs M Ganesan held that the first appellate court must see all issues carefully and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. Non-compliance with Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC is not acceptable. Full Story
2. On the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti, the Chief Justice of Tripura High Court recited the Gandhian principles. He said that law must not only be validly framed but must also be a just law. The law itself is not enough. It must have the moral authority to rule. As Gandhiji always advocated a pragmatic approach to judging that do not just go by the letter of the law. Full Story
3. The Kerala High Court in Davis vs Hendry Thomas held that a son in law cannot have any legal right to the property of his father in law. And even if he has spent an amount on the construction of the building, it does not arise his legal right in the property. Full Story
4. The Madras High Court in G Devarajan vs The Secretary of Tamil Nadu held that if the cinema theatres prohibit the public from bringing their water bottles, then they must provide free and pure drinking water to the cinema-goers. Compelling cinema viewers to purchase water bottles at high rates is not reasonable. Full Story
Courts closed today.
1. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs Raj Gupta held that forcing a party to undergo a DNA test despite his unwillingness would amount to violating his privacy and personal liberty. The possibility of stigmatizing a person as a bastard, the ignominy (public shame and disgrace) that attaches to an adult, who in the mature years of his life is shown to be not the biological son of his parents may not only be a heavy cross to bear but would also amount to intruding his privacy. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in the Indian Institute of Technology and Ors vs Soutrik Sarangi and Ors held that alternate remedy does not bar the court in exercising the discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution. Article 136 is flexible and sufficiently broader to correct glaring errors and injustices. Full Story
3. The Bombay High Court held it is necessary to ensure that the dignity of a rape victim is not compromised under any circumstances. The line of cross-examination must not at any cost be exceeded. It is accepted that the accused has the right to conduct a cross-examination to prove his innocence, but the court must forbid any question insulting a rape victim. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs The State of Rajasthan held that the right of the accused to apply for bail is his fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21, which is also known as the golden triangle of the Constitution. Such a right cannot be taken away by any judicial order. Full Story
- 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
